Jacob W. Michaels wrote: We've continued to discuss it -- just last weekend, in fact. We came to some strong conclusions about how we would have to do it (it's not as simple as having a contest, because the prize was obviously a strong part of what made Superstar what it was), but laying the groundwork will likely mean the contest itself wouldn't start until next year. Sounds like there's another reason I'm sad I missed PaizoCon this year! If anyone ever needs a pedantic game theorist to look at voting systems, you know where to find me. I randomly came to check out this forum today and saw that it had been shelved under "Older Projects." I was somehow hoping for more RPGSS fun in the future.
Mike Selinker wrote: The Afghanistan Principle is not without its detractors or its problems. And obviously, there's a very popular roleplaying game that doesn't (and basically can't) follow it completely. Even so, it's a design choice I absolutely appreciate in both board games and RPGs. And I'll have to remember it when I'm sorting out my PACG box for later adventures. Great post!
I just went through and my decision, and I thought those monsters were great! It's like the Top 16 is trying to make this a serious competition and stuff where I really have to decide what I value in a monster. I looked over the judges recommendations, but it's easier for me to think about what I want out of a creature than a map, so this one was basically all me. Anyway, if the Top 16 is looking BUT NOT POSTING, then I say great work, fearless designers! Huzzah!
Wow, I'm kind of hoping this thread gets deleted, since it doesn't add anything to the conversation. But just in case some of the competitors happen to check and see this before then, let me stop in and disagree with this post. Given a two day turnaround, on top of the fact that the map round uses a different skill set than the magic item round, I am not disappointed in any way. Rather, I'm EXCITED about all the amazing possibilities I see here. Everyone took a different approach to the round and we get to see what a talented group of designers think a map needs in order to be creative and useful. I had no trouble coming up with a list of favorites, and easily had to cut down to a final 8 votes. This is a great set of flipmats. My eight favorites deserve my vote in this competition! I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion, but still. I'm really sad when someone looks at 32 different works of creativity and feels compelled to post about how terrible they all are. Looking at the creative work of people only ever makes me feel positive. More positivity around here would go a long way towards supporting this competition. So, to answer your question, NO.
I've got plenty of regrets in this one, though it did make it through all the culls. Silly name, never ending abilities, links to known spells... tear it apart, critics! Stormleaper’s Greaves
Once per day, the wearer may stormleap for up to ten rounds, bounding through the air as if from stone to stone. A stormleaper gains the ability to fly with a speed of 60 feet but the wearer uses their acrobatics skill in place of the fly skill to perform daring or complex aerial maneuvers. While stormleaping, the wearer is continuously surrounded by a thunderous aura, dealing 1d8 points of sonic damage to any creature within 5 feet unless they succeed at a DC 16 Fortitude save, though a creature may only take this damage once per round. A stormleap ends immediately once the wearer’s feet touch a solid surface. Once during a stormleap, the wearer may use a standard action to send the furious storm at a single target beneath their feet, dealing 5d6 points of electricity damage unless the target succeeds at a DC 16 Reflex save. When used outdoors during a storm, Stormleaper’s Greaves become significantly more potent, dealing 2d8 sonic damage instead of 1d8, and 5d10 electricity damage instead of 5d6.
Time to nerd out. RPGSS Open Call voting is done using the Schulze beatpath method, which creates a huge overall ranking. It's a modification of a series of preference-based voting methods, and is one that is currently used in many circles. Specifically, rather than a single ballot ranking all entries from best to worst, we get the pairing method we're all familiar with. Unfortunately, any kind of preference voting suffers from a few important flaws which are mitigated only under ideal circumstances. I feel as though some of these flaws are leading to the complaints we've seen, though I'm certainly not prepared to suggest any sort of major overhaul. I do, however, have some suggestions. Disclaimer: I voted often this year and in years past. I love the entries that made it in, though I certainly wanted to get into the Top 32 this year. I also teach Game Theory and have trouble not thinking about things like voting methods and strategic voting, and I’ve used this competition as a class analysis in the past. So while this critique may have some feels behind it, I also plan to make sure it has some solid math as well. Take it as you will. The Nitty Gritty:
Any preference based voting system generally fails to prevent Tactical Voting. On a ballot of five names with two major contenders, voting one of those contenders into last place in order to tank their chances of competing with the other contender is a solid example of tactical voting. The Schulze beatpath method claims to be resistant to Tactical Voting, since the tactics of a single voter on a single pairwise vote is outweighed by the "unpredictable" masses voting as they see fit.
