| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking about this build (very approximately);
Monk 2+/Paladin 4+/Champion of Irori 2+
Equipped with a Ring of Ki Mastery (storing 2 ki in it for its effects).
Has Ki Channel as a feat.
Let's assume this guy (I'll call him "Loop") has Xd6 of channel (this should start working at 3d6, and that's the minimum Loop can achieve), any amount of lay on hands, smite evil/chaos, and any ki points (but at least two) left for today.
Loop decides to use 2 Lay on Hands to trigger his Channel (Paladin, level 4), but also decides to swap each Lay on Hands with 2 ki points (Champion of Irori, level 2), spending 2 points of ki in total thanks to his ring (being two different instances). Loop activates his feat, gaining X point of ki instead of Xd6 of hp.
Loop has more ki than before (X-2), at no consumable resource.
Are there mistakes?
If not, what can be exploited with this?
At first, Loop has ∞ Ki, ∞ Smite Evil/Chaos, ∞ Lay on Hands and ∞ Channel Positive Energy.
He can Channel (no hp for himself) + Lay on Hands (hp self only) all the day but sleep time and Antimagic Fields.
Is there anything else?
Source;
Monk (needed for prestige class, nothing else)
Paladin
Champion of Irori
Ki Channel
Ring of Ki Mastery
First mistake I see is that you don't seem to have any legal means of using ki to channel.
Ki Pool (Su): At 2nd level, a champion of Irori gains a ki pool equal to 1/2 his class level + his Wisdom modifier; this functions like the monk ability of the same name, and levels in this class stack with levels in other classes that grant a ki pool. In addition to the normal uses of this ki pool, a champion of Irori may expend 2 ki points to trigger either his lay on hands ability (if he has it) or his smite evil ability. His class levels stack with paladin levels when determining the effect of such abilities.
You can use ki to "trigger [your] lay on hands ability". It does NOT give you an extra use of Lay on Hands, it actually triggers the ability. Therefore, you can't use this ki-triggered usage of Lay on Hands to channel.
|
First mistake I see is that you don't seem to have any legal means of using ki to channel.
Ki Pool (Su): At 2nd level, a champion of Irori gains a ki pool equal to 1/2 his class level + his Wisdom modifier; this functions like the monk ability of the same name, and levels in this class stack with levels in other classes that grant a ki pool. In addition to the normal uses of this ki pool, a champion of Irori may expend 2 ki points to trigger either his lay on hands ability (if he has it) or his smite evil ability. His class levels stack with paladin levels when determining the effect of such abilities.You can use ki to "trigger [your] lay on hands ability". It does NOT give you an extra use of Lay on Hands, it actually triggers the ability. Therefore, you can't use this ki-triggered usage of Lay on Hands to channel.
Nailed it. This is why it doesn't work.
I was so near to it!!
Has anybody another plan for this?
you can get semi-infinite ki via hungry ghost monk + magus with that ki arcana.
swing around a keen 18-20 weapon for easy crits (and easy ki via hungry ghost), which you can use as arcane points if you want as well. if you can get a DM to let you make your scimitar/katana/rapier/whatever out of wood, there's a special material wood that gives you ki (or was it arcane points?) on crits as well, which are also interchangeable via the ki arcana.
wyrroot i thing it was called.
"Trigger the class ability" means you get the benefit of it. It basically gives you a way to use ki instead of your daily uses of Lay on Hands or Smite Evil to get their benefits. But, it doesn't add those uses to your pool, it just gives you the benefit of it right away (which is why the proposed combo doesn't work.)
You realize that the Youxia stuff is 3rd party, right?
Hmm. Right. So?
I mean, I know this is the Rules forum. Are we forbidden from mentioning Rules from 3rd party stuff? If yes, I didn't know and present excuses etc.
The OP question was about a combo for "infinite ki" which was quickly buried. This is in topic, despite effectively being 3rd party.
Sacred Fist seems built for this. You don't end up with infinite ki, but you'll be able to power through most combats by just dumping ki on something every round.
There's also this little nugget, , ,
Ki Pool (Su): At 7th level, the sacred fist gains a ki pool. This functions as the monk class feature, using the sacred fist’s level – 3 as his monk level when determining the number of points in his pool and bonuses granted to his unarmed strike. Additionally, the sacred fist can as a swift action spend 1 point from his ki pool to grant himself a +1 insight bonus to his AC for 1 minute. (This is in addition the normal ki ability to gain a dodge bonus to AC.) This insight bonus increases by 1 for every 3 levels above 7th (to a maximum of +5 at 19th level). This ability replaces sacred armor.
