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

9,007 posts (9,030 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,007 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My one suggestion with 40 PB is forbid dumping of stats under 10 (or, if you have players who believe in 'roleplaying their stats' and want a value under 10 for RP purposes, let them but don't give any bonus build points for it)

Worked out fairly well in the game I participated in with that rule.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

DM Says: I hate powergamers
DM Means: I don't understand this stupid oversized overcomplicated rule system as much as I'd like.


Khrysaor wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'd just like my fighter to be able to do things a commoner can't do, instead of just being better at the things the commoner can do.
I know right! Those guys at the World Cup right now aren't even impressive. I know how to play soccer where they just know how to play soccer better. I wish they could do something I can't do.

You're starting to get it.

Congratulations Khrysaor.


Khrysaor wrote:
So all you're asking for is that all classes be the same. Got it.

No

Quote:

Fighter Tacticians get 4+INT, Lore Wardens get 2+2+INT

Can your bard out DPR a fighter now too?

Yes.

Not when a dumb brute creature just stands still and trades Full-Attacks, but under every other circumstance you better believe it.


Khrysaor wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.

I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.

Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.

Because you only have those 5-7 others.

Compare that to a Caster. Wizards can conceivably know every spell on their list (but tend to average about 10-12 spells per spell level in my experience) while Sorcerers/Oracles (who get the short end of the stick) end up learning somewhere between 20 and 30 spells over the course of their carreers and Druids/Clerics have access to ALL spells on their list.

Essentially, if a non-magical feat/talent is limited use and not providing benefits comparable to the best spell available to a caster, or at will and not providing benefits comparable to a spell of 1-2 spell levels lower, then it's horribly underpowered.


Wizard, Cleric, Druid final answer


Kender > TinkerGnome > Spellscale > Kobold > Goliath

Oh, wait, were you specifically asking about Pathfinder races? Not much interesting there, although I love how they've integrated the Planetouched a bit more with the normal population.


Kolokotroni wrote:
This has come up in my game, and the general ruling has been yes but its disgusting wall meat. Just because its flesh doesnt mean you WANT to eat it. It might still taste like rocks lol.

Gives a new meaning to Stone Soup


Yes


Correct.

Cleric 1: 1 skill point
Cleric 2: 1 skill point
Bard 1: 5 skill points
Cleric 3: 1 skill point.

If he chooses to use his favored class bonus towards skill points, he can do so at any cleric level (so for example- if he chose to spend every cleric level's FC bonus on Skill Points- at level 4 he would have an additional 3 skill points beyond those granted from his class levels, or a total of 11)


While it is true that Paizo produced the PFRPG as a platform for their Adventures and APs, that doesn't mean it's designed specifically for that purpose, or that even if it is that people should allow themselves to be constrained by it.

EDIT: I will also note that a fair segment of Paizo's customer base (myself and at least a few others in this thread included) would not be buying PF materials at all if there were any indication it was an 'AP exclusive game'


You're TECHNICALLY wrong 137ben, Paizo was putting out APs before they produced Pathfinder RPG.

The game from which it is derived (and all the backlog of 3.0/3.5/d20 material many of us bought PF to keep using) however, was indeed designed before APs existed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
stuart haffenden wrote:
A fighter with mirror image on is too powerful.

Compared to a f!*!ing caster with Mirror Image on?

Fighterguy gets a few extra rounds at best (and most magic bypasses Mirror Image anyway) to hack away at a huge pile of hit points.

The caster casts the spells that makes the peoples fall down (and I don't mean blasts like Hadouken.)


Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
How often do good spell casters try to dominate your PCs?

First, the Wayfinder-Ioun combo only works against Evil. In my experience 40-60% of what the party faces is neutral, with about 10% being Good.

Those are some interesting numbers to say the least. Can't say that I've fought good creatures in any AP I've run through.

I don't do AP's. Too rigid for my tastes. When I GM I favor spontaneity, when I'm a player I tend to rock the boat too much for AP style play.


Ah, so you're basically playing a God Mage, but you're attributing the Fighter as the 'most dangerous' party member because he's the most efficient at cleaning up the foes you've already taken apart.

With a partner like that a Fighter can indeed be pretty effective, but its a far cry to truly call him the most dangerous member of the party. Take away the Sorcerer and replace him with another Fighter and the performance would drop dramatically.