"Unpredictable" is an important word. It implies that either everyone is voting tactically their own way, or that one voter cannot predict the votes of another. Unfortunately, the current state of the competition makes many votes more predictable than one might think.
The last years have avoided these pitfalls by allowing a group of judges final say over the list (which has been generated using these same pitfalls, but let's leave that aside for now). How else could we get public voting to a place where it can sincerely create a top 100 list?
Unfortunately, I think these pitfalls are unavoidable given the nature of the competition. I think that judges are one way to mediate these problems, by taking the final rankings out of the hands of a flawed public voting scheme. Unless that returns, we have the current method: a voting system where unintentional systemic biases lead to tactical voting. I also don’t suggest the judges are anywhere near as fair as the ideal Schulze beatpath system. I simply want to point out that we are currently doing all the things that make Schulze beatpath unfair. I would and could get more specific, but I feel like that sends me more into “sad also-ran” contention rather than being an analysis of the process. I just want to say again that this year’s process created a good outcome. I don’t see the Top 36 as unworthy of their place in any way. They are great representations of the good things that come from this competition. I'm actually hesitating to hit submit because I enjoy this competition so much. However, I do want to give some legitimacy to some of the complaints about this year’s process and to hope that some analysis leads to a change in how the process is done in the future. If you read this whole thing, you are my hero.
I had to stop voting before the latest two culls, so I haven't had a great chance to see the future here! I'm really excited for the final reveal. Good luck, competitors! I'm also VERY VERY excited to see what data Paizo is willing to put forward about how this round went... I think the voting changes this season have been interesting overall. Let's see how they play out!
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
First, I really want you to write another scenario! I cared about it enough to review it, and I hate that it's been taken over by knee-jerk one-star reviews. I happily ran it and I would happily so again. If you ever come down to the local PFS at Guardian Games, I'll bring the 3d terrain I built for the bluff because I am a crazy person. A comment was made on the Items Seen post discussing the desire to scour the cull data to look for key features that the crowd plays to. Price ranges. Item types. Keywords. And if we start playing to the crowd by designing items like that, then the overall nature of this competition is going to change. Instead of a design challenge, we have to add some marketing to our submissions. The knowledge that there are no golden tickets is a little scary. Some of the posts in this thread with blanket dislikes and downvotes worry me. My feelings are highly represented in Garrett's thoughts here. Of course, I still want to sway the crowd because I DO have imposter's syndrome. So I kind of want that data. I'm studying the snark thread. I'm conflicted.
JamesCooke wrote:
Are you kidding? We're prepping for the school year this week. This is the kind of thing I spend far too much time doing! Anyway, for those interested in what the Teachers are up to these days, we're starting to see a lot of stuff like this. This isn't meant to be a serious document, and it certainly isn't how I'm actually voting, but if we really wanted to start grading entries... If I were to do something like this seriously, there would be multiple description categories for fluff and crunch, plus grammar and punctuation, plus plus plus...
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
30% of the grade sounds eminently fair! Now I'm going to have to come up with a grading rubric... There go my plans for today.
Eric Morton wrote:
I've read every single post, and that's exactly how I feel. On the other hand, at least they're talking about my item? There's no such thing as bad press? Ugh.
Just had my first BIG DECISION moment. On the left was a great idea with a cool theme that just needed to sharpen up the mechanics and abilities. On the right was a good idea with well developed crunch, though the theme needed a little more work. Both were formatted properly, though I decided not to focus on nitpicking template issues as the tiebreaker to make this decision. In the end, I went with the option on the right. I have to show some more respect to solidly crafted mechanics in this competition. But someday, I'm going to write a character that needs that item on the left, so I want to see some rewrites soon! So yeah, if you're the kind of person who votes concepts over crunch, don't worry, I'm here to skew the algorithm the other way! :)
John Compton wrote:
While I agree that something not tied to a specific scenario is the best option for this, I wish it was open to more than just the players who can get to a convention. Especially since this is an opportunity to improve the usefulness of boons and the quality of the game, could this instead become a part of the Guide with a simple prestige cost? Call it Boon Retraining, and add it into the Retraining rules? Something like "BOON RETRAINING: A player may transfer a boon from one character to a new character. The new character must spend a number of prestige points equal to the lower range of the tier in which the chronicle was originally applied. For example, if the boon comes from a 7-11 scenario which was played at Tier 7-8, then the new character must spend 7 prestige points to transfer the boon." Since it's part of retraining, it also costs the 100 gold per PP, and days of practice, and all the rest. And then purchasing some items might cost even more... Boon reassignment doesn't seem like a very common need, but it is clearly popular enough that we can't stop talking about it this week! And it would make Organized Play better. I feel like everyone in this thread might agree with that, at least. EDIT: I totally got ninja-ed by Twitch!
