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

Lord Twig's page

673 posts. Alias of Eric Bailey.


RSS

1 to 50 of 673 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

redward wrote:

For another example, look to the Swim skill:

Quote:
You can't take 10 on a Swim check in stormy water, even if you aren't otherwise being threatened or distracted.
Skill Mastery won't allow you to take 10 while swimming in stormy water because danger/distraction isn't the limiting factor.

It says "even if you aren't otherwise being threatened or distracted." So the storm is being threatening and distracting, even if other things aren't. Your argument is even weaker here.

What it comes down to is that you are trying to use very specific reading in order to limit an ability of the weakest class in the game. Why would you want to do that? Wouldn't it be cool if Rogues could use a magic item more reliably than any other class in the game? Wouldn't it be cool if Rogues could calmly swim through a tempest while others struggle? (Other than classes that steal their talents and can do the same, of course.)

But hey, it's not realistic that a 10th level Rogue can be that good at skills. Leave the fantastic stuff for the guys that can fly and conjure horrors from thin air. Rogues should know their place.


redward wrote:

Relevant texts from the PRD:

Skill Mastery wrote:

The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions.

Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue may gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for skill mastery to apply to each time.

Taking 10 wrote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Use Magic Device wrote:
Special: You cannot take 10 with this skill. You can't aid another on Use Magic Device checks. Only the user of the item may attempt such a check.
You can't take 10 with UMD regardless of 'danger or distraction'. Skill Mastery only negates theYou can't take 10 with UMD regardless of 'danger or distraction'. Skill Mastery only negates the 'danger and disctraction' clause. So Skill Mastery doesn't apply to UMD.

You just changed the text. You changed "even" to "regardless". Those two words mean different things.


It is a move action.

Link

Edit: Remember, you are not just holding a shield. It is strapped to your arm.


I don't think the idea is to kill the party. I think the idea is to use believable tactics. If those tactics would kill the party then it is time to think about the difficulty of the encounter and maybe make some adjustments. One of those adjustments could to be to play the opponents dumber, but that probably isn't the best one.

And it has been asked many times, although maybe a little too indirectly. How would you run the soldiers at a fortified choke point?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liam Warner wrote:

As for the rest of your post my responses are numbered according to your points.

3) You can kill them relatively painlessly, they don't even need to be awake and there are steps you can take to ensure they can't be raised after the fact. Even if you have them unconcious when they change them they will know on waking that they've been violated and changed.

You are looking at this a certain way and adding your own bias into the description. I would say: "If you have them unconscious when they change them they will know on waking that they've been changed and be happy about it." Same situation, two different interpretations. My way is painless and yours they are tormented by what they did, but are happy they aren't that way anymore?

Liam Warner wrote:
4) There is a fundamental difference between killing someone (the soul remains intact, their mind remains intact, you can contact them and find out how things are going) and destroying them. Whether or not their objectively evil you have erased a living, thinking being from existence. As I said death is not the end of a being even in pathfinder but this is you have destroyed their very soul on a fundamental level that can't be undone.

You are not destroying their soul. It is still there, just changed. And it can be undone with a miracle, wish, or (I presume) another helm. But of course if you did reverse the change, did you just destroy the very soul of the good being that was created?

I think we will have to disagree on this. I say changed, you say destroyed and replaced.

Liam Warner wrote:
5) Reasons why include casting uncertainty on their afterlife, invalidating the concepts of free will and redemption, creating a "good" person who is now tormented for the rest of their existence for crimes they would never have done, the fact that to "create" this good person you had to sacrifice an evil person. Yes they were evil but you desstroyed everything they were on a fundamental level to create your good person.

Again, no one is destroyed and no one is created. No one is sacrificed. They gave up their right to free will by being Evil when they had it. They could have tried for redemption at any time, but didn't. So it is time to force the issue. Kill them, helm them, whatever. They deserve to die and probably need to die to protect others.

In addition, if I had to destroy their "very soul" so they couldn't be resurrected I would do that as well. Again, in my opinion oblivion isn't the worse thing out there and probably better than they deserve.

Liam Warner wrote:
6) Except their not, the person that existed doesn't exist any more its not just evil - good its law to chaos or chaos to law. Your changing everything about them on a very basic level.

Not everything, they are still the same person but with an adjusted moral compass. Just going to have to disagree on this one as well.

Liam Warner wrote:
7) I was merely pointing out that it throws uncertainty on their final judgement. Is the good person judged according to the deeds the evil one did? Have you stolen a soul from hell? How much work must someone do to redeem themselves from something they would have done? If they were an immensely poewrful being who's abilities steemed from an unholy source can they do enough good now they no longer have those abilities? Seriously there are huge problems here from a theological perspective and that assumes you don't get an army of demons showing up to point out where your going wrong.

Uncertainty is fine. Give the judger of souls a challenge. Personally I would send him on to the "good place" but require that he continue to work for his redemption. He should be happy to do it, the helm says he will be. ;)

As for demons showing up to complain. I have no interest in what a bunch of demons think, just as a truly Evil person wouldn't care if a bunch of angels expressed displeasure about him helming a saint.

Liam Warner wrote:
8) That is exactly what I'm saying. Executing someone is judging them in a mortal realm and a mortal manner. Putting the helm on someone fundamentally changes the being in question and does force the gods to change their judgmeent on your terms. The being that would have been sent to hell is now no longer evil because of what you did.

And this is a good thing.

Liam Warner wrote:
9) Yes its my opinion but redemption needs to be a choice, it needs to be worked for and earned in this case once they fail that save they are now instantly good, presumably will be judged as same and have such a different personality that they view going back to what they were (good or evil) with horror even if they were perfectly happy that way before and if restored with wish/miracle would be perfectly happy again. The difference again is when dead they still exist as themeselves here they don't. Yes I regret things I have done but that is the point I regret them as a result of growing and changing and its not forced on me. Also several of those things I regret if you put me in that circumstance again I'd do the exact same thing because it was necessary. If you put the helm on me I might decide it wasn't necessary and I CAN'T change back to the person who would. That is the difference here people grow and change after the helm goes on they take steps to prevent that change from happening. Where do you get the idea that redemption requires you loath what you were redeemed from? In Bhuddist teachings the whole point of redemption is to free yourself from earthly concerns like loathing something. No I understand the concept I just feel that if you come to it through magically enforced means there is no meaning to that born again. It was not your choice it was someone elses and that is why I say its cheapened and meaningless.

I agree it has to be worked for. I would just add that the helm give the evil guy that opportunity. An opportunity that he would never have pursued if I hadn't helmed him.

Liam Warner wrote:
10) You're right there I missed the bit about them being happy with their new alignment although it seems odd that someone could have decades of memories of doing things they find repulsive and not be bothered by it. Although I will point out this really reinforces the whole problem with the helm from a religious perspective. Either you've just wiped a whole slew of someones life off the board when judging them (something that wouldn't be the case if you convinced them to change of their own free will) but if its the second case you could have a thoroughly evil, unrepentant villain who because of the decades of good deeds that now sicken them they did under the helms influence being able to go to heaven because when the magic ended on their death they were overall judged to have been a good person. Mercy in my opinion is imprisoning them and trying to convince them of the error of their ways with words and actions not with magic.

No where does it say the magic ends at death. After the helm takes effect there is no magic at all. It is an instant change that has a permanent effect, just like a fireball. You don't suddenly "unburn" when you die, neither do you become "ungood" when you die after being effected by the helm.

