Odraude's page

Odraude wrote:

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.

I see your point, Odraude, I really do. The problem is that the reality-bending classes get the exact same benefits that the mundane classes get.

Superman may be super-strong, while Iron Man needs his armor, but Superman is not as smart as Iron Man (unless they gave him super-intelligence... I dunno, DC seems to give superman new powers every now and then...) and Clark Kent has not access to resources such as the ones available to Tony Stark. And Iron Man made his own armor. he didn't have to steal it after killing Dr.Doom or pay Bruce Banner to make it.

In D&D/PF, this is not the case. It's like there is an item that multiplies your Str. But all classes have access to that same item.

So Superman would still be much more powerful than Iron Man, because now the armor is multiplying his super-strength while tony is multiplying his average human strength.

Or, superman doesn't need the boost to strength, so he instead gets a similarly powerful item that allows him to teleport, read minds or control weather. So the gap in power stays the same.

Also, this is personal preference I admit, but I don't think most of your character's abilities should come from gear rather than the character itself.

It shouldn't be impossible to reach mythical power levels... Because that's what many players want. For those who don't, they don't have to. If you don't want a...

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.

Askanipsion wrote:

This book is definitely 80% DM & 20% player material. I would have liked alittle more player material maybe such things as Ritual Magic, etc.

The new traits are very nice - so are the drawbacks. Drawbacks are like the 3.5 Flaws.

I like the Retraining rules too - don't think my DM will allow it though.

The Honor/Reputation/Fame rules are nice.

Looks at Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat. Then looks at GameMastery Guide and Bestiaries.

I think one more mostly GM book won't hurt anyone. :)

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.

Odraude wrote:

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.

Subtraction is hard? What makes spell points so hard? I haven't even been suggesting them...

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.

Odraude wrote:

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.

I do not have problem with chain feats taht are reasonables. Like having to take weapon focus to take weapon specialization.

But there are absurd feat chains. Combat expertise add nothin to trip attemps. There is not mechanical nor thematic reasons to ask for the need to take combat expertise before improved trip.

Other example is mobility and spring attack before whirlwind strike. Spiring attack and mobility are about movement while whilwind strike is about stand still. Again the prereq or the feat are not useful mechanichally nor thematically reasonable.

I am not against a feat chain where every llink of the chain help you to meet your goal. I am against feat chains where you have to take , one, two, or even trhee feats to finally start to do what you whant to do.

I can agree to that, especially the Whirlwind Attack prerequisites.

Odraude wrote:

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.

There is no problem with being "realistic" at 1st~6th level... That's where Capt. America, Batman, Zorro, Altair, etc are.

But when the games treats the 20th level dragon-slaying warrior as "commoner+", it gets silly. And unfair. Because it's only "realistic" to a few classes, while others get to do all sorts of absurd stuff.

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.

That boos sounds like he was a solo. Solo bosses rarely work unless you build for it. GM fault, not yours.

Nicos wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Full Attack is a consequence of the "faultiest" assumption any 3.X dev ever made. That moving and dealing damage is too much.

yeah to move a swing a sword twice is absurd, but to move and realize the very complex movement and gesticulations to cast a spells is just fine, :p

And let's not forget that you can move and still cast TWO spells.

It's pretty weird, actually, (and equally unfair) that this bizarre notion of "realism" is such an problem for some classes, while others get a complete free-pass and can defy logic as much as they like.

Perhaps this is another faulty assumption. That a mythical warrior who is capable of wrestling a T-Rex should be limited by what is realistically achiveable by people IRL.

It's like saying a 20th Fighter should have the same limits of a 1st level commoner.

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.

As a martial class at all the feats chains can be a pain. Combat expertise is only useful for certain builds, and it requires 13 int to get in the first place. Then you need improved trip, and your probably going to get greater. If you have a dex bonus, your likely to get Fury's fall. Your likely to take power attack(Finally something awesome!) so you might want Felling Smash after those things. If you don't have any feats, you provoke when you do it. At later levels your likely to take size penalties, or the thing is flat out immune. That's quiet a few feats. Combat expertise you might never use!

Meanwhile, the wizard at 5th uses a Toppling battering blast at the cost of a trait and a feat. Why add toppling to battering blast? No idea.

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

This makes them 10 RP

This reminds me more and more of the end to the first series of Full Metal Alchemist, where their magic-fueled fantasy world was connected to a pre-WWII Earth.

