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

Ashiel's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Star Voter. 9,586 posts (9,589 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,586 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:
AC is a defense which can easily be raised by many monsters and most PCs. I tend to emphasize defense with my PCs, and my AC sometimes reaches the point where people begin to complain about it. Just using a shield instead of a two-handed weapon often makes a big enough difference to drive people a little nuts. Maybe further discussion of PC and monster defenses and expected AC would be better off in a new thread though.

Generally speaking, going for more defense is a good idea in this game. Most people generally like being awesome and taking on lots of enemies rather than getting turned into a pile of pulp by the trash mobs, and it's generally frowned upon to die as a PC. :P

Meanwhile, the nature of this game and the encounter building system encourages you to throw hordes of baddies at PCs. Being able to shirk off attacks regularly is a staple. You don't see the cast of Lord of the Rings getting beat up by orcs so follow their example! :P

Being able to survive chip damage is also a big deal later on. That's why things like energy resistances are such a big deal. If you lack energy resistances, a bunch of weenies with fireball or other sorts of attacks will chip you down even if your saves are good. :o

Quote:
Back to the topic at hand, quasits and imps can definitely be frustrating monsters for low level parties. We met an imp in charge of a goblin tribe at 1st level in a 3 PC game with a Fighter, a Ninja, and a Barbarian. My Fighter failed his save against a Suggestion to protect the imp and spent the next several hours of real time disarming, tripping, and generally hindering the other PCs. If the DM hadn’t allowed me to follow the Suggestion in a non-lethal manner the campaign might have ended right there.

One of the most ill conceived encounters in an AP is the Imp/Pseudodragon optional encounter in Curse of the Crimson Throne. You're only, maybe, 2nd level when the encounter is suggested and its almost assuredly a TPK, especially since the writer apparently never bothered to check the stats on either Imps nor Pseudodragons. >_>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:
A Commoner with Purify Food and Water 3/day makes an excellent taster for a noble. Arcane Mark for scribes and business secretaries. Ghost Sound for theatre actors. Know Direction for guides.

The noble doesn't need the commoner, he has cantrips too, yeah? :P

This reminds me slightly of a civilization in my campaign world. Said civilization basically has the commoner class replaced with adept, and most every citizen has some level of magical training (even if it's just how to operate spell-trigger items).

On a side note, the most common spells prepared amongst said civilization are in fact prestidigitation, purify food and drink, create water, mending, and endure elements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Jesuncolo wrote:
How would you portray a down syndrome NPC respectfully with mental abilities like Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma?
Ability scores do not represent conditions.

I feel I should elaborate before anyone starts arguing about it. What I mean by the previous statement is that while conditions may apply effects to ability scores, having X in an ability score means nothing by itself beyond some base competency at certain things in the game, nor why you are at that level of competency.

For example, a warrior can be poisoned and his Strength drop to 8. But having a Strength of 8 does not mean you are poisoned. If you have a medical condition, your ability scores do not indicate that condition, it would be its own thing that might adjust ability scores, or more appropriately might adjust certain checks.

For further example, if you had a character whose legs were paralyzed, this is not indicated by any sort of Strength or Dexterity scores, though the condition might apply penalties to Strength, Dexterity, Movement, or skill checks based on those, but even having a 1 Strength and 1 Dexterity doesn't indicate that your legs don't work.

If you seriously wish to accurately portray the mechanical aspects of any medical condition (be it down syndrome or otherwise), I believe you would do well to actually do some basic research on the subject and then create a conditional summary for it and apply it as a template just as you would any other condition. Having X condition does not mean you have Y ability score any more than it means you have red hair or brown eyes.


Jesuncolo wrote:
How would you portray a down syndrome NPC respectfully with mental abilities like Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma?

Ability scores do not represent conditions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Animals are kinda weird in that most animals shouldn't be fighting a normal party of PCs.

PC parties tend to average 5 people plus maybe an animal companion. All of them looking fairly healthy. (Even the wizards tend to have positive Con modifiers, and walk in the middle of the group.) The 2H weapon warriors are probably exuding Dominance and Danger.

That is not the kind of group that a predatory animal would normally target, not for hunting. It might do so defend its young, if it's startled or cornered. But a normal healthy predator would go after far easier prey.

And come to that, the build of many predatory animals is very focused on maximizing the value you get out of a surprise attack. If they can't drop their prey in 1-2 rounds AND chase off the rest of the herd, they're done for. They might be able to mess up a PC a bit, but they're not gonna win the encounter, and they know it. (Because that's basically what predators do: select viable prey.)

So, on the one hand the stats for many animals are fairly plausible, they make lousy enemies for a normal PC band. Now, a PC that steps away for a bit to take a leak, that's an entirely different story.

Generally speaking, most of my ambush predators strike and then run away, and they generally are going for whichever one looks to be the least trouble. And if they fly, they're bringing you with them. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inspired by recent conversation, I posit to you a creature that may be unfun for its CR (or hilariously fun, depending on your playerbase).

Phal'lus Lord Of Dongle Thrust
XP 307,200
LE Large outsider (devil, evil, extraplanar, lawful) Monk 1
Init +14; Senses darkvision 60 ft., see in darkness; Perception +35
Aura fear (20 ft., DC 25)
Defense
AC 57, touch 37, flat-footed 47 (+2 armor, +4 deflection, +10 Dex, +20 natural, –1 size, +12 Wis)
hp 366 (20d10+1d8+252); regeneration 5 (good weapons, good spells)
Fort +26, Ref +24, Will +22; +4 resistance
DR 15/good and silver; Immune fire, poison; Resist acid 10, cold 10; SR 31
Offense
Speed 40 ft., fly 60 ft. (average)
Melee +5 unarmed strike +38/+33/+28/+23 (1d8+14), 2 claws +36 (2d8+12), 2 wings +36 (2d6+12), bite +36 (4d6+12 plus poison and disease), tail slap +36 (2d8+12 plus grab)
Space 10 ft., Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks constrict 2d8+26, devil shaping
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 18th)
At will—blasphemy (DC 27), create undead, fireball (DC 23), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), greater scrying (DC 27), magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 29), persistent image (DC 25), power word stun, scorching ray, trap the soul (DC 28), unholy aura (DC 28), wall of fire
3/day—quickened wall of fire (DC 23)
1/day—meteor swarm, summon (level 9, any 1 CR 19 or lower devil, 100%)
1/year—wish
Statistics
Str 39, Dex 31, Con 35, Int 24, Wis 34, Cha 30
Base Atk +20; CMB +35; CMD 71
Feats Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Improved Initiative, Improved Iron Will, Iron Will, Multiattack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (wall of fire), Hover, Wingover, Arcane Strike, Blind Fight, Step-Up, Lunge
Skills To be determined (I'm lazy)
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Infernal; telepathy 100 ft.
Ecology
Environment any (Hell)
Organization solitary, pair, or council (3–9)
Treasure double (+5 Jacob's ladder of mighty fists [belt slot], +3 cloak of resistance, +2 amulet of natural armor, +2 bracers of armor, handy haversack, 6,500 gp in assorted potions, oils, elixirs, and jewelry)
Special Abilities
Devil Shaping (Su) Three times per day, a pit fiend can spend a minute to transform nearby lemures into other lesser devils. A pit fiend can transform one lemure for every Hit Die the pit fiend possesses. It can then reshape these lemures into a number of Hit Dice's worth of lesser devils equal to the number of lemures affected. For example, a typical 20 Hit Dice pit fiend could transform 20 lemures into two bone devils (10 HD each), or three bearded devils (6 HD each, leaving two lemures unchanged), or any other combination of lesser devils. Lemures to be reshaped must be within 50 feet of the pit fiend, becoming stationary and unable to move once the shaping begins. After a minute passes, the lemures reform into the shape of a new lesser devil ready to follow the orders of the pit fiend. Although pit fiends can, technically, elevate a mass of 20 lemures into a new pit fiend, most are hesitant to do so since they have no special control over a devil created in this manner.
Disease (Su) Devil Chills: Bite—injury; save Fort DC 32; onset immediate; frequency 1/day; effect 1d4 Str damage; cure 3 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Poison (Ex) Bite—injury; save Fort DC 32; frequency 1/round for 10 rounds; effect 1d6 Con damage; cure 3 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Probably contains a few errors, it's not professional work. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
doc the grey wrote:

Honestly on the unfun realm I've had to say a lot of creatures with the animal type often fall into this category for me since in a lot of published materials they feel more like they are treated as bags of walking hp and set in these tiny fight rooms rather than actually presented as animals. In most cases I get something like a deinoychus, crocodile, or say a bison and it's treated like a dungeon roadblock stuck in the middle of a small space and not presented with either a way to slip around and escape fights like an animal naturally would or with special abilities that might make the fight feel more interesting than dealing with a monster with a built in knife.

