CylonDorado's page

Yeah, good points. I think I will go with Perception. It would be almost the same as maxing Escape Artist if I took Agile Maneuvers (the same number, except minus the possibility of Daring Do). Plus, unless there's something I'm missing, I can attempt combat maneuvers and draw the attack of opportunity on purpose so I can Parry and Riposte. With that feat I'd be pretty good at actually succeeding at the maneuver. But if I take that at three, then I'll have to push back Combat reflexes to 5 (so I can parry more then once a turn). But oh well.

So here's the thing. A long time ago I made an Aasimar character that has enough credit to be played at level 2, but I haven't yet. Then I sat on it a while I played my Barbarian. So now I remade it as having one level of Swashbuckler and one level of Paladin. The plan is to just go vanilla paladin after that, with ultimately ten levels of paladin and one level of Swashbuckler.

So here's the other thing, it doesn't have a ton of skill points (which always bugged me about the Paladin), and these two are the odd ones out. I'll have three skill points per level, and I was going to level Diplomacy every level, Perception OR escape artist every level, then use the third one to gradually level up climb, swim, and acrobatics.

So my two fears are thus: I'll be grappled easily, or I'll be sneak attacked easily. It's dex based, so I'll have a less then stellar flat footed (while doomed to lack uncanny dodge), and a less then stellar CMB. My buddy told me that most things grappling you are nigh unescapable anyway, but I figure the Daring Do panache ability (add a d6 + another D6 every time you roll a 6) might make up the difference. I also know that Perception is one of the most useful things in the game, but I have no wisdom mod, so it won't be amazing. Because of that, neither skill seems worth taking if I don't put a point in every level.

I'm really paranoid, because if anything happens to this character, I can't make another Aasimar. Thoughts?

It actually does say that they're not born evil, but they usually need to be to survive within their jerk culture. That was just about Drow in general though, I guess it could be different in a specific campaign setting that I havn't read up on.

Makes enough sense to me, since people like Drow, but they don't like being told how to play their characters.

Well, for one, it's not exactly the easy way. It specifically says you have to do a bunch of dangerous quests and spend a lot of money to become a lich. Then it kind of still sucks to be you, since who wants to look like a zombie for all eternity?

Good wizard doesn't have to go out of his way, has friends, and isn't shoehorned into an eternal career of magic terrorism or abandoned castle guarding.

Have you seen what adventurers carry? Their crap is expensive. Like hell some lowly guard would toss that crap in a moat. He would take it and retire comfortably.

Well, if he isn't beaten to death by the owner of said weapon.

Yeah, that does seem unlikely. If anything they'd put in another part of the castle. Their decision was borderline meta, since instead of selling/using valuable equipment, they decided to bug some random prisoners. With that said, it still sounded like some hillarious GMing, and hats off to the OP.

We've never had our gear taken in any of our games, but it does seem like a solid plot hook. So long as you're semi fair with it, and you have the opportunity to get it back or find something else to use (even if it is a downgrade).

I just recently started using it for the first time on my lvl 3 Barbarian. There wasn't a point where I was like, "Crap, I missed by 1, if only I hadn't used Power Attack D:"

I pretty much used it every time unless I forgot.

I don't really know which is better, but I'd play something that wasn't as good as something else if I thought I could make a cool character with it.

With the Wizard, you're kind of shoehorned into a backstory. To become a wizard, you had to spend a big chunk of your life studying magic. There's wiggleroom, but there's so much more you can do with a sorceror, since anyone can just be born a sorceror.

Steel soul is very good too.

That's interesting, since I was kind of thinking the same thing. It's not really the best feat, but hardy has saved me from failing a save twice over two sessions on my new character, and I don't even have it the feat yet. I definitely plan on taking it at level 5.

And I'm happy with the breadth of experiance love going around. I just absolutely love having room for one knowledge skill on a character, and being able to roll on any of them is like Christmas.

As for my pick, I may not be the best player or anything, but friggin' good ol' Toughness. Keeping PC's alive since 19forever. Simple, elegant, it isn't a wasted feat on any character, and it even scales.

