Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sorry... I am going to Necro respond to this, I lost track of the thread and owe Kirth a response. All I can really say in response is that I don't think dual classing is quite as bad as you do. But I do agree that its not optimal anymore and I would prefer it be a whole lot better. I think Paizo set out expressly to make staying a single class from start to finish of greater benefit than spreading levels out and the end result is more classes to fill archetypes people are looking to play. It was an intentional design decision that I agree with you isn't what I would prefer. It is also true that if your approaching it from an optimization slant my Inquisitor is going to be a stronger build than your multiclass. Ideally it would be nice if the classes could exist along side a stronger system to build a character in a modular way. Sort of like using classes as short cuts or templates, but being able to deviate as far as you like from the norm. Still I don't think I would want to go fully modular, I have played games that are designed that way and its not really what I prefer for my group. I am not the type who likes to spend a session leveling that could be spent playing and my group has a few players that don't usually bother with getting to full system mastery in a given game they play.
Vod Canockers wrote:
. Oh my god ...really an entire series of posts and this is what you fixate on. Clearly my definition of Aurthurian not being up to your standard is the whole reason I entered this conversation.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
If you think I missed your point I didn't honest, and if you think I am attempting to be disrespectful of your opinion I am not...I am trying to get to the heart of the matter that confuses me and i felt your opinions are close to the matter of what i struggle with. To me it really sort of is a matter of nomenclature. I see two tool boxes that will ultimately need more and more tools in them to get to the same result. Or to take or more apt anology to my mind I see a lot of people advocating selling bricks and a bunch of other people advocating selling walls and in the end your both are still ending up with a house.
Honestly I am not being obtuse, from the outside looking in I see your way taking more pouring through books because I begin with a starting template that is farther from my goal. I can search for feats, and archetypes and traits to make my cleric/ rogue into a Inquisitor analogue, or I can start with an Inquisitor to begin with. I don't think there is a right or wrong here...I am just trying to understand why you think your way is simpler, and beyond that why it troubles you that both ways exist....the existence of the Inquisitor doesn't prevent you from doing it your way, but it does facilitate doing it mine.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Not trying to belabor your point, but I really want to know why these two points matter so much. if the end result character are functionally so similar why does it matter so much to so many of you that the end result is a new class or a multi-class, or a fighter with spiffy new feats. It goes back to a toss away point I made in an earlier post. I don't understand the hang up on nomenclature.... It seems like tossing the baby out with the bath water when you ban the Alchemist but then in the same breath say it would be fine if it was an alternate Wizard. Not saying your doing that, but I ask you because you seem to be approaching the broader issue from that perspective.
. That's probably where we fundamentally differ. I don't go looking for feats to build a character around. I come up with an idea and then set out looking for feats to make it happen. Once i have my build I cease to care what else is out there. I certainly could see it being daunting for those with your approach, and now sort of get that point of view. but I could care less about building the better mouse trap, if mine already looks and functions the way I want it to I won't go shopping for better nuts and bolts. Your reasoning makes total sense, but if you look at it from my perspective, I want all the options I can get so that when I get my idea there is already a way to make it easily with limited outside the rules tinkering.
I actually think the Ninja was a stealth fix for the Rogue. It's mechanically better in every way because the Rogue wasn't balanced. I see it as outlier because of the need for a better Rogue, but I get your point, though I believe it the exception not the rule.
mtg handles it through banning cards for organized play, I imagine the same will prove true over time for organized pathfinder play. My DM does the same for home games...we either ban it or modify it by campaign...and I did the same when I was running thing.. As long as you are open minded and willing to revisit banned material at certain intervals, I really appreciate new options. Sure there Is the unintended combinations issues that crop up from time to time, but we handle those fine.
I guess to me there are no bad options...just unreasonable people that don't get there is a time and place for all things. I really do wonder if some of the class hate is attached to a person or people who tried to shoehorn something into a home game that actively worked on a raw nerve making an option that was just not a favorite into something that is Anethma.
