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

Ventnor's page

383 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Phylotus wrote:


Why is the Samurai class considered taboo in non-Eastern settings? [...]

Discuss (but please be civil ;-) )

Let me turn the question around. What do you get from a samurai that you don't get from a cavalier?

If someone said to me "I don't want to play a wizard, I want to play a thaumaturge," my first question would be "what's the difference?" Ditto if someone said "I want to play a lama, not a cleric" or "I want to play a scoundrel, not a rogue."

In my experience, the Eastern flavor (and the katana) are what motivates most samurai fans. If you reskin by taking those away, you've eliminated the motivation for the player. But those are also what most GMs object to. If flavor is the only thing the player is after, but also what the GM objects to, it's hard to find a common ground.

Resolve. I love the idea that I can shrug off a magic assault that would otherwise have affected me just because of sheer heroic willpower.


If you want to see another "Horde of Alien Locusts thrown into a Fantasy Setting" plot, you might want to look up the Codex Alera and their variation on the trope, the Vord Swarm.


Actually, one other class to consider is the Inquisitor. It gets to add 1/2 its class level to Intimidate checks. You could even take the Sacred Huntsman archetype to add some hunter abilities to your character if that interests you.


If you really want to boost Intimidate through the roof, you might want to look at the Slayer or Investigator classes. A Slayer's studied target or an Investigator's inspiration give you boosts to the Intimidate skill.

A half-elf, for the free skill focus feat, might also not be a bad idea.


LazarX wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
I don't know why people are saying Magi would be out of place..

Because Magi are essentially an offshoot of an advanced form of wizardry. Sophisticated enough to blend in with an advanced form of combat. (Fighter is considerably advanced compared to warrior)

If Wizardry is just starting out, it simply has not developed enough to evolve Magi.

Keep in mind that a world defines itself more by what it leaves out than what it includes. It's like sculpture, you chip away what you don't need to unveil your final creation.

But why do Magi have to be wizard offshoots? Why couldn't an order of magi have arisen at the same time as an order of wizards. They're both stealing the same scrolls; the magi order just decided to incorporate stabbing dudes into it as well, at the expense of casting some of the truly big spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Sir Awesomesauce McSnazzlepants wrote:
If Clerics can draw divine power from ideals and philosophies, cutting out the deities in that regards, why are there no divine casters of Razmir? It's a question that I once tried to answer so that it made sense in context with Pre-existing rules and Golarion's setting, but I can't see why there is a prohibition on Clerics of Razmir. I rather like the cult and would like to use them more, but this one question has kept me from doing so.
This requires an ideal to draw from. Razmir is not an ideal or a powerful enough being to grant spells.

Of course a filthy heathen would say that.


bookrat wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
bookrat wrote:
It really feels like circular logic here.
It really feels like circular logic here.
So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.
I never agreed to that.
I'm so confused!!!

And now you truly understand.


Kchaka wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
This is absolutely allowable in the RAW
This doesn't deserve a reply.

And yet it got a reply all the same.


Or he has no idea how to handle these new feelings and murders the person who made them feel these weird things.

Everyone has different ways they deal with trust.


Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
I never understood why there is such a hate for paladins. They are powerful, yes, but they are also the ones who are meant to throw themselves in harms way, to do all they can to ensure the good for all, protect life, help the innocent, and ensure that goodness in the world survives. My groups have never had an issue with paladins (only with who might be playing them, as they might not be up to the challenge).

It's not so hard really. We live in more cynical times, and we live in a culture that preaches self-indulgence. We find the concept of Boy Scout heroes like Clark Kent to be rather silly. Or their presence holds up a brutal mirror into what we've become, and challenges the ways we now validate ourselves.

So it's not surprising that we look for the flaw, the thing that will expose these four-color heroes for the falsities we feel they must be.

And that's why paladin's are so much more needed today. Both in PF and the real world. Too much negativity, the wrong things are seen as good, etc. We are becoming a self-indulgent, debased society. But we're talking about RPing, so back to that.

We always WERE a self-indulgent, debased society.

Maybe that's why the Paladin concept still has its adherents today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What happens if Charm Person is cast on a sociopath who is literally incapable of feeling friendship for anyone?


Arcanists could be the Sorcerer-Chieftans who think that the wizards are actually on to something, rather than just knee-jerk trying to shut their whole practice down.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't hunt down wizards. They'll just do it using their own methods of using magic against them.


I don't know why people are saying Magi would be out of place. It makes sense to me that in a world where magical knowledge has to be stolen, there would be people who focus on using weapons along with magic if only because they don't know when the next time they would get a scroll would be.