The magic item creation was never going to be anything more than advice honestly. Although the talisman magic item option is really cool for those that want to make magic item questing a thing.

Meh, who cares? If you're only taking one day out of the year to appreciate your parents, then there's something wrong here.

Besides, we're all worm food anyways. Whining over holidays is meaningless.

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.

This is a very Laelapsian situation. I agree with DS. The sorcerer capstone requires a second roll to be made in order for it to confirm. The fighter bypasses that by not having to roll.

Odraude wrote:

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.

Eeeeh! So looking forward to this!

But now you get nothing for selling magic items? I know I'll be the minority here, but I wish they'd just followed what Jon Brazer Enterprises suggested in their book and just reduced how many BPs you got for them. That said, nothing's stopping me from doing just that in a home campaign; and for those of you who wanted the change they made, congratulations.

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.

Good to see you doing some of your own publishing! I absolutely loved the New Argonauts. Is there a bit of a friendly rivalry between you and Minotaur Games now? :)

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

Does the cost of retraining hit points seem cheap to anyone else?

Not really, since you only increase it by one.

Reading through "rooms and teams" under downtime. It's basically how to build buildings and organizations. It IS reminiscent of the Stronghold Builder's Guide system, but more streamlined, I think.

The book is a LOT more player oriented than I was hoping for, which is what my earlier post alluded to, but I know for sales books kind of have to be. I still want how tos on worldbuilding I don't think we'll ever get. But the actual content of the book is interesting so far and useful to players and GMs alike. Still of course scanning for the most part. Hard for me to focus on stuff printed on a screen.

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 don't have my old copy of Kingmaker on me, but it seems like it's harder to. sell magic items.

Odraude wrote:

Bargaining is probably one that will take a little for me to wrap my head around.

OOOOH! Tell more!

Just a brief overview, doesn't have to be specific. I just wasn't aware there were going to be any subsystems on bargaining in this book, and that appeals mightily to me.

(Not that I wasn't going to get it anyway.)

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.

Odraude wrote:

Azure is correct, although they do explicitly state that they are eligible for retraining :) But basically, for humans, it's 8 for youth and they give a +XdY depending on the class, much like PC classes get when they reach adulthood.

Oooh. What do they say about non-humans? Does this address the endless debate about elven childhood?

Yeah. Dwarven childhood starts at 20 years and Elven at 55.

Azure is correct, although they do explicitly state that they are eligible for retraining :) But basically, for humans, it's 8 for youth and they give a +XdY depending on the class, much like PC classes get when they reach adulthood.

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!

Odraude wrote:

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.

You could just make it precision damage no concerns with crit builds that way.

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

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.

There's actually something about this in Ultimate Campaign, Devilkiller. Unsure if I can post spoilers about it though, so I can at least PM you.

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.

Odraude wrote:

I GOT IT!!!FNASFNa(*hne(*n9IU(*(*#!&u%(*@!nb(!!!

So jealous! Why must I live on the opposite side of the country from Seattle?!

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

Odraude wrote:

*stuff concerning vital strike*

I'm really interested in this conversation about vital strike with you, but it's 12:48 am here and I need to hit the hay. So I'll come back and continue on next chance I get. Have a good one in the meantime.

I would, but I just got my copy of Ultimate Campaign...

... so I'm going to be a while :)

I GOT IT!!!FNASFNa(*hne(*n9IU(*(*#!&u%(*@!nb(!!!

:D I GOTS IT!!

Odraude wrote:

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.

I like the idea of Vital Strike. Unfortunately it diminishes the benefit of class features like Weapon Training and favors big weapons in the extreme. It also generally means you move, attack, get ravaged by someone else's full attack (but then this is a general problem with the move+attack situation).

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?

It's important to keep in mind enemy HP. When you're not full-attacking you are not dealing meaningful damage at higher levels. Just as an example to Odraude, let's say you have a 9th level Fighter (+9/+4 BAB).

Now let's say this fighter began with an 18 Strength (do-able on 15 pb with a +2 racial), and has increased his Strength to 22 (2 level increases and a +2 item). Now he's hitting at +15 for +9 damage with his two-hander (let's give him a greataxe 'cause axes are cool). Now let's give him a nice +2 weapon. That's +17 for 1d12+11 damage. Now let's give him Power Attack for another +9 damage, bringing him to +14/1d12+20 damage. Dat is some serious damage you might say! But wait, we're not done yet, we toss on Weapon Training (axes) for +1, and weapon specialization and greater weapon focus!

