Bigger Club's page

Bigger Club wrote:

And I would most likely knock you out. See I can make bold claims on the internet hiding behind the screen too.

Remember how I said people with these extreme reactions strike me as those who have been booted or otherwise frozen out of campaigns for being fun vampires?

Well you would be wrong. It has never happened to me, since I bow out of campaings that are not for me. If you had read what I have been talking about since the thread started, it is when I am deceived when reactions are less than polite. But instead you chose to quote without context, as a reply to make a point that other 'discusser' was being an asshat.

Bigger Club wrote:

OilHorse wrote:

Bigger Club wrote:

I don't think you quite understand what it means to some of us when you lie like that. You are implying that your opinion matters more than mine, when it comes to how I spend my time, wich you have also wasted. Also I might have declined another game to join yours and now as a adult that time is very much premium. Those are no insignificant offenses, so yeah I do not need those kind of persons in my life.

If you took it so seriously then I would snicker in your face. Then I would tell you to calm down and not take it so seriously.

How do you react when you find out that people were not telling you the truth in real life about some things that may be embarrassing to you, like maybe something stuck in your teeth, or your breath is just not very pleasant. Things along that line. Do you throw hissy fits? I doubt it.

You probably would get more upset if that one person said your breath smells like turds in front of everyone,because he was being honest.

And I would most likely knock you out. See I can make bold claims on the internet hiding behind the screen too.

As to the rest of the post, you just don't get it. It is not some white lie. It is changing the activity we are doing on a fundamental level. aka it ain't rpg anymore. You did so with intent to do so. Wasted my time for lets say 4 sessions 6 hours each, so 24h you have wasted. And you see someone getting annoyed at that something to snicker at. I don't know even how to respond properly to that level of ignorance, I just hope that your tubes are tied so those genes don't pass on.

Gots us an internet tough guy here.

I would actually do what I said, you wouldn't. You take yourself too seriously if you act like that to a GM fudging.

Lies are lies. Or does that only apply to things you are ok with. You are inconsistent in your approval of when to lie.

Fudging as mentioned in the CRB is done to help improve the game. Isn't that what you expect from the GM? I will figure that you would want that.

If there is a trust issue then that is actually on you.

I was just demonstrating that you were being an asshat. Apparantly it flew over your head. As to the rest, yeah I have no reason to discuss with you further since you seem incapable of actually having a discussion.

Bigger Club wrote:

I don't think you quite understand what it means to some of us when you lie like that. You are implying that your opinion matters more than mine, when it comes to how I spend my time, wich you have also wasted. Also I might have declined another game to join yours and now as a adult that time is very much premium. Those are no insignificant offenses, so yeah I do not need those kind of persons in my life.

If you took it so seriously then I would snicker in your face. Then I would tell you to calm down and not take it so seriously.

How do you react when you find out that people were not telling you the truth in real life about some things that may be embarrassing to you, like maybe something stuck in your teeth, or your breath is just not very pleasant. Things along that line. Do you throw hissy fits? I doubt it.

You probably would get more upset if that one person said your breath smells like turds in front of everyone,because he was being honest.

And I would most likely knock you out. See I can make bold claims on the internet hiding behind the screen too.

As to the rest of the post, you just don't get it. It is not some white lie. It is changing the activity we are doing on a fundamental level. aka it ain't rpg anymore. You did so with intent to do so. Wasted my time for lets say 4 sessions 6 hours each, so 24h you have wasted. And you see someone getting annoyed at that something to snicker at. I don't know even how to respond properly to that level of ignorance, I just hope that your tubes are tied so those genes don't pass on.

Note I was ninjad by multiple people, I started the message after theJeff's post.

Yes that is it. Some people are into rpgs for the essentially co-written story/improv acting, or whatever you want to call it. Of coarse those personality types love the idea of just ignoring the games rules for benefit of the story for lack of better word.

On the other side you have people who get large part of their enjoyment from game part of rpg. And if the the dice are not sacrosant, well then it is not really a game anymore.

Still with either it is a whole package, otherwise rpgs would have never formed and stayed as wargames, and the other group would be just doing freeform rp.

Just speaking for myself, but the visceral reaction against fudging comes from the fact that you were told that you would be playing an rpg. Instead what you got is something you don't even consider an rpg anymore. To top it off this was done intentionally.*

*It has been stated multiple times in this thread that as long as the cards are on the table no harm no foul. Everyone can then decide if that activity is something they would like to do.

I don't think you quite understand what it means to some of us when you lie like that. You are implying that your opinion matters more than mine, when it comes to how I spend my time, wich you have also wasted. Also I might have declined another game to join yours and now as a adult that time is very much premium. Those are no insignificant offenses, so yeah I do not need those kind of persons in my life.

Okay let's throw the semantics issue aside, also ignore if it is cheating or not. Instead let's try to have a proper discussion why don't we.

