Lazurin Arborlon's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lazurin, I seem to be expressing myself poorly, for which I apologize to you. If you have the patience to bear with me, I'll address your last post in two parts, to see if I can do a better job -- and finish with an example or two that I think will be illustrative of what I'm getting at.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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.

I actually see one toolbox (multiclassing) advertised, but when you open it up, the box is empty! Because a fighter 10/wizard 10 casts only 5th level spells (CL 10th), he's noteably inferior to what the baseline (the current magus or eldritch knight) should be. Therefore, the only real opotion you have is the current model: not a toolbox at all, but a limited number of "each-sold-separately" packages, all in different places. In terms of bricks and walls, I'd like a big construction depot with a lot of bricks and usable mortar, so I can build whatever kind of wall I need. I don't have that. What we do have are a collection of premade walls that may or may not even come close to fitting what we want, but they're what the prefab wall builder people decide we "need."

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

the existence of the Inquisitor doesn't prevent you from doing it your way, but it does facilitate doing it mine.

The existence of the Inquisitor is a testimony to the fact that my preferred method does not work at all using the current rules, and that Paizo has no interest or intention of ever enabling it to work. Say we both want a sort of rogue/cleric hybrid. You get an inquisitor, who gets 3/4 casting and a bunch of additional abilities (judgments, etc.) that scale with level. Using traditional multiclassing I get... 1/2 casting, and some abilities that don't scale meaningfully with level....

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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....

Arthurian Fantasy is a bad name for what you are thinking. If you were to truly play an Arthurian Fantasy, you would have to get rid of all spell casting classes except Druid (and then highly modify the Druid Spell list), and the only other classes allowed would be Fighter, Barbarian (for those pesky invaders), Cavalier, Paladin (without some of his powers and no spells), and Expert, Aristocrat, Commoner, and Warrior, maybe Witch too. Magic items would be virtually nonexistent and worth a kingdom to have one.

I don't think describes the play of people that don't want to add the "Asian" or "Modern" classes.

. 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.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Personally, I see the new base classes as being cool in terms of flavor and conception, but also symptomatic of system failure in two areas:

(1) Multiclassing. If this worked correctly, you could "build" a viable cleric/rogue, and wouldn't need the Inquisitor. And you could "build" a viable fighter/sorcerer or fighter/wizard, so you wouldn't need the Magus (or the Eldritch Knight, for that matter). At the more extreme end of things, it's tempting to imagine the Alchemist as a barbarian (mutagen)/rogue (bomb)/wizard (extracts).

(2) Customization. In my opinion, the gunslinger, cavalier, and samurai should have been "buildable" using fighter archetypes or a menu of "fighter talents," without the need to bill them as separate classes.

Instead, we have cries of "backwards compatibility!" and the need for a separate base class or prestige class or archetype for pretty much every possible non-vanilla idea you can come up with. Which is great from the standpoint of wanting to churn out more books, but lousy from the standpoint of wanting to have a toolbox useable for creating non-standard characters.

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.

If you think it's just a matter of nomenclature, you're missing my entire point. My stance is that, to make a sneaky divine part-caster, I shouldn't have to pore through...

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.

Personally, I see the new base classes as being cool in terms of flavor and conception, but also symptomatic of system failure in two areas:

(1) Multiclassing. If this worked correctly, you could "build" a viable cleric/rogue, and wouldn't need the Inquisitor. And you could "build" a viable fighter/sorcerer or fighter/wizard, so you wouldn't need the Magus (or the Eldritch Knight, for that matter). At the more extreme end of things, it's tempting to imagine the Alchemist as a barbarian (mutagen)/rogue (bomb)/wizard (extracts).

(2) Customization. In my opinion, the gunslinger, cavalier, and samurai should have been "buildable" using fighter archetypes or a menu of "fighter talents," without the need to bill them as separate classes.

Instead, we have cries of "backwards compatibility!" and the need for a separate base class or prestige class or archetype for pretty much every possible non-vanilla idea you can come up with. Which is great from the standpoint of wanting to churn out more books, but lousy from the standpoint of wanting to have a toolbox useable for creating non-standard characters.

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.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

thejeff wrote:

EldonG wrote:

..and the last said - re: money...I WANT them to keep cranking out material...you see, I WANT them to stay in business. What I don't really want is Pathfinder 2.0...2.5...3.0...ad absurdem.

