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

kyrt-ryder's page

8,308 posts (8,331 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Gauss wrote:

We are talking about High ACs in general, not a single character with high ACs. Your premise was that "AC never breaks any game past level 3, unless the GM is really, really bad at designing encounters." Nothing in that premise regarding a single character.

So again I ask: Do all of the APs have badly designed encounters and if a GM doesnt revamp the AP he must be a bad GM?

If AC never breaks the game (your premise) then you should be able to max out all of a party's AC (we can use WBL as a baseline for this) and toss them into an AP without modifying the AP right?

You might actually have to tone down the AP if the party were to max their AC relative to WBL. Reduce the monsters total HP or something, because the only characters in that party who are going to resemble their full effectiveness are the casters.


Gauss wrote:
Most people would not use the -1:+1 exchange rate. Most people would use the -1:+4 exchange rate. Next, add on that if you do manage to hit the guy then he will negate that hit.

Soooo a feat tree that makes fighting defensively actually worth using rather than wasting paper is a bad thing?


So.... would anybody care to take a stab at addressing this idea?


CWheezy wrote:
you are always willing while unconcious

I don't think that will hold up in court.


Essentially in my campaigns, everybody gets to describe their spellcasting in any way they like so long as the description does not contradict the mechanics of the spell, and then they state the spell by name and any targeting details their description didn't cover. Quick and simple example below.

"By the power invested in me by my contract with the sea itself, I spew forth ooze of the depths, coating my companion in slippery slime to ease his escape from that beast entangled with him. Grease on Bob's mage, +10 to escape from being grappled."


I don't know which god you're thanking Vadush but he sure isn't mine. (Not that I would argue with the change you want for Fighters though.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a horrible feat.


Zeromage wrote:
Kayerloth wrote:
Zeromage wrote:
How do you GMs deal with teleporting? I find it incredibly frustrating and overpowered. Do you think it's unfair to just ban all teleporting spells?
What is it about Teleport that is frustrating you and making it feel overpowered? Is the party bypassing planned encounters that would otherwise occur along the way to the 'dungeon'? Are they bypassing lots of travel and 'dungeon' encounters with scry and fry tactics to go directly to the BBEG/end encounter? Other?
Mostly because I don't want them to feel that they can escape any encounter that starts going badly with so much ease. It takes a lot of the tension away in my opinion. I also don't like playing in other planes and generally like lower level, rpgs in general.

It seems you've answered your own question my friend. The answer is don't play levels with teleportation/planehopping magic.

The options include E6 or some variation thereof (a quick google search should turn up the baseline E6 rules) or simply capping levels at X point. Level 8 is a good level if 5th level spells bother you.


Well done Sphinx.

If I ever manage to fall into a Pathfinder campaign with Advanced Firearms I would so love to try my hand at a Paladin/Gunslinger:Mysterious Stranger (or Gestault, if I could possibly get so lucky >_<) of Calistra inspired by Panty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pst, Gauss, it deflects two of the three "best attack bonus" arrows. Manyshot is by default the first 'attack' made in a full attack action.


More like built in Skill ranks/BAB features really. Not something isolated between, say, Barbarians, Fighters or Cavaliers, but something any of them could do if they are capable of doing so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kthulhu does have a point though. The feats as written are far too limiting. Rather than feats being written as providing new options, they should generally be written as improving options which should have existed before.

Therefore when a new feat comes out, say... Chandelier Swinger (to steal an example I saw elsewhere on the boards, possibly this thread possibly not), rather than 'allowing' a character to swing on a chandelier (and by extension forbidding the swinging on chandeliers by characters without the feat) say it grants the character +4 to acrobatics checks to swing on chandeliers, +4 AC to AoO's and readied attacks made against the character while swinging on a chandelier, and an additional +4 to hit and damage to charge attacks made at the end of a chandelier swing.

Previous option is both confirmed, and the feat makes the option better.

