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

8,353 posts (8,356 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Anyhow, I have met a lot of GLB gamers, but not yet a T.
It sucks being a rarity.

If it makes you feel any better I've GMed for about 5 transexuals in my online games, so they're out there. :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Do you only need one ability score to do all your class stuff? Sure. Do you only want one ability score? No. An 18 Int (or anything) costs 17 points by itself. That means that that with the most conservative array I'd be looking at: 18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. Sorry, I like things like Hp and saving throws and stuff.

15-point buy wizard:

Str 7 (-4)
Dex 13 (3)
Con 13 (3)
Int 18 (+2 racial = 20)(17)
Wis 10 (0)
Cha 7 (-4)

Just because you don't personally like low Str and Cha scores for a wizard doesn't mean those stats are at all valuable to him. I've got equal or better saves, better AC and initiative, more hp, and only took a hit in things that don't really affect me.

Ashiel wrote:
EDIT: 7, 12, 12, 18, 12, 7 might be alright. But that's probably the only 18 point build I'd consider for a wizard and even then I'm not sure I care that much about that extra +1. The only difference is that I'd hit Int 36 instead of 34 by 20th level. The only difference between those is +1 5th and 9th level spell. I really only need just so many time stops in a day.

So yeah, like I said, the 18 starting stat 7 Str / 7 Cha wizard is playable. I'd consider playing that. I'm not sure that that extra +1 is really that worthwhile or would even change the potency of the wizard very much. There really is precious little difference between a 16-18 on a caster.

If I was playing a 15 PB Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian and someone sat down with a wizard with 7 / 12 / 12 / 18 / 12 / 7, I wouldn't bat an eyelash because there's virtually no real difference between one with 16 and 18, other than his AC and HP are going to suck more than it they need to.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I've done a lot of playing in various online groups and various offline groups. By far the most common method of generation I've found has been point buy. Not even always standard point buy, but some measure of point buy. Point Buy variations I've seen have usually allotted smaller point buys for playing races that should have a level adjustment from 1st level.

My own group was the last group that used rolling that I played with, and we dropped that quite a while back since it was adding nothing to our games. No one in my group has missed it. They like building the character that they want to play, knowing they can make the character even if there are no witnesses around to watch their rolls (which makes preparing for games waaaaaay more convenient since we can just make our mechanical side of our characters mostly in our lonesome, discuss plot/background/personality/other roleplaying stuff before the game through skype or over the phone, and then actually play on the day one of us is going to GM without having to make our characters on the spot).

Anecdotal? You betcha. True experiences? Wholly.

I have no idea which method is the biggest one, but I think PFS players are actually the minority of PF players.

I think you'll have more PF players that do NOT play in PFS games than do.

IMO of course.

You can't base everything off PFS players or games. In addition, I don't think PFS players are necessarily the biggest spenders.

For example, for some reason my wife really insists I buy as second copy for her if she really likes something in PF (double the cost for me...yeah...NOT). I'm definitely not the biggest spender, but I think I've spent a little more than some of the PFS players at the FLGS which basically have a few rulebooks...maybe...and that's it.

I have never participated in anything PFS related. Everything I mentioned in my post were either home games, FLGS games, or campaigns organized and played online.


At low levels before Fighters have any bonus damage (earliest possible level being 4th, but if you're not locking yourself into one weapon then 5th and then 9th) the Barbarian has more or less the same level of combat ability and same AC when not raging, and more combat ability when raging.

In core you end up with a little less AC than a Fighter top-levels (about 5 points when raging) if you're wearing +5 celestial armor (the chainmail sort). The biggest difference is around mid levels where barbarians can't readily afford nice armor but Fighters can wear plate while the Barbarian still has low-ish Dex-modifiers.

Now you can find some defensive abilities in core which grant you a scaling dodge bonus to AC vs melee or ranged (depending on the power) attacks for several rounds, but honestly these aren't criticial to have to be a decent tank (if you find yourself with a few Extra Rage Power feats to spare in core it might not hurt, but the beast totem is nicer for general purposes though it doesn't apply vs all attacks like the dodge bonuses).

So yeah. At low levels, Barbarian > Fighter total package. At mid levels, Fighter can get significant AC advantage but Barbarian > Fighter because saves and tactical features. At high levels, Barbarian > Fighter because his defensive weight is so much higher than the Fighter who only has 5 points of AC on him.


Tankarians are one of my favorite ways to play barbarians outside of core. Sure there are ways to be a faster killing machine, but I prefer being an unstoppable killing machine. He who lives to deal the most damage does the best damage. :P


I've done a lot of playing in various online groups and various offline groups. By far the most common method of generation I've found has been point buy. Not even always standard point buy, but some measure of point buy. Point Buy variations I've seen have usually allotted smaller point buys for playing races that should have a level adjustment from 1st level.

My own group was the last group that used rolling that I played with, and we dropped that quite a while back since it was adding nothing to our games. No one in my group has missed it. They like building the character that they want to play, knowing they can make the character even if there are no witnesses around to watch their rolls (which makes preparing for games waaaaaay more convenient since we can just make our mechanical side of our characters mostly in our lonesome, discuss plot/background/personality/other roleplaying stuff before the game through skype or over the phone, and then actually play on the day one of us is going to GM without having to make our characters on the spot).

Anecdotal? You betcha. True experiences? Wholly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's the fault of the job, not the salary. >_>
That's a fault of the class, not the stat generation. <_<


Kirth, I love you and all, but I think that your argument against point buy is crap. Now in the name of fairness I'll explain why.

I simply do not think that that extra +1 is worth the 7 extra points that it costs to bring a 16 to an 18 in point buy. I just don't. Literally non of my spellcasters (or anyone, really) begins with a natural 18 in any statistic when playing standard (15) point buy.

Do you only need one ability score to do all your class stuff? Sure. Do you only want one ability score? No. An 18 Int (or anything) costs 17 points by itself. That means that that with the most conservative array I'd be looking at: 18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. Sorry, I like things like Hp and saving throws and stuff. >_>

16 base is the highest I'll go, because I just don't agree that a mere +1 is worth the extra effort. I'm actually more likely to have an 18 base casting stat if I'm rolling, because I'm just going to put the highest thing I roll in that, which is probably at least a 16 (which I would have had anyway) or it might be higher (because if I roll a 17-18) which is actually pretty likely if using the various popular rolling methods (4d6, drop lowest, or 2d6+6, etc).

Hell, if I get ability scores I don't like on a roll, I can just let the character die and try again. It's not like that isn't something that has been done through the ages. Don't get the character you want? Scrap it. Roll your crap-shoot until you've got just what you want. Or play point buy, where you're going to get just what you invest.

