Black Dragon

Cerberus Seven's page

1,317 posts. Alias of Cerberus1441 (RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32).


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The X-wing (Star Wars): a classic. In the EU, it's shown that they have multi-directional particle and ray shielding, hyperdrives that can take them across a decent fraction of the galaxy in mere hours, projectile weapons that detonate with the force of small nuclear weapons, and can spin on a dime with competent pilots that can manipulate their engines and thrusters correctly. Oh yeah, and four cannons in the cool combat formation thingie. Plus, you can have you astromech droid along for the ride! That, or stuff a spare one in the cargo hold they all come with. Also, ejector seats in case things go south. Gotta love the X-wing.

The Shadow Battlecruiser (Babylon 5): a living ship that, despite not having your sci-fi standard shields, is among the most ridiculously resilient things in that entire series. The bio-technology used to created them means they self-repair, never run out of energy, and absorb the vast majority of all energy weapon discharges that hit them. They use living humanoids permanently trapped at their core as a CPU (scary ass fate), make a scream in your mind as they pass by, and look like Death itself mutated into a giant space spider that's black as the deepest night. They can drop in and out of hyperspace at a moments notice without creating the standard jump gate most species need AND have the ability to collapse such gates, destroying any ships momentarily caught in them. It's primary armament is a beam weapon whose power output is strong enough to cut straight through and destroy virtually any other ship in the show and they never miss unless they intend to. Last but not least, each one can launch dozens of autonomous fighters of its own to swarm the enemy and keep their fighters busy. They are utterly terrifying opponents in a fleet combat and worth every drop of the terror they inspire.

And my personal favorite...

Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (Gurren Lagann): a ship that is also mech with is actually several mechs each inside each other that is fueld by sheer willpower strong enough to warp reality on an utterly insane level. Simon and team Dai Gurren used it to go into an artificial parallel universe and fight the god-like beings known as the Anti-Spirals, whose stated goal is the subjugation and/or annihilation of all other sentient beings in the universe. When fully powered up, TTGL is the size of an entire galaxy and can use attacks powerful enough to shatter worlds and stars by the hundreds in a heartbeat. It also has the best damned battle cry ever, "Who the hell do you think we are!?" One of the most ridiculous and badass ships in existence from one of my top 3 favorite anime.


Yure wrote:

To be honest I would love to see more skill points on the fighter. The limit of skill points really dulls out how he can be played. Indiana Jones? Nope you don't have enough skill points for dungeoneering, swimming, climbing, history and all those other cool things that made indian jones cool. And in order to spec into whip you need a s~*$ ton of feats.

Want to be a legit general? Nope... you don't get nobility skills, soldier profession and all those other things you'd expect a general to know.

Fighter should be the default I can be almost about anything IRL... but he's not.

This is a major reason why I LOVE background skills. Everyone wants to have fun stuff like Perform or a neat Profession skill, but they don't want to waste skill points on it. Unchained had so many good ideas in it.


JAMRenaissance wrote:

Moving from fluff to mechanics, there's a lot of ways to houserule that. I have a whole set of Fighter mods, but the short of it is that there are a lot of subsystems that I think would be helpful to give the Fighter. Seriously - at level one, a Cavalier gets a mount, order, tactician, and the challenge ability. Did I mention he gets an entire horse? You know what the Fighter gets? A bonus Feat. One. They should, maybe, get a bit more.

What counts as that "more" is the line in the sand we're dealing with.

I've often wondered if the cavalier, samurai, and fighter shouldn't all just be one class called the "soldier". Conceptually, it fits; a tough, professional warrior who knows how to fight solo or lead a group and wins the day without using use any type of magical ability. Gestalt them all together and it'd address some of the issues with skill points, saves, and out of combat utility. It'd require some tweaking here and there, but it could work.


It's mythic. The existing rules and guidelines of what constitutes "excessive" or "overpowered" go out the window with that system, with virtually nothing to replace them. You are after all potentially nascent divine beings anyways at tier 10.


Looking over the Tatterman, all I gotta say is WOW! Having both a fear aura AND frightening presence is gonna be really messy. What also caught my attention, and what I don't believe I've seen elaborated on in any posts here so far, was that two of his special abilities don't seem to be described. First off, he has the Night Terrors special attack. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't appear to be referenced in the actual adventure. Neither does his Feign Death special quality appear to have any details listed for how it actually works. I'm guessing this is an oversight? What are these abilities and how do they work?


Michael Monn wrote:
I was looking over Mythic Adventurers for a Hell's Vengeance game I may run and I saw a lack of Mythic Evil creation paths. Did I miss something?

Legendary Games did a Path of Villains PDF to provide a better way to design mythic villains. It uses the base mythic framework but makes some tweaks and incorporates some new abilities to make 'boss encounters' more interesting and effective in a mythic game. I have the PDF and I recommend it for anyone running such a campaign.


Secret Wizard wrote:

It's a better Monk.

1. I find this to be incorrect. The Monk has s*@* ass accuracy and you are spending ki points to get extra attacks to hit some day. The UnMonk hits more reliably, and thus spends less ki on extra ki attacks. The Core Monk doesn't even have that many abilities that I would want as Ki Powers. I'd prefer Elemental Fury and so on. Plus, constant Spell Resistance isn't better than Spell Resistance that you can turn on.

2. The "UnMonk has a weak will save" thing is a myth. Core Monk needs a 16 on Constitution to be on pair with as 12 CON UnMonk. Those points that the Core Monk was spending on CON are now spend on WIS on the UnMonk, allowing you for a higher base WIS, which means higher AC and higher ki points and higher Will saves.