Hey folks! I'm the co-host of a podcast called GoingLast, and I talked about our game for about ten minutes or so in our most recent episode! Not really in a spoilery way, since I don't want to ruin this experience for anyone in the future. But again, I really enjoyed this session and it would have been criminal NOT to talk about it. If you're interested, hit the link below and forward to about 10:15. Really, I can't say enough about this session. Thanks again everyone!
I really wish that scenarios had a big splash on the cover that said things like "Make sure your favorite monk plays all three of these in a row!" or "Like mounted combat? Then you'll love this scenario!" I understand that reading a chronicle in advance spoils the surprise of who and what will be encountered, and how you need to influence folks. On the other hand, I can't stand playing scenarios, seeing a boon that would be amazing for a different character, and then remembering that there's no replay. It's just a missed opportunity, and most of the table feels the same way. BEST CASE is that one person starts screaming wildly about the new cool thing they can do, but I can't even recall the last time I saw this without knowing about it in advance. The best result is that this almost forces plays to GM the scenario so they can get the boon on a character of choice, and more GMs are always good. A boon-switching boon would be AMAZING.
I recently ran "By Way of Bloodcove" and I just could not convince the PCs that they may not want to anger the Apsis hive. I tried, but they've been mowing down that Consortium for seasons now. At level 4, they expected to wade through the city as if the Aspis were nothing more than tired kobolds, rather than the nominal rulers of the wildest city on the continent. Please, Season 7. Help me bring the fear.
These are incredible! I love that it puts the desire to aid a faction into a player's hands, rather than the scenario author. I can't wait to see these at our local games, and I'm looking forward to checking those boxes like crazy. Now I want to run a scenario with a named NPC noble merchant of secret arcane texts and watch the PC's eyes light up.
I have used Stealth a few times, but mainly only to get into a better position for combat. Those combats usually went like this: Everyone else: We delay until we hear the sounds of combat.
My whole party had the ability to run in pretty quickly, so I didn't feel like I would be alone for much time. We'd also played enough that the party knew I could last a round on my own, and that I would only attack if I believed I had the opportunity to survive. John Compton wrote: Scout responsibly. Darn right. In PFS, even when playing the sneakiest of sneaks, I'd never take table time to go on a scouting mission without the explicit permission of everyone at the table, GM included.
Hi there! Long-time lurker, first-time poster (this month, at least)... I stinking love this competition. I continue to bring it up on my podcast, and I just can't stop talking about or checking the boards to find the next reveal. I think RPGSS is unique in its scope, and I definitely don't want it to change... much. For a competitor, this whole process is a super busy time. You're reading critiques, writing some work, looking at the work of your competition, reading those reviews, tearing up your work, rewriting your work, checking the clock, and most importantly, talking to your team about your next submission. Maybe that means talking to myself at my desk, or annoying my non-RPG friend. Or maybe I get a playtest group together. Whatever. The competition is about communication. For a spectator, dialogue is super important. It keeps you active and entertained. It's why the epic posts build up during the initial month of voting. We're constantly engaged in a community effort. At the end of round 1, folks move on to the Critique My Item thread, and they also create a community dialogue. But after that runs out, the ability to create dialogue is gone. I can write a critique, but the author is unable to respond. And it isn't great form to workshop a submission. So each post is just "this is what I think" in a bubble. I haven't commented, because I'd rather just vote than write something that can't really get a timely response from anyone. I wish we had more opportunities for dialogue. Conversation beyond an Exit Poll. I realize that requires time spent on the spectators and not the competitors, but the spectators are the ones who comment and keep focus on these boards. Anyway, that's what I want to change.
