Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Danse Macabre

DrDeth's page

5,271 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

Those are cardinal sins!?!

The only "sin" I can understand would be "purposefully ruin the fun of your players"

If any of those "sins" contribute to make the game more fun for all, I say go for it!

Agreed. I guess I am a sinner if these are sins.

We are all sinners.....


Jaelithe wrote:

Here's a quick baker's dozen:

  • Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly

  • Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters
  • Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion
  • Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic

  • Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide
  • Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs
  • Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone
  • Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming
  • Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics
I have committed at least ten of these at one point or another during my nefarious DMing career, and still unswervingly swear by at least eight or nine of them.

Which of these do you espouse? Which are at least comprehensible to you, even if they're not quite your style? Which do you find abhorrent? Which of you think I should be found, shorn, tarred, feathered and run out of town? (Note that last may have nothing to do with this thread, but feel free to make your feelings known.)

Well, of these I only find one which I would call a 'sin " most of these are really good ideas (Mind you , I am SUPER Old School, so...). True, not happy with all those Paladin restrictions, but some are no Paladin-like, unless you have a rather odd deity .

Only "Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters" is to me a "sin" (altho certainly it can make for an interesting 'change of pace" campaign) but that's the opposite of "
old school'. This new "e2" meme and super low magic is by inexperienced and new DM's that cant handle the challenges. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy St-Amant wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Guy St-Amant wrote:


IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.

How? I mean, I understand how some people like spell points or just unlimited use (like the 3.5 warlock). But in some cases, spell points can lead to even more Novaing and 5 minute adventuring days. (Depends on the system, of course).

I get that some peoples tables/games have issues with casters vs martials.

But I cant see how Vancian makes the difference.

"Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard"

Vancian usually start "weak", but get ridiculously strong at later levels; so maybe if the classes were balanced with each others level by level...

Yes, "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" is a meme and does occur in D&D, especially at the very highest levels. It also occurred in T&T, Runequest, Fantasy Hero, C&S and pretty much every Fantasy RP game I have played.

Vancian casting has nothing whatsoever to do with "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" . It occurs equally in Vancian games, and Non-Vancian games. Not to mention, not all magic in D&D is Vancian.

Dont get the "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" issue mixed up with the system of magic itself. They are entirely and completely independent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
Vancian casting is unbalanced because of the breadth of solutions it grants, not because of the capacity to nova, which has a downside built in(you run out of the potential to contribute).

And other spellcasting systems dont have "breadth of solutions"? Have you played Tunnels and Trolls? Chivalry and Sorcery?

The downside is minor since you nova, Tport back home, rest, go back out, wash rinse repeat. Thus you never "run out of the potential to contribute" until you run out of days.


Atarlost wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
<snip>Beren and Luthien had possibly just one magic item between them and Luthien was so epically powerful she could put an entire fortress to sleep. That's thousands of hit dice over a range of probably over a mile most of them through solid rock.<snip>

Precisely my point!

In D&D terms Luthien could sing Morgoth <cough>Orcus<cough> to sleep in his own fortress and both Beren and Luthien could just set Balrogs <cough>Balors<cough> on ignore as they gallivant around the continent.

Very high magic indeed.

And yet it's still low magic by PF standards. There are far fewer magic items;

Yeah. I mean, that party of Nine Walkers had nothing. Just the single most powerful Artifact in the world, the 3rd most powerful artifact, a artifact sword, two powerful relic named swords, 4 bane short swords, a Staff of Power, the Invulnerable Coat of Arnt, a powerful relic Crystal, Aragorns ring, Boromirs horn and a host of other things including cloaks, clasps, bows, rope, food, and what-not . The party was loaded.Heck magic weapons were so common no one noted the powerful bane daggers that the hobbits carried until one of them brought the Witchking to his knees.

And there's indications that low level items weren't even talked about. The Official LotR RPG had Gimli with what we'd call a +2 axe and chainmail, etc. Nothing special, they didnt glow or anything.