Plus, the UnMonk is not feat starved, so you can always get Iron Will. Still Mind is also a good way to fix it.

The ONLY time that a Core Monk would have higher Will saves is HIGH END games... and then the UnMonk has Flawless Mind.

The Core Monk is dead.

Difference between low and high Will save progression...

Level 1: 2 points
Level 4: 3 points
Level 8: 4 points
Level 12: 4 points
Level 16: 5 points
Level 20: 6 points

Yep, a myth that ONLY happens at endgame levels. Suuuuure.


Seems fine to me. Single target is good since it's going more damage than black tentacles, but against only one target. No save / no SR is a big deal, but requiring an attack roll kinda balances it out. I'm gonna list a few things to refine.


  • Increase duration to 1 round / level. 'Cause why not, it's still against only one target, might as well standardize it.
  • Make sure that the specific square or squares the shackles originate from is indicated and that they can't reach further than any adjacent squares to go after the target.
  • It's actually bludgeoning damage, not crushing damage.
  • Remove the maximum fire damage. Again, you're only targeting one foe here.
  • You could simply state that until the grapple is broken, the foe cannot use any form of movement at all. No need for two sentences kinda saying the same thing.
  • Simplify the escape DC as 15 + caster level and make it possible to escape with the Escape Artist skill as well.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way this sounds to me is basically "casters aren't necessary until things are really hard, and then the casters are the most important thing to have". Which... is kinda how things are now? You can get away with the Ranger tapping people with a Cure wand, but as soon as someone catches a disease you need a Cleric to remove it.

Not quite. There's a number of tasks and challenges for which casters are currently 100% necessary. The disease thing, for example. The idea I was trying to get across was that martials should be able handle such a thing by themselves, but it would really tie them up all day to enact, say, a quarantine scenario on a small village to prevent the disease from spreading to nearby towns. They might also have to choose between effectively quarantining the outbreak, treating those already effected, and researching the sickness' characteristics.

A caster, in contrast, should be able to assist in the same way as a martial, but also expend their energy to make one or more aspects of the job easier and more likely to succeed. However, if they really go all out, the consequence shouldn't simply be that they 'used most of their spell slots for the day'. They should be careful not to infuse magic into the disease, making it even worse. Or perhaps they're drained of energy for a day or two, reducing their ability to help the party dramatically if something else comes up. Or maybe this somehow pisses off the summer fey whose specialty disease just got handily shut down and they show up to harass the caster and his friends. The ramifications of rampant and indelicate use of powerful magic should apply not only to the caster, but potentially their companions and the world around them. Think of it as Newton's Third Law for Magic: the more magic you expend to solve a problem, the more likely the Multi-verse is to use that magic to cause unexpected consequences.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I think there should be instances where you think "damn, I really wish our party had an (X)" where X is a martial character. That... isn't really the case currently. My favorite example of what things should be like is a Ranger using his quarry ability; a truly extraordinary Ranger would be the very best at tracking his quarry and would be able to sniff out the trail across realities. So when you're trying to track down a slippery wizard who keeps hopping planes to stay away from you while she prepares, she can ward against scrying from your wizard but can't do anything to hide her tracks from your ranger.

That is a good idea. Paladins kinda fill this role, with their lay on hands and auras, but that's about the only example for a martial I can think of.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Which is kinda funny, 'cause one is really just as anime as the other.
I can't even tell what's happening, in either one of those clips. I don't begrudge anyone else wanting to play that, but I'd get motion sickness just trying to imagine it.

I supposed it does lose a bit if presented out of context. Both clips are from an anime called One Punch Man, which is pretty silly and over-the-top, but it's a lot of fun. The girl in the first clip is a mosquito-human cyborg who just absorbed a lot of blood and is now super-powered, letting her do a shockwave type attack with her claws. The guy in the second clip is named Saitama and is the main character of the series. He's...let's just say that he's extremely OP, even by professional hero standards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
If they're specced for it, is a martial of extraordinary skill and power striking people 50 ft. away with a sharp blastwave from his sword-swing really that magical and non-fighter-type-appropriate?

Also, does it change people's opinion if you call it a super Spring Attack and don't describe it as a "blastwave"?

Mechanically, assume they both have an effective range of 30 ft., require both line of sight and line of effect, require an attack roll, and deal normal weapon damage. In one case, we give it an (Ex) tag and say the fighter is rushing forward in a charge (jumping over pits or caltrops or whatever in the way), attacking, and then retreating back to his initial position. In the other case, we describe it as a video game shockwave.

What amazes me is that, if you pitch it the first way, a lot of people will nod and say, "yes, that's reasonable." If you point out the second description, they not only yell "NO WAY!!!11!", but they actively change their mind and won't let you use the first description, either.

I believe because it's "too anime". Which is kinda funny, 'cause one is really just as anime as the other.


MMCJawa wrote:

A lot of this comes down to how you describe the martial abilities I think.

Kirth's True seeing example seems find to me: a veteran fighter at a certain part of his career has probably seen enough illusions and fought enough invisible creatures to get around those problems. It's also a trope frequently employed in TV, movies, comics, etc. Although I would probably have an intermediary step which which might give a percentage of concealment and moving to True Seeing at some higher level.

In contrast the other example, a swordsman who swing so hard the force of his blow takes out people far beyond his reach seems a bit too much for me.

