Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i keep hearing these wierd statements from people... i know a CRB rogue doesnt have many choices for boosting to hit, but a rogue can get pretty close to a fighter's bonus to hit assuming hes flanking. a multi class dip is needed for solo tactics for it to truely shine, but i mean i would lose out on +2d6 damage for a +4 to hit while flanking and not needing opposed positioning for flanking.
lets see if i can rebuild my to hit rogue...
7 rogue/ 3 inquisitor
i mean a fighter wont have much more then that, and if positioning is your main issue "well you cant alwayse get into a flank..." then you have feats Gang Up which allow you to get into the fray first,apply SA, then allow your slower melee buddies to catch up on their turn.
or if you dont like that, prestige into horizon walker instead of inquisitor, you lose out on +2 to hit(and a ton of other really cool bonus features), but you gain DD, which allows for Dimentional agility chain for full attack flanks when you want them.
and this isnt even a minmaxed damage dealer, im placing importance on non combat, functions as well as survivability, and retaining WBL for the sake of including necessary to life magic and mundane items.
in conclusion i think that a well built rogue can function just right in a good group. the 3/4 bab , imo, is more of a way to prevent access to feats, but you make up for that lack of BAB in situational bonuses to attack.
i made a guy very similar to this. i used a level dip into unbreakable fighter, and took tenacious survivor my gm had a pain in the ass time killing him, then my cleric just channeled positive and quicken cast a healing spell and i was back in the fight. with the massive bonuses you gain from superstitious he saved on just about every save or die spell leaving the only effective way to kill him HP damage. and we all know how IR's handle HP damage mitigation.
Also thesidekick, nothing in the rules say you die. By arbitrarily applied physics yes you might die, by RAW you do not.
actually i believe suffocation rules would apply.
Also thesidekick, nothing in the rules say you die. By arbitrarily applied physics yes you might die, by RAW you do not.
i don't know if i would consider theoretical spacial anomaly and singularities ... arbitrary.
i would say a trapspringer, or bring in a melee beat face.
i would suggest a barbarian, they are easy to play.
if she likes elves she could run an elven double blade TWF fighter they are pretty fun and girly, i mean elvish...
a ninja could be fun for her, stealthy and only slightly complex. she would need to manage her ki pool but other then that i think she would have fun with it.
oo have her play a version of that elf from LOTR, legolas or something...twf and archery switch hitter, she would have fun with that
if i ever GM'd for a group who started throwing a temper tantrum after i sundered an item, stole an item, etc... i would LOL and kick that immature asshat off my table.
but back to the issue at hand: as a gm when i sunder or destroy an item i usually increase the loot at the end of the adventure to let them get that item back, unless i think the item was over powering my campaign in which case i would give a similar but different item to replace the one lost.
tetori, dimensional agility, abundant step (qinggong) and a colossal red dragon...
so we get surprise attacked by a colossal red dragon. my tetori saves against both frightful presence and the breath weapon as it strafes by us.
the dragon didnt stand a chance.
needless to say the GM was so pissed he got up from the table and started watching TV. when he cooled down i asked him what was wrong he said " YOU GUYS ARE ONLY LEVEL 15 YOU SHOULDNT HAVE WON THAT FIGHT!! you screwed up all my plans". he is a gm who doesnt like fudging things and we killed the red dragon who was supposed to be the main antagonist, after our first encounter lol.
my tetori disagrees with you. my dwarven monk is the lynch pin of my group, he doesnt do much damage but when hes grappling dragons, and earth elementals, and you name it... im having a blast playing my guy.
damage doesn't mean squat to me while im playing my support characters. when i play my barbarian, fighter, or magus i want to see those massive DPR numbers. when i play my buffer control characters i want to know that everyone is more effective in combat. when i play my support characters i want to know that they are accomplishing a task OTHER then hitting hard, like taking casters, BBEGs and nasty things that will make my fighter tank QQ himself to sleep, out of the fight.
the fighter is worthless with massive negative levels, paralysis, or god knows what else, the casters are worthless when they get pin cushioned by the enemy archer in the back of all those mobs, or the enemy cleric silences my casters and make the fight 10x harder then it should have been. all of that is avoided by my monk moving through the battle field and applying pressure to those targets.
