Search Posts
Thanks for your answers. One more question though, because I'm a little new to the boards... Now that my questions have been answered, is it standard procedure here to delete the thread to clear up clutter, or to leave it open for others who may have similar questions?
I asked these questions in another thread a while ago, but never got an answer. I figured I had enough questions to warrant a new thread anyway. I'm building an 'unarmed' Barbarian under the 'Brutal Pugilist' APG archetype, and I've run into a series of questions. I'm sure if I were a more experienced player I might be able to answer some of these, but as it stands, I turn to your guidance on these issues. Thanks in advance for any help you provide, I'll put the knowledge to good (or evil) use. 1. Abilities that Simulate Two-Weapon-Fighting:
2. Multiclassing Monk and Other Classes:
3. PC's who have Claw or Natural Attacks
I would be careful changing the rules, the players expect the rules to remain the same and grow suspicious of home-brew changes. But that doesn't mean you can't balance melee vs. wizard. Just as there are infinite ways to personalize a musical score, you have infinite freedom as a GM to personalize the gaming experience without changing the rules. One way to balance casters with melee classes is to be generous with magic weapons and spell resistant monsters. Encourage your warriors to take the 'disruptive' breed of feats. Another way is to make long encounters or to not give your party ample resting opportunities. Make a single dungeon crawl last all day, making the spellcasters think twice before blowing all their spells early. If the party tries to rest, throw monsters at them to let them know that getting 8 hours to rest and prepare spells is a luxury they won't often get. Warriors are a sword and spellcasters are guns. Swords will always lose to guns, but guns have finite ammunition. Make your campaign ammunition-sparse. Although I've never GM'd lvl 20+ so I don't know how well this theory holds up at epic levels.
I would say the fantasy setting encourages people to play 'evil' characters. In the real world, you have to at least pretend to be a decent human being for most of your life. When you sit down at an RPG, however, and are told you can be anything you want, it can be really relaxing to let go of your social constraints and just be a jerk. You can be selfish, greedy, maniacal, scheming, traitorous, short-tempered, and (so long as you carry your weight for the party) no-one will care! Or at least, if you put enough ranks in bluff, sleight of hand, and stealth, no one will care. In short, people play evil characters for the same reason anyone plays any character. To escape from the real world for a while. They're not playing who they necessarily WANT to be, they're just playing.
I don't know if I, as a GM, would let someone with low Charisma claim to be 'attractive, yet quiet' because 'quiet' isn't necessarily an attractive or unattractive thing. You can have either high or low charisma and be 'quiet'. Manifesting as being 'the strong, mysterious, silent type' or the 'awkward quiet person'. What I MIGHT allow, is someone with low charisma being attractive, yet irritating. They can have their raven hair and a fair complexion, but their voice sounds like Fran from 'The Nanny' and they constantly sound like they have a runny nose... or something... Mechanically, I wouldn't give them any additional bonuses or penalties to visual or audible cues beyond the penalties they would get from low charisma. (in other words, I would play the low charisma straight). In roleplay, however, I might have NPC's roll their eyes a disproportionate amount of times towards said character and they might cringe when s/he speaks. And if said character ever laughs or tries to crack a joke I might give everyone in the room the 'nauseated' condition.
For all my complaining, I forgot to add that I really enjoy Pathfinder. While I never played 3.5, I took a look through the books and decided Pathfinder was a significant improvement for a number of reasons. The problems I have with Pathfinder are all things that can be fixed, both in house and with house-rules in the meantime. The rules are (relatively!) simple for a d20 system. As testament to this simplicity, once you build your character you typically don't need a copy of the rulebook out when you're playing (unless somebody decides to grapple, of course), and often can get by even in combat without having to look up the fine details on your character sheet, making it easy to maintain character, even in combat...With some exceptions (I'm looking at YOU, Inquisitor and Cavalier classes! Though getting rid of the Inquisitor's time-based bonuses was a step in the right direction to simplifying use of the class, the uneven growth of different Judgment bonuses is a recognizably necessary, if somewhat disorienting, hurdle that might be eased by changing a few things. Also what's the deal with the 'Slayer' Inquisitor ability, a relic from the Beta?). Long story short, Pathfinder needs to fix:
but otherwise is a solid system I thoroughly enjoy. That's just my opinion though..... like a hundred lines of it... >.>
Hmmm... I haven't played much, and what little I have played has only been Pathfinder, so I've not much to compare it too. So at best this is the opinion of a newcoming player voicing initial grievances, at worst this is the annoying prattle of a newb who doesn't know what he's talking about. 1. I read through the thread and I think 'MAD' is the word I'm looking for. I assume it means 'Mundane-Arcane Discrepancy', if so then yes, it's the word I'm looking for. I recognize in the fluff that magic is supposed to be fundamentally more difficult to pull off than swinging a sword, and I suppose that translates to it being more powerful than mundane combat, but equal levels should translate to roughly equal power, regardless of class. Proposed Solution: There are really two ways to balance high powered magic with low powered mundane, one rests with the rules and the other rests with DMs. The solutions are Speed and Endurance, respectively. Speed: Paizo could keep the high powered spells, hell they could make them even more powerful, but INCREASE casting times and make concentration more difficult. We're talking about fundamentally screwing with the laws of physics here, it IS rocket science, it's not done quickly and requires some real concentration to pull off. Maybe make the default casting time full-round actions, with increased casting times for higher level spells. This would lead to wizards and sorcerers who have to balance the weakness of their low level spells with the long casting time of their upper level spells.
