Funky Badger's page

Any group of characters can work together tactically. I'm always more interested in creating backgrounds/personalities that fit together...

It'll all work out just fine. We're all experienced and mature gamers and we're not gonna let some silly interpretation of Alignment disrupt having fun in our precious free time.

Ignoring it is certainly one way round the problem.

Mithril?

MITHRIL?

Deserves to be hunted down by the Order of the Scourge for such blasphemy.

Making Hellknight armour yourself?

EVEN MORE BLASPHEMY!

BURN THE HERETIC!

Or dimension door them straight up in the air 800ft.

Not that I would ever. Unless I was "dominated to do it"...

Its the classic, old school question: "Do you give up your saving throw?"

I think after this weekend, I will be making a 7 con, 7 dex, 20 str, 16 int wizard and have him be front line to see where he can go. >.> Optimized!

Seen a terrifying elven wizard chucking around a bonded elven curve blade with weapon finesse and power-attack... yeesh!

He even got to cast some spells at one point...

Funky Badger wrote:

Smart play trumps mechanical choices every time. I think 1 or maybe 2 out of 9 characters I've got have 10+ CON.

Always character concept first, then see if/how it can be made to work.

I'm very curious about what this allegedly smart play boils down to. Usually it seems to me that folks playing "Smart" are creeping around safely while the rest of the party is getting their clocks cleaned.

Doing something every round that benefits the party. That could be casting Guidance on the fighter then moving into a flanking position while drawing an attack of opportunity from an enemy so someone else doesn't suffer it.

Or hitting the baddy with a two-handed sword.

(Double smart play is not doing option 1 when the enemy's weilding a sycthe instead of a sword)

Anyone can move and power-attack, but a smart player with a bard or (even better) a battle herald is a joy to watch.

:-)

Fighters don't have acrobatics, and wear heavy armour.

So I guess they fall over most often.

Funky Badger wrote:

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

There is a formula to those bonuses for one and two funky truncating math that makes one weaker then they should be is not cool either.

Not in the CRB there isn't. There are just the values, you're inferring the formulae then using it to increase your BAB (hopefully not in PFS)...

Words are not perfect, i hate lawyers because they ignore the purpose of the laws and seek only how they can make the technicalities fit their desires, usually at the expense of undeserving people.

The results here may not be so important in rl, but you are still focusing so much on technicalities, that you are missing the purpose.

The written word is not a perfect expression of anything, you shouldn't treat it like divinity.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your post.

;-)

Smart play trumps mechanical choices every time. I think 1 or maybe 2 out of 9 characters I've got have 10+ CON.

Always character concept first, then see if/how it can be made to work.

Monk Inquisitor works quite well, I think.

Makes perfect sense for house rules.

Funky Badger wrote:

Its actually required if you don't want to punch rogues, alchemist, inquisitors, or monks in the face when they multiclass or prestige.

Choices have consequences. The implications of multiclassing monks and rogues is there in black and white. No-one gets suprised by the numbers.

You can't just add bits on to your BAB because "reasons". Certainly not in PFS, that's cheating.

There is a formula to those bonuses for one and two funky truncating math that makes one weaker then they should be is not cool either.

Not in the CRB there isn't. There are just the values, you're inferring the formulae then using it to increase your BAB (hopefully not in PFS)...

It woulddepend on how you view the bonuses to begin with.

Read the CRB, its tells you what the bonuses are. Then you add them up.

Funky arithmetic that raises your BAB scores, well... not cool, really...

Robert A Matthews wrote:

1. Drink potion

2. Have wizard cast permanency on you.
3. Profit

4. Get targeted by Dispel Magic by a caster in a scenario.

5. Go to the boards to complain about how you were being unfairly targeted and how dispelling your permanent spells clearly isnt in the listed tactics.
6. Start a flame war.
7. Ragequit. :P

All that will come of this thing being permanently legal is altered version of the 'Sundering my eqipment isnt fair' arguement.

As cool as is would be to see this legalized, I dont think it's the right move for the campaign. :/

File this under "winnowing the chaff" - I'm starting to come round to the idea.

Take both.

OP: you don't seriously think you've got the correct intepretation, do you?

