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

Kirth Gersen's page

25,440 posts (26,328 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 13 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,871 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some more ideas; feel free to grab any/all. My goals were to help the fighter (a) deal with common conditions and keep on coming, (b) control the battlefield, and (c) eventually awe the people around him with his sheer heroic presence. Helping him with gear (d) was a tertiary objective.

HD d10; BAB full; skill points: 4+Int mod/level
Good saves: Fort, Ref, Will (Making bravery apply to Will saves has always seemed like an inefficient means of addressing his poor will save.)

1: Combat Expertise, feat aptitude, war master's edge +1
2: Bonus feat, bravery I
3: Mettle, personal weapon +1
4: Bonus feat, stamina I, strong stomach I
5: Battlefield control (10 ft.), war master's edge +2
6: Bonus feat, bravery II, onslaught of blows
7: Combat mobility, personal weapon +2
8: Bonus feat, stamina II
9: Battlefield control (15 ft.), war master's edge +3,
10: Bonus feat, bravery III, tactical commander
11: Personal weapon +3, warlord
12: Bonus feat, strong stomach II
13: Superior battlefield control (20 ft.), war master's edge +4
14: Bonus feat, bravery IV, cheat the fog of war
15: Indomitable will, personal weapon +4
16: Bonus feat, supreme vital strike
17: Battlefield control (25 ft.), war master's edge +5
18: Bonus feat, supreme warlord
19: Personal weapon +5
20: Bonus feat, desperate resolve

Feat Aptitude (Ex): When selecting a combat feat, the fighter can ignore one of the feat's prerequisites.

War Master's Edge (Ex): Combat is the fighter's stock in trade, and he's better at it than anyone. At 1st level, his training provides a +1 insight bonus to attacks, CMB, damage, initiative checks, and AC/CMD. In addition, his armor check penalty is reduced by 1 and the max Dex AC from armor increases by 1. (i.e., weapon training + armor training + initiative bonus.) The bonus provided by this ability increases as shown in the table.

Bravery (Ex): At 2nd level, the fighter is immune to effects that cause the shaken condition. For more severe fear, the effect is lessened by 1 step (cowering -> panicked -> frightened -> shaken). The severity is reduced by 2 steps at 6th level, by 3 steps at 10th level, and a fighter of 14th level or higher is immune to [fear] effects.

Mettle (Ex): As evasion, but applies to Fort/Will effects.

Personal Weapon (Su): At 3rd level, the fighter selects a single weapon (not type of weapon) at the start of each day. That weapon gains a +1 enhancement bonus when wielded by the fighter. If already +1, the fighter can increase its enhancement bonus by +1 or cause it to gain a +1 equivalent weapon property. The additional enhancement bonus to this weapon improved as shown in the table.

Stamina (Ex): At 4th level, the fighter's endurance training renders him immune to effects that cause the fatigued condition. If he would normally be exhausted, he becomes fatigued instead. At 8th level he is immune to exhaustion.

Strong Stomach (Ex): A fighter is inured to the sight of blood and the stench of corpses on the battlefield. At 4th level he is immune to effects that cause the sickened condition; if nauseated, he is sickened instead. At 12th level he is immune to nausea.

Battlefield Control (Ex): At 5h level, the fighter gains Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat. In addition, he can choose to reduce his movement speed by 5 ft. for one round in order to extend his threatened area by 5 ft. For every 4 levels above 5th, he can trade an additional 5 ft. (up to his maximum movement speed). Enemies who have not seen the fighter use this ability are not necessarily aware of it.

Onslaught of Blows (Ex): A fighter takes no penalty on iterative attacks (thus, a 16th level fighter attacks at +16/+16/+16/+16).

Combat Mobility (Ex): At 7th level, a fighter can take a full move and still full attack. Movement and attacks can be interspaced as the fighter sees fit, but all movement must be taken in 5-ft. increments. This ability also allows the fighter to make a full attack at the end of a charge.

Tactical Commander (Ex): Starting at 10th level, the fighter can spend a move action in order to grant allies who can see and hear him the benefits of his War Master’s Edge, but at only half his normal bonus.

Warlord (Ex): At 11th level, the fighter’s prowess and renown are is such that he can assemble an army eager to serve under him. This requires 1 week and provides personnel as if the fighter had the Leadership feat (if he or she already has the Leadership feat, the effects stack). The newly-assembled army remains until the purpose of assembling is fulfilled, or after 1 month of inactivity in any event.