I am all for the existence of classes that evoke the latter style of tropes, I just don't want the existing Fighter to go in that direction, and would rather see that as a separate class. I think there are plenty of ways to boost fighters without going in completely magical directions

Just how far is too far with a fighter attacking out-of-reach opponents? I ask because we have options like Lunge and Retributive Reach, some classes like bloodragers can extend their arms and such without spells, and things like legendary items, which function as an extension of your mythic nature, can give you things like long arm or other reach-enhancing spells. If they're specced for it, is a martial of extraordinary skill and power striking people 50 ft. away with a sharp blastwave from his sword-swing really that magical and non-fighter-type-appropriate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Of course, changing what martials are capable of does bring forward: what do you need casters for, then?

If they can True See, self-buff, self-heal, bring down fliers, alter reality thru sheer bad-assery, would you need a caster any longer?

I never played 4e, so I don't know what making all the classes nearly the same in terms of class abilities and options is like. It seems many people didn't like that approach, hence Pathfinder and 5e.

Yawn. Read #5.

Doesn't answer the question, Kirth. I'm asking: What would you need casters for? In a world where martials are capable of a more equitable contribution, how do you inspire interdependence?

It's not a challenge to the disparity. It's a question for clarification on what the roles would be.

It's a good question, one I know I've thought about at times. I suppose the best way to summarize it would be thusly:

  • Martial: combat experts with limited magical prowess // accomplishes amazing feats with cunning and physical power // has a small # of easily rechargeable options to augment it's out-of-combat capability in keeping with its thematic nature
  • Caster: magic experts with limited physical prowess // accomplishes amazing feats with raw willpower and magical potential // spells allow great versatility and power both in and out of combat but with thematic limitations and drawbacks

Essentially, martials should be able to take care of themselves and solve any of the problems that come their way. Casters should be able to step in and, to a limited extent, fill any needs that unexpectedly go above and beyond the martial's capability. That way, there is no issue of 'needing' a caster most of the time, but you're very glad you have one when you suddenly need just a little bit more defense, speed, or insight into a situation.


Ssalarn wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
Which begs the question: at what point are you no longer playing Pathfinder? Some people have a much broader tolerance for variation and still consider themselves to be playing "the same game" than others. What constitutes "the same game"?
Unchained changed a lot of the answer I would otherwise give. I guess the core components of Pathfinder would be the following:

  • d20 base system
  • AC, DC, and similar numbers / terms being the die roll targets
  • the six core ability scores and how their modifiers work
  • the class system
  • the monster classification system and how many iconic abilities work
  • the basics of how magic works, including the existence of magic item creation
  • feats being a thing that augment how well / what you do

Remove any of these and you're not really playing Pathfinder anymore. Everything else is optional.

I don't think I really agree with your 6th point. I can't speak for anyone other than myself of course, but to me, Vancian casting and item creation are optional subsystems, completely unnecessary to be playing Pathfinder. Even in core, you could, for example, play a party of all Kineticists who have all the tools to handle most adventures without having any access to item creation or Vancian magic (I'm a little fuzzy on how they handle condition removal since I've never played a Kineticist healer, but I'm told it's doable).

Your 5th point is a little vague as well and I could see some interpretations where I might disagree (for example, I don't think invisibility needs to work exactly as it does for the game to be Pathfinder), but other than that I largely agree with the rest of your points.

Part of the reason I put down the magic bit is that, while you could tweak the system to do without these elements, it wouldn't feel like 3.P afterwards. At least, to me it wouldn't. While a party of all kineticists could function, I wouldn't really feel like I was playing Pathfinder if the existence of spells and magical artifacts wasn't a thing. Systems like psionics or spheres of power stay close enough in feel and function that I think they suffice. Regardless of how fun and playable it'd be, totally removing magic as is would make it lose that high-fantasy feel of abundant, powerful magic that's synonymous with Pathfinder in my mind.

Yeah, I was a little vague with these, but that's because the exact boundaries of what is essential in each category is a little uncertain in my mind. Basically, it wouldn't be quite the same if things like oozes and dragons, giants and demons weren't a thing, but instead you merely built critters that functioned like them. Actual types carries not only inherent mechanical standards, bonuses, and limitations, but also a thematic feel to it. Being able to say, "Oh s#$~, it's a dragon!" has a lot more weight to it than "Oh s!~&, it's a giant flying reptilian genius beast which spews random elemental energy from its mouth in one of several predefined patterns and is typically brimming with magical power and it's got a treasure horde the size of a mountain! *GASP*". Also, it's much faster to say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Which begs the question: at what point are you no longer playing Pathfinder? Some people have a much broader tolerance for variation and still consider themselves to be playing "the same game" than others. What constitutes "the same game"?
Unchained changed a lot of the answer I would otherwise give. I guess the core components of Pathfinder would be the following:

  • d20 base system
  • AC, DC, and similar numbers / terms being the die roll targets
  • the six core ability scores and how their modifiers work
  • the class system
  • the monster classification system and how many iconic abilities work
  • the basics of how magic works, including the existence of magic item creation
  • feats being a thing that augment how well / what you do

Remove any of these and you're not really playing Pathfinder anymore. Everything else is optional.


CWheezy wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

I said "still have the same game" and, ironically, a bunch of posters are talking about 5th ed.

Just how, exactly, is that the same game?

Someone claimed that caster martial disparity is at it's lowest in 5th edition. Turns out that's totally false and casters are still the best.

To be fair, if this is true then it technically doesn't preclude the possibility of a disparity still existing, just that it's been scaled back a lot in how severe it is. 5E martials ARE less reliant on casters and casters ARE still cut back in just how powerful their magic is. Can my monk fly or raise the dead or coat a battlefield in roaring fire that rains from the sky? Nope, but he gets to use run across vertical surfaces, use shadowy magic, teleport between areas of darkness, go invisible, remove any charm or fear effects on him with 100% effectiveness, and heal himself between fights.

