BlarkNipnar's page

If my DM didn't, I'd just "research" my Fire Ray anyway.

DM - "Fire ray"? You mean "Scorching Ray"?

You - "No. I studied Fire Ray because you said I couldn't just change spells into completely different effects on a whim. Fire Ray is a better Scorching Ray."

DM - ..? So because you don't like the spell that literally does exactly what you want already; you want a new spell called Fire Ray that's just buffed?

You - "Yeh. I roll 10d6; 42!"

DM - *rolls some dice behind the screen* "That's super weird, it seems you only did 16. Better luck on the next one"

___________
I really can't imagine how you see subverting your DM, the guy who does 100% of the work to run the game for you, is going to turn out.

DM - "What's that spell? Oh you made it up after I said Fireball isn't a ray? No you still can't have Fireball as a ray."

I think the horns are just for show, though. It's clear just by looking at them that dragons didn't evolve, so whatever designed them *cough* Wayne Reynolds *cough* must have thought the horns looked sick.

Now now! What if the lady-dragons also think the horns look sick? Sexual Selection is an entire array of pointless traits that evolved specifically to attract mates.

Examples:
* Peacock
* Weird bird dances
* Lion manes
* And yes, even horns!

Now.. you'd have to decide whether female dragons have horns or not to decide if it's really Sexual Selection or not, according to that final link. Considering that, maybe they don't have Gore attacks because the females *don't* have horns?!

__________________
Of course, this is more about being a pedant than thinking this is actually the reason they lack Gore attacks.

But after that one time, I told him I don't want to start a precedent with you running around poisoning and bluffing shopkeepers to make millions of gold for nothing :P

Interestingly, you don't need that restriction. The Bluff doesn't last forever; that shopkeeper will go to spend coins at some point, which are regular coins, and know he was ripped off 2k.

2k is a hefty bounty for a single target unless they are quite powerful, and a gang of vigilantes or mercenaries may well be hired in order to get the 2k back plus.. "expenses."

The fact that this could occur multiple times could result in a coalition/union of such shops bringing the hammer down; which makes for quite the plot hook.

Usually "rool of cool" comes in when the rules puts an arbitrary barrier simply because someone is combining actions. This is in part because the "Yes, and.." rule of improv.

The purpose is that shooting down someone's idea rather than working with it means that they are less likely to attempt ideas. What's more? That idea may end up causing a very memorable and entertaining scene (which is the point.) I'm still repairing people's willingness to try crazy things from when I was early in DMing and shot down things I couldn't figure out how to adjudicate.

___
Note; if I give some advantage "You gain +1d6 damage for falling on them" then I often reflect that as a disadvantage "and additionally you take 1d6 damage for falling" or w/e. "You get +2 to hit since he's unlikely to defend this attack; but because you're exposed as you fall you'll suffer -2 to AC until your next turn."

Yes, it's true that this is similar to Vicious or similar to Charging; but there you go! That means that under some set of conditions where they had a risk of failing in a bad way, you gave them a bonus that they could've gotten in the game some other way without breaking it.

It's also true it favors creativity and storytelling; but that's the whole point of the game. The point isn't to say "My guy killed a troll." It's to say "Remember that one time the troll was weak so I jammed an alchemist's fire down it's throat!"

And all you have to do for that is look at the rules for Water of Maddening and get an idea that maybe instead of Reflex the monster gets Fort, and gets a -4 to the save for injesting it. How to adjudicate? Grapple; make a successful improvised melee attack with the flask (or possibly some other maneuver.) And so instead of just doing a simple "throw the flask; yay I did 2 damage?" you get a flashy ending to a scene that someone gets to feel like a hero for; and will chat about over beers for years to come.

I'd rather be the guy who runs a table that people will chat about for years down the line because of the stories it created than just some guy willing to run a table.

D&D 5th (and I thought PF1 but I can't find a quote) codified what the DM should do

Sometimes, the GM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill--for example, “Make a Wisdom (Perception) check.” At other times, a player might ask the GM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check. In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check.
For example, if a character attempts to climb up a dangerous cliff, the GM might ask for a Strength (Athletics) check. If the character is proficient in Athletics, the character's proficiency bonus is added to the Strength check. If the character lacks that proficiency, he or she just makes a Strength check.

This is basically how I do it. You choose an ability, you say "make a check with this ability, modified with this skill's bonus's"

What this does is allow a player to frame a situation using their good stats and thus encouraging good roleplay.

