A GM should role play the enemies during combat too. The tactic described makes sense for gnolls or a thieves guild for example but not for standard orcs, unless they have some kind of tactically-minded leader strong enough to keep them all in line. I mean, their Int and Wis are lacking to they can be more physically competent.
I haven’t though of an algorithm method yet... just had my first 2e sessions a week ago. However, when something came up on the radar and I needed to isolate it, I immediately started wondering how I could triangulate its position. The GM recognized this and - seeking to avoid the ensuing monotony - hand-waived the process. I foresee some glossing over in our future.
You could impose a maximum height the creature can fly to and/or make it a slow speed. Maybe a penalty to attack rolls while flying? Feats could gradually make the character fast and agile while in flight.
Tell us if you are switching from Pathfinder 1e to 2e (or anticipate doing so). Curious publishers want to know (what to support). I would like to thank you for calling it 2e and not 2.0.
When we played skull and shackles, one of the characters literally drank himself to death in a drinking contest. The player was aware of how much constitution damage he had taken, and kept on going.
Left home to become a ________. Ended up sex-crazed addict with ________ ________ instead.
Warped Savant, that would be true for ability score damage but not when a creature’s base ability score is 9.
My last sword & board tank was a barbarian with a rapier.
Multiple Waves and DM's that play their npc's like tactical generals.So this is more of a problem with the GM's style. Is that the word you meant to use? Its less of a problem, and more of a play style.
I want to address #1 specifically. Why do you want to take away what little the rogue has in the way of nice things? You know that magic spells aren’t real, right? Ok, and no one ever questions a 1st level wizard summoning a badger from another plane (if only for a moment). Let him dodge the falling roof in an extraordinary manner. He only needs to avoid the debris for a moment after all.
You could let the magic item user apply their own ability score mod to the DC, instead of basing it on the minimum necessary ability score.
One of the times I used the wish spell, I wished for a set of +5 full plate armor. It was a reward for doing a good job sacrificing a celestial (don’t ask). Due a very specific set of circumstances, every one of my possessions had been discinigrated by a party member (long story, don’t ask, we were 17th level). I got it with no repursusisons. The other time was the same character in the same campaign (at 18th level) while we battled the pentultimate villain for the second time (don’t ask, my body had been discinigrated this time), except it was miracle instead of wish. Two party members were dead. Completely dead. I passed the DM a scrap of paper that said “miracle”, then spoke aloud “Sons of Graz’zt, I command you to rise!” (Don’t ask). The DM made them both alive and standing upright with half hit points. No one complained, and we ended up winning the encounter. Another long story involves these same two betraying the party while we battled the final villain, the avatar of Orcus. Very messy. However, the point of the spell is ultimate versatility, not power/wealth/immortality. Yes particular GMs may punish any use of the spell, but I believe the intent of wish retaliation it to punish greed.
Pointy hat, staff, robe with big sleeves.
Do we get to see it?
I give this a thumbs down on the premise that it is class specific. That is bad design IMO. Aside from being class specific, I am not against the idea of alternate crew roles. As far as these specific abilities, they do need some refining. Perhaps simplification. Something I would like to see is an expanded list of abilities for the captain. Why do the captains abilities need to be charisma based? I think there is a place for intelligence and wisdom based abilities.
The link works, but the page is blank.
“Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist.”
I'd also like to see some >10 level prestige classes Whoa! PF has enough classes as it is! :D
I would like prestige classes to have less prerequisites in some cases. Some of them get kind of crazy. The intention was that the ones with more prerequisites or more powerful. That is all fine and well, but then no one uses the prestige class. I would like to have more 3 to 5 level prestige classes. Too many have 10. I think most of the prestige classes should be available to a variety of characters. I believe that a prestige class that caters towards a specific character class should be an archetype instead.
I try to paint a figurine for every character I play, and if you look at the PC section of my figurine shelves you would see a lot of them carrying shields. I alternate though between a frontline warrior and some other type, Such as a caster, ranged warrier, sneaky type, etc.
I’ve only played one session so far and no one has used a Granade yet, so feel free to weigh in if any of this is wrong. 1) Choose a grid intersection within the the granade’s maximum range (probably 100 ft). 2) Make an attack roll against AC 5: d20 + BAB + Strength modifier (pg 240 & 245). Apply any other attack modifiers, such as a penalty for range (pg 245). 3) If you hit, deal damage to all creatures within the explode radius. Each creature also makes a saving throw (pg 183) to halve the damage and negate any additional effect (pg 181). 4) If you miss, the grenade lands in the different grid intersection. Roll a d8 to determine a direction and a d4 to determine the distance (pg 245). The damage and save still happen, but they affect those is the new grid intersection. I had to flip around a lot to find all of this. I would have organized the information differently. Also strange is that the explode property (pg 181) addresses half damage and negating the effect, while the grenade weapon description (pg 183) mentions negating the effect but nothing about the damage. Pathfinder made revisions to the core book with each printing. I hope Starfinder will be the same.
