Danse Macabre

DrDeth's page

Organized Play Member. 6,821 posts (6,822 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,821 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Counter? How do you counter in PF?

But yeah, your DM is a Dick.

Now, having the Captain have a weapon that stuns you , to get around the combats yous should not be in anyway, is OK. But not to kill you.


Loren Pechtel wrote:

Sure magic doesn't work in our world?

What if we live in a world where magic is simply hard?

To cast a spell requires a DC25+spell level spellcraft check?

I said Obvious magic doesn't work. No Fireball, but sure Charm Person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the D&D World, I'd play Kane, a Fighter/monk who works for Kelanen, the Lord of Swords. I also built him as a warblade/monk.

IRL, I would play Sir Eddy, CBE, the second son of Lord Carnarvon in a Pulp Cthulhu game. Big game hunter and amateur Egyptologist.


Now, it doesn't have to be PF or even D&D.

But let us say you could take over as one of your characters?

1. In our world (where obvious magic won't work)
2. In that world.

who would you want to be and why?


But I bet him will save sucks, eh?

Ok, the big question, is the player a jerk also?


I have a request Mark. When/if you guys are finished with the new Ed, and thus put up a PRD for it, can you PLEASE leave the old PrD somewhere so those of with a 1st campaign can still reference it?

Thanks.


James, what is the chance you guys will host the 1st Ed PRD somewhere, even after 2nd Ed comes out? I would really appreciate that.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".

All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.


Nice. I would never dump int that much, however. And of course spending some of that 7000 to boost wis for a even better Will save. etc.

still, it works quite well.


Chess Pwn wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Just making up a name for something like "mistake zero" doesnt give it any credence. D&D is now, and always has been- a Team game. Each member of the team contributes. Mitsake Zero is theorycrafting that the team will not play as a team.

Well let's look at many team games, the players have their own job to do to help win rather than trying to support a less stellar member. In football my lineman doesn't take on two opponents while a friend supports him, each person takes an opponent.

So in a total win situation which is more likely to have an overall higher score? A spell that takes out one enemy with a high likelihood of success or a spell that makes the fighter a little more accurate?

A team game is having 4 enemies and 4 allies and each killing one quickly. That's how normal team games are usually played and won. A strategy of having 4 enemies and 4 allies with only 1-2 killing the enemies and the others buffing takes longer and costs more.

This idea that the Fighter is somehow "less than stellar" doesnt mmatch how I have see the fighter player, or how the Developers own games are played. Perhaps the Fighter being less that steller in your games is the outlier then?

Few spells are insta kills. Most likely you have a "save or suck" in which case, it is the fighters job to kill the now sucky monster.

Umm, no, that's usually bad tactics. What is good tactics is for one member to delay or hold off three foes, while three party members quickly finish one foe at a time.

The classic wizard is the Treatmonk "God wizard" who most specifically does not "win the combat" he instead "provides the
tools for the rest of the party to win, by "controlling reality""

And of course, buffing can and often should go on before the combat and/or will include the entire party. Haste for example.


Omnius wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Nor did I say ""Ask your teammates to give you buffs" in my post. The OP build a sub-optimal build, and obviously doesnt know about much better, more optimized fighter build- fighters who can- with feats- fly, dimension door, and see invisible.

At the same time, the ideas used in the OP's build are sensible decisions that should work, but fall into a lot of the design shortcomings of the game.

The build makes sense. It should work.

And it does, for doing damage, which is what he wanted. What the build failed to do is "Still can't fly. Can't help it's team with healing or buffs. Relies on the charge for maximum effect. Can't turn invisible or see those who have."

And, like I pointed out, if you want a fighter that can fly or see invisible, you can have one, and one that still does a lot of damage.

But that build isnt the way to get Fly or See invisible.

It's a fun build anyway.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


This is just your opinion, trust me, in my current game and in RotRL, the Fighter was far and away the most dangerous character. Of course, we played D&D as a Team.

It is true that with Armor & Weapon mastery handbooks, any archetype that trades away weapon and armor class abilities will be sub-optimal.

And weapon damage is anything but irrelevant. My Fighter is downing demons the spellcasters can barely touch.

