I'm alright with adding other options, but I feel that if it is to close the disparity gap between fighters and wizards, it's simply not going to "fix" that. You can definitely make martials more powerful, but the nature of a magic bending the laws of everything will keep them more powerful, at least without just removing many of the interesting options and relegating them to blasters and healers only. Which, as long as there are great options for both types, it's not really an issue. That said, I don't like the idea of just ending the game early (guessing you mean pre-level 6) and I feel that it's lazy and unnecessary to do that. A fighter is still very relevant at level 15+ without the Mythic options.
Now granted, I agree that there should be options for both levels of play and I feel that Mythic is going to be that option. My only fear though is that in doing that, it's going to slowly become the "correct" way to play a fighter and discourage the former school of thought. Which, I'd rather neither style was discouraged from gameplay.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
But, those books you mentioned are all GM books. APG, UM, and UC are all GM books as much as they are player book because you are expanding options for both people. Gamemastery Guide is a purely GM book, and while it is good, I wonder if it's sold nearly as well...
Also, UE and NPCX are also GM books.
I'm not good at math, no. I still count on my fingers to do math. And it's beyond subtraction and addition, but also changing amounts of points spent for spells and such. I mentioned spellpoints because that's usually the counterpoint to Vancian magic.
Mr. Sin asked a while ago why we like Vancian more, though I think it got lost in the last couple of posts.
Mr. Sin, I like Vancian because it is easier for me to keep track of. I've tried Spell Points and I've played HERO, where your Endurance is essentially a Spellpoint system. And overall, I found them harder to keep track of. Constantly adding and subtracting and scratching out numbers and keeping track of spells that constantly use points per round. It's not my jam. I prefer Vancian because it's just me tallying off spells as I use them. Easy, succinct, and simple.
I can agree to that, especially the Whirlwind Attack prerequisites.
And I disagree, especially since beyond those levels, you get into magic equipment that your fighter uses to be more than just a mortal. You are essentially being Iron Man or Justice League Batman, with gadgets and armor to keep up with everyone and not be the Aquaman. It's how a mortal fighter (an exceptional mortal fighter) can still stay relevant at levels 15+ and it's how I've stayed relevant at such levels. It's how a fighter can stab a dragon, despite being smaller than his pinky. Hell if nature has taught us right with the Candiru, size doesn't matter when you can still hurt the s!%% out of someone larger than yourself.
Honestly, I do hope Mythic can scratch the itch of a fighter beyond mortal ken. But at the same time, I don't want to play Exalted: The Pathfinder RPG, and I don't want it to become the "automatically better way". I already get enough of that when I play a non-healing cleric or a wizard that decides to use evocation spells. It's not my personal style, and I've played up to level 19 as a fighter and stayed a vital member of our party, without the wizard going easy on us. I just don't like the idea of pile-driving titans and parrying meteors, which is why I don't play Exalted. Now granted, this make the fighter the most gear dependant of the classes, but I never thought that to be an issue. As a note, before someone says it, this isn't me trying to purposely "make the fighter suck" and make sure "martials can't have nice things". Hell, some of the things the barbarian can get (pounce and DR) are cool examples of what I'd throw on the fighter.
Maybe once Mythic comes out and I play Wrath of the Righteous, I may change my tune. Who knows.
I'd actually like to talk more about this. I find that for the fighter (and pretty much any martial class), there are two schools of thought on how the fighter should be like. Of course, there are people that meet more into the middle of these schools of thought.
The first school of thought is to have the fighter be an exceptional mortal. They use their skills, their smarts, and their equipment to overcome their foes. People like Batman, Zorro, Robin Hood, Altiar, Guts... I tend to fall in this school. We tend to prefer less of the over-the-top mythic stuff that is in the second school and instead prefer options that certainly push the edge of "realistic" without getting into world-shattering powers. This isn't out of some "anti-martial/pro-caster" malice, but out of what we prefer in our form of fantasy. That even in a world where magic breaks the laws, there are still those laws that mortal men have to abide by, but can get around with magic equipment.
The second school of thought is to have the fighter be beyond mortal and more mythic. They use physics-shattering powers like hurling boulders, slicing the air to cut something from afar, or running along branches. This is the stuff of legend that you see in folklore (Hercules, Gilgamesh, Lu Bu, and Momotarō), as well as modern day pop culture in video games (Kratos, Dante) and anime (Ichigo, Naruto). These kind of options are more into the supernatural, and people in this school feel that these warriors are at the point where they become more than men and should be able to break the same laws that magic does.
