AVE IMPERATOR's page

Even if they don't discover whatever it is that game, it makes it all the easier to drop hints and clues later and you can wait for the light bulb moment when they realized they missed something. I love those.

I hope I'm not the only DM here who does this, or this will be an embarrassing confession... but I do the "every town has a secret" thing too, and quite often my players will tie my "secrets" into the overarching plot for me.

Players: "The mayor's daughter is a vampire? Clearly she's an agent of the lich king! This town must conceal one of the hexagrammic seals which bind the gate to where his phylactery is stored!"

Me: "Yes.... excellent deduction..." (steeple fingers like Mr. Burns)

There is a game called Delta Green which is a great resource for plot-starter secrets... I can't find a list of Delta Green conspiracies at the moment (DG conspiracy: you can only find lists of DG conspiracies when you don't need them because TCP/IP is actually executed by superconducting Martian brains that feel that horror-roleplaying games trivialize the very real threat of the Great Old Ones!). Hopefully someone else has one handy?

If Paizo made everything perfectly balanced, people would complain that its unrealistic and too uniform. If they print some options that are bad and some that are good people complain about it being unbalanced. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Very astute. I have absolutely no interest in a game wherein a 20th level Wizard isn't objectively more powerful than a 20th level Fighter. If I wanted that I'd play Exalted... but I know there are people who categorically disagree with me, and enjoy the game as much as I do. Its one of the reasons I still play RPGs in person; because while you start with the rules we all have in common, you can adjust them to fit your preferences.

I was just mentioning in the other thread that I played a Paladin w/o powers (basically a commoner) for several years of real time and had a blast doing it. The character was a farmer fighting off an Orc invasion. I had a blast.

That's a really great idea. One of my favorite characters I ever played was in a low-power 3d6's campaign; I was a Ranger with sub-10s in all my mental stats and in my Constitution. I played him as Robin Hood. :)

The first step to understanding will come when you realize wizards in myth and fiction are not "those who can revise reality with a gesture," and that warriors in myth and fiction are not merely "those who are really strong and good at hitting people."

You want to eliminate strategy and tactics from fights and ensure every fight is just the fighter standing in place in front while everyone else attacks The Baddie until it reaches zero health?

No, like I said, I want it to be less like a video game.

I like the verisimilitude of non-discrepancy.

Man, if I could, I'd totally make D&D more like WoW in this respect.

We have fundamentally different aims. I wish D&D was less like WoW. I respect your individual preference though, and hope your personal games are as WoW-like as you hope for.

You're not done yet AVE IMPERATOR

+1, thanks. :)

The AC of 16 isn't bad for a two handed weapon user(10 +2dex +3 wisdom +1 Dodge)

Thanks for the build! Your AC is actually even one higher; every 4 levels Monks get an unnamed Ex +1 to their AC and CMD.

Any fighter with the TWF feat tree and disarm/trip weapons can do the same full attack, trip, disarm, dirty trick described above. And they could do it better because of cheaper weapon enhancements, bonuses for wielding disarm weapons, and weapon training.

I don't understand - how is a fighter who has sunk his feats into the TWF feat tree and is using an enchanted disarm weapon better than a flurry'ing monk who is using an enchanted disarm weapon? Did you forget that monks can wield disarm weapons while flurrying?

classes such as fighter and barbarian can end up having more bonuses than monks on combat maneuvers due to more focused ability scores and abilities. And that is true.

The Monk will have better Saves, more resistances/immunities, a higher touch AC, a higher movement speed, and more skill points than a CMB-fighter of the same level and resources. Those things have value - especially towards the middle/late game when hit-points alone are a poor shield, and you start running into a lot of "save-or-suck" spells.

If you narrow a question of utility finely enough then yes, the Monk is demonstrably less useful... but the min/max'd Fighter builds which are superior to Monks at Grappling are ultimately min/max'd. They have an in-built minimum. Monks have many fewer minimums than the meticulously tailored CMB-fighter.

It's about having balanced options.

In whose mind is that what its about?

I don't have any problem with a level 20 Wizard being objectively more powerful than a level 20 melee combatant. I like the verisimilitude of the discrepancy.

Personally, I think the futile struggle to balance the classes is caused by video-game myopia.

Monks can certainly hold their own, Krimson. It's just that other classes can do anything the monk can do, only better, so why ever play a monk unless you are a masochistic roleplaying junkie?

...and in different areas, as opposed to one-trick ponies.

In other words, if the problem comes down to people just being rude about optimization (regardless of their stance on the issue), no matter what kind of thread they post in, how is a char-op board actually going to help things, beyond cluttering up the board with more subforums? I fully acknowledge I may be missing something here.

