|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
"Is breathing evil?"
Fake Healer wrote:
The actual rules surrounding when they should be used seems to be mostly "when the DM determines you have one". It doesn't clearly define when to use them though.
Any time you roll a d20 you have an opportunity to roleplay to gain advantage. The rule makes the whole game reward roleplaying.
Instead of spending their time searching through the books looking for bonuses, players will be spending their time imagining what they can do tactically/in-character to gain advantage. You're in the game instead of in the rules.
It's just simply a brilliant mechanic and if you're leaving it out, 5e is going to be just another ruleset. If you make the small effort to use it thought, the game comes alive.
I would do augury right away, mainly as a teaching tool and plot hook. Maybe give it 1 charge a day per level, plus whatever you deem necessary for her to know using the sword as a narrative tool.
Light could be level 2. Something for the first level up that's visually dramatic and lets her put the torch away.
The power level is high for the level, but the effects are not "power" effects, so personally I don't feel it matters.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I'm glad they havent meta'd. Playing what they want to play instead of trying to form a party thats ideally suited to the type of fights they're expecting to see.
But they did. The cleric meta'd that he'd be the healbot, and everyone else meta'd that there would be a healbot.
It's time to teach your players how to be self-sufficient instead of relying on this guy to save their butts every single combat round.
Job one as others said is don't roll HP! Or if you insist on it, be prepared to fix it when it inevitably breaks characters. Let them retcon their HP to average, which will probably boost their health by 150%, which will help a lot.
It's much, MUCH better to never take damage than it is to heal damage. What is preventing the ranged players from maintaining range? Is the ranger casting entangle ever? Does the cleric ever cast any buffs? Is the cleric ending the day with spells uncast (wasted)? If there is a spell the cleric can cast that mitigates potential damage, that is inherently better than casting a heal after the fact.
Read this: a player's guide to healing in TOZ's profile. And have your players read it.
If all else fails, buff the heck out of channel's heal. Double it, or give it 1d6 per level. Who cares. Your healer's probably been getting shafted for years. This will have a few effects. One, your cleric will wait until it's effect won't overheal too much, and will consequently be doing other things. Two, it's really underpowered anyway (channel specifically and healing in general). Three, the party will start to realize, as they sit there with falling health for a few rounds, that maybe there are things they could be doing to keep themselves alive until the huge heal comes.
Finally, any blade worth knowing is a blade worth having arguments with. You don't want to overdo talking/personality weapons, but a tool that's granted by the god(dess) and grows in divine power as the PC grows in divine power is a cheap and easy conduit for divine guidance.
Yeah. That's better than my magic 8 ball from the other thread. Put that into the sword instead. Maybe immediately. The sword could give her very limited guidance right away, like whispering that it needs the blood of evil-doers to "recover" or something.
Agreed. Just plan out the first few levels with things like augury and light (and obviously being a magic weapon). Those will really help her adventure without adding much to character power.
I don't think it's been made clear if the GM fiat was necessary because the fight was hopeless from the start, or because the party was one PC short, or because the party was trapped by the OP. If GM intervention was necessary because of the OP's actions, the paladin was right to seek retribution, and was probably right anyway simply because of the strong perception of betrayal.
The paladin was wrong not to heal the OP, who registers as indeterminate to detect evil. The OP was in need of healing, and the paladin should have helped. Unless he saw the OP as an enemy, in which case he should never have agreed to be in the same party in the first place. Either way, he was in the wrong on that note. (That said, the question of whether the paladin should fall isn't remotely valid, and paladin baiting is extremely lame.)
I think caving in the entrance was played out of alignment. CN characters don't generally claim to act for the greater good. They do what they think is a good idea at the time ("good" as in self-interest), and have no strong inclination towards good or evil. If the OP's character is consistently going to act for the greater good, she needs to be CG, not CN.
The paladin owes the rogue a debt for poor treatment and for sparing his life. But the rogue owes the party a much larger debt for abandoning them and trapping them. I don't see how this group can move forward without a huge act of contrition, which the rogue wouldn't feel is owed unless her survival hinges on being in this group, or she recognizes the fact that the group has divine mandate.
