Search Posts
By 20th level my Wizard (Aslimarr Sunsliver) had an Intelligence of 38. 18 Base (We used 4D6 drop the lowest)
That was the most important part for me. He was a Diviner Specialist (with an Initiative bonus of over 30) with a love for Scorching Ray when he needed to deal direct damage.
As long as you give it to the poor, no harm no foul, right? *Dumps a set of Unholy Full Plate +5 and a +2 Unholy Vicious Vorpal Adamantine Greatsword on the nearest beggar* "Here you go, my downtrodden friend! For Sarenrae"!
I'm suddenly getting an image of that now 4th level Wizard thinking he's mastered that Fireball spell and flinging the bat guano at the badguys... with no spell going off. Badguy: "What did that guy in robes just do? Looks like he threw somethi- Ewww! It hit me in the face! It hit me in the face! What is it? Get it off of me! Get it off of me"!!!
Taking a swim in a lava lake is like cutting your own throat: you die automatically. Being dropped into a lava-lake and surviving means you landed on the few solid bits floating on the surface and got away with severe burns. That's the only thing I was suggesting in my lava example. The player I insta-killed in the game I ran years ago died because he stripped naked and dove into the lava, metagaming that since he had plenty of hitpoints, he could swim around for a few rounds and then come out, alive and having proven how badass he was. @Speaker: Yeah, I did like the wound points in Star Wars. I don't think I'd have crits go through to wounds, but blatantly stupid things like jumping into lava or having one's throat slit should.
*Holds tongue and waits for the inevitable*
Ahhh thank you. See, I was close. My memory isn't what it used to be...
>.< Dang. So my Burning Hands should have been very effective vs that swarm, not 3 damage effective.
I've heard those things are awfully loud...
Not what you would expect, but depending on the half-orc's upbringing, very possible. Sure he'll be met with suspicion a lot, but that's a challenge any half-orc will have. *Ponders making a Half-Orc Paladin now* Heck I remember when a Paladin had to be human with a minimum Charisma of 17 and a few other attribute minimums (14 Strength I think was one)... how times have changed. :-)
Bah. I think it was already derailed. :-p *Chants* Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!
Thanks. :-) The really funny part though was the Paladin didn't get it at first. The Cleric had to explain it to him! The Paladin started arguing the point right then and there. Woooo... that was some good RP.
Is energy damage still halved? If so, 1D6/2 isn't all that great. It helps, sure... but it'd be nicer if it weren't halved.
Bah. I think it was already derailed. :-p
James Jacobs once figured out the secret to resurrection just so he could kill a man twice.
Swarms -suck- at any level... but yeah, at low levels they're almost unbeatable considering even AoE magic apparently only deals half damage to them. I used a Hydrolic Push spell on a rat swarm once and the DM ruled that it dispersed the swarm for 1D4 rounds. That at least bought us some time.
My favorite had to be my Elven Wizard (who was good friends with the good natured but narrow-minded Elven Paladin) speaking to an important NPC who happened to be dressed in grey clothing. He said to the NPC: "I see you're dressed in grey. I'm surprised my Paladin friend can even see you".
I'm confused. What are we supposed to talk about then? Knitting? o.O
Yup, bonded weapon works on anything. Although, I would rule some minor chastising prayer for a Paladin who divinely bonds with a barstool ... :) Depends on his deity... Paladins of Cayden Cailean wouldn't be adverse to barstools of even mugs. *Laughs*
To Dork Lord: it's true that the bonded weapon is only a gear saving...but it's a rather superior kind of gear-saving arrangement, just as the bonded mount is a rather superior kind of pseudo-horse/whatever. i.e: what price do you put on access to a +1 Merciful ballista, a +1 jailhouse brick of Disruption, and a Holy just-disarmed evil-arch-enemy's greatsword, that will give him a negative level (no save, no SR) if he picks it up again...all in one day? Wait... you can put the effect on any weapon? I was under the impression that it had to be on one particular weapon that the Paladin is "bonded to". That's a huge difference if they can do it to anything.
Um, you're seeing a personal attack in my suggesting that Pathfinder won't make you happy, but other things will?If that isn't the kind of player behavior you want to see, play a different game...but don't expect people who are happy with Pathfinder to join you in that different game.Funny, I thought Pathfinder was a game that could cater to a wide variety of players. Apparently it only caters to a specific playstyle and if you don't like it, "go play a different game". You're getting pretty close to making personal attacks. That's not the purpose of this thread, let alone these boards. No, I saw it in the "go play another game" comment. Perhaps I overreacted. My apologies.
