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

mbauers's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 451 posts (3,603 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 19 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 451 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Make an evil inquisitor with the infiltrator archetype. Have him choose to detect as neutral good and vouch for the fighter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LadyIrithyl wrote:

So my PCs don't really want to do ship to ship combat. They want to use quick rules and just get to the boarding actions.

I'm fine with this but I'm concerned about how to figure out damage to ships, because otherwise they will end up with ships to sell and add to fleets without a scratch on them.

Because even the quick rules you basically have ship to ship combat.

I was thinking of just breaking the ship up into sections, they either hit or don't hit. They roll a d10 to determine how bad the damage say, section 1 got hit with a 5 so its at 50%. On a roll of 0, the PCs have punctured a hole through the ship.

And of course sails or ores count as their own section.

Then its just a roll to grapple and begin boarding.

Any thoughts? Has anyone skipped the actual ship combat parts and just did the boarding? How did you handle it?

Thanks.

I was hesitant about ship to ship combat too, because I feared it would be repetitive and, as written, it was basically just the pilot doing everything and the other party members sitting there waiting for boarding.

You should check out this thread--awesome suggestions here and my party was into it when I tried it:

Naval Combat For a Whole Party


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, I made him middle-aged because I think the idea of an aging, experienced, grizzled veteran is a cool character concept, especially as it pertained to his backstory (he was looking after the young bard who was actually going to take levels of Noble Scion as well). It would have been an easy transition to change that over to Rory, in my opinion.

As far as nerfing myself, you should look at the actual stat array:

Str 18
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 12
Cha 8

This equates to a 19 point buy if I didn't make him middle aged. So yes, I could have had one point higher in Con, Wis, or Cha, which would have had negligible impact on the game. I was willing to sacrifice that for story purposes.

As for nerfing myself, a few things--Paizo APs are intended for 4 characters made with 15 point buys, and even then are not insanely difficult. With a 20 point buy and 5 players, I promise you I wouldn't be a drain on the party. I am an experienced RPer and, not only have interesting tactics and know the game, but I bring a lot to the (virtual) table, so to speak. I always pull my weight.

Anyway, thanks for the consideration. It seems to me that you are a bit inexperienced in DMing (no offense intended, just my observation), so I'll offer you a bit of friendly advice--try to be a bit more flexible. The point of DMing is to make sure your players have fun. You seem a bit inflexible in some of your viewpoints and that may cause some strife between you and your players. I say this as someone who has been playing these games for over half my life, and DMed my fair share.

Thanks again for the consideration. Good luck guys, and have fun!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hmm, may I ask why I wasn't chosen? I don't mind, it's just that you said you were looking for 6 people and you took four and just excluded me. I'm not asking to be retroactively added, I'm in other games. I just felt like I was personally excluded for no reason, hehe.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, high-level PCs can definitely deal with large groups of troops on their own, but in this world I'd expect an army to have magical support. An army with mages/druids on their side will crush us if we don't have an army of our own. And if you don't plan on us building and training an army, well, my character becomes pretty pointless.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ha, I was just typing this up and then you posted. Here's the list I have:

Submitted:
Rory Ward, Human Bard

Darg Blonke, Human Fighter (Aldori Swordlord)—needs to upgrade to level 4

Adular Garess, Human Cleric of Gorum

Brogan Vrabec, Human Fighter (Mobile Fighter)

Riva Sarjenka, Elf Sorcerer

Still working:
James Kondolow is making a human sorcerer

Irnk is making ??


