Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Arbane the Terrible's page

717 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 717 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Gisher wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:
Have tried to talk to the player multiple times. His Rogue is literally named Adolf at this point, to give you any indication of what is happening.
Leave. Now. Don't look back.

This is probably the most practical advice in this thread. Problem Player is indeed a problem, the GM who's letting Problem Player's antics proceed is going to be a much bigger one.

Since the OP is apparently OK with PvP and this sort of telegraphed treachery, why not see how good the rogue's player is with it? Have the Paladin take a break for a few sessions - say they're sequestered to pray or something, and bring in your 'backup character', whose family was brutally murdered by bandits and they're seeking revenge.... :D

Hey, fair's fair.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I really do want to find out when he thinks America was great. What's he aiming for? In any era I can think of, there are either horrors even the Republicans can't admit to wanting back or building blocks they despise. Often both.

Even nostalgic 50s middle class utopia had Jim Crow for the first and a union backbone for the second.

Don't forget the imminent threat of nuclear war with the USSR, and a 90% top income tax rate!

(I think we need to bring back that tax rate - encouraging the ultra-rich to spend money is a GOOD thing.)

Being the uncharitable person that I am, I think some of Trump's fans want the 50's back - the 1850s.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As people have said, in roughly descending order of priority and usefulness:

1: Ask the PLAYER to lay off the intended PKing, and make a character that's capable of playing well with the rest of the party.
2: Ask the player to hold off until after the campaign's over. (Do not expect him to actually do so - he's JUST PLAYING HIS CHAOTIC EVIL CHARACTER, remember?)
3: Refuse to work with his character, for common-sense reasons. You monster. (For some asinine reason, the JUST PLAYING YOUR CHARACTER excuses only works for Chaotic jerks.)
4: Find out how many innocent people the Chaotic Evil bandit has killed and Smite his ass with HOLY JUSTICE.
5: Never leave this guy on watch alone, and have a backup character ready.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Ronnie wouldn't recognize this Republican Party - the nominee admires someone who claims the breakup of the USSR is the greatest disaster of the 20th century, owes a large part of his fortune to the same guy (and his lackeys), and might even be getting help from them.

It's both bizarre and hilarious to me how dewy-eyed so many Republicans get over an ex-KGB kleptocrat, just because he's so MANLY.

Grey Lensman wrote:
The rest of the party is passing bathroom bills, voter ID laws, and other nonsense that can best be summed up as 'solutions in search of problems', or as I like to call them, 'exactly the big government Reagan warned about'.

Yes, but big government is OKAY, as long as it's putting Those People in prison (see Drugs, War On). It's only bad when it stops businesses from doing whatever they want.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it time to break out the bingo board again?

(And yes, an incompetent player or a bad build can greatly diminish the actual power of a class, but that's not what the tier system's supposed to measure. It's hard to think of any amount of ingenuity a fighter or a rogue can bring to bear that can lock down a teleporting opponent as well as a Dimensional Anchor, to use just one example...)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Protip: If you come to a big green demon head with an open mouth, let SOMEONE ELSE look in the hole, and if they get sucked in, DON'T follow.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Look, whatever, I voted for Nader in 2000 and--OW! Stop throwing things, it's not like I did it in Florida!
Nader only got less than 98K votes in Florida in the 2000 election. Nader didn't cost Gore the election in Florida; the millions of Florida voters who preferred Gore but didn't get off their collective asses to vote is why Bush won.

Actually, Antonin Scalia is the reason Bush won.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Given that we have had TWO resignations over the WikkiLeaks material, Something has to be there... and a decent amount of it, even if it's just confirmation of what we had suspected all along.

"Where there's smoke, there's... a crowd of Republicans burning Hillary Clinton in effigy."

What are we going to call this scandal? I propose "Primaryghazi".

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sharoth wrote:
But honestly, I am neither Democrat or Republican. I just want someone competent in the office who realizes that BOTH parties are now the extreme end of the spectrum and over 90% of the people are in the middle.

You're kidding, right? By the standards of any country in Europe, the Democrats are Centre-Right to the Republicans' Far Right. There's a LOT of room in the political spectrum that only got airtime the the US this year when Bernie Sanders was speaking. (And from the turnout he got, there's a fair number of people who would LIKE an actual 'Left' choice.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:

May I ask an honest question? Republicans are always trying to limit the size of government and control spending.