It kind of echos some of the sentiments Ashiel mentioned where the fights can just often feel uninteresting or uninspired which is a shame considering how terrifying real encounters with things like lions can be and with all the actual information we have on them and many other creatures these fights should be just as terrifying if not more so. Also it gives a lot of room to really expand on some questions like how do lions, crocs, and wolves fit into worlds where dragons, manticores, and pegasi also fight with them for ecological niches or hell what about things like undead or even giants and aberrations that could wander their worlds?

I generally enjoy using animals, though admittedly I find them most amusing as pets for NPCs in most cases. However, a little wild safari is a ton of fun now and then and a lot of things like crocodiles, big cats, and other such beasties make cool enemies who may either lie in wait or stalk a party for a meal. I try to keep animal encounters fun and have watched some documentaries for inspiration (for example, Tigers of the Sundarbans, but I try to keep in mind that they are animals and are easily spooked and/or will very rarely fight to the death (unless there's a cub or something involved, don't play with the baby bears yo).

Animals are also fun to use as exotic mounts and/or warbeasts for NPCs. For example, having goblins riding on boars or lizardfolk who ride atop giant crocodiles and/or frilled lizards. They can very easily share a sort of symbiosis with intelligent creatures as they can provide both a sort of alert system (thanks to things like scent) as well as powerful support or shock troops (a tiger is kind of like a teeth-missile) and if used in clever ways can greatly enhance an encounter or the environment of an encounter.

For example, if you need to sneak into an area, distracting a large guard animal (or merely opting to wait until it's asleep) can change how someone approaches an encounter from a stealth perspective (such as using food or the scent of food upwind to get an animal to leave its post to find the source may buy an opportunity to slip past or eliminate the sentry quietly).

Animals can also be a lot of fun for painting a scene. When animals are spooked the players will take notice. If animals are skittish around an area, players will wonder why. If a player is undead or is otherwise considered an unnatural creature, it will make them feel more odd/special/otherworldly when untrained animals refuse to attack or get near them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


do you both still kill it in 2 rounds? If yes, then done
Though this IS partially true, it still a very specific approach to measuring the effectiveness of damage. You are not gonna be full attacking an equal to your level Cr monsters every time. For example two PCs might be kill the same cr monster in two rounds, but one of them could kill a lower cr monster in 1 round while the other wont. To complicate matters more against multiple monsters a PC might be able to throw some of the remaining attacks to another monster after felling the first one, while another pc with less dps might not.

A few things.

1. If you're talking singular, non-full attacks, the gap is even less since the difference of a few HPs worth of damage is nigh meaningless if you're not doing things like shoveling it out in droves and/or burst crits.

2. The latter is pretty niche as it requires you to kill an enemy one attack roll prior to your competition, which given the amount of damage per hit vs the HP of monsters in the same general CR range, is not something you can rely on (especially when you account for things like positioning, threatened space, etc).

Quote:
Ashiel wrote:


The sheer amount of defense that you can squeeze into a PC at high levels is astounding, and monsters aren't too far behind (many having the effects of many staple magic items like energy resistances baked in).

So much so in fact that without even really trying, a wizard is slouching if his AC is less than 40 at 20th level, while most martials can comfortably hit AC 50,

It's rare that you need to level up the monsters in the Bestiary (at least the Bestiary I) to make good encounters,

Without intense optimizing a normal 20 level great weapon fighters AC will be sth like this.

AC: 10+5 enchantment+9 armor+5 dex+ 5 deflection+5 natural armor = 39 (maybe 41 with a tome of dex).

I guess if you scour non core sources a +10 to ac won't be impossible.

Lazy martial is lazy. At 20th level, having a 24 Dex is trivial. It's 13 base, +5 inherent (from your casters), +6 magic item = 24 Dex, and 26-28 is where a lot of martials are likely to land (anyone who invested around 14-15 Dex and maybe dropped a level increase into it).

Meanwhile, if Core Only (as in just the core rulebook) you've got...
+5 Celestial Armor (+11 AC)
+5 Small Shield or Buckler (+6 AC)
+5 Amulet of Natural Armor (+5 AC)
+5 Ring of Protection (+5 AC)
+7 or +8 Dex (+7-8 AC)
Ioun stone (+1 AC)
That adds up to AC 45-46 pre-buffs. Once you start adding buffs that are staples at that level, you're going to see ACs upwards to low 50s, and this is assuming you have no actual natural armor, isn't accounting for dodge bonuses, or anything else of the sort. If you're a druid, you're going to hit ACs in the 50s easily and possibly low 60s (thanks to Wild Shape + Wild Armor).

Outside of Core Rulebook only, most front-liners are going to go in for the plate version of celestial armor for another +3. As Aelryinth mentions, there's even more and more ways of pushing AC without getting gimmicky about it.

Quote:
Also a CR 20 monster certainly does not have AC on the range of 50. Most have ac in the range of 36-38, with the typical exception of dragons or monster with access to mage armor and shield.

Yes. Absolutely unbuffed and naked. However, such monsters typically have buffs and/or the magic items (which PCs will later loot) that substantially improve upon their base. A pit fiend with a naked AC of 38 has an at-will self buff that brings it to 42. An amulet of natural armor +2 (something you would expect to find in a pit fiend's possession) brings it to AC 44. If the pit fiend bothers to drink a potion of mage armor, his AC becomes 48. Unless you encounter the pit fiend so naked that he can use his dongle for an unarmed stike, then you're probably going to see a much more respectable AC.

Dragons are like this. Virtually all outsiders are like this. In fact, most every high-CR enemy has massive ACs and/or special defenses once you include their game-given options. >_<

And it's not even "optimized" as you seem to think of it. It's just strait forward practicality. It's not shoveling a ton of their resources into being really good at a thing, it's just giving them the crap they have anyway. Do you think a pit fiend is just holding 134,000 gp worth of treasure between its butt cheeks while it fights the party?

Nope. He's likely wearing it (specifically about 50 lbs of it) in the form of crazy-cool magic items you'd expect to be adorning a lord of hell. He might be wearing that kickass amulet of mighty fists the druid's wanted, or wielding a massive battleaxe that the barbarian would drool for, or a +1 mithral buckler of fortification ripped from the corpse of the last adventurer who tried to mess with him (whose soul he keeps in a jar on his nightstand).

Again. Core-only. If your lord of hell is anything other than:

"Hey guys, this is my sweet dongle, isn't it big and pretty? Oh by the way, I have 164,000 gp worth of shwag hidden under the matress in my bedroom, consisting of various magical trinkets and/or mighty artifacts from ages since passed, however despite my plethora of weapon proficiencies and superhuman Intelligence, I decided to engage you in battle using my fell-dongle. Have at thee!"

Then this is the natural result of it not being stupid. :|

Meanwhile, this isn't a problem for PF heroes because they can hit those ACs (again, in CORE). Most of the martials in PF have MASSIVE to-hit routines at that level. Seriously, we're talking +20 from BAB, +5 from weapon, +4-14 or so from class features, +5 or so from staple buffs, +8-13 or so from ability scores, auto-critical confirmations, and god help you if they have a bard in the party (another +5 to everyone, yay!). That's a +42 attack on the low end, upwards to about +63 if you're really trying.

If you include non-core material, a courageous weapon alone kicks it up another +2, and class-material like instant enemy and furious weaponry allow you to more reliably get more out of your class features, and Paladins get in-house access to divine power which can carry them fine when they're fighting an enemy who isn't smite-bait.

Again, these aren't difficult things. These aren't even obscure things. These aren't things pulled from lots of different splat books, but instead just Core or Core + APG. >:(

Quote:

Note the higher you go at levels the more optimization skews the assumed balance. Its easier to out class the stats of higher level monsters of your cr for this very reason and also to be able to one shot monsters at high levels. Since these monsters are one shoted stronger ones with a bigger difference from your cr will be used by the dm. This can result in monsters that tear through the pc's defense very easily and more swingy battles.

