Out of everything to get the banhammer, it's the Trench Fighter?!?! They don't even get freaking proficiency. Lol. No Gunsmithing. No Grit. No Deeds. No starting with a battered gun. No crafting bullets. Hilarious.
I had forgotten about Picaroon, honestly. And Dune Drifter Cavalier, until now.
IMO, most of gunslinger is a bad class. It's redeeming quality is picking up dex to damage. A trench fighter with a 1 lv multi class into something that gives gunsmithing is superior to a gunslinger in just about every way I can think of. To clarify I am not saying a gunslinger is bad in the big picture, just that imo the "best" gunslinger is the one that takes as little gunslinger as possible.
Hmm I talked it over with the gunslinger and he seemed ok with understanding that while I feel it would be overpowered in his build since he was already taking base fighter levels and was getting proficiency from elsewhere, that for this swashbuckler build I think allowing it will basically allow him to be doing similar damage to just a two weapon fighting melee build, plus there will already be problems of him reloading the guns.
Anyone see any potential exploits thatd break things by letting him go trench fighter inspired blade (if I remember right there is a way to use int to diplo and bluff so he could still be a "smooth talker" going int instead of charisma). I guess that also potentially opens up levels of eldritch archer Magus if he really wants to since Ranged Spell Combat says you dont need a free hand with "ranged weapons"
Spoiler:
(Ex)
Instead of a light or one-handed melee weapon, an eldritch archer must use a ranged weapon for spell combat. She doesn’t need a free hand for ranged spell combat. The eldritch archer cannot accept an attack penalty to gain a bonus on concentration checks to cast a spell defensively.
Oh boy lot to answer. We are going to be playing through runelords. Standard gun rules. I unfortunately already vetoed trench fighter for the cowboy because imo it is way overpowered unless the setting is modern guns. Levels will go from 2(maybe 3)-18. Races I am cool with anything but goblin, the alien races, and 3rd party.
Also thank you for the build ideas I will look at some of the archetypes and feats mentioned.
All right, I need more forum wizardry to help me wrangle a concept into some kind of coherent build. Player is wanting to play a smooth talking pirate that fights dirty, sword and gun preferably. Also has expressed interest in the possibility of having some kind of spellcasting. The player last player a martial that basically devolved to I run at the thing and hit it till it dies every round and there really wasn't any decision making to be done. So I am trying to think of things that are a bit more well rounded in terms of being able to offer some battle field control with Dirty Tricks and still having some damage.
My problem is every train of though I have with this character either ends with it being jack of all trades master of none, which in my experience end up not being fun. Or it end up focusing too hard on one aspect of things, to the point where you would never do anything else.
Currently my thought is to go swashbuckler and multiclass into something. I am currently wrestling with the idea of you go in with melee, do something to get them flatfooted, then because they are flat footed use the gun point blank and shoot them flat footed touch. I feel like you'd need to get a bunch of things that decrease accuracy and up damage for that to make sense. I feel like something is there but I cant get the individual pieces to make a picture.
Anybody have a good idea for a gun and blade pirate build that doesn't just devolve into your either real bad with a gun and good with a sword or real bad with a sword but good with a gun?
Employee? That's player and an evil autocorrect, right?
As far as orders go, order of the guard gives a favored terrain which you can change daily; this is an initiative bonus (useful on the quick draw) and also skill bonuses which may be appropriate. Of the eastern star gives defensive bonuses, of the dragon is about aiding allies, ronin is strangely appropriate to a western gunslinger.
Gunslinger 5 / something else X is a solid way to go. Luring cavalier isn't a bad choice though make sure you get boon companion or horse master to keep your mount from dying under you instantly. Fighter is certainly an option, or slayer or rogue or vigilante or even gun chemist alchemist; I'd probably stick with the second class rather than multiclass again.
Oh boy, that's what I get for trying to multitask at work. Yes, I meant player.
I was hoping the collective hive mind of the forum could help me help build and plan out a gunslinger (as in someone who uses guns not necessarily limited to the class). The current idea is styled after the classic wester moment of the good guy and bad guy meeting at the center of town and whoever draws first wins.
The one shot one kill build is generally speaking less then ideal I know, so I have been trying to find way to augment it that will be more of a big opening shot with the power decreasing over a couple rounds. IE not built for fights longer then 5-6 rounds.
First let me state the things I think we have locked in. We are going Mostly Human Ifrit, Wildfire Heart, Desert Mirage, and replaced the spell like with a thaumaturgy-esq spell that does the western whistle noise and a tumbleweed appears per the players request.
Second, I am allowing the employee to use a revolver because reasons, but also partially under the understanding that he will not be going a two weapon, make 12 attacks per round build.