The problem with the term "Low magic" is that it covers so much ground. I dont use "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe". Other than potions and such, what you find is what you get. Plenty of "Phat lewt" tho. Some call that "low magic".

As for "D&D spellcasters are more powerful than literature or other games:
In Zelazny's Amber they could do things that would make a Epic level wizard cry himself to sleep at nite.

Merlin? In some stories, yes, he was THAT powerful.

Rune priests in Runequest can do a lot due to Deific intervention. Basically anything.

Harry Dresden killed ALL the vampires in the world with one spell. (Ok, it was a really special ritual, etc, but in the later books, he can do a LOT as a blaster-mage).

In T&T super high level Mages can do anything. Same with C&S.

Dr. Strange.

Raymond E. Feist's Pug.

Phantom Stranger.

The Spectre.

Dr Fate.

(all comics depend heavily upon the writer)

Belgarath.

Coin the "sourcerer".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy St-Amant wrote:


IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.

How? I mean, I understand how some people like spell points or just unlimited use (like the 3.5 warlock). But in some cases, spell points can lead to even more Novaing and 5 minute adventuring days. (Depends on the system, of course).

I get that some peoples tables/games have issues with casters vs martials.

But I cant see how Vancian makes the difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PG13, veering into R as needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
William Dymock-Johnson wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

So basically you want Pathfinder to no longer be Pathfinder at all - but a level-less point buy system.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems. (though they tend to penalize specialization if they are actually at all balanced) But it would no longer be Pathfinder at all.

What makes classes and character levels a sacred cow? It's not the feature that attracted me to Pathfinder.

It's because that one of the Cores of D&D. There are dozens of class-less RPGs, all of them gathering dust on the 25% shelf at your FLGS.

D&D has been the #1 FRP since day One. No need to mess with success.

This is why they are not gonna get rid of Vancian casting or Alignments or other core things.

Yes, they have already added non-Vancian options, sure, and that's great. But they know better than to mess with the basics.


Landerk wrote:
Could just go Life Oracle, over heal any damage the others are taking, pick up Selective Channeling so you can aoe heal from low level without healing your foes.

Life Oracle rules. Not only Selective channel, but quick channel later.

Hospitaller paladin is good.

Guys? Look, the subject of in-combat healing is a contentious one. Some groups tables need and use it, other's dont. Neither is wrong. It's a playstyle difference. My table uses it, so does James Jacobs.

So, since he know his table/group, and knows he need in combat healing, give advice based on that, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Just to note, I'm not talking about one group, This is most players that I run into outside of PFS.

I doubt this. I can see one group sure, but if it's everyone, maybe the problem isnt them.


There are some people that believe the Moon Landing was a hoax. Arguing with people like that is useless. You will never convince them, and you just waste your time.


RDM42 wrote:
Coriat wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


... And again, it's a distinction without a difference and pure semantics.

You're exaggerating. It's a distinction of debatable scale (and scale that may vary from negligible to significant from character to character), but it's obviously not pure semantics. I don't think you would be able to argue with a straight face that "bonus combat feat" is strictly as useful as "bonus feat" as a class feature.

And in fact, the more any particular character tries to take advantage of this oft-suggested fighter remedy (by aiming for a larger and larger number of non-combat feats), the more significant the distinction becomes.

In practical terms, however ...

Right. In practical term, the Fighter has 11 extra feats. Ture, they are not 100% interchangeable, but in real life, it means at least one feat you'd take anyway. So, it is a distinction without a difference, in real life.


Threeshades wrote:
The only problem i would see is the fact that there are 8 people total. This many players often means an unruly, loud and distracted table, though certainly not always. You'll have to see how it works out.

No, only five players and one DMPC running DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RavenStarver wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
So does your party consist of 8 players or 8 characters?
8 character's including GM controlled NPCs. 5 of us are Players

I see a problem right there, in fact I see three of them. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
and flanking can be a rough proposition for the squishy little guy in leather armor.