That's what they SAY, but in practice, what they DO is cut taxes on the rich, spend more money on military junk, starve the poor a little more, and run up the debt.

(The fact that Republicans ever managed to rebrand themselves as the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" is one the greatest triumphs of PR over memory in my lifetime.)

(And I see I've been ninja'ed on both posts. Eh, I'll leave 'em up.)

Lorila Sorita wrote:
I kind of expecting someone would say that hehe. So it isn't a surprise though I might be kind of naive about it, since I am hoping the situation is salvageable. I do enjoy the game more often than not, but these occasional moments of insanity are a bit much.

The only way I can imagine salvaging this situation is to treat the game as 'Paranoia with broadswords' (Trust the GM! The GM is Your Friend!), and just enjoy all the random incompetence and backstabbery. If that doesn't appeal to you, FLEE NOW AND NEVER LOOK BACK. These players sound like terrible jackasses, and life is too short of put up with people like that when you don't need to.

silverrey wrote:
edit* The "Four Living Creatures" are even worse. "In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings."

Yeah, the actual descriptions of angels in the Bible sound more like something from Call of Cthulhu than any of Pathfinder's Good Outsiders.

....and therein lies a potential setting... :D

My group is not the most optimized bunch in the world, but my Battle Oracle has done pretty well starting the fight with communal buffs - I cast Blessing of Fervor, Bless, Prayer, and meanwhile the frontliners are getting the fight started.
(I am really looking forward to Quicken Spell at level 11, admittedly.)

Dabbler wrote:
The Shaman wrote:

Well, it seems almost everyone wants to fix fighter... or has given up on it and uses the PoW classes.

It's just sad :/ .

I for one haven't given up on the fighter, Shaman!

Seriously, the fighter can do his job, although he takes more skill to build than it first appears. His damage output can equal the barbarian's and he gets other advantages too. Is he a weak class? Yes, insofar as he has more weaknesses, or weaknesses that take more care to cover, than other classes. But the fighter has only ever done one thing in the game, and that's fight.

Actually, back in the AD&D1 days, Fighters could do more than just fight, they could do anything a competent normal person could do. Pitch a tent, ride a horse, build a fort, sail a ship, cook a meal, etc, etc. This was before skills existed in the game - and once they did, they made everyone worse at everything they didn't allocate points to.

But somehow, the idea that Fighters should be dumb jocks seems to have soaked into D&D. (And derivatives.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D alignment system continues to make no real-world sense, Major Images at 11.

Though I am personally inclined to agree with Granny Weatherwax that "treating people like things" is the root of most if not all evil.

If not for the price limitation, I would've said to grab a Mnemonic Vestment.

As was said, having the right scrolls can really help with condition removal and such.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Here's a small list of what fighters lost going from 2e to 3e.
Let me add one: WBL. In 1e, you generally couldn't buy items, you just found them. The ones you found were determined randomly. The random tables were heavily geared towards magic weapons, armor, and shields -- stuff the fighter can use. By 10th level or so, the fighter more than likely had an intelligent magic sword that could grant him powers, along with magic armor and a magic shield. His WBL naturally ended up being several times everyone else's.

And at the other end of the spectrum, things like potions, wands and scrolls were random, rare, and valuable, not things you could buy in every village. (And the rules for making them were difficult enough that scrounging for them in monster-infested caverns generally seemed like a less-stressful plan.)

Picture is relevant and possibly funny: Martial/Caster Disparity Bingo

Edit to add: One potentially good change to the game overall, not just the fighter: stop punishing players for trying interesting stunts in a fight without having invested in feats to allow them.

Town full of clueless people infected by something harmless-seeming...

.... Isn't that how Arthas ended up becoming the Lich King in Warcraft III?

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Meh - I think a lot of alignment arguments on the law/chaos axis come from Gygax using the term "Law" when he didn't mean actual laws. I think that "Discipline" or "Order" would likely be a better fit.

IIRC, Gygax was cribbing from Michael Moorcock's novels, which have the struggle between Cosmic Law and Cosmic Chaos as a big element. And yes, they had very little to do with being law-abiding or LOLRandom at the human scale.

Ranishe wrote:
This is why many people have no issue with mundane / martial characters being less influencial than casters. The question is really what should be considered an inferior option that should be at a disadvantage?

Not playing a spellcaster.