On the other hand, replace the Fighter with a combat-oriented Oracle or Cleric or Bard or Magus or Summoner or anything else that can achieve 6th level spells and fight really, and you'll see a very small drop in the line-up-and-chop-down efficiency of the pair, but far more spells and options and overall power.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
And yes, Spellcasters often have more "potential" but I was quoting a poster that talked about "power". They are not the same.

Potential becomes power if its applied. If the caster player either lacks system mastery or deliberately holds back on his potential then sure he's not going to be as powerful as he could be. Doesn't change the imbalanced power between classes before accounting for the Player element.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
What answer (a) means is that a 13th level fighter or rogue is supposed to be equally as powerful as a 13th level wizard, by definition.
And in our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the team, more so than my Sorc.

I'm going to have to ask for the Sorcerer character's build and a rough outline of the tactics you tend to use in play.

I frequently read you comment about 'buffing the martial' being a favorite tactic of yours, and under that situation OF COURSE the Fighter is going to be the most dangerous member of the team. He's using the power of 1.5 characters (1 Arcanist + a martial approximated as .5, were this a Paladin or Ranger we were talking about it may be more like 1.8 or so)


It looks like you've been...

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

...Antagonized.


@Mikaze: umad?


Brace for impact, this one's very controversial.


Khrysaor wrote:
How often do good spell casters try to dominate your PCs?

First, the Wayfinder-Ioun combo only works against Evil. In my experience 40-60% of what the party faces is neutral, with about 10% being Good.

That being said, among that 10%? Most of the spellcasters within that 10% (which likely comprise 4-6% of the total opposition faced, since by a certain level if the opposition can't cast spells it can't challenge a party with spellcasters) absolutely love to hurl compulsion magic at Fighters, Cavaliers, Barbarians-who-have-not-acted-yet[due to having enough understanding of these battleragers that they know once they unleash the beast, taming that beast becomes much more difficult] (and to a lesser extent, Rangers and Gunslingers and Raging Barbarians.)

I'd estimate maybe 3% of combats in my campaigns have a good-aligned creature or caster attempt to Compel one of my PCs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because the man doesn't want you stinking martials getting personal spells.


As I explained, it's not truly slotless. It doesn't consume, say, the amulet or ring slot or whatnot, but if you are resonating that ioun stone then- barring a REALLY EXPENSIVE Wayfinder with multiple slots- you're not resonating any other ioun stone. You know, like the one that gives you water breathing, or the one that keeps your soul in close proximity to your body.

The problem with your comments of 'circumstances and weaknesses of a class' is that some classes have ways around their weaknesses in-class and others don't.

EDIT: I see there was a call made to keep this sort of topic out of the thread in posts after the one I initially quoted when I dredged this back up. Out of respect I'm going to drop this line of discussion for the time being.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm totally OK with the wizard being an "I buff my team" guy. But to do that, we have to alter the rules so that it's clearly to his benefit to work with martial guys and buff them, as opposed to simply hanging out with more casters.
It's already clearly to his benefit. Buffing the Tank gets more DPR and more damage absorbtion out there than just having another spellcaster.
Your "tank" (which I'm defining as the person who stands in front and smacks things with a stick because a traditional MMO tank does not exist in Pathfinder) could be a Battle Oracle. Now you've got a full caster doing exactly what the Fighter does AND casting spells.

The term "tank" as a heavy martial (often a fighter, but a Bbn, Paladin, etc) existed and was used in D&D back in OD&D days, long before there was even a thought a MMO might be possible.

And yes, tanking works in D&D. Always has.

Sure, if the GM plays his creatures as dumb brutes who can't figure out who the real threat is.


Khrysaor wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
It shouldn't be buffs that martials can perform, but better ways at countering magic.

This was the same point I made in the post Kirth quoted. The very next line of text that he didn't quote.

Clear spindle Ioun stone + wayfinder. 4500 gold and never worry about mind control again. Doesn't take up an item slot, is extremely cheap, and reduces the argument of dominate to a moot point. Easily affordable by level 9 when a wizard gets dominate person which just won't work on you.

You can't use more than one Resonating Wayfinder (Wayfinder with an Ioun Stone in it) at once, so it does take up an item slot just not one of the ones listed on the body.