In any event, the OP's character is the one that has to change, whether by re-rolling or by making recompense and changing alignment. The group probably isn't going to allow the rogue to continue with them otherwise.
See, I think a group where people aren't afraid to fight if it makes sense im character makes for a very strong story, especially in a mature group. Usually, we are. I was looking for advice on in-game ways to deal with an unusual situation.
You're going to have to aim for an alignment change down the road. There's really no other way forward. If you're not going for a redemption story with this character, then you're just trolling the group.
YOU! *crumples up fictitious red pen*
It's a good thing I'm not a teacher. Everyone would just get C's.
Kung Fu Joe wrote:
Your opinion on Brooks' writing doesn't mean he's wrong, or a bad writer. It just makes it your opinion. "Hacks" generally aren't extremely successful.
Does that sound like someone who knows where they're going? He may know who's on the throne at the end, but that's all he seems to know. He's like the student whose 5 page essays are 30 pages long and several months late. You want to fail them on principle.
I think the major contributer to the problem is the huge-sweeping-multi-book-single-story-epic just isn't a viable form. And I think a major contributer to that problem is, the writers who are inclined to pursue that form don't know when to stop. (Terry Brooks would call this a failure to outline, meaning if you don't know where you're going when you start, you'll just go on and on.)
Is anyone else hoping Rothfuss's 3rd book is the last one?
I'm not sure if the writers engaged in sweeping epics are megalomaniacs, or if it's a problem perpetuated by publishers wanting to indenture writers, or if stand-alone books don't sell as well, or if writers don't want to do them as much. But I'm really starting to not want to see any more series. At all. It's to the point where I cringe whenever I see something new and see it's "book 1 of who the hell knows." There's a reason Netflix originals are released whole seasons at once. They understand that's how people want to consume entertainment. Serialized entertainment is becoming obsolete.
More stand-alones, please. There's something to be said for being able to tell a *whole* story in just one book. (That something is *thank you!*)
Simon Legrande wrote:
Instead I live in a world designed by lunatics and just have to make due the best I can.
You know what helps deal with that suffering? Art.
You know what helps art exist? When artists are expected to FINISH IT.
Wow. Having read this entire thread I can actually say I am shocked at the lengths both sides of this argument are going to to defend their "turf". Both sides are like "cargo cult" members building elaborate landing strips for the fruit of their argument to land on... And oh the sadness when the plane never lands. There is only human (and even stranger : Corporate) nature at work here. And any analysis by rabid fan-base or long suffering authors is probably time better spent reading or writing books. There is a rather large world of books (finished and unfinished....) and life experience outside these petty arguments. Enjoy!
Pick a side or hand in your bubblewrap jumpsuit!
Simon Legrande wrote:
Now since I know you're referring to the stupid "social contract" idea, it doesn't exist and the writer is in no way bound by it.
You mean the "stupid" idea that makes up the entirety of the thin veneer we know of as civilization? Yep, pretty stupid.
He can also choose to work at his own pace as he has been. At this point you've broken down to "I WANT IT! I WANT IT! I WANT IT!" My kids are better than that.
You're missing the point because you're hung up on semantics and want to pretend I have an entitlement problem because I have an emotional investment in what I read and have reasonable expectations about publishing schedules and authors finishing stories. If you aren't emotionally invested in books, you must be reading some really lame books. If you don't expect capable (living, thinking) authors to finish what they started, then I simply don't know what to say to you.
The point is, it's not reasonable to expect an audience to pay attention to you for decades while you give them one or two years' worth of material every five years. Sooner or later they're gonna get impatient and either drop you or tell you to get busy and finish already.
If Rowling had dragged Harry Potter out for 20-30 years instead of a reasonable 10 years (GRRM at his current rate will clear 25 years), people would be pretty pissed off at her too. We'd still be waiting for Order of the Phoenix.
I started reading The Wheel of Time when the first book came out. I was always looking forward to the next, but I never felt that RJ OWED me anything. I looked forward to every new book, and read plenty of others in the meantime. Sure I was a little bummed when he died, but I was happy when I heard they brought someone in to finish it up. Even if it had never been finished, I would not have insisted that someone owes me something.