(Note: it's a really rare-use feat, so I tried to make it powerful enough to consider taking in a campaign in which it could be expected to make an appearance at least once per session on average. Don't get bogged down in the mechanics of it I was just trying to make a point.)


Would it be possible to publish a webpage with details about the product (explaining what it's for and answering all these repeated questions you're dealing with) and include a link to the website 'see foo.bar.com for details on the expected use of this material as relates to the Pathfinder Campaign Setting' in the product description (and on the cover if you were to actually do print publishing, after all in this day and age many prospective purchasers are going to have net-capable phones)?

Obviously its one more step the purchaser would need to follow, but it might solve some of your problems if its legal.


Reminds me of debates I used to have with GMs before I started GMing myself, wherein they would always try to create creatures to beat the AC whore's AC and therein completely invalidate what AC the standard characters did have, rather than let someone enjoy their strengths and instead run a balanced encounter.


The whole 'pursuade/con/beg/manipulate' the GM aspect is one thing I hated about AD&D during my very brief experience with 2E. I love the freedom available when a GM basically decides to go 'rulings not rules' but not the dependence that comes with it. If that makes sense.


Technically wouldn't deflect arrows work against Manyshot, negating both arrows?


Ssalarn wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
***'balance does not make the game for fun' and 'if you want to hold the game up to balance at all costs then play a different edition because you will enjoy it more' post here.

I actually agree with this. While I think there is space to shore up some of the weaker classes in the game (Fighter and Rogue, I'm looking at you), I certainly don't want to see a scenario where everyone's capabilities are broken down into a few universal formulas that have little differentiating them beyond an associated keyword.

That being said, I do believe it's possible to reach a greater level of class parity without homogenizing the classes.

Very much this.


And I'm going to stick to my usual 'having inferior capabilities to other people in the same party sucks' and 'having to carry dead weight sucks' position. Each class should be roughly equally capable in distinct ways.

Truth be told, I'm starting to see the proliferation of martial classes as a problem. For every different martial class, more distinctions are required, splitting things up until each of them is too narrow/limited to be playing the same game as the spellcasters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of this is a difference of campaign styles. It's the same reason I'm not terribly big on 'adventure path' style prebuilt campaigns. Because I know if I were in the same position as Claxon, you can be damned sure I wouldn't let 'not breaking the campaign' knock me out of character. I'd do what the character would do and deal with the consequences later.


It's not easy advice to follow, but the best advice I can give you is to throw away the old adventure paradigm.

Rather than building an adventure in advance and running the players through it, learn to build your adventure during play. To let the characters go whichever way they see fit, and create the story through their own actions.

(I can't say how easy or difficult it is to integrate this style into published adventures, as I've never tried to do so.)


Repent mother- f%&*er!

(Bonus points if you know where the phrase comes from)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that's an idea I could backstabget behind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Rogues get proficiency with bucklers
Considering the way nonproficiency rules work, they pretty much already are, as soon as they can afford 150gp for masterwork.
True. But it doesn't hurt. And it helps them at 1st~2nd level.

That's also a fairly high system mastery item, something the average casual player would never notice.

Demanding system mastery of players is not a good thing in my opinion.


My general guideline on this kind of thing is not to worry about dipping. Casters lose way too much stuff by dipping (except those going into Arcane Trickster, but that class is more constrained by the required Sneak Attack dice and resultant lost caster levels than by maximum skill rank) and I don't care about what martials come up with from dips.

So a martial type might dip Rogue for 4 levels to get 6 skill ranks at the cost of 1 BAB (and poor Fortitude progression if he won't be dipping into another martial class) before hopping into a prc... why would I care?


He's saying every even level a Rogue's maximum rank limit for Rogue Class Skills is increased by one more than usual. At second level his maximum is 3 ranks, at 4th level his maximum is 6 ranks, etc


master_marshmallow wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My Paladin doesn't care since he only attacks if there is no one else to do the job, and my Rogue already cries because he sucks and haste doesn't really help him do anything.

