|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
One video doesn't have to eat all his data. It just has to eat enough that there isn't enough left for his normal usage.
Flat priced unlimited broadband is common in the U.S. but the U.S. is not the only English speaking country, nor is the English speaking Internet even populated exclusively by people from predominantly English speaking countries. In lots of places there's a data cap above which users are throttled to dial up speeds or where using bandwidth beyond your standard plan will show up in higher bills.
But all that is, is soft tissue relevant. Put them up against metal armor, and the edge doesn't matter, and the wedge shape gets stuck very easily. Yeah, they can carve meat like nobody's business. Iron and steel, bit more of a problem.
Put them up against metal armor and all swords, straight or curved, fare poorly. Tip heavy choppers like the falcata and dao can work against mail, breaking bones even if the mail itself survives, but any sword is going to be a poor weapon against plate. If you're going up against someone in full plate with lethal intent you don't care about straight or curved swords because you want to be using something like a mace or pick or pole hammer.
For most of history, though, few people wore comprehensive plate armor. It was too expensive until shortly before it became obsolete. Gambesons were frequently worn alone and were more effective against piercing than cutting. Brigandine handled thrusts relatively well, but a long cut could potentially ruin the integrity of the usually leather layer that holds it together and in any case it tended to be worn as a cuirasse with lesser armor on the limbs. Scale would probably be better against cuts than thrusts because thrusts could more easily be made to slip between the scales from below, but it was never very popular in any case.
If you're talking about swords at all you're talking about fighting people who have, at least on their limbs, armor that swords are effective against and arms and hands aren't very good thrusting targets.
Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.
The latter then. Kthulhu at least has encountered the term and should know what it refers to.
Kirth Gersen explains it best:
If the rules are useless either because they are bad (like a level 20 wizard being the same CR as a level 20 rogue) or because they don't function (like the stealth rules) or because they're unclear (like almost everything that got a FAQ request ever) the DM makes stuff up and you're not playing a game anymore. You're playing "magical story hour" or "DM may I?"
You also get that when the DM is a control freak who ignores the rules or fudges dice and control freak DMs and their sycophants don't care for the quality of the rules. But kthulhu can ignore rules and fudge dice just as well when the rules function as when they don't. Those of us who don't want to play magical story time find a game with rules that don't work unfit for its purpose.
The paladin code and spellbook are not examples of good design in the first place.
The sad truth that Paizo has given classes stupid shutdown traps in the past is not an excuse to keep doing so in the future any more than having a really bad driving record means you can't be ticketed in the future.
So let's say you've got Valeros, Kyra, Seoni, and Batman in a party.
So why is Bruce Wayne hanging around with Valeros, Kyra, and Seoni whenever they aren't on duty and why isn't Batman? How is Batman going to keep his secret identity when he's in an adventuring party? Is his player going to ask the GM to run separate sessions for when he's being Bruce Wayne?
Secret identities don't work in a party game unless everyone has them. For everyone to have them they have to be available to everyone and not cost anything. They need to be an alternate rule system rather than a class feature. Possibly associated with an alternate setting in which the default assumption is that everyone who isn't mundane has a secret identity who is.
Khopesh are a Bronze Age weapon, and fell into disuse very quickly, relatively speaking. They are a symbolic Egyptian weapon, but they suck in a duel and are lousy in tight quarters. Falcata are merely axe equivalents that didn't work as well, and were harder to make. As armor got better and better, they also fell into disuse, because axes are better at penetrating armor, and straight swords better for fencing/swordsmanship. I'm not saying they aren't lethally effective...it's just they are a combination weapon that didn't do either of the jobs of a sword or axe better then those.
The khopesh fell out of use because they're a complex shape that's hard to make out of a material that can't be cast. They have the thin, curved cutting edge of a scimitar, a point in line with the hilt like a spatha, and a hook on the back edge for pulling shields out of position.
If straight swords are better for fencing explain why the saber and cutlass supplanted straight swords for nearly every army and navy in Europe for centuries.
Alternately, 'What my character would do is call for a vote to have yours thrown out of the group'.
This is probably the best response.
If they say something like "Cool, I'll roll up someone with a completely different set of quirks and vices to replace him," or "Could you kill him instead so his arc is definitively resolved?" then maybe they were actually just playing their character.
Game system writers are being paid to write rules. Unclear rules are not a benefit. A game system with unclear rules is about as useful as an aircraft with no instruments. Except instead of dieing in a fireball when you don't judge your altitude correctly you just get arguments that strain and may eventually wreck friendships.