Snowlilly wrote:
Perhaps you would be happier with a more narrative game system, like Feng Shui. You describe what your character is attempting to do and the GM assigns modifiers. The rule of cool applies, so get creative.

I see no reason that can't be done in Pathfinder.

Another gripe for me is all the combat feats that pretty much serve to say "don't bother trying to do anything more interesting in a fight that sword the enemy in their hitpoints." Lock blades and get in a suckerpunch? NOPE. Suck an attack-of-opportunity for trying, doofus. Pull the old sand-in-the-eyes trick? NOPE. Try to get a guy in a headlock? NOPE. Try to jump on the huge monster's back? NOPE. And conversely, if you DID spend the feats to be competent at non-hitpoint-removing tactics, you can spam them endlessly without your enemies ever being able to counteract them more effectively.

Or, what this guy said:

Mr.Lute wrote:

There are multiple feats that really, really need to be fixed.

For instance, Two Weapon Fighting being a chain.

Why. Just why. Make it one and done.

Or combat expertise tree-and in general, all of the various "you don't take attacks of opportunity while doing X" feats. They severely limit how and when people do anything actually interesting in combat, without a clear reason for them existing. Tons of monsters cheat and aren't subject to them, multiple classes cheat and aren't subject to them, why doesen't everyone with serious martial training cheat and not be subject to them? Why do you need eight feats to effectively utilize tripping, bull rushing, etc.?

Feat taxes were always a terrible idea, and this merely exaggerates it.

Power attack is also a problem. As is Weapon finesse. Required feats for most builds or useless.

In fact, I have problems with every single feat chain for martial fighting. Fighters get 20 feats! But, if they do anything more interesting than swing a sword, four or five of those are locked into making their fighting style work to begin with. It's fake, stupid, and exaggerates the disparity between martial classes and casters. Casters generally get interesting tricks online with every single feat, rather than enabling their casting at all.

Imagine if a wizard had to prepare Burning Hands as a prerequisite to take Scorching Ray, which they needed to work their way up to Fireball. Now the casters can feel the fighters' pain.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Blistering Invective.

You curse out all enemies in range so hard they catch fire. It's hilarious.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group's Ranger has Combat Reflexes, Combat Patrol, and a reach weapon.
Sometimes he kills more enemies on their turn than on his own.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jader7777 wrote:

A broken ship carcass washed up on the edge of an eroded rocky crop 100 feet from the shore, a stormy night with wild winds, uneven surfaces and splintered wood are your only footing. Weird monsters lurk in every corner of the wreck and some nasty traps and ambushes are waiting for you- but you need to get the ultimate mcguffin of plot device before the king tide ends or all elves will die.

Freddy the Fighter needs the following:
Climb check, oh he brought his grappling hook, whats that freddy
Only has 1 ration and isn't going to share

Ummm, how's Freddy even going to GET to the wreck? How's he going to breathe water when something inevitably tries to drag him under? How to find what they're looking for?

(Meanwhile, my plan for the wizard would be along the line of: Fly up, Locate Macguffin, Disintegrate path to it, Hold/Stun guard, grab MacGuffin, leave. Summon aquatic help if needed. If wizzo does it right, there won't even BE a fight.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
"Tiers" are incredibly subjective and frankly I find they have very little to contribute to the game.

What's so subjective about them? 9-level spellcasters have a lot of ways to insta-win or bypass many scenarios, fighters don't have any a normal person wouldn't.

Milo v3 wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
I think its worth mentioning that there should be some caster/martial disparity. It shouldn't be as drastic as it is, but for magic to be truly fantastic it has to be able to cover more than nonmagic.
I disagree, in a game like Exalted for example (I'm only familiar with 3e Exalted admittedly) non-casters are able to affect the game to a ridiculous degree and can do rather mythic over the top actions, but magic still remains fantastic.

Well, the thing there is every PC in Exalted (except the hardcore masochists playing Heroic Mortals) is using magic - they're just using it to power their skills and abilities to impossible-to-mortal levels via Charms instead of casting spells.

(And Sorcery in Exalted is, IMO, pretty well-handled - it's immensely powerful, but it's also hard to get, risky to use, not even remotely subtle, and it DOESN'T do all the same things Charms can do.)

But yeah, this is a good example of the problem with C/MD: If the peasants non-spellcasters are going to keep up with their rightful overlords the spellcasters, they're going to need abilities that are equally game-breaking and versatile.

