|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
[minor spoilers ahead]
My party noticed that and skirted around one fight, erected a barrier to block sound and then went back to kill the guys they circumvented earlier.
I'm going to try and adopt that kind of enemy behavior in other games I run.
Flaming, shocking etc. weapon ability. You really require the character to spend a standard action to activate the ability?
You have to use a standard action to activate it once after you obtain the weapon and again after you actively deactivated it.
Edit: Found it:
James Jacobs wrote:
While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.
For a battle vs an iron golem, for example, it could be a good idea to deactivate that flaming effect (having to re-activate it later) but most of the time it can just stay on.
Using a bastard sword or katana might be big enough for some people. And the dancing around part is not necessary. You can easily play a guy wielding a bastard sword who's standing still most of the time until he strikes or someone attacks him. That's when he dodges just far enough to not get hit.
But to OP: I'd play a slayer over a fighter or swashbuckler most of the time. Except maybe for a dip.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
I think this is not about him being too harsh but what kind of campaign the players expected. To send a dedicated assassin with 3 levels higher after a group, using all the tricks he has to offer is about the same as having them be killed by an avalanche when travelling through the mountains. Stuff like that can happen. But should it happen in a RPG campaign?
Depends on the campaign.
Unless the GM decides there is.I've been there several times. And it was very annoying.
But what I really wanted to get at was: Not every player likes monologues. But many GMs assume that the players like them. So the players get annoyed by the constant blather and the GM gets annoyed by the player's interrupting the BBEGs.
Why? Is it the term I used? If so I am very sorry, that was in no way my intend.If it is about the pc being turned into another ethnic group, it could have been another way, too. A tian could have suddenly looked like someone from taldor. I didn't know the ethnic group I was talking about was from mwangi.
Justin Sane wrote:
More so when the books mostly sit in (on?) the shelves while the real gaming uses the online databases.
I'm ressurecting this thread (hululululu!) - as I think the issue needs errata. I've pressed FAQ on the first post, and would invite others to do the same.
I don't think it needs one. This issue is an inconvenience that you have different ways to cope with.It's like the druid needing a feat to cast during wildshape.
It has its drawbacks, yes. But calling it a trap is a bit strong imo.Just yesterday we had a fight where superstition could have killed my pc but I'd still always take it again, because there are more fights in which it saves my behind.
Okay just... take power attack and go to town. You clearly have no intention of actually taking anyone's advice so feel free to derp around with a suboptimal Dwarven fighter. If you want to make "the most powerful Dwarven warrior", your options are Slayer, Ranger, and Barbarian. You will not be using heavy armor with any of these. You shouldn't care.
Some people can't overcome what they see as a class's fluff. If for him the slayer is the sneaky backstabber, the barbarian the raging madman and the ranger the robin hood/strider guy, let him be.
But there is one point in which I disagree with you, Arachnofiend: I would be using heavy armor as a dwarven slayer. It's just a feat and I'm slow and steady.
Deadly Juggernaut wrote:
With every enemy life you take, you become increasingly dangerous and difficult to stop. During the duration of the spell, you gain a cumulative +1 luck bonus on melee attack rolls, melee weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks as well as DR 2/— each time you reduce a qualifying opponent to 0 or few hit points (maximum +5 bonus and DR 10/—) with a melee attack. A qualifying opponent has a number of Hit Dice equal to or greater than your Hit Dice –4.
I read the wording of the bolded part in a way that only the bonuses are luck bonuses and that the DR is in addition to the luck bonuses but not one itself. And as the DR doesn't seem to be cumulative as per the wording.And the increase from fate's favoured is only applied once.
Sure spalls are a finite resource. But a cha based full caster can well fill in with intimidate. A witch can fill in with hexes, wizards have their (still limited) school powers in addition to spells, clerics have their domain powers and at least the divine casters can be competent melee or ranged combatants, too.The myth that wizards without spells are useless might have been true in AD&D, but it is no longer.
Let one player roll stats and have everyone use those stats. By that you get non-optimised stats while still having the same kind of fairness as point buy.
Or have every player roll a set and everyone gets to choose which set to use.
But I have to say that the PCs I build tend to have rather different stats. So I am a little surprised that your players had such similar stats over several games.
A) It's action economy sucks.: Depends on the kind of healing used. There is healing that has a good action economy. For example shared judgement with the healing judgement. Same with quick channel.
B) Healing does not scale effectively with damage.:It doesn't have to. That's the same as saying DR doesn't scale with damage so it is bad. Giving someone fast healing 5 may be similar to DR3/- in a lot of fights. And that is something few people would decline.
C) It generally doesn't solve any problems.:It may solve problems caused by dead PCs. Like wealth loss.
D) Healing also typically requires you to hump the leg of the person you're trying to heal.:This, again, depends on the healing used. Channel, reach spells or the combination of shield other with self healing doesn't require this.
[I]E) Healing is reactionary./I] Most forms are, right. The life oracle has an ability to convert over-heal to temp hp. Apart from that every pc should have more than one thing he can do. If no one is dealt damage, don't heal. Buff, debuff, deal damage.
2+3 do not work. It is extradimensional space so no connection to other real world places. You can even use it on a ship without any problem.
- Hide from flying enemies making fly-by attacks
Not all of the above will kill the trapped enemy but sometimes taunting them is just worth it.
