Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Seelah

Ilja's page

2,712 posts. Alias of stringburka.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,712 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quote:
The +1 Courageous weapon gets +1 Will saves over the +2 Weapon. That is the only thing extra you are getting out of it.

That isn't correct. The second barb gains the following benefits that the first doesn't:

+1 on _all_ attack rolls, whether with that weapon or another.
+1 on CMB rolls not utilizing the weapon.
+1 on CMD
+1 hp/level
+1 will saves
+1 on strength and con checks
+1 on fortitude and will saves

That's more than +1 to will saves. Whether it's balanced or not is another question, but don't sell it short when it has noticable benefits.

Also, if we compare a more beneficial scenario, that is more likely considering if you're a barbarian you aim for it:

12th level barbarian
Str 29 when raging (16 base +2 racial +3 level +4 belt +4 rage)
Con 18 when raging (14 base + 4 rage)
Has prebuffed with Heroism (wand charge is dirt cheap and lasts 40 minutes)
Has Adopted/Tusked racial traits

Normal attack routine is +23/+18/+13 (2d6+13) and +18 (1d4+4)

A +2 weapon will change the routine to:
+25/+20/+15 (2d6+15) and +18 (1d4+4) and will also give
+2 to any CMB checks with the specific weapon

A +1 courageous weapon will change attack routine to:
+26/+21/+16 (2d6+16) and +20 (1d4+5)
+1 to any CMB check, +2 to those with the specific weapon
+1 to all saves
+1 CMD
+1 on various skillz and trickz

So yeah, with very low synergy it comes out just right ahead, and with decent synergy (not even a real investment) it comes out way ahead.


Robert A Matthews wrote:


In the end you are getting +2 attack and damage on both items, just one item requires a spell to be in effect before you get it. Still not seeing how this is OP.

Edit: Whoops, forgot that Heroism doesn't add to damage

Also, one adds +1 to saves which is quite a costly benefit otherwise. Though of course, you're now comparing them in about the worst possible scenario, where the character has literally no class features that benefit from it. Kind of like saying thar Staff of the Master sucks because barbarians aren't good with it. Bards, cavaliers, barbarians, inquisitors and paladins all have morale bonuses as part of class features, and I'd wager there's quite a few clerics and rogues and other classes getting them from domains or talents or what have you.

Not saying this is necessarily Teh Brokenzzz but I mean, it's kind of unfair to compare it to the absolute _minimum_ that a character will have access to.


Trogdar wrote:


Only if you can guarantee that you are going to get that property soon and will be able to keep that weapon relevant over time, which I have never seen happen in practice.

Well, I think it's a bit of an understatement to say "you need a +5 weapon to gain a Str/Con bonus from it" when it's rather "you need a +5 bonus or a +2 bonus and uneven scores". It's quite a big difference, and a rather large chance that at least one of the scores are uneven. Especially since you get to increase every 4 levels and then just can stop at an uneven instead of an even number (until you get the +4 courageous weapon).


Would be interesting if someone had a rally outside Auxmaulous house claiming he should be killed in the name of JZ or what have you, hundreds of people showing up in support, and the local authorities just "nope, until someone kills him there's no crime, we can't arrest people for just preaching the hate, Aux, you should laugh at him, not worry!".


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ilja wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
For starters, not everyone plays a barbarian, and not everyone plays at levels where courageous is actually worth a damn (you need a total of +5 bonus for it to not just give you +1STR and CON when raging, which, you know, isn't even enough to get a bonus if your stats aren't odd numbers), not everyone has ultimate equipment, or feels like combing it through for optimal stuff.
Huh? How do you figure? A +1 Couragous weapon would give +1 Str and Con and Will saves when raging.

It increases the score. It takes 2 points into an attribute to either increase or decrease the modifier it grants.

A Courageous Weapon with a less than +4 Enhancement Bonus only grants 1 point to the given attribute.

The Will Saves would increase, but the Strength/Constitution modifiers would be unchanged unless the amount needed to increase the modifier is 1 attribute point.

Oh, talking about the modifiers? But if you can assume a courageous weapon, it isn't harder than just getting an uneven score to begin with. Very efficient from a point buy perspective.


LoneKnave wrote:
For starters, not everyone plays a barbarian, and not everyone plays at levels where courageous is actually worth a damn (you need a total of +5 bonus for it to not just give you +1STR and CON when raging, which, you know, isn't even enough to get a bonus if your stats aren't odd numbers), not everyone has ultimate equipment, or feels like combing it through for optimal stuff.