I think you mean a fun and tactically interesting encounter. A boss monster encounter can destroy a 15 level party if its cr is 20 on the other side due to action economy the party could destroy the monster by taking little damage. A well optimized encounter will just have optimized monsters to counter the power of optimized players. (Unless you mean optimized as in optimized experience, which a rare use of the word optimized in these forums)

Bad GMing is bad.

Quote:

Also I am confused by your general logic regarding cthulu. On one side you say he is a brute and just has big numbers. (Which is untrue as I proved in my post) and on the other side you say a 20 level melee can tank him, thus claiming his numbers aren't really that big. (Again true only if the melee player optimizes his ac)

I feel our discussion is missing the point. I can accept the statement “I Just don't like cthulu infinite resurrections ability, his insanity aura and the non euclidean geometry trap to true seeing.” and “I think they could have thought of much much better and cooler powers for him.”

Please Pay Attention As I Spell This Out

1. I said Cthulu lacks interesting and/or really meaningful abilities that would change the way you fight him. He does. This makes him just another brute with big numbers.

2. I said that even as far as big numbers go, he's not even very impressive in that regard since a 20th level martial can both tank and spank him as long as he's not going to get wrecked by his save DCs in the 40s (a Paladin will utterly obliterate the poor sod). Which means that I see him as a failure on both fronts.

3. Applying both 1 and 2, I arrive at point 3 wherein I think Cthulu is a big putz for his CR. An inflated puff-ball that serves little to no purpose other than to say "Look, we have a CR 30 monster, oooh, ahhhh" that would actually be a joke to a 27th level party. The fact that most of his abilities are mediocre is irrelevant and I actually like some of them, they just have little impact on how you would actually engage him in the first place (a fight with a dragon or major outsider will probably be more climactic).

Quote:
I simply don't agree with optimizers who demand stronger monsters or bigger numbers to deal with their optimizing and on the other hand I believe there are some monsters that are extremely problematic at least when introduced at the pc level +2 CR range. (Thankfully few are so if introduced at the players level.)

Yet you're the only one who's saying that optimizers demand stronger monsters and/or need bigger numbers. I've explicitly said the opposite. That you don't have to optimize very hard to be very capable at 20th level, and monsters in the Bestiary I work just fine with no leveling up required.

You're asserting a claim as being true and then telling me how wrong I am for believing it (which I don't).


Starbuck_II wrote:
sunbeam wrote:

Maybe they ought to drop the whole thing about the Rogue having to flank or have the opponent flatfooted and just give the Rogue some kind of precision damage feature like other classes have. Kind of a break with the past, but maybe it is time.

Another thing might be to actually go back to the ways 3.5 had of getting off sneak attacks (blink, grease, ball bearings, splash damage..) it wasn't overpowered in 3.5, and it definitely wouldn't be in Pathfinder (at least assuming nothing else was changed).

But there are other rogue issues like stealth being hard to pull off, rogues actually being worse at spotting ambushes than wis classes, and other such things.

You could always try this trick/revision:

Sneak attack adds +1 to hit and +1d6 damage with light, one-handed, and ranged weapons (within 30 ft). If you are flanking or your opponent is denied Dex to AC (flat footed, blinded, etc) then you double your sneak attack bonuses against that foe (so +1/+1d6 becomes +2/+2d6 against that foe).
The rogue's SA progression changes from +1d6/2 levels to +1d6/4 levels (so the rogue's top-end damage doesn't change very much but they consistently perform better). The biggest change is that their accuracy with normal hits is much improved and they don't need to rely on Strength to deal respectable damage when not flanking.
For example, if you have a 6th level rogue, you'd have a +2 bonus to hit with any light, one-handed, or ranged weapon (within 30 ft) and deal +2d6 per hit. If you then dove in and flanked an enemy, you'd suddenly have +4 to hit (+6 with flanking) and deal +4d6 damage per hit. So you're rewarded for playing like a rogue while being able to be consistent even when you're not flanking.

Thus, in other words, you are rewarded for being tactical and the rogue shines when they get the drop on enemies, rather than being required to be tactical just to reach average.

Hey, you remembered my SA revision. :D


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
But before we get too much further into this, what do you mean by "good at skills?"

Some examples.

The Ranger gets +1/2 level to Survival checks to track. This means that the Ranger never actually needs to invest in Survival to be good at it, and if he does, he's going to be amazing at it (being +50% more successful to it than someone with similar investments).

Bards get +1/2 level to all Knowledge skills and can make checks untrained, which means they can be competent without ever investing points into those skills at all, and if they do, the amount of investment needed to be great is minimal, and if they actually bother to invest strongly in them, they are at the top of their class.

Bards get to substitute skills for other skills and it doesn't cost them any major resources. I think this is what you were going for with the rogue talents like Canny but bards just get better at it (as opposed to repeatedly spending resources on skills that diminish in value). It's a minor feature of the bard, whereas the talent-path you were paving was going to end up being a major investment for a "skill rogue".

Bards have in-class methods of improving and supporting their skills beyond ranks and such (spells). A bard can hide in the open desert with blur, while a Ranger cannot be tracked due pass without trace.

Bards also get the ability to make all kinds of checks untrained, be trained in everything, and evetually get "Skill Mastery [Everything]".

All rogues have going for them is +2 skill points / level. Yet the funny thing about skills is they have diminishing returns. Due to the way most skills scale, you definitely want a few skills topped off (Bluff, Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth spring to mind, and probably Spellcraft) but beyond that excess skill points are just filler tossed into rarely used things (most of which can be replaced with any +2 Int item).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
Me wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

...

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: ... *inhales*

As I noted in a previous post, I agree with some of the direction you're going with the SA revision. Unfortunately I cannot get on board with it completely because it doesn't do enough. It still has most of the drawbacks that a rogue normally does but it still doesn't meet the power of a real martial. Martials in Pathfinder have a lot more than just their BAB when it comes to hitting stuff. The best you're doing here is giving them an unmodified attack routine without the benefit of extra attacks and then only when they're using Sneak Attack, whereas a rival such as a Ranger is wrecking everything 100% of the time, hitting more often as well (because every core martial has in-house methods of going above and beyond a 1:1 BAB).

Most of the talents you posted are either useless, aren't worth expending a class level-based resource (talents), or actively work against the rogue's only advantage (reducing the value of its skill points) and in some cases don't work, such as with Pointed Defense (doesn't work, you don't threaten). The magic talents are bad and should feel bad (only being worthwhile insofar as being able to qualify for item creation feats).

Blind-side was cool though. Props. Unfortunately the wording needs to be cleaned up because "flanked" is not a condition, and the rogue is not "flanking" (or does the rogue actually get no modifier since they take a -2 for using blind side but a +2 from flanking?). I like the idea though. Unfortunately it still doesn't actually help the rogue be a rogue so much as it makes them a better phalanx fighter (it's pretty harsh for archery rogues since its a -2 on top of the -4 for firing into melee and +4 to the AC for the soft cover, which means you need to have Improved Precise Shot for it to be anywhere in the realm of reliable hitting).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well when we're commenting on class and told to play a different thing, one might assume we're talking about playing a different class. I can play a "duelist" with everything from a barbarian to a wizard, so I don't see how that means anything.

Now whether or not I'm actually worth having along on an adventure is drastically different. If I want to do roguish things, and I want to do well in game, the rogue class provides neither of these things. I see that as a major problem. As you noted, sometimes you just want to deal a lot of damage and sometimes you want to be a tank, but in both cases you need to be more than that. Unfortunately, again, if you want to do damage with a rogue you're a failure out of the gate and you also can't tank, which means it gives you neither what you want nor what you need.

In both cases you'd be better off as a ranger. I think you're already arguing semantics, I just can't for the life of me figure out why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Fair enough. Seems a misunderstanding. :)

Quote:
I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.
That and that players want one thing, need another thing, and the rogue delivers neither.
... and so is perhaps not the right class for them. Agree! They should probably play a duelist.

Do you mean the bad prestige class? EDIT: The duelist is pretty much the same. It gives players neither what they want nor what they need. Good classes tend to give both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough. Seems a misunderstanding. :)

Quote:
I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.

