|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
what facts? That I two friends stop smoking by doing vaping ? Cig smoking is worse?
In my experience vaping leads people to stop smoking and usually stop using nicotine at all eventually.
I am not happy with vaping but I have had two friends stop smoking by doing vaping so I can't condemn it. Bad as vaping is, cig smoking is a hundred times worse.
Just so long as vapers only vape where smoking would be OK.
You are right and wrong here. I do that a lot, having been around as long as anyone in the business. But having played dozens and dozens of systems with hundreds and hundreds of players, I can tell you that certain things carry over from any system- things that are just universal to RPGs.
So, for example, if I tell you to "Never try to solve a OOC problem IC" - it will work even if I have never heard of that RPG, let along played it.
However, if I tell you that "xxx class is overpowered and needs nerfing" then yes, I needs must have played that class and played WITH that class- in a couple of games. Simply reading it once doesn't really cut it. Watching one guy cream everyone in one session is not proof either.
So, I really dont know more about PF than any of the other experienced posters here. Despite my deep experience, as far as PF game mechanics go, my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's- and less than quite a few. But if you tell me you have a certain problem player- then yes- my 40 years of experience will likely be of value. *
* and if you compare PF to other legacy systems, then I have dropped several ranks in that skill.
I dont think so. "He does about in the 20-36 points on his first hit if he doesn't critical." Not "per round"- per hit. And he crits half the rounds= " critical hitting every other round" so he does more then. He also gets several hits per round, I think I read the Op as saying he is getting both Iterative and Cleave. That would be wrong but make sense. He'd then yes- crit every second round, and yes, do about 75 pts a round. Which can one-round-drop a foe at that level.
He's also apparently Level 10, not 12? "Bloodrager 2/warpriest 8". Not sure how that gives him a BAB of 11 for Strike back?
So, we need to see his complete build, not just have the OP deal out a stat once in a while.
Grey Lensman wrote:
I played under a guy who loved having giants grapple people and use them as bludgeons and missile weapons based on their high bonuses (this was before Pathfinder. Once my warrior got a feat that gave him an attack of opportunity against such things (even bypassing improved grab and similar effects, and as an added bonus adding all damage dealt to the check) he was never again targeted by such an attack (never used the feat even once). The group still comments on it.
I loved that feat. All my warriors took it.
Since the OP hasnt posted the build, we really aren't sure. "Overpowered" is a relative term. But we have fixed a couple of errors about how feats, etc work, which should help. I do agree, after fixing those, it doesn't look like he's "Overpowered' anymore.
No, even Cugel knew that many.
Iucounu the Laughing Magician knew dozens and dozens.
The fourth chapter of a "basic book" of magic contains a dozen spells, per Rhialto the Marvellous.
Turjan knew exactly 100 spells. He was not counted the most powerful.
wiki: "The most powerful wizards of the 21st Aeon of the Dying Earth are banded together in an association, and mostly reside in the territories of Ascolais and Almery. Unlike other wizards of the Dying Earth, such as Turjan and Mazirian, these wizards possess nearly godlike power. With little effort, they can travel to the distant past or the furthest reaches of the universe, freeze time (a popular dirty trick), prolong their lives for eons, change their shape and appearance, summon useful objects, and call forth numerous spells of protection, destruction, investigation, or simple amusement and experimentation. Much of their power comes from their ability to bind and control potent genie-like beings called sandestins, while they also derive power from their large stores of magical relics. The most highly prized are IOUN stones, mystical stones which they take as the spoils of their battles with the archveults. Their conduct toward one another is governed by a set of rules called the Blue Principles, because they are inscribed upon a blue stone which displays them through a sort of projector."
Sure, that's a good example, but like you said it's very freeform.
Still Spell points/Man just isnt used much in Fantasy Literature.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Vancian Magic is also used by:Roger Zelazny, Sir Terry Pratchett, by one sort of magic user in Lawrence Watt-Evan's wonderful Ethshar series, Diane Duane, Patricia C. Wrede,The Obsidian Trilogy by Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory, and Glen Cook.
It's likely the second most used magic in Fantasy Literature, after magic that actually drains you physically and/or makes you tired. "Spell points" or Mana where you have so many points a day and use them like a battery (but dont make you tired) is quite rare in Fantasy Literature.
Leonhart Steelmane wrote:
These are all good. But really the best idea is just to add a couple mooks to each combat. You have a large and powerful party, adding a couple CR-2 mooks wont change much but it will allow the others to contribute in combat.
