Personally I feel the Slayer needs a considerable revamp, and there seems to be some groundswell on that, but that may just be me and a few others with a peeve. Survey appears to show people are happy with the Slayer
I think the Slayer needs 3 things.
2 more skill points.
A fix to the effectiveness 'donut hole' that appears at level 6 and continues through level 9. If the player wants to try two weapon combat or rapid shot archery it only gets worse.
I have bigger problems with the Swashbuckler myself, and the response of 'looking into ways to get the class weapon finesse at the 'appropriate level." This is just an opinion, but the appropriate level is ONE. Waiting even one additional level to start performing the basic functions as intended is too late for a base class, especially when the fluff lists that direction as standard.
This sums up the problems pretty well. Favored target has a 'donut hole' of effectiveness from levels 6 through 9. Once multiple attacks start losing the second attack every time you face a new target hurts. Most groups I have been in concentrate attacks against one or two opponents because 'dead men make no to hit rolls.' This presumes the slayer isn't building towards rapid shot archery or two weapon combat as well, in which case the action economy loss starts even sooner.
Ross Byers wrote:
IIRC Elan questions the prestige class in such a manner when it is first mentioned though.
This is the reason for our house rule, which is actually less of a house rule and more of a "these are the source materials we feel fit the game that we want to play".
My group houseruled it as well, but by allowing the feat to be used with the rapier and other 1d6 or lower finesse weapons, largely because the thought of the rapier being perhaps the worst dueling weapon option available broke our brains.
Either way, the Dawnflower Dervish archetype and the Dervish Dance feat are both in the game, and can't be handwaved away from a playtest by houserules.
Dervish of Dawn is not from the Core rulebooks line of books from Paizo. We've been asked to compare the Playtest classes to those from the Core rulebooks line. Also, not all groups use every setting book and thus the new Advanced Class Guide classes are much more likely to see table time in some groups.
If people are starting to think they can get a better dex based fighter by playing a bard, and have more skills and spells in addition, then there is something seriously wrong with one of them. Core or not, they're both published by Paizo.
Interviews have stated that the "What happened to Coulson?" question would be teased out for a little while, but that it would get resolved sooner rather than later. I take that to mean 'resolved sometime in the first season' more than anything else. Better than other shows which use a mystery across multiple episodes.
I feel the class really, really, needs 2 things.
It needs to be able to support the classic 'rapier and daggar' style, which it currently can't do.
It needs to make the non-scimitar weapons as attractive (and as equally powerful) as the dervish-dancing scimitar, which it also currently does not do.
I would hazard a guess and say from the same place the cavalier gets it.
I prefer the mix of what it gets w/ sneak attack myself, I just don't like waiting until level 10 to get more than one swing with a blade/arrow shot in the round the power is activated. That, and somehow having less skill points than either class the slayer is drawn from.
Now that is a very valid point. To me, the very concept of a hybrid is that I can capture the feel of a character from level one. The magus can cast spells and swing a decent sword from that level, the witch can cast both hexes and the arcane/divine magic mix from that level, and the inquisitor is capable of casting divine magic and performing the skill/dps duties from that level. The swashbuckler should not have to wait until any level after creation to perform as a dex based warrior either.
Now if they want to give something such as dex to damage (the gunslinger gets it, so I don't see the big deal here) those abilities can wait. In fact, I would recommend it at the same level the gunslinger gets it (level 5) and specifically call out that the class ability does not stack with feats/abilities that grant the same bonus. This would also serve to ensure that the Dervish Dance feat is not the best way to build a swashbuckler every time.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
The Hybrid Mechanic is lazy. They restrict build creativity, seldom for any good reason. They stomp on the face of interesting builds and flavorful characters seemingly to prevent rules bloat, when none of these classes really needs this restriction. A multiclass bloodrager / sorcerer makes perfect sense if the character is required to pick the same bloodline between both classes. Same with a multiclass shaman / oracle. Or a swashbuckler / fighter.