You should be able to consistently have such a high AC that you don't even need healing after most fights. Just refill you ki and lend a band aid or two to the party.
You have to worship Irori though, which sucks (because of his domains), but overall it's not a bad build.
|
It's not technically infinite, but just make a drunken Master. At third level, they can drink booze to get ki points. So you just spend your drunken ki points first, and then keep drinking.
The only problem is that it takes a standard action to drink (and no, the fast drinker trait doesn't apply, this is part of the class ability) so you need the stupid feat that no one can get (the one that lets you do it as a swift action that requires 19 con)
BTW is there a way to get that feat . . . like . . . ever? While still being an effective monk? Other than rolling, like, 4 18s at character creation I don't see it happening.
|
The only problem is that it takes a standard action to drink (and no, the fast drinker trait doesn't apply, this is part of the class ability) so you need the stupid feat that no one can get (the one that lets you do it as a swift action that requires 19 con)
Actually - it's only an 18 con. And I'm planning on having my next character do it. (dwarf)
And yes - other than being able to drink as a swift action it'll make him slightly sub-par stat wise, but with that feat drunken master/qunggong is REALLY good. I figure requiring you to have a con of 18 is their way on balancing it.
Without that feat - drunken master is still really handy for out of combat uses of ki (always keep barkskin up without tapping your pool etc) and basically increases your pool a decent chunk. In combat though, a standard action to get a single point of ki back is too steep.
Plus - as a dwarf monk with dex 16/ con 18 / wis 16, my saves will be gross. :P
It's not technically infinite, but just make a drunken Master. At third level, they can drink booze to get ki points. So you just spend your drunken ki points first, and then keep drinking.
The only problem is that it takes a standard action to drink (and no, the fast drinker trait doesn't apply, this is part of the class ability) so you need the stupid feat that no one can get (the one that lets you do it as a swift action that requires 19 con)
BTW is there a way to get that feat . . . like . . . ever? While still being an effective monk? Other than rolling, like, 4 18s at character creation I don't see it happening.
Who needs that Feat? The extra Ki lasts for an hour.
|
|
Who needs that Feat? The extra Ki lasts for an hour.It's not technically infinite, but just make a drunken Master. At third level, they can drink booze to get ki points. So you just spend your drunken ki points first, and then keep drinking.
The only problem is that it takes a standard action to drink (and no, the fast drinker trait doesn't apply, this is part of the class ability) so you need the stupid feat that no one can get (the one that lets you do it as a swift action that requires 19 con)
BTW is there a way to get that feat . . . like . . . ever? While still being an effective monk? Other than rolling, like, 4 18s at character creation I don't see it happening.
It's still great if you want to go crazy with scorching ray etc. Heck - at level 7 you can use scorching ray for 8d6 damage a round for three rounds without even touching your ki pool if you have the fast drinker feat. After that it only uses 1 ki from your pool per turn.
That puts a drunk monk up at archer levels of ranged damage while retaining melee capabilities.
8d6 damage a round is nowhere near archer levels of ranged damage.
And you can still go crazy with it. Drink drink, blow Ki, drink more after the fight.
|
It's not technically infinite, but just make a drunken Master. At third level, they can drink booze to get ki points. So you just spend your drunken ki points first, and then keep drinking.
The only problem is that it takes a standard action to drink (and no, the fast drinker trait doesn't apply, this is part of the class ability) so you need the stupid feat that no one can get (the one that lets you do it as a swift action that requires 19 con)
BTW is there a way to get that feat . . . like . . . ever? While still being an effective monk? Other than rolling, like, 4 18s at character creation I don't see it happening.
Yep. I have one in pfs who is pretty awesome. As others have pointed out, drunken master is the way to go for that, followed closely by hungry ghost. Drunken master with the drinking horn is infinite ki.
Qinggong just makes everything taste better.
|
|
8d6 damage a round is nowhere near archer levels of ranged damage.
And you can still go crazy with it. Drink drink, blow Ki, drink more after the fight.