I see two benefits to a char-op board; first, like Charles Dunwoody said, char-op can be "really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice." I really think new players should try and get into the game and just play - I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I've seen a lot of people turned off by d20 systems because of all the rules. They seem to mistakenly think that you need to familiarize yourself with all the supplements and rules before you can start playing. In my experience, the best way to learn how to play Pathfinder is to just start playing and pick up rules as you go.

When someone goes into the Advice forum and wants to make an elven archer, I want them to find a thread geared towards new players - not one geared towards squeezing every last damage-per-round out of a build, filled with the sort of acronyms, nicknames, and jargon that char-op discussions use. I think that char-op behavior is just point-blank unpalatable to some sorts of people, and is an objectively bad way for new people to be introduced to the game.

Second - as a long-time poster at the WotC char-op forums years ago, we built up a number of "libraries", dozens of threads with hundreds of posts detailing the minutia of different archetypes and sourcetexts. You really got to know individual posters and could expect a certain insight from them. I believe that a mutually-supportive "char-op community" is unlikely to form without a char-op board.

AVE IMPERATOR wrote:

Combat-maneuvers may be less useful in late-game play, when Freedom of Movement can become ubiquitous

FoM has no affect on the majority of the combat manuevers a monk can do.

That is true - but, and I may be wrong here, it does interfere with grapple, and I think grapple is the only combat maneuver which makes concentration checks more difficult. Right?

it's the "right way to play" attitude that I think is trollish, and that attitude comes from certain kinds of optimizers.

I feel very confident in saying they will not go away just because a char-op forum is made for them.

If by they will not "go away" you mean there will still be occasional char-op posts outside of a char-op board, then I agree with you. I don't think there is anything wrong with that - and I suspect you don't either.

If instead you mean 'there will be no reduction in char-op posts outside the char-op board', then I disagree with you. Neither of us can see the future (right? :)), so barring the creation of a Char-Op board, I don't think we'll know which of us is correct.

People intent on being uncivil because someone doesn't play the way they do are the root of the problem, and not all the subforums in the world will make them disappear

I agree completely - and just reiterate one more time that the root of the problem has nothing to do with char-op, and rears its ugly head in people who are anti-char-op and people who don't have opinions about char-op as well.

The root of the problem is the authoritarian inclination to tell others how best to have fun. You can find it in a person of any temperament.

If you play the role of the skirmisher... If you stand there and flurry away with full base attack bonus...

Monks aren't great for high-damage builds, but they are great at combat-maneuvers. A Monk can be a tier-one tripper, grappler, dirty-tricker, etc.

Combat-maneuvers may be less useful in late-game play, when Freedom of Movement can become ubiquitous - of course, by that stage, so does melee combat in general. I think you may be holding Monks to an unreasonably high standard.

In the end, you'll be the lone survivor of a near TPK and the rest of your party will hate you for it (since your lack of able contribution likely led to their deaths).

In Pathfinder, Monks can just as easily be secondary healers and even resurrect their party members. Being the lone survivor of a TPK isn't so terrible in that event.

Anyone who thinks an optimization section of the boards is going to quarantine the problem is deluding themselves.

I think the problem is even if you create a char-op forum, the optimization trolls are still going to be hitting the normal rules and advice threads and baiting the devs no matter what you do. (And ninja'd!)

Thanks for the song! I think you're talking about a separate problem though - I think you're talking about the problem of trolls. Unless you believe that all people who discuss char-op are trolls?

I'll agree that trolls won't go away no matter how many boards you make for them.

On the other hand, if there was a Char-Op board, I believe there will be less Char-Op posts that aren't on the Char-Op board.

*edit* - LT's response is smarter and better than mine was.

|
|
v

I really don't see how it is a problem. When jumping into a thread in the advice area, read what the original poster is asking for advice on.

Your example goes a long way to showing how improbable that would be - no-one is going to give you optimization advice when you ask about hat color... or at least, I haven't seen that happen.

What I have seen happen is people who are new to a game and are still trying to pick up the basic play mechanics stumble into a Char-Op thread and find themselves confronted with a lot more rules than they need to worry about. I have seen people turned-off of games because they mistakenly think that they need to learn all that before they can play.

When someone wants to know how to build a character, they don't need to read a thread on how to build an optimized character, but if one puts both threads in the same Advice section, one makes that more likely.

Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.

I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset.

I categorically disagree with this sentiment as I don't believe that Pathfinder has "goals" in any definite sense.

I would bet that Paizo will never make an official statement declaiming any style of play. I suspect that Paizo is happy for its customers to enjoy Pathfinder however they please. I think the number of people who think there is a 'wrong way' to play Pathfinder is probably really small in general, and probably vanishingly small at Paizo in particular.

I love char-op in Pathfinder, and would really appreciate a dedicated forum for it.

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing." <link>

"Polymorph

This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing; the spell has no effect on unwilling creatures, nor can the creature being targeted by this spell influence the new form assumed (apart from conveying its wishes, if any, to you verbally)."

