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

Trogdar's page

1,103 posts (1,106 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ilja wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ilja wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
For starters, not everyone plays a barbarian, and not everyone plays at levels where courageous is actually worth a damn (you need a total of +5 bonus for it to not just give you +1STR and CON when raging, which, you know, isn't even enough to get a bonus if your stats aren't odd numbers), not everyone has ultimate equipment, or feels like combing it through for optimal stuff.
Huh? How do you figure? A +1 Couragous weapon would give +1 Str and Con and Will saves when raging.

It increases the score. It takes 2 points into an attribute to either increase or decrease the modifier it grants.

A Courageous Weapon with a less than +4 Enhancement Bonus only grants 1 point to the given attribute.

The Will Saves would increase, but the Strength/Constitution modifiers would be unchanged unless the amount needed to increase the modifier is 1 attribute point.

Oh, talking about the modifiers? But if you can assume a courageous weapon, it isn't harder than just getting an uneven score to begin with. Very efficient from a point buy perspective.

Only if you can guarantee that you are going to get that property soon and will be able to keep that weapon relevant over time, which I have never seen happen in practice.


137ben wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Any is a very inclusive term. I don't see how you could see something like any morale bonus from another source as just saves...
Because there is a small group of posters who either don't read the rules before declaring they know what the rules say, or do read it but ignore it. Those people didn't process the word "any", because they never read it.

Sadly, that makes more sense than I would like it to.


In addition, I'm not certain I understand why people are attributing bonuses from spell effects into the cost of the weapon property. The property isn't giving you squat until you have the spell up which, for a barbarian, has a significant associated opportunity cost.

In short, nobody is getting free buffs out of this, and when they eventually get to the level where they can afford a fully stacked enhancement bonus, they are likely to have conflicting bonus interactions.


Any is a very inclusive term. I don't see how you could see something like any morale bonus from another source as just saves...


Primal flurry sounds cooler.


Yeah, it's pretty easy to optimize into the stratosphere if you want, but I like to take advantage of the hit bonuses from inspire courage to spread out my point buy a touch so that I have a more versatile character.


Yeah, I haven't really seen the point of going dervish over dawnflower, it just seems like a much better choice.


That's ridiculous. The wall of fire somehow doesn't burn things that are not alive? wtf.....


Keep in mind that the bard chassis may actually work better for building a class that is based on those kinds of features. At the very least, it will be easier to swap out bardic knowledge for something related to the skills you are interested in using.


I think you will find that most people on the forum will argue for an eighteen in your primary casting stat because any more is too heavy an investment for the return.

Take this advice, they aren't wrong.


The problem, I think, for me is that one party is looking at the game from a perspective that requires sufficient reason for the quantity of magic items that exist in pathfinder and finding that it does not coincide with the medieval fantasy trope.

The problem is that the fact that pathfinder has relatively large volumes of magic throughout the game universe is simply a contingent fact. The game works under the premise that magic items exist. It could work differently, but it does not.

So what does this tell me about pathfinder? Pathfinder =/= medieval fantasy.


Though there are some magic items that act as if they have been enhanced through metamagic. The boots that give you haste act as though the effect is quickened despite the fact that the cost of the item is already less than what it would be without said metamagic.


email! woohoo!

Spoiler:
danielkennyok@gmail.com


again, in those peoples defense, it isn't really about getting something magical so much as it is about achieving a mechanical representation of the character they envision that is accurate. No one wants to play a swashbuckler type character that absolutely must have a specific weapon. The weapon property is a bad patch for a cludgy mechanic.


I agree with the above entirely.

You have to modify your expectations based on the scenario. There are times when you simply cannot build a niche concept and have it work.

I think that, unfortunately, can be the exact opposite of the intent of the DM's that run restrictive rule sets though.

Some character tropes seem as though they should be easy to pull off because they are so normal (like the finesse fighter concept), and people assume that you can make it work inside the system easily when, in fact, those very obvious seeming character concepts are very near to unworkable without doing mechanical back flips.

Communication for the win.


Mydrrin wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
In my experience, those types of attacks (fort/will save attacks or maneuvers) aren't that reliable. I had thought there was something else that had been figured out. :(

You've got three different defenses that you can target. If you build to actually use those abilities, they're very reliable.

The problem with the monk comes up when people try to play him like a Fighter instead of a weirdly specialized mystic. Monks get Maneuver Training as a freebie to get them up to par and a fair number of bonus feats, so they can afford something like Weapon Finesse or Agile Maneuvers.

Most opponents aren't going to have unbeatably high CMD, Fort, and Will all at the same time, so being able to target the weakest link in the chain is generally pretty useful. If you're going to tank with a Maneuver Master, Dirty Trick is awesome because there aren't a bunch of monsters running around with bonuses against it like Trip.

The Sensei can make a very cool tank with very high DC Stunning Fist and Touch of Serenity attacks and possibly a few maneuvers, though he gives up his bonus feats. Being able to get reliable buffs from Advice and share key features like evasion and improved evasion can also really help with keeping party members alive, a key component of tanking.

And again, mobility, insanely better saves, the potential for even higher AC, etc. all contribute to some pretty solid monk tanking.

