Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The swashbuckler damage bonus doesn't counter the weak combat style until quite a few levels into the class. As is, Dervish Dance could come online at level 3. So giving the class a damage bonus fairly soon wouldn't make things out of whack.
I think it could be fun to have a level 1 or 2 panache power that gives a damage boost against an opponent if the swashbuckler is missed by them previously in the round. It could easily mirror two handed power attack for that matter while giving some nice flavor. Call it "Dashing Retort" or something.
Or you could make it a defender sort of thing and give the enemy who missed a -2 to hit other party members until they hit the swashbuckler. Both feel like a swashbuckler thing.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I am one of those GMs who hate those builds, but only because every one of them is effectively the same scimitar+shocking grasp build. It's like they're playing an iconic, and just changing the name. In PFS, unless some change happens, I expect the swashbuckler to have the same mind numbing sameness. Oh, and if the magus in PFS, which is always a Dervish Dancer, is broken, the 4-8 damage coming from Dervish Dance clearly isn't the cause.
Another example, in PFS, I play with a dervish dancer rogue frequently and he's no where near overpowered even if he were to get his sneak attack off every round. My battle oracle out damages him consistently and easily even in rounds when he gets a full sneak attack off.
I just ran for a competently played level 1 swashbuckler in PFS. He played it well, but he was fairly pathetic due to his inability to do any damage relative to virtually anyone else in the party. I think the level 1 barb did more damage in one round than he did all scenario.
People seem to have a low bar for banning things.
I have never seen this trait in play. Thus it's obviously time to ban it.
Let's also ban Halflings because they always get a plus 1 to hit, saves, AC, and all social skills. Thus they are overpowered in every part of the game. Halflings obviously need to go!
I have an actually neutral tiefling oracle of battle that spams prot evil and infernal healing, lies like there is no tomorrow, has a large sense of duty, and follows whatever oath he makes. He is absolutely ruthless against his foes and protects innocents.
He would be true neutral in any form of Fallout style alignment system. When I have explained this to GMs, they tend to just glare at me. I've had GMs tell me I was acting CE because I lie and cast infernal healing, but they were going to let it slide due to it being PFS. It's like nothing else my character did even mattered to them.
It's annoying to put it mildly.
That isn't moral relativism. It's consequentialism.
Well, it's not hard to give dex melee classes dex to attack and damage. That can be done now, just look at the gunslinger or the dervish bard.
Sadly, even if a swashbuckler was given dex to damage and could attack touch AC, they would still be noticeably weaker than the gunslinger simply from the advantages of ranged combat.
I am so tired of the argument that only casting evil spells or doing evil actions changes your alignment. I have gotten flack for my neutral Tiefling Oracle and witch using Infernal healing.
Literally I've been told that one evil spell taints your soul but saving tons of lives, like pathfinders tend to do, doesn't make you good. My only defense has been to say that this was ruled to be OK by Mike brook, at which point they tend to get huffy but eventually drop it.
Honestly I am extremely tired of feeling like actively neutral, mixed motives, and morally flawed characters aren't welcome.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I don't disagree on the shooting issue, but in a realm of magic and shape changers being extremely suspicious is simply good sense. Especially given all the stories of pathfinders being eaten by little girls they saved.
What makes me laugh is look at the Arcanist and then the Swashbuckler. You can tell which one devs were concerned about breaking people's games.
It makes me laugh to think that Dex fighting apparently needed to be nerfed so badly, especially given that speed is more important than strength in real fighting.
In contrast, WOTC is making Dex to attack and damage a feature of light weapons in Next. I would rather prefer that as a solution for avoiding players dipping Swashbuckler.
I seriously don't understand the fear of Dex to damage. You are already being penalized for attacking with Dex.
I really don't want these to look like all the cookie cutter Magus put there minus the spells.
Victor Zajic wrote:
For Pathfinder Society, where purchasing items is limited by their total cost, would I add the weapon and armor enchants together to get the item's total cost, or would they count as seperate items for purchasing limits.
