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

1,917 posts (1,920 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,917 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A game with a strong narrative focus is not negatively impacted by a tighter mechanical rule set. There is no correlation to be made here. I also fail to see why this school marm thing keeps coming up. If someone is dead set on making a dud character, then just get them to use an npc class that suits them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the subtle game interaction that one might miss is that players are engaging with the RNG far more than any individual npc, making a once a day critical negation not a terrible idea on its face.


I'm starting to wonder if magic items are actually too weak to be honest. At least, from my perspective, if items had the same relative strength as a class feature at the level it becomes feasible to purchase that item, then inequity in class design would have a lesser impact than it currently does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why skirt the point being made. A first level spell has a tiny opportunity cost. The jingasa is not nearly so trivial.


It would be cool to have a talent that lets you choose to specialize in self buffing or some kind of spell strike evoker style. That way you could accommodate either preference without allowing for both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right, why would an adventurer not go out and pay for an epic outsiders service instead of buying a friggin hat that still puts them face to face with potential death and dismemberment? It may not work forever, but purchasing way above your cr can be accomplished through spell services. Buy a hat, or send in assault angels into the bbegs lair. Which makes more sense in the context of the universe? Which is more fun to deal with as a GM?


Alceste008 wrote:

The Jingasa was ridiculously under priced for what it did. The cost should have been close to 45,000 for +2 luck AC (with trait) & negate a crit once per day.

However, I would have nerfed the item to a simple +1 luck bonus that did not work with Fate's Favored. 5k is about right for that benefit. The name after all is Jingasa of the fortunate soldier.

Case in point. How many adepts can I keep in my employ with 45000!!! gold pieces? Why have magic items if they don't even make sense? There's no sensible reason to ever create this type of object. You could feed an army for a month with that much gold!

Does no one care that magic items shouldn't exist!? Why would you buy this if you can keep a Balor on call for a friggin year!?

(Did not fact check the numbers. Expect some discrepancy in how long you can bind a Balor for.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Fokodan wrote:
UMD allows you to emulate class feature. So, assuming "being spellcaster" is druid class feature (and you know, "spells" is a part of "class feature" section), you rogue just need UMD DC 20 roll. You still, may be, need DC 26 to emulate ability score and 3rd check DC 21 to use scroll. Ta-da!

Ta-da, so how many points you should invest to UMD to consistently beat those DCs? Argument was that even with +1 UMD you can use this trick.

Even if we have Wis 11+:
So, we have to beat DC 21 to cast spell from scroll. Immediately we need to make DC 20 to emulate class ability for ioun stone.
5% chance and 10% chance... Overall we have 0,5% chance per attempt to recharge ioun stone. We also have 5% per attempt to not be able activate this exact scroll for 24 hours and another 5% per attempt to not be able to emulate class feature for ious stone.

Good luck trying! :D

Blah blah blah spellcaster overlords blah your own fault for not picking a caster blah.

We need to make sure we maintain the status quo where only one group has access to the good game features right?

After these discussions I kind of wonder why umd isn't on every non casters list. The devs are clearly saying umd or gtfo.


I think that complaining about being forced into putting umd on every character who can't cast because magic items are a hard troll for non casters is a reality we seem to want to enforce.


I honestly can't be bothered to look at magic items really. They're either boring, incredibly situational, or cost so much that you'll never see them in a game. I almost wish magic items and feats were removed from the game. False choice is just work.

Maybe that's the idea! Make the meta game as much like work as possible so that everyone hates it. That'll show those silly munchkins!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wonderstell wrote:


Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

Actually, were they really too

Yes. The current version is overpriced. But maybe the Bracers of Falcon's Aim never should have existed at all.
Maybe there shouldn't be any wondrous items which replicate spell effects. That's what wands and scrolls are for.

Are you friggin kidding me? You want to bar ALL access to magic by non casters!? That's just hilariously bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I sure am glad I decided to stop buying first printings. Why don't they just ban everything that isn't the big six? Seems as though they don't want player options to have an impact on the game, maybe they'll ban feats next. At least I wouldn't have expectations of agency then.


You can work around mooks not being able to hit by using aid actions.

You could use something like a goblin swarm rather than 10 thousand individuals to get somewhere close to what you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could also do something like doubling an effect like alchemist fire requires eight times the fuel for each step above standard. A corresponding 5' to the explosive radius makes sense.