Superior Battlefield Control (Ex): Starting at 13th level, as a free action the fighter can designate any portion of his threatened area as difficult terrain.

Cheat the Fog of War (Ex): At 14th level, the fighter’s instinctive awareness of tactics and battlefield positioning is unmatched. He can deduce which effects are illusory and which threats are real, even from magically-concealed enemies; this counts as true seeing, but is an extraordinary ability that cannot be dispelled. When faced with a projected image, the fighter can deduce the actual location of the caster.

Indomitable Will (Ex): A fighter of 15th level or higher under an ongoing [mind-affecting] effect may attempt an additional Will save each round to end the effect. If the effect does not normally allow a save, the fighter gains a Will save (DC 25) to end the effect.

Supreme Vital Strike (Ex): Starting at 16th level, as full round action the fighter can make a single melee or ranged weapon attack that deals base damage equal to the normal weapon base damage x his fighter level. Effects like lead blades, etc. follow the normal rules for adding multipliers (e.g., a 16th level fighter with a lead bladed longsword deals a base 17d8 damage with this attack).

Supreme Warlord (Ex): Starting at 18th level, opponents with a CR equal to half the fighter’s level or less must save vs. Will each round (DC 10 + the fighter’s level) spent in combat against him. Failure indicates that they are so awed by his prowess that they throw down their arms and surrender to him; if he or his companions continue to attack them, they flee if possible (a dishonorable fighter can use his battlefield control ability to impede their retreat, allowing them to be slaughtered). If their surrender is accepted, the fighter can spend a move action to recruit them to his side; this change of allegiance lasts for as long as they remain within his presence.

Desperate Resolve (Ex): Starting at 20th level, the fighter no longer automatically fails saves on a natural 1.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Does anybody have any examples from their games of a cleric getting "out of hand"?

(Chokes and coughs.) I still hate myself for accidentally ruining Mundane's 7th-8th level "Underwater All-Stars" campaign. She told us it would be very challenging, so I dutifully rolled up a cleric, ignored Str and Dex, and jacked up my Wis and Cha as high as I could. We all had to play underwater races, which I took as a hint, and grabbed the Water domain. Our group also had an ubercharger cavalier and some kind of dashing skirmisher guy.

The adventure was mostly investigation and social stuff, which I inadvertently dominated, because after the skirmisher bought Dex, Str, Con, he didn't have much left for Int and Cha. I was making all the Sense Motive checks, and discerning lies and so on, and even untrained, Bluff wasn't that hard against mooks. I could also summon spies and minions, and cast divination, etc., etc. All this was effective enough that we got too close to the BBEG too quickly, and she attacked us with everything she had.

Which I'd expected. We allowed ourselves to be caught in an underwater place, and a lot of souped-up underwater monsters attacked. I told the cavalier who to charge and he 1-shotted the disguised BBEG. Then I cast lower water and a couple other choice spells, and the rest was anticlimactic. The skirmisher said, "Why am I even here? He just finished the entire adventure solo."

I tried to talk up the cavalier's killing of the BBEG as the real key to the adventure, but I don't think he believed me.

In retrospect, I wish I'd played a fire oracle or something. Even if we'd all died, I'd feel better about myself.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belle Sorciere wrote:
Wizard 10/Fighter 10 is suboptimal in any iteration of 3e of which I am aware.

See clarification you might have added above. There are a number of 3.x variants that have functional multiclassing rules, and don't require archetypes/PrCs/hybrid classes to do the job. Hell, my house rules even do all that. Functional multiclassing really isn't a lot to ask.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Skull & Shackles home game finally has given us a view of the barbarian as a PC, and convinced me to make some revisions. The need for (basically) two character sheets was getting to be a drag, so I decided to maybe go the Unchained route and just use a straight bonus:

Revised Barbarian wrote:

Rage (Ex): As a free action, a barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, you can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + your Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, you can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that you can rage per day. You can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.

While in a rage, you gain the following:

  • +1 morale bonus to all d20 rolls (attacks, combat maneuver checks, initiative, saving throws, skill and attribute checks, etc.) and to all static d20 target values (AC, CMD, special ability DCs, etc.). This bonus overlaps (does not stack with) morale bonuses from other sources (spells, a bard’s inspire courage ability, etc.). However, during any round in which both effects are active, you choose which of the bonuses to accept, and that round does not count against your daily rounds’ worth of rage.
  • Temporary hit points equal to your rage bonus x your total number of hit dice. When your rage ends, any temporary hit points not already lost disappear.
  • Temporarily immunity to the effects of minor conditions (Chapter 7). These conditions are not removed; they are merely suspended until your rage ends. While in a rage, you cannot cast spells, use any Intelligence-based skills, or use any other ability that requires patience or care on your part; the use of spell-like abilities is generally permitted, however.
  • You cannot use Intelligence-based skills, and your effective Intelligence score for other purposes is reduced by an amount equal to your twice rage bonus (to a minimum effective score of 2).