Examples:
* You've been studying lockpicking books in your downtime as an Int 16 Dex 8 character. You then frame your approach as "Using my knowledge of locks from 'A Locksmith's Guide' I carefully manipulate the tumblers" (or something..), then maybe I'd say "Roll an Intelligence(Disable Device)"; though I'd be more likely to have them add in their dex mod (-1) as well, given that they are bad at manipulating objects.

* You have poor cha but good wisdom -> Diplomacy. You're requesting the aid of someone and use a philosophical approach rather than a charismatic approach: "When you help one in your community, you help all in it. If everyone would deny us help, then our community will succumb to <the thing>, and you are best positioned to help. In order to help yourself, you must help us." (or something better..) Then I may ask for a "roll a Wisdom(Diplomacy)" rather than Cha which may be an approach that attempts to be friendly, attempts to barter, or some other manipulation of a person that appeals to the way people act

This also helps players pass checks AND promote roleplay; which is good. You incentivize the players to roleplay by virtue of dangling "doing well" in front of them.

Actually, you can make a pretty strong moral argument for eliminating humanity, given its pernicious effects on every other species on the planet.

I wouldn't necessarily say such a viewpoint is evil. It's just a utilitarian equation, really.

Simply untrue. It is not immoral for a human to kill a cow for food; even if there are more efficient means. Why? Because that action does not distinguish the human from any other predator on earth and those predators are not evil. Everything (including plants) competes for existence by destroying what's around it and increases entropy for its own purposes.

So what makes killing humans bad? Because it's the destruction of life for no useful purpose. As with all questions of morality, intent matters.

Even if you attempt an argument such as:

"but it's ok because they also destroy things"

you immediately erase the distinction not only from yourself and those that you're killing; but from all other beings that engage in entropic activities (which are all of them; by the second law of thermodynamics.) Which is to say that any such view is self-contradictory and hypocritical; which thusly means that it must be untrue (wrapping my argument in a nice bow.)

Question: when a villain doing evil gloating before the fight can someone in range make an AoO against them (and mabye a sneak attack also)? I would think so. mainly because it would be funny.

This is likely attempting to punish your GM for doing what they can to make it memorable. Personally I'd probably allow it for some enemies and not others. If I'm trying to set a big scene and a player is like "I run across the bridge while you're talking!" it would be kind of the same thing.

What's worse is that if your GM isn't used to this kind of behavior, they may not be good at handling it and be like "he's surrounded by a force-field!" or something lame. Worse still is removing your autonomy by saying "no you didn't do that."

IMO, it'd be best not to put your GM in this position, but I can see it going either way depending on their experience and such. I've certainly been honest with players and allowing them to do things oddly, often resulting in good memories. Last game they were going to retreat from a creekbed they jumped into, but before going one player climbed it, grabbed an opponent, threw him into the creek bed, the others manacled him and they ran off with the captured enemy! All fairly doable with only slight stretching of any rules, highly memorable, and a little odd to do given that his real intention was to kill one out of revenge since they'd had issues with that fight.

I only ever played 3.5; heard bad things about 4 and ran a campaign under 3.5 shortly after. After a bit a buddy who ran Pathfinder let me borrow his stuff and I was reasonably happy with it.

Slowly but surely over each time I've started a campaign I've added more house rules to make characters develop more naturally, parties develop more naturally, leveling to feel less like a Step Function (math) and more Continuous.

I find Pathfinder to be like a Bethesda game; It's all there and you can have some great experiences, but it plays best with a couple dozen mods.

Also, I don't think a dragon collects its wealth by killing things. That's a lot of work, has to get the gold off the body (or worse, after he's eaten the body.) Allowing the kingdom to pay you to *not* attack it is way easier. You just sit there being a threatening dragon and they just keep paying you.

Every once in awhile someone uppity comes along and you actually gotta go fight to prove that "Yes indeed, I am still very killy"; but aside from that the Dragon is much more at home passively collecting mountains of wealth than it is killing every peasant on the countryside to get another 4 silver.

"I find that hypocritical to encourage roleplay and then tell people to rollplay."

These aren't necessarily different. A good GM will consider the action you've described and then apply modifiers and whatnot to your approach.

Let's take the same situation from several angles using your diplomacy and applicable modifiers.

