seto83's page

I have never played a ranger in 537th edition yet. I honestly haven't play much 5th edition.we are getting ready to start curse of sthrad we rolled stats I got 15,15,15,13,13,and 12. I want to play a ranger. Just looking for some basic tips for the build.

dot for future

Spook205 wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

DM sez: "You see a beautiful scantily clad woman chained to the dungeon wall"
DM means: "More succubus!"

There's a reason the heroes of yore tended to be celibate knights.

Far too much peril.

Can't I have just a little bit of peril?

No! It is too perilous.

Using Shield Master feat to ignore the penalties for negative levels, power attack, combat expertise, fighting defensively, defending weapon quality, etc.

Wait how does this work?

Like I said thanks to everyone for their advice. I'm not sure whom newly gm is, but can assure it isn't my gm as I have metioned some of these issues to him in person. Btw I wonder if its to late to change my real name to seto83 lol.

Hi all, im seto83 gm.

First and foremost, seto, im very disappointed with you. Accusing me of all this in a forum withouth even calling me out to discuss the matter isnt the best approach for this, specially when most of those said accusations are misinterpreted at best.

First thing, I didnt used these exact words for baning the barbarian. In fact, I banned them because they're harder for me to challenge than most classes, and as such I have trouble building encounters that are fair for everyone. Their ability to pounce, near immunity to magic and huge damage has proven more than a trouble for me in the past, and I decided it would be easier for me to GM withouth having to deal with this.

Second, I make the decisions I believe will be the most healthy for our gaming group. Sometimes it may seem arbitrary, but keep in mind that my main concerns are the game balance, something I try hard to achieve in order for a better overall gaming experience. The experience award is based on killing monsters alone for now, as im still analyzing the alternative metods for awarding it. It may change in the future, but for now I prefer to maintain it as is.

Third, you're accusing me of being a killer gm. Im not. If the players are using poor tactics in combat, its just normal for the monsters to attack what seems to be the better target in groups. Players should look to cover their more fragile allies in order to avoid such tactics. As for the added abilities in the monsters, I do this mainly to discourage the players from using the books as reference. I prefer to avoid the possibilities of metagaming, and this seems a good approach to do so.

Im really, really disappointed with you for making such accusations about me in the forums, man. Is that how much our 8 years or so of friendship is worth to you? I must ask you to not bring such things before even having a serious conversation with me, thats the least I could expect from you.

And yeah, im having some personal problems in the last few months, maybe...

Lol that's so not my gm as I have metion some of these things to him and that's when I get the rubber because I'm the gm and I said so stamp

Fomsie wrote:

seto83 wrote:

By targeting I mean all open volley automatic go for one person and villians will move past other threats to get to said person.

This is not always a bad thing... intelligent enemies should target the person they think is either the biggest threat or the easiest to remove to whittle down the odds. And ignoring the big heavy armored fighter in favor of the guy in the dress behind him is a sound strategy, and so is the reverse, ignoring everyone and pouring all the firepower into the big brawler to bring them down.

Right but I get the impression form seto83's description we are talking about something that doesn't seem intelligent but malicious. We only have his word but in context with the other actions this doesn't sound like

A: "The mage is the source of their true power, kill him!"

it sounds like

B:"Jared makes characters that are a pain in my ass. Kill him!".

If it is "A" I say that is fair and right and all is good in the universe. If it is "B" I say talk to Jared or grow up. Hammering on a player's character out of some sense of personal malice is childish. But the context matter here too...because there could always be

C:"Jared makes munchkiny power gaming b*@@+@#! characters and even though I have talked to him about it like an adult, I obviously need to point out to him that choices have consequences because he is ruining the game for others."

But "C" should rarely if ever come up in games with real friends? I've seen that more in store or club games where the people don't "know" each other or can't seem to have a human conversation. I think it is mostly a bad way to go but I will concede that it happens.

Yes it's more of b

By targeting I mean all open volley automatic go for one person and villians will move past other threats to get to said person.

I feel like the thing that is missing in my understanding of this is context of the decisions in how they were presented.

"Hey man I was thinking about running a barbarian."

"NO BARBS ARE BAD and are BANNED"

is way different than;

Well in this setting I am running there aren't any because of x, y, z

Same thing with the drow. Sure a gm should mix things up. A floating Drow? Woah! Never heard of that, wow we gotta re-think this vs. "Uh no you can't catch him because he..uh... jumps off the cliff and he.. uh ..LEVITATES! yeah!"