As someone pointed out in one of the many, many previous iterations of this thread, past level 6 or so, there ARE no 'mundane' characters in Pathfinder, but we keep pretending there are if they don't cast spells.

Shisumo wrote:

My current Pathfinder Society fighter 5/student of war 2 has the following total skill modifiers, which are (except for a +2 bonus for masterwork thieves' tools and his armor check penalty) solely the result of skill ranks and feats:

Bluff +9, Climb +6, Diplomacy +9, Disable Device +13, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +16, Knowledge (history) +15, Knowledge (local) +22, Knowledge (nature) +15, Knowledge (planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Knowledge (other) +10, Linguistics +8, Perception +13, Survival +4

But that's cool, I know fighters have nothing to do out of combat, so I'll just be over here, making the wizard cry when we are both rolling knowledge checks.

How are you doing that?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:
Daniel Yeatman wrote:
I'm almost certain that tying ropes in a non-grapply situation is a Sleight of Hand check now.
Tying ropes not on a person is called roleplaying. If you need some kind of a DC for the knot it's the character's CMD. We're talking about hearty heroes and adventurers here, why do they need to roll something to tie a rope on an inanimate object?


No action is interesting without the possibility of humiliating and potentially lethal failure.

Put it on an island in a river, with the only way onto it being zig-zagging bridges. (I read somewhere Chinese ghosts can cross running water, but only in a straight line.)

I forget who said it first, but:

"The Tomb of Horrors is less an adventure than an intelligence test.

If you go in, YOU FAILED."

Kick Up is one of those feats that I have a hard time imagine coming up often enough to be worth a feat. It's barely a stunt.

Blinding Flash: Weak, ridiculously situational, and something that might as well be a once-in-a-while stunt.

D&D has been a very gear-centric game since at least AD&D days.

There's always homebrew.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
The idea that the Wizard (implicitly less attractive and probably male) is more competent definitionally is baked in and rather the heart of the problem in many ways.

But if the nerds aren't BETTER than the popular people and the jocks then EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER!

(I have been reading grognards.txt. This has not made me a better person. But it is weird the degree to which Int Supremacy is baked into 3.X and derivatives.)

Have we gotten a Bingo yet? I think we're pretty close, all I need is for someone to complain about 'anime'.

AntipodeF wrote:
As far as ACTUAL wacky nonsense concepts I've seen in action, there's this barbarian named Grog who fights with a Merciful greatsword, and, somehow - I don't know the specifics, and I'm too new at this to really guess them - hits waaaay harder with "nonlethal" damage then with lethal. He frequently KILLS people with nonlethal damage.

I accidentally did that TWICE last session. Stupid unexpected crits...

(Note to self: When using a Merciful weapon, if you ALMOST drop them with the first attack, don't use Power Attack on the second.)

Consider the endgame of this. Is the witch's player going to like finding out the source of their powers is evil?

If not, how well will the group do with a high-Int Commoner in the party?

How about the Human bonus feat? Would a Human reincarnated to something else get to keep it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BadBird wrote:
"Overpowered" is an issue in context. An easy, general dex-to-damage feat is a giant middle finger to a ton of build concepts that would prefer not to use it.

This seems like an incredibly bizarre statement to me. It's like the existence of non-spellcasting classes is a 'giant middle finger' to the wizards, or something?

(Other way around, actually, but that's another unending argument.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Those were also editions that single weapon fighter types got at best, two swings per round at the high end levels. And there were no such things as swift or immediate actions. Lets be aware of the apple/orange comparisons here.

Wellll, not quite. In AD&D, a Fighter surrounded by opponents with less than one hit die (This was back before CR was invented, so this could happen) got their level in attacks against them, and I seem to recall BECMI edition has some neat weapon-mastery abilities at the high levels.

Something like the Martial Master archetype's floating feats would be a good standard option for fighters - it would really increase their versatility.

But it has the same problem so much of PF does, in making System Mastery = Power.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the real world, people have taken six bullets to the chest and WALKED to the hospital.

(RL damage rules make no sense plz fix.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

And this probably bears repeating, but the #1 thing I want Fighters to be able to do is impact the narrative more effectively. Magic is so amazing because it can affect the narrative in so many different, creative ways, and I generally prefer to play classes that are capable of similar things (in their own flavorful ways, of course).

To that end... I sometimes wonder if Fighter is just a bad class for the game in general. That is, the very concept of a class who fights, and does nothing else, may not be appropriate for a roleplaying game with lots of non-fighting challenges.