I had a character with exactly that much AC at lvl 1 in Pathfinder Society. I saved up, and I had masterwork full plate at level 2. She has really high AC, but I don't hit as hard as I would if I was two-handing. Also, fighter's don't have very good saves. Just those two facts make it completely balanced in my opinion, and the limited skill points also bugs me. It's good (I love playing that character) but I've never felt like it was that amazing, and now I've gotten her to level 5.

CylonDorado wrote:

I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay. The only guy I've ever seen make an optimised character retooled it because he didn't have enough skill points, and when he dropped his STR it didn't drastically reduce his damage.

Yours is a common misconception. That optimization reduce the amount of roleplaying.

You can optimize your skill points too.

Yeah, it's really just a problem for a class where int is one of the dump stats. It's kind of bland when all I have to work with for backstory is that I learned to climb or something. Also, ignoring your sheet works wonders for roleplay.

Yeah... Combat Expertise sucks and I hate it. Enlightening, I know.

I get that the idea is that you know a lot about combat, but I fail to see how that translates into your character by being able to block better... So you take a useless feat, by making your stats a little worse, so you can make a character that still isn't that great.

I don't really like it, personally. I just don't like the fact that you have a flat 1/20 chance to mess up from level 1 to level 20. You'd think it would be less likely as you got more awesome, but the chance goes up as you get more attacks. I don't know...

We just started a game where the DM knew none of us where optimized. And yet he had us fighting enemies that where of a higher CR then we were at lvl 1 :/. We did not know that was going to happen ahead of time.

On the one hand, that seems unfair. On the other hand, we actually pulled through, and it was a lot of fun.

I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay. The only guy I've ever seen make an optimised character retooled it because he didn't have enough skill points, and when he dropped his STR it didn't drastically reduce his damage.

Ramarren wrote:

My rule of thumb was 25pt buy with no dump stats (nothing below 10). It seemed to work out well.

Yes, this or 20 pt with no dump works well. Allows for a nice build with no min/maxing.

But with that party, they will need all the help they can get. Almost no healing and no arcanist? Wow.

Yeah, that's not bad. I made a 20 point buy dwarf that is working fine, and it's got this spread (just highest to lowest, not in actual order):

16, 16, 15, 12, 10, 8. However, I'm not sure if the rule means I'd have to up the naturally occuring charisma dump for being a dwarf. On an Elf, I usually do that anyway, but it seems rough for a dwarf. The Elf can crank up their dex and be a decent martial class, or its int and be a really good wizard. But with the dwarf almost no matter what you make, you can take the hit to cha, and still just be well rounded (as opposed to optimized).

If you can make it work with 15, and 25 isn't that much better, I'd just go with 25.

With more points, it's often easier to fit a character concept. For instance, I'd kill for two more points on my 20 point buy Barbarian so I can take Knowledge: Nature and be more of an outdoorsman. But I'm already spreading around my skill points quite a bit.

I wonder if this will become a habit...hmm...

Actually had my first kill ever in a PFS game a few weeks back.

One player got Con drained to 0 by a Wraith. I actually had him roll his own Con drain damage the last time and he maxed out. He wound up getting a Resurrection but also killed a second player shortly thereafter. Two shocking grasps by a high level character that did almost max damage twice.

Deflect arrows is one of those abilities that are crappy until a bolt the size of a patriot missle hits you in the eye

Dang, what level was that? The only character I've ever seen die in pathfinder society was a lvl 1 halfling sorcerer with 10 con. I thought the only way to die in it was to run out of time at a convention event.

Mkay, duly noted. I forgot all about the race builder. I'll mention that, and that the consensus is that it seems like it should be toned down a smidge.

But wait, how is the mermaid's speed easy to get around? I always thought that was a huge deal.

