I'm sorry your group is dumb and can't read. :(You mean like:
Paizo, to the Loyal Sisyphusian Game Master, wrote:
"Dear Mr. GM; we here at Paizo realize you've spent hundreds of your dollars on our products (Thank you!) which are full of English words utilizing fairly common contexts which immediately register to your consciousness when your eyeballs scan them upon the page, and that you and your players utilize said contextual commonality to forestall disagreements. Well, we just wanted to let you know that, due to our previous employment in Pakistani call-centers, our embracement of English is actually fairly haphazard and arbitrary; and, while we're constantly changing the combat rules (usually based upon whomever screams the loudest that their class is suboptimal) on a frequent basis, we're not changing the wording in the books you buy to reflect the revised rulings because it's easier for us if the entire English-speaking world re-defines the language it speaks rather than us having to recompose Two Weapon Fighting and monk class feature text...something that might take us all of fifteen minutes in page-layout. ...Soooo, you might as well throw your purchases in the dumpster and just run your games off a laptop linked to the latest FAQ rulings which are completely counter-intuitive if not diametrically opposed to the text in the latest printings of our books. We mean, why not? It'll save you a lot of time, money and aggravation. Yours, sincerely."
A wizard-level intellect is not required to realize that this is not a sound business model.
Wow, you really can't just admit you were wrong, huh?
Wow, you just really can't admit you didn't read a single word of what I wrote across a half-dozen posts, huh?
Disclosure: I am not one of those "anti-monk" people; in fact I'm playing one right now (which is why this is an issue for me -- I don't dare try that 3x Ki/temple-sword business at 4th-level in my group because I know damned what will happen if I try it).
I want the @#*&$% ***TEXT*** in the ***BOOK*** to ***MATCH**** the @#@^#^ ***FAQ*** so there won't be any more ***ARGUMENTS*** -- get it? ...This BS has been going on for at least two printings, if not longer according to other people here in the thread.
I think that Monks being able to flurry with a single weapon was totally settled by the FAQ.
It amazes me that, even after developer feedback, people can still quote "as two-weapon fighting" as if it's holy law, while totally ignoring "in any combination" as if it's meaningless.
-- It amazes me that posters are totally ignoring the point: "Two Weapon Fighting" should be renamed and rewritten if the game designer's (apparently ever-evolving) intent is for it to mean more (let alone way more) than what "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon" implies.
-- For starters, a monk taking multiple two-handed Flurry whacks with a temple sword is obviously NOT using two weapons. He's using ONE weapon.
If no one ever had an inkling, it never would have been a frequently asked question.
It *wouldn't* be if the online text and the book actually said remotely the same thing. There is not a hint in the book that a 4th level monk can spend a point of Ki and make three two-hand power attacks with a sword via Flurry "as if" (!) he were Two Weapon Fighting.
That is the problem. One of them has to change.
-- This dumb Pandora's box was opened the first time a WotC person, ages ago, when "fished" for whether or not a flurrying monk or other TWF could make a two-hand attack and then another attack -- instead of the N+1 one-handed attacks clearly implied by the text of TWF -- went "Eh, why not?" even though nothing in the CRB's feat or class descriptions supported it. It's now snowballed completely out of control (into 2hPA sword monks who Flurry without any unarmed strikes at all) while the book text still hasn't changed; and players browsing on their tablets are arguing with their GMs who have their brand-new 6th-printing dead-tree manuals open right in front of them.
"Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."
GM to a low-level monk: "'Two weapons' is in the title and in the description! What's wrong with you? Why are you arguing with me!? Your staff is a 'double' weapon; so you can bonk with one end and then the other end, because double weapons work with TWF! You can't two-hand it twice. Your temple sword is a one-handed monk weapon; with means you can Flurry it for one-hand damage and then follow with another unarmed strike or deploy another monk weapon! If you want to two-hand Power Attack twice, you wait 'til your character BAB is 6 like everybody else! And remember that an extra Ki attack is only while Flurrying, so you'd get *two* one-handed chops with your temple sword, not *three* 2hPAs at 4th level!"
