Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Swordpriest

Tels's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,659 posts (4,682 including aliases). No reviews. 5 lists. No wishlists. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
James, could you please reinvent the Campaign Setting? ;)
That's one way to induce a panic attack in me.

Time to make an Eric Mona alias. J/K.

Since you have said that the current mass combat rules aren't as detailed as you would like. What would you want to do there?

Figure out a way to build robust rules that don't shunt your character sheet to the side. I want a mass combat game in Pathfinder to be one where you NEED your character sheet to play, because that's the game Pathfinder is. Subsystems that don't really involve your PC are less satisfying to me.

The mass combat system should be easy to learn but difficult to master, and should have a wealth of expansion and customization without being overwhelming and impossible to learn.

I'm not sure it's something that can exist, in other words.

Can we use our *imagination* and pretend one exists?


Lormyr wrote:
Tels wrote:
I think, where he's coming from is this

And I understand that point, which is why I said I believe most reasonably adult games just discuss those things when character planning, playing, and leveling and they don't become an issue.

I also understand the draw of playing an offense character. All the glory and such as you pointed out. I did not intend to infer otherwise, and did state I enjoy both play styles.

What I was attempting to draw conversation towards was a hypothetical "break the campaign" situation, and in that situation, was either PC 1 (the crazy defense guy) or PC 2 (crazy face murdering build) more difficult and/or frustrating for a GM to have at their table?

PC 2 hands down. The amount of crazy damage players can unleash far surpasses the limited HP creatures have. My last session saw a Level 12 Fighter/Mythic Champion 4 do something like 600+ points of damage against a Tarn Linnorm (CR 20) with max HP. Funnily enough, I'm playing a super defense Monk with pre-errata Crane Wing in that campaign and while I can be slightly annoying to hit, my offensive damage comes primarily from bonus damage dice (adding falling damage to my attacks, Mythic Elemental Fist from Monk of the Four Winds, Bane property etc), and even then, I do only a fraction of the Fighter's damage (a full attack with 6 hits dealt ~150 damage while one of his crits does ~120 damage on average).

As a GM and from a player perspective, optimized killing machines are way more troublesome than optimzed tanks. Tanks allow the Monsters to still take actions, killing machines don't because the monsters are dead.

With a tank, as a GM you can try alternative options like maneuvers, spells, inflicting conditions or penalties etc. With a killing machine, the Monster has to 'not die' in order to be effective and that can really push the limits of believability. If every creature has to have 900+ hp just to last 2 rounds, then what the hell is the point of the monster having Hp in the first place? Put a round counter on him and that's how long he has till he dies, or something like that.


Lormyr wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

As I said, it's a litmus test for fun and playstyle.

If they are willing to play that build against you, you're willing to do it against them.

Which build will be more fun? If they want rocket tag, then they are giving you permission to play rocket tag. If they want a fun, longer fight, then you'll do the same.

In other words, let them assess the builds from the standpoint of having to face them, instead of having to face the rote collection of monsters they will have to stomp all over. They should rapidly be able to come to the conclusion of which is the most fun for everyone.

'Rocket Tag' builds are adversarial builds. Just read the 'Killer DM" posts about some of the tricks his players pulled trying to dominate the game, and what happened when he used the same tricks right back on them.

==Aelryinth

I know many people have played in bad games. I've been playing table top games for 20 years, knew what the heck I was doing for 15 years of that, and had a few GMs, games, and players who were the pits in that span.

But overall, I am having trouble understanding how your position is relevant in actual gameplay. In a game with reasonable human beings, why would it ever get so far as to require that level of adversarial play when it comes to the GM vs. PC sides of the table?

If we are speaking purely theoretically for the sake of optimization comparison though, that is a conversation I am happy to have, but invalidates GM vs. PC issues.

I think, where he's coming from is this: when designing a character or build, as yourself how you would feel if a similar character was thrown against the party. If the answer is you absolutely do not want that to happen, then you probably shouldn't play the character. To expand it, ask your party how they would feel if a copy of your character was used as an enemy against them; if they don't want that to happen (even if you're ok with it happening), then you probably shouldn't play that character.

I can see how this would be a better example from a 'break the campaign' issue. The reason being that, if you ask a player which he would rather play, a defense specialist who wears down his opponents slowly with minimal risk, or an offense specialist who deals so much damage his minimal defense isn't usually an issue, many people will go with the offense specialist.

Why? Because the offense specialist is going to feel like a total badass. There are many people in the world (in fact, I'd go so far as to say the majority of game players) who want to see their characters be ungodly machines of destruction.

Tangent about Video Game Mentality in Pathfinder:
I don't know if you play FPS video games or not, but in FPS games, they almost always show a scoreboard of some sort after a match, highlighting your kills to deaths and the overall points you scored. If playing a deathmatch style game, then you score points by getting kills (or maybe assists), while other gametypes (domination, capture the flag, king of the hill etc) allow you to score points by completing the objective, but killing people often gives equal points.

How does that apply to Pathfinder? Because in a FPS game, on the scoreboard, if you see someone with a K:D spread of 22:3, they killed a lot of people and rarely died. The defense guy, conversely, would have something more like 5:0 so he never died, but he also didn't contribute as much to the team.

