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

cnetarian's page

1,160 posts (1,169 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The difference between the active and the passive audience. A passive audience presented with a "gun" has no control over what happens with that gun, while an active audience can control whether the "gun" becomes important or not. Throwing nonessential things at the passive audience just results in confusing and irritating them, throwing nonessential things at an active audience results in their having options and more chances to control their environment. Spend 20 seconds describing 14 rooms in a dungeon and then spends 5 minutes detailing the contents of room number 15 then the audience know there is something important about the room, while this cues the passive audience to pay more attention to what is going on, the active audience knows to ignore the contents of the first 14 rooms and then spend 3 hours ransacking room #15 until they they figure out why it needed such a detailed list of it's contents.


Covert Operator wrote:

Be a Sohei 6 / Fighter 5.

Done.

or weapon master (fighter archetype) 3 / Sohei 6.


a point of permanent ability score is 27,500gp base (the price of having a wish spell cast) in terms of cash. In terms of utility a point of permanent ability score should be considered to be worth much more because of the limiting factor. example, +2 to melee damage is nice, but there are so many potential ways to stack damage bonuses that a total of +50 is easily attainable at level 20; +1 to ability score is nice, but an ability score can be increased a maximum of +6 by items (enhancement bonuses the lot), +10 by class abilities (untyped rage or untyped alchemist mutagen), +8 by spells (increase size two steps) or a maximum of +24 (outside of a potential +10 permanent increase from leveling and wishes). Since it is so hard to get massive bonuses to ability scores, the level up points are more valuable just due to scarcity.


b or c can work. the problem with the sword and pistol build comes down to one thing, reloading. if you can get reloading to work while wielding a sword in one hand and a pistol in the other then things are open for amateur swashbuckler but you have to be able to lock down reloading first.


Arachnofiend wrote:


I feel this is an important part of the trope that a lot of people forget about. It was coined in a time where authors were paid by the word count; especially bad in the novels of the time, you would have people spending pages and pages describing a door knob; not a particularly relevant door knob, just a very shiny door knob. For an example, suffer through anything written by Dickens.

Chekhov's Gun is more of a "what not to do" than a "what must be done"; it's a rule encouraging writers to not spend time describing things that are not relevant to the story so that they can instead spend those resources on the good stuff that's actually relevant.

I find that completely at odds with Chekov's reality - he was a professional writer who was paid by the article and used to write daily pieces and his first play ( I know Chekov more as a play-write than a short story author) took him all of two weeks to write. While there were (and still are) authors who get paid by the word, the more common arrangement used with authors such as Dickens and Chekov was pay by the piece. The reason some of the Dickens works are so long is because they written as serials with monthly episodes and reading multiple monthly installments of, for example, Bleak House as a novel is like watching a season of 24 as a movie, it is too long.


The great GM can make you lose the sense that you are playing with a game but instead get lost in your character and the story (when not lost in the character I play the rules instead of the game). The most important thing a great GM does to get the players into the game and character is to hide the nuts and bolts when the game is happening. A GM who is always looking things up, dithers over rulings, or otherwise breaks the narrative flow is never going to be great for me.

Mind you I'm by no means a great GM, and have only played with one great GM for a campaign and a bit by joining an established group before I was kicked out. I was told it was because the GM found 6 players too much to deal with, but I suspect it was because I was arguing rules interpretation after/before sessions, which was too much at variance with the group dynamic. My theory is that players who are into rules lawyering don't work out with great GMs because what distinguishes a great GM requires having the rules facilitate instead of dictate the game play.

That last sounds like I am saying there a type of wrong bad fun, but I'm not trying to, I find game sessions with 5 minute arguments about whether or not a spell has a LOE more fun than sessions where the rules are an afterthought. The fact that I have more fun with one style of gaming just doesn't blind me to the fact that it is the only one style of play and is not what I consider the best gaming.


79. The Dragons' Graveyard On a windswept plain in the far north, away from any other landmark and days if not weeks away from any source of water, there is rumored to be a field littered with the bones of thousands of dragons. This sage has never seen the Dragons' Graveyard or even heard of anyone who has claimed to have seen it, but there are scattered mentions of it in records going back as far as there are records. Some speculate that it is the site of some battle among dragon kind in the early says of the world, some theorize that dragons which live long enough to expire from old age are drawn there when they feel death approaching, yet still others envision that crossing the waste is part of a draconic ritual of fitness and the bones are those dragons which failed the test. All temples of Nethys (and many other organizations and individuals) are on the look-out for any information about the Dragons' Graveyard and anyone able to provide directions to locate the Dragons' Graveyard will amply rewarded


Way back in the mists of time when Vancian wizardry was still being worked out there was semi-official supplement to the rules of Chainmail which included the alchemist as a bomb throwing semi-mage stand (Chainmail was a sandtable miniatures wargame). Once D&D came out, the 2nd issue of The Dragon had an alchemist class, which if I recall correctly, featured bomb throwing in place of spells. This pretty much cemented the alchemist as having bombs, coming from it's role as a type of artillery.

The rest is, as chbgraphicarts notes, renaissance/Victorian mad scientist grafted on to the class.


Magic which distorts the world balance too far could be forbidden by a neutral deity, not just good spells or chaotic spells but also spells like wish which can distort the balance too far. As the god of secrets various divination spells might also be forbidden, not because they threaten the balance but because they attack the deity's position as the protector of secrets and threaten the source of his godhood, although since you only mention "secrets" as his portfolio it might be the other way if he is a discoverer of secrets and then spells which conceal secrets could be among the forbidden spells.

edit: also mind control type spells can be forbidden as they subvert the balance of law/chaos/good/evil.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Better question: Why should the players fear the almighty GM?
Winning when you could have lost is exciting, winning when you should have lost is exhilarating. A GM is shortchanging their players if the GM denies the players the pleasure of having their characters overcome real challenges.
I think there's a big difference between "the GM should make combat fun and challenging" and "the players should fear the almighty GM."