Or just to take part of your enemies out of the fight for some time while you kill the ones not trapped in the pit. When they climb out or the spell ends kill them too. Simple divide and conquer.
Edit: Ninjad about the extradimensional space stuff
I do not know if that works in PFS (don't know what's legal and it ignores one sentence of the fluff)
Buy a combat scabbard (not a sharpened one). That way, at the start of combat you can attack mooks with your sheathed sword and still use Iaijutsu Strike on the main foe once you reach him.
Fluff to be ignored:.
Sword saints hail from lands where samurai are prevalent, and are often ronin who wander the world seeking new challenges to perfect their intricate style of swordplay called iaijutsu. The following benefits apply only when a sword saint is using a sword and carrying nothing in his other hand.
It looks like a rule but is written in italic that normally indicates fluff. But that only applies to the second part. Attacking with the sheathed sword until you want to do the Iaijutsu Strike should definitely work.
I'm more than a little put off by the Bloodrager getting his own spell list. I have a lot of third party material that has spells for existing spell lists making applying them to Bloodrager trickier. My only hope is that it has all the magus spells with additions so that I easily house rule that all 1-4 level third party magus spells are also Bloodrager spells.
I don't care about 3pp stuff. I was just put off by how bad the bloodrager list was when compared to the magus list. Every single spell I used during the first playtest was gone.I hope they fixed the list a little.
I tend to see it as a problem to look at a fantasy setting that is not a modern scientific world with our contemporary morality.
So in terms of morality I give PCs (those I gm for and those I play) more leeway than our modern world-view would allow.
Orc barbarian 5 with the mighty template.
Give him a flaming weapon and you are good to go.
The result is a straight in the face build with a lot of HP, some DR and good passive self heal.
[spoiler=math for self heal]
Perhaps not the mightiest pc you can build with those rules but a simple one.
That's where it was at the second playtest. It was better than the rogue, did not quite match the ranger and provided a far better platform to build most Rogue or Fighter based concepts than those classes.
Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Sue you could say it is the GMs fault. It sure as hell is (at least partly the APs fault) but if you don't know the AP you are going to play or the GM that is mastering it, this is a strong incentive to build a self reliant PC that can deal with a maximum of situations. Both of which are things the rogue, fighter and monk are ill equipped for. Especially at low levels.
14 sided die wrote:
Being in a RP heavy group, yes. No class fills the story of a character who grew up on the streets quite like the rogue, all the classes have a number of stories they tell best
Does it? Every character who grew up on the streets is half an assassin who knows how to backstab? I REALLY think the urban ranger fits it much better. Just because the name, rogue, hints at this doesn't mean the mechanics back that up.
Looking at it this way the archaeologist bard fits as well as the rogue. Luck helps a lot on the streets and the spells are no more odd than sneak attack.
You can also use XP to reward creativity and cool ideas. For example, if a player decides to try to look around a corner using a mirror, you might award them with a little XP. If the player does something in-character that seems awesome but doing so denies the player a more tangible reward, tossing them some extra XP can be nice
I do not like extra xp given because most often that rewards the loudest players, not the most creative ones.Those who grab the spotilght more often will have more opportunities to shine and get bonus xp. That makes them level faster, enabling them to shine even brighter.
If you then only need one stat to get good attack (ranged and melee), good damage, good AC (touch AC), good ref saves and all those dex skills it is not a large investment.
The only way I could see myself to accept such a feat would be if there is one that gives strength to AC to balance it out.
Even if this is meta gaming what I'd do is: Have the players decide who of them is the "treasurer". After the fight the treasurer gets told what loot can be found and has to manage the distribution. If something does not get distributed he keeps record of it as group treasure.
The "I steal from the party because RP reasons" is among the worst kind of behaviour that can be found unless the party explicitly agrees on PVP beforehand. With PVP allowed I can at least punish the pc who steals from mine should my pc find out.
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
The Ninja in my Runelords game wanted a Katana over a Wakizashi to finesse for flavor reasons. The extra 1 or 2 damage didn't break the game.
if it was for flavor reasons, why not use the wakizashi and call it katana?best ceese test there is. Some one wants flavor with mechanical benefits, give him the flavor without the benefits and see what happens. Often the flavor is suddenly forgotten.
Everything they did was well within the law, at no point did they pretend to be something they were not. They used no weapons to hold him or otherwise even bend the law. Don't know if that could have happened that way somewhere else.
This.I recently played a level 1 wizard at 25 PB and already at this level I dominated the game. And the best part: He was build for flavour. Sure, this early it wasn't by using spells but by using his school ability and the advantages of high point buy.
If anyone is interested some things on his build:
What was he like: He looked and behaved like a peasant wandering about with his little pig friend and his Flail at his side.
Combat: The acid cloud school power is rather strong at low levels. Coupled with some spells and the ability to hit hard in melee (good strength and +1hit and dmg to opponents standing on the ground) he had an answer to everything the GM threw at us.
IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".
I can't agree to that because the rules tell us what abilities a pc has, not what all the abilities are that you do not have. If what you say was true fighters could cast spells because, apparently you can everything that the rules don't disallow.So in reality the rules ARE telling you what you CAN do. Except for some basics like breathing, eating, loving and so on that normally every (demi-)human being is considered capable of. Anything further than those kind of basics you only can do what the rules tell you.