Doompatrol's page

108 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I’m not making anything up. You can’t not look for racism/sexism and then state you’ll react when you somehow see it despite not looking for it.

Fantasy games or real life don’t really have much to do with the situation. But if you go out of your way to make your PCs racist in game I’m gonna ask why.

You do need to justify your character’s actions of they’re doing Evil stuff and they or you are trying to pass it off as Good.

You can play a racist character fine, it’s when you try to pass the character or the racism off as Good that brings the issues."

Let me be clear, I am trying to say you see it when it's not there.

Well yes they do. We are talking about a fictional setting, it has everything to do with it. My characters racist because that's practical in the setting, you can be that guy who applies real life to a fictional setting and argues with the party as the village residents get raped and murdered.

In a fictional setting racism/speciesism or whatever you want to call it can be justified. Borg, Daleks, Zombies, demons, goblins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

Can't agree at all. There are poster in this thread who all but outright say you are morally wrong for killing make believe fictional races.

So many people love the opinions of others, there are YouTube channels and sites dedicated to gathering the opinions of random strangers.

Do you know what the real lesson should be, if you are about to make a personal attack or accusation against a real flesh and blood person over a fictional character or setting, rethink your priorities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.

So what about when things are racist/sexist?

There’s nothing to pull, are you going around killing people because they’re doing evil things or because of what they look like?

Then its racist or sexist and my character will react how I've designed them whether its the paladin I played who teamed up with a Goblin tribe to take down invading giants (3.5) or the Hobgoblin I played who considers Goblins an underclass.

Depends on the character.

But it's clear that you've made generalizations about real people if they do something involving make believe characters.

You don’t keep a look out for racist or sexist elements but you’ll just know if it’s racist or sexist?

And If they [general] are trying to pass off fantasy racism as a good thing and try to justify it that tells me quite a bit about them.

You're making things up at this point. I don't look for sexism/racism in everything vs know it when I see it and if its fictional I don't overreact.

It shows your inability to separate fantasy from reality and when it comes down to it you're only doing this because racism is the popular cause for people looking for problems.

I don't need to justify my characters actions but if I where to justify killing one specific race on sight in a fictional setting it would be because if left to their own devices they will kill others. That's the way they where written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.

So what about when things are racist/sexist?

There’s nothing to pull, are you going around killing people because they’re doing evil things or because of what they look like?

Then its racist or sexist and my character will react how I've designed them whether its the paladin I played who teamed up with a Goblin tribe to take down invading giants (3.5) or the Hobgoblin I played who considers Goblins an underclass.

Depends on the character.

But it's clear that you've made generalizations about real people if they do something involving make believe characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

That's a good choice, stick by it. Some folks will tell you it isn't "optimal" or even "viable", but don't listen to them.

The text for the feat tells exactly how it is heightened.

CRB, p40 wrote:
A cantrip is heightened to a spell level equal to half your level rounded up.

That's a very poor choice. Scoundrel is a weak archetype and defending bad choices just for the sake of defending them doesn't change that.

Other archetypes are less mad, better features, much better feats at 10th and what's really funny is later in the game you can get a rogue feat which does what feint does but you don't even need to roll invalidating scoundrel.

Both their and ruffian have an easier time bumping charisma than the archetype for charisma because ruffian doesn't need to bump dex for ac and thief doesn't need strength for damage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Those high skills however did devalue the enjoyment of other people at the table. No one cares about the discrepancy being large between the untrained and specialist, but the difference between max trained and specialist in PF1 was too big. When someone can have a reasonable stat and max their skill points in a skill but still be absolutely useless compared to the specialist that’s the real issue. So yes your man skill lore oracle skill monkey was making the play experience worse for other people.

This is silly and only works under the assumption that someone else at the table wanted making knowledge checks to be a defining part of their character.

I was playing an arcanist occultist, high intelligence, knowledge skills. I think my summoning ability and spellcasting helped me overcome the grief of not being able to get the highest number on a couple of knowledge checks.

No one is surprised when the Bard has high diplomacy and bluff and it's not like the barbarian is forbidden from talking. The halfling unchained rogue high stealth but the monk can still attempt to hide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As shroudb points out the scoundrel has 2 situational abilities for situations they already have or can acquire protection against. Hitting an opponent so they can't flank is highly situational and the rogue has some inbuilt flanking protection.

Denying reactions is situationally powerful but they have mobility and an ability at 12 to use a reaction to counter reactions.

Both the thief and ruffian offer substantial damage increases and damage stacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:

I don't say they are the weakest rogue because their -2 in reflex saves debuff is amazing and totally unique to them, it not only helps casters to land their offensive spells but help martials land the trip maneuver as well.