I think there are two issues for both of this. First, I think that there needs to be both options of play to be able to play as for both groups. I actually feel Mythic Adventures will be playing a huge part in this, and I want there to be options for both schools of fighters. Of course, this leads to the second issue, that the more supernatural abilities will, by definition, be the superior options and anyone from the first school that doesn't want to use those options may be seen as purposefully sabotaging the group they are in. While that is more of a "player issue", I'd hate to see rules encouraging only one way to play a fighter when the options are clearly superior than not having them.
I never found Int 13 to be that difficult to achieve, but by the same token, I never felt forced to make something an 18 (or 20) at level 1 when a 16 will honestly suffice. And a lot of what you describe is less of a necessity and more of a want. I'll agree that if you want to do combat maneuvers more than just occasionally, you would need Combat Expertise/Improved Unarmed Strike/Combat Reflexes prereq and then the Improved "Combat Maneuver" to allow it to be useful without the attack of opportunity. And I could even see getting the Greater CM being close to a necessity. But I feel that many of the other options, while good, are more icing on the cake. I feel that they aren't necessary to being a good tripper, or a good grappler, or etc, but add a wealth of options to further improve beyond where you are at. And truthfully, at least for the fighter, you have 21 feats to spend. You can definitely spare the feats to be good at a combat maneuver and still have enough room for damage feats.
As to the ranged tripping, the wizard is still under the same stipulations for trip and bull rush and cannot do either to a Huge or bigger creature. In addition, the wizard has to make three checks; one to hit the creature (ranged touch attack so not difficult), one to bull rush the creature (much harder because you cannot increase your "CMB" with items and feats), and a third CMB check to trip the creature (same issues as with the bull rush). Meanwhile, the player without Improved Trip can simply trip a person with a reach weapon, not provoke an attack of opportunity, and actually get their enhancement bonus from the weapon added to the trip attempt. So I feel the spell isn't actually as awesome as stated.
Now, I do agree that the size stipulation for tripping and bull rushing should be removed.
I've never found grappling and tripping without the feats to be scary in the games I've played. And truthfully, at least in terms of fighters, I don't see an issue with most of the feat chains. There's a couple out there that are silly, but overall, many of the feat chains I've found are stemmed off of feats that as a fighter, I'd already want to have. Only thing I'd probably like to see are some of the BAB prereqs to be toned down a bit.
Also, I've like Stand Still and have never found it to be worse than doing damage.
Mmm, year-old necro. Classy.
Also, the rogue is spending less gold than you to be better at tumbling. Seriously, belts of strength and dex are way more expensive than ranks in Acrobatics is free and Skill Focus (Acrobatics). And with just one belt and feat to have a 60% chance to beat the CMD of a dragon, let alone your character. Not to mention that items that provide acrobatics bonus aren't on any major slots (boots) so they won't take up slots you need for Dex and such. So, your character is spending a s+%@ ton of money to beat a rogue that just put ranks in Acrobatics and took Skill Focus, and you think that's a good enough point to necro a dead thread? Congrats?
I don't like Spell-points from a math standpoint. I already have to keep track of HP loss and gain, so I do not need a second bar of numbers to keep track of for casting spells. Vancian is easier for me to keep track of. It's as simple as just a tally mark. Personally, I prefer spontaneous Vancian casters like Sorcerers and Oracles, but I'm alright with prepared spellcasters. It's probably my reason for not really being into psionics or systems that use similar concepts (HERO's Endurance).
Actually Dragon, everyone is forgetting their Seasoned Racial Trait
Seasoned (Ex) Triaxians suffer no harm from being in hot or cold environments depending on whether they are Summerborn or Winterborn. Summerborn Triaxians can exist comfortably in conditions between 90 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit without having to attempt Fortitude saves. Winterborn Triaxians can exist comfortably in conditions between 40 and –20 degrees Fahrenheit without having to attempt Fortitude saves. When in conditions of severe cold or heat, Triaxians only have to attempt Fortitude saves once per hour instead of once every 10 minutes. Transitional Triaxians do not have this ability.
This makes them 10 RP
If the fighter bypasses rolling, then a 20 was not rolled, therefore the Sorc wins?
No, it means that the fighter hits a loophole wherein he is exempt from having to make the confirmation roll. Basically, from my reading of the rules, the Sorcerer bloodline power depends on the fact that a person has to make a confirmation roll on their critical hits. If the fighter is exempt from it and simply auto succeeds, then he isn't affected by the power. It's a case of something very specific overriding another rule.
