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

Kais86's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 755 posts (1,822 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 755 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Playing it with people you like, while eating cake.

Grand Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
...True, but I think Broken should only be applied to something that genuinely doesn't work, like the Tetori Monk. Seriously: what are those feats supposed to be?!
Somebody forgot to check the Ultimate Combat FAQ page recently.

More like "Somebody didn't even know that was up."

Grand Lodge

...True, but I think Broken should only be applied to something that genuinely doesn't work, like the Tetori Monk. Seriously: what are those feats supposed to be?!

Grand Lodge

Balance? You are playing the wrong game for balance. D20 has never been a balanced system. I like how you complain about melee classes hitting too hard, then claim that the game was more balanced when wizards had a smaller hit-die. You know monsters hit harder now right?

Also: you conceded the point- 3.5 is the more powerful game, now drop that point.

Here's a thought: don't play a game where the players are supposed to be heroes, play Warhammer Fantasy RPG, it has all the commoners in the world smacking each-other with sticks, enjoy being boring. You can have your cake and eat it, but you are outright refusing to do what it takes to accomplish that.

Grand Lodge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Well in 3.5 so much of what is pathfinder would not be acceptable, too powerful, too bloated (seen the classes lately? Level by level, damn it looks ugly), too much power-gaming, too many ways to break balance and to do just too much damage.

My problem is in being a bridge, 3.5 to PH. Everyone steps on a bridge.
:)

Man angry at bridge: No bridge you are wrong?
Bridge: Well, I go between two places.

The schism, between 3.5 and PH, I feel it now.

You seriously think Pathfinder is the more powerful system? That's a laugh. 3.5 had characters who could destroy entire towns, with a single move, at around 11th level or so, using the wealth-by-level provided by the Magic item compendium. Some of them didn't even need that, most notoriously: the ridiculously overpowered 3.5 spellcasters, something that Pathfinder has taken the nerf bat to, but only somewhat.

You've never heard of the CoDzilla have you? Go, look it up, and you will see that you are wrong. Plus, not much, except clerics or druids, can compete with the Tome of Battle the Book of Nine Swords.

Pathfinder expects you to hit that hard, remember this, it's important:THE PCS ARE THE HEROES, THAT MEANS THEY SHOULD WIN, IT'S YOUR JOB AS A GM TO MAKE THAT WIN DIFFICULT, NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND NOT INCREDIBLY EASY. You can throw big encounters at them, and while they might gain a ton of xp, that won't matter on the slow xp chart.

Seriously, you need to read and memorize most of the rules before you actually go complaining about some little thing you saw. Pathfinder gives something at every level to keep the classes from being boring, also to reward you for staying in the classes.

Here's a challenge: You and I will build two 10th-level characters, taking as much "cheese/power-gaming/whatever" as possible. I will use 3.5 and you will use Pathfinder. We will compare the averages of these two characters and the loser will shut up. If you fail to accept the challenge, I will accept that as you surrendering the point:3.5 is far more powerful.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, you are just massively behind the times, they've already done a ton of changes thus far. Your players should just be happy they don't have to fight some of the monsters (like the banshee) out of the Pathfinder Bestiary, that stuff expects you to have certain things at a certain point. I can assure you, a neat mustache, some can-do spirit, and good teamwork are not enough in some cases.

Grand Lodge

I think they should get their intelligence bonus to hit when using sneak attack. They should also get intelligence to AC, all the time. This would help them a lot. I also think they should get to pick one additional good save at character creation.

Another option is that sneak attack should always work.

Grand Lodge

FallofCamelot wrote:

Put it this way. What's more scary: 4 raging barbarians with 2H weapons or 4 rogues with rapier and dagger?

I know what I'm more scared of.

Or to put it another way:

GM: 4 rogues jump out at you...
Player: OK I step into this corner and render them utterly useless.

Well...unless they have Gang up.

Grand Lodge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I'm not saying the dragon can't beat him, that wasn't the point.

I'm saying he is so damn powerful, he can kill it in hand-to-claw, at level 11.

:|
:?
:(

Yes, because you are playing the creature like it's a beat stick or something, Dragons have spell lists for a reason, and I can assure you: it's not because they favor melee combat.

