Humphrey Boggard's page

Thanks all - I'll be setting up a few play tests based on your suggestions to figure out what works and hopefully get back to you in the weeks to come.

I'm putting together a Cowboys and Zombies game and would like gambling to figure prominently in the gameplay. One scene would involve taking on the BBEG in a high stakes game of poker on his own turf. Instead of just rolling dice I'd like to involve the actual game of poker as well.

I was thinking that the players would be dealt into a game with the GM acting as the dealer and a guest player (with some poker experience) standing in as the BBEG. Skills would come into play as follows:

Profession Gambler: The GM looks over the player's hand, consults a table of poker odds and gives the player an estimate of the expected value of his hand (written on a note).

Bluff/Sense Motive: Opposed checks. Either way the GM looks over the Bluffing player's hand and figures out the value of the hand. If the Sense Motive player wins the opposed skill check he'll get a more or less accurate estimate of the worth of his opponent's hand. If not, he'll get a less or even misleading estimate of the opponent's hand.

Intimidate: Usual use to cause an enemy to become shaken (which will affect Profession Gambler, Bluff, and Sense Motive checks).

Sleight of Hand/Perception: Opposed checks. Success allows a player to draw a card from his sleeve (is dealt another card and can bank an existing card - banking more cards raises the difficulty).

I suggest something that I think is better :

What if there was a class tier list in each great role in the game ?
- Damage
- Skills (maybe different roles : scout, face, knowledge, ...)
- Controller
- Buffer
- Healer
- ...

Because the tier list above only sort classes by versatility (which is fine), not roles : and roles are much more important IMHO that versatility by itself, or otherwise we wouldn't have anything other than Wizard, Cleric, Summoner and Druid at our tables.

I think this is a much more constructive idea than the usual tier list.

Lord Snow wrote:

I can't see why ninja is not a archetype or prestige class, and cavalier barely had a reason to exist in the first place, making me really confused about the Samurai, given that it's basically a cavalier.

This has come up several times in this thread, and it keeps making me facepalm. So let me get this off my chest:

The ninja is, in fact, an archetype for rogues.

The samurai is, in fact, an archetype for cavaliers.

Please, everybody, stop saying "they should have been an archetype." They are.

Thank you.

Agreed. An alternate class is an archetype that a) requires a few more column inches to write down than the usual archetype and b) is enough of a change that it has it's own archetypes (e.g., Samurai with the Sword Saint).

With all the feats Fighters get, a mounted knight is an easy concept even without the Cavalier.

The cavalier base class is both a mounted knight and a leader that lends his allies teamwork feats, gives them bonuses with his banner, and helps them with other order-specific buffs. There really isn't a good way (that I know of at least) to give a fighter a substantial buffing portfolio.

Samurai the concept, is a Fighter. Samurai the PF class is a joke. In no way does samurai the PF class actually have anything to do with Samurai historically or even as presented in popular culture (see Sanjuro, The Seven Samurai etc.).

I emphatically disagree. The classic, pre-Tokugawa, samurai was a mounted warrior skilled in archery, swordplay, and the use of pole arms. The PF samurai is as a good a representation as you'll get in a d20 system and the use of the honor/resolve mechanics are a nice touch.

Since everyone else is doing it (only including classes I've personally played or played with, in order of my experience with them):

Samurai: I've been playing a samurai in our RotRL campaign (started at level 5, currently at level 12) and really enjoy the class. My experience is that they are capable and resilient front line combatants. I think of them as falling roughly between the fighter (consistently excellent in combat but narrow in focus) and paladin (situationally excellent in combat and more diffuse in focus).

Consider the challenge mechanic, for example. It's similar to a paladin's smite in some respects (+CL bonus to damage) and different in others (affects non-evil enemies, doesn't pierce DR, no CHA based bonus to hit, melee only, recharges resolve, has other effect based on samurai's order). The upshot is that situationally the Samurai's damage is boosted by his class features to be comparable to that of a fighter optimized around a single weapon system. Challenge damage (along with power attack and a high strength bonus) doesn't care which weapon the samurai is wielding and so you are free to switch things up a lot more. My samurai consistently switches fighting styles and weapons systems since his feat choices aren't restrictive in that sense.

Mount: A samurai in heavy armor has a movement of 20 ft. When you're in a dungeon this probably doesn't matter too much. When you're outside having a horse with 50 ft of movement to get you into combat (hopefully while charging) is a wonderful thing. At early levels in a dungeon crawl campaign you'll probably forget about the horse for a while. By levels 7 or 8 you'll be fighting larger monsters and dungeons open up considerably and your loyal horse will once again be there.