Ok, so my secondary role-play group of friends (the ones who meet much less frequently, but who are much better at it) are starting their first Pathfinder game. They're converting their characters from this barebones, simple game called Gates and Gorgons. And in that game, there's a were-wolf thing called a Gylf, and the DM made this for them (copy/pasted from facebook):

The Gylf-Wolf: Racial Traits 1 through 7 (edit: except 5) applies when in human form or wolf form. 5, 8, 9, and 10 apply when in wolf form only.
1. +2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom. NO PENALTIES TO ABIITIES. Gylf-Wolves are quick, durable, and perceptive.
2. As a Medium creature, Gylf-Wolves get no bonuses or penalties due to size.
3. Movement 30 feet.
4. Gylf-Wolves can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of shadowy illumination. It retains the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.
5. +2 racial bonuses on Listen, Spot, and Survival checks: Borrowing from their wolf bond, Gylf-Wolves have an acute perception of their surroundings and double their Wisdom bonus when tracking.
6. Languages: Common and Wolf.
7. Bonus Languages based upon Intelligence: Dwarven, Elf, Goblin, Halfling, Orc, Sylvan.
8. Movement 40 feet.
9. When in wolf form their attack routine is either 2 claw attacks per round (1d6 + Strength mod) OR 1 bite attack (1d8 + Strength mod).
10. Trip tactic: a hit with a bite attack (no damage) can attempt to trip the opponent as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the Gylf-Wolf.
LIMITATIONS: Gylf-Wolves can only choose the Fighter, Barbarian, or Ranger classes. Whenever the character wants to shape change, they have to get nude or they will rip their clothing apart. Gylf-Wolves cannot use any weapons when in wolf form. If armored, the character must take it off because they are changing into human sized four legged wolves. When in wolf form the character can only speak wolf. However, he or she can understand other languages.

I thought maybe I could still be a decent half-orc, since I could technically crank up the strength higher then this thing, but... we're rolling for stats and I have no idea what I'm going to get. And since this thing gets +2 to 3 stats (save stats no less), I feel like it would be foolish to do anything else.

On the one hand, unless I don't care about my armor and weapons, I'd never really use the wolf thing. So effectively, it gets no race features besides really good stats. But... that's a net +6 over a normal races +2. Gawd.

Should I recommend a tone down? The only person running one will be a ranger, the one thing that a power gamer would make after looking at these stats, so my gut reaction is that this is cheese. I'm just worried about it, since most people in this group are very casual and RP focused, and it would super unbalance things if that one ranger is way more amazing.

CylonDorado wrote:

If I ever met Gail Simone, I'd ask if she could sign my arm, and then have it tattoed on if she did. So yeah, that feel when I read the title of this thread... >:(

Did you read the rest of the thread? She is now back on Batgirl. DC rehired her.

Ah, that's cool. It was like 4am when I wrote that, so I wasn't all there.

1.) Wonder Woman- not just because of the feminism thing, she's a bonefied badass. A bruiser with a lot of fighting skill and finesse, and nonconventional weapons/accessories that I've seen used in interesting ways (unless you've done something to warrent a simple battleaxe in your face). Also, love the backstory, and she's often portrayed as being very thoughtful and passionate at the same time. Can't fathom why they havn't made a movie already...

2.) Deadshot- Not a super hero, but whatever, he's still my second favorite character ever. BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM.

3.) Superman/Batman tie- Nostalgia from the Saturday morning cartoons, along with some really good stories they've been in. (no particular order after this point).

4.) Thor- I do like mythically inclined super heroes, and (like Wonder Woman) I love his powers, attitude, and backstory.

5.) The Phantom Stranger- Hard to place my finger on exactly why, but I just think he's really cool whenever he pops up.

6.) Rorschach- Like a lot of characters in Watchmen, he was really deep and interesting. The whole meaning behind his name was one of my favorite social commentaries in the book.

7.) Marv- Ya know, from Sin City? Dude... This guy.

8.) King Shark- See Deadshot, but substitute CHOMPCHOMPCHOMPCHOMP

9.) Hulk/She-Hulk tie- I love how She-Hulk acts just like a normal person (with above average wit) whose job just happens to be to beat up bad guys. Also,she's my favorite character in Mavel Vs. Capcom 3. And with Hulk, you just have to cheer for the nerd rage incarnate.