We aren't following you, you just happen to have multiple threads that are at the top of the list currently, probably because so many people are trying to illustrate to you the ways you are wrong, how to resolve your issues, and you are basically ignoring them. Now, if you tried accepting the fact that you aren't perfect, and that all these people saying roughly the same thing are right, then you might not have this problem. I'm just saying, it's a possibility.

Grand Lodge

Name Violation wrote:
also i didnt think celestial chain is mithral

It isn't. The suit is specifically stated to be made of gold or silver.

Typically, when I'm allowed to, I take the enchantment on it, and slap it onto a mithral full plate. Makes it stay light armor, because we assume the enchantment reduces the category by 1, weight by half, armor check penalty by 2 (not including the masterwork/magic), and increases max dex by 6. Leaving me with a +2 full plate with a max dex of 9, an armor check penalty of 1, and a ridiculous AC.

Grand Lodge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
TOZ wrote:

I'm going to assume the barbarian was jumped by rogues 4 levels higher than he was, and therefore able to SA him.

Of course, I believe the higher CR had more to do with them trouncing the barbarian than SA. You're certainly going to go down if you're getting SA'ed by rogues with four extra levels on you.

Just think of the beatdown that would have happened if it were a Fighter 4+ levels higher.

It's like the saying "I ran into my ex earlier today, then I put it in reverse, and ran into him a few more times." All I can hear is the sound of a car going over a speed bump.

Grand Lodge

Mike Schneider wrote:

[q]That's only for one attack.[/q]Anybody who has to move only gets one attack (barring pounce, of course).

[i]"Well, what about NEXT turn???", the peanut-gallery whines.

Fighter: stands toe-to-toe and full-attacks. Then monster full-attacks.

Rogue option 1: Greater Feint/I-TWF/sneak. Then monster full-attacks.
Rogue option 2: Feint/sneak/Fast Getaway. Monster pursues; gets one attack.

What matters in either case is who's going to win the war-of-attrition. The rogue has more options if he thinks he's going to lose.

First off: nice name-calling, real mature second off: you can't move if you use that feat, it replaces your move action, and most of the builds that use move actions on a regular basis are incredibly powerful.

Even using two-weapon feint, you are trading your most accurate attack for sneak attack, you are taking a -5 hit, something a rogue desperately needs in the first place, just hit harder. So not only are you missing the point, you are missing the monster, you might give him a cold with all that air you are moving around, that might kill it, but not before it eats you.

Many monsters don't have a very good dex, there are few exceptions to this, but those are incredibly rare, so you aren't really making up for the -5 you just took to hit your target.

The combat scheme you suggest has the monster hitting you an average of 4 times to 1. That is a losing strategy, especially since most monsters are better at hitting than the rogue is, typically because of a difference in strength.

Also: aside from the barbarian, who has pounce? Are you really willing to take several levels in a class that is basically the opposite of the rogue, just to get pounce? You might as well stay barbarian at that point, you'll probably hit harder.

Grand Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that the True 3.5 Loyalist Association (DigitalMage?)
:,(

What? Did they die or something?

Grand Lodge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Black_Lantern wrote:
At any level a fighter can drastically out damage a rogue doing sneak attack on all attacks.
Go look at my math in message 108 of this thread to see why this is simply false. Higher chance of hitting, yes. More consistently, yes... though in my experience flanking is not at all hard to achieve. More damage per attack... nope. Not even close. The Rogue's class specific damage bonuses are nearly 3x those of the fighter.

Your damage from the attack doesn't mean much when you miss. Pretty much every combat class in the game has a way of increasing their chance to hit beyond "flank the target" while getting a full-attack action.

I am finding it incredibly difficult to hold my "tongue" in this, but I will at very least say this much: a person truly loyal to 3.5 wouldn't be arguing against conventions introduced to the game -in- 3.5, they would simply play it despite the flaws, and they would not go out of their way to stir up players of other games. This is like wanting to bug the Hero System players, don't do it, your arguments are not going to mesh up.

I think I said that in a nice enough way.