At the very least, I could see Eldritch Scion Magi as being "less talented" members of the Sorcerous families, having the train with weapons because their bloodline isn't as "pure" as the rulers. Same with Bloodragers, now that I think about it.


Imbicatus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

"2 + 2 = 5."

"Actually, 2 + 2 = 4."
"By pointing out my major mistake, you have implied that I am stupid. Now to go make a passive-aggressive thread about it!" *Frolics off*
2 + 2 does equal 5, for sufficiently large values of 2.

But what if I don't value the number two?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
I'm surprised this hasn't been locked yet like numerous other joke threads have been.

Why, I have no idea what you are talking about, good sir/madam. This thread was created to have a civil discourse on rogues, and so far this has been the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Brad is just the best. He sings, he dances, he does party tricks...

Is there anything Brad can't do?

He can't tell why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch!

(oh, wait, never mind. perception as a class skill.)

Is it because they can inspire their comrades through music and/or interpretive dance?


Really, I just hate plots that rely on mind control in general. It's a hacky plot device to get characters to act in ways they normally wouldn't with no creative thought put into it whatsoever.

It's the Super Dickery of fantasy fiction.


Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

My beef with Charm Person is easy.

I have a decent spellcraft. I ID you casting the spell. I fail my Will, then somehow I start treating you like you're my BFF, despite the fact that I know EXACTLY why I am. How do I roll with that?

It's simple. You realize that your trusted friend has cast a mindrape spell on you. People who you trust and who are your friends don't do that. Therefore, you do not trust them or consider them a friend anymore, and the spell breaks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Brad is just the best. He sings, he dances, he does party tricks...

Is there anything Brad can't do?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What if the person who was charmed is a terrible friend? Like, the kind of guy who borrows things without ever returning them and gets angry if called out on it?


I think the main way a GM can make a Paladin worth playing is to allow the Paladin fail sometimes. Let them have moments of weakness without using the fall-hammer. A Paladin should only fall when they've done something truly unforgivable, and even then give them a chance to atone for it if their Paladin really wants to try and make up for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Charm Person kind of feels like force-feeding someone mind altering drugs and then taking advantage of that altered state.

Kind of icky (at the least) in my opinion.

And so is sticking them in the belly with a sword.

In fact, just about everything we do in this game is kind of icky, most of the time. But don't blame the tool; blame the tool who's using the tool...

I dunno. Being forced to betray everything you stand for by some jerkass wizard feels worse than being fireballed by some jerkass wizard. But that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charm Person kind of feels like force-feeding someone mind altering drugs and then taking advantage of that altered state.

Kind of icky (at the least) in my opinion.


rorek55 wrote:
LG ninja seems like fun.

Irorian Ninja Paladin. The way to enlightenment is by punching people from the shadows.


Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:
The Slayer can use Studied Target as a swift action at 7th level and there are no target restrictions for the ability, so I think it's fair to say that the slayer will always benefit from the ability. So that brings up the slayer's attack bonus equal to the fighter's, and closes the gap so damage bonus is only -3.
Always? No. But certainly in a vast majority of circumstances. An often theoretical difference, I know, but it can make a difference - for instance, that swift action could make a difference between adding Arcane Strike on top of that or not.

Slayers don't qualify for Arcane Strike anymore, not even with racial SLAs.


Scavion wrote:
Wondering GM wrote:


This human fighter, raised by a dwarf, wears red and wields two one-handed swords. One has a frost enchantment, the other a flaming enchantment.

His best friend is a young half-elf wizard. An evocation specialist.

Man I am really embarrassed for not knowing this right off the bat. I love Tales of Symphonia. I've put like 120 hours into that game. Still own the discs too.

Ventnor wrote:
This Human Empiricist Investigator/Brawler specializes in unarmed combat, throwing (personalized) darts, and using a wide variety of mechanical and alchemical items to help him survive against stronger foes.
Batman?

Indeed.


Devilkiller wrote:
I'd think that the Cavalier concept could be combined with the worshipper of a dead god concept to create kind of a noble knight and guardian of the temple fellow.

I think that could be cool. Aroden, as the God of Humanity, likely subscribed to the fact that humanity is at its best when humans worked together. This philosophy would likely inform the kind of tactics that the Cavalier character uses.


JonathonWilder wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

How's about this one?

This Mythic Vampire Gunslinger is just about impossible to take down, due to how ungodly powerful he is. It's a good thing that he seems to only kill other vampires.

