DamnIAmPretty's page

My take on it?
Legend of Korra feels an awful lot like a WWII analogy; non-Benders come to follow a charismatic leader who manages to overthrow the current order, including the Avatar, forcing our stubborn fiery protagonist to learn how to be subtle and go underground. Or that's my take on it. Racism always begins with people blaming others for their own problems, and that sort of metaphor might be played around with in-universe.

Or I might be overthinking it.

Cthulhu did it.

LilithsThrall wrote:

I gotta say, I don't like the step progression. I think gaining levels should be a dramatic point in the overall plot of the campaign, not just something that creeps up on people.

And I think players shouldn't have to wait for 16-20 hours of gameplay to occur in order to see any improvement in their characters. ;)

Heck, that's why I been using it for the last year or two. Otherwise, it feels like players get nothing for alot of work...

Our GM is just running it as written. We are having fun but are also horribly frustrated by the fights that have been written in. It's not a communication problem, it's a bad encounter design in the mod problem. Setting up encounters, or rather not having to, is a key aspect of the adventure paths for GMs.

As I've run Part 2 (my group just finished that sucker up), the Party avoided most of the ability damage in Schloss Caromarc. Mainly, they avoided raiding every single room (quite different than your group's style, I presume). As a GM, if they had played with the basirond, violet fungi and awful poisons, I'd still think about reducing a couple up coming ones if my players brought up to me. And I'm trying to run it as written, but I also want everyone to have fun.

And I've seen and read a lot of this posts and it boils down to communicating the issue and adjusting things for people's tastes. There are plenty of nasty-nasty gobble-degok to throw at people without it being ability score damage. For instance, one monster almost TPK'd the whole group- and none of them were ready for flesh golems, so I threw in a adamantine dagger to make things 'better'.

If the game is being so horrible for you guys, perhaps you need to ask your GM to remedy it. Complaining about being harmed, poisoned, diseased and otherwise hindered in a horror AP on these boards seems counterproductive to me. It is a communication issue with your GM, and that person should want to maximize your fun. He or she can simply choose to stop using them for awhile, that way you guys don't have to deal with it.

Here is a solution from a GM's side when wanting to have bullets not penetrate armor or creature. We'll call it the "Bullet-proof" special quality:

Bullet-Proof (ex): Against Firearms, this creature applies its normal AC rather then let the firearm resolve against its touch AC.

There. Now we can toss that around for monsters/armors that might come up that should be bullet-resistant (such as Grizzly Bears or Dragons).

Otherwise, the rule is simple as is. Nothing better than simple.

I've been playing a Gunslinger for a week or two now (been loads of fun), although my style isn't as precisely mechanical as others, I do have an observation to throw out there.

I think that Grit as a pool, although it right operates with Wisdom, should probably be Charisma-based instead.

While Wisdom does represent being aware of yourself and your environment, Grit doesn't feel like a extension of your Wisdom to me. Grit is "fluctuating measure of the gunslinger’s ability to perform
amazing actions in combat, both offensive and defensive." To me, that sound more of something to do with the ability score that rarely sees play, Charisma.

I like to think of it this way: A gunslinger is forcing things with their personality, shooting and daring to do things that impress others and leave them a little slack-jawed. Also, favoring Charisma for Grit rewards the Gunslinger for the Charisma-based skills the class obviously favors: Bluff and Intimidate get more interesting when Charisma is tossed in.

I've been talking with my GM and we're going to try it out in our next few sessions. Its a subtle change, but hey, thought I should mention it.

I usually drop Attacks of Opportunity and never use them. They tend to slow most of my games down... I didn't eliminate the concept entirely, instead I allow players to opt for the ability to make such attacks by taking Combat Reflexes. Otherwise, their character would never get to make them.

Ever since, few or no players in the various games I've run with the rule ever take the feat anyway. It speeds things up nicely, because it allows players to move on the battlefield with more fluidity, allowing them to properly outflank bad guys or it lets me get a nice drop on them and get a bad guy to get away without much rules stopping me.

At 20th my player will be able to sustain 46 rounds of Performance. Can he use Deadly performance 46 times in a day since it only uses one round of his performance for the day?