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Well, you CAN buy those items and then cash them in for BP, but the return won't be nearly as economically breaking as before. Admittedly, you are better off just putting money in.
One thing I like about the Kingdom Building rules is that they give you ideas on how to start a kingdom. Whether it's charters, vassals, fiefdoms... it's all there! My only wish in this book was that there was a rule for making navies. I'm sure I could crib the army rules for myself.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
So the old 3.5 Flaws make a comeback. Sort of. There are a list of Drawbacks that you can get; you can select 1 drawback in order to gain 3 starting traits instead of 2. Pretty nifty, and the drawbacks that are presented are varied and make a lot of sense. Haven't seen at the mechanics of them yet, however.
Yeah, I like how the drawbacks are more personality based and not physical (lame, blindness). Much more managable and less min-max-y
I feel it definitely has some good GM stuff in there. Though Gamemastery Guide had some good articles about Worldbuilding, although I wonder if it sold well... I myself rarely crack it open, as useful as it is.
I'll have to reread it again. I briefly glanced at it. But it's a good way to haggle on expensive items. I wouldn't use it for something as small as potions though.
Yeah. Dwarven childhood starts at 20 years and Elven at 55.
Okay, so I've sunken my teeth more into this and I gotta say, I like just about all the rules in this. Bargaining is probably one that will take a little for me to wrap my head around.
Also, I am happy with the Young Characters, especially that they do not get a bonus to Charisma (which I always hated). It's a shame that they can only take NPC classes, but I plan on allowing 0-level classes from Super Genius Games. Also, retraining is nice. It takes a decent amount of time (usually 5-7 days per thing you are changing), money (10 x amount of days x your level I think?), and for most, you MUST have a trainer a higher level than you. And of course, they leave all allowance and arbitration up to the GM, so like the Race Builder, a player just can't assume that they are allowed this.
The Kingdom Building rules... holy crap. It's like you're playing Civ: The RPG. They have A LOT of optional stuff like Embassies, Trade Routes, Declaring Independence, and Combining Vassals into a kingdom. The 4x gamer in me is crying tears of joy.
Also, to the bard guy, there is a bardic college. It'll be good for my bard!
Considering it is you hitting a creature in the vitals, I could see that thematically making sense. Although there would be some added negative baggage to the feat, with some creatures immune to precision damage. Although that list is fairly small. Off the top of my head, Oozes, Elementals, and Incorporeal, with Proteans having a 50% chance to ignore sneak attacks*. So overall, not actually that bad. Very specific cases I feel, so I can dig it.
*It actually specifically states Sneak Attacks, so by RAW, precision damage would be unaffected. Although I personally feel the intention would be precision damage due to the ever-changing body of a protean. YMMV
Unsure what I'm allowed to spoil...
But I'll spoiler it
The down time rules look amazing. There's good buildings for everyone. Bard-wise, you have the Caster's Tower, Dance Hall, and pretty much anything that can attract a crowd. These don't really give bonuses to your characters per se, just your kingdom.
Also, for Story Feats for a bard, there's Magnum Opus. It allows your taking 10 for Craft or Performance skill to actually be a 15, and when you complete this Story Feat, you gain a +5 on one Perform/Craft skill and +1 to all Craft/Perform skills. I like it.
At first glance, it's definitely not half bad. Though Rogues and Monks wouldn't get any usage from Greater Vital Strike admittedly. My only concern is it favoring high crit builds more, and in addition, escalating critical hit damage to an abnormally high point. +30 damage on a critical hit would be nasty, especially on x3 and x4 weapons. I'd personally lower the scaling on that damage a bit for the Improved and Greater options.
Actually, having run a Foo Lion, I didn't think it was that bad. But, with applying templates, you still have to look at the current stats and see how they mesh. For example, I found that the Zombie Vulture was really one CR higher than it would normally have been. That's just the nature of applying templates, especially more complex ones.
The only major CR ooopsies I've ever encountered in PF are the Clockwork Soldier and Seugathi. Compared to 3.5 where the very first MM had CRs all over the place and often with little connection to the actual challenge posed by the monster, it's a major step forward.
I can't say much on the Clockwork Soldier, because the one time we fought them, one of them one shot our Gunslinger with a max damage critical on a halberd. It was... saddening, but a fluke.
