Prince Yyrkoon's page

RafaelBraga wrote:

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

Personal opinion? No dex to damage...but no str to hit. Even someone using a fairly heavy weapon required finesse and control, while someone using a small sword needed strength. Any actual warrior I can think of in fantasy or history really would have had a decent score in both. The people with very lopsided str/dex distribution tend to be mooks, side characters or bit players.

I would love it if they make armor giving DR and not interfering with your chance to be hit.

I think fewer things could make me happier and more satisfied with this new edition.

That's not how armour works though.

You don't go like "oh I feel slightly less stabbed" or "well good thing that arrow got only halfway through".

Armour is made to have impacts glance off.

To an extent. Plate, for certain, was designed to have swords glance off. But you also have things like a gambeson, worn by itself or beneath plate and mail, which was more about robbing a blow of it's momenetum, or force in the case of crushing weapons, which is more about mittigating damage than stopping it outright.

Regardless, any game system is going to fail to capture the complexities of late medieval combat, arms and armor. I personally prefer a system where there's a differentiation between fully dodging a blow and having it fail because of your armor. It's unrealalistic yes, but so is the current AC system. It's also mostly idle spitballing and wishing: Paizo isn't going to go through the massive rebalancing that would be needed for such a system.

It's also secondary to my more salient point of how to put dex to damage to bed.

Yes. That would be great. Shields should add to your ability to avoid being hit. But making damage avoidence and damage mitigation two ways of handling being attacked, so long as both are viable and have pros and cons, would be amazing.

Personal opinion? No dex to damage...but no str to hit. Even someone using a fairly heavy weapon required finesse and control, while someone using a small sword needed strength. Any actual warrior I can think of in fantasy or history really would have had a decent score in both. The people with very lopsided str/dex distribution tend to be mooks, side characters or bit players.

Warlock vigilante perhaps? Mystic bolts, especially in melee, work for creating weapons out of magic, and it has a good skill list, and high skill ranks.

Intersting. I suspect the lack of hero points will be a big difference

Why 18? Seems a strange number.

What Wraithstrike said. A +1 sword is a +1 sword. Making me jump through hoops to get it doesn't make it any more special. It just leaves me vaguely annoyed.

25PB: I can play my str based kitsune bladebound without being crippled. Still not optimal, mind, but not crippled. I like high point buys, not because I want easy mode, but because I like off the wall character concepts that would be terrible to try and play under a lower pointbuy.

Bandw2 wrote:

WormysQueue wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

"I shouldn't need to roll well to succeed at something I want to be good at"

To me, it's a matter of interpretation what "I want to be good at X" means. If I personally say, for example: "I want to be good at fighting.", I mean that I want to play a character that could hold his own again most members of his own race (in my cae, normal humans). What it does not mean is that I want to be able to kill dragons easily or at all. Again PB 15 allows me basically to play any character I want to play (and yes, even MAD characters), and that it's a bit harder to succeed with those characters, to me, is a feature, not a bug.

which probably means you want to win more than 80% of your fights.

Except heroes tend to fight things that are also very good at fights.

Someone good at fighting might win 80% of bar brawls but when they're against legions of Orcs. four-armed demons, towering giants and unfeeling, relentless undead, you have to lower the bar when it comes to what success rate is 'good at fighting'.

A party should be more than the sum of its parts. Teamwork and synergy don't come out much better than they do in 15pb.

I've never found PB to affect teamwork.

I'm honestly wondering why a CG Magus and LG Silver Dragon would be compelled to fight their Black Blades...given that said blades are supposed to share their wielders alignment.

Overall, your GM sounds like he's being a dick about things...and kind of sucks at conflict resolution.

Paladins falling is there as an interesting story hook when both larties are in agreement, not for a GM to use as part of a hissyfit over how he thinks things should go.

What is bloat? I keep hearing about it, but I've yet to actually see it.

I like 25 PB, no stat below 10 pre-racial. The strongest classes aren't really affected, the MAD classes get a nice boost in functionality, and you see interesting character concepts brought into play.

Yondu wrote:

A Hero with 15 point-buy is for me uninterresting, really 15 points is 14 in three stats, a TWF cannot be made without dumping one or two stats, due to the high requirements of feats...