The setup: A person has a ring you need to get into a temple and we'll assume you're telling the truth in the various approaches I put out.

Approach 1: The blunt player just says "Give me that ring, I need it"
The DM will probably have you roll diplomacy, but will apply a -5 or even -10 modifier to the roll. They may not even have you roll given your lackluster approach and lack if diplomacy

Approach 2: The player gingerly inquires "I could really use that ring. I need it to enter a temple." the DM will probably have you roll diplomacy at a -5 or worse, because you didn't really say anything convincing.

Approach 3: The player says "Hello friend; I am on an important quest from the governor and that ring is a lynchpin to getting into a temple to complete it." The DM may be generous here and give or +0 or -2, as you're polite and explaining the situation.

Approach 4: The player says "Dear friend, I am on an important quest from the governor regarding the peace of the realm; I have a sealed letter from him requesting your assistance. To assist me I require that ring you have to get into the temple." The DM will probably give you a +2 or even +5 as you've shown that what your doing is legitimate and important.

Approach 5: The player says "Dear friend, I require your assistance in an important quest regarding the peace of the realm. The governor themselves have sent me here and I have a sealed note begging your assistance. Additionally, I will gladly compensate you handsomely for your ring as I know this is an imposition." The DM will probably give you a +5 or even a +10 because you're offering compensation, evidence of the problem, and its a virtuous act; certainly hard to pass up.

Approach 6: The player says "Dear friend, I require your assistance in an important quest regarding the peace of the realm. The governor themselves have sent me here and I have a sealed note begging your assistance. Additionally, I will gladly compensate you handsomely for your ring as I know this is an imposition. Additionally, a statue will be built in your honor and I will be in your debt; performing any deed you deem necessary." The DM will probably give you a +10 or even more because you're offering compensation, evidence of the problem, its a virtuous act, you're offering further assistance with any issue the person may have, and furthermore you've promised them honor and prestige for this sacrifice.

This isn't Roll-play just because you roll dice. It's role-play because what you did in the game matters. Just because you fail a dice roll even with a good approach doesn't mean anything is wrong with the game; it means that maybe this commoner is especially selfish, or maybe they're in on the plot, or some other contrivance.

Note: If it was truly important to the plot the DM (if they're any good) has other ways of getting the ring you can take, possibly hiring unsavory characters to get it, or something else.
__________
Also, many times you will be afforded automatic successes or failures by a good DM if your approach to a task is unfailable or would simply be allowed so much time to complete that rolling is pointless.

Shocking grasp and crit fishing are extremely formulaic approaches to the Magus. Purely on principle I can't recommend going this route, it's just painfully overdone and strikes me as the way internet people use the class.

To play devil's advocate; just because someone else got to have fun using a good combo isn't a good reason you can't enjoy the good combo.

While I tend to be a brewer in mtg and play weird builds in online games, there's certainly fun to be had in the unoriginal.

I tend to do this, but I warn the players about it Session 0 (and I tend not to run an established place.) That's how you make it "Not a gotcha."

Similarly, if it's purely for meta-gaming purposes, just let people know you may randomize which resistances a thing has, the DR it has, or similar. If you GM it well, you won't even break the flavor.
_______________

Normally I do it because I think enemies lack some interesting combat abilities or techniques that make them too "bag of HP" ish; or too "one trick pony" (such as Ghouls, Rust Monsters, and various other things.)

Zombies, in mine, are slower, have grab, have a poison bite, and are a little tougher (and are still easier since they are slow enough to easily outrun.) This means they fight slightly different round to round, and interact with more than just the player's HP. Grab makes you want to be away from them, and a poison bite makes them cinematic in a meaningful way.

Some things get entirely reworked like the above, and some things get Trip or another combat maneuver added to their attack. Attacks get switched around to be more interesting. Awesome blow is more common to make fights more engaging.

Finally, a lot of monsters have near-useless feats that just take up space, while having no interesting abilities to give them dynami-cism.

Medium Fire Elemental Example:
The later FE's get Spring Attack, which makes a lot of sense as a flame leaping to-and-fro; synergizing very well with their high move speed. The Medium, instead, can't really use its move speed without incurring repeated AoO's. While it has a high Acrobatics skill, you can't use that except every other turn or so. Simply dropping Improved Initiative in this case and swapping it makes a much more impactful encounter and it'll play much more differently than "Fast melee guy." Consider going a step further (I believe there are feats to get Sorcerer Bloodline powers) and you can make it shoot a ranged (but ineffective) fire attack to harass players.