At the very least, 5E is (or seems to be) a good step in the right direction in terms of martial vs. caster power.


Wrath wrote:
All the martial classes come with built in damage increasers that drop low HP things like there's no tomorrow.

Could you point out specifically what option this is? I'm not aware of whatever thing I'm missing on my Way of Shadow monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
What do trolls need a real-world capital for? Isn't Twitter good enough for 'em?
Well, if they have a real world physical existence then they have to live somewhere.
Not if we get enough acid flasks together.

Best to be safe and call in a nuclear strike. Just to be sure.


Skylancer4 wrote:

I understand what haste does... It still doesn't mean it is a "good" comparison. It is a horrible one.

There used to be a general guideline in 3.5 that any amount of movement past a set number was "magical" (usually referenced in flight speed IIRC). Apparently Paizo has decided that scaling movement rates that provide substantial bonuses are somewhat magical as well in this case.

If that's the case, they've ignored (and created) content which defies this logic, both in other parts of the game and in the monk class itself. Fast Movement is extraordinary class feature, yet it has the exact same bonus type as what spells and magic items provide. For some reason, non-magical and magical speed bonuses aren't allowed to stack together here. They do just fine with many other speed bonuses that aren't inherently linked to magic, though, like the barbarian's class ability, the Fleet feat, and the Impossible Speed mythic ability. These are all type-less speed boosts and those last two can stack/scale to higher levels. Hell, the mythic one actually relies on access to an explicitly supernatural power source to work. Which I guess makes it strangely in-line with the ki pool speed boost feature, also a type-less bonus despite also relying on a supernatural power source to work. Even the "upgraded" ki power version of this in the unchained monk, Sudden Speed, is this way. Swapping the bonus type / type-less situation between the base class feature and the ki pool / ki power feature makes a lot more mechanical and thematic sense.


Skylancer4 wrote:

Overpowered no, but you are making a poor comparison.

Haste is a rounds per level buff. Monk speed bonus is an always on ability.

Monks are +10' faster than a normal person starting at 3rd level, +20' faster at 6th. That is only 10' slower than haste at the same level it would become available and it is on 24/7. Things stacking in 3.0 was what caused problems, PFRPG Has attempted to make it less so.

Haste does a lot more than just that. It's an augment to attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves as well, not to mention that extra full-BAB attack. Plus, it applies to a small platoon's worth of people with a single casting. Monk's only get the speed boost and they need a lot of experience to make it as good as a single 3rd level spell. Also, their speed boost is lost if they're encumbered or wearing armor, something haste outright ignores. Before level 12, which is where the majority of all Pathfinder games take place, a monk's speed boost just sucks in comparison to a low-tier spell that does a lot more for numerous people with no restrictions at all. Which, when you consider this is an entire class feature for the monk, is kinda depressing.

As far as stacking goes, the reason people bring up the type of the monk speed bonus is, Sqwonk noted, it's enhancement-typed and therefore stacks with nothing else in the game, with VERY rare exceptions. While stacking bonuses to d20 rolls and damage can be an issue (I actually agree heartily with this), it's hard to see how a man running a little faster from both his mystical brawler training and his special magic boots is something to even register on the map of "Must be careful of this combination because balance".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

TL:DR

Point x is a Myth!! I say so!
No is not!!! You haven't proven it!!!
Yes it is!! I've proven it by saying it is!!
No is not!! I've never see it!!
Then is a myth, i've proven it by saing point x is a myth!!!!

ecc. ecc. ecc.

All I see in this thread is some awesome display of circular logic.

Ecc ecc ecc?

I think it's about time we had another brainstorming session for martial powers. We could lay out the main narrative deficiencies (intraplanar transport, interplanar transport, flight, invisibility, mind control, terrain management, at-range combat utilities, conjuring/awakening/animating allies, communication, magic item affordability...wow, there's a lot of these...).

None of these, imho, is as big a hurdle as the lack of actual healing capabilities. "Martials can go all day" doesn't mean jack if they're down 2/3s of their hp, have taken a half dozen points of ability damage, have two negative levels, and are fatigued.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:

My biggest issue with the discussion is that it appears most notably at levels that I never play at. Why do I care about Wish, Create Demiplane, Simulacrum, etc., when I never see characters at that level?

One of my annoyances about the boards is that it seems that so many people appear to only play level 20 / mythic rank 10 characters when most of my game play is at the lower levels.

Just because it doesn't come up much earlier in any group's given game session, doesn't mean the potential isn't there. Let me give you an example that happened when we played through Jade Regent at a MUCH earlier level and without any mythic elements at all. In the very beginning of book 3, when you're about 7, there's a point where your caravan needs to cross a tumultuous arctic river. No obvious bridges nearby and it'd be incredibly hazardous to try and make the animals and carts cross as is. It's meant to be a challenge for the party to figure out, potentially a dangerous one that results in real loss in order to illustrate the perils of such an expedition into the frozen wastes of a pre-industrial era world.