I also find the bringing up of specific items to be a little disingenous. A specific item like this is a bandaid, it patches up the problem IF GMs are using Resonating Ioun Stones and IF the GM doesn't use the random rolling method of Resonance Powers and IF the GM is using Wayfinders and/or Ioun Stones at all. Not to mention that its worthless against non-evil magic.

Patches are nice, but what we're discussing is more of a suture or better yet a replacement surgery.


Legendarius, roughly how thick are those panels?


Khrysaor wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I feel like the ability to be so obnoxious you throw off a wizard's spellcasting would make a perfect rogue talent.
Arcane Annoyance (Ex): You know how to vary and repeat vocal components in a way that breaks the concentration of spellcasters. Any opposed spellcaster that begins casting a spell with a vocal component within 20 feet of you must succeed at a concentration check with a DC of 5 + your rogue level + your Charisma bonus + the spell level or lose the spell.
I think you should have to spend a resource for it to work, not just have it on all the time. Maybe you could spend an AoO in reaction to the spell being cast?
Immediate actions would work for this. AoOs make combat reflexes insanely powerful for shutting down casters.

Good. Casters need to be shut down more. That being said, this DOES yield a lot of power the the Combat Reflexes feat, but it's at the cost of taking both limited options. I'm not seeing anything wrong with that.

Quote:
I agree that skills should see more benefit coupled to them, but not just based on ranks. Make it based on hitting a base bonus to rolls. That way class skills make you achieve greatness faster and investing feats like skill focus and a high stat also impact this.

Then treat Class Skill Bonus and Feat/Trait bonus as virtual ranks. Otherwise you're giving casters with a +30 spell or some random schmuck with 1 rank in the skill and a +XX competence bonus item powerful abilities that should be limited to those who actually invested in the skill.

Quote:
This should still need a big roll like a +15 or 20 modifier to grant a climb speed.

No, it shouldn't. The best climbers in the world should not be trumped by a second level spell. If you have sufficient total ranks (including virtual ranks) you have a climb speed based on the number of them.

Quote:
Not losing dex, run actions while climbing, and an inherent +8 for a climb speed is a powerful deal.

All available for the low low price of a second level spell. Starting to see the problem?

Quote:
How would giving martials more action economy as they level impact things? Martials would be able to get off more actions in a round, like move and full attack, where casters are bound to the current scenario. Spells seem like they should require more as you level up due to intricate gestures and wording where maneuvering through combat should be getting easier for martials. A caster can throw out magic missile as fast as they could tsunami and in this transition of 17 levels full BAB classes learned to swing their weapons 3 more times (some only 2 more) a round with diminishing accuracy.

This is actually something I've been experimenting with. Granting more actions based on BAB total, and requiring more actions of the highest level spells (because casters get BAB too, but more slowly than dedicated martials.)

It's a delicate scenario, but I have to say some of the results are pretty entertaining. I just worry that I might start seeing option paralysis at high levels when the martial gets multiple separate actions.


Ross Byers wrote:
(Corner cases like messing with blindsight are the kind of things I don't think need to parallel between spells and non-spells.)

I couldn't agree more. Magic getting to BS past a physical quality is not something I can approve of. Making Blindsight follow the Cover rules and giving them a bonus (+5? +10 perhaps?) to perceive someone stealthing through concealment only, however, I would be down for.


Aelryinth wrote:

Burning AoO's for other actions then attacks should totally be a thing, too.

===Aelryinth

Agreed, AoO's (and Attacks within a Full Attack Action [without automatically spending the best attack, although spending the best attack for a better yield should be an option] as well) are a resource that Martial abilities should be exploiting.


DrDeth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Even here, you have to be careful that what you're claiming is "comparable" is really comparable.

For example, the trip maneuver lets me trip a single person at melee range.

The grease spell lets me trip up to four normal humans at 25 feet. It also acts, without requiring further actions on my part, to keep them down and to prevent normal movement.

Grease is once or a few times a day. Trip is every time you attack.

Things that are very limited in use SHOULD be more powerful than things that can be used at will, all day long.

I believe we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what is limited here.

Grease can be chosen freely, day in or day out, among many other options.

Meanwhile the trip feats are permanently consumed limited resources for the character.

For the price of a feat my tripping mojo had damned well better be comparable to a level 1 spell. And get better with furthered leveling.


