GM Toothy's Wrath of the Righteous (Inactive)

Game Master Sir Longears

Jiao Feng is more or less a homeless refugee right now.

Sorry, were we using the elephant in the room feat tax rules or not?

@Darrien:

@rorek55: I'm not using the feat tax rules. The alternate mythic rules already give you 5 more feats than a regular character, even without considering the Prc you'll choose, which can grant even more feats.

Reference link Page 2 of Discussion

Apologies, I forgot for sure whether I had asked that here or not and wanted to be sure. I had thought it was a no, but didn't remember for sure either way. I haven't had access to my character creation stuff on over a week haha.

Yeah no, we didn't.
This game is more on the low power side, but it should work out well enough.
Good tactics and teamplay might be the key ;)

Also, I thinking about going to go plain fighter, I like the idea behind the unbreakable archetype, but.. having to give up access to the advanced weapon training abilities really sucks. I'll have it decided by start time, but I was wondering if there was any way you would be willing to let me take the feats for advanced weapon training? It would follow the outlined rule of no more than once every 5 levels. Essentially I'd we swapping a feat for one of the weapon training options.

I am also very curious to see how the unchained action economy will work out. In theory, it allows for more tactics, coordination, and options, because "5-foot step+full attack" is no longer the default modus operandi. But I've never seen it in action so can't quite judge if it will be advantageous to us, or more useful to certain types of enemies.
What I am wary about are the wound treesholds. The effects are theoretically not as significant, later on, but during the early levels, that can be quite a slippery slope. I mean, being hit once can instantly slap a -2 Attack/AC/Saves debuff on you, making it that much harder to hit back while making one an easier target for both abilities and regular attacks. That one could be troublesome(since by default their impact is more pronounced on player characters, as opposed to disposable enemies).
With Sanity, I'll simply trust GM to handle it responsibly. Dragging along/roleplaying a Catatonic Character does not seem very fun, while some could be interesting challenges.

Swift actions taking one of 3 actions you can do in unchained action economy seriously nerfs paladins, monks and anyone relying on swift actions on that regard compared to others.
Which is good because paladins needed that^^

On the other hand with 3 attacks you can always land that lucky hit.
It's also pretty cool for monks because they can now move and flurry and still use a ki power.

On sanity and wound thresholds i have no experience. Guess we'll see how that works out. I find the sanity idea interesting though in this context, gives demons and the abyss a bit more byte.

Haven't said anything in thread in a bit, so just here to say that I am still around.

I am not in the camp of paladins needing nerfs, they don't. That's my opinion though.

Also, I forgot to ask where can I find the unchained action economy? The link is broken for me.

Unchained Action Economy

Admittedly lmgtfy is kind of a jerky sort of thing to do, but I find it to be really funny.

Apologies if you do not agree. :)

oof. You missed a rick roll opportunity my friend haha.

my brain wasn't functioning properly and I didn't link it the ENTIRE UNCHAINED thing PF did a couple years back #gettingintocharacter.

I wasn't entirely serious there ;)

lmgtfy is pretty funny, didn't know that before!

So if I am understanding unchained action economy correctly then as a twf character if I am base to base with an enemy I can take 4 attacks in a single round even as a level 1 character right?

It would be (-2/-2/-7/-12), so several of those probably won't hit at level 1, but it is possible I guess?

Hm. If I wasn't a metagaming lil punk I may have taken some maneuver feats haha. getting a maneuver and an attack in a turn seems pretty strong.

trip-> an attack, even if I read it right and your second attack takes a -5, thats only a -1 if your trip succeeds. And they are prone.

Also, I think monks got a nice boost from it! now you can flurry with an action, and you can still make use of your normal unchained FoBs as a full action if you want.

But it does kind of make feats like arcane strike worth less.

Attack Actions: Actions with the attack subtype involve making at least one attack roll against an opponent or object. They typically provoke attacks of opportunity only if the attack is a ranged attack or you don’t have the appropriate feat to take that attack action without provoking attacks of opportunity, such as Improved Unarmed Strike for unarmed strikes or Improved Trip for trip attempts. In the latter case, the action provokes an attack of opportunity only from the creature you target. When an attack action provokes an attack of opportunity, the attack of opportunity is made before the provoking attack roll is made.