I'm actually really glad they're bringing in the Brawler base class; it will help establish the monk as the mystic and the brawler as the street-fighter instead of trying to squish those ideas together into the same class.

Here is a sample guy at CR 12, see what you can do to her. It's what 2 levels above difficult encounter would look like. See what a 10th level character can do to her. She even has fort saves that are low for maybe a stun.

Valkrie

CN Medium outsider (extraplanar)
Init +3; Senses darkvision 60 ft., deathwatch; Perception +24...

A sensei monk should have a stunning fist dc between 21 and 23 at level 10. Thats a better than fifty percent chance to save or loose for the valkyrie every round.


Sensei can do some pretty mean things with stunning fist, they can get those DC's really high. Add crushing blow to your character and you will be shutting down a good number of enemies. That said, I would say the sensei is pretty dissimilar to the monk base class.


I had a few ideas on the classless aspect. I would love to see how you would approach it.


Yeah, I enjoy coming up with flexible chassis upon which a number of characters can be built. I combined the barbarian and a wizard to create a Gish class that could function using one of three separate primary stats. It was also totally not dependent upon shocking grasp shenanigans... your welcome :P


If you are going to draw comparisons, I would suggest that the agile weapon property is like having a wizard item that determines spell DC's. Don't have the item? well then I guess your DC's are going to be the minimum set by spell level.


I don't particularly disagree with the assessment that being tied to a magic item to make a concept work is not ideal. Unfortunately for me, there are a great deal of concepts that are very cludgy inside the mechanics of pathfinder.

I have never made the claim that I wanted to do precisely as much damage as a strength based fighter. I would like to be able to use a rapier without being neutered by DR though. The thing is, if I use a rapier and manage to apply my dexterity modifier to damage, I will still never ever ever put up damage like a barbarian with a battle axe. I'm totally fine with that, by the way.


I would love it if there was some way to make finesse fighter types function without magic weapons Jaelithe, but I have to work inside this game and its constraints.

Just to set this up in a premise conclusion format:

If I want to be a dextrous swashbuckler type, then I am playing the wrong game.


Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
the gm adjudicates mechanics conflicts. No GM has authority over players. If you think you have authority over me, then you are running under a misconception.
Any player who doesn't acknowledge a DM's authority over the players as relates to the game should be tossed out on his presumptuous ass.

That sounds very close to an ad hominem.


By no means am I suggesting that the gm doesn't have a right to adjudicate anything that occurs inside of the framework of the game. The thing is, this power ought to be exercised when there is a rules conflict. Everything else should be negotiable because that is the nature of cooperation. That said, when the group comes to a consensus about the game they want to play, then those themes or restrictions are in effect upon running the first game.


the gm adjudicates mechanics conflicts. No GM has authority over players. If you think you have authority over me, then you are running under a misconception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that is ultimately where the dividing line is here. The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players. Those who are inclined to use the now corrupted term of entitlement (my distaste for this sort of comment is hard to quantify) are not going to compromise on this because they think that is their right, despite the fact that no one actually seeded any personal authority to them.

I don't necessarily agree with either position entirely here, but it does seem that the miscommunication seems to hing on this fact.

Also, regarding the comments about how much work dm's do. The yolk of campaign building is one that is taken up voluntarily and has, under no circumstances I've experienced, come with authority over players. The dungeon master is the final arbiter of conflicts of mechanics in my opinion, they don't get to tell a group of equals what they are going to play without input or discussion.


@Simon Legrande - I don't think that is bad necessarily, but I do think that players should be able to add something to the over arching story through back story elements and plot hooks. If a world is too "hardcoded", then the game really starts to sound like story hour instead of a collaborative effort. Maybe you should try incorporating your players into some of the world building? It certainly can't do anything but help people with context.


wouldn't mind seeing some sort of int based archetype in the future though. just saying. Tactics based melee dude or something.


not that those are good options to take. Just use a short bow when you can't close. Inspire courage still works with it and your only going to be using this when you have no melee option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a very anthropocentric position to take.


this thread really makes me want to see paizo create a sub-system that lets you bypass magic items.


I don't think there is a case for item crafting and magic item crafting as separate things. A craftsmen of any stripe would not be content to simply make a sturdy bow when the local wizard is crafting the equivalent of a machine gun bow of fiery doom. A craftsmen may never learn the ins and outs of magic in general, but they would be finding out how to compete with that wizard or simply get out of the business.

In fact, it makes little sense in a world of magic that their is anyone who has not dabbled in a cantrip or so, if for no other reason then curiosity. It's kind of like Mormons to a degree. You have to willfully ignore such a tremendous asset like magic to prevent the general populous from learning how to do something like prestidigitation. It's just too useful to remain occult.


Vanykrye wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

@the intelligence comments - I would suggest giving skill points from each ability score and then have these skill points be less efficient in non associated skills.

So a fighter would get great strength and constitution based skills and would have his base skills to apply to his int based skills. Alternatively, a fighter might spend some of his strength skills on acrobatics for example, but would have to spend two for one, kind of like cross classing back in 3.5

There are no CON based skills in Pathfinder, and the only STR based skills are climb and swim. Not all stats are created equal for skills. For the fighter, this seems like a step backward in the skills department.