For the business model to work, they need to keep giving us options.

Personally, I hope their business model can survive on more fluff and less crunch. More APs and modules and setting books and the like. Less new classes and feats and spells and such.

The more options and combinations of options you have the harder it is to keep it all coherent and vaguely balanced. Feature bloat is a bad thing

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.

For me, I find it leads to option paralysis. It's not so much that there are some options that need to be banned. It's that there are 474 feats I need to look through to decide what to take. I need to do it all, for the entire build progression before starting the character and I need to revisit it all again every time a new source comes out.

Classes don't bother me so much, at least in PF, since there's a smaller number of them and you can just pick one and go. In 3.5, where...

. 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.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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?

I am actually one of those people who gripes about the Eastern classes that were added. But just to be clear, I don't mind them existing. Variety is good, and I like having the options to bring my fantasy out of the realm of the Arthurian.

However, what bothers me is that every single Asian thing was BETTER than its counterpart. Supposedly the Rogue---mechanically the weakest class in the game---is 'balanced', and yet the Ninja comes out and just does everything it does but better.

All of the Eastern classes get access to what were initially exotic Asian weapons that were exotic because they were mechanically superior to the weapon list martial characters had access to. A rogue has to blow a feat just to start to catch up to the ninja's proficiencies, and he can't even do so until 3rd level thanks to the +1 BAB requirement of EWP.

I know, we could just 'reskin' it but A) That leaves it up to GM discretion, and therefore has the option snatched from you if you have a GM who hates Eastern stuff and isn't interested in reworking anything B) Doesn't work at all for Society play.

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.

EldonG wrote:

..and the last said - re: money...I WANT them to keep cranking out material...you see, I WANT them to stay in business. What I don't really want is Pathfinder 2.0...2.5...3.0...ad absurdem.

For the business model to work, they need to keep giving us options.

Personally, I hope their business model can survive on more fluff and less crunch. More APs and modules and setting books and the like. Less new classes and feats and spells and such.

The more options and combinations of options you have the harder it is to keep it all coherent and vaguely balanced. Feature bloat is a bad thing

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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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....

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Every class I don't like is horribly overpowered, terribly designed and the people who like them are inferior....this is known.

Lol

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.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Once again...time to exit a thread because the insulting and small minded have arrived..later kids.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

It does mean a criminal organization can set up their own, portable, easily concealed, gun manufacturing...

But then, they always could have done that, using the readily-available materials to build their own forges or machine shops...

The only difference is that instead of buying metal, fuel, hammers, bellows, lathes, and so on in Ye Olde Dayes, the modern version would buy expensive electronics and raw plastic.

Criminal organizations might get involved in gun manufacturing in the future in ways they didn't bother with in the past, though, for the same reasons they got involved in making alcohol during Prohibition, or in the manufacture of illegal drugs now: legal and government regulation and oversight chokes out supply, leaving a demand to be filled with cheap bootleg/moonshine alternatives that can be produced without licensing fees, restrictions, duties, taxes, and so on.

We've seen organized crime syndicates cooking various types of bathtub gin to feed a thirsty American public demand against the best efforts of government Prohibition in the past - that, too, will be nothing new.

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.

I would allow it...clearly you cant double up though. As long as you never do that...seems kosher to me.

Guns are the least of the concerns 3D printers raise. Anybody who wants a firearm in the US can already obtain one fairly easily on the street or at a local flea market. Cash transaction, no questions asked.

The true upheaval comes with intellectual property. Combine a 3D printer with a 3D scanner or downloaded schematics and you will be able to make copies of virtually anything. Think Napster for commercial goods.

Games Workshop has already filed lawsuits.
Link

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.

thejeff wrote:

Fake Healer wrote:

Not to mention that they still have to have certain metal parts which are within the guidelines currently in effect for minimum amount of metal in a gun for detection purposes.

Also a gun that fires 6 times before becoming unusable that is printed from a printer costing between 5k and 10k really isn't something I find to be a horrible problem.

The 6 times will probably improve.

And the firing pin is sufficient to detect?

It isn't just the firing pin. In another article about this gun it mentioned metal used for several parts including the firing pin. I would assume that part of the barrel and where the actual firing happens in the gun is metal to be able to withstand the pressure of the bullet being triggered. This is really not very different from the old glocks that were made of mostly plastic, except that instead of buying it from a shop (or off the street) for a grand you would print it out of your 10,000k printer and still need a few extra metal parts to install in it to make it fire.