However, I was playing a cleric and we had an inquisitor, as well as a few people with decent Strength scores. A few castings of both air walk and ant haul on the fighter, inquisitor, and a couple NPCs and we were able to carry everyone and everything, including the animals and the carts they pulled, across this dangerous river without any difficulty. What was meant to be a significant hurdle in the adventure path merely became a matter of "cast a few spells and we're done". Now, I'm sure many groups didn't do it this way, but that doesn't change the fact that magic makes it just this easy anyways.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
pennywit wrote:
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition? We've got rulebooks and splatbooks galore now, along with Unchained's optional rules variants. These all have some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things. But it strikes me that we're reaching a certain critical rule mass, where the first step for a PF table is to run down a checklist of all the books to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
No. A moratorium on posts asking/suggesting/demanding a new edition? That we could use.

That would be the death of the General Discussion board. Without the constant possibility of another "Pathfinder 2.0 needed" or "Martials vs. Casters" or similar debate erupting in a new thread, you wouldn't have nearly as many people waiting with this webpage open, making the occasional post here and there, just waiting and ready to pounce on a new topic for maximum drama. Shame on you, sir, trying to kill our favorite source of argumentative frustration and entertaining rants!


Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well , i admit i dont have the sale figures for either pathfinder or DnD 5.

Anyone actually got said numbers?

Cause saying one or the other is booming is easy , but without actual numbers one claim or the other is almost worthless.

FWIW, whenever I'm in a bookstore, I see roughly equal numbers of each. On the face of it, that seems a good thing for both. However, considering just how new 5E is and how much less material it's had published than PF, that's a significant gain in market share compared to time/energy investment for the newer system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:
I do try to teach and I just give it a little at a time, nobody learns it all before playing - a lot. I'm not too keen on RP incentive mechanics, but that might just be my experience with GMs who almost punish players for not RPing to their satisfaction, or RPing passive/shy/careful characters simply doesn't get you anything.

Oh, punishing a player for not roleplaying (at all or enough) is NOT how it should be done. It should be an incentive rather than a mandate, something to encourage people to have fun getting into character. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

DonDuckie wrote:
I don't think paizo will run out of players for this style of expanding game system. But yes it does target other groups than lighter TT/video games. Although there is a PF MMO on the way if it's not released by now (haven't kept up with news for a while).

Roysier made some pretty good points that address this line of thinking, so I'll just point out his post above mine and leave it at that.

Yeah, I need to check on the MMO status too. I couldn't get the alpha setup for some reason and stopped trying way back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cablop wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Monk (both types), rogue/ninja, fighter, and barbarian are all obvious choices. Brawler could work, as could swashbuckler, oddly enough, if given a little Far Eastern flavoring. Warrior, expert, and aristocrat are all options as well.
What do you mean with "Monk (both types)"?

Core and Unchained.


testing testing, is this thing on...100d4 + 100 ⇒ (2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 4, 1, 4, 2, 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 4, 3, 3, 4) + 100 = 341


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk (both types), rogue/ninja, fighter, and barbarian are all obvious choices. Brawler could work, as could swashbuckler, oddly enough, if given a little Far Eastern flavoring. Warrior, expert, and aristocrat are all options as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.
That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?

Try teaching Pathfinder to a few friends who aren't incredibly numbers-savvy and who don't have much (if any) experience with TTRPGs. It's not an easy task. The rules for interactions between items, spells, feats, the environment, and different actions can get really confusing. Too many options are of the boring, "Add this number to that statistic in this circumstance" variant. There's no incentive to role-play besides what that person brings to the table. I'm not even going to mention the #1 favorite topic of the board. It's an inflexible system with a huge learning curve and an obsession for adding little numbers together in lieu of real creative options.

For the sake of its future, Pathfinder needs a more streamlined model that does a better job of balancing various player options while incorporating actual role-playing mechanics and benefits. After 8 years of this system, though, it doesn't appear Paizo wants to go this route. If anything, they're pushing the opposite direction. It's gotten a lot of mileage off of being the successor to 3.X, but that's only going to take it so far. Eventually, the geeks this works on are going to stop playing and new blood will be needed to keep the system viable. Whatever future of the game is offered will have to be able to successfully compete with the desire to spend hard-earned money and precious time on sitting down at a table with friends and playing this over simpler TTRPGs, video games, Cards Against Humanity, etc. It's good that Paizo is always introducing new options and sub-systems and I hope it works out for them in the long run, but that's not how I'm hedging my bets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a large part of the problem with your philosophy, Mr. Slaaad, is that you look upon the mere idea of a social contract with the heavy-handed term "government force". That doesn't mean, "I pay too much in taxes for these benefits I receive." It means, "I wanna get benefits but not pay for it". That is unrealistic and selfish, to put it mildly. If true, old-school libertarians are even still a thing, they basically have two choices: accept some degree of quid-pro-quo compromise with government "force", since they do benefit from it, or become an ex-pat and leave. Not to seemingly veer into the realm of dichotomy, but I really don't see a third option here.

Now, for the "legislating from the bench" and "forcing homosexual marriages" bits. The first is merely striking down unconstitutional laws and leaving others standing. That's not legislating anymore than the president vetoing a new law is. The second is concerning government-issued marriage licenses and benefits. It has nothing to do with, say, the FBI forcing the Mormon church to host a blood-rite wedding for two gay Pastafarians.


Some of column A, some of column B. It's at least a very well-constructed masterwork blade, exceptionally well-balanced and sharp. Someone probably used Master Craftsman to make it. That said, I doubt it's very magical at all, maybe +1 at the most. It's history, based in part of just how awesome it is (especially in a world without overt magic) and therefore the awesome things great swordsmen have done with it, is also a huge confidence booster to anyone holding it.


@Imbicatus: I'm a firm believer in the 2E / Skyrim idea of "this whole damned critter's body is magical components/trophies" and such.