For the record, I have 0% problems playing martial characters in Pathfinder on 15 PB. Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins? Oh yeah, gimme some of that. Yes, they will have some dump stats, but then so will my mages (usually the same amount). I'll do fine. I'm playing in a game on Fridays and I'd dare say that my PC is arguably the strongest in the party (I'm a caster) and she didn't buy an 18. I had better things to spend those extra 7 points on than a +1 to her save DCs. >_>

Hell on some casters I don't even care about having more than some minimums on casting. If I'm playing a Cleric I'm probably not even going to have a 16 starting Wisdom (more like a 13 honestly), unless I happen to roll something higher.

EDIT: 7, 12, 12, 18, 12, 7 might be alright. But that's probably the only 18 point build I'd consider for a wizard and even then I'm not sure I care that much about that extra +1. The only difference is that I'd hit Int 36 instead of 34 by 20th level. The only difference between those is +1 5th and 9th level spell. I really only need just so many time stops in a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Ashiel,

1) If you asume the barb is not raging (cause you are not counting the -2 penalty to AC). Then the fighter have extra feats.

As Aelyrinth points out, Barbarians have more HP when not raging (effectively Toughness for free). Barbarians have +10 ft. movement speed in light or medium armor (better than Fleet). Low level feats aren't that special (seriously, you've got 1-2 extra feats, but neither of those are going to be all that grand). The good high level feats anyone can take.

The catch is, the Barbarian is pretty much just Fighter+ at low levels (same AC, same saves, more HP, more skill points, more speed), plus he can rage for more hit, damage, saves, and a small HP boost on demand, which is better than what the Fighter gets even at 5th level (weapon focus + weapon specialization + weapon training just meets the +2/+3 damage that the Barbarian has had since 1st level).

Quote:
2) pelease do not put hte paladin and hte ranger in the mix. We can talk about them if you like, but right now is about fighters and barbarians.

Actually the topic is Barbarians being unbalanced. You're comparing them to a Fighters to see if they are unbalanced, but Rangers and Paladins also make Fighters look bad, but not Barbarians. Everyone has the same AC as Fighters at low levels but more options. Paladins have the same AC + better saves, Rangers have the same AC + better saves, Barbarians have the same AC + maybe better saves + great offensive power.

Barbarians aren't unbalanced, but they're still my go-to mundane in core because Fighters just don't give anything worthwhile. All but a select few combat feats in core blow chunks or have lame prerequisites that make getting them unappealing. In core, combat feats I actually care about include mostly archery feats, power attack, deadly aim, blind-fight, lunge (sometimes), catch-off guard (for polearms, sometimes), Quick Draw (sometimes), and Step-Up. Most anything else is pretty frivolous or nice as a freebie feat if you can ignore prerequisites (for example, monks can get dodge / deflect arrows easily, and Two-Weapon Fighting isn't bad on a Strength Ranger who can ignore the goofy Dex prerequisites).

Mounted Combat feats are also pretty cool, but not for fighters. Paladins and Rangers sure (they actually get a mount that stays relevant and can be replaced in-class). I do enjoy me some mounted rangers. :o

Quote:
By the way, if you do not have the -2 penalty to AC you do not have the bonus to saves either.

Heheh, that's the beauty of it. My saves are no worse than the Fighters without it and I still fight pretty much as good, while also having Uncanny Dodge + Improved Uncanny Dodge + more HP. So if I really just need to tank a brute with no magic, I can choose to not rage. If I need to deal lots of damage or fight a spellcaster (or supernatural creature) then I can rage.

Not having options is NOT better than having options.

Quote:
3) You make good point. But I want to point out that delay the rage means you do not have the bonus to saves in that round.

Let's look at this some more. What was presented was as follows.

1. I use the first round for buffing and rage on the 2nd round. This means that I potion, move, and prepare for combat, then get buffed on top of it so that on my next turn I rage and I'm an oiled up god of war.

2. I simply delay, get buffed, take all my actions and rage in the turn. I lose no turn, I get buffed, and I'm a sexy oiled up god of war in the same round.

3. Worst case scenario, we're facing an enemy who I'm more afraid of failing saves against than I am of missing out on my buffs, so I rage as soon as I possibly can to get the +2-7 bonus on my saves. Which is a tactical decision. It's an option that I have. I have an option to play more defensively but the Fighter does not have that option.

The fighter has 1 option. Get buffed and hope you don't fail a save. The barbarian can react to what is currently going on and if he needs more defense vs baleful lawn ornament then he can get that. If he doesn't, he can wait less than a round and be no worse off than the fighter. Or he can wait a full round and no use up any rage time, especially since neither he nor the Fighter are going to do anything super-meaningful in melee in round 1 anyway since martials suck ass and can't move + full attack without some non-core trick.

Best Non-Core Trick For Martials: Just keep having your quickrunner shirt upgraded to have more charges. When dealing with a 1/day charged item, the cost increases by 100% for each additional charge (because cost is 1/5th the cost of a 5/day charged item). The best thing a non-pouncing martial can do (and hell, even a pouncing martial IMHO) is get as many charges on a quickrunner's shirt as you can get. It will allow you to actually move and contribute at high levels without goofy tricks.

PFS players are out of luck though.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I know it's been a long time since 3.5, but I wanted to ask: Why did Pathfinder leave behind the Vampiric magic weapon property (+2 enhancement bonus equivalent, adds 1d6 damage with every hit, and heals the wielder the same amount), and can we look forward to its triumphant return? Even if Wizards of the Coast were to say, "it wasn't in the 3.5 Player's Handbook, so MINE!!!", it's a solidly public domain concept (maybe Paizo would have to make their own mechanics).

Is it so wrong to want an artifact-level weapon named Vendetta: A +1 Vicious Vampiric Vorpal Vajra?

The simplest answer is that the vampiric weapon property was not in the d20 srd, nor the psionics srd, and most likely they haven't bothered to make a replacement yet. That's not to say you couldn't make something similar with the magic item rules though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Clearly the PBers didn't earn their 18 by rolling and risking that 8.

It always makes me laugh when people use the word earn in any situation that is entirely dependent upon skill-less gambling. It's like saying that being born a prince earned you the title because the vagina you popped out of happened to be a noblewoman's. :P


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
1) At lower levels rage rounds are pretty limited. RAndom Kobold do a hit and run tactics and the barbarian will have more problems that the fighter.

False. At low levels fighters have no advantage over barbarians. They have the same AC and no bonuses to hit or damage beyond the barbarian. The barbarian however has a 40 ft. speed in light and a 30 ft. in medium armor, meaning that the barbarian is better at dealing with hit and run kobolds.

Quote:
2) At lower level you should really care about AC. not sure other people games but at lower levels the AC is usually the most important defense, adn there is no DR.

Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers all have the same general AC at low levels. Everyone wears chainmail or breastplates and uses a shield. Nothing to see here really.

Quote:
3) Long lasting buff are not common at lower levels, it is not like suprestitious is not a double edge sword.

Worthwhile buffs are also not very common at low levels. Sans enlarge person which is more effective in potion/oil format since you can chug it as a standard action while moving instead of letting your mage spend 1 round casting (and thus risk getting nailed and failing the spell) there are precious few buffs that are worthwhile.

Once you get to stuff like haste and heroism you're getting into some nice buff range. Bull's strength could be a contender at 3rd level. However, at these levels they aren't going to do very much or last very long so the mage would be better off supporting you with spells like create pit instead.

Getting your haste on is really the big kicker, but delaying or buffing with a potion on the first round is generally a good idea. For example, if I'm playing a barbarian and we're 5th level I'll wait to rage until our mage is ready to cast haste. If we're in a big fight I'll take some of the buffing load on myself since I can drink a potion (such as shield of faith, resist energy, or enlarge person) as a standard action, move with a move action, and draw my weapons as part of that move action. Once hasted, the murder begins on the following round. If we're facing spellcasters then I might risk the loss of the buff to get my +3 to all saves (so as to avoid getting struck with a blindness/deafness, charm, hideous laughter, create pit, or hold person which are more detrimental than being hasted is beneficial).

At high levels, boots of speed are a thing and one of the easiest ways to ensure that you get your haste on, superstition or not.


There's also the fact that at low levels the Barbarian actually has no disadvantages next to the fighter in offense even if he's not raging because fighters don't have an edge on offense until 5th level (or possibly 4th, but only if you're using weapon specialization). Those levels the barbarian is just BAB and ability scores just like the fighter, except she's faster (+10 ft. speed, allowing her to move in medium armor without much trouble) and can turn on a +2/+2 to hit and damage on demand in exchange for a -2 to AC.

Fighters IMHO don't even start looking competitive until they can move at full speed in plate armor at 7th. Even then, grabbing heavy armor proficiency and some mithral mail isn't going to break a barbarian later on either. >_>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much everything that Wraithstrike said.

The cost in cure light wounds wands is way less than the cost of having to revive a PC 'cause you got hit with charm person or dominate person and proceeded to murder your party members (or they were forced to murder you since you're a mighty engine of destruction). The material component cost of raise dead plus restoration is 7,000 gp and requires 2 weeks of downtime to get the negative levels to go away (unless you spring an extra 3,000 gp for greater restoration to remove both negative levels at once) and that isn't even counting the spellcasting service fees if you're not able to cast the spells yourself.

Likewise, if you think a barbarian cannot be buffed because of superstition then you haven't seen a competent barbarian in play. It's not difficult at all to get your staple buffs ready to go. Especially if you know how to manage your actions and work as a team.

I also agree with you that Barbarians are bigger resource sinks in core. Especially compared to Paladin and Ranger who can generally fight with similar competency while adding to the party resource pool directly. However when it comes to the "mundane guy who beats stuff with a stick" I'd still take core barbarian over core Fighter because his overall package of defenses feels more useful overall to me.

I can do more with the barbarian (yay skill points), in more places (uncanny dodge and trap sense make you really cool in dungeons and against ambush tactics), and against more enemies (*insert 90% of all saving throw effects in the game*), and for that I'm going to take a bit more damage from full-attacks from enemies (if you're another bruiser I'm a ****ing barbarian, please, please play rock 'em sock 'ems with me, I'll even let you have the first hit).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not to mention the counter-arguments to the randomness of rolling always seems to be some sort of goofy methods of rolling that reduce the randomness of it as much as possible, which generally results in characters who are like they would be with point buy, except with the potential to be wildly stronger or wildly weaker.

For example, 17s-18s in Point Buy are grossly expensive. I never go higher than 16 in a starting statistic and even then it's usually only one 16 in whatever is my primary statistic (usually Str for Barbarians, Clerics & Rangers, Charisma for Paladins, Intelligence for Wizards, Charisma for sorcerers, and depending on what kind of Druid I'm playing it might go into either Strength or Wisdom). I'm probably going to have a few stats between 7-9 to make up for the excellence in other areas.

The likelihood of me choosing to buy a 17-18 is virtually nil. If I did, I would have to accept heavy losses elsewhere. If on a wizard I wanted an 18 Int, 14 Con, and 14 Dex, I would have to eat a 7 in Str, Wis, and Cha (my carrying capacity is going to suck, my will saves and perception is going to suck, and my social skills and ability to influence with charm / planar binding is going to suck).

However with rolling? Pfft, fate's a fickle b##~&. You could end up with 16s across the board. Or 12s. Or whatever. Once as a GM I was helping a player roll up a bard using the ol' 4d6 drop lowest (as was the standard in 3.x) and she ended up with FOUR 17s, and TWO 18s for her ability scores. We were all sitting around the table just dumbfounded. Her character was just randomly a pinnacle of human potential. Meanwhile our party's Barbarian had to eat a 3.

But oh, they say, we use a re-rolling method, they cry. You can re-roll if your stats suck! Well then what's the ****ing point? You're just pushing it harder towards the averages that point buy gives you anyway, except you're...

A. Creating some sort of disparity between the players.
B. Encouraging people to milk the system to get better rolls.

If I roll 17, 14, 15, 12, 9, and 8, I'm going to milk that for all its worth because I just rolled the equivalent of 24 point buy on what is likely a method intended to give similar results to the standard 15 Point Buy. I'm going to rock those stats so hard.

But if I roll 13, 14, 12, 13, 5, and 9, I'm just going to re-roll and try again. Unless you don't allow re-rolls and thus force disparity between party members. Even still, if I get a character that is not what I want to play, I will just roll a different character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's more about style and pacing honestly. The mechanics facilitate a nice stable play, but everything else in the game is set in tone and flow by the GM and the players.

A few things that would make PF look a bit more like OD&D...
1. Lots of randomness.
2. Way bigger encounters.

For example, my copy of OSRIC says the number of bandits encountered is 20d10 (average 110 bandits) plus 1 9th level fighter, 2 6th level fighters, 2 5th level fighters, 3 4th level fighters, 5 3rd level fighters. Each bandit has 2d4 gp. The fighters in the group have a 5% per level of having a magic armor, shield, sword, miscellaneous weapon, and potion (so 45%, 30%, 25%, 20%, and 15% for those fighters). Said magic items would be rolled randomly.

For magic armors and shields, there was a 50% chance it would be a +1. A 25% chance for it to be +2. A 5% chance to be +3. A 5% chance for it to be +4 or +5 (+4 65% / +5 35%). A 5% chance to be cursed. A 10% chance that it was a special specific armor.