Endurance: This is something DMs can do individually. Make discretion and judgment necessary skills for the PCs by making each session a trial of endurance. One advantage mundane classes have is their ability to fight for much longer per day than casters. DMs!: Make this a valuable ability. Don't let the party rest after every 2 encounters, make each day a struggle and each series of fights long enough to make the wizard question whether or not he should blow his load early or save a fireball for 'just in case'. The medieval world is a dangerous place. A safe place where 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep and study can be had? That's a luxury! Treat it like one! The fighter is a sword, the sorcerer is a flintlock. The flintlock will always beat the sword, but the flintlock can only fire once! Make it feel like a big deal when the flintlock fires. However, I can't say I've DM'd much before, so I don't know how hard this is to do. I realize I might be asking something unreasonable here, and I apologize if I am. But at first glance, this seems like a good way for the players to take care of the 'MAD' problem. (assuming my interpretation of the phrase is correct!) 2. Grappling: I'm told Pathfinder simplified grappling rules from 3.5. What the heck were they in 3.5, written in Sanskrit? My quest to uncover the secrets of 'grappling' from the archaic tome of 'Core Rulebook' took me across three different chapters and an Appendix, each section telling me incomplete, sometimes vague and non-overlapping data that I eventually had to compile in a table myself to allow for easy reference whilst playing. So I'm the grappler, I can deal my unarmed strike or one handed light weapon damage to my grappled enemy, right? Is there still an attack roll or is it assumed I hit? If there's an attack roll, do I take penalties for being grappled though I'm the grappler? Can I cast spells as the grappler? What about Lay on Hands (or the AntiPaladin equivalent), Still Spell touch attacks, or Channeling? What happens to my 2 handed weapon, do I just drop it? If I have 2 claw attacks and a bite, do I use all of them? Which one do I use? To be fair, I realize mechanically and fluff-wise, grappling is likely the most complicated, most difficult of maneuvers to translate into a mechanic and even more difficult to explain once translated. But spreading it out over 3 chapters and an appendix? Come on, people, think of the new players trying to figure this stuff out! Proposed Solution: I like the idea of a single CMB score and corresponding defensive CMD. A single maneuver score is leaps and bounds over having to keep track of individual scores for each combat maneuver. Though it goes against what I just said, I like and recognize the necessity of feats and abilities that modify the CMB/CMD score for specific, individual combat maneuvers. Paizo has the challenge of keeping the list of available maneuvers comprehensive, but mechanically limited. The addition of the 'dirty trick' combat maneuver was a step in the right direction for handling 'creative' players. Mechanically, I think the grapple rules are sound, if still somewhat vague. Paizo needs to do their best to make one's options while grappled or grappling as obvious and clear as possible. When I'm the grappled, don't tell me 'you may do anything you could normally do with one hand' (loosely paraphrased), give me a finite list of options to choose from: A. Deal unarmed or light weapon damage to grappler (still not sure if this still needs an attack roll)
Once one compiles the grapple rules into a single table, they're pretty straightforward, if still somewhat vague and up for DM interpretation. Paizo needs to recognize the difficulty of the concept and compile grappling data into a single table or flowchart that can be easily understood by even the most distracted and unfocused of high-schoolers. They also need to provide definitive answers to some of these vagueness questions. A player shouldn't HAVE to consult the message boards to understand something as fundamental as grappling. 3. Crafting: It takes too long. Especially mundane traps. Oh God, Mundane Traps, don't get me started. Exactly why does it take me months to make the simplest of traps? This is a fantasy setting, people! I know making a mechanical arm for my amputee party member can't happen overnight, but still, in a world where wizards can synthesize fire out of nothing, monks leap ten stories, and barbarians punch through adamantine doors (provided they have the 'smasher' rage power) why does it still take years for someone with 20 ranks in craft:Trapmaking to make a box that shoots arrows at people? Especially when the fluff has the sensor and identification mechanism (you know, the only part that's actually hard to make) so well defined you could practically buy the things wholesale from Swords-R-Us! Proposed Solution: I actually really like that the mundane trap sensor-mechanism is so well defined in the fluff. I've only DM'd a couple times, but once I gave a bunch of mundane trap sensors to the party rogue. Much fun was had by all =) Paizo needs to keep that bit of fluff, perhaps make the mundane trap sensor a separate entity that must be fashioned with difficulty or purchased at high cost independent of the mechanism, then dramatically reduce the price and crafting time of mechanisms devoid of a sensor/identifier. If a trap doesn't include a sensor and identification mechanism (like a trap that uses a pressure plate to trigger a swinging axe, for example) the price and crafting time should be greatly reduced. I like that spells can be used in place of or cast on a sensor. Though I find it unreasonable that magic traps are faster to build than mundane traps. Teaching an assembly of gears and springs to harness the arcane ley lines should not be easier than setting off the trigger to a propped up and pre-aimed crossbow. 4. Concentration Checks.