I think I remember hearing that the hybrid restriction has a good chance of not making it through to the final version, bit I could be wrong.
- Please, PLEASE find some way for swashbucklers in the final version to not get pigeonholed in Dervish Dancing. This feat already ruins all versatility in the magus, since it's not going to die, it may at well not contaminate all swashbucklers ever. See the "don't stack with precise strike" as said previously.
The only way to do that is to introduce a feat for not-scimitars that is as good as Dervish Dance. Dervish Dance has been published and will not go away, but the result has become that the most iconic fencing weapon of them all is a very distant second place because of it.
I'd remove precision, change it to either dex or cha to damage (with a cap equal to level) and add support for the classic rapier/daggar and sword/buckler styles. The big thing people don't seem to get about fencing is that the off-hand is supposed to be doing something, swatting the sword away, or holding something to defend yourself with (and possibly attack!).
To be honest, much of how law enforcement/government oversight works in both the movies and the comics is disconnected from how it would function in reality.
Half to most of the Avengers (as well as Coulson) would have been in a cell (or at least discharged) before the events of Avengers if the world operated the same way ours does. Most of the rest (including Fury) would have met the same fate after.
Say what you will about Emma, but at least she's been fairly consistently alive over the past two decades. I'm not sure if the writers at Marvel even keep track of if Jean is supposed to be alive or dead anymore...I think they just write stories that assume whichever is more convenient.
I'll go off-topic here for a moment.
I think that might be part of the motivation behind All-New X-Men. Jean Grey has for the longest time been defined by three things. First, being the host of the Phoenix: which itself is portrayed primarily as a cosmic deus ex machina. Second, by her relationship with Scott Summers, and the attraction to Wolverine. Third, by the fact that the single most iconic Jean grey story is the one where she dies at the end.
To define the character otherwise requires a version with no Phoenix, and to not be with either Scott or Logan.
My group has switched to a "Point-Buy Plus-Roll" system. Standard point buy, but then roll 1d6 and 1d3. The d6 is which stat that gets an increase, the d3 is the amount. If the d3 would go to the highest stat, get a single point. Nothing can be increased past the normal starting maximum.
I started using that when I ran because I miss the few oddities that used to appear with rolling, like the strong wizard or the smart warrior. However, pure rolling all to often results in characters of vastly different power levels, despite being the same character level. Most people don't want to play 'average-guy' when the person next to them has multiple 18's.
The NPC wrote:
The male fascination with Female on Female. I've heard the "Becuz its Hawt" argument and the "1 + 1 = 2" argument. Neither of which really makes sense.
My answer is because males have some amount of ingrained homophobia. Growing up, the insult of choice was to call someone 'gay.'
Add that to wanting to see women go at, with that part in the back of your mind that doesn't want to look at naked men, and you get a heavy market for lesbian porn.
The fact that homosexual behavior is still frowned upon in large parts of the country and you add in a dose of 'what is forbidden' into the mix.
The number of people pleased with the swashbuckler rogue archetype might be able to be counted on one hand. Visit the 'Swashbuckler Base Class Advocacy' thread and most of the people there want a warrior version, not a rogue/bard version.
I will disagree with the article's 3 categories. I experiment within the classics a lot, but a new class that fills a classic concept will draw me in quite often. I will occasionally try out a new race, but the class is non-core much more often than the race. Normally when the race is non-standard, I try to fit it into the game world whenever possible, and preferably the campaign. The dhampir sorcerer was an idea for the Carrion Crown game, where I thought it was a fitting addition. Other times I'll take something right out of the Core Rules down to the feats. Several people in my gaming group are this way as well. Although I must admit I have seen several people who fit categories 1 and 3.
Oddly enough, my group has had very few alignment debates. It's supposed to be a set of guidelines, not an ironclad set of inviolable rules that dictate your every action.
My group really only experiences a few (normally quickly resolved) alignment debates over 20+ years.