Same with magic swords and miscellaneous weapons.

Potions you have to select yourself, but they were nice enough to include which classes use what potions. So since these are Fighters the kind of potions that they carry on things like...

Potion of Invulnerability (immune to normal attacks, attacks from nonmagical creatures, attacks from creatures with less than 4 HD, +2 to all saving throws, provides 2 points better AC, lasts 3d6+2 rounds).

Potion of Heroism (grants +3 levels for fighters 3rd level or less, +2 levels for 6th level or less, +1 level for 9th level or less, lasts for 10-40 minutes).

Potion of Super Heroism (grants +5 levels for 3rd level or less, +4 for 6th level or less, +3 for 9th level or less, and +2 levels for 12th or less, lasts 5d5 rounds).

Potion of Giant Strength (grants rock throwing ability and other benefits as shown below, lasts 10-40 minutes).

Quote:

Roll 1d20 to determine potion type : Giant Type : Melee Damage : Carrying Capacity : Rock Throw Range : Rock Damage : Bend Bars/Lift Gates

1-6: Hill : +1d8 : +4,500 : +780 ft. : 1d6 : 50%
7-10: Stone: +1d10 : +5,000 : +8,160 ft. : 1d12 : 60%
11-14: Frost : +1d12 : +6,000 : +9,100 ft. : 1d8 : 70%
15-17: Fire : +2d6 : +7,500 : +10,129 ft. : 1d8 : 80%
18-19: Cloud : +2d8 : +9,000 : +11,140 ft. : 1d10 : 90%
20: Storm : +2d10 : +12,000 : +12,160 ft. : 1d12 : 99%

That said, I think I'll probably just stick to Pathfinder. :o


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well yes, in a controlled environment such as point buy people will generally use the spreads that are good. I don't see that as a bad thing though, it allows for much greater player choice in what you want to build compared to rolling and potentially getting stats unsuited for the character you want.

When the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game A has the same exact stats as the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game B and the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in Game C and the fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/bard in game D, Ad nauseaum...

It gets old... Fast.

Why? Don't your characters have personalities?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


2 Giants DPR 33 (barbarian) / 25 (fighter, flanked) / 12.5 (fighter, not flanked)
It seems to be a good diference. BEsides the Skills digference (wich was terrible desing), I think fighter and barbarians where more or less balanced against each other in Core. The strongerst martial was probably the paladin.

Thing is, I'd still take the barbarian any day of the week. Barbarians innately have more HP than Fighters, and get 2*level more HP when raging (3*level at 11th, and 4*level at 20th). The "oh but your barbarian might die" thing is a myth because if you lose enough HP to die from that, you already took more HP damage than your HP+Con score (which means you would have been dead anyway so the HP bought you an extra round or two to get healed up again).

Meanwhile, HP damage between fights is easy to fix. Even with superstitious active you can still be healed. Often on the cheap (a wand of cure light wounds is 750 gp in core and heals around 250 HP).

If you're soaking damage in combat you're doing your job. That shows that you're being attacked and your *insert other class* isn't. You're not doing your job if you are a lawn ornament. When you've got 130 HP, you can stand to take some damage. When that succubus casts dominate person you can not stand to fail that save.

The funny thing is, at very low levels the AC difference between Fighter and Barbarian is effectively non-existent (from 1st-6th level breastplate is still the best armor for anyone who wants 30 ft.+ movement speed), and at high levels AC matters less and less as other forms of defenses are kicking in (such as DR, miss %, immunities, etc). Until Fighter gets Weapon Specialization/Weapon Training, the Barbarian doesn't even have to be raging to match him in combat prowess.

At high levels it's not even a thing anymore. For example, using what is IMHO the scariest CR 20 bestiary monster the Pit Fiend as an example, both the Fighter and Barbarian will rock his socks in martial combat. His attack bonuses aren't great enough to get stellar hit % on either of them (both will have ACs of 46+, and probably displacement). However, when he starts yanking people's souls out with his trap the soul SLA, I'm going to be appreciating that my defenses consist of more than a bit more armor class.


That said, all these math mistakes are a good indication that I am well past my need for some sleep. Have fun guys. :)


My group uses 15 PB and we have no problems at all with 2/3rds of the martials in Pathfinder. Call me skeptical. >_>


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
So the barbarian takes 1.425 more DPR per round from full-attacks than the Fighter. Meanwhile, the Barbarian has a 20% better chance to save vs the creature's SLAs like chaos hammer, confusion, reverse gravity, or unholy blight assuming equal ability scores.
note that reverse gravity have no save, and the fighter better use of bows give him a little edge in that case.

Well it lists a DC 22 save (though that's to grab onto something if it's available). The point is ultimately that failing saves is a bad thing. :P


Quote:
I am counting a diference of 6, I am missing something?

Gimme a sec. It's really late here so bear with me. >_>

You're right. I counted the armor enhancement twice for some reason. Trying to figure out why that was. Oh grief. Okay, one sec, lemme re-calculate again. (>_<)

Pincers 28.8 (barbarian) / 20.9 (Fighter)
Claws 18.9 (barbarian) / 14.85 (Fighter)
Bite 10.35 (barbarian) / 7.975 (Fighter)
Total 58.05 (barbarian) / 43.725 (Fighter)
Okay, so a 14.325 DPR difference. That's much better. :P

Quote:

And what about monsters with less attacks but stronger attacks? for example two hill giants

greatclub +12/+7 (2d8+16)

2 Giants DPR 33 (barbarian) / 25 (fighter, flanked) / 12.5 (fighter, not flanked)


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It has a 75% chance of hitting with its attacks vs the Barbarian and a 60% chance to hit your Fighter.
Wait here, those percentages seems odd.

You're right. I made a mistake. There's only a 70% chance of hitting the Barbarian (I was off by 1 on the d20) and a 55% vs the Fighter. That adjusts the DPR as follows.

Pincers 22.4 (barbarian) / 20.9 (Fighter)
Claws 14.7 (barbarian) / 14.85 (Fighter)
Bite 8.05 (barbarian) / 7.975 (Fighter)
Total 45.15 (barbarian) / 43.725 (Fighter)

So the barbarian takes 1.425 more DPR per round from full-attacks than the Fighter. Meanwhile, the Barbarian has a 20% better chance to save vs the creature's SLAs like chaos hammer, confusion, reverse gravity, or unholy blight assuming equal ability scores. With our specific ones it's a +15% chance in Fort/Will, but that is due to our ability score priorities rather than class features (I opted for a bit more Strength, but you went for a higher Wis and Con).