Grand Lodge

I like how the name of this is "roleplaying, the problem is often ability scores." and one of the first things mentioned, isn't that a player cannot act his stats, like being dumb when he's a wizard, but that the players want to know each others' stats. This strikes me as a diversion tactic.

Not once have you concieved that high stats, being a combat monster, and killing monsters as quickly as inhumanly possible, is simply a way to get back to the more interesting parts of the game: the roleplaying. Like all things this varies from player to player.

If you don't want your players to compare stats, don't show them, give them a skill list(and a spell list with the names of their spells on it), don't have any numbers on it, just what they are trained in, and put stars next to things they are really good with.

Another thing you could do is play another system. Like Teenagers from Outerspace. Yes, it's incredibly dumb, but it's very heavily roleplaying oriented, in fact it punishes players for min-maxing, but always in a comedic manner.

Grand Lodge

EM
Y

(E=Elf Ally, Y=You, M=Monster)
Means Y wouldn't get the flank would it? That makes this a lot more difficult, significantly weakening the feat. Most parties don't have 3 melee characters... unless you are my party and your oracle's brain falls out (seriously lady, either wait, or shoot the enemy, preferably with an AOE, hand to hand is a crappy place for someone with a 17 AC at level 7) half the time. I am at least lucky enough to also have a Eidolon which can make this work, but it's not easy.

Grand Lodge

Maerimydra wrote:
Kais86 wrote:

Yes/no. Odds are you already have weapon finesse on most rogues, so there's your dexterity. However, there comes a great deal of advantage from knowing where to place your strike, and knowing how your enemy will move.

Knowledge is power, use it well.

Taken like that, it's hard to disagree with you. :P

Thinking about it, Alchemists add their Intelligence modifiers to the damage of their Bombs. Rogues should be able to do the same with their Sneak Attacks.

I still think they should get it to hit more than damage, especially since more hit=more damage. They need something to bump their hit rating up.

Grand Lodge

Maerimydra wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.
How about Intelligence bonus to damage (cruel anatomy), Wisdom bonus to AC (sixth sense) and Charisma bonus to saving throws (rogue's fortune)? I like MAD classes. :P
I suggested the int to hit, because they are based on precision damage, so why not give them some flat precision? They are amongst the least precise classes in the game and are THE least precise melee-based class, in fact, they are one of the only class that's almost exclusively melee-based. The only other classes like that are the barbarian and cavalier. Even the ninja gets shenanigans that allow it to strike at range for decent amounts of damage.
Yeah but don't you think that precision is more related to Dexterity than Intelligence? Knowing where to hit to hurt your opponent (Intelligence) won't help you if you don't have the Dexterity to actually hit where you wanted to hit. ;)

Yes/no. Odds are you already have weapon finesse on most rogues, so there's your dexterity. However, there comes a great deal of advantage from knowing where to place your strike, and knowing how your enemy will move.

Knowledge is power, use it well.

Grand Lodge

I'd let the enemy rogue hit me with all the sneak attacks he can, because it doesn't matter what I'm playing, if I survive, that's a dead rogue when my turn comes around again.

Grand Lodge

Maerimydra wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.
How about Intelligence bonus to damage (cruel anatomy), Wisdom bonus to AC (sixth sense) and Charisma bonus to saving throws (rogue's fortune)? I like MAD classes. :P

I suggested the int to hit, because they are based on precision damage, so why not give them some flat precision? They are amongst the least precise classes in the game and are THE least precise melee-based class, in fact, they are one of the only class that's almost exclusively melee-based. The only other classes like that are the barbarian and cavalier. Even the ninja gets shenanigans that allow it to strike at range for decent amounts of damage.

Mike Schneider wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.
Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?
More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.

Unlike the INT7 tank, you have the sky-high Acrobatics to get into flank and make that Greater Feint ....and that -5 apparent disparity melts away.

Ah, but we're staring down from above at 20th level on-paper numbers again, aren't we?

-- Who actually plays at that level?

That's only for one attack. Even the ninja can't make that work better. Now, if Improved Feint made it a free action, then we could talk about some serious numbers.

Grand Lodge

I'd give the rogue their intelligence bonus to AC/hit and the option of picking a good will or fort save.