Just curious, of the objectors there seems to be a great many that don't like a class because it doesn't fit their desired setting of Arthurian Fantasy. There is a lot of gunslingers and alchemists are too modern, or ninja are to Asian in bent. My question is why the vitriol against these options existing?
Just because your whole campaign exists in a certain time period in England, shouldn't it be ok for people to play other things and have their tastes catered too a bit as well? I hear a lot of argument that you should " just play a fighter" if you want a samurai, well a person going for an Asian bent could say the same thing in reverse.
I guess I just rankle a bit against anyone who says options are bad. Anytime you have more choices to me it's a good thing, variety is the spice of life as they say. You can always turn things down on a case by case basis, but dismissing a class entirely and portraying Paizo as villains for printing it smacks of forcing everyone to play your Vision of what fun " should" be.
Then again I also do not comprehend the complaint that a class should be an archetype, or the like...it's just semantics....
The moral of the story here is that the dimensional dervish feats, while completely cool are entirely too hard to make a character around because you wont get to use them for a year or more in real time.
I think it would be quicker to make a tiefling ninja with the prehensile tail racial trait and reflavor vanishing trick to be a little "dimensional hop" and then presitige into Shadow Adept to get the full effect at later levels. I think there is a Tiefling variant that gets Dex and Chr for stat bumps as well. You could easily go Finese and dual wield as they are nice builds for S/A anyway.
I just want to say...I am growing to quickly despise the eliteist view that chest puffers on the internet champion regarding laugh tracks.
It doesnt make you smarter than everyone to auto dismiss every show that has a laugh track. It just makes you look like a hipster douche.
A show is good or bad on its own merits...a laugh track has precisely zero to due with the quality of the jokes contained within.
Pet Peeve ~END RANT.
That being said, I think Big Bang is a solid little show for a network TV sitcom. It is not in danger of being brilliant anytime soon, but it is consistantly worth more than a few chuckles per episode and it often contains one or two solid belly laughs. I would alledge those offended by the depiction of nerd culture were determined to feel that way going in.
Quite frankly I get a lot of laughs out of the fact that I have known several people who live up to the stereotypes this show gets a lot of mileage out of, and in fact have had some of those exact conversation/ situations depicted with girlfriends,hobby firends, non-hobby friends and family members over the years.
Humor like so many things is subjective...everyone is more than entitled to love or hate anything they want, but the vitriol directed at those who like this show in this thread and the anger that they seem to be forced to endure just makes me shake my head.
I think you very strongly over estimate the gunsmithing skills of the average criminal. The difference here is that an idiot could mass produce these with only Internet access and a few hours of training on the machine. I can count on one hand the number of people I know who could build more than a single shot zip gun...everyone I know could print one of these with a few hours of training.
Its not that you can get a gun...its that you can now get a gun that walks through any metal detector assuming non-magentic shell casings, and is compeltely untracable. No serial number at all...you could literally walk into a court house pop off six shots wihout getting caught in screening and then drop the thing on the ground because nobody would know where it came from.
Fake Healer wrote:
That is not true. The creator clearly stated he added a metal part that was not needed to the reciever to ensure that his design was legal. By law a firearm must contain enough metal to be picked up on a standard metal detector. The plastics do infact hold up to the heat and pressure and for the record is of little issue in any part of the weapons save the barrel which is in fact made of plastic in this case. This is completely different from a glock which has a plastic grip and body but has an all metal reciever and barrel assembly as well as trigger and firing pin. This gun can be printed lock, stock and barrel except the firing pin which can be crafted in minutes from a standard finishing nail. There is also absolutely no way to make these traceable...the cat is really out of the bag here.
Any small but well organized gang that can scratch together enough money can now print their own untraceable guns cheaply and effectively after the initial investment. I am a gun enthusiast and own several firearms....and let me tell you, this is a very scary proposition, and there is really no way to legislate it away. These things will be used in gun crime and probably in the next two years.
