ElCrabofAnger's page

ElCrabofAnger wrote:

What type of gear? Magical. So hey, the martials can't even do their basic jobs without help from the people who paid attention in class.

By that logic - wizards suck. Because what do they need to make their class work? Paper. Therefore it's the lumberjacks and papermills who are the real powerhouses of Pathfinder. :P

Yeah.....No.

And just to clarify, I'm also assuming that casters like to be clothed most of the time. that doesn't mean that the garment industry rules the universe (no matter what Zoolander says).
.

@ElCrabofAnger - Because sometimes when you bend physics, physics bends back. That's my point, that the universe in fantasy and science fiction tends to impose balancing factors because nothing comes without a cost. It's a classic trope that harnessing forbidden / supreme power results in negative repercussions for the character physically, mentally, or spiritually (sometimes all three). Fullmetal Alchemist is a great example of this: Ed and Al are like wizards but their powers have very real limitations and came at a very high cost. Want another one? Look at Raistlin in Dragonlance, his pursuit of power nearly killed him how many times? Pathfinder doesn't do any of this, though, it's just, "stand here for five seconds and pose while babbling, then you blip over to Avistan from Tien-Xia!" The prevalence of universally versatile, powerful magic that is cheap, effortless, and consequence-free is the differentiation in the system from much of the rest of the genre and, hence, the source of the problems being discussed.

I agree completely.

ElCrabofAnger wrote:

What I said was that a class that is literally based around hand waving the repeated violation of (earth-normal) physics is going to be more powerful than a class that is not, in a logical world.

There is actually nothing logical about a guy being able to survive 500 foot falls, cut cement pillars in half, or lift a Buick, but not being able to jump more than 10 feet in the air. That's the point he's making, that basic assumptions of the game completely refute real world logic, but then randomly reassert themselves because "realism". Realism hits its limits at 6th level. Past 6th level "realism" becomes the thing that is illogical because it no longer conforms to the rest of the gaming world.

I think what most people who want "balance" are really asking for is that the game acknowledge its own parameters equally for the breadth of its classes and levels. Your level 5 Fighter can and totally should be Conan. Conan lived in a world where scary sorcerers were often guys who displayed the equivalent of 1st level spells. When everyone else has moved on from Conan and is now re-enacting the later seasons of Naruto Shippuden though, it's nonsensical to try and make Conan keep chugging along in a world that doesn't match his reality anymore.

Really, as I think about it, since Conan was a Barbarian, the game doesn't do that. Conan would get to start growing wings and eating fireballs if he was in Pathfinder. So maybe lets say Gimli. Gimli gets to continue chugging across the tors and valleys muttering about being a natural sprinter, while Conan grows wings, Sherlock Holmes evolves into a Lovecraftian nightmare, Muhammed Ali learns how to knock dragons tail over horns and send them flying across the batlefield, and Jackie Chan learns how to teleport and kill people with a brush of his pinkie finger. One of these things is not like the other...

You know, I don't disagree with what you wrote here; I never did. The problem (if you see one) is in the game system. In its legacy, in its design. The game tries to model fighters as super soldiers, and at higher levels as classic heroes in the style of Greek Myth. Wizards are modeled completely differently. Anybody's level 5 fighter should be as cool as Aragorn; why else would we play? The game's model of reality doesn't do very well after level 6 or so, magic aside.

The point I'm making is this: by it's very nature, the heavily exception based classes (i.e. the casters, who choose when to obey the game's model of physics, realistic or not) are ALWAYS going to be better than the less exception based classes (i.e. the martials or the skill monkeys, who have far less choice in the matter). Doesn't matter what the base model is.

4th edition's dissociated mechanics were actually a great way to balance the game. Regardless of one's personal like or dislike of the game, for whatever reasons, the very model the game is based on made it easier to balance, which was, I think the goal. But PF/3.5/1st/2nd Edition is not modeled that way. Fighter gonna fight, maybe run, jump and swim. Wizards, on the other hand:

1. Gonna fight? Strange choice, but okay, there's a spell for that.
2. Gonna swim? Cool, there's a spell for that. Also for breathing water.
3. Gonna run? Cool, there's a spell for that. Also teleporting. Also flying.
4. Gonna open locked door? Cool, there's a spell for that.
5. Gonna hide? Cool, there's a spell for that. Also for hiding your friends.
5. Gonna give magic to your friends? Cool, there's a spell for that. Also a feat. And now they have magic, you know, that thing you have that makes you better. But not as much as you. And also they owe you two dollars.
7. Gonna create your own dimension, set the rules there, live forever in sybaritic luxury having your every desire acted upon while strange but oddly specifically skilled beings wait on you hand and foot? Cool, THERE'S A SPELL FOR THAT.