I really like what Bill seems to be saying here, which has been the point I've really been trying to make all along. I may not be as good at expressing my points and ideas as others. I have no issue with characters doing fantastic things as long as the rules support it (well maybe aside from that lava thing... I think at the very least the rules for "swimming" in lava should be expanded to account for the other penalties one would face when attempting to do that). It's when people have the "well there's no rule against it even though common sense would dictate this would be impossible or impossible without heavy penalties" attitude that I start to twitch.
I can dig this PoV as well, honestly... though how would you survive a naked human diving into the lava and doing the backstroke for 3 rounds? Also, yeah, as someone said, the high levels are basically demi-gods. The characters are the equivalent of Hercules or Wonder Woman. Their capabilities are well beyond the scope of normal human beings. In fact, isn’t the general rule that most NPCs in the world, even experienced warriors, are only level ones or twos? So even a Lvl 8 is someone well beyond an average human’s capabilities. We often think of Lvl 1 as meaning rookie but I don’t think it’s supposed to mean that. I think even a Lvl 1 is a supposed to be someone of rare ability. Not according to the Gamemastery Guide. Even the Beggar is a level 2 NPC. A typical City Watch Guard is level 3, the Watch Captain is level 7, a typical Knight is level 8 and even a Princess is level 8. Heck, a King is level 16... and that's your -typical- King.
I see what you're saying. As a side note though, how would that 20th level Fighter fare with none of his magical gear? The gear is really what makes a non-caster fantastic, especially at higher levels.
Thank you for that. This thread was beginning to give me ulcers I was so stressed out. I apologize for the implication that I was being accused of something. I assure you, you are correct that all I wanted was an in depth discussion about this topic since it had been derailing other threads for the last month or two.
Really? Are people THAT dumb in this day and age to not realzie that a knight on horseback skewering you with a lance is gonna kill you?!? Man I realize that people can be dumb...but I guess I failed to realize exactly how dumb people have gotten.My point is we don't live 700 years ago... we live in modern times and even though you may know a bit more than your average person does about history, realize that there are many people to whom that knowledge isn't necessarily "common sense".A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.
-REALLY-? THAT's common sense? o.O I didn't realize your average person was a math and physics major.
Uh uh... racism is a no no. You might offend someone out of game, after all. Seriously though... racism is ok to RP out but sexism isn't? *shakes head* Sorry, I'm still scratching my head about that stuff from the old sexism thread. Continue...
Doesn't the Bonded Weapon max out at a total of a +10 weapon though? If that's the case, all the class ability is doing is saving you gold in the long run. Not really worth it to me.
A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture. My point is we don't live 700 years ago... we live in modern times and even though you may know a bit more than your average person does about history, realize that there are many people to whom that knowledge isn't necessarily "common sense".
Not without his magical gear, he can't. He's not really winning that fight because as you put it "he's a demigod"... he's winning because he spent a crapload of gold on his AC and damage output. If that isn't the kind of player behavior you want to see, play a different game...but don't expect people who are happy with Pathfinder to join you in that different game. Funny, I thought Pathfinder was a game that could cater to a wide variety of players. Apparently it only caters to a specific playstyle and if you don't like it, "go play a different game". You're getting pretty close to making personal attacks. That's not the purpose of this thread, let alone these boards.
A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture. It's only common sense if you're a history or physics buff. I'm talking about layman's common sense. Me? I did not know that piece of trivia before.
Pathfinder is a game where punching fire to death is a good idea, there are nonmagical humans whose badassery is measured in multiple T-Rexes, and there are giant robotic demon-spiders with laser vision. "Realism" is not at issue. Verisimilitude, however, is another story, and you can have hundred-pound swords without the slightest sacrifice of verisimilitude. I simply cannot look at the game that way. On a very basic level, things have to make sense to me. Wait... nonmagical humans? T-Rexes? I got every reference but that one. o.O
It's a trap. I get what you're saying, but I'm talking about things on a more basic level than real world pounds per square inch of velocity times the root of an unladen swallow stuff. I mean things that are just -common sense-, yet there are either no rules to prevent something or there are actually rules in place that directly fly in the face of that common sense (like swimming in a pool of lava for 2 rounds and coming out injured but very much alive... you know, because you had plenty of hit points).
By the time your players are level 20, they are demigods. It's not that there aren't any rules, it's just that they are at a point where they are bypassing those rules. This is just my personal opinion, but if you can suspend belief to allow a wizard to amass that amount of knowledge to teleport and call demons without having his explode, why can't you suspend it for the fighter to be resilient in a fall. These characters are abnormal and superhuman. Do your players go WTF how does superman fly? I tend to look at it very different than you do, it seems. A 20th level Human Fighter for example is still just a man to me. He's not a superhuman. He's very skilled and battle hardened, but in the end he's no more than he was when he was level one. He got more skilled... he wears magic items that give him special abilities... but he was not magically bestowed with anything that allows him to transcend disbelief beyond that which his attributes, class or racial abilities and the abilities his magic items affords him.