If you want to play magical storytime you don't need rules at all. Me, I want a consistent and impersonal means of resolving disputes like "Did the dragon kill my character?" and "Does everyone make it off the sinking ship" and "Did she really turn me into a newt and will I get better?" "Can my character also learn to turn people into newts and how reliably will he be able to do so?" The impersonal part is really important. If there isn't room to misinterpret the rules that's one less source of interpersonal conflict at the table, but anything that ever relies on rule zero just means that all conflict is focused on the person of the GM.
Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.
The problem is that there just aren't enough things to distribute on the mental stats.
I would suggest condensing all the mental stats together. Everyone wants con. Everyone would like dex. Those are fine. Casters care about their casting stat and very little for the other mentals. Martials don't care much about mentals at all.
Thus having strength for martials, mind for casters, and dex and con for everyone is balanced in a way the 3 mental 3 physical spread can't be without massively reworking the combat mechanics to favor mental stats.
There are ways to make mental stats matter but to make more stats matter more mechanics have to be added because there aren't enough to move from the physical stats and that means a more complicated game with longer turns.
A trailing cord is going to do horrible things to the ballistics of an arrow. You will miss. Your range increments will be almost as bad as for a thrown weapon. If you by some miracle don't miss the added weight and drag will prevent the arrow from sticking in.
If barbed arrows and cords worked then real world hunters would have used them. The less a deer can run away from you the less lactic acid buildup and the better it tastes. And the less energy the hunter expends chasing it.
That's a terrible riddle because
1 is not universally considered a prime number.
And this sort of thing is why, in general, riddles are bad. They're usually wrong. More often underdefined, but sometimes the riddle writer is using an incorrect or disputed fact somewhere.
Secret Wizard wrote:
It's rare to see a martial melee build that doesn't have +2 strength so you're really looking at -4 strength which is -2 to hit and -3 damage. Swashes can get away with going dex, but parrying uses an enormous size penalty and they have other disadvantages so they're not a very good solution.
That makes -1 to hit and -4 or -4.5 to damage after size adjustments.
Also remember that agile comes late. The early game is when martials are least overshadowed by casters and gishes so sucking for lack of dex to damage then pretty much defeats the purpose of playing a martial.
Add in the movement penalty most small races have and it's pretty much go mounted or go caster. That gets you a high ground bonus putting your accuracy back at par, though you're still doing 4 or 4.5 less damage.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Well - I think that the general consensus for Gandalf - is that in Pathfinder/D&D terms he's an outsider - not a wizard at all. :P
This is an obsolete notion. The background material makes it clear he's human in body. The setting he's from doesn't even have non-native outsiders: no planes except the prime material. That means Gandalf needs to be built as a human or scion of humanity aasimar with class levels. The ACG finally made this possible. He's a hunter who goes without a companion until he bonds with Shadowfax. He casts spells off the druid list and the highest is Fire Seeds at level 6. He wields a longsword. I think he wears mail armor after the arrival in Rohan, which prevents him from being built as a fighter/druid.
The khopesh and forward curving swords (like the falcata) are not things that stood the test of time militarily. They were too slow to use in a duel, and too awkward to use in formations. The only time they shined was MAYBE in small squad or open melee combat.
This is very incorrect. Such weapons dominated for centuries. The khopesh is actually a very superior design when working in bronze and fighting against people with shields because of the hook on the back and the kopis (no relation to the khopesh, but very closely related to the falcata) was very popular for a very long time as well.
Formations themselves haven't stood the test of time. They went out with the stirrup, came back with the pike block, and went out again with the machine gun.
Yes. You're actually using a flying, invisible caster as an enemy. Against a party too low level to have any counters to flight. This is the sort of theorycraft people bring up to justify claims of unassailable caster supremacy and you're actually using it as an encounter.
What the ever loving #### are you thinking?
Is the style for jambiyas necessarily that different?
Yes. A jambiyas is an inward curved purely cutting weapon. European daggers (going back at least to the Roman pugio) are straight. Some later daggers don't have cutting edges at all.
Abstract combat styles away. The PF dagger does not describe either a jambiyas (slashing only) or a stiletto (piercing only).
Ipslore the Red wrote:
Loads of options for builds and it's got all that full-caster goodness. It's pretty nearly impossible to make an oracle that's actually bad, and only moderately difficult to make one good at a specific concept.