Defense guys are great for objectives though, and can score lots of points by holding objectives or defending bases, while the offense specialist might be assaulting objectives or bases. So you might see a score of something like 3,000 points and 20 kills for the offense guy, and a score of 3,500 and 8 kills for the defense guy, but he scored more due to special objectives.

Regardless, for many people, playing the offense guy is more fun, because it's proactive. The defense guy might go through long periods of waiting for enemies to get to him so he can finally do something. Then he gets a chaotic few minutes of play, and then back to waiting.

But Pathfinder is an RPG not a FPS!!! Yes, this is true. But in the context of society as of today, kids are growing up playing Battlefield, Call of Duty, Halo etc. and also playing games like WoW, League of Legends, SW:TOR etc. and then they start playing games like Pathfinder, with a previous mentality of the other games.

So the new players are changing the way the game is played and thought. For them, killing is what makes them feel powerful, not surviving anything thrown at them. They will argue, that killing everything is how they survive, not slowly whittling them down.

The point is, if you give a player a choice between a killing machine that has low to decent defense, or a tank with super high defense, but low to decent offense, most people will choose that killing machine because it *feels* more heroic to be wading into enemies, tearing them limb from limb with your awesome power and being drenched in blood. People want re-enact the scene from John Carter vs the Martians, because it's an epic scene, not be the guy waiting for the enemy to come to them and take 10 minutes to kill.

TL/DR Video Games strongly influence the mentality of new players and competitive games have forced people to think in context of a Kill to Death ration as an indicator of how badass they are.


Man! I wish I could run this scenario, but due to real life delays and some game issues, we've been playing CotCT for 5 years now and the players just kind of want it done. Plus, after this campaign, we're going to start splitting the group up because there is a list of people wanting to start playing, but all of 'our' GMs are playing in each others games, or running games themselves.


How do metamagic with special effects and spells that target multiple people (even the same person multiple times) interact?

Specifically, I'm referring to a dazing magic missile, would a person targeted by all the missiles have to make multiple saves? Or a toppling magic missile, do I get to make multiple trip attempts on the same person?

I ask because I've currently got a level 13 admixture Wizard with 4 Archmage mythic tiers and magic missile is one of her mythic spells. If she were to augment it, then it would fire double the normal amount of missiles (10 total) and each one deals 2d4+1 points of damage and bypasses spell resitance, spell immunity and shield spells or effects.

If dazing, or toppling were to apply to each missile she fires, then she could force 10 will saves, or make 10 trip attempts with a single spell. This same line of thought applies to spells like scorching ray, or contagious flame as they are both capable of single, or multiple, targets.

Now, I'm inclined to believe that the affects of such metamagic feats would apply to each missile or attack of the spell, as a dazing fireball would daze anyone in the area of effect that fails their save. The difference is that fireball only has one save, while a dazing magic missile could force up to 5 saves (or 10 if using mythic).

On the other hand, this makes spells that can single target, like magic missile very good choices for the effects of feats like dazing or toppling spell. Especially if combined with heighten spell. Even worse if one has a dazing metamagic rod as they could force multiple high DC will saves or lose their turn for multiple rounds.


James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:
Do you think The Iron Giant would be some sort of Robot Kaiju? Would he 'fit' in Numeria?
It's not big enough to be a kaiju, but it would probably fit quite well into Numeria... as long as it's more like the robot from Fallout 3.

If I recall, the robot from Fallout 3 was actually based off the Iron Giant in appearance.


swoosh wrote:
Honestly despite how critical I've sounded the only class I really dislike in the ACG is the hunter.

I agree, I don't think the Hunter really fills a niche that hasn't adequately been filled by others. Although, I think the Arcanist gives the Hunter a run for his money for 'unneeded class'.

I'd have much rather seen like a Barbarian/Witch combo (or something like that) to represent a Warlock or a Wizard/Cleric class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins are not martial clerics, they're champions of Law and Good. Who they worship doesn't really matter to the mechanics of their class.

Clerics are the full casters of a God and the instruments of their will. They are the voice and the ears of their God.

Warpriests are the weapon and shield of their God. They fight the wars, and defend the servants of their God.

While Warpriests and Clerics can both do similar things, one is better at something than the other. Warpriests are probably going to be better at fighting than Clerics, while Clerics will be better at casting than Warpriests.

Remember, there are no NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, or NE Paladins in the game. Faiths of those alignments, up to this point, have had no 'Paladin' that serves those alignments. Warpriest fills that niche.

As it stands, you basically make a full party of Divine characters to play as.

For Skill Monkeys, you have Inquisitors and Rangers.
For full Casters, you have Clerics, Oracles and Druids.
For Martials you have Rangers, Warpriests and Paladins.
There isn't really an Arcane analogue, but another full Divine Caster with the right class choices can fill in some of the Arcane niche (especially Druids).

I would love to see a party consisting of an Inquisitor, Warpriest, Cleric and Druid in action. It'd be a pretty mean little combination as each one would be capable of healing each other if they need to.


No, it is not GM Fiat territory at all. You are the one introducing a house rule that then forces it into GM Fiat territory in order to 'win' an internet debate.

Fact of the matter is, you don't need an 'obvious indicator' to trigger a readied action. This is a house rule on your part. All you need is to state the condition of the trigger, and if that condition happens, then the readied action triggers.