    When your rage ends, you take 1 point of damage per round spent raging (not reduced by damage reduction) and are fatigued for a number of rounds equal to twice the number of rounds spent in the rage. If you are already fatigued, you become exhausted instead (if already exhausted, you become unconscious). You cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted unless you succeed at an Endurance check (Chapter 4) to ignore that condition. If you fall unconscious for any reason while raging, your rage ends, and you are at risk of death when you take the damage from your rage ending.

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Fighter 10/wizard 10 = wizard 10 who's facing 20th-level challenges. Ouch.
    3.5 tried to bridge that gap with PrCs. Paizo tells you to play a magus. But there are other 3X variants that have functional multiclassing rules.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ssalarn wrote:
    Martial/Caster disparity exists, and it only grows as an issue as the hobby gains new players who are very familiar with using internet guides and markedly less familiar with the archaic structures often referred to as gentlemen's agreements the "old-timers" like myself have traditionally used to rein in the outer edges of the game.

    To follow up on this, I've often pointed out the benefits to the hobby as a whole if all those "gentleman's agreements" were hard-written into the rules, rather than being left as an arcane, invisible "cheat code" that's needed to actually play without eventually falling into a booby-trap that ruins the game. With enough experience or luck, people will figure them out -- or ones enough like them to do the job -- but it's an incredible barrier to entry, finding out that the rules posted on the PRD are incomplete or even unworkable without a second set of unwritten rules as well.

    Tabletop games seem to be a dwindling hobby. I'd like to make them easier to pick up, by making the rules and game play as smooth and as transparent as possible. Sitting around and congratulating ourselves that we know the "right" way to play -- or, worse, condescendingly telling people that insights we learned through years of effort are "just common sense" (I've seen that a LOT!) -- turns off new players and will eventually ensure that a dwindling hobby dies.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Sword wrote:
    That was the DMs justification for trying to stop his character doing it. Which surely we can all agree stinks?

    Sure. What I've done at my table -- which as far as I know is unique -- is draft up a house rule to cover it after the session, disseminate the proposed rule, and have a discussion and vote at the beginning of the next session, with me abstaining except in the case of a tie.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Sword wrote:
    If however the cmd can only be identified by the most mechanically skilled players (not necessarily the best players as you have said) can it truly be considered a significant problem in the game?

    If it's not identified, but still ruins the game -- which is exactly what happened in a Savage Tide game I was in, BTW -- then, yes, it can still be a significant problem.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I should point out that my 1.5-year-old daughter finds nursery rhymes to be incredibly interesting. I obviously don't agree. Then again, I find reading Icelandic Sagas to her to be incredibly interesting, but she has come to violently disagree with my assessment.

    The thing is, I don't get to tell her she's "wrong."

    "Fun" isn't monolithic. What's "creative" and "fun" for you might leave the rest of the table irritable and annoyed.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
    Really? 80% of players play closer to the floor than the ceiling? What does that even mean? Why is "Makes a mechanically optimized character" a "higher" level of play than "Makes an interesting character"?

    It HAS to mean mechanical, because there is no floor or ceiling for "interesting." Number of pages of backstory doesn't cut it. Compare:

  • Player 1 shows up with Gledalff the Ghrey, a wizard, and describes his beard and robes in loving detail, and all the carvings on his staff and so on, and has pages describing how Gledalff Elf-Friend is the Chosen One and survived an attack by Molgart when he was a baby and was raised by Muggles.
  • Player 2 shows up with a mongrelfolk barbarian named "Dog" with no written backstory.

    Is Player 1's character more interesting? On paper I say no, because he's a ripoff of a bunch of tired old cliches that are far better off in the dustbin than on the gaming table. "Dog" at least gives us a lot of room for surprises. Is Player 1 a "better" role-player? Maybe he always talks in the first person using an Ian McKellen imitation and has Gledalff issue impressive-sounding pronouncements. Great! But maybe all his dialogue turns out to be ripped off from LotR movies -- and maybe Gledalff ends up with no personality of his own. Maybe Dog's player talks in the third person, but ends up showing that Dog is an interesting and unique individual with real nuances of character. None of these things are quantifiable, and really can't even be ranked in terms of a "floor" or "ceiling."