Vast majority of the no fudging crew has said it is fine as long as you make it known that it is a tool you may use. Only reasonable counter argument that has been made against is break of illusion. Now also vast majority of no fudging crew,(the ones participating at least) have a lot stronger feelings on the matter. I have yet to see anyone from the pro-fudging people come up and say that if the illusion was broken they would decline to playing, it is the opposite on the other side of the argument.(in some cases like myself it is end of any form relationship.)

So with that set up done few questions.

1) If the above assumptions are true, is not better to be upfront about your playstyle in regards to fudging as it does way less damage?
2) Those that are supporting intentional hiding of the fact, how are you so sure that you know better than any single individual what they enjoy?

I'm hearing a lot of "I absolutely do not want this to happen and if I find out I'm going to be mad."

Which sort of underlines the point that if you're going to do it, you ought to make sure nobody finds out. I mean, it's going to be hard to spot when a GM nudges a 13 to a 15 one time in 6 sessions, isn't it? By rule, apparently things like opposed stealth/perception and bluff/sense motive checks are supposed to be in secret, right?

I snipped irrelevant part of message.

No that is exactly the wrong thing to take from this. It means you should be upfront about doing it in the first place. That way people who do not like fudging can simple decide to not participate. If someone did intentionally hide fudging from me(instead of say assuming it was ok, if I somehow hadn't made myself clear.) and I found out, then it is not walk off the table level anymore, it is we are done permanently in any fashion whatsoever level scenario.

Fudging means we are not playing a game anymore, we might be pretending to play a game but we aren't really. It is just freeform rp at that point. If someone likes that all the more power to them. As long as I am not invited to play a game and then fudging happens, I am perfectly fine. As I do not enjoy being lied to or having my time wasted.

Hidden rolls? Perfectly fine, even preferable to certain rolls(perception/stealt, bluff/sense motive and stuff like that)

Fudging? If you want to just tell a story go ahead. But I sit down at the table to play an rpg, so just tell me upfront and I will find a game somewhere else.

As to the OP, just talk it out among yourselves and remember that all people are not compatible when it comes to gaming.

In general, it is case by case. It matters if it makes sense. However if it was written by paizo, double for anything golarion related, it likely won't.

Fighting styles or martial arts(including weapons) are a simple matter of bio-mechanics. Unless the feat has a clause that it is supernatural ability, then any hard preq is silly.(Assuming the style uses same basic body as the person trying to learn it)

You can use temporary boosts to your CL to get a higher limit. Relevant information is.

Animate Dead
School necromancy [evil]; Level antipaladin 3, cleric/oracle 3, shaman 3, sorcerer/wizard 4; Domain death 3; Subdomain souls 3

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (an onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead)

EFFECT
Range touch
Targets one or more corpses touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

Emphasis mine. So yes the limit of how much you can control is set at time of the casting.

It is completely moot point anyway. What kind of 3rd class caster are people facing against that don't have at least half a dozen of those things?

Yes if you pick just the right numbers and cut off points you can make it look either way.

Anyways it matters a lot more on the context of the stat used. +1 AC from dex does not sound so impressive but to use the extreme example, if that +1 AC means that enemies now need 20 instead of 19 to hit you, you just halved incoming damage from sources that target AC, assuming weapon with 19-20 crit threat range.(More realistic number would likely be 15-20% decrease at least when it comes to non iterative attacks)

As to the topic itself. I very very rarely use 15pb, but sometimes one feels up for a meat-grinder style. And low resources in general make such games more rewarding, up to a point.

Just to give some context why cleric having all of their spell list automatically is not as good as wizard with the same.

1) Generally speaking arcane casters spells are better than divine. It isn't quite as clear cut as that, for example cleric list comes with pretty fine buffs.
2) A lot of the spells in the cleric list are really specific and narrow in application. For example say remove curse, it is unlikely that the spell will be needed on more than handful of times during the entire campaign and the amount could very well be zero.

In short spell lists are not created equal, even when talking about same tier of casters(in this case full asters, meaning they eventually get all 9 spell levels.) If that was not the case why would anyone play a wizard, they have lower saves, less hp and lower basic attack bonus, not to mention they cant wear armor when casting(normally that is, there are some ways to change that).

Noticing the GM is fudging is alot more about reading the person than statistical analysis. Also context matters, if the encounter is getting steamrolled and suddenly the enemies start being a lot better than they were before raises suspicions. It is not gonna be that in itself that will be 'proof' for lack of better word, but patterns are different thing.

Only time fudging is bad wrong fun* when the people you are playing it are in the belief that the GM will not fudge.(not this particular time I am talking about the habbit at all or not existing.)

* It is no longer matter of preference, when you are deliberately misusing someones trust. That makes you a whole lot of words I am not allowed to use on these boards.

Yes, it might not be the first time you fudge the dice or second but they will notice at some point of campaign. And some players will notice the first time. I have played with people who played poker at competitive level. I would wager such people would see through the average GMs bluff. On the other hand you got people like me who have used the 3rd edition chassis when it was still 3.0, it is very unlikely that fudging goes unnoticed.