If combat cannot hurt you then it isn't as fun as it can be and is rarely challenging. If something can hurt you and you don't fear it then there is something seriously wrong with you. There is a dstinction between fear and terror which I think you are referring to indirectly, the players should fear the ability of the GM to hurt their characters but should not be terrorized same ability.


mating instinct like with bower birds. the male dragon accumulates a horde of shinnies to attract a female dragon to mate with them. after mating the female dragon keeps the horde and lays their eggs there while the male dragon leaves and begins to accumulate a new horde to attract another female dragon for mating. because dragons are intelligent the female dragon keeps the hordes after the eggs are hatched as a keepsake of their mates.


Gisher wrote:
With Sacred Weapon, bonus feats, and Focus Weapon, Warpriests also make excellent whip wielders.

hmm, a warpriest of any race could have the 5 essential feats for dexterity at level 3 & doesn't have to worry about the crappy damage of the whip - if only they had more skill points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Better question: Why should the players fear the almighty GM?

Winning when you could have lost is exciting, winning when you should have lost is exhilarating. A GM is shortchanging their players if the GM denies the players the pleasure of having their characters overcome real challenges.


if the agile weapon enchant is used in your game think about going with a dexterity build, basically a dervish dance (feat not archetype) build with whip mastery replacing dervish dance. a halfling or gnome isn't a bad choice since the whip does so little M size damage that the change to S is barely even noticeable, halfling can get good milage out of risky striker. bard isn't a bad choice for a CHR class so you don't need to waste a feat learning to use the whip (exotic weapon). if agile weapon enchant is not in play (and you want to focus on DEX) then slashing grace is the way to go, but it is a somewhat feat heavy path that takes a few levels to come into it's own.

If doing a dexterity build without the agile weapon enchant you want a class/race combination which allows you to have the feats of weapon proficiency (whip), weapon focus (whip), weapon finesse, slashing grace, whip mastery as soon as possible. Fighter can get this in by level 3 if they are 1) human and use the bonus racial feat to get whip profiency 2)half-elven and can get whip proficiency through ancestral arms 2) hobgoblin and take pit boss which gives whip proficiency and +1 to CMB when using the whip to trip or disarm. A human kensai magnus can have all 5 feats at level 3 as well, 5 if non human. A human bard or swashbuckler with the mysterious avenger archetype gets whip proficiency from their class and can have these at level 5, any other race at level 7.

Or you could go with a more traditional STR build. Then you can do anything, but it isn't as fun as a dexterity build.


Majuba wrote:

DC for Keen would be 20. 5 base + 10 CL + 5 for missing spell. "Lowering the Caster Level" is a whole mess of nonsense, but regardless it's not a prerequisite.

cnetarian: Everything after the CL is the prereqs. Here's the counter example:

PRD wrote:
Spell Storing: Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.

that is correct, I botched the linking (too many nested HTML tags) and thought I canceled the post in frustration. I intended to point out the semi-colons and how they separate sections.

type of enchantment ;
caster level of spells cast by the item ;
requirements to place the enchantment on the item ;
price of the enchantment on the item


PRD wrote:

Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen. If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll. This benefit doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).

Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +1 bonus.

linky


maybe not 3 feat easy - level 5 master craftsman (weapons) - level 7 create magic arms/armor - level 9 master craftsman (armor) - level 11 master craftsman (bowyer) - level 13 master craftsman (tailor) - level 15 craft wondrous items - level 17 master craftsman (jeweler). mind you I might have read the feat wrong, but I'm pretty sure that master craftsman only allows you to create magic items which you can create with the skill which you are a master craftsman in, and cannot envision how skill at crafting bows can be used to create a magic cloak.

---- also if master craftsman (rules lawyer) works for all wondrous items as well as arms and armor, there is no need for the headband of intellect, the rules for using master craftsman for magic items state that the chosen skill is used for the checks.


It depends on what type of character background you are talking about: character has a weakness for goat's milk, then the GM is unlikely to have a reasonable reason to ban it; character comes from a Brevoy noble family AND the campaign has scheduled as a major plot device a magical plague which no-save kills all members of the Brevoy noble families, then the GM had better veto that background. The GM is creating a world, if you don't like the world the GM creates then don't play in that world. If you cannot play in a world where dwarves cannot be wizards then don't,

It gets blurrier when talking about established campaign worlds like Golarion. There the GM isn't creating a world, but is instead creating their own variation on a world. The GM should as much as possible stick to the established rules of the world, and on Golarion dwarves can become wizards so a ban would be unreasonable (unless the GM and players agree to play in an irregular version of Golarion), but even on Golarion the GM is reasonable in banning gunslingers in a River Kingdoms campaign if the GM's version of Golarion doesn't encompass firearms so far from Alkenstar.


I was thinking for family lines, make a child's score in any attribute = 1/3 mother's score + 1/3 father score + 1d6. Then I thought about how using wishes and points from leveling this could create distortion where a 24 INT mage marries a 21 INT husband and has a child with an INT of 16-21, who can get to level 20 and use 5 wishes to have an INT of 26-31 and marries a INT 24 woman to have a child with an INT of 19-24 ... . The more I thought of this and the probability of players using this the more I realized that instead of being a problem it would probably be a fun feature. There would be one family with incredible STR which were breed to be warriors, another family breed to be wizards and so forth. Throw a limit on inbreeding (no marriage 2nd cousin or closer) and the families would scour the kingdom for the most intelligent/strongest/beautiful mates for their children and cast wishes on them to have even better grandchildren. maybe you don't want to this, but I think it would be fun to have carefully breed overspecialized dynasties with 32 STR warriors.