If you want to argue 'basic concepts' then by 'basic concepts' people who fight a lot are aware when their opponents do and do not take defensive stances. They can spot openings in their guards and momentary weak points.

So on the point of 'basic concepts' your refute still fails because 'real' people can employ the concept of striking an opening in their defense.

I think you simply have nothing to back up your argument and now you're resorting to petty little insults, like claiming dead people get to act in my games.

Fact of the matter is, you have very little, if any, ground to stand on, and instead of willing to admit that, you're going to keep trying, and failing, to make arguments against a lost cause.


Do you think The Iron Giant would be some sort of Robot Kaiju? Would he 'fit' in Numeria?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy St-Amant wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
Tels wrote:
Legend of Dragoon > Final Fantasy IMO.
I loved Legend of Dragoon, but i loved FF7 about as much. Also the Final Fantasy series has gone down hill for a while now.

Kids these days can't appreciate the older FF.

I dunno, I grew up playing Final Fantasy on my best friends Super Nintendo, I just didn't like any of the versions that came after. Loved Legend of Dragoon though.


Gauss wrote:

LoneKnave, apparently you didn't read the readied action to attack. No, you cannot ready fighting defensively. Yes, you can ready an action to attack and use Fighting Defensively when you attack.

Tels, what specifically is the "T-Rex" (or other creature) using as a readied action? Is it "any action"? That is the premise I was responding to. If it is "Any Action" what about actions with no visible behavior? What about non-actions (such as 5' step)?

My point is that the creature performing the readied action cannot make it that broad. Any player doing so would be told no by the GM so why would the GM be able to say an NPC is doing the same? In the specific case of the T-Rex it is too stupid to do such a broad readied action to begin with and that is assuming it is has the intelligence to perform readied actions at all (something in serious doubt).

So lets just assume for a moment that this is an awakened T-Rex so we can eliminate the intelligence question. That still leaves the broad nature of the readied action, something which is firmly in GM Fiat territory.

Since such broad readied actions are typically rejected by GMs what is the specific readied action that would universally screw the monk?

Can the creature see that the monk has readied an action to attack? Can the creature see that the monk is or is not fighting defensively? With no obvious indication in the rules that you can see either then it is GM fiat.

Where does it state you have to ready an action vs some obvious indicator? For ease: Ready an Action.

No where does it state that you must ready an action that can only be triggered by an obvious indicator, only that you ready an action against a condition that triggers it.

My condition, is "I ready an action to attack after his fighting defensively condition drops, and before he restarts it".

In real life, this is waiting for someones guard to drop. It might be they shifted their foot, their hands were out of position, something caught their attention and they quickly shifted their vision to look, etc. It might even be something as watching for a lessening in the tension of their muscles or a change in their breathing.

I'll link to an anime example: Kenichi Episode 17. Now, I don't know if you are familiar with the anime or not, but I'll explain a little. Kenichi is a student of, essentially, level 20 Monks. In this clip, a rival dojo has come to 'take their sign' by fighting one of the Masters and defeating them. The Masters aren't there, so it's up to Kenichi (and Miu) to defend the dojo's. The big guy is basically a master of defense, he claims his body is like iron and he can't be hurt (aka, he's using the Crane Style tree and fighting defensively).

Kenichi is, during this episode, being taught to look for 'openings' in an opponents defense, and he has to learn to strike without being scared of a counter-attack (it happened earlier in the episode). At around 1:16, the big guy relaxes his guard, and Kenichi attacks.

In Pathfinder context, Kenichi had a readied action to attack when the Big Guy's guard was down (I think his nickname is CrabHead). Between one round and the next, the Big Guy has to restart his defensive stance (either fighting defensively, or total defense). The round starts, and the Big Guy's turn comes up, and Kenichi's readied action triggers.


Gauss wrote:

The obvious answer to that tactic is that if the (single) opponent has not attacked the monk then the monk also readies an action to attack when attacked.

It becomes a standoff of "you first".

Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)

While your readied action solution is a good one it brings up a number of questions and there is a counter (to ready an action).

Edit: Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)

The Monk can't ready an action until his turn, while the T-Rex has already readied an action to attack before the Monk can begin Fighting Defensively again. So before the Monk can ready his action (and a readied action doesn't count as an attack for the purpose of Fighting Defensively), the T-Rex gets to go and chomp the Monk.

Also, the stand off reminds me of another thread where we talked about what happens when two Come And Get Me Barbarians with Mythic Combat Reflexes gets into a fight. Every Attack provokes and they can make infinite Attacks of Opportunity, so they end up interrupting each other forever.

Divide by 0.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Tels wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Tsiron Ragmar wrote:

You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise. Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.

Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.

It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)

Don't try Warhammer 1e or 2e then (I'm not sure how many FFG's version has, but I think it's up there as well).

AD&D had

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin, Bushi, Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Shukenja, Wu-jen, Bard, Thief-Acrobat, Monk, Yakuza, Knight of Solamnia, Wizard of High Sorcery, Holy Order of the Stars, Tinker Gnome...which equals around 26 classes...pretty darn close to 30...and I'm pretty certain I've missed a few (that probably appeared in Dragon or some such stuff).

Weren't there also campaign specific classes for Forgotten Realms/Drgonlance etc?
There were for Dragonlance, they were included in the list. I wasn't aware of any specific for the 1e box of Forgetton Realms (though for 2e there were). I also didn't include the Dragon Magazine classes, as I was going off the top of my head and didn't want to go through all the magazines to categorically list them.