Huh? How do you figure? A +1 Couragous weapon would give +1 Str and Con and Will saves when raging.


Well, it was an oversimplification tomake a point. But if one wabts to make it a bit closer to what could be done, give it to someoe whos played a fair bit of Neverwinter Nights 2 (which is based on 3.5) and you get somethig closer to a reasonable.comparision. And i think theyll still assume it applies to their rage bonuses.


Yeah Risner i think youre far off in this case. I agree with you abouy how it should be run, and also think theres often an anally awkward RAW-hysteria in these parts, but reading it as "any morale bonus" isnt awkward, its the most obvious way. That doesnt make it correct necessarily but its not in any way twisting words or an "awkward" reading. Give someo who doesnt know the game an exerpt of the Rage ability and this weapon enhancement and ask how big bonus someone with a +4 courageous weapon raging gets to strength and youll probably get the answer "six".


For governments, yes. Thats basically what they want out of it, and thats where the limit goes mostly. Of course i dont agree with that, and want socialist incitement of revolution to not be prosecuted.

Governments dont genuinely care about rights. They care about lining their personal pockets, which in effect means they come to serve the ruling class and only by threat of force will they do anything different. The reason weve been sowell off in sweden isnt because our government is so loving, its because workers movements and unions fought for it, hard, often through physical force and sometimes violence, and the threat of the russian revolution spreading here was so present. So we got it pretty nice in sweden since the government knew if they didnt throw us more scraps we'd get rid of them one way or the other. Skip forward 90 years, and the unions have become self-servig buerocrats who doesnt put up a fight against the ruling class like they were supposed to but instead works as propaganda groups for the govenment, since there is no force against the government they start crapping all over us. And the thing is, neonazkis isnt a threat to the government here since they mostly splinter any working class organization without threatening the national self image so theyre allowed to roam free (or even protected in their attacks on anticapitalists; see GBG2001).

To remain in power, population control is incredibly important, and one of the most powerful methods for that is nationalism. In germany, holocaust denial is something most people would be utterly ashamed of even existing in their country, so they want to get rid of holocaust denial. In turkey, denial of the amenian genocide is stadard, so there they dont want people to call it a genocide since it disturbs the national self image.

Of course, this doesnt make what the government does ""the right thing", but im a pragmatic. If the law helps locking up some nazis Im all for it, I just dont expect the law ever to be used in a manner that risks upsetting the status quo of neoliberalism.


Or the difference is that
1. Turkey still denies the armenian genocide and put pressure on the french government
2. The french government has a lot more racists in it and
3. The armenian genocide has a much smaller personal onnection to most of the people living in france than the amount of people in germany with a personal relationship to the holocaust.
4. They can have genocide denyers without dramatically damaging their national self-image, unlike in germany. And nationalism is something every government wants, just not every kind of nationalism.

Im certain all four of these play a huge role.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ilja wrote:
It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing. Feels kinda weird.
I don't see why that's weird; the only way we can live in real freedom is if we keep each other honest. If it were up to me, there would be only like 4 things that were illegal: assault (direct or indirect), murder, theft... and outright public lying.

Well, the ironic thing would probably be that most of the opponents argue for not giving more power to the government - a government that I hope will burn in righteous socialist revolutionary fire - while you and Orfamay seem to claim the current government of Germany (and in effect most of those in the western world) have some kind of legitimacy, which I strongly oppose.

But of course, I far prefer the government to lay the smack on nazis than nazis laying the smack on ethnic minorities, QTBLG people and union members while the government prevents us from fighting back, which is the more common picture.


As far as I know, the only functional pantheon is Oenar+Azdan+Melehan. In addition, Aeon has used gather pantheon, but there isn't anyone else in his pantheon so it doesn't really do anything.


Oh, also, about that "the fascists of the future will call themselves antifascists" which referred to american patriots?

Looks like Long was right on that.
The US wants to give weapons to these guys.


BTW, I wonder how the mortals count time? There isn't any sun (is there?), and while the winter moon has an inner glow and slowly turns around the world (about one circle per month?) and it's quite easy to measure in generations what would other means of determining time be?

For the indar, I assume fire would be central, so perhaps they'd measure time in burnable material?