Concerning just the tech, I hate to suggest such a major revision but, it seems that the tech web format used in Beyond Earth would be a better model for the way the techs are clustered, not as large as the one in beyond Earth but a similar pattern.

maybe I'm missed it, but how much of the map is known before the kingdom is founded? It would be really frustrating to found the kingdom in one hex and discover 10 years later that the next hex over would have been a better choice for the type of kingdom the party wanted to create.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While adventuring, at one time, have each of them make a DC24 will save. Ask those who fail (should be most of them) to check to be sure they fail. Shuffle some papers and look hard at them for about 20 seconds, maybe using a pencil to make some random marks on the paper. Then resume the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nadlor wrote:
I'm actually only interested in a one-level dip in Swashbuckler for Swashbuckler Finesse and opening up Slashing Grace. It is my intention to build a dex-based sword (scimitar) and board archaeologist, and I want dex to damage with the shield. Spiked light shield (bards are proficient with non-tower shields) is a light piercing weapon, allowing me to apply dex to attack rolls with Swashbuckling Finesse, but I still need agile for damage.

If that's your intent you ought to use a whip instead - sure it does less damage and you need the whip mastery feat to do damage to several opponents and avoid AoOs when attacking, but it's an archeologist with a whip. As a non-light one-handed finessable slashing weapon with reach the whip has some mechanical justification as well, not enough usually to outweigh the decreased damage but the flavor is what makes the whip shine. (side note: bards don't get martial weapon (cough*scimitar*cough) proficiency so the one-level dip in swashbuckler adds that too.)


Devilkiller wrote:

@boring7 - Your Gunslinger sounds kind of like Captain Kirk to me. Anyhow, I felt like providing some feedback...

If the DM allows advanced firearms you could actually play a cowboy with a revolver. You'd just be limited to a rate of fire half that of somebody with a double barreled muzzle loading pistol.

I believe that the early paper cartridges which the alchemical cartridges in the game are likely inspired by were generally bitten open before use. That probably doesn't make a difference in game terms, but it might give folks an impression of what early firearm use looked like.

As for guys getting up off the floor to win a fight, I'll link to a video of Chieck Kongo vs Pat Barry

The alchemical cartridge is a constructed using a form of impact foam and is designed so it slides down the barrel and the foam expands forming a sabot which 1) packs the gunpowder 2) seats the bullet 3) forms a seal while channeling the explosion so that most of the explosive force propels the bullet. In practice one turns the firearms so that the open barrel points upwards, grabs a cartridge with one hand while using the other to maintain the orientation of the firearm, wets the cartridge to activate the foam (many gunslingers lick them but the true pros have a dampened sponge on their ammo belt), drops the cartridge down the barrel of the firearm, bangs the base of the firearms (this is said to be in case the cartridge get stuck in the barrel, but in truth it comes from musket drill where the musket is bounced off the ground to shift the hands into the firing position easier), and brought to the firing position.

Or whatever other Bogon technology works for you. If you cannot reconcile RL with game mechanics, feel free to create a game flavor which fits the game mechanics. In a fantasy game there is no need to worry about how things work in reality, just start from the assumption that the game mechanics are describing something which is happening and come with a way to make them work in the game.


Obviously a pet class, perhaps hunter. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the relationship between Buffy and Willow.


are you an android monk? if yes then iron will isn't worth much of anything.

are you a human fighter? if yes then iron will is worth it, and take the trait too, and remember that there is a headband which can increase wisdom.

any other race/class combination is variable in the usefulness, but if you're +3 total at level 6 then you do need to increase that will save.


unless you are using advanced firearms, rapid shot is pointless on a musket master who doesn't go to level 3 and get fast musket. without fast musket the character doesn't have access to free action reloading using rapid reload (free for musket masters) and alchemical cartridges. without free action reloading the character can at best get move action reloading which allows only one shot per round.

if you are using advanced firearms then musket master is a poor choice since the big advantage at level 1 is rapid reload (musket) isn't rapid reload (rifle) without GM approval.

more levels of musket master or use a pistol.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The most f***ed up thing I can recall was using prisoners as human Bangalore torpedoes in Aftermath (maybe Twilight2000 or Morrow Project, one of those post-apocalyptic games). The solution to a minefield and two fences was to strap explosives with dead-man switches to a dozen prisoners and tell them to "run to the fence and if you make it inside alive then you can go free, but every 30 seconds we'll shoot whoever is in furthest behind. Go."

Second most screwed up was probably when 2 players independently decided to sell out the party to different elder gods for power.


LazarX wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
I think anyone playing a paladin should read the Cold fire trilogy to see how a paladin can be in the same party as an evil character.
Perhaps that advisory should go to the player of the evil character as well. It really shouldn't be up to the paladin player to do all the heavy lifting of adaptation.

Cannot be stressed enough. Most of the problems with paladins that I've seen come from other characters making a point to commit evil in front of the paladin.