Pssst. Rogues can wear chainshirts now. Since the year 2000, or actually before with variants.


Scavion wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Scavion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Scavion wrote:
the 6 monster types who are simply not affected,
which six are those?

Oozes

Elementals
Incorporeals
Swarms

I forget the other two.

I believe one is Constructs

I wasn't going to mention it, but many many people play the game without a full understanding of the rules. I actually find people have more fun this way before learning that they had been doing it wrong.

Constructs are not immune to Sneak Attacks.

There are 11 creature types. Of those, exactly one is immune to SA, ie Oozes. Not six.

There are over 50 subtypes- of those, 3 1/2 are immune. (proteans are 50% immune).

Even including subtypes, that only makes 4 1/2, of some 60. Not really a big issue.


Ssalarn wrote:


"If the Fighter burns resources, he can be equal..." unless, you know, the Wizard wants to burn resources too. Like using a cantrip to boost all of his saves. Or picking up a Will boosting trait himself since it's fairly critical.

Except that a Fighter has eleven more feats to burn than most classes, 7 more than the Wizard.


Scavion wrote:
the 6 monster types who are simply not affected,

which six are those?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point on "balance" is the the caster/martial discrepancy has been around since 1974, in every Ed but 4th. For forty years.

I dont think it's much of a issue, since yes, casters are more powerful at the highest levels- where few games are played, and weaker at the lower levels, where more playing happens. There is little issue in the games I play in, and according to the Devs, little or no issue with it in their games.

For forty years, D&D has been by far the best selling RPG in the business. Same balance issues. Only one Edition "fixed" the balance issue, and that is the most controversial Edition of all- 4th. There are many RPGs out there which are "balanced" but they are gathering dust on the 25% shelf at your FLGS.

Some posters here have claimed to see a huge balance problem, while other have stated there is no significant issue.

Thus, there's only a few possibilities:

either "Balance" is not a very important issue in the minds of the game-buying public.

Or

the game is far out of balance at only a few tables

OR

the issue is blown out of proportion by a few posters

OR

some combo of the three. I suspect a combo of #2 & 3, myself. I think a few of posters here have seen this issue become a problem, and have thus become a crusader about it.

That being said; PF and D&D is not gonna change. The caster/martial disparity (at least at high levels) is part of the game, now. The game buying public do not see it as a big issue, nor do the Devs in their own games. Thus, there's no reason to change, just to make a few people happy (if indeed, that would even work).

So-why the outrage over it? Why the claim that Pathfinder is at fault?

Why not just play another system, or 4th edition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

It is a pretty bold claim to say that everyone who says the rogue does not get sneak attack much has been playing wrong, or has not thought of invisibility potions (For one attack?).

What are the right feats btw? Maybe everyone has been wrong for years!

With a decent bluff, and feats or a flanking buddy and a feat, or a mage and a spell our rogue can get SA almost all the time.


RDM42 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Kindly note that the Fighter cannot boost his saves at all. Bonus combat feats do NOT number save boosting feats among their number.

A CHARACTER can boost his saves, but it's not a capability of the Fighter class.

===Aelryinth

That is being rather pedantic. The fact that he spends those bonus feats on combat feats means he may have some of his normal feats free for save boosting. To a degree feats are a fungible asset.

I agree, and you get bonus points for using the term "fungible asset"!

The Fighter actually has one of the most critical Good saves- Fortitude. Reflex? meh, since he has scads of HP, and usually has a OK dex.

So the issue is Will. With ONE- count 'em 1- feat, one trait, and a 12, you have +4. You are now equal to a Wizard until 14th level, by which time there are other solutions.... not the least of which is the campaign coming to a end.

The Ranger, Alchemist and Bbn are held up as balanced classes, but have the same issue. True, Bbn can take Superstitious, but that's problematic, doesn't stack with some of the best buff spells, and has a opportunity cost too.