Muahaha, behold your mighty 1d20+17 to hit and 1d12+23! Mucho damage eh!? :D

Except...you're level 9. The average CR 4 enemy has enough HP to survive one of your attacks (40 hp). The average CR 7 enemy has enough HP to survive a few of your hits (85 hp). The higher the CR of the encounter goes the less you matter because HP scales faster than damage. The more dynamic the encounter you face, the less you matter because the more foes and/or tricks an enemy has the less likely it'll matter.

If you encounter a pair of Ogre Magi (a "challenging" encounter, merely APL+1, each with 95 hp each plus regeneration), moving up and hitting them will deal around 22.5 points of damage on a non-crit. You have dealt about 22.5/190 total HP for the enemy encounter. But since enemies aren't just HP bubbles the ogres move away from you in flight (one takes a withdraw action into the air and heals 5 hp from regeneration). And so on and so forth.

At very high levels it's even worse. You probably won't deal 20% of a mook's HP per swing.

The strongest you will ever be relative to the enemies you face will be at 1st level where a single move+attack has a good chance of removing a whole creature from a fight, even if that...

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.

Odraude wrote:

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.

Acknowledging that this is off-topic, but.... wtf?

"Fighter" is not a culture, or more accurately, fighters exist in every culture. Rogues exist in every culture, whether we're talking about diplomats, thieves, or confidence tricksters. Any culture that believes in miracles -- which is probably 99% of them, historically -- has something akin to clerics who invoke and interpret the will of the gods, whether this god be Apollo, YHVH, or Coyote Trickster. And similarly, wizards and sorcerers are universal.

As are aristocrats, commoners, warriors, etc.

i literally can't imagine any group where a big guy with the ability to take a punch would be out of place.

You're right, the paladin class is strongly culture-bound; it's basically King Arthur's Round Table or the Peer's of Charlemagne. But this isn't an argument for allowing samurai where they don't belong. If I were running something based on the Hopi migration tales, I'd probably disallow paladins as well as a samurai. But fighters, rogues, witches, sorcerers, clerics, wizards, and so forth should all be fine.

A samurai needs a supporting culture for the class to make sense. In that sense, it's indeed a culture as much as a class. By contrast, any culture can support a fighter.

(Oh, and cavalier is simply misnamed if you think it's got anything to do with Charles I. Cavalier, the class, is basically a knight-errant, which is much broader and deeper than 17th century England....)

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.

Well, level 7 you can grab an imp familiar, which you might be able to have him give you the hook-up since they can commune with their creators.

1) I'd say yes.

a) 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.

I hate that Arcadia isn't developed yet.

Sooooon... :)

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.

I'd say this is a case of where specific beats general. Feeblemind specifically states the parameters for curing it; heal, wish/limited wish, and miracle. Short of that, nothing else. I'd say the GM is right on this.

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.

Odraude wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

And apparently people seemed to take this mentioning as some sort of statement that I hate Paizo, or they are lazy, or that I want to take them out back like Old Yeller. I was trying to figure out what on earth got everyone so riled up and begin insulting everyone who writes anything that isn't Paizo. Bad form it is.

It's how things work around here, sadly.

StreamOfTheSky, page 1 wrote:

This has been pointed out for many years now, right from the start. But instead of addressing it, paizo and its defenders just shouted back and turtled up like they were besieged.

There is no criticism. Just "attacks."

I wasn't even being critical of them which is the amusing part. I was remarking about the quality that many of the fanmade products have. Large or small.

Then I said Pathfinder is a big d20 mod (which it is).

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

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 :)

I don't insult the devs and demand immediate changes either. I'm more interested in playing and discussing my favorite game. I enjoy discussing both the good and the bad of it. Acknowledging a lot of the bad points is the reason we have moved...

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.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

And apparently people seemed to take this mentioning as some sort of statement that I hate Paizo, or they are lazy, or that I want to take them out back like Old Yeller. I was trying to figure out what on earth got everyone so riled up and begin insulting everyone who writes anything that isn't Paizo. Bad form it is.

It's how things work around here, sadly.

StreamOfTheSky, page 1 wrote:

This has been pointed out for many years now, right from the start. But instead of addressing it, paizo and its defenders just shouted back and turtled up like they were besieged.

There is no criticism. Just "attacks."

I wasn't even being critical of them which is the amusing part. I was remarking about the quality that many of the fanmade products have. Large or small.

Then I said Pathfinder is a big d20 mod (which it is).

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

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 :)