That and that players want one thing, need another thing, and the rogue delivers neither.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Both go hand in hand though. If you hit like a wet noodle but are built like a fortress, you are ignored. If you hit like a mac truck but are made of glass, you are dead. Neither is a desirable outcome for either a damage dealer (dead or CC'd means no damage) or a tank (if you're not drawing attacks, you need to be able to do something else besides survive longer).

You remarked that you don't seem to allow one to be a hybrid of the two. At least, this is what I gathered from your being okay with AM BARBARIANs but barring defensive options for them (which I think is about as back-asswards as it can get but to each their own), so I'm admittedly cautious from the get-go with most of what you're putting out there.

I also didn't pull your text out of context. You said hitting hard doesn't equal being able to take a hit, in regards to rogues being able to outdamage martials in a subset of situations. I'm calling BS on that because the two are intrinsically linked.

As it is, rogues don't hit harder but die easier. In fact they hit horribly and die easier unless you set up the ball to hit at a mediocre level while dying much easier. It's not rocket science to think that actually setting up your sneak attack should be worth it and as it is, it isn't. It just isn't worth it. >_>

I too am of the belief that rogues should be capable of dealing specialized high-burst damage as a tradeoff for all that they lose. They are a caster without spells who cannot contribute outside of being a martial without martial skill. There is a hive of bugs at the rogue's very core that are eating this class apart.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
(The popular answer is "to tank," but I don't think most people enjoy standing around getting punched so someone else can play D&D)

I would!

I've always liked to play tanky/supporting roles.

I like tanky bards. My current samurai does decent damage - but he's more about AC, resolve giving him the equivilent of decent saves, and shaking/antagonizing his foes.

My MMO characters are usually tanks (though it's been awhile). Heck - in LoL - my favorite champion is probably Taric. (for those of you who get the reference)

Some of us actually do LIKE to be the guy who doesn't get the killing blows/glory but is nonetheless the backbone of the party.

I am the same way, and sometimes when I just want to play, but I dont want to do any book keeping I just playing a character based on hitting things hard, and I don't consider it as "not playing D&D".

It is not like the RP'ing is somehow diminished so I dont know what that other poster was talking about.

Hitting things hard =/= standing around getting hit. I agree, smashing stuff is awesome! Barbarian is my second favorite character class.

We were talking about a hypothetical scenario in which the rogue was modified to have damage output greater than fighter-type characters "when played well." I was arguing that this doesn't seem good.

I'd like to take a moment to say that I actually agree with your post a few back where you talk about class design and make a few suggestions for how to improve the rogue (the sneak attack thing was similar in some ways, notably the accuracy boost that I've gone with in my rogue revision even). However...

Hitting things hard DOES EQUAL standing around and getting hit. That is the unfortunate reality of a rogue or anyone else that wants to get into melee to do their damage. If you aren't striking like a wet noodle you are generating "aggro". Not "My ability generates extra aggro vs the AI" aggro, but instead the "MURDER THAT HEALER NOW!" aggro that you see in PvP. It's the kind of "real aggro" that happens when you make yourself a high priority target.

Many rogues die every day because of sneak attack. It works like this.

1. Rogue moves up to engage an enemy, seeing an opportunity to flank. Rogue rolls decently and lands a hit for X + Y damage. The damage is decent, like a front-liner, making the creature aware of the rogue's threat.

2. The creature proceeds to full-attack the rogue. Due to the rogue's poor AC and mediocre HP, the rogue falls down bleeding, because even though 1d6 + 3d6 damage was nice, the trolls 1d8+3d6+22 was better.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Thac20 wrote:

Would it be overpowered if Rogues gained the following:

Considered as having Int 13 for combat maneuver feats
Combat Expertise as a bonus feat at level 1

No, and it would have little to no impact on them. Rogues are already so bad at combat maneuvers that it would just be a trap to encourage people who didn't know the game very well to try and build their rogues with the intent of using combat maneuvers as a tactic, only to be horrible disappointed later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FireberdGNOME wrote:
The Ultimate Archery Trick

Oh...my...god...

Thank you for sharing this, FireberdGNOME. :O


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashtathlon wrote:

Pugwampis..teamed up with any other monster that has save or have a bad day abilities...someone casting invisibility on a couple pugwampis..even worse.

Low level swamp witch with a couple this little fellows..makes for unhappy players. ( as a low level encounter.)

This reminds me of my NPC Captain Scurvy the Pygmy Pugwampi Pirate and his band Scurvy's Sea Dogs (his gnoll crew), who would ride atop his warf-rat Skitters, as he lead his crew to glorious plunder.

He was simultaneously loved and despised as an antagonist. A sort of honorable pirate if you will, he was much prone to buckling his swashes and then makin' off wit' da booty while shoutin' things like "Better luck next time fellas! See ya again when ya run out ah luck!" or "T'is been fun mates, but we got places t'go, merchants t'rob, y'understand!"

A little about Captain Scurvy: Scurvy was the runt of his litter but with no doubt had the greatest ambitions of them all. He wanted to see the world and though he lacked any sort of formal schooling he was quite the cunning little fellow, and before long he had hatched a plan that would get him a ship and a literal boatload of riches. He explained his plan to a group of gnolls he knew of who were down on their luck as none were all that tough as far as gnolls were concerned and weren't doing so hot on land. With them as a crew and Scurvy as the brains, they'd become pirates!

The lot of 'em snuck off with a fishing boat of fair size that could cruise around the coastline. While his gnoll crew prepared to set out and await on the waters, Scurvy snuck up into a small merchant ship that looked like an easy mark. A few guards and some sailors. It wasn't hauling a particularly valuable cargo, but Scurvy wanted the ship itself, which would be able to make sea voyages. Once he was onboard, he remained hidden while bringing a terrible run of luck to the inhabitants of the ship. Later during the night, Scurvy signaled his crew with a tiny bullseye lantern and the raid was on. The gnolls scrambled up the side of the sailing ship and everything just seemed to be going wrong for the defenders. Even the guards who were better trained than these band of misfit gnolls found themselves quickly overpowered, and for whatever reason the sailors couldn't seem to out maneuver the smaller vessel. Before they knew it, Scurvy and his Sea Dogs were the proud new owners of the Golden Minnow, and well on their way to fame and fortunes.

Now Scruvy's not much for bullying, you see. Being the runt of his litter he was on the receiving end of the joke more often than not, and it left him with a healthy disrespect for throwing your weight around. He and his gnolls tossed the mostly unharmed crew into their former fishing vessel to get back to land before sailing off with the booty.

Today Scurvy owns quite a few ships commandeered in much the same way, but he and his Sea Dogs have become better at what they do. Scurvy's even turned into quite the competent warrior, preferring to ride around on skitters while shooting his enemies with his +1 flaming shortbow nicknamed "Southwind" and joyously bantering along as he does, often enjoying to have a rousing game of cat and mouse with would be presuers while crackin' wise. Most of their bounty is unloaded to a black market organization run by an Oni Shogunate at a little hangout for pirates.

Here's the condensed statblocks for Scurvy and Skitters from my notes:

Quote:

Captain Scurvy the Pygmy Pugwampi Pirate CR 4 (1,200 XP)

Diminuitive Fey ranger 6; Init +6; Senses darkvision 120 ft., lowlight vision; Perception +11; AC 22, touch 21, flat 16 (+2 armor, +6 dex, +4 size); Hp 29 (1d6+6d10-6); Fort +5, Ref +14, Will +7; DR 2/cold iron; SR 13; Speed 30 ft.; Melee mwk dagger +12/+7 (1d2-3/18-20); Ranged +1 flaming shortbow +9/+9/+4 (1d2-3 + 1d6 fire/x3); Ranger Spells Prepared 1st – longstrider , pass without trace; Special Attacks favored enemy (humans +4, animals +2), Unluck Aura; Str 5; Dex 22, Con 9, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 8; BAB +6; CMB +3; CMD 19; Feats Point Blank Shot, Precise ShotB, Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise ShotB, Boon Companion; Skills Acrobatics +13, Perception +11, Profession (Sailor) +12, Ride +16, Stealth +31, Survival +11; Racial Modifiers +4 Stealth, -4 Perception when listening; Equipment diminuitive mwk dagger, +1 diminuitive flaming shortbow , diminuitive arrows (100), +1 diminuitive leather armor , +1 cloak of resistance , Scurvy's Sails (sailing ship)

Skitters, Scurvy's Pygmy Dire Rat CR (see owner)
Tiny animal; Init +6; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +10; AC 23, touch 19, flat 14 (+2 size, +6 dex, +1 dodge, +4 natural); Hp 27 (6d8); Fort +5, Ref +11, Will +3; Defensive Abilities evasion; +4 vs mind-affecting; Speed 40 ft., climb 20 ft., swim 20 ft.; Melee bite +10 (1d3-1 plus disease); Special Attacks filth fever (Bite— injury; save Fort DC 13; onset 1d3 days; frequency 1/day; effect 1d3 Dex damage and 1d3 Con damage; cure 2 consecutive saves.); Str 10, Dex 23, Con 10, Int 3, Wis 12, Cha 4; Feats Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack; Skills Perception +10; SQ link, share spells, devotion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just throwing this out there for AMSAO but...