Which is kind of the point. You can list all of the Official Pathfinder classes off the top of your head, it's very difficult to do the same for the various editions of D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Legend of Dragoon > Final Fantasy IMO.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Tsiron Ragmar wrote:

You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise. Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.

Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.

It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)

Don't try Warhammer 1e or 2e then (I'm not sure how many FFG's version has, but I think it's up there as well).

AD&D had

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin, Bushi, Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Shukenja, Wu-jen, Bard, Thief-Acrobat, Monk, Yakuza, Knight of Solamnia, Wizard of High Sorcery, Holy Order of the Stars, Tinker Gnome...which equals around 26 classes...pretty darn close to 30...and I'm pretty certain I've missed a few (that probably appeared in Dragon or some such stuff).

Weren't there also campaign specific classes for Forgotten Realms/Drgonlance etc?


swoosh wrote:

On the subject of gunslingers (and actually on topic about the ACG) am I the only one who finds it a bit silly that the ACG class that lists gunslinger as one of its alternate classes not only can't use firearms but has class features that explicitly don't work with guns?

Quote:
I personally think the Rogue should be full BAB.
It definitely should

One of the Designers stated that the Swashbuckler's base class did this intentionally, because not all GMs allow Guns, nor did all Swashbucklers use them either.

There will be archetypes for the Swashbuckler that use guns, however, as that is still a fairly iconic part of swashbuckling.

As for Gunslinger, you claimed they were the fourth worst class in the game. Personally, I rank them higher than that, because they are still better than Cavaliers, Samurai and Ninja. But that's going to be the last I say on this subject as I don't want to take the thread any more Off-Topic than we have already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aelrynith, lots of abilities don't carry over to further rounds, for example many auras from Wizard School powers, or Domains, or even items, like Boots of Speed. They require an action to activate each round unless they state that they are activated for a number of rounds.

Fighting Defensively says you must attack in order to gain the benefit, same as Combat Expertise or the Defending Weapon property. At the beginning of every turn, you must make a choice between attacking, or not attacking. If you don't attack, you gain none of the above benefits, if you do attack, you can gain the above benefits.

Until you attack that round, you don't have the benefits, and they don't carry over from the previous round.

Hypothetical situation involving your claim that the benefits of Crane Style don't end at the beginning of your next turn.

Round 1,

Crane Style character moves up and attacks an orc, thereby activating Crane Style.
Orc attacks the Crane character only for it to be deflected, and the next attack misses.
An Orc Wizard shows up and starts casting a spell.
Another Martial character moves up and engages the Orc that the Crane character engaged.

Round 2, the benefits of Crane Style linger on for the Crane character.

Crane character moves away from the Orc, using his Crane Wing to deflect the AoO if it hits, because the benefits of Fighting Defensively have lingered as you claim. He activates something like a Ring of Invisiblity, which is a standard action. He hasn't attacked this round, but the effects of Fighting Defensively lingered.

So here is the question, Fighting Defensively mandates you use a Standard Action to activate it each round before attacking (but you can still make a full attack while fighting defensively despite using a standard action). We know that neither Combat Expertise nor the Defending Weapon will activate in the above Round 2 because you must attack to gain the benefits of those two abilities.

We know from the PDT that you must attack to gain the benefits of Fighting Defensively.

So in round 2, you claim that Fighting Defensively continues on until the next round, yet if you don't attack, you don't gain the benefit. So to we retroactively allow the AoO from the Orc to hit? Or do we go with the actual rules that mandate using a Standard action and attacking each round to activate Fighting Defensively?

Unless an ability says this can be maintained each round for free (like Bardic Performance) it requires the same action to activate each round. For example, the Bedevilin Aura of the Phantasm Wizard School requires a Standard action each round to activate, because Supernatural abilities costs Standard Actions unless they state otherwise.

Fighting Defensively, Combat Expertise, Auras etc. must be activated each round unless the ability says otherwise.


You know, I'm surprised the Development team designs the AP based on the expectation that the average player has played one AP before or has 6 months of experience with Pathfinder.

In order for that to be true, there has a be a huge influx of new players all of the time, while experienced players have to dropping out at the same rate so that the average remains consistent.

I really think Paizo needs to re-think their expectations of average, especially since they don't even support their rules when it comes to designing encounters.

The game is balanced around a 4 person pary with 15 point buy and normal WBL, yet we know both the Iconics and PFS use 20 point buy, and I know that the modules, APs and Society Scenarios are often way above WBL (JJ said they do this on purpose). Tables are growing larger and we know that the average table is now 5 or 6 players instead of 4.

So we have larger party sizes than expected, higher point buy than expected and a higher WBL than expected, so the game is being thrown wildly off balance. Mythic just makes it even worse as the Mythic Templates are nowhere near as good as the actual Mythic Paths.


What will the hazing process for the new designer involve?


thorin001 wrote:

Why are people saying that fighting defensively with Crane Style only gives a -1 to hit? Crane style reduces the penalty from -4 to -2.