The classes with Good Will saves often have Poor Fort saves, and then face the issue of buying Great Fort with far fewer feats. And, they cant say meh" as easily to Reflex, as HP is one thing they dont have a lot of. Sure, both those can be overcome with spells, but they only have so many spells and they only last so long.


blahpers wrote:
Johnico wrote:
Tabletop RPGs are weird. They're the only genre of gaming on the planet, that I know of, where some people actively oppose balance.

This distinction is yet another manifestation of what makes them so freaking great.

Most games are just that--games. RPGs have the additional quality of providing an avenue for creative expression in one or more particular settings. Sometimes those settings include characters who, when translated to game characters, do not have similar levels of power along some power metric (combat prowess, the ever-nebulous "narrative power", and so on). In such situations, balancing these roles out for the sake of G can adversely affect the integrity of the RP. There are numerous solutions to this. One is to change the setting and expectations so that it is more amenable to balance. Another is to accept that imbalance exists and appreciate it for what it is. Everybody has their own approach to it, and, provided you can find a like-minded (or close enough) table, they're all correct! That's something you just don't get in most games.

And of course, since D&D is a Team game, not a competition, the fact one class has a edge just makes the team stronger.

At the end of the nite, we dont add up the damage and the guy who did the most gets a medal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Optimistic Cynic wrote:

A bit late to this thread, but here is my two cents.

This seems like a nice setup for some great party interaction and rollplay, perhaps for a long time to come.

I disagree. The Players are gonna resent the OP leaving them to their death.

Yes, the Paladin was wrong, but only because the logical response of "You're no longer part of this group, bye!" rarely occurs to players to have their PC's say.

It should be said more often.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:

Well, 25 pts build help a lot more the MAD class than the SAD class. Even with a 15 pts build, the wizard will probably max his INT since he don't need the reste, while the Fighter or the Monk will have bad time dealing with it.

I found that 25 pts build is, in fact, far more balanced than the standard 15 pts build.

Hence my suggestion, go higher point buy, just cap the starting scores at 17. The intent behind a 15point buy is for people to have something near the elite erray (which has a max of 15 before racial modifiers). The fact that some people will play oafish idiot weaklings in order to max out specific scores doesnt really change the assumption of the game. So simply not allowing it is generally a good idea. I happen to be a propenent of supporting mad concepts without making it easier for the sad guys.

My full rules for starting stats are 25point buy, no scores over 17 after racial modifiers, no scores under 10 before racial modifiers. It has worked quite well for me and my table.

Right, those are great ideas.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Just gonna put it out there that I cannot think of any media where magic is as powerful and non-specialized as it is in DnD/Pathfinder.

Merlin never was able to do some of the crazy magic we see in Pathfinder/DnD despite being prized as a very powerful mage.

I think the problem in the system is that we have elevated Magic to a level that's impossible to compete with through any means besides magic.

In Zelazny's Amber they could do things that would make a Epic level wizard cry himself to sleep at nite.

Merlin? In some stories, yes, he was THAT powerful.

Rune priests in Runequest can do a lot due to Deific intervention. Basically anything.

Harry Dresden killed ALL the vampires in the world with one spell.

In T&T super high level Mages can do anything. Same with C&S.

Dr. Strange.

Raymond E. Feist 's Pug.

Phantom Stranger.

The Spectre.

Dr Fate.

(all comics depend heavily upon the writer)

Belgarath.

Coin the "sourcerer".

etc


OldSkoolRPG wrote:


What rule are you basing that on?

DrDeth wrote:
I strongly suggest that only standard attacks be allowed for a AoO. This solves the entire issue, and many others.
Same question, is that based on your interpretation of a rule or just how you would suggest house ruling it?

House-rule.


I strongly suggest that only standard attacks be allowed for a AoO. This solves the entire issue, and many others.


TimD wrote:

I disagree with pretty much everything Taku has said.

