|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm working on a Brawler who utilizes Performance Combat. This is for a Hell's Rebel's game, so I'm hoping there may be some opportunities to play to a crowd against the establishment. I think this works well, but I'm curious what other think
Human Brawler 20 point buy)
Skills - likely keep these max
So the Daring Infiltrator archtype says it's Bonus Feat ability replaces things at 2nd, 10th, and 18th level but the base swashbuckler only gets feats at 4th, 12th, and 20th. Considering how much underpowered the 2nd level ability is compared to what it replaces, is there supposed to be an additional bonus feat as well, or is this a typo?
So a good buddy of mine and former GM for many a game recently released a kickstarter for Slower Than Light. It is a 4X game where you build a space empire, but unlike similar games of the genre light speed is a hard cap on movement and communications. Build your space empire as the time delay between instructions and action increases. Who knows what your outer colonies are doing today?
The Bundle of Holding is a group of ebooks by RPG authors. Pay what you want, like the Humble Bundle.
Our collection includes recent novels and stories by Matt Forbeck (Brave New World), Chuck Wendig (Hunter: The Vigil), Jenna Moran (Nobilis, Exalted), Stephen D. Sullivan (D&D/AD&D, Chill), Rafael Chandler (Scorn, Spite), Sarah Newton (Mindjammer, Legends of Anglerre), Derek Pearcy (In Nomine), and Aaron Rosenberg (Asylum, Spookshow).
So the guys who made all the awesome Infinity Engine games are making a new one through Kickstarer. They have my money. Do they have yours?
I wish I was making this up.
2012 Texas Republican Party Platform wrote:
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority
Anyone else following what is going on between The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk?
Long story short - FJ threatened to sue the oatmeal webcomic because of archived complaints about FJ's policy of reposting copyrighted material and proffitting off of it without artist permission or attributes.
The Oatmeal responded to the lawsuit by starting an indiegogo campaign to raise money so that he could take a picture of said money with a comic of the lawyer's mom seducing a bear, and then donate the money to the National Wildlife Foundation and the American Cancer Society.
In a few days he has raised over 140K.
So, after looking through the various encounters this year I have noticed a very common trend. If I run a party of the assumed level (where CR=LVL), the encounter will be a speed bump for them. Now, for some of the encounters, this is reasonable. But anyone outlining the final boss of a dungeon puts themselves at a disadvantage from doing so.
Take Mike Welham's encounter as an example. If you throw a mummy (CR5), a CR1 snake, and 2 1/3rd CR skellies at a lvl 6 party, a few level 3 spells and the encounter is done. On the other hand, if I throw this at a lvl 3-4 party, it makes for a good final fight.
In the end, unless you are running a solo enemy, your encounter CR will always end up being higher than the highest enemies CR, and thus the strongest enemy will be less of a threat to the party than you usually want for a final boss. This may be fine for mid-adventure fights, but final epic fights excite voters much more.
In the future, I would like to see a recomended level range submitted with the encounters for the fight. Depending on the type of fight, the designer make put the level closer or further to the CR. I feel as though we would see more interesting and useful encounters out of this than we do now.
So, I had this thought last night and was wondering what people think. There have been complaints about wanting things to be built at reasonable rates. The definition of reasonable varries from player to player, but I think we can all agree we don't want to see castles spring up instantly but also don't want them to take a year to complete.
So my idea is this: Manpower as a limmitted resource. It could be a requirement for lots of stuff: large scale building, standing armies, castle guards, assistant crafters, shop assistants, caravan guards.
This is a hard resource to create. Its not like you can go out and mine it. It would allow for the game admins to control growth by limitting the number of people available for the players to do things with. They could be a significant resource drain on the ecconomy (which is not necessarily a bad thing.) They could also be a good candidate for microtransactions.
What do people think?
I'm working on a new character, and I'm currious what people think. The rest of the party consists of an Oracle of an unknown type, some form of caster who controls undead (not sure if he is planning cleric or wizard), and 1 undefined with an undetermined player. We will be starting at level 1.
Abridged background: I was born to a noble family in a prominent house. At the age of 12, my house participated in a rebellion and the rebels lost. I was able to escape as I watched my family cut down before my eyes. I joined the commoner's who were rebelling, but recently decided they were petty thieves.
Game of thrones:
Think Arya Stark if she stayed with Robert's bastard son instead of joining the Hound
Human Cavalier: Order of the Shield
Traits: undetermined. Want something that gives know(nobility) that fits my background. Likely taking Poverty Stricken as the other for survival.
Skills I care about:
I am planning on going sword and board, without the ability to go for mounted combat frequently enough to make it worthwhile. When I am mounted, I will be more likely to use my size advantage to control a greater area for stand still.
Overall, I am worried about the party's damage output. Without taking power attack until 9 at the earliest, only a 16 str, and going sword and board without TWF, I wont be bringing the damage to the table. I like where the build is going though. Anyone have anyadvice?
So, orriginally this post was to be in responce to the now locked How is this supposed to be ballanced thread. I'm not trying to restart that flame war. I just want to show some math. When I started this, I was doing it to show that guns were not overpowered, but the result I came to has put me thinking it needs more study.
From what I can tell, at level 10, a pistol using fighter will average more damage than a bow using one, but suffers from the reduced range increment. The comparisons I keep seeing will not show this though, because people keep comparing the 2 as if they had equal stats and gear. There are a flaw with this.