And on AP, you have NPC opponents with 30 PB (Caleb Voltario in Carrion Crown/WOW has 30 PB, Skreed Gorewillow in GiantSlayer BOBH has 28 PB ) and there are not bosses eveak peons you have to face are 15 PB (Cultits in the WOW have a 16 PB), 15 PB is considering the PC as peons, No they are heroes so they should have Heroes PB at least...

You are flat out incorrect.

Level 1 you can easily start with a Dex of 16 using 15point buy (14+2racial).

By level 6 your Dexterity would have been raised by +1 at level 4. This now qualifies you for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.

By level 11 your Dexterity is now naturally an 18 (14+2race+2level). A +2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity will qualify you for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Alternately, you can increase your Dexterity to 19 at level 12 and get the feat at level 13.

In short, 15point buy is completely workable for a TWF build.

Pathfinder APs are based on 15point buy as the standard.
Of course, if you like to power game your way through things then, yes, you will want a higher point buy. But frankly, that just makes life harder for your GM because now he has to ramp up the encounters to match your higher point buy power creep.

The Wizard's going to have his 20 int with 15, 20 or 25 pointbuy. The latter two just give non SAD classes a minor leg up.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.

Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.

I don't recall saying the magic has to last forever (or the opening post claiming that either for that matter). My example shows how magical charms often work in popular fiction. Magic that is beguiling, subtle, charming, enchanting, seductive is more interesting than magic that simply overcomes your mental defences.

But that seems to be how the magic currently works: Breach mental defenses, force target to believe/act in a certain way. It has nothing to do with preexisting character flaws.

No one said the breach has to be obvious at the time.

Consider this:

What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?

In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?

>Go to great lengths to defend the party, consider them friends.

You can see how this doesn't really work.

Goblin_Priest wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.

Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?

Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.

It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.

You and I build very different fighters.

My fighters usually start with 7-8 skill points/level. About the same as my wizards, considerably more than the 5 skill points/level most of my magi start with.

8 skill pointts per level on a fighter? Seriously? Fighters get a base of 2... so human for +1, and favored class bonus for another +1, brings to 4 skill points per level... If your fighters usually start with 18 int then I think you play way above the powerlevel of most people... or play awfully unoptimized builds. Epic array is 25 points and an 18 is worth 17 points...

Maybe another 2 skills/level from Lore Warden, Pack Mule, or that 4-level casting archetype. Which means you *only* need a 14 INT, though this is still a considerable investment.

Magus with 5 skills/level could be a 16 INT character with FCB HP. Or a 14 INT human, or a 14 INT nonhuman with FCB skills, or 12 INT human with FCB skills.

Or, in other words "It's easy to get skill points as a fighter, if you use a certain race/archetype combo!". Very narrow, niche examples are poor evidence. And does nothing to adress the issue with other classes (Paladin, Sorc, Warpriest, Cleric.)

Trigger Loaded wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.

Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.

You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.

I'm sure the guy who can use the laws of physics as a yo-yo and summon a devil to fetch him a beer just to remind it who's boss around here is going to feel mighty penalized that the fighter can assess his surroundings, bandage a wound, ride a horse, AND do a cartwheel instead of just two of those.

What Black Waltz said. They're already rewarded plenty for investing in Intelligence, and are the most powerful classes in the game. They don't need anything to 'make up' for other classes getting a few extra skills.

So, we apply a damage penalty to strength hased characters then. Wisdom based classes should always have will as a poor save. Charisma based classes should never have social skills as class skills.

Can't have characters receiving full benefit from investing in their primary stat.

You see where this goes. Any time you penalize one class on the basis of their primary stat, you open the door to penalizing other classes for their stat choices.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

Not getting a buff is not the same thing as a penalty.

Having base skills set lower than every single non-intelligence based class would be a penalty.

The base expectation is moved upwards when you buff all other 2+ skill classes, making a specific exception for smart characters.

Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.

Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?

Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.

It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.

Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.

You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.

Not getting a buff is not the same thing as a penalty. Look, for most classes int has no purpose except skill points. Asking a character to invest between 1/3-1/4 of their build points (1/5 with a generous GM), or be forced to play a human, for a functional amount of skill points is absurd. Meanwhile classes like the Wizard or the Magus are already going to put that 14, or more in most cases, in Int anyway. They gain powerful mechanical benefits, and skill points.

It isn't penalizing int based classes, it's removing a stat tax on on int based classes who want enough skill points for some basic competences.