Yeah, this is a large part of the problem, I think. Even if a fighter CAN fillet a dragon in 6 seconds, when the plot requires curing poison, traveling the Planes, detective work, social interaction, or even building a fort, they're stuck standing back and trying to look tough while the COMPETENT people handle things.

Fusing the Fighter and the Rogue (getting a class with full BAB, 8 skill-points per level, and maybe a nerfed Sneak Attack*) might make a decent no-magic class. Just give it a good Will save, for pity's sake...

* (Explain to me why a glorified pickpocket is better at hitting opponents where it really hurts than the alleged professional weaponmaster.)

Seen in another thread, possibly relevant here:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

And here's the primary thing that keeps magic and martial arts separated.

Magic doesn't exist in the real world, so the base assumption when writing magical abilities is that it just works. You wave your hands and something happens, and you can just chalk it up to musical training or a bloodline or a Hogwarts diploma you got before your first character level.

Martial arts do exist in the real world, and I'm willing to guess there weren't a lot of serious HEMA students consulted in designing feats for D&D 3rd Edition. So there were a lot of people who didn't have intimate familiarity with martial arts writing about them, and so things probably go a bit like this:

-Magic is magic. I don't have to explain how it works. So getting better at magic just works. The only thing you need to do is hand wave why you have magic in the first place.
-Martial arts are really hard. So every kind of fighting style and technique should be really hard to learn!

Hence the problems we're chewing on in this thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thjalfi. A farmer's son of no special lineage that we're told of.
Travelled with a god, and ran half as fast as Thought itself.

Talek & Luna wrote:
1) No, I never said any person should survive falls from insanely high, HALO like parachute drops. That should be DM narrative at that point because you should be dead. Even Conan should not survive those types of falls.

Ahhh, this takes me back to the Good Old Days of We must've spent a few man-centuries arguing back and forth about whether Conan should have a non-zero chance of getting shanked in a back-alley by some hood with a rusty dagger if the dice JUST HAPPENED to come up the right way. These days, we'd just chalk it up to 'narrativist' vs. 'simulationist' and call it a day.

HP make very little sense as anything BUT 'ablative plot armor' - and part of that is the writer slipping in some ridiculous explanation for how you survived that Plummet To Certain Death if need be. Happened all the time in the pulp stories that were one of the inspirations for early D&D.

Ssalarn wrote:
Essentially, rather than the Fighter being representative of a fantasy soldier, replete with all the skills and versatility that were required of soldiers even in medieval times, he's a roided out bodybuilder, and shares much of the same issues. Sure, he's objectively physically stonger than some of his peers, but God help him if the challenge requires him to scratch his own back.

Yes. By the rules, fighters are pretty good at delivering HP damage with one preferred weapon, but nearly hopeless at everything else.

Ssalarn wrote:
Also, the "exercise and pursuit of physical prowess is really hard in the real world" has exactly nothing to do with Pathfinder. Golarion is a world where a guy literally used the pursuit of personal perfection through exercise and meditation to become a god. Your personal experiences as a hobbyist in the realm of exercise and the arts martial should absolutely not be informing what a high level fantasy character in such a world is capable of achieving.

And that's the mindset that makes fixing the fighter pretty much impossible - some people are PERSONALLY OFFENDED by the idea that a fighter can do anything that The Guy At The Gym can't do.

(I've been reading Something Awful's "Grognards.txt" compilation of idiotic gamer quotes, and variations on that attitude show up a LOT.)

JoeElf wrote:

Every level where fighters get the "bonus" combat feat, a wizard is getting a whole new spell book.

So all we need to do is come up with bonus feats for level 10+ Fighters as powerful as level 5+ spells!

(And for my next trick after that, I'll unscramble an egg.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Disguise Self, Suggestion, Seek Thoughts, Cultural Adaptation, Teleport, various divinations, any spells that boost Diplomacy directly or indirectly.

And Geas.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:
Stop making martial feats and training seem like its no big deal. It is in fact a huge deal and very hard to get to the next level physically.

I find it hard to believe that sheer physical effort should be MORE restricted than the ability to reshuffle reality.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
412294 wrote:
All he needs is an army of incorporeal undead, pretty sure we don't have any magic weapons on earth.

That's only a good plan if you want to rule over a dead world.

1 to 50 of 717 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.