10.) Power Girl- I just like her for the plots, honest... Seriously though, I think her misplaced Crisis surviver backstory is interesting. And your heart goes out to her in Infinite Crisis, and when that comes back to haunt her in Blackest Night. And I love all her interactions when she had cameos in Wonder Woman books, and her own comic is pretty solid too.

If I ever met Gail Simone, I'd ask if she could sign my arm, and then have it tattoed on if she did. So yeah, that feel when I read the title of this thread... >:(

Her Wonder Woman run got me into comics in the first place, and Secret Six is the best thing ever. This is another major smack in the face from DC, when I was finally coming back around to them since I loved the new Suicide Squad, and I thought the new Justice League was pretty good too. Although a good bit of that first trade was kind of forgetable, and my favorite character (Wonder Woman) seems a lot more one dimensional.

I don't know what I'm gonna do now...

Not as many as I thaught. I liked the Red Hood stuff, so I was ok with Jason Todd coming back. And it was kind of easy for me to accept them bringing back characters I liked. With Superman, there's a lot of good comics that alude to back when Superman died, so I feel like they handled that one well. Other ones, where I feel like they just brought the character back to bring back the status quo, then barely mention it again (Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, ect.) shouldn't have been killed off in the first place.

Never cared at all about Hal Jordan, but apparently Green Lantern fans are a picky bunch (according to my friend who is one). I like Guy Gardner, and John Stewart, AND Kyle Rayner better... Even in Blackest Night I felt like Hal was one of the least interesting characters, and that whole event was centered around the Lantern Corps. And this is hardly a new occurance for me. I jokingly call the first Green Lantern animated movie "Sinestro the Movie: with special guest star, Hal Jordan". I didn't care that much about him getting brought back though, since I don't hate him, he's just not my favorite. (Larfleeze is the best lantern :D)

I don't read a whole lot of Marvel, but I did read the original Dark Phoenix saga, and that would have had a lot more weight to it if Jean had stayed dead. Instead, she is probably the most resurected, drama-killing, god-like character ever.

Also, I thought Superboy had a very sad, dramatic death in Infinite Crisis. Although I like him, it probably would have seemed like that mattered more if he stayed dead.

Might just take some flak for this if anybody actually scrolls down this far to read this thread, but I thought Batman should have stayed dead. They were so close to starting the new 52 anyway, they might as well have just rode it out. I liked the idea of Dick Grayson taking up the mantle, and I thought the way he came back to life was stupid. But this is mitigated by the fact that you knew he was going to come back right when Final Crisis ended, so it's not like they were acting like he might stay dead to drum up drama. But if he'd stayed dead, it would have had the impact of Superboy's death times 1000, and would have made for better story telling.

I actually considered running a duergar with 6 charisma in our next campaign. If I'd have done it, I would have reflected this by hurling venom enriched spiteful insults whenever I open my mouth to talk to someone, easing up on the other party members once I've earned their trust.

However, if I was presented with the idea of a 10 point buy game, I would politely pass, no hard feelings. I feel like my hands are tied behind my back when it comes to building character concepts with a 20 point buy in this system. So to me, it's not worth the headache.

Barbarian, survival, done. I don't need you're stupid money, I'll just go kill a deer with my pure hatred and eat it.

But yeah, I like how you can do that and just be a wild warrior. You can be totally built to slaughter and it still makes sense from a roleplay standpoint.

That's why I don't like fighters, because OMG it's so hard to have a fluff skill like Profession: whatever when you get so few skill points. It's one of the things that makes the system totally bent towards humans when it comes to filling out character concepts. (And they won't even let me be a lizardfolk... sigh...)

Yeah, I've never met anybody who didn't put warrior of old or reactionary on their character, except myself. I decided my human fighter could go ahead and go last so I could up a save stat and decrease my armor check penalties. My flat footed AC is better then everyone else's regular AC, so it don't bother me :).