Fighting defensively: -4 to hit, +2 to AC

Fighting defensively w/ 3 ranks in acrobatics: -4 to hit, +3 to AC

Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style: -2 to hit, +3 to AC

Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style and 3 ranks in acrobatics: -2 to hit, +4 to AC

The Crane Style tree reduces the penalty to -1 because of Crane Riposte.


magnuskn wrote:

Mikaze is in a WotRC campaign right now and keeping a tremendous campaign journal. I'd hate to see that campaign flounder and disappear because their GM can't deal with all the problems mythic throws at them. :-/

Not to mention the worries I have for later levels in my own campaign.

Wait... Mikaze is keeping a campaign journal?!?! *Remembers Mikaze's story of Laori Vaus...*

I gotta find this and read it! I hope it doesn't flounder, I recall Mikaze never finished Laori's story, and I liked his write up of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, I've never heard anyone but you complain about the Gunslinger being a bad class other than it's OP. By all accounts I've come across, people acknowledged that Gunslinger does it's job and does it well; it's job being ranged support and damage dealer.

Gunslinger wrote:
Role: Gunslingers are thunderous artillery, often found where the fighting is fiercest. Brave, clever, and frequently foolhardy, many gunslingers push to position themselves at close range, barrels blazing, to take down their foes and demoralize their enemies. Other gunslingers are masters of distant death, picking off enemies from afar with their strange and wondrous weapons.

That's the stated role of Gunslingers, artillery, killing foes, demoralization, and masters of distant death. You're complaining about the Gunslinger being locked into wielding guns, a ranged option, when that's the very intent of the class!

Tell me, do you complain about fighters being locked into fighting instead of being masters of Profession (baker)? Or why your Wizard isn't the unparalleled master of unarmed combat instead of the master of arcane magic?

You want to use sword and pistol, that's fine, but you're using the class in a way other than it was intended. That means you have to accept some limitations, like being unable to reload your pistol after the first shot, because you don't have a hand free.

As for melee, the only feat that's actually necessary to be good as a martial, is Power Attack. If you have that feat, you're golden. It's not like archery or other ranged weapons where you need Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, PBS, Precise Shot etc. Except, as a Gunslinger, you really only need PBS, Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim, anything else beyond that is simply gravy.

Every Gunslinger gets 15 feats over their 20 level career; for PFS, they get 2 bonus feats, one at 4th one at 8th. That means they still have the 10 feats they get normally, 6 feat if PFS, to do other things or flesh out other areas.

So in PFS, you could easily have PBS, Rapid Reload, Deadly Aim, Power Attack and TWF by 7th level. This lets you play a Sword and Pistol character pretty easily. For example, you could have two Double-Barreled pistols as an opening attack, with one of them attached to a weapon cord. You fire both barrels on both pistols in the first round (4 attacks total), then drop one pistol (the one with the weapon cord), and reload the second pistol (a free action). Next round you can fire both barrels of your pistol as a standard action, reload, then move forward and draw your sword (free action). Once in combat, you can opt to attack with just your sword, or sword and pistol, but you provoke an AoO if you do so, but that's one of the limitations you have to accept.

Gunslingers are, mechanically, a great class, even though the mechanics of the class are, in my opinion, over-powered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of Proficiency, funny thing, did you know that feats like 'Simple Weapon Proficiency', 'Martial Weapon Proficicency', and 'Exotic Weapon Proficiency', don't actually grant proficiency with the weapon?

Feats wrote:

SWP: Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons without penalty.

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

MWP: Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

EWP: Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.

Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Nowhere in the feats does it actually say you actually become proficient with the weapon, you simply don't take the penalty. So in the context of Pathfinder, I would have to say that not taking the penalty on the attack roll is the same as being proficient with the weapon.


Lemmy wrote:
Azten wrote:
It would depend entirely on the party, I think. Some might gave trouble taking on a t-rex, while for some it's a cake walk. Yeah, it's no BBEG, but sometimes you don't need one.

I honestly can't think of a single reasonably balanced 8th~9th level party who would have trouble killing a T-Rex... It's a joke of an encounter, it's basically a trap of the most boring kind: Waste some time. Spend a few charges of your wand of CLW. move on.

You don't need any strategy other than "hit it repeatedly" to kill it. Hell, you don't even have to worry about it going after your casters first. The only reason a T-Rex is not a CR 2 monster is because its damage and hp are too high.

Party of rogues.


No, Crane Wing didn't need a nerf, the idiots designing encounters with 1-big-hit enemies needed a buff.


The original claim was essentially, level 5 characters are invulnerable to the mighty T-Rex and can kill them. They can do it at level 1 as a Human MoMS or level 2 as a MoMS of any race. Why? Because, eventually, the Crane Winger will roll enough natural 20s to hit the T-Rex and kill him.


Diminutive Titan wrote:

What I gather from what everyone has posted here is that there are so many ways to approach this it pretty much comes down to: Which class do I want to be able to do it? For now I'll go with the Ranger.

Thank you all for your input.

True, there are many different ways to approach a bounty hunter-style character; hell I once made a 4-person mercenary party specifically design to be a threat against players as they attempt to track down and capture the player party. The party was, I believe, an archer Inquisitor, Magus, Rogue and a Monk/Fighter/Duelist all 10th level.

One of the ways no one has suggested yet, is a Magus that uses Merciful Spell to capture people. For example, a merciful, intensified shocking grasp delivered via a scimitar (with Keen or Imp. Crit) is a potent threat. I used this concept in the above 4-man bounty hunter party. With Merciful Spell, you could even play a Wizard blaster or Sorcerer blaster, who prepares/casts all spells with Merciful attached, letting you play a 'violent pacifist'; someone who loves the destruction she unleashes, but abhors killing.