You like to move the goalposts, don't you?
RJ's books came out with reasonable frequency, about once a year or two years, despite being long. He also died before the series was completed. The publisher realized there was a such thing as a responsibility to the story, and found someone to finish it. Responsibility upheld. Social contract satisfied.
The reason you don't feel owed is because you aren't. RJ & Co fulfilled all their obligations and went above and beyond for their fans. GRRM isn't--he's pulling a Dark Tower.
James Sutter wrote:
To speak to the latter: I'm not saying that *all* fan entitlement is valid. If you expect a happy ending, or past tense, or whatever, and an author chooses to do something different, that's totally fine by me. The point is not that everyone gets exactly the book they want or expect, only that if your selling point is "check out this awesome story arc!" rather than "check out this great standalone book!", it's reasonable for fans to expect you to provide what you sold them on, rather than simply a portion of it.
A key part of being a good writer is being able to surprise the reader. Robert Frost said "No surprise for the writer, no surprise for the reader." Not getting what you expect is par for the course, and a story that doesn't surprise you is probably disappointing. (There are exceptions, as there are with anything.)
I don't equate surprise with betrayal. Surprise is a necessary element. Betrayal is what happens when the writer does not give a good faith effort, or crafts the end of a good story in such a disappointing way that there is no other adequate word to describe it. (Note that it has to be a good story with a bad ending. A story that starts off bad can't betray you, because you already know it's bad, and if you keep reading, that's on you.)
For instance, if we went crazy and decided to stop publishing Iron Gods at the third volume, a lot of people would be justifiably upset. The whole idea of an AP as we've promoted it is that it has a six-volume arc. Could it be continued beyond there? Sure, and we encourage people to do so, but we're always careful to wrap up the main arc in the volumes we publish. Even though each volume is a great adventure on its own, our advertising focuses on the larger story, and thus we have an obligation (in my mind) to provide it.
On the other hand, if you guys decided it would be best for the story to wrap it up sooner, that would be understandable. Key words being "wrap it up" and "best for the story."
The discussion of social contract is really just about recognizing *why* fans might feel a certain way, and admitting that there's validity to it, rather than just waving it all aside and claiming those readers (who are the exact people who supported you as an author) are somehow immature, which is what I feel some authors do.
Part of the contract is the writer has a responsibility not only to the audience but to the story itself. There is a responsibility to deliver on what was promised. But what is good for the story takes precedence. (And in cases as big as GoT, the good of the story takes precedence even over the writer's personal happiness. Hey, if you don't want that kind of responsibility, don't make the baby.)
While it's frustrating waiting 5 years between GRRM's books, I get that he's prioritizing the good of the story over my frustration. But he has a pacing problem. He could publish 400 pages every couple years instead, maintain the quality of work, and increase good will among his fans. But for some reason he chooses not to. And that's annoying, because we've walked down this road before, and I don't want to do it again. There's a point where it just gets to be Way Too Long and drawn out. People complained about this regarding Lost long before it ended, and Wheel of Time and Dark Tower. At some point, he just needs to stop rambling and get to the end. Preferably in his lifetime.
What should we as authors lose if we violate those expectations? Nothing but our good name with readers. But in this business, until you're as big as GRRM, your good name is all you have...
I don't believe anyone is ever too big to have any more than their good name. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. If the ending sucks, he won't be the guy who created one of the best series ever written, he'll be the guy who screwed up one of the best series ever written.
Someone taking a long time isn't a betrayal. I never said it was. What I said was a betrayal is a writer botching the end of a story, or failing to complete a story people care about, that they are capable of finishing. The better the story, the larger the betrayal if either of these occurs. It's a perfectly apt word. In fact it's the perfect word. People become emotionally invested in stories (that is what they are for) and when those stories let them down, what else would you call it?
Just as books can inspire, comfort, and evoke other positive emotional responses, so can they disappoint, anger, and betray the reader.
If I open a book I expect to be entertained. That is a reasonable expectation. If the book is book 1 of 2, I am owed book 2. If book 2 is never published, that author gets crossed off my list. You know why? Because they are unreliable. You know what a common thread is among unreliable people? They end up owing other people. There are plenty of other reliable authors who will not leave me hanging.