Lawful Good and how it relates to paladins. Normally this is an explanation of how Lawful Stupid and Spanish Inquisition style paladins tend to fall quickly. And according to every GM I have played under, when Good and Law come into conflict, Good wins just about every time.
Whether or not certain actions are evil. In practice, this is normally a Chaotic Jerk type player hoping they can get away with whatever they want, no matter who is harmed by their actions, all justified by the little 'CN' written down on their sheet. Often with the mentality that the best people to work against are fellow party members. Thankfully, we have asked the last of these players to find something else to do on game nights.
Why Unholy Smite is a bad spell for an oracle in most games. Trying to explain to someone, again, that when the party is Neutral and Good, and the enemies are mostly Evil, the spell that harms the party while leaving the enemy untouched is a very bad idea. I don't care if you want to be that 'dark' personality, use some common sense when casting spells.
To be fair, my bad experience with #19 wasn't the kid needing something during the game, it was the kid needing all the time of the game. There is a difference between parenting duties popping up during the session and parenting duties taking over the session. Although the times I have seen it happen it is normally a two-fold problem. First, the child can't handle not being the center of attention for very long, coupled with the non-gaming spouse refusing to be a parent during the session as a manner of 'forcing their significant other to grow up."
The personality/life issues that create a poor GM will also create a poor player.
Deciding on a whim that the animal companion of the good aligned character is about as evil as your typical serial murderer.
Running a game where a TPK isn't a possibility, it's a goal.
Looking over a character and then springing house rules on the player that would have certainly have resulted in character choices being different. (I had one tell me after making a diviner that truth spells are 100% ineffective on anyone with a chaotic alignment. This was after seeing the character having a heavy divination focus).
Saying that a character doesn't fit the game before the game starts isn't normally bad GMing.
The basic 'railroad to start the campaign' isn't really bad GMing either. I expect the group to come together somehow. I've seen a few players that will go running off to see how long they can prevent the party from knowing each other for the lulz if things aren't forced.
Knowing enough to avoid trap options (Crossbowman fighter archetype, I'm looking at you) should be evidence of System Mastery not always being Powergaming.
Knowing enough to find a way to make strange concepts viable while still being legal probably counts more as system mastery than powergaming.
Yes, powergaming requires system mastery. System mastery doesn't require powergaming.
Re: China, I don't know much, but I assume you are correct. Unfortunately, the only reason that religion has no impact politically in China is because the PR's brand of socialism relies on extinguishing any ideological competition - a situation kind of like introducing snakes into an ecosystem to eliminate the rat infestation (I.e. introducing a big evil to do away with a small one...).
One could argue that by trying to extinguish the competition, they are making decisions based on them. The government of China is insisting that it has the authority to claim who the next Dali Lama will be, as well as insisting that any high monks require government approval. But those things really have little to do with the original topic.
So, back to the topic at hand, and I'm surprised nobody has said this yet...
Subwoofers and the people who worship them. Specifically, the clowns who think that music isn't good unless the thundering baseline rattles the windows, or better yet, walls nearby. At times I want to go find the offending stereo with a sledgehammer, and smash the subwoofer to little bits in a fit of rage, then smashing the pieces.
People who get annoyed at foreigners for not speaking the local language at all times. And then proceed to yell at them.
It might be wrong, but when I am in an area that caters to foreign tourists I expect that I should be able to find people who speak whatever language it is that most of the tourists speak (it's good business sense). Once you leave those areas, all bets are off.
In the small amount of foreign travel I have done, that has luckily been the case. Show some respect for the local culture and language and things should be good.
A friend of mine who has traveled from the U.S. to Europe (I've only been to Canada and Central America myself) claims that as long as he made an honest attempt to speak the local language things were normally fine. The funny thing he tells is the Frenchmen switching to English out of annoyance.....that his practice with the language came from proximity to Quebec.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Hmm the Hawt couple (Faith & Angel 2.0)aren't doing it for me... The Team mum & dad Coulson & May (Giles & Buffy's mum 2.0) are far more interesting, and the Willow and Xander analogue are annoying as hell.