Bearded Ben wrote:
What's infuriating (for a monk player) is that this FAQ regarding Flurry (or TWF, for that matter) is not published anywhere despite the passage of half a year. It's not in the 6th-printing CRB or the 5/30/13 errata PDFs; and the FAQ rulings are totally counter-intuitive to the *concept* of "two-weapon fighting" as those three words hit a noob's eyeball and jack straight into his brain.
Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.
GM: "See, it's called 'Two Weapon Fighting'; and it talks about fighting with another weapon in your other hand, blah-blah. What's not to understand here? Why are you arguing with me?" (etc).
Onward, the 7th Printing! <whip-crack>
It remains maddeningly unclear as to whether or not a monk can make more than one attack with the SAME weapon while Flurrying (i.e. a single temple sword wielded in two hands).
I've seen this one ruled all over the map: some will say two 2H (monk weapon) attacks are kosher, others say one 2H and one natural are OK, others go no-2H-soup-for-you, some say you can't even jab-jab with your right fist twice.
I'm not sure (Marid) is as great as you make it out to be. It says "while using this style and Elemental Fist", so it seems to me as if you would only have reach when using Elemental Fist. And Elemental Fist is limited to one attack roll per round, so a flurry of cold reach attacks wouldn't exist, the way I'm reading this.
Even under a hardline interpretation, assume opponents 15 feet apart, you drop the "teetering" one first, then 5' and shoot an icicle through the other one's face for about 20pts of damage you'd otherwise not have the option of delivering. And then he rolls a fort-save or he's Entangled (meaning he doesn't go anywhere on his next turn, whereupon you 5' on your next turn and Flurry him into hamburger).
For a Monk of the Four Winds, Elemental Fist damage scales to 2d6 at 5th (and goes up another 1d6 every fifth level thereafter); at 5th level he can do 1d8+2d6+STR+WIS+(misc) on a single juiced punch, and has seven per day at his disposal (and if you can't do them more than once per round, then let's just say that "pacing yourself" is built-in). 2d6+WIS is probably around 2x to 2.5x normal damage at this point, averaging +10dmg for a WIS:16 monk, so it's like getting over half-a-dozen free crits a day.
Marid Style: You gain one additional Elemental Fist attempt per day. While using this style and Elemental Fist to deal cold damage, you gain a bonus on cold damage rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier, and your reach with your unarmed strike increases by 5 feet.
You colored this orange (for worthless); I've bolded the part which explains why it should be dark blue -- this is a gimme for a flurry specialist, especially a high-WIS Monk of the Four Winds (who gets Elemental Fist at 1st level, and is pretty much going to pick one of the four elements to specialize in, as well as a Style chain to go with it).
-- This is flurrying with reach-weapons without any of the penalties of reach-weapons (i.e., your unarmed strikes can't be disarmed or sundered, foes can't "step inside your reach", etc). Never again will you be screwed out of a Flurry by monsters all standing 15' apart.
All of the elemental Style chains are at least "good" for high WIS MotFWs, as they grant the ability to dish out barbarian-level full-attack damage for three or four rounds a day by mid-level. (A well-built Marid monk will turn a roomful of people into Popsicles before they know what hit them; he's then able to deal with them one at a time as they break out of the ice.)
I'm still not seeing anyone make a rational argument that Paizo intended to write:
Everybody can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
...when they instead wrote: You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
I'm looking at you write the words "specifically changed" and "Clearly, the intent" as if you were absolutely sure of developer aim upon the basis of that thread. Then I go to the thread and see that nothing is resolved whatsoever, with the very question being pointedly asked and discussed across several pages, with no definitive response from the developers.
But a few pages into the thread, someone made a very illuminating comparison with a similar BAB6-required "Greater" combat-maneuver feat:
Trip, Greater lacks any such text.
james maissen wrote:
But this thread is Mabven's 'have fun with an idea' thread rather than the rule's thread.
The "rules" were integral to the concept as it was presented in the exhaustive step-by-step.
Aside from stats and viability in PFS (a facet I dwelled upon), one literally cannot say anything substantive to the mechanics without addressing rules.
Let's try this again:
What you are claiming is the following:
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
...is logically equivalent to...
Everybody can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
...and that the latter is what Paizo actually meant even though they wrote the former instead of the latter.