Lastly, kind of the original thought on this build was to have fun with frightening ambush and having a very high initiative bonus.
My current thought is that the first 5 levels of gunslinger are pretty good and pistolero help that initial volley hit really hard, you pick up the dex to damage, some feats and an init bonus.
Luring Cavalier fits that idea of the 1 on 1 duel kinda vibe, picks up a horse mount, and order of the sword gives some pretty ok bonuses.
Fighter right now is really just to grab the feats and because right now we are thinking of grabbing deadly stroke at higher level since I think the plan right now is to build out of frightening ambush into shatter defenses.
I guess right now my concern is that I dont know the orders or really the amounts of class levels to take. There might be classes that do some of this better. I partially feel like getting some sneak attack in here would be powerful since things will be flat footed so often. But if you dont get off the flat footed it'd be worthless.
I really like the idea of grabbing some of the NPC's and just tweaking them to be a bit weird. I think I might twist Nugrah a bit, I really want to make a site bound oracle at some point, so I might toss a lv of oracle in there so he has the curse. Maybe grab one of the like undead-esq oracles and if they treat him good a rehab him he will level druid, and if bad will get more lich-y
I was actually thinking about making a celebrity bard, have him be super good mechanically, but just the worst person. Make them decide if the want to put up with like a super douchey frat bro to have a good council person. So i may steal the lyre for that.
I am currently running a Kingmaker campaign and instead of using the standard list of NPC's that they can use, they npc's are fine but just all a little vanilla for out party, I was wanting to make a handful of dumb NPC's using weird/fun build that would normally not work.
My thought is that I would like to do weird build that do X thing really well, but as a character would be to MAD or be something that would be so many classes that it wouldn't be great in combat.
For example I made Frank and Scritch. Frank is just some random like Adept 2 commoner. But Scritch is a magic squirrel. Lv 8 Ancient Guardian druid lv 6 Life oracle. Scritch has the Deaf Curse, Metamagic Still spell, and Natural Spell so she can cast while wild shaped. I just enjoyed the idea of having some dude who seems borderline immortal, but is actually just being protected by a druid healbot who spends all their time wildshaped as a diminutive squirrel, secretly healing the guy. In an actual party 8 levels of druid to just be a squirrel would be a waste and dumb, but thats the whole point with these NPC's!
My only real requirement is that I don't want their stats to be too crazy as that determines their rolls for the kingdom stuff. I'd like to stick to the rules for requirements on stuff, but things like alignment restriction or even race restrictions, if their is a reason, dont need to be followed.
For spiderman mine was straight unchained monk, I dumped chr, a real spiderman would have mid 20's in every stat but that's just not possible, but still had max ranks in umd and took a trait that gave it as a class skill. Get two spring loaded wrist sheaths, one with web and on with web bolt. Slippers of spider climb, and I also had a wand of regular spider climb. I took the grappling feats and the dimensional dervish feats and for the ki powers I took abundant step and then ones that increased mobility. I just fluffed that the abundant step was him just web zipping to enemies and the one that let's monks fly as long as they could end their turn on the ground as his web swinging.
So the hulk I made was a mutagenic brawler, invulnerable rager build. Mutagenic brawler gives the mutagen to boost str and also gives the brawlers unarmed attack. Inv barb gives the dr and rage powers. I also took eldritch guardian fighter for two levels and took a valet familiar to get amplified rage working. I took raging vitality for more con and not dying when I go unconscious. So I rage for 8 str and 10 con, mutagen for -2 int +4 str started with a 20str and at lv 6 had a +2str belt. So I had a 32 str, albeit for a limited time, at lv 6. Seems as hulk like as i could get.
So I am running hells vengeance and I want to get ahead of a problem before it happens. So we have an anti paladino's that cause things within 10 feet of him to lose fear immunity. Normally not a problem, but I have an executioner slayer who is going an intimidate shatter defenses build. So by level 14 he will be able to asassinate infinite times per day and once per day can do so without the standard to study.
So what can I do from every fight becoming a joke. Am I missing something about asassinate? I dont want to just make all the big bosses have fortification or immune to crits but I also dont want him to one shot every encounter.
I'd not do bloodrager in all honesty, unless like those above your GM is willing to let you have a -2 instead of -4. But personally, I think you could make a very strong blaster caster. It is pretty formulaic though. The crosblooded draconic/orc is just so strong. Pick whatever element you think is likely to be resisted least, if you can't decide taking the elemental bloodline of the same energy in place of orc is an option so you can convert type, and blast with those types. Take you sorc favored class and get a few extra points of damage, because why not, and blast the hell out of things.