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Brogan recently turned 38 (his stats reflect middle age)

Birthday: 12th Pharast, 4669


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Still interested, hehe


Hey SR, I just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the game, and my reasoning for reduced posting was in no way due to your DMing or the concept/material of the game. For me, it's just been work and family responsibilities--the time I used to post at work has basically vanished, and I've been staying a lot later at work this year. Couple that with my commute, and I often can't post anything of substance (which is what I want to post in this game) until the kids are asleep. By then I had missed the boat a lot in terms of things I had wanted to respond to, but it was too late. Anyway, I always enjoy your games and creativity (have you considered participating in RPG superstar?) and thanks again for the time and effort you put into making this an awesome game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Here's Brogan, my submission. I will make an alias if selected:

brief description:
We had a bard (Ganthor Orlovsky) in the party that was a young nobleman (and was going to be the ruler of our kingdom). Brogan was the captain of the guard for the Orlovsky family for many years. He has a daughter that he has alienated and wants to mend that, but for now it doesn't look promising and he doesn't get to see her often. He has trained Gan and looked after him for a long time, so Brogan agrees to accompany him and serve as his bodyguard and martial adviser (I was going to be the general). Brogan is a bit surly and has no patience for social niceties or politics--his assets are his loyalty and his honesty. He would not sugarcoat anything and would not hesitate to speak out against a suggested course of action by the brave but rash Gan, even if other yes-men would not. Brogan has a sense of honor in that he won't wantonly slaughter a defeated/subdued foe, but during a fight pretty much anything goes in order for him to achieve his objective. He is not above stealth and fighting dirty.

stat block:
Brogan Vrabec
Lawful Neutral Human Fighter (Mobile Fighter) 4 of Abadar
Age: 38 Height: 5’10” Weight: 180 Eyes: Green Hair: Gray
Languages: Common, Dwarven, Draconic
Favored Class: Fighter

Speed: 30 feet
Initiative: +2
BAB: +4
CMB: +8
*+1 to CMB with Longsword
Armor Check: -2 (0 for jumping and climbing)

HP: 32/32
AC: 23 [7Armor, 3 Shield, 2 Dex, 1 Dodge] (20 FF, 13 Touch)
CMD: 21 (+4 vs Trip and Grapple)
Fort: +5
Ref: +3
Will: +4
(+1 bonus on saving throws made against effects that cause him to become paralyzed, slowed, or entangled)

Strength: 18 (+4) (16 + 2 racial -1 age +1 level 4)
Dexterity: 14 (+2) (15 – 1 age)
Constitution: 12 (+1) (13 – 1 age)
Intelligence: 14 (+2) (13 + 1 age)
Wisdom: 12 (+1) (11 + 1 age)
Charisma: 8 (-1) (7 + 1 age)

Attacks: Masterwork Cold Iron Longsword +10 (1d8+5/19-20/x2) (honed) or Masterwork Dagger +9 melee (1d4+5, 19-20/x2) (honed) or Masterwork Bec de corbin +9 melee (1d10+6/x3), Masterwork Composite (Str +4) Longbow +7 Ranged (1d8+4/x3, 110 ft range)

Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Iron Will, Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack

Skills: Acrobatics +5 (3 ranks), Climb +9 (2 ranks), Intimidate +5 (3 ranks), Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6 (1 rank), Perception +9 (4 ranks), Ride +7 (2 ranks), Survival +7 (3 ranks), Swim +9 (2 ranks)

Traits: Sword Scion--You begin play with a longsword or Aldori dueling sword and gain a +1 trait bonus on all attacks and combat maneuvers made with such weapons.

Eyes and Ears of the city--+1 to perception, always a class skill

Class Features: +4 CMD vs Trip and Grapple (favored class bonus), Armor Training 1, Agility 1

Equipment: Masterwork Cold Iron Longsword, Masterwork Dagger (in spring-loaded wrist sheath), Masterwork Bec de corbin, Masterwork Composite Longbow (Str +4), Masterwork Armored Coat, +1 Agile Breastplate /w armor spikes, +1 Darkwood Heavy Wooden Shield, Masterwork Backpack, Bedroll, 50 ft of silk rope, 4 days of trail rations, 2 servings of wandermeal, clay mug, waterskin, flint and steel, 2 torches, sunrod, whetstone, spring-loaded wrist sheath, smelling salts, compass, 20 arrows, Adventurer's Sash, 3 daggers (honed), Oil of Magic Weapon x2, Potion of Protection from Evil x2, Potion of Enlarge Person x2, Tanglefoot bag x2

Also has a combat trained light horse with chain shirt barding stabled until needed for travel.