For pathfinder society, total cost is what matters for fame. Thus, you should try to get shield mastery as soon as possible as you cannot afford to double enchant a shield due to the unique game rules of PFS.
You really shouldn't be penalized for playing a Thrower. Paying 5000gp and losing the belt just to function is a penalty. It makes it so that throwing before level 6 is impossible. A 1000gp hand slot would be about right.
Until I can find something better, my plan for my unborn Gunslinger is to pick up a Cracked Purple Vibrant Prism Ioun Stone and ask my friendly neighborhood arcane caster to refill it between combats using a wand of Abundant Ammunition that I will also purchase.
That's a good way to use special material bullets!
I do this with one of my oracles. I think my level 8 Flame oracle now has a -15 to hit with his spiked plate mail and tower shield. Honestly I never have made an attack roll so it doesn't matter. However, I do a lot of burning hands to the face.
Yes. I've seen a movement toward a lot of magical zone effects that are always on. I've seen them specified to be undispellable as well. I've also seen some immune to detect magic.
A lot of GMs overlook this. As a player, I for example unknowingly dispelled a very nasty non-dispellable trap because the GM didn't see that caveat. The encounter, the same one I later saw numerous near tpks on, was then a cake walk.
Once, I was shocked because I was running one mod for the third time at a large con, and their was a rogue who could finally disable the nasty undispellable zone. As the 5 person, level 9 party had less than 20 hp altogether at the end of the combat, the rogue clearly saved everyone. However, I, as the GM, was the only one at the table who knew that.
In the same encounter and a different party, a fighter ran several times through the zone to "take one for the team." It nearly killed him and didn't save the team.
One of the TPKs I've been in was because of an simple alarm spell, which I think was a mistake by Paizo to not specify that it's a trap. A level 5 party being hit with a suprise tentacles (because of the alarm spell) and then fireballs versus a difficult to reach caster is always a bad day.
The Fox wrote:
People seem to be of the opinion that modeling your character after examples provided by Paizo's authors in new books is a clear mistake. It thus is deserving of a "Stupid Tax."
As a result, my sense from reading this thread and others is that most people on the paizo boards would respond "yes" to your question.
Happily, most PFS people aren't on these boards.
I see I am still giving you nightmares. I won't ever forget one Osirion mission asking for a something with a butterfly or bee for his daughter's birthday gift.
There were some fun faction missions however.
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Well there are a lot of ways to get Trapfinding. However those ways aren't terribly popular. In pfs maybe 30% of rogues have Trapfinding, mostly because ninja don't get it. I have seen several rogues who did not even have a rank of Disable for locks.
In the newer Pfs scenarios there are some nasty magical traps that cannot otherwise be disabled. For example, they couldn't be dispelled. I have nearly tpked a couple groups because of them.
Thus I used to agree that traps were meaningless. I don't believe this anymore. There are some nasty ones out there.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
Actually in your example the halfling would die because both would have concealment from neither having low light vision. The rogue would be more impacted by this, meaning the fighter will eventually catch up and kill him while the rogue does 1d3+0 with his sling.
I completely agree with your. Rogues have SA and Trapfinding. Other classes are better at everything else Rogue related.
With the said, crypt breaker is pretty horrible for an alchemist. Instead, you can play a normal bomber Alchemist and use the exact that gives you Trapfinding when you find a trap.
I play a wayang Alchemist that spends the whole time being tiny and hidden until it is time to blow something up. I have yet to not be the best in traps in the party. Oh I am also better than a Wizard at knowledges too, and I can use wands without UMD needed although I have some anyway.
I did once have a Rogue arguing with my Alchemist about who should Disable the trap. Turned out that like most rogues, he didn't have Trapfinding.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
Stealth is extremely situation specific. Halfling don't have Darkvision and monsters tend to, so hiding in the dark doesn't work. In visibility works regardless of race. Stealth tends to be extremely dangerous though and is defeated by ingenious devices like doors.