What you need, for a nice DoT, is heat metal via an Oracle of Metal. The other good one you need is frost fall via an Oracle of Winter and the Elemental Spell feat or some other method of changing the damage to fire.

Remember, blessing of fervor lets you extend the above spells (unless you metamagic frost fall) for free, doubling their duration.


Too bad there is no Divine version of the Ring of Spell Knowledge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

DAMNIT COSMO!!! I blame Cosmo for this April Fools.

THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!


Porridge wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
Also, while mythic power attack is good, I think there are a lot of better things. Mythic power attack doesn't give you any more options, while many other things (Wild arcana lol) let you react to basically any situation

(An aside: while I understand people's concern with Mythic Power Attack---every damage boost makes things more unbalanced---I think CWheezy is right that this is a relatively minor offender. I think this is true even if we focus on feats which do nothing but increase damage.

For a 18th level full-BAB class PC, Mythic Power Attack adds +5 damage per hit, for about +20 damage in a round.

Whereas Mythic Rapid Shot and Mythic Manyshot each effectively add an additional ranged attack. And against evil outsiders (e.g., pretty much every opponent), each ranged attack from my player's 18th lvl ranger does an average of +66 damage (+81 if she's also using Mythic Deadly Aim).

So as a DM, I've found things like Mythic Rapid Shot and Mythic Manyshot to be a much bigger problem than Mythic Power Attack.)

Mythic Power attack by itself is still incredibly strong, however it becomes ridiculous when people start taking the Mythic Critical options, like Mythic Improved Critical or the Critical Mastery Champion power (the one that auto-confirms critical threats). We're playing a Mythic Legacy of Fire campaign, and the fighter is just destroying encounters.

As a 2-handed fighter archetype, he's getting double strength on his Fleet Charge (thanks to Overhand Chop) and then getting double his strength on all attacks after the first, while the first attack has no Power Attack penalty.

I believe he has a 28 strength right now, so during a fleet charge he's got +18 from strength and +18 from Power Attack, +2 from weapon enhancement, +4 weapon training (gloves of dueling), and +4 from Weapon specialization and Greater; totaling a +26 damage bonus before any other special modifier (such as buffs or his Bane property). He's using a Falchion and is regularly enlarged and has Mythic Improved Critical, meaning he's got a x3 modifier and a 15-20 crit range.

Due to the interaction of Mythic Power Attack and Mythic Improved Critical, any time he crits something, it's basically an auto-death because on a crit, instead of dealing 2d4+26 x3, he's dealing 2d4+44 x3 for an average of 147 points of damage. It's an auto-death, because he still gets to make his full-attack afterwards and with a 15-20 crit range, chances are good he'll get another crit.


Guardianlord wrote:
A great player can make any class shine, but the question is what class can a bad player take?

Barbarian > Fighter > Paladin > Ranger. Barbarian is one of the easiest classes to play and one of the most powerful. Fighters are easy because mistakes don't hurt for very long and their job is pretty obvious. Paladin is a little tougher as you have more mystical abilities, but still quite easy. Ranger is a great class, but some wrong choices really hurts them, but it's still a pretty easy class to play.


Man made of Magic wrote:
Tels wrote:
I'd rate Rogues as being weaker than Rogues in every category other than that of skill monkey.
Wow, rogues are even losing to themselves now. I knew the rogue thing was kinda bad, but I never suspected this.

You just haven't found out how deep the rabbit hole really goes.


Not sure if you're willing to take anything other than Ranger, but this is an NPC opponent I plan to use one day: The Enforcer. I believe he was generated with a 15 pt buy. I know I used NPC wealth by level and didn't select any traits, so, as a PC, he's pretty easy to upgrade.

If you take a trait for survival, and and swap some skill ranks around, he'd make a pretty mean bounty hunter, easily able to find people, track them down, and sneak up on them, before knocking them out and capturing them.

Also, for funsies, his name roughly translates to 'Non-lethal Fist' in Skyrim's Draconic language.

[Edit] I found the build progression for him, and I actually selected the Reactionary trait, so he has 1 trait left open, unless you change it of course. Also, I forgot to change his race in the PDF, he's actually a Half-Elf.

Here's his build out to level 13.

Build:
1) MoMS > Dragon Style (bonus) > Crane Style (Traits – Reactionary)
2) MoMS > Crane Riposte (bonus)
3) Ninja > Sap Adept
4) Ninja Trick> Weapon Training (Unarmed Strike)
5) Ninja > Dragon Ferocity
6) Ninja Trick> Flurry of Stars
7) Ninja > Dazzling Display
8) Ninja Trick> Pressure Points
9) Ninja > Shatter Defenses
10) Ninja Trick > Combat Trick (Sap Master)
11) Ninja > Knockout Artist
12) Ninja Trick > Unarmed Master
13) MoMS > Monastic Legacy


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for a fanfiction I'm reading ending on a cliffhanger until part two comes out later this summer.


James Jacobs wrote:

Just to be clear.

I'm not saying, and NEVER claimed, you can't play a cleric of a concept or niche or ideal who doesn't worship a deity in your game, even if that game is set in Goalrion.

