Odraude's page

This "trip vs Wizards" is getting boring... And is completely unrelated to whatever point we were making before -.-'

I can agree with that. While it is on topic, it probably could be moved to another thread for better focus.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Odraude wrote:

Also the whole "ignore tanks, gib wizard" screams metagamey.

Not if the opponent has half a brain. Then it screams "self-preservation."

Not only that, the casters are squishier. If it will take me several rounds to take out the tank and only one round to take out the caster, why wouldn't I try to take the caster out first and eliminate rounds and rounds of attacks?

Plus, my attack on the caster might disrupt spell casting either by death or concentration checks.

Bleed damage FTW.

Still feels very metagamey to me. I could see more elite soldiers doing that, or people under the command of a lieutenant. But, the average minion choosing to run past the big, scary, fighter seems very far-fetched. I mean, It's difficult for me to justify a nobody running past the fighter to fist-fight someone that can bend reality.

Of course, I could see them running away from both :)

ciretose wrote:

Lets find out. We'll pick a level and take a look at the math.

Testing hypothesis. Crazy I know!

Here's a creature to grapple. Its only CR 7 and its medium sized.(Not serious of course.)

Can we go back to talking about other things? Like mobility and fixes? I especially like the talk about fixes. It felt like something that helped everyone, rather than arguing.

This is assuming there is a problem. The issue is that some people don't believe there is a problem, while others believe there are. And without sitting down with the math instead of conjecture, we're not going to convince anyone one way or the other.

Hell, even with the math, we probably aren't going to convince anyone one way or the other.

Why that argument is still going on? provoking an AoO for making a combat maneuvers is not a good idea like in 99% of the time

CRB wrote:

If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver

Because there are ways around it. Having a high enough AC to not care, or provoking an attack by moving first, then doing your Combat Maneuver, or using a reach weapon.

DrDeth wrote:

In our 11th level PF game, we NEED the tanks to keep the bad guys off the squishies

Why don't the bad guys ignore the tanks? Because the DM chooses to facilitate that playstyle by making them do dumb things. Because the rules handle things like interception poorly or not at all. As soon as one bad guy figures out that he can bypass the fighter without engaging him, the tank is obsolete.

If (a) tanks could meaningfully intercept bad guys, and (b) casters could not cast -- at all -- while under attack, your point would be excellent. I'm all in favor of that happening.

I'd actually dislike b. I prefer the Concentration Check mechanic, though they could make it a bit hard to do so. Also the whole "ignore tanks, gib wizard" screams metagamey. I feel that in that scenario, most minions would be terrified of a dude in armor with a large sword right in front of them. Also, you can trip on an attack of opportunity to essentially stop them from moving (if they do move past you of course).

An example of what I'm talking about: what if the fighter got control of a multiplanar empire (a la The Warlord of Mars) as a class feature at, say, 15th level. Now he can choose to stand around fighting mooks, or he can choose to set the entire world hunting down the BBEG for him, while he goes and demands a reconciliation between two other planes of existence.

THAT would give him a lot of control over the story.

That's actually why I mentioned the Kingdom Building, Army, and Organization rules in Ultimate Campaign. I feel those would greatly change the narrative focus disparity you mentioned. Although I somewhat agree with ciretose that a BBEG would have some defenses against teleport, but also, I wouldn't bar teleportation (or other means) completely. Especially if every single dungeon was like that.

ciretose wrote:

MrSin wrote:

ciretose wrote:

There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

I didn't say anything about builds or feats or anything. I was just talking about spells or such and noting that it had nothing to do with what we were talking about...

Anyways, here is an epic level caster, a awesome outsider, and a common wizard build.

We should talk more about faulty assumptions by devs and making a better game though I think.

We are talking about faulty assumptions. One of them was about martials and the game with casters in it.

In a fight is one thing, but at higher levels, their narrative power is near-zero, compared to the casters', and if the game is about creating a mutual story, depriving some players of a voice is downright low. Yes, the fighter can kill a demon. But the wizard can simply bypass the entire encounter and go do something more constructive -- and take the fighter with him. At higher levels, you no longer have to go room-to-room killing monsters.

There is some truth to the narrative power, but I feel that a lot of it is based on encounters that still build to the assumptions of a low level party without fly or teleport or passwall, etc. When you start building encounters that take those into account (without completely negating them at every turn, obviously), you start to see less of that voice-loss from the martials.

