What has this game become?


Advice

151 to 200 of 312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".

So after watching the video, I tried his method of rolling 3d6, which is what I used to do back in the days of Second Edition.

Strength: 2 + 6 + 6 = 14
Dexterity: 3 + 1 + 5 = 9
Constitution: 2 + 1 + 1 = 4
Intelligence: 4 + 5 + 6 = 15
Wisdom: 1 + 3 + 2 = 6
Charisma: 6 + 2 + 5 = 13

Yep. The new methods are a positive change. I have seen far too many games where people would roll characters (like the above) that could be blown over to the other side by an errant gust of wind whereas others had 16s or higher in every stat.

Just. No. That is not fun for anybody. The weak character's player spends his time feeling jipped and envious, wheres the stronger character's player feels guilty.

Point buy solved a LOT of problems. Any alleged problems caused by point buy are merely ones of perception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's all cool and tough and old school and everything until you actually play it.
Str: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 1) = 7
Dex: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 4) = 9
Con: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 1) = 7
Int: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 6) = 12
Wis: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 6) = 13
Cha: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 1) = 5

Plus the whole thing about not being able to pick what character (class or otherwise) you want to play, since the stats are in order.

Of course, the simple solution is just to get your characters killed off quickly until you get a decent set of stats. Take the DCC approach.

It might be fun to combine 3d6 (not in order) with the everybody rolls picks from the set of rolled stats approach.

Btw, I think you're the guilty stronger character and I'm jealous weak one. :)


Indeed.


Might as well join the fun.

STR: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 3) = 6
DEX: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 6) = 14
CON: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 6) = 11
INT: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 1) = 10
WIS: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 3) = 12
CHA: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 5) = 13

Hmmm... I'm feeling Bard.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Might as well join the fun.

Hmmm... I'm feeling Bard.

That guy would actually be an awesome 1st Ed. Thief. :)

The "3d6 in order" thing is fun if you approach it with the right mindset. The challenge there is to take what the dice give you and see where it takes you - cede control to the gods of fortune and do your best with it.

That said, I still prefer point-buy.


I'm more of an array man myself. Point Buy tremendously favors classes that can comfortably dump two stats to hell to pump a single one with perhaps a secondary and tertiary [or twin secondary] stat.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've removed some more posts and replies/references. Remember, not everyone has the same play style and that's okay! Just because your way is right for you, does not make their way wrong for them. Be civil when you disagree with someone's post and remember to debate the subject, not fight with other community members.


Let's see. Never had luck with 3d6 in order before.

Str: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 6) = 13
Dex: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 5) = 11
Con: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 5) = 9
Int: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 5) = 16
Wis: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 5) = 15
Cha: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 6) = 14

Wizard it is?

Regardless, I've never liked letting something pick my class for me.

I recently tried out Scythia's 3d5+8 (drop lowest) method and it turned out some good stats for my PCs.


And this is why I really don't like 3d6 in order.

We've got my -8(actually lower, since I've got a 5 Cha) point buy equivalent character, along with Rynjin's 25 pb character.

At this point, I really am just going to get him killed off and reroll.

1E DMG wrote:
While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy -- which tends to discourage new players, as doesn't does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. ... it is recommended that the following systems be used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Point buy is better because it's fair.
Random rolling is too much like real life :D , No one wants to play a s%!# hand....or be arbitrarily outdone by some luck sack.
I've played since 1st edition...and the options just keep getting better.Let us not forget the disappointment of realizing that the turd you just rolled won't qualify for Ranger...the class you wanted to be...because of the ability score requirements.
There was a time when "Role-playing" WAS customization...i.e. it's all you had to customize with.
With the advent of non weapon proficiencies...and later, feats the player gained a new way to enjoy the game...by trying out different mechanical builds and combo-ing abilities in new ways.
The game now has synergy.
Personally, I love to see a new build come together over the course of a campaign.
the fact that the games mechanics can be explored and enjoyed in and of themselves, is a feature, not a flaw.
I wish my players were more interested in the mechanics honestly...
Sure...you can't "Win" at pathfinder....any more than you can "Win" at life...but it doesn't stop people from trying.
It's a basic desire...Ambition(or Greed), and it has it's place in the narrative right alongside of Love,Honor, and the search for identity.


Larkspire wrote:

Point buy is better because it's fair.

