Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I think a level 6 NPC could qualify for the PRC, if you look at it from an RAI perspective. I think there was an error in the pre-reqs for the class, as it lists Bluff and Disguise as requiring +7, but other pre-req skills as +5. It is likely that whoever wrote the class was adding the +2 bonus to Bluff and Disguise from the Deceitful to the pre-reqs. Also, most PrCs are meant to be taken after 5 levels of a regular class.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
It also means I can damage my "friends" with any damaging touch attack spell without needing an attack roll.
I think the wording needs to be tweaked.
Huh, so you can cast Harm on a friend without needing an attack roll as long as you are in combat. That makes things... interesting.
Lets say i wanted to hit a friendly with a beneficial ranged touch attack in combat. Would i still roll to attack as per normal, against their touch AC?
If they want you to hit them, you can forego the roll. Technically you also need to roll to hit someone with a melee touch attack to cast Cure Light Wounds.
The wording of the feat implies that you reduce your cumulative penalty, not the penalty per range increment.
So, here is how it would break down:
0-80 ft: -0 (0 mod reduce by two to get 0)
Still, taking a shot out to 240 ft without any range penalty is pretty sweet.
Ask them, are you really interested in playing Pathfinder, or are you more interested in hanging out? If they just want to hang out, then schedule that for another night separate from the RPG night. Let them know if they want to just spectate, then try not to interrupt the game.
Another option would be to find a more laid-back and simpler rule set. It could be that they want to play an RPG, but don't like a heavier rules system like Pathfinder.
This is worse than death in Pathfinder.
I don't think it was intentional on his part. He hasn't played with us for a half a year and just got back into the game two weeks ago. Contrary to what has been suggested by others, I do talk to other players in the group, but they aren't actively watching this thread to reply in real time.
Yes, I CAN tweak the build to be a super-effective mega-flanking sneak attacker, but I have to make sacrifices to do so. My main point is that the bard really didn't have to make many sacrifices to become better at my core skills and even ignores a primary class feature without impacting his effectiveness.
BTW, Lamontia please post a complete level 6 build to show me how I should have built my swashbuckler rogue. I want to know.
Further up the thread someone suggested that rogues get a +1/die bonus on attack rolls when sneak attack damage would apply. I can totally get behind this rule. It would make my sneak attacks hit more often and go a long way towards making melee sneak attackers more fun to play. When the fighters and full BAB classes can toss out damage in spades without really trying, I'd be happy just doing some nice burst damage after a few turns of positioning and single attacks.
Roberta Yang wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.
I wouldn't be that cynical. I don't think it was an intentional choice by the design team at Paizo to have the class in the current state it is.
As other have pointed out, it is so situational, it is a non-factor. Yes, if I do land a really good hit once in a blue moon (TWF with longsword and shortsword, BTW) I do some nice damage, but it is only in the 24-point range on average. Only one attack will hit most times I do get in a full attack. Meanwhile, the bard is moving in and consistently doing damage. I don't know what his exact stats are, but it is consistent and steady damage on most rounds in the 10-15 point range. Did I mention he can also cast spells?
No, I did not dump DEX, because I thought it would be helpful for AC and skill purposes. I did get a good stat array due to my rolls (we don't do point-buy) so I have an 17 Str and a 20 Dex. I think his stats are higher. Honestly, the only thing that is keeping me alive is a Cloak of Displacement.
Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.
No, I'm not saying he's playing it better, he is just mechanically better at it. His Bluff, Sleight of hand and Stealth skills are better or equal to mine due to the bonus that his archetype grants him. He does more damage in combat (probably mostly gear-related). Also, since I gave up trapfinding for some extra fighter feats for my archetype, he can out-rogue me on the trap side of things. Oh, BTW, he can also cast spells.
I'm pretty much done with this class. I've tried to stick it out for too long.
Anecdote: I am playing a level 6 rogue with the swashbuckler archetype in a campaign. One player just rejoined the group with a level 6 Sandman bard. He is a better fighter and a better rogue than I am, with the benefit of being able to cast haste. Also, he doesn't even bother to use his bardic performance abilities.
Huh, I never noticed that Sp didn't require verbal or somatic components. That actually makes it a viable rogue talent.