Alucard from Hellsing, though I would personally place him as a Mythic Dread Vampire Black Powder Hood.

Ayup. I don't really keep up with 3rd-party stuff though.

Wondering GM wrote:


Let's see, staying in the video games department :

This human fighter, raised by a dwarf, wears red and wields two one-handed swords. One has a frost enchantment, the other a flaming enchantment.

His best friend is a young half-elf wizard. An evocation specialist.

That would be Lloyd and Genis from Tales of Symphonia.

As for a new one:

This Human Empiricist Investigator/Brawler specializes in unarmed combat, throwing (personalized) darts, and using a wide variety of mechanical and alchemical items to help him survive against stronger foes.


How's about this one?

This Mythic Vampire Gunslinger is just about impossible to take down, due to how ungodly powerful he is. It's a good thing that he seems to only kill other vampires.


There's a lot of interesting examples here! Good advice too. Thanks for sharing, folks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I've seen a few threads here and there where the topic of evil PCs come up. The general consensus seems to be "they can be done well, but it is understandable that a GM can forbid them." The common pitfalls with evil characters tend to be that they're disruptive at the table, whether they steal from other characters, randomly murder NPCs in the streets, or other such behaviors.

Now, to my main point: would those of you who HAVE played evil PCs in the past mind sharing them? What kind of campaign were they in, how did they avoid the common pitfalls associated with Evil characters, and how did the other players react to having such a character in the party?

I'm genuinely curious about this, since I've never really played with Evil characters, either as my own character or one of the other players'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For gluttony, what if you framed the challenge by way of potions?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Playing a Star Trek rpg with rules we created--the set up was the players would have to beam down and rescue the survivors of a crashed survey ship, but the mission was going to be extremely dangerous. Their solution? Locate them in the caverns where they'd taken shelter with the ship's sensors, phaser a hole in the roof, then beam them out. Entire game was over in 20 minutes and we all left to go have Chinese buffet.

You see you forgot the #1 rule of every Star Trek ever: The reason you can't solve this problem with a teleporter is because *insert nonsensical sciency stuff here*.

Player: "Well we'll just pop a hole in the cave and beam them out."

GM: "Sure, but as your science officer will tell you the cavern is made out of unstable stewartanium isotope number 43. A mineral that detonates into an atomic explosion when hit with a high energy beam like a phaser."

"Like putting a sheet of tinfoil in a microwave!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say it applies, if only because Bombur is the best dwarf.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is no meaningful way to show what is the standard way to generate stats in PF.

Except that it is identified as such in the rule book, followed by classic and then purchase.

Standard Fantasy is the wording that exists in the book, to differentiate it from low fantasy, high fantasy, and epic fantasy.

The standard way to generate ability scores is 4d6 drop lowest.

My personal preference is Heroic, though I have never tried Dice pool and I think I may want to since it gives exactly as much control over your stats as point buy does.

But that is for another thread, point is, don't say that the words in the book don't exist to suit your needs.

This does not disprove the thread thesis that Combat Expertise is the worst.

There it does not exist.


Combat Expertise and Chaotic Evil have the same acronym.

Just saying.


I think they only made Bloodrager bloodlines in the ACG that matched Sorcerer bloodlines that were in the CRB. It's possible that somewhere down the line there will be a Stormborn bloodline for the Bloodrager.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus, Studied Target makes Slayers better pickpockets than rogues are, since a bonus to attack rolls increases you CMB too, and CMB is used for the steal maneuver.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Silver Surfer wrote:

I've made no bones that I thought several of the classes released in the ACG were poorly thought out and were very OP to the extent that a few of the core/base classes have now almost been made redundant.

Character concepts could have been far more easily achieved with simply providing more archetypes and tweaks through feats.... with the added benefit that classes were enriched rather than eradicated.

The question is.... in the future will we look back on the ACG as the point at which PF started on a downward spiral? Did character creation for the sake of character creation and profit hunger win out over common sense?

The point where Pathfinder began its downwards spiral was the CRB.

*Cue canned studio laughter*


There is a Bloodrager archetype in the Advanced Class guide called the Primalist. Primalists can trade away their Bloodrager rage powers for Barbarian Rage powers. So you don't need to multiclass at all to get Spell Sunder on a Bloodrager.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Here's an idea. What if "A" decides that they want the Paladin to be happy in a way that only an unstable person can; A decides to kill all of X's family. Not X (that would make the Paladin unhappy, after all), just X's father, siblings, the whole family tree.