Random rolling is too much like real life :D , No one wants to play a s%!# hand....or be arbitrarily outdone by some luck sack.
I've played since 1st edition...and the options just keep getting better.Let us not forget the disappointment of realizing that the turd you just rolled won't qualify for Ranger...the class you wanted to be...because of the ability score requirements.
There was a time when "Role-playing" WAS customization...i.e. it's all you had to customize with.
With the advent of non weapon proficiencies...and later, feats the player gained a new way to enjoy the game...by trying out different mechanical builds and combo-ing abilities in new ways.
The game now has synergy.
Personally, I love to see a new build come together over the course of a campaign.
the fact that the games mechanics can be explored and enjoyed in and of themselves, is a feature, not a flaw.

OTOH, that so much of the creativity is now invested in the build has its drawbacks. It often seems you can't be as creative during play. That cool idea you came up with - there's a feat for that and if you don't have it's pretty pointless to try.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Larkspire wrote:

Point buy is better because it's fair.

Random rolling is too much like real life :D , No one wants to play a s%!# hand....or be arbitrarily outdone by some luck sack.
I've played since 1st edition...and the options just keep getting better.Let us not forget the disappointment of realizing that the turd you just rolled won't qualify for Ranger...the class you wanted to be...because of the ability score requirements.
There was a time when "Role-playing" WAS customization...i.e. it's all you had to customize with.
With the advent of non weapon proficiencies...and later, feats the player gained a new way to enjoy the game...by trying out different mechanical builds and combo-ing abilities in new ways.
The game now has synergy.
Personally, I love to see a new build come together over the course of a campaign.
the fact that the games mechanics can be explored and enjoyed in and of themselves, is a feature, not a flaw.
OTOH, that so much of the creativity is now invested in the build has its drawbacks. It often seems you can't be as creative during play. That cool idea you came up with - there's a feat for that and if you don't have it's pretty pointless to try.

Indeed this is a huge flaw in the current system. Feats are restrictive rather than supplementary.

A feat should enable you to do something crazy freaking awesome or make you significantly better at something you can normally do.

Right now most feats [except caster feats that is >_<] tend to restrict simple things someone should be able to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Larkspire wrote:

Point buy is better because it's fair.

Random rolling is too much like real life :D , No one wants to play a s%!# hand....or be arbitrarily outdone by some luck sack.
I've played since 1st edition...and the options just keep getting better.Let us not forget the disappointment of realizing that the turd you just rolled won't qualify for Ranger...the class you wanted to be...because of the ability score requirements.
There was a time when "Role-playing" WAS customization...i.e. it's all you had to customize with.
With the advent of non weapon proficiencies...and later, feats the player gained a new way to enjoy the game...by trying out different mechanical builds and combo-ing abilities in new ways.
The game now has synergy.
Personally, I love to see a new build come together over the course of a campaign.
the fact that the games mechanics can be explored and enjoyed in and of themselves, is a feature, not a flaw.
OTOH, that so much of the creativity is now invested in the build has its drawbacks. It often seems you can't be as creative during play. That cool idea you came up with - there's a feat for that and if you don't have it's pretty pointless to try.

Indeed this is a huge flaw in the current system. Feats are restrictive rather than supplementary.

A feat should enable you to do something crazy freaking awesome or make you significantly better at something you can normally do.

Right now most feats [except caster feats that is >_<] tend to restrict simple things someone should be able to do.

Yeah, right now there's far too many things locked behind a feat or ability-gate that really shouldn't be. I think my favorite example of that is Helpless Prisoner. Yes, it takes a feat to bluff a guard into loosening your bonds after you've been captured. And only gnomes have the racial skill to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Larkspire wrote:

Point buy is better because it's fair.

Random rolling is too much like real life :D , No one wants to play a s%!# hand....or be arbitrarily outdone by some luck sack.
I've played since 1st edition...and the options just keep getting better.Let us not forget the disappointment of realizing that the turd you just rolled won't qualify for Ranger...the class you wanted to be...because of the ability score requirements.
There was a time when "Role-playing" WAS customization...i.e. it's all you had to customize with.
With the advent of non weapon proficiencies...and later, feats the player gained a new way to enjoy the game...by trying out different mechanical builds and combo-ing abilities in new ways.
The game now has synergy.
Personally, I love to see a new build come together over the course of a campaign.
the fact that the games mechanics can be explored and enjoyed in and of themselves, is a feature, not a flaw.
OTOH, that so much of the creativity is now invested in the build has its drawbacks. It often seems you can't be as creative during play. That cool idea you came up with - there's a feat for that and if you don't have it's pretty pointless to try.

