Search Posts
The touch mechanic of guns in general is problematic and unbalanced, and Paizo tried to balance it with by adding other problematic mechanics (like misfire). The end result is a mess.
I keep my 5 year old opinion.
Seems like a sensible houserule for your party.
How badly were they "punished" for going with flavorful but sub-optimal feats? Were they marginalized by players/GMs with "higher levels of play"?I've seen new players taking some "flavorful" options just to get disappointed and not wanting to play PF again. I can't really blame them or any optimizer out there. To give an example, IN a group of three, The core monk with scorpion style felt quite bad when the (totally not optimized) sorceress with a crossbow and the bard where better at killing things than him. He was quite puzzled that trying to use his special trick actively punished him and was shocked when told than he needed much more strength and less dex and wis in order to punch things. BUt there are many example. The str 12 dex 18 TWF fighter feeling bad because he can't kill a thing. Or the poor crossbow guys. Now, I admit that not all of them quitted the game. Some of them learned to choose the abilities for their power and houserules and GM willingness solved the issue for others. But In a game where scorpion style is printed side to side to craft wondrous item complaining about system mastery is puzzling for me.
I've seen new players taking some "flavorful" options just to get disappointed and not wanting to play PF again. I can't really blame them or any optimizer out there.
The issue here is that I don't think Pathfinder's problems are at high level play, they are at low level play. Play before level 7 or 8 isn't much fun, because spellcasters don't have enough spells to be able to use at least a minor spell every round of combat, and the martials don't have their iterative attacks yet. I don't see the fun in being locked to 5-ft in order to do the job.
Agreeing with gorbacz so many times in a single thread make me feels uneasy.
Your method intrigues me. Most guys in Age of empires II are a just a random guy with a sword or a random guy with a crossbow, and it would be hard to do, for example, a scimitar-throwing camel-rider mamluk.
Other settings do not dictate what Golarion does, it doesn't matter what any other setting does since anything and everything can be done in other media. The point is moot since the setting originating this discussion doesn't even have that planet. What happens in some other setting doesn't dictate what happens in starfinder.
-Spellshatter, if your fighter is a dwarf. - Burrow speed, as Emergency force sphere is actually only half and sphere. - Gaze attacks?
Several of the things that add to the CMB also add to DPR. Weapon focus, better weapon, flanking, magic buffs and etc. It's not like if you can't trip a creature you are screw.One would assume any decent trip build is still going to be built to take advantage of all the AoO's generated on a successful trip by maximizing DPR. Which doesn't take much feats and doesn't take much away from standard DPR.
Several of the things that add to the CMB also add to DPR. Weapon focus, better weapon, flanking, magic buffs and etc. It's not like if you can't trip a creature you are screw.
I could totally imagine a family of Arsheans who see this as a time for GREAT celebration. Big party in the entire community. Then again they likely give all their sproglings gender neutral names Would they?, I would imagine such things to not be a big deal in an arshean community, It would be like a common thing in there.
So, is that antipaladin the 30 years old villain you plan to unleash again against your players?
@ Whats teh villian your players have hated the most? @ What was your players most liked character that got a terrible death?
I guess heterosexuality is the norm in most tables I've played/DMed. However sexuality doesn't come as often, there have been plenty of Pc/NPCs that could be one way or the other and I would never know.
Overall good article. But I highly doubt the vital strike line as deeds work at all. I don't see how it can compete with the volley of arrows of an archer or even a crossbowman.
Ah, guns and gunslingers. You are so cool as a concept for fantasy yet so boring and lackluster rulewise.
It seems caster level don't affect major curse (or bestow curse for that matter) at all.It does. In this case, a higher caster level gives a greater chance to overcome spell resistance, longer range, and makes it harder to remove (such as with break enchantment or remove curse). Indeed, I thought that major curse had rouch range like bestow curse.
It seems caster level don't affect major curse (or bestow curse for that matter) at all. Normally caster level affect the duration of the magical effect (example: 1 minute per caster level in the shield spell) and the damage done (example: 1d6 per caster level to cone of cold)
Since a few FAQ are FAQ-rratas, the "unintended way" is a bit misleading.
As a DM, I found that having a bunch of bad options haven't helped me at all in any aspect of the game. YMMV.
Intentionally printing bad options so players won't take them seems to be a thing in PF.
Well, animal big wolves and tigers are quite common.
Before trying to determine if this FAQ (FAQ-rrata?) is good to implement in my house games, I want to know if there is somebody see an advantage in using the FAQ. I mean, does it make the game better? more fun? easier to run? does it take away math work from the DM and the players?
The need of an archetype just to not suck at using firearm weapons have always struck me as a weakness of the system, but that's another argument.