That would make it an interesting, if expensive, option later. Just getting 3d6 with a fifteen foot explosive radius would require 64 alchemist fire flasks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe make a general rule about not being able to throw bundles of alchemist fire, but using multiples with a fuse is okay? I figure you should be able to do something like that for internal consistency if nothing else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clear! Satchel charge incoming!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It says that if you drop it with a death effect it will rise again in three days in its regeneration stat block. I would assume it would be a fair target at that point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can you animate the Terrasque or something? I never considered that...


Dawnflower dervish/Loracle? You don't end up with full bab, but the inspiration bonus is doubled and only works on you. Tonnes of healing potential, two spell lists and all good saves as well as skills coming out of every orifice.

The only thing that's a little bit of a downside is that you have two spell lists so you'll have to plan your turns ahead of time.


bigrig107 wrote:

It's also important to realize what book these feats came from (hint: Ultimate Intrigue), and what they're intended to be used for.

Yeah, if a normal group of players that doesn't focus on social encounters whatsoever looks at these, then they won't like them.
It's like comparing them to the (arguably) "baseline feat": Power Attack. Or mostly any other combat feat, to be honest. They don't have the same so where of usefulness.

Sense Relationships is most likely outright amazing for any game that takes place in a, mostly social, noble's court.
Who is that person talking to the King, and why is he doing so? *One minute passes.* Oh, he's the King's nephew? Cool.

It's all a matter of perspective, as well as target audience.

Yeah, that's definitely true. I was more speaking too the relative strength of feats in the general sense. You(general) just don't get enough feats for them to be applicable in such a narrow way. If the feat gave niche advantages in one area, I would expect that you end up with other advantages at later levels from that feat.


I think the trouble with feats like this is that feats take up too much real estate on your character progression for the pay off they offer. I mean, a spell that has an effect of this sort would be of trivial opportunity cost for the most part, but as a feat it represents ten percent of your character... Which is too costly for the pay off in the extreme.

Of course, this is more an issue fundamental to the games assumptions and is likely a consequence of feat design being overly conservative at inception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I personally don't really care for Unchained. So I'm glad they took the approach they did.

Yeah, I wasn't all that happy with how Unchained turned out. The only class that really struck me as improved from its core version did it by making the rest of the game worse. To break it down:

UnBarb: Rage is a bit simpler, but not really better and there were tons of stealth-nerfs to various rage powers to take away some of the best tricks of the "chained" Barbarian.

UnMonk: Better at punching, worse at everything else.

UnRogue: Improved, but by locking a lot of useful stuff everyone should have access to behind Rogue niche protection.

Unsummoner: More balanced, but with so many needless restrictions slathered on that it kills one of the most fun parts of the original summoner (Namely, the nigh-unlimited creative freedom).

Developers tend to be super conservative. Can't upset the oldsters who used to RP uphill both ways.

"In my day you were terrible, and liked it!"


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
You can type in caps all you want, but everything you've said aside from pointing that some spells have alignment descriptors is your opinion of how spells with alignment descriptors should be handled in play. I don't think your stance is objective, I just think it looks that way to you because you're standing at the center of it.

If a thread could be 'won', this would be the post that does it.

Cognitive bias, it's a thing.


I would love to see either racial levels or mythic tracks for some of the cool iconic monster types that a lot of players would like to play. I figure something like four or five levels to become a werewolf or something and have some of those levels progress class abilities like a prestige class.

So, for the hypothetical werewolf class levels, you would get half those levels toward the barbarian or druid class abilities or something. You kind of have to do that to make those levels less punitive later.

I could even see doing something like the lycanthrope effects altering rage and wild shape respectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure you have to weigh the consequences of an action to determine the ethics of said action. There is a point where not using a nuke is unethical, it's just a crazy world ending circumstance that really isn't likely to happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

theres a great many posts recently making a claim to other peoples motives that really have no place here. Ashiel and others have made very reasonable arguments as to why a thing ought to be considered good aligned or not. The fact that the book is not consistant with those views does not somehow make them amoral.

Look, if I somehow gained power over the world and made oranges illegal and proclaimed that any who ate oranges would, henceforth, be considered evil, do you think eating oranges would actually be morally wrong?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Granted. (I'm still working on perfecting that one. It would be... a useful skill.) :D
Thats not a jab, if that didnt come across in text. I admire your ability to materialise posts that would take me forever to type out.

Oh, no! No jab! I got it! And thanks!