Something like
A generation - about 20 human years
A month - a moon turn, equal to a real-life month
An oak - how long an oak log burns, about 10 hours real-life time
A birch - how long a birch log burns, about 3 hours real-life time
A branch - a short period of time, about 10 minutes


Actually, Melehan has 32 minus what he's spent; he's part of a pantheon with 3 members this rollover.


It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing.

Feels kinda weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenthe things doug/the rich likes are clnsidered fundamental rights that stand above all other rights, and we live in the perfect Hunger Games arena. Except the unarmed eleven-year olds arent allowed todisarm the paramilitary thugs, because thats stealing.


Things are gettibg reaaally s#$!ty. And the media in my coubtry is pretty much silebt, apart from the occacional "putin is a meanie"-rant. Most meaningful info i get from this thread, actually, especially quandarys posts.


Also, i find it kind of silly to equate "free speech" with "free society". I know from moy school years that i would have been a lot freer if my bullies werent allowed to speak freely.


Thejeff: well, it depends, but yeah often. Thats why i said they change who composes the ruling lass. But in cases like the nazi germany, those ghat werent jewish and that owned businesses remaied in power. NSDAP was greatfr the capitalists - free labor, crushed unions and an ideology that hailed them as strong and migghty.


Breivik is a symptom of his time. He would not have existed in the 60ies. He was a member of a major party until just before his attack, where vocal about his opinions and recieved a lot of support from other neonazis even before the attack (and stilldoes after). Individualizing roght-wig terror is common but always equaly flawed. And when i say havent been active for 20 years, i dont mean just the RAF, but european militant stalinists in general. When was the last time a stalinist killed someone in scandinavia? Has it happened, apartrom the germans going to the german ambassad and killing other germans, 20 years ago? Meanwhile the number of fascist and neonai deaths in scandinavia is in the hundreds during the same period.

But i agree with you on authoritorian movements, fuly. Its just that you seem to claim that any militance is authoritarian, or that resistance is authoritarian, or tcat any stance against authoritarian movement s must include an unlimited freedom of speech.

To take another example: going aroud putting up around ypur house sayig you deserve to die and that anype who reads it should consider killing you is illegal. Its also saying an opinion. It also is illegal to kill you and not a question of accidents. And i think it should stay illegal. And if i see someone putting up those posters id beat them (if i werent such a coward - but i support beating them to get them to stop). And i consider that self defense, even though what threy did was just expressing an opinion.

Becaise words matter. Propaganda matters. Thats why freedom of speech is inteeresting at all - if words couldnt be used to exert force, noone would ever care about limiting it. But since words do carry force, i think people are within theor roght to protect themselves from that forcewhen it is used to opress. Exactly where the line goes isnt clear, of course - is it okay if tvey just say ideserve to die without advocating others should do it? Is it okay if they frame it as a joke? Is it okay if they skip referrig to me as a person and instead refers to an oppressed group im part of (like, "gaysshould die. Here lives a gay person."? Its not always clear, but I believe strongly that the opressed group should be given the benefit of doubt. I believe if neonazis come around waving the flags of those who thinks gay people should die, hailing those murderers as heroes, andspreading theor lies - that is a direct threat to my life and well-being. And if i defend myself - even with force - that is justified.


Im not saying fascists are like drunk driving, Im saying laws are made because of the cpnsequence theyll have. Laws made on principle rather that because a certain consequence is preferred are pointless.

The reason we dontdiscuss Breivik alongside RAF is mainly because RAF havent done anything in nrealy 20 years. It could of course also be noted that the whole organization of RAF killed less than half as many as Breivik alone did, less targets where civilians, they didnt target children and it should be noted that germany did arrest people for supporting them, not only those that killed people. Not that Im a fan of Baader Meinhof, im no stalinist or maoist (as you can guess from my preious posts in this thread), but there is a certain difference between them. But again, the main relevant difference is that theres 20 years between them. We dont have a rampantly spreading epidemic of militant stalinists, withfascists and neonazis we do.

And, well, not all.societies have a working class per se. Some have a slave class or similar instead, which fill the same function. But i can tell you that those living as part of the ruling class under NSDAP or Stalin or Pinochet or Kim Jong or global capitalism or any other gauthoritarian system - they fare quite well.
This is of course with a historically materialist perspective, where working class are those who need to sell their labor to live a decent life and the owning (or ruling) class is those living on the working class' labor. I dont mean class as in the neoliberal "working class/middle class/upper class" but in the historically materialistic "working class/owning lass".