Book 1 good stuff:
We befriended Oleg and helped him against the bandit attack, eventually severing a thumb of each captured bandit and telling them that, from now on, banditry in these lands is punishable by death. We sided with the kobolds against the mites, and defeated--I can't remember her name (it's been awhile since we played), but she had two handaxes and she crit-killed our poor cleric. We then used information off her to infiltrate the Stag Lord's fort.

At first we pretended to be new recruits and spoke with all of the bandits, gaining as much information as we could. Brogan wrestled their strongest fighter to look for weaknesses. When the time came to fight, it was epic--the first round Brogan killed one of them with a critical hit shield bash. We then saw the conflict on Akiros' face and won him over to our side. He helped us slay the owl bear as our witch blinded the stag lord for a few precious seconds. The tiger/druid showed up and, while we were facing him, Brogan charged the Stag Lord, pinned him to the ground, and knifed him repeatedly into unconsciousness. After we claimed the fort, we executed the Stag Lord for banditry (in a gruesome way, actually)--by turning him over to the revenant in the river so he could have his vengeance.

Book 1 was very fun, and I'd like to play Book 2. If picked, I can adapt this story to suit the rest of the party. Thanks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Awesome, I played the first book of Kingmaker and I've always wanted to start it up again. I have a fighter I'll post before the deadline--just need to adjust his gear and stats (ours was 15 point buy).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm just wondering, what is the reasoning for waiting until one's individual product ships for that person's pdf download to be available? I mean, once the first copy of the AP ships to the first person, couldn't the download be made available to all of the subscribers? The people who are getting their shipments first get further rewarded with an early download. I am ignorant to the process, so maybe each subscriber's download needs to be individually activated or something. Anyway, just curious.

Is it a huge deal? Nah, a few more days wait won't kill me. But I want my pdf now! ;-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wow, Zarskia becomes Arabia. After my phone update my auto correct has been awful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, the players are already going to face a bomber alchemists in Book 4 with the Eel, so I'm thinking of making Arabia an Investigator instead. I think it's fitting and could make for a cool encounter with some tweaking. Won't help you, but could help others in the same situation. If/when I stat her up ill post.


Following along--will post tonight


Swamped--will post tonite


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thought so, but I figured I'd ask. Thanks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, I want to restart my AP subscription in time for Mummy's Mask. When I try to sign up, I can only get Book 5 or Book 6 of WotR.

Do I have to wait until another WotR book comes out to be able to sign up for Mummy's Mask, or is there a way I can do it now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:

My overview on the Advanced class guide playtest

SKR: Ignored and hand waved criticisms, talked down to players,and went on his merry way. Based on changes in the second draft it's obvious that SKR doesn't care much for the Hunter or Brawler considering how bad both those classes are.

Well, I admittedly didn't follow the Hunter thread very much, but I did follow the Brawler thread. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on a number of fronts.

1) It was quite obvious that people didn't read the thread, then posted their thoughts on how to "fix" things. Many people kept posting the same suggestions over and over. I'd probably get annoyed too if I had to post 500 times that Brawler's Strike overcoming DR was non-negotiable.

2) There were several changes that were made to the Brawler class that both improved its playability and demonstrated that the devs, SKR in this case, WERE listening. Read the last part of the closed thread. I favorited it so I could keep going back to it. Increased uses of martial maneuvers, earlier access to Knockout, size penalty to awesome blow gone, and Brawler's Strike changed to (Ex). I felt like the people who read the entire thread and contributed had all of their issues considered and many of them rectified.

3) The brawler is not a bad class, it's actually awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, I had the idea of having Krelloort's concubines be Malenti mutants, maybe one with a level of bard and one with a level of oracle (instead of the advanced template). Would that work, or would they need to be level 2 to keep the CR the same?

Just think it would be cool if they pretended to be Aquatic Elf slaves and then start throwing spells around during the brawl.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tels wrote:

All lot of the opinions I would express about the playtests have already been touched upon, so I'm going to address some personal observations.