Not in raw theoretical damage. But that's 8d6 damage on a touch attack, averaging 28 damage. The archer at level 7 would be sitting on 1d8+7ish per shot? Give or take? And with rapid-shot & manyshot they're sitting on 4 shots a turn. So on average it's 46 damage vs 28 damage. But you have to hit normal AC with those arrows, meaning at least 1 is going to miss most every turn. Dropping it to an average of 2.5 hits (generous) drops the average to 28.75 damage for the archer, making the damage comparable.
While technically the monk could also miss - by level 7 on a touch attack - the chances aren't very high as he's be sitting on a +10ish to hit.
The monk is far more mobile, as he's only using his standard action for scorching ray and his swift to drink. That leaves him with a move action to burn.
To be at all comparable in damage to the monk's scorching ray, the archer has to basically stand still to get a full attack.
But remember - the archer is built to do little else.
The monk has a ranged trick to use, and is a fully fledged monk besides.
So - while the drunk monk's ranged damage is a hair lower than an archer's, they're comparable.
I still disagree.
Don't get me wrong, the Scorching Ray is a solid backup ranged weapon, better than carrying a bow or tossing shuriken or javelins for sure, and likely MUCH better than someone who isn't built for archery, but a well built archer is one of the powerhouses of this game.
That level 7 archer is sitting at, depending on class and circumstances, anywhere from 1d8+7 (+1 bow, +2 Str, +4 Deadly Aim, and that's a bit of a lowball since he can probably afford a +2 weapon or +2 Str belt by then) to 1d8+10 (Fighter with Weapon Spec and Training), 1d8+13 (Ranger versus his primary Favored Enemy), or 1d8+14 (Smiting Paladin).
Which holds up so far as to what your math comes out to, but toss in that it can benefit from Haste (making 3 arrows that are almost guaranteed to hit for ~33 damage already), gets greater benefits from buffs like Inspire Courage, etc. and that's just counting the ones that pretty much definitely won't miss.
Archers are machine guns.
Plus, it scales worse and Fire Resistance is pretty common which is really the main point. =)
|
|
That level 7 archer is sitting at, depending on class and circumstances, anywhere from 1d8+7 (+1 bow, +2 Str, +4 Deadly Aim, and that's a bit of a lowball since he can probably afford a +2 weapon or +2 Str belt by then) to 1d8+10 (Fighter with Weapon Spec and Training), 1d8+13 (Ranger versus his primary Favored Enemy), or 1d8+14 (Smiting Paladin).
I was thinking fighter without using deadly aim and with a +2 bow. I think that if you run the #s and include the lose of accuracy, power attack & deadly aim are generally overrated for anyone but two-handed fighters unless the target has low AC. (good to use in certain situations - but not all the time) And I'd already agreed that when they have low AC, the archer stomps the drunk monk's #s.
Would you really get a strength belt instead of a dex belt? Really?
And you can't really include favored enemy or smiting in your calculations, as that's situational. You might as well include a creature with vulnerability to fire.
And yes - fire resistance is pretty common, though not often more than 5 or 10. If they have fire resistance, the drunk monk has other options. If they have DR/slashing, the archer doesn't.
And finally - I will again concede that the archer does somewhat more damage on average and is overall less situational than a drunk-monk using scorching ray. But they are, most of the time, in the same ballpark. And the archer is one-dimensional. (I'd get bored playing one.)
And if you want to talk about specific situations - in a duel the drunk monk would stomp the archer even if relegated to range. He could use deflect arrow on the archer's manyshot each turn, lowering the archer's max hits to two, and average down to probably around 1.
I was thinking fighter without using deadly aim and with a +2 bow. I think that if you run the #s and include the lose of accuracy, power attack & deadly aim are generally overrated for anyone but two-handed fighters unless the target has low AC. (good to use in certain situations - but not all the time)
Its great for archers too. The damage increase is MUCH more significant for someone firing 5+ attacks than someone with 2. The accuracy hit is worth it.
Oh, I also forgot the +1 hit/damage from Point Blank Shot, though we could leave that ff and talk about the MASSIVE range advantage the archer has.
Would you really get a strength belt instead of a dex belt? Really?
You can afford a +2 Belt of Physical Might by 7th.
And you can't really include favored enemy or smiting in your calculations, as that's situational. You might as well include a creature with vulnerability to fire.
Creatures with Vulnerability: Fire are much less common than "Enemy with Evil alignment" and "One of two entire categories of creature"
And yes - fire resistance is pretty common, though not often more than 5 or 10. If they have fire resistance, the drunk monk has other options. If they have DR/slashing, the archer doesn't.