I think the public voting has been an amazing way to get the community more involved in the process of RPGSS, as well as giving everyone, competitors or not, the opportunity to become better designers through an onslaught of critique. And sure, that means the competition will no longer be the sole focus of everyone who reads these boards next month. But the competition isn't lightning fast, so having other things to do like critique other items is a useful pastime. At this point, I've spent the majority of my voting time reading items that will NOT be in the top 32, and I'm much more ready to explore those ideas than the relatively small chunk that will move on to the next round. If we could have skimmed a list of items, then maybe my brain would be sorted differently, but we were asked to give them all equal weight. One minute each. Even knowing the reveal is coming, CMI is what will validate that time commitment. Besides, Paizo has, wittingly or not, created a forum where 1,000 people get together and publicly share their designs, with the absolute understanding that this is only practice and no one is getting paid. What community out there has a design team 1,000 folks strong? This opportunity, purely as a learning experience, is invaluable. I think what happens in the CMI thread should be celebrated, and I would be sad if that experience were somehow diminished in the name of refocusing on the competition.
Garrett Guillotte wrote: What a depressing thread. I stopped voting a week ago to take a break before the cull, but I keep reading these threads to keep a current tally of People I Have Disappointed and All the Reasons Why. It's like Lent, but I've given up receiving positivity and constructive criticism! Somewhat kidding, but I'm really looking forward to this community shifting focus back to being helpful to anyone who asks with the critique my item thread. Because right now, this is kind of a dark place.
All right, after hitting Dedicated yesterday, I'm taking a break. Dragon Age still needs to be beaten, after all. I'll live with knowing someone else has seen my item. But I have found my personal pet peeve for the year: unlimited, game-changing, immediate actions. If your entry reminds me of how guilty I felt playing a Panther Style monk, then I'm going to have to look twice at your item to make sure it says AWESOME and not just POWER.
IIRC, each of the champion voters from last year contributed about 1% of the total votes each, so someone at the star/dedicated level who wanted to "game" things would have a pretty trivial effect. A highly publicized focus could change things, but the anonymity rules help against that. For more on the voting system itself: http://www.cohp.org/records/difficulty/schulze.html
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
I like surprise in games, but all those bonuses sure make it hard to be both mysterious and fair at the same time. That being said, I tend to say things like "Make a Fort save... do you have any specific bonuses for that?" and then I mention which ones apply. A home game response could be to only allow PCs those bonuses if the creature has been positively identified, because then they know to rely on the thing they learned on that one wild Taldan mission or whatever. But this makes less sense when you deal with racial bonuses and stuff like that. It also makes Knowledge monkeys even more powerful and punishes PCs with cool boons but few skills. Oh, and RAW issues, I suppose, when being mysterious means a bonus doesn't work. Your original plan to collect the cards make a lot of sense, but maybe switch to asking folks for their random bonuses before play starts? A little "I'll try to remember all of that in case those specific circumstances come up, and please forgive me if I forget" could keep things smoothed over?
Nefreet wrote:
I think that's an unfortunate reading of the section. Technology Guide p5 wrote:
The list of skills includes Craft (mechanical), Disable Device, Linguistics (Androffan), or research skills like Heal, K:Engineering, and K: Geography. Looking at the coloring of the setting headings clearly indicates that Researching Technology is under the subheading of Skills, just like the other skills. It feels a little silly that we should have to get into questions of section heading coloring to see that my medieval cleric shouldn't know anything at all about technological pharmaceuticals. The six skills listed deal with technology. The Technology Guide details how skills work with regards to technology unless someone has the Technologist feat. I think that we as a community have now worked ourselves past Shock and Denial (No, I won't use that feat and no one can make me!) to Bargaining (Okay, but I don't think that language says what it actually says, so I'm going to read it the way I think it should be.). I can't wait until we all just get to Acceptance, because these rules aren't game destroying and work just fine. If GMs don't like these rules, don't play the Tech scenarios. Or play home games. But if you-the-reader are reading this post right now, then you are aware that there are new rules for PFS. Choosing not to use them isn't the right answer. If you don't understand them, figure out what they are and use them. I've outlined the most important ones in the GM Discussion Forum. I think it's unfortunate that these rules aren't in the Guide, but every one of us who has read this (or any of the other three posts!) knows there is a rule change and should be spreading those rules to their communities. ((Sorry, threadjack. I've just been having this argument for a week now (in three other posts!) and I'm reaching my limit.))