Still favoring the Barbarian in this case. Seems like a safer bet than the lawn ornament *cough* I mean Fighter. :P


Alexandros Satorum wrote:

I think you have to correct some numbers, but in the meantime

Ashiel wrote:

Ultimately...

It seems to come down to preference. I'd take the Barbarian any day of the week because I prefer the wider assortment of defensive options that they have, unique combat opportunities (like No Escape), more skill points (and better association of skills), and more abilities that help with general adventure and ambush situations (Perception class skill, Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense).

THe fighter also have the options to charge/move + and attack and do not provoke AoO from creatures with 10 reach.

I would really take lunge with the barbarian. The extra reach and strengh surge open the path for combat maneuvers.

That's fair and a good idea. There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's. :P


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Your friends could end up paying for that. :\
That's something you need to talk to your GM and fellow players about beforehand.

Well that's always good advice. :P


Steve Geddes wrote:
Without speaking for TOZ, this isnt actually true. It assumes people are motivated by a desire for more effectiveness (which I'm not, for one). If I played in a game based around pointbuy where a stat of 7-10 cost zero points, I think there's a good chance I'd have a 7 (though probably not all the time). I'm not being punished for making that choice - my payoff is playing the kind of character I want.

But D&D/Pathfinder is a cooperative team-based game. Choosing to be weaker affects more than just you. It's a drain in the group as a whole. If you have a 7 Dexterity and nothing to show for it, then you're just making yourself easier to kill with nothing to show for it (not even a little bit). Your friends could end up paying for that. :\


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
a) There is another simple tactic that can take the barbarian out of the fight. Raw hit point damage. The barb you posted have not raging vitality and with superstitions he could just die without the heal form the party.

That's a fair concern. Let's have a look.

In my example my Barbarian would have a 26 AC while raging. A Glabrezu is 3 CRs above our level. It has a 75% chance of hitting with its attacks vs the Barbarian and a 60% chance to hit your Fighter. So let's crunch the DPR a little bit...

Pincers DPR 24 (Barbarian) / 22.8 (Fighter)
Claws DPR 15.75 (Barbarian) / 16.2 (Fighter)
Bite DPR 8.625 (Barbarian) / 8.7 (Fighter)
Total DPR 48.375 / 47.7

The difference is essentially nill. If I really wanted, I could have replaced Step-Up with Extra Rage Power (Improved Damage Reduction) which would have tipped it in Barbarian favor, but I have +1 Hp/HD over the Fighter with an identical Constitution so I'm not super worried about it.

Meanwhile, during surprise rounds my Barbarian has a +6 dodge bonus to her AC because of Uncanny Dodge. When just wandering around she can be using a total defense as a standard action (stacks with the +3 vs traps with trap sense), which means if she is ambushed or attacked from surprise her AC is both full-power with an extra +30% evasion.

Also can't be flanked, that's pretty cool.

Quote:
b) There are a lot of attacks that have rider effects. Attack + grapple, attack + poison, attack + disease, etc. The barbarian have better saves agaisnt some of them, but The fighter Better Ac could just mean the fighter not to make the save (if allowed).

Agreed here. But I just don't think the difference is meaningful enough honestly. "The occasional rider effect that most likely targets your strongest save or requires your enemy to be right where you want them, in your face" doesn't equal "Failing a save vs hold person / aura of fear / fear / dominate person / charm monster / suggestion / command / deep slumber / vampire dominate / insert random SLA here" on my list of priorities. This could just be a matter of what we see as the bigger threat. In my opinion there are far more threats to your ability to contribute to the game in the form of magical effects.

If I get a disease? Deal with it. If I get hit with magic jar then I'm out of the fight and my party has to deal with ME. >_>

Other Things I Noticed...
Your Fighter has +1 HP / level more than your statistics suggested. I presume this would be due to choosing Fighter as your favored class. Mine doesn't. I didn't include any favored class options at all (neither skill point nor HP) because honestly it's optional and I wasn't really worried about it.

But if I put mine in HP then I have another +10 HP over the Fighter and 2 more skill points per level. If I put it into skills, I'm sitting at better HP and 5/skill points per level.

That Said...
The Fighter has better ranged attacking options (which isn't surprising). Definitely a better archer. I traded archery competency for better saving throws (again this is more of a priority thing I think). My barbarian would only be at around 1d8+10 damage (+6 str mod, +2 magic mod) but would lack Rapid and Manyshot (Deadly Aim brings it to 1d8+16 with a +11/+6 to hit, but that's mostly for if my to-hit is buffed with stuff like haste).

Ultimately...
It seems to come down to preference. I'd take the Barbarian any day of the week because I prefer the wider assortment of defensive options that they have, unique combat opportunities (like No Escape), more skill points (and better association of skills), and more abilities that help with general adventure and ambush situations (Perception class skill, Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense).

At 1st-10th Rage adds +2/+3 to hit and damage which is plenty for me to be happy with DPR (+20/+15 to hit, 1d8+14/19-20 with a longsword, or 1d8+21 with Power Attack). At 11th level it upgrades to +3/+4.

In general I just feel more well rounded.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Who needs one? I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Well...you don't have to be. I wanted to know. >_>

Like. I don't see what the benefit of...

Personal preference.

Well, okay. It's sometimes hard for me to accept things "just because". It's a hangup I have. It probably comes from some sort of deeply-rooted mental issue created by my wanting older people to explain their decrees and then being denied a reason as a youth.

When I explain why I have a preference, I have reasons for those preference which I can explain. Since I find value in reason, I generally assume that other preferences must have reasons as well, and thus value. Value that I might not be able to ascertain because I don't understand the reason.

I figured you would probably be able to explain it. No one thus far has been able to explain it to me but I figured maybe ol' TOZ could. :P

Like, I can explain my understanding of the opposite.

1. Generally speaking, characters in all forms of media are generally encouraged to have some flaws. Whether depicted in movies, books, video games, radio shows, or whatever, most people can identify with characters who aren't perfect. Generally the characters that stick with us are the ones who were flawed gems. The "Mary Sue" archetype being kind of the opposite where they are never truly poor at anything and often above average at most everything.

The current system encourages making characters who are at least in some way flawed. With 15 Point buy (the standard issued by the core rulebook) great strength is also tempered by some sort of flaw. The flaw is usually minor (as are most of the flaws of heroes in media) but it's there. Something that makes them not especially suited to certain things. Meanwhile no flaws means that you are conversely less impressive in other areas, so while more well rounded you don't end up being great at everything.

This is the result of the +/- of the point buy scale.

2. Second, point buy encourages players to make characters with flaws. If you want to have that high Intelligence and be able to boast that you are one of the smartest wizards around, you're going to lose out somewhere else. The reverse is also true. If you want to make a character with low Dexterity who is isn't very graceful, you at least know that you're going to get balanced out elsewhere because while you are less graceful maybe you are smarter, or stronger, or tougher.