With the whats best out of the way we can talk about the weird and fun. So start your game as a 1 bloodrager/ 1 cross blooded draconic/orc sorc/ 1 dragon disciple. Now you just decide as you play how much of what do you want to be. For instance, you decide you want to be very melee heavy. Get to lv 4 of DD take eldritch heritage and pick up some of your bloodline powers as you see fit, orc has some str boosts, and have fun as the dragon-iest dragon boy ever.
So evolutions are weird, they are Ex, non-magical, non-polymorph and permanent in the same way feats are, changes to the creature. There is an argument that for instance you can not use enlarge on a creature with the large evolution. To those people I'd bring up the fact that Ex abilities added to a creature via class abilities, such as claws from a sorc bloodline, persist through polymorph. Ex-abilities intrinsic to that creature, an octopus having grab, are lost during a polymorph. Why does this matter? Well if evolutions are not permanent changes to a creature, thus bypassing many of the "magic doesn't stack" rules, then it all persists through polymorph. As much as I assure you polymorphing my eidolon into a squirrel and then having it become a huge firebreathing squirrel is amusing, it isn't how it works. But ask your GM and remember to let them know that either your creature does 2d6 on a bite or mega-death squirrels.
I sure hope so, because even if they make a bear fall swiftly to a powerful magic spear, even in heavy armor bears are horrifically capable of disfiguring a human. They should honestly be a very capable threat well into the mid levels.
I feel like regular bears should be around 3-5 dire bears 7-8ish with advanced and templates to bump things around. By level 11-13 you are basically a demi-god fighting angels and demons. IMO you'd be more likely to fight the god of bears at mid level
I believe they mentioned a big reason why they are changing monster creation was due to a lot of non-magical creatures not really throwing a punch at that CR value. I think we can start to expect animals to feel like actual decent monsters with decent stats in 2e
I very rarely build with a straight class. My Wizard, one of the classes people scream to not multiclass with, took her first lv in crossblooded sorcerer. I wanted to make an enchanter and I saw that some of the very high-level enchantment spells don't seem as good as some of the lower ones. Thus i got the bloodline arcana for the undead and impossible bloodlines and got meta magic rods to let me affect the other typically immune creatures. sure I only have 7th lv spells instead of 8th, but now i can fight two creature types that I normally would never be able to.
I really hope we get an option to double dip into totems, perhaps like an eldritch heritage feat line. So many cool concepts get limited by taking old archetypes/feat lines and making them all totems of which you can have one. Without knowing more totems and exactly what they do it is hard to really grasp it.
Some examples:
Giant+Supersticous= You value strength above all else. To fight the giants you have embraced the mentality of fighting fire with fire. Stronger and bigger, power forged through strength not pidly little spells.
(making an assumption that fury may have abilities to double down on the effects of rage ex. reckless attack)
Fury+Giant= The best defense is a good offense, after all, they cant hit you if they're dead.
Dragon+Giant= Your draconic blood feeds your hatred of the giants. Generations they enslaved your ancestors, but no longer. You will see the giants consumed by dragon fire, they will be ash.
Now sure, there has to be balance, but even just a feat tax plus you have to take the anathema should be enough. I mean with a small handful of totems I already can think of this many combinations, imagine when we have all of them.
I am lame and like to imagine my wizard just screaming FIREBALL in common at the enemies. There is the cartoony, naming your attack and yelling them as you do them stereotype that I enjoy.
I am the worst GM, not always, but I feel that I have earned the title from one starfinder game.
So we were at a con at a hotel, our group was more or less running everything, and we got to the last slot for the night and we had 11 people signed up and only one GM. So I took four of the guys from my normal group and we went up to one of the rooms and I ran the encounter for them. I had never read the scenario, I had been drinking, I had none of my stuff with me. The first encounter went something like this.
"So there is this guy right, a shady guy, prolly does bad stuff, he wants you to go to this place and get a thing. So you guys go to the place and you go look for the thing when WAM, there are some dudes, bad dudes, bad zombie dudes, one of the zombie dudes is a lady and she just stabs you right in your stupid face. I rolled a 12 plus, I dont know a +3, does a 15 hit, yah, 4 damage (I had no dice I was just yelling numbers)"
So after that combat, we had a spaceship combat. We looked like drunk mimes trying to keep straight ship positions in the air, but we eventually got it. But my favorite part was was we there were these green pods, and when eaten they. Yep. When eaten, end of the sentence. Drunk me just started making up what happens when they are eaten because I had no idea what they did, it ended up mentioning them like 10 pages later. Now my table had fun, but if I had to rank my performance as GM it would have been a strong -2/10.