My DM doesnt like any spell system outside of the basic, so all psionics are a no go, he doesnt like psychic or occult either... but I love the Idea of the Soulbolt and I want something like that, I just cant find anything that isnt the soulbolt.

I will check out the elemental Annihilator, Kinetiscist may work but I dont remember what system they use. Magus is ok but I am not looking for Melee, mostly ranged.

That's really too bad. Psionics is a much better casting system than Vanician.

There's the Eldritch Archer Magus, uses a bow. And, again, Warlcok Vigilante=Mystic Bolts.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

Leandro Garvel wrote:

d'Eon wrote:

I'll point out that the Unchained Monk hits more reliably, has better HP, and has access to all of the Qingong powers anyways.

I'm mostly worried about the low Will save, I have to admit.

I wouldn't be. Monks are partially wisdom bases, get +2 against some of the most common, and crippling, will based effects, can get remove fear (uasable even when panicked!) as a power, and enough bonus feats to make iron/improved iron will no trouble at all. Really, people overstate the poor will save on the Unchained Monk. Yeah, it isn't as good as the regular monk in that regard, but it's good enough; the other upgrades it gets are well worth the trade.

In this case, it's because Scaled Fist is CHA based rather than WIS based, but I take your point. I'll suffer the lower save until I can boost my defences I guess.

Ah. Didn't realize that bit. Stll, you have a good wisdom. I'd take iron will first level. That should keep thing good for a while. And, as has been mentioned, steadfast personality, while not perfect, will be a huge help to you.

Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.

d'Eon wrote:

I'll point out that the Unchained Monk hits more reliably, has better HP, and has access to all of the Qingong powers anyways.

I'm mostly worried about the low Will save, I have to admit.

I wouldn't be. Monks are partially wisdom bases, get +2 against some of the most common, and crippling, will based effects, can get remove fear (uasable even when panicked!) as a power, and enough bonus feats to make iron/improved iron will no trouble at all. Really, people overstate the poor will save on the Unchained Monk. Yeah, it isn't as good as the regular monk in that regard, but it's good enough; the other upgrades it gets are well worth the trade.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

Do you have an option to play as an energetic bunny cop and delightful fox conman?

Yes. Produce a race using Fursona and roll up an Enforcer and Luminary from Anachronistic Adventures.

I think you've got everything covered then.

Do you have an option to play as an energetic bunny cop and delightful fox conman?

Is Vigilante PFS legal? They have a talent that makes for an amazing sword and board user.

Ditch Desna and Sarenrae. Worship an Elder God instead! http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/archetypes/paizo---cler ic-archetypes/elder-mythos-cultist-cleric-archetype

Do you want them to? I mean, I generally just ignore the whole secret identity aspect and use the Vigilante as Fighter+ or Rogue+.

One thing you could try is no fullcasters. It takes some plwerful options out of the hands of the PCs, and delys some others.

RDM42 wrote:

If the 'solution' is making every class into a caster and removing anyone remotely mundane, not all that interested.

Mundane dies by level 9 and starts dying by level 5.

And you are literally considered legendary starting at level 11. That's when you can be the subject of a legend lore spell.

If the 'solution' is making every class into a caster and removing anyone remotely mundane, not all that interested.

Not making ever class a caster, but things like Roland striking a mountain hard enough to create a pass, or Zhang Fei holding a bridge against an army, unmaning them with a mighty shout!

Wizards have already been nerfed like crazy since the start of 3.0, they need nerfing like you need to have an arm cut off.

Wizards are still arguably the strongest class in the game, and their only competition comes from other fullcasters.

I'll admit that I prefer buffing other classes to nerfing the wizard, but the wizard could get nerfed a bit and still be quite playable.

I don't think the wizard itself needs much fixing, although there are several spells that need to be nerfed. I'd rather see other classes brought up a few notches; in a party with a bunch of tier 3 classes, the wizard is still ahead of the power curve, but at least everyone is playing in the same stadium.

As things currently stand, I encourage the use of either an arcane scoundrel or warlock, both of which make for a solid 6th level caster stand in for the wizard. Or the use of either spheres of power or ultimate psionics

Pick a cat or fox, take the feat that lets you give your familliar an evolution for more natural attacks, and the one for more hp. There's even an archtype, the Beastblade, dedicated to this.

Warlock Vigilante? Mystic Bolts are technichally a weapon.