Obsolete? No far from it, but it is troubling much in the same way a home made bomb is. I am less concerned about the individual and more with criminal organizations though. For a modest investment a small group of guys could get into the untracable and disposable small arms business, and no the firing pin alone won't set off a metal detector in most cases. The design in the story included extra, unneeded metal to pass minimum legal requirements.
The reality is legislation much like a lot of of the current gun laws will be useful in preventing accidents and crimes of passion...but dedicated criminals will certainly be abusing this...just like they do currently with black market fire arms and the like.
Not trying to open a can of worms or poke any bears...but just curious, why is your chaotic neutral ninja so up in arms about this? If alignment is being taken as seriously as you seem to be taking it with this paladin, why is your character so involved, given that he should be taking a much more free wheeling stance on such things? Are you certain you as a person dont object and are projecting that into the situation? Just a question I ask...not judging.
It seems like the Paladin's behaivor is an issue to be taken up between that player and the DM if your looking for a tangible result vis a vie falling. After all the moral issue is between that man and his god. Your personal objection is a nice RP and all but sending a letter to his superiors doesnt really mean anything tangible. They are not the ones who pass judgement..his powers are derived straight from his connection to his deity...and I would imagine that a few too many of these type incidents and it will take care of itself? Maybe if you want to petition someone you should pray? It's a more direct route to the one you want to lodge you complaint with.
A great number of people come here not looking for debate but validation. When they dont get the validation they seek its upsetting to them. They dont want to be convinced of anything so they wont be, they then when faced with a mountain of contrary opinion resort to logical fallacies, moving goal posts, Strawmen, and Reducta ad Absurdem to attemp to "win". As though its some sort of competetion.
Your quite literally getting into metallurgy here, a whole field of science..there probably isn't rules out there to cover this kind of stuff. My suggestion is to do a little bit of cursory research...like wiki type stuff on a few base alloys and the very basic principals of smelting....just high level concepts don't get too bogged down in details and present them to your dm as a logical frame work to proceed with. Things like bronze, iron, copper, obsidian, steel, and bone all make nice salvage just for starters. Look up a handful of alloys and their rough percentages, get a grip on what sort of yields come from melting down Iron and then use that for everything....it's doesn't have to be perfect. Maybe look up stuff like flint, bone and obsidian tools ...I bet if you take just an hour or two and a little work you can come up with something simple andElegant that you can apply to most salvage and recrafting situations.
Anytime you "fall" its a question of morality. You are not guilty of commiting an act that makes you fall if you are duped, forced against your will or if the information is some how stolen from your mind.
Its about willfully breaking the tenets of your faith...not about being tricked, brainwashed, or forced through other means.
The Fantasy Halfling or Hobbit is no more a comparison to a real life little person than a Unicorn is to a real horse. Sure they bare some physical resemblance, but one is purely a work of fiction and rooted in fairy tales the other is a real human being with all the social, emotional and health concerns that come along with.
To me any social stigma or offense that could be attached is a reach until the moment you use these races to portray a person of smaller stature in a negative light. It is a field fertile for negative stereotyping simply because of physical similarity not due to any inherent trait of the race.
Ask your self this...if Halflings are an issue, are Dwarves?, how about Gnomes?...where is the line drawn are Fairies? Do you get excluded from being offensive by virtue of having wings? At the end of the day it is how you as DM choose to portray the character that has a whole lot more to do with the issue than if he is short, tall, pale, dark, male, female...
I stumbled on a bard archtype that uses his perform to summon shadow conjured beasts and servants the other day. Seems that could make a very cool interpretation of The Darkness.
Speaking of Bards I know I have seen a Dahmpir Dirge Bard who was essentially the Crow.
Oh and I had a friend who recently ran a Dwarven Paladin who wore all Blue Armor and had a very, very low INT, but High Wisdom, and a ton of feats to absorb damage.....took me about two sessions to catch on to the fact he was playing the Tick.
Haven't been a a wizard in a while but when next I do I think I will draw heavy inspiration from John Constantine and Harry Dresden.
Haven't nailed down the race yet but I want to play a rogue knife fighter that borrows heavily from Drax the Destroyer and Riddick. Having a hard time finding a mini I like for this one though.