I would like to see a way to make them traceable though. I would feel more confident that thugs wouldn't have a local disposable gun seller on the block if they could be traced back to the printer.

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.

Most states track fire arms by serial number, have a background check and accumulate that in a data base going forward should the firearm be sold.

Early designs had one or two fires at best...the one making the news today alleged it could fire a six round Mag using a new heat resistant polymer.

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.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Beyond that

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.

Heroforge is really quite good and free.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

I like Blistering Invective and Brow Gasher a great deal...not sure there the best spells for the level, but the flavor fits the class so well.

Thanks all, this is really helpful.

Bit more detail on the craftsmen.. Essentially, they're refugees, so a lot of the cost of labor is part of an exchange where the party provides a place to live, food, and safety in return for their skills.

Related question... The party has a decent amount of coinage, but between the exchange mentioned above and a lack of friendly merchants elsewhere, money isn't particularly useful on its own. The idea of melting down gold pieces to and mixing it with the steel to extend the supply has come up, but of course the downside is that it would weaken the steel to some extent. Is there any amount that could reasonably be mixed in without much effect on the quality of the weapon, or is there just not much we can really do with the gold? The special materials rules cover gold plating and weapons made of pure gold, but not anything with mixing.

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 and

Elegant 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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hire a DJ and throw in some glow sticks...insist they rave or you will never let them out.

Hire a halfling who rides an orc shove him in after and yell.."who rules Bartertown"

Lower a basket on a rope with lotion in it...

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.
Plus the RP could be really fun.

BBBut...what about the Bombs. :)

Is there any other archtype that drops the bombs for something else?

I am not even sure.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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'm sorry that has happened to you, but IMO that is largely the fault of the GM, not the campaign. Sure there are scenarios that more readily lend themselves to role vs. roll, but even those with role-lite can be expanded upon by a creative GM. I think (hope) you would be hard-pressed to find player's who have sat at my tables who claim there was little to no role-playing. It is biggest reason my tables tend to run long. I do not want the game to devolve into a competition of stat-block management between the players and the authors. Luckily, my play experience has been largely the same.

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.

Jason Wu wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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.

Full stop for a moment here.

You can have hyper-optimized characters that are also roleplayed to the hilt.

You can also have characters that are all 'fluff', yet aren't roleplayed at all.

The two focuses are not mutually exclusive.

-j

This. Way too much of this.

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.

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

It has often been said that an easy scale for RPG->RL understanding of the Intelligence score is to multiply by ten and call it IQ. This makes sense, because an IQ of 100 is average, as is an Int 10. This makes the Forrest Gump comparison apt, because in the movie, his IQ was 75; that would be the equivalent of a 7-8 Int, which is what we're talking about.

By generic D&D rules, the common person generates stats by 3d6. Creating range of values from 3-18. What you are saying is about 16% (or 35/216) are at or below 7 intelligence (ie Forest Gump). That seems like quite a large percentage of the world population.

Even by old heroic PC standards (4d6 drop lowest) 7 int or less would represent more than 5% of the world's hero population (74/1296).

I find it more realistic to think of Forest Gump as a 3 int. At the level of .4% (1/216) of the population. And its probably still too great a percentage of the populace as that.

The IQ rational for D&D intelligence has never held much water. Instead I think people associate the lowest allowable value with the what they perceive is the lowest playable level of intelligence. So they put 7 (in pathfinder) or 8 (in 3.x) right there with Mr. Gump.

(That said I think allowing players to point buy a 7 was a mistake, as was the value assigned it).

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

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.

The very first post in this thread says equal share for starters.

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 engaging in reducta ad absurdum isn't helping your argument. Every time someone brings up a point you don't like you deflect by coming up with an exaggerated absurdist example and claim its the same...it's not, and it's poor debate.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Seriously guys go in to work and tell your boss that your going to hire someone to take on part of your work and ask him how much he wants to pay this guy he didn't ask for to perform that service, when he is already paying you....see what he says.

Several important differences here. The rest of the party is NOT my boss. Second the Cohort is not performing part of MY work, he is contributing to the group as a whole.

So if another player wants to join your game, do you not give him any loot? After all he would be both cutting into your loot and your XP.

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.