What I'm saying is that's not the official way it works in Golarion, and when we publish cleric NPCs, they worship deities, and when we run campaigns (such as PFS) we ask player character clerics to comply by that rule, in the same way we ask player character paladins to be lawful good, or player characters of any class to not be evil.

It's kind of the way it works. When you play in a game, you play by the GM's rules. And in PFS... Paizo is the primary GM.

Tyrants, all of you. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My aunt is at the end of her pregnancy (due any day now) and posts on Facebook that everything is making her cry.

...

So I respond with pictures of Carl and Ellie laying on the grass, Toy Story gang sitting on the porch as Andy drives away, and then the clincher.

Bambi's mom laying in a pool of her own blood as Bambi cuddles up to her corpse.

I blame Cosmo for my evil.


Adjule wrote:

At this point, all I want is more iconics with a BEARD. Only 2 have any form of facial hair. A dwarf (Harsk) and an old man (Ezren). The iconics need more epic beard among them. I can see the hunter looking kinda "mountain man" like, since the other 3 nature-y classes are female (barbarian and druid) or a dwarf (ranger).

Really hoping for more beards.

Dwarves invented beards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Hulk is a minion of Cosmo.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Eh...

PRD wrote:
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Nowhere do the rules say CMB checks are attacks. I think the burden of proof's on you. :P

You should quote the whole section.

PRD wrote:

Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. 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. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.


I'd rate Rogues as being weaker than Rogues in every category other than that of skill monkey.

In combat, Monks are known for being defensively solid, it's their offense that needs help. With the inclusion of splat books, they can make for pretty decent to good controllers (reach+combat patrol). With very few exceptions, Monks are never going to lead the team in damage so they need to look elsewhere to contribute.

Rogues get to roll a lot of dice via sneak attack, and I'll admit, when you get that flank and you hit 2 or 3 times with a sneak, you fell like a total boss dropping 15d6+ on the table. However, they are notoriously defensibly crap with their awful saves and bad AC and HP meaning they are vulnerable to death or disabling on 3 different fronts. They also suffer from accuracy problems, even the Monk can increase his BAB a little with flurry. They have issues with getting sneak attack, something that is mandatory for the Rogue, while flanking isn't mandatory for the Monk.

Skill wise, the Monk gets 4 and some great skills while the Rogue gets 8 and nearly all skills. Rogue wins skill monkey no question, though the Monk can play a skill monkey if forced to do so.

Flavor wise? Monk wins. Monk is one of the most flavorful classes in the game; he oozes flavor from every poor. The rogue, meanwhile, is almost always set up to be a sneaky, thief, lock-picker with very few exceptions.

The more you move out of core, the more the Monk takes the lead as he's received some strong archetypes, feats and abilities, while the Rogue has received almost nothing (other than the scout archetype) in his favor. It also hasn't helped that as more books have come out, more characters have taken stuff from the Rogue, until the point that even disabling magical traps has been reduced to a trait.

The Ninja, is a completely different story and is hands down better than the Rogue and better than the Monk as well. Hell, some of the Ninja Tricks allows him to play a pseudo-Monk with ease. I think the Monk wins the flavor contest though, as Ninja kind of locks you into the roll of playing... well Ninja.

Role-play wise, while the Rogue has skills, the Monk has lots of abilities, like his amazing acrobatics, his speed, and other things that gives him tons of RP abilities other than just skill points. The Rogue doesn't have that option, not really. The Ninja does, however, and the Ninja beat them both as he's got amazing skill ranks and amazing special abilities to top it off.

As for the Fighter? His biggest problem is out of combat options and will saves. He does his job (fighting) and does it well, even if other classes can do it better. He doesn't have a lot of flavor beyond his feat choices, so he's pretty generic.


Increasing the Power Attack bonus to +3 and the doubled before multiplied ability are both very strong options, and together, they are just too powerful, especially since most people 2-hand now days. I mean, by the time they hit 20th, they're getting a +27 damage bonus while 2-handing, which is doubled to 54 points of damage before the crit is multiplied. Depending on the crit multiplier of the weapon, this varies from 108 (x2) points of damage to 270 (x5) points of damage (possible 324 if a Fighter with capstone and Mythic Improved Crit).

Honestly, I hoped Mythic would include more abilities like Seven League Leap or Improbable Prestidigitation; really cool abilities that don't really increase damage so much as increase options. Increasing Combat Options is fine, like Uncanny Grapple, Blowback or Punishing Blow, but out-and-out increasing damage shouldn't have been the way to make creatures Mythic.


137ben wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:

That's a shame, I always thought it was a really cool idea, and it has caused some very interesting dicussions in game when people from different societies meet and discuss their takes on the godly powers they worship.

There's already the precident of Oracles not needing the direct intervention of a deity to grant them divine magic, so it doesn't seemed to far fetched to me that an orc cleric praying to the blood god might be getting a little bit of power from Gorum, and a little bit of power from Gozreh.

Of course, I also really liked the "first worlder natives have no souls" idea(to the point where I had player a character who I played not to be ressurectable), so maybe I just like philosophical corner cases.

And in fact that's one of the primary reasons we added oracles to the game—to fill that exact niche. Religious leaders of groups that follow faiths other than specific gods are led by pretty much anything other than clerics. Oracles for the most part, but paladins, rangers, inquisitors, and so on work just as good as religious leaders.