Witch The witch is the other long-term survivor of our RotRL campaign (started at level 4, currently at level 12). At earlier levels the witch primarily used hexes to stay relevant in combat, often to very good effect. At later levels, as more and more powerful spells have become available the witch is the hub around which our party turns (no surprise given that she is a prepared full arcane caster) and she primarily uses hexes out of combat for mobility, scouting, weather control, and healing.

[Oops, ran out of time and have to head to work]

My experience with monks at our table is that they tend to get built overly defensively and are often found ineffectively running around the battlefield, not getting hit, and resenting the full BAB martial characters ability to actually kill the enemies they face. Then occasionally grappling the holy hell out of a powerful caster to the GM's chagrin.

That being said, I like the monk as a class and I think that a monk built to give as a good as he gets would be useful and fun.

Finally, I'm always amazed by the sheer amount of vitriol I see on the boards about discussions of monks, rogues, and fighters (in that order).

I second the Alchemist idea. plenty of scope with an alchemist.

Great minds think alike. Nice name btw!

Are alchemists banned as well?

I really like the new base classes. A number of the "classic" core classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) serve as very generic chassis for a lot of concepts. However, the mechanics don't do much to reinforce these concepts from a roleplay point of view.

For example, wizards all seemed a bit generic to me with little to differentiate them except for their favored schools. The witch class is a great way to build an arcane caster where your choice of patron and hexes helps to keep your character coherent and distinct.

As everyone here knows, most Area Effect damage spells allow a Reflex save for Half damage. Also that Evasion allows a successful save to deal no damage. So I am curious how people see this effect in their mind when their character dodges the fireball or dragon's breath.

Fire isn't homogenous - it has eddies and whorls inside of it. I like to imagine evasion as the character diving into and following one of these tiny eyes of the storm. This works for any effect you can imagine as having small and brief gaps.

Personally, I believe the monk is a ruse designed by Wizards of the Coast and continued by Paizo to aggro significant numbers of players on their online forums.

Mission accomplished.

Player 1 "Well, we've got ourselves a real Sophie's Choice here."
Player 2 "That's the one where everyone wins and is happy, right?

Mathematician in the hizzy.

While average damage is an important metric, it's not the only important measure of a weapon. In evaluating a weapon we should be thinking in terms of how much damage a reference opponent (or a set of different reference opponents) can do to a given build before it is killed by the sword or axe wielder. For many opponents that extra x1 from an axe will be enough to fell them on a critical hit whereas they might survive a critical hit from a x2 weapon and live to do another round worth of damage to our heroes.

For those of you who like stats homework, I'd suggest creating a pair of fighter builds at a reasonable level (somewhere between 4 and 8, say) and running simulations to see on average how often each fighter wins against a given foe. This is more or less what Deadliest Warrior did. Better yet write a bit of code that runs that simulation for given hero and enemy stat blocks and post it somewhere online, preferably in a format that someone could fill in a few fields and run it themselves.

Fire elementals are a terrifying opponent if they are in an environment that burns, especially one with innocent bystanders.

They are built around hit and run tactics and wouldn't want to go toe to toe immediately with an adventuring group, instead they'll destroy the locale you're fighting in (exploiting environmental effects like extreme heat, smoke, and forest fires) and look to attack isolated and weakened enemies (perhaps one that is choking and coughing due to smoke after failing one or more fort saves).

FWIW Mike Brock, Mike Moreland, and John Compton just gave an interview in the Know Direction podcast addressing exactly this issue and the rule changes being put into play to correct it (along with tons of other great stuff).

Cleric

Any particular type of cleric?

I'll be moving to a new state soon and am thinking that playing some PFS would be a great way to get acquainted with the local gaming scene. I haven't played society before and have a few questions on what type of character would complement a typical PFS group.

1. What niches are typically left uncovered at PFS tables?
2. How often do you find yourself thinking "If only we had a ..."?
3. As a (new to PFS) player how should I divide my resources between being useful in combat and out of combat?

Man, I have gotten more love trying to play a rogue. I guess I understand where you are coming from though. A cleric needs to be built just right or he is hanging in the back of the bus with the rogues.

Trying shortening the bus by refusing to optimize. Everyone on the short bus has more fun anyways.

Looks good. I'd suggest you name him Father Dougal McGuire and really have fun roleplaying the 7 INT.

Gentle Repose - better yet convince your Cleric or Oracle to carry it.

Good - it seemed a bit much, even for theorycrafting. Thanks BBT.

Looking over the sneak attack rules I noticed that while the extra d6's don't get multiplied on a critical hit there's no reason why they wouldn't get multiplied when charging with a lance.

Is it correct that sneak attack damage (assuming you could land it) would be doubled when charging with a lance (or tripled with a lance and spirited charge)?

Bonus question: Suppose a vanished ninja charges with a silenced, invisible horse and the ninja attacks with a lance but the mount makes no attacks of it's own. Would the mount stay invisible (perhaps allowing the ninja to vanish and invisibly wheel around for another charge)?