I mean there are priests that justify some crazy s~%% against abortion clinics and I mean the crusades exist. "evils" can be somewhat subjective, especially for certain parties.
I think that an easy middle ground is to create an offshoot that mechanically does something similar to what animate/create dead do and then let people play that. I mean make a summoner archetype off unchained summoner that does the following.
1. Your summon monster ability, have it replace the previous and give it a cooler name, now can only "summon" creatures whose corpse are present.
2. This new creature last hours per level as opposed to a minute per level.
3. You can only control a number creatures whose total HD are equal to or less than your CL.
The problem with that is, I believe, a lot of us like undead. And we like our undead evil. The big issue is whether you can have evil undead and non-evil characters who make use of them.
Sure but we are getting to fluff then and in this case, you can easily use the same logic as a summoner summoning an evil creature. They are not permanent, they are forced to do your bidding, and you can separate it from the evil and necromancy descriptor. Say "You conjure a spirit/elemental/outsider/whatever to puppet the body of a slain creature." It doesn't have to be a true undead to satisfy those of us wanting to play necromancers they just need to fill that niche.
I think that an easy middle ground is to create an offshoot that mechanically does something similar to what animate/create dead do and then let people play that. I mean make a summoner archetype off unchained summoner that does the following.
1. Your summon monster ability, have it replace the previous and give it a cooler name, now can only "summon" creatures whose corpse are present.
2. This new creature last hours per level as opposed to a minute per level.
3. You can only control a number creatures whose total HD are equal to or less than your CL.
It doesn't make any sense for an unconscious character to be willing to be teleported by his friends, but unwilling to be teleported by his enemies. He's unconscious, and can't make a conscious decision.
If you really want this in the rules, then the devs need to provide some in-universe reason that defines actions in sensible ways. It will be quite a bit of rules, but it can get what the devs seem to talk about wanting without special casing PCs, or otherwise allowing for an unconscious person to somehow not be unwilling in some cases, but not others.
I think that there is certainly an argument for me the player not consenting to what you the player are doing to my PC. But I feel my PC has no right to choose whether the spell works or not. If you try and polymorph my PC into a goat while I am asleep, I will not consent and I find that you are being disruptive as I am not here to pvp other players. If the big bad is trying to cast polymorph on me after he knocked me out, then I don't think I should be able to not consent and have it not work andy more than I could not consent and have him not stab me.
Helpless is already incredibly penalizing without adding onto it.
Kyrt - We are only referring to spells that normally only work on willing targets, not all spells.
That is the primary topic yes.
Someone brought up making unconscious reflex worse than helpless.
Yes, I brought up that one possibility would be to make spells that previously require willing targets to just require a reflex save instead. But, I think that the penalties for being unconscious and for being helpless should be different and thus stack on each other. Because someone who is awake and helpless is certainly more able to avoid an ability than someone who is unconscious.
I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again on this thread: the PF1 rule "unconscious equals willing" has nothing to do at all with whether you get a saving throw or not. Unconscious creatures get all the saving throws, only their Dex counts as 0 which might make it difficult for Reflex saves.
Let me quote the rule, from the Core Rulebook magic chapter, section "Aiming a Spell" (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes "You"), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
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.
The rule in question only applies to spells that specifically call out "willing creatures" as their target(s). Dimension door is such a spell, for example. You cannot teleport someone against their will. There is no need for a saving throw, it just does not work. This can be important if your party wants to flee a battle in this way, for example, and you have a raging superstitious barbarian, who can never be a willing target of a spell while raging. If you are unconscious, however, you count as willing and can be teleported.
To reiterate again: the PF1 principle "unconscious equals willing" has nothing at all to do with...
I don't see anyone in this thread stating otherwise? We have actually had at length discussion on whether or not penalties to the saves should be altered or removed in pf2. My point has been that you take penalties to reflex saves because you are unconscious but only because you are considered helpless. My point is you can be unconscious and you can be helpless or you could be one and not the other. Their penalties should be cumulative, not equal.
Helpless is already incredibly penalizing without adding onto it.
There are actually quite a few types of reflex, but the ones we are typically referring to our subconscious and conscious ones. While a person is asleep very few of their reflexes would function. Also waking up to danger isn't real, so sure you can call it a subconscious reflex, but what is actually happening is you are being stimulated awake by an outside presence. That already has rules, and if you want to have rules where you "awake" from unconsciousness preemptively, great, but that isn't supported by the current pf1 rules.
To me it is simple. You are unconscious. You cant resist anything done to you.
I mean, people can put you under, open your head and literally poke your brain and so on, you wouldnt do anything. That is not to refer to the first post where you cant resist THAT if you are under either.