Yeah, sorry I was thinking about Kirth's endurance skill for some reason.


@the intelligence comments - I would suggest giving skill points from each ability score and then have these skill points be less efficient in non associated skills.

So a fighter would get great strength and constitution based skills and would have his base skills to apply to his int based skills. Alternatively, a fighter might spend some of his strength skills on acrobatics for example, but would have to spend two for one, kind of like cross classing back in 3.5


Yeah, strength rage for early levels and use agile enchanted kukri or something when you can and switch your rage to dexterity. If you go dervish dance you just get to use the one weapon.


Dotting. I'll get back to you with a comment tomorrow.


I honestly think it would be best to remove additional bonuses such as to-hit bonuses and spell DC's from ability scores would likely get people to be more liberal with their point buy. All you would have to do is pull out a couple key magic items and lower AC and saving throws for monsters.

Pretty easy to make the ability score arrays more consistent if you are not desperate for that extra 5% success rate.


Healing is never trivial in combat really (there is always an action economy deficit), so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Healing works just as effectively on lethal damage, and non lethal will make for easy knock outs, so I wouldn't discount it overly.


Stormwind fallacy is just a false dichotomy. If you don't know what a false dichotomy is then don't try to call people on it.

DrDeth - That would be a great example of a false dichotomy. Being analytical or creative is not the only possibility. You can be both, and I would love to see how you use this apparent knowledge in a positive way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My question is this. If you build a character who is remarkably average at combat, why are you made angry by the guy who is playing a hero? This is an adventure game. If I brought an old man character to the table with the intention of making him bookish and scholarly with only middling performance as a martial character, I would certainly not be angered by the guy who has decided to play a character with good combat capability and poor scholarly skills.

Really, the only thing that this frail old fighter argument has me saying is, "so what?". I mean, wasn't that was the whole point behind your frail old fighter was it not?


You could have reflections share the princes hit point pool. When they take damage, he/she takes non lethal of the same amount.

That might lead to your character dropping if you get two reflections caught in an aoe or something, but it would eliminate the extra health pool issue. You would have to add class features that gave temporary hit points or DR against non lethal so that the class doesn't get nuked later on though. If the reflections are like spirits they could take half damage against energy attacks and non magical weapons, that would make the class more survivable.

Very imaginative class, I like the concept.


I think that I can tentatively agree with your premise Ilja, but it really hinges upon what kind of optimization your talking about. I usually optimize for teamwork and having a reasonably broad skill set to fall upon without having the best option for every situation. This does lead me toward hybrid casters more often than not. Is this the kind of optimization that is going to hinder roleplay? Because in my experience, having a bard can really make that struggling character look better than he/she is in actuality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, Yes I will.


I already stated this earlier, but I would like to see fighters be better with feats like power attack than other classes. If they took no penalties to hit from this sort of feat, you could remove weapon training and the fighter would be good with every weapon he picks up again.

It really bugs me that they aren't.


CWheezy wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:


We're going in circles here. Optimization is the problem. The system is only unbalanced when some people are optimizing more than others.

Please don't blame players for playing the game, thanks

+1


Could you do something along the lines of a dispel on hit three times a day or something? That would help the mundane classes with utility. Kind of like spell sunder light I guess.


Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
Trogdar wrote:


This really is the fatal flaw in Marthkus's argument. A save doesn't mean much when we are talking about high level spell casters.

I don´t understand this kind of argument.

1)A very few people here play at high level.

2)When i play at high level the spell caster is on my side.

Its a pretty straightforward position Leonardo. Marthkus believes that the barbarian is too strong because his class features give him great saves, thus invalidating caster threats.

I propose that this argument is invalid because caster classes are not invalidated by high saving throws.

Its a kind of if then scenario.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Even the fighter (although weaker) has more interesting combat interactions.

I call shenanigans here.

I also challenge you to name a single "more interesting combat interaction" that a Fighter has.

Because, to me, it looks like the only thing a Fighter can do is roll a die/swing a weapon over and over.

Mid combat a party member cast a buff spell on the fighter.

That alone gives the fighter innumerable more interactions and teamwork options than the superstitious barbar.

They actually have to play with tactics and thought, not just going "ROAR! ragelancepounce while being invulnerable to magic!" doing their own thing while the rest of the party does their own thing.

There's a huge difference between 'very high chance to make a saving throw' and 'immune to magic.'

A great deal of magic doesn't require a saving throw, or does unpleasant things even on a successful save.

This really is the fatal flaw in Marthkus's argument. A save doesn't mean much when we are talking about high level spell casters.


I believe that the barbarian can be quite tactical Marthkus. The rage power that allows you to drop your rage can be accomplished with a held action which, I think, makes the barbarian much more tactical in his teamwork.


It might be better to have spells after 6th level be full round actions and adjust quicken metamagic to adjust the spell by one time increment. That way you could never cast a high level spell as a swift action and would have to rely on lower level spell slots which, as a consequence, makes buffing spells and spells without dc based effects more attractive.

1 to 50 of 1,103 << 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.