A great point, Dabbler. There are many folks who tend to assume that hit points are purely how tough you are. You can go further into legend as levels rise - heroes like Achilles who was all but invulnerable, or Hercules who could wrestle an elephant, or Gandalf who didn't stay dead. Because you started as human, you can appreciate these changes, the verisimilitude is maintained by the systems internal consistency. That's just it. An archer can fire 6 arrows in a turn because the character has class abilities and feats which allow for it. I've heard folks claim that an 8 foot greatsword should be able to be wielded in a 5 foot corridor at no penalty (something which directly benefits a PC)... why? Because there is no rule which prevents it. I'd be willing to bet (many) of those same players would argue that if it pertained to an NPC using the weapon against the PCs, the NPC should be denied.
I'm still waiting for a PC to ask if they can throw their shield. "When Captain America throws his mighty shiiiieeeeld"... Bet you anything you start seeing those concepts when the CA movie comes out, hehe.
Reminds me of the "PC Drow" syndrome. Players who want to be an odd or outright well-known to be evil race and not have any social repercussions.
It's a trap. If by that you're attempting to accuse the creation of this thread as some form of trolling, you would be incorrect. If that's not what you meant, I'm at a loss. I'd say as much as it's fun for your group. That sounds simple and reasonable until you have someone from Camp A and someone from Camp B in the same group.
That's actually really astute and I agree. I think what I'm looking for is that same sense of consistency without realism being totally thrown out the window.
I'm posting a reply to a quote from another thread so that thread doesn't get derailed anymore than it already is.
If realism has no place in D&D, why not throw out any semblance of realism at all? PCs can do whatever they want, right? Physics be damned! To claim otherwise wouldn't be realistic, right? Right? /facetiousness Realism has it's place in games and you know it. The argument is not "D&D was never meant to be realistic". It's "how much realism should be adhered to in D&D?"... and thus we seem to have several distinct camps; those that believe that basic physics/realism should be adhered to at all times unless a power, feat or class ability says otherwise and those that believe that basic physics/realism should be adhered to unless ignoring it would benefit a PC in a way that enhances their enjoyment of the game. These are two similar (more similar than either camp realizes, I'd wager) viewpoints, but so different at the same time. Camp A thinks Camp B doesn't care about immersion and Camp B thinks Camp A is overthinking things and should lighten up. Personally, I'm more Camp A. Both sides have valid arguments, but what frustrates me the most is Camp B's tendency to make arguments that "Pathfinder/D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. It has magic and dragons and stuff"... I hate that argument because it seems to imply that because magic and dragons are an element of the game, realism, even at it's most basic levels should be totally ignored. I do not agree with that. Incidentally, as a DM I wouldn't allow a high level character to just walk away from a 200 foot drop without a broken leg or something. That's going to mess -anyone- up.
It's interesting. The chart in the core rulebook says that 5 or lower HD evil aligned non-undead or outsiders have no evil aura, but then it says that 5-10 HD are "faint". So which is it? Are 5 HD evil folks devoid of an evil aura or are they considered "faint"? I suspect it's 4 or lower with no evil aura, but it doesn't hurt to make sure. Keeping a paladin from slaughtering the evil peasants is easy. A paladin has to be LAWFUL good. While the morality of killing people for being evil is questionable and open to interpretation, the idea that it is ILLEGAL for a private citizen to start killing peasants based on their own say so is not: most towns/countries villiages are going to have laws against that sort of thing. Even though it might be a good thing to do its still illegal and thus against the paladins code. Hmmm, that does raise some interesting moral dillemas, like what if the Paladin is in a kingdom rules by an evil monarchy and he wants to free some slaves? Doing so would be illegal... would that be against the Paladin's code?
You're talking about what properly played Paladins should do when the ability was likely specifically changed because of the way most (what many would call) "poor players" tended to play Paladins, which was indeed "I go into a town and wantonly start killing everyone who registers as evil... you know, because they're evil". I've seen it happen. I think everyone has. Personally, I can't think of any other reason for Detect Evil to have been changed.
That really depends on the DM. I've been in a CotCT game for the past year or so and the RP is probably just as heavy if not moreso than the combat. It's pretty awesome.