Q. What is an "opponent"?
A. It is a person, creature (etc) in a defined relationship vis-a-vis you.
Your interpretation means the fluff is correct, but the rule is wrong. My interpretation means both are correct.
What you are claiming is the following:
You can make free attacks on foes that you (trip).
...is logically equivalent to...
You can make free attacks on foes that anybody (trips).
...and that the latter is what Paizo actually meant even though they wrote the former instead of the latter.
In-character, how do you know your trip attempt was successful?
The target fell over.
It's the same event.
First of all, in order to understand the Brothers Cut, everyone needs to read this thread. To break it down, the general consensus is that....The only "general consensus" I see in that fustercluck is that 67 people jackhammered the FAQ button.
because an Attack of Opportunity interrupts normal play, after you succeed on your trip, the character has not fallen prone because the AoOs interrupt the falling prone aspect of the trip. So, because the person has not fallen prone, he can exchange his AoO provided by Greater Trip, to make another trip generating another series of AoOs in which he can then, trip again.No, no, no; wrongitty, wrong, wrong.. (That Rules thread has 66 fewer whaps on the FAQ button.)
I have little interest in plowing through a new ten-page power-gamer wet-dream thread in Rules when previously existing threads, such as the one I linked, saliently dealt with the issue a year ago.)
Your GM will swat you down after simply showing you the text of the feat:
Your friendly neighborhood Core Rule Book wrote:
Everybody that threatens the creature being greater tripped gets an AoO.<<<Thread Necro-Ressurection in effect>>>
Your friendly neighborhood Core Rule Book wrote:
In this particular case, Paizo's famously nebulous grammar in the Benefit section is explicitly nailed down in the description section.
Only the person with the feat gets the freebie.
(The fact that the feat Vicious Stomp even exists is a further strong hint that assorted standers-by are not entitled to AoOs -- because otherwise they wouldn't need it.)
Problem is this, both players dont really 'create' characters, they min/max and level dip into a bunch of classes to make them in their own words 'self sufficient' that they dont need to rely on anyone for anything, since both players tend to play Chaotic Evil characters and feel they should be able to do as they please.
BOUNTY-HUNTERS SOLVE ALL GM PROBLEMS!
CE characters create enemies wherever they go. The more wreckage and mayhem they cause, the more various NPCs want revenge.
* Dwarf ranger[Urban] built along the lines of the Pathfinder iconic. Distant Death in the Dark. Steel Soul feat. Neutral alignment.
* Half-orc barbarian/monk[martial-artist] with EWP:fauchard, Raging Vitality and Extra Rage. Accelerated Drinker trait. Neutral alignment.
* Gnome straight-class bard ("private investigator"). Neutral alignment.
* Elf paladin[Divine Hunter] of Abadar. Sword-n-board high-AC tank. Mithral breastplate and DEX 20. Warrior of Old + Eyes and Ears of the City traits. Lawful-Good alignment, and "captain" of the team.
Make 'em scary high level with crap-tons of equipment. All of them have tons of hitpoints or self-healing, and uber saving-throws. They are consummate professionals, and specialize in "Affairs of Honor" assignments from nobles and royalty.
Your next adventure: the CE characters have a price on their heads. Terms of the bounty...bring them in alive to face trial, or kill them if that proves impossible. Deaths earn half-bounty (so the team will make an effort to capture them alive).
I think you are making liberal use of rules based off of being upset about a group consensus about the interaction between Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp.
To re-iterate a point made in my long post at the tail-end of page 1, no single event can grant two AoOs to the same person in the same round.
Examples: You are Enlarged with a polearm and have Combat Reflexes and multiple AoOs, or you are receipient of Invisibility, Greater. Someone moves through several threatened squares. You are eligible for one AoO.
Similarly, Viscous Stomp and Trip, Greater would not give the same person two AoOs upon the same target for the same triggering event (them being tripped prone).
The nastiest TWF I've ever seen is a samurai with a splash of barbarian[urban] and fighter[unarmed]. All DEX, dumped STR.