  • 5 people marked this as a favorite.
    darth_borehd wrote:
    Trust me, it's all in your head. Now relax...

    It's amazing -- every time I hear this in real life, it means the person talking is about to create a huge godawful mess and I'm going to have to be the one who cleans up after them.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ssalarn wrote:

    If you go back far enough on the Paizo forums, you can even find me arguing that this is a team game and the Fighter is fine!

    As I got stronger with the rules, and as my group dynamics shifted to more public and organized play settings, C/MD issues became more and more apparent to me, because they were harder to spot fix while being fair to everyone.

    Exact same experience here. Go back far enough (and I've been on the boards for-ev-ar!) and you'll see me making the same "there is no disparity" arguments that people are still repeating ad nauseum. You'll gradually also see me sharing game experiences in which C/MD cropped up and just couldn't be easily fixed on the spot at the table, and which eventually caused us to abandon an AP entirely, because the (3.5e) barbarian was basically sitting out most adventures without getting to do anything. The Alpha PF playtests hit, I still hadn't quite "gotten" it, and I got patiently and very exhaustively schooled by more experienced people.

    Now I'm one of the most vehement people around, when it comes to pointing out why there is, indeed, a disparity and why it's bad for the hobby as a whole even if it doesn't affect a particular table.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Letric wrote:

    Most complicated thing I've done? Wizard 5.

    I rarely see the need to combine so many thing, and I strongly believe most of the time that is only done to achieve a mechanical advantage and rarely is done for roleplaying reasons.

    On the contrary, the strongest character you can possibly build is a single-classed wizard or cleric (or something comparable like witch). Multiclassing with any full caster cuts them off at the knees -- full-casting cheese PrCs like Initiate of the Seven Veil are gone now. Nothing screams "powergamer!" in PF more than the build you quoted above.

    In fact, Pathfinder in general punishes you so severely for multiclassing (rather than using their prepackaged "hybrid classes") that it's nearly impossible to build a multiclassed character with any advantage at all over a single-classed one.

    So why would anyone want to multiclass? Dare I to say that it might involve, I don't know... roleplaying reasons?

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    Player: "I buy a horse!"
    DM: "You're a dwarf. You can't ride a horse."
    Player: "OK, I buy a pony!"
    DM: "Fine. They sell you one for 30 gp. Food will be 16 gp a month."
    Player: "For some oats and hay?!"
    Me (helpfully): "They're steel-cut oats, certified organic and non-GMO."

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Affectionate cat... but colossally stupid.

    It never ceases to amaze me, the sheer spread of intelligence among housecats -- it's like the standard deviation is as large as the mean. I've had cats dumber than dirt, and cats smarter than I am (some would argue the latter is no great feat).

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    When the grapefruit tree in my front yard was past ripeness and the fruit kept falling, the yard squirrel would gorge on the fallen fruit. It got so fat it could barely hop around or climb, just waddle from grapefruit to grapefruit to hiding place. The cats watched intently from indoors and wanted desperately to go out and eat him, but I vetoed that and kept them in, because rotting fruit in the yard attracts flies, but empty rinds are fairly harmless. I almost got to thinking of the squirrel as a pet.

    I do view the lizards living in the bougainvillea to be very welcome residents and semi-pets, but when it rains too much (and this spring has been nothing but), they tend to find ways into the house -- and the kitties are always anxious to hunt them there, which makes me sad.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Went to the local store and was browsing the bourbon aisle. Kid that doesn't look old enough to drink comes up, and says, "This honey flavored one is da bomb!" I look and see he's wearing the store uniform, so he's not just some random -- he's actually trying to sell me something. I answer "No, man, I don't go for the flavored ones." He runs off, comes back with a more managerial-looking type, and says, "He's looking for a good straight bourbon."

    I held up the bottle of Jefferson's Reserve I'd just pulled from the top shelf and the manager says, "This customer obviously doesn't need any help in that regard."