that is what monks excel at.
im a big fan of eldritch knight archers. you would need to be able to cast 3rd level spells to qualify, but its worth the pay off with the versatility you bring to the table.
i personally like:
you can play a rogue, the artillery, and the god wizard. dont let anyone tell you that the low levels are bad for an EK, because you are a full fledged wizard with a bow which gives you tons of flexibility in how you can approach a situation.
high dpr isn't as powerful as being able to control the battlefield.
i think my EK archer was hands down the most powerful character I've ever played.
the only thing that makes a Role-player good IMO is a player who can keep things in game and not get mad out of game about those things.
you do not need to speak in a funny voice, act in a way that is silly, or do you need to play something "new" or "different".
role-playing is simply the ability to take on the mentality of the character you're playing and make decisions based on how that character acts, even if it goes against your true nature.
when i play, i make the most mechanically sound character i want to play, then build a persona around it based on how i think that character should act. once i decide on a persona i use movies, books, tv shows, or real life to emulate a personality that reflects that character.
its similar to saying, i want to play a chaotic neutral rogue, who is kind of a loner and uses kukuris. that is a very similar character to Riddick. so i would use that as a basis for my role-playing choices.
anyone in this thread remember Jayne from Firefly?
Jayne was a chaotic evil character, but he was one of the most likable characters in that show from a viewers perspective. he was stand offish and tried to take power at every opportunity. he didnt kill people in there sleep, he wasnt a psycho path, nor was he excessively disloyal. you can "evil" and be borderline neutral without being a heartless mass murderer.
i like to think that evil just means sociopathic, you're capable of killing without remorse, but 99% of the time you wont.
monks are awesome.
my truestriking, face smashing, turtle clutching, dimentional agility-ing, tetori says hi!
any character who can grapple someone, pin them in the same round then dimension door up for the world most epic powerbomb, is just so awesome.
Shimesen, that wouldnt work very well at all...
spell strike only works with magus spells. so you would have to stay magus to let spell strike work as intended which would make your character worse then just staying 20 levels of magus.
all i have to say is my tetori uses dimention door to grab dragons, then bowerbombs them to the ground, and beats the snot out of them.
he is a pure monk and is the second most bad ass character ive ever played.
you can take all your bs "monks suck" talk over then and bury it.
you dont nerf him, you play his weaknesses more.
ranged characters are very very weak. obscuring mist is a first level spell that will take him out of the fight for a few rounds. ray of enfeeblement will also hurt his dps by making his composite bow less effective. create pit will hurt him due to fighters having a low reflex and force him to climb out and keep fighting wasting a round or 2 of his dps. they have MANY ways to stop a ranged character from owning everything with arrows, and doing so wont ruin his fun. it will force him to start countering the things that he never knew were a bane to his archer.
in conclusion just play smart as a gm and you can , when you find it appropriate, stop his dps and force him to spend time countering your counter measures. so dont think "hes to powerful for my npcs", think about how your npcs would fight a group like this.
the only character that i have seen that i thought "holy crap thats broken", was a scarred witch doctor half orc.
compared to that class archetype, a summoner was a mild annoyance.
summoners are very powerful for beginning GMs, and PFS GMs (they cant really change the mod to making it more challenging). i mean they have more then a few ways of dealing with the power of the edilon.
i dont know, i like them and i think they are a little over hyped, but powerful.
i just wanted to clarify something for you, optimization is not the same as minmaxing or munchkining, or any other stupid term people use to label players who play powerful characters.
optimization is taking a concept and making it function as good as possible within that concept.
so what this means is if you ever took ,for instance, a rogue and said "how can i make him the best liar ever" then picked feats for that character concept, then you did in fact optimize that character. now if you mean you never optimized for damage then thats not hard at all to do.
here is what i would play out of the 2 choices you have listed
focus on archery feats and power attack
all i have to say is this, logic needs to be applied to ALL aspects of the game equally.
that means if a lizard can fly and breath fire, then its ok with me if the barbarian can jump 150 feet in the air and sunder spells with his sword. the concept of "you cant do that because its not realistic" is the most bull s#+@ mentality to have in D&D.