The first time during your turn that you take an action with this subtype, you roll the attack as normal. Each subsequent attack action taken during your turn imposes a cumulative –5 penalty on the attack roll or combat maneuver check (so the second attack action has a –5 penalty on the attack roll, the third has a –10 penalty, and so on).

Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows
When you fight with a second weapon in your off hand or with a double weapon, you can make two attacks with the first attack simple action you take during your turn: one with your primary hand and another with your off hand. You take penalties on these attack rolls as listed on Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties. Any other attack simple actions you take during your turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.

That looks correct to me.

I mostly reviewed the impact unchained action economy would have on my own build, but yeah, it has a number of very interesting interactions and effects.

That was the main reason I wanted to shuffle you guys over to the sparring grounds :)
It was also the primary motivation for choosing to transition into Heritor Knight - it gives a variety of Attack Riders to standard Action Attacks, and eventually the chance to combine them with Vital Strike Chain.

But yeah, the Swift Action taking up one of the 3 action spots is painful for a few builds. My Lay-on-Hands will also suffer, but then, that leaves 2 attacks with Vital Strike that are very likely to hit, so if I get that far, I'll not complain ;)

Aye, vital strike is looking mighty nice with the unchained action economy, technically speaking, It would also work TWF now, as attacking with both is one action. Unless I missed something.

Well, TWF is by definition two attacks - it is one action, but...
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.
But still, that Cave Druid build wildshaping into the Strong-Jawed Cavernous Crystal Ooze would totally love Greater Vital Strike up to three times per turn :)

Also still around. Having played quite a bit of the PF2 playtest it is nice seeing what the unchained action economy morphed into.

Ok guys, before you go nuts with possible builds and stuff, let me remind you that all the changes I made in the ruleset for this campaign was to make it more challenging and interesting, not to "break" the game.

Wound Threshold: Before taking my long break, all my campaigns used this system. To be honest, the first time I implemented I thought it would be taxing to the players, but in the end I discovered that it actually helps you in most cases. As an example, during a tough fight against a powerful opponent, you will probably reduce him to half his life before he reduces all of you to half life, so he will be taking the penalties earlier than you... and then it is generally a snowball effect. As long as you manage your resources carefully, you'll have no issues.

Sanity: Rest assured that if you get some insanity, I'll not roll randomly. I'll pick an appropriate madness for your character that would be fun/interesting to roleplay. I'll also be limiting to one madness per character so you'll never be rendered useless.

Revised Action Economy: As it was written, the RAE is a bit faulty for it could not cover everything that was created until that point, so it is far from complete, leaving a lot work for the GM. In some cases I'll be using its general idea. As an example, it states the difference between a couple combat maneuvers, some that use 1 action and others that use 2 actions. This was done so maneuvers that could be used more than once per round (like sunder) would continue to be usable more than once, while others should still be used only once (like grapple). I'll apply the same thought to class abilities, feats and whatever. The easiest example is the Vital Strike and Cleave feats. Despite being standard actions, it is clear RAI they should be used only once per round, so they will take 2 acts to perform, for it would be utterly broken to do so otherwise.

Also remember that all rules will apply equally to you and the monsters... I believe you would not find it fun if every melee focused monster started to dish 2x or 3x the damage due to Vital Strike.

little did you know I'm a sucker for punishment, I say for the creatures that have vital strike, bring it on!

But, that makes vital strike even less of a useful feat than in the normal rules now, and I kind of liked it in the normal ruleset, ah well, you da boss man.

@Go nuts&Rule stuff: The characters are already built and crafted, in my case planned to Level 20. It's all just theorycrafting and idle chit-chat, I doubt someone would heavily alter their build.

@Wound Treshold: As said, I'm simply wary. As you say, it's a snowball effect. If that works in favor of the group, thats great. What I'm cautious about is if luck of the dice has it work against the group.
Much as with Fumbles, Permanent Wounds/Dismemberment etc...if the group cuts off the arms of 20 enemies, there's no shortage of more enemies with a full set. If one enemy manages to slice off the arm of a party member, that's a heavy impact on the efficiency and playstyle that will be around and have way more significance than the story-arc mini-boss suffering the same fate.
What I'm saying: I'm totally open to it, but I am always cautious with systems like this. Because if it works in the players favor 10 times, thats a nice bonus, but does not 'compensate' for the fatality if it snowballs against the players once leading to a TPK.