Melee works really well, in fact. With no reach at all. And, again, my fighter is 13th level.

Difference between a Fighter getting buffed by his party members and contending with his party members is precisely the reason why the OP is in the situation he's in. The factor that your Fighter had to be buffed to be considered the "most dangerous" really only proves what I will now dub as "Mistake Zero," as well as proves Caster/Martial disparity, especially when said buffers would have and could have just as easily ended encounters as they began.

And unfortunately, telling the OP "Ask your teammates to give you buffs" isn't really a fair answer/response to "Why does the Fighter not get any bones?" Since the entire point is to question why responses like that one are so important for a Fighter.

And if your Fighter is defeating demons that Wizards/Clerics can't, then it's really an optimization issue amongst your full spellcasters, or they are being purposefully played to supplement the Fighter at the cost of their own contention to other, potentially unseen, foes, in which case it's still otherwise a lop-sided comparison.

Nope, the fighter does't have to be buffed, but agaign, D&D is a team game. Does the wizard need condition removal and healing from the divine caster? My Fighter rarely needs buffs to be the most dangerous member of the party.

Just making up a name for something like "mistake zero" doesnt give it any credance. D&D is now, and always has been- a Team game. Each memember of the team contributes. Mitsake Zero is theorycrafting that the team will not play as a team.

Nor did I say ""Ask your teammates to give you buffs" in my post. The OP build a sub-optimal build, and obviously doesnt know about much better, more optimized fighter build- fighters who can- with feats- fly, dimension door, and see invisible.

Yes, of course- my players dont know how to optimize. Trust me, they do.


Chess Pwn wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
And weapon damage is anything but irrelevant. My Fighter is downing demons the spellcasters can barely touch.

So I think this is an issue of talking past each other.

I'm fairly sure that Darksol the Painbringer meant was that if your weapon of choice does 1d6 or 2d6 that the choice between the two is quickly irrelevant. Doing 1d6+30 or 2d6+30 per hit just isn't a big enough difference to really need to care about.

Now I could be wrong and he did mean that HP damage was irrelevant, just that's not what I see when I see "weapon damage"

True, the difference between a d6 and a d10 is not as great as the adds.


VoodistMonk wrote:

It's probably more a problem with my outlook or expectations, rather than the game itself.

My human fighter traded Skilled for History of Terrors, so I wouldn't kill my friends. Once again, choices I made, not a fault of the game.

"History of Terrors"???


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


You're built wrong if you want to be the most fearsome character in the game. Your first mistake is you played a martial, and not an Arcane Full Spellcaster, in a game that's designed with magic being the meta, and not mundanes. So expecting to go against the meta and complain about your bad experiences is just exacerbating the problem.
.... Weapon damage is largely irrelevant in the higher levels of gameplay, where you will be struggling the most, and it won't shore up your absolute weaknesses.

The second mistake is optimizing a silly weapon. Melee in this game are really bad and really clunky unless they have stupid amounts of reach and battlefield control to go with them. A basic beatstick is largely ineffective by 6th level, where iteratives and flight become commonplace. .....
...

This is just your opinion, trust me, in my current game and in RotRL, the Fighter was far and away the most dangerous character. Of course, we played D&D as a Team.

It is true that with Armor & Weapon mastery handbooks, any archetype that trades away weapon and armor class abilities will be sub-optimal.

And weapon damage is anything but irrelevant. My Fighter is downing demons the spellcasters can barely touch.

Melee works really well, in fact. With no reach at all. And, again, my fighter is 13th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:

I am unimpressed by how the game, and seemingly all those who choose to manage the game, deliberately nerf any attempt to stay relevant as a melee fighter.

Still can't fly or turn invisible or heal or buff the party, but can do some damage sometimes.

Still can't fly. Can't help it's team with healing or buffs. Relies on the charge for maximum effect. Can't turn invisible or see those who have.

Why is it impossible to be a relevant melee fighter?

My fighter has, by means of feats, the ability to fly, dimension door, and has Scent, Blindsense and Blindsight (so yeah, he can see Invisible- and more). And, he is just a Human. Try the Weapon Master's Handbook, Armor masters, and etc.