So yeah, sure the fighter deserves some love. But the system, as it is, doesn't really have any other direction to go. That's why we have CoDZilla and such. But once you start giving the warriors and thieves extra-normal powers, you've given them magic. Even if you don't call it that. And that's totally fine. But that doesn't mean that magic=not-magic, it means just the opposite.

Magic should give an advantage that non-magic can not equal, and non-magic should give and advantage than magic can not equal.

If you mean in game terms, sure, I can accept that. But that's a should be, not an is, and right now that's not how the game works.

So yeah, it may be silly that fighters can survive 500 foot falls but not jump 10 feet into the air, although I would point out that people have survived longer falls, and still can't jump 10 feet into the air. That class A is "better" than class B is the inevitable result of an exception-based system where class A gets way more exceptions than class B.

ElCrabofAnger wrote:

Why should somebody who has spent their whole life mastering martial arts be as good in any situation as somebody who spent all their time kissing up to gods for favors? Why should they be as flexible as someone who took the time to learn how to make physical and metaphysical laws sit down and do as they're told? One person can cast mighty magics to create a new dimension to their liking. Is it really unjust that a mere-sword swinger feels less powerful? They are less powerful.

Because why not? Seriously, tell me why, objectively speaking, proper spell-based magic is always the more powerful option in a fantasy universe than something like ki power or sword-techs? Because Pathfinder says so? The literal hundreds, if not thousands, of books written where that is not the case laugh at your logic.

Also, look up "confirmation bias".

Sword-tech = magic.

That's not confirmation bias.

I never said that spell-based magic is more powerful than ki, or sword-tech, or six-demon bags.

What I said was this - altering physics to your advantage is ALWAYS better than not doing so for your advantage. For that matter, using physics to your advantage (technology) ALWAYS better than not doing so.

Indeed, I have no objection to rules that let characters launch 50 yard flying kicks that slay dragons, or to games that have laser sword fights over pits of lava. Sounds cool to me. I even said so - if that's what having fun means to you (sounds pretty awesome to me) then you should do it.

What I said was that a class that is literally based around hand waving the repeated violation of (earth-normal) physics is going to be more powerful than a class that is not, in a logical world. Any hey, I thought we WERE talking about Pathfinder here; that's why I based my statements around that idea (this seemed like the place; am I wrong?).

So yes, I'm making some basic assumptions, which are these:

1. Magical things are magical, regardless of who has them.
2. Martial-archetype characters, in Pathfinder, are not assumed to have the same type of proficiency in magical stuff as classes that are based around magical stuff.
3. If you give martial types more magical stuff, they become more magical. This is awesome if that's what you like.
4. Core rules don't give martial types a tremendous amount of "magical" class features.
5. Magic > not magic, because magic has less restrictions. Like physics, or chemistry, or biology.
6. Classes that have more magic will be more flexible, or powerful, or less balanced, howsoever you want to define those terms.
7. If your game is different because you have house rules, awesome! But then you've changed the rules, presumably to make things more to your liking. If so, awesome! And also, the previous may not apply to you.
8. If you use only the official rules and you don't find that casters are more flexible, or powerful, or whatever, then awesome! Please share your tips with us, so that those of us who think casters rock too hard (or not hard enough) can learn from you.

And, finally:
Have fun playing the game you want to play.

Balance, heh heh heh. I suppose so, from a gamist or player's point of view. Like has been said, nobody wants to feel useless or watch some other player have all the fun. That being said...

Why should somebody who has spent their whole life mastering martial arts be as good in any situation as somebody who spent all their time kissing up to gods for favors? Why should they be as flexible as someone who took the time to learn how to make physical and metaphysical laws sit down and do as they're told? One person can cast mighty magics to create a new dimension to their liking. Is it really unjust that a mere-sword swinger feels less powerful? They are less powerful.

It's just... nobody wants to play that game. And so they shouldn't - it's meant to be fun after all. But unless you're playing a wuxia campaign, or something with very blurry lines between martial arts and magic, martials are always going to feel second rate before too long. That's because, in a world as posited by many fantasy RPGs, they are. Pathfinder operates under the assumption that you'll have a certain amount of gear at a given level. What type of gear? Magical. So hey, the martials can't even do their basic jobs without help from the people who paid attention in class.