Besides Clustered Shots, you mean?
And finally - I will again concede that the archer does somewhat more damage on average and is overall less situational than a drunk-monk using scorching ray. But they are, most of the time, in the same ballpark. And the archer is one-dimensional. (I'd get bored playing one.)
He's only one dimensional if you make him that way (though I dislike playing ranged characters as well, I like to get up close and personal on my martials).
They're only in the same ballpark if you load several disadvantages on the archer (only two attacks can ever hit, he can't have a decent Str, upgraded weapon, or Deadly Aim, etc.).
As I said before, a Scorching Ray Monk is often going to be better than a secondary archer, like the Fighter that whips out a bow fr flying enemies, and it shines there, but it's not going to outgun a dedicated archer.
And if you want to talk about specific situations - in a duel the drunk monk would stomp the archer even if relegated to range. He could use deflect arrow on the archer's manyshot each turn, lowering the archer's max hits to two, and average down to probably around 1.
PvP scenarios are irrelevant, since this game isn't balanced around PvP.
Defense is king in PvP, and many things that are ineffective against monsters are EXTREMELY effective against PCs.
If we aren't talking about PvP, and I almost never want to play in a campaign were PC on PC violence happens, then the whole question of which is better, archers, melee, wizards, or rogues, is kinda dumb.
Not really. If one contributes in a niche better, then it is the better (and thus preferred, at least mechanically) option.
A Scorching Ray using Monk is not the best option for a ranged based character you can make, and is therefor not mechanically preferred. Hilariously, it's not the WORST (Crossbows unless you're a Bolt Ace take that dubious honor), but it's worth talking about since the limitations inherent in it make it a less valuable party contributor (as a pure ranged character) than an archer.
Likewise Rogues are outdone in every way by quite a few classes, so in a game that has any real level of difficulty, it becomes a valid complaint if someone chooses a Rogue rather than one of those options, since there's not really any excuse for it (both mechanically and flavor-wise they are redundant at this point). A Rogue can be made viable (or semi-viable), but you have to recognize that it is an inferior option to tweak it enough to reach that point.
Which is better is something that's important to determine, not to limit someone from taking that option, but for them to recognize that this is an inferior option, and more work must be put into it to make it viable over the superior option.
If someone tries to make a Scorching Ray Monk their primary ranged character rather than, say, the Zen Archer and doesn't put in the requisite effort required to make that option better than it is at a base level, it will fall flat, and likely die or get his party killed when they try to rely on him.
Corner situations and RP are really irrelevant to the discussion...since you can do both with any character. Taking the superior option does not limit your RP and tactical expertise, nor does choosing an inferior one increase it.
And really, all your examples are just more of the same anyway. "Being prepared" is a better mechanical option than "not being prepared". It's the same theme with different specifics.
If all parties are prepared for many different scenarios, then it comes straight back to "Which build is better/Who contributes more at a base level?".
There are lots of ways for a player character to be effective other than by putting together brutal combinations of feats, spells, and abilities.
But that is by far the best way to do so, and any other way is going to fall behind the person who does so.
Creativity only goes so far, especially if your GM follows the actual rules of the game.
There are lots of ways for a player character to be effective other than in combat.
Never said there wasn't.
Though every character needs to be effective in combat to a certain basic level, since a good portion of the game is combat.
There is no reason why a very effective character build can't include some levels in Rogue.
Granted. But there are plenty of reasons why the build would be better served by levels in any number of other classes.
And sometimes in some parties, having a powerful and effective character build is just not polite to the other players.
How so? It's a cooperative ga,e. The better you are at your role, the better you help everyone else, and can help others be better at theirs.
It's not like playing basketball against a 2 year old. There's no reason to handicap yourself.
If you're outshining the rest of the group too much, you can dial it back and simply not use some of the options of your build unless you get in a pinch.
There's no scenario I can think of where making a good character is impolite.
You cheat yourself by dismissing classes and options out-of-hand
In many cases, yes. There are some useful things you can only get from certain classes and options, or are the only way to fit your concept.
In the case of the Rogue, no. Everything the Rogue can do another class can do better.
and by having too narrow an interpretation of what makes an effective character.
"Good at what you're good at, not terrible at what you're not good at" is too narrow?
Does anyone have any idea on how to get at least 1 ki per battle? I want to use a Rogue with a Ki Pool to go all Invisible Blade without going Ninja.