Indeed this is a huge flaw in the current system. Feats are restrictive rather than supplementary.

A feat should enable you to do something crazy freaking awesome or make you significantly better at something you can normally do.

Right now most feats [except caster feats that is >_<] tend to restrict simple things someone should be able to do.

Yeah, right now there's far too many things locked behind a feat or ability-gate that really shouldn't be. I think my favorite example of that is Helpless Prisoner. Yes, it takes a feat to bluff a guard into loosening your bonds after you've been captured. And only gnomes have the racial skill to do it.

With a potential penalty. And it might backfire. And it doesn't even get you out, but just gets a bonus on the escape check.

Not the Worst Feat Ever(tm), but only because the competition is stiff.

The official rules for using the feat are probably harsher than I would have house-ruled trying to do it without the feat.


Some feats are silly...true, and actually serve to limit the game (like Strike back)... helpless prisoner is dumb too.
The idea is good (feats)..the application lets us down sometimes.


Classic! One of the assumptions from the original game seems to have been people really aren't created equal, that and you're going to keep dying until you actually roll a decent character. I do sometimes miss the stories created by such unfortunates(especially the rare few who some how survived against all the odds), but given how long it can take to make a character now I'm not too sad.

STR: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 5) = 12
DEX: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 3) = 8
CON: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 6) = 16
INT: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 2) = 10
WIS: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 1) = 8
CHA: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 3) = 15

Skald it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallyck wrote:
I mean cmon. You roll dice for everything else. Roll it for chargen.

Oh, really? And when you rolled a nat 1 for your first attack roll in a campaign, were you stuck with that nat 1 for EVERY attack roll thereafter?


Tectorman wrote:


Oh, really? And when you rolled a nat 1 for your first attack roll in a campaign, were you stuck with that nat 1 for EVERY attack roll thereafter?

It's really not the same thing. Plus, there are numerous ways to compensate through ongoing development in a 3e-based game like PF.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Indeed this is a huge flaw in the current system. Feats are restrictive rather than supplementary.

A feat should enable you to do something crazy freaking awesome or make you significantly better at something you can normally do.

Right now most feats [except caster feats that is >_<] tend to restrict simple things someone should be able to do.

That may apply to some feats but I'd say it's a mischaracterization of most, even martial, feats. I don't think I would consider most martial feats something a character should normally be able to do.


Would you care to provide some examples Bill?

I can name a few examples I certainly feel a character should just be able to do.

Cleave [become more vulnerable in order to carry a strike through one opponent into another]

Spring Attack [Hit somebody while moving]

Whirlwind Attack [Swing at everyone within reach]


You think anybody should be able to just swing at everyone within reach? How is that ability not a significant improvement over the standard action single attack or even full round action multiple attack (considering you qualify for whirlwind attack when you can probably only get 2 attacks) when it has the potential to hit quite a few more? That seems to fit in with your idea of the feat being supplementary to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
You think anybody should be able to just swing at everyone within reach?

Assuming they've trained to be a person who fights with martial prowess?

In one word: Yes.

In more then one word: People who are focused on martial abilities should not be to confined to one attack for one target. There may be some trade-offs for hitting multiple people, but it should be possible. Multiple times in a single round even.


Bill Dunn wrote:
You think anybody should be able to just swing at everyone within reach? How is that ability not a significant improvement over the standard action single attack or even full round action multiple attack (considering you qualify for whirlwind attack when you can probably only get 2 attacks) when it has the potential to hit quite a few more? That seems to fit in with your idea of the feat being supplementary to me.

I never said such an attack should be made without penalty without a feat, only that someone who knows how to fight should be able to actually fight even if they're surrounded rather than lie down and die.

They'll still probably die anyway but they might take a few of their assailants with them.


Mykull wrote:
OP, yes, most people who "create an effective character" by pulling from a lot of different books (and, yes, six is a lot of different books for ONE character) are much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying.

I honestly don't get this at all. How does a player that creates his/her PC "by pulling from a lot of different books" tell you that the player is most likely "much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying"?