Really? They're a spontaneous caster. All you have to do is not take the right spells and you're useless. There are a number of curses that will completely wreck your character if they're enforced.
It'd be kind of fun to have all the little distinctions. A lot of entries would read "scimitar/sabre/shamshir" or some such because there isn't enough design space in the d20 system to differentiate them, but it would still be cool. As long as the proficiency rules weren't eurocentric and hand and a half weapons stopped using proficiency as a kludge.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
You mean julienne fries.
And it really doesn't. Katanas are thick and all of those tasks call for thin blades. Pretty much anything but an estoc or flamberge or other wavy sword is going to do all of those better. Well, a flint knife won't either. Beyond also being not very thin the uneven edge is all kinds of bad news for cutting cheese into little toothpick-ready cubes.
You mean the first thing you do any time someone gives you a riddle is put it into google or ask.com?
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Not exactly. You cut with the same part of a straight European sword. You perform the same kind of cut and cut with the same part of an Arabic or European or Indian curved sword. And, yes, for all that the European saber is most associated with the early modern period it saw adoption about a century before full plate armor. Even straight swords may be bowed out and have an edge profile very similar to a katana. The difference between cutting with the pinky and cutting with the wrist is the sort of triviality that doesn't really effect anything enough to justify the smallest bonus or penalty the d20 system is capable of imposing.
If you try to use a European sword like a katana it will work if it's not too thrust optimized. If you try to use a katana like a European sword it will work. Unless it bends because it's made of pig iron, but crappy iron isn't generally a regional problem in fantasy settings and certainly not something the Pathfinder rules try to cover.
The problem is that the concept of weapons proficiency tiers is pretty much complete bunk. Some get tricky when you get into grappling, but for swords of any type the pointy bit goes into the enemy and if you swing it you want to hit with the sharp side. This is not substantially more complicated than using a club. Indeed, much sword practice would be conducted with clubs. Clubs weighted to be like swords, but still 1d6 bludgeoning simple weapons.
Don't compare him to Robin Hood. Robin Hood's name is in the title. The writers are automatically going to give him the most significance. Compare him to the other Sherwood outlaws. Friar Tuck is somewhat memorable as an over the top drunk, but Azeem had more scenes, was playing opposite Friar Tuck in his most memorable scenes, and tended to steal scenes that would have been Robin-centric in other adaptations. No one else is memorable. And he's only from Palestine and Robin met him when adventuring there so there's no difficulty in explaining his presence. Now imagine what it would have taken to explain a Chinese character in Robin Hood. How much backstory would it take to get the audience to accept that? You might get Chinese merchants, but how would you get them to follow some crusader to England? It would take up ten to twenty minutes of flashbacks and it would still feel wrong.
GMs have a right to set the tone for their games. But one can want to play a character working against his or her evil background without being a spotlight hogger.
They can be the son of a cleric of Asmodeus or something that won't incite automatic mobs or waste time on fish out of water antics.
Actually, the Lore Warden is a very well designed archetype that acknowledges that fighter is a massively under-par class that needs a major upgrade. It's kind of like the Quiggong of fighter archetypes, but not quite as general.
The fact that you have to give enormous bonuses to maneuvers to make them viable is not an endorsement of the maneuver system so much as an inadequate patch job over its flaws. If everyone got +2 to maneuvers per 4 class levels then they'd be patched.
Druid covers enough that oracle can fill the rest. You need restoration and remove blindness/deafness and would really like breath of life and earlier heal, but that's only one spell per level. If you really like your mystery spells you can afford that.
CMB/CMD is also horribly broken on the other end. Big high level monsters are immune, but little low level monsters are too vulnerable.
For example take the Stirge. It has a touch AC of 16 and a CMD of 9. It's easier to grapple a Stirge than to hit it with inflict minor wounds. What The Bleep?
Or take the Pixie up at CR 4. Touch AC 17. CMD 15. It's easier to sunder a pixie's short sword than to hit a pixie with a touch spell even though the short sword is a fine object. Heck, it's as easy to sunder a pixie's wedding ring as it is to sunder his longbow. What The Bleep?
Quasits have touch AC 14 CMD 12. Imps have touch AC 16 CMD 15.