Now rest of the post is purely about changing the outcome of the dice. Some people me included value integrity of the 'game' part of the rpg. Changing the outcome to something else is never worth the price of making that integrity anything else than absolute. Some have differing views but I am hardly the only one.

Second point is that, if GM can't* run a game without fudging, well quite frankly that means that their skill as GM is not all that good. It might be just not grasping the mechanical side of things or inexperience, reason does not matter. It is simply lack of skill, nothing else.

*Note I said can't not won't.

Regarding the swingyness of the early levels, solution is simple just don't play at the lowest levels. Personally I see it as waste of time anyway to start lower than 4th level, but everyone has their preferences, I am sure some people like how at first level the d20 is all that really matters. It really is no different than the fact that some people do not want to play at the high levels since it is practically a different game at that point. Of coarse there are other solutions as well, as the mentioned not using higher than x2 crit weapons. But if certain level range plays in a way that is an issue it can simply be ignored.

All that said fudging is perfectly fine way of playing as long as everyone is informed of this matter. And not informing people and then getting caught is sure fire way to get people walk from the table.

Bigger Club wrote:

Every single GM that fudges, is not playing rpg anymore. It is a game no longer it is just interactive storytelling at that point.

This does not compute. Roleplaying games are nothing more than interactive storytelling and never have been. The rules are just there to prevent "bang, you're dead"/"no I'm not" arguments which could always be prevented through a correctly drafted social contract anyway.

I mean, Gary Gygax wrote the rules and he was a notorious fudger ("A GM only rolls dice because of the sound it makes"- Gygax) so it's not like "GM fiat" hasn't been part of this exercise since the very beginning.

You can say "I would prefer to play with a GM who is little more than a referee" and that's a valid desire, but people who play the game in a different way aren't "doing it wrong."

The emphasis of the statement is JUST, rpgs are interactive storytelling GAMES, there is that G in RPG.

As far as I am concerned Gygax was a horrible horrible GM, just because you can desing a game does not necessarily mean you are good at running said game.

Referee is also not what I am looking for, yes that is an aspect of GMing but hardly the only one. You desing the enviorement and also act as all the NPCs.

Bigger Club wrote:

Every single GM that fudges, is not playing rpg anymore. It is a game no longer it is just interactive storytelling at that point. So if you advertised the activity as playing rpg, well then you are liar.

That is all fine and dandy if that is what you do for fun. It isn't what I do, and not being upfront about it(as in telling without anyone asking) in my opinion makes you horrible GM.

You're referring to a referee, not a Game Master. If you regard fudging as lying, you need to make your GM and fellow players aware of it. I, for one, regard that as an extreme view I would not want at my table.

The GM is an entertainer, not a computer. He or she should be free to create the most fun possible within the social contract. I'd be uncomfortable with a GM who frequently fudged rolls, because at that point, why roll dice? But I'd regard as either lazy or extremist any GM who -never- fudged to create a better story.

I only very rarely fudge, but when I do, it's in the interests of the GAME. Also, for many years I ran a diceless game. Trust me, it was still a game.

Let me clear. I'm not saying a GM should invalidate the story result your dice are telling. But consider the following situation: It's late, but all the players have stuck around to finish a battle that is now going quite long. It's clear that the monster is just about to fall, but the fighter hits it for just enough damage to leave it at 1 hit point. Is it really more satisfying to make everyone stick around for another ten minutes to play another round than to simply say the fighter took out the monster? Your players...your FRIENDS... are going to be happier with the shorter result and will never know you could have dragged it on several more anticlimactic minutes. I'd fudge that one in a heartbeat.

How about when the module I'm running calls for three monsters in a room, but this week we're playing with one less player than usual. I know the remaining characters can handle those three monsters, but I also...

I am quite aware what GM means, so no need for the condescending tone. I said if you advertise the activity as RPG then you are lying because it simply does not qualify for that term. Fudging in itself does not make you liar.

I never claimed that the GM can't fudge. If the players have been told before hand and they are fine with it, go have fun. I just do not consider them to be playing an rpg anymore. Someone else defination of the term might be broader.

As to your examples.

1) Well you are making the assumption that the players would actually enjoy the shorter one more. Even if that is the case, you are sacrificing the integrity of the game(and I do mean the game part of the hobby spesifically) which to me personally matters more than minor inconvenience that is momentary rather than the former that is permanent. Likewise opponents are at full power at 1 hp, that means the monster still gets an action(assuming it is next in initiative), that might very well have big effects and if nothing else likely at least cost some resources of the party. Also if the monster is at 1 HP most likely it will not even be 1 round delay but untill the next players turn.

2) I do not run modules, so I am bit out of my territory here, but don't they usually have actually different encounter for different sized groups? At least they had in pre PF days. Also I would call that modifying the adventure not fudging. I personally also find that way of handling missing players to be 'bad' but I know there are large number of views on the matter.

3) Since this is how I handle all aspects myself I do not see a reason to comment on it.

Only bad GM cheating that I said was when the players have not been informed of it beforehand.