Sorry, I misread that. The second point about casting while hidden still applies.
Take out the True Strike before combat, you can't take it with Minor Magic, it is a 1st level spell. Also, you can't cast while hidden, or at the very least, the target would be aware of your presence because it has a verbal component. The bolding is mine:
Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
I think most of these options are going to be too complicated for a player that doesn't like class-based systems. Adding more classes will probably be a non-starter.
Make it simple, create a fighter with Conspiracy Hunter and Charming or Fast-talker traits to pick up the skills (stealth and bluff, respectively). Plus, only fighters get access to the groovy weapon specialization feats.
It is pretty sexist to assume the female bugbears aren't capable of the same amount of violence as a male bugbear.
If you're going to put modern subjective morality into your character's worldview, they should also be pretty open minded about gender roles and equality.
Thank the run feet for 625 feet per round and you're moving at 71.022 MPH
Thanks! Those are very helpful actually, I'm trying to put together an investigative/roleplaying heavy story. Here's a much more specific question. Do any of you find the inclusion of NPC quoted text annoying? I find myself doing that a lot, and because I have lots of weird, grotesque characters I feel like it's necessary to evoke their personalities and quirks.
If you're doing an investigative scenario, I recommend the rule of three. Try to have at least three clues lead to the next scene or location. Don't expect the PCs to figure it out the first time. They'll ignore the first clue, misinterpret the second and then finally figure out the third one.
Also, don't make finding the clues hinged on a Perception check. Make the clue obvious, but the trick will be interpreting the clue. So, leave a letter on the floor, but make the PCs decipher the code words or figure out who wrote it.
Funnily enough, I had a thread about this right here. It included some statistical data and some issues you'd run into. One of the biggest issues is changing the way Improved Critical works.
I didn't see that thread, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ultimately, I don't think a D20 game can be ported to a multiple dice mechanic without reworking a lot of factors (threat ranges, ACs, etc.) Once you start getting outside of your normal target number range, the probability of success drops off pretty dramatically.
When you plot those probabilities against comparable attack bonuses and ACs, you see they do some weird stuff. If you have a relatively "high" attack bonus, you do best with 2d10 until you hit level 2, then 3d6 gives you better results all the way until level/CR 20
If you have a "low" attack bonus, 2d10 gives you better odds all the way through level 12, then 1d20 and 2d10 net you the same success rates. When you hit level 20, using a straight d20 gets you the best success chance.
I worked this up today after seeing a discussion on G+ about the merits/flaws of rolling 1d20, 2d10 or 3d6 as a mechanic for D20 systems. The sheets compare attack success probabilities against level appropriate ACs among the three mechanics.
BTW, I am not a statistician, so take it easy on me if I made any mistakes.
It cannot engulf as part of a run or charge because those are not standard actions.
FYI, last I knew "re-skinning" mounts/familiars is not PFS legal. That may or may not affect your decision.
I just did some digging and I think I found the issue. See the overrun action for more detail:
Overrun from PRD:
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.
So, as part of a charge, you can make an overrun check and if you succeed by 5 or more, you can make an attack in addition to the charge attack.
Tika Waylan (Majere), anyone?
It should be noted that medium and heavy armors are worn with padded clothing (called a gambeson or aketon) underneath, so glass or invisible armor isn't going to actually "show off your goods".
I was waiting for someone to mention this. I don't know where people get that idea that you would be wearing absolutely nothing under a suit of plate. That would certainly cause a lot of chafing.
After a little more thought, if you were going to re-tweak costs (weather that be GP, stat penalties, negative levels, etc.) for resurrection/raise dead, you should look at how long it takes you to get "back in the game." The quicker you are back in the game and rolling dice/making decisions, the higher the cost.
Here's what I'm gathering from this discussion. Death means several things:
1) The player has to sit in "time out" for a while. They can take no actions and are dependent on the other players to help him.
2) Looking at it another way, it is a permanent "Plane Shift" for the character. This doesn't cost any material components and neither does the spell.