Fighters aren't the best damage dealers. In fact, they generally just kind of average out with the other martials who are generally leaps and bounds better. Fighters are generally the worst martials in the game. They have the worst defenses out of any martial. They have arguably the worst skills and/or out of combat usage in the game (even Commoners are better). They are horrid at endurance-style games (the kind where you try to push through lots of encounters without resting) and they're bad at nova'ing (if your GM is the opposite and likes using few but grand scale encounters requiring you to push yourself). Fighters are just bad.

And yes, Rogues should be able to outpace other classes in damage when their hand is played well. Rogues already have to deal with being a caster without spells and mediocre damage, but when they actually do get into position where they can sneak attack (where they are in fact most vulnerable to getting murdered I might add) then at best they might do moderate damage that's still outdone by any martial with a stick.

Rogues are horrible. They are the Fighters of their respective fields. Both are outmoded by the Ranger and Slayer, while their individual shticks are outmoded by lots of additional classes such as Barbarian, Paladin, Bard, Inquisitor, and Alchemist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You might want to look at imps. They're almost identical to quasits in form and function. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

You've got to be one of my favorite elitist jerks, though! :D

EDIT: I'm trying to say you're one of the people I like 'round here.

Thanks. That really means a lot to me. :)

EDIT: Don't worry, I got it. ^_^


8 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
Optimizing brings to mind offensive monsters like Musketmaster Gunslingers, Guide ranger archers, Dazing spell and Icy Prison. I guess there are broken choices from a defensive point of view Scarred Witch, Oracle divine grace feat or Imrpoved Stalwart with Invulnerable rager. But picking a from the offensive options doesn't necessary mean you have a weak offense. The rocket tag happens when the dm is forced to throw higher and higher cr monsters to keep things challenging, which beyond making xp aquisition faster thus putting a pressure on the pace of the story is dangerous in the sense that higher Cr monsters vs optimized parties make more wonky and swingy battles than normal.

On Offense: Pathfinder characters are geared towards offense naturally, which allows them far more leeway for defensive measures. Very rarely does squeezing out a few more DPRs mean much of a difference in how the success of your character goes. DRP measurements have shown that unless your DPR is leaps and bounds higher than someone else's, it will rarely make a meaningful difference vs similarly CR'd opponents (do you both still kill it in 2 rounds? If yes, then done).

On Defense: Speccing defense is highly encouraged by the game. There are a multitude of ways to add into your AC, saving throws, resistances, immunities, and so on. So much so in fact that without even really trying, a wizard is slouching if his AC is less than 40 at 20th level, while most martials can comfortably hit AC 50, and druids can get ACs up to 60-70. Meanwhile, you also have things like concealment (cloak of displacement), resistance bonuses to saves, energy resistances, and fortification stopping incoming damage. Spells like death ward and freedom of movement are trivial-level spells by end-game (being 4th vs 9th level casting). Mind blank lasts 24 hours.

The big difference between offense and defense is...defense has a very noticeable benefit. In fact, the more dangerous and/or harrowing the encounter, the more benefit you are going to get out of things like a high AC, DR, good saves, resistances, immunities, and more. Want to be optimized for D&D? Make sure you'll live through the adventure. :o

Have you seen a high level encounter? The way encounters are built in PF, a well optimized encounter has more monsters, not higher CRs. I look at Cthulu and I see a putz. He makes a stinky cloud when he dies and has an irritating aura and then big (mostly in the save DCs) numbers. His AC, Hp, and attack routines aren't even that big (a 20th level PF martial would shove his face into a sidewalk and jump on it).

Quote:
The other solution of building the monsters or npc's takes lots and lots of time, and begs the question why not less optimizing from the players and more time for the dm?

Making decent encounters is a start. If the design focus of the encounter begins with "One day, this lone monster was wandering along..." then it's already failed. It's rare that you need to level up the monsters in the Bestiary (at least the Bestiary I) to make good encounters, and such customization can be left for special individuals (though swapping a few feats or spells around wouldn't hurt since some monsters seem to have been dropped on their heads as children, at least judging by their spell selections).

Quote:
Its more complex than that actually, and the kind of optimizing is improtant. Its ok in my games to play a greatsword beast totem invulnerable rager barbarian (though just barely) , but not the same with superstitious and improved stalwart.

Wut? What's wrong with a rage-lance-pounce-tank barbarian? You don't even need to go out of the normal bestiary for that. If someone sat down with one at the table, I wouldn't bat an eyelash if they sat down with literally every rage power/feat you mentioned. Heck, I'd even recommend adding Eater of Magic and Spell Sunder to that mixture and Ghost Rager (or whatever that thing is that adds Superstition to your touch AC). It wouldn't even affect the challenges and/or way I planned to run the game. :|

...I'm an elitist jerk. :<


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alayern wrote:
I don't want to know what a Lamashtan orgy actually looks like.

Your whole post was good, but this assured a favorite. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:

Ashiel. I don't know if I'll be able to use that any time in the next several years. But at some point I'm stealing that Hecate.

And now I'm going to play Age of Mythology. Hecate was indeed the best Mythic Age goddess for Atlanteans.

PM me sometime and I'll toss ya my Steam ID. I've got Age of Mythologies on Steam recently. Maybe we can play sometime when I'm not busy with work, writing, D&D/PF, or modding. :)

Also, glad you liked that. It was born out of a need for an example of what I was talking about. D&D/PF is good on top-end power. Wizards are literally gods by 20th level so we really don't need bigger and bigger numbers. However, for truly incredible individuals, we need to think about how we want the encounter to go as we create them. When I wrote the stuff for Hecate, I was visualizing how a battle with such a being would go and how it would play, and I was getting excited. :o

If I were to do something with Cthulu, I'd probably really try to play up the madness and horror aspects with aberrations, illusions, and phantasms all over the place, and try to come up with some abilities that represented the idea of a warped reality. Of course I'd also peg him around CR 25-ish and try to make him less of a chump. >_>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ogres aren't proficient with their weapons. There's some more, but it's late and I have to go to bed. :P


10 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
This thread should focus on creatures as printed by paizo, if you start adding levels to things or if you start optimizing levels added to stuff monsters become ridiculous pretty easy, even making sure every dragon has mage armor, shield, heroism etc makes for under cred monsters. Maybe a different thread could focus on ways to optimize monsters.

That's be a pretty cool thread as long as the goal was clearly noted to optimize them for gameplay, not make "CR 5" pit fiends (Stringburka rules all :P).

Quote:
Ashiel if you look at everything from an optimizers perspective the higher you go at levels, the more optimizing is possible, the strongest the monsters must become, which in turn requires everyone to optimize, which in turn turns everything in nuclear weapon rocket tag. Not everyone enjoys nuclear weapon rocket tag.

Yeah, I sure don't. Fortunately high levels largely rail against rocket tag (outside of mythic because mythic is stupid). The sheer amount of defense that you can squeeze into a PC at high levels is astounding, and monsters aren't too far behind (many having the effects of many staple magic items like energy resistances baked in).

When I see someone complaining about rocket tag, I see someone who doesn't know how to optimize. If you're throwing all you have into offense, you're going to get roflstomped by any decent encounter and/or character who's invested into defense.

Quote:

Regarding Cthulu it depends on wether you optimize with the mythic rules, if you use foebane, mythic power attack and so on it would be easy for the 20/10 mythic fighter to one shot anything especially when supported from other optimized pc's.

That said I think as a monster Cthulu is amazing and interesting if you look at its abilities and tactics, it just near impossible to create sth that challenges an optimized 20/10 party without it having crazy numbers.