(Not that I'd ever consider playing such a character but I am admittedly tickled pink by the idea.)

Sneak attack only excludes criticals. Nothing prevents it from multiplying on lance charges.

This is my new favorite thing.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a ninja lancer build? Cast invisibility and silence on the mount, vanish, and *BOOM* lance of death from nowhere. Ninja disappears again, horse stays disappeared, rinse, repeat.

edit: Related rules thread confirmed sneak attack dice don't get multiplied for any reason.

IMO many people on these forums have a fundamentally flawed view of how classes should work. The vast majority of Pathfinder games are played in the context of a party and the role of a give character within a party is to help the group solve as many obstacles as possible while spending a minimal amount of resources.

The fighter doesn't need to solve every possible encounter by himself - his job is to bolster the party with regards to a large number of combats, the most efficient solution often being to beat the opposition into a bloody pulp. So a well built fighter will strive to find a balance between melee, ranged, and combat maneuvers that harmonizes with the capacities of the other players in the party. The fighter serves as a receptacle for buffing abilities, makes efficient use of healing by having a respectable AC, occupies the attention of the enemies while the rogue sneaks in and looks to flank at the edges, and gives the battlefield controller a pivot to turn the rest of the battlefield about.

Sorry, I necromancied this issue a while back and people saying that the 10' radius ahd gaps in the four corners steams my lobsters to no end! I think this is the single STUPIDEST rule in pathfinder and Buhlman really needs to clarify it officially and if it isn't fixed I will continue to ignnore RAW on the matter and include diagonals in the reach/threatening.

I have it on good authority that the gaps in the four corners are historically accurate. This is why enemy units always sought to charge pikemen from 45 degree angles - to avoid the attack of opportunity.

I see two ways to approach being a high level martial when casters are perceived as being more powerful:

1) honest underdog, hero of the people type

2) action movie hero versus evil villain what has lots of genius

As for why character(s) wouldn't have taken caster levels if talent was there -- probably different for everyone but there's something about the satisfaction of physical skill versus studying a tome to cheat the laws of the universe.

Huh what? I thought this was supposed to be a rules thread about liches.

For a heavy armor martial character three ranks of acrobatics.

Have you thought of making one of the lieutenants a cavalier or bard?

@On topic - I've really enjoyed the product that Paizo puts out. I think the ratio of fluff to crunch is about right and when there are minor inconsistencies in the literature our group discusses it and comes to an agreement about it. I see long threads arguing about how well mechanics are balanced and I think that people have too much time on their hands.

@Off topic - Pathfinder is a game, not a simulation. Adventuring is exciting to role-play because there is a sense of risk. If there were no risk then there would be no game because few would be interested in playing a campaign wherein you are a commoner practicing his or her profession and making wise life choices.

edit: On second thought fantasy commoner sounds very relaxing. Taking ten on profession checks and laughing my way to the bank. In four more sessions I'll be able to afford that new cow and start my cheese making operation!

I'm looking for advice on how playable this is and what kind of class and feats i should be looking at. I've got it in my head to have a character that specializes in a one handed weapon alone. No shield or second weapon or 2h weapon. Is this viable? if so how?

Thanks for any help.

I'm currently playing a samurai that fights with a katana. Usually he wields it two handed for the extra strength and power attack damage, sometimes he wields it with a shield or even one-handed if he has something else he needs to carry in his off-hand.

My experience is that this can work extremely well and can allow for a lot of tactical flexibility. Is this the kind of build you're looking for?

I put all my players through a demanding series of physical, mental, and social tests to determine their "real world" stats which they then use for their character stats. So far the highest stat has been a 13.

Technically they're alternate classes.

Kodger wrote:

@mpli

Could you explain why Furious Focus is so bad?

Would it be better for a fighter who has lots of feats and can swap out bonus feats?

It only gives a bonus to hit with your first attack, and by level 11, you're basically always hitting with your first hit regardless. If your attack bonus is low enough such that your first swing is going to miss because of Power Attack, you're in pretty dire straits and might need to reconsider more than just a single feat.

Not sure where you're getting that. His attack bonus is +18 unless he's fighting a favored enemy so he hits an AC 20 on a roll of two or higher.

Your items and favored enemy (and Instant Enemy) will go a long way towards making up the difference in expectations.

Also you've got Great Cleave (but haven't taken Cleave) and Dreadful Carnage (but haven't taken Furious Focus). I'd recommend dropping Great Cleave for Furious Focus.

Can a summoned creature be used as a mount? What do you need to know to do this?

Hypothetical scenario:

A caster summons a flying monster for a cavalier companion to ride into an aerial combat.

- What kind of summonable monsters would work?
- What kind of ride/fly/handle animal checks are needed?
- How does this fit into turn order?