I find that shadows and shadow demons are the two that I feel bleed into the upper edge of their CRs. It's rare that I throw multiples of them at a low-level party.
I actually feel most incorporeal creatures are at the edge of being too high for their CR. Though they tend to A) have lower HP to make up for it and B) have a weakness to sunlight. Of them, the Shadow Demon is a Rough Beast. DR 10 and Incorporeal? Hot damn. That said, their AC and Hp is of someone at CR 5, so they can die quickly if you can bypass the DR. And it's not hard to have a cold iron weapon.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I live in Florida though...
I got the PDF though, so I am still waiting on the hardcopy. Which is fine, I'm happy :D
I would, but I just got my copy of Ultimate Campaign...
... so I'm going to be a while :)
Thing about the full attack action for the enemy is that luckily, your AC is good enough to dodge many of the iterative attacks, since (generally) they hit on more penalized attacks. Natural attacks work a tad bit differently, with -5 for secondary attacks, so admittedly, a creature's secondary natural attacks will probably hit more often than a humanoid's iterative attacks. But usually, those secondary attacks do less damage (claws, hooves, tail slaps).
As for Vital Strike, I feel that yes, assuming you hit with every iterative attack, you'll benefit with Weapon Specialization more often. But when you can't make the full-attack for whatever reason, being able to add double your weapon damage in one hit (or more with the feat chain) is still nice. I understand the importance of flat bonuses to attack damage. it is, generally, more reliable and stacks with critical hits. But, I also value adding more dice much more than many others do. It is more of a luck-based risk for more damage, but I find that the probability of landing higher amounts of damage is worth it. And I also find that only looking at the average roll on a dice isn't the only thing one should look at when deciding on damage. For example, with a long sword, you'll go from 4.5 average damage to 9 average damage on the Vital Strike. Furthermore, on the Vital Strike, you'll have a 90.63% chance of doing more than the 4 damage average on 1d8. So for the majority of the time, you'll be doing more damage in that one hit than without it. Now granted, bigger weapon dice will benefit more from this, since we are doubling greater values. It's unfortunately the nature of higher numbers. But usually, I tend to stack Vital Strike with other magical weapon abilities, like the energy dice (flaming, shocking) and also the burst weapons.
As a thinking exercise, I wonder what would happen if you allowed Vital Strike dice to be multiplied along with the crit? Usually, lower dice values have higher crit values. It would probably favor the higher crit values and (possibly) make x4 weapons unsurvivable.
Also... at first glance, Penetrating Strike is either pretty mediocre, or Clustered Shots is too good. But, generally speaking, when it comes to adding bonuses to damage, melee will be able to add more flat bonuses to their damage than ranged attackers. Power Attack's +50% damage as well as two-handed damage are two things that ranged attackers do not get. So, assuming that an archer and a swordsman are both able to hit all of their attacks in a full-attack regiment, and the archer had Clustered Shots while the Swordsman had Penetrating Strike, would the damage that bypasses be about equal?
I was taking into account HP growth as the levels go up. And what I found both playing and running was that even into the higher levels, a fighter could do meaningful damage into the late teens of high-level play if they can get only one hit in. Feats like power attack, Improved Crit, Weapon Specialization, Vital Strike, etc, as well as magic weapons and items to add more damage help greatly. Now granted, this isn't to downplay some of the dangers mentioned above (flying in particular), because those would also affect a pouncing barbarian (though, not an archer). Much like how weather, darkness, and spells like wind wall will affect archers more so than it would a melee fighter. But, at least when I build a fighter, I try to work around that either with feats, magic items, or my caster teammate.
Now that I mentioned Vital Strike, I would like to say that I do agree it should be applied to charges. Unsure on Spring Attack, but definitely charges.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Alright, admittedly, some classes (bard, paladin, monk, samurai, ninja, druid, and maybe inquisitor?) have more "cultural baggage" than the fighter, wizard, rogue, etc. My point was that getting hung up on the name doesn't matter, because you can always refluff a class to suit your needs. That was my point with the cavalier. I was pointing out the sheer absurdity with complaining about a class because of some cultural roots in the name. Especially since the druid in D&D is nothing like the druids from ancient times, really only sharing a name with the original concept (much like the bard). Like with any class, you could easily refluff the druid as a Native American witch doctor, or a Vodou bokor, or a shaman, or even a yamabushi aesthetic. In fact, the only time I ever played a Celtic druid was when I was in a Roman Empire-inspired campaign. I'd hazard to say that of the classes with cultural baggage, the druid probably has the easiest time with refluffing. But any can really have it. A ninja could be more like the hashashin of the Middle East, a samurai a bogatyr of Slavic lore, and a paladin or cavalier can be a youxia from Chinese folklore.