Thing is, laws are pointless in a vacuum, their relevance only comes from their consequence.

Its like with drunk driving; drunk driving is illegal because theres a risk of hurting someone. Now, hitting people with your car is already illegal, so we should.t need a law against ,drunk driving, right? Thing is, without that law, more people will get hit by car. That its illegal and the offender might be punished really has no relevance there, because the victim is already hurt. And might not have been if drunk drivig was illegal. In so, the law against drunk driving prevents deaths. Just allocatig more funds to investigating who thedrunk driver was does very little.

That is the goal of the german law (and similar laws, like against incitement etc). The point of the law is to prevent neonazi lies and propaganda from spreading, becausehen the propaganda spreads, they have an easier time recruiting, which leads to higher frequency of Breiviks. Its hard to know how well it works without seeing a study on it, but it doesnt seem unlikely that it works to some extent.

The reason i reject them because of what they do to the working class is because they dont do anything bad to the ruling class, more than that it changes exactly who it is composed of. I dont care if an exploitive bastard gets taken out by another exploitive bastard, I care about lessening the exploitation.


Thing is, to many, fascism isnt just some "horrible ideology", it is adirect threat to their health and lives. The neonazi and fascist movements are violent, and murder people time and again. Just in my country, people are getting stabbed, a guy in a wheelchair got tortured to death, a woman got murdered and dismembered by neonazis in a town just a few miles from mine. Union locales are getting firebombed, racialized peopleterrorized and so on and so on.

You cant meet that with rational debate. Not only is there no point, but the energy spent trying is energy that the nazis use to kill people. If im in a burning building, i dont spend time tellng the fire to stop being so hot.

And the reason for the whole "fsscists of the future" quote is because the people it referred to - flagwaving american patriots - have a lot in common with fascist ideologues. The might makes right, the homophobia and racism, the nationalism, the anti-union stances, their glorifying of institutional violence et cetera.


Actually sissyl, that wasnt winston churchill, it was huey long, and in relation to american patriots, not autonomous antifascists. Which are very very different.

But yeah, totalitarian movements tend to do crap to the working class, whether theyre fascist of some flavor, stalinist of some flavor, religious of some flavor, or capitalist of some flavor.

That said, i vehemently disagree with the whole everyone should get to speak their opinion, no matter how horrid. Im all for juridical freedom of speech as protection from the state (as the state will always work to uphold status quo, incuding the kyriarchy and capitalism) but g&%+!!n do i prefer neonazis beaten up then organized and beating up people. Because that is what happens. Antifascism is self defense.


Or perhaps "eternity"? I dunno, just brainstorming.


I dont remember exactly what domains you possess but i can see several things youve spebt points on that could be relevant; creation (weave plane), souls (create concept), wisdom (crystal seer), or probably many other things im not thinking about.


Nefreet: i dot get the issue with the weight? The klar states itt works like a light shield with spikes. Just because flurry of blows works like twf doesnt mean you have to have 15dexfor it.
When something states "works lie X" or "treat as X" that means for every unspecified part you treat it as X. The klar isnt a shield with spikes, it works like a shield with spikes.


Oh didnt mean nope, meant yep. XD


Nope, you first need the minimum domains and then spend (5?) points. And only after 6 weeks of play as your current rank (this keeps the game goin more linearly and prevents exponential growth of those first to reach lesser diet status). I dont know owlong weve played now though, a month?

Btw, Oenar has had secret talks with Azdan and is joining their pantheon, but thee was no good in-game opportunity to have an open discussion about it. But yeah, oenar spends her last AP at joining the pantheon. My internet at home is stone dead though, so i only hve my phone, and dont know when im goig to be able to write ingame posts. If i havent fixed the internet by tomorrow, ill haveto go to a public libraray (long live sweden an public libraries in every part of town with free internet).


Nefreet wrote:

Given the arguments here about shields, I think #1 is out the door.

A Heavy Shield is also one object, yet it has a place on both the Weapons table in the CRB and the Armor table. A Klar is no different.

Which sucks for not having that +1 to-hit, but boy does it make it cheaper.

The difference is that a heavy shield states it can be used as a weapon.