Does anyone have any idea on how to get at least 1 ki per battle? I want to use a Rogue with a Ki Pool to go all Invisible Blade without going Ninja.
Wyroot Sharpened Combat Scabbard with Improved Critical?
there's also that ring of ki mastery (i think is the name) to help tone down ki costs.
iirc the master's secret one may actually be a decent option for rogues if they can either keep their ki costs low or their ki pool topped off, since it lets them grab any ninja ki power (at a rather steep cost).
also, why not ninja? it's not as if the class name forces you to wear the black stage hand garb and crawl on ceilings (though you certainly CAN)
|
And sometimes in some parties, having a powerful and effective character build is just not polite to the other players.
This is one of the worst statements I have ever seen, involving any tabletop gaming.
Anytime this thought, would cross anyone's mind, in any game, there is something fundamentally wrong.
This is like telling someone it is impolite to do a good job, be courteous, or be well groomed.
there's also that ring of ki mastery (i think is the name) to help tone down ki costs.
iirc the master's secret one may actually be a decent option for rogues if they can either keep their ki costs low or their ki pool topped off, since it lets them grab any ninja ki power (at a rather steep cost).
also, why not ninja? it's not as if the class name forces you to wear the black stage hand garb and crawl on ceilings (though you certainly CAN)
Because they can't be a friggin Sczarni Swindler.
Because they can't be a friggin Sczarni Swindler.there's also that ring of ki mastery (i think is the name) to help tone down ki costs.
iirc the master's secret one may actually be a decent option for rogues if they can either keep their ki costs low or their ki pool topped off, since it lets them grab any ninja ki power (at a rather steep cost).
also, why not ninja? it's not as if the class name forces you to wear the black stage hand garb and crawl on ceilings (though you certainly CAN)
A what now?
And sometimes in some parties, having a powerful and effective character build is just not polite to the other players.This is one of the worst statements I have ever seen, involving any tabletop gaming.
Anytime this thought, would cross anyone's mind, in any game, there is something fundamentally wrong.
This is like telling someone it is impolite to do a good job, be courteous, or be well groomed.
I think it's a perfectly valid point.
Not all players want to be forced to optimize every character they make to the Nth degree. Some groups are optimized, some are not.
If you know that you are joining an un-optimized party, showing up with a power character that can single-handedly fight all the combats can be quite rude.
I've had entire campaigns ruined by overly optimized characters (I'm looking at you, Undead Lord.) It's just not fun when every combat revolves around one person only.
A what now?Because they can't be a friggin Sczarni Swindler.there's also that ring of ki mastery (i think is the name) to help tone down ki costs.
iirc the master's secret one may actually be a decent option for rogues if they can either keep their ki costs low or their ki pool topped off, since it lets them grab any ninja ki power (at a rather steep cost).
also, why not ninja? it's not as if the class name forces you to wear the black stage hand garb and crawl on ceilings (though you certainly CAN)
|
|
And sometimes in some parties, having a powerful and effective character build is just not polite to the other players.This is one of the worst statements I have ever seen, involving any tabletop gaming.
Anytime this thought, would cross anyone's mind, in any game, there is something fundamentally wrong.
This is like telling someone it is impolite to do a good job, be courteous, or be well groomed.
I think it's a perfectly valid point.
Not all players want to be forced to optimize every character they make to the Nth degree. Some groups are optimized, some are not.
If you know that you are joining an un-optimized party, showing up with a power character that can single-handedly fight all the combats can be quite rude.
I've had entire campaigns ruined by overly optimized characters (I'm looking at you, Undead Lord.) It's just not fun when every combat revolves around one person only.
That is a player problem, not PC problem. Any build can be a problem, with the right player.
Also, it was noted that "powerful and effective" are considered rude.
Not "super optimized campaign destroyers".
"Powerful and effective" should be something every player should be welcomed to build.
"Weak and ineffective" should not be the heroes everyone is expected to build, every time.
No one should feel bad, because they decided to build a Dwarven Barbarian, instead of a physically, and mentally handicapped Kobold Rogue.
Coin flip rogue.A what now?Because they can't be a friggin Sczarni Swindler.there's also that ring of ki mastery (i think is the name) to help tone down ki costs.
iirc the master's secret one may actually be a decent option for rogues if they can either keep their ki costs low or their ki pool topped off, since it lets them grab any ninja ki power (at a rather steep cost).
also, why not ninja? it's not as if the class name forces you to wear the black stage hand garb and crawl on ceilings (though you certainly CAN)
Huh. That's actually pretty rad. The Harrow Handbook is one of the best books to come out recently IMO. Love the archetypes and Feats I've seen from it so far (though I don't own it).