@Sanity: Yeah, you said as much in your initial explanation. While it is another model that adds penalties to the players without providing a boon to compensate overall, I think it has great potential RP-wise. It is also something that can, overall, be accounted for and planned around, so nothing where a set of lucky or unlucky rolls change the tactical situation.

@Revised Action: I would heavily implore you to reconsider. You did not state that you would make further alterations to the system as written. While Two-Weapon Fighting or Flurry now get the flexibility to close distance with an enemy, then use two attack actions to get 4 attacks in(only losing the more unlikely-to-hit-iteratives). Even casters get more flexibility(you just missed with your touch spell? You can try again with a second attack if you hold the charge...or 5-foot step+move+start casting(or actually cast if you are under haste effect)).
Martials? They lose full-attacks, and mainly gain the ability to combine 2 attacks with a move(Personally I liked Spring-Heeled Reaping for a high mobility-build effectively doing the same, but better.) And the added option to make more use of standard action abilities that would, under normal rules, be inferior to full attacking - such as the Cleave or Vital Strike Chains that you need to be able to use more than once to get comparable damage output.

If your mind is set on this matter, please do tell now, because then I will eventually drop the Tower Shield(despite her mental investment in it) and let Finja dual-Wield Longswords using Effortless Dual-Wielding, and go for Two-Weapon Fighting(plus swap Con+Dex back) instead.(which will have higher damage output than vital strike, due to adding in other relevant bonus damage for the attack - and can easily be used twice or even three times in a round as per the standard rules).
Regarding all enemies using Vital Strike: By no means would that be a clearly superior tactic - many monsters have big static damage boni, and Vital Strike only multiplies the dice...so 1d8+12 is simply 2d8+12, which is, on average, 21 instead of 16.5 - even Improved Vital Strike for 3d8+12 would only make it 25.5, so not even double the damage. In almost all cases, it would make more sense to make 2 single attacks with full added boni, instead of one Vital Strike as complex action. Even at Level 20, when Focused Weapon provides 2d8 weapon damage dice(3d8 if enlarged), that only ~9(~13.5) per Feat Level of Vital Strike. So with Greater Vital Strike(3 Feat deep in the chain) thats 27 damage(40.5) extra. A Fighter at Level 20 can easily do more than that with a second hit(AND it gives more chances at a crit multiplying all those boni that benefit).
But you are the storyteller and arbiter. If some enemies make use of it because it suits them, that's perfectly valid, but if you run the numbers, I believe you'll find Vital Strike is simply not competitive as a complex action(that would allow 4 attacks with 2-weapon fighting), and hardly even measures up as a single-action in comparison.

Flurry and TWF only get the extra attack on the first act they use an attack action!

My suggestion is, do it equally for everything.
Therefore vital strike, cleave, spring attack, etc. are only usable on one attack action per round, leaving 2 acts to do something else.
If a character would attack further, it would only be a normal attack then. That seems fair and like intended to me.

That is not true in the long run, Jiao Feng.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting extends the extra attack to first+second attack action(at Level 6, when Vital Strike is first available), and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting extends the extra attack to all 3 attack actions(at Level 11, when Improved Vital Strike is first available).
Flurry, as written, gets a second attack on the second attack action on Level 8, then gets 2 attack actions on ALL attack actions on Level 15.
(So if you are hasted and attack 4 times, you get to flurry for a total of 8 attacks).
Spring Attack is a full-round action, which makes sense as a complex action(as it combines a move and an attack action).

But Vital Strike, Cleave and the likes being limited to once per round simply makes them not worthwhile in comparison.
Remember that Greater Vital Strike needs 16 BaB as prereq(Improved 11, normal 6), so that comes online 5 levels later than the respective Two-Weapon-Fighting Chain, at the same 3-Feat Investment total. Only getting to benefit from it once per round, then, is heavily diminished returns(while normal Two-Weapon Fighting gets stronger as static boni increase, Vital Strike is 'stuck' at the weapon dice upgrade.)

For my part, I am fine with all of the custom rules as all ready described. Any GM worth their salt will notice problems lots game and make appropriate adjustments. Until we get into the game and see how it works out its all just conjecture and theory.