With this said, it doesnt bother me much what people can resist or cant when they are down. 99% of the time the enemy wont be casting a spell you wont be able to resist, the enemy will be beheading the fallen.
So the player wont roll to resist, he will try to remain alive in my games anyway. On a side note, i guess mages wont be using this trick on NPCs, which is something.
I think part of the problem with being extremely harsh on unconsciousness is that while, sure, if I am having brain surgery, I am probably not waking up from that or moving. If I was taking a quick nap, it's a little different. But you should wake up from sleep with damage or a successful save IMO. Failed saves should depend on the spell I guess.
In terms of penalties, I feel that they should be this.
Reflex: Hard Penalties, slightly worse version of helpless.
Will: Light penalties, obviously susceptible to the weird dream spells.
Fort: No difference
When it comes to magic there are no clear rules, no reallife example to copy from some see it as a matter of the force of will, other interpretations speak of survival instinct. In the end there is no right answer to the question "How should it be?"
In that case a ruling the favors gameplay is the best solution.
Being unconscious is a severe disadvantage, it's not dazzled or confused. As far as mental debuffs go, its kinda more severe than charmed and as such it should have ingame repercussions. The ruling of PF1 reflects that.
Actually, the pf1 ruling is that you are helpless, which while still feel is rough, it certainly should be worse than regular helplessness.
Spells like Teleport and Dimension Door that primarily affect bodies rather than minds could designate "willing or unconscious" targets so that such spells could still be used for kidnapping.
Alternatively, such spells could give their targets Reflex saves to avoid being teleported, with willing targets voluntarily giving up their saves and unconscious characters getting the usual Reflex save penalty for being helpless.
I would argue that If we were to give them reflex saves that the penalty for being unconscious should be tacked on top of helpless. I am certainly susceptible to being affected by reflex saves while asleep and also while tied up. Being tied up and unconscious seems very unlikely that I'd avoid it, like roll a natural 20 likely.
But, yes, you could definitely be kidnapped easier with magic, especially while unconscious and tied up. Which I think is weirdly the problem. I do think that moving it to the spell description helps, but I think it still might come off the wrong way for a lot of people.
I see the reflex save at penalty as a save to wake up and react at the last second.
I guess I just feel that the chance you "temporarily wake up" and still dodge the effect should be significantly worse then you doing that while just tied up. But I see your point and would be willing to throw aside the notion of not auto-failing.
Hey, guys just a heads up I accidentally posted this mid-way through. I have edited in the rest of what I wrote and flagged the double post. Just a heads up in case you see another identical post until it is removed.
I wouldn't be against a penalty for will saves while unconscious, I think we don't have enough number knowledge at this point to say how harsh would be reasonable. I think Unconsciousness should give an additional penalty to helplessness other than making your dex 0 or simply you auto fail reflex saves while unconscious. A DC 13 fireball should still almost always hit me even if I'm a class with a base reflex of +6 if I am asleep. If I am just tied up but awake I can see how some of your ability to dodge could still be used. Fort saves don't seem to have anything to do with your state of awareness and think that they wouldn't need any modification.
Unfortunately the most recent playtest thread derailed into a not great place when talking about a potential change that we are likely having for 2e.
Now, this topic in the other thread brought up strong feelings about sexual assault and consent. For many, this is an issue they don't want to talk about or think about, and that is perfectly fine, but I do think we need to hash out what should be done with this change.
I do ask that we be respectful mature adults about this and talk through our thoughts without namecalling or anything derogatory. With that in mind I will be actively checking on this and flagging anything rude so after you write your post, re-read it and make sure you're sure that is what you want to post.
Spoiler tagging for space:
Spoiler:
So as the spell forum pointed out the previous Pathfinder 1e had the ruling "Unconscious creatures are always considered willing" in relation to targets for spells. Now I think we can all agree that the wording on this is not great and should probably at the very least be rephrased. But, from my understanding, it was decided that now unconscious creatures have the choice of whether they are willing or not.
Here is where I start having an issue. Villains, bad guys, and monsters are likely never going to be willing recipients of spells. If we subdue the big bad and have him tied up and unconscious and go to DDoor, the BBEG is going to say no he isn't willing. If I knock out the assassin who was spying on us but he is unconscious and bleeding out and he isn't willing to be healed he dies and we get no information. Heck if I run up on Jim Stevenson the human farmer dying of a goblin bite he likely won't be a willing recipient of some strange magic either, likely meaning he dies.
Now, I do think that players vs players is a big no no. I think a player should always get to choose if they are a willing recipient of a spell cast by another player, but that choice should be made out of character by the player not the PC.