It was awesome for the Card Caster alone.
I'm a sucker for gambling.
Sometimes, it is very much like playing basketball against a 2 year old. But it's not polite to say so at the table. Sometimes, the thing to do is not to use your fighter/monk/rogue with quick, great, dirty trick build that gets 6 attacks/round with Sneak Attack bonuses that will do 4d6/attack by level 6, and instead develop a nice Halfling Rogue with lots of ranks in Perception, Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sleight of Hand and the Well-Prepared Feat and let the newbie enjoy the glory of being the half orc barbarian with great cleave, improved critical, and a flaming falchion.
Why can't the newbie enjoy that?
Especially since "Falchion Barbarian with Improved Critical" is a more optimized (if simpler) build than an overly complex build full of unnecessary multiclassing that relies on Sneak Attack for damage.
Sometimes, the campaign is not about combat at all, but just about roleplaying, and your build almost doesn't matter.
So nobody's going to care if the build is good OR bad, eh? Might as well make it good, it could matter.
Sometimes, it's not a heroic fantasy story the DM wants to run, but something else, maybe a Gothic horror storyline where the players are supposed to lose and die tragically, and a character build that is powerful enough to overcome the challenges is just inappropriate.
TBQH, you shouldn't be playing Pathfinder in that case. Or ANY RPG where the player characters have the capability to overcome said challenges. Play Call of Cthulhu or something.
If you're meant to lose and die tragically in the end anyway, there's no point in playing (you have a foregone conclusion there). Your DM has already determined an ending. Makes it kind of boring to me if I know there's no chance of success (just like it would be if I were actually ASSURED of success).
The topic that was solved within the first few posts?
Sure let's go around in circles confirming the same facts.
|
|
There are lots of ways for a player character to be effective other than by putting together brutal combinations of feats, spells, and abilities.But that is by far the best way to do so, and any other way is going to fall behind the person who does so.
Creativity only goes so far, especially if your GM follows the actual rules of the game.
Not necessarily true. This depends more on the gm than anything. The game is not run in a vacuume. It's not a purely electronic single player phenomenon with no external elements besides the input from a single human. The gms adjudication and player group factor substantially into this sort of thing and having a wicked combination can result in you not being as effective, even mechanically, because of things you don't often see divorced from the table; things like the plot, story, other players, gm, etc. If we were talking about something devoid of actual reality- you would be 100% correct. But you aren't because each table and game is different. Until you can remove those elements, the 'best' way to play a character will be entirely circumstantial and often subjective.
There is no reason why a very effective character build can't include some levels in Rogue.Granted. But there are plenty of reasons why the build would be better served by levels in any number of other classes.
Untrue. I have a monk who has only three currently printed classes with things to offer him. Rogue is one of the top contenders as the thug archetype works so well with his build. Ninja beats alchemist in all the meaningful ways. Rogue/ninja is mechanically among the best, most optimized and powerful choices I could make for the character with what he is trying to do. So again, you're wrong here, at least in this specific case.
And sometimes in some parties, having a powerful and effective character build is just not polite to the other players.How so? It's a cooperative ga,e. The better you are at your role, the better you help everyone else, and can help others be better at theirs.
It's not like playing basketball against a 2 year old. There's no reason to handicap yourself.
If you're outshining the rest of the group too much, you can dial it back and simply not use some of the options of your build unless you get in a pinch.
There's no scenario I can think of where making a good character is impolite.
So playing a character who can always save the group of they get in a pinch, who is absolutely more powerful than everyone else probably even put together, and who is/should not be in fear of death or defeat due to being too well made amongst a group of those who aren't, isn't impolite in some cases?
I can think of a plethora of tables and situations where that would be considered rude should the players have found out. You (and others) seem to be coming from an assumption that power and mechanics are both the core and point of the game first and foremost. For some players, you are right. It is. But plenty of people are not interested as much in those things and the game is built to engage peoples desires or needs. So many tables have unoptimized characters because that isn't the interest. When I run games for children or new players, I would feel insulted if I let some guy come in who could just save the day at the last minute, or handle everything I could throw at him because I custom designed things to be appropriate for the group I was running for. And as a player, I would just feel chested out of every encounter and interaction knowing that I had been playing with 'god' the whole time and that I was probably never going to lose and all the monster fights could have ended more quickly. I would have wanted to play with someone who was actually in the same boat as me. I would have wanted a shared experience. I would feel like I wasted my time and was robbed of the reward of the struggle and quality story. Everything would be cheapened.