I'd say I've seen more of the opposite correlation, if anything. Meaning: the more work a player puts into the mechanics of their PC, the more work the player tends to put into other aspects of their character (backstory, ROLE-play etc), and vice versa.

Mykull wrote:
Sure, one can cobble together a plausible backstory for their character. However, most of the time, the optimization in order to win comes first and the story comes, if at all, as a distant second.

I don't get this either. How do you "win" a non-competitive game like PF?

Sounds about as applicable as trying to, say, win at opera or oil painting to me. Sure, the way campaigns and adventures are designed, as well as the rules system itself, encourage players to build a mechanically good party able to overcome all the rules-intense challenges the party will be facing. It's a major aspect of rules-heavy rpgs like PF, and I fail to see how/why that is bad thing.

And how can a PC's backstory, or the number of sources the player has drawn from, tell you anything about whether the PC has "optimized" mechanics?

Again, my experiences are completely different. My backstory and ROLE-play would be crippled by limiting the mechanics I have available to make that character concept become alive and believable in the game. It happened back when 3e was still young and didn't have that many options yet, and it happened when 4e was new as well. Not to mention in earlier versions where many of the character concepts I wished to play were just flat out impossible to represent without making a lot of homebrew content. Same thing now when I DM: the more mechanical options available to my players, the more interesting, flavorful and varied characters they create, and the more balanced their party is. (Thank you, Dreamscarred Press!)

Mykull wrote:

All the time I see players with an idea and find rules to make it. For example, "I want to play a kitsune who's village was wiped out by expansionist humans, so he's become a hunter of humans. I'll play a ranger or a stalker."

It is much more rare to see someone who says something like this, "I was thinking of playing a half-undead fetchling half-dragon who was chosen by a deity and so became an oracle but rejected that life to become a bloodrager instead."

Again I have a different experience. As an example, in my group's last 3.5 campaign (Ptolus) several years ago, my brother played an absolute monster of a sorcerer (think white dragon-spawn/xx/xx petal sorcerer/PrC/PrC/PrC flinging wings of flurry/cover around him like candy), by far the most stupidly OP character we've ever had in a game. And his backstory and my brother's ROLE-play was simply amazing. Yeah, amazing ROLE-play by the guy that wrote a sorcerer's optimization guide on WoTC's forum...

And why, if that is what you're saying, would your latter example concept necessarily be any less viable in (I'm assuming) the high-fantasy setting it is supposed to be played in? I mean, even in a low-fantasy setting, I can for example think of tons of "realistic" and very flavorful reasons for someone with levels in the oracle class getting levels of bloodrager. Even if you stick to the default fluff. More importantly, I can totally see character concepts impossible to mechanically reflect without levels in those classes. At least if the player has any concern for making the concept mechanically believable and beneficial to the party...

Mykull wrote:
Play in whichever style. Just be honest about it. This whole, "I just have a very convoluted backstory that pulls from several different sources and just happens to be completely optimized, but that's totally besides the point of the soul of the character I'm trying to make" reeks of steer manure.

Ok, I actually get your dislike for dishonesty, if you can call it that. Do you think you might have invited such "dishonesty" by not properly discussing with your whole group what playstyle you all would find acceptable and fun (rather than simply limiting stuff like character creation points and source books)?

Mykull wrote:
You're a min/maxing optimizing power gamer. You want to win. And that's totally okay.

No, it's obviously not ok, and I would've found your assumptions insulting if they hadn't also been as obviously emotionally charged and frankly stupid.

Speaking for myself, one of my related hobbies is acting (I'm even lucky enough to get paid for doing it), and I can assure you that I wouldn't even be into PF in the first place if not for the ROLL-playing. Yet I'm definitely minmaxing the mechanics of my characters to bring it in line with other party members and make it able to face difficult challenges. I also love tinkering with theoretical as well as practical character optimization. I even think some of my most memorable characters were actually based on me stumbling upon strong, odd and/or fun mechanical combinations! Horrible, right?

What does that make me in your view? A paradox?

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Mykull, your post is demeaning, passive-aggressive, and inappropriate by turns. Calling other people liars, when you have no basis for that conclusion other than emotional jerk reflex, is not OK. Telling people they're doing things you personally find odious and unforgivable, and then saying "but that's okay," isn't okay.