If you don't provide a compensation for accepting penalties to things you're both providing no incentive for characters to have flaws, and are actively punishing any player who decides on being below average in something is desirable by not reimbursing them for the choice.

The end result being you end up with characters who are no worse than completely average. At anything. Worst case you end up with lots of Mary Sues. >_>

Ideally, I think an RPG should have options or rewards for as many different things as you can. When you decide to have an 8 Dexterity the game gives you another +2 points to place elsewhere, and in a similar but reverse manner excelling higher costs progressively more points, which means that you need to give up to get.

In general the game does this elsewhere. You have to spend feats (a resource) to obtain a new feat. A feat you take is a different feat you didn't take.

In the most ideal cases, being able to choose any option should reward you in some way. If you decide you want to fight with a dagger, I'd like for there to be options for making daggers attractive (there's precious little incentive to actually use them in core). In my own games if a player wants to do something that is usually lesser or weak, I try to work with them to make sure they are rewarded in some other way or ensure that there is an avenue that they can pursue that would work out for them.

For example, I've been working on a rogue revision that grants bonuses to hit and damage when using light and 1-handed weapons, which gives a viable avenue for fighting with light-weapons (and will soon include options for fencing in the 1-hand free sense).

So I have reasons for this personal preference. So I was hoping that you would be able to explain some good reasons for that personal preference. Because I do generally assume people's preferences have value in them, and thus I want to know what they are seeing that it adds that I'm missing.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Who needs one? I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Well...you don't have to be. I wanted to know. >_>

Like. I don't see what the benefit of...

A. Making it so that all heroes have 10+ in all statistics.
B. Making it so that having a <10 in a statistic is just choosing to be weaker instead of a tradeoff.

I don't really get it. I was kind of hoping you would explain it to me. :\


Arachnofiend wrote:

Isn't Ashiel talking about rage powers other than what's considered the standard optimal path an indication that the Barbarian is a well-designed class? The Barbarian has options! You can do a lot of different things with a Barbarian, you don't have to stick to the optimal option to be viable.

With a Fighter, you can, uh... Well, you can go Lore Warden and trip things with polearms. The Lore Warden is pretty solid, at least until you fight things that Paizo has decided are immune to getting knocked on the ground.

This, so much this.

Quote:
A barbarian without hte main rage power is way weaker, tehre is no even poitn of comparison. Not sure how is that good desing.

One could say the same about any class. Bards without saving finale are really selling themselves short for example.

Though on the Fighter vs Barbarian in core thing, one thing sticks out to me in a big way. Weapon Specialization blows monkey chunks, and Weapon Training is weaksauce without gloves of dueling. I was recently looking through what core-only feats I'd choose for a Fighter (odd, I know) and realized I couldn't even make a 20th level build without wasting a lot of feats on stuff I didn't want, didn't need, weren't useful, or would be utterly useless later on in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And again, I place more value on saving throws, uncanny dodge, and similar effects. I find they make a more well-rounded martial character. I'd rather play a character that's not invalidated by a simple spell. I'm willing to give up a little AC in exchange for improved tactical capability and resiliency.

I also don't play 20 PB. I play standard 15. I don't have time to build a 10th level barbarian from scratch (some of my online players are chomping at the bit for me to run a side-thing for them) but here.

15 PB: Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 13, Cha 7; +1 Str 4th, +1 Str 8th
10th Level Human Barbarian
HD: 10d12+30 (100.5 HP)
BAB: +10 Melee +18 (+20 raging) Ranged +14
Fort: +12 (+4 vs magic)
Ref: +10 (+4 vs magic)
Will: +9 (+4 vs magic)
Skill Points: 3 / level

Feats
1. Lightning Reflexes
B. Iron Will
3. Power Attack
5. Blind-Fight
7. Deadly Aim
9. Step-Up

Rage Powers
2. Superstition
4. No Escape
6. Roused Anger
8. Clear Mind
10. Improved Damage Reduction

Other Abilities
- Uncanny Dodge (no flat footed)
- Trap Sense (+3 vs Traps)
- Improved Uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked)
- DR 3/-

Magic Items (62,000 gp)
- +2 Strength item (4,000 gp)
- +2 Constitution item (4,000 gp)
- +3 Resistance Item (9,000 gp)
- +2 deflection item (8,000 gp)
- +2 natural item (8,000 gp)
- +2 melee weapon (8,000 gp)
- +2 ranged weapon (8,000 gp)
- +3 armor (9,000 gp)
- 4,000 gp additional gear


andreww wrote:
The cloak does mean you sacrifice the cloak of resistance which is a pretty essential item for basically everyone, even superstitious barbarians. If you have a crafter buddy you can do it in another slot I suppose.

Well everyone is going to want a cloak of displacement because it's a very solid means of defending yourself because it adds another layer of defense. If you absolutely must get it only in cloak form, then that means that the Barbarian can enjoy that phat +7 vs magic and get get the miss % and a +10% bonus vs magic. Or just enjoy that you've got an extra +35% saving throw if things are equal.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It would reduce the incentive but punish roleplaying.
I don't find that argument compelling.

What's the counter-argument? :P


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I find the best way to avoid stat dumps is to not allow extra points for lowering scores. You can have that 8 Cha, but you aren't buffing anything else for it. Seems a simple way to reduce the incentive.

It would reduce the incentive but punish roleplaying. The game has a series of checks and balances so that if you're weak in one place you can be stronger in another. If you're just making yourself weaker for the hell of it you can but the party will need you and you're reducing your value. To make a flawed character you get nothing to make up the difference, so you stop seeing flawed characters because there's nothing to be gained from it.

Honestly, I don't understand this extreme aversion to having low stats to the point that people want every PC to be perfect little snowflakes with nothing that they aren't at least average at.


+5 celestial armor = +11 armor
+5 heavy shield = +7 shield
+5 ring of protection = +5 deflection
+5 amulet of natural armor = +5 natural armor
-2 Rage

vs

+5 mithral full plate armor = +14 armor
+5 heavy shield = +7 shield
+5 ring of protection = +5 deflection
+5 amulet of natural armor = +5 natural armor
Net gain +5 AC

HOWEVER the barbarian gets...
DR 8/-. +7 on saves vs Magic. Re-roll a failed Will save. Uncanny Dodge (cannot be flat-footed, can make AoOs when surprised, benefits vs invisible foes, blinded isn't nearly as bad, can walk around taking a total defense for a +6 dodge bonus on the surprise round), Trap Sense (+6 vs traps, which if placed intelligently are like an extra enemy in an encounter), Improved Uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked). +4 on Will saves and +8 vs Enchantment effects.