Grand Lodge

Petty Alchemy wrote:

Inferior invisibility goes away after 1 attack. It's still good for getting into the position you want, scouting, or a full retreat, but if I can count on flanking with my allies, I'd rather have mirror images. It's not called inferior invisibility of course, just invisibility.

Forgotten Trick costs 2 ki to pop, and then you have to pay additional ki costs. You could steal a combat feat, sure, but I still think I'd rather have two extra attacks per day in most cases. Forgotten Trick was much better in the playtest version. It might still be good if you have a 5 minute adventuring day though, or if you horde your ki most of the time.

Vanish is more for getting into position, or preparing some shenanigans for combat, than anything else.

Forgotten Trick is so you can improvise when you must.

Grand Lodge

Petty Alchemy wrote:

I don't like the super expensive Forgotten Trick now. I like Pressure Points, or Offensive Defense (as stolen from Rogue). Offensive D also works great when you ki up an extra attack (which is an excellent way to spend ki).

The mirror image trick is nice too. To be honest, I don't really like the inferior invis trick. I would take it later, as a prereq for improved invis trick. Until then I'd prefer to have the mirror images. It's a standard action, but it can be a very nice buff to have.

It's not inferior invisibility, it's exactly the same as Vanish, a level 1 spell, only you can use it as a swift action, and it only affects the caster. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/vanish.html#vanish

Forgotten trick is to give you crazy amounts of flexibility and basically give you every combat feat ever.

Grand Lodge

Mike Schneider wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.
Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?

More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder seems to go well out of it's way (if you are looking in from a 3.X perspective) to not punish the players for wanting to do things outside their class. Now the GM or AP might punish you for it, but the character-building rules will not.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The equalizer wrote:

A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.

Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.

Lv 8 fighter with a +2 Greatsword and a wizard with haste

VERY EASY
6d6+27 (str)+27 (power attack)+6 (enhancement)+12 (wep. spec/ greater wep spec)+3 (weapon training)
Average: 95

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. Greatswords deal 2d6 damage, not 6d6. To get +27 damage from strength you would need 46 Strength. To get +27 damage from Power Attack you would have to have a BAB of +32. Enhancement bonuses max out at +5. The two specialization feats give you +4 damage, not +12. How you are obtaining all of that by level 8 I have no idea.

So either you are a "little off," or there are other elements in play that you neglected to mention (such as the two-handed weapon fighter archetype and vital strike maybe?).

Those look like mounted lance damage numbers, except for the whole 6d6 thing, you'd only get 3d8, unless you were large, then it would make sense. You'd need a +2 weapon and a 22 strength.

Grand Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

It is possible to create a solid sneak attack character, that reliably does good damage, doesn't die and is over all a solid contributor to the party.

9/10 it involves not two weapon fighting.

9/10 of the time it involves some form of invisibility.

Actually no -- I said a solid sneak attack character that reliably does good damage, doesn't die and is over all a solid contributor.

Invisibility might be a small part of such a character -- but for such a rogue it isn't going to be his main method of getting sneak attack, it's going to be part of a suite of options that he utilizes to do so, including dazzling display, greater feint, flanking options, lunge, and a variety of talents and feats to make sure he constantly has a means to sneak attack (including midnight stalker feats, shadow strike and a simple smoke stick).

Or just gang-up and the judicious use of good judgment (knowing where the other melee characters are going) and Vanishing trick, which still leaves the ninja as the vastly superior class.

Grand Lodge

If you really hate rogues, want all of your players who are playing rogues to suicide their characters, and don't ever want to see a rogue in your games ever again: then by all means, take away multiple sneak attacks. The highest level rogue you will ever see will be cross-classed with something you haven't decided to screw over, they might take a 2-level dip into rogue, for skills, saves, and evasion, then go paladin or whatever.

Personally I think Powerful Sneak shouldn't inflict a -2 hit, I think it should just do a flat 1 point more/die.

Grand Lodge

Forgotten Trick. Lets you do basically anything. Vanishing trick is good for going on the offensive, but I've found that with gang up it's never really a problem, so I would highly recommend using Shadow Clones.