Every single GM that fudges, is not playing rpg anymore. It is a game no longer it is just interactive storytelling at that point. So if you advertised the activity as playing rpg, well then you are liar.

That is all fine and dandy if that is what you do for fun. It isn't what I do, and not being upfront about it(as in telling without anyone asking) in my opinion makes you horrible GM.

Tell the magus player to drop the GM, they don't deserve the chair. I suggest the same for all players actually. No gaming is better than bad gaming. Dropping houserules after starting, without discussion with the group especially ones detrimental to the party, means you have a gm who is bad and more than likely will never get to even acceptable standards much less good.

Regarding the question, death is always(ok probably corrner cases exist theoretically) group expense. You don't penalize people dying when they were keeping your ass alive.

This thread is back from 2012. it is rather clearly marked in every single post.

Wealth is essentially a second XP track when it comes to characters power.

As to big six being necessary, mostly true. The single most important item in this game outside of certain builds is cloak of resistance.(this is universally for any particular character this might not be the case)

Let's take an example, CR 15 enemy, saves usually range from 22-27.(this is based on a rather quick glance at the bestiary) So for examples sake let's call it 24.

Now We are going to take a 15th level character. Their base save is going to be 9 or 5. If that ability is not their major thing they will be very unlikely to have more than a 16 in it. And let's say +4 from magical item.
so +5 to those numbers, 14 and 10 respectivly.

So with a good save you have 55% chance of saving and 35% with a low save. And I was rather generous with the ability score. And considering what kind of effects failing a save can have, that just is not going to cut it. Not to mention you are likely making several saves each day when adventuring.

But luckily +5 cloak of resistance is only about 10ish % of your wealth(assuming wbl). Now you suddenly have 80% and 55% chances of saving against that DC 24.

It should also be noted that CR 15 encounter is supposed to be easy for a level 15th party. So the characters could easily be level 13 or even 12 when facing it. Then again single opponent encounters aren't really good so it could also be that the characters are higher level than the CR of invidual opponent.

The point of the above was just to show that yes magical gear makes a huge difference.

I would say the biggest offense here is, that for some reason the GM played the character despite previously absent PCs have not gotten such treatment.

I say that in itself is, stand up and walk away offense.

I can see were few justifications that could work and they are all conveluted as f%&%. Still let the GM make their case, if they don't have a great explanation for their actions. Just say. "Thanks good gaming, I am out."

If you decide to stay then make damn sure to have a discussion with the group how absent players are handled.

I would say a decent rule of thumb is number of PCsx3 is the cap. The higher the levels go the higher that number can be, also that number does not account for mooks that are at worst a roadblock.

Regarding the paladin to wizard. it can work but the party will have to adjust, summoning spells are pretty easy way to get some meat between enemy and squishies.

I will second the cold/hot weather rules.

I will be using myself as an example.

Starting with cold. That applies to extreme cold rules, so 1d6 automatic no save lethal damage every minute. I suppose we people in the north have fast healing or something. And we get colder than the -20F every single year.

Now the hot environment rule numbers are bit more sane but hardly good. I regurarly stay in sauna for 20 to 30 minutes in 90-100C, so I should be dead by PF rules with every trip.

To be fair, the only issue with the rules themselves is that the numbers for what applies to what level of heat/cold are way off. The mechanics themselves are decent enough. If you changed the stuff by a step or two they would be fine.

Blymurkla wrote:

It is, and I stress this, the official rules. The FAQ I linked mentioned a source - James Jacobs, the Creative Director for Pathfinder. It's not some nobody in a shed making things up.

OGL, did this come from Wizards originally?

So d20pfsrd.com rulings are considered official when playing in Pathfinder sanctioned tournaments (if there are any) and Pathfinder Society games?

How do you think PF came to be in the first place?

No, that being said the site does not really make rulings, it just has rules from the books in a manner that has a good layout. (I think only thing I have noticed is changing stat blocks of monsters/npcs when they have a clear mistake in them and in such a case it is mentioned that a correction was made. For example damage of an attack was miscalculated.)

People just link to that site because it is arguably the most convinient way to quote rules. Think of it like linking to wikipedia article, not something you would want to do in a serious publication but is more than reliable enough to work for a discussion.

I would go with dwarf paladin.

With those stats you should have 120 HP or more, that should be enough to last for a single round of attacks without special circumstances.

Glory of old, Steel soul, cha 18(after magic items), Pale Green Prism (Cracked) Ioun Stone and Cloak of resistance+5 means that before your attribute bonuses your save line would be.

18/14/18 with a +5 for pretty much all magic based saves. (in comparison same level SOD caster from quick math in my head should have DC 28 or so at best, not counting anything beyond the basic compotents of increasing DCs)

Assuming same 18 Cha you have 11 lay on hands, add in fey foundling and greater mercy and it will be healing 8d6+16(average of 44)meaning on average 484 increase in your HP pool total and about 1/3rd increase in your effective HP total as long as you are not dropped in a single round.

Then just do the usual damage avoidance gear and things should work out. This explanation however did not go into how to keep enemies attention on you and isn't the builds forte, but it should not be too hard to push offensive capabilities to the level where they can't afford to ignore.