I think that the easiest way to change this so that the wording isn't weird is to make spells not based off willingness of target. Any character should be able to choose to fail a save, unless they have a specific ability forbidding it ex. superstitious, so make other spells just have saves. Make DDoor a reflex save, allies will always choose to "fail the save."
To make this work I think unconscious needs to make dex=0 as well as remove you base save for reflex saves as well. Your cloak of resistance should still work as well as any other weird magic bonuses, but your inability to actual move should mean it is very unlikely for you to take against reflex while unconscious. Fort and Will based saves don't seem particularity affected by unconsciousness to me so that should be fine.
So what do you guys think it should be? I am interested in what you all think is the right answer for this.
...and I'm not aware of any situation that requires PCs be susceptible to them for the story.
I'm not sure why that's at all relevant, there's practically no situation where you being susceptible to damage would be required for the story that doesn't mean that a creature with natural DR 75/- would be balanced.
If you don't want poison or disease to ever come up, make SROs legal, because such immunity in the player community completely changes the meta of design space.
I mean I've personally experienced it in Dead Suns with GMs specifically disallowing non-humanoid races because of their immunity to something there (although SROs are somehow subject to these effects although with a bonus.)
So because a race is immune to something it can never be used? That is utter nonsense. The only time it would matter is if the scenario "requires" the players to be poisoned or diseased. Even if that did happen all that it requires to still work is "this poison is not affected by immunity or resistance.
With your logic, every race but human should be banned because they all could invalidate something. Oh, androids don't have to breathe, well that mechanics worthless. Oh, vesk are always armed, guess no ambushes.
Party: All right, you're bad at stealth so Just stay back here and wait for us to give you the signal.
Me: Got it wait here, listen for a signal
Party Leaves
I get up and walk away from the table to get a snack, gone maybe 15 minutes.
I get back and ask if I'd been signaled and how long has passed. I hadn't and it had been about 15 minutes.
Me: Wait here for a signal
Wait there for signal
Go over there for signal
Go over there for sandals
Goats for sandals.
Oh boy, they are trading goats for sandals.
I ran up to the fort and knocked. Killed two soldiers and a wizard, before I fell to the 4th color spray and was killed.
I would enjoy an overlay of the runes onto the stars. While I agree that starfinder, e1, and e2 should be treated as different things I don't think they are completely unrelated. If I saw someone was a 1 Gylph Gm my impression would be different than a GM with 5 stars and 1 glyph. I'm sure the art team could make it work, but I lack the coding knowledge to know how that would be implemented.
Edit: but in terms of acrruing the glyphs I think they should be gained completely separate
The potential for conflict is as well present with the current system. Say you're playing a 3-7, it really isn't fair for the level three barbarian to be fighting things that all one shot him just because majority ruled playing up. Likewise, it really isn't fair for the party if the level 7 barbarian is walking around one-shotting lv 3 encounters because they are down. I believe they mentioned the tightening of tiers as a possibility and I think that will solve the most egregious of the issues, but I am still wary of what lv 4's will do in a 1-4.
1st-level magic can be used to perform assault, arson, and seduction. Cast anything, anything at all out in the open, and it should be well and rightly assumed that you're trying to do one of those three things. There's three ways around this problem:
Yeah, I still don't understand that level of paranoia. People keep using the spells as weapon analogy, but that isn't right. Spells are tools, some of which happen to be weapons. Magic is stupidly common on Golarion. Seeing a random stranger cast a spell on a crowded street (one whose body language isn't screaming "I'm about to rob you") and there is no reason to assume it is hostile.
Sure in some backwoods rural village with only 100 citizens the peasants will probably be surprised, but I don't see why the first reaction wouldn't be curiosity over fear. In large cities such as Absolom, I would assume your typical peasant would see several spells being cast every single day, none of which would be offensive in nature.
I think it really is hard to make apt comparisons. If I had to do it I really wouldn't compare them to weapons. I'd say spells are like shoes, but some shoes are just shoes and some shoes shoot hell rays that banish your soul and others summon literal gods to destroy everything.
I think the rule of fun has to be at the forefront as I can understand both viewpoints.
l of which can be assumed is useful for killing and plundering.
Now, to be fair, a lot of this has to do with the setting. In my game, it's entirely possible for a typical person to go their entire lives and never once see a spell cast, or anything that most people would call 'a monster', or a magic item. There's not magic academies in every major city. The local priests aren't spellcasters, just devoted religious people.
So, yes, the dire wolf stays out of city limits, you check your dangerous gear at the city gates, and if you don't like it, you can turn around and go somewhere else.