Medium Lightning Elemental Example (For contrast):
For another elemental example, what about Medium Lightning Elemental? Well, why not focus on having it zap across the battlefield in an intense fashion, knocking players over? My notes read:

"Create an alternate elemental with Improved Overrun, Power Attack, Bulette Charge Style and Bulette Leap. Alter Str to 15.

This will allow it to overrun several players at once. Consider cleave or Combat Reflexes, up CR to 4."

Now you have another elemental that previously would've been "Really fast melee dude"; and instead it's "fast friggin' knock-you-down thing that charges across the map over and over." That feels like lightning to me and is massively different than how the above Fire Elemental works, giving you a feel for the elements actually functioning in different ways.
________________

Point being, if you don't alter anything, they can be rather 1-note and boring. If you alter some things, they can end up playing very different and make each type of enemy more memorable and distinct. Add to that locations and interesting scenery, and maybe an interesting approach or a non-combat objective; you can create a memorable scene that players will have burned into their memory -> and that's really my entire goal as a GM.

Well, yes, when you have two rogues attacking a prone target it is rather easy to generate sneak attacks and get off your situational damage.

Unless you take into consideration the alternate flanking rules, which make it so the rogue can be self-sufficient, which was one such premise in my post. In that case, the rogue can be acrobatic and suck up AoO's while getting a flanking bonus in a party of crossbow-wizards. No biggy.

Without that, you can still get Sneak Attack in a variety of other scenarios, such as Blinded, using a successful stealth check after being behind cover, being in a surprise round, or a number of other things.

BlarkNipnar wrote:

Level 1 Rogue, 18 Dex, 14 Str

Shortsword: 1d6+2+1d6 (average of 9)

Level 1 Fighter, 18 Str, 14 Dex and Power Attack
Shortsword: 1d6+6 (average of 9.5)
Longsword: 1d8+6 (average of 10.5)
Greatsword: 2d6+9 (average of 16.5)

I'm not sure "world's better" is accurate. If we give the Rogue an 18 Strength (without compensating the Fighter) he's better than the shortsword and longsword Fighter, but still behind the greatsword Fighter.

This is a little disengenuous:

On top of this, you're comparing the most straightforward martial character, while using a feat, lacking all those skill ranks, and admit that the rogue still outdamages him in a like-for-like comparison.

Doesn't that entirely prove my point? The rogue at low levels can be out-damaging and out-skilling a full martial class while providing trap utility; and that's by your own words.

For those willing to play E6, the Rogue seems fairly in line. People (without going nuts on optimization) don't tend to have crazy numbers of attacks, and 3d6 extra on a Rogue suddenly is quite a bit; especially if you get two or three attacks off.

Similarly, people can use facing rules [http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm] to get more mileage out of them. Simply get to a specific square, rather than coordinating with a teammate. What's more, your superior Acrobatics will allow you to move there while sucking AoO's out of the opponents.

I get that a lot of people don't play with the limited leveling, and the thought of level 6 characters instead of level 12 sends them into an existential coma; but people should be looking at the options in the following different way:

Just like Magic The Gathering has different Formats; so does this game. For example, there are cards that are good in both Pauper and Legacy like Delver or Lightning Bolt; and cards that are only good in Pauper like Goblin Cohort and some spells that are basically only good in Legacy, like Daze.

The spell casters tend to be like Daze, the pure Martials are maybe a bit more like the staples that are handy in all formats, and maybe, just maybe, the rogue is a bit more like Cohort -> good in some formats because of the limitations of the format.

________
Why does this matter? Because some people here are talking about lvl 6 characters, some are talking about 12, and some are talking about 16. A lvl 1 Rogue is likely worlds-better damage simply because 1d6 is a big deal. Lvl 3 Rogue is still competing pretty well because 2d6 is still a big deal. Lvl 5, Rogue is probably waning a bit, but if weilding two weapons you can smash in for an extra 6d6. That seems perfectly acceptable at that level.

I agree that if you're minmaxing, you can probably *still* do it better with another class; but you probably can't also be a skill monkey at level 6 while doing it as well. I'm happy to be wrong; but I think people are arguing about what are (in their minds of their ideal levels and gameplay) entirely different Formats of the game.