That, and fixing how he uses his feats etc, will do the trick.
It doesnt have to be music. Henry the V's St Crispins day's speech is an example of Oratory. It can be dance. It can even be ime, but then The Patrician would have you thrown in the scorpion pits, so.....
Bards are part of Celtic and Irish myth and legend, they inspired with Song, oratory and yes, even Satire.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I just gave the Fighter the Vital strike chain of feats for free, one per five levels.
And Ninjas, and Slayers, and Vivisectionists,and Arcane tricksters, and Sandmen, and Master spies, and Bushwhackers, and....
I know I am going to be shunned when I say this, but I was so scarred by the Munchkin horror that was AD&D Psionics, I still cant get myself to want to play it. I know recent versions are much better balanced, but it's like a snake phobia, I have a terrible and unfair knee jerk reaction.
Please try to forgive an Old Grognard for this and don't shun me too much. ;-)
But if you played that version you'd understand.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Get off my lawn, you young whippersnapper!
31. Everyone receives 1 additional skill point at creation to place in craft, profession, or performance (for non-bards) to represent a background occupation or hobby.
I let them have 3 points, but they had to have a background any nothing combat related.
89. Part of your background is that you start with a "free" level of NPC class. (Not Adept). This gives martials and skill monkeys a little boost over spellcasters, and even gives the spellcasters a few more HP and skills.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
Sorry, it's being this whole Evil Dark Lord thing, you just can't stop reading peoples minds, they're like peanuts... in many ways....
Simon Legrande wrote:
Matrix I was a great special effects action film, as long as you didnt stop to think about the silly concept.
As has been stated, IQ follows the same standard bell curve as 3d6,
It may have been stated, but it's not in the rules. Actually, on a random encounter* you wont find a human with less than a 8 int in all of Golarion. You dont normally roll, the normal array is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. It's true the 3d6 system sorta a little follows the human bell curve, but since they are both bell curves, nothing surprising there.
* certainly the DM can assign a Int of anything he chooses.
Don't get me wrong the DM should not tell a PC what he sez. But "Hey Bob, is that in character, you have a pretty low INT & CHA?" is a reasonable thing to ask.
But I think those numbers are guidelines for how you run your PC, not strict rules.
"Charisma (Cha)Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
While it's true that some monsters are so frightening they go back around the other side, it's rare.
Cornnuts the Cha 14 barbarian and Silverlisp the Cha 6 Bard are both trying to get a date with the single barmaid... Since this involves improving her disposition toward them from indifferent to friendly it needs a Diplomacy check. Cornnuts the barbarian feels she should automatically swoon for him because of the fluff text on their respective charisma scores and has no ranks in diplomacy. Silverlisp on the other hand recognizes the real number that is needed here IS the diplomacy check result and since he pumped a bunch of his otherwise unspent points into diplomacy he has a +9 modifier even after the penalty. They both make checks against diplomacy after much arguing from Cornnuts and guess what assuming the target number they need is a 20, Cornnuts has a 15% chance of success while Silverlisp has a 50% chance to win her heart. Even if they both succeed Silverlisp has a much better chance of landing that date. The game mechanics CLEARLY show Silverlisp as being FAR MORE eloquent a speaker than Cornnuts. Clearly the 3.5e monster comparison chart is totally useless in comparing PCs.
If indeed, Silverlisp gets a chance to sweet-talk her for a whole minute. Have you ever tried to chat up a pretty girl? If you're a drooling ugly dude, you wont get past "Hey babe....." ;-)
Whereas Cornnuts will get her initial attention, but may fail his attempt as he bungles his conversation.
Foghorn Leghorn: "It was a joke, son, a joke."
OK, Designers and Dragons just published their Platinum appendix, and the Aurania gang is a major part of it, including how we invented the Thief class, published the first 3PP D&D supplement, and more.
Hugh K. Singh
Look, Rynjin and i agree yet again! A sure sign of the apocalypse! ;-)
Not really. People take that entirely out of context. Nor does Monte design for Paizo.
"It raises some very important points, but over the years I’m afraid I’ve come to find it deeply annoying because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point.
What Cook basically says in the essay is, “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”
But the vast majority of people quoting the essay instead snip some variant of “we wanted to reward mastery of the game” out of context and then go ape-s%&& because D&D3 deliberately included “traps” for new players.
The methods of selective quoting vary, but they all basically look something like this:
“Toughness [is] not the best choice of feat.”