Liam Warner wrote:
11) I'm sure a lot of paladins do fall its not an easy lifetime and solars aren't human so judging them by human standards is a misnomer. My point here is not that power corrupts but that its very easy to just take one step at a time until your well past any lines you would have set. If its okay to use a helm to turn an objectively evil person good how about enslaving a non-humanoid with charm spells because your preventing the evil they would have done and they aren't human? How about in 15 generations when your descendants who grow up with the idea that its okay to do this decide its okay to make that person they like love them because its for their own good and once changed they will enjoy it?

I will just say that the Slippery Slope is listed as a logical fallacy for a reason.

Liam Warner wrote:
12) I'm pretty sure they are yes but this brings us full circle to the whole if evil are doing it is it REALLY good to use the same tactics and then declare them good because the goal is different?

The tactic itself is not inherently good or evil. If a demon uses a flanking maneuver it isn't evil. I can use flanking maneuvers as well and it doesn't make it good. But I am doing good when I do a flanking maneuver and the demon is doing evil when he does his. Big difference.

Liam Warner wrote:
13) I was actually specfiically referring to the process their and not the result. Yes once changed they do enjoy their new outlook (which again I had missed) but each time they make a save their aware of what was happening and didn't want it. We're not taking about immortality and the like your still you and while I don't know about you I find the idea of altering someone like this utterly repulsive and would rather die than be subjected to it. Note this is just the helm of alignment all but a few (e.g a young child having memories of being tortured and raped suppressed with their consent would be an example and even there it would be a last resort) memory and personality alteration through outside means come under the same terms.

And I would rather die than be turned Evil as well. And the Evil person would rather die than be turned good. The difference is I'm a good person and he is an Evil person. Once the again, the Evil person lost his right to existence by being an Evil person.

Liam Warner wrote:
14) Its not a houserule and again its only with regards to repeated attempts to change them. Can you honestly say if you felt your very nature being changed and altered on that fundamenetal level not once but over and over again because you were succesfully fighting it you wouldn't be horrified and perhaps driven mad?

You could definitely say that, but not according to the rules.

Liam Warner wrote:
15) That I think is the fundamental difference between us you're assuming they want to be changed I'm not. If they wanted to be changed they wouldn't be saving against it, if they asked for it then things would be different but this is having it applied to them against their will and I do not accept the objective net gain argument as a valid reason to claim something that is evil when done the other way around is now good. Again if the being wants it done that's one thing but I'm arguing about the application by force to a being that fights every step of the way. Of course if they did want to attone you don't need the helmet at all because they've already made that first step to change their alignment by thesemlves. Which is again where my main objection to this lies if you change them with outside magic its not their redemption, its yours and that is not the same thing at all.

No, we are not assuming they want to be changed. But it doesn't matter what an Evil person wants. An Evil person wants to sacrifice my familiar to dark gods for unholy power. Just because he wants it doesn't mean he gets to have it. What he wants is Evil.

What I want is to turn him Good, which is by it's very definition, Good.

Liam Warner wrote:

16) Are you really the same?

Like/hate the color green (Yes), certain foods (Maybe what if you enjoyed eating living beings?), music? (Perhaps how much does hte law/chaos scale affect you maybe you now enjoy the less structured modern music over classical music?) Same.
Charismatic with a certain skill set (if you were a fighter or the like but what if your skills came from deals with demons, what if you were a lawful evil monk and are now chatoic good impacting your monk abilities?)? Same.
Skilled and interested in magic (probably)? Same.
Everything that isn't alignment (remember law/chaos is part of what's changed not just good/evil)? Same.

Not much to disagree with here, but I would say losing abilities doesn't change who you are. Just because you are no longer a Monk doesn't mean your a different person.

Liam Warner wrote:

@Lord Twig

Fundamental difference of opinion I think I'd rather the evil person get judged for their deeds and if their afraid of an eternity of torture they can live their life trying to do good out of fear.

Obviously they were not afraid enough to be good, otherwise they wouldn't be Evil. And if you are just being good because you want to go to the happy place and not be tortured for eternity, isn't that just selfishness? But once again we are going to have to just disagree on this.


@Liam Warner

I wish I had more time to read and post, but Tacticslion covered just about everything I would have said, and probably better than I would have said it.

The only think I would add is that many people still see to find the absolute destruction of a person as worse than an eternity of suffering (or some other long period of torture). Really? I would think it a mercy. Not to say that I am happy about the prospect of oblivion, but it sure beats having my skin burnt off, replaced, and burnt off again for a couple trillion years. or longer.

So even if a helm does completely destroy or erase a person, which I don't believe it does, it is better than the alternative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
pres man wrote:
In whatever sense you meant when you said, "In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act."

The person that is forcing the helmet on another is performing a chaotic and evil act. They're choosing to inflict pain on the person, choosing to try to destroy the person's very self.

As far as capital punishment, I would say the vast majority of executioners are evil. They kill defenseless people simply because they are told to. The fact that the person they're killing is evil doesn't enter the fold.

As far as a judge is concerned, passing judgment on a criminal is more of a neutral act.

Its worth repeating that all of this is predicated on intent. If a character is unaware of what they're doing, then the action doesn't affect their alignment.

The helm inflicting pain and "destroying the person's self" are house rules. No where in the description of the item does it say that it causes either of those things. Making those changes could certainly change the morality of using the helm.

And it does sound like you are using an objective system. Not a quantifiable one, where there is this much Good and this much Evil, but certain actions are objectively Evil regardless of what the person doing those actions might think.

An executioner that is an upstanding citizen, a good father and generous to those in need is an Evil person because he slaughters helpless people all day at work. Sure those people are murders, rapists and crime lords, but what does that matter? It is Evil to kill a helpless person, no matter what.

Side Rant:
Speaking of killing defenseless murderers. How is it that Lex Luthor has not be executed for his crimes? Even if Superman is too boyscout to do it, surely a judge and a jury would have no problem. They do it all the time in real life!

And when Lex finally gets "kryptonite poisoning", why does Superman (or anyone for that matter) feel sorry for him? He is a mass-murdering, megalomaniac that has been using that kryptonite in an effort to kill Superman dead for years. The fact that it is finally killing him is well deserved.

End Side Rant

If that's how you want to run your world, cool. It could even be interesting, but I personally don't agree with your definition of Evil. Give me a helm to put on murders and I will make the world a better place.


Tacticslion wrote:
I think he means he doesn't play with an Objective System, but still Objective Alignment. Many people confuse the two. It's easy to do.

Okay. I'm confused. What's the difference?


Tormsskull wrote:
This thread has been quite interesting. In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act. I don't play with objective good and evil though.

If you don't play with objective good and evil, how is using the helm always evil? Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances? If someone believes they are doing a good thing by saving a life and helping an evil person become good by using the helm, who are we to judge? They see themselves as a good person doing the best they can to make the world a better place.

Plus, if the person the helm was placed on already sees themselves as good, would it even do anything? I mean, sure, he killed a lot of people, but they were evil people anyway (in his opinion) and it was in order to save even more people who are good (again in his opinion)! In his own mind he is already a good person, so what would change?


Like many other people I have been thinking about fixes for the monk. One that occurred to me recently was not just giving monks proficiency with short bows and composite short bows, but making them monk weapons that they can use with Flurry of Blows.

The Zen Archer would still be far better with bows, but this would make the short bow a viable secondary ranged weapon without overshadowing other classes.