But yeah, THE most common trait by far.

4e, pretty close to when it came out. I think I was 17. I ran a goliath fighter that I tried to make as unkillable as possible :D. Then it died when the GM had us do this demon blood drinking initiation thing that was strait out of dragon age origins... I forgot what we even had to roll, but I just remember that I needed 100 and I got 99.

So I made a sassy female tiefling warlock, and it's still one of my favorite characters I've ever made. I wanted to remake it in pathfinder, but pathfinder tieflings are a lot different.

I'm pretty ok with deaths not being dramatic, or whatever. That's how deaths are in real life 90% of the time. And if you're somebody who walks into the face of death regularly, odds are, it's gonna happen sooner or later, and not to dramatically save the rest of your party. If you want to craft a literary masterpeice, you're going to have to write a book. Don't expect one to just generate itself in a dice based RPG.

As for this, being able to come back to life if your party can get their hands on your dead body is just one of those perks of leveling. Parties that are under a certain level are just SOL, like the level 4 assassin that died in our last 4e session. If you get to that high of a level, it's kind of like, WOO HOO, my character made it to the resable milestone. But still, there are plenty of ways to perma kill you, so I still don't think it's a big deal.

I don't see what the problem is. Eventually, you get to the point where the system already has all the stuff you'd ever want, and it's finished.

4e and 3.5 are in that state now. If you want to play those games, there's plenty of material for you to do so, even though new stuff doesn't come out for them anymore. Pathfinder will likely end up like that, and if a 2.0 came out, there's no reason in the world to stop playing 1.0 if you don't like 2.0.

This is assuming you don't rely on pre-made adventures...

I fail to see how it's better. It's more like... the same, except you trade ki points for initiative, dex based skills (except one), and the trait that you could have used instead.

It does seem a lot more minor though, now that I know that wisdom goes into CMD. So that's cool. It's almost splitting hairs.

I'm just worried that it's gonna be a long couple months for my buddy. We'll probaby get to lvl 2, switch to our 4e game for several sessions, then switch back, have a couple sessions before we get to lvl 3, then switch again. That's a long time to be a dedicated archer that can barely shoot, when we're lucky to get in one session a week (and with 10 strength, so when he does hit... d8. The scorpion whip kensai magus will be doing more damage, and he gets 1 spell per day).

1.) They weren't really in the middle of a battle per se.

2.) It IS fun to think of it like that, at least to me. Considering that my long time hobby is storywriting and I'm shooting to be a writer/character designer once I get that all-important degree here in about a year now. (Game Design, it focuses more on writing than you might think).

^^Yeah, but I love that movie, so usually I assume people just are upset that Wash died because he was awesome, instead of there being anything actually wrong with it.

And yeah, the game design/writing relationship is kind of what I had in mind with my last post, although I didn't clearly state it admitedly. If you're in a well written, satisfying, fun adventure with a good DM, you aren't really worried abut things like tension.

Edit: Wait, they were totally in the middle of a battle. They just dodged there way through an armada of ships shooting at eachother, and then when they landed Wash got aced by a spear thing, because the Reavers were still trying to kill them. But that's niether here nor there.

I think you guys are thinking way too much about this. In the one instance: When Wash died in Serenity, I figured it was just because they were in a dangerous battle, and people often get killed, often randomly in such situations :P. It didn't matter if he should have died there from a writing standpoint, or some crap. Thinking about it like that is no fun. I actually did think anyone could die at that point, and the final fight was way more tense. And it would have been silly if nobody died in the most rediculously dangerous fight they've had in the whole series.

Also with role playing games. Thinking too much about that too. It's supposed to just be fun playing out fantasy adventures. If you're DM wants to make things hard he can. You could die, and then the rest of your party might run away. Or you fell down a chasm. Or the bad guys took your body and ate it. Or maybe they even cast that spell on you that keeps you from being ressurected if they really hate you. If it isn't tense enough, tell your DM that he's bad. Then, recommend one of those games where you roll up a throwaway character in five minutes because you know they could die any second. That can be fun too, it's just a different kind of fun.