I've barely scratched my Rage powers. Spent no feats. I think the defensive qualities of the core Barbarian spit in the face of the Fighter's. +5 AC. Pfft. He can sit on his AC.

Especially when you start tossing on things like displacement effects (such as the lesser cloak of displacement, and armor effects like fortification). I will most definitely trade 5 points of AC over 20 levels for tons of defensive stuff and the ability to not be a lawn ornament.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and depending on the enemy we sometimes wear them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
How do you, other PsychoPathfinders, do? What do you do after an encounter? Besids stripping every enemy to their bones for loot.

I'll have you know, as a long-standing proponent of the beautiful and useful arts of necromancy, I would never just leave bones lying around.

Quote:

Burn the bodies? Bury them? Sacrifice?

Any character specific quirks?

My psionic-witch generally says a prayer for the fallen and eats some of them. Sometimes she animates the remains if they would be useful.

Quote:
Would love to hear what everyone have come up with! Feel free to tell a story about how you and your group handle the aftermath of a fight!

If we're in the wild I'm usually fine with letting nature take its course. Burning the bodies might be wasteful. I guess if you were concerned with someone raising or them coming back as an angry undead but honestly, circle of life.

In civilized places, there are usually undertakers that help out with that sort of thing. However I will regularly assist with any sort of damages that have been caused in a scuffle if at all possible, either in the form of currency or personal assistance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
'Kay. I've said enough in this thread. you've gone back to "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" again. I'm not going to argue in circles.

How do you come to that conclusion? I haven't said anything about wizards, other than Barbarians can do something to fight them without casting spells. Rangers and Paladins also do stuff to fight them but they cast spells.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Except for strengh surge, the power you listed are considerably weaker than the ones for the main barbarian build.

What is the "main barbarian build"? Because honestly I build barbarians in lots of different ways. I generally throw superstitious or beast-totem onto them because those are pretty solid staples for defensive barbarians (and I believe strongly that being disabled in combat means you are neither defending nor ending someone). I don't even bother with the Pounce thing in a lot of cases 'cause honestly it's way to easy to ruin charge-reliant builds so it depends on what I'm going to be giving up for the option (seriously, difficult terrain, the slightest thing in your path, having to take anything other than a strait line, all of these things ruin charging tactics and are goofy-common).

Quote:
And letting aside the matter of personal taste the result is not stronger than a core fighter. For example no beast totem to patch the big difference in AC.

I'd doubly take a barbarian before a core-only fighter if we had to go single-classed. Barbarians begin stronger and go longer. By the time the AC difference is really a thing, AC doesn't matter half as much as saving throws and the ability to shrug bad effects. I'd gladly trade a few points of AC for +7 to saves, the ability to re-roll a will save 1/rage, auto-critical confirmation with any weapon, +level on Strength checks, Combat Maneuver Bonuses, and Combat Maneuver Defense, Immunity to Shaken an Frightened (Bravery can suck it), Uncanny Dodge (amazing ability), and DR that reaches 8/- in core (if I have only core-only rage powers then grabbing the DR increasing power a few times is a decent deal).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
I want beast totem and superstitious nerfed, nothing more nothing less. I'm not asking for nerfs on anything else, just those two features, which in my opinion stretch things just a little too much considering that other classes get nothing comparable.

Suffice to say I don't want those nerfed. Those are good abilities which allow the non-magical barbarian a leg up in a world that frankly pisses in her cornflakes on a daily basis. She is the deaf guy in a world where hearing is king. She is the blind guy in a world with pitfalls everywhere. Yet she still holds her own.

Superstition is good, but it's not that good. Paladins still have better saving throws (this is doubly so when bestow grace comes online) and they have tons of awesome immunities and spells to boot. Both Paladins and Rangers have spells to supplement their already formidable martial expertise. Barbarians have nothing except their rage powers which are supposed to make up for everything.

And spells are everything. That's why Barbarian is magic-lite done right. Barbarian actually manages to compete and adapt to a world of magic. She manages to be a warrior who without casting spells, buffing herself up to heck and back, or otherwise being anymore than a heroic badass manages to go toe to toe with big bad monsters and not get completely invalidated by spellcasters. Even stuff like wall of stone and wall of force do not invalidate her because Strength Surge and Spell Sunder allow him to do heroic-normal things like break walls and shout "By Crom!" and break the wizard's spell.

And Pounce is not overpowered. If anything it's a throwback to how strong martials were in 3.0 when your boots of speed allowed you to move up to your speed and full-attack. The only difference is pounce is easier to foil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
In core, the following classes work very well. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. All of these characters bring stuff to a group that is worthwhile, fun, entertaining, and well rounded. Those that are specialists are masters of their specialization (such as Barbarians and Paladins).
Besides superstitions (that is not that good in just core) I am not sure the barbarian are better than fighters (except for the better skills, of course)

I like Barbarians because they begin stronger than Fighters and have more options. Rage Powers give you things that you can do, and even many of the ones from core are very nice. Clear Mind for example allows you a rerolled will save each rage, which is very nice when rage-cycling comes online (has a lot of synergy with superstition). I like No Escape even more than Step-Up but the two work really well together. Strength Surge is always useful and makes Barbarians the kings of CMB and CMD (has a lot of synergy with Spell Sunder). Unexpected Strike allows AoOs even when they wouldn't normally provoke, again a nice power. Mighty-Swing allows you to auto-confirm a critical hit when you need to, which is mighty nice! Fearless Rage is also really awesome.

Splat material gives more options for padding defenses and giving more support vs magic. Barbarians are magic-light done right.


Snorter wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Amen. We should all stop drawing lines in the sand around each other. Dr. Suess said it best with Sneeches.

"You're a Star-Belly Sneech,

You suck like a leech,
You want everyone to act like you.
Kiss ass while you b*#+#,
Till you can get rich,
But your boss gets richer off you."

Was that the one?

I think we might have had different translations. :P


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Yes, they are saying that, by insisting that "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" which is ridiculous. It is because I'm aware of Paizo's mulish stubbornness regarding "balance", and I use that term very loosely in regards to pathfinder, that I'm pushing the more realistic course of nerfing, specifically, beast totem, and superstitious.

Barbarians are fine because Paladins and Rangers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Ashiel is clearly saying that the idea of, "nerfing the Barbarians (because other martials suck)" is not the only conclusion you can come to.

I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level.

Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?

The idea of nerfing other classes to match the fighter is for lack of a more eloquent term obscenely stupid. Not only would that basically ruin the classes that do work, but it would create way more of a workload for whomever was doing it for virtually no gain.