Actually she'll still have the Evil subtype even with the change of alignment, because essentially that's part of her race. She'll still remain vulnerable to attacks and effects which target that subtype.Have no advice per se, just wondering if you considered Anti Paladin instead of Bard. Anti Paladin is a Paladin archetype from the APG. I'll bring that up to my DM but it's ultimately his call. He may have something else in mind, I don't know.
Also, there's something in Agile Maneuvers that caught my eye. It says you get to add your Dex modifier to your Base Attack Bonus and size bonus when determining your CMB. This seems to imply that your Dexterity Modifier is added twice; once to your BaB (in her case, 8) and once to your Size Modifier (in her case, 0). I'm sure that isn't the case since it doesn't quite sound right, but I thought it at least warranted a question voiced here on the boards.No dice. All it means is that you replace your Strength mod with you Dexterity mod for the purposes of determining your CMB. That's what I thought, though it's still strange that they used the word "and" as opposed to "or"...
Someone mentioned something to the effect of Weapon Focus giving you it's bonus to CMB. Would this work for grapple checks if I took WF: Natural Weapon (Claws)? Also, there's something in Agile Maneuvers that caught my eye. It says you get to add your Dex modifier to your Base Attack Bonus and size bonus when determining your CMB. This seems to imply that your Dexterity Modifier is added twice; once to your BaB (in her case, 8) and once to your Size Modifier (in her case, 0). I'm sure that isn't the case since it doesn't quite sound right, but I thought it at least warranted a question voiced here on the boards.
"Man, even for a -Dragon- you're ugly"!
Have no advice per se, just wondering if you considered Anti Paladin instead of Bard. Anti Paladin is a Paladin archetype from the APG. She's not going to be evil, though. (Part of her backstory that involved the casting of Miracle and divine intervention by Calistria) She's not good but she's not evil. For the purposes of this game it works well. She'll end up being Chaotic Neutral with the Chaotic Subtype. Thanks for the advice everyone! Yeah, Dodge is one that I like, as is Mobility. Is there still an Improved Flyby Attack? Can you use Flyby Attack to avoid an AoO and still Grapple? So many questions...
So I'll be playing a Succubus in a PF only game soon and her main combat shtick will be to grapple and energy drain plus auto Suggestion to accept another kiss. For the level we're at and her racial hit dice, she gets 5 feats as far as I can tell. I took Agile Maneuvers, Improved Grapple (since the character has an natural attack and Imp Unarmed Strike would be a completely redundant feat, my DM is being nice and waving that pre-req), Greater Grapple, Weapon Finesse (Natural Attack or Scorpion Whip, haven't decided yet)... and for the last feat it's a toss up between Ability Focus: Energy Drain (from the Bestiary) and a feat the DM and I made up called Improved Bardic Song which gives an additional +1/+1 to a Bard's Inspire Courage. Which would you go with? Is there anything else that would make her grappling more effective? She has one class level (Bard) so far. Thanks in advance.
Well then I have never met a true enthusiast...but the key isn´t that they are breaking a rule...they are insisting on an optional rule. That stupid optional rule that really shouldn´t even exist. Like I said, no issue with psionics (well any more then magic balance issues)...other then the bloody optional rule. That variant rules seems to make Psionics inherently more powerful than magic. Is that the effect that you desire?
*Just... shakes head that someone actually took the time and effort to come up with that (imo) bs* The original player who came up with it all... I wonder of he actually seriously approached a DM (who wasn't stoned) and asked if he could play it. Some people totally miss the point of RPGs. *Shakes head again*
Right on, man. I'm glad to hear your pastor ended up being that wise. I made some bad assumptions about both him and your therapist and though it seems I was half right about the therapist, in the end he admitted his mistake so that's a plus.
I just want to throw in, that I'm actually enjoying this "in-character" back and forth you three are having..Someone make a thread... I already did. :-p http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/sorcerersVsWizardsFromAnInCharacterPerspective&page=1&so urce=search#0
I once had a Wizard with an initiative bonus of like +34. It was obscene, but everyone knew who would be going first in a given encounter.
But I generally find that those that make repeated poor tactical decisions generally also have poor builds. I hate the optimization stuff on the boards here... it makes me cringe to see folks talking about "DPR" in the context of Pathfinder. That's just me. I don't make "optimal builds", but I do make effective characters... characters who can -contribute- to an encounter. There can be a difference, but some folks don't see it.
*Wonders if you took Weapon Focus: Unarmed or Natural Attack you'd get a CMB bonus to grapple checks* I'm going to be playing a Succubus soon and want to get every kind of Grapple bonus I can.
Yes ... problem is it always used to combine the two facets in earlier editions, so people associate high charisma = good looking. It doesn't help that the book says Charisma represents a character's looks as well. I don't agree with it, but it is in the book.
|