I've found an outright ban on PvP is generally more common amongst less experienced GMs or newly formed groups who are not able to deal with multi-dimensional planning & conflict. Which is fine, it's a learning curve, but implying "you’re doing it wrong" because someone else can't handle it is almost as insulting as it is laughable.

** spoiler omitted **

-TimD

Pretty hard to get more mature than my group, and since we are, there's no need for PvP as we dont act like jerks in the first place. If your group was truly mature, then no-one would act like a jerk or if they did as they had a bad day, the other players would 'talk him down" OOC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lostcause78 wrote:

What I wonder is, how would a group ever again trust this fellow as a party member? Isn't that asking the rest of the group to metagame for the sake of 1 character, the very same thing OP was quite adamant against by escaping and caving them all in?
There is no way any sane group would let this person travel with them again, putting themselves in numerous dangers and trusting him to have their back. They just met him after all.

Anyway what's the problem with retiring the character to NPC status? OP was fine with the rest of the group potentially rolling new chars after events in the cave. From a group and story perspective surely it is nicer if only 1 player needs to create a new character.

Right, he needs to be "Un-invited", and OP, you should just do this yourself. Just bring in a new PC, who is a Team player.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Paladin should use Detect Evil, if he doesn't detect you as evil he can assume that you are not unless your actions are obviously evil (committing violent crimes against innocent people is an example).

My point is this: PCvPC should ~never~ take place because characters who are built to kill people are going to win.

Alternatively there is the vicious option where you attempt to give them their comeuppance, but expect to leave the group after that.
If the Paladin kills your character you should create a paladin killer. If the group stops you, create a group killer. If they want to play an arms race of seeing who can be the...

Wont work, no matter how evil, since he's not high enuf level.

True.

This is very bad advice.

But honestly the Paladin is going about it wrong. What he should have said is "Rogue, you're out of the group. Bye-bye".

Players and PCs need to do that more often against Richard-head PC's. Just say "No, you're not part of the party."


Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
Pathfinder jumped the shark for me with the release of Mythic Adventures and the Advanced Class Guide. I can no longer take sifting each book for options that shouldn't even be in the game. The scaling has been bad practically since the beginning, it keeps getting worse and worse with each new book.

You know, you dont have to allow every new book that comes out. In fact, I highly suggest you dont.


CWheezy wrote:
I have never seen you say that ever

"Author of the Manual of Aurania, a very outdated supplement for the Original 3 Vol Set, notable only in that it was the first privately printed “D&D” supplement."

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pr8w&page=3?How-do-people-feel-about-Paizo s-new-base-classes#119

"The Manual of Aurania. Notable only in that it was the first privately published "D&D" supplement. 1977. Pretty bad, really, but did do some ground breaking."

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxb6?Published-Paizonians#17"
But there's "The Manual of Aurania' in 1977, the first privately printed D&D supplement. Not very well done, very outdated but is fairly important as far as the history of D&D goes."

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qtbt&page=5?Recapturing-the-Essence-of-ADD -in-Pathfinder#233

"It's in my profile. D.Daniel Wagner, Author of the now completely outmoded and rather badly done OD&D supplement Manual of Aurania , put out in 1977. This was the first Non TSR D&D supplement, and yes, for that reason it's a little important historically, as it was the first 3PP. Oh, and I (along with much help from my friends) invented the Thief class."


TOZ wrote:

Yeah, it's so strange he responded to the request for an alternative to Pathfinder with the alternative he wrote. People usually don't promote their own work after all.

What class did you develop again? I've forgotten. :)

(Psst, I actually am constantly saying my supplement was actually rather badly done. Mainly because it was.)


Going to back out of this, since it's becoming personal.