Note that I never mentioned movies, particularly movies that are adapted from books. The Golden Compass movie doesn't matter one bit to me, nor do the Narnia ones, because if I want to I can read the books. Similarly, if HBO ends up finishing GoT instead of GRRM, I will be somewhat satisfied, because the story will exist in its entirety somewhere. It would be preferable if GRRM just finished writing it, but whatever gets it done, as long as it gets done. Until then, however, GRRM and/or HBO most certainly owe fans an ending, and failing to provide one, or worse providing a bad one, would certainly be a betrayal.
I read it. You have a point--magic, for instance, needs to be governed by rules, explicit or not. But largely, any reference to actual rules, spell names and the like are destined to be comic relief (like the guy from GoT who says he wanted to be a wizard when he grew up, and then later the girl he rescues thinks he's a wizard because he can read).
In order for a D&D movie to be taken seriously, I think it would have to be a Drizzt movie, for two reasons.
One, Salvatore already has a large fanbase (as someone mentioned, larger than D&D) and a serious movie needs to attract more attention than us few dice-rollers.
And two, it is much easier to write something that has already been outlined. If they (anyone) has to make up something themselves, unless they're truly amazing, it will not be as good as adapting something that already exists. This is also an opportunity to take something cool (Icewind Dale) and improve it (because honestly it reads like an actual D&D game). That certainly isn't foolproof, but it would increase their chances of success dramatically.
Read Beren & Luthien from the Silmarillion.
You might need some caffeine, but it will dispel the notion that Tolkien doesn't pass this test.
If a book is published in the woods, and no one reads it, does it exist?
No. It does not.
So what does an author owe their readers? Everything.
Barring an untimely death, I fully expect a conclusion to a story, and a satisfying one at that. Otherwise, I stop reading. I invested years reading and waiting for Stephen King to finish Dark Tower. I got to a point where (the same point I am with GRRM right now) I stopped buying and reading, opting to wait for him to finish. He did. I read the last chapter of the last book (yeah, I cheat sometimes) and dropped the series like a hot potato. (This is just a personal example and doesn't mean you have to join me in my hate for Dark Tower.)
As an audience, I have the right to not be betrayed, whether it's by a lack of an ending, or a poorly contrived ending. I have this right because there are literally thousands of other writers out there, eager to be heard, who will not betray me. And I would rather read something that's just ok that doesn't betray me, than read the greatest story ever told except for the sucky ending.
GRRM may not be my b-word, but competition sure is.
Steve Geddes wrote:
...(which does make me tangentially wonder why rules debates about PF go the way they do).
They go that way because the rules are there to fuel them. Without the fuel, the debates die down. PF emphasizes system mastery and rewards the person who spends more time scouring the rules and arguing about what applies. 5e rewards critical thinking and creativity, and only needs one or two rules to support that emphasis (advantage and inspiration).
"Dumbed down" is a copout catchphrase, and a major pet peeve of mine. It doesn't actually mean anything--it's an assessment that is incorrect frequently enough that it carries no weight. It says more about the person saying it than it does about what they're referring to.
5e is "dumbed down" in the way multiplication "dumbs down" addition, or in the way a lever "dumbs down" force. In the way something can be made easier by utilizing a more sophisticated system. In other words, it's not.
Instead of piling on modifiers and rules-lawyering/brute-forcing the system, the challenge is to roleplay to gain advantage. One is about system mastery, the other is about critical thinking and creativity. Saying one of those is "dumb" is dumb. Calling a different kind of challenge than you're used to "dumb" is dumb. If they prefer the former playstyle, that's one thing. They should just say that. But I suspect they don't know what they mean when they say "dumbed down," which is why they're saying it.
As for rules-lite, there's not a single edition of D&D I'd consider to hit that, and certainly they wouldn't. One of them said to me, and I wish I could get the mixed contempt and disdain in their tone across on a message board, "It's got over a hundred pages of spells. You could right a whole system in that, and have space left over for stuff that matters."