You need a combat healer at low levels so that you can get to the high levels so you're OP min/maxed character can kill everything before you get hit somehow (and I'm still convinced the DM is going easy on you).

Not to mention, healing doesn't have to outpace damage, it just has to speedbump damage. This is a principle all real men learned playing Pokemon.

I'd say it isn't optimal, since now EVERYBODY is looking back in their rule book every round to double check the keywords and limitations on their spells. Won't get anything done, ever.

I don't see the point in having Wis over Dex on the Zen Archer. We're starting a lvl one game soon, and our zen archer will have +2 to hit starting out. Sure, he'll even out at level 3, but still. The dex archer is faster and more resitant to combat manouvers, and all he's giving up is 2 ki points, which he gets more and more of as he levels. And instead of wisdom of the flesh, he could take something that makes him better instead of something that puts him on par. He just accused me of being a min/maxer, when I've never actually ran a min/maxed character. Switching am 18 with a 14 insn't min/maxing.

Plus, I don't know how I'm going to react in character when he finally learns how to actually hit something out of nowhere. It'd be like something out of an after school special. "The kids at school said I'd never be a great archer, but I stuck with it and showed them :D".

I think he should have a massive superiority complex, since growing up, he was the only one who could reach the top shelf.

With a plus to wisdom, and no negative, it's kind of like playing a human, or half human. I'm guessing they'd be as good of a monk as anything else.

I dunno legolas does a lot of this type of stuff in the LoTR movies, and then there is hawkeye more recently, and the TV series the arrow... people see this stuff, then want to do the cool things with their characters... its bound to come up.

Well, yeah. Unfortunately, most of the time when you want to do something based on a specific character, rules balance makes it so that you have to pick and choose aspects of them that you like. It's something I've run into many times.

For instance, Hawkeye is good with his fists as well as with a bow. But you're not going to be as badass as Hawkeye if something gets in your face and you punch it, after wasting a feat on improved unarmed strike, which means you're not as good with that bow as you could be, and Hawkeye is the best at bows so you already failed your mission.

Touc wrote:

Paulcynic wrote:

My turn is the most fun, because everyone gets to roll dice for the various critters on the table...I let everyone know what I generally want done with this clump of critters, and then this clump, and the other players (who have a copy of my critter sheets) start rolling. My turn is done in about 4-5 minutes, but nobody is bored for lack of dice rolling.

Really? Other players have fun playing your critters the way you instruct them? "Oh gee, I get to roll your dice for you? Awesome! I can't wait until my 30-second turn is over to get to your 4 minute turn in which you tell me what to do!" Maybe you've got a far more-forgiving group than I and/or players who just love the rattle of dice and nothing else. Players who monopolize the table are generally not popular party members.

However, I support your effort to make a combat bard and believe there's archetypes out there than can pace other classes in damage (when given a chance to buff up).

Not to be too challenging, but it is a more selfish attitude to only care about your turn. This is a cooperative game, and we generally make suggestions to one another during combat and during RP so that we can obtain the most memorable results. Our DM is very tactical, and so as you can see are the character's that I build. This is my table's culture; were I to play at your table, I'd assimilate :) I don't find these sorts of weird internet abrasions helpful or relevant. I'm glad that many have a strong reaction to words in a forum, it shows passion. But there are lines, which will shut down a discussion rather than steer it in a useful direction.

Heh, besides I don't tell them what to do, I let them know how best to use my critters and they make their own decisions. My group of players have been doing this for a couple of decades now, and we have had our share of summoners, and so this is how we have learned to be most efficient, and we all have fun running around extra critters.

Now.. I'm...

I like how we're selfish for not being thrilled that you're turn take forever. No matter how you rationalize it, you're still "that guy".

^^Yeah, the honor of the best at manouvers would have to go to Captain Fight-man.