So am I missing anything? Is there any broken combination that this would allow?


I also see nothing wrong with a 7 in a stat really. I had a human witch with a 7 in Str, but that was because she was tiny. She was 4'11" and 90lbs (based on my wife). I would say even if I didn't get points for it I would have dropped her Str. As it was the points went into Wis and Cha anyway.

I also had a player that really wanted a big dumb barbarian. He made a Half Orc and dropped his Int to 5. I let him take a racial penalty to Int for a bonus to Con in addition to the +2 he put on Str. This actually made him super optimal, but he was so happy with that character and had a blast making some things difficult for the other characters by being so stupid. The other players were on board, so it was all good.

So a low stat can be good. I just don't want to feel like I am being forced into it. I finally made a house rule that allows a player to add 7 points to a dumped stat. So far everyone has taken it, all of them in Cha. I think that is mostly because they liked the idea of riding into town and looking like heroes instead of the murder-hobos they actually are. ;)


I will agree that an Olympic level athlete probably sacrificed in other areas to become great. But is it a 7 in Int sacrifice? Can't some one be at least above average Int and still win a gold? Or do they have to be stupid to do it?

This gets back to an argument that I know has been mentioned in this thread before. A big dumb fighter shouldn't be encouraged to the near exclusion of everything else. But that seems to be what happens.

Either that or people just decide that stats don't matter for role-playing at all and play a 7 Int "genius", but I personally don't like that solution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
He gets absolutely nothing for wanting to role-play a strong wizard other than being able to carry more junk. And for this he has 9 less build points? Yea role-playing!
Why should get anything extra for it? Does every role playing decision need to result in some mechanical advantage or disadvantage?

Apparently it does. If you choose weak wizard you get an advantage, if you choose strong wizard you get a disadvantage.

Sarcasmancer wrote:
Strong wizards are sub-optimal (except for very specific melee wizard builds, blah blah blah you know there's an exception to every generalization) so if you're worried about being a strong wizard, you're not going to be optimal, if you're worried about being optimal, you won't be a strong wizard. You're "penalized" for it in the same sense that in real life you're penalized as an Olympic athlete if you choose to spend your time on the couch eating chips and playing Call of Duty instead of training and working out.

This is like saying if you want to be blonde you have to be dumb. It makes no sense. There is no real life equivalency here. What if my Olympic athlete studies physics and literature in his spare time? Apparently being smart would hinder my gymnastics routine. Huh?


Skipped to the end because I don't read fast enough to catch up.

My problem with a 7 Int fighter or 7 Str wizard is this...

Yes, a big dumb fighter is a trope, and can make a great character. Same with a physically wimpy wizard. But a smart fighter is also a trope and a moderately strong wizard would be a nice change. The problem is in the points.

A -7 is only a -2 penalty. That's only 10%, right? So a smart fighter with a +2 bonus, is also just 10% off the average. And it helps him very little. A human fighter with 7 Int will have 3 skill points. A human fighter with 14 Int will have 5 skill points (he put his favored class bonus in HP because he needs to). But that is effectively 9 attribute points the fighter can not use to be a good fighter because he wanted to role-play a smart fighter (and have the stat to back him up).

It is even worse for a strong wizard. He gets absolutely nothing for wanting to role-play a strong wizard other than being able to carry more junk. And for this he has 9 less build points? Yea role-playing!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
The black raven wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
I don't think a schoolmaster will be evil if his only crime is promoting words/text.
Many of the very worst human beings in recent times have likely not committed a single "evil act". They worked their evil through writing and talking and convincing other people to support and commit the atrocities they envisioned and promoted.

Can you give examples?

Even Hitler did more than words. He did do evil acts.
Yes, he did. He was personally involved in the Beer Hall Putsch, which, despite being the stupidest possible move he could have made at the time and which resulted in his arrest, did involve kidnapping at gunpoint, followed by shooting at people.

I think it would be a pretty easy argument to make that ordering your minions to go out and murder people is just as evil as doing it yourself. In fact even just suggesting "this problem needs to be taken care of" is still evil if you know that it will result in the murder of innocents.

This isn't a court of law. There is an objective standard of Good and Evil. If you perform an action, even as slight as an innuendo, that you know will result in Evil, it is an Evil act.

This gets back to the idea that Detect Evil on a Neutral cleric of an Evil god is a false positive. No, it isn't. You cast Detect Evil and there was Evil there to detect. The cleric has an aura of Evil. I don't care if the cleric himself is Neutral, he is an agent of Evil. Now I'm not saying that a paladin can just smite him (although if he did it would work, imho), but it would be wise to keep an eye on him just like any other person who detected as Evil.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First I want to say I love the philosophical back and forth of these types of threads and I have read the whole thing (which took me several days, 'cause I'm slow).

I find myself agreeing almost completely with Tacticslion. I think he has the right of things on this one. Forcing an undeniably Evil (capital E) person to undergo the 'Helm Treatment' is a Good act. Just as killing him outright would be, but the 'Helm Treatment' would actually be better.

As for the fate of the petitioners in the afterlife, I have a little different perspective that makes me okay with their fate. Sure, everyone (or almost everyone in Pathfinder) dies and becomes a petitioner. Their essence is sent to their "final reward" and is eventually recycled into an outsider or their energy is used for some other purpose, completely eliminating that unique person. So in effect, oblivion.

Many people have expressed how much this sucks, and yes, it does suck. But as an Atheist I find it rather comforting. Sure, I will be completely gone, but I have already made peace with that. Knowing that some great Good-aligned outsider might rise from my soul's energy to continue doing good and helping people would make me happy (and by extension would also make my Good-aligned characters happy). It is better than the plant food fate that awaits me in the real world. :)

As for the temporary nature of the Helm of Opposite Alignment (the suggestion that it ends at death). I don't think it is temporary at all. It is a Transformation effect and I would say that the duration is not Permanent (which can be dispelled) but Instant (which cannot). The fact that it takes a spell like Wish or Miracle, and not Dispel Magic or Remove Curse, to reverse the effect suggests that the change is absolute and (for lack of a better word) permanent. Even after death.


I second (third?) the idea of picking up a level of Wizard next level and aiming towards Arcane Trickster. Or even if you don't a level of Wizard is still handy. At the very least it will help your Will save. :)


Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

About the brawler capstone ability...

While I'm surprised that people aren't liking awesome blow as the brawler capstone (as normally you can only select this if you're Large, and have a very high Str and two specific feats), we're looking at replacing it with something else. Any suggestions for this? Compare to the fighter and monk capstones for the level of power we're talking about.

My suggestion is a pumped up Awesome Blow. Essentially it is just Awesome Blow, but the brawler is considered one size category larger and is automatically under the effect of a True Strike spell.

Truly Awesome Blow

As a standard action, the brawler may perform an awesome blow combat maneuver. The brawler is considered one size category larger for the purpose of this maneuver and gains a +20 insight bonus to her roll. If the combat maneuver succeeds, the opponent takes damage as if the brawler had hit it with a wielded weapon or unarmed strike, is knocked flying 10 feet, plus and additional 5 feet for every 5 that the roll exceeds the opponents CMD, in a direction of the brawler’s choice, and falls prone. The brawler can only push the opponent in a straight line, and the opponent can’t move closer to the brawler than the square it started in. If an obstacle prevents the completion of the opponent’s move, the opponent and the obstacle each take 1d6 points of damage for every 10' the opponent was knocked back, and the opponent is knocked prone in the space adjacent to the obstacle.