First up, I will acknowledge that I had next to no interest in the Slayer, Shaman, Hunter, or Skald. I payed closest attention to Swashbuckler, Arcanist, Investigator and Brawler, while keeping tabs on Bloodrager and Warpriest.

That said, I really appreciate Stephen's postings on the forums. Especially the Investigator. He posted frequently, and was very receptive to ideas and criticisms while explaining the whys and why-nots to various ideas. I really appreciate how open-minded he was about changing Studied Combat/Studied Strike for the Investigator. This is an example of what a playtest thread should have been like.

On the other side, I did not see Sean and Jason posting very often in the threads they were 'in charge' of. By in charge, I mean that, it seemed like the threads were divvied up amongst the developers and they were responsible for responses in those threads. The exception being the Brawler thread in which Sean post regularly, though not to the extent Stephen was. Jason, I felt you had the least amount of presence in the playtest, though you did something awesome when you polled the Warpriest thread about how we think the Sacred Weapon damage dice/crit range should work, however, there was no follow up to the initial poll.

I felt that some of the 'hot topic' subject should have been more opened to development or ideas for changes. An example from the Brawler thread was Awesome Blow being largely unuseable because of the massive CMD's of enemies at high levels. Size, being the primary issue, in that as monsters get larger, they get bonuses to strength (just for being big) and bonuses to CMD (also for being big); this means size of the creature impacts their CMD on two separate fronts.

Another example from the Brawler, is the Brawler's Strike ability, that myself and numerous others had issues with. I started going through both Brawler threads...

Well, regarding awesome blow, I believe it was SKR who said at the end of the thread that they were taking away the size penalty for a brawler using awesome blow on larger opponents, so that issue was addressed.

I have to agree that an alternative ability to Brawler's Strike as written would have been cool, but that's a minor issue for me. I thought that the devs were very open to listening to feedback and the changes that made (particularly the ones posted at the end of the Brawler thread, like increased uses per day of martial manuevers) reflected that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This might be a silly question, but will there be a lot of traps to overcome/ puzzles to solve? I kind of want to make an Archivist Bard/ Pathfinder Delver who would be a good explorer/trap finder, but if there aren't that many traps and puzzles it would be disappointing. But if there are then I'm very excited for this AP!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are the playtest discussion threads still visible? I can't find them


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
My one nitpick is the size penalty to Awesome Blow... It still feels wrong to apply the same penalty twice... Or has that changed and I missed it?

I didn't mention it, but that'll be fixed, too.

Rynjin wrote:
Update them with the results for this Round 2 of playtesting, or with the proposed changes in mind?

Let's say "with these proposed changes in mind."

As for changing to other than 3 + half level per day, you don't need flex your max-at-a-time allotment of feats for every fight, and the normal duration is 1 minute per use, which should last an entire combat. A brawler10 would have 13 uses per day, which is enough for 4 uses of 3 feats each and 1 use of 1 feat, which is 5 combats. And given that the brawler also has a good selection of permanent bonus combat feats, by the time you reach mid-levels you're going to have some favorite quick-builds and probably be partially invested in some of those feat chains, so you won't be needing to burn as many daily uses of martial maneuvers each time you activate it. Frex, a Str-focused brawler who actually takes Power Attack with a bonus feat is now only one feat away from most of the Improved [Maneuver] feats, and is only two feats away from the Greater [Maneuver] feats, so the example brawler 10 would have 6 uses of 2 feats each and 1 use of 1 feat, which is 7 combats. And if your build really requires you to spend a lot of uses, you can take a feat to get more. Martial maneuvers is intended as a way for you to adapt to combats when necessary, but should still be a limited resource (not a scarce resource, but a limited resource).

Is it 3 + half level, or 3 plus level per day? 3 + half level would be 8 uses at level 10. It would be 13 uses at level 20, right?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Here's a heads-up on some brawler changes I'll be implementing:

* Brawler counts as having Int 13 for the purpose of meeting combat feat prerequisites.

* Brawlers soon gain an ability to scale up close weapon damage (downleveled from her unarmed strike damage).