Mythic rules are dumb. That aside, no, Cthulu really isn't that interesting. What exactly makes him special? Tentacles? No. A save or die aura? Eh, maybe? A smattering of SLAs? They're not really anything special. Greater starflight? It has greater teleport (anywhere on the same plane of existence) at will (so it's redundant and not really interesting anyway).

Cthulu is just a brute. And not even an interesting brute. He exemplifies my biggest beef with overly high CR enemies and such. It's almost all just big numbers, never anything that really screams "I'm awesome!", never anything worth godlike-quality, never anything that is really going to change the way you fight it. Cthulu is dealt with in the following fashion: "Throw your martial at it". The end.

It's not even worth it's CR. You can ****ing tank it's full attack at 20th level on a competent martial and he can't grab you either (freedom of movement and yes it's a staple). A 20th level martial can survive its full attack for several rounds without much issue (assuming the odd heal / mass heal thrown in to take care of the odd chip damage). The only thing that makes it scary is the DCs on its abilities are really high for 20th level PCs to have to deal with. As for it actually being an interesting monster that promotes an interesting encounter...it fails miserably.

If you're going to be greater than CR 23, you'd better do something that's going to change the way a party approaches you. You need to be the equivalent of a small roving band of pit fiends or a pair of solars or god forbid...CR 30 man, that's supposed to be equivalent to 12 Solars. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? 12 Solars! A solar is effectively a god in its own right (by any rational definition of godlike).

This was the problem with the Deities and Demigods book back in 3.0. Lots of big numbers and lots more suuuuck. If you want to drop in a CR 25+ creature, by golly give me something like this:

A Long Time Ago, on a Thread Far Far Away:
Ashiel wrote:

On a side note, Hecate was my favorite patron goddess in Age of Mythologies: Titans. What amuses me the most about the rebuttal is that it seemed to strike a nerve. What amuses me more is the fact that, again, forcing the deity to flee or waste actions swatting gnats. Since the deity in the statblock had no special sensory abilities listed, simply flying through the ground until in roughly the correct area would pretty much allow them to swarm her. Being incorporeal means that you can get attacked in 3 dimensions from every possible angle. Only six need to strike her to kill her, statistically. It's kind of funny, actually.

Really, her statistics are inflated and for seemingly no reason. She's not scary, she's not interesting, and she's not very special, except she has big numbers. Big numbers mean very little in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather see a CR 25 deity that was competent and could shirk such paltry attempts at deicide as laughable (in much the same way that a carpet bombing of shadows is not a serious threat to a good party of high level PCs). The shadow scheme wouldn't function vs a Solar (a creature that would assuredly be worshiped as a god in reality), yet it would force that "Hecate" into fleeing the scene at least to keep from dying to a buncha CR 3 enemies. It's "lolzy". :P

If you're going to give deities deity-specific powers, at least make them interesting. Not much is more boring than "Harhar, I haz more numbers than j00". I'd much rather see a "Hecate" that was more along the lines of a CR 25 creature, except perhaps with more interesting abilities such as:

Trivia Form (Su): As a move action Hecate can create two copies of herself: Hecate of the Past and Hecate of the Future. These copies are identical to Hecate except that they lack this ability and have two negative levels (these negative levels cannot be removed in any way). While the copies exist Hecate gains two negative levels which cannot be removed until the copies are destroyed or she dismisses them (as a free action). Hecate and her copies all share the same mind. Mind-affecting effects that affect one affects the others, though this state grants a +6 bonus on Will saving throws against mind-affecting effects. At any time (even when it is not her turn) Hecate can choose one of her copies to become the real Hecate (instead of a copy) and her original body to be treated as a copy instead (allowing her to dismiss it as desired). Though this ability is a supernatural one, the copies are not (nor is the option to allow a copy to become the real Hecate) and thus they continue to exist where supernatural abilities do not function (such as in an antimagic field).

Hounds of Hecate (Su): Once per round as a free action, Hecate can summon a pack of hounds to her aid as if by a summon monster spell except that the range is long (400 ft. +40 ft. / level) and she may summon as many as she likes as long as their combined experience value is CR 16 or less (for example, Hecate could summon eight CR 9 Nessian Hell Hounds or one CR 16 26 HD huge nessian hell hound). The type of hounds that Hecate can summon with this ability are Hell Hounds, dogs, riding dogs, wolves, dire wolves, worgs, and winter wolves (and advanced versions of any of these). She typically favors calling two CR 14 22 HD nessian hell hounds each round.

Paired Torches (Su): Hecate has two torches that hover around her. One a white flame casting a powerful light radius and another a black flame that fills an area with darkness. The light torch functions as if under the effects of a 9th level continual flame spell while the darkness torch functions as if under the effects of a 9th level deeper darkness spell. Once each round as a free action Hecate can decide which of the two torches is dominant (light or dark). In either case Hecate can see in the radius of these torches as if under the effects of true seeing. Hecate may dismiss or recall these torches as a free action (even if the torches have been destroyed).

Robe of Spells (Su): Hecate is empowered by her magic in ways that others cannot fully comprehend. Hecate gains a circumstance bonus to all attacks, saves, and checks equal to the highest level spell she can cast (typically a +9 bonus, included in her statblock). If Hecate would fail a saving throw she may expend a spell or unused spell slot to re-roll the saving throw with a bonus equal to the level of the expended spell or spell slot.

Limitless Magic (Ex): Hecate can any 1st through 6th level spell she has prepared at-will as a spell-like ability, and any 7th-9th level spell she has prepared 3/day as a spell-like ability. Hecate may apply the benefits of feats that modify spell-like abilities (such as Quicken Spell-like Ability) to new spell-like abilities each day.

^ The above special powers on a CR 23-25 creature would be WAAAAAAY more interesting (both from a stylistic perspective and for a battle) than bigger numbers. Assuming she had theurgic casting between druid and wizard spells (which would be appropriate for Hecate) then she would be wickedly versatile, flood the field with minions each round on the round (possibly requiring people to continue to dismiss or wipe her trash mobs each round to avoid getting overcrowded), and she has some powerful defensive abilities, and can split herself into three of her (literally tripling her action economy at the cost of 2 negative levels).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:
John John wrote:
Ashiel if you look at everything from an optimizers perspective the higher you go at levels, the more optimizing is possible, the strongest the monsters must become, which in turn requires everyone to optimize, which in turn turns everything in nuclear weapon rocket tag. Not everyone enjoys nuclear weapon rocket tag.
Ashiel generally argues that if the PC party is competent, the game doesn't turn into rocket tag, regardless of what the DM throws at the PCs.

Damn skippy! >:D


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
stormcrow27 wrote:

Definitely this guy.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
He doesn't seem that bad.
Well obviously, any competent adventuring party can beat a Cthulhu, due to superior action economy. It's when you're facing a group of four or five Cthulhus who work as a team that you have to watch out.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest that said creature would be easy for a typical party to face. Far from it, since it's supposed to be an epic encounter for a party of 4 26th level characters, which means you need to go beyond 20th to do so. At that point you have 12th level spells and other class features that have scaled higher (and have probably crafted some items with higher modifiers than the standard items).

Merely that looking at its stats, sans big numbers, it really isn't very amazing or interesting. It would appear that you would fight it just as any big demon. Nothing particularly shocking or noteworthy that it can do. Beyond just having big numbers, I'm skeptical that it deserves a CR 30.

On a Side Note
I might just be an elitist jerk, but it seems to me like the majority of this thread is "Monsters that have odd attacks, resistances, or otherwise require you to change from the 'I whack it with my sword/spell' default" or "I need to actually defend myself against attacks, this monster is unfair".

It's kind of sad really.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:

Definitely this guy. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/great-old-one s/great-old-one-cthulhu

He doesn't seem that bad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
@ Ashiel - all true, though you are presuming a situation where either (a) a buffed planetar is getting to blindside a balor or (b) the balor politely waited a few rounds while the planater cast some 1 round/level buff spells. =P And in either case, the Balor's electing to stay in a fight that's stacked against it, against an opponent who needs a couple rounds or more to actually kill it.

Like I said. A balor has the advantage of running away like a scared little girl. Likewise, buffing isn't difficult for the planetar since it can just become ethereal and the balor can't do diddly to it during that time. In fact, the planetar can casually hop the borders of planes to do whatever it needs to do.