So with a 20 BAB, +10 Str, +5 enhancement and an Enlarge Person the brawler could knock back a huge size creature with a CMB of +57. The brawler would be limited to only one attack a round like this, but it would almost definitely hit.

I was thinking of something to add to this discussion, but I'm really liking this idea.

I'd change it to Two Sizes larger, so they could awesome blow huge creatures.

Another option:

Immense Stature
At 20th level, the brawler gains many benefits of being two sizes larger. They gain a +8 size bonus to CMB & CMD, +10' reach, the ability to qualify for feats with size requirements larger than medium, 8 x carrying capacity, and the ability to wield weapons of up to 2 size categories larger as though they were that size.

This would roughly do what Truly Awesome Blow does above, but is more versatile and doesn't add such a huge bonus.

You are thinking of 3.5. In Pathfinder being huge only gives you a +2 bonus. I was just giving large as a +1 and then counted on the fact that you can cast Enlarge Person and get an increase to huge that way. You can find the size rules here.

If people really think that a +20 insight bonus (the same as you get from a 1st level spell) is too much, you can always limit the number of times of day it can be used. Honestly I don't think that would hurt too much because if you really want to do damage you would do a full attack. So you would only need this ability for an attack after a move or when you really want to push an enemy around. Most likely you are going to move in with an Awesome Blow, then start trading full attacks.

Edit: If you incorporate what Tels suggested you can just impose a -5 penalty for every size category larger a creature is and that would cut down on the bonus quite a bit while giving you a chance of pushing back even a colossal creature.


The idea of a full attack followed by an Awesome Blow has some cool flavor, but I think it would have less utility and be more of just a thing you did on every full attack.

Consider, with either the standard Awesome Blow or my enhanced Truly Awesome Blow you can close, hit and send the opponent backwards (okay, you will probably fail to send the opponent backwards with the standard Awesome Blow, but whatever). Your opponent then has to close with you in order to hit back. This prevents him from getting a full attack, or if he has to stand it prevents him from getting any attack at all unless he has a significant reach. If he is already next to you, you can choose between doing a lot of damage with a full attack or get him away from you with an Awesome Blow. This gives you a choice, and choice is good!

If you combine the full attack and the Awesome Blow then you have to close with a regular attack, let the opponent full attack you, then you can full attack back and send him flying. Or you can wait until the opponent closes, then full attack and send him flying. At this point the opponent will not close anymore. There is no point! He will go after the wizard or something instead to make you come to him.

You also remove all the awesome saves you can do with the Truly Awesome Blow. If you run to your opponent then have to wait till the following round to get your Awesome Blow in you are too late.


Scavion wrote:
See now that is pretty bad ass. Double the damage on your attack and call it a day.

Thanks! I like this because it is not really about the damage though. It is more cinematic.

Need to keep the BBEG away from the McGuffin? "Don't touch that!" Wham!

Bad guy about to coup de grace your friend? "Get away from him!" Wham!

Minion interfering with your primary caster? "Leave her alone!" Wham!

There aren't any "threat" mechanics in Pathfinder, but I can't think of anything more rage inducing that repeatedly knocking the bad guy down or into a wall.

Just tons of fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

About the brawler capstone ability...

While I'm surprised that people aren't liking awesome blow as the brawler capstone (as normally you can only select this if you're Large, and have a very high Str and two specific feats), we're looking at replacing it with something else. Any suggestions for this? Compare to the fighter and monk capstones for the level of power we're talking about.

My suggestion is a pumped up Awesome Blow. Essentially it is just Awesome Blow, but the brawler is considered one size category larger and is automatically under the effect of a True Strike spell.

Truly Awesome Blow

As a standard action, the brawler may perform an awesome blow combat maneuver. The brawler is considered one size category larger for the purpose of this maneuver and gains a +20 insight bonus to her roll. If the combat maneuver succeeds, the opponent takes damage as if the brawler had hit it with a wielded weapon or unarmed strike, is knocked flying 10 feet, plus and additional 5 feet for every 5 that the roll exceeds the opponents CMD, in a direction of the brawler’s choice, and falls prone. The brawler can only push the opponent in a straight line, and the opponent can’t move closer to the brawler than the square it started in. If an obstacle prevents the completion of the opponent’s move, the opponent and the obstacle each take 1d6 points of damage for every 10' the opponent was knocked back, and the opponent is knocked prone in the space adjacent to the obstacle.

So with a 20 BAB, +10 Str, +5 enhancement and an Enlarge Person the brawler could knock back a huge size creature with a CMB of +57. The brawler would be limited to only one attack a round like this, but it would almost definitely hit.


Papa-DRB wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:


-=OFFENSE=-
Melee unarmed attack +20/+15 (1d10+9 20/x2) Type: Bludgeon; Size: Medium; Wgt: - lbs
Melee brawler's flurry +18/+18/+13/+13 (1d10+9 20/x2) Type: Bludgeon; Size: Medium; Wgt: - lbs
+20 to grapple, +18 to disarm, +16 on other maneuvers

Dumb question time, but how do you get four attacks on brawler's fury? (sorry if I am being dense).

-- david

Brawler gets Improved Two Weapon Fighting at 8th. So +10/+5 from BAB becomes +8/+8/+3/+3.


LoreKeeper wrote:

-=DEFENSE=-

AC 26, touch 20, flat 21 (armor +6, deflection +2, dex +2, dodge +3, insight +1, natural +2)
HP 104 (10d10 + 40)
Fort 12; Ref 13; Will 8

It looks like you shorted yourself 1 AC from your Dex. You have a 16 Dex, not 14.


Awesome Blow and the vagueness of the Martial Maneuvers ability has already been addressed. So moving on...

Overall I like the mix of Fighter and Monk. It seems to sacrifice some of the defense and special abilities of the Monk for more combat power from the Fighter. It removes the "all over the place" problem of the Monk for more focus. That's generally a good thing.

I don't understand the MAD arguments. It is absolutely not MAD. You need a good Str and a decent Dex and Con. That's it. If you want Combat Expertise and a 13 Int that's great, but you don't need it any more than a Fighter does. There are a lot of maneuvers that don't require Combat Expertise. With a good Fort save and 1d10 hit die Con is less important for the Brawler than for the Monk or Rogue.

I also don't understand why people would want heavier armor. You can put the Brawling property on light armor. That gives an untyped +2 to hit and damage with the Brawler's primary attack. That is too good to give up. Also look at the total AC armor provides. A mithril chain shirt allows a total of +10 (4 armor, 6 dex), mithril allows +12 (9 armor, 3 dex). By 9th level the brawler will equal the +12, by 13th he will exceed it. You will need a 22 Dex, but a high Dex is it's own reward.

One change I would make would be to switch the Brawler's Strike Adamantine and Alignment. Adamantine should come first, then they can get Alignment at 17th. This is similar to how it only takes a +4 to overcome Adamantine and a +5 to overcome alignment with weapon enchants. The reason it is different for the Monk is because they are aligned with Law. The Brawler isn't aligned with any alignment.

Someone mentioned wanting to make a Captain America type character. That sounds like the perfect idea for an archetype. Also perhaps a Bruiser that sacrifices Brawler's flurry for a two-handed unarmed strike where they can add 1-1/2 times their Str to their unarmed attacks.


To clarify. I am not saying you have to use a dagger, or that you can't be a thug with a beater weapon. I just wish it could be possible to get a character like Merisiel to actually be viable.