Looking at the DCs for the adult Red Dragon, how would you justify such high numbers for the breath weapon and cold vulnerability, when a baby dragon has the same things, for a much lower DC?

I am not sure if that was directed at me but. Personally I treat dragons as the adult one being the typical member of the species as it doesn't make sense to me that knowledge about babies of species is more common than the mature ones. Also those breath weapons have differences you can reveal such as rough idea on damage, range and save DC. "The flames are hot enough to seriously hurt even the toughest ones among you and outright kill some of you, unless you are well spread out it can likely get multiple ones in it's area or even all, the most agile ones have a decent chance of protecting themselves from the worst of it." As an example, assuming the dragon is worked in as a boss fight.

Anyone that suggests fighter for anyone much less a new player, well I assume that at best they went ahead and listened to someone who was talking out of their ass without passable level of critical thinking.

Fighter commits the biggest cardinal sin that one can in a form of entertainment, it is boring.

Second issue is that fighters are weak, horribly horribly broken levels of weak. So you want to give the guy who has the least knowledge about tactics, genre savyness etc. the weak ass class? I am sure the new player will enjoy being street cop #43 when rest of the guys are doing justice league. Fighter doesn't even have a niche so that rest of the guys could try to keep out of the same area of influence.

Then there is the issue of feats, either the new player will have to look through hundreds of feats or listen to rest of the players. And the latter comes with the problem that the new player is not learning and possibly they will feel like they were handed a pregen instead of making a character.

I would agree with some of the posters that say paladin is not a good idea. Paladin is a rather advanced roleplaying challenge unless you do the whole cardboard cut out. One of the major appeals of tabletop that is freedom is also stiffened, then there is the fact that due to the code it will influence the rest of the party. And I don't think a new player needs that additional concern on top of everything.

All that said, when I am introducing a new guy/gal, every single class is on the table, but I will be brutally honest with them about what they are getting into. Assuming non child players without a mental condition, everyone is perfectly cabable of absorbing the information needed to handle any class. If didn't, they weren't putting in the effort needed.

It seems I did indeed forget a few things regardless let me go over every issue.

1) What do you mean by smaller selection with just one feat you can cast every single druid spell while wildshaped. Wild speech is only useful because it allows communication between party members.

2) It depends on what forms you intend to concentrate on(for example druid is one of the few cases where Vital strike is not utter garbage), assuming wildshape druid not a caster focused one. In no particular order, Natural spell, Wild speech, Power attack, Extend spell, Shaping focus(ONLY if multiclassing), Powerful Shape, quicken spell, Craft wonderous item, death from above, Multiattack(if allowed), Hammer the gap. Note this is by no means definete list just things that came to mind from wich to choose from.

3) Look above

4) And how is the fighter going to get that 20 dex while having respectable STR and CON? Also Mithral full plate is superior in my mind unless you are totally DEX focused. And yes Druid does come with limitations but as Mithral is the only really worth it special material and wildshape druids generally take hefty penalties to their dex it isn't a big loss.

5) No not really in hostile territory you are much more likely to run out of other resources before druids Wildshape does after level 6 since then you have 12 hours essentially. That being said it is a drawback just not really anything note worthy.

6) Yes wildshape druids are reliant on wildshape that goes without saying. Same as cavaliers are reliant on their mounts, though even wildshape focused druid is still a 9th level caster when that runs out. Their spells likely do not have DCs to use save or suck spells but buffing and BFC work just fine.

7)3 levels before wildshape comes online, wich also are the fastest levels in the game. That being said levels 1-4 I see as a waste of time, I have no interest in playing them anymore, it is all about d20 then, I prefer deeper mechanics. The fighter needs to take their armor off too unless they have endurance, comfort enchament or are using light armor unless they want to start fatigued. Is it something to keep in mind, yeah but hardly a huge hassle. If you are getting ambushed you have already messed up somewhere.

8) If you really want to see, go ahead and post a full fighter build and see what druid can do in comparison. I will promise you that the fighter will look like a second class citizen, especially once we get into double digit levels. Rogues are not even worth talking about.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Just want to point out - I don't think this is legal, as it's a templated creature (from an AP volume, specifically).

Can you wild shape into templated creatures? I don't think druid changes that.

You cannot. That said...you can turn into the un-templated version and that has very similar stats.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.

Isn't that now Aquatic only?

You still have the fundamental limitation in that you have to not only find it in any Paizo source... the Druid still must become "familiar" with it in the actual game.

Druids do not get aquatic subtype when wildshaping or any type for that mattter, and if you care to read the speed line, it isn't limited to only a swim speed. And even if such limitations existed, druid spell list would provide a solution to both.

Natural Spell
Wild speech
Armor Scroll down to barding.

AC: 10(base)+6(dragonhide breatplate)+0(dex normal dex is 12)+4(natural armor)+2(favored class bonus to NA)
So 22 AC before any magical items or spells.
In comparison fighter requires full plate, heavy shield and 12 dex to equal that.