Except that clerics already fill that niche, with clerics of concepts/ideals.

So basically you are saying you added oracles to the game so that they could fill a niche that was already in core to sell more books. So now you are trying to retcon a niche OUT of core, to increase the demand for non-core classes.

The oracle as written is a great class--I really like the oracle mysteries/revelations, and the curse mechanic. Those make the oracle a great class! It's a huge improvement over the favored soul. But it sounds really disingenuous when you try to say that the oracle is needed to fill a niche that a core-only cleric already fills.

Clerics on Golarion can't worship a concept, they must worship a Deity.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
What do you think of the "creepy-but-not-evil" character archetype? The kind of characters (usually PCS) who belong to a species or profession normally associated with bad guys (tieflings, necromancers, twisted alchemists, Lovecraftian groupies, etc.) but either just sort of wanna be left alone or are actually helpful to visitors and are more misunderstood than actively bad? I'm finding that this is an archetype I keep coming back to for PCs, with lots of tiefling paladins and dhampir inquisitors and good changeling mages...

I'm probably responsible for a large number of the creepy but not evil characters in the game, in fact. Laori Vaus is probably the most famous one, but there's certainly others out there.

That said, I"m also a fan of the creepy but ACTUALLY evil PC.

What IS it about Laori Vaus that made her so popular?

How do you deal with a creepy but ACTUALLY evil PC? I imagine it has to be in an all-evil party to avoid conflict...

The bubblegum cheerleader personality combined with the, "Here, I made you a pie out of unborn goblin babies" creepiness and the *gives hug while wearing spiked chainmail* adorability.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
I do not know that combo, can you elaborate?

Take a level of gunslinger to get proficiency

Jerry Rig Immovable rod to act as a "mount" for the double Hackabut (reduces set up time to move action instead of full round action)

Use Ninja vanishing trick to get close.

Set down Double Hackabut

use Vital Strike with the Double Hackabut (base Damage is 2d12). You are now aiming at Flat-Footed Touch AC. So with Vital Strike you are dealing 2d12+2d12+Sneak Attack damage. Add in feats like Point Blank shot and weapon enhancements, you can do ALOT of damage in a single shot. If you end up going Gunslinger 5/Ninja X it gets even funnier since you add Dex to damage. Additionally, if you are a Mysterious Stranger, your grit is based on Cha (so Ki Pool and Grit run on same attribute) and you can also add Cha to damage by spending a Grit (which does not mean much since you can 1 shot most things pretty consistantly.

Sap Adept/Master. For more shenanigans.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

But the monk can just run away—he move faster than the hippo if he takes Fleet a few times. I say we give monks a slow BAB to even the scales.

ALERT: THE ABOVE IS A JOKE
ANY RELATION TO REAL-LIFE HIPPOS OR MONKS, LIVING OR DEAD, IS PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY PISSED ME OFF AND THIS IS MY PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE WAY OF GETTING BACK AT THEM
I DO NOT OWN PAIZO, PATHFINDER, OR A COPYRIGHT ON THE WORD MONK

/meta joke

I think Hasbro need to file a lawsuit because he's referencing Hippos without permission.


thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
There's... an... "H"... Please Teacher!... manga... D:

This is a great day.

Moreover, there's H of everything. I never got into the Onegai series, though.

Rule 34 applies even more to manga/anime than usual.

Yes, that's even more than "always".

There needs to be an anime version of Rule 34. If it exists, there is an H-Doujinshi of it.


James Jacobs wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
What do you think of the "creepy-but-not-evil" character archetype? The kind of characters (usually PCS) who belong to a species or profession normally associated with bad guys (tieflings, necromancers, twisted alchemists, Lovecraftian groupies, etc.) but either just sort of wanna be left alone or are actually helpful to visitors and are more misunderstood than actively bad? I'm finding that this is an archetype I keep coming back to for PCs, with lots of tiefling paladins and dhampir inquisitors and good changeling mages...

I'm probably responsible for a large number of the creepy but not evil characters in the game, in fact. Laori Vaus is probably the most famous one, but there's certainly others out there.

That said, I"m also a fan of the creepy but ACTUALLY evil PC.

Obligatory Post...

Laori Vaus mini please?


Lochar wrote:
Tels wrote:
I'm leaning towards rolling 1d4+1 and making the result the number of rounds a creature survives after their HP is gone, just by default; bosses would probably last 2d4+1 rounds or something like that.

All mythic enemies must use a number of move or standard actions equal to their Mythic Rank?

So a MR10 creature has to last at least 5 turns(standard+move actions), unless it starts burning Amazing Initiative or something else for extra actions.

Neat idea, but it doesn't help for things like the Tarn Linnorm, a CR 20 creature taken out by a Fighter 12/Champion 4, supposedly a CR 14 creature. Remember, only 1/3 of all encounters should include 'Mythic' creatures, so the other creatures that are supposed to be tough, but not mythic are still going to be slaughtered.

Take that Tarn Linnorm that we killed, if my GM had used the above method he would have survived: 2d4 + 1 ⇒ (2, 4) + 1 = 7 rounds after the fighter 'killed' him. Basically, the monsters get their HP + the bonus rounds from the dice.

1 to 50 of 4,659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.