The main reason I see for this is because the pistoleer will be auto-hitting for all intents and purposes. Giving them more than a +1 enhancement bonus is a waste, but I keep seeing them with guns equal to the bow user's. Typical weapons at this point will be +3. Trading +2 to hit for +2d6 damage (ex. flaming and frost) is extremely valuable to them, since that +2 does very little. For a bow user, this is not the case. They get more damage out of the +2 to hit than out of the additional damage.
The best level 10 DPR I could come up with quickly (without getting into too much equipment details or searching through less familiar APG content) for the bow user against the dragon is 50.43, but I could get up to 64.8375 with the pistoleer. Against a more typical enemy AC of 25, the same bow user goes up to 64.575.
I am assuming Deadly Aim cannot be used on the touch attacks. It favors the gun user more if it can.
dex 15 +2 human, +2 level, +4 belt = 23
other stats irrelevant
equipment: +2 composit longbow +2 str vs +1 Flaming Frost Pistol
Bow: +19/+19/+14 1d8+16, 19-20 X3 crit, double damage on first shot
With Haste, the Bow user catches up more:
25 AC is the point at which the pistol user pulls ahead of the bow when unhasted, 26 when hasted.
All this being said, I still do not think that guns are broken. Alternate stat generation methods would pull this more in favor of the bow user. He also bennefits more from buffs that affect hit, like bardic music. A bard in the party will cause the bow user's dpr to jump well over the pistoleer. I think some of these issues need further examination though.
Foam Brain Games, a new game store, will be opening up this Saturday, January 22, at 39 Second St. Troy NY. You may have seen them at conventions before, they have traveled accross the northeast, including PAX, and are finally setting up a base of opperations. As far as I know, they are having a 20% off purchases over $50, 10% off other purchases, sale their opening weekend. They plan to have tables set up for games and stuff. Come, they're nice people and I want to see them succeed.
Their website can be found here, though it appears they have not updated it with info on their new store yet.
Disclaimer: I am not officially involved with the store in any way. Friends of mine is opening it and I figured I would announce it here.
In annother thread someone mentioned that you can cast a quickened shocking grasp and it gives you a free melee attack from spell strike. I do not want to see this used in games, and think it will break things. I think Spell Strike should be clarified to only give you the free melee attack on spells with standard action casting times. You should still be able to channel the quickened strike, but you should not get the free melee attack from it.
So, for the most part I like the spell list, but I feel like a few spells should be added. So here are the ones I think it could use.
So, you can imbune your arcane weapon with Dancing. When you do this, it very clearly states that you are not considered wielding the weapon. So durring that time you cannot cast spells without making a concentration check as if you have lost your bonded weapon.
Granted, by the time you can do this you have a high chance to auto-succeed. I just think this should either be made obvious or removed.
So, I keep seeing the claim that the Magus will never be able to make the concentration check DCs needed to use Spell Combo and I find it flatly wrong. So I'm doing some math to show it. My sample Magus will be built with a 15 starting int, the same cha I recomend for bards. He will have +1 at level 4 for level and +2 at lvl 5 for an int headband, which upgrades to +4 and +6 at 12 and 18, for a total of 22 int at 18. I will not give him a tome of int, since he really does not need it. He will take comat casting at first level.
lvl / spl lvl / Con Bonus / Norm DC / SC DC / Norm Prob / SC Prob
As you can see, this magus has no problems casting his highest level spells defensively atfer the early levels. His probability never goes below 50%, even when using spell combat, and that is only at level 2. He has only a moderate intelligence, arround the lowest you will likely take in the class, and he does not have the trait to give hime annother +2 to his concentration checks.
I do not think that getting a spell off half the time in melee while also attacking is a bad ability for a level 2 character.
So, given that item sales are one of the best ways to generate BP, to a point where it causes issues, and that low level magic items rarely sell because the PCs wont choose them, I was thinking of a houserule to mitigate this. Having a random/semirandom determination of what item sells each turn. This way, the PCs wont always choose to sell the biggest thing, especially since they really shouldn't have any control over what sells and what does not.
I have a couple ideas, each with drawbacks and bennefits
1. roll randomly to determine what sells:
2. weighted roll:
3. Roll a GP ammount that purchasers have each month and select an item/items in that range. Base the random roll off of how many items total there are for sale (perhaps 2d12x1K for each major, 2d8x1K for each moderate, 2d4x1K for each minor). Not sure if I want to allow sale of multiple items this way, provided it does not exceed their limmit. I think I would.
I like the flavor of option 3 the most. The more items that are available, the more money that enters into the system to buy things. More adventurers come here to spend their money.
So, seeing as alignment threads are everyone's favorite discussion topic, I figure I will start annother one. A lot of the debate I see is agravated by people having different views of how the alignment system should be applied.
Some people feel that the actions you take determine your alignment.
Some people feel that the reasons for your actions determine your alignment.
Some people feel that your characters philosphy on life determine your alignment
Some people feel that your character thinks and processes data determines your alignment.
Some people think how your character reacts to government determines the law vs chaos scale. Others put almost no importance on this, and look at how you organize your life. I take more of a Myers-Brigg approach with characters who are thinking, planning, and methodical being lawful and characters who are more emotional and spur of the moment being chaotic.
There are others out there, but I'm having trouble thinking of them right now. I'm wondering how you interpret alignment. What things do you put importance on? Do you hold different characters to the same standard, or does your standard vary based on the character? Personally, I look at each character seprately and try to figure out what is important to them.
I do not think everyone has to interpret alignment the same way, but it helps to understand why others interpret it differently. Otherwise, you can never have intelligent conversation. Not that alignment threads have much of that, but talking can never hurt.