Traditional depictions of Death sometimes give him a sword, to use on those of noble blood, and to represent the sword of the Angel of Death. You could go with a longsword instead of a scythe. Not as common, but still thematically appropriate.

My advice? If you want to make death meaningful, write a book.

I basically allow everything on the PFSRD, and aditional material pending gm approval. I'm fairly liberal, because if someones to play the "let's break the game" game, core hasost of what they're looking for anyway.

Ultimate Booty Shakin'

It's all about getting down with your bad self, and busting out the sickest dance moves Golarion's ever seen.

I once had a wizard who wore full imperial regalia to adventure. Of course, he was both rich and crazy.

"Exterminatus"

It's the only way to be sure.

Alternatively, when the local lord is passing brutal taxes, who are you going to want on your side: CG Craig, who wants to rob the lord's house and redistribute funds, or launch a revolt? Or LE Lea, who wants to work within the system to force the lord to comply by more sensible laws that don't interfere with her business? :P

The Murderhobbos Compact I signed obligates me to side with Craig on this issue.

I'm a fan of letting people play what they like. After all, the point is to have fun.

If I was going to ban races, it would mostly likely be the core races that got the axe. I love LotR and all, but "Yet another Northern European fantasyland with standard fantasy races" just bores me to tears at this point.

I love it. There are so many cool magic items that rarely see use because they conflict with the big six. ABP means that players will actually use things like a cloak of the bat.

Well, since you're open to 3rd party, the Sphere's of Power expansion has an archetype called lichling which is pretty much tailored made to make a playable pc lich.1

I usually use background skills and making 4+int skill points per level the minimum for non int based classes/archtypes.

GM my own game, with blackjack and a 25 point buy.

Something something specialization in a style of fighting something something options via (X) mastery feats and weapons tricks something something stronger feats means innate class feature of more feats is better something something advanced trainings blah blah blah etc...

Yes, aspects can be mimicked, obviously, but if not the entire build of the character can be absolutely invalidated and recreated by a similarly tiered character/martial, or even some stronger tiers if we're feeling frisky, then guess what? A character that can only be made via Fighter exists, and if they are a valuable asset to the party via what the **** ever was previously discussed ad nauseum in this thread, then you have a unique, useful ally.

That sums up anything I care to say. Took me forever to properly convey the thought, but there it is. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm tumbling out of this roundabout discussion/argument/test of sanity.

Styles? Ranger and Slayer are equals in archery, Ranger Slayer and Vigilante are better TWFers, zweihanding requires one, maybe two feats to be effective, sword and board can be summed with "twf, again, and einhanding means you're a Swashbuckler, Magus or 3rd Party. And I've yet to see a combat feat as good as a class feature. Even if there was, well Avenger Vigilantes can go down that route as well, and also have actual class features, not to mention skills.

CWheezy wrote:

Also it still is on topic i think. Some people are making claims about fighter power levels, and i am trying to show why they are incorrect.

That's what the discussion came down to, really. I think it's actually fairly simple to make it so a Fighter can have narrative influence. It's not hard, and they're based in class features. Not as much as magic, but enough to be relevant. I guess the whole discussion was why take a Fighter rather than other things. I say it's easy to make a Fighter that works with and around the party, covering a certain martial, or general party, deficiencies they have. Just as well they can make armor, be an excellent military strategist (Profession: Soldier), kill things well (Very well with warrior spirit), be a partial face, and be a boon to a party that can't be mimicked by other martials. I think I've pretty much covered why by this point.

Nothing you just mentioned is unique to the fighter though. Any martial can kill things well, most have more skill points to play around with for things like profession or diplomacy, or in the case of the Paladin have an actual use for a high charisma beyond diplomacy (and get as a class skill to boot). Everything the Fighter brings to the table can be mimicked by another class. A great deal of it can be mimicked by a class feature. Or a spell.

Chess Pwn wrote:

The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time, but it can increase it's own survivability.

I don't think that's true. Like... even slightly.

The difference between a d8 and d10 HD is an average of 1 HP/level. And the fighter doesn't have channels or heals.

First party, I'd say Sorcerer or Oracle. If I'm being fully honest, however, I'd rather play a 6th level caster than a full caster.

If we're including third party, the Invoker from SoP and the Psion top my list (and I really can't complain about any classes from those books.)