I guess what I am getting at is were these expected adjustments or were they things that came across in the heat of the moment? I have targeted specific players...because they were 7ft of walking plate mail but that is different than "oh hey, guess what everyone here can see invisibility, guess what Bilbo? You get stabbed for *picks up 80 d10s*

Rule 0 is for adjudication, not to drop the dice on people while being an a$&$~$*. There are both constructive and non-constructive ways to challenge PC notions of the rules and I think that plays a big role in setting off whether the player is being too sensitive to being caught off guard versus a GM being a jerk.

But I agree with others. If this is sudden and the group is well established and are friends then most likely something is going on with the individual beyond GMing.

No your not misunderstanding he said no more barbarians they weren't fun for him to kill, and then compared it to eating spam instead of steak.

Funny you metion the cliff cause that's almost excactly the way it went down had his drow against a cliff and he goes I know what he will do kicks of cliff levtivates and begans firing a bow at us. Then used levitate to avoid difficult terrin in a seprate encounter with drow. When he did that they still got full move and attack dispate moving non vertically how because he said they could.

seto83 wrote:

I will provide a few examples.

Banned barbarians cause they aren't fun for him to kill.

Didn't alot us exp for an encounter we stratgicly avoided ie: bribed our way through instead of fighting.

Decided for his convince to add spell like abilities to a enemy who didn't have them ie: drow can levitate at will.

Picking on a character ie: If he doesn't like someones character goes out of his way to kill it, like making it the first and primary center of all attacks.

I will assume that you provided the most egregious examples, which in your case... just aren't that bad.

I don't want to gloss over your discomfort in the game, but:

Banning a class is perfectly reasonable for any number of reasons, and I would say "fun" is the most important one. If something isn't fun then why are you playing?

Awarding experience is almost 100% DM decision. Avoiding an encounter can be the equal of defeating it... or not. It's hard to say, and it's a DM's prerogative.

Boosting a NPC's or a monster's power is completely within a DM's rights. Not an issue at all.

The last is maybe your most significant argument, but there's very little information here. Are these intelligent creatures identifying the clearest and most obvious threat? Or unintelligent monsters displaying strange bias? It's hard to determine whether this is abuse just by your description.

Not the most egregious just the most recent so easiest to recall on the fly.

The thing that bothered me the most was no exp for avoiding and encounter tactfully cause it eliminates any motivation beyond hack and slash, and the acting like because we are players and he is gm that our opinion and happiness with the game don't matter. I enjoy challenging fights and encounters just don't screw me of I come up with a clever way through it.

I don't feel we have been running a cakewalk up until now. Cold and ruthless he ha always been death has always been on the table and we under stand and excpect that completely. There's I a diffrence between dying in an andventure and have the deck stacked to where it's almost isn't enjoyable to play.

Aelfborn wrote:

By the way, how do you play 36 times a month for 8-10 hours a session?

A lot of Red Bull, short naps, and decreased work performance.

Wow typeo should be 3-6 times a month lol

Tell him nobody wants him to GM anymore. He can stay but as a player. Otherwise get used to him enjoying your tears.

Have you had to do this before?

I have a small problem with my dm. He has gotten real comfortable with the stance that he is the dm and there is always right and word is absolute. He has made at least a few questionable calls and the just rubber stamps it with I'm the dm conversation over. I will provide a few examples.

Banned barbarians cause they aren't fun for him to kill.

Didn't alot us exp for an encounter we stratgicly avoided ie: bribed our way through instead of fighting.

Decided for his convince to add spell like abilities to a enemy who didn't have them ie: drow can levitate at will.

Picking on a character ie: If he doesn't like someones character goes out of his way to kill it, like making it the first and primary center of all attacks.

This guy is a friend my group has been together for almost 8 years we play 2-36 times a month for about 8-10 hours a session, so we have logged some game time. We don't want to run him out of the group cause we like him a lot and these problems haven't arisen til lately about 3-4 months ago. Basicly just seeing if anyone has had the same type of issue and how they addressed and handled it.

ok thanks

As the title says just curious I it's a possibility or what people think would happen?

If your dm allows any 3.5 feats the feat serenity allows you to use wis in place of con for paladin abilites, and therefore a little less mad build.

My dm has house ruled that you have to spend a standard action to disbelieve any illusion, so direct interaction dosent auto give you a chance to disbelieve. I think that will make him pretty potent.

Gnomes are still decent, especially as a sor.

A gnome sor seems popualar from what I have read, any triats and what bloodline?

About to start a new age of worms campaign. I want to play an illusionist was looking for ideas as far as class and race, as none seem to really be stand out as far as this goes.

Thanks guys sounds like i'm on the right frame of mind in my think just wanted a few others in put.