He also is the parties primary method of killing foes. Despite the other two members being optimized casters,nd us being 13th level.

And of course fighters can fly, turn invisible, etc with the use of magic items, too. Or a willing spellcaster.


This is one change I would like to see. Sure, it's not a big change, but it would be nice. Besides the names arent really enshrined, since OD&D & AD&D had different names.

The armor names are the worst:

No such thing as studded leather. Make it hardened leather.

Scale was mostly gone, it should be brigantine.

There was really a Half-plate, it was the upper half of full plate. Rather light and easy to move in, comparitively. Expensibe.

It should be Plate-mail aka plate & mail,
Full Plate

3/4 plate

Half Plate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
karlbadmannersV2 wrote:
I see absolutely no reason Paladin cannot *EVOLVE* to being multiple alignments. It's silly to hold onto the "LG ONLY!" notion

Why is it "silly"? Look, no one has a big issue with Monks being Lawful, right?

There are plenty of ways to make a non-LG holy warrior- The Inquisitor comes to mind, as well as several others.

Leave the LG Paladin alone- why CAN'T it be just LG?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1.


No, the Paladin should NOT fall. But you can do some interesting RPing here, by having the Pally visited in his dreams by his deity who warns him that man he so nobly rescued is a danger to the area.

Every DM needs to give every Paladin a free slotless Phylactery of Faithfulness, and ONLY after it warns him that what he is about to do is wrong- then have consequences- which arent always "falling".They coudl well be a warning dream, a temp loss of spells untill a the paladin repents, the need for a spell, etc.

So pretty much the answer to "Should the Paladin fall" is No.


NobodysHome wrote:

So I intentionally took a few days to let things settle in, but now I feel compelled to write:

The PRD: Outside of the forums, my main use for the site is the PRD. Once again, it took me two tries to find it because "Pathfinder > Roleplaying Game > Rulebooks" sounds like the correct path but isn't.

where did you find the PRD?


Childlike is actually a Halfling feat. Not worth a feat, mind you.

Yes, you cant solve a OOC issue IC. Ask him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont like this "update" at all.


I dont care for the new design at all.


This site can’t be reached
The webpage at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AVFu9Z5AvkCBw1EyI2xTTFNKgJN3s1Qw might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
ERR_TUNNEL_CONNECTION_FAILED


Great build. A few ideas: You get 8 skp /lvl, so why a int of 12? And yes, the Childlike feat is not worth it as a feat. Maybe as a trait, if you are doing a heavy city campaign.


Algarik wrote:

That normaly shoudn't be a problem with my DM, but thanks for mentionning! :)

Then maybe you can get Elven battle focus. Andriods should be great at focus.


Algarik wrote:

Hello everyone,

I decided it could be fun to roll stats my next android character. (Yeah i know i'm an herectic!)

Using 4d6 drop the lowest, in order, i got the following stats:

Str: 15
Dex: 12+2
con: 12
int: 16+2
wis: 12
cha: 9-2
- My current group consist of; A mesmerist, a Witch, a vrawler and a oracle of life.

I like rolling myself, especially in a case like this. I also love "gap filling".

Mesmirist is a decent skill PC and a OK spellcaster.
You cant beat a Life oracle for healing and boosting
Witch is a good arcanist.
Brawler is a Monk, kinda.

So what don't you have? A Tank.

I would have fun playing this as a smart fighter, like Roy Greenhilt. Now the Tactician archetype may look great but with Armor and waepon masters handbooks out, you dont want to give up bravery, weapon or armor training.

I am sure there is some feat out there that will enable you to use your Int, Kirin strike is perfect, but not available until later.

To bad you can't Be a Elf fighter.

Elven Battle Focus 4th lvl). The prereqs you can do with Fighter easy. Elven curve blade. Alternate Racial Traits.

Play against expectations.


Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:


Automatic Bonus Progression - the idea of just raping the corpse of one of your closest of friends as a WBL buff was outrageous to our troupe and as such we implemented a form of this rule long before it was ever included in the cannon options.