Throwing a horde of lower levels at this party could be real fun, lets the martials run riot, but massive combats can be time consuming so beware of making it too big. Let's see, level 10 arcane trickster = CL8- so fireball for 4d6 or an average of 14 points, CR3 would be iffy about surviving a fireball but CR4 should be fairly safe, so CR is the absolute lowest for an individual monster Each encounter CR figures 3 times the numbers of monsters from a lower CR - to use your proposed 2 waves of 6 CR 5 monsters is only an encounter CR of 7.5ish which is probably not much of a challenge, 27 x CR5 monsters = Encounter CR of 8, 81 x CR5 monsters = Encounter CR of 9. Since 81 monsters is just far too many to handle, I'd recommend 27 x CR 6 monsters or 9 x CR 7 monsters (or some mix and match, perhaps a wave of 12 x CR 6 monsters followed by a wave of 5 x CR 7 monsters) for an easy encounter.

Hmm forgot that there were 5 in the party instead of 4. Still given the composition and not knowing the actual party that would be about the level of challenge I would try, it might be too easy (you know to pack more in next time) but should still be fun without being more than the party can handle.

----edit---
making encounters a challenge without being too tough is an art and not a science. it is a matter of knowing the players, and knowing the party and having dice that don't go all funny (it is a rare encounter that isn't a tough challenge for a party that cannot roll more than a 6 to hit).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have Reggie wear a black body suit with a white skeleton painted on it, so he looks like a man wearing a bad skeleton costume. A perfect double bluff.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


Back on topic: giant teddy bear with teeth and claws...

Pink, it should be pink. Or perhaps a stuffed pony with a rainbow mane & tail so that she can have pounce. Not sure if that is any less embarrassing for the rest of the party than adventuring with something that would gross out Demigorgon, but it is more fun.


Up to the GM, the rules say "[t]his mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable." a tiger would be a 'more exotic mount'.


But the paladin divine bond can be used to have a mount which 'functions as a druid's animal companion' so there is an animal companion built into the paladin class. Also the mount gets the celestial template for free at level 11.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

52) because, for a paladin, I'm amazingly unwilling to involve myself, I contact social services about the abandoned goblin children and otherwise ignore them while basking in the glow of smug self-congratulation for having 'done the right thing'.


If you are aware of the opponents and the opponents aren't then there is a surprise round and you will get to activate your rage before your enemies act regardless of initiative and vice versa. In my experience there is usually a surprise round in most combats, so being aware of your enemies is far more important than initiative. As for the value of the trait & feat, the rule I use for initiative is either go very high or ignore it - if you act last in round one it is the same as acting first in round two. It's nice to have but not essential as it will grant you a total of one more attack per combat at most (unlike in 2.0 where high initiative could give more attacks per round). Bloodragers can make going for high initiative worthwhile, they get bloodline feats from a limited pool, and improved initiative (and high initiative) can be the best use of the bloodline feats, but it depends on the bloodline and the build - a celestial bloodline mounted lance bloodrager has several more useful bloodline feats than improved initiative while a dervish dancing elemental bloodline bloodrager doesn't.


What's in the box? wrote:


I am finding that whatever the inciting incident is... our characters are not bonding sufficiently in order to maintain relationships after the first bad guy is taken out... Once problem X is solved the king pays us and we know we are supposed to say: Hey lets stick together! But usually we have a mixed bag of people that end up lacking a reason to work together.

After the evil is faced what keeps the LG Paladin working with the CN Alchemist?

Confusing party motivation with personal motivation. With the main motivation of the character as "adventuring" the player has an open hook to keep going on after a challenge is met. This requires some idea of how the campaign is going to function in setting up the motivation, for example 'hunt down and end the evil...' won't work if the campaign isn't an onion type where the second BBEG is the first BBEG's boss but instead is one where the second BBEG is threatening a different town. As for the paladin, if her main motivation is not the glory of her deity or not following her paladin code or following the precepts of lawful-good but is instead 'fulfilling the charge of ...' then her main motivation might cause her to make a point of continuing to work with the offensive to the concept of paladinhood CN alchemist just to show the leader of the order up by following the exact wording of his charge to "lead them glory."

edit: maybe it isn't as clear as I think it is, make the motivation not to go on this adventure, but instead to go on adventures in general. One doesn't only become a paladin to follow the paladin's code or glorify a deity, one can become a paladin because one detests evil and being a paladin and following a paladin code and worshiping a deity gives one more power to stomp evil out in all it's forms - and if following the paladin code or worshiping the deity stands in the way of combating evil then another paladin has fallen.


Not been that serious a problem since I realized that if I make adventuring the main motivation of characters then the fact that a party is necessary for adventuring provides the subsidiary motivation of party cohesion. not to say that there haven't been individual characters that I've wanted to boot out of the party and sometimes a party that my character just couldn't work with, but it became an infrequent occurrence. note too that the main motivation doesn't have to as raw as 'adventuring', it could be 'hunt down and end the evil that threatens my home, family and everything I love' or (one of my personal favorites) 'fulfill the charge the leader of my paladin order laid on me to collect a band of misfits and lead them to glory even though I know he only did it to get me away from the chapter house because he considers me to be an officious git."


Jodokai wrote:
stuff

1. AGAIN While there is merit in comparing hit chances if you wish to talk about [/i]damage done when comparing the [i]damage bonuses each class has available to them from their class, then not being able to hit the broad side of a barn is irrelevant. Saying gloves of dueling shouldn't be included in the bonus damage for the fighter because they come from an item instead of a class feature is valid, saying the fighter is going to hit less often means nothing because hit chance has nothing to do with what a classes damage bonus is.

