Search Posts
Also a class feature comparison is not a viable way of comparing classes. Why? Because that method would make the monk seem better than the wizard. I don't see how one could compare the monk's class features to the wizard's class features, and arrive at the conclusion that the monk is better than the wizard. I'm almost certain that "9 levels of spell casting" is a class feature, and that soundly trounces everything the monk has.
I'd have it just pass to the comment environment, if I were writing the package. :PIs there an actual TeX package with an "offtopic-nitpick" environment? Someone should write one:P I just decided to create a new theorem environment, and have the numbering go off of sections. So, I now have Off-Topic Nitpick 7.4.1 in my thesis >_>. On topic: People who role-play a low stat incorrectly are badwrongfun?
While much in your post is rather contentious, I just wanted to talk about this bit here. The idea that maximizing one's stats is indicative of character optimization driving character seems to be false (I may have misinterpreted your post). For example, I often start by coming up with a character concept, and attempting to optimize that character concept. In that sense, maximizing my character's stats is being driven by the character I created. Yes, there are times when some stats will get dumped in order to make this character concept come to life in the most mechanically sound way. However, this process helps me flesh out a character much more, and here we see character creation and optimization playing together to create a fleshed out character. Then again, I really enjoy characters that are somewhat lopsided. They feel more real to me.
I did. I was just surprised about the inclusion of Inquisitors,no offense, but did you read my post or just the title? I'm fairly certain that "with inquisitor or ranger a close second." could be interpreted as including inquisitors in the first post.
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title? Perhaps they meant that arcane "half" casters are left out, but that just seems a bit arbitrary.
I enjoy the fact that this topic is titled "Why the Rogue is Not Underpowered", and the discussion has come to the point where rogues are just being mocked. Then again, the original intent seems to have been more along the lines of "Rogues are on par with fighters", which also amounts to mocking rogues.
Of course, I did forget something obvious.
Perhaps this sounds silly, but does the bloodline arcana stack with itself? That is, if I were to fire off a quickened fireball followed by a dazing fireball, would the DC of my spells be increased by two in the next round? Nothing in the text suggests otherwise, but I want to be sure that I'm not simply missing something obvious. Edit: Assume that I hit multiple creatures with both fireballs.
Back in those days, food often spoiled (no refrigeration), so everyone was basically sniffing their food to see if it was good. Someone might think the beer is "off" and not drink it, not realizing they only took a sip of poison. Prestidigitation would solve this problem, I believe. You'd have to cast it a lot of times in order to flavor that much beer, but it is a cantrip.
The issue here is that the word "handicap" can refer to quite a broad spectrum of disabilities. So, while you may be correct in claiming that an intelligence of 7 is a handicap, you can still be (simultaneously) incorrect about the following claim: "The guy with a 7 int can barely even write his name, when he remembers what it even is of course. He cannot retain information to save his life. You could tell him simple instructions and he'll forget them." In other words, you seem to be backtracking quite a bit to make your position seem more tractable whenever it gets attacked. However, when you want to demonstrate how earth-shatteringly crippling an intelligence of 7, you make ridiculous claims as above.
Yes he can. The reactions to this being a trait is fairly indicative of the fact that rogues are not well off by any means. It honestly feels like there are a number of classes that can do the rogue's "job" better than a rogue, and are much more fun to play and versatile.
The extra feat really isn't necessary for this build. The only reason I wanted Bolzano to be human is for the back story, though that could potentially work with the angel-blooded aasimar. I want the blinkback belt to work with halflings so badly.
It does seem like leadership is the way to go for this idea, especially because I can make all of the halflings into barbarians (to give them more health). That way, this character can have their own barbarian horde that they use for bludgeoning things into submission. Bolzano is a human barbarian that genuinely believes that he is in fact a rather tall halfling. It's not his fault though, he was raised by two loving halfling parents who could not find it in their hearts to tell Bolzano that he's actually a human. Now, Bolzano also believes that being a barbarian is the key to leading a good life, and that all halflings should at least indulge in barbarianism. Unfortunately, many halflings don't feel they have the aptitude to do this, but Bolzano just cannot accept this! So, Bolzano decides to create his own barbarian horde, and fill it with halflings. That way, they too can know how wonderful the life of a barbarian truly is. It turns out though, that halflings make for awful barbarians! This realization has left Bolzano crushed. With that in mind, he has decided that halflings are more useful as bludgeoning tools than as actual barbarians.