Play a balanced campaign, with whatever rules are necessary to get that feel for you. Nothing at all wrong or bad in that. It's just, well, as someone who worked hard in school to get ahead in my life, I don't at all feel bad when some of the jocks and ne'er-do-wells that I went to school with aren't lords of the manor now that school is over. I wasn't the strongest, or the biggest, or the wealthiest, and I caught the same troubles that many "weird" kids caught in school. But I've been rewarded for my perseverance. That's the wizard right there.

Here, now, there are fabulous martial artists and athletes who can do amazing things with their bodies. They've worked hard, and that work has paid off. I admire them, and I mean no disrespect in any way. There are, sadly, no archmagi. That being said, If there were incantations coupled with bat dung that let people throw huge explosive blasts, or inflict absolute paralysis from afar, or, I don't know, open interdimensional portals and command strange alien beings to paint my house, I know which one I'd spend my time studying. High kick, or alter physics? Five-point exploding palm, or alter physics for my personal benefit? Greatest swordsman in the world, or ALTER PHYSICS to get anything I might desire? Hmmm, tough choice.

So, to sum up: game balance? Sure. Go for it. Love it. Everyone wants to have fun. Is it logical, or internally consistent? Not really. But so what - do what is fun.

You can have (in non Society Play):

5 Pal/1 Sor/1 Witch/1 Sum (In that order, or something close).

Getting:

1 Bonded Mount (Pal 5)
1 Animal Companion (Sor 1, Wildblooded Fey (Sylvan) Bloodline)
1 Bonded Item (Skill Focus: Any Knowledge, Eldritch Heritage (Arcane))
1 Familiar (Witch 1)
1 Eidolon (or more, depending on Archetype, Summoner 1)
1 Cohort (Leadership at 7th level)

This is the best combo I've come up with to get all the pets you can. Three of the four classes are Charisma based, as are all of the necessary feats. Note that this character is not especially optimized for anything other than having a posse.

There are those who will say that you can't have a bonded item and a familiar. That's not true in this case. One can choose a level of Sor or Wiz (I went with EH in this case for the Arcane Bloodline, same effect) and choose the object. After this choice has been made, a level of Witch gives a familiar, which is in fact required to be a Witch. Nothing about the class indicates a modification of pre-existing feats or features. Blammo! Bonded object and familiar.

I'd be interested to see if anyone could do this any better (in terms of optimizing the character). What say you?

Nets are awesome...especially for NPCs.

Trick out some low-level warriors with nets and alchemical attacks and have them use decent teamwork tactics and they can take a PC of higher level. It can be vary humbling for PCs be defeated by intelligent, cooperative lower level NPC class pukes. Especially if they were contemptuous of the "Mayor's worthless Guards" before.

In general, non-magical cheap attacks are great for leveling the playing field for low level characters. A 1st level warrior with a Dex of 12 (not anything beyond the pale) can have an attack bonus of +2 with these things...not anything especially impressive. A 5th level Fighter with a Dex of 16, Full Plate +1, and a Ring of Protection +1 will have an AC of 24, 27 with a +1 Heavy Shield. Touch AC...14. That means that our 1st level warrior has a 45% of hitting the fighter with a net...or any other ranged touch attack, like Liquid Ice, which has the added benefit of not damaging the nets. Once the fighter is entangled, it's a better than 50% chance to hit.

That's when the guards break out the Tanglefoot bags, and start practicing their archery and bombing. After sticking the fighter to the floor, hopefully while still netted, they then begin lobbing the alchemist's fire, arrows, and insults.

I love nets.

from PRD : Glamered: Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing. The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised. Only a true seeing spell or similar magic reveals the true nature of the armor when disguised.

since it say that the armor actually change shape , can we assume that a medium or heavy armor in *cloth mode* wont make someone fatigued after sleeping in it ?

That appears to me to be just bad wording. Glamers are Illusions, they only change sensory qualities. Also the armor retains all its properties when so disguised. In this case, only the visual sensory quality is being affected, therefore, sleeping in this glamered suit of medium or heavy armor would in fact lead to fatigue.

Yeah, that's definitely the way I'm going to go - Blind-Fight shores up an Achilles Heel quite nicely.