2. comparing zen archers as a class to gunslingers as a class is tough, they are both ranged but they are different in how they function. You asked what zen archers get in the way of bonuses to damage - they get more attacks, the ability to do their unarmed damage (which at level 17, as mentioned, is usually 2d10 because usually a level 17 zen arched is wearing a monk's robe - level 17 was used because at that point the gunslinger's class based bonus to damage has matured) and a boatload of feats including weapon specialization. Is the whole zen archer package as good as the whole gunslinger package? Sometimes it is better and sometimes it is worse, because they are so different in how they function, but a zen archer certainly has "bonus to damage at least comparable to that of the gunslinger", and that that comparison is that the zen archer has a bigger damage bonus. Whether or not this will result in more damage done in various scenarios is a different issue, and if you want to get into a side-to-side comparison of zen archers and gunslingers in different cases then we should compare whole builds instead of class features.

3. I have no idea what you mean by "consistent". I take it to mean in this context, the amount of damage which a level 11-20 character can be expected to put out in combat encounters which are CR appropriate, which occur with the frequency which adventurers usually handle combat encounters, and which include the variety of tactical situations . If you mean consistent to be fighting an endless swarm of monsters who appear at the end of a shooting gallery, then say so.

5. one of the problems is this is a comparison of classes not builds. An individual gunslinger can have a measurable advantage from being SAD, the class of gunslingers cannot because in isolation from characters there is no way to properly quantify the effect of that SADness. I tried to sidestep this problem by pointing out that the worse the starting stats are then the more advantage a gunslinger can take of their SADness, but apparently that went right by you.


Ssalarn wrote:
Zhangar wrote:


(One note for RoW - the book 4 dragonkin were actually pretty vexing to my gunner inquisitor - those buggers move FAST combined with reach & Combat Reflexes. They had no trouble at all just closing distance, getting on top of an annoying ranged character, and shutting that person down.)
I've never seen melee enemies as being all that problematic. Unless they have natural reach, it's as easy to turn the 5 foot step to your advantage as they turn it to theirs, and the Gunslinger has great AC. You can stack up Nimble, a buckler, and some light armor with your huge DEX and always have some of the best AC in the group. As a general rule of thumb, archers seem to suffer much more than firearm wielders, particularly the GS.

The two AoOs (one for reloading, one for attacking) for each dragonkin made at full BAB for each attack made by the gunslinger would tend to present a problem no matter the AC of the gunslinger. Never played RoW but reach & combat reflexes is combo I've seen/used which gives gunslingers problems. Dedicated archers in my experience had less of a problem with the combo as they were taking fewer AoOs but it's been a while since I've played with a dedicated ranged combatant, and I don't remember why they took fewer AoOs.


Ashiel wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
On the subject of touch AC, plate mail actually was tested against firearms regularly upon creation because plate mail and firearms existed at the same time. It was bullet proof.
I am getting a little tired about the misunderstanding of this. Back in the 16th century armor makers used to test (prove) their plate armor by firing a pistol into the strongest part of the armor from a distance. If the bullet penetrated then the armorer would patch the hole and sell it as normal armor, if the bullet didn't penetrate then the armorer would burnish the dent and sell it for twice the price as 'bullet proven' armor. Of course if someone shot this bullet proof armor somewhere other than it's strongest point, or from closer than where it was tested, or with a musket - well the armor wasn't tested to see if would stop those types of bullets. About 25 years ago a German (Austrian?) museum with too many early firearms and too many suits of armor did testing on actual plate armor using actual early firearms and that testing made pretty clear that within 10m (30 feet) the firearms would reliably penetrate the armor.
Yes and now make the armor out of mithral.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Or try to explain how in the hell "I-It pierces the armor, obviously" makes any sense when you hit touch AC against the guy in frigging adamantine full plate with your lead bullets.

I dunno about mithril (or adamantine) plate armor. My objection is to the idea that real world plate mail couldn't be penetrated by real world bullets and what the phrase 'bullet proof' actually means when refering to plate armor. If you want to find out if it is realistic in RW terms then first you need to invent/discover mithril (or adamantine), then invent a time machine to get a 16th or 17th century armorsmith to make a few sets of mithril (or adamantine) plate armor and finally test them by firing a variety of early firearms at them.

If you want my opinion of how realistic it is for lead bullets to penetrate adamantine full plate, the answer is: "I don't care, adamantine is a fantasy material in a fantasy game and I see no point in getting hung up on realism."

If you want my opinion of gunslingers attacking touch AC in the first range increment, my opinion is that it is a nifty mechanic which differentiates the gunslinger. I like the way it changes the nature of ranged combat tactics by increasing the emphasis on positioning and the counters a DM can make. I also don't find it overpowered BUT apparently my game is far from typical; campaigns usually end around level 13, combat doesn't occur in an endless succession of 20'x20' rooms, monsters don't cheerfully throw themselves on the swords of adventurers, and character advancement consists of constantly make trade-offs instead of having everything the players want.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
On the subject of touch AC, plate mail actually was tested against firearms regularly upon creation because plate mail and firearms existed at the same time. It was bullet proof.

I am getting a little tired about the misunderstanding of this. Back in the 16th century armor makers used to test (prove) their plate armor by firing a pistol into the strongest part of the armor from a distance. If the bullet penetrated then the armorer would patch the hole and sell it as normal armor, if the bullet didn't penetrate then the armorer would burnish the dent and sell it for twice the price as 'bullet proven' armor. Of course if someone shot this bullet proof armor somewhere other than it's strongest point, or from closer than where it was tested, or with a musket - well the armor wasn't tested to see if would stop those types of bullets. About 25 years ago a German (Austrian?) museum with too many early firearms and too many suits of armor did testing on actual plate armor using actual early firearms and that testing made pretty clear that within 10m (30 feet) the firearms would reliably penetrate the armor.