This does seem to be the biggest stumbling block for the idea. As I understand it, even if the halflings are all unable to resist grappling and pinning, the barbarian would still have to take the actions to grapple and pin in order to wield the halflings. If this is just some NPC though, I may be able to get around this. You could take two levels of Ninja too and grab Ki Charge so if you throw the halflings at someone, they explode in a fireball on impact... Is there a feat of some sort I would need in order to throw the halflings? I'm liking the throwing thing as well, but only for the pure silliness. If the halflings looks particularly beat up, this barbarian will just throw them and go to pick up new ones.
I want to go about this by creating a Titan Mauler barbarian, and taking the body bludgeon rage power. For reference, here are the relevant abilities: Body Bludgeon (Ex):
Prerequisite: Barbarian 10 Benefit: While raging, if the barbarian pins an opponent that is smaller than her, she can then use that opponent as a two-handed improvised weapon that deals 1d8 points of bludgeoning damage, assuming the opponent is sized Small. Larger or smaller creatures used as a bludgeon deal damage based on their size using this base damage. A size Tiny creature deals 1d6 points of damage, a size Medium creature deals 1d10 points of damage, and so on. The barbarian can make a single attack using the pinned opponent as part of the action she uses to maintain the grapple, using her highest attack bonus. Whenever the barbarian hits using the pinned opponent as a weapon, she deals damage to her target normally, and the grappled opponent used as a bludgeon also takes the same damage she dealt to the target. If the pinned opponent is unable to resist being pinned for any reason, the barbarian can use that opponent as an improvised weapon without grappling or pinning the opponent, until the creature is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, at which point the creature becomes useless as an improvised weapon.
Jotungrip (Ex):
At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. From what I understand, provided I have the above two abilities, and an limitless supply of halflings that cannot (or will not) resist being pinned, I can dual wield said halflings. Basically, I'm asking for advice regarding how to accomplish these two things. This character will definitely end up being thoroughly evil, and I'm entirely fine with that. Edit: Now that I think about it, this character should be an evil NPC.
I think it was Rynjin that mentioned a much better solution to this "problem". Simply use a 25 point buy if you want people to buy stats.
While this may not be the intent of your question, if I were the player trying to fill this fourth slot (and debating only between paladin and fighter), I would definitely pick the paladin. As a player, the main issues with fighters is that they feel very boring, only having one meaningful way in which to contribute to the party. The paladin, on the other hand, can actually contribute outside of combat and still be a beast in combat. Furthermore, the paladin can really take care of herself. Between stupendous saves, a swift action heal, and mercies, she is often much less of a drain on party resources than the fighter would be. Also, aura of justice is one of those abilities that can completely shift the tide of a fight in favor of the party. Oh, and go with the bard instead of the rogue.
Excellent, thanks for the response. Now I just need to convince my DM that this is how the ability should actually work.
On the subject of low scores form the perspective of the player, I actually enjoy role-playing a character with a low stat. I believe it makes for much more dynamic characters, and there are times where I'm inclined to dump a stat that I normally would not to make the character more believable. However, I do understand that some players don't want to be told how they should role-play. So, I try to leave it up to the players when I end up DM'ing as to how they want a negative state to effect their character. The other thing I should point out is that a low wisdom (for example) can be played out in my different ways. Perhaps the character lacks empathy for others, maybe they're absent-minded, or they could be really gullible and naive. For some reason, this thread makes me want to stat out Gaston.
That gets into a bit of an existential argument whether horses actually know what grass is, or they know "This thing is edible" and so on that really always ends up frustrating everyone involved so let's not. =/ I believe that this would be an epistemic argument, being in the realm of arguments regarding having knowledge and the formation thereof. Then again, I doubt that succeeding in a knowledge check in pathfinder represents having actual knowledge about something. Sorry, I'm being picky >_>.
so, yall can heckle at it all ya like. Go ahead and play your 7 stat characters that for whatever reason don't really have any penalties. Your 7 cha doesn't really effect you, because you get to talk for your character, and other people roll the diplo check...I can roll my own diplomacy checks, thank you very much. Given the way that most philosophy papers are written nowadays, I feel that it would be more appropriate to call this "student of philosophy". Edit: I'm pretty sure my advisor has the above trait actually T_T.