I suspect Mykull has been playing with a lot of powergamers who happened to not give a crap about ROLE-playing and who also behaved like jerks. Hence why it appears he's caught in the passive center of an aggressive Stormwind he's unable to see through...


kyrt-ryder wrote:


I never said such an attack should be made without penalty without a feat, only that someone who knows how to fight should be able to actually fight even if they're surrounded rather than lie down and die.

They'll still probably die anyway but they might take a few of their assailants with them.

Would you rather have a PC be able to take as many attacks as they want as long as they're penalized for it? Might that not bog down play? Large numbers of attacks from single characters already can take a long time to adjudicate. And how does that work with high level combatants who may have attack bonus out the wazoo?

I think designing something like that might open a bigger can of worms than just accepting that it's a supplementary feat and not everyone is designed to be able to do it.


Sure. I could accept whirlwind attack as a legitimate supplementary feat, were it not locked behind a ton of garbage and a BAB requirement of higher than 1.

That's another issue I have with this system, the prerequisites weigh it down like a load of bricks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whirlwind Attack is only really good against a ton of mooks surrounding your guy.

Martial characters should be able to take on swarms of mooks without dropping 5 (f%*@ing FIVE) Feats on it.

Especially when ZERO of the prerequisites make any sense whatsoever as prerequisites.

If it was going to be a Feat chain, why isn't Whirlwind Attack the ultimate Cleave Feat?

If it was just one Feat, that'd be fine. Though if it was an option that anyone with BaB +6 could do, that'd be better.


I may agree that some prerequisites could be thinned, reworked, and some better scaling within the feats themselves occur. But probably not that whirlwind attack should have a BAB no higher than 1 or that it should have no prerequisites at all. I'd cut the combat expertise (and attendent intelligence bonus).

I would also consider paring down the feat list considerably in favor of more generic feats, particularly for combat (extra damage, condition imposition, special maneuver, etc). The list now is getting too bloated and specific in its effects. I'd then set them up intended to be built into more cohesive combat styles like the 1e Oriental Adventures martial arts. There'd still be a particular method of picking them up - more basic maneuvers needing to be picked up before more advanced ones - but with more varying prerequisites based on the style.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:

I may agree that some prerequisites could be thinned, reworked, and some better scaling within the feats themselves occur. But probably not that whirlwind attack should have a BAB no higher than 1 or that it should have no prerequisites at all. I'd cut the combat expertise (and attendent intelligence bonus).

I would also consider paring down the feat list considerably in favor of more generic feats, particularly for combat (extra damage, condition imposition, special maneuver, etc). The list now is getting too bloated and specific in its effects. I'd then set them up intended to be built into more cohesive combat styles like the 1e Oriental Adventures martial arts. There'd still be a particular method of picking them up - more basic maneuvers needing to be picked up before more advanced ones - but with more varying prerequisites based on the style.

I'd rather just see Martials rebuilt as Tome of Battle/Path of War. Then you can have useful combat maneuvers without sacrificing feats. Though seriously, feats need a major culling in Pathfinder.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Would you care to provide some examples Bill?

I can name a few examples I certainly feel a character should just be able to do.

Oh, lemme join in! I have two (or lots, actually):

1. Improved [Combat Maneuver] - Maybe some of them should still require a feat, but multiple feats? For example, I still cannot for the life of me see why Improved Trip requires an Int of 13 AND Combat Expertise - a purely defensive feat that's also absolute crap. Or why you would need to be able to Power Attack in order to push someone back without you getting smacked first (Improved Bull Rush). Guess I must have an Int way below 13...

2. Power Attack - The penalty is already built into the feat.


Rynjin wrote:


If it was going to be a Feat chain, why isn't Whirlwind Attack the ultimate Cleave Feat?

If it was just one Feat, that'd be fine. Though if it was an option that anyone with BaB +6 could do, that'd be better.

Cleave's part of the power attack/strength chain. Whirlwind attack's mojo is more finesse and speed. That's probably why it was on the dodge/dexterity chain. It might work better off combat reflexes.


upho wrote:

Oh, lemme join in! I have two (or lots, actually):

1. Improved [Combat Maneuver] - Maybe some of them should still require a feat, but multiple feats? For example, I still cannot for the life of me see why Improved Trip requires an Int of 13 AND Combat Expertise - a purely defensive feat that's also absolute crap. Or why you would need to be able to Power Attack in order to push someone back without you getting smacked first (Improved Bull Rush). Guess I must have an Int way below 13...