I never got into Buffy or Angel. My work schedule at the time those shows were running didn't allow me any real television except for one or two shows (DVR's were expensive back then, and the VCR was one show only, reserved for something else). So anybody being a rehash is gonna slip right past me.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
The stuff that isn't perfectly counterbalanced is either locked up in the ground, overburdened, or it already fell up out of orbit. Either way, the only stuff visibly floating will be the stuff at equilibrium.
The problem is equilibrium cannot be maintained. Add in people living on it (who get on and off on a regular basis) and the erosion effects of rain and wind (plus the temporary added mass from rainstorms - water is HEAVY stuff) every last one should have either floated off or fallen down long ago.
Rule of Cool trumps science in almost any fictional medium, even those that are 'hard science' shows still do it a little.
In depth or not, they all require violating fundamental laws of the universe. The amount of explanation (To me, anyways) doesn't change that. But since this is comic books, I just suspend disbelief for all of them. It's only when the show violates it's own rules that I start to notice.
When you stop and think of it, the movie universe also has a guy who gains mass from nothing, then also loses it somehow when he regains control of his rage.
It also has an disk that absorbs any impact without consequence to the guy holding it, yet can bounce when thrown whenever the script desires.
Aaaand it has some kind of perpetual energy source. More than one, in fact.
Gravitonium is a minor quibble compared to these.
True. There's no end to trouble that someone like the Absorbing Man could get up to, but he's just not that clever. The Radioactive Man has ridiculous amounts of power, as well, but he's just not really interested in exploring that, being more comfortable in a lab.
Plus, in the Avengers animated series, when he tried to get clever with his power it backfired in epic fashion.
He absorbed the powers of Mjolnir, only to find out that it allowed Thor to control him just like the hammer. Ouch.
I have seen things done 3 ways.
The GM is the dictator. These games don't tend to run very long, and often end up with players who see the player-GM relationship as an adversarial one.
The players get whatever they want. Someone bores of this quickly, and not always the GM. Again, my experience is that these games tend to be short.
Investment by both the GM and the players. The amount the players contribute tends to vary, from as little as what they can play (from the core book alone for certain (often new to the group) games, to most published books and even 3PP books depending on what the GM is willing to allow in. In the most extreme cases, the players have invented organizations entirely for a new character, and those groups are now an integral part of the game world (This last one has been running for 20+ years).
Now we get into the issue of player entitlement. When the GM is trying to capture a certain feel for a game, I am not entitled to bring in something that detracts from it (no pink pony wizards in a Conan game). However, when options that would normally fit are disallowed, I feel like I am entitled to a quick explanation why. 'Story reasons to be revealed later' is a valid explanation in my eyes, but I do expect that the revealed later part will happen. Otherwise, I'm not likely to accept such an explanation again. 'I don't know why, but I hate class/race X, and I have less fun when dealing with one' is also valid, but I will probably try to get to the why rather than just settle for the what here. Of course, that might just be something to do with me.
The Dooku vs Yoda fight also felt tacked on
I'm going to disagree with this part. The Empire Strikes Back states that Yoda was 'a great warrior', but the line only exists to lead into his retort that 'war does not make someone great.' It is only in the prequel where we see Yoda in a fight of any kind, and if he isn't holding his own against a powerful threat (like, say, one that took out the two main characters) then he doesn't live up to his 'future' billing. And if not during the big war, then when?
I agree with just about everything else.
I could easily handle a mage-type who has a golem companion. I own a copy of the machinesmith base class from a 3PP. As an alternative, a mashup of the alchemist/summoner might manage to work, after the details are ironed out. Just expect that your class abilities might change between sessions in the name of party balance. I'm not a game designer, and there likely isn't going to be time for a playtest of your concept, so things might not work perfectly.
A wizard with a free golem isn't happening though. You aren't getting extra power without giving up power somewhere else.