@Nocte ex Mortis: not if it's an ooze. Or a demon. Or a zombie. Or a hag. Or a tendriculous. Or just another humanoid cannibal / crazy person.


I imagine it's fine to eat most dragon flesh, like the muscle and fat. Eating snake flesh is just fine, so long as you're not an idiot and try to swallow the venom glands or anything. So, stay away from the lungs and digestive tract and you're good.

The more important point, however, is that you're eating a sentient, very intelligent creature whose mental capacity dwarfs that of your average citizen. You are eating a person, and that's bad.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

There is an argument that Pathfinder magic is just science with different rules.

I'm not convinced. You still have wizards and the like who are special people. If it was really like science everybody who check out a spellbook could follow the instructions and fling spells. Spells wouldn't run out either. Science is repeatable by everybody all the time.

Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) are the science behind the science of magic that ANYONE can do. Magic itself is more like a complex chemical reaction. Those can get really intricate and long (spell formulae / casting time), require proper training and education (like a single class level), and need the proper reagents (verbal/somatic/material components) to produce the desired result. Because magic is so complex, spellcasters who use spellbooks fill these tomes with their own personal mnemonics, codes, and formulae that, while based on universally understood elements and rules (magic DOES follow rules), vary from the preferences and knowledge of other casters. So a spellbook isn't what allows a caster to perform magic, it's his own understanding that does it.

As far as spells being limited and such, you can't make ten tons of soap from one ounce of lye. Likewise, the end result of magic is typically seen as energy being manipulated in a manner that requires the focus and mental clarity of the caster. In both cases, what comes out of the result is dependent on what went into it in the first place. You need enough lye for the soap and you need enough mental 'oomph' for the spells. That's why a wizard requires a minimum mental ability score for each level of spell they can use and needs 8 hours of sleep to prep their spells. If you're rested enough to put your focus into it and smart enough to understand how to pull it off, you can trigger an arcane reaction that channels energy in some pre-determined way to affect reality. Once you've done this enough, though, your ability to properly focus on your magic deteriorates to the point you can't pull off these awesome effects anymore. Simple reactions like cantrips are easy to do endlessly, though. That's more akin to using a flint and tinder to make a spark, rather than consuming fuel to use a lighter or a flamethrower. While both methods can start a forest fire, one has a lot easier time of it due to the energy being used for the process.

darth_borehd wrote:
Sure, somebody else who is a caster can make a magic item and then sell them, but you are still right back to it needing somebody special.

Master Craftsman would like a word.

darth_borehd wrote:
The reason why, in the real world, it takes a lot longer to develop technology is because we have generations of people who have to build on the discoveries of the previous generations. Discoveries need time for other discoveries to catch up to the point where a technology can take those disparate elements and combine them.

Exactly. Golarion actually has a parallel for this with arcane magic. Old Man Jetembe basically reverse-engineered arcane magic back into the world from studying with divine casters after the Aboleths caused Earthfall and ushered in the Age of Darkness. A LOT was lost in the Age of Darkness, like most of the advancement made in magic by the Azlanti and Thassilonians. The knowledge of how to use arcane magic wasn't "always there", it had to be recreated by a genius of mythic capability. Sorcerers, summoners, and other spontaneous casters are, of course, a rather odd lot that doesn't exactly fit into this mold, but I believe the example still stands.

darth_borehd wrote:
But you don't have that with magic spells. All of them exist already. You have humans and beings with human level intelligence or beyond that already know how how to make anything they want happen. There is no lead time. There is already a spell to make a automobile-like magic carriage. Just use "Magic Mouth" to make a magic radio. The reason they don't have those things is because it requires special people with special knowledge. That is the definition of magic.

The spell blood money exists in approximately two locations in the Multi-verse when the Rise of the Runelords AP starts. I would not say that means anyone in existence can use their own blood for a stoneskin spell, for example. So, knowledge and advancement in magic can be lost (and potentially found again) just like any other discovery about the world around us. If someone in current Tien Xia comes up with a similar spell, they'll have gone through a different development process and the end result will be quite different in some key respects. It will require different magic words, gestures, that kind of thing because it's a different spell than blood money. It's like convergent evolution, but with the science of magic.


Caineach wrote:
GM_Beernorg wrote:
I am intrigued now, I may have to buy that book, though wondering how one could not realize it is a parody, oh well, a good read is a good read. I for one don't mind a little tongue in cheek with our tentacled overlord once in a while.
The authors wanted to prove how bad the state of young adult literature was, so they made what they thought was the worst possible thing they could, with the help of twitter, to show how far something could get into the review process. They were expecting to document their journey and self-publish a terrible manuscript along with details of the journey, to show how bad everyone they worked with was. They didn't need to self-publish because it was picked up with minimal edits. Currently, anything can get published as a YA novel.

So, basically the Diamond Club, but with tentacles?


LuniasM wrote:
When I talk about "styles" I don't mean stuff like Dragon Style - I mean broad groups like Sword and Shield, TWF, Throwing Weapons, etc. I do think different weapons, shields, and (maybe?) armors in the same group should have different abilities to help make them more unique and prevent overshadowing - for instance, bows and crossbows being split into Short/Long and Light/Heavy.

Also a good idea. Looking forward to the new entries.

LuniasM wrote:
Shortbow Trick X - How about giving a bonus to AC against AoOs that turn instead of flat-out preventing them?

As long as you specify it's against AoOs provoked by the movement, that would actually be pretty straightforward and reasonable. A +1 dodge bonus per point of stamina spent on this trick would probably be just fine.