I'm about to jump into a rotrl campaign at lvl 12, and i'm playing a hellknight. There is another player at the table you is upset with my choice stating that a hell knighth would never work with heros to good and that he would imedatliy try to kill any party member who tried to praise or seek help from a god other then asmodeus. Where as ii see hellknights as more of strict law enforcer the has no room for compasion or mercy, but and help push a good cause if it somehow benifits the organiztion of hell knights. Any tips or hints on rping a hell knight, or do you agree with him that its a prc best avoided?

I'm leaning to towards order of the gate and demon summoning a save your buns card once a day.

Ok thanks so the srd 10 level is correct .

Where is the offical hell knight prc listed at? I was using the on on the srd then read somewhere its suppose to go to 15th level and the one listed on there only goes to 10.

What class would you choose debating between 5 lvls gun tank gunlinger or 7 lvl th fighter. I'm really up in the air the as one is a malee monster but the other is a solid option with a cool judge dredd feel.

I have notice some some things that grant dr state that it dosent stack with other dr. Is there some quick refrence area as to what dr do stack?

No shim i'm not trying to ignore the magus, i just tghink i would be possible to get more attacks quicker going a diffrent route. So how is it possible for the magus to daul weild and spell combat?

I know I can't get all the attacks of the same round I cast. I was thinking like cast plus one attack or such in a round the next round unload the rest via fob, next round cast one attack and then unload the rest next lather rinse repeat.

So i geuss i need monastic legacy to treat half my wizard levels as monk for fob and the feat that treats my caster level as 2 higher as long as it dosent pas my character level. Is the an arctype or prestige class the stack caster level and fob abilties?I dont think there is so any more suggestions to keep this both moving up and i would get extra attacks really slow as im stacking 3/4 bab and 1/2 bab classes

I'm trying to unload as many in a single turn as possible, so like wizard monk or wizard ranger two weapon track withunarmed strikes. just not how to keep multi attacks up and caster level for uses. I could just be barking up the impossible tree.

I wanting to due something diffrent. The plan is to make some one that uses chill touch 1st level spell as main means of attack, but to do this I'd need multible attacks and a high caster level. Any ideas on where to start?

Is it possible to take the fast musket feat without being the musket master arctype?

Can you get the deed without the arctype?

So musket master works with the double hackbutt ?

I read something in ult equip a bandolier that teleports ammo in your gun? And does musket master work with a double hackbutt?

What's the best ways to lower reload time on a two handed firearm? Of course rapid reload but I'm trying to lower enough to get multiple attacks a round any suggestions?

Is there a way to make an ranges attack of opportunity with a firearm?

seto83 wrote:

So she shouldn't fall because she put forth the most minamal effort possible instead of actually trying?

Remind me, your policy was "I'd never have put the paladin in that situation in the first place" (read: I would never present a 7-man party with an opponent that any single one of them couldn't solo) and "If the paladin attacked I would use a deus ex machina to make the paladin win", right?

Being Lawful Good is pretty easy when you change the rules of the world so that the most straightforward path is also safe and effective.

Cute way to take a small piece of a conversation and adjust it just enough to attempt to make your self sound right. Thats some good ole politics 101 stuff there.

I repiled:I try my best to avoid those situations as well, but i didnt create this situation the op did. So whats paladin to do up hold her code and ethics or cower like a field mouse in front of a cobra. This paladin apparently likes option 2.

Clearly I was stating that I don't force paladins into fall or die situations. This became one of those sitauations after the rest of the party bailed, and if that happen I would expect a paladin in my world to put forth maxium effort to protect the villagers. Yes he might die, but theres always some dm fait to keep that from happening if you so choose. Theres could be so divine help form his god like a super buff that cause a stale mate in power and the vampire flee, or the vamp defeats paladin but lets him live with his failure huanting him. This are just examples. Plus that makes for some story.

seto83 wrote:

You answered your own question with the bolded parts, this paladin did neither of those things and only thought to save herself by not standing up to said...

Not quite - she failed to help the innocent, but she did try. There is a difference. Trying to stop them hurling themselves into a death wall because they're being controlled by a vampire (hate Dominate, HATE) is generally considered a good act. Throwing her life away in a few rounds so the Vampire could then kill everyone anyway with no restraint (not that she was much use, but she did try) is a pointless act, and would have failed by the Paladin's Code if you're reading failure as falling anyway (she neither protected the innocent nor punished the guilty).

If a Paladin could fall simply for not being good enough (read - High enough level) every undead would have a lock that could only be picked by a Paladin, then watch and laugh as they all due to not having put all there ranks into lockpick. And may there God help them if they fail an important diplomacy roll...

So she shouldn't fall because she put forth the most minamal effort possible instead of actually trying?

Dot to find later.

seto83 wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Quote:

Why don't some of ya'll give examples of the standards you make them up hold in your world.

For starters, I don't force them into situations where their choices are "die or fall".