Ssalarn wrote:


He was playing the actual "Crossbowman" archetype, under the assumption that if there's an entire archetype for a weapon, it must make it worthwhile. If there was an archetype called "Club Specialist", most players would assume that something about said archetype makes wielding a club worthwhile. If it doesn't, that just feeds back into the issue at hand of some classes just being subpar. He didn't have to-hit boosting feats because he had to feed the monstrous feat construct that led up to his vital striking double crossbow with Dex and 2xInt to damage cannon. Real classy calling my friend stupid by the way, that definitely helps your argument.

The wizard used a longbow (because she was an elf).

DrDeth wrote:


The trick of casting "resistance" every minute all day long is something few DM's would allow, but even if your DM did, then why not cast it on the Fighter also?
Most GM's don't allow spellcasters to use a cantrip to buff their saves? Bull. She did it for herself because it was a small expenditure of time, she didn't stop every minute to buff the whole party because that...

That's not a bad Archetype. But really, no PB shot, no Precise Shot, no Weapon Focus? PB shot is near a requirement.

And with that archetype, he'd want a 18 Dex, he didnt have that? It gets fairly dangerous @ 3rd level with a high Dex.

In any case, I dont understand why he didnt have a high Dex or Con. What did his spend his ability points on? How did the Elf end up with a higher DEX? (yes, the elf gets +2 but a Human can put +2 in Dex also).

Why was the Elf's Con higher than the Fighters? It would have to be to have the Wiz "(her Fort was a bit lower,)", since her base save is 3 less. So somehow the Elf had a High Int, a High Dex and a High Con, and the Fighter had lower DEX and CON. Odd, given the fact that elves get a -2 to CON.

With a 20 pt buy, how did the elf put enuf points in CON (as well as Int, Dex, and even STR since a dumped STR would give a minus to damage) to be higher in CON as well as DEX?

In other words, the numbers you gave make no sense at all given any sort of vaguely optimized build for the Fighter. A fighter who is going for the CB archetype can easily have a 18 in DEX and a 14 in CON, and still leave enuf points for a couple of 12's in STR and WIS. In order for the ELF to have a 16 CON she'd have to start with a 18. Or perhaps she only put a 16 there, down to 14, but the Fighter only put a 10???? I can't see any point combo where the elf wizard has a higher CON, and the only build that makes math sense has a lower CON. (Which means, a fort save a LOT lower than "a bit"). And the DEX should be the same, at the very least, but a higher DEX is the best optimized build for the Fighter.

It's about the same amount of time to buff 4 as it is to buff 1, if you're not counting time. But yes, few DM's allow casters to spam a cantrip every minute all day long, casting it 1000 times a day or so. So, if the elf was casting Resistance every minute just on her, that's rather selfish in a TEAM game.

Not to mention what with having Mage armor up all day (only a hour per level)and Gravity Bow for every combat, that doesn't leave many spell slots. In fact- there's not enuf slots. Five is Max (unless along with her 18 CON and 16-18 DEX she also had a 20 INT??), and with four combats that leaves one for mage armor.

So, either you numbers are off, or the Elf Wizard had higher abilities (maybe you guys roll?) and she optimized but he didn't. I would like to see the numbers. Please.

And if you have one player optimizing and another not, then a comparo is meaningless.


Ssalarn wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
OTOH, spellcasters were pretty weak thru level 4, so it balances.
In RotRL, our elven wizard was regularly a more effective archer than our Crossbowman Fighter at levels 1 and 2 (before archery started being a waste of her time), dealing more damage thanks to her gravity bow spell, with comparative AC, only a 5% smaller chance to hit, and better saves on average (her Fort was a bit lower, but she had better Dex and resistance up 24/7).

Well, a few things. I dunno why a Fighter would choose a CB, instead of a CLB. And since he'd have 3 feats, why not one to boost his BaB? And why would his DEX and CO be so low, if he didnt have to put a lot in STR? Look, the Wizard has to put a high stat in Int. The Fighter doesnt. Any intelligent build (since he went fo CB I think we can cross off "intelligent" tho).

Gravity bow got her an extra 1pt of damage. Unless he used a Hv CB.