Grand Lodge

Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Lokius wrote:

Flanker

- A rogue that is flanking an opponent gains a bonus to their BAB equal half their number of sneak attack dice rounded up. So a rogue with +5d6 sneak attack gains an additional +3 to hit when flanking.

Talk about some unwieldy wording there, buddy! Why not take the approach of the monk and simply have their BAB equal their level when flanking? And make this an inherent feature of the class, not a talent.

Quote:

Precision Sneak

- A rogue adds their dex bonus to damage instead of their str whenever they deal sneak attack damage.
Or in addition to? If you're going to take a talent it should probably be worth more than +2-3 damage, give or take.

As for your first one: that feat will be useless until level 5, then it's even until level 9+, most games don't make it to level 9+. You should give them simply a flat additional +2 hit/damage when flanking, another +2 at 8th, and another +2 (for a total of +6) at 16th.

If you wanted to make then a combat class, it wouldn't be hard, I would suggest scaling back their non-combat shenanigans a little, like give them 2 less skill points or something.

Grand Lodge

Ranger Infiltrator archetype. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/coreClasses/ranger.html

Sadly this costs 3 levels, the other option is two levels of ninja, and taking Darkvision ninja trick. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classes/ninja.html

Grand Lodge

It's RAW and RAI, that classes with sneak attack get it on every attack that qualifies, even if they make a dozen of them in one round. Taking that away from a rogue or ninja, makes both classes quite undesirable, although less so for the ninja since it has a bunch of other nice things.

Why would I play that when I could be a bard, a class the GM has not arbitrarily decided to cripple? Especially since the rogue class is already considered quite, for lack of better words, weak.

Though calling it weak doesn't do it justice, it finds itself lacking in many places, and you can't even say it's the only class you can get trapfinding with anymore.

Grand Lodge

LagunaWSU2 wrote:

I would not lose hope, sir. High level Pathfinder is a harsh forest to navigate...only made more harsh by your characters having anything they want.

Part of the only control you have as GM is player gear...when you throw that out...well...Baby with the bath water and all that.

Except the fact that the GM basically controls everything, you just have to learn to say "no" not that hard really, it's one syllable, two letters.

Grand Lodge

The only winner of GM vs Players, is the guy sitting in the background throwing peanuts at the GM and players involved in such a game. I tried for most of a year to get one of my friends to stop playing in this GM vs players game (3.5e) he was in, especially when the GM basically gave up, and stole my friend's build, and then added levels to it.

He constantly complained about it, eventually I gave up, and just started carrying a sign saying "I told you so", simply so I could stop repeating myself.

Once upon a time that GM wasn't an arrogant jerk, he could run a pretty good game, but that time has long, long, long, etc. since past. I figured this out in the second game of his I played, when I built a character, that wasn't even a particularly powerful character, it just had some inordinately high saves while having no magic items, and it was thrown out before the next game. I was not amused.

Grand Lodge

Stefan Hill wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
That it's coming back around to something I considered an obvious fix.

If it becomes a new rule in an official book I suggest we call it the Hill-Kais rule. I think that has a better ring to it than the Kais-Hill rule.

Don't you agree?

No way, I came up with that almost a week ago, and I'd rather just add it to the Craft skill as a minor addendum. I don't need my name on something to know that I changed it, or to feel the pride that comes with making my mark on the world, again.

I do. So your happy for it to just be called the Hill-rule then. Thanks, that's very charitable of you!

Any lawyers or trainee lawyers on the boards at the moment - actually that's a bloody stupid question given some of the threads lately, of course there are. Note the above in case Kais takes me to court after 'my' rule revolutionises the d20 game world and I become richer than that Mark dude and his ridiculous FoolBook, er, I mean, FarceBook, ah, hang on, FaceBook website...

Thanks,
S.

I came up with it first, that means I get to determine the name, and I have undeniable evidence on my side. You could try to take me to court, but any judge worthy of their seat will throw it out laughing.

Grand Lodge

Stefan Hill wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
That it's coming back around to something I considered an obvious fix.

If it becomes a new rule in an official book I suggest we call it the Hill-Kais rule. I think that has a better ring to it than the Kais-Hill rule.