A klar literally states that it is "a light wooden shield with armor spikes.". Armor spikes are non-shield weapons and separate objects.

So it's not so much that both have lines in the weapons table, as that the description of the klar states that it is a light shield with armor spikes. If it is treated as a light shield with armor spikes (as the rules say), it is masterworked separately because it essentially is two objects.


Majuba wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Majuba wrote:
It might be worth explaining to the player who doesn't want to read the scrolls that he will level up faster than the people who do read the scrolls. He may not *catch* them, if they continue to read many scrolls, but he should keep relative pace, just from the exponential nature of XP.
Or he might just die a lot.

Doubtful. Cohorts, while a bit more fragile than PCs, don't die very often - and they have NPC gear, at least to start. Plus this is the GM talking to him, who should be adjusting encounters for the whole party APL.

If the rest of the group aren't wizards, they aren't going to be super effective being multiclassed anyways. He'll be the one with the highest single class level.

Huh. In our games cohorts die on a regular basis, unless they are built specifically to stay out of harms way (which is often the case). A paladin cohort would probably be quite short-lived, at least if she also wanted to contribute somewhat rather than just standing there self-healing herself with both LoH and various spells each round.

That's why you want a decent charisma for leadership in the first place, if you want the cohorts to go adventuring with you.

And cohorts are two levels lower, not like four or more.


Hey, I found it now!

It's named MegaMek in case anyone cares. If someone want to hook up for a game I'm all for it, though I'm reaaaally crappy at it (mostly have played the mechwarrior action games).


Comrade, sometimes I love you.


So, I remember there being a turn-based "game" or rather platform for playing the battletech board game on a computer. Since I'm in a mechwarrior mood, but also a turn-based strategy mood, I'm trying to find it, but I can't.

I'm not talking about the new MW: Tactics or whatever it's called, but an older program, I think it's not officially affiliated with the battletech line. It has very simplistic graphics, basically just quite simple pixel-art, and follows the original board game rules of battletech (as far as I'm aware). It's a freeware.

Anyone know what I'm talking about? If I can just figure out the name I can find it, but my google-fu is weak and I just can't find it because all searches end up on the battletech wiki or the MW: Tactics game.

Also, anyone have suggestions on games that are battletech-ish? Preferably turn-based strategy, but other games are also interesting.

So far I've played the original mechwarrior series 1-4, mechwarrior online (which was neat for a while but not really to my taste, prefer MW:4 actually) and this turn-based platform I can't put my finger on.

Thanks a lot for any aid :)


Though I must say I like QuitBrowser's mention of how they talk about it in Baldur's Gate - that gives me a very simple idea for a house rule that solves it all.

The duration of wall of iron changes from instantaneous to permanent. Done. That way it can be dispelled, and goes away (temporarily) in an antimagic field. It could be worked just fine, but would have a far lower market value since it's so easily destroyed.


I think by the strictest reading of the rule, there are two possible interpretations:
1. A klar is one object, but it is treated as two different objects in terms of being weapon/armor, and you need to masterwork and enchant them separately.
2. A klar is a shield, thus the shield rules apply; a masterwork klar costs +150 gp, and has -1 ACP, and can be enchanted as a weapon and/or shield.


Hey steven, I'd like to get to join your pantheon before the next rollover, if possible. If you have time, of course.


Nefreet wrote:

Alright. I won't argue about spending less money.

But what about Klars?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/klar

As I see it, it's a light shield with armor spikes, and would be masterworked separately. I agree that it's vague though, and up to the GM.


Nefreet wrote:

...

That makes no sense.

If I make a Mithral light shield, I don't get the +1 to-hit?

And, regardless of whether or not that's true, you still need the +300gp to enchant it as a weapon later, correct?

1. Correct.

2. Incorrect.

Basically, there is just the "masterwork" property - there is no separate property of masterwork for weapons and armor.

There is just masterwork.
A masterwork armor or shield has -1 ACP.
A masterwork non-shield weapon has +1 AB.
A masterwork tool has +2 circumstance bonus.

To enchant an object the object must be masterwork. Enchantments are different depending on if it is a weapon enchantment and shield enchantment and you can enchant a shield as weapon.