Lastly I have a dwarf mini that would make a great Wolverine analogue a friend modded him to have claws..but the game didn't last. May use him again someday...think Barbarian/ Ranger natural combat style, beast totem. Etc...was thinking if my current character bites it in skulls and shackles I might use the two sea faring archetypes and mix in a healthy dose of Blackbeard.
I would agree with most folks here and think this would work better than any other single class party. With Domains altering class skills. The ability to fight, heal and cast. Sprinkle in a few traits and archtypes you could really cover all the bases. You might want to consult each other on feat and spell selection but really thats about it.
Nah guys, Iron Man is a Synthesist Summoner all the way.
I think Widow is more of Ninja...High Charisma is a must.
Agree with the others for the most part.
Though I might do Hulk as a dual class Alchemist/Barbarian. With Vivisectionist archetype. Double down on the superstrength and angryness. Get the bombs out of there...dude is a mad scientist not a mad bomber.
I did this with a 3.5 Warlock and a wand of Flame Blade. Felt like a Jedi...pretty fun. You get the whole push button - get sword- Lightsaber coolness.
The build was based around the fact they got massive bumps to UMD though. So Maybe go Arcane Duelist Bard in Pathfinder. UMD your wand and go to town on the bad guy? The nice thing about it is that you dont bog down your spell list just to cast Flame Blade 8 times a day.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I think it is often the case that you are the exception no the rule Bob.
And for the record I am not saying that its a "bad" thing, its just a fact at the tables I sat at and it doesnt suit my taste so I dont go the organized play route anymore. I dont even really blame the GMs. As you said you run long which is great, but in many environs there is pressure to finish on time, your FLGS for example my need the table for the next group comming in, and that doesnt include social pressures, large crowds, poor party composition and simple habit as possible reasons why a party might stray towards stat block management as you put it.
At the end of the day this is a very opinion laden thread and strongly subject to YMMV. My opinion is that organized play by the nature of where it is run and how the party is assembled leads to Min/Maxing because there is a prevailant tendancy to double down on the combat and handwave chunks of RP.
Sure you can...but saying they are completely exclusive does not tell the whole story. You clearly focused on one sentence of my post and keyed on that without looking at all at how I explained that statement.
I am saying that the nature of the environment in which you play lends itself to a more crunch oriented play style, and in the absence of meaty role play, even the most un-optimize friendly player will engage in more statistical manipulation. Why wouldnt they...combat is the overwhelming focus of the experience.
and I meant you no offense...but I alledge you were looking for a statement that wasnt there or just read the first sentence and dismissed the rest.
And While I don't think IQ is a perfect metric, any metric where a three represents a functional member of society is equally bad to me. A three INT is just a hairs breadth above the bar of being able to speak, and likely to be functionally illiterate in every other regard. Certainly couldn't count above ten, probably has to be spoon fed complex tasks.
My point being other than statistics that are tangible in game, all other aspects of stats are open to interpretation. That's the beauty of RPG's these things are left to player choice. Your stats while a guideline do not mandate your personality. No more than these posts preceding mine do. If your 8 is the same as another guys 6. Who cares, tell them to play their own character.
The point really to me is that although you will never be quite as good at either one, you will never be out of the fight. Like many here have said wind, cover, types of DR, being disarmed, specific spells...they all can impede using Archery. If your a switch hitter, you can always for a modest feat investment, pull out that big beefy two hander and finish the fight up close and personal.
I do not play any organized play anymore for a lot of what is outlined here. The nature of the beast seems to be that there is little time for Roleplay at the table and the focus is on Roll-play. I dont think many of these people operate that way at home, but in organized play, there is always a limited time to get the module in, your in a public setting, your often with people you dont know as well or are of differing ages and personalities. These things all lend to a more buisness like focus on the module. Going from combat to combat, disecting encounters etc..