I say leave it as you put it for now and lets see how it goes.

Mh yes you are right, didn't see that paragraph yet.
I thought you would simply get another attack on your first act according to normal levels.
I'm very unhappy about that solution for TWF and Flurry.

Especially with the 15pb build, you'll have better chances at hitting on the first attack though.
Unchained action economy changes a lot there.
Of course you can just full attack, but since monsters will be way better at it, combats should be more dynamic i guess, with a lot more movement.
Vital Strike on only the first attack seems still pretty good to me somehow.
From my experience, attacking with the 2nd act and -5 becomes pure luck, so that extra attack there is just a bit more % chance on a nat 20, even worse for 3rd act attack. And this was with a way stronger point buy!

TWF also needs more feat investment, while further vital strike feats directly give you more damage, like devastating strike etc.
From level 12 on this becomes interesting for monks as well and i would definately consider it under certain circumstances!

One thing we can agree on though, vital strike should not take 2 acts please, at least 1 act, just like the normal attack maneuvers.

Perhaps we can start the game and then together take a look later how things work out?

Sayid, in theory, I would agree, but that is a very elementary conceptual topic. My stats, build, planned class progression etc. is geared towards using Vital Strike Standard Actions to remain remotely competitive with a sword+board-style.
The prospect of them becoming complex Actions, or being limited to once per turn would significantly nerf the build as envisioned. You are two-weapon fighting, so are not really affected by this call.
As you say, making adjustments in-game to fix problems is perfectly reasonable, but this seems like a pre-emptive nerf that basically invalidates the competitiveness of my concept, so yeah, I am a bit nervous right now :) Sorry for that.

@Jiao: Thats the point, Devastating Strike etc. means further Feat Investment, for a once-per-turn return. That 'Direct Damage' Vital strike gives is, per feat, one weapon damage dice set, per Feat.
With TWF(and no other investment), I would still(per Feat) get 1x Weapon Damage, plus Weapon Training, plus magic enhancement, plus half strenght, plus specialization, plus attack riders.
@Luck: Thats a build question. I have not included Power Attack or other Attack Boni diminishers, and opt for the flat bonus from weapon alignment in Bonus Progression. Goal being that the first hit is all but guaranteed and the second hit very likely - the third attack still having a reasonable chance.

Personally, I think requiring one to take improved and greater vital strike as feats is silly, I always turn it, TWF. And even the blind fight chain into scaling feats. You take the first, and when you meet the prerequisites you get the others for free. But that's me and this is certainly not my game to run.

That said, I'll definitely be getting at least the blind fight feat quickly

Also, you can still spend 3 actions to take a full attack action, you don't "lose" access to it. And it's the only way to actually get that last attack for full BaB characters at 16+ (make of that what you will)
I've already made the game more difficult with my class/build selection in the later parts, but as long as the job gets done and I enjoy the story I'll be fine Haha

Humm... you all made pretty good points. I'm mostly convinced but I'll give you the final word once I'm back home and able to make some calculations.

So much talky while I was asleep.

@Mordred: Maybe you are comparing apples and peas ;)
Vital Strike is a lot better for 3/4 BAB and generaly makes sure you hit better. Same is true for weapons with 2dice or more damage.
Devastating Strike is a very good investment there, because it adds static damage, just like weapon specialization.
Especially good on 15 point buy builds!

Right now i think it's very questionable wether you hit on the 2nd act with -5 and 3rd act with -10.

I'm not sure what weapon you are using, but vital strike always works best with a 2dx weapon. Make that an "impact" weapon later or enlarge it with lead blades or something.
Devastating Strikes max +6 damage is considerable if you ask me.
Even if it's only once per round!

On the other hand i would really prefer the demons etc. which will probably have better stats than us and might by mythic not to profit from from several vital strikes and extras.
I'm just glad natural attacks are still a full round action!

Of course it can be debated wether something else makes more DPS, TWF probably does over the long run for a fighter or anyone else who gets the boni to hit necessary. That's what you need to decide. A TWF build probably will be easier to hit and have a lower AC though. That's up to you to decide what you want to accomplish. In low powered games characters definately need to be more specialized in Pathfinder.
As i said though, i have doubts that many of the secondary and tertiary attacks will hit somehow.