Am I the only one that is depressed by all the two-handed bludgeoning, strength builds? Great clubs and lucerne hammers just don't sound like Rogue weapons to me. Sure you can get them to work, but it feels like you are selling your soul in exchange for combat effectiveness.

My apologies to those that actually like big bruiser Rogues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For a strait Rogue (Scout Archetype) with no house rules this is what I came up with.

Skilled Scout:

Nightflower
Female Elf Rogue (Scout) 10
CG Medium Humanoid

Init: +6
Senses: Perception +20; Low-Light Vision

DEFENSE
AC: 23 (10, +6 armor, +6 Dex, +1 deflection) (+3 vs. traps)
Touch: 18
Flat-footed: 18
HP: 63 (10d8+10)
Fort: +8 (3 base, +0 Con, +2 feat, +3 resistance)
Ref: +16 (7 base, +6 Dex, +3 resistance) (+3 vs. traps)
Will: +7 (3 base, +1 Wis, +3 resistance) (+2 vs. enchantment)
Defensive Abilities: Evasion, Immune sleep

OFFENSE
Speed: 30 ft.
Melee:
Dagger +7/+2 (1d4/19-20x2)
Ranged:
+3 Longbow +17/+12 (1d8+3/x3)
+3 Longbow w/ PBS and Sneak Attack +18 (1d8+4/x3 +5d6+5 bleed)
Special Attacks: Scout’s Charge, Skirmisher, Sneak Attack +5d6

STATISTICS
Str: 10 +0 (10 base)
Dex: 22 +6 (15 base, +2 racial, +1 level, +4 enhancement)
Con: 10 +0 (12 base, -2 racial)
Int: 18 +4 (15 base, +2 racial, +1 level)
Wis: 12 +1 (12 base)
Cha: 12 +1 (12 base)

BAB: +7/+2; CMB: +7; CMD: 24
Feats: Alertness, Great Fortitude, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Skill Focus: Acrobatics, Weapon Focus: Longbow
Skills: Acrobatics +25(10r), Bluff +14(10r), Climb +13(10r), Disable Device +19(10r), Disguise +14(10r), Knowledge (dungeoneering) +17(10r), Knowledge (local) +17(10r), Perception +20(10r), Sense Motive +18(10r), Sleight of Hand +19(10r), Stealth +24(10r), Use Magic Device +14(10r)
Languages: Common, Elven +4
Special Qualities: +2 to Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con, Elven Immunities (+2 vs. enchantment, immune to sleep), Keen Senses (+2 perception), Low-Light Vision, Silent Hunter (reduce stealth penalty when moving by 5), Weapon Familiarity (proficient with longbows, longswords, rapiers, and shortbows, and treat any weapon with the word “elven” in its name as a martial weapon)
Class Abilities: Evasion, Rogue Talent (Bleeding Attack, Fast Tumble, Sniper’s Eye, Trap Spotter, Weapon Training), Scout’s Charge, Skirmisher, Sneak Attack +5d6, Trapfinding, Trap Sense +3

Equipment:
+2 Shadow Mithril Chain Shirt (8,850gp)
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4 (16,000)
Cloak of Resistance +3 (9,000gp)
Ring of Protection +1 (2,000gp)
3 Daggers (6 gp)
+3 Longbow (18,400gp)
40 Arrows (2gp)
20 Adamant Arrows (1,201gp)
Explorer's Outfit (0gp)
Handy Haversack (2,000gp)
Efficient Quiver (1,800gp)
Bedroll (0.1gp)
Waterskin (1gp)
Wand of Cure Light Wounds, 50ch (750gp)
Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds (300gp)
5 Alchemist Fire (100gp)
5 Acid Flask (50gp)
5 Smokestick (100gp)
5 Tanglefoot Bag (250gp)
60,810.1

Money: 1,189.9gp

62,000gp

Being an Elf hurts her Con and thus Fort save, but helps Dex, Int, Perception (with low-light vision), Will vs. Enchantments and gets proficiency with longbow.

She has 12 skills, all maxed, some enhanced by race, feats, talents or magic.

In combat this character will need to get within 30' and stay there in order to get her Sneak Attack. When she can get Sniper's Goggles she can stay farther away. The general strategy is to Snap Shot in the surprise round then move and fire every round with Sneak Attack damage. She makes no attempt at full attacking.

She will never be a huge damage dealer, but will annoy enemies with bleed damage and can ignore most DR with the right arrows. Use Magic Device and alchemical items give her some options. She should probably get some scroll for more flexibility.


Voadam wrote:

"No. You are a fiend, demon, and anything you grant will do more evil than good."

"That is a possibility you should consider paladin. If that is the case then morally you should not bargain with me or you will cause more evil than good in the world from your actions. A reasonable fear that could stop you from accepting my offer to do great good and stop great evil. I could tell you it is not so but you have no reason to believe a fiend.

"But if it is not so, if the evil consequences are less than the good you can do, then turning down my offer allows more evil to go unchecked in the world, more good to be left undone. Then rejecting the offer is rejecting the opportunity to do good and rejecting the opportunity to bind me to do good. If that is the case then morally you should bargain with me. Do good, or set my evil power against other evils in the world and accomplish much to make the world a better place if your goal as a paladin is to do good.

"But there remains the possibility that in attempting to do great good you will do more evil. No option here offers you certainty that you are ultimately doing the right thing. Such is life.

"So do you do nothing and safeguard your own purity but allow so much evil in the world to thrive as you turn down the chance to do something significant about it? Or do you risk the consequences of trying to do great good?"

"My only wish would be your absolute and total destruction such that even the memory of you would fade from every being and record. But even then I fear the price would be too high."

"You would have me throw away the certainty of my purity for the chance of good, but my purity if not for my own sake. It is dedicated to my Goddess and the cause of Good. It is to balance and oppose the Evil of others. It is not mine to give."

"I have much Good left to do. I will not gamble that Good away on a rigged game."


Aelryinth wrote:

The Evil party simply has to have different goals that are not in conflict with one another.

One wants to be the ultimate necromancer. The next High Priest of the God of death on this world. The third a tyrant king. The last the ultimate assassin and master of secrets. These are not necessarily conflicting goals, especially if the centers of power are far enough apart. If they all want the same artifact, well, then you're just asking for trouble, and they'll each go at it separately instead of together.

They would indeed need to be far apart. But even then, say all have attained their goals. Are they happy with what they have now? Do they say, "this is enough, I have everything I want" and leave it at that? Or does the necromancer think, "You know, I could totally scry and die King Tyrant over their and get a whole kingdom full of material for more undead." Or the High Priest of Death realizes that there is entirely too much not dying in the kingdom or that the necromancer is flaunting Death with his undeadness.

Not saying this absolutely will happen. Some Big Bad Evil Guys are happy sitting in their happy Evil place. But there is always the danger that some other BBEG will decide that he is not happy and what would really make him happy is taking what some other BBEG has.

Aelryinth wrote:
No, they won't sacrifice themselves for others. They can happily order their minions to do so, however, and the minions will do so, because not obeying the order is likely to be far more painful then dying in combat.

I would say that minions will fight until they figure out some way of not dying. Falling after the first hit and playing dead could be viable. Especially if they think they can get mercy from the "stupid" Good guys.

Aelryinth wrote:
You keep splives around for a reason. If the evil masterminds don't have their own escape plans, why, they deserve to get shafted. Better for the mage to toss up the wall of stone to block the choke point instead of expecting the unholy champion to do the same...or summon something big with a lot of hit points that can do the same. The anti-paladin's fiendish companion, maybe.