Jodokai wrote:
cnetarian wrote:


what archers are you talking about, commoner class archers? Archers get STR to damage as soon as they buy a composite bow. While archers are more MAD, needing DEX to hit and STR to damage, every other martial PC class can get a total bonus to damage at least comparable to that of the gunslinger if not better (well, not the barbarian, but archery for a barbarian should be a second choice anyway).
Really? What does a Zen Archer get? What does a Fighter get (the exact same), a Ranger and a Paladin are situational and not consistent, hence my statement...

A zen archer gets to make 7 attacks at level 16 instead of the 5 a gunslinger does, gets the fighter only +2 damage from weapon specialization AND at level 17 can use the base damage for unarmed strikes - 2d10 usually. A fighter gets weapon training and fighter class restricted feats of weapon specialization & greater weapon specialization feats (with enough more feats to take them) and access to gloves of dueling for a total of +10 to damage on top of STR at level 17 (+9 level 13, +7 level 12) versus the the gunslinger's DEX to damage with maybe up to +3 from an archetype. the times when a ranger is unable to cast instant enemy or gravity bow or some other spell to increase damage are so few that a ranger consistently has some damage bonus or the other. the archadin is situational I'll grant you, but the point of this paragraph is to address the issue of DEX to damage being a big deal, it isn't because other classes get damage bonuses which are in line or even more powerful than DEX to damage.

Jodokai wrote:
cnetarian wrote:


A vanilla gunslinger gets DEX to damage at level 5 (MM&pistolero archetypes get DEX + 1 at level 9, DEX +2 at level 13 and DEX +3 at level 17) which compares to a vanilla fighter archer who using weapon training which gets STR to damage at level 1, STR + 1 at level 5, STR + 2 at level 9, STR +3 at level 13, STR +4 at level 17 can tack on gloves of dueling for an additional +2, weapons specialization at level 4 for another +2 and greater weapon specialization at level 12 for a another +2 - at level 17 the archtype gunslinger can add DEX +3 to damage while the vanilla fighter archer can STR + 10 to damage. And fighters are the baseline from which other martial classes improve - an archedin smiting with damage + STR + level is going to hit a lot harder than a gunslinger firing with damage + DEX. And archers can switch out the rapid reload feat needed by gunslingers for multi-shot which lets archers make more attacks than gunslingers and have access to arrow only spells and items which gunslingers lack.

Two problems here, a fighter with a +10 to hit and +100 to damage does exactly zero damage when he rolls a two against a monster with a 15 AC. Against the same monster the Gunslinger with the same to hit and 1/4 the damage, will do full damage because all he needs is a 2 to hit.

This was about damage not hit chance, but lets compare the hit chances and damage of the gunslinger and vanilla fighter now, Relative to the gunslinger, the archer fighter is up to +7 to hit non-touch AC due to +4 from weapon training, +1 from greater weapon focus & +2 from gloves of dueling (+6 at level 13, +5 at level 9, +4 at level 8). Against non-touch AC the fighter is going to be hitting more often for more damage, the vanilla fighter archer compared to the archetype gunslinger (assuming equal DEX, level 17, equivalent weapons, optimal feat & gear selection and all that jazz and and setting the fighter's strength 12 points lower than dexterity) is going to be +7 to hit and and +1 to damage. The spread between touch and non-touch ACs likely to be faced by level 17 characters averages about 17 (someone calculated it a few years ago by using all the critters in the bestiary, it might be obsolete with the new bestiaries and doesn't account for class NPCs, but the rule of thumb spread was CR-3) which means where the gunslinger can target touch AC the gunslinger is going to be +10 to hit and -1 to damage on a hit compared to the vanilla fighter. Against touch AC the gunslinger is more likely to hit and does less damage on a hit, against non-touch AC the gunslinger is less likely to hit and also does less damage on a hit.

Jodokai wrote:
cnetarian wrote:


Being SAD and attacking touch AC can make the gunslinger powerful, but those factors are not so much built into the class as into the how the campaign works. The weaker the stats (PB or array or dice rolls) are the better the gunslinger is compared to other martials, with a 30 PB a fighter archer can have a high enough STR & DEX to keep with the gunslingers DEX to damage and DEX to hit while with a 15 PB the fighter is going to be a bit worse in both categories.
This is probably the most moronic thing I've heard in a long time. I don't care if it's 100 point buy, if I need 2 stats to be effective and you need 1 it doesn't really matter how many we have to spend because 1 beats 2 every time

I don't (and didn't) say that MAD martial archers are ever going to be as well off on the attribute front as SAD gunslingers, just that the higher the starting attributes are the less the discrepancy favors the gunslinger. It's the nature of how the system treats attribute points; the attribute cap of 18 on creation is a situation where once the SAD character has an 18 in the single important attribute they get less out of additional attribute points than the MAD character who still gets significant benefits from raising two attributes to 18. Since increases after character creation are also capped, a MAD character can increase post-creation their two required attributes to the caps again, gaining a benefit from each increase in either attribute, while once the SAD character hits the cap in the one attribute then further attribute point increases aren't so important. Yes, the attribute points on level up are a factor favoring the SAD character, and the MAD character will have to spend more money to raise two attributes but once you have a +6 dexterity belt there is no way to increase the enhancement bonus to dexterity, once you've spent 5 wishes increasing dexterity, no more wishes can be used to increase dexterity. At level 20 assuming a starting value of 20 dexterity (and 18 strength for the MAD - the 20 is due to racial bonus), a +6 belt (dexterity for SAD, dexterity & strength for MAD, and wishes (5 to dexterity for both, 4 to strength for MAD) the SAD gunslinger will have a 36 dexterity resulting in a DEX of +13 to hit and +13 to damage while the MAD martial will have a 36 dexterity and a 28 strength resulting in a DEX of +13 and a STR of +9 - the SAD character just gets more from their one attribute (and spends less on attribute increases too - 173,500 gp versus 337,500 gp, but the 164,000 gp extra the gunslinger has to play with doesn't really help that much, the system takes the law of diminishing returns seriously).