Since it only comes into play at level 6, we probably see a lot about gameplay before and can judge the situation a lot better then.
Vital Strike once or twice per round as well as similar things.

@Jiao Feng: I don't know what you are looking at.
Fighter is a full BAB build. And as said, I am using it with a longsword in sword+board style. That is a one-handed weapon with a singular damage dice, until level 15, where focused weapon makes it 2d6. (around the time, I suspect, where we'll really start struggling against mythic foes)
I am perfectly certain that I will be able to hit reasonably often with my second and third iterative down the line. You should hope I do, or we'll struggle greatly with no one else able to hit the enemy.

If you refer to 2-handers(like the greatsword 2d6), then that 'static' damage is still redundant.
With 1.5 times strenght modifier, and the two-hand power attack bonus, getting +2 damage(+4 at Level 11, +6 at Level 16) from devastating strike is laughable.
Impact is a +2 enchantment. Which would be +2 hit/damage otherwise.
so for 1d6 more damage(average 3.5 damage)...you effectively trade -2 to hit for plus 1.5 damage...even with Greater Vital turning that into 4d6 = plus 12 damage, I would rather make sure I hit with a second attack and prefer the +2 to hit over the +12 damage.

Regarding your worry about the outsiders: I would certainly love for them to use Vital Strike. Classic Balor uses two weapon fighting. If he instead respecs for Vital Striking, he's welcome to do so...Don't forget that they don't mysteriously get Free Feats out of nowhere, they lose something for that. And most likely, they'd lose another combat-oriented Feat Group or set. Plus Vital Strike is "one attack", so those with a whole set need to pick one.(Hej, he already has vital strike, fun!)...and they may NEED the boost.
Because of the point I made earlier about "loosing Full Attack": spending one action to 5-foot step away means the enemy cannot use 3 actions to attack(Make All Natural Attacks (Attack; 3 Acts))...because 5-foot step is not 'free' but takes an action slot as well.

Point being: even if you stack up to get as many weapon dice as possible(making your AC lower than that of the TWF), you only get a flat bonus based on weapon dice, for a significant Feat investment.
If I instead attack/hit twice, I get to double all the dynamic modifiers.(at the time of Greater Vital Strike, +16 bab, we are talking ~26-30 strenght for +8-10 from strenght alone, or +12/15 for two-handers)

I would very much appreciate if you do not attempt to get my build nerfed from the start because certain builds(bloodraging self-enlarging oversized-weapon wielders) could be broken with Vital Strike, and instead trust in GM to adjust down the line if necessary

Personally, I'd be fine with the one vital strike per round if you could use your last action to withdraw. It would be nice for the "nimbler" builds. And keep you out of natural attack range to boot. Or just 5foot step I suppose actually. Run in, whack, step away. (Rather get to withdraw because, well reach.)

Also, about hitting and the like, ability scores play a rather small role in how effective something is after around level 8. They are nice to have certainly, but at level 8+ the difference will be around 1-2 on to hit and damage rolls, not that bad.

Though, I'd lie if I wasn't interested in a self enlarging bloodrager that used a butchering axe with impact now haha. 5 or 6 d6 to vital strike with XD.

I like to roll d6s heh.

I will also agree that impact is really only good for 1d8 or 1d10 weapons, bumping them to 2d6 and 2d8 respectively. But, as much as I am loathe to admit, DPR is not the biggest factor in party survival, having ways to make sure you can DO your DPR is. After all, even if you average 20 damage less a round thansomebody, if you can consistently deal it in situations, and the other person can't. Well, need I say more? It's why archers are so stupid busted. You can easy access to full attacks, can target things flying without needing to fly yourself, etc. And you get melee damage numbers.

Since we are clearly miscommunicating here, i refrain from further comments. Seems we have a very different gaming experience.

Not sure how you want to get a 26-30 STR in this game.
Pretty sure we will meet mythic enemies long before level 15 though.

The last thing i want to do is nerf your build, which i don't even really know. Do your thing. I trust the GM, anything else is senseless anyway^^

@Ability score effect: It's not so much the difference they provide, its more that it's a flat bonus(among several) that gets multiplied with the number of attacks made.