And admittedly, with Ultimate Campaign, I hope to see some more narrative drive with both the Kingdom Building and Army Combat.

Odraude wrote:

I think this is the difference in our beliefs. I understand that a caster will be ahead of a martial because of the reality-bending nature of magic. But, as long as a martial character still has options that keep them fun and relevant through the levels, I'm honestly okay with that.

My problem with that is that we're playing in a level-based system, one that pretends your 15th level fighter contributes as much to the team as your 15th level wizard. That's what "15th level" is supposed to mean. With that assumption out of the way, it would be far more honest (and a lot simpler, in terms of game play) to just get rid of levels entirely. You'd have wizards, who drive the story, and mundanes, who carry out their orders, and there would be none of this dishonest nonsense about pretending they're equal options.

Is it really pretending though? I'd hazard to say that most people underestimate the contributions of a fighter in game. As strong as casters are, there are still limits on their effectiveness in a fight. Monsters can still make their saves against save-or-suck spells, or have enough immunities to certain spells. And a fighter is good enough at what they do to continue to help kill higher-level threats alongside a wizard. I've played in high level games where the wizard has definitely saved our asses, and I've played in high level games where my fighter was able to step in and completely demolish a BBEG when it kept making it's saves against the wizard's spells. So what I'm saying is, yes, the wizard is very versatile and very strong. But, I don't believe that fighters as they stand contribute little to high-level games. Would I like to see some changes? Sure. Allowing Vital Strike on charges would be lovely to see, and I'd like to see fighters with a 4 + Int skill set. And seeing a pounce option on a fighter would be great too. And I like the idea of more scaling feats like Power Attack. But, as they stand, I'm happy with the fighter.

You know what would be weird? if wizards got magic items too, just like fighters. Oh wait...

I never said that wizards didn't get magic items. And I'm not saying that magic items make martials equal to caster. Hell, I'm not even asking for equality between martials and casters. I just feel that martial characters get more bang from magic items (since they can't cast) and that it brings them closer to even ground against their enemies and keep them relevant into the highest of levels.

Odraude wrote:

Give you flak? Why would they give you an aircraft defense cannon? That seems rather expensive and dangerous.

Abort mission. His hubris field cannot be penetrated by normal ordnance.

hehe, I'm imagining Hubris Field as some weird Anime ability.

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.

Then all those gadgets and armor and stuff should be class features, not economy-based. Because if you are mortal man + X gp worth of gear, and your wizard friend is mortal man + godlike magic + X gp of magic gear, then he's still ahead of you by a margin of exactly godlike magic.

A far more balanced system would be that the fighter is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of armor and stuff that no one else has access to, and a wizard is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of spells. But I don't see anyone arguing for that.

I think this is the difference in our beliefs. I understand that a caster will be ahead of a martial because of the reality-bending nature of magic. But, as long as a martial character still has options that keep them fun and relevant through the levels, I'm honestly okay with that. I don't want to play a fighter that has magic (or else, I'd simply play a magus) or god-like powers because that's my preference. I've played enough high level But, like Lemmy said, I'm also mostly okay with there being options for people that want their fighters to be closer in power to spellcasters. And I feel that Mythic will actually deliver that style of gameplay for martials without encouraging it as being "The one true way to play martials".

Pathfinder uses spell points. They just have nine separate pools and every spell casts one point. :)

True, but they are so easy to just tally off!

Kirth Gersen wrote:

But that's exactly what has happened over the last 40 years, through no fault of mine. Take it up with the Pure Language Police.

I don't care if its not your fault. It's still true.

Quote:

Your facts and timeline are garbled; TSR was quite a bit before WOTC.

Facepalm. I'm saying Wotc took it. As long as jack Vance's novels existed before D&D used them, then my statement holds true.

Quote:

Does it bother you that "gay" no longer means "happy"? Are you "not letting that fly"? How are you going to stop the current use? By using magic?

I still use gay to mean happy and I don't care who is offended because they cannot bother to learn the proper definition of a word. Yes, anyone who gives me flak about it, I tear their head off. Just like I'm doing to you now. I'm going to bite your head off until you learn to use it correctly or never use it in my presence again, just like everyone else who uses a word incorrectly.

Give you flak? Why would they give you an aircraft defense cannon? That seems rather expensive and dangerous.

Words change and evolve, and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm sure the Old English of the 1100's would look at Shakespeare with shame, with his fancy words he made up. Language will evolve, whether you like it or not.

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!!