Essentially, my point is that getting hung up on cultural ties with name is absurd, and only limits yourself in what you can really do with these classes.
Usually, when I draw it out on graph paper, I'll photocopy the map at my job, then cut up the rooms into little tiles to act as sort of a minimap. I only ever need to draw out the room if there is an encounter there that requires it (combat, trap).
Pretty much that. From what I've read, compilations would pretty much ruin Paizo, so it's in their best interest to not do them and to keep people's expectations about compilations relatively low.
Sometimes the customer isn't always right. Usually because the customer is too busy thinking about their wants rather than the economical needs of a company. Especially a company in a niche market that could easily flop like so many others.
Y'know, I've never felt this so-called push to have to full-attack every single turn. I've never had an issue with only doing around 10%-20% of the bad guy's health in a blow, rather than around 35-40% you'd get with a full-attack. Granted, the full-attack will net you more damage (if you can land the iteratives), but to be able to do a constant 1/10 - 1/5 of the BBEG's health in damage to them is still pretty good. This is especially true since you have three to four other players in your party that are helping out. Whether it's another martial, or a caster with buff spells, or a caster with save-or-suck spells, you've got plenty of damage and abilities being thrown at the BBEG. It's why I don't fret if my fighters can't get a full-attack off for one round because I'm still hitting the BBEG for a sizable chunk of health. Now, fighters getting a way to pounce would be pretty cool, and I wouldn't say no to that. But, I also don't find myself being pressured to have to full-attack every round at higher levels like people seem to say.
Also, unrelated, but the "X class is a culture, not a class" is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. By definition, classes themselves are based on cultural folklore and stories that are popular amongst a group of people. It's like complaining the paladin class is nothing like the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, or bards being more than just minstrels, or the cavalier being more than a Royalist supporter of Charles I.
1) I'd say yes.
b) there's already no save, so yes
2) The nature of potions are more physical I feel. Will is mental and thus, based on your perception of the caster. Arsenic will always harm your body, no matter how friendly you are to your poisoner. However, if someone casts Charm Person on you, making you allies, then you would mentally be willing to teleport with them. Or become sequestered by them.
That sounds dirty :). Also I didn't realize that Sequester even existed. I'll remember that.
When you add a template or a class level(s) to a creature, sometimes the numbers you get are lower or higher than what the norm for a CR is. So you have to adjust the CR to what it'd properly be. Chances are, adding the Lifespark Construct template was too good (or not good enough), so the CR was changed accordingly.
Well I actually think Litany of Righteousness is pretty cool, even if you can't always get a full-attack on. You're still doing double damage on a hit, which is better than only doing a normal amount.
I also don't think that Combat Maneuvers are all that hard to pull off or bad. This is coming from high level (15+) play. Is it a 100% success? No, but, I'm of the opinion that most options shouldn't be completely absolutely free of failure. Tripping is arguably the hardest one to pull off because of quadrupeds and snake-like creatures.
I understand, my response was just in general, not really directed at anyone. I remember the whole monk debacle, where suddenly Paizo was the white whale, every monk fan Captain Ahab, and the monk their leg. Suddenly, everyone is crying blood and thunder at the horrific atrocity that Paizo hath wrought on the poor monk. Darfur? Forget that. The Holocaust? Not even close. Like, somewhere in a dark corner, Hitler was crying deeply, tears streaming down his rosy cheeks, eating a large tub of chocolate ice cream and watching The Notebook while Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, and Vlad the Impaler were all trying to console him because for that whole time with the monk, Hitler was no longer the most hated person in the world. It's that reaction that makes me and my friends think so little of this forum and the people on it. Which is a shame, because there are some cool people here and I want to like this place.
My response was more in response to how many people criticize Paizo, not the fact that they do. I don't mind telling Paizo that there's something wrong with their rules (Antagonize is a good example for me). But, I'm not going to start insulting devs and outright demanding an immediate response and change. My point it that people are so quick to throw the devs under the bus when there's a rule they don't like, when many times, they do read the responses patiently and listen to people. At least for me, I don't get riled up by rules issues because as much as I love this game, I still understand that it's just a game. And posting angrily at the devs, demanding blood tribute and sacrifice for their transgressions is just not my style.
I'd rather save that for when I want good harvest :)