Equipment around 10th: Agile/Furious Amulet of Mighty Fists, +1/Agile/Furious wakizashi, +1/Keen cestus, Celestial Armor, Belt of Incredible Dexterity.
Feats: Mounted Combat (1), Weapon Finesse (1), TWF (3), Dragon Style (fighter dip), Extra Rage (5), I-TWF (7), Improved Critical:wakizashi (Samurai6), Critical Focus(9).
Melee full-attack: several wakizashi strikes, while off-hand makes cestus punches (Dragon Style + Agile Amulet = 1.5x pain on the first).
At 11th & Greater TWF, you're ladling on +9hp damage to each hit from Challenge (or 63 damage alone from Challenge while Hasted if you connect every hit).
-- You're basically a BBEM destroyer; since your weapons are light, you can keep shredding in grapples or even when swallowed whole.
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
A seven-branched sword does not have the Trip property, and hence its enhancement bonus is not added to maneuver checks.
Tranche takes his first AOO....
But he is not eligible for an AoO at this point.
-- The target becoming susceptible (flat-footed to sneak-attacks) as a result of the partner's attack doesn't mean that he automatically grants one.
You also can't say it's a readied action because Tranche double-moved. Tandem Trip is also not applicable to the described situation (since it requires a maneuver action, and Tranche has neither attack-actions nor standard-actions remaining).
Tourne takes his first AOO - Trip attempt using Seven Branched Sword...
*No.* The target is either already on the ground due to being tripped prone (triggering an AoO from either Trip, Greater or Vicious Stomp, but not both -- see below), or the successful trip was converted into victim-is-upright-but-flatfooted (from the special property of a seven-branched sword); if the latter case, then the target didn't actually fall down, and Tourne forfeits his Trip, Greater AoO (since, while the trip attempt was successful, the maneuver was hijacked by the weapon property, and the target didn't actually trip).
An argumentative GM might even maintain that you can't really "trip" at all with a seven-branched sword, only confer flat-footedness.
....using Redirection ability.
A Flowing monk does not gain the ability to perform a Redirection maneuver as anything other than a standard action while performing the maneuver on HIS turn (i.e., not as the archetype-granted immediate-action when he is attacked in melee); to incorporate a Redirection maneuver into a charge attack, he'd need to be a Maneuver Master.
= = = =
And here we arrive at a major sticking points in the rules: In order to provoke an AoO (for, in this case, movement), a target must voluntarily undertake said movement himself. AoOs are not granted due to involuntary movement. I.e., the same Redirection schtick is easily done by a tank with Improved Bull Rush or a wizard with Grease on an inclined surface, or knocking a guy off his horse or other elevated platform (making him fall at least 5'). These forms of involuntary movement do not grant AoOs to nearby rogues unless they have feats with specifically permit them to (e.g., Vicious Stomp, etc).
Tranche takes his second AOO...
Tranche is still ineligible for AoOs; see above.
Tranche takes his fifth AOO - Vicious StompThis, in fact, is the only AoO he has been eligible for during the whole sequence (assuming he had Vicious Stomp, which the build doesn't depict).
Tourne, if he has had Cat's Grace cast on him, takes his fifth AOO - Vicious Stomp
Tourne is not able to claim two AoOs in the same round off the same situation (in this case, from an opponent going prone, because he has already claimed that from Trip, Greater). (Due to the same rule, if somebody else came along and picked up the victim, stood him on his feet, then knocked him over again, Tourne would still not be able to use Vicious Stomp more than once versus the same target in the same round.)
So..... what really happened is this (assuming Tranche had Vicious Stomp):
1) Tranche double-moves to set up a flank.
If your GM let's you get away with more than that, he doesn't have a firm grasp on the rules.
these are 7th level, PFS legal characters.
PFS, eh? Me knows a thing or two about that. Let's assume both players manage to consistently make the same tables for their Ambiguously Gay tag-team duo action in PFS....
Assuming fighter at 1st, he has 9hp and a "sink" to -7 (-8 = dead). A measly 16hp of "life" in a melee. (And elf wizard with CON12 has 17hp worth of "life" at 1st without Toughness.)