@DPR and Party Survival: Aye, but the problem here is that you cannot reliably tank intelligent enemies. Making your AC so high that it's almost inpenetrable to them requires sacrificing most of your offensive potential. Even so, Demons and many others are intelligent, and can easily pick off 'weaker' group members. They also have more attack riders and superior mobility.
So the save way to assume is that our enemies will consistently be able to deal damage - so we need to make sure we can, too. My way of doing that is to maximize my to-hit and depend mostly on automatic boni for damage output. One of those sources was Vital Strike, which, per Heritor Knight, can ride along other standard action attacks.
I can easily do the same thing with Two-Weapon Fighting instead, most of the automatic damage boni will apply regardless(weapon training, specialization, sacred weapon...) - and it allows me to trade utility for more damage.
The point being: if you stack things up in certain ways, many aspects of the game can become broken. But I am not rage-cycling with a fatigue-immune Furious Finish build or something. I am also not trying to make Vital Strike stack on top of Great Cleave. (which would be RAW per Heritor Knight Mighty Strike) - and am especially not doing so with a Focused Weapon-Whip while enlarged to slaughter everything in a 20-foot radius).
Heck, an enlarged Monks fists qualify for Strong Jaw, which makes them do 8d8 base damage on up to 8 attacks per round via flurry+haste, using style strike flying kick to zip around between enemies 2 times as part of his attacks. Do we need to do something about that? Nerf Flurry? Nerf Unarmed Strike? Nerf Style Strikes? Nope, we do not. We only have one Monk, and unless that monk decides to break things, there is no need to pre-emptively alter game mechanics.
I simply ask the same courtesy be extended in this case. I am greatly in favor of party balance when it comes to power level. If it turns out Vital Strike is problematic, I can certainly work with GM to find some other option, but I heavily doubt it will be necessary.

@Jiao Feng: Just as well - I am certain we will meet mythics before, but I suppose in the final quarter of the campaign, when balance assumes us to have certain mythic abilities, we will struggle more against our foes than early on.
@Str at Level 16: 16 to start(14 buy, +2 race) - could be higher theoretically, +6 physical prowess from Automatic Bonus Progression, +4 from Level ups(4, 8, 12, 16) is 26 - plus optional mythic ability score increases.

I mean, demons/devils are not hard to deal with until much higher levels, and then only if you dont have access to an EX or possibly Su flight ability (as the upper end demons can simply dispel your flight, it's one reason permanency spells really dont sit well with me, one action from an enemy and poof.)

Also, there are plenty of ways to break the system, many of them aren't even damage oriented. I remember tinkering with a pole arm build for a fighter based around using dex to hit and strength for damage. Trained grace and fighters finesse, You'd get like a 22 str around level 17, and a 24 dex (as a min, could possibly get like 26 in both)
With dueling gloves you would have +6 to hit and +12 damage from weapon training. If you take the dragoon archetype, that becomes +6 to hit, and +24 damage Without any other modifiers. Then take leadership (or monstrous mount feats) for a pegasus/ griffon (or some variant with flight)and use spirited charge with a lance. Your base damage is 3d8+27(str)+72(weapon training) and that's after the un needed nerf to vital strike and charge actions/spring attack. And that's without a lot of work to "break" things. Slap on impact and you get 6d6 instead of 3d8. So, MINOR optimizing would lead to numbers like, 6d6(~18)+27+72+12(magic)+12(greater wep specilization)+45(Power attack) and you are close to ~200 damage in one hit. And that's not even really that outrageous, he can also do it reliably, since he still has feats left over for iron will, blind fight, etc. And technically you get the spirited charge/death from above bonus on your second attack as well RaW in unchained AE(so about 400 damage in a turn both hitting). I honestly wouldn't be terribly upset if a fighter dishes that out in a turn, since by now the wizard can stop time, create his own plane, summon and bind all manner of creatures etc. The fighter fights.

I dont even think a smiting paladin comes close to that, save their first attack. But, I'd still likely rather play the paladin from a "power" position because it's much easier to make the paladin more survivable. With his base line defenses. Though if the paladin opts for a divine mount, the fight can still grant his weapon enhancements via warrior spirit. (Which I think should be an EX ability.

The only drawback is you can't pounce, (which for some reason a barbarian can do)

To be honest, I've also been tinkering with a mounted kineticist using leadership, and that gets crazy fun.