As for the wands and Trapfinding, a Seeker Oracle would work better. I have one they are fun
Honestly most rogues I see in Pfs don't have Trapfinding. I have seen this create some problems before honestly.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
If I pay a listed price for something and then someone tells me I owe them double the price I paid because the listed price was a mistake, I would be annoyed.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
Fine, whatever. You're all right, and I'm a horrible person for wanting people to pay full price for their stuff. If the FAQ had made mithril items cheaper people would be asking for refunds, and they'd get them based on the Amulet of Mighty Fists change. But making a player pay more for an item? Blasphemy.
If you bought a book from you favorite game store and then a month later the owner says that the price was messed up and you owe him 5 extra bucks....how would you feel?
Would it make a difference if it was even 1 dollar more? I know it would annoy me regardless of price.
Making people spend extra game money for an item they already bought is pretty much the same thing. It's fictional money, but it's annoying nonetheless. Games shouldn't be annoying.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I just read the scenario again and it says NOTHING about where the statues are going or what the pathfinder society wants to do with them. They could have gone to the museum, to the osirion embassy, or some vault in the society. Thus, if you nearly failed the main mission due to saying too much to the Osirian embassy, that was your GM's call.
I read the mission the same way your party did, and that is how I ran it.
It's an 11 page mod, so a lot is not clearly stated.
It's clearly stolen merchandise from the Osirion embassy. From the background, I always read it as "To gain the goodwill of Osirion, which we need to mount expeditions in Osirion," which I was told by a VO was the goal of much of season 0/1.
However, I just looked and you're right that it doesn't state what the pathfinders are planning to do with the statues or why they are interested in them. Judging from the Osirion mission, I don't think I was wrong about author intention though.
I would vote for simply adding the sentence "To gain the goodwill of Osirion, which we need to mount expeditions in Osirion" instead of retiring a scenario.
9000go for a 6th level party member is a LOT of money. It means they are going without magical weapons, stat increases, AC bonuses, save increases and whatnot. Casters that PCs face are commonly above their level. In PFS, my 9th level oracle typically faces between 11th and 13th level casters. I have faced up to a 15th level caster.
Would SR have helped me? No it would not have done so.
That's a great idea! Let's take away every race's toys!
Let's start with the gnomes and halflings, because everyone knows they have the most toys!
Edit: Just to be clear, this is complete sarcasm. This thread is about something that is clearly legal in RAW.
So beware of that guy's horse!
Mark Seifter wrote:
Most of the season 0 mods have so little word count that I assumed you were supposed to put more role playing in between the scenes than there is stated. It reminded me of some of the old 2nd adventures in that respect, which may give a touch of back story on npcs and that's it. I've ran that mod twice and it was a lot of fun both times.
But yes, if you sit there and don't add anything in role playing-wise, then most of those 10 page mods are going to suck.
Yes, but the sling is horrible at even that. Plus, the sling has no other special thing, other than being usable as a melee weapon with a feat.
I'd like to see something like
That would roughly equal manyshot in power and make slings fun to use.
Don't confuse "better than it is now" with "best" or even "equal to the rest." Although it's easy to miss in this 1000+ count thread, everyone is pretty much arguing for the "better than it is now" or for things to stay the same.
Also, we originally included the halfling sling staff, which is exotic, but it's worse than the sling after all but the lowest levels of the game. So we reverted to comparing things with the sling.
Oh, I got another one.
I would like the sling to be a better ranged weapon than a melee weapon.
I believe that a melee slinger could currently take the feat sling flail, power attack, etc, and come really close if not beat the dps of ranged human slingers.
Level 10 fighter with 22 str.
1d4+9(str)+9(pa)+2(figher)+2(ws)= 1d4+22 before any magical items other than a str belt are added in.
Paizo's writing has the same basic thing spelled out in many different ways. Whether this variation is due to attempts to make the writing interesting or whether this variation indicates that the features in issue are indeed different is typically unclear.
I thus do not feel that I can even judge things such as how Gloves of Dueling interact with some fighter archtypes. I just shrug and move on until I get a dev response. Predicting what those dev responses might be has also been a crap shoot in my experience as some cry for strict RAW and others don't.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I don't necessarily think PF should do any of that, but it's food for thought.