Actually, if you're a finesse Rogue who hasn't managed to pick up an enhancement bonus to dex yet, Haste is giving you +2 to hit (+2 dex and +1 haste-bonus-to-hit) ontop of everything else it gives.

That's pretty significant to sir-misses-a-lot.

What is this +2 to DEX nonsense you are spouting?

Utter and complete nonsense from a tragic misremembering of the spell.

If only I'd caught it before someone replied to it >_<


TriOmegaZero wrote:
My Paladin doesn't care since he only attacks if there is no one else to do the job, and my Rogue already cries because he sucks and haste doesn't really help him do anything.

Actually, if you're a finesse Rogue who hasn't managed to pick up an enhancement bonus to dex yet, Haste is giving you +2 to hit (+2 dex and +1 haste-bonus-to-hit) ontop of everything else it gives.

That's pretty significant to sir-misses-a-lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You do for the +2. If you aren't normally qualifying for Sneak Attack that's slashed in half (to bonus damage equal to Rogue Level.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogue Talent

Rapid Feint: a Rogue can feint once as part of each Melee attack he makes. If the feint is successful, the target is denied his dex bonus against that attack as normal.

(Some will want to make this require Improved Feint. I do not.)


A normal level 10 rogue gets an average of +17.5 sneak attack damage at that point. Come level 11 they're riding at +22 (mine) and +21 (standard rogue) respectively.

The big differences are that mine actually gets multiplied by stuff, and mine doesn't care if the target has concealment so long as it lands the hit.
(And that mine gives half the bonus all the time, which I might concede as too much, but this IS given under the provision of the Rogue's current attack bonuses, which rather suck)


Change sneak attack damage to a flat +2 damage per Rogue level, not precision damage, and applies to crits. A Rogue deals 1/2 this bonus damage when not qualifying for sneak attack.


Tinkergoth wrote:
I don't understand the whole no smokers thing.

It's a time thing. If a smoker is comfortable lighting up every 2 hours or so that's fine with me, but many smokers insist on a 'smoke break' every hour or even less than that, which can disrupt the flow of a game.

I'd run into the same issue with someone with a tremendously weak bladder and without the will to control his fluid intake during a game, although fortunately I haven't encountered someone like that yet.


You guys do realize it doesn't even need to be Synthesist Summoner right? The baseline summoner still brings a beastly Eidolon to the table who pounces like a Tiger on steroids.


Serum wrote:
Perhaps pounce in general should only apply to natural attacks.

With Druid and Summoner laughing all the way to the bank.


Teeechnically staggering a lion cuts the range of its pounce in half. That's not making it more powerful, but it's certainly not much of a debuff either (unless the Lion is already in melee of course, at which point it either makes a single standard action attack or endures an AoO to pounce someone else.)


Marthkus wrote:
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:

Really, Barbarians shouldn't get pounce unless everybody gets pounce-like options. That alone makes Barbarians unbalanced. I wouldn't care all that much if say, Fighters and Monks and everybody else could do something similar, It would simply be a feature of "warrior types".

The current situation is ridiculous though.

I REALLY don't want my PCs getting pounced by angry brutes.

Thematically I don't understand barbar pounce. I understand lion pounce, it jump and attacks with both claws and a bite at once. Barbars just jump forward and swing 3-5 times in an instant. How? Cause they are angry!

Martial weapon pounce is actually a fairly common trope really.

Have you ever seen a samurai film where the protagonist leaps at or charges past/through his opponent, slashing multiple times at the same instant? Often rather than film the cuts themselves, they show a black screen with several flashes of silver, then the picture comes back and shows said victim falling with more than one (sometimes WAY more than one) cuts on his body or falling into multiple pieces.

The same technique would work for Partial Charges as well, because the whole point of the technique is delivering multiple strikes in the time-span of one stroke.


Considering DC is partly determined by CR, it seems more than reasonable to me that a success (or even a near-success) should allow the GM to tell the player roughly how powerful the creature is.


The problem here is that the kind of encounter the 'iconic T-rex' encounter is simply a bad encounter.