Tourne probably croaks before 2nd level in PFS, and is toast from any axe or arrow crit or a single claw-claw-rend at Tier 3+. He picks up only 6hp per fighter level and 4hp from monk while advancing for a total of only 42hp at 7th as a melee in PFS. (In contrast, the average CON16 gnome sorcerer HP+1 leveling will be picking up 8hp per level, 9hp if he's a bard.)
AC problems: Fighter[Two-Handed] archetype trades off Armor Training, so no getting use of 18 DEX in mithral full-plate (+3 DEX bonus is highest you get without Armor Training). (He's also worn non-magical crap armor all the way until 6th or so because he won't have the Prestige Points necessary for eligibility to buy a 8000+gp total-cost item in PFS (ditto the +1/Menacing weapon). He doesn't use a shield and he charges, meaning he's AC-8ish relative to a typical 7th-level S&B fighter (so the tripped target laying on the ground has a better chance of hitting Tourne while he's prone than he normally would standing up versus a S&B fighter); translation: Tourne's going to get hit, and hit bad at Tier 6+.
Since Tourne only has two levels of monk, he doesn't achieve Ki Pool. Since he's wearing medium armor, his Evasion ability is forfeit, as is his Flurry and any monk-granted bonuses to AC.
So the rogue with higher AC is over-emphasizing HP relative to the fighter/monk, picking up 12hp at 1st (with a "sink" to -15). Good; very durable.
Problem: will-saves and miserable skill bonuses. This guy will fail most of the time. Lousy CHA means he's unlikely to be pushing Use Magic Device (one of the best skills in the game in PFS), and have poor Diplomacy/Intimidate and mediocre Perception (the most necessary skills in PFS for completing faction missions, particularly factions catering to rogues, that being necessary to acquire "fame" and prestige points which permit you to buy expensive items and get a free Raise Dead or two). Tranche needs to buy a Circlet of Persuasion in order to get his social skills up to what a halfling or gnome rogue or bard would normally have.
The 14 INT is unnecessary given the lack of Combat Expertise. (Is an eleventh skill that important?)
Bandavaar the Brave wrote:
I don't do level-20 builds. He has enough fighter levels for weapon-training in "monk" (such as cestus, which he uses frequently).
The problem with Deathless Initiate is that you have to be an Orc or Half-Orc to use it.In an earth setting, a non-roman "barbarian" race would quality.
STR Ranger wrote:
The other problem is you are below 0. Which in the show will kill you when rage ends.
Raging Vitality eliminates that problem.
The Showtime (Starz TV) Spartacus is a barbarian/fighter[Unarmed] with Raging Vitality, Deathless Initiate, Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Renewed Vigor.
CON 10? Ah, no. He has crap-tons of hit-points; gets his butt whipped in the pit time-after-time (crappy AC; always getting hit), then shakes his bloody head, gets up and kills everything in a red-haze.
Spartacus is stronger and more nimble than many but by no means most other gladiators; what keeps him going is his capacity to both avoid fatigue during battle and absorb injury. He's likeable, tactically aware, and learns fast. His greatest weakness is gullibility, especially as towards societal superiors.
In a no-magic world, he kicks ass. In Pathfinder, he'd be Charmed in an instant.
If they play up that frequently, the odds they kak long before having sufficient prestige should be quite high. (And they'll continue to die afterwards, and eventually eat into cash, killing all the gains with even a single hit into money before 8th or so.)
(Note that said scenario also requires the perpetual acquiescence of several other players and GMs continually freighting their generally useless butts along in higher-level play.)
Assuming that, how much would that character have accrued in gold by the time that they are no longer able to play up, at 10th level? (Assuming not playing up in modules, which they can continue to do by that point...)
I'm sure it'd be quite a bit from the perspective of a low-level character, but not from the perspective of a high-level one (since the biggest percentage differences are at low levels. Not crunching a single number at all, let's guess it'll be around 25k at 12th. OK...what's that buy which will make a whiz-pow-blammo! super-noticeable difference at that level? Most realistically, the extra money is spent in disparate small chunks along the way, and the character has a few extra pieces of seldom-used junk in his haversack and a +2 back-up weapon instead of a +1.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Wouldn't the option to pay for a Raise with XP automatically be the best option since you take no hit to gold or PA and you then get to accrue even more while you catch up on XP. I think that people doing this sort of thing was a problem in LG IIAC.It was -- but it shouldn't be difficult to adjust loss of XP to the level of character and/or remaining amount of prestige points, or even remove an XP option after a certain point. (The primary WBL-related problem in LG was due to something entirely unrelated: the ability to "cheat" forced retirement by excessive multiclassing in upper levels, since multiclassing resulted in reduced XP earnings in 3.x.)