My dad was in WW2. When your buddy fell in combat you looted his ammo, grenades, medkit, maybe gun, cigs and anything cool he might have, and then saved his watch, wallet and pictures to send home. Everything else was fair game.


Matthew Downie wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sure it;s logical. A 5000 gps flawless diamond might be the size of a hummingbird egg. 5000 gps of diamond dust might fill a sack the size of a football.

In our world, $500,000 of diamond dust would weigh about 5,000lbs.

Druid: "We need some diamond dust for Restoration."
Cleric: "I have a 5000gp gem in case we needed a Raise Dead."
Barbarian: "Great! I grab the gem and pound it into dust with my magic warhammer. How many times will that allow us to cast Restoration?"
GM: "I'll check the internet... Hm... I calculate that your diamond dust is worth... two silver pieces."

No, that 5000gps diamond yeiled 5000gps of dust. I know, that doesn tmake much sense, but it does,


Wheldrake wrote:

The question about the form that 5000gp worth of diamond takes is irrelevant. Our game works in abstractions, and treats a single 5000gp diamond, a handful of lesser-value diamonds worth 5000gp and 5000gp of diamond dust to be functionally the same, and interchangeable.

This is not logical, from a real-world standpoint, since the value of a diamond is linked to such intangibles as color, clarity and cut. Our game doesn't worry itself over such things, and treats commdities like diamonds as having a fixed value in gold pieces.
.

Sure it;s logical. A 5000 gps flawless diamond might be the size of a hummingbird egg. 5000 gps of diamond dust might fill a sack the size of a football.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dead is dead?

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really? I mean when Black leaf died, sure but in real games?

And one of the devs is on record that 5000 gps of diamonds is worth exactly that and exactly that hard to get. It's not the diamond so much, it's the 5000gps of sacrifice.


graystone wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
You dont get much "older" than me, and yes, we used "tank" back in the 1970's.
LOL So it's an old off is it... Let me blow off my blackmoor pamphlet and make up a hobbit. If you have the greyhawk supplement 1, you can have a paladin. ;)

We don't do that there newfangled blackmoor stuff, yew got yer 3 Volume set and you like it. Get off my lawn! :-)

I invented the Thief class. "Old" enuf for you? ;-)


Matthew Downie wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.
The King In Yellow wrote:

‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.

People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.

Moonheart wrote:
That's totaly true, but today, only the old players remember this... and it's quite hard to explain the newest players that there is, in fact, no tank in that game.
Yeah, DrDeth, a young newbie like you should listen to us veterans who remember the game as it was way back in the 90s. ;)

LOL!!

Matthew knows who I am, clearly! ;-)


Moonheart wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:

‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.

People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.

That's totaly true, but today, only the old players remember this... and it's quite hard to explain the newest players that there is, in fact, no tank in that game.

You dont get much "older" than me, and yes, we used "tank" back in the 1970's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The King In Yellow wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
The Shaman wrote:
Ehhh, tankiness is hard to quantify in Pathfinder as there aren´t very solid "taunt" or other control mechanics outside of spells, and you usually don´t want to be casting those on the "frontline".
The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.

‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.

People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.

Nope, we were using Tank back in 1st Ad days, in fact one Fighter Dwarf was named "Sherman" as he was such a great tank. Tank was common nomenclature out here.

You should check my profile, I come in very very early in D&D history.


The Shaman wrote:
Ehhh, tankiness is hard to quantify in Pathfinder as there aren´t very solid "taunt" or other control mechanics outside of spells, and you usually don´t want to be casting those on the "frontline".

The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.


kaisc006 wrote:
Either way monsters will ignore him.

Why? Does he have a sign "Hard to hit, but doesnt do any damage"?


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Waves of Fatigue/Waves of Exhaustion

Affects the whole party, no save, and it hits the Swash in his AC, attacks, and damage (and that’s not even bringing encumbrance into it).

Yes, but: how fair is the DM to bring this into play? Maybe sure, if the party had a foe who was able to research the party in advance and saw this as a weak spot.

Or, perhaps if the party runs into a Necro oriented spallcaster in a AP, who doesnt have that spell in the book, but might very well add it.