This in turn leads to characters optomised towards what is largely the focus of the game. Why take extra skill points that arent likely to come up? or a feat that you may never see used, or put stats in an ability that can be covered by another. Its just not nearly as important in as in a home game where there is downtime to be spent on crafting, or loads of travel time to climb and swim, or hours to be spent in at the inn using your charm on the ladies. Organized play makes the RP leaning people at least go somewhat more mechanical...if your tendancy is already to min/max a bit you end up full on munchkin death machine..its just building for the tendancy of the game.
Now that I reside only in a home game atmosphere, I never go full munchkin. Nor does anyone I play with. Sure we put on the optomiser hat a bit when a class calls for it. You need after all to put a little work into making an effective Monk for example...but you dont see dump stats below 8, and never more than one at our table. You do get Fighters with Int enough to take a profession, and Rogues who dable in Alchemy, because there is time, patience and trust in the group that allows those things to come to the table.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
This thread is just another example of min-max munchkinism; players wanting to have unrealistic or God-like stats and priviledges from the get-go. It's always more of an adventure and challenge when you start out with a normal stat array and are able to complete difficult adventures and grow your character along the way. My groups have always used 4d6 (no re-rolls) and don't whine if they get a stat under a 10. I'm proud to be very old school; and my groups have been playing together for years, so I guess I must be doing something right. But, for those who wish to take the road of entitlement and priviledge, that's your right. I hope all of us will have fun in our own way.
Congrats...must be a relaxing life being so comfortable in the fact your better than everyone.
If by average you mean what most people are playing, I would bet it is 20 point buy and slightly below wealth by level tables on average with peaks and valleys that put you slightly above or even more below at times.
That seems to be the pulse I get from reading the boards. 15 and 25 PB are outliers and any die rolling methods tend to break the curve due to being random often times silly high or silly low. Wealth is similar in that you have outliers that are no magic games and games where everyone is super twink. But most of the time the game rolls along pretty organically and the tendancy on these boards is to go just a tad under WBL with the occasional strong bump to push the party up to where the DM believes the right power level should be if a party lags behind.
Personally since I never Min/Max I strongly prefer 25 points if I am forced to play point buy. Firstly because it makes MAD classes more valid, secondly it helps me resist the urge to aquire stat bump items in favor of more fun stuff, and third I like a well rounded character...Fighters with skill points, and Monks who can hit and have a decent AC are fun.
WBL I could care less, as long as the DM has an experienced hand at manipulating the enemies to compensate for his tastes. I refuse to play in games that heavily feature DR if we cant afford even silver. Or tons of Ghosts but you wont allow even one ghost touch weapon in the party. I have no issues with low magic or no magic, but it better not be just the party that isnt allowed access.
And if you have been reading anything I have said...I am more than okay with the dog not saving me. I am also okay with you asking before buying the dog if I am willing to kick in....but it is not right under any circumstance to presume I should pay just because you bought the dog, nor am I further obligated to pull you or your dog out of the same fire once you have abandoned me in kind.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Lets try another angle....
We are roommates and I buy a dog. I don't ask, just come home with a cute lil puppy. Then hand you half the vet bills, ask for money towards food, a collar, and bed. Then when you get upset, I say we'll, you get the benefit of petting him, and his doggy kisses, and the fact he protects the home just as much as I do. The fact I didn't ask is irrelevant, since he lives here now, it's equally your problem. Does that sound like correct behavior to you?
Vod Canockers wrote:
never once have I said he had to assist me. But I reserve the right to withhold any resources at my disposal in kind.
Vod Canockers wrote:
What is a party if not a business, you are taking money out of everyone's pocket without asking? Your hiring someone who is a drain on resources without consulting those people.
This is not a player, this is you employee. You are just investing him with player status because you do not want to shoulder the burden of your own choice.
Craig Frankum wrote:
. Not disagreeing with you..just elaborating on my position.
Vod Canockers wrote:
There is no cost prescribed in the PHB for taking, nor keeping the cohort....nor anybody forcing you to take one. Is that more clear? Or would you like to fixate on more language in search of the magic loophole that will change everyone's mind?
Fair enough...it was a bit strawman, but not nearly as much so as you would like to believe.