OMG! WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE A SUCKY FEAT LIKE THAT?
There are two problems with this.
First, the full quote is actually, “Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it’s not the best choice of feat.” And then the essay goes on to further clarify its meaning: “To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It’s also handy when you know you’re playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don’t want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).”
In other words, Toughness is a special purpose tool. When used properly, it’s a useful tool. When used improperly, it’s a wasted feat slot. The designers felt like people should be smart enough to figure that out for themselves, but the point of Cook’s essay is that it probably would have been better to include more usage guidelines."
Quiche Lisp wrote:
There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Confession, I dislike having to build characters and spend hours typing up their sheet just for a maybe. I'd rather concepts be submitted and accepted and let the crunch work be done only if accepted. I have many characters that never got accepted and rarely would they qualify for another game because each GM has their own character gen.
Huh? Why would a DM do that? A good DM sets parameters, and then lets you play whatever you want within them.
"25 pt buy (no points back from dumping), no Evils, all Core Rulebooks, game starts in Sandpoint, so you should work with that."
I dont think so. Look, if you dont want to play PF, there are dozens of FRPGs moldering away, dusty on the 30% off shelf at your FLGS. Many are classless, level-less, use spellpoints, etc.
If you dont want to play Pathfinder, why not just play one of those? (and some of them are quite good.)
Why would you want a game called Pathfinder but is classless, level-less, has spellpoints and so forth?
Nothing wrong with classless, level-less, spellpoints etc. But they arent D&D. PF is a D&D variant, specifically a 3.5 variant.
Not really. Yes, there was Chainmail (a rather bad miniatures war game) but D&D was a completely new game. And OD&D and AD&D had almost no tactics or war-game like movement at all.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
You can, but it's harder. The combat rules from 3rd Ed require much more tactics and "chess-like" maneuvers. Combat requires more optimizing. Most of us have only so much time and brain power.
Thus, while though it is certainly possible to have scads of RP in a 3rd Ed variant (which PF is) and all combat dungeon hacks used to occur in AD&D, generally there was more time to do RPing.
This is a very general rule of thumb mind you and your mileage may very.
But I see Owly's point.
I'd get rid of many combat maneuvers and AoO. I'd pit movement back on a hexboard.
Oddly I used to scoff at this, as my experience has shown the more optimized the less roleplaying. But then I remember a few noteworthy exceptions.
However, what I have noticed is that in games where there is more NEED to optimize, where combat is emphasized and tactics are critical- Roleplaying TENDS to fall by the wayside. Note this is a tendency only not a hard and fast rule.
I think this is because us mere mortals can only concentrate on a few things at once. And when you must move precisely there, and remember all your bonuses, and think of what you and or your foe is going to do next - it's hard to also act out in character.
This is why sometimes I remember my AD&D games fondly. Not that there weren't groups who said "the hell with RP, I wanna kill something", but that combat movement was rarely important, bonuses might be one or two and thinking like a chess master was largely irrelevant.
So yeah, you certainly can do both- many people dont do both.
As I have posted before: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?
Experiment 626 wrote:
Nope. Some Min/Maxing and some specializing is a good thing. I have said this over and over. It's only when it's taken to an extreme that it's a bad thing. A fighter that can do NOTHING other than hit things with a sword is not very useful outside of that. He's only useful in combat, and even then, only vs things that can be hurt by or reached with a sword.
I hardly expect a Fighter to be a well rounded guy. But he does have 2 SkP and it's cheap to put a 12 in Int or Wis or CHA.
But a fighter is extreme. A ranger should be quite skillful.
A wizard that has dumped every point into INT and every feat and trait and loot into Burning hands is not as useful as a well rounded batman utility or battlefield control wizard.
By all means, since you are part of a team make sure you are very good with your part of the team. This will require some Min/maxing, and thats fine.
Even a Fighter can take a CHA of 12 and a trait that gives him a + to Diplomacy and makes it a class skill. Should every fight do this? Probably not. But I dont think PC's should wander around with stats lower than 10, usually.
Nope. But I do know older systems, having been around when they were played and even helped write them. You likely know PF better than I do.
However, since I do know the older systems I can tell you that Pathfinder is in no way unique or unusual in players finding ways to circumvent encounters in a ridiculously easy fashion, they always have, ever since OD&D. This is nothing new just to Pathfinder.
Yes, you guys need to take this elsewhere, there is a forum for politics and this aint it. Sorry.
Not gonna shun you as I do too, but let's takes this out of Gamer Talk!