Hmmm... I have a few questions for the community on a related note to this thread. This is my first post on the message boards and I'm a little new to Pathfinder so I'll try not to sound too newbish. I recognize most of these questions are questions for my DM, but I'd like to hear your experienced opinions first. I'm building an 'unarmed' Barbarian under the 'Brutal Pugilist' APG archetype, and I've run into a series of questions. I'm sure if I were a more experienced player I might be able to answer some of these, but as it stands, I turn to your guidance on these issues. Thanks in advance for any help you provide, I'll put the knowledge to good (or evil) use. 1. Does the 'Greater Brawler' Rage Power grant me 'Improved TWF' at 6th level and 'G TWF' when appropriate? If not, can I take 'Imp. TWF' without the 'TWF' prerequisite if I have the 'Greater Brawler' rage power? 2. If I take the 'Beast Totem' Rage Power, (granting me 2 claw attacks at my full BAB), is there any way, at any level, I could make any more than two attacks specifically using my claws? Can I attack with both claws as a standard action, or is a full round attack still required to strike with both? I recognize this has already kind of been answered already, but the explanations given are a little confusing to me, could somebody spell it out for an RPG newcomer such as the likes of I? 3. Assume I have taken 'Beast Totem' for the Claw attacks. Am I still considered unarmed for the purposes of making Attacks of Opportunity? Are both my hands considered 'free' for the purposes of not taking penalties to grapple checks? Am I considered 'unarmed', taking a -4 penalty on disarm checks? Because my hands are technically empty, do I still 'take' a weapon from an enemy on a successful disarm attempt? Are my hands considered empty for other reasons (spellcasting, combat or roleplaying) not discussed? 4. Assume I have taken 'Beast Totem'. Assume I then take the 'Animal Fury' Rage Power (granting me a secondary bite attack at -5 from BAB), and then take the 'Multi-Attack' feat (to reduce secondary penalties from -5, to -2). If I understand the rules correctly, my attack profile looks like this, [BAB(claw) / BAB(claw) / BAB-2(bite)]. Is there now any way, at any level, I could make any more than these three attacks now that I have the additional secondary attack and assuming I can take the 'Multi-Attack' feat? 5. Is it unreasonable for a Barbarian (any nonlawful) to have taken one level of Monk (any lawful)? Perhaps he took 1 level of Monk then became nonlawful? Cutting off the potential to take any more Monk levels, but keeping the benefits of that one level? 6. Assume one level of Monk and subsequent levels of Barbarian(WITHOUT the claws). If I'm using unarmed strikes (or monk weapons) can I still flurry as if I were a monk of my character level? If so, does the 'Flurry of Blows' ability still give me 'I. TWF' at 8th character level? If not, can I take 'I. TWF' without having taken 'TWF'? 7. Assume one level of Monk and subsequent levels of Barbarian(Without the claws). Do the monk's unarmed strike rules always apply to me, even with only one level of monk? As in, are unarmed strikes never considered secondary weapons for the purposes of applying Strength and 'Power Attack' bonuses to damage? (Effectively giving me the 'Double Slice' feat for unarmed attacks only). If I were to take 'Animal Fury', gaining a Bite attack, would this attack be considered an 'unarmed attack'? If so, would that make it a primary attack? (eliminating the -5 penalty, and allowing me to apply full strength and Power Attack bonuses) 8. Assume one level of Monk(Monk of the 4 winds)(granting 'Elemental Fists' feat [1d6 energy damage to unarmed strikes] at 1st level) and subsequent levels of Barbarian(WITH the claws and bite secondary attack). Do my claws and bite attacks get the benefit of the 'Elemental Fist' feat? What about other feats or abilities or items that modify unarmed strikes, would they apply to my claws, my bite? 9. Am I asking too many questions or playing too complicated a character? 10. Should I just give up and play a sword and board fighter? |