LuniasM wrote:
TWF Trick 2 - I thought about pairing them up like that, but it requires too much bookkeeping to make it work and is often not worthwhile - if you get four attacks and hit twice but both times with your mainhand you'd get no benefit. Seems unfair, so I paired every two hits instead.

Good point, I hadn't considered that.

LuniasM wrote:
TWF Trick 3 and X - These were more intended to help fix issues with TWF styles, but I tried not to forget the thematic nature of the style. This shows up best in Trick X which I have (internally) named Overwhelming Speed - the idea is that you're attacking so fast they don't have as much time to dodge, reducing how effective their DEX bonus to AC is, and if you're fast enough to make their own reaction speed worthless then you can abuse their openings to land stuff like sneak attack easily.

I guess I'm just not sure why it's assumed someone with two-weapon fighting is any faster to move or strike than an equally skilled and strong two-weapon fighter or someone using a 1-handed weapon plus a shield. I can definitely see two weapons overwhelming someone's defenses by simply allowing so many strikes coming in different directions at once, that's why there doesn't seem to be a thematic problem with trick X. And again, the 3 point trick is fine, just seems to not be conceptually related to TWF at all.

Frankly, I think the only problem with two-weapon fighting is just how many feats it takes and the Dex prereq. Any other significant issue with that is typically present in other melee fighting styles as well. Maybe for this system, you could also do what the basic Combat Stamina feat does and allow combatants to passively ignore some/all of a particular ability score prereq on the feats relevant to the combat style?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Well, if they can sell Moby Dick as an action/adventure movie, then anything is possible I guess (am I the only one horrified by the turning of a literary classic into a mindless man vs. nature informed action flick?)

Look at the Wikipedia page for Moby Dick. Melville based a lot of the book on his experience on a whaling ship and two instances of interactions with rather bad-ass ceteceans. For instance:

Melville's Sources wrote:
One was the sinking of the Nantucket ship Essex in 1820, after it was rammed by an enraged sperm whale 2,000 miles (3,200 km) from the western coast of South America. First mate Owen Chase, one of eight survivors, recorded the events in his 1821 Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do we need a certain size of rail to run her out of town on, or can I make do with whatever crap is in my shed?


I LIKE this idea! It reminds me a lot of the weapon skills in Guild Wars. I'd say, instead of making this weapon or feat specific, make one list of abilities for each weapon group. This way, having access to stamina and a simple weapon is still a good combination, but having martial / exotic weapon proficiency can be even better for those characters with the right class or feat investment.

As for the listed Stamina tricks:

TWF: this could easily apply to the Double weapon group


  • 1 point-good idea
  • 2 points-not bad, though this being two-weapon fighting I can see people getting confused; maybe a better idea would be that it applies only once per pair of main-hand / off-hand attacks?
  • 3 points-it feels like this is pretty strong for 3 stamina points, but not overwhelmingly so
  • X points-neat, I like it
  • Other thoughts-it feels like options 3 and X don't have much to do, thematically, with two-weapon fighting

Shortbow: apply this to the Bows weapon group


  • 1 point-nice
  • 2 points-obviously you mean successful attack, but this is still good; maybe prevent 5 ft. steps as well?
  • 3 points-cool
  • X points-this is a problem. not only are you moving normally AND getting a full attack, but you're completely avoiding ALL AoOs due to movement; one or the other should probably go
  • Other thoughts-dunno why, but it seems like some of these are out of order; I'd swap the position of the 2 and 3 point tricks


Mike J wrote:
I've switched to the Unchained revised action economy and have seen a number of changes that I wouldn't have predicted. For example, charging is obsolete. Also, with more maneuverability, I saw a big change in tactics. And with that, monsters with feat choices that aren't effective any more. I think your change will have a similar effect.

Actually, you should reread the rules for charges in that section. It still carries the normal restrictions as far as targetting and movement, but there's no AC penalty anymore despite still getting the +2 to your attack roll. So, it's perfectly good to use in cases where there's an enemy you've got a clear line to that's more than one move action away. A number of different actions from the base system have been tweaked that way in the Revised Action Economy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eretas wrote:
I very like your answer Cerberus! How can I bind you?

Oh, I'm easy to please. I like pizza, video games, and souls. If you can find a package involving all three, I'm in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
A lot of very true and relevant stuff

Mostly, my problem with it is that it's just so very very VERY badly written. I wasn't expecting Shakespeare, but I ALSO wasn't expecting to be bored to tears by a complete lack of anything even remotely unique, exciting, or innovative in these pages. If you're going to write a story about forbidden love between a human and monsters, make them actual monsters and not idealized specimens of humanity with no flaws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Tacticslion wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing that study...someone MUST have done it at some point. Anybody know of papers on the subject?

It's not a scientific study, but it is oddly relevant.

Gauging fan reaction will be fascinating.

Yes, because the world needed MORE of the Twilight fictional universe, now with extra controversy! Where's a time machine when you need one, so you can erase the very notion of vampires from existence?
You'll be needing the machine to predate Stoker by quite some time. Probably somewhere about juuuuuuuuuuust before Europe is settled. Also, due to how they're all linked, in order to do so, you'll need to take care of ghosts, goblins, ghouls, zombies, and similar creatures, as well as sprites, fey, and probably angels, devils, and so on- waaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a minute! You want to destroy Pathfinder! Hey! >:I

You can't prove that. XP


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, make it only one outsider at a time from any and all uses of this spell. This prevents you getting a small swarm of outsiders to help you and taking up too much time on your turn in combat.