CylonDorado wrote:

Funky Badger wrote:

There's no reason the system dynamics should stay constant through the game. If at first level you have 75% success rate and at 20th level you have 75% success rate then nothing has changed. What was the point of going up levels again?

See also: trip. It does work better against humanoids than against, say, dragons. This is perfectly reasonable behaviour.

Well, the point of going up levels isn't to get worse. It's one of those things that makes me shy away from the rogue, even though I like the idea of it.

Stuff that works at low levels (trip etc.) doesn't work so much at high levels... players have to learn more stuff... its meant to be harder the higher up you go, isn't it?

Sure, but with that in mind, nobody should ever take feats to be good at that sort of thing unless they know the campaign will cut out early, or if you're a fighter who can re-train them. It's a pain to have feats that are a waste, especially in a game as unbalanced as Pathfinder. The guy next to me would be doing way better, and I'd just feel crappy.

I don't see the appeal. Why not just kit yourself out for range, then take point blank mastery for when they're in you're face? Then you're already Legolas. He doesn't just run up and shoot people all the time. It's situational when he's right in their face.

I kind of see this build as kind of like making a build to throw greatswords instead of hitting people with them, except it makes less sense somehow.

I never actually ran it, but I made a madness Witch whose thrush was going to be named Sheogorath. I thaught that would be the best since a thrush can talk, and I'd always do an impression of it's namesake when it did.

I think they were just afraid that if a Monk could rage it might actually be good. God forbid.

If I was going to focus on a combat manouver, It'd probably be disarm as a fighter. That way, you only need three feats (which is why I'd only probably do this on a human fighter), and you can still kit yourself out for damage. Then you can just dominate all the people your size by disarming them, and still do damage against the biggins that probably don't even have weapons.

There's no reason the system dynamics should stay constant through the game. If at first level you have 75% success rate and at 20th level you have 75% success rate then nothing has changed. What was the point of going up levels again?

See also: trip. It does work better against humanoids than against, say, dragons. This is perfectly reasonable behaviour.

Well, the point of going up levels isn't to get worse. It's one of those things that makes me shy away from the rogue, even though I like the idea of it.

2nd ED, my first DM:

Memorable: Myself as an 8th level fighter with Gloves of Ogre Kind, Belt of Storm giant Strength and wielding the Hammer of Thunderbolts. A friend who was the dextrous warrior with a magical scabbard on his back that was fan-shaped which held numerous magical swords. About to have an epic encounter with....

Awesome(in its absurdity): .....50,000 Demi-Liches who apparently had the Voltron thing going on because they all combined to form a gigantic Demi-Lich.

Yea, the high-school days of D&D.....

Dude. What happened?

The other big difference between Wizards and Sorcerers is role playing. A Sorcerer is good at social skills, while the Wizard is good at int skills (and has more skills to play with). That's a major factor in which you'd rather play, and it's really up to personal preference.

Tumbling's a nonsense skill at the best of times. Next time you're in a fight, try doing a forward roll at your opponent and see what happens...

I always figured you wern't necessarily tumbling, but were instead using your wickid acrobatics skill to just generally move around them the best way you see fit without opening your guard.

Maybe they figure you have to have those boots that give you +5 acrobatics to give you an edge if you're going to be doing it a lot.

I wish I got to play more... I don't really have anything that great. But I did love it this one time when the DM's dice were cold as ice, then he finally got an 18 to hit. He was so happy. Unfortunately, it was on my brand new lvl 1 hammer and board fighter, and I had to tell him my AC was 21. We wrecked those zombies.

That was the start of Big Molly's distinguished career. The next session, I completed my faction mission by intimidating the bad guy wizard, grabbing him by the ear, and dragging him out into public to be scolded. THAT was fun.

And just last Saturday, I had to cut out a guys tongue, but to be nice, I left him a freshly baked muffin*. I don't care what anybody says, Profession: Baker is the best one.

*it was one with an exceptionally nice texture that anyone would enjoy :).

I'm using 0 Age info...

I don't want to start nothin', but WWII is firmly in the Golden Age.