Don't you agree?

No way, I came up with that almost a week ago, and I'd rather just add it to the Craft skill as a minor addendum. I don't need my name on something to know that I changed it, or to feel the pride that comes with making my mark on the world, again.

Grand Lodge

Stefan Hill wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:

What about just added a divisor at the end of the formula based on level? So it becomes;

Time to Build / Level (or Level/2 or something)? The more heroic you are the faster you can build that "Weapon of Destiny (tm)".

Yes, or something along those lines.

The craftsman craft his stuff at 33% of the market value, but sell it at 50% to a merchant who will then sell it to the populace. In most case, the 'craftsman' and the 'merchant' is the same person, only he or she cannot be crafting and selling simultaneously, therefore limiting profits in both departments etc.

For the players there is no impact. It only make the rest of the economics a bit more believable...

Odd, I mentioned something like this about 4 pages ago.
You find it odd you mentioned it? How so? ;)

That it's coming back around to something I considered an obvious fix.

Grand Lodge

Laurefindel wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:

What about just added a divisor at the end of the formula based on level? So it becomes;

Time to Build / Level (or Level/2 or something)? The more heroic you are the faster you can build that "Weapon of Destiny (tm)".

Yes, or something along those lines.

The craftsman craft his stuff at 33% of the market value, but sell it at 50% to a merchant who will then sell it to the populace. In most case, the 'craftsman' and the 'merchant' is the same person, only he or she cannot be crafting and selling simultaneously, therefore limiting profits in both departments etc.

For the players there is no impact. It only make the rest of the economics a bit more believable...

Odd, I mentioned something like this about 4 pages ago.

Grand Lodge

deusvult wrote:
Noone mentioned the dread Gazebo?

That's too obvious.

Grand Lodge

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Magicdealer wrote:

Well, the US military uniform would be what, bdu's and dress uniforms? Packs, pouches, harness would be part of their equipment but not strictly their uniforms. Depending on what they're doing from day to day *or even moment to moment* they'd be using different sets of gear.

I'd say just price the uniform the same as travelers for the common soldier, and adventurers for the officer.

Those should probably be free if you were a soldier, since most militaries with uniforms don't force their soldiers to pay for them, or more often than not, hide the cost in their pay.
Most militaries with uniforms prior to the nineteenth or twentieth centuries actually DID force their soldiers to pay for them.

Modern militaries force their soldiers to pay for their uniforms, it's just literally hidden in their pay. They are all given an allowance for uniforms and whatnot, which is technically just part of their pay. When going in it's especially egregious, because your first check and a half goes to it, but it's not like you will notice anyway, those weeks you aren't allowed any real degree of freedom.

Grand Lodge

Magicdealer wrote:

Well, the US military uniform would be what, bdu's and dress uniforms? Packs, pouches, harness would be part of their equipment but not strictly their uniforms. Depending on what they're doing from day to day *or even moment to moment* they'd be using different sets of gear.

I'd say just price the uniform the same as travelers for the common soldier, and adventurers for the officer.

Those should probably be free if you were a soldier, since most militaries with uniforms don't force their soldiers to pay for them, or more often than not, hide the cost in their pay.

Grand Lodge

Bruunwald wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
I'm going to put forth that actual uniforms were almost unheard of, there were exceptions like the Roman Empire, but for the most part, historically speaking, uniforms were actually pretty rare all things told, until the British made it look good, then a lot more people started using uniforms. Then again, actual professional armies were also rather rare, most units were mercenaries or militia.

Are you speaking of a specific campaign setting that is implementing real Earth history?

Fantasy, on the other hand, is full of examples of uniformed armies. I linked one in my first post, above.

Yes, actually. Outside of tabletop war games, most armies you will find in the fluff of most books are similar to real life in that they didn't have uniforms.

Grand Lodge

I'm going to put forth that actual uniforms were almost unheard of, there were exceptions like the Roman Empire, but for the most part, historically speaking, uniforms were actually pretty rare all things told, until the British made it look good, then a lot more people started using uniforms. Then again, actual professional armies were also rather rare, most units were mercenaries or militia.