The trick of casting "resistance" every minute all day long is something few DM's would allow, but even if your DM did, then why not cast it on the Fighter also?

This is like saying "well, one of our players was doing a club specialist- with a non Optimized build and the Elf wizard was about to do better with her Elven Curve Blade".

So, to make a fair comparo, we have
Fighter with three 14's in STR, DEX CON, making Dex a 16 with Human.
Vs a Elf with 14's in Int, DEX, Con, making it 16, 16, 12.

Ftr has MW Comp str LB with Weapon focus (three other feats for PB, Precise, Rapid) . +7 to hit. Dmg 1-8+2. Or two shots @ +5 to hit.

Wiz has +4 to hit, dmg is 1d10 for one combat. (With MW bow it's +5, but why?)

Fighter does at least twice as much damage.

Fighter has saves of 3, 0, 0 but with stats it's 5, 3, 1.
Wiz is 0, 0, 3, with stats it's 1, 3, 3 (or 4).

A/C should be about the same for 1-2 hours a day for the wizard. I assume the fighter wants to stay mobile and wears Chainshirt, which is a OK choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Froth Maw wrote:

First talk to him, and if he backs off, let it go. Just did that with my stupid Lawful Evil sorcerer that tries to bully everyone into helping him take over the world.

If he doesn't listen, kill him. I've had a hard time with playing with difficult characters, because for some reason everyone around me thinks that unless your character can be one shotted by a goblin and refuses to work as a team with anyone, you aren't TRULY roleplaying. After about the third time these people friendly fire me, betray me, or get in my way while saying "I'm just playing my character!", I lop their heads off, as barbarians are wont to do.

Actually, it's not the Paladin that the problem, it's the OP (rogue).

And, no, one should never kill a fellow PC. If the player is so bad you need to kill his PC, just boot the player.

OP- remember again- D&D is a team game. So. let us assume you're playing Baseball, out in left Field. The opposing batter whaps one out to you, but "since you don't know those guys very well" you just let the ball drop, by getting out of it way. After all, those balls come down pretty fast, you could hurt yourself.

Afterwards, you cant figure out why the team captain is mad at you.


I have seen no Balance issues in Pathfinder up thru level 15.

Same with 3.5, but we did run into a wall at about level 17, where spellcasters outshine everyone.

OTOH, spellcasters were pretty weak thru level 4, so it balances.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:

We got into a discussion about ‘adventurers’ the other day.

Basically the definition boils down to people out looking for trouble. That is a pretty fine distinction from causing trouble. They’re basically unfocused vigilantes. How many cultures, enduring societies, or successful communities have encouraged or worked with vigilantes? Not many that I can think of.

Adventurers would be Knights errants or Bounty Hunters. In a area "outside the pale" they would BE the law.

Pretty common in medieval societies for nobles, knights, etc to have the Right of Low, Middle and High justice.

Inquisitors, Paladins, Clerics would all be in this category.

In other medieval areas, they would hire "hermandades".

Per wiki "From about 1500, private watchmen were funded by private individuals and organisations to carry out police functions. They were later nicknamed 'Charlies', probably after the reigning monarch King Charles II. Thief-takers were also rewarded for catching thieves and returning the stolen property."

Our modern idea of a paid professional "Police" did not form until 1667 thru 1797. Even so the "Privately funded police' existed until well unto the 19th and 20th centuries, and there are even a few today.

"The Constables" as you say would likely only keep peace inside a town.

Bounty Hunters & Thief-takers were active up thru the 19th century and even beyond.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adahn_Cielo wrote:
Virellius wrote:
...so caved in the entrance to prevent the enemy from getting out...

Do you mean that you left the party and closed their escape route?

...

Smite away, sir paladin.

Yeah, that's pretty evil, and a nasty thing to do, IC or OOC. Honestly, get out of this mode otherwise you're gonna find yourself booted.