Then have the rogue feats that require legendary in deception, while other rogues can get them as well they don't have much usage of the skill as scoundrels have.

Far from amazing when they only get that bonus if you crit so not a teamwork option you can build around.

Both the scoundrel and ruffian get great 10th level debilitating strikes, the scoundrels options are situational.

As for legendaries if you are going into late game to add insult to injury, you then have instant opening which is an action to leave the opponent flat footed without even needing to roll.

As I said, if you want charisma based skills I would play a thief instead. Less mad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The dedication can raise Arcana and Thassilon Lore to expert, but you only get one cantrip, and it's an innate spell so it's locked to Charisma despite being arcane, which is unhelpful for anyone who isn't a sorcerer or bard.
We get so many ability boosts that there's no reason to dump Cha anymore. Both Deception and Intimidate can be used in combat, and Diplomacy can even be used for Income via Bargain Hunter. If one is going for Rollplay over Roleplay, then yeah, Runescarred uses a horrible stat.

You try to argue in favor of the mechanical benefits and then try to flip it around and claim it's a rollplay vs roleplay thing. What is up with people doing that.

Other stats like wisdom, dex and con are save stats which make them a bigger deal with the numbers so tight and people aren't required to boost charisma to talk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's multiple ways this can be taken into account.

Some of those adventurers tackled multiple issues. Then idea that characters go from 1 to 20 is mechanical, lore wise many can be started with characters claiming to be seasoned adventurers.

Not all of them survived the adventure.

Move on to other planes of existence to tackle issues there.

Some settle down, maybe some of the new PC's are children of these characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LizardMage wrote:

Because Gelugons are blue does not make them calm and inviting...they are literally giant ice mantises with magic, strong allies, and big spear and as an infernal creature probably enjoy torturing mortals. Nothing about any of that is calming.

Color theory shouldn't be being applied to these things.

Again, if you don't like the color change to Drow, don't run them that way. No one is at your table telling you how to describe things.

The poster just said that but pointed out how being blue still diminishes the effect. You had a very popular artist design the xenomorphs, the design would not be as iconic if they where any other colour so yes it should be applied to design. It is ludicrous to think that colour theory shouldn't be part of art.

That last part is also really rude, may as well say go away and shut up because you don't like them disagreeing with you..


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

When I played a monk I don't know when I would raise a shield; I always use that extra action to just move away from whatever I was recently trying to hurt.

I mean, the turn usually is:
1) Move, Flurry, Move
2) Flurry, Strike, Move
3) Flurry, Move, Strike.

1. Moving means the enemy just moves on to squishier party members.

2. The enemy has a reaction.
3. Enemy has a ranged option.
4. Enemy can keep up so all your really costing them is their least accurate attack.
5. Getting distance between you and the enemy is not an option in the environment.

Lots of scenarios where increasing AC is better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:

This whole thread reminds me of the player profiles Wizards uses when talking about Magic players:

Timmy/Tammy: plays for the experience. In Pathfinder, this would be the player who takes the path of least resistance when it comes to character building - decide on a theme and pick the stuff that matches and call it a day.

Johnny/Jenny: plays to express themselves. In Pathfinder, these would usually be the players who create oddball concepts and tries to figure out how to make those concepts in the game.

Spike: plays to prove themselves. These are the ones pushing the game engine to its breaking point to squeeze out every advantage.

Being aware of these different player types is a Good Thing, as is realizing that clearly not everyone wants the same thing out of the game as you do.

Which is all nonsense because people want multiple things. I've never actually met a pure power gamer who didn't care whatsoever about the theme of the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
If playing a Fighter with a +2 in their main stat isn't viable then I guess all other martials are as well, since that's exactly how accurate they are with a +4.

In fairness, the other martial Classes all have something to make up for the Fighter's greater accuracy.

But yeah, a Str 14 Fighter is by far the most viable attack stat 14 character in the game. Other characrers with their highest stat at 14 are maybe not viable, legitimately.

However, as others note, 16s are completely viable, if not quite optimal.

It depends on what the defining term is for ‘viable’ which seems to change depending on the situation. It also doesn’t help that without a concrete definition viable can apparently be defined by a single point difference from your example. By this logic LuniasM is completely fair in their example that with the presented facts and accompanying opinions that any class other than Fighter wouldn’t be a ‘viable’ Martial class.

No there, not, multiple people have pointed out that other classes have other features.

The Barbarian hits and crits less but adds more damage.

Also it helps if you don't revolve around the word viable. But if you want an example, an animal companion can be a viable source of damage, a player should aim for good.

So yes a fighter with 14 in their attack stat is viable but it's a badly made PC.