But here's the point guys.

Why does the DM care? Because the Player is using this loophole to do funny things, like murder sprees, solo adventuring and PvP.

The loophole doesnt matter that much as the murder sprees, solo adventuring and PvP.

It is like arguing whether or not the law allows a man to buy so many tonnes of fertilizer when his stated objection is to blow up City Hall. ;-)


PCScipio wrote:
As others have pointed out, intelligent enemies should mostly attack the lowest defense, highest damage characters. This character is the opposite of that.

But how would they know? He doesnt look like a tank. It woudl take 2-3 good swings before they discover that.

And that party has no "squishies" at all, no guy in robes with a pointy hat with "Wizzard" on it in sequins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemist 23 wrote:

Our Cleric is trying to use Lesser Restoration to make it so she does not need to sleep ever. Just meditate for an hour to redo spells. She's using this to stay up an go on murder sprees while the rest of the party is asleep.

1. No Evils.

2. No splitting the party. YOU are the DM, just tell them you dont want this anymore, and when the cleric goes out "you encounter nothing".

3. Looking at another post, I see there is a possible PvP issue, stop that right now.


Serisan wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Lastly, ask your players if they are having fun with the current setup. If this is the type of game they want to play (i.e. where they roflstomp everything in sight because of numbers), that's a valid way to play. Take the opportunity to reduce total encounter counts somewhat to add time for storytelling.

Actually, firstly.

If they are having fun, that is the purpose of the game.

You can just make the monsters a bit tougher, give them a small + to hit and double their HP. That should still be fun.

What is interesting is that this party has not much in the way of full spellcasters (Warpriest that acts as a monk?) and thus according to theorycrafters should be super weak. Gosh it has three martials. It should be nearly useless. ;-)


Now, what if the creature wants to cast a spell on itself?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Not so far, as I am rather adept at making things up on the fly.

However, I have been taken aback by things like :

Me "The room is suffused by a Golden Glow."
Player: "How many Hit dice is a Golden Glow?"

Room, with gong, with sign "Ring Gong for Demon": they always do, to their regret.


Good question.


I like the oracle, as it is like the Cleric but with more flavor, and a cleric was my first PC back in the OD&D days, good old Father Kirkman.

For obvious reasons I like the Rogue.


WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

So, assuming that martials are strong before level 10, and full casters are too strong after level 10,what is it that fighters want?

Back when I was still foolishly optomistic that people actually wanted to make fighters a bit more versatile I made some suggestions.
1) fighters get 4+ int skill points per level
2) bravery adds to all will saves, not just fear
3) fighters get a suite of tactical abilities, like a rogue's skill unlocks, but based on weapon groups.

So what would fix the fighter vs. wizard disparity?
Anything less drastic than banning wizards? I'd like to see the floor raised for casters and the ceiling lowered, but that would take some finesse that I'm not sure Paizo can muster.

1. Pretty much you can get this now.

3. Same here.

Armor and weapon masters.

There is little disparity and no need to fix. As you said, Martials do fine and perhaps overshadow spellcasters at lower levels, where the vast majority of games are played.

I did find spellcasters ruled once they got 9th level spells, but that is pretty rare. I dunno if that needs a"fix" except maybe some good DM work on that particular campaign.


graystone wrote:
With very basic tactics [5' step and cast] the wizard had a 100% chance to cast their spell [full cover inside an object]. They could then freely move anywhere they pleased, pop out and start casting offensive spells.

Can you cast while inside a object? I'd like to see a rule cite that says you can cast like that without any hinderances.

And altho you can move, you can't see where to move.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
How many wizards have combat reflexes and just how dangerius is a 5th level wizards dagger on a AOO anyway? Nothing about teleport was needed. Even so with a good movement, you can move around and not provoke.
I thought this was a TEAM GAME? Now it's 3 on 1, and the caster has to adventure solo with no pets (druid), eidolon (summoner), minions (cleric with animate dead), etc., etc.?

Becuase you see, if you had read the thread, you'd see we are talking about a actual situation one player posted "It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell."

1 to 50 of 6,821 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>