Mild Spoilers for 6-01 and 6-02:
Each of these scenarios have NPCs who might be of some help in these scenarios. Not a ton, and not enough to tell players everything, but they can be made helpful with relative ease. While I was running these, the skill monkeys were satisfied with the idea that they couldn't do some things. Yes, I outlined the extreme secret tactics of the Technic League before we started play. Yes, I went over the basic rules in the Technology Guide. But no one jumped up and said it wasn't fair, or that I was destroying their character because there were skill checks they couldn't make. Bring it up before you start play. Tell them what the expectations for the game are. Make it sound like an interesting variation on regular play. Focus on having fun. It sounds like people are worried about their players throwing a screaming fit at the table because their medieval level Disable Device won't let them defuse a space bomb. Maybe it's just the crowd I'm used to playing with here, but that seems like the outlier and not the normal player. I think the mystery adds something to these scenarios, and I would personally be let down if my characters were suddenly masters of technology even though they'd never seen it before.
I just ran both 6-01 and 6-02 using the rules from the Technology Guide, and everything turned out just fine. Everyone was successful, players said they enjoyed the mystery, and no one complained once after I explained the new rules. There were plenty of jokes about who would cast spells hiding the auras of all these clearly magical artifacts. It was a different kind of game, but I feel like I can say it was fun for the players. Sure, it was challenging, but it still works. It certainly wasn't impossible. Unless you have a hangup about having to purchase a new book, I don't see why you wouldn't just use the rules. But whatever, I'm certainly not the PFS police.
Da Brain wrote:
I'll absolutely let them know. And I'll explain that technology isn't something that's been studied or available outside of secret groups in Numeria. Then I'll show them how that's supported by the rules in the Technology Guide and give them their options moving forward. And then I'll start running my game.
Hey all! Are you running one of the Season 6 scenarios dealing with the wonders of Numeria? There are plenty of new rules you're going to need to familiarize yourself with in order to run them properly. This is a quick rundown with links to pertinent forum discussions! Learnin' Stuff! The secrets of technology are difficult for the rest of Golarion to understand, and your average wizard is going to have a tough time identifying items and creatures without investing some resources. Technology Guide pg5 wrote:
Technology Guide pg7 wrote:
You may notice that Disable Device and Linguistics are both trained only skills, meaning that they may not be used against a technological subject at all unless you have the Technologist feat. Generally, you can only hit a DC 10 on an untrained Knowledge skill check, which means most PCs will be unable to learn about a technological subject. For more information, check the Technology Guide. A lot of material has been added to the scenarios, but if you plan to GM Season 6 a lot, the book is completely worth it. (forum post: Robot Knowledge Check DC) I'll Take That There Space Gun Using technology isn't a simple task either. Even if you manage to figure out what a particular item is, the item may not be properly charged and finding ammo isn't always easy. Regular ranged weapons take the Exotic Weapons Proficiency (Firearms) feat, though some will require an additional EWP (Heavy Weapons). However, many of the items are also timeworn, meaning that they have the potential to glitch. These rules are outlined in full in the Guide to Organized Play, but the general idea is that a glitch occurs when:
The glitch table is detailed in the Guide, and has some pretty random effects. See the Technology Guide for more specifics about weapons, armor, and items. Because these items are subtyped as technological and not mundane, they aren't Always Available and must be found on a scenario chronicle sheet for purchase. Them Gosh Darn Robots Robots are constructs with the robot subtype, which means they must be identified using Knowledge: Engineering with the caveats listed above. Further, Robots have hardness rather than DR, which we often see as a rule for objects rather than creatures. Since the rules here are confusing, and the forum post is heated, I'll personally go with James Jacobs here. James Jacobs wrote: As it turns out, robots are not objects—they're creatures. And as such, energy damage is not halved when applied to them. That bit about halving energy damage is a quality of an object, not a quality of Hardness. (And in my opinion... it's a kind of silly rule anyway—the idea that fire deals half-damage to paper is ridiculous.) I plan to use Hardness 10 to mean the same as DR 10/- and Resist All 10 for spell and other effects. Consensus remains mixed. :) (forum post: Hardness Rules and Energy Damage) Technological Scenarios These rules currently apply to the following scenarios. There may be more specific information in their specific threads. 6-01: Trial By Machine (post 1/post 2)
----- Sooo... any suggestions or updates or arguments or official statements or requests to delete this thread and move on?