I try my best to avoid those situations as well, but i didnt create this situation the op did. So whats paladin to do up hold her code and ethics or cower like a field mouse in front of a cobra. This paladin apparently likes option 2.

Perhaps you could have explained how a suicide attack on a vampire, rather than trying to save innocent lives, is more in line with the Paladin's Code?

The Paladin's Code wrote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

I bolded the two most relevant sections. The simple truth is, the Paladin could not both punish the evil doer AND help those in need. She could get herself killed, allow the vamp to murder everyone and thus achieve nothing, or she could help the innocents while hoping to achieve the punishment game later.

Seriously, how many Good or Neutral Gods do you imagine are going to go, 'Really? You DIDN'T pointlessly hurl your life away and leave those innocents without a defender? You instead choose to be totally selfish and try and save there lives!? No more Paladin powers for you unless you hurl yourself off a building. At a draco-lich.' 'Cos if you can name one, I'm totally not using that as my deity when I try out Paladins.

You answered your own question with the bolded parts, this paladin did neither of those things and only thought to save herself by not standing up to said vampire.

To the op if the sami had a +2 keen katana what kind of equipment did said paladin have?

Quote:

Why don't some of ya'll give examples of the standards you make them up hold in your world.

For starters, I don't force them into situations where their choices are "die or fall".

I try my best to avoid those situations as well, but i didnt create this situation the op did. So whats paladin to do up hold her code and ethics or cower like a field mouse in front of a cobra. This paladin apparently likes option 2.

Seto, you seem to have two consistent problems.

1.) You don't know how copy and paste/multiquoting works.

2.) You think everyone who doesn't play exactly how you want them to play is doing it wrong.

Please try to fix both of these things.

Sincerely,

A forum poster

1. You are 100% right idk how to do that.

It is possible I'm to strict on them though I really doubt that. Why don't some of ya'll give examples of the standards you make them up hold in your world.

There should at the least be some diminished powers temporairly as their respect gods shown and possibly voice in some way their disdain for the disgusting acts. Also I agrre with Yosarian that their gods should demansd either atonement or the others or leave them. I personally feel this is to leaniant, but it seems if you properly punish anyone for their actions your a bully of a dm. This is a bad example and i apologize it advance for everyone this will piss off. In WWII the german soldiers either did horrible things or set back and watch horrible things happen to the prisoners in their camps. By these standards apparently thats no harm no foul because the were out voted by the superiours, and those men are prefectly good souls right?

Sorry maybe this is one of the things that really irk me. Then tri omega please enlighten me as to where you would draw a line?

seto83 wrote:

I'm not trying to say others are wrong for not holding their pallys to any tangable standard, just giving my opinion.

Well that is good, since no one is doing that.

Right cause a paladin that doesn't intervine to save innocent lives form evil and then sits by and lets the remaining villgers be burnt to death for nothing, while people are like I see no reason for him to fall. Your !00% right that paladin is being held to certin standards.

First of all if he would have acted promptly the villagers would have never been domanatied. It is a rough situation for a paladin but with the options in front of him there should be no real choice. I'm paladin this is what I what i sign up for when i took the oath. If it was my campaign I most likely wouldn't have killed the paladin had he tried maybe render him helpless and still kill some villagers so he can live with his failure and fuel to drive his vengence vs said vampire. The point is he made minamal if in effort besides pleding like a child that the big mean vampire please dont put the blood of these inocents on my soul since i care not to raise a finger to help them in their hour of need. Then simply voting not to burn them really? He should be stand in front of said fire screaming and brandishing a weapon to get his point across. I hope when they run into that vampire he rechants the tale of how he dispelled his domanite as each person was tossed on the pyre so they could enjoy being burnt to death for no reason the way it was meant to be enjoyed.

seto83 wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

seto83 wrote:

Thats way I set standards high and feel that the class should be taken seriously or not played.

This is why I ban the base class and use the prestige paladin in my games. So players can prove they are one before they gain the powers of one.

I dont mind someone playing a pally form lvl one. I just demand it be played properly. To the op the paladin falls theres no way around that but do give him a chance at redemption and a stren lecture form the handmaidan of his deity, and he would only keep with that party if they were willing to admit their wrong doings and atone for them ie atonement spell. If that style of behavour continues he falls and is never to be a paladin again. This would for me extend to up coming aps as well until he can handle rp required.

Sorry, but you aren't demanding the paladin be played properly. You're demanding the paladin be played the way you want paladins to be played. If you're GMing, and your player can suck it up, then fine. Just don't go into another group's game and tell them that they're playing wrong.

I let players in my group know before hand what the standards are so its thier choice. I'm not trying to say others are wrong for not holding their pallys to any tangable standard, just giving my opinion.