I get that. My eyes glaze over when I get to the spell section and realize a full third of the book is not relevant to the character I want to make. That's a lot of wasted rules from one perspective. And when I do get around to making a caster, I'm perpetually struck by how many spells there are that just do something mundane in a fancy, expensive way. Alarm, for instance, is a magical tin can on a string. It can also alert me long distance, but so can message, so why can't message do what that part of alarm does, and I'll just buy a tin can?
There is also a lot of redundancy due to an unwillingness to scale certain spells. For instance, there's really no need to have slow and time stop be different spells. One is a much weaker version of the other--so why not just design them that way?
5e shows us that with the right rules, you can design a system that is both robust and easy to use. It's too bad they didn't take that approach more with spells.
Steve Geddes wrote:
In general I think 5e will prove resistant to rules-lawyering. There are fewer rules, and they have taken care to not attempt to codify every conceivable scenario, opting instead for broader rules and more reliance on the DM's ability to adjudicate (and making it fairly easy for them to do so since most of it revolves around advantage). More rules, especially specific corner-case rules, means more arguing about rules. Fewer, broader rules means less arguing about who is "correct" and more negotiating/roleplaying/adjudicating between players and the DM.
John Robey wrote:
How are you guys compensating players for the regenerative benefits they are expected to get from short rests?
I applaud random encounters and forging ahead (not abusing the 10 minute adventure day), but the game is designed with the assumption that the group will be able to rest frequently, lest they just go back to town and sleep off the effects of the first encounter.
That example about having tons of advantages but darkness negating it, as a GM, If you're in a situation with so many (5+) advantages, you probably don't need to roll in the first place.
I think that's actually the opposite of the intent.
I think the rules intend that there's no such thing as a "perfect storm" of advantage, where you can just stack your way to success without rolling. And that idea works in conjunction with the "bounded accuracy" power curve as well. It doesn't matter how awesome you are, how well prepared, or anything--you can still be taken down.
It's like the movie Office Space. They have the perfect plan (advantage), with the idiot company not paying attention (advantage), with the right team to pull it off (advantage), but because the programmer misplaced a decimal (disadvantage), none of that matters.
Steve Geddes wrote:
It appears to make no sense because you're looking at it arithmetically (ie: 5-1=4, not zero). But I bet the reason for it is to prevent every single d20 roll from devolving into an advantage/disadvantage arms race.
They prioritized gameplay over fussing with numbers.
And it sort of makes sense even without that design philosophy. In the example about not gaining advantage because of dim light, you're mistaking what's happening as "you fail to gain advantage" when it's actually "you successfully avoided disadvantage."
I did. A year and eight months ago.
I agree that getting duel requests can be annoying. That's easily solved by only allowing them in predetermined locations (ie: arenas).
I agree that a gladiatorial style arena system can and should be implemented, possibly in every settlement that chooses to build one. Arenas could offer one-on-one duels or group skirmishes.
No one here can honestly say they wouldn't appreciate the opportunity to practice. I can't tell you how much I hate duels, but I also can't say how many times over the years they have been useful when I need to try something out. What breaks immersion more--being able to test a new technique immediately with a trusted friend (or say, a target dummy?), or having to travel halfway across the River Kingdoms to the single in-game arena just to try something out?
I disagree with everything else in that post.
1: There is nothing immersion breaking about pulling your punches. Duels don't have to end in death.
2: Agree. Solution is arenas.
3: The reward for dueling is obvious--you get better at playing your character. That is a reward worth investing resources toward.
4: Real combat is not devalued. Duels carry no risk/reward, no loot, no territory. Real combat does.
5: People are constantly dueling in other games despite lack of reward for the sake of socializing and improving their game. Ie: meaningful interaction.
6: Saying that people who enjoy dueling are generally annoying is kind of a silly thing to say. One could say the exact same thing about people who enjoy PvP.
There's no reason you can't fight a duel and simply stop when the loser is near death.
There are several.
Define "near death."
Continuing this discussion here where it's more appropriate.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Thanks for the clarifications.
I would like to counter with the typical definition of what pay-to-win means: paying cash to gain an in-game advantage or to skip content.