I must be misunderstanding this and thank you all for any help.

Yes, he could. 20th level characters get to do crazy things like that. Of course, he can only take on one enemy in a round, and the saving throw for it could be made, so there is always a chance he'll never get around to killing all the bad guys in short order (besides, what if he runs into a Bard of the same level? Or any spellcaster capable of caster much more deadly spells like Implosion?)

Not as badass as a Cleric or Wizard of that level, but hey, we all can't be that cool.

So far my only issues with the class is its name and the nature of spellstrike (and touch range spells). I dislike the idea of something (essentially a "spellsword" class) getting a name like Magus. The image I have of Magi in my head and the class presented differ a bit. Flavor-wise, I'd suggest coming up with something that displays what the class is better- Spellsword, swordmage, Imago or something else.

It doesn't quite suit me for the Magus name. A magus, the one I think of, is more akin to a magister, or some sort of wizard that is ultra-focused on all magic, not just wizardry. Something more like that, but something that isn't needed at the moment in Pathfinder, at least to me.

As for spellstrike, its neat-looking, but I wonder how useful it'll be with how few spells the Magus gets are actually touch spells (or at least touch range). I'd instead think maybe modifying the feature to mimic the spellstoring effect of some magical weapons, but thats kinda the same thing isn't it? Hmm.

Oh well.

Was there a magic bullet, and if so, could we use it on Superman?

The big difference between the oWoD and the nWoD is simply how much space they give the group to create their own setting. oWoD had the metaplot, and while I think most fans of it loved it, you either did the metaplot or it didn't really feel like the oWoD.

nWoD feels like you're allowed to do whatever you want, and still keeps its darkly taste. Of course, I've run a W:tA game with nWoD rules- why not? It takes very little tweaking to do it. There's no reason not to do whatever the hell you want with the game, and not wait for the publisher to go where you want.

Lord Master Jacobs, sir, in the year 2525, if Man is still alive and woman can survive, what would they find?

Elves. And the insane kind too, driven that way due to being overworked and mistreated. Sun Elves and Moon Elves, the normal kind- just driven to Chaotic Evil with their madness, and have gone Cannibalistic too. Too weak to stop the PCs, but also insane enough to want to fight them.

Furthermore, I'd suggest having such weaklings facing the PCs surrender right before they get struck down. Like, after one falls, a group of ten or so surrender.

If the PCs let them live and try to figure a way to help them... well, ideally what happens next is that the Elf Slaves follow them around the Maze. They offer them horrible, insane advice- and once thirty or forty so of them start to follow the PCs as a small town of slaves, they gang up on them again...

Only this time, they start holding their own children as Hostages, and make demands of the PCs- such as surrendering their gear or leading them out or perhaps asking them for a biscuit. The PCs will probably then try to thin out the herd and stop the whole show.

Either way, after the PCs leave, if they killed too many of the slaves, some how word gets out and bigger, elder and stuffier Elves come for revenge. And they won't be as nice as the PCs were.

Thats my suggestion, anyway.

The fighter is great. The paladin is great. They have their strengths. They have their weaknesses. They both rock.

Neither has to hide behind the other.

I agree...

And the problem is when people try to 'balance' the game because they can't learn how to roll with the punches as a GM. Most of the threads I've seen had examples of people whining over spilt Paladins and not attempting to learn from the situation given to them.

Honestly, its not too powerful or game-breaking. I have to agree with everyone else... Its silly to think you have to change one class feature because somebody abused a class feature.

Thats right. Abused, is probably the right word. I've read enough of the complaining on it to see it that way. A player abused it, boohoo. Anti-Paladins are the way. Just wait.

Then the players can feel the smite love.

Yah know, while we're at it, Fireball and Magic Missile are broken too. Same thing with that silly 'Players get to have cure spells' thing too. Can we get somebody on that?

I entered... now I guess I'm in the crowd that bites their nails until January, huh?

I was hesitating, but damn if this thread makes me want to toss my entry in. One of the greatest things the internet has ever done my creativity: keep me from avoiding opportunities and chances.

Yep. Clark, I shall submit and see what the community can teach me on the design side.