Second, bargaining with the creature is a one-time affair. If the PC doesn't present a bargain and convince the outsider to accept said deal within one day of its summoning and entrapment, the creature gets to go free with no penalty to the summoner. The rest of the party is allowed to aid another on the Charisma check, but with a scaling DC (10 for the first person -> 15 for the second - > 20 for the third). The outsider may be more inclined to listen to and interact with other party members at times as well, if their nature is more in tune with its. This lets the entire party get involved and prevents the "I can just keep this thing captive and keep asking it for help every single darned day" scenario.

Third, make payment of some kind to the creature mandatory. And I don't mean handing it a couple thousand gold pieces worth in assorted gems or coin. Let your GM get creative, something like a non-removable penalty to an ability score, or a sacrifice of some of your daily spell slots, or a spell-blight. Also, alignment repercussions, your GM can have fun with that. Once the creature is gone, your natural mental, moral, and physical state gradually reasserts itself. Make sure all of this is in keeping with the thematic nature of the being you summoned. In essence, you're giving the creature a portion of your power and/or vitality both in way of payment for its service and to guarantee its fidelity to the agreed upon task. This way, there's both a roleplaying and mechanical trade-off for the extra power you're gaining through your temporary 'servant'.

Fourth, make the potential list of things this outsider will do for you restricted to its nature. No getting archons to kill someone in cold blood while they sleep, for example. They will gladly, however, guard a location or lead soldiers in battle. No getting demons to lead supply caravans or repair a busted dam, but they will gladly serve as murderous shock troops or scare the bejeezus out of some fort full of soldiers. You can always use elementals for a task and not worry about restrictions based on their nature, since they have neither much stake or interest in mortal affairs and are generally far less powerful and versatile than denizens of the Outer Planes. This prevents summoning whatever you want to do anything you want unless you're willing to go with a less potent outsider.

Fifth and finally, make these creatures behave appropriately both here and at home. For example, say you want an object stolen from a hellknight citadel. Unless you're REALLY specific on the details of the assignment (giving the creature a bonus on the oppposed Cha check), they might do something else along the way. An angel might destroy an altar to Asmodeus it finds there, causing the hellknights to search for the perpetrator with heightened ferocity in the surrounding lands. A demon, on the other hand, might kill an entire platoon of the enemy before telling the survivors just who sent him and where to find you. When you release the creature back to their plane of origin, they also spread word about you to their fellows, so that repeated castings of planar binding get creatures who know how to deal with you. They come prepared to deal with prior allowable requests, but are harder to convince to do new things. This way, the summoner has to account for potentially troublesome 'developements' in their otherwise perfect 'send-my-servant-to-do-my-job' plan and finds that they have to deal with the reputation they're building among the denizens of the outsider realms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
"Aura" is just stat-block-speak for "area of effect around the creature who has it, that doesn't have a specific activation cost." Gaze attacks and frightful presence are both examples of "auras" in that sense.

I understand and to a limited extent I agree. It's an abstraction for an omnipresent / unlimited-immediate-action usable effect. However, in both the thematic and mechanical sense, auras still don't feel quite right. If a fighter is about battlefield command, why are we limiting them to a tiny section of the fight like this? Their warcries should be influencing whole armies, which according to Ultimate Campaigns is apparently a square that is 500 ft. on a side. If they're not going to be doing that immediately but instead scale up to that kind of range by high level, then it should still be wide enough to cover a small-scale engagement at lower levels. I'm talking about covering a really large room at first, then a complex of a few small close-clustered buildings a few levels later, then a decently-sized open area like a wide field later on, etc. Also, simply having an omni-present effect doesn't quite seem to suit the idea of commanding troops in the chaotic melee of ancient battles. Sometimes soldiers lose track of things and need their commanders to get their attention, or they'll pursue without thinking, run in fear, etc. A fighter bellowing out a commanding cry to have his soldiers change tactics at a moments notice seems like a better fit than simply having a sudden change to an effect in a comparatively tiny area.


Somehow, auras doesn't feel quite right for a fighter. Paladins have auras, which is all about being a beacon of power, divine might & right in this case. Fighters, on the other hand, are about battlefield command and control, barking orders and shouting warnings and crying havoc to inspire their allies. Something like the shouts that warriors in World of Warcraft have seems a better fit here. Make it cost no resources but choose which effect to activate each time. It will hit a larger area but also have a cooldown, so it can't be spammed. It's non-magical, but the bonus type might not stack with a lot of spells and such. It's not as powerful as a paladin's immunities but eventually scales to be better than the bonus those auras provide. Just some thoughts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing that study...someone MUST have done it at some point. Anybody know of papers on the subject?

It's not a scientific study, but it is oddly relevant.

Gauging fan reaction will be fascinating.

Yes, because the world needed MORE of the Twilight fictional universe, now with extra controversy! Where's a time machine when you need one, so you can erase the very notion of vampires from existence?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure where else this would fit, so I'll put it here, where ALL things are permissible.

One of the major devs at DSP is having some financial difficulty. Here's the GoFundMe page: https://www.gofundme.com/errantx.

Just spreading the word.


SquirrelyOgre wrote:

I've been debating using the old rage str/con boost (it helps maintain the iconic 2H imagry) and applying the new rage powers in place of the old ones.

Would this cause any "squirrely" interactions with the new rage powers?

Not really. Rage powers are merely dependent on rage being active. The specific version of rage (+morale to stats / +untyped to att & dmg) doesn't have any impact on the precise function of the powers in question, to my knowledge.

1 to 50 of 1,317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>