It's clear to everyone that cosmetics don't do this. Neither do toys that don't affect gameplay, like mounts and pets. Training likewise is fine because no matter how much money you spend, you can only train at the same rate as everyone else.
However, it is generally accepted among gamers that selling gear of any functional kind is automatically pay-to-win. The fact that you can craft something just as good is irrelevant. The cash shop item allows you to skip content--either the crafting process or the in-game transaction. Skipping either of these removes human interaction that would otherwise have to occur, and also upsets the playing field between someone wanting to play the game in a typical way (using in-game resources) vs. someone wanting to spend their way past that requirement. Not to mention if people feel the desire to skip content, how interesting is that content to begin with?
Regarding toons, I think it's fine if one player wants to sell their toon to another (as long as the toon was actually played by a human). MMOs have too long held the irrational stance that our toons are their property, and I respect this change of attitude.
However, if toons ever show up in the cash shop, that would be unacceptable for obvious reasons.
This game is going to be about advancement, loss and recovery. You should not want to allow people to spend their way past these stages. It will backfire in one way or another. If someone doesn't like the advancement stage, they're not going to like the recovery stage. If they bought gear to advance and lost it, they're not going to think "Oh well, I'll just throw more of my bar tab money at GW." They're going to think "Well that money just went down the drain, screw this, I'm going to the bar."
That's someone getting alienated from your game on an individual level.
On a group level, you may very well have lots of people willing to throw money at you over and over. But what sort of players will they be? What sort of players have they been in other games (ie: EVE)? These are the sort of people who pay their friends to hang out with them, and will join PFO because they'll see it's a game they can treat like it's their own private server. Get a significant number of them, fully equipped with everything money can buy from the cash shop, and suddenly there's a major problem in the balance of power. Actually, just get a bunch of them equipped with tons of healing potions. Still a big problem. Great for GW's bank account, but bad for the game.
If that doesn't scream pay-to-win, I don't know what to say.
You have lots of good ideas going for this game. Don't ruin it by underthinking the cash shop (or worse, by trying to redefine what is pay-to-win). I sincerely hope you take a look at every single proposed cash shop item and reevaluate it with this in mind.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
You want to build & sell accounts. Eventually we'll have to have a system for this because not doing it will cause us more grief than directly supporting it. There are people who make a living making and selling MMO characters. You might be one of those people.
Temporarily lifting my "lurker" status.
I get that people will buy and sell accounts whether it's against the EULA or not. I get that MTXs are fine so long as they're cosmetic. But I don't get this.
A skilled/geared character is not cosmetic. How is supporting these third party transactions not supporting third party pay-to-win?
Once this support is in place, the obvious small step for GW to take is offer similar characters in the cash shop as MTXs. In that eventuality, could you explain how this would not be pay-to-win?
I recently quit WoW because they're sticking their big orc toes over the line with their latest cash shop ideas and I see the writing on the wall (one reason among many). People are on the forums in droves asking "Why can't I just buy a max level toon?" not getting why it isn't an appropriate question. It's like all of a sudden the colloquial meaning of pay-to-win changed from giving someone the slightest edge to giving someone a raid-ready toon.
It seems pay-to-win doesn't really mean anything anymore, and I would like to know what it will mean in PFO.
Not really. I've seen enough after-school WoW trade chat to pretty much know exactly what he's talking about.
And I'm fine with people getting banned for talking about doing that to pancakes.
Germany is doing a lot of smart things. Spain did well with moving toward solar power. I wish we would do that here.
Austerity is Gollum trying to keep the ring out of the lava. The solution is the same as it is here in America--tax the hell out of the rich, and also cut spending. Suffer in the short term and be ok later. Sadly, I don't think anyone will do this, here or anywhere. Because the rich own government.
Regarding Catalonia, my guess is most Americans don't know it's a separate country.
Respectfully, I think the FAQ on ranged touch attacks may be in error. I didn't participate in the thread on the subject so I don't know what was discussed, but it seems off to me. Here is what the PRD says from the combat "cast a spell" section:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity...
Making a ranged touch attack is a single action (whatever action the spell requires to cast). The attack is made as a part of casting the spell. The last line "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity" is, in my opinion, only there to clarify that they do provoke, but only once. Obviously casting a spell in melee provokes. Obviously making a ranged attack in melee provokes. However, if as a ranged touch attack doing these two things together "do not require a separate action" then they should not provoke as if they were two actions.