* Brawlers gain more uses per day of martial maneuvers.

* Knockout gained at a much lower level 1/day, then a level where you get 2/day, capping at 3/day like the current iteration.

* Brawler strike is Ex instead of Su.

Awesome! I'm planning on running a brawler soon--good to know I don't need the 13 int.

Its great that youre adding more uses per day--could you possibly tell us what way you're leaning towards for determining martial maneuvers usage per day (based on stat, level, etc)?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm excited to see the final version of this class and I'm going to try out a playtest soon. My only remaining comment is that I'm sad I have to wait until August to get it!


stormraven wrote:


In the end, there is a short list of families that seemed to enjoy this 'blessing':

Fletcher
Phibes
Pegason
Trannyth
Tull
Waveharp

So, according to the records of the crop yields, was this the order of the big yields? What I mean is, it was a repeating pattern. Who received the first big crop, then second, etc? Can we determine the order of the lucky harvests?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Uh, the GM allowed the wizard to use Mage Hand to choke a lamia to death?

Since that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard (and absolutely not within the allowed abilities of the spell), I propose this semi-retcon for your DM (which, IMO, is more believable than a mage hand choke):

The lamia is a powerful enchantress/illusionist. She used a spell to make the wizard think he killed her with his cantrip. When your ranger goes to help her and the baby, she notices that you are actually semi decent and tells you that she will spare you, but the murderous oracle is going to be her puppet.

*persistent dominate person*

If the oracle complains meta-gamey about the "CR" of facing a leveled lamia, well, it wasn't hostile and he chose to initiate the fight. Lesson learned.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ubiquitous wrote:
Onto another topic then: are there any plans to allow more uses of Martial Maneuvers per day?

I've made a note of it. As you only get 1/day at level 1, 2, and 3, that's pretty sad.

=====

It would also be cool if there were a feat that let a brawler copy an ally's combat feat, either X uses per day without expending martial maneuvers, or for extra time, or something.

And of course we'll have an Extra Martial Maneuvers feat to let you get extra uses per day of your class ability.

Both of which are separate from the level 1/2/3 issue at the top of this post.

I agree this would be cool, but second the idea that it would be even cooler if you could use it on allies or enemies' feats. This actually really fits well with the vision of the class too, as written in the description. Anything that adds to versatility/adaptability in combat would be welcome.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
mbauers wrote:

Well, to be fair, the capstone works as an attack, not an action. Suppose I only have a 20% chance to succeed. If I make 6 or 7 attacks with a full attack (I'm assuming improved awesome blow works with flurry), I'm very likely to succeed on at least one of them. I get unlimited attempts at awesome blow and a lot of attacks per round, some of them are going to stick even against a very difficult opponent.

I am excited about brawlers and I understand people's reservations about AoMF being pretty much mandated, but what's the sense in arguing that here? We should focus on what we can hope to get changed. Do I like Brawler's Strike, particularly as a SU? No, but who cares, as SKR said, nothing would really change if it becomes "EX". So why continue to discuss it?

Martial Maneuvers is the go to feature of this class. What could be done to get more uses of it? What if we take away the AC bonus? Would that be enough to justify increasing the number of martial maneuvers per day?

Except you don't have a 20% chance to succeed. Against average opponents (Other CR20 creatures) you have a 5% chance of success. You only get that because it's still an attack roll that auto succeeds on a 20. <=And really I'm just guessing on that, it seems right to me, the auto success that is.

There is tons of merit in arguing about AoMF because the book will include new magical items that could fix the issue. An issue thats been proven to have no basis for it's exclusion.

Brawler's Strike wouldn't change if it was switched to EX. That is the whole point. For our purely non-mystic class that was advertised, I don't want to see anything with the Supernatural tag. And Brutal Blows is a much more elegant fix than Ki Strike but Brawler.

The Martial Maneuvers can be fixed with a feat tax if need be. I wouldn't mind spending a feat to have it longer, or be able to switch from one feat to another without burning a usage.