You could make a rule that you could only pay in XP if you could not pay by either of the other methods,That's sounds reasonable (and mostly is), but the reason I forwarded it in the first place is because losing WBL while at low-level in a campaign in which you cannot lose levels is an even worse kind of "death", one of by-a-thousand-cuts as you go permanently behind the curve and feel naked even in encounters your contemporaries would consider easy. -- Nothing will take the wind out of noob's sails faster than forcing him to sell his character's newly-acquired +1 weapon and armor at half-price to pay the exorbitant cost of Raise Dead and two Restorations.
...but that still trivializes death since your character dies. I think that death, especially at low-levels, should be more of a big deal.
OK. I'm hip to play devil's-advocate -- why does death in a game have to be non-trivial? Why is it a good idea? Whose nose is skinned if a rogue makes it to twelfth level after dying sixteen times to a fighter's twice?
Q. Why is We Be Goblins such an utter blast while most PFS mods aren't?
A. It's because the goblins are one-shots; nobody is afraid to die, and consequently plays as over-the-top as they can imagine.
This is a fantasy game. We couch-potatoes play weekend-warriors in mithral armor with magic swords explicitly because we cannot really die like we might, say, if we whipped our flabby butts into shaped and signed up for a Marine recon tour over the IEDs in Afghanistan.
The game system offers elves, dwarves and gnomes with "natural" lifespans of hundreds or even thousands of years. Assuming such creatures infrequently undertake even the slightest of risks (i.e., adventuring once a decade), it would statistically prevent acquisition of such advanced years without magical help, since otherwise small chances pile up into inevitabilities over time. It is therefore reasonable to assume that death-avoidance is not only relatively common in such an alternate reality, but trivially so to those of some means. Could they scry our technological dimension, doubtless they would view the prospect of minute lifespans with horror; from their perspective, our short lives would flit by like those of mayflies.
-- But be that all as it may, the present prestige-point system make death an absolute no-deal at all (until suddenly it's exceptionally harsh after you've run out), whereas losing real character levels actually puts some teeth in it right from the get-go. (In LG, you lost both money and levels.)
I see absolutely no benefit in enforcing a rule that is so inconsistent and arbitrary. And the sum of gold received from a scenario fluctuates a lot between scenarios, so playing up might not yield more gold than some other scenario in the appropriate tier.Additionally, having excess gold at low- or mid-level doesn't mean you can actually spend it on anything you want (due to prestige requirements).
Let it be said I would never allow level 1 characters to participate in subtier 4-5 session, ever. That, in fact, should be shunned and disallowed. That's something that'll disrupt the wealth curve.
See above. What would +3000gp actually get a baby-level character? A cloak and some minor doodads earlier? A +1 weapon earlier? ...OK, he's now 5% better a few mods earlier than most PCs his level, but risked non-recoverable character loss to get it.
By 7th+, a 3000gp difference between PCs fades into bell-curve white-noise.
What the campaign could use more of are "rainy-day Saturday"-length scenarios of the sort which take you straight to a designated level.
(I'd also like to see a loosening of prestige requirements for magic items in the lower-mid levels, since that's were most players have most of their characters. It's an interminable grind getting tertiary characters to the point of acquiring a +2 "signature" weapon.)
Our perceptions of what constitutes optimized are, IMO, severely distorted to maximum DPR builds of realistically dubious worth.
I.e., the Power Attacking barbarian who can split the moon in half but needs 100pts worth of healing after finishing a three-round combat is considered "over-powered", while the dwarf tank with Combat Expertise who slowly but reliably motors through every combat while taking nary a scratch isn't.
By the numbers, said dwarf is much more "over-powered" versus CR -- but nobody complains because he isn't flashy.