If the pet goes on the battle-mat, then its affecting combat.

I saw a thread similar to this, but I can't find it now. :(

I'm getting ready to kick off my PFS scenarios, and one of my players was considering a wizard. I'll be running mostly Season 3 scenarios, because, well; that's what I have.

There seems to be concern about the lack of spellbooks available, which of course means a wizard is going to be stunted leveling up with limited spells in their book. Am I wrong about this?

At worst they'll end up like a sorceror with a better caster level.

Whats your point?

You claimed physics and logic backed up your position, I was pointing out they don't.

My first character was a human fighter. I found the character herself to be alright as a character, but mechanically, she was horribly boring to play (vanilla fighter made in Season 0 who just swung a greataxe and did absolutely nothing else). Even if a fighter is easy to pick up, unless someone works with a new player to figure out what they actually want to play, you're might wind up with someone playing a character they don't want to play, even with the leeway given by first-level characters being rebuildable (it can easily take more than three scenarios to figure out the reason you're not getting everything out of the game is the mechanics of your character).

1st session - give them a fighter. If they enjoy roleplaying then they'll get a book and read it. Learning the system, then they'll create their own character...

...just like everyone else does, surely?

Funky Badger wrote:

Thod wrote:

Cold Napalm

How do you manage to advice a brand new player in 30 minutes to build up a good character. I'm talking here a new player who has never played RPG before.

It takes me half and hour just to talk a brand new player through the choice of race (7 core races) and class (11 classes). That leaves me with <2 min to describe the race or class, to point out background, advantages, disadvantages, lore, suitability.

Brand new players should play a human, elf or dwarf fighter for their first character.

Maybe...

Absolutely not. New players should play what they like. We as experienced player should point them in the right direction so they can play what they like and not suck.

Give a player with no experience a complex character and they'll make a mess of it.

People should learn to run before they can walk. Can can a beginner possibly want to play a, for example, Arcane Duelist?

And if they want to play that so bad, do what everyone else does and buy the book, read it, and learn the rules.

I hit the FAQ. My opinion tough is that without using two hands you dont get the 1.5. Its just simple physics and logic. Yes those weapons are heavy but if you cant bring the right momentum, if you cant put all of your strenght behind the swing, you just wont be effective. I think people who read it any other way are blatantly misreading on purpose because it supports whatever built they have in mind. As in law, the spirit of the rule is what is important.

Alright then.

Physics.

F = MA (Force = mass x acceleration)

Lets say force is equivalent to damage.
A man holds a lance in two hands and charages at you.
F = M x A
(M = Man's mass, A = Man's acceleration)

A man holds a lance one-handed, sits on a horse and charges you. Let's assume the horse accelerates at the same rate as a man (it doesn't, it's accelerates faster, certainly than an armoured fighter). A heavy warhorse weighs near on a tonne. A man in fighting gear, lets round up and say 100kg.

So, the damage from the horse charge...

F = 10M x A

So in our freindly example, a man weilding a lance one handed from horseback does 10 times more damage when he hits, than a man weilding it two-handed from foot.

As for logic, have you ever seen a lance charge?

Cold Napalm

How do you manage to advice a brand new player in 30 minutes to build up a good character. I'm talking here a new player who has never played RPG before.

It takes me half and hour just to talk a brand new player through the choice of race (7 core races) and class (11 classes). That leaves me with <2 min to describe the race or class, to point out background, advantages, disadvantages, lore, suitability.

Brand new players should play a human, elf or dwarf fighter for their first character.

Maybe...

Rounding out the personality, or "role", or the character you're going to "play"?

Titan Mauler wrote:

Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

The bolded text is reminding us how the Str bonus to damage works, not creating an extra disadvantage for an ability which is meant to be an advantage.

I'm confident which way the devs will rule on lances wielded one-handed.

Why would there be a ruling? Jotungrip and Lances are both exceptions to how things normally work, and both clearly explained.

Hopefully they have better things to worry about than this.