We finished a campaign recently with a player with a really badly built martial artist, I offered to help them make changes and they turned the offer down. So you had this character that was more or less a walking damage sponge.

I’m not using the term viable, but rather commenting on it. LunaisM’s response post actually sums up my feelings on the matter quite well. There is a real issue that when statistics and averages get thrown around enough that it has a tendency to for some people to think in right or wrong. Some take it more...

His argument was intrique games and fighter/wizard. If it's an intrique game the GM would let you know but unless said otherwise fighting is the meat and potatos of pathfinder which is why bonuses to hit are valued higher than bonuses to skills, there is also no reason a fighter/wizard can't have 18 str and 14 int to start with. This isn't 1st edition where having 18 to start was a higher investment than 14 or 16.

Which comes to the main point of all this. Why even make an argument for lower stats. It all comes across as very contrarian.

If I say to a new player that 18 is must have, I don't mean that literally but you guys come along and say they don't need an 18, that is technically true but you are not doing them any favors.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
If playing a Fighter with a +2 in their main stat isn't viable then I guess all other martials are as well, since that's exactly how accurate they are with a +4.

Almost as if other martial have other methods of competing like rage , sneak attack or hunter's edge.

This isn't some punpun nonsense, if you are going to play a fighter whose primary feature is being more accurate by 2 and then decide for whatever reason to be less accurate by 2, you can do that of course but lets not pretend it's anything but bad in terms of mechanical decisions.

If a player asked for a feat that gives plus 2 to hit they would told to f%&% off, that's OP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
I mean... There is a minimum line that any build has to cross before it's "viable". And being viable is not just about "winning", but about "fun". It's not fun to suck, to get owned by monsters, to miss more than half the time, that your spells never work.
Your notion of what's fun to roleplay seems to exclude a fair amount of things mine do not, and I appreciate the game supporting both parts of that range.
Its easy to play an ineffective combat character. Spread your stats so your highest score is a 14 (or put your highest score in charisma on a non-Sorcerer/bard. The game does support your style of play. What people are checking/complaining about is whether it supports their style of play.
I'd say a 16 Dex/16-18 Cha Scoundrel rogue is pretty viable. Maybe not exactly what one would expect from a Rogue, but it should work pretty well.

That wasn’t what I was saying. I was something more like

STR 14
CON 14
DEX 12
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 12

Pretty sure with human, right background and rogue such a character is possible. If you want to play an ineffective combat character the above would definitely help achieve it.

Even those stats by level 10 could produce a fairly competent Fighter/ MC Wizard. After two sets of 4 boosts, you’re now:

STR 18
CON 18
DEX 12 (Splint/Halfplate for max item+dex)
INT 18
WIS 16
CHA 12

Not too shabby, actually. By level 20 you’re 20 Str/Con/Int. You have more skills and languages, hearty with good saves across the board, are well rounded in just about anything and you’ve burned less attribute points to +18 boosts. I would consider this more long-term than suboptimal. If you wanted to play this that’s perfectly fine.

You spend the first 4 levels being 2 behind everyone which is crippling and the next 14 being 1 behind everyone who started with an 18 in their primary.

If for some reason you want stats like these by 10 while still not harming your basic ability to function you can still start with an 18. As for 20 in in 3 stats, look at it for what you will be really playing with, you will have 19 str/con/int for 9 levels. If enjoying the game is the aim forget about that one last level you may not even play at.

You have features where getting +1 is a big deal. Unless you plan to roleplay as someone ineffectual for laughs, starting with a primary below 18 is silly when the game is balanced around the idea you do.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:

I like to crunch the numbers.

There's me playing a bad ass, effortlessly slaying orc commando death knights with every attack, then I place my dice squarely on the table and in a firm clear voice say "turn". Then Mr RPdamagedon'tmatter shakily picks up his dice in his sweaty hands and ineffectively paws at the blind goblin cripple, he drops his dice and whimpers out a turn as the table try not to look at him.

Wow you sound like a condecending pain in the neck to have at a table. I play minmaxed characters my self in 1e, but god am I glad I don't have the need to feel superior to others at my table and write drivel like this.

I think you've forgotten what a joke is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to crunch the numbers.

There's me playing a bad ass, effortlessly slaying orc commando death knights with every attack, then I place my dice squarely on the table and in a firm clear voice say "turn". Then Mr RPdamagedon'tmatter shakily picks up his dice in his sweaty hands and ineffectively paws at the blind goblin cripple, he drops his dice and whimpers out a turn as the table try not to look at him.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
graystone wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I think it would be really crazy if someone picked a companion just because they liked the animal instead of being concerned with the math, but that's just me.

That's like saying 'I don't understand why people just don't pick a car that looks nice and instead worry about things like 'can I drive a stick shift' or 'does that electric car have enough range to get me to work''.