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
    Jym Withawye wrote:
    chicken butterscotch pie
    Dodgeball wrote:
    I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

    Pittsburgh was, hands-down, the most beautiful city I've ever lived in, and spring in western PA is as beautiful as fall in the Adirondacks -- and that's saying a lot! And, of course, some of the coolest people I've met are there (well, except maybe some ninja turtle avatar guy, but we won't talk about that). But as far as career opportunities for someone in my line of work, Houston or Australia seem to be the places to be.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Gulthor's post is a good example of my attitude, when I'm DMing. Someone picks something totally "inappropriate"? Fine, that's a fun challenge. We'll MAKE it appropriate. Best case we'll make it seem like the AP was intentionally written with the player's "inappropriate" character in mind.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    archmagi1 wrote:
    Think back to the viscious death she gave Meryn Trant,

    She drowned him in maple syrup?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Absolutely agree, otherwise every strike in melee would be one to Sunder your opponent's weapon...

    I'm not sure I follow.

    Opponent wins initiative, sunders my sword on his turn.
    On my turn, I draw another weapon and kill my opponent with it.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Yizzik Uhari wrote:
    Do you normally play the only human? Cause as a DM that allows all things I've found that most still steer near the core humanoids and only a few really drift into weird like I do

    Yep. Last time they told me to "go crazy," so I ended up playing an elf -- in the party with a gnoll and a dragonfolk lizard-thing.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    The other morning Mrs Gersen stopped me on the way to the coffee pot and said, "So, how late were you up last night listening to songs from 1967?" I was impressed with her knowledge of the time period, but, damn, I guess there were a lot of good songs that year.

    Jefferson Airplane - White Rabbit
    Jimi Hendix - Red House
    Albert King - Born Under a Bad Sign
    Box Tops - The Letter
    Big Brother and the Holding Company - Ball and Chain
    The Association - Never My Love
    The Doors - Love Me Two Times
    The Beatles - I Am the Walrus (Also Stawberry Fields Forever and A Day in the Life)

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Yizzik Uhari wrote:
    Why is it that GM's in general seem to want to avoid "Mos Eisley" or stick to only core? The world is so diverse, I don't understand the hesitance.

    As a DM, I want the players to play whatever they want to play. So diverse parties are fine then.

    As a player, I hate having to always come up with in-character ways to react to new "friends" that consist of (a) a Furry straight out of a convention, (b) a bug, (c) a robot, and (d) a sofa cushion. I get really tired of always having to be the only near-human creature in the entire game world that's somehow not an NPC mook.*

    "OK, FINE, I'll talk to all the townspeople in this town, too -- since Bob's mute spider-creature died last session, and for his new character he just had to play a wookie."

    * This can get to be a bad joke: "Hey, let's all call Kirth's character 'Finn' -- because he's obviously a stormtrooper who defected and not a cool UNIQUE alien like us rebels!"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dug wrote:
    I've considered converting the gunslinger into more of a magical class, i.e., guns are enchanted, can only be used by the gunslinger, bullets are magical, have magical properties, do various things, almost like an alchemist. Then it feels more fantasy to me.

    I've long wanted go the opposite route -- gunpowder *should* be inert in Fantasy Land, but the gunslinger is outside of that reality and carries the physical laws of another universe with him. As he levels up I'd give him more abilities along that theme. Haven't worked it all out yet, though.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tormsskull wrote:
    In the few games I have been able to get into as a player, the GMs have come across as people-pleasers. Anytime a judgment is made, they seek validation from the players regarding their decision.

    More so -- when I propose a house rule, it's subject to a table vote, and I abstain except in the case of a tie. I was an old-skool DM back in the early 80s. I like to think I've learned from my experience.

    Tormsskull wrote:
    They seem very focused on the players liking them rather than liking their game.

    The players already like me; I don't invite people unless I get along with them. So it's all about getting them to like the game. And most of my players are capable of DMing, and are relatively intelligent adults, and don't need me putting on airs or pretending I'm doing something they can't. That kind of crap can get in the way of their enjoyment.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Deadalready wrote:

    Simple math:

    *100% of GMs want to play or be a player
    *Only a small fraction of players, want to GM

    I don't agree with your premises, as direct experience has taught me they're not always true.

    Some (bad) DMs don't want to play, they only want to DM.
    Most players I meet usually end up trying their hand at DMing -- like I said, EVERY player in my last long-term group, save one, was a DM for other games.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Umbral Reaver wrote:
    Isn't Hulk best modeled using alchemist -> master chymist? That's not full BAB.

    Barbarian! Just because his skin is green while raging is no big deal. His human bonus skill points all go into Knowledge (Physics).

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I use a leopard and then add a modified version of the half-farspawn template from 3.5 Lords of Madness. It makes a great displacer beast!