Obviously, X might appeal to the Paladin for help with the sudden murders of several of their family members.

That really doesn't strike me as the thinking of a neutral good character. That kind of psychology tends to ping on the ol' Detect Evil.

Murderous rage was mentioned as a possibility for this character's action.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an idea. What if "A" decides that they want the Paladin to be happy in a way that only an unstable person can; A decides to kill all of X's family. Not X (that would make the Paladin unhappy, after all), just X's father, siblings, the whole family tree.

Obviously, X might appeal to the Paladin for help with the sudden murders of several of their family members.


Ravingdork wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The Improved/Greater Trip combined with Combat Reflexes & Vicious Stomp is mean.

It's meaner on a monk. This was actually one of the builds my friends and I tried to convert to brawler.

Ventnor wrote:

I thought the big advantage that Brawlers had when it comes to Combat Maneuvers is that they only need to have the feats for said maneuvers when they need them.

For example, if the party encounters a bunch of spiders, a monk or fighter specializing in tripping or disarming foes have basically wasted their feats. But if the party later encounters an enemy who relies on a flaming sword to do damage, the Brawler can quickly slot in some disarming feats and pinch the sword right out of the enemy's hands with little fuss the same as the monk or fighter could.

This is the biggest strength the brawler possesses, I think. Everything else he can do is outclassed by someone else.

If an opponent is too big to Vicious Stomp, then the feat is wasted in that combat.

Having a niche feat when you need it and only then is a pretty neat schtick.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Quote:
Brawlers are better than the monk at going nuts with manuvers, with the exception of grapple.
They are only very barely above any other full BAB class in maneuvers... in fact, now that I think about it, just about everyone is better, unless you want to specialize in being able to do multiple maneuvers, I guess. Which is an okay thematic shtick, but kinda not a really great idea.

Three things make them better.

1 - They get inherent bonuses from manuver training, and can eventually get Greater Weapon Focus for that extra +1.

2 - They don't need a 13 Int to take Combat Expertise. This isn't much - but a few stat points saved at creation is nothing to sniff at.

3 - They can do them unarmed without extra cost. This again isn't huge - but it's an advantage. Disarming it lets them keep the weapon, trip combos with Vicious Stomp, and Pummeling Bully lets you do a manuver for free if you hit with any attack roll of your pummel.

The 3rd monks get as well - but I don't think that many would argue that the brawler isn't better at most manuvers than a monk. (Tetori beat them in grapple, and Manuver Masters with dirty trick.) Plus monks don't start proficient with any reach weapons, and AOOs are an important part of many manuver builds.

I thought the big advantage that Brawlers had when it comes to Combat Maneuvers is that they only need to have the feats for said maneuvers when they need them.

For example, if the party encounters a bunch of spiders, a monk or fighter specializing in tripping or disarming foes have basically wasted their feats. But if the party later encounters an enemy who relies on a flaming sword to do damage, the Brawler can quickly slot in some disarming feats and pinch the sword right out of the enemy's hands with little fuss the same as the monk or fighter could.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ban people who don't properly roleplay their characters.

If you play a wizard and you don't bring a bag full of bat poop to the game, you're out. I also expect people who want to play an oracle with the deaf curse to cut their ears off. Much more immersive that way.


Slayers aren't all combat; their Studied Target has out-of-combat utility as well. Improving bluff and intimidate checks can make their conversational skills not too bad, and improved disguises can have a range of uses.

All this with no magic at all.


Oly wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:
Found out something after rereading the death attack ability. Assassin has the wonderful gift of reusing his death attack. Where as slayer and ninja require 24 hours if they fail. Besides the DC for all of them is essentially the same since the others use half their level. They all cap at 10+10+ability. The assassin's actually progresses faster.

Slayers are stronger in a lot of ways, but not so roguelike in flavor. I understand wanting that flavor.

Ninjas have that flavor, only have to study for one round, can use ki to turn invisible to help remain undetected while studying their potential victim, and have no alignment restrictions.

What flavor do assassins have that slayers lack?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Because they're big anti-climaxes.

"And then the villain died. The end."


Don't take the more situational Combat Maneuver feats like grapple or disarm as permanent feats. Only pick them up with Martial Flexibility; that way you have them available against the humanoid opponents they really shine against.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
Previewed Errata wrote:
The wielder of a weapon enhanced by this raging song counts as if she is under the affect of an inspired rage raging song for all purposes involving the skald’s rage powers.

"My sword burns with the rage of my ancestors! Literally!"

1 to 50 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.