What my rambling had been meant to show is there are plenty of better, more efficient ways to break things, just because someone finds a combo that works well together (say vital strike returning weapon) does not mean it is CLOSE to being broken. And that players have to have a degree of trust put in them to not break the game.

The point of games are to have fun. I've played both at "power" gaming tables, and at RP/laid back tables, both have great aspects about them that I find enjoyable. I felt that this game was a more RP centered one with a heavy emphasis on toning down things.

Good=/ broken, and I dont think getting two vital strikes in a turn is particularly broken, some would argue it's barely even good.

Aye Darrien, that was my point.
It is EASY to break things if thats your goal. Builds doing 250+ damage per round are not hard. That does not mean any of the aspects used are individually broken or need nerfing.
It takes a combination of aspects, and above all intent to make things broken.
That said, yeah, a Fighter dishing out 400 damage a turn is hardly broken in a world where the caster points a Finger and you drop Dead(or get Imprisoned, if we go to Level 20...Will Save with -4 is more likely to get the Fighter than the Fortitude Save). Or, just for fun, use Abyssal Bloodlines Added Summonings plus Superior Summoning, with Spell Perfection(Summon Monster IX) and a Greater Rod of Giant Summoning to get 4 Gargantuan Nalfeshnees with +10 Str/Con. (No idea if that still works...it did a while back)

@Mobility: (SU) Air Walk from Heritor Knight 10 - late but yeah.
What I referred to was not only their own flight, though - if these Demons came forth through a Gate/Rift, as opposed to being summoned, then their Greater Teleport-Ability is online(as are their own summons). So if the tide of battle turns against them, unless they are phase locked/dimensionally anchored etc. they can simply retreat or head elsewhere, warning others or getting reinforcements.

Also, welcome back to GM Toothy :)
The trip was until the 20th if I remember correctly.
I believe most people on the boards have only limited posting capabilities during this time of year, with family visits etc...taking up plenty of time.
Anyway, wanted to wish you all happy hollidays and announce that I'll be among those not certain how many chances to post they'll have until around new year. So if we start and you don't hear back from me quickly...I'll be back shortly :)

Also, welcome back to GM Toothy :)

The trip was until the 20th if I remember correctly.
I believe most people on the boards have only limited posting capabilities during this time of year, with family visits etc...taking up plenty of time.
Anyway, wanted to wish you all happy hollidays and announce that I'll be among those not certain how many chances to post they'll have until around new year. So if we start and you don't hear back from me quickly...I'll be back shortly :)

Thank you! Indeed I came back to Brazil on the 20th, but managed to get home only on Friday. You did not heard from me because me and my wife own a restaurant that only had service in the weekend... So I was swamped. But that is not all... Of course not! We are also hosting the Christmas of our family. If I'm alive when it ends, I belove I'll be able to officially start this campaign on 27th. Sorry about the delay.

No problem. Have a good christmas.

I will be on a cruise with no access to the internet from January 2 - 9th. Sorry.

Happy holidays everyone!
Looking forward to start this game and hope GM Toothy had a nice honeymoon and will survive the big relative craze sane.

Merry Christmas all. Hope you enjoy the holidays

Oh. Also, I had an idea, what if each of the players picked a "scene/sight" that would cause a sanity check to already be "immune" to, it would add a small bit of flavor I think, and there would be plenty of other instances that would require a check anyway. Of course, this would have to be something that meshes with the background/story of the character, but it was just a fun little thought I had.

Very well, guys, it is finally up! Sorry for the delay.

Darrien: I'm not sure right now. There is a lot going on at the moment. Lets start this game and we think about it later.

fantastic, first roll of the game is a nat 20, and I spent it trying to save some random NPC child. But hey, if it works, totally worth it.

fantastic, first roll of the game is a nat 20, and I spent it trying to save some random NPC child. But hey, if it works, totally worth it.

I'll certainly allow it, but I'm waiting one more day to post since we are still in holyday season and not everyone had the chance to post.

I'm not sure if you noticed but Matheus has the Good Dreams trait (only available to halflings who worship Desna). It is horribly mislabeled as it only gives you bad dreams. Just thought I'd point it out explicitly as it requires more GM work although it also gives GMs a way to foreshadow cryptically too which can be fun.

If you don't like this trait I can swap it for another.