Diego: Are you sure? Fireball states it deals damage to unattended objects, Flaming Sphere that it ignites flammable objects. It's also evocation, not conjuration (creation), so the flames are magical. To me it seems a very possible reading that because other spells specify that they work against objects, the lack of specification here means that it doesn't. And it's magic fire, so it's not like it's unexplainable. I mean, I don't know how "that's ridiculous" (to quote Trogdar) doesn't apply to "take a piece of phosphor and say some weird words and you get a 60 meter wall of fire" but applies to "but the fire doesn't hurt inanimate objects".

Though I'm not sure about your second point; what happens if you topple a wall of iron on top of a wall of fire? I think that would be the tactic regardless, as Drachasor mentioned permanent wall of fire.


feytharn wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So you can have an opinion the crime is in sharing it....

Specifically, it is this one opinion. The reasons for the laws in question can easily be found in German history. The law is meant to prevent people from marginalizing the crimes of Nazi Germany (especially teachers, politicians et.al.) and from publicly belitteling the fate of those who lost friends and family in the holocaust, adding mockery to the pain that has been wrecking the life of more then one generation. It also prevented teachers that were themselfs part of the so called 'Tätergeneration' (Offender-generation) to bury the responsibility of their generation, thus making the accounting of the past mandatory.

You may not agree with this, but there are reasons for this specific case of criminalizing a public opinion.

This is also not an _opinion_. It is an incorrect statement of fact. Of course, there are opinions that are also illegal to state publicly - both in the US and Germany (for example laws about inciting riots etc) - but holocaust denial isn't an opinion, it is a lie spread by nazis.

Sissyl wrote:
The thing is, it's a pissy thing to make criticism of important things illegal. Just as it is bad policy to make certain political parties illegal. It's something that must be very carefully monitored, and of course, it never is. The most probable result of these specific laws is going to be that racist organizations can point to this for recruitment purposes.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, there's several parts to it:

1. First of, criticism isn't illegal. Trivializing or denying is.
2. Second, it directly hurts people who were persecuted in the nazi regime - in this regard, it is much like hate speech law, and the statements are usually made in hate speech-like circumstances (neonazi rallies etc).
3. Third, I'm critical of this idea because it or similar ideas are put forward all the time whenever something by law or general public behaviour is restricted, and in the cases where this leads to unrestricting it, it tends to get worse. Not just about laws but about public acceptance in general. For a local perspective, as I know you're a Swede, consider:
A. Alcohol law; when we had the bratt system, people claimed it made alcohol more interesting and that it encouraged people to buy their whole allowance even if they otherwise wouldn't. So they got rid of the bratt system, and alcohol-related crime and health issues increased by 30% basically overnight.
B. How neonazis have fared at different places and times in modern Sweden. Where the neonazis (SMR, SvP, BSS, old SD) and pseudofascists (modern SD) have been treated with "well if we silence them or treat them harshly they'll use that as a recruitment strategy", they have gained a lot of support because they can spread their vile propaganda. And they can still use the "anti-establishment" and "we are being politically persecuted" even when they are as far from that as possible (prime example being modern SD). Meanwhile, in the areas where they have been met with anti-fascist sabotage, vandalism, and sometimes violence, they have not been able to establish themselves locally. Whether one agrees with anti-fascist sabotage and violence or not, it clearly shows that being "accepting of different viewpoints" works far worse in preventing neonazi organizing than considering it completely unacceptable and taking measures against it.
C. It's easy to show it works the other way around too. Consider all the homophobes and other crappy people that want to ban organizations such as RFSL. If RFSL were banned, or everywhere met with the violence they meet at some places right now, would that make more people organize themselves in RFSL because they could use it as a recruitment strategy? I'm very, very skeptical of that.

That said, I'm wary of giving direct power over this to the state, and would much rather prefer that the state aided groups that sought to combat stuff like neonazis (including holocaust deniers), since the state often seem to be both incompetent and power-hungry, and ultimately will always aid those in power over those without power. And since the upper class has everything to earn on just the right amount of racism to splinter the working class and keep focus from themselves, I do not ever trust the state to keep fascists away. Because when the s#!* hits the fan, the state won't have any issues supporting the same people spouting holocaust denial rethoric - the state of Germany still cooperates and is one of the heaviest voices in the EU, which support the neo-nazi coup in ukraine and indirectly aid Golden Dawn and other nazi organizations around Europe.


Trogdar wrote:
That's ridiculous. The wall of fire somehow doesn't burn things that are not alive? wtf.....