Jiggy wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Please don't mistake my bluntness for hostility, but . . . why? I just don't see how there's anything to be gained by this. I don't expect a (vanilla, non-archetyped, not-augmented-by-magical-infusions-or-whatnot) fighter to be able to cut a hole in the dimensional fabric without a magic blade/subtle knife/whatever. I don't expect a fighter to slash the air and cause meteors to fall from the sky. I don't expect a fighter to flex their muscles a la Armstrong to cause a charm person effect. It's just not their thing. If the system is going to be class based, the one thing classes should never be is completely interchangeable. Otherwise, it's better to ditch classes altogether and go with a build point or similar system.

That's not what I'm suggesting. The fact that some magical effects just don't make sense for nonmagical means is exactly why I wrote steps 4 and 5. Did you get that far?

EDIT: Maybe more examples would help.

I'm not talking about using your fighting spirit to replicate the effects of levitate, but maybe at the level that casters get levitate I could spend a feat/talent to be able to jump really, really well. Like, maybe even better than a commoner with the same ranks. Is that making the classes "interchangeable"?

Well enough to get hang time comparable to levitate (albeit at higher altitudes) and be specifically called out as allowed to make melee (if the target is within reach during the ascent or descent) or ranged attacks mid-air?

That would work pretty well.


blahpers wrote:
Please don't mistake my bluntness for hostility, but . . . why? I just don't see how there's anything to be gained by this. I don't expect a (vanilla, non-archetyped, not-augmented-by-magical-infusions-or-whatnot) fighter to be able to cut a hole in the dimensional fabric without a magic blade/subtle knife/whatever. I don't expect a fighter to slash the air and cause meteors to fall from the sky. I don't expect a fighter to flex their muscles a la Armstrong to cause a charm person effect. It's just not their thing. If the system is going to be class based, the one thing classes should never be is completely interchangeable. Otherwise, it's better to ditch classes altogether and go with a build point or similar system.

I don't expect any (vanilla, non-archetyped, not-augmented-by-magical-infusions-or-whatnot) fighter to be able to do any of those things.

But I DO expect some of them to learn to do those things. That's why it costs a resource to do so, they're giving something up.

This isn't a facet of leveling up (like a caster getting spells) but rather of dedicating feats/talents/powers to developing such a skill.

Whether it's screaming open a hole in the dimensional fabric, flexing sparkles to fascinate kicking massive dirt-clods/stones/trees so high into the atmosphere that they fall back down on the target zone on fire a sufficiently high level martial could learn to do it.


What Jiggy's proposing isn't really making them interchangeable. He's proposing allowing martials to use very limited resources (feats or feat equivalents) to replicate certain magical powers.

The whole 'a martial can do limited things but go all day long while a caster has unlimited options but limited time' is a theme that could be expanded into this here, if the martial got sufficient uses of these abilities.


Did a wizard spend a feat or feat-equivalent on the ability to use that spell?

Is a caster of any type locked into the use of that spell without being able to expend its uses for something else?

Even a level 12 Sorcerer or Oracle who took Planeshift as their only spell known could spend that slot on a lower level (or metamagiced lower level of the same equivalent level) spell.

The martial is spending a precious feat to gain the ability to do this, unless you make the use of this part of a flexible pool that can do many other things, he deserves to be able to do it many more times than a caster could ever cast it. He doesn't have their flexibility.

EDIT: to add salt to the poor martial's wounds, your version would prohibit the use of planar travel. The martial would have to wait a whole day to be able to come home after he's used it. Or if he were chasing a mage or outsider, they could just pop off a scroll (or another casting if spontaneous) to flee to another plane and he'd be stuck in no-man's-land.


Jiggy wrote:
Maybe it requires Knowledge [planes] 12 ranks and is usable 1/day. Something.)

Change that to Knowledge [planes] 3 ranks and +11 BAB and usable 1/day+number of ranks in Knowledge: Planes and you might have something there.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
kyrt-ryder's comment about a hardwood case may have been sardonic

It was not. A Hardwood Boxed Set may blow my gaming budget for a whole season (heck maybe half a year) but if the content was really good it would be so worth it.

On that subject, what do you guys think would be the ideal width for the wood of such a box? 1/4 inch is my initial gut instinct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect a number of the 'that's too magical for my fighters!' crowd put up with the Barbarian's rage powers because those rage powers are explicitly called out as SU and given a mystical theme.