Good guys can do all this too (except the fiendish companion thing). But if all that fails they have the paladin they can fall back on.

Aelryinth wrote:
And hanging together against Team Stupid Good is just pragmatic. You can watch each other's backs and stay out of one another's way, because Team Good is coming and you aren't going to survive separately. You don't have to like it, and there's nothing that says you can't try and use it to your advantage...but having a high level guy around who is just as interested in stomping on any idiotic do-gooders who are trying to upset your apple cart tends to be more useful then having more terrified minions who get thrown into that shiny fricassee machine to no effect.

I agree with most of this, although there is no reason to get insulting. Good is not stupid any more than Evil is. It is possible to have some Stupid Good groups, just as it is possible to have some Stupid Evil groups. There is also Team Good Jerks and Team Evil Jerks. But being Good does not automatically make you an idiot.

Aelryinth wrote:

It's noteworthy that the ONLY viable argument against Team Evil is Chronic Backstabbing Order. As soon as you get that under control, Team Evil is literally a murder machine. With no limits on actions you can take, Team Evil is able to take nasty all the way to the top.

There's a reason Paladins are so freaking tough, and its because of all the stuff Team Evil can pull without losing any sleep. Just consider all the ways you could really, really work over anyone, everyone they love, anyone they know, anyone they associate with, and you realize that putting yourself up against Team Evil is a terrifying prospect.

Immunity to fear: Job requirement.

And I would argue that the Team Evil murder machine can easily be matched by a ruthlessly efficient Good Team. Good does not need to be nice. They can grant mercy, but they don't have to vs. the truly Evil types you are talking about. Yes, Team Evil can go after vulnerable loved ones, but that won't stop the Good team from hunting them down and exacting righteous vengeance.

If Team Evil is really bad enough then Team Good would be happy to play a zero sum game. As long as Team Evil dies they have no problem with dying themselves. After that Team Good gets to hang out in the Happy Fun afterlife that Good people expect. Team Evil gets to enjoy being some demon lord's sentient chamber pot.


I am not saying you are doing anything wrong. I am just explaining the advantages of Good over Evil. My first post was in response to Aelryinth...

Aelryinth wrote:

And a lot of extremely good optimizers will tell you that an anti-paladin is actually better in a party then a paladin. That Aura that lowers enemy saves is incredibly powerful in alliance with other casters.

And the fact he can lie, cheat, betray, use poison, burn down villages, etc, is just extra icing on the cake.

Now I agree that these are advantages for team Evil. They are ruthless and are not burdened by having to be nice to anyone. But on the flip side those same "virtues" work against them when it comes to big objectives. The ability to "lie, cheat, betray," (his words, not mine) also means you can not be trusted.

If you want your Anti-Paladin to be honest and trustworthy because he sees that as advancing his personal goals, great! That is actually an interesting character. But he can not self-sacrifice. He is completely incapable of it. If he does hold that bridge against impossible odds so that his friends and companions can escape, he will fall.

Also, I wouldn't want to get in between him (or her?) and power. In the Shackled City campaign there is a part were a choice has to be made and the person that makes that choice gains a pretty significant amount of power. If a Good character were to step up to claim that power, would you let them?

This is kind of like the Paladin falling dilemma I guess. The party doesn't want the power to go to team Evil. But if you don't claim the power the balance will shift towards Good, and you will fall.

Now you can say that you were being honest, helpful and trustworthy as a way to gain power, but now you have that chance right in front of you and the only thing in your way are your friends...

Let's see... What would Kitiara do?


@MrSin: That's great that you are not a backstabbing jerk, but what about that murder-hobo next to you? Or that demon that showed up to "help"? While you are being all trustworthy, some other Chaotic Evil jerk is going to figure out a way to use that against you.

You don't have to be a backstabbing jerk, but they are certainly more common on team Evil. And like I said, he who backstabs first, wins.

@anonymous: I am not talking about suicidal religious zealots that are going around killing themselves and all the heretics around them. I am talking about Good people being willing to sacrifice themselves for others. They don't want to die, but they will if it will save others.

The classic example is holding the choke point while the rest of your group retreats. Is an anti-paladin really going to stay back and fight while others escape? If he doesn't, will any of his companions cover his escape instead? I doubt it.

Edit: I was distracted during my post and another post disappeared while I was writing it. Removed poster's name to preserve anonymity.


The anti-paladin is not better in a party unless you make an arbitrary rule prohibiting PVP combat. As anyone who has ever played Diplomacy can tell you, it is not a question of if they will betray you, but when. The trick is to betray the other person just before they are about to betray you.

This is why Good so often wins. Sure Evil has no limitations, but Evil can not be trusted either. Not even Lawful Evil. The forces of Good can send out individuals on extremely dangerous, even suicidal, tasks and trust that they will do it to the best of their ability. Evil minions can only be trusted to do it if it is in their own self interest. This gives Good forces options that are not available to Evil forces.


I was looking through the Create Undead and Animate Undead spells and it seems like Grandma would be limited to Skeletons, Zombies and Ghouls if we want to stick with the CRB. This would also make things a little easier to referee. It doesn't look like you can make any incorporeal undead using the Create Undead spell.

Sorry I haven't had much time today.


gnomersy wrote:

Hmmm she certainly does. On the plus side she doesn't really have much to effect her AC or become invisible.

So 11 5 hd ones, or maybe 3 10 HD undead and then 5 with 5 HD regardless a decent number of enemies.

Lets say we're running around with Bless Prayer and Haste since this is the big bad, and she has SR, Magic Vestement, and Protection from Good, as well as freedom of movement, air walk, divine power, and a wind wall spell up.

The DC 19 Fear save is negligible as the monk passes it on a 4+ with the buff advantage or a 6+ normally.

She tosses down Flame Strike round 1 as a readied spell for when they come through the door maybe? DC 22 vs a +16 Ref save means the monk dodges it entirely on a 6+ and takes half even if he doesn't.

The monk could dodge the minions via a fly potion/spell but having that many of them rolling up on him from behind would be bad for his health so I'd imagine he'd engage the minions but without ACs and whatnot I don't know how he'd fare.

This all sounds good. Just need to pick the actual Undead.


We are using the iconic wizard and iconic cleric as our support characters. Probably should just go ahead and use the iconic fighter as well. All of them reduced to 10th level. So Haste and Prayer both look good.

Grandma will have a bunch of her buffs up as well, and she has a lot (ugh). She should definitely have a Wall of Meat between her and the party, no reason to make it too easy. Still they shouldn't be too easy to destroy, so fewer high level undead instead of a horde of 1 or 2 hit die undead.

I was honestly hoping that a resident necrophile might happen along and let us know what the optimum undead would be. I'm sure to choose wrong.


So for our next opponent...

Little Old Evil Lady

What? Are you afraid of a little old lady?

So how about this: Grandma is getting ready for her weekly pinochle game, and you are interrupting! She ain't leaving. Why should she? She is going to teach you party crashers a lesson!

You are outside her door and she knows you're there. And you know that she knows that you're there. And she knows that you know that she knows that you're there. Etc. So both sides buff up and the party busts in on the party.

Grandma will have 55 hit dice worth of undead servants ready to serve horderves and eat the brains of interlopers. Any suggestions on what she might have with her?