You know, keeping the crossbow much slower than bows (so no rapid shot or the like) but at the same time making it punch for much more damage per hit is a concept that have always intrigued me. THough I have never been able to balance it.
Well, following your philosophy, if the group you play with let themselves to get affected by the tread...Let them stew...I guess they want to..
Since nobody have done an exhaustive statistical analysis, who knows. Lately, As a DM I'm liking random treasure and not caring about WBL and the like. But, to compensate, I also allow things like weapon focus and fencing grace to work with the whole fighter group instead of just one weapon.
WF lockdown you to an specific weapon, though.
I don't think that little known feats from splatbooks, like cut from the air, can be called underrated. They are just not well known. Blind-fight for an underrated feat.
What quibblemuch said.
I personally don't find "social combat" to be interesting (not for the social aspect but for the dice rolling). I do know a published adventure (from Raging Swan) that have that kind of boss fight. If the Pc convince the BBEG to repent then the fight is over, and that seems the best outcome IMHO.
Why does Besmara have that hodge-podge collection of feats? Because they embody fighting like a dirty stinkin' pirate. Could that particular one have been the 'piracy' fighting style? Maybe, but Inner Sea Combat's section was "Faithful Combat Styles". They'd have to all be deity locked, or none would. But they DIDN'T have to. It could have been "expandend combat style". Why are they deity locked? Because we do not actually need 16 more ranger styles to confuse people who just want to play a ranger. Especially not styles with these martial threads. Sure, more options can be good for a confident player with strong system mastery, but they're in a better position to hand-wave the requirements anyway. Printing a lot of stuff that are not "needed" is just what paizo does all the time. There is no difference here. And yes, none of these combat styles would exist without the deity existing in the first place. I'm sure they have plenty of places where to print a "pirate" ranger combat style.
The "so what"? part is that it would be a better game without unnecessary prerequisites. Well, DMs intervening to improve the game is always welcomed and encouraged. But having to do it it's a sign that thing were not made right from the beginning. And yes, we can't say paizo to eliminate combat expertise as prereq for the combat maneuver feats, but we can ask for the feat to not be prereq for any newer feat that is unrelated to fighting defensively. It is true that they are not obliged to listen to that and keep publishing horrible prerequisites, but at least things were pointed out.
I don't find your example of the gorumite gnome to be enlightening at all.
The "so what"? part is that it would be a better game without unnecessary prerequisites.
It is not a coincidence that you always mention blade brush first when this topic comes around. Why don't you mention Besmara ranger combat style? an option based on the worship of a deity and that you failed to associate the fluff with the deity? Both are options that have as a prerequisite the worship of a deity. And both are options that are still functional if you take away the unnecessary worship part. The same way the invocations didn't need the the extra prerequisite.
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it. You can do that kind of justification for any combat feat in the game. every combat feat could be justified to be locked behind a deity. Power attack? obviously just for forumites.
Um no it is very provable, Bladed Brush was made because Shelyn's favourite weapon is the glaive. No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush. It is not a coincidence that you always mention blade brush first when this topic comes around. Why don't you mention, for example, Besmara's ranger combat style? an option locked behind the worship of a specific deity.
Unprovable assertion. And since mast of those options are not really that tied to their deities they could have easily been normal feats.
This being d&d and all that, I bet that advice is given to every newby in adventuring 101.
As a non-native speaker, what I get from the last page of this thread is that no matter what word you use, somebody will get angry. Again, as a non-native speaker, this is hard to believe. From where I'm it would be a strong way to talk to a woman, and from the little English I know, it's seems suspicious. "hey woman, can you do this/that..."
It's that how people talk/is supposed to talk?
I would say that most of Drizzts books (not including 4e era) are good. However, there are some that are really bad. of the hunter blade trilogy are quite annoying. Being the 3E era, one have to wonder how lady alustriel, a CR 28 spellcaster, can have problem destroying an army of low level Orcs.
As a non-native speaker, what I get from the last page of this thread is that no matter what word you use, somebody will get angry.
After all these years, I hadn't noticed how Mikaze's words can be interpreted totally the opposite he intended to.
It absolutely is the GM's and the group's responsibility to attract people,.... No it's not. Nobody have the responsibility to be gain the interests o other people to play in their games.
Why would you play D&D with players who want to be a Drizzt or Elminster? Well, why would you not?, people trying to recreate characters from fictions is like the most standard thing ever.
Yes, sometimes. Other times it failed miserably. for the ones that succeeded, I think the key were: - The party was small
======================= The idea of having such big flaws is really a bad idea. The first time the kleptomaniac NPC cause problems they will just fire him.
That would be a thing if cone of cold were not evocation.
In a world where you can create snowballs I'm sure the laws of thermodynamics are not much restrictives.
|