It's like these people explicitly want classes without magic to suck (at least that's the way I interpret the OP and similar statements)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My own houserule for Staves is that they automatically recharge one slot per day at the same time its bearer recovers/prepares spells, at which time he/she also has the option to dedicate spell slots for that day to recharging it.

I also don't require the caster to know any spells on the staff, only to have the spells on his/her spell list.


Personally, I think it would be folly to make a class centered around mastery of arcane magic equal to a class centered around mastery of (e.g.) combat.

After all, the master of combat is a master of combat, while the master of Arcane Magic is essentially a master of nothing.

Now, if you were to distill the master of Arcane Magic class down into a master of, say, Blasting, or Healing, or Theurgy or Necromancy? By all means those classes have every right to be the equal to a Master of Combat.


kinevon wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's pretty funny how Sorcs got screwed out of efficient staff use, because they need to dedicate a spells-known slot to a spell on the staff to recharge it.
But on the other hand givingup a Spell slot to recharge is most likely not so hard on the sorcerer. And if it is a good staff chances are that he already have more than one of the spells on his list. And if it is a costum staff just ad one of your level 1 spells for 5 charges that is almost free.
Or, to be more amusing, get a Page of Spell Knowledge for a 1st level spell that matches one of the staff spells, and you haven't even lost a spell slot, just a small amount of money.

More money than you think, given the way multi-spell staves are priced- IIRC


It's pretty funny how Sorcs got screwed out of efficient staff use, because they need to dedicate a spells-known slot to a spell on the staff to recharge it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
b&w art and self-covered books is pretty much in direct opposition to the notion of premium.

No arguments on the self-covered aspect, but the idea of Black and White art being non-premium seems strange to me.

Some of the best art out there is done in greyscale. It may not pop off the page in the same way as color art, but that's a different matter from quality/value.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Jester David wrote:


The major difference is one of quality. The books in the old 2e boxed sets were black and white with less slick paper and much less glossy covers. With the box, the covers can be slightly less durable.
That's bound to reduce the costs of printing, and I suspect B&W art costs less.
See, I'd hate to lose that lovely glossy color format with a durable hard cover just to get a cardboard box wrapped around it all ;)

Cardboard nothing. If I were going to bother with a boxed set, I'd want the delux collector's edition polished and stained hardwood box with the cover image and text engraved rather than printed.


It's the same problem the Duelist's parry has (needing to pre-declare a parry). Paizo managed to publish quality parry mechanics (albeit a bit feat-heavy) for 3.5 but continues to screw parry-users in PF.


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
and other optional rules that make less 1E, including sci-fi and low-fantasy rules sets.

I'm speaking second-hand here (as I have no personal experience with the Edition) but I've heard that 1E had a bunch of sci-fi.


Josh M. wrote:
that just really rubs me the wrong way; as if being "crazy" is a singular condition reserved for characters who streak through a tavern with a chicken on their head singing showtunes.

As if there were something wrong with that.


Adjule wrote:
I agree with MagusJanus. I have never been in a group where mixing a Captain America and a Iron Man

Black Widow always struck me as more professional non-hero less anti-hero.


Charlie Bell wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
XP is a reward for defeating challenges; narrative leveling removes the reward incentive because you just are whatever level you need to be when the plot requires it. Ultimately, it takes away a measure of player agency.
Again, that need not be the case. If the player is able to state his/her own goals, and levels up when those goals are attained (after X amount of effort, measured in terms of sessions or whatever), then it's both player-driven and decided by rubric, rather than whim.

I should have clarified what I meant by narrative leveling: the GM tells you you level up when the AP says you are supposed to be level X.

I do like your player goals-based method of handling leveling, but I don't know how well it would work in an AP-style game.

Then there's the intuitive, GM determines when you level based on the player's narrative rather than based on any predetermined point method. It does ask for a lot of trust from the players (not that the simple act of GMing doesn't though.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Hellsing,
Castlevania Alucard > Hellsing Alucard forever and always in my heart.

Rosario+Vampire Alucard > both of them.

EDIT: TFS Hellsing Alucard tops even him though.


shadowkras wrote:

they can jump on magma, not swim through magma.

And unless someone shows me rules for swimming on magma, you cant. But i will apologize and take back my ruling if proven wrong.

Just so you know, if the magma is too dense for them to sink into it, then a character could walk across it at 2d6 fire damage per round.

1 to 50 of 9,007 << 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.