Bigger Club wrote:

Giant lake octopus Oh and just in case the argument comes forward druids do not get aquatic subtype when wildshaping(or any other for that matter)

bite +12 (2d6+8 plus poison), 8 tentacles +7 (1d6+4 plus grab)

Just want to point out - I don't think this is legal, as it's a templated creature (from an AP volume, specifically).

Can you wild shape into templated creatures? I don't think druid changes that.

Oh you seem to be right, well it doesn't change that much, just change it to normal octopus, the number of attacks remains the same, the base damage just drops one step and -2 STR. This is what you get for not checking properly. I am pretty sure it still handily kicks any fighters DPR.

Actually all of that is out of whack. I was first using saurian archtype to get the +2 when dinosaur and then messed up. So it would require level 8 for the war cat of rull.

So numbers are out of whack. I will hopefully will have enough time to edit the numbers to be correct.

So let's look at that druid.

Let's take 6th level, since the claim was that it only works at the high levels, and Fighter gets it's first iterative attack and access to some nice feats as well.

Assuming 20 pb, 15 STR to start with +1 from levels and +2 racial(half-orc) +enchament +4 size(wildshape) =24
Greater Magic fang used as +1 to all natural attacks, 1 or 2 slots should cover the whole adventuring day. Wildshape lasts 2x6h anyway so no reason to get more than 2.

Dire tiger
2 claws +12 (2d4+8 plus grab), bite +12 (2d6+8 plus grab)

And that comes with a pounce. But since fighter doesn't have that let's compare apples to apples.

Giant octopus
bite +12 (1d8+8 plus poison), 8 tentacles +7(1d4+4 plus grab)
PA Bite -2/+4, tentacles -2/+2

Fighter on the other hand is probably something like +14/9 to hit and 2d6+13 PA for -2/+6

What's the wizards DPR at level 14?

With the same investments, it drops by 25% as CL 20 is needed to get 4 balls. Everything else works just fine. Granted without Spell perfection available slots decrease drasticly.

However with the invest so far CL is 17, Orange ioun stone gets it to 18. If our blaster is an Arcanist or Wizard with exploiter archtype and potent magic exploit, that brings it up 20 again and the damage is the same as before.

The effiency could be improved as well if needed. My point wasn't really that Martial can't get similar numbers. (Though they will need a lot more money.) My point was that if you want to focus on damage as a full caster, there are ways to be in the same league as martials, it would also take some heavy optimization to match those numbers. The caster will also still have all of their normal tricks to use as all that metamagic discount messing about means that they will not be hurting for spell slots.

You know just for giggles let's look at that DPR from casters angle.

Level 15:

Spell: Battering Blast
Traits: Magical lineage Metamagic Master
Feats: Intesified spell Empower Spell Maximize Spell Quicken Spell Spell Perfection Mages Tattoo Spell Specialization
Equipment: Staff of Master(Necromancy)

Note some of the names on that site have been changed due to legal stuff. Also I left out the things that are not relevant for the example.

So what does all of that mean?

Well we are shooting 4 balls of force each dealing 5d6 damage as base.
Intensified makes that 4x7d6
Maximized makes that 4x42
Empower adds 4x3d6(average 4x10.5)
So in the end we have 210 Force damage

Oh but the best part we get to add a whole another one with the aid of our staff using quicken. so 420* force damage on average. Well actually since it has an attack roll targeting touch it is "only" 95% of that and some change as it also means ability to crit with it. Given that CL is 21 and easy ways to get SR penetration I am pretty sure that will be auto success on the roll.

My point in all of this is just, that even in the DPR department Martials aren't really that much better off.

* BTW Acording to the monster creation guideline chart you would have to go CR 23 for that not to be from full hp to dead.

Yeah wrong forum, but might as well give my 2 cents.

Short answer: No, and DM should be sitting on a very wobbly chair at the moment if the group knows what is good for it.

Pretty much any character I have ever played with would not be willing to adventure ever again with the people in the "right". They instigated violence among comrades. Good deal of my neutral or south of it characters would respond with murder. If they then had the audacity to try to judge me? Yeah there are very few characters that I have played that would not at the very least give the guy a beating of a lifetime.

Half-orc: Misquided and even if he did not change his mind, it is his business who he prays for help.

Cavalier: Honor is culture based, and if the order the halfling belongs to is one that is all about loyalty towards friend in arms, I would say he was absolutely right.

Sorc: I don't really grasp their involvement here, but essentially the same as half-orc, they just did not change their mind. This going by what little info there is.

So in short. Yourself and the GM are the ones who are wrong not rest of the guys. I would say the witch is in the clear as violence had started at the point they came involved and they tried to deescalate the situation via non lethal means.

Also Qaianna had a good point too. OOC you should definetly talk to other players before trying to assume a boss role in a group. Because if it is not agreed upon, that can very easily bleed out of the game and result in gaming groups shattering.

Speaking of OOC, I think the whole groups needs to sit down what type of characters and themes they wanna play. It seems you are going for more the shining example hero while some of the rest are more gray or even anti-hero theme.