I am thinking that this is a classic "throne room" situation, where you bust in on the BBEG, or in this case a LOEL, and take her out. So a big empty room with a throne on a dais at the back, maybe an alter in the middle of the room. Being a master villain she is, of course, overconfident and simply waits for the heroes to come to her.

Any thoughts on this scenario?


Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:

It's a good idea to go with the Iconics to fill in the rest of the party.

As for Bruno, it looks like he will have about as much success as the Barbarian. Assuming he isn't running like a little girl (If you fail the Fear save you are panicked, not just shaken), and can land a hit against the dragon's AC and Mirror Images (which seems like it is fairly likely) then they pretty much end the battle right there

Anyone level 5 or higher will only be shaken on a failed fear save.

Quote:
On a failed save, the opponent is shaken, or panicked if it has 4 Hit Dice or fewer.

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. I was reading it as, "if you has 4 Hit Dice or fewer than the dragon", which it obviously does not say. I guess my subconscious mind was just tacking it onto the end for some reason.

@Kazumetsa Raijin
It would be nice to see some more Monk builds. My own was built to show if a standard Core Monk with just a little bit of thought could be effective. I have to say that so far it is showing a lot of the theory crafting to be true. I mean, his defenses are good, resisting a lot of the opening attacks from the dragon is cool. Jumping 40' without a running start is cool. Being able to take a full attack from a CR+2 dragon is cool. But then he completely fails to deliver on offense. I mean if he gets lucky he could stun the dragon for a round, but he would have to be really lucky.


It's a good idea to go with the Iconics to fill in the rest of the party.

As for Bruno, it looks like he will have about as much success as the Barbarian. Assuming he isn't running like a little girl (If you fail the Fear save you are panicked, not just shaken), and can land a hit against the dragon's AC and Mirror Images (which seems like it is fairly likely) then they pretty much end the battle right there.

As for my poor old standard monk...

Bob will spend a Ki point for +4 AC and leap 40' over to the dragon (only fails the jump check on a 1). An Acrobatics check won't work to avoid an AoO because he will be moving full speed, which will set the DC at 45. So the dragon will hit his 29AC on an 8 or better and do 21 damage, which is the first damage he's taken.

His attack will be at +16 vs. the dragons 31AC. If he gets one of the images he will have a 55% chance of hitting. If it is the dragon himself it drops to a 30% chance (15 or better), would do about 21 points if it hits and the dragon would save vs. his Stunning Fist on a 4 or better.

Dragon would then full attack back, but would only take out Bob if he hit with every attack (assuming average damage). So Bob is up for the next round.

With little HP left Bob goes for broke and spends a Ki point for an extra attack. His routine will be +17/+17/+17/+17/+12/+12 for 2d6+7/x2 damage each. He will try a Stunning Fist as soon as the dragon is out of images, which he might be already depending on if he took some out on his previous rounds and if the rest of the party took out the rest. If it hits and succeeds (which is really unlikely) Bob will get two extra attacks at +17 from his Medusa's Wrath. Realistically Bob will probably only hit 2 or 3 times, each time for about 14 damage.

So of the dragon's 172 hit points Bob would only do somewhere between 28 (if he is unlucky) and 63 (if he is really lucky) damage to the beast.


Yeah, actually round 1 the Wizard should just step up, everyone grab on, and Teleport out of there. But where is the fun in that!

I will post for my Monk later. Then we can probably move on to the Lich encounter. That should be more interesting.


Just looked up Sandals of the Lightest Step (I had never heard of them before). There may be a problem.

Quote:
In any round when the wearer has already moved at least 10 feet along the ground or another surface (not counting travel on a mount or vehicle), these boots can be activated as a swift action to give the wearer the ability to walk on air (as the air walk spell) until the end of the round.

So the first 10' would cost 20' of movement, assuming it was light undergrowth. Or you could move along the path for 10' first, but then you are still about 40' away when you start air walking.

Edit: Another thought... With the Haste cast by the Wizard you would have +30' of movement. And because Paizo doesn't hate Barbarians your fast movement isn't an enhancement bonus (even though both the Barbarian and Monk movement are Extraordinary abilities), so it stacks. So you should have plenty of movement after all.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Stuff

Don't forget that the dragon has Mirror Image up. But because this is a team game you might let the fighter go first with his bow. A full attack with Haste and Rapid Shot should get rid of most, if not all of the dragon's images and give you a clear shot at the dragon himself. (Go teamwork!)

Also, you are 5 hit die below the dragon (more than 4) so you would have been panicked, not shaken. That said we can just assume that you either actually made your save, or had the fear removed on the first round.


For the next round, and just to give everyone a fighting chance, lets say that the dragon goes last (his Initiative is +0). The Wizard and Cleric will go first casting Haste and Communal Energy Resistance (Acid 20), respectively. Then the contestant character and the generic Fighter will go.

Does that all that sound reasonable? Any thoughts on whether the Fighter should charge or stand back and fire arrows? I figured that the Fighter would be a switch-hitter type with a falchion and a composite bow.


In the last thread Avh posted a Fighter. He admitted it was not the greatest, but that's perfect! :)

Here are the stats:

Simple the Fighter:
Human
Fighter 10
Initiative: +6
=== Stats ===
Str 24 (18 + 2 human + 2 level +2 belt)
Dex 15 (13 + 2 belt)
Con 16 (14 + 2 belf)
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 7
=== Defense ===
AC: 25 (10 + 11 armor + 1 natural + 1 deflection + 1 luck + 1 dodge)
Can vary from 21 to 35 depending on abilities used (and tower shield).
+4 vs attack of opportunity
Hp: 89
CMD: 32 (10 + 10 bab + 7 str + 2 dex + 1 deflection + 1 luck + 1 dodge)
+4 vs disarm and sunder
=== Saves ===
Fort: +12 (7 base + 3 Con + 2 resistance)
Ref : +7 (3 base +2 dex + 2 resistance)
Will: +10 (3 base + 2 wisdom + 2 resistance + 1 trait + 2 feat)
+3 against fear effects
=== Attacks ===
Simple : +2 scimitar : +25 (1d6+18 ; 15-20/x2)
Full : +2 scimitar : +25/+20 (1d6+18 ; 15-20/x2)
-Special attacks-
While enlarged : +0 attack, +4 average damage, reach 10'; -2 AC
Power attack : -3 attack, +9 damage
Lunge : -2 AC, +5' reach
Spring attack : as a full action, can move before and after the attack, and doesn't provoke attack of opportunity from target
Heavy shield : -0 attack, -3 damage, -3 power attack damage, +2 AC
Tower shield : -2 attack, -3 damage, -3 power attack damage, +4 AC.
=== Traits===
Indomitable faith (+1 will)
Ears and eyes of the city (+1 perception and class skill)
=== Feats===
1. Improved initiative, Power attack, Weapon focus (scimitar)
2. Combat Reflexes
3. Iron will
4. Dodge
5. Mobility
6. Spring attack
7. Weapon specialization (scimitar)
8. Lunge
9. Improved critical (scimitar)
10. Greater Weapon focus (scimitar)
=== Skills ===
Perception +16
Acrobatics +2 (-3 from armor included)
Survival +15
swim +14 (-3 from armor included)
=== Special ===
Combat reflexes : 3 attacks of opportunity per round and can make those while flat footed.
Bravery : +3 against fear effects
Weapon training II (swords +2, bows +1)
Armor training II (-2 ACP, +2 max DEX with armor, no movement penalty)
Jingasa of the fortunate soldier (1/day) : transform a critical into a simple hit as an immediate action
Tower shield : as a standard action, can create a total cover with its shield.
=== Gear ===
+2 Belt of physical perfection 16k
+2 Scimitar 8k
+1 Amulet of natural armor 2k
+1 Ring of protection 2k
+2 full plate 5k
Masterwork composite longbow (+7 strength)
Masterwork tower shield
Masterwork heavy shield
20 masterwork arrows
Gloves of dueling 15k
Jingasa of the fortunate soldier 5,5k
Cloack of resistance +2 4k
10 potions of Enlarge person
Pocket money

So this guy would spot the Dragon on an 8 or better, would also pass the Will save vs. fear on a 7 or better (Yea Bravery!), and would likely fail a Reflex save. So not feared and takes 42 acid damage. Ouch.