I feel like in a world of magic, the DC for knowing what a potion is would be less than 10...Well it was DC 0 back when Remy Balster thought that worked for their argument... No one is suggesting that 7 charisma doesn't effect the character in some adverse way. Simply, most folks are saying that you're attaching far more penalty to a stat of 7 than you should be. There is quite a bit of difference between those two.
As the title suggests, I have a question regarding the ability to take tens on a knowledge check. Now, I have seen a number of folks on this forum claim that anyone can take a ten on a knowledge check. The rules page for knowledge checks do not seem to indicate one way or the other. The only reason I find this to be dubious is the following ability: Loremaster (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally. In addition, once per day, the bard can take 20 on any Knowledge skill check as a standard action. Since this explicitly mentions taking a ten on knowledge checks, I am inclined to believe that this is normally not possible. The only other (reasonable) interpretation I can think of is that Loremaster allows the bard to take a ten on knowledge checks in combat. In short, my questions are: 1) What is the rule for taking a ten on knowledge checks?
Also, I apologize if this can be found elsewhere. I was unable to find a definitive answer to such a question myself.
A 7 is as low as it goes for humans. Think on this for moment. A PC has a 7 Int? Imagine the dumbest person you have ever met or encountered. That is what we are talking about.It does not follow that, because one is normally allowed only to dump a stat to 7 in pathfinder, it must be the case that a 7 represents the lowest real life intelligence someone can have. Did you not earlier claim (or at least defend the claim) that "multiplying a character's int by 10 results in an approximation of their IQ"? It seems that you're being a bit inconsistent. Okay then, let me correct my earlier statement. It appears to me that you are being inconsistent in your comparison, and that what you're saying does not seem to mesh well with your stated beliefs about human intelligence.
A 7 is as low as it goes for humans. Think on this for moment. A PC has a 7 Int? Imagine the dumbest person you have ever met or encountered. That is what we are talking about. It does not follow that, because one is normally allowed only to dump a stat to 7 in pathfinder, it must be the case that a 7 represents the lowest real life intelligence someone can have. Did you not earlier claim (or at least defend the claim) that "multiplying a character's int by 10 results in an approximation of their IQ"? It seems that you're being a bit inconsistent.
I don't understand this insistence that a 7 is so absolutely debilitating. Additionally, I don't know why you've decided that there is a dichotomy between "being distinctly incapable in all things that stat" and "pretending the penalty doesn't exist". There seems to quite a lot of middle ground in between these two.
In order to get a 23 in int, simply start with an 18, be a race that adds +2 to int, and be venerable. Regarding your other points, while lifting that much weight over one's head is ridiculous, it sounds much more absurd if you claim that 1 point of intelligence corresponds to 10 points of IQ. Furthermore, it's not that handicapped people have difficulty "doing stuff", it's to the extent that you seem to believe that handicapped people have this difficulty. You claimed that: "The guy with a 7 int can barely even write his name, when he remembers what it even is of course. He cannot retain information to save his life. You could tell him simple instructions and he'll forget them." If we assume your Int/IQ paradigm, your statement is wildly offensive. Actually, even if we do not assume such a thing, it's still wildly offensive. Good job.
The only things I can remember off the top of my head are by taking a dip in oracle, or a dip in horizon walker. If you dip into the oracle (which only requires one level), you'll want the lame curse since your barbarian levels count as 1/2 oracle levels for gaining benefits from curses. The horizon walker requires three levels, but you sacrifice a bit less in regards to being able to chase things down and hit them. Actually, the cord of stubborn resolve does the trick as well. It takes up a belt slot, but you can add that to your existing belt of +x strength for additional cost. I can't remember the rules for that off the top of my head though. Oh, and yes, I do like urban barbarian + invulnerable rager, especially since you can potentially take advantage of the additional skills offered by urban barbarian. It also makes raging vitality less of a "must have" and potentially frees up a feat slot. Edit: Well, it seems like I'm two posts behind.