this is a true story:
my group and i changed GM's. the new gm sent a adult red dragon after our party as a "hi im your new gm, let me throw my power in your face". the archer was able to hurt it, the 2 handed fighter was able to hurt it, but when it came time for my monk to try and deal damage, the gm said "the dragon doesn't even flinch".
now the 2 handed fighter hit for about 50 point in 2 hits, the ranger (3.5) hit with his bow once for about 30 points, and i dealt over 75 in 3 hits... something is wrong here i thought.
after the game i talk to the gm about it, he tells me that "it isn't realistic that you can punch a dragon and hurt it, its to big. that why i don't like monks, they shouldn't be in the game because if they only use there fists they shouldn't be able to deal damage against most creatures."
now if your gm says "i want you to role play learning that language, i have no issue about that, its minor. now if a gm told me i couldn't multiclass because "i didn't show any interest prior to that path" then i would get up from that gm's table.
first i have a rogue in my group that does 9d6 +6 at level 3 in my group, they dont need to be "fixed".
to answer your question
HELL NO! the gm tosses them mooks and situation that will let that big 2 hnaded fighter do well. play a fighter and fight nothing but ghosts, lets see how much fun you have in that game.
each game needs to be tailored, or in the case of APs low level enough, for anyone who sits at the table can have fun. period end of discussion.
second, if you want to play a alchemist play one. if you want to play a rogue play one. not everyone likes alchemists.
im going to say this and people are going to moan and groan, but it needs to be said...
rogues need a Shadow Step similar to World of Warcraft. if they were given a ki pool for free, then they had the option for a ki pool ability "shadow step" that would allow rogues to dimension door to a location on the map. give it a short range like 30 feet, and remove the "your turn ends after uing this ability" bs that DD has.
this would make rogues soooo much more capable in combat.
do you know how annoying it is to hear rogues go "i cant find a flank, so im useless right now"
power creep does not exist because as a gm i have the power to limit you( the player) to what i deem fits within the confines of my world.
if you play PFS well you're boned, and cant fully control what characters are played at the table.
also, no one should feel sick or be upset about powerful aditions to the game. because once again you have the option to play with what material you want. whether it be some super powered demi god, or a underpowered commoner with a pitchfork you have those options and those options should be available to all players...
well unless you gm says no.
ive grappled a huge dragon out of the air, that was an epic momment on the table.
"the dragon turns for another pass of napalm straffing"
"i delay until the dragon is within 50 feet"
best session ever.
for a grapple based monk,i love spring attack, especially when you mix it with snapping turtle style, my god so much grappling goodness.
Kitsune Knight wrote:
i had to start tossing high level npc's in my game to scare my players into not killing every npc they came into contact with.
dm: what you didnt know is that this guy is a retired adventurer known for the slaying of the black dragon of mount joojoobee.
players: haha we're going to kick this guys ass... wait what?
tri omega zero wrote:
wow thank you for that plot hook.
What some people need to understand is the fact that certain classes carry heavier fluff than others. Fighters, rogues, wizards, sorcerers, clerics etc are pretty open, especially the fighter but classes like the paladin and ninja go deeper.
this is a g*! d%*n lie.
paladins yes, because they have a code of conduct and an alignment restriction, its harder to refluff this into a non paladin.
but a ninja is literally just a rogue with a different name, and a cha based ki pool. i want to trade trapfinding for a slightly better combat rogue, so how is that "deeper" then playing a rogue with the ki pool trick and a ninja trick invisibility? the short answer is IT'S NOT!!
i had a gm kill off my rogue once. i told him i wanted to play a ninja, he replied that ninjas dont exsist in his game. i then made a rogue with a ki pool, extra rogue trick (turned to a ninja trick invisibility)
when i asked him about it, he told me "i said no ninjas" even though i didnt play a ninja in name or flavor he just was being a dick. any way i got back at him by making an insanely OP class that the gm couldnt kill legitimatly, and absolutly wrecked his encounters.
needless to say we dont talk much anymore. but back to the topic!