I don't really see why everyone is getting bent out of shape. Balors have sucked for a good long time. This isn't a secret. It's not the planetar's fault, and there's no magical wonder or beautiful sheen that's been lost because someone pointed out there was a turd beneath it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

The Balor can still use standard whip CMB maneuvers against creatures his own size. If the Planetar tries to sunder, it will provoke, not having the Improved Sunder feat.

Keep in mind also that both the whip and the sword are vorpal weapons.

Planetars fly, thus immune to tripping. Planetars with spells that aren't pulled out of a hat have freedom of movement. Meanwhile planetars have righteous might (makes them huge sized, gives them another +4 Str, +2 natural armor, etc) and divine power (which gives them a +5 to hit, damage, and CMB/CMD, as well as an extra attack like haste), which means that their CMB/CMD skyrockets easily enough (and they can actually very easily out-reach the balor so that the balor, who has no size-increasing things, can't do diddly against the angel tearing his weapons apart).

And that angel can most definitely tear a balor's weapons apart. Because as a huge-sized angel w/ divine power, Mr. Angel is swinging for 4d6+23 damage with his greatsword. That's more than enough to utterly shatter the balor's weaponry. If he wanted to. Especially since the balor cannot make AoOs with his whip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Monster Ronster wrote:

In our last session, my aberrant sorcerer cast Baleful Polymorph onto an enemy human fighter (at least we think they were human)turning him permanently into a turtle. I floated the question, "If we used the turtle for soup, would it be cannibalism? Would it be an evil act?" We of course do not know if the human made his will save, which might be important, as if his mental abilities have been reduced to animal level is he not in all respects a turtle?

What think you, players?

Cannibalism isn't evil.

KILLING someone specifically to eat them is though (not counting the lizardfolk thing, since their eating you is usually incidental; they killed you while you were messing around with their turf, and they just didn't want the meat to go to waste)

Also, cutting off parts of people against their will while they are alive is also evil.

But yeah, you can do cannibalism without being evil. I mean, there are spells to heal wounds, regenerate limbs, and revive the dead. You can make eating one guy SUSTAINABLE.

Point. For some reason I was thinking he was already dead. I blame being sleepy. :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
LazarX wrote:
After seeing the Stormlord one shot an Ancient Colossal silver dragon, I'd reassses that evaluation. Balors are damm tough melee combatants and will wipe the floor of anything short of a solar.
This is factually false. Balors are actually one of the weakest creatures in their CR range. Mariliths are pretty horrible as well.
Out of curiosity, what would you peg as the "real" CR of a balor based on its current numbers, and what would you peg as the "real" CR of a planetar or solar?

Hard to say. Generally speaking I think a solar is actually pretty good for its CR, as thanks to its host of very formidable powers, 20th level cleric casting, strong regenerative abilities, and so forth, it's definitely a good monster. I'd dare say that fighting a solar in all its glory would be a good challenge for its level range.

Ghaeles and Planetars are really good for their level range. They're basically like fighting clerics that traded their WBL CR adjustment for cool racial powers. I think they are appropriately epic at an APL 10 and 13 encounter respectively, while being of average challenge when matched against a level-appropriate party, who shouldn't have much trouble at all.

The real reason that the planetar can whip a balor is twofold. One, it has options and two, the balor is pretty bad for its level and lacks options. The balor itself has a really terrible set of SLAs and none of them are really strong. Meanwhile, the Balor's not really even that good in melee combat sans its fishing for vorpal strikes (any PC in that level range should be able to tank its full attack sans buffs without sweating it, even the party's wizard), and the planetar can just make itself immune to the SLAs of the balor that would be really irritating for it, while the balor can't really do the same (and even with its SR, the planetar can just keep smacking it with holy smite and occasionally healing itself if need be. The only thing the planetar has to worry about is the odd chance the vorpal sword procs (which requires both a natural 20 crit and a confirmation success).

Mariliths are sadly very underwhelming (as is the tarrasque). A very similar thread to this one popped up a while back which actually spurred me to rewrite both the Marilith and Balor to make them more formidable in their CR range where they must be compared to characters who are their level with full WBL (as a 20th level cleric with PC wealth is CR 20 for example).

If you are interested, here's the link: Ashiel's Revised Marilith & Balor. I might do more revisions to existing monsters in the future. I have some fun themes going on in these revisions, but unfortunately I've been busy with other life matters so I haven't had much time to do any writing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Monster Ronster wrote:

In our last session, my aberrant sorcerer cast Baleful Polymorph onto an enemy human fighter (at least we think they were human)turning him permanently into a turtle. I floated the question, "If we used the turtle for soup, would it be cannibalism? Would it be an evil act?" We of course do not know if the human made his will save, which might be important, as if his mental abilities have been reduced to animal level is he not in all respects a turtle?

What think you, players?

Cannibalism isn't evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
After seeing the Stormlord one shot an Ancient Colossal silver dragon, I'd reassses that evaluation. Balors are damm tough melee combatants and will wipe the floor of anything short of a solar.

This is factually false. Balors are actually one of the weakest creatures in their CR range. Mariliths are pretty horrible as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It's just really not that hard to out-maneuver an enlarged character if you have any space, and in many cases easier if you don't (in an indoor scenario, it's incredibly easy for a 2x2 space creature to end up in an area that cannot fully accept its size which means it has to squeeze which is another -4 to hit and AC in addition to the usual penalties).
That's one reason why a Hat of Enlarge Person would be very useful - you could switch it off by removing the hat whenever the terrain makes it a liability.

S'one of the reasons I think a boots of speed style 1/day item would be amusing for players, though at least it's dismissible for everything else if you really need to shrink back down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barathos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Want to ruin someone with enlarge person? Turn over a barstool.
What's so bad about difficult terrain?

Larger creatures have more trouble dealing with scattered difficult terrain because it becomes progressively more difficult to avoid it, they have more space to trigger it, and they still suffer the same limitations as small creatures (a colossal dragon still only gets a 5 ft. step like humans do).

Difficult terrain means no charging and each square of difficult terrain requires 2 squares of movement. Your typical beefcake type is going to be moving at 20 ft. (for medium or heavy armor) at most levels that enlarge person is really nice, so eating 10 ft. of movement for every square of difficult terrain you need to move through sucks.

It's just really not that hard to out-maneuver an enlarged character if you have any space, and in many cases easier if you don't (in an indoor scenario, it's incredibly easy for a 2x2 space creature to end up in an area that cannot fully accept its size which means it has to squeeze which is another -4 to hit and AC in addition to the usual penalties).

Enlarge person is great in certain cases but it's a good way to get dead in a lot of cases as well. I still think 4,000 gp is plenty expensive (but I still prefer the idea of an 800 gp 10 rounds/day item because I think those are more amusing). Personal preference.

If not, screw it and just carry some potions. At 50 gp / 10 rounds, you'd have to drink 81 of the things before 4,000 gp was suddenly more economical than just chugging a potion or oil (you can even have someone else apply the oil to you, such as a familiar).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:

Because DPR and reach, I'd say it should be more than 4k. How much SHOULD it be? I dunno. I'd have to think about it more. Since it's pretty dang subjective, the GM who is making the decision and has to live with it should make that final call.

Probably go with 4k and make it 3 times per day.

3/day for 10 rounds at a time is likely going to be functionally similar to at-will for most adventures while just adding an extra resource to track.

The strongest thing about the spell is the reach. DPR doesn't even go up all that much in most cases, but it comes with some heafty drawbacks (including -2 AC, -1 Reflex, and you are now a fat ass who's a big target and has to deal with mobility difficulties and space problems while gaining no speed benefits).

Want to ruin someone with enlarge person? Turn over a barstool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

I knew you'd cite something like that so here.

Quote:
Area 20-ft.-radius spread

Is functionally different from

Quote:
10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Additionally the first line explaining what it does
Quote:
An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you.
Is just as much raw as the rest of the spell. People dislike this interpretation because it would be nearly impossible to fight said dragon in the AMF. The same is true of the magic bane bandersnatch.

Everything you posted sans the "surrounds" you bit foils your interpretation, but it still can't get past the radius thing. It has nothing to do with disliking the interpretation, it has everything to do with just understanding math and what a radius is and why it's impossible.

It's just factually wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here, this should help clear up the confusion.
Radius.