Final build:

Feats:
Human - Power Attack
1st - Cleave
1st - Dodge
2nd - Mobility
3rd - Spring Attack
4th - Combat Expertise
5th - Whirlwind Attack
6th - Lunge
7th - Weapon Focus: Falchion
8th - Greater Weapon Focus: Falchion
[Retrain Cleave to Furious Focus]
9th - Weapon Specialization: Falchion
10th - Critical Focus
11th - Dazing Assault
12th - Sickening Critical
13th - Staggering Critical
14th - Critical Mastery
15th - Iron Will
16th - Stunning Assault
[Retrain Dazing Assault to Greater Weapon Specialization: Falchion]
17th - Stunning Critical
18th - Blind-Fight
19th - Improved Blind-Fight
20th - Greater Blind-Fight

Looks good, but you cannot take Spring Attack until 4th level.

Straight from the PRD:

A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.

Thus one can be both Wildblooded and Crossblooded. No reason the two arcana shouldn't stack - it's certainly not an overpowering combination, just a decent one, given the penalties of Crossblooded and the general uses of blasting.

Use a horn.

Something like: The horn of the wind, or some such.

And if I had slept in the past thirty six hours I would know that. But I thank you for the clarification. I knew it looked painfully off even with that glowing red line I didn't care to right click despite my intense need for perfect spelling.

I can dig it. Sleep, man.

The plural of matrix is matrices.

Also, I fall on the Pearl of Power works fine for Alchemists side of the equation.

I am too.

Oh, you meant humans as the dominant character race in RPGs! I see...

Maybe. But bear in mind that humans are it; they are the be all, end all of races in Golarion. The other races are, psychologically speaking, less alien to the human experience than Ed Gein is. They're all, dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, basically human. Even orcs and goblinoids are basically human. They all have a basically human psychology, adapted to the relatively tame variations of their physiology and lifespans.

I have a Tengu PC in a campaign I am running. How do Tengu breed? I don't know. Do they breed like humans? Do they lay eggs? Are Tengu females the larger of the two sexes? I don't know. This is about as alien as it gets, and I could fill these details in myself. But the more alien I make them, the harder it is to explain their integration into human society. The less alien I make them, well; then they're humans-in-funny-suits, like the rest.

That is what they all are; they're convenient in that humanity is a reference point used to make them all understandable. In the real world, we anthropomorphize things all to time to make them easier to relate to - it's a facet of human psychology. Without turning this into a psychology seminar, there's evidence to indicate that other mammals like cats and dogs behave this way as well.

I like having different choices for character races. I'm all in favor of making campaign worlds that are dwarf-dominant, or giant-controlled. I especially root for the orcs to win; they seem like they really got the short end of the stick. The truth is, though, that those worlds are literally only cosmetically different from human dominated worlds; truly alien worlds are much more difficult to come by due to the inherent limitations of human psychology, the pressures of conformity, and the difficulty in achieving a believable versimilitude in such an endeavor. I encourage any and all such explorations, they make for fun games and also make for stronger thinking habits. I only bring this issue up because it's important to understand why a human-dominated world makes sense from both a design and a psychological point of view.

I find that the ones raised by magicians have a stronger, more well defined flavor, but you can't beat the tenderness of a virus-raised zombie. As long as they are flesh-fed and brain finished, I like 'em.

We see it in real-world religions all the time; the God(s) take on the aspect of their worshipers. That is to say, how come Jesus looks Causcasian in all my picture Bibles? Why do the Mormons have an extra set of Scriptures (hint: new-world Jesus)? This is not to pick on any one religion, you understand; these are examples, there are countless more. Every culture sees divinity through the lenses of cultural bias.

How much more so would this be in a world where there is absolutely NO doubt whatsoever about the existence of gods? Shelyn is an undeniable fact of Golarion, or at least is a more provable divinity with recordable and duplicable effects on the world. This does not, however, change the fact that Tian Xians will look at Shelyn through a glass darkly, as will everyone else. Unless Shelyn floats in from wherever on a cloud of singing rose-petals and hands her high priest a book in full view of the congregation and says "Do it this way, or I'll curse you with cooties!" her worshipers in a given area will, in time, develop divergent practices from other churches on the face of Golarion. This is okay; as long as the basic doctrinal points are observed all should be well. Maybe they have slightly different holy days, or eat quail instead of giraffe on St. Primpmas' day.