2. Power Attack - The penalty is already built into the feat.

The improved/greater combat maneuver feats are ripe for better scaling. They're supplements when you get them because anyone can try the same maneuver but just be kind of bad at it. But they should scale through the advanced ones. Same with vital strike.

Power attack is probably one of the few feats I would agree with kart-ryder about. I could see it like combat expertise - anyone can try it (like fighting defensively) but at a less efficient exchange. The feat makes it efficient or expands the ability.

Dark Archive

The one thing I can really add to this conversation is as both DM and player I like to play in and DM hyper-deadly worlds, but assist the players in making their characters really powerful. This allows the feel of pitting oneself against overwhelming odds and coming out the other side alive and kicking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I might not agree with some of the examples but it is true that feats can take away with in game versatility.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


If it was going to be a Feat chain, why isn't Whirlwind Attack the ultimate Cleave Feat?

If it was just one Feat, that'd be fine. Though if it was an option that anyone with BaB +6 could do, that'd be better.

Cleave's part of the power attack/strength chain. Whirlwind attack's mojo is more finesse and speed. That's probably why it was on the dodge/dexterity chain. It might work better off combat reflexes.

It really isn't though. At least not how I've always pictured it. The way it works you basically just wing your weapon in a big arc around you like a scythe into wheat, which seems to be very much not finesse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
upho wrote:

Improved [Combat Maneuver] - Maybe some of them should still require a feat, but multiple feats? For example, I still cannot for the life of me see why Improved Trip requires an Int of 13 AND Combat Expertise - a purely defensive feat that's also absolute crap. Or why you would need to be able to Power Attack in order to push someone back without you getting smacked first (Improved Bull Rush). Guess I must have an Int way below 13...

You'r going to love the DIRTY FIGHTING feat in the Dirty Tactics Toolbox then.

It has a GREAT initial benefit, NO prerequisites, AND counts as Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, and Improved Unarmed Strike for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites of all of the improved [combat maneuver] feats, as well as feats that require those improved [combat maneuver] feats as prerequisites!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


It really isn't though. At least not how I've always pictured it. The way it works you basically just wing your weapon in a big arc around you like a scythe into wheat, which seems to be very much not finesse.

That kind of ignores the context clues about it such as the prerequisites that suggest mobility and deftness over brute force. Add to that the development of the concept through 3e's non-OGL flavor text and all the way back to the 1e Oriental Adventures kensai, a finesse-oriented class, and I'd say you have a better fit in a non-strength-based feat tree.


Bill Dunn wrote:
The improved/greater combat maneuver feats are ripe for better scaling. They're supplements when you get them because anyone can try the same maneuver but just be kind of bad at it. But they should scale through the advanced ones. Same with vital strike.

That's actually exactly how I've solved in my home game. I've removed some of the more silly and annoying prereqs like CE, and all applicable "Improved" combat feat chains upgrades to include the Greater version as soon as the character qualifies. This also applies to for example the TWF chain (only the first requires a feat slot).

Bill Dunn wrote:
Power attack is probably one of the few feats I would agree with kart-ryder about. I could see it like combat expertise - anyone can try it (like fighting defensively) but at a less efficient exchange. The feat makes it efficient or expands the ability.

That might be a way to solve it, provided a majority of the tons of feat requiring PA lose that prereq.

How what about Deadly Aim or Point-Blank Shot? Or Weapon Finesse or Piranha Strike? I find it at least equally weird they're locked behind feats. PBS seems like a logical benefit of being close to a target, regardless of how good you are with ranged weapons, and the rest of them are either useless or absolutely vital. In my game, they're all granted for free as soon as the Dex 13 prereq is met.

In general, I think a typical sign that something shouldn't be a feat is when it's a complete no-brainer that all characters with a similar focus gets. PA and those I mentioned above are good examples of this, I think. I mean, what character intending to fight with Str in melee does not grab PA as early as possible? And just how many archers don't get PBS and Deadly Aim?

Speaking of, I think especially the ranged weapon feats need a big clearing up, since a whole bunch of them are basically required and/or no-brainers every character with a similar focus takes. Which means the feats completely defeat their most basic purpose of increasing options and character variation.