/neanderthal grunt of approval
I think its important to remember that any alternate race is almost certainly going to think of its race as the "true race"
Yup. I think the name of every native american tribe translates into "the people." As in, THE people.
I would drop his CHA down by one and boost his WIS up to 14. Better survival, perception, will saves for virtually no cost.
Antagonize is just about the worst feat there is. It's a standard action, so instead of chopping something in half, he makes something attack him, wasting resources (his HP) in exchange for not progressing the fight towards conclusion. If he wants to be intimidating, suggest Intimidating Prowess or Skill Focus.
Other than that it looks pretty good. Out of curiosity, what is his wife making?
I'm trying to build a Sensei. I have a lot of questions.
WIS>>>>DEX>>CON dumping CHA.
1) I gather Qinggong is a good match with Sensei, although I'm leaning toward Ki Mystic for the skill utility and reroll buff.
-Is it possible to take all 3 archetypes? Qinggong says you replace monk ability X with a ki power. Can you replace the conflicting monk ability (mystic visions) with a ki power to resolve the conflict? (And generally, can you ignore everything past level 12 for PFS in terms of conflicting archetypes?)
-For Ki Mystic, does the +2 to all knowledge skills allow you to use them untrained, or would I have to spend ranks to use them?
-Any suggestions on what item to choose for Vow of Poverty, or would that make life too difficult?
2) Aside from buffing, what is my secondary role? Grappler, stunner? Stay out of combat? The latter seems like it would be a waste since I could get pretty good AC/HP.
3) Any trait/feat suggestions?
James Jacobs wrote:
Transmog was certainly a welcome and long belated addition to WoW, and I'm in a similar boat--too little time to enjoy it before the game wore my interest away. I agree it's not so simple to reskin things in tabletop games. For one thing, many of the weapons that have increased critical range have slashing curved blades, and this makes sense--curved blades have a better chance of connecting perpendicularly at the point of impact. It's not trivial to justify giving a slashing straight blade the same crit range as a weapon that was designed (in real life) to be better at it. Definitely not impossible, but not trivial.
On "best" choices. WoW is attempting to buck this trend. I'll assume you're too busy/uninterested to avidly read the Pandaria beta forums. The short of it is classes are getting really beefy specs that contain every ability they really need, while getting a small number of talents that can greatly customize certain things they might want. In theory, this will eliminate or at least reduce cookie cutter builds. It's moderately successful, since they have been largely resistant to cookie cutter builds for months of beta, while in previous expansions the "best" builds were mathed out within hours of releasing talent info.
I'm interested in how that type of idea could be translated to the tabletop. I suspect it would involve the sacrificing of certain sacred cows, most notably (or maybe only?) the idea that some classes should be better damage dealers than others in combat for flavor reasons. If all classes were of approximately equal combat effectiveness more or less out of the box (within 5% is hard to achieve with dice, but I think around 10% is attainable), I think a lot of customization options might open up that do not currently exist. For instance, rogues wouldn't have to bend over backwards to be subpar melee; they could take their "spec" and then focus their feats on whatever they wanted (instead of being taxed 4-10 feats for being a TWF DEX build).
I would caution against a whip bard for a few reasons. One, it is an optimised bard build. The bard isn't a suboptimal enough class to warrant an optimal build for what you want. Also, if I were a new player, I would personally just want to jump into things. I wouldn't be at all optimization minded, particularly in terms of strategy. If I were a melee, I wouldn't know I got a bonus for attacking a prone enemy, nor would I be inclined to do so, figuring you were taking care of it, and I would want a more "live" opponent anyway. If I were ranged or a caster, the bonus would be mostly irrelevant.
A new player is probably going to want to get into the grit of the game, rather than be handed a lot of things that make the game easier. What's more fun and memorable, the fights where you almost die, or getting a +4 to hit everything?
I would echo Lazurin's suggestion, for a different reason. Don't just be a suboptimal build. Be a suboptimal party choice. Your experience will make the character/party viable without making the newbies feel like you're bringing the training wheels for them.