See to me it is a setting like this that is prime to have fun with public casting. These people don't have magic happening around them. At best they have heard tales of them from long in the past. Maybe your mage is in the middle of the square making fireworks, ala Gandalf, or maybe he is of using his spells for subterfuge. Sure in your meeting with the king of whatever-land he might have his court wizard near by and casting a spell very easily could be interpreted as hostile.
Example, say you're a wizard and your meeting a potential ally from the thieves guild. You meet her at a small bar, with few patrons and sit in the back. Now if you just started casting a spell on her and she attacks you. She doesn't know what you were going to do, schroedingers spell and all. Now say you tell her, "I am casting zone of truth, I will know if you resist. Let us be honest with each other." Say she agrees, a patron noticing this spell casting, comes and asks if the lady is all right. Now you get to have fun with zone of truth and a vague question. Maybe everything isn't all right at home, maybe she really needs to pee. Certainly you would be noticed for casting a spell and you wouldn't really be discreet about it, but certainly, I feel that telling a caster, "hey you know all those cool social based spells, yah you can never use them because I hate magic."
Summoner is my number 1. I don't think summoner functions great as an archetype because it would gut a major part of the class.
Summoners come in a few variants.
1. The build your own animal companion
2. The spam the field with little monsters to control the field.
3. Summon your own big monster and buff it.
Now it kind of matters how the game is when it comes out. If the animal companions are all trash because of how the game system works, then that ruins my hopes for eidolons.
If 50% of consumers all start yelling that all criticism is bad, paizo is likely to listen to them.
Wow. You're crediting our intelligence remarkably little there.
Example, 50% are yelling the shifter is fine we like the shifter because the shifter is what it is and we should be glad we got anything. 50% say it is underpowered and generally worse at its shtick than the druid. As a company you are not likely to burn the cost or man-hours to change a thing that 50% of your fan base don't want to be changed. But say 10-20%ish of the people who dont want the shifter to be fixed, don't want anything ever to be fixed based on the principle that changes how the numbers should really fall.
I in no way am implying any of the paizo staff are less than excellent. All I am saying is that we are currently is a society where it is the cultural norm to yes-man anyone who is making something. whether it be art, movies, or in this case a game. As a result of that I expect to hear a lot of "this is great paizo don't listen to those guys, they just are haters who only want PF 1e" even if something truly would be better off changed.
16 attacks per round doesnt work.So it is similar to that inqusitor build.Using aoo triggers with snap shot , outflank etc.That build is as suicidal as it gets.
EDİT:I guess that is what would ı get by listening to DPR olympics.That builds isnt op.You can kill a build like that with a single ambush.Survivability replaces damage at high levels man.That is how they balance it.
What about that build makes it any more subjective to an ambush then any other class. It is literally just a gunslinger using guns, it is no worse off then any other gunslinger would be. An ambush by a wizard using confusion takes out most barbarians but that doesn't mean barbarians are worthless.
Also why doesn't 16 attacks work.
prd wrote:
This pistol has two parallel barrels; each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action, or both can be shot at once with the same action
I could either go shot, one bullet, shot, other bullet, reload or shot, both bullets, reload. Sure it is a -4 but before penalties a gunslinger at lv 12 has a +22ish to hit touch. Dropping that to an average across all shots to a +8 or +9 still gives you a good chance to hit on every shot.
We do not remove posts simply because we disagree with them. We remove posts that cross the line into abusive. And frankly, when Paizo as a company is the sole target of the abuse, we often err on the side of leaving them up. (Again, you will find many examples of this over the last couple days.) When it becomes offensive to individuals, that's when they come down.
I don't disagree that what you said is your statement and goal overall as a moderating body. I am saying that in my few years on the forums I've seen a few times something get deleted or a thread locked because it was just a bunch of people saying man this is bad, or man what were the writers thinking. There is obviously a difference between saying this idea is dumb and this person is dumb for having this idea. I've seen however that the former can be perceived as an insult to the devs and get deleted.
The replies in this thread doesn't seem to address the concern raised.
Reading the opening post, it doesn't really seem like the concern is about blocking people saying naughty words or being mean, but about fostering a cult of yes men.
If you have been reading the forums for the last day or so, I think you have more than sufficient evidence that that's not how we work around here.
Really? it seems for every one person who says I don't like this thing there is at least one saying how dare you not like this thing your wrong. Clearly one of them can quickly go into the unhelpful and toxic direction, but there are those who have voiced an opinion that paizo is the artist and that your art shouldn't be changed by us.
To be clear, the opening post said "I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities."
If you've been reading our feedback, I think it's pretty clear that Paizo is listening to the entire discussion. Whether individual posters are doing so or not is a separate issue.