So yes. It is entirely possible to bring an optimized guy or powerful guy to a table and it be rude, even if dialed back.I try to make this determination every time I play with a new group. I control my character builds accordingly.
you can afford a belt of physical perfection by 7.you can afford a +2 weapon by 7You've spent 19,000 of your 23,000 WBL on two items. No character does this. This is a terrible argument. Why not just skip the belt and throw that 10,000 GP into the +3 weapon. You get the same hit and damage and your weapon now bypasses a variety of DR. And now you could argue the level 7 character can afford a +3 weapon.
Eh, good point. I forgot the last 3-4 characters I've played have been crafters of some variety or another. You get really used to half priced stuff. =)
In the case of the Rogue, no. Everything the Rogue can do another class can do better.What other classes get sneak attack, evasion, a rogue talent, trap finding, 16 skill points, 21 class skills, +3 reflex, and some weapon and armor proficiencies for a two level dip. Other classes will mimic individual facets of a rogue and some will get them later than a rogue and have other tricks of their own, but no class gets all the things a rogue gets or there'd be no point to the rogue class. This doesn't make a rogue invalid.
Oh, we're talking about DIPS now? The Rogue is fine for a DIP, but not as your actual primary CLASS.
There are plenty of classes that are great for dips (Monks and Rogues especially, quickly followed by Fighter and Trapper Ranger and a few more) that aren't as good when made as a full class (Trapper isn't bad per se but losing spells might hurt after a while).
Think about it for a second, which do you like better: Rogue 2/Slayer X as your Rogueish sort (assuming you want trapfinding and Evasion ASAP and not need to wait until 10 for one and use 2 Talents), or a full Rogue?
One will have basically everything the Rogue will have, at the level the Rogue can get it, with a higher BaB and a bunch of nice Ranger abilities, along with the ability to raise his attack and damage a significant amount as a Move, Swift, or even Immediate (in some cases) action.
What?
To Be Quite Honest.
Also, Ryngin? =|
Nonsense. Pathfinder is a very flexible gaming platform, and it is well-capable of governing a variety of genres.
That being said, there is a d20 Cthulu game, and incorporating elements of those rules into your Pathfinder horror campaign is a good idea. If you have a group of old gamers, informing them in the middle of the campaign that they have now have "Sanity Points" is a pretty good way to send a chill across the table.
It's just trying to fit an oval peg into a round hole. If there's already a game system that does everything you want, why would you make the effort to tweak a different system so it does what you want, poorly?
Those options exist in Pathfinder as a system. Cthulhu is even STATTED, i.e. potentially killable. Unless you go out of your way to ban or eliminate those options, they are still options whether you take them or not. And a game where you need to trim 3/4 of the options down to avoid breaking the story is by definition not a good system for your story.
All campaigns end. There is nothing wrong with planning for its end. All stories will end. You will end. I will end. The whole Universe will end. It is the end that gives life meaning, or at least it is for a lot of gamers, and you should respect that.
Dude, Adventure Paths are pretty linear, but even THEY aren't that railroady. Sure, they have an ending planned out, but it at least relies on your decisions to get there, or not.
"So we're paying this game. You're going to fail and die at the end by the way, I've already decided that, and no matter what you do you won't change that. So have fun futilely trying to do something you know will never succeed!"
It's more rigged than a carnival game. The only good part about it is he's hopefully this up front about the whole thing so I can stay at the end of my 10 foot pole from it.
Now that, that is one of the worst statements I have ever seen involving any tabletop RPG. We're not playing Candyland, here. Roleplaying games begin with the rules; they don't end with them. I refuse to have my creativity chained by the rules. That is the reason why I play Pathfinder and not Whist.
Again, why play a system if you aren't going to use the rules? Houserules are fine and dandy, but when you're houseruling every action your players take anyway, why even play Pathfinder at all?
Pathfinder is a ruleset. You can use Golarion and all the fluff if you want, but not using the ruleset isn't playing the game. It's playing Freeform Fun Time, which can be super fun, but isn't actually Pathfinder.