In 3.5 maneuvers were different and generally made something vaguely resembling sense. Bull Rush was an opposed strength check modified by the size difference. Disarm was an opposed attack roll modified by the size difference. Grapple used a touch attack followed by a grapple modifier that used BAB, strength, and size. Overrun used strength against the greater of strength or dexterity modified by size and number of legs. Sunder used an opposed attack roll modified by size. Trip used strength opposed by the greater of strength or dexterity modified by size and leg count.
CMB/CMD tries to approximate all of those at once. Now, not all of those were good either. The size modifiers were way too big and monsters could still be easier to disarm or sunder than hit with touch attacks, but apart from the stupidly huge size modifiers they more or less made sense. Using the same roll for bull rush and dirty trick just doesn't make sense.
I'd suggest that all maneuvers except bull rush and overrun should start with a touch attack and follow with some other check. Opposed attack makes sense for disarm and sunder. Possibly something like strength versus dex modified by size for trip. Possibly strength and BAB versus dex and BAB with no size modifiers for grapple (grapples can be flipped so grappling someone strong with poor dex isn't easier than it should be). I'm not going to go through all the new maneuvers at the moment.
Agreed, citing monsters as a rules source is a bad idea... just cause a dragon can breath fire and fly doesn't mean you can.
But just 'cause a dragon can breath fire and fly and polymorph exists you can.
If someone polymorphed into a gargoyle can make a bite and a gore attack with one head then a half orc with toothy and a helm of the mammoth lord can make a bite and a gore attack.
Weapon reach modifiers multiply with size reaches so a tiny creature has 0' reach with longspears as well.
Do we need to call in a labor negotiator?
The other thing inquisitors do over clerics (and way over warpriests) is have a different spell list. They have arcane utility spells like disguise self, invisibility, see invisible, and knock. They also get the litany spells off the paladin list. That's on top of the good clerical self buffs.
If you don't like arcane classes your inability to appreciate traditionally arcane utility spells may be what's turning you off of inquisitor.
I think you'll find it pretty hard to go wrong with a druid in S&S. You could take an archetype that nerfs wildshape and not be great or even out right bad if you took that human only archetype that ditches wildshape completely or an urban druid with a bad domain choice, but wildshape and the druid spell list are really good for being a pirate and it's hard to lock yourself out of being effective. Especially when your low stat is 14 and your high is 17.
Natural Spell is pretty much a must. Wild Speech is probably important as well. Those are your level 5 and 7 feats (7 and 9 for shamans).
I'm partial to storm druid for the spontaneous casting from a generally useful domain. I'd suggest cloud because weather gets control weather later and then storm when you get your second domain because control weather twice would be redundant. The ability to see through fog is very good. I hope it doesn't qualify as a spoiler to say that weather happens at sea. The tempest druid is similar but offers the aquatic domain as an additional option. Wind is better to spontaneous cast from for a pirate, though.
Basically, every minor, forgettable, little druid ability gets replaced with something that a seafaring druid will use by both the storm and tempest archetypes. If you're not wedded to mooncaller you should consider them.
Hmm. You're right. I could have sworn the class was called "fighting man." Maybe that was OD&D?
Still broken. There was no class called fighter in first edition AD&D.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
The kineticist from the upcoming Occult Adventures book... your welcome...
You mean insulted. The kineticist is not a mana caster. It effectively casts from con. Not HP. Con. It's an ill conceived insult to both those who wanted a warlock and those who wanted a spell point system.
I wouldn't go dex based. Most of your good wilsdhape forms get strength bonuses and dex penalties. Including the large and huge water elementals, though calling those good forms even in naval warfare is a stretch.
Actually, I don't think there are any good +dex forms other than air elementals. Medium animals are +strength and there aren't small versions of the good ones. Going any smaller than small for bigger stat bonuses than +2 deprives you of reach, forcing to share your opponent's square. The smallest pouncers are the deinonychus and leopard and can fit in normal ship and building corridors and are medium +strength forms.
Going large on the other hand gets you the big aquatic creatures and the big birds and pterasaurs that can carry people and the big water elementals and for combat on land the big earth elementals. Even air elementals give strength as well as dex once you get to large.
If you're stuck with that stat array the only way to go is dervish dance with no wildshaping until you get air elementals and get yourself a large and then huge scimitar for outdoor fighting.
chad hale 637 wrote:
Bard has the cure line. Everyone and his dog has the cure line. The cure line doesn't matter. Anyone with UMD can replace hitpoints exactly the same way as a cleric would.