Note, I had to make a bit more educated guesses about the situation than I would like to, but the amount of info wasn't there.

The rules as written are just horrible, so I prefer to houserule them.

Now the meeting DC is fine, and even +5 or even to +10. After that it starts to get ridicolous. If a character beats the DC with 25 or 30, they should pretty much know just about everything there is to know about the monster(well a typical invidual of that species, after all the Marilith might have class levels for example.)

My reasoning is that DC 40 knowledge check in other context reveals increadibly obscure information.

So let's say that an adult red dragon is the monster in question.

Well they are not common but I would not call them super rare either, and they are pretty iconic creatures so they should have more legends and such about them than another creature that is just as un/common. so DC is 10+CR(14)=24

Rules: (as an example, only talking about combat applications)
DC 24: A red dragon, Adult aged, true dragon, Dragon traits.(it would seem silly not to reveal those because they are the same even for lower CR. So the useful information is that it falls into the type.)
29: Cone breath weapon fire
34: Vulnerability to cold
39: Equal spell casting to moderately experienced arcane caster.
44: Can see through smoke.

How I would do it.
24: Same as above
29: Same as above and vague about idea on how much damage it does.(example has a decent chance of outright killing the wizard.)
34: Vulnerability to cold, they are however highly intelligent creatures and aware of this weakness.
39: Casts as a moderately experienced spontaneous arcane caster, most likely to enhance it's own abilities than rely on them for offense. Has some spell like abilities that are much more potent.
44: In vague idea likely all about defense section.
49: Same but about offense
54: Just about everything you can know without just handing the character sheet.
Higher: Know very spesific knowledge about this particular dragon, as what sort of spells it has in it's spells known. Some of the feats(the kind that allow new tactics like flyby attack.)

Well first of all I refuse to even play any of the published adventures because they are at even their high points at best passable. Well I suppose the artwork is decent. (Spesifically speaking paizo here, I haven't looked at 3rd party adventurers in PF)

Encounter length is no measurement of it's difficulty either. 100 1st level warriors that are spread out will likely take a good number of rounds but that does not mean it will be a challenge once you are in the double digit levels.

Offense is easier than defense in this system at half way compotent optimization levels and mid to high levels that will mean what is referred to as rocket tag or the CR goes right out the window (Like +6-8 CR) I have given my own numbers earlier. Granted it can be self fulfilling prohesy, as if offense comes easier and that makes people focus on it, you might sacrifice defense enough that then you HAVE to finish the fights fast or deaths are gonna happen.

Neither is here or there however. The reason for that message was that you were using some of the same dialoge as the stereotypical ROLEplayer vs. ROLLplayer. Someone is playing the game different than me, they must be filthy muchkin power gamers who just wanna play the game on easy mode.

There is always a way to optimize something. How high the optimization ceiling is however a different story.

Being a smart-ass aside:

Off the top of my head I can get to about average damage of 40 at level 8. That is not counting chances to hit. And it will only get worse off from there as about third of that damage will not increase as you go further up the vital strike tree.(granted the % will go much lover than that as levels increase but still.)

In comparison in another thread I counted fighter archers DPR at level 7 against CR 7(the monster creation chart) AC to be 44-45 I belive.

We are talking about archers though, and clustered shot makes number 2 rather irrelevant.

If 3rd party is an option. DSP has Marskman.

For starters it is a lot more interesting class than full attack archery every single time. Subjective I know but at least there is the option to do something else as well.

The important parts are Mirror shot, +4-7 arrows as imidiate action.

Ephemeral Bolt is where the real archer assasin stuff is at. Essentially you shoot an arrow, and it affects the target when you want to within the limitation of 1min/lvl. And it does extra damage to boost.

Now outside of the bit loose one hit one kill defination, the marksman has solid DPR and some utility to go with it. The big limitation of the class is the pretty low pool of power points, though that can be helped with items.

Encounters can easily go on for more than 3-4 rounds, however once the actual "real" fight starts, it will be over in those 3-4 rounds or at least at the point that it is just mopping up straglers.

Exceptions include waves of enemies, hit and run tactics, party trying to conserve resources(either being very low already or just expecting lot of fighting to come), enemies that have an ability that makes hurting them extremely difficult(swarms would be a good example at low levels)or dice just screwing everyone over. Others exist naturally but point is that unless the fight is somehow unorthodox for lack of a better term the 3-4 rounds more or less holds true.

Healing in combat is a fools game mostly. Exceptions are breath of life(because of the rider) and heal(because it exceeds damage taken in most cases.). However if the healing can keep a party member in the fight for 1 more round and their actions would be more effective than your own alternative offensively then it is good. Also if said party member could actually die, then it might be prudent if you can still win with sacrificing efficiency in this combat for keeping that person around for the future without having to rely on the resurection spells. So short answer to why isn't in combat healing smart usually? Action economy.

Now I should note that when I am talking about healing here, I mean strictly HP restoration. Status removal on the other hand is extremely valuable to have. Your pouncing barbarian will not be much use if they
are blind.