(My longer posts can take quite some time, though - I'll often have a couple of tabs open or work on one as I do other stuff around the house, and I'll often work on one until my ADD kicks in and I'm forced (figuratively, via forgetfulness) to stand or switch to doing something else and come back to the first one. I'm a stay at home dad, so I can afford to do that while kids are playing. Of course sometimes I just forget what I'm doing and leave off entir

lol, the glamour of parenthood.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Granted. (I'm still working on perfecting that one. It would be... a useful skill.) :D

Thats not a jab, if that didnt come across in text. I admire your ability to materialise posts that would take me forever to type out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
That's fine! I didn't know stuff before people told me (and different sites have different code), so I try not to presume what people know and tell them. If you prefer the other way, that's fine! (I find it really fast and easy by this point, though. It's all in what you're used to/comfortable with.)

To be fair, some of us can't type a million words a minute Tacticslion, so that's a thing. :)


Personally, I hope so. I keep getting into groups with DMs who demand this sort of game. Inevitably, the ad hoc house rules start piling up and the game just collapses under the Titanic lack of understanding in the game system. Last couple guys who ran games I was in had that mentality and the game mechanics were broken beyond repair before the first session was finished.

Long story short, if you don't care about game mechanics and think everyone ought to just RP better, then don't fiddle with math you don't understand.


I can tell you with 100% certainty that science isn't remotely involved. If it were, we would have a lot more rigorous testing methodology.

There's definitely art involved, but art is not objective the way mathematics is. I'm not suggesting that any structure needs to be perfect, we are all human after all. That doesn't mean we need bad saves to scale so slowly as to be irrelevant(an example). Math is super important, and the more you employ it the better the system will be because the vast majority of the game relies on it.


Also, where does this art science crap come from? We have literally thousands of game systems out there that function exclusively through mathematics. You can math out the underpinning nature of the freaking universe but ttrpg's are just a bridge too far? That's ridiculous.


Im not the one lining my conversation with pejoratives. If you want to help people, you dont start by attacking their motives.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
You think it's impossible to compare class abilities? How do classes get made, pixie dust?

They get made by game design. Balance is a part of it, but not the be all and end all. And not balance in the way you're thinking of. Classes, feats, etc. are not going to be "balanced" on some power metric. It's simply not possible. Balance is more of a matter of player experience... Do I get to matter on the play table? Do I get to contribute to the group. Not whether or not I can take each of the other classes in a one to one deathmatch, or a one to one DPR race, or a one to one whatever contest. The game has NEVER been balanced in that manner.

I think your goal is simply impractical. If you want a point buy system throughout the game, you really should be playing GURPS. The Feat system as it is , is already insanely complex. There is no enhancement to the game itself by adding another even crazier level of complexity to it. What you're essentially looking for is a power up by being able to nuance feat values and create another resource fund to min-max. This game has more than enough min-maxing elements built into it already.

So, mathematics won't give you balance of any sort and all I care about is min maxing and power gaming. You have no concept of what your talking about. Everything in that paragraph is biased and has nothing whatever to do with game systems and everything to do with your personal hang ups. Do you think your helping, really? The opening poster wants to make some home brew alterations to the game and you 'help' by insulting them... What the hell.


You think it's impossible to compare class abilities? How do classes get made, pixie dust?


Yeah, I was suggesting a move to true neutral if you feel you must do something. if some other major transgression occurs in the future, the loss of powers and eventual change in deity are more reasonable.

To be clear, I don't generally think pushing alignment is a worthwhile endeavor given the tiny pay off you may or may not get from it. At least, getting consensus at the table is a nightmare in a lot of ways. Even if you happen to be in a group of people who can keep their heads, you are still fairly likely to disagree on a number things.

This fellow does seem to think strange things about being good though. I am curious to know how torturing someone could be good. Its pretty hard to get reliable Intelligence from a guy with clamps on his nipples. I think most would agree that the guys only thinking about clamps.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, you'd think a group of people like all of us, who are interested in a game like this would be more careful about our pejoratives and general bashing that we probably got enough of in high school.

Using the mechanics of the game to your advantage is not something that you ought to be singled out and called names for. It's a friggin game people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could do core only, but that will just end up more wonky then anything. The most powerful classes and spells are in the core book.

If this person was really out to be the king mechanically, then he would be playing a wizard rather than a class without ninth level spells.


Jack of Dust wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
IMO a tool to control the populace is a very Lawful point of view
It depends really. Believing something can control the populace is very different from believing something should control the populace.

I would think that clergy would think that controlling the population would be for the best. Just look at history.