i agree that the flavor of a class is determined by the player, not the book. unless they are breaking a serious guideline in the reflavor of a class, like a pally not being LG, im 100% ok with allowing anything in my games. im usually better at optimizing characters then players, and with unlimited gm resources i can challange them even if they are WTF OP!!
sift allws you to "touch" things at 30 feet. that means you would be able to say "hey there is a pitfall there" even if illusionary wall is covering it, which normally would be undetectible without truesight or interacting with it.
so it does have its uses
i'll say it again. the only thing i want paizo to do, is allow vital strike chan and spring attack to work and a +3 to attack with unarmed damage that scales every 5 or 6 levels OR the masterwork fists idea, i really like that one.
they also need to fix the grapple rules, sorry paizo you really screwed the pooch on that one.
if you want to make a good front line monk mix, i really like
its a very well balanced level 12 character focusing on dirty trick, and trip maneuvers makes him a beast against living medium targets.
Infinite time stop! Infinite shapechange! Infinite true strike! Infinite blink! Infinite everything!
HEY EVERYONE!!! Paizo doesnt cater to people who like to play low magic games, and gives people options for making funny, op, or rediculous characters in home games. LETS MAKE THEM ERRATA IT!! i mean if i dont allow it in my game, no one should AM I RIGHT?!
the world hasnt ended, its not 3.5 all over again. its a fun, slightly superpowerful item ment for home games, and banned in PFS. you never have to acknowledge it if you dont like it. bann it, convince you gm to bann it, but lets be honest, if you're spending 50+k gold on one item, its a high level adventure anyway, so balance goes out the window.
gauss, you just confirmed what i've always known... you are the biggest nerd of the mega nerds! revenge of the nerds was a biography of your life!
and you just gave me a way to find my new dice sets, salt water here i come!! THANKS!
ok ravingdork, i understand you dont want to continue our conversation. im just going to correct one mistake you have about archers.
"A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment)."
line of sight requires that you be able to SEE your target. a blind melee character with scent, blind sight, blind sense, tremor sense dragon sense ect... can still be effective in combat. albit difficult, they still can deal damage or provide assistance in flanking.
now an archer with any extra sensory detection abilities, will not be able to shoot at anything without the aid of improved precise shot or seeking. that effectivly means that they are WORTHLESS in a situation where sight is hindered, while using a bow.
oh yeah and lets not forget...
*having to have line of sight.
*having -4 to attack every time a damn idiot teammate steps in front of them until they can afford the manditory weapon enchant of seeking., or improved precise.
*falling prone and not being able to fight until they are able to stand up.
* having anti arrow feats(snatch, deflect), dr 3- arrow armor that can be placed under normal armor.
*having a set ammount of ammunition.
i mean yeah they hit hard, but they are so easy to shut down. if they didnt have the DPR they would never be played.
sohei monk for the win
sohei lets you take what ever mounted feats you want without prerequisites. then take point blank rapid many shot, at 6th you get flurry... well until they decide how the hell flurry works, so you could easily tear up a character from horse back.
have you ever seen a umd rogue with an 11th level wand of scorching ray? first round a 10th level rogue can drop 9d6 to 3 different opponents or 17d6 to one. then factor in pressure points, bleeding damage, and any other crazyness you can pump out with archetypes. thats a pretty big chunk of damage, not to mention if they have spiked armor they can flank with it in melee, or improved feint targets.
rogue damage is not an issue at all. and they technically have a better chance to hit using spells then a wizzard or sorcerer do.
rogues are very awesome, could they be better, well who wouldnt want the class they love to the "the best"? if you say you wouldnt, you are most likely lying to yourself.
a 3/4 bab is more then perfect for a rogue
but with that being said, i like playing monks more then any other class, and with the way people diss monks on these boards... i guess im a different kind of gamer.
it depends on how you wanted your character to play out. as a solid archer i would go 16 ranger 4 rogue for ki pool and invisibility. as a melee character i would go 10/10 for flanking and medium armor profeciency + sneak attack + bleed damage + any ninja tricks you like.
i played a rogue ranger to 11 and i liked it alot. he TWF with short swords with human and undead favored enemies. it was nasty, since my gm threw mainly humans and dragons at us. i cant say it would play the same in every campaign but it did well in that one.