It is literally impossible for it to be as you have described it, because for it to be a 10 ft. radius, the diameter of the effect must be 20 ft, otherwise it cannot be a 10 ft. radius. The diameter of the AMF if it was 10 ft. from the dragon's space (30 ft.) would be 50 ft. (30 ft. + 10 ft. in each direction = 50 ft. diameter) which would be a 25 ft. radius.


EDIT Wrong thread. ^.^"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Undone wrote:
Quote:
Also, unfortunately, despite what Order of the Stick would have us believe, antimagic field + bigass dragon isn't really a good idea for the dragon because AMF is a 10 ft. emanation centered on the dragon, but the dragon takes up a space greater than 10 ft.

Hence the point of contention.

By rules it's a 10 foot emanation from the creature. I strongly disagree with the reading that it doesn't function like a magic bane bandersnatch especially since the only logic ever given to that ruling is "Otherwise it would be insanely powerful".
Do you know what a "radius" is?
Quote:
10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
It does not say inside you. It says centered on you. It always emanates 10 feet with you as the radius point.

Yes. Centered on you. As in, it's going to be in your space. By definition of a radius a dragon isn't going to be able to get it around it. The wording you're looking for is something like "extends 10 ft. outward from your space" or something similar, but as a radius being 10 ft. means it's 10 ft. from the center point and 20 ft. in circumference.

For example, if you center a fireball on someone, the fireball has a 20 ft. radius. The spread of the fireball does not change based on the size of the creature you center it on, it's still a 20 ft. radius (40 ft. diameter). In a similar manner, casting darkness on a small, medium, large, or gargantuan object has no bearing on the size of the darkness effect, merely that the radius is centered on said object.

Radius is a thing. It's what damns the dragon. The fact that it's probably good for game balance is just an added bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Quote:
Also, unfortunately, despite what Order of the Stick would have us believe, antimagic field + bigass dragon isn't really a good idea for the dragon because AMF is a 10 ft. emanation centered on the dragon, but the dragon takes up a space greater than 10 ft.

Hence the point of contention.

By rules it's a 10 foot emanation from the creature. I strongly disagree with the reading that it doesn't function like a magic bane bandersnatch especially since the only logic ever given to that ruling is "Otherwise it would be insanely powerful".

Do you know what a "radius" is?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
A single creature with impressive action economy is more dangerous than 3 lesser targets because of the improved SR/AC and spells. Even at level 20 you need a 10 on the SR check with both SP and GSP. The pit fiends are only a problem if it's wish spell is up for the year or you fight them 5 levels down. You can alter the spell list of it's sorcerer spells as well pretty easily.

It's counterspell ability is something I'd expect on a CR 23+ creature, similar to how literally every arrow fired by a solar has at least a 5% chance to drop you dead. I also think it's pretty fair (the dragon has to dump a higher level spell than the one he wants to counter). At 23rd level party wouldn't have that much trouble dealing with that (especially since at that level, they have 11th level spells), while a 20th level party (for which the dragon would be an "epic" encounter) still isn't going to be shut down by that (I mean the party's cleric can gate a Solar into the fight and order it around at this level with minimal investment).

Also, unfortunately, despite what Order of the Stick would have us believe, antimagic field + bigass dragon isn't really a good idea for the dragon because AMF is a 10 ft. emanation centered on the dragon, but the dragon takes up a space greater than 10 ft. (in fact this particular dragon takes up 30 ft.) which means it provides the dragon little in the way of offense or even protection (AMF explicitly notes creatures too big to fit into the field are vulnerable to magic outside the borders of the field) as it would just shut down the dragon's own defenses and supernatural abilities. Bad idea for the dragon (if AMF's area was a radius extending 5 ft. out from you in all directions or something it'd be a little better for Mr. Dragon).

So, as usual with AMF, casting it is more likely to get the dragon turned into a luxurious purse than anything else.

Meanwhile, the dragon actually needs to BUFF to stand up to a 20th level party in a really meaningful way. It's AC really isn't that amazing. Pit fiends have better AC in fact. A mere 40? Pfft. A martial in Pathfinder is swinging at +40 without really trying at 20th level. I mean let's break it down.

Generic Martial
BAB +20
Str +10
Enhancement +5
Class Feature (Rage/Quarry/Divine Power/Instant Enemy/Smite) at least +4 (but up to around +14 or so)
That's +39-49

Then add things like greater heroism and a +5 courageous gauntlet for another +6 to hit. An ioun stone can provide another +1. If you've got a bard, that's another +5 to hit and damage. If you're hasted (and you are) that's another +1. A bane weapon is another +2 to hit. And most of your martials are going to auto-crit on their attacks (except maybe Paladins because the dragon is a giant pile of Neutrality :P) and quite frankly "I make an AoO when you crit me" is a darn good trade for x3-x5 damage. >_>

This dragon needs to be buffing and he needs to be buffing HARD. And he better have a plan for those horrible, nasty touch spells that are going to be getting thrown around. Sure he can counter one each round and his SR might get another, but countering it with his special is going to run him out of spells quick (having to dump a 5th level spell or better every time your enemy decides to drop an enervation on you will suuuuuuck), and the dragon still has no real way of stopping 9th level spells (and that means things like time stop and persistent dazing call lightning storm).

I sure hope the dragon is using his treasure intelligently. :o

PS: Pit fiends are bad news. That is all. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On an unrelated note, that dragon needs to be smarter about picking spells. Seriously, transformation? You're a ****ing dragon, you don't need transformation. >:(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Undone wrote:

Is the answer demilich? I think it's demilich.

Or awakened demilich.

Or this obnoxiously overpowered creature, the Seugathi

All dragons are about 1 CR higher than actually presented but even more so at high levels, a CR 10 dragon might be an 11 or 12 but a CR 18 is closer to a 21-22 in terms of raw difficulty.

90% of monsters encountered underwater are lower CR than they really should be.

I don't really get that from dragons. Any dragons in particular?

The outer dragons come to mind but really any dragon with AMF is insanely strong because inside the AMF you're a commoner while he's still a dragon. Jabberwocks and linhorns are also tough for the CR but not really too under CR'ed.

EDIT: But the really high CR dragons being harder than advertised the Great wyrm Sovereign dragon is MUCH tougher than it looks thanks to it's master counterspelling effect. Just as an example.

...You realize that dragon is supposed to be the equivalent to fighting 3 Pit Fiends, right?


HangarFlying wrote:
Where can I find the clockwork prosthesis?

Clockwork Prosthesis. It's originally found in Pathfinder Player Companion: Magical Marketplace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Thinking about it, you may want to increase the price a little to compensate for the ability to turn it on and off at will. 4000 GP is essentially for an item that needs to be reactivated every minute and/or potentially lasts for a minute duration even after removed, making it less tactically useful.

The formula he used was for continuous use. It functions as long as the item is worn, which is what he wanted.

Spell level x caster level x 2000gp x special modifier based on spell duration

I assume you are talking about this:

"Use-activated or continuous -> Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp2 example: Lantern of revealing"

Use-activated is not command word and probably more applicable to the formula. Truly Continuous is not appropriate here, as it is almost never appropriate for direct spell effects and causes issues re true strike etc. A ring of invisibility, for example, is a use-activated item that still needs to be 'refreshed' and I would follow similar logic for that pricing. This is what I was trying to say.

It's been pointed out many times already, but always bears repeating, you can't make a continuous true strike item per the rules even using the forumulas. The way true strike functions as per the spell it's impossible.

I feel like you are missing the point, but there's plenty of other examples. Another even more common one that violates the formula is mage armour.

I mentioned true strike because it is explicitly called out in the CRB as being a failure of the continuous item pricing formula.

Well mage armor would be trumped by the existing pricing rules for an armor bonus (bonus^ x 1000 gp). If there's an effect already governed by a formula (this includes things like bull's strength) you go with those.

The item creation rules work very well when used correctly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

Is the answer demilich? I think it's demilich.

Or awakened demilich.

Or this obnoxiously overpowered creature, the Seugathi

All dragons are about 1 CR higher than actually presented but even more so at high levels, a CR 10 dragon might be an 11 or 12 but a CR 18 is closer to a 21-22 in terms of raw difficulty.

90% of monsters encountered underwater are lower CR than they really should be.

I don't really get that from dragons. Any dragons in particular?

1 to 50 of 9,586 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.