Well, it burns things that aren't alive. Just not objects. Undead, golems etc burn just fine.


"The middle class" is also a silly term regardless. It's just some arbitrary assignment for the purpose of splintering the working class, by making it seem like there is a conflict between the "middle class" and the working class.

There is the working class that has to sell its labor, and there is the owning class that lives on the worker's labor. Yes, there is a small group that is in the borderline between them, but it's ridiculous to view them as a separate class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Established lore" arguments are bogus. It is not established that these characters will have access to these items at this time. Established lore is also so incredibly easy for GM's to change (without retconning) that it really holds no weight.

Oh, these are the nether scrolls. Due to the influence of *insert cosmic event* they can now grant levels in any class. Read them to get power if you want to.

Or the other way. Due to the influence of *insert cosmic event* they've lost a lot of power. They now grant a spell-like ability instead of a whole class level.

Or, if you don't want to change the object in any way, just give the paladin something similar in power. Some +10 armor of divinity or whatever.

Letting a character get a "little extra" is fine. Letting the wizard be 4 levels ahead of the paladin, just because the paladin player _DID_ play his character, turning down power that the paladin didn't want to deal with, is asking for huuuge problems.

If this had been stated upfront at the beginning of the campaign, the case would have been different, but right now, I'm completely in the "this was a very bad move by the GM" camp. And then complaining about the player not playing it's character? I can't even begin to comprehend how turning down massive power because your character doesn't want to deal with that sort of thing is "not playing a character".


Those quotes seem to be contradictory, but I do think there's a reading that allows them to work together. Perhaps to enchant an object it only needs to be masterwork, not masterwork in a specific way (such as as a weapon).

So you take your masterwork heavy shield (that has -1 ACP) and enchant it.

Or are there any rules that would contradict this too?


Freehold DM wrote:
I keep forgetting how much you hate fighters.

I don't hate fighters. I think they're lacking, especially at higher levels, but in no way do I hate them. I've actually defended the class as having very useful and relevant abilities, last time here and here.

But usually you're building towards a concept, and I don't see how you couldn't make any martial concept of "high strength but clumsy shield user" and make it a fighter 5/ranger 6. The only thing they don't get that even adds to thematics is armor training 2 for full speed in heavy armor, but at 11th level it's about time to get a mithral armor if you want heavy armor.

I mean, Excaliburproxy is dead set on making a low-dex martial character that uses shields as one of the main features of their combat style and that doesn't have any good way to add to damage like smite evil or challenge or similar. And ze wants to keep a high level of efficiency - not only being viable, because that's very possible regardless, but ze wants to keep up with more optimal concepts. That is a very very specific concepts, and if you also want to add "single classed fighter" then well, I think you have yourself to blame (general you).

It's kind of like wanting to make a melee sorcerer, but refusing to take high strength, refusing to take a bloodline that adds natural weapons, and refusing to dip into paladin or similar class. And then complaining that melee casters need to be buffed and are underwhelming because that very very specific build with lots of arbitrary restrictions is weak.


Ilja wrote:
That would make the DC for a 9th level spell 37, correct? That seems a bit high to me, but I'm not hugely familiar with saves at those levels. As far as the unconsciousness goes I don't have a huge problem with it. It's like karmic justice for all those sleep spells ruining my carefully planned encounters.

You're right, that might be a little high. 10 + 2*Spell Level might work, but the issue then is that will saves increase at 1 per 2 levels for full casters (and all half-casters I can think of), but you also add items, so that ends up making it easier and easier. At 17th level for say a wizard, it's likely to be 10 (base) + 5 (cloak) + 3 (wis) + 2 succubus' boon + 2 heroism + 2 misc (ioun stone, feat, trait, spell etc) = +24, so setting the DC to 10+1/2 level means they succeed on a 4+. On the other hand, a 13+ might be a little harsh. I guess it also depends on how much optimization the players do; on one hand, balancing for the optimizers can severely punish the casual players, while balancing for the casual players means optimizers can basically ignore the issue (see concentration checks).


Excaliburproxy wrote:


Ilja wrote:


Uhm... You don't? Just take six levels of ranger. Or buy a belt/ioun stone/whatever. You only need the first TWF to get Shield Master, so only 15 dex, which is like... Not at all high for a melee person in pathfinder. If you're high level enough that this isn't a useful thing to do, you're high level enough to afford a +2 to your dex to qualify for it.
Ilja wrote:
Uhm... You don't? Just take six levels of ranger.
Ilja wrote:
only 15 dex only 15 dex ONLY 15 dex
Bad arguments, Ilja. Bad bad arguments.