Barbarians are extremely good at killing things, especially at level 10 (since you have access to pounce from the beast totem line). However, there are a lot of manners in which to go about this. Thanks to rage powers, barbarians are incredibly versatile for a martial class. First of all, barbarians can only take one line of "totem" rage powers, and I believe that most people would end up taking the beast totem line. Roughly speaking, the point of this line is to give the barbarian the ability to pounce at level 10. This is particularly powerful, as it allows you to full attack after a charge action, giving you an incredible amount of mobility. However, there are other totems which you may want to look into for flavor reasons, or if you have a concept that differs from "rage, pounce at thing, kill thing" (except the hive totem, that thing is awful). Regardless, you should be able to hit your preferred totem's greater power at level 10. Now, if you decide to grab an entire totem line, you still have at least two rage powers remaining (extra rage power is a feat that you may like). Using these, you can turn your barbarian into a mage-killing machine, give him some pretty fun intimidate abilities, have a mount that rages with you, gain some more survivability through untyped DR, etc. There's a lot of flexibility here, and I would highly suggest taking a look at the rage powers that are available to you found here. In particular, I like the "superstition, witch hunter, spell sunder" line a lot because it allows you to smash spells with your weapon. Not only is that awesome ("I sunder the darkness"), it gives the barbarian a bunch of utility. Another power I like is Terrifying Howl, but that would require a build at least somewhat geared towards intimidate. Insofar as feat selection is concerned, you definitely want to grab power attack and raging vitality. The latter allows you to continue to expend rage rounds even while unconscious, which prevents you from dying after being put to 0 health while raging. Outside of that, it's very much so up to you, and probably depends upon your rage power selection. If you want spell sunder at level ten in addition to a full totem line, you will need an extra rage power and you may want to grab improved sunder. However, if you want to intimidate things into oblivion, you may want to pick up cornugon smash and furious focus (so you can pick up dreadful carnage later on). The flexibility inherent in a barbarian is rather nice. As far as stats are concerned, I would suggest putting the 18 into strength, having a constitution of at least 15, and making your wisdom and dexterity modifiers positive. Barring that, it's your choice (though I have my preferences). Race and traits are also up to you, though I would suggest a race that has a positive strength modifier or a dwarf. I really like the human favored class bonus for barbarians if you plan on grabbing superstition, and luckily half-elves and half-orcs can take it as well. Okay, I didn't exactly give you a build, but hopefully I gave you enough pieces to construct a build of your own. I hope this helps. Edit: I forgot to mention that there are some really nice archetypes for barbarian. Invulnerable rager in particular is fantastically fun.
Honestly, that's what I got out of that scenario at all. My interpretation of the "Ebenezer scrooge turnabout" was that it was voluntary, while the change in Vivianne Laflamme's example certainly is not. This seems to be the key here, the fact that the change was forced. I certainly would not thank someone for popping such a helm on me, let alone hug them. In fact, I believe my natural reaction would be sheer horror at the fact that my free will and ability to determine my own actions could be taken away so easily (especially now that I'm chaotic good). 3. No. The intersection of the empty set with anything is empty. Please tell this to my students, they seem to not understand this concept.
This is an interesting point. I'm curious where you'd pinpoint the difference being, if you can say. This is a bit difficult, as it seems that Paizo has made quite an effort into making morality a mechanical concept (this may be an artifact of D&D in general). However, I believe that the primary difference lies in intent. That is, if an action itself is evil, one can use mechanics to represent this quite easily. The most obvious way this can be done is by adding the "evil" descriptor to a spell. This makes the difference between a good act and an evil act into a mechanical one. On the other hand, intent is difficult to cache out mechanically. For example, killing an evil character can be either a good or evil thing dependent upon intent. One may classify killing evil character in order to end a lifetime of tyranny that has gripped the land as a good thing. Killing the same character because it's fun, or because the killer is a genocidal maniac, would probably be classified as an evil thing. I don't believe that there's a mechanical way to distinguish between these two. The only issue with this is that it requires intent to figure in on morality, but arguing for such a thing is probably outside the scope of this thread. The example given also depends on whether or not one can even classify killing as a good thing, but that seems to be less of an issue as one could probably find a more appropriate example. Edit: I added in the sentence "I don't believe that there's a mechanical way to distinguish between these two." In the second paragraph.
Why is removing agency any worse than ending one's life? For a commoner they're practically equivalent. The problem here is that you're conflating "mechanically" with "morally". Even though Pathfinder utilizes morality in a mechanical manner, these are not the same thing (even within this system).
To be honest, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with starting with a well known character or trope. These tend to make for compelling characters in their own right, and the player has an opportunity to build off of that in a potentially fun way. On the other hand, there is the danger that these characters will not evolve in a unique way, and merely become walking tropes or carbon copies of famous figures. I guess my point is that this sort of thing has the potential to work well in addition to the potential to fail miserably. |