KAC + 8 is too high. Against an enemy with a KAC of 15 my first level character (+3 to combat maneuvers) would have to roll a natural 20 to succeed on a combat maneuver. I don’t think the success rate needs to be 50% against an evenly matched opponent, but a typical success rate of ~25% would be reasonable when no special factors are in play. Even lowering the +8 to +5 would be decent start. I feel that +8 was arbitrarily selected without thought being given to it. Just how high should an attack bonus be at 1st level?
Ship weapons do ten times the damage against creatures.
I rarely start a character above 1st level. I think its been years since I have.
Did your GM say why you can't switch?Because he was not familiar with the changes done to unchained rogue. Because he has life, family and a dedicated Star Wars RP guild in The Old Republic MMO. And I don't think he owns the Unchained PDF. It would be easy to familiarize himself with it. The changes are not significant and the info is available for free online. However, I do understand his reasoning because I have my own thing: as a default I don't allow material that does not exist in a physical form. It has to appear in a book, even if the group doesn't own it. Though for material that exists solely in an electronic format, I will consider them on a case by case basis and have only ever declined one thing.
Did your GM say why you can't switch?
I imagine that your ability scores are set and cannot be changed. I understand why you put the 14 in Intelligence. I like skill points too, but a rogue already has a bunch of them so a 12 would have worked just fine. A rogue is already very skilled without focusing on being skilled. I'd rather have some extra hit points. Get yourself a rapier, dagger, sap, and shortbow. Never mind the short sword - the rapier is your main melee weapon. This will give you d6 damage instead of d4, but more importantly it increases your crit range. If you haven't already, switch to the unchained rogue. The only difference at 1st level is that you get Weapon Finesse for free. There are other differences as you gain levels. When you reach 3rd level, your attacks will deal d6 +Dex damage. Not much, I know, but you need to train yourself to create opportunities to apply sneak attack, which will be +2d6 at 3rd level. Stick close to your allies so you can get a flank. Every chance you get, tumble into a flank. If you don't move, use a 5-ft step every chance you get. Encourage your allies to do the same. If you start think about getting that flank at the beginning of your turn then you are waiting too long. You must start thinking about how you will get a flank on your next turn. If your ally 5-ft steps into a space that allows you to 5-ft step into a flank, then that is ideal. Playing PF or other RPGs as a group of individuals will result in lessened results. Teamwork will always more the game fun for everyone involved.
31. The PCs are still making payments on their ship and the title is encumbered until they get it paid off. The market changed, such that they owe more on it than it is worth.
For the rogue, swap out dungeoneering and perform with nature and survival. Replace the extra weapon proficiencies with some the that feel more "jungley". Maybe the machete, bola, shortbow, and whip?
My character in kingmaker had a family in each town. When one of the towns was sacked and his wife there was killed, he brought the children to live in the capital.
Show your GM the exact wording. Ask him to cite the ruling for his interpretation. I suspect he is worried that you will deal too much damage too often. It a reasonable concern... if he never attacks you. Rogues are what we call squishy. They are susceptible to Fort and Will attacks, and do not have the best AC or hit points. If a rogue presents a serious threat and an enemy fails to retaliate, then the enemy is dumb and deserves to be taken advantage of. Rogues are not meant to charge in and engage a mob or oversized brute. The rogue is meant to see opportunities, grab them by the neck, and wring the life out of them. If the rogue makes a mistake then the rogue could very well get beaten to a bloody pulp. Not every enemy is worth exposing your soft onderbelly to.
The options for Prayer have been expanded significantly. There are now three options per domain, but I have not yet rewritten the base class feature itself. I don't know if I will rewrite in such a way that you have access to all of them, or if this will simply end up as a brainstorming session and I remove a bunch of them. rainzax,
What weirdo said.
With the possible exception of (anti)paladin (whose entire mechanics are based around alignment stuff), none of the alignment restricted classes gain any noticeable power up if you remove those restrictions. I think the alignment requirements of monks and barbarians (going back to pre-PF) were intentionally done to avoid the possibility of mixing rage and flurry of blows, not just for flavor reasons. Though I can't say for sure if it neccessary now, given that charcater classes in general are more powerful now.
I do want to express myself, okay. And I don't need 37 classes with flair to do it. Sorry for the joke. I appreciate turning around some of the long-held traditions to give a campaign setting a twist, but I don't think that rigid alignment restrictions is the way to do it. I would dig these new conventions if they were cultural, social, political, religious etc. in nature - but not game mechanic alignment requirements. In Dave Arneson's 3.4 Blackmoor campaign setting book, he gave sorcerers the Disguise skill for free because their kind had been outlawed by wizards and so they had to hide their "dangerous" nature lest they be hunted down by the authorities. A little harsh, I know, but instead of being a required characteristic for the character, it was a characteristic of the world that the character lived in.