No, not bad arguments. What you're aiming to do is like wanting to play a wizard focused on Enchantment spells, but refusing to take a decent intelligence, refusing to take Spell Focus, refusing to take Persistant Spell and Spell Penetration, and refusing to even buy a simple headband.

This ability starts losing potency once +4 shields are in the picture and a relevant option. That's around level 8, a bit before Shield Master comes into play.

If you're at that point, buying a simple +2 dex item is dirt cheap. Heck, even the ioun stone costs half of what the +4 shield costs, and gives better bonuses!

So instead of having a +4 shield and a +2 strength belt (20k) you can have a +3 shield, a +2 str/dex belt (19k) and will end up with the same AC, +1 reflex and +1 initiative. Or, if you aim to have a +4 strength belt, your options are +4 str belt and +4 shield (32k) or +4 str belt, +3 shield and ioun stone +2 dex (33k) for the same bonuses.

This all of course assumes custom items aren't allowed at all, not even the "add ability to a similar item".

And if you can't afford a 13 dex and aim to be heavily invested in melee, you're a cleric or paladin and really don't need the buff.

And note that getting the items at level 8 means you can take TWF at level 9 and Shield Master at level 11, which is the earliest for any non-ranger.

Not that I get why you're against taking a bunch of levels in ranger if you're intent on being a melee character. Ranger has many different flavors and is easy to incorporate in most martial builds, especially since urban ranger. A fighter 5/ranger 6 will almost always be stronger without losing notable flavor features than a fighter 11. Unless your goal is actively to play a stupid, clumsy character. Which is fine, but just don't expect to be as efficient.


Gunsmith Paladin wrote:


The cost to cast a spell is perhaps a little out of whack. A ninth level spell costs 25 points, correct? It feels a little on the high side.

Huh, I feel the opposite way. A 17th level prepared caster likely has 191 spell points before domain/school bonuses. That means they can buff up as efficiently as any vanilla caster through using loads and loads of 1-3 level spells instead of a few 1-3rd level spells and a few 4-7th level spells, and still have like 150 spell points left so they can unleash 6 9th level spells before needing to rest.

The nova mechanic limits this somewhat, by making the caster take a neglible will save and lose some extra spell points if they cast more than two in a row, but honestly, it's quite rare to need more than two 9th level spells (or 3 8th level spells) in a single fight.

Quote:


Comparing it to psionics makes me think that perhaps you're low balling this a little bit. The pools are a bit small and the costs are a bit high. Something needs to give. Either up the spell points per day...

Psionicists have to pay to have the spells scale. This system doesn't. That's a huge difference.

Quote:

Also about the nova mechanic. I'd say change it from a will save to a fort save. Seems to me being a conduit for energy would be more of a strain on your health than your mind. The scaling on it could use a bit of work as well. 2d20 is too much at low levels and not exactly a huge threat (though noticeable) at high levels. I'd suggest making this scalable somehow. Perhaps 1 point per caster level plus twice the cost of the spell you were trying to cast? That would be 3 points for a first level caster, and 70 points for a 20th level wizard casting a 9th level spell. The DC for the nova check needs a little oomph to make it more meaningful as well. Maybe bumping it up to 20+spell level or 15 plus twice the level of the spell if not higher since you want this to be limiting mechanic. It should be high enough that it's a risk to try but rewarding if you do.

The d100 rounds thing just reads a bit silly to me, but that could just be me though. I know that's just somewhere between 6 seconds and 10 minutes, but I feel like it could be represented better. Maybe 1d10 minutes to round it off and make the math easy? Or just lessen it for 1d10 rounds. It would still practically take them out of the fight especially if you took my advice for the spell point loss.

This I fully agree with, the scaling is awful.

If I were doing it, I'd make the DC something like 10 + 3 * Spell Level after metamagic adjustment. It gives around a 50/50. The extra spell point drain should probably be around twice the cost of the spell used. I'd drop unconsciousness completely, replacing it with Dazed or something. Perhaps staggered and unable to cast spells until they've rested for the 5 mins necessary to reset the nova? As is right now, it's far too random IMO.

1 to 50 of 2,712 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.