Is it really only 5%? See, I thought Awesome Blow worked with different maneuvers, but upon rereading it looks like you have to make an "Awesome Blow" maneuver to use it. If you could use trips, dirty tricks, grapples, etc with awesome blow it would have a much higher success rate (with feat bonuses and maneuver training). Hmm, can awesome blow be used with different maneuvers?

Re: Brawler's Strike--I agree about not wanting it to be SU. But basically you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd be ok with Brawler's strike as Ex, but you don't want it as Su. If it has no mechanical difference, then why even argue about it? Just literally to have two different letters in the class writeup if you're successful? Wouldn't it be better to just discuss other points that could make the class more interesting rather than a semantic change?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
Any chance you'll address the bit where Brawler can barely/cannot use Awesome Blow against CR appropriate encounters when he gets it and the gulf doesn't get any better as levels increase? Even at level 20 trying it against a CR 14 monster from the bestiary is pushing one's luck.

The above statements are only true if you ignore that the PCs will still be fighting humanoid characters with class levels.

Barbarian 20 from NPC Codex: CMD 36 (42 vs. bull rush, 40 vs. trip)
Fighter 20 from NPC Codex: CMD 41
Monk 20 from NPC Codex: CMD 46 (48 vs. trip)

Using the example brawler 20 with +30 CMB, the above numbers range from easy to reasonable.

So our capstone should only be effective when fighting easy(APL-1) humanoid encounters. Meanwhile our parents are using their capstones every fight all the time, Weapon Mastery and Perfect Self.

Well, to be fair, the capstone works as an attack, not an action. Suppose I only have a 20% chance to succeed. If I make 6 or 7 attacks with a full attack (I'm assuming improved awesome blow works with flurry), I'm very likely to succeed on at least one of them. I get unlimited attempts at awesome blow and a lot of attacks per round, some of them are going to stick even against a very difficult opponent.

I am excited about brawlers and I understand people's reservations about AoMF being pretty much mandated, but what's the sense in arguing that here? We should focus on what we can hope to get changed. Do I like Brawler's Strike, particularly as a SU? No, but who cares, as SKR said, nothing would really change if it becomes "EX". So why continue to discuss it?

Martial Maneuvers is the go to feature of this class. What could be done to get more uses of it? What if we take away the AC bonus? Would that be enough to justify increasing the number of martial maneuvers per day?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Joe M. wrote:

Duplicating a question I put in the Warpriest thread, now that this one's going.

Luck Blessing wrote:
Unlucky Presence (minor): At 1st level, as a swift action you can cause an adjacent opponent to become unlucky. If you succeed at a melee touch attack, that opponent takes a -2 penalty on AC against your attacks and saving throws against your spells.

Is it:

[A] swift action to activate + standard action to touch, or

[B] swift action to activate + free action to touch?

(I assume [A], but it looks like it's worth checking.)

See, I assume it's B.

Also have to second the question about the duration of this blessing. Is the default 1 min?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just wanted to say, very cool class. I hope to playtest this weekend.

On my first reading, I just think Fervor should be tied to Wis, but that's just a minor complaint.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Zoom, I think that would be a great rewrite of the ability


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like the changes, but I am still disappointed, as others have said, about the limited uses of martial maneuvers. IMO it is the defining feature of the class, and could make for a very interesting mechanic, but it needs to be able to be used.

I have to say that the Brawler was the class I was most excited about, both originally and in terms of seeing the changes in this revision. I like martial characters and I like to have options in combat, moreso than just I hit and you take X-damage. I thought this was going to provide me with a versatile style of play for a cool martial character. I just don't see myself using one as is, almost solely because of the lack of martial maneuver uses per day. Much better, and more fun, to level dip into maneuver master and just go straight fighter, honestly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MrSin wrote:
robert best 549 wrote:
Tels wrote:

Sounds more like a tyrant.

FEED ME YOUR MAGIC OR I SHALL EAT YOUR LOOT!

Hey nothing wrong with having a evil plan already in place for a class.
Or we can just take it from our cohorts or unconscious casters. Lots of ways to farm it if you let people siphon it from others.