Funny I see the Cohort as an addition to resources, not a drain. The Cohort adds his abilities, presumably some that the party didn't already have or at least an additional boost to those that already exist. The cohort adds to speed at which monsters are killed, preserving the resources that would spent in killing the monsters, whether they be spells, time, ammunition, or magic items.

If you don't want another PC to have a cohort then make it clear from the beginning. And if you don't want to give a cohort any share of the treasure, then don't expect anything back from the cohort. If you want to kick me out of the campaign because my cohort, that you refuse to help, won't help you, likely I didn't want to play your group anyway.

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?

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

slade867 wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.

If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.

This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.

The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.

Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.

I guess you have never had a GM that has made you paid for rooms at an inn, or food, or travel expenses then, or any other living expenses.

sure have...but I didn't ask you to bring along another mouth to feed.

That means that there IS an in game cost that isn't being made up.

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?

There is no...

never once have I said he had to assist me. But I reserve the right to withhold any resources at my disposal in kind.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Seriously guys go in to work and tell your boss that your going to hire someone to take on part of your work and ask him how much he wants to pay this guy he didn't ask for to perform that service, when he is already paying you....see what he says.

Several important differences here. The rest of the party is NOT my boss. Second the Cohort is not performing part of MY work, he is contributing to the group as a whole.

So if another player wants to join your game, do you not give him any loot? After all he would be both cutting into your loot and your XP.

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.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Craig Frankum wrote:

A wizard takes the leadership feat and gains a fighter cohort (no where does it state that the cohort is of the same class). The wizard maintains its fighter cohort as a personal bodygaurd enabling the wizard to be a better spell caster. Does this not in turn benefit the party, by means of making the wizard a more effective player? Or a fighter takes the feat and gains a cleric cohort, is the cleric cohort's primary responsibilty to the fighter?

it's your cohort..use them how you like, it doesn't obligate the party to pick up the tab anymore than your share of the proceeds, unless the whole party agrees on the investment prior to the hire. I do however reserve the right to behave in the same way with any of my time and money I invest.

First: I'm argueing the point of the PC providing for the cohort, not the cohort getting a equal share of the loot.

Second: The cohort is LOYAL to not hired by the PC. Same as with an animal companion or mount. Difference between the two is the AC/mount gains bonuses as the PC gains level while the cohort is free to level up with its own class levels.

Third: Being loyal as opposed to hired, the cohort benefits the PC with the feat first and foremost. Any benefit to the rest of the party is secondary.

Fourth: An animal companion, a cohort, a mount or any other creature LOYAL to a specific PC leave the party at its first chance if that PC dies (at negative Con score). Whether it's the middle of a battle, dungeon, etc. The PC is its only link to the party.

. Not disagreeing with you..just elaborating on my position.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

slade867 wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

And that's fine...but if I am the party cleric what's to stop me from saying that I refuse to heal unless you pay extra? After all it's a service I can provide much like your hired help that you would otherwise have to get elsewhere? At the end of the day it's really simple a cohort is your choice, unless agreed upon by the entire party. If you don't use him to help...I reserve the right to not use all of my resources to help you.

If you're the party cleric healing me is free and you're already being paid for that service. Cohorts aren't free if you want them around for very long.

This is like if I take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and you want me to magic you a sword, but you don't want to pay the half price that it costs me to craft my own sword.

The Leader would still do what they always did in combat. The Cohort is seperate. If I took that feat and you didn't want to chip in, I'd tell you to just ignore the Cohort in battle. Pretend he's not there.

Firstly that's a flat lie...there is zero in game cost for a cohort other than the arbitrary one your making up. Secondly your entitled to do whatever you like with him...that's correct, but again don't expect my help...ever. I will feel equally free to ignore you and your cohort.

I guess you have never had a GM that has made you paid for rooms at an inn, or food, or travel expenses then, or any other living expenses.

sure have...but I didn't ask you to bring along another mouth to feed.

That means that there IS an in game cost that isn't being made up.

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?

Thinking again, I can't believe that a cohort, which is another full character (and all that that implies) was compared to a shield. The item.

Guys, I think I'm done for the night. That made my head hurt.

Fair enough...it was a bit strawman, but not nearly as much so as you would like to believe.

Seriously guys go in to work and tell your boss that your going to hire someone to take on part of your work and ask him how much he wants to pay this guy he didn't ask for to perform that service, when he is already paying you....see what he says.