I'm confused here. As quick examples, Robots, Animated Objects, Golems, and Clockwork Creatures are all subtype construct. Nowhere in the construct rules does it say to treat any of these creatures as objects. Some of these constructs have DR and others have hardness. Nowhere in the hardness rules does it say that having hardness implies being an object. Similarly, I see no rule that says that a construct with DR should be considered to be an object either. Why are we applying object rules to constructs? I understand. A chair is hard to break with an arrow, but animate it so that it's dancing around and suddenly those arrows are doing significantly more damage? That doesn't make sense. However, I happen to agree with James Jacobs, and I think think the "damaging an object" section is silly and arbitrarily changes how damage works for no great reason. Hardness does the exact same thing in a much simpler way. I have zero intention of applying those silly rules to creatures simply because I think animated chairs are still just chairs. The bestiary entries claim otherwise. I plan to run both 6-01 and 6-02 this weekend, and I'll treat hardness just like DR/- but with different methods to break through it. I'll also reduce energy damage and arrow damage and all other types of damage by the hardness amount.
Very minor note to an otherwise great guide: Page 33 details how to play older scenarios with regards to factions, but does so with the factions from season 5. (e.g. "Sczarni faction PCs should treat Taldor faction missions as their own for all Season 0, 1, and 2 scenarios" rather than what The Exchange should do.) I assume this is just leftover from the last guide, but thought I'd point it out.
graywulfe wrote:
Wow. This is like three threads in one. I'm going to use an analogy. Anyone who wants to take issue with that is free to move on. "Cooperate" means different things to different people. Sometimes my characters go Pathfindering with the Light Warriors who all get along and choose teamwork feats and are great taking one for the team. Sometimes my characters go Pathfindering because it's a job, and while I'm grateful for help, healing, and support, I don't expect it. In either one of these cases, and each of the myriad cases in between, if someone helps me out, I'd like to pay them back for it. This proposal helps me no matter what is going on IF someone else has aid and IF they allow me to use it. So, the expectation of aid notwithstanding, if I am helped, I'd like to pay them back for it. That seems good no matter what the party play style of the moment is.
Once upon a time, I was unprepared and another PC helped me out with a 3rd level potion that they could have used themselves. I quickly learned that lesson, but had no method to pay back that person except to play better from then on. Paying back that PC with my wealth wouldn't have interfered with learning that lesson, but it would certainly have helped me feel like less of a drain on the table. I totally support this rule change.
One of the first times I played my tengu rogue, I told the GM that I wanted to bluff one of the Pathfinder lodge guards by saying "Aram Zey said we might need an extra healing potion for this dangerous mission and that I could requisition one from any staff on the grounds. Can I have yours?" The GM looked at me, and I imagine that the following thoughts went through his head: "Oh, that's a funny idea. I should play along because people are laughing."
And then he calmly told me that the guard laughed and motioned me on my way. Which I accepted and we moved on. Since then, my rogue has collected specific shiny mission objects for his nest and keeps a log of them, but I keep any sort of theft as an abstraction for his Day Job roll. I mean, I get to save cities and discover artifacts and whatever else the society asks me to do. I can probably steal from people when I'm not on a mission. He owns a thieves' guild and everything. It just seemed like something I could hint at without actually forcing a GM to work with. Since my rogue is at 12th level, I'd say that everyone around here knows he's a thief without his ever having stolen anything at the table.
I can't wait to read these results! I wish it was louder on this forum, because I AM EXCITED! You all definitely deserve some congratulations right at 2pm tomorrow! Also, I'd love to join in on some kind of critique group. At some point during this competition, I went from "golly, publishing sure sounds nice!" to "by the beard of Odin, I will publish or else." I'll definitely also be joining in on some of the work here on the boards over the next year.
Rusty Ironpants wrote: 87) If I am a Tier 1-2 melee guy, I will have high strength and a x3 or x4 crit weapon. Teach those Pathfinders.... 89) If I engage in melee combat and my only gimmick is a high-crit weapon, I will have methods to extend my crit range so I become more of a credible threat. If this requires hiring a party of crossbow users with Butterfly Sting, then so be it. I will also have countermeasures against being disarmed or sundered. 90) To have a chance of competing in the action economy department, I will always take Combat Reflexes if my Dexterity allows.
|