In re a possible revamping of existing modules to conform to a new normal average party size of six:
...Just double the bosses & solos! Two creatures is equivalent to CR +2! (Core 398).
Oh, joy! All those single BBEM monster encounters will now have two. Most of these (IMNSHO) are "non-Superstar" and designed to maul one or two PCs within an inch of their lives before they're gunned down. Double them up, and you'll see a massive increase in character deaths, especially in situations where placement at the beginning of combat puts a PC between them. Why? Because the brunt of dished-out damage is usually borne by only a couple PCs in an encounter. If 4-player >>> 6-player average represents a 50% increase, imagine the one or two PCs who take the hit in single-BBEM encounters now taking 50% more. Yeah. Bodies will litter the floor.
And this in a campaign where PC death, aside from a prestige freebie or two, represents a viscous smack to WBL (unlike, say, in Living Greyhawk, where level-loss gave you time to catch up). The deleterious effect will be particularly pronounced in the Tier 3-4 range when most PCs have neither fame nor cash. I had a character I enjoyed immensely get killed in LG at 2nd and 3rd levels, both times while playing the mod which would have leveled her, resulting in her dropping to XP levels 0.5 and 1.5 respectively -- a huge hit level-wise, but I could keep playing the same character without a serious impediment with WBL once caught back up to XP equivalent to when the character died. I.e., I lost the time but not the character. PFS players do not have such an option -- they lose both time and the character, and a certain percentage will elect to bow out if several months' worth of effort in a pride-n-joy character is completely vaporized -- and that, of course, will be bad for the campaign.
= = = = =
Idea for financing Raise Dead: pay with XP as a third option in addition to existing straight money or prestige, or in some combination. (The in-game explanation would be that, lacking personal funds, you were indentured to a patron who assumed payment; your compensatory labor for them took considerable time during which your "adventuring skills" grew soft.) Forfeiting 4 XP is the closest match to 3.x's losing one-and-a-half. (The other details of level loss shouldn't prove insurmountable.)
What results is a mechanism for enabling well-loved characters (of at least second level) to survive meat-grinder scenarios.
It's not "community outreach"; it's in-house laying down the rules for, especialy, GMs.
1. Some mods are clunkers, some days DMs feel creative. Let them redecorate. What problem is solved by conformity to boxed text?The problem of a mod being a clunker is "solved" by everyone being aware of it. If GMs "fix" things (that itself being an opened can of worms; see below), then that knowledge is not passed around with the alacrity needed.
Oh, joy! All those single BBEM monster encounters will now have two. Most of these (IMNSHO) are "non-Superstar" and designed to maul one or two PCs within an inch of their lives before they're gunned down. Double them up, and you'll see a massive increase in character deaths, especially in situations where random placement at the beginning of combat puts a PC between them.
And this in a campaign where PC death, aside from a prestige freebie or two, represents a viscous smack to WBL (unlike, say, in Living Greyhawk, where level-loss gave you time to catch up). The deleterious effect will be particularly pronounced in the Tier 3-4 range where most PCs have neither fame nor cash. (A had a PC I enjoyed playing immensely get killed in LG twice at low-level, at 2nd and 3rd levels, both times while playing the mod which would have leveled her, resulting in her dropping to XP levels 0.5 and 1.5 respectively -- but I could keep playing the same character -- PFS players will not have such an option.)
In short, doubling BBEMs will have the effect of not only increasing PC death overall, but will disproportionately target inexperienced players at low levels where such death is not recoverable due to the existing death mechanics of the campaign.
Chris Mortika wrote:
An aside: so long as the raffle / auction prize is "some imaginary equipment or an imaginary advantage given to your imaginary character, who might die in his next encounter, and then where will you be, smart guy," there will be a significant number of people who will not understand why anyone would want to pay real money for it. They might still donate, if they think the cause is just, but the prize wouldn't be that attractive to them.
The most useful prize is probably a free Raise Dead (with the trimmings) which can be retroactively applied to any character.
Wait until he hits level 4 and begins swifting Ki for AC+4 while wearing magic armor.