DROPBOX LINK TO DPF
I've been sitting on this for at leastseveral months, though most of it was written in the beginning. I have some ideas that I want to see applied to all divine classes in one form or another, and some of them are big changes that I feel still keep to the spirit of the class. These ideas exist in 3-4 classes I have not shared yet, but this cleric is kind of the base for them all. -The class has a scaling pool of points that is used to fuel channel energy, spontaneous casting, and other miscellaneous abilities.
Alright, tear into it...
It means honestly, not harshly.
I think that many feel this way, and I've had a couple of ideas. 1) Give some of the companions a minimum "druid" level. Some companions are just plain better than others, and at low level a character can gain a large mechanical boost by choosing one of them. If you look at some of these companions with three attacks and good strength and then compare it to a more mundane animal, the difference can be laughable. Some companions should require that the character have a minimum druid level. 2) Maybe its not possible to simulate the real-world animals and at the same time make each of them balanced against each other, so I don't think that should be the ultimate goal. However, we could take some of the less powerful companions and give them small boons that don't necessarily make them melee monsters. For example, a dog companion is weak compared to a wolf but it is no more difficult to train a wolf than it is a dog. Given the history of dogs and humans, how about it Handle Animal checks made with a dog gain a +2 bonus? There are other animals that could gain similar bonuses. The ram is a nice example I think, as it gains Imp Bullrush as a bonus feat. The animal is too small to really exploit the feat, but its a flavorful addition. 3) While we're on the subject, I think that Handle Animal could use a revision. Past a certain level there is little point in putting more ranks in the skill (certain other skills are the same way). Since the different tricks have different DCs for training, maybe the DC to use it should be different too? Originally, the trick list was much smaller, and now it is quite large. Thats good in a way, but now I have to wonder what exactly my companion can actually do without having a certain trick. 4) A new option for A.C advancement. In lieu of taking the 4th or 7th level advancement, you can always opt for a bonus to Dex and Con. In almost all cases this is a lame choice compared to +8 Str, +4 Con, and a cool combat ability. What if you don't want your companion to increase in size? Its time for different options. Maybe choose a two things from a list, such as +1 to all saves, some extra skill ranks, ability score bonuses, better senses, etc.
Using two die instead of one produces more average numbers. There are fewer highs and lows, and a +1 makes more of a difference. Plus, at the time I implemented it, it was a way to get my daughter to use addition. The two dice plus a bonus.
I have used them sparingly. Once I added a cleric to a party of two, just as a source of some healing. Lower level than the PCs. He was also a story device. A few times he got trapped/captured/cornered by a monster and they would have to help him out. Another one I used was with a group of new players. The character was basically a meat shield. Around third level they had learned a couple things and had some extra hit points, so I had him part ways with the group. The only other time I could think of was in a group that needed a guide and ended up hiring a kobold that knew the area. He couldn't do much in combat, but I enjoyed using the voice I deviced for him so I probably kept him around a little longer than necessary.
Hmm. Mostly I don't like it. Its empower metamagic with no cost and probably easy to exploit. I'd feel better about it if it were a once per day thing.
I would recommend that you let the players choose their own characters.
I blame people. People want attention, like a puppy who pees on the carpet.
I don't "fudge" rolls, but I play with my kids so we allow a liberal amount of rerolls. :-) That just gave me an idea for when I game with my kid (if I ever back to that). At each session I'll give her a few tokens she can turn in to re-roll things.
Just let the player be a paladin.
Barbarians probably don't call themselves barbarians. Fighters probably don't call themselves "fighters". Even the n the real world a person would seldom use such a title for themself. It goes without saying that in game a character would not neccessarily use their class name to describe themselves. A class name is mostly for the benefit of the real life people playing the game.
I don't believe thay you are trying to do so, but telling someone that they are playing their game "wrong" can be offensive.
In reading your opening statement, I thought it might be interesting to play in a "pre-pocalyptic" world, by which I mean that the world has not yet fallen to ruin and is just in the early phases of it. Some things are gone or destroyed, some are still at full strength, some have adapted, some are in the process of crumbling, etc. In this way, the adventuring party is not just surviving in a post apocalypse world, not trying to stop the apocalypse, nor knowing of a catastrophe that happen hundreds of years ago: they are actually living in and witnessing it. Some people have very strong opinion against the alignment system, and don't want it to exist at all. I suspect this might be why you want to allow an "unaligned" character. I like the alignment system but have a pretty flexible interpretation of it. I see it as a role playing aid rather than restriction. Adventurers have non-neutral alignments because they are not normal people and stand for things that most do not understand. What you describe as unaligned I would just call neutral. These three races seem to be re-imagined and re-built in significant enough ways that you can stop calling them by the races they were derived from. Say that you have custom races and build them from scratch. It might make sense for your "dwarves" to simply speak giant. Also, you could decide on what the giants' word for "runt" and use that as the race name.
Ask your GM. ;)
I wouldn't encourage someone to make a build that relies on a specific type of weapon, but the unchained rogue and most of the means to gain Dex to damage require you to do so. |