In core, the following classes work very well. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. All of these characters bring stuff to a group that is worthwhile, fun, entertaining, and well rounded. Those that are specialists are masters of their specialization (such as Barbarians and Paladins).

Out of those core classes, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue stand out as being severely lacking.

The Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are the odd-men out. If you were to assign each class to a player, it would disrupt more players to break the rest of classes down than it would be to build the other ones up. Not only would it create needlessly complicated revisions and extra work but it would be a great irritation to the rest of the characters who actually are very functional.

And they are functional. I have games where players play martial characters all the time. My current campaign had a Barbarian and a Paladin in it. The Barbarian player later switched to a revised version of the Rogue class for a change in theme, but when he was around he did very well next to the Paladin and other characters in the group.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ranger and Paladin look good next to the Barbarian, thank you very much. All three are well balanced against each other and fit very well as martials alongside the other classes.

Do not lump Paladins and Rangers in with the refuse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
But if we took out everything that anyone could ever be offended by, THEN we would have a great campaign setting!

Except that this is impossible. The entire movement of artists going to abstract art, was to avoid offending anyone by removing all subject material, and there are still the occasional offended people.

The way I see it, how much people take offense to is far more telling of an individual's maturity and personality, rather than how much they offend others.

I think you failed your sense motive check, either that or Sissyl failed her bluff check.


Sissyl wrote:
Because one of the root tenets of identity politics is that being a victim of more or less anything makes you right, at least compared to those who can't claim victimhood, who then by extension, are wrong. It is the primary reason identity politics are crap.

Amen. We should all stop drawing lines in the sand around each other. Dr. Suess said it best with Sneeches.


I'd dare say elves are probably stronger overall. The energy resistances are really good at low levels (when it helps you survive alchemist-fire spam) but it doesn't stack with any other source of energy resistance such as resist energy or magic items that provide resistances, which you are going to want anyway since they are at minimum twice as strong as the tiefling resistances anyway. At least the +2 on saves vs all enchantment effects never really goes away. :\

Likewise, fiendish sorcery kind of sucks. It's only useful for one class, and even then it doesn't do anything except offset their penalty a little for sorcerers. Unless you're using one of the alternate ability modifiers then fiendish sorcery is merely "not have a penalty in this very limited situation", where elven magic actually provides a bonus that is useful to any mage and goes stacks with other effects that help to pierce spell resistance (it's very easy for elves to pierce SR later on as they have +2 from race, +2 for spell penetration, +2 from greater spell penetration, plus any other caster level boosts like the +1 ioun stone).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
toxicpie wrote:

In my GM's game, Draconic is pretty much dead though it was once used as a powerful tongue for spellcasting.

However, I talked to my GM and said it would be cool for my character to say some phrases in Draconic in the midst of battle, to inspire himself and the party with the might of wyrmkind. So yeah, I'm inventing a language with a weird grammar system and a vocabulary partially based off Gaelic, so please give me phrases to roar!
So far I've translated "Death before dishonour" and "Honour in all things".

"I...forgive you."


DeathMetal4tw wrote:

Considering the entry for tieflings in the bestiary AND the advanced/alternate tiefling rules in council of thieves, are there any fans of the race? Is it overpowered?

What is your opinion of tieflings non-mechanically as a role to play? Any memorable stories/characters?

I recently (as in within the past week) rolled up a tiefling psion for a friend's Rise of the Runelord's game. I'm going to discuss most of the roleplay stuff in a spoiler because it has some RotRL stuff in it (though perhaps heavily modified).

RotRL:
My character, Makrosa the Bastard, is a tiefling who grew up in sandpoint around the same time as an important NPC, an aasimar named Naulia. The two became close friends with one-another naturally out of less that exceptionally great circumstances.

To first understand Makrosa, we need to look at her closest friend, Naulia. Naulia was teased by her youthful peers and showered with often unwanted adoration due to her celestial heritage by adults, with people wanting to touch her, or use her hair in tea as a folk remedy, and tons of other superstitious nonsense. Her father was a well respected and beloved leader of a church in sandpoint and he expected many great things from her, overwhelming her with his high expectations. She was figuratively smothered by all of the attention and pressure, which was made all the worse when she met a Varisian man roughly her age named Delek Viskanta and fell into his arms. Delek was a smooth robin who told her all that she wanted to hear, but ended up being a rough turkey when she ended up with a bun in the oven and he flew the coop. She spent an extended and unpleasant period grounded to the church where she was lectured and harassed by her father until a freak fire at the church reportedly ended with both her and her father's deaths.

Makrosa was in many ways Naulia's opposite. For all the attention and adoration Naulia received, Makrosa received an equal amount of shunning and disdain from the people of Sandpoint, but especially Naulia's father who saw her as a corrupting influence and an unwanted creature that was unworthy of his daughter's time and attention. When Naulia wasn't around (either due to her many responsibilities or, later, her rendezvous with her lover) Makrosa was usually either hanging out with the orcs who dealt with Sandpoint's garbage, or spending time in the dump yard scrounging for scrap and wasted things of value that she would trade with goblins she would meet rummaging through the refuse, or other people in town when she found something valuable accidentally discarded.

As the two got older, Makrorsa developed romantic feelings towards Naulia that were likely born from their close friendship, acceptance of one-another, and to a degree a sense of kinship in being the respective freak shows of Sandpoint. This however eventually drove a wedge between the two friends as Makrosa's unspoken feelings only served to make her jealous of the man Naulia was seeing behind her father's back. She would brood when she was not with Naulia, and when the two were together there was a tension that wasn't there before which made her push Naulia away. Eventually it came to a boil when in a fit of indignation Makrosa threw a fit at Naulia, complaining that as soon as Delek showed up that Naulia had forgotten all about her. She said many things that she didn't mean, including accusing Naulia of being like everyone else and not really caring anything about her. After the fight Makrosa left Sandpoint for a few months and lived alone in the junkyard.

Eventually she realized what a fool she had been and was going to apologize to her friend and beg her forgiveness but before she could the fire of the cathedral stole the chance from her. She has hated most of everything since. It was not until the Swallowtail festival that she returned to Sandpoint for more time than it took to unload salvaged or bartered goods. She and Naulia always met up at the festival each year and something inside her decided to keep up that tradition for them. Little did she realize that her miserable life was about to change forever...

As for mechanics, nah tieflings aren't overpowered. Even with the extra alternate race traits and variant tieflings, they're a generally pretty cool race. I usually play humans but this time I'm playing a fairly bestial tiefling (2 claws instead of her SLA, a prehensile tail) shapeshifter that's haunted by fiendish spirits (she is an dual-discipline egoist/shaper psion, her psicrystal is a possessed Voodoo doll).

1 to 50 of 8,353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.