3) Death is another opportunity to roll a new character. Similar to #1, you're still in "time out" until you get a chance to roll a new character or wait for the DM to introduce your new character. These is essentially no mechanical penalty to this option, in fact, it is a boon for the party if you start your new character with appropriate WBL.
It seems the ultimate penalty for death is a pause in play. The cost for resuming play (either in GP or real time) is dependent on how you chose to resolve it. If you pay GP, it is a loss of character wealth. Mechanically, Breath of Life is the most optimal solution, the only drawback being the opportunity cost of having that prepared at the expense of a similar spell. Until a certain level, every death penalty is time, as it is either resolved by making a new character or waiting until the party can get to a caster of high enough level to resurrect the character.
Am I right? Not trolling, just trying to summarize the different ideas.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Regarding #1, I agree, plane travelling magic should be more expensive.
Regarding #2, lives are cheap, so why not send out masses to gain life experience? Also, when you have elves, you have plenty of time. I think it could work.
BTW, I am also in the camp wherein death should be a penalty, but bringing in a new character is an even bigger penalty. I don't do this from some perverse desire to make my players miserable, but to add an element of danger/risk to the game. Do the players really want to risk pressing further into the lower levels of the dungeon or do they retreat to rest? If they do, more zombies could rise, things from the lower depths could wander up from the lower levels, etc.
But, I also like to consider how the system as a whole works. I really like the idea of changing the material component to a "resurrection stone" and the supply/demand possibilities that brings up. Sure, the church of Iomedae could devote its time to training as many higher-level clerics as possible, but if they can't get the stones, it doesn't mean much. Enter plot hook!
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Your modern-day bias is showing. We're not talking about a smart young person getting a scholarship and going to medical school, we're talking about sponsorship of a talented student by a wealthy person. If a noble sponsored someone to become a doctor, that noble has probably invested thousands of gp into that doctor's training. And with pseudo-feudalism in most fantasy settings, that noble all but owns that doctor. The doctor is in debt to the noble... but the doctor probably doesn't want to leave because his job is to take care of a handful of people (the noble's family) rather than deal with hundreds of unwashed peasants... he probably has a nice little house or lives in the noble's manor... it is a good life, compared to someone treating commoners with plague, syphilis, and dysentery.
To be fair, Sean, comparing real-life feudal practices to a fantasy world is also building bias into the setting. No one can really say how society functions in a game setting other than the writer. One can reason that a good-aligned country or organization can have completely altruistic intentions and train/educate/level up clerics for free. Barring altruism, in a setting where the gods have direct influence on the day-to-day lives of the inhabitants, come churches could consider it their duty to do so.
One thing that really galled me in 3.5, and still does in PF, is that your choice of race typically has only a little impact for the first few levels and then drops off from there.
I agree with the OP in that i would like to see race play a bigger role in character progression. It isn't a matter of it being "better" than any other option, and you shouldn't restrict any races from playing any class, but I think a level 20 elf fighter should be different than a level 20 dwarf fighter.
To the OP, one idea I was thinking about was modifying the racial paragon levels (Unearthed Arcana, maybe?) and giving bonus paragon levels to the players at certain level breaks. You might take a look at that. It will tweak the power level a bit, but it shouldn't be game-breaking and the dwarves will get "dwarfier" and the elves will get "elfier"
There are more issues at work here. Talk to the bard player and see why she doesn't want to fight. It could be that she has a very different idea of how the game will play out. If she is going to go out of her way to avoid combat, and the other two players are doing the opposite, at least one of the three players will not be having a good time. Involve the DM as well to figure out what will be the focus of the campaign before you just whip up a combat-optimized opposite of the bard.
Also, shaming and brow-beating the bard player will NOT help the situation.
I plan on using this for my next campaign in addition to a few other tweaks, notably using weapon groups instead of the standard proficiency list.
Any suggestion for replacing magical training if not using that system for casters? I could see lumping "rays" and "touch attacks" to the Offensive Training chain to give a boost to the casters. It is hard to think of another boost to give to casters that doesn't already replicate the Metamagic feats. Perhaps giving a certain number of metamagic feat usages per day without the spell level boost? I don't want to go too far overboard, though.
Uh, thanks for the reminder. Apparently I posted in that thread! I'll bookmark it for later.