A real healer needs the restoration and remove X lines including neutralize poison with the remove line but not remove paralysis because paralysis is always temporary. Breath of Life, Heal, and some method of bringing back those dead for longer than a round are also kind of important. The bard has just two of the key healing spells and no method of bringing back the dead at all.
The inquisitor doesn't have the full suite of healing spells either. Even if you don't consider dead a condition you want to be able to remove they don't have the full suite.
And if you think a cleric is a box of band aids you clearly don't know anything at all about clerics in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
1 has been done. The brawler and unchained monk are sitting here.
2 should not rule out unarmed combat. There are unarmed concepts that sit at this position along the martial-caster spectrum. Apart from not supporting unarmed monks the sohei archetype handles this almost perfectly.
3 is the big missing class we'll never see because Paizo hates spell points and ki on the scale required to be a peer to cleric casting would essentially be spell points.
chad hale 637 wrote:
While the first part isn't bad advice your party is really terrible.
First, you've defined several of the characters in quite limiting ways. If you want your players to roleplay they need to know their characters and unless you're giving them characters they've seen in media (ie. if these characters have been featured in novels set in Golarion that the people who will play them have read then and only then can they can work) that means the players need to create the characters. The GM can suggest a kind of build, but pre-themed elements like blade dancer, aldori dueling swords, and dervish dance are out of the question.
Second, the party will probably have trouble playing an AP as written because there's no real healing. New players will make mistakes, need condition removal or non-HP healing, and possibly wind up quitting in disgust when they don't have it, especially if they don't have it because the GM chose their characters.
Moving back from the really bad falling and lava mechanics, a lot of the claims that historical limitations aren't actually accurate are based on one assumption: That PCs have the right to be special snowflakes.
They don't. It's commonly accepted to refuse drow PCs because they don't fit in and tend to be attempts to create a primary protagonist rather than an equal member of a group. A dwarf in Japan or a (non-reskinned) samurai in Iceland -- even if you could prove that the viking reached Japan or the Japanese Iceland in the real world -- is as out of place as a chaotic good renegade drow. That's a spotlight hogging backstory.
Why is the requirement to have a hag there in the first place? As a GM I would house rule it out if anyone bothered to express interest in forming a coven. I can't see the issue even coming up in a RAW only environment since those are by definition organized play and aren't friendly to long term cooperative character building.
I would avoid spontaneous casters for the wizard or cleric role. A mistake in spell selection on a cleric or druid can be fixed in a day. A wizard or witch has to find places to learn his spells, but can still pick up options and leave a poor choice forgotten. A sorcerer or oracle can replace only one mis-chosen spell every four levels. Divine prepared casters are better than arcane prepared casters for the same reason. A wizard who doesn't have good spells in his spellbook can't usually fix that until he returns to civilization. A cleric can try new spells every day for free without having to RTB to buy them.
You also don't care about the most uniquely arcane part of the arcane role. Published adventures usually can do without teleportation. I would therefore suggest druid as your wizard substitute. You can simplify the druid by taking a domain and using a shaman archetype to delay wildshape and push narrower menus for both summoning and wildshaping.
I'd say the best fighter-like class for beginners is the ranger, A switch hitter ranger introduces mechanics over time and is good at what it does.
The skilled class is up in the air. With 2 other medium BAB characters and an unaugmented full BAB character the bard can hold up his end in combat purely on buffing, which is easy but a bit dull. Any skill class except the rogue (but including the unchained rogue) can do well and none are a great deal simpler other than the pure buffer bard.
Some of these defeat the purpose of prestige classing.
Going into Rage Prophet with an oracle VMC misses the whole point of Rage Prophet since you don't have casting to progress. You're far better staying a barbarian.
Bard into Arcane Trickster leaves you progressing 6 level casting in a 1/2 BAB prestige class. And it's casting that has almost no damaging spells to sneak attack with. Like Rage Prophet you're better off just staying a sandman VMC rogue because AT is giving you pretty much nothing.
The young template can be used for dwarfism. An adult Tyrion Lannister would have to be represented as a human with the young template because halflings aren't humans.
I'd let her run both characters. There's not really room in a two person party for someone who doesn't take initiative and GMPCs with initiative risk getting metagame knowledge and Gandalf Syndrome.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
If you want a coherent setting you need to discourage diversity somehow. There's too much junk in the game for any one coherent setting. Why not use history in a history (and historically known beliefs about the supernatural and the world) if you're running a historically inspired campaign?