Ravingdork wrote:

You'r going to love the DIRTY FIGHTING feat in the Dirty Tactics Toolbox then.

It has a GREAT initial benefit, NO prerequisites, AND counts as Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, and Improved Unarmed Strike for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites of all of the improved [combat maneuver] feats, as well as feats that require those improved [combat maneuver] feats as prerequisites!

Oh, I love it already! Where is it?


upho wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

You'r going to love the DIRTY FIGHTING feat in the Dirty Tactics Toolbox then.

It has a GREAT initial benefit, NO prerequisites, AND counts as Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, and Improved Unarmed Strike for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites of all of the improved [combat maneuver] feats, as well as feats that require those improved [combat maneuver] feats as prerequisites!

Oh, I love it already! Where is it?


Nicos wrote:
upho wrote:
Oh, I love it already! Where is it?

Wha-... Oh!

*embarrassed*

Thanks!


Kazaan wrote:
Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".

Noah Antweiler hasn't been funny or insightful for years now. And if someone has disabled comments, you can be sure it's to stop people from seeing in the comments section how wrong he is.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Athaleon wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".
Noah Antweiler hasn't been funny or insightful for years now. And if someone has disabled comments, you can be sure it's to stop people from seeing in the comments section how wrong they are.

Or because they have better things to do than sweep up the garbage of the Internet.


Kalindlara wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".
Noah Antweiler hasn't been funny or insightful for years now. And if someone has disabled comments, you can be sure it's to stop people from seeing in the comments section how wrong they are.
Or because they have better things to do than sweep up the garbage of the Internet.

They're not under any obligation to moderate it, are they?

Silver Crusade Contributor

Athaleon wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".
Noah Antweiler hasn't been funny or insightful for years now. And if someone has disabled comments, you can be sure it's to stop people from seeing in the comments section how wrong they are.
Or because they have better things to do than sweep up the garbage of the Internet.
They're not under any obligation to moderate it, are they?

Some people aren't huge fans of having a torrent of filth on their page, either.

I've seen what unmoderated comments sections become. That's why I post here, and not on Youtube.


Kalindlara wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".
Noah Antweiler hasn't been funny or insightful for years now. And if someone has disabled comments, you can be sure it's to stop people from seeing in the comments section how wrong they are.
Or because they have better things to do than sweep up the garbage of the Internet.
They're not under any obligation to moderate it, are they?

Some people aren't huge fans of having a torrent of filth on their page, either.

I've seen what unmoderated comments sections become. That's why I post here, and not on Youtube.

Most internet reviewers seem to either do the extra work or leave the comments alone. Maybe I'm jaded, or I don't watch the sort of videos where it's a problem, but the comment section rarely gets to the point I'd call it a "torrent of filth".

I still think my explanation is a likely one, given a) my experience of which videos tend to have comments disabled (conspiracy, creationism, and tumblr are the most common I've encountered), and b) Spoony's history of Internet meltdowns, especially in response to criticism.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Athaleon wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Just go to www.spoonyexperiment.com and watch Counter Monkey. Spoony explains some of the things that have happened over the course of the various versions. Especially his latest one, "3d6 In Order".
Noah Antweiler hasn't been funny or insightful for years now. And if someone has disabled comments, you can be sure it's to stop people from seeing in the comments section how wrong they are.
Or because they have better things to do than sweep up the garbage of the Internet.
They're not under any obligation to moderate it, are they?

Some people aren't huge fans of having a torrent of filth on their page, either.

I've seen what unmoderated comments sections become. That's why I post here, and not on Youtube.

Most internet reviewers seem to either do the extra work or leave the comments alone. Maybe I'm jaded, or I don't watch the sort of videos where it's a problem, but the comment section rarely gets to the point I'd call it a "torrent of filth".

Well, jaded is standard for the Internet. ^_^

I've watched his stuff for a long time, and I remember when the comments were open. There was good discussion on occasion, but I'm not sure it was worth the ugliness. Of course, I may just be sensitive.


His Counter Monkey segments used to be interesting or funny, but Spoony is not good unscripted. Like, at all.

The last few I watched over a year ago were just him reading random bits from random rulebooks (and spending several minutes trying to find the right page) for an hour.

151 to 200 of 312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / What has this game become? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.