666bender wrote:

why change it?

its super strong as is ... if you make it you either hunder your foe - in a versitle manner that can work on ANY creature (maybe not oozes or ghosts.... but all the other) even golems and such.
if you win - your foe ned to either suck it up or waste a whole round.
that... not a bad thing to gain...
also rememebr, smart useage is to wait until after your opponent's turn, so your friends enjoy the effects.
a blind opponent cant target with AOO and allow all to position for example

Because it isn't believable. If I throw glass and sand in your eyes and get you good (rolling a high CMB, causing extra rounds.), it should not take the same amount of effort to clear that as it does when I only roll good enough for 1 rd, reflecting a grazing instead of a direct hit, etc.

Basically, no matter how well you do, it is undone with a single std, and that bothers me.

Plus, trading a std action for a std, with a 3 feat investment (4 if you want to do it as part of an attack) is not worthwhile imo. Especially since it is hard to pull off for the class that wants to do it the most, the Rogue.

Now If I am playing a fifth wheel, I can see it being a good tactic, but not everyone wants to play the fifth wheel.

1. Not believable? Magic.

the amount of effort it would take to build a touch AC that has a reasonable chance of shaking off a ghosts touch attacks requires so much time researching obscure rules, odd bonus types, buying splatbooks, and taking oddball items, that a lot of DMs in my area would go WTF on the touch AC. especially if it exceeds 20, let alone 30.

and a lot of the local DMs i game with tend to panick when some players bring a luggage bag of hardcovers anyway. and not everyone in Weekly William's group has the funds for a laptop. so SRD isn't always an option.

we have 3 players that own laptops, 2 of which bring their laptops every session and we all complain about their potential power compared to players with less book access.

You heard it here first, folks: Monks are OP.

I always felt, from a players point of view, that there are no bad character choices that can't be overcome by smart play (and knowledge skills).

Weapon blanches and a bow and arrow being the most obvious tools... is the feeling that this isn't the case?

Besides Vin Diesel...is there a single muscular/in-shape guy that is known to play DnD?

Other than me?

*flexes*

In my opinion Synth Summoners only get overpowered at the mid/high levels. At the lower levels they seem far more tame. Plain old summoners just seem way better at the lower levels.

A maxed strength raging barbarian with a greatsword is hitting at +8 attack bonus with 2d6+10 damage. A Synth summoner is getting something like +3 attack bonus at 1d6+3, 1d4+3, 1d4+3. Roughly equal damage output but the barbarian is far more accurate and does it when he moves while the summoner can only do it on a full attack.

And 1-on-1 the Synth will take the barbarian to peices. Bare in mind you're comparing to one of the most optimised for damage characters you can...

(also: Pounce)

@Chuss'tith - I hear where you're coming from re: Nagaji - after playing Murder of the Silken Caravan in the company of one I was intriuged and checked them out, but their write up ARG is fairly slim and I couldn't really find much else anywhere to flesh them out...

...are there any other sources out there?

Re: Paladins - for them Codes really aren't guidelines, and that's how I think it should be. As my old trainer* used to say "If it was easy, everyone would do it".

*Not a paladin trainer. Well, not that I'm aware of... *tries to smite evil*

Suddenly I find myself wanting to start requesting to be seated with new players when possible at local game days. Thanks for the post, Thod. :)

I don't know about new/weak/inexperienced players, but I've had great fun playing support characters (clerics/bards etc.) at low level. Helping everyone else shine is pretty cool... (GuidanceGuidanceGuidance...)

I am trying to make this character option fun and interesting (with some success per others in our last session), but I find some of the racial details to be lacking. Why or how do nagaji have a high charisma? Did naga magic create them in some way that just impresses people? The...

The damn things are seven feet tall... that's pretty impressive.

Rangers are awesome at arranging camps.

Overall I don't think any available skill, feat, ability or weapon should be considered dishonorable always, everywhere for everyone. It ought to depend upon the specific circumstances when the action is taken.

Thus totally missing the point of what a code of honour is.

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Players are perfectly free to not buy a wand of cure light wounds, as long as they accept that I'm perfectly free to refuse to heal them using my own wand.

This! This! This! OMG This! I once burned through 20 charges of a Wand of CLW because I was the only person in the group who had one even though all of the group members had at least 2 PP.

I told all of them if I ever played another session with their character and they did not have a wand of CLW available, I would not extend further charges of mine to cure them.

Nothing like teamwork. And that's nothing like etc.