You shouldn't have been using it to begin with. A single T-rex is less of an opponent and more a part of the environment. The simple answer is to go around it, or shoot it from a distance (lure it into the open if necessary)

EDIT: and besides that, there's always the option to go Kung-fu-saurus on their asses like someone suggested upthread using Unarmed Strike. With the T-Rex's reach it's not going to be taking AoO's for it anyway. And the T-rex gets an AoO when somebody moves through its threatened area. Chomp time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

I also don't like it where players think that if its an encounter then they must be able to win.

There are going be times when the only way to survive is to run !

This DOES have to be delicately balanced with making sure these 'running is the best option' encounters A: are reasonably easy to escape from (going purely by the rules, the vast majority of creatures could easily keep up with if not overtake a fleeing party before teleport stuff comes online. This is where things like creature disposition/motivation come in), B: are easily recognized as something outside the party's league, and C: are infrequent enough to be something interesting/entertaining rather than a depressing campaign component.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've played a game like that as well, didn't enjoy it. Same reason I GM without a screen. I like living and dying by my choices, I just prefer to try to make wise ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes the optimizer can help the 'good player' step up from his middle-school level and roleplay on the same level as the rest.


Kthulhu wrote:
apparently not so badass as to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance. :P

There is a difference between only engaging in combats with 'a reasonable chance of victory' and 'unwilling to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance.'

I'd say personally speaking I don't want to get into a fight I have less than an 80% chance of winning. Fall below that and sooner or later someone will die. Not that there's anything wrong with death, but it's certainly something the vast majority of my characters actively seek to avoid (though it's not always avoidable for numerous reasons ranging from 'heroics' to 'greed' to a multitude of things.)


Naturally. Changing the base assumptions of the game just forces you to pay even more attention to that and adapt accordingly.


That's an example of the extensive houseruling Arachnofiend was talking about being needed to keep the martials as being viable companions to full spellcasters.

You're basically playing E8 without actually stopping at 8th level.

Granted, doing that is either going to DRAMATICALLY ramp up the danger level of high CR creatures or mandate the GM tiptoe around the changes he's made to the game.


Not asking is stupid, because there ARE GM's out there who love to control the game to the degree they will say what you can and cannot get without regard for your concept.

So yes, I'd certainly ask the GM in advance how he felt about a dex-based Fighter and whether or not he was willing to provide a means for said Fighter to get dex-based damage.

If he refuses, I'll come up with another concept and throw it his way.

My general rule of thumb here is three tries. If the GM is too tight-knuckled over his setting and has too many control issues for three different concepts of mine to get rejected, I'm walking away from that GM.


I was including the GM's tool-quotient as a factor reflected by the player's 'luck' there. Having a tool for a GM is pretty bad luck in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Society Field Guide


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jaelithe has it right here. You tell the GM what kind of character you want, and work out with him how you're going to pull that off. If you're lucky he'll provide you with something along the lines of an Improved Weapon Finesse feat that works with any finessible weapon you pick up. If you're neither lucky nor unlucky he will either houserule something resembling Dervish Dance for your weapon of choice or provide some way for you to get an Agile weapon.

If your luck blows he'll say CRB only and you roll up a Wizard, Cleric or Druid instead.


The atmosphere is pretty... acidic... but there's actually a lot of wisdom to be found at The Gaming Den


Devilkiller wrote:
If we stick to the seemingly iconic single T-Rex fight

But single Anything fighters are HORRIBLE encounter design. 4+people butcher single opponents.

Quote:
Anyhow, I still think the new Crane Wing would be pretty good if you could use the +4 AC bonus reactively upon being hit kind of like the Ride check from Mounted Combat. Heck, maybe a later feat could let you do it twice.

The bonus is way too low for that. Make it +10 and we'll talk.

EDIT: also, I f$$$ing hate ceilings. Maybe 2 out of 15 fights in my campaigns have a ceiling. Just personal preferences here of course.

1 to 50 of 8,308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.