Jodokai wrote:
cnetarian wrote:


Targeting touch AC is a situational thing, assuming no advanced firearms (all bets are off if advanced firearms are used) a distance enchanted musket user can hit touch AC out to 16 squares and the common pistol wielder without distance enchant has to be within 4 squares to target touch AC - if enemies are stupid enough to stand 20' away from a gunslinger they deserve to eat mucho hot lead. When a gunslinger cannot target touch AC they really suffer for unlike, say, fighter archers they do not get a weapon training bonus to hit from their class and access to the fighter only feats to increase hit chance so they wind up hitting less often for less damage with fewer attacks.

There are SO many problems with this statement. Let me start with if monsters are over 16 squares away, the monsters aren't hitting anyone else either.

Second, if a Gunslinger doesn't get in his first ranged increment, he becomes only marginally better than an archer, since he is still full bab, has a better to hit chance since he's SAD and does the same damage as a fighter. Yeah, it's horrible when a gunslinger is only as good as an archer.

Ah yes, all the goblins, half-orcs and elves which only learn how to use bows when they become player characters. It never seems to amaze me that there are any green dragons which progress beyond adulthood since they seem to never realize that with 200' fly speed and flyby attack they can strafe a party of adventurers with a biting great cleave and never end a round within 100' of from that guy in the tin-can, but instead just charge right next to party and make one attack then let the adventurers unleash full attack fury on them. And what about all those stone giants who forget that it is the rare party of adventurers able to match the ranged damage capability their 180' range rock throwing gives them which there 40' move speed allows them to avoid melee. If demons ever caught on to the fact that their at will spells like the Hezrou's 230'range unholy blight are tactically better than charging in to make a melee attack that does less damage and leaves them vulnerable to a barbarian's full attack they would be a real danger. Mind you that is situational, some DMs have campaigns where Darwin has had his due paid already and the orc camp is surrounded by a 500' beaten zone that has to advanced through while orcs with the cover of the walls unleash a hail of arrows, where a guardian naga lets loose with magic missile spells at 190' as a form of friendly warning and then throws lighting bolts at those who come within 120' before using scorching rays on the more persistent to save the spit/melee option for those who close to the naga's range, and even campaigns where ice devils stay 800' away from the party casting ice storms and take advantage of their AoOs to punish any party of mortals foolish enough to advance on them.

The gunslinger isn't as good as the other archers outside of touch AC range. He is full BAB without any bonus to hit, most other archers get class abilities which can grant them bonuses to hit. The fighter baseline gets weapon training, gloves of dueling and the fighter restricted greater weapon focus feat to increase her hit chance, while weapon training, weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization and gloves of dueling provide enough bonuses to more than make up for the inferiority of MAD STR to damage compared to SAD DEX to damage.

Pick a level, build a gunslinger and I'll build a near clone fighter archer to show that the fighter baseline is better outside the first range increment. The two restrictions I put on the gunslinger is no goblins, kobolds, ratfolk, halfling, gnome or other race with a penalty to strength and no TWFing build (that be a comparison of different build concepts instead of the classes).


one
two (weapon specialization)
three

For DRs based on piercing damage, a sling does bludgeoning damage and as a backup weapon is not too heavy to carry while it is always wise to be able to switch hit, so carry a slashing melee weapon (falchion if you can handle the weight) to cover the 3 damage types. Be prepared to switch hit if needed and carrying a few flasks of acid and such is not a bad idea.

That said, if you keep your UMD skill high and are prepared with a variety of scrolls you shouldn't need to switch-hit that often. Align weapon 150gp, bless weapon 25 gp,flame arrow 375gp, magic weapon 25 gp, variable for greater, are all spells from core which can be put on ammunition and help with DR (although bless weapon doesn't work well with ammo, it does work well with melee weapons).


Jodokai wrote:

Archers are a powerful class, gunslingers are everything archers are with touch attacks and DEX to damage. If you take a powerful build and make it more powerful, you're going to run into problems.

I will say, level 1-4 meh, slightly less powerful than an archer due to misfire and reloads. 5-10 more powerful than archers due to DEX to damage and the gap between AC and touch AC widens. Slightly mitigated by misfire chance.

11-20 Will do the most consistent damage out of every class in the game. They will get full attacks nearly every round, they will RARELY miss because the difference between touch AC and regular AC is huge (40 Regular AC vs 8 Touch AC at the higher CR's), and they've completely negated any misfire chance.

what archers are you talking about, commoner class archers? Archers get STR to damage as soon as they buy a composite bow. While archers are more MAD, needing DEX to hit and STR to damage, every other martial PC class can get a total bonus to damage at least comparable to that of the gunslinger if not better (well, not the barbarian, but archery for a barbarian should be a second choice anyway). A vanilla gunslinger gets DEX to damage at level 5 (MM&pistolero archetypes get DEX + 1 at level 9, DEX +2 at level 13 and DEX +3 at level 17) which compares to a vanilla fighter archer who using weapon training which gets STR to damage at level 1, STR + 1 at level 5, STR + 2 at level 9, STR +3 at level 13, STR +4 at level 17 can tack on gloves of dueling for an additional +2, weapons specialization at level 4 for another +2 and greater weapon specialization at level 12 for a another +2 - at level 17 the archtype gunslinger can add DEX +3 to damage while the vanilla fighter archer can STR + 10 to damage. And fighters are the baseline from which other martial classes improve - an archedin smiting with damage + STR + level is going to hit a lot harder than a gunslinger firing with damage + DEX. And archers can switch out the rapid reload feat needed by gunslingers for multi-shot which lets archers make more attacks than gunslingers and have access to arrow only spells and items which gunslingers lack.