Barbarians hit for big damage, but they also take big damage. The armored-MM gets unhittable fast, and doesn't even take -2s to his weapon attacks (he's only -2 to the maneuvers granted by Flurry of Maneuvers).
The primary "pro" of being a straight or mostly straight-class rogue is that you have amazing flexibility in dealing with a wide variety of situations. Avoiding combat, for instance, when you need to.
Armored monk (Maneuver Master):
01 EWP:Fauchard, Improved Trip
Wear four-mirror armor. Tactics: Flurry of Maneuvers with a trip polearm. Finish combats early with plenty of time left to read Paizo threads complaining about overpowered characters.
Hurry up and make one today! Play it exclusively until Ultimate Combat has a new print-run which finally fixes it.
The 2hPA types consistently face-plant with big Xs in their eyes due to crappy AC (we both know a certain local player whose barbarian is (in)famous for croaking four times in three levels). INT-maxed GSF wizards have a ball until something grabs them and stuffs them down their gullet; a round of acid and crushing, and they're done.
Yet all anyone remembers is the "power creep", not the extra times they died in which, say, a dwarf axe-n-tower fighter, or high-CON gnome teleportation specialist, would easily survive those respective encounters.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Maybe it's an undead-based scenario and you have a mix of channeling cleric/s and paladin/s.
Sometimes an adventure is a cake-walk for an uber-optimized group.
-- What a refreshing change of pace it would be to in-character roleplay for an extra half-hour.
What we're looking for are quantifiable ways to make the scenario adjustable for large/small groups and perhaps those adjustments can be made at the player's request to accommodate power-builds.
Well, that would be an example of the campaign doing something, not a GM solo adding creatures willy-nilly.
BTW, I think single-BBEM fights suck. "Not Superstar", etc. It wouldn't bother me in the least if I never saw another one of them.
It is not a GM's responsibility to "fix" (AKA rewrite) a lousy module. -- That is the campaign's responsibility; and it only happens when GM's complain up the chain.
Q. How is picking your stats any different than choosing your class, weapons, feats and spells?
I.e., if I make a Power Attack barbarian/fighter with a bardiche who wears a bandolier full of potions of Enlarge Person and has the Accelerated Drinker trait, is he suddenly over-the-top because he started with a strength of 19 and paid for it with a charisma of 7?
Why does a gnome bard or halfling sorcerer have to have a strength of 10? Or 8? Or even 6? Perhaps, just maybe, magic and gift-of-gab is how they overcome their physical limitations, no?
Plug the following 20pt array of 15,14,12,12,12,12 into a dwarf for STR:15,DEX:12,CON+14,INT:14,WIS+14,CHA-10, and give him plate armor, Combat Expertise, Steel Soul, and the Threatening Defender and Defender of the Society traits, and even a "min-maxed" 25-pt barbarian is going to have trouble hitting him or enjoying saves as good.
Stats are only one small part of the total package.
If you are wanting a front-line rogue, skip two-weapon fighting. Longspear and strength it, you'll get more damage...
This is building a fighter, not a rogue.
A rogue is the person who wheedles info out of an NPC who won't be intimidated, gets the best deal on ship passage, knows when he's being BS'd 90% of the time, smuggles the half-orc's greatsword into the VIP sauna, UMDs anything in sight after about 6th, and solves the puzzle-trap which will otherwise kill everybody.
If you make a STR 18 melee "rogue" with mediocre INT and dumped CHA, I guarantee you that you will be unhappy with your character at about the point the fighters are buying their Gloves of Dueling. -- Unless, of course, you never viewed him as being much of a "rogue" anyway.
Back to the topic at hand: Don't be afraid to multiclass. After 5th or 6th level, Rogues don't get much besides steady increase to sneak attack dice and eventually some decently sweet master talents.
That's like saying fighters don't get much besides steady increases in hitpoints and eventually some decently sweet feats.
The ideal rogue multiclass is a 1st-level dip for better starting hitpoints, martial weapons and a selection of otherwise non-rogue skills (such as Survival).
You guys are lacking a rogue and a wizard... I humbly suggest an Arcane Trickster.
Or, with less money than the fighters are spending on weapons and armor, you UMD a bunch of cheap wands while wearing a Circlet of Persuasion.