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Here in Houston we have the opposite issue -- DMs are a dime a dozen, but finding good players is very hard. Until 2012 or so, I DMed a game for other DMs who just wanted to play a bit in between running their own games, or who temporarily ran into a shortage of players. Currently, me and another DM have an agreement to share our small pool of players between my Skull & Shackles campaign and his Ravenloft one.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Anzyr wrote:
    I wouldn't really put the Cleric anywhere near the "most versatile" class categories.

    Instant access to your entire class spell list -- core and all allowed splats -- every morning is really hard to beat. Not even the wizard can do that (the druid can, but their list is more restrictive than the cleric's).

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    NenkotaMoon wrote:
    started to reread Sender's Game.

    The sequel, Receiver's Game, is even better.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Syrus Terrigan wrote:
    Regarding the "uses per day" observation -- Are you referring solely to class features (fervor, lay on hands, smite, etc.), or spells, as well?

    Most especially spells, but class features to an extent as well.

    Syrus Terrigan wrote:
    I would love to hear more of your thoughts and concrete examples, chief.

    The biggest problem I ran into was that, for a lot of the classless systems I enjoyed the most (e.g., Victory Games' James Bond 007), buying skills becomes the predominant building block of character advancement. That doesn't work at all in 3.5, which was written from the ground up as a system in which almost all skills are essentially totally obsolete by 5th level.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm very sympathetic to the OP's project, as I'd once started various abortive early-draft attempts to do the same thing (Click on "Classless.pdf"). Unfortunately, the math underlying 3.5/PF, in a number of places, simply doesn't work.

    1. The spread in total bonuses, vs. the size of the d20 RNG, means that you often see cases where a moderately competent person has no chance of succeeding at a task which is trivially easy (auto-success) for a specialist.
    2. "Uses per day" is vastly overestimated as a balancing factor, leading to some classes with *I WIN* buttons and other classes with no ability to do a lot of things at all.
    3. Situational feats and minor combat bonuses are highly over-valued.
    4. The game assumes that everyone follows a very rigid railroad and thinks tactically rather than strategically, meaning that large-scale abilities that directly change the narrative are "priced" as being absurdly less powerful than they actually are.
    5. (etc.)

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Most of the groups I play in have at least one or two people with a modicum of system mastery -- which means that, instead of people "refusing" to play a cleric, I more often see people very eager to play what is arguably the most powerful and versatile class in the entire game. In my houserules, I massively buffed the martial classes and nerfed the cleric -- and I STILL have no shortage of them.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Harry Harrison's The Stainless Steel Rat Goes to Hell is a classic SciFi novel w/alternate universes.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    1. Take all the Shadow Dancer's class features.
    2. Turn them all into rogue/slayer talents.
    3. Do the same with the assassin PrC.
    4. And the spy PrC, and so on.
    5. Done.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Aelryinth wrote:
    Here's a small list of what fighters lost going from 2e to 3e.

    Let me add one: WBL. In 1e, you generally couldn't buy items, you just found them. The ones you found were determined randomly. The random tables were heavily geared towards magic weapons, armor, and shields -- stuff the fighter can use. By 10th level or so, the fighter more than likely had an intelligent magic sword that could grant him powers, along with magic armor and a magic shield. His WBL naturally ended up being several times everyone else's.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    The 1973 motorcycle film Electra Glide in Blue has no pseudo-Greek lettering and is awesome.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Aging in Pathfinder is transparently geared towards screwing the martials over and boosting the casters even more. As I can attest, when people get old in real life, their sight and hearing don't get more acute, and their memories don't generally sharpen -- but that's exactly what happens in the game.

    I'd feel better if the aging penalties applied to all stats, or, barring that, if they just went away.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    MannyGoblin wrote:
    As for Theon, there is the possibility of him getting a redemption arc, which some have a bunch of trouble with since he doesn't deserve one.
    Unforgiven wrote:

    'Little Bill' Daggett: "I don't deserve this... to die like this. I was building a house."

    William Munny: "Deserve has got nothing to do with it." (aims gun)
    'Little Bill': "I'll see you in Hell, William Munny."
    William Munny: "Yeah." (fires)
    Unforgiven wrote:

    The Schofield Kid: "Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming."

    William Munny: "We all have it coming, kid."

    5 people marked this as a favorite.


    I get it that people like to play furries and so on, but they do nothing for me, and I get tired of seeing parties that look like the Mos Eisley cantina.

    1 to 50 of 2,871 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.