It also seems that OPs party is seriously undergeared, coupled with GM increasing the challenge of the opposition. So the party has lower offense and lower defense than intended, while opposition has both of those increased.

Okay so 7th level seems to be the benchmark for a reason or another.

I am throwing numbers from the hip(to the build itself) so +/-1 or 2 margin of error likely.

STR 16 and DEX 22 with items acounted for.
Point-blank shot(due to elemental blast range assume it is in effect), Deadly aim, Rapid shot, Manyshot, Clustered shot, Weapon focus, Weapon specilization are the relevant feats.
BAB 7/2
Weapon training 1
+1 Weapon
Bracers of falcons aim
Belt of dex +2

To hit: 14(x2)/14/9
Damage: 1d8+12

Using the Monster statistics by CR table, using CR 7 and CR 9 ACs 20 and 23 respectibly. (I am aware that the table is a bit wonky but best we have)

DPR against AC 20: 55.275
AC 23: 43.1475
I think my math is correct, but it has been a while since I used it.

Now noteworthy is the fact that kineticist has swaths more utility than a fighter and that since the fighter essentially has 4 attacks every bonus they get will be magnified.

My point being that when it comes to DPR Kineticist is not really in the running, I think with high optimization you could get decent enough DPR on the account that you bring other things to the table, but focusing on the matter seems like a fools game. That is pretty basic archer build too.(for a fighter that is)

Personally I view that the acceptable level of damage contribution is being able to bring down level=CR from full HP to dead/dying in 2 full attacks(in a vacuum that is), assuming that damage is one of the main contributions the character does.

Note: I am not familiar with kineticist intimately so I may well be wrong. But hopefully my post at least provided some sort of benchmark to be used.

Anyone that claims that the kineticist is broken as in OP, has no clue about the underlying math and mechanics of the game. This one is not up to debate your friend is wrong, and by a huge margin as well. I would be more scared of a 10th level wizard than 20th kineticist.

Problem is that it would be the dev team making that judgement, wich more or less means it would be flawed in best case scenario, my personal guess would be just flat out wrong. I think the state of cavaliers options currently is all supporting evidence needed for that statement, when the class that is solely focused around mounted combat is not even in the top 3 of that function, something is seriously wrong.

I would like to point out something that has been overlooked about that so called FAQ.

Now even those without a single rank in spellcraft automaticly know that the caster is casting. That most certainly is a change into the rules. Now you can certainly argue that the change in rules in spellcraft(the change from 3.5 to PF) shows that even componentles spell has something that can be identefied. I would even agree on that point. However nothing ABSOLUTELY nothing in the rules state about people automaticly regonizing spell casting as spell casting. This is why I berated the devs earlier about calling this a FAQ when it is clearly an errata.

I don't remember the excat link, not that it matters since it did not have a source linked. I belive the article was about how paizo was becoming one of the big boys. This was 2011 or 2012 numbers, if I recall correctly.

And yes I was talking about gross not net.

On the above Adventure path subscription is probably not the best example to use when talking about homegaming "vs" organized.

Regardless only thing I was arguing is that PFS only people or even PFS people outnumbering those in homegames is unlikely at best.

and 12 mil being the whole industry earnings? Did you even stop to think about that statement, assuming average product price is 20 bucks that would mean that every single RPG product sold in the entire world amounts to measly 600k products sold.

30k(assuming that this number is correct) Is not really some massive horde in the grand scale of things. With a bit of googling around I found a rather old figure of revenue of about 12mil yearly. For PFS to be majority the average PFS player would need to spend 200 dollars on average yearly. I doubt that rather severely.

Nobody at least to my understanding is saying that PFS is not a sizable part of their consumer base but trying to claim that they over number the homegamers is pretty silly.

Well I can't access any numbers.

But I certainly belive that like in cast majority of RPGs(some of wich do have numbers available even if the statistics are very flawed for this consideration.) organized play is in the minority. Most in this case just means more than 50%. That does not mean PFS is not a considerable enough amount of consumer base that it should be disregarded as not noteworthy.

That being said every single time that PFS has effected the general rules it has been for the worse.(the spesific enviorement that is PFS skewed the POV, see crane wing.) Though that being said almost every single time that paizo has started messing up with the rules it has been been for the worse(only good ones that I recall that did not suck was reinstating the 3.5 rule about reach and diagonals, and improved natural attack wich the board members more or less solved for them.), so one can't be sure if it was PFS skewing things or paizo just being incompetent again.

As far as unchained goes. I feel horrible for any person who wasted their money on that thing. I feel bad for the trees that were used to make the books. Only usable parts of that book were either rather common houserules from before even PF existed or unchained rogue, and upgrading that piece of garbage was hardly an achievement.

Thanks Grom Kranock, forgot about that one when I changed the level of the example. Since the lower WBL did not allow such an expensive item.

On the above I would figure going by memory since in 3.5 unless I am totally mistaken paladins needed wisdom to cast their spells.