I have always assumed that the gods are affected by massive changes in what their worshipers believe, and how quickly those changes come about. Shelyn could eventually develop into, say, a God with a bigger focus on defending beauty in battle over time if her worshipers began to emphasize that aspect. Golarions gods do evolve, after all, Shelyn with her mother's death and her brother with his travels to the bad parts of the Void. No god would tolerate an extreme perversion of their portfolio; Shelyn will not become the "sexy" version of Zon-Kuthon. That would be anathema (presumably). But slow changes adhering to basic tenets while developing new aspects of those tenets or emphasizing different virtues should be acceptable. They may also lead to schism in the church (one need look no farther [or further] than out of one's window to see how this happens in the real world) leading to interesting theological questions and RP opportunities. How would Shelyn react when rival branches of the faith from different cultures go to war, Paladin vs. Paladin? Maybe they wouldn't; seems like she'd shut that down pretty fast. But who knows, do what seems cool for you.

Tsukiyo as viewed through "western" minds, that could be cool. Really cool. How different the cultural viewpoints are is up to you; I suggest not having two many differences, just enough to emphasize cultural drift. In a world where the Gods can and will show up for afternoon tea, "good" gods will likely nip schism in the buds, "evil" gods...maybe, maybe not.

I would imagine that if we assume (not always a wise thing...)that Tian Xian culture is "shame-based", with an emphasis on community, versus a "western" cultural bias towards individuality and personal achievement, that Tsukiyo would have individual worshipers emphasizing his portfolio of spirits, spreading the doctrine that not all spirits are evil, promoting ancestor veneration, and maybe with a very small scattered sect of druids emphasizing the spirits in all things and working in harmony with nature to limit despoiling natural places and to aid in achieving harmony with nature. Being a moon god with the darkness and madness domains as well as an LG god, emphasis is placed on nonconformity and individualism used as tools to help the community by thinking outside of the box as well as promoting a respect for those who do not think the same way as others do. Be good while being yourself may or may not be a tenet. Some of the things that lurk in the darkness are friendly to man, and bump back against less benevolent creatures of the night. Good aligned lycanthropes likely gravitate towards Tsukiyo in both Tian Xia and Avistan.

Long post. Hope this gives some ideas.

I appreciate a point of view on the other side, but our intention was to test the Cleric with the loss of his NPC family in order to give him a boon for staying true to the faith. We expected him to be upset, (As his family's safety was his main motive for leaving to find the threat) but instead of getting some 'inner reflection time' we got 'Birth of a Supervillain.'

The Psychopomp's remains only hung around for cinematic purposes, and they evaporated as soon as the Cleric was leaving the room.

The only thing I'm trying to gauge is if this event was enough to rouse Pharasma's wrath, (Or any god's for that matter) or if they don't pay attention to such things and let their followers deal with the problems.

To be honest, I can kinda see the character's point. Not that the response was warranted (the high priest can only do what Pharasma allows, so murdering him...not so good), but if the safety of this character's family was the main motive, I'd be more than a little peeved (as a player) to be told that my spouse and child had been killed. ("When were they killed, your Grace?" "Oh, they were killed by daemons while you were away fighting daemons. But don't worry, they're in Pharasma's hands now, so it's all good.") To have this happen in real life would quite likely drive me out of my mind.

Pharasma would likely be quite peeved, but I have to agree with the posters who say that other than casting him out, she'd let the mortal authorities handle this.

Out of curiosity, did you not see this coming at all? This seems like a very likely result of what you were trying to plan. Also, Pharasma not rewarding this guy with the resurrection of his family seems like a Class A ****** behavior to me.

I am a big fan of using established mechanics to shore up weak points. Maybe, then, we could look at this as a need to make the rogue more...

Lucky? Skilled? Versatile?

It could be as simple as adding 1/2 reroll per day to the rogue. Or 1/2 Hero point, if you use those rules. Rerolls are powerful, but still subject to the vagaries of luck.

Eh, I don't have much of a problem with the rogue as is, though I do agree that it is annoying to need a flank-buddy.

There are Dev statement in this forum about scorching rays not being simultaneous, but the following FAQ make that search redundant for the Arcane trickster.

FAQ wrote:

Arcane Trickster: How does the Surprise Spells class feature (Core Rulebook, page 378) work with spells like magic missile and fireball?

The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.

—Jason Bulmahn, 06/01/11

That covers the Surprise Spells feature, which is not the same as a regular sneak attack on a spell that requires an attack roll.

I haven't seen any statement about Scorching Rays not being simultaneous (not