Funky Badger wrote:

How about let them decide what to get for themselves?

\

Sure. I never force anyone to purchase anything they don't want to.

However, I do push the issue, that every player is responsible for the healing of each of their characters. I explain why it is not fair to expect the Cleric to expend all their own resources to heal everyone else, and thus be behind the Wealth Curve for their gear.

Fair enough.

And the point is: why would you ban one class for being able to survive and allow other classes that are better.

FYI: the character I converted my synthesist over to has a higher AC, better saves and hits harder.

1. I didn't ban the Synthesist.

2. Bully for you. What were the characters in question?

A-ha... sneaky. Assumed that to mean - back to the body, using it to project onto the Prime Material then return to base on death (at the cot of two-negative levels) sounds a bit... well, fair enough for a 9th level spell, less so for a 5th.

So yeah, wizards are powerful.

Unless the mission you've been sent on is also on the astral plane, I'm not seeing how that allows you to function as an adventurer?

Still not quite sure what you're trying to prove... wizards are powerful?

Funky Badger wrote:

Weapon attacks are limited by BAB. t's not a matter of how many arms. Its either:

BAB as usual (+/- Two Weapon Fyatin')
Summoner natural attack sequence.

I suppose you could end up weilding two two-handed weapons, but you still can't exceed the maximum usually allowed attacks.

Basically Multi-Weapon attack isn't allowed in PFS - not that Synthesists are allowed anyway.

Are you just saying that the feat multi-weapon attack is not allowed in PFS? Or do you want to say something else?

IF MWA is allowed, the things you write don't say anything. If it isn't...forget everything I said, because I explicitly stated:

Quote:

I don't know if you can use Multi Weapon Attack in Pathfinder Society, but if you can, you can just get more and more arms and every 5 levels you get 6 more attacks.

Basically Multi-Weapon attack isn't allowed in PFS

Bolded for clarity.

Funky Badger wrote:

Pounce isn't the issue, them being unkillable is the issue.

Which is a shame, because the idea is great.

At high levels, it is orders of magnitude more difficult to kill a wizard.

Jofarin wrote:

I don't know if you can use Multi Weapon Attack in Pathfinder Society,

Monster feats are not permitted unless granted by a PFS legal source. Synthesists picked up multi-attack at level 9 but were unable to access multi-weapon fighting.

Funky Badger wrote:

Fair enough - generally speaking, synthesists are very strong defensively - good AC, tons of HP, sundry other defences... pretty tough to nail down (not that anything is unkillable).

I find it highly amusing that most people on the forums, including the developers, profess defense as inferior to offense.

Until a defensive build is presented that actually works, then it is overpowered cheese. (There are options other than Synthesist.)

PFS stops at lvl 12. THe APs don't go much above that.

Except it's not wielded as a two-handed weapon. It's wielded as a one-handed weapon.

Read the description:

"While mounted you can weild a lance with one hand"

It's still a two-handed weapon.

The only two-handed weapon you can wield in one hand is the Dorn-Derger, which requires a feat and specifically says its weilded as a one-handed weapon.

This is all perfectly clear.

Weapon attacks are limited by BAB. t's not a matter of how many arms. Its either:
BAB as usual (+/- Two Weapon Fyatin')
Summoner natural attack sequence.

I suppose you could end up weilding two two-handed weapons, but you still can't exceed the maximum usually allowed attacks.

Basically Multi-Weapon attack isn't allowed in PFS - not that Synthesists are allowed anyway.

How about let them decide what to get for themselves?

Logic follows that the same would be true of a two-handed weapon that is wielded in one hand.

If only they'd explicitly stated how much damage you do with a 2-handed weapon, with regards to power attacks and Strength bonus...

...oh, hang on.

:-)

Fair enough - generally speaking, synthesists are very strong defensively - good AC, tons of HP, sundry other defences... pretty tough to nail down (not that anything is unkillable).

Its black and white in the rulebook.

*shrugs*

"They don't have to be taken out by hit point damage."

I assumed. What did you mean?

I played an enlarged Awakened Squirrel Ninja-Rogue-Ranger-Barbarian for a (short) while.

A militant vegan like you would not believe.