"...purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on."
looks like its gm discretion to me, BUT since you technically choose your class before you choose your feats i dont think you would qualify for the archetype after you apply the feat.
second edition pissed me off so much. rules light games are all about ego. what does your dm think about this, or that. can i do this? yes because..., but then from my experience from 3 different gms, they dont apply logic evenly.
example (my first second edition game):
*i just got hit by an arrow*
GM: you need to remove the arrow first.
player: what? why do i need to do that?
GM: because it dosent make sense that you can heal yourself with an arrow in your chest. it takes one turn to remove all the arrows from your body.
*later in that same combat*
player 2: i cast fireball
player 1: gm dosent allow anything in his games that dosent make sense. so you cant cast fireball.
GM: what? i never said that, this is a game about magic and fantasy things dont need to make sense!
player 1: WHAT THE F*+# DO YOU MEAN THEY DONT NEED TO MAKE SENSE!!!!
this actually happened to me in 3 different second edition games with 3 different gms. people have a hard time with being biased, and if the player dosent have a rule to back up his actions a gm can just be a complete moron and cock block you. i will never play in a system that gives a gm absolute uncontested athority over my actions without ATLEAST a written rule to back up said actions. the unfortunate byproduct of this is you get people who use the rules to get over on people, or have some self satasfaction in proving someone else wrong.
yes its annoying but rules light is even worse IMO.
i was him, minus the divorce, when i first started playing. all i played were monks for almost 2 years(bruce lee). then my frind said try something new, so i did, played something similar but different enough to make me feel comfortable. my friend built me a heavy damage 2 handed fighter, loved every second of it, until it died from gm assassination.
if you think your friend is playing the same character hand him a new one and make him see why the character is bad ass. oh man this is a barbarian, he has a TON OF HP and hits like a truck, then when you rage you can do this and that and the other, i think you'll enjoy playing this guy. doing that for him my break him out of his comfort zone and let him see the light of why RPGs are awesome.
as for his mental health... im not a psychologist so i cant help you there. as for the dying every session, he doesn't see the value of his charcter, so he plays it recklessly. make him care about his character, give him a cool sword, custom created magical item. and let him know if he dies he loses the item. that may help him not do idiotic things with his character.
hope this helps.
in the last 5 years i have changed my leveling system from ep to event based leveling. everything the players accomplish something that i, as the gm, concider to be worthy of tale then the party gains a level. at level 1 it could be crushing a group of orcs, 5 it could be an orc army buy as they levl higher and higher they have to accomplish me amazing fetas. killing a litch, destroying a dragon ect.. the more difficult the encounter the more likely they are to level.
ive had 2 characters die in long term campaigns, both were gm assassinations. mind you we were playing 3.5 not pathfinder.
fighting against 4 mooks after getting into an arguement before the game.
dm: "they all rolled crits"
the best part is when i saw his face after the game. lets just say he was walking home that night.
i was a different person back then.
so many ways to stop an archer.
darness, obscuring mist, or any wall spell will take him out of the fight.
cover, concealment, or making him blind will reduce his chances of hitting drastically.
sunder, disarm, tripping , prone means he cant shoot his bow, are all ways to stop him mundanely
and most of all TREES TREES TREES AND MORE TREES, the line of sight necessity is a horrible weakness for archers.
archers are the most vulnerable type of character in the game. thats why they hit like mack trucks, because i can shut them down with a first level spell even at 20th level.
when i play i dont really care what the other players play as long as we dont have gaps in out group. for instance no healer, no arcane caster, no skills monkey ect...
i make concepts for my characters first, then optimize in the confines of that concept. i wont ever play a character because it hits for 10 million points of damage, but if im making a polearm fighter and i can make him hit for 10 million points of damage without compromising my concept then i would play him.
so with that being said, my advice to you i play the character you want to play, if they make charcters that are not pulling their weight in combat you will need to make up for it.
but dont think of that as a bad thing, because you gm will, assuming he cares, adjust the adventures to fit the group better. that will allow people with disfunctional characters to still do well, and make your character look that much more beefy.