Being SAD and attacking touch AC can make the gunslinger powerful, but those factors are not so much built into the class as into the how the campaign works. The weaker the stats (PB or array or dice rolls) are the better the gunslinger is compared to other martials, with a 30 PB a fighter archer can have a high enough STR & DEX to keep with the gunslingers DEX to damage and DEX to hit while with a 15 PB the fighter is going to be a bit worse in both categories. Targeting touch AC is a situational thing, assuming no advanced firearms (all bets are off if advanced firearms are used) a distance enchanted musket user can hit touch AC out to 16 squares and the common pistol wielder without distance enchant has to be within 4 squares to target touch AC - if enemies are stupid enough to stand 20' away from a gunslinger they deserve to eat mucho hot lead. When a gunslinger cannot target touch AC they really suffer for unlike, say, fighter archers they do not get a weapon training bonus to hit from their class and access to the fighter only feats to increase hit chance so they wind up hitting less often for less damage with fewer attacks.

all of this is not to meant to imply that the gunslinger is a weak ranged combat type. inside touch AC range they beat some other archers for damage when the touch AC differential becomes significant, there are some nifty deeds which can be fun and useful, they can play switch-hitter tricks based on knowing how to use martial weapons, they have second-tier front-line AC and they are very SAD. Slightly (not that much really) more powerful than some archer builds, but more situational in where and how they can apply that power. It is a question of trade-offs to be better than baseline in some situations and worse in others: a gunslinger exudes suction when not in touch AC range; an archedin is a sad puppy when she cannot fight evil-doers; a ranger archer without access to spells suffers a big loss to damage; and a fighter archer is consistent no matter what the situation and creates the baseline.


In my somewhat limited experience the drummer would most likely be a drunken rager barbarian (and before you ask, a drunken brute barbarian would be a bass player).


there is a magic item (monkey belt?) which grants a prehensile tail. It does take up the belt slot so the DEX belt is off the table but it has a built in +2 DEX bonus and there is a higher powered +4 DEX version. haven't checked the pricing to see how it fits with society fame price limits but it might be a viable option for reloading.


phantom chariot scrolls are 600gp @ if lvl 8summoner written or 800gp @ if lvl 8 wizard written. The arcanist cohort can cast them. 4 gunmen (1 driving) on chariot can be fast mobile and pack a good hard punch. can be reflavored as a half-track or similar vehicle as desired.


Amrel wrote:
cnetarian wrote:

house rulings/readings of RAW on the questions:

1) the non-magical ammo requirement is exclusive, one magic ammo piece in the container keeps the spell from working.

Can you please post RAW support of this? Or is this one of your home rules?

The spell does not say "When cast on a container that only contains non-magical ammunition" it says "When cast on a container that contains non-magical ammunition."

Do I agree that this is a wording mistake and not RAI? absolutely. But OP specifically asked for no RAI or oppinions. If you only use the spell text there is nothing to suggest that the requirement is exclusive other than house rule, oppinion, or what someone thinks the RAI is.

English usage covers both possible readings of RAW, the phrase "[w]hen cast on a container that contains non-magical ammunition" can be used to refer to a container which only contains non-magical ammunition and also used to refer to a container which contains some non-magical ammunition. The rule as written can be read either way, each is an acceptable English usage, and English is famous (infamous?) as being a language in which the same phrase can have multiple meanings (see "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").

The original question cannot be answered by a literal reading of the terms the OP stated by anything other than by a repeating of the phrasing in the spell - any thing else is going to be RAI and/or opinion, even if it comes from the developers about what they intended when they wrote the rule. Since the OP presumably did not ask with the intent of receiving a restatement of the RAW, the OP's presumed intent is to request the developers produce a FAQ or errata (erratum?) about the spell. I was originally going to simply put the n.b. in as an extension to the OP (a request for clarification about whether the ammo created by the spell is simple ammo or improved ammo) but seeing your reading of the RAW convinced me that it would be good to include my readings, so that a developer (who possibly hasn't looked at the spell in half-a-dozen years) has an idea of what alternative readings exist in the PF community.


house rulings/readings of RAW on the questions:

1) the non-magical ammo requirement is exclusive, one magic ammo piece in the container keeps the spell from working.

2) as long as the improvement isn't magic based.

3) assuming a hybridization funnel is what you mean, then while a magic item is used to create the hybridized splash weapon, the hybridized weapon isn't indicated as becoming magical.

4) depends. if the source is alchemical (but not alchemist class) item based or if it comes from an extraordinary ability then it should work with AA; if it is an enchantment, comes from a spell, comes from a spell like ability or a supernatural ability then it shouldn't work with AA. Alchemists (the class) and AA can cause confusion and be decided on a case-by-case basis: a grenadier's infused ammo strictly shouldn't work with AA because infuse ammo is a supernatural ability, (but my house rule is that it isn't unbalancing and is allowed) - while an alchemist using the explosive missile discovery, well discoveries and bombs are both supernatural and not allowed, (and as a house rule this is prohibited because it is unbalancing).

n.b. house rule/reading I play with is that the improvement is replicated on the replaced ammo but I've read an argument that only the base ammo without in improvement is replaced. this probably should be addressed in the FAQ.


"This spell (mending) has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage done to such items." anything like lightfire ink going off would be a transmutation and not damage.

1 to 50 of 1,160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.