For sure, it would have to be regulated. But if done right it could be a pretty cool mechanic, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

People seem to like the "magic hacker" aspect of the arcanist, but dislike the overall effectiveness (or lack thereof) of consume items. Since there needs to be some way to recharge the arcane reservoir, what if the arcanist instead had access to either a base class feature or exploit called "Siphon Magic" or something similar. It would allow him to target a caster and drain some spell levels from them, using the stolen spell levels (and/or possibly Su/SLA uses per day) as the fuel to recharge the AR.

I know there'd have to be limits, but it might help with the whole "loot" problem. The party bard/cleric/druid might rather sacrifice some spells instead if letting the arcanist eat all if the items.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ha, that's what I get for typing a response on my phone. My last post was @prince of knives. :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree, but couldn't anybody just get a masterwork buckler or a darkwood heavy shield if they wanted to? You'd lose the AC bonus, but that's not all that strong anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

@Lemmy

I understand that DR would be a problem without Brawler's Strike, but I disagree with your point that having a Brawler resort to using weapons in certain situations makes his unarmed abilities not viable. Martials have different weapon proficiencies and need to adapt fighting styles to different encounters (which, in my opinion, is the best aspect of the Brawler with his martial maneuvers, not the fact that he's a good puncher). I mean, what's he going to do underwater? Hope there are never any underwater encounters? Or just use a piercing weapon? Or should Brawler's Strike grant him the ability to deal piercing damage with his unarmed strikes, because without it he sucks at punching underwater?

What if he has to fight a flying opponent? He doesn't have access to flight magic, but shooting a crossbow would invalidate his unarmed fighting that he wants to excel at all the time, so should the Brawler have a class feature that allows him to make unarmed attacks from 80 ft away? That would be awesome (Rocket Punch!), but I don't think the Brawler should get it.

I think the focus of the Brawler should be on versatility--he can punch you, yeah, but he just might need to use other methods against certain encounters, whether it's enchanted brass knuckles or otherwise. I mean, Buffy was a hell of a Brawler, but sometimes she had to bust out the occasional stake, axe, or rocket launcher to get the job done.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lorekeeper--

I really like your proposed changes to Martial Maneuvers. The original version has too few uses per day and requires too hefty of an action to activate. If the minute expires, would you need to expend another action to activate the skill? I assume yes.

As for Brawler Skills--I would highly recommend a different name, perhaps Brawler Talents, Tricks, etc. "Skills" will confuse people with, well, skills. ;-) Other than the name, I think they should remain. Something else needs to be added to boost the class.

I am very against Brawler Strike. Having access to the DR penetrating Fighter feats, it's just unnecessary and doesn't fit flavor-wise. I'd take that out and grant the unarmed damage to all of the close weapons, as others have suggested. Alternatively, I think it would be good to axe Brawler Strike and instead grant a class feature at Level 2 called "Muscle Memory" or something like that. It would grant Combat Expertise and would allow the Brawler to ignore Int requirements on combat feats. Done and done.

Another minor thing--what about buckler proficiency? Seems pretty themey if a brawler wants to go the shield bash route, you know?


I feel ya, VoV--my son has three of his molars in. Just need that last little bugger to come through at some point--he's got such a weird teething pattern.

Our sleep deprivation this past week has come from my wife having Bronchitis and all of us being sick with terrible coughs. Not cool.


If I were VoV I'd add in 12 skeletons in this place just to spite you. :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Good point. What if either Combat Expertise or Combat Maneuvers could qualify as the prereqs for the maneuver feats? Could help some...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the problem with Combat Expertise is that, on its own, the 13 Int requirement makes sense. You're a smarter combatant and you know how to read your opponents and fight defensively to keep yourself alive. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is that Combat Expertise is a prerequisite to Improved Trip, Dirty Trick, etc. You shouldn't have to be smart to trip someone or poke them in the eye. I think the simplest fix (though I probably shouldn't discuss this in this thread) would be to keep Combat Expertise as it is as a stand alone feat. Then make a new feat (we'll call it Combat Maneuvers for lack of a better term) that has a prerequisite of BAB 1 (or perhaps higher)whose benefit is that it gives you a +2 to CMB. Make Combat Maneuvers the prereq to gain access to the improved maneuver feats.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, none of the new classes are needed , as PF is already an awesome game. It's nice to have new options, though. As for another class being more interesting, well, thats a matterof opinion. Many people, myself included, think this class could be very fun if done well. There's no way every person will like every class that's created, but if you don't like the Brawler hopefully you will enjoy one of the other many new classes. Saying this class shouldn't exist doesn't really help any and probably shouldn't be in this thread.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Who are these people that get into fights that are longer than 10 rounds?