Have your fighter put down his weapons and fight unarmed with styles. Weapons just get in a fighters way sometimes.

Good thing fighters are never in a situation where they can't just hack away with their favorite weapon. The best fighter is the one that overspecializes and then complains loudly whenever his GM throws a curve ball at him.

Monk would be a strong dip for the half-orc fighter. In exchange for losing a +1 BAB and 2hp (on average, assuming his favored class is fighter) he gets a +2 to fort/refl/will saves, four feats (the bonus feat, flurry of blows = TWF for unarmed strikes, a better version of improved unarmed strike, and stunning blow). Probably there's an archetype that allows him to swap out flurry of blows (which you can't use in armor) for something more useful.

And as other posters have noted there's no reason why monks (or a fighter with a 1 level dip of monk) have to have a Wuxia flavor.

Samurai are awesome and should be played more. Resolve and challenge are amazing; Orders are fun, and your mount is awesome but also not essential to have.

Amen to that. Session before last I accidentally one-shotted a minor BBEG. Felt kind of bad about that.

Zero. You can make a check twice using Mounted Combat - but you don't have mounted combat. Sometimes skipping the pre-reqs for a feat makes it useless (although you'd still be able to auto-pass DC 15 ride checks and wouldn't take the -5 penalty for riding bareback).

The 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast (ep195) did a nice review of the rules. I haven't seen a comprehensive guide to the rules although there are some helpful suggestions in the Cavalier's Guide - Care and feeding of your mount.

Also, mounted archery is really very effective, especially if your character is small. Our RotRL group has a goblin paladin who specializes in mounted combat and generally tears things up.

How about you develop a character concept first and them figure out the mechanics that work instead of vice versa?

For example, I've been wanting to play a gypsy commando, a lieutenant in a hidden army that travels by seeming random movements of caravans. From there I fleshed out his personality and background

From there I started to flesh out mechanics - deciding that he would be a ranged arcane duelist bard and working out the details to make him a strong contributor to the party.

\NOT every race can be a workable mounted character. It's dependent on the terrain. When your build relies on a specific combination of class and race to pull, it's not something you can point to and say "Yeah, Cavalier works in every AP!" it's more "Yeah you can run a Cavalier in every AP as long as you're a gnome or halfling".

You can totally play a medium cavalier or samurai in every AP but you'd be an idiot to build around charging at early levels. At later levels you'll invariably be facing larger monsters and the terrain, by necessity, opens up a lot more for charging.

Humphrey Boggard wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

... sheds no light on whether an all wizard party can be successful ...

Actually, it kind of does.

At low levels the only thing squishier than a wizard is a whole party full of wizards. It's one thing to have a group of expert players challenge themselves by playing an all wizard party and quite another to have a group of beginners all build as wizards because they have some fool notion that the wizard is the best class (or that there even is a best class).

No, this example sheds no light on the subject because the players made no apparent effort to adjust their tactics, arrange their spells, purchase items, or do anything else that would have improved their chances to be successful in spite of lower hit points.

Especially against the lame monsters they encountered.

I think the original poster said it best.

thats exactly the issue, i know that a party of all wizards can work, but you cant be stupid about it

While it's true that any adventuring party needs to have their wits about them with a party of low-level wizards the margins are razor thin and errors in judgement tend to be punished harshly by the rules of the game.

... sheds no light on whether an all wizard party can be successful ...

Actually, it kind of does.

At low levels the only thing squishier than a wizard is a whole party full of wizards. It's one thing to have a group of expert players challenge themselves by playing an all wizard party and quite another to have a group of beginners all build as wizards because they have some fool notion that the wizard is the best class (or that there even is a best class).

You designed an adventure for a competent adventuring group and instead your friends showed up.

New to the party here - could someone briefly summarize what, if any, progress has been made since Grick's interpretation of RAW at the start of the thread?

Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

You must threaten in order to make an attack of opportunity. If you can make a melee attack into that square, you still threaten, even if you can't make an AoO.

...

None of those people (except the invisible ones) can make attacks of opportunity, yet all of them can threaten if they're armed, and thus all of them can provide a flanking bonus if positioned properly.

"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

Being able to make an AoO is dependent on threatening, it's not the other way around.

This is crazy and really shows how the stereotypes are crap but - get this - I game and my wife is totally uninterested in it!

It's a crazy world.

Good for you guys! I guess there really is an exception to every rule.

A lot of men find table top RPGS to be off putting since the female characters start with the same starting gold as male characters. You might want to pay the males players more (give them more loot, higher starting gold) so it's more in-line with their expectations here in the real world.

In our game women only find 70% of the gold that male players do. Our GM says it's because male characters are more likely to have to support their families while female characters are expected to spend part of their adventuring time at home caring for their children.