The game is built on math so, IMO, it's be "crazy" to ignore the math: it's freeform storymaking if the math doeesn't matter.

I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.

It seems that way because you came into a thread that primarily revolves around discussing the mechanics. If anything it's really rude for you to come in here and derail the thread with "think about the RP"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Is there any reason why I would use a wooden shield instead of a steel one?

You're a druid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

If this one's confirmed that's amazing. It makes Rogue multiclassing monk viable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a very weak option that requires a lot of investment. Look at the suggestions being given, hit "hard" once with a weapon after a huge investment in strength and feats or just use a cantrip for similar damage.

If it's done in the future it will most likely be an archetype that scales down spell slots for melee specific features.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

(Classes didn't have so much bias for combat roles before, but meh some people will talk about all this bad feat taxes and math fixes, while applauding feat taxes and math fixes)

* btw I'm talking in general not necessarily about people in this thread.

Nothing could be further from the truth, if a class didn't have 9th level casting it was almost certainly built towards combat. Almost every class that had 6th level casting would also have a mechanic to greatly help in combat and then you had the summoner built for combat in a roundabout way.

Not being built for direct combat was rare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone point we out using true strike on a staff for Spellcasters which is clever. That could work well if you have one big 2 action point attack.

A reroll is worth roughly +5 to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People are mentioning sub optimal choices in pathfinder 1st but those choices could be shored up because losing a bit of damage or to hit could be made up elsewhere.

That's far from the same in 2nd edition where +1 is considered a big deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Patron is not a huge deal for witch's, it's hex choice but having a quick look ancestor is a good choice for bless

As for hexes, Slumber is the bread and butter witch hex that makes the class more than a poor man's wizard and swamps grasp is fun battle field control.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Stage 1 kinetic whispers is basicly an evolutionless figment familiar.

One very important difference, if the kinetic whispers familiar gets destroyed you can just summon it again making it one of the best scouts in the game.

You send it ahead and when you stop concentrating it pops back into your head and let's you know everything its seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I,m curious as to why you took armour feats, as a high dex character you would have equivalent armour wearing light armour as well as avoiding the penalty to skills. With the bonus from overflow and a dex item you should have very high ac. If you can see about retraining them for the extra wild talent feats.

Kinetic form is terrible, point of burn, lower ac, take up more squares so a bigger target and harder to move around, all for extra reach.

If you don't have a caster casting haste, then boots of speed are essential. That extra attack and accuracy from haste will massively increase your damage.

You should have 2 points in your buffer at 12, save them for when you can get a full attack on big threats. If you empower the kinetic blade/whip while hasted thats almost as much damage as 3 empowered kinetic blasts in one turn.

Take the extra wild talent feat for kinetic whispers and get a familiar that offers +4 initiative. Give it the sage archetype and you've suddenly got a genius in your head that can make all sorts of knowledge skills. You can also summon an immortal scout. All this for one feat. Improved initiative is considered one of the best general feats, this is fantastic.

As for that 3rd element, I would recommend earth. You will get the sand composite which means no longer needed to worry about cold resistance or immunity, get DR as you say as well as some strong utility in picking up burrow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
This is why Synthesist, although significantly weaker than regular Summoner, is so often called "overpowered"

You will also get a lot of people like myself who really disagree with the idea that it's a lot weaker.

No shared item slot issues, more feats, but most importantly it's not an Eidolon shackled to a squishy Summoner, the Syntheist is unkillable and outside of very niche things, anything that challenges the Synthesist will make paste out of the rest of the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM giving it to you is the best option.

Although this is based on personal experience of having never used the aging bonuses and penalties, immortality has always been more of an RP award, like a big house or a title, I'd never require a player take it in place of an actual mechanical ability.

But I'll not be that guy and help out as not every GM will share my thinking.

There's a Bard masterpiece, Song of extinction. Every person you kill with it extends your life by a year so it's incredibly easy to get immortality with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the issue here. The high level martials are doing there main goal well and not using some obscure cheese to do it.

If this had been a thread about how the casters where dominating everything people would just say "well that's high level pathfinder"

I also guess that there is some focused vision here. There are surely lots of scenarios where even with flying kick and pounce martials will only get 1 attack or not attacks at all and the focus is on those rounds where everything worked out perfectly for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Summons have no will of their own. It's best to view them as figments of the real thing.

That's why with summon monster spells you can summon a demon to protect an orphanage of baby Paladins from an attack by real demon who don't wash their hands after going to the toilet.

It's only calling spells where you need to bargain with or threaten the real thing does their personal motivations become an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope there are some decent options for a normal game kineticist as well, emphasis on decent.