The average duration of combat in Pathfinder is 3-6 rounds.

A 10+ Round combat is usually two combats back-to-back.

Well, I didn't say that it would happen for every fight, but if you're doing a particularly long battle, it would be nice to not have to use another action in the middle of the fight to activate the same feats again, right? Better to have the option, which minutes per day takes care of anyway.

Scavion wrote:

Hrm. I thought the Brawler had only a few times he could do it daily. I withdraw my desire for minutes per level. I think the base amount should be 1+1/2 Brawler level(Minimum +1) though to help offset not being able to do anything interesting at low levels.

He currently only has it one time per day for every two levels, and each usage is limited to 1 minute duration. Also, each feat counts toward that limit, so a 16th level Brawler can get a total of 8 feats per DAY. I think that's very low, in my opinion. Haven't play tested or anything, just going off an initial read.

Your method is better at first level than my method, but other than that it's worse than simply one minute (or one usage) per level.

1st = 2 uses
2nd = 2 uses
3rd = 2 uses
4th = 3 uses
5th = 3 uses
6th = 4 uses
Etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm excited about the Brawler--I've been wanting to play a character like this for a long time, but I don't really like the flavor of the monk (no disrespect to monk-lovers). Because of that, I have to agree with the points made here about moving away from the monk weapons/ brawler strike "magic punch".

My suggestions (again, agreeing with some others here) are:

1) Change proficiencies to "close" weapon group.

2) Use the unarmed damage with different close weapons and perhaps at higher levels cause status effects based on weapon type (brass knuckles causes daze, cestus causes a one-turn bleed effect, etc). I also like the suggestion to rename flurry as "pummel", and I'd let the Brawler be able to pummel with close weapons as well.

3) Echoing Lorekeeper and others--Martial Maneuvers needs more uses per day. I also think that one minute duration is too short. What if it was changed from uses per day to one minute duration per level? That way if a fight is longer you don't suddenly lose your ability during the fight, but instead continue to use it for another minute. Then I'd just make it that at 6th level you can have up to two feats and 10th up to three feats with the same activation actions required as it is currently written. But the minutes per day shouldn't be affected by the number of feats. So, for example, at 6th level you get six minutes of "feat changing" total, usable in one minute increments. At any given time you can have up to two feats learned (but two feats for one minute uses one minute of your daily allotment, not two). Sorry for the wordiness.

I agree that these changes would increase the power, so to offset it I would get rid of brawler strike. It's good, but doesn't fit the theme, and as others have stated is unnecessary if people can use the penetrating strike feats.

As for capstone ideas, or other things to add if needed after removing brawler strike--I agree that the AC could be a problem at higher levels. Yes, DR could help, but that seems like more of a barbarian shtick and, in my opinion, a bit boring. What if the Brawler could use his CMD (or add his CMB to his AC or something) vs melee attacks? Would that be overpowered? I feel like the Brawler should be able to dodge/parry attacks to close with an opponent and beat on them.


Alright, I'll take power attack. Thanks!


Gan Liang wrote:

Hmm, Shisumo--instead of Power Attack, can I take Additional Traits and get Inspired and Magical Knack?

Uh, so I am finally updating my profile and I'm seeing that I already had Magical Knack to start with. Horrible oversight on my part. Should I just pick a different trait to go with additional traits, or should I just go back to Power Attack as my feat (or a different feat)? Sorry for the mix up.

1 to 50 of 451 << 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.