He would probably go before the dragon though, so he could step to take some cover and fire an arrow at +14, which is a lot better than the Monk and will hit for a lot more damage (1d8+8).


Artanthos wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:

And I didn't take into account that Bob might have actually acted before the dragon did. The dragon as an initiative of +0, Bob has a +3. So he might have actually been able to get partial cover (assuming a normal tree) before the dragon's attack, which would give him a +1 to his Reflex save. He would probably still throw the shuriken to see if he could get an image, but as I said before, he has a low chance of success on that.

Which really does show the whole "problem hitting stuff" issue.

You don't have to actually hit to pop an image. AC -5 will do that.

Even if most of his attacks miss, the monk should destroy the Mirror Image spell with his first flurry.

The dragon's AC with a Shield spell is 31, -5 means that the dragon's images have a 26AC. With only +8 to hit my Monk needs an 18 or better.

Now once he closes to melee his chances will go way up and lots of attacks will take care of the images pretty fast. The dragon will only have 1d4+1 images (caster level 5), so maybe 3 or 4? Why don't we say 3 to give everyone a break.


Even if the Barbarian (or anyone else) is feared I would want to know how he would perform in later rounds, so we could just assume that he actually made his save (certainly possible) or that his fear was removed (possibly by the cleric) or some other reason allowed him to attack next turn.

Or, of course, I have completely missed something and the Barbarian actually has a good chance of making his save in the first place.


Lord_Malkov wrote:

Will likely fail the reflex but pass the fear.

So he is going to take 12d6 (averaged to 42 damage)

I might be missing something, but how is he passing the fear? His Will save is +6.

Lord_Malkov wrote:
Though I have to say that there are a bunch of trees here... so getting uninterrupted LoE would be tough. The dragon is probably just going to be cooking a lot of trees. This is particularly true since it needs concealment to hide, and it is a Huge creature. So the trees must also be huge. 40ft of Huge trees between it and its targets... drawing LoE will be nearly impossible for the whole party.

I thought of this, but you don't need huge trees to hide, just cover or concealment, which the forest provides. A human can hide behind a 3' wall even though he is 6' (5'?) tall. If that's not enough we could just say that the dragon had a Silent Image up in front of him that dropped as soon as he ceased concentrating on it.

Cover gives a +2 to your Reflex, so it could be reasonably argued that you get that even without stepping behind a tree, or at least partial cover for +1.

Lord_Malkov wrote:
Also, this is probably a CR 14 encounter... not a 12. Environment and setup alter CR after all.

Yeah, it might be pretty brutal, but honestly I picked these guys when I thought the characters would be level 12. Everyone else insisted that that would be too easy and wanted CR+1 to CR+3. Would it really be any easier if we were on a flat plain and the dragon just flew back and forth over the characters with Flyby Attack?

Lord_Malkov wrote:
Also, frightful presence is generally activated by an attack or charge, and effects those that "see the action" (from UMR). So a dragon activating frightful presence while hiding is pretty suspect.
PSRD wrote:

Frightful Presence (Ex)

This special quality makes a creature’s very presence unsettling to foes. Activating this ability is a free action that is usually part of an attack or charge. Opponents within range who witness the action may become frightened or shaken. The range is usually 30 feet, and the duration is usually 5d6 rounds.

Bolded for emphasis. So I see no reason why the dragon can not activate his Frightful Presence as a free action with a breath weapon attack. The dragon's range for his FP is 180'.


Lemmy wrote:

One of the biggest Monk weaknesses is their completely lack of viable ranged options. I suppose Qinggong can use Scorching Ray, but that costs 2 whole Ki points. Yikes! Other than that, Sohei and Zen Archer are the only archetypes I can think of that can effectively deal with flying/ranged opponents.

If that dragon doesn't land (and why would he?), the Monk's contribution will be negligible at best and non-existent at worst.

(BTW, why does the Barbarian fail to notice the Dragon, but the Fighter doesn't?)

(The Barbarian has a Perception of +13. The Fighter has a +17, but took a trait to get it that high. The dragon's take 10 Stealth at 40' distance is DC24.)

I fully agree that the Monk has problems with ranged combat. Many builds can struggle with it as their ranged attacks are secondary at best, but the Monk's options are even worse.

In this case the dragon was sitting in the forest waiting for someone to come down the road. Why would he fly around looking for food when it will just come to him? He probably flew into the forest in the middle of the night so he wouldn't be noticed and plans to fly out once he has his meal. So he is starting on the ground.

If the dragon gets in trouble he can take off and retreat, but if he wanted to attack from the sky he might have some trouble. This is a thick forest, from the sky the dragon would have a difficult time seeing anyone hiding under the canopy of trees. Green dragons have Trackless Step and Woodland Stride, why wouldn't they use it?

The Adult Green Dragon was chosen by listing all non-good CR12 creatures in the original Bestiary. That came up with 5 creatures:

Adult Green Dragon
Lich
Purple Worm
Roper
Sea Serpent

So I took the first one in the list and came up with a (I think) reasonable scenario for that creature.


Nicos wrote:

I just discoveredthat perfect strike do not work with temple sword :/, what a terrilbe feat.

I have to rework my build.

Wow, just looked that feat up. Only usable with kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, and siangham. Which all suck. I really only consider those secondary weapons, not something you would spend a feat on. The feat is really only good for a Zen Archer.


And I didn't take into account that Bob might have actually acted before the dragon did. The dragon as an initiative of +0, Bob has a +3. So he might have actually been able to get partial cover (assuming a normal tree) before the dragon's attack, which would give him a +1 to his Reflex save. He would probably still throw the shuriken to see if he could get an image, but as I said before, he has a low chance of success on that.

Which really does show the whole "problem hitting stuff" issue.


CWheezy wrote:
Doing nothing at all for a couple rounds seems pretty crappy

Yes doing nothing would be crappy. Who is doing nothing?

I posted what my rather mediocre monk might do which, admittedly, isn't hugely impressive just yet. But at least he is not running away or melting into the ground. Defenses do count for something.

Now I'm waiting to see what the weapon monk, the fighter, and the barbarian do. Also if anyone else wants to throw in another class, now would be the time.

As for the generic party, I'm not sure exactly how to handle it. I was thinking that probably only the Cleric would get an action on the surprise round. Maybe a buff or a heal? Remove Fear from anyone that failed their save?

Next round the Wizard might cast Haste (pretty standard) and the Fighter can move up or attack with bow. The Cleric can buff or heal depending on what the dragon does. And I'm not sure what the dragon would do either! If no one advances a second round of acid breath might work fine.

It's all up for discussion.

1 to 50 of 673 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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