412294 wrote:
Well the main reason is that divine casters get their power from a deity, so they have to keep them happy, mechanically this means they get nice things like casting in armour, better base attack bonus etc. compared to arcane casters who generally don't get armour, are useless with weapons and have less health, in return their power is their own.

Sure, but you kind of need armor as a divine caster. The cleric spell list is built on the assumption that you have armor so you can get in close and heal or attack. It's not as powerful as the arcane list. I honestly don't think the devs consider the deity thing as a balance metric, it's more to keep the theme.

This may have been different in previous editions, but I'm not as well versed in that area.


Wish once a month is a bad choice to make. It's just not that good. Can you imagine having that and trying to figure out when to use it? Ugh, no thanks.

Maybe 3.0 wish. I think you could buy gear back then. I really need mcguffin X, good thing it's under 50k! Sort of thing.


Kinda too bad that they got rid of the improved mage armor spells. I imagine they would be great for this kind of class.

Stacking some long duration buffs is definitely going to do more for you than the rogue class features you lose.


Dude, change his alignment one step toward neutral. If he doesn't get the message he never will.

I personally hate alignment because of the human element(nobody can be objective and still be human) which makes these calls very much about perspective. That said, advocating torture is a pretty clear violation of good and really ought to move someone to neutral.

A real mechanical change that doesn't immediately turn off all of his class features is the best middle ground and it gives you a stronger position if and when you actually do take his powers away.


Well, as it applies in multiple arenas, I would pars each area separately to determine relative strength and then charge that value as there isn't really a benefit to them being combined in a point based system. If anything, it gates one attribute of the feat behind an additional charge.

Edit: read as the sum of the two parts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feats ought to be judged by how well they do what they are trying to accomplish. Your going to have trouble measuring the power of weapon focus against skill focus because they involve different parts of the system.

If you want to compare feats, an easier approach might involve comparing combat feats against other combat feats or skill feats against other skill feats. For whatever reason, magic feats are usually better than their competition, so most of those should be on the expensive side.


Add your strength modifier again every time you get an iterative attack instead of turning the crossbow into a longbow light. It takes fewer feats to use and penetrates DR better than a bow, but it's too end damage is lower.

If someone really wants to focus on it, they could take vital strike feats to pick up the crossbows extra dice. You still end up with less damage because you can't add weapon bonuses more than once. Also, if you miss, your boned.

Edit: the extra strength could represent that extra crank you get in before firing.


At most move the player to neutral. That shouldn't impact class features immediately while still sending the message you want to send. If the person is upset, then you just have to point out that your opinions on alignment seem to differ and work it out.

Just don't be passive aggressive about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Aaron Whitley wrote:
Care to explain? Especially about what you find toxic?

The acceptance of forced genre shifts. You cannot play published D&D content and stay gritty, nor can you play action hero stuff without slogging through grit.

Anzyr wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I doubt you'll find much help on this forum, as this is a controversial area. Part of the issue is that Pathfinder itself changes radically as characters level.

Aragorn, son of Arathorn, later to be King Elessar, for example, never does anything that would suggest he's any higher than about 5th level.

Neither does a level 20 trapper or skirmisher ranger. Or even a ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20. Wizards aren't gritty at level 1 and fighters aren't mythic at level 20 and the Alexandrian's scale is toxic to the game.

I consider Ruby from RWBY to be a level 12 Psychic Warrior/Warmind. She does plenty of things that are more impressive then Aragorn and is putting it mildly, the superior fighter of the two. Which is why it's important to calibrate your expectations. Ruby is not level 5 because she can actually pull off impressive martial maneuvers that someone like Aragorn is completely incapable of.
You're kind of proving my point here. You're not representing her as a mundane. The moment you have an impressive character you represent her not as a mundane class but as a psionic class. You're doing this because you can't get that kind of capability out of a fighter or spell-less ranger or rogue of any level.

The alternative being what, that mundane heroes stay mundane while simultaneously fighting demons capable of bench pressing a small moon? That's better and easier to grok?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Mark, here is one that bothers me...

What is the justification for Celestial Healing? Its laughable compared to Infernal Healing, requiring Caster Level 20 in order to match Caster Level 1 on Infernal Healing.

Writing is on the wall man. Evil is where it's at.


Piracy is more a natural consequence of huge inequality than an indication of any particular moral standard. People wouldn't even contemplate theft if they had the wealth to purchase products. There's enough wealth world wide to solve most of the world's problems, we just choose to spend it on guided explosives and aircraft carriers.

1 to 50 of 1,917 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.