In short, be a rogue. ;) Optimize slightly with UMD. If the new guy rolls a caster, you're the suboptimal tank. If they roll a melee, you're the suboptimal support. If he rolls another rogue, then you have the ultimate suboptimal party.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The question is "how do we make the presence of unique opponents that produce exceptional loot maximize human interaction"?
I don't think the original suggestion is for unique opponents. Unique strongly implies named which would obviously break persistence. I think the suggestion is merely for rare elites. That's how I interpreted it anyway.
On the subject of interpretation, would it be possible to define exactly what you guys mean by "maximize meaningful interaction" (or a link if I somehow missed it)? Maximize could mean as large a group as possible or as frequently as possible. Meaningful could mean necessary to complete a task (purely mechanical), or serves to inspire roleplay (purely social). A clear sense of what you want could go a long way toward helpful suggestions.
@Decius: If rares are only in "dungeons" (per PFO definition), you always know where you will find them. Therefore all your exploration can be focused on finding dungeons. I would rather there be things like this out in the world as well. After all, they will be rare either way.
If rares are only in dungeons, they could potentially never be soloed. Requiring a group is one way of maximizing interaction, but not the only way. Having valuable loot drop that you will likely have no use for is another way, requiring a different kind of interaction. The loot doesn't have to be a windfall, just valuable enough to make the attempt to find someone who can use it a priority before you get killed and it disappears.
If rares are also out in the world, finding one and setting up a solo hideout to ambush solo adventurers could be an effective and interesting playstyle. You could wait for an adventurer to engage the rare and then try to kill them both, or just snipe the cache and disappear. Yet another type of interaction.
Say you're an explorer. You're passable in combat against mobs of typical difficulty for the area. You run across a rare you don't have the skills to handle. Now you have a reason to call for help that you might not otherwise have had.
I think having rares outside as well as inside dungeons is very important, and would go farther toward maximizing interaction than restricting them to dungeons. I think this is true of any difficulty level of rare creature, from the soloable wasp queen to the raid worthy dragon.
As for how rare, obviously making the times and places somewhat random would be key. Rarity should also be proportional to difficulty. At the low end of rare, a wasp could spawn every hour-ish, to give newbie adventurers a fair chance at finding one with some regularity. Going out and hunting rares with a friend as noobs is fun, meaningful interaction. On the high end, I imagine dragons might have timers measuring about a week, or even longer.
In the analogy, one side of the coin is "god exists" while the other is "god doesn't exist." With respect to your criteria, the latter side is proving a negative.
However, I think the analogy presumes the coin is never revealed, which in my opinion makes it especially apt.
Agreed. To maximize interaction, the rewards need to be varied enough that stuff will almost certainly drop that your group can't use. Compelling them to find someone who can. Ideally that stuff would be rare and valuable enough (as it should be, being from a rare encounter) that whoever can use it would be excited to get it. The trick being, not making it so rare that people wait in line to kill it, or having the reward be a bottleneck in someone's quest/craft that they might be stuck on for weeks.
I would not limit such encounters to dungeons though. The idea seems to me to be a rare mini-boss type encounter one could find anywhere. I also wouldn't limit it to just being a creature. A trap, puzzle or simply a loot cache (requiring multiple skills to find/disarm/unlock/smash) could supplement the encounter. Split the loot between the mob and the cache. Then if you are exploring solo and are powerful or skillful, you could conceivably defeat one but not the other for a modest reward. But a group would have a greater chance of besting the whole encounter.
I can't believe this is even an honest question. "Is doing good an evil act?" Seriously. "Defacing" or destroying an evil temple is called "consecrating." In other words, it is literally impossible to "deface" an evil temple. It can only be worshipped, making it more evil, or consecrated, purging the evil. There is no grey area here.
The only relevent part of destroying worshippers/temples of evil gods is the fact that they are EVIL. By RAW, this makes thwarting/killing/destroying them GOOD. Period. And for paladins, Good always takes precedence over Law.
Good and Evil are black and white in the game world. The sooner you guys figure that one out, the sooner these stupid evil threads can stop.