I agree. My point was that people arguing that slings suck because of plate mail are missing the fact that plate was only worn by knights and the effectiveness of bows versus armor has been greatly exaggerated.
Anyone in mail, which was the most common armor, would be as or more afraid of slings than bows, because arrows had trouble piecing mail (or plate) unless they were shot with a ton of force directly at the target. Long range shots didn't tend to have the force necessary to piece mail, but they did demoralize foes and get the occasional lucky hit.
Regardless of what people say, plate armor, like a breastplate, was even successfully worn in the civil war. However, it was heavy and painful to wear for long durations.
James Risner wrote:
Yes, WOTC in 3.5 had some crazies in their forums, but it was typically clear who was crazy because RAW was RAW and the forum had clear norms stating that. I'm not sure about that in Paizo's forums, as societally acceptable answers can be so varied.
Well, there is a confound there. In the later years swords were primarily only used by cavalry and curved blades were less likely to get stuck in the target when making ride by sorts of attacks. Thus, almost all cavalry swords were curved. For example, scimitars and sabres were primarily cavalry weapons.
Straight swords were better at finding the weaknesses in armor and getting past melee defenses, and thus swords designed for melee continued to use straight or nearly straight blades. For example, the rapier.
I would greatly prefer if Paizo would adopt one philosophy of interpretation and stick with it. This ambiguity about how to interpret rules is annoying to put it mildly, in particular for PFS.
For example, the Paizo's rules forum is one of the least effective rule's forums I've seen. People are using different interpretation systems, proposing house rules, and stating what they would allow in their games. It's a mess.
It's also a turn off for players. I know several who have left because their favorite character turned out to be illegal or had too much table variation, such as a drunken barb who cannot figure out how to draw alcohol consistently or a halfling sling-staff user with rapid shot.
I just wanted to point out that very few soldiers had full plate on the medieval battlefield. It was pretty much just the knights who were rich enough to buy this armor. Full plate was made to deflect arrows and lessen the kinetic force of blunt impact weapons like slings. Mail in contrast provide little to no protection against blunt impacts, and this was the most typical metal armor for most of history.
James Risner wrote:
If SKR is right, then this sort of interpretation is way too strict. However, judging from FAQs and whatnot coming from Paizo, SKR's perspective isn't the dominant one.
With that said, I do have the distinct impression that some writers use SKR's less strict guidelines and others go for a strict RAW approach, which is what creates so much ambiguity and confusion.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
My advice is just suck it up. When playing with poor options you really need to ramp up the damage optimization, as that really is what you need to make the character effective and you start out with a decent deficient on that account. So ditch the iron will and improved init, and take the dpr feats on the slinger. Remove all the fluffy feats and whatnot and just optimize the damage.
Most combat takes place at close range, so ditch the distance and put shock on the sling. Honestly though, +1 holy is brutal on ranged weapons.
With that said, you don't even have manyshot on the archer, so even that build could be improved pretty easily. But you are right to notice that bows can bypass DR so much easier than slings can, so clustered shot is more important from slings.
The character won't be as good as the archer because the designers planned for slingers to suck. So mission accomplished.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You spent all your effort at making up for the weaknesses of the sling. This allowed your archer to do what they do better.
With your slinger, you needed 2 feats to reload and your archer used those 2 feats to get better at what they do. Namely your archer has rapid shot and deadly aim and your slinger doesn't. Also you got distance on your sling to make it more like a bow, and you got shocking on your bow.
That adds up to a huge difference in damage output.
Interesting writing should never impede clear interpretation. This example is one clear sign that the devs should have used more parallel form.
People don't read game rules like a novel and therefore they shouldn't be written like one.
I once published a article on a famous researcher who largely refused to use parallel form. This resulted in him being interesting to read, but he also was badly misunderstood by the research community for 60 years. His theory was discarded as a result until I showed he was right. This was all because he had a desire to be eloquent and interesting by constant varying his word choice, and therefore people had a hard time understanding.