Sorry for misunderstanding your post. But, I agree paizo has generally had a great history of not only listening but communicating with us consumers. What worries me is there is a growing minority of players shouting "everything paizo has put out is great and perfect how dare you imply otherwise" If 50% of consumers all start yelling that all criticism is bad, paizo is likely to listen to them. But therein lies the problem. Often things need tweaked and changed and while those people yell that paizo can and will do no wrong, when they sit down at the table they will be unhappy. Kind of the issue of the customer is always right, when in actuality it is usually the customers have no idea what they want until it's in front of them and what they thought they wanted is bad.
huh 1800 DPR gunslinger....at which level?İf it is 20 it doesnt count.More than %90 percent of all pathfinder player groups dissolve around level 12.That is if they didnt already.
at level twelve I'd have to go check but at lv 12 i think it was around 16 attacks per round for 1d8+15ish for an average of 20ish damage per hit for a base average of 320 with no buffs or any special class things.
Double barrel pistol for 2 shot off every shot.
3 from bab
3 from greater twf
1 from rapid shot
1 from haste
Then you get into things like the pistelero can add 3d6 to a shot for 1 grit. The named bullet spell adds a bunch as well.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Your description isn't pathfinders either. You have this nebulous idea of what a paladin is and are so rooted in it you wont let other play something different. I don't stop other players from playing a barbarian with an 18 int and 14 Chr because all barbarians are dumb and live off in the mountains.
Just point something about high damage builds.Having enough damage to kill the boss is enough.Ability to do thousands of damage at high levels is not exactly that impresive.Doing enough damage to kill the boss and doing enough damage to kill the boss 5 times over does the same thing.
Sure that is certainly something that happens more on strength build then on dex in my experience. Barbs very much get to maul the one thing and likely overkill it with some build in the low thousands single target. But a gunslinger who does 1800 DPR is likely splitting that 9 ways, dropping the boss and his mooks.
In an effort to make MAD more common and therefore subtly tweak the dependency on Dex, I reckon if each class were to require dependency on two or more skills, one mental and one physical, it'd allow for some interesting play- for example, Sorcerers using Charisma for spells and Constitution for Bloodline powers. Naturally, this comes with its risks- not everyone wants a Barbarian who needs Charisma, or a Fighter relying on Wisdom.
I was thinking something along those lines. Maybe tie spells per day to one and spell DC's to another. Barbarians already have this to an extent with Str and Con, Id probably say that a way to make them scale more on Con would be to take rage and have it be, instead of 4+con lv 1 and 2 every level after, 4+con and then half con rounded, not sure whether up or down yet.
The replies in this thread doesn't seem to address the concern raised.
Reading the opening post, it doesn't really seem like the concern is about blocking people saying naughty words or being mean, but about fostering a cult of yes men.
If you have been reading the forums for the last day or so, I think you have more than sufficient evidence that that's not how we work around here.
Really? it seems for every one person who says I don't like this thing there is at least one saying how dare you not like this thing your wrong. Clearly one of them can quickly go into the unhelpful and toxic direction, but there are those who have voiced an opinion that paizo is the artist and that your art shouldn't be changed by us.
Yeah...Paladins should be good-aligned, period. That's the fundamental flavor of the class. But don't have a real problem with NG or CG Paladins. Maybe work those in as archetype options.
A general "holy warrior" class: that's what the Warpriest is for, right? Or even a cleric, depending on build.
I think there should be good paladins and (evil) anti paladins. So a LG paladin of serenrae is a good example of typical lawful goodery. I don't see how having a chaotic good paladin of erastil, who is a knight and champion of the forest that will protect it no matter what for the sake of their deity is affects your lawful goodness. I don't see how a LN paladin of abadar that protects all law and order, for the true enemy of the world is chaos makes you have less fun. I dont see how a CE anti paladin of Lamashtu who will protect the brood by any and all means for she is the progenitor of the true great breed of monsters means that you can't stop your party from killing that goblin you knocked out.
But dex builds don't do the damage of STR builds already.Until later levels but then they have to do damage to survive.
I'm not sure what dex builds your speaking of but last I knew in the DPR Olympics a few of the top 5 are dex to damage builds.
My point is if a barbarian does 35 damage per round then a dex to damage build shouldn't be doing 30 because they are also getting so much more out of being dex based. If I take a cross country runner and a NFL lineman and complain that the lineman can't keep up in a long distance race I am being ridiculous. By choosing to play a dex build you are excepting that because I can do x,y, and z my x is going to be less than the person who can only do x. That is just part of the game balance. A person with only x should x the best, followed by the person with x and y, etc.
Currently, you have characters who do x,y,z, and the rest of the alphabet and only do slightly less damage than the Str builds.