...can't sleep, wizard make sexy again... can't sleep, wizard make sexy again... can't sleep...

Moox a bit of constructive criticism, coming from an academic writers background here...

When your opponent's criticisms are on the order of 'heard it all before, you're wrong', its silly to spend any amount of time attempting to refute them. You can't refute someone who doesn't bring an argument to the table. Sarcasm is exactly the right retort in that case.

Nice, I hope that works out! One of the benefits of playing a monk with a bloodthirsty DM is that they can't really design encounters that play to your weaknesses, because you have defense from all corners.

Thanks for this thread Moox... now I want to try and play a high-level Monk. A lot of the most interesting Monk abilities really don't accrue until high levels (like Monk of the Lotus's Touch of Surrender @ 12, or Monk of the Four Wind's Aspect @ 17). I think a Zen Archer could be the highest damage archery build in the game, as well.

The only problem with this thought process is when you include people who scour the rules to get the best possible AC, Damage output, etc.....

I'm a rules-enthusiast who likes to play optimized characters and I like monks just fine. :)

The way I usually build a monk is around having a very high initiative and maxing out my CMB for grappling and tripping.

You don't have to be a monk to have a 10+ initiative bonus with which to act first, charge across the room, tumble past any AoOs, and grapple a flat-footed spell-caster before they've cast a single spell - but it is a niche that the monk can inhabit very easily, from level 1 on - and one they just keep getting better at until about level 12 when all melee classes start to enter obsolescence.

If they were they would require a feat called Superior Weapon Proficiency and not Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

What something is called doesn't determine what it is/does. "A rose by any other name..."

What you missed is that only characters from a specific geographic region would get the Bastard sword for free. Not everyone is going to get it. They might prefer the package they get from a different geographic region.

No, in fact I understood that. I apologize that it wasn't clearer that I was only using the bastard sword as an example - some weapons are going to be better than others, and there is a mechanical incentive to use them. By changing the system you're going to be creating what economists call a perverse incentive for people to select their region based on what exotic weapon feat they receive.

Conclusion: There's no point in banning a falcata if you are not also going to ban many other things.

I tried to do the math based on Kilbourne's thinking. Someone let me know if I made a mistake please.

Avg. Dam / Crit % / Crit Multi. / Confirm % / dam*crit %*crit mult*confirm %

Falcata / 4.5 / 0.1 / 3 / 0.5 / 0.675 / 5.175
Falcata +2 / 6.5 / 0.1 / 3 / 0.6 / 1.17 / 7.67
Falcata +1 Keen / 5.5 / 0.2 / 3 / 0.55 / 1.815 / 7.315
Scythe / 5 / 0.05 / 4 / 0.5 / 0.5 / 5.5
Scythe +2 / 7 / 0.05 / 4 / 0.6 / 0.84 / 7.84
Scythe +1 Keen / 6 / 0.1 / 4 / 0.55 / 1.32 / 7.32
Warhammer / 4.5 / 0.05 / 3 / 0.5 / 0.3375 / 4.8375
Warhammer +2 / 6.5 / 0.05 / 3 / 0.6 / 0.585 / 7.085
Warhammer +1 Keen / 5.5 / 0.1 / 3 / 0.55 / 0.9075 / 6.4075

These are based on the assumption your target has an AC 10 higher than your BAB - so an unenhanted weapon confirms %50 of the time - that is, you need to roll an 11 or better to hit your target. As the chance to hit a target decreases, the value of critical-hit-increasing mechanics also decreases. Increasing hit-roll is factored in to threat-confirm rolls.

Long story short - the scythe +2 is the best of the 9 weapons above with an average damage per strike of 7.84. It is two-handed though.

If my math is correct, increasing your chance to confirm is usually worth more than increasing your chance to threaten a critical.

Exotic Weapons are usually a little bit better than their nearest martial equivalent (as they should be). Bastard sword vs. long sword is the clearest example - if everyone could use a bastard sword, the only reason to use a long sword would be for RP reasons, or convenience (as in the case where you found a great magical long sword).

Most discerning characters would use the bastard sword as it would be more likely to keep them alive. Characters know the world they're inside of intimately, its rules are their physics. Characters should tend to pick the most mechanically efficient way of keeping themselves alive - if you give someone flint & steel and gasoline & matches and ask them to start a fire... you shouldn't be surprised when they use the gasoline.

My point is: if you make one option clearly superior to others, you're going to see a lot more of it. Do you want everyone running around using exotic weapons? If so, then I think your change is a good idea.

On the other topic within this thread... the falcata does seem to be pretty good, what with there being so few things that are immune to critical hits in Pathfinder and all... and there are certainly some instances wherein it would be worth a feat; but I think that most builds would benefit more from feats that increase their tactical depth like the Improved CMs.