Grand Lodge

The Japanese had to keep reworking their one design, because despite it being "perfect" it really wasn't, still isn't today.

Most of the time when a person wanted a high-quality bow, in the times when bows were commonly used, they had money, which means they had connections, so they could just ask around a little to find where the best wood for bows came from, then they could take a fairly short journey to get to it, especially since this is Europe, it's not a particularly big place.

They would then go to those places, or if too busy being a responsible nobleperson, would send someone less important/busy to get one made for them. Same deal with armor, weapons, and pretty much anything else. Typically these distances were even shorter, because of politics, they would only have a limited number of places to pick from.

Grand Lodge

My GMs (yes, both of them, despite the vastly different ideologies involved) let me use it as a club, for when I don't want to hit people too hard, typically eating the -4 hit for doing subdual damage, as it's very hard to do subdual damage with the things on the ends of most weapons. I can't use it as a dual weapon, because it isn't made for that, but I can still use it for subdual.

Grand Lodge

Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Most of these traps I've found on doors and treasure chests. I can't think of more than one that we've found outside of that and that one wasn't much of a trap, it was just a piece of glass over a hole going into a sewer that the sorcerer fell into.
It sounds like you've already decided that this is worth doing, bud.

If that were true, I wouldn't be asking. I'm not sure that forcing the oracle to heal me when dealing with traps is a better option than waiting a level for better ninja moves. Either way someone is spending a bunch of resources, it's either me, or some of the party.

I don't like the fighter-method for dealing with traps, especially when I'm not the/a fighter.

Grand Lodge

Most of these traps I've found on doors and treasure chests. I can't think of more than one that we've found outside of that and that one wasn't much of a trap, it was just a piece of glass over a hole going into a sewer that the sorcerer fell into.

Grand Lodge

Trapper rangers get trapfinding, which lets them disable magical traps, which is what I really need.

Grand Lodge

Irranshalee wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
Just wanted to point out that not liking a rule system does not mean that it's broken.
I think it classifies as broken when it's widely considered a tremendous waste of resources.
But Craft isn't a waste. It simply is not an instant gratification skill.

I'm not saying it should be instant gratification, but that skill needs -serious- amounts of time, as in enough that a human should be concerned about getting old and dying before completing some of his projects.

Regular full-plate is calculated in months. Mithral Full-plate takes 52 weeks with the numbers I used before. That's a year. A guy with a +50 (I forgot about skill focus scaling) should be able to stare at a chunk of metal and turn it into a suit of generic non-masterwork full-plate in about an hour or so, because that is a ridiculously high score, and he should be able to create armor better than that by default, if he actually spends real amounts of time working on it.

His bonus to craft is higher than the DC of the armor, the DC for making it faster, and the DC for making it masterwork -combined-, he should honestly get something for it aside from having to spend an entire year working on it.

Grand Lodge

Playing a game based on the Hexen II video game, there have already been a bunch of traps, and I'm wondering if I should take a level of Trapper archetype Ranger.

My group is level 7 and it consists of:
A ninja: me, I rolled amazing so I have lots of skills, okay saves (5 for 9 ref 5 will), combat expertise, dodge, imp unarmed strike, two-weapon fighting, and gang-up. I took forgotten trick, shadow clones, and vanishing trick.
A paladin: I actually know what he has, because he gives me his character sheet, he can't play all the time because of work. He has combat reflexes, power attack, shield focus, word of healing, and cleave.
A Summoner: He went the snake/reach route with his pet, it's fairly effective all things told.
An Oracle:... Outside of her ridiculous number of spells/day, I find it very hard to say nice things about her, mostly because of her player... she has issues.
A Sorcerer: The FNG, he probably should have given his potential spells a better look, but it's his second game. I did warn him that he shouldn't be playing a caster.

We've had lots of combat, lots of traps, very little roleplaying. I was also kind of wanting basically everything the ranger could give me for just one level, but I'm not sure if it's worth waiting an additional level for Master tricks. I have no idea what level we will end up, though I suspect it to be very high, as we are considering fighting a dragon, his high-order lich master, and a demi-god. Even if we use a macguffin to even the odds, it's still going to be a rough fight.

1 to 50 of 755 << 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.