Bring in a new PC. Drop the whole "but it's what my character would do" feeble excuse for being a RichardHead. D&D is a team game, be part of the team.


Gregory Connolly wrote:

Step one is to talk about it out of game. If you are in a game with people who don't like you, leave. If they are just roleplaying and expect friction, either leave or fight. If after talking it out you don't get the impression people are being honest, leave.

Step two is PVP if you haven't left or talked it out.

First part is right, second part is wrong.

Sit down and talk to the player OOC, like adults.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Xavier Longsaddle wrote:

Hi,

I am currently playing a Warpriest at 8th level (started at 5).

I chose to go with the Champion of Faith Archetype since I wanted smite and smite is awesome.

Since it came out I have found both offense and resources wise, the inquisitor is a better class.
A better WAR priest.

Three levels in one game is hardly the type of broad-based playtesting that would mean a class needs to be "fixed", is it?

*I find Warpriest to be sub par*

"Don't theorycraft! Playtest!"
*Still find it sub par after some playtest*
"You didn't play test it long enough, playtest more!"

3 levels @ one table is not enough testing.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Also interesting to know that your successful important fighter is not playing with a wizard.

There's a Sorcerer, Oracle and a Cleric.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
James Langley wrote:

...

So...

The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.

Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.

Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)

True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.

And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.

Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.

The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.

So I've seen you talk about the effectiveness of a Fighter in your high level groups in the fighter's realm of expertise.

You have similar stories for high level rogues?

No, sorry. Just low-mid level.

Perhaps, indeed, the rogue suffers at high levels. Perhaps the Wizard does too, since I havent seen any of them played past L5. But I doubt it.


Xavier Longsaddle wrote:

Hi,

I am currently playing a Warpriest at 8th level (started at 5).

I chose to go with the Champion of Faith Archetype since I wanted smite and smite is awesome.

Since it came out I have found both offense and resources wise, the inquisitor is a better class.
A better WAR priest.

Three levels in one game is hardly the type of broad-based playtesting that would mean a class needs to be "fixed", is it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Langley wrote:

...

So...

The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.

Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.

Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)

True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.

And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.

Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.

The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.


You guys know I am an unabashed Pathfinder fanboy. But honestly, there are some really good Wild West (and better yet Weird West) game systems out there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Arikiel wrote:

I don't.

Once you set the animal-people precedent then you have to start allowing squirrel-people, and giraffe-people, and aardvark-people, etc. While magic can be used to take on such forms they just don't exist as species in my world.

Your logical fallacy is: Slippery Slope.

This article will explain why mentioning a Logical fallacy is not a rebuttal to a argument.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-common-argument-tactics-that-need-to-die/

"Look at it this way: saying "you made a logical fallacy" by itself doesn't hurt their argument, and it doesn't strengthen yours. All you did is change the topic of the conversation so that now you're having a meta-argument about how arguments should be made -- a topic far more robust and intimidating than even the mightiest dick. Also, there's a big difference in saying, "There's a flaw in your argument, and it's relevant for this reason," and, "You are making a stupid error, and here are some Latin words to make you feel stupider."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
It's strange to me that Paizo is so known for their adventure paths and yet their rules system is not really suited for it- since it's based on D&D. D&D (and therefore Pathfinder) is at it's core basically still a wargame. I like that, but it kind of gets in the way of trying to tell a story about a group of heroes on and epic quest, since there is always the possibly of the story coming to a screeching halt because of a TPK or other problems like- say a failed Survival roll to track the baddies to there lair. Yet Pathfinder still has been and might still be the most popular rpg in the world when there are many games who theoretically do what it's trying to do better.

Yes, D&D was slightly based on a (very bad) wargame, but no, it's not in any way "basically still a wargame."


Yes, TL, you make some good points. Still, almost every mana system in fantasy lit shows it to be also physically draining. You get tired as you use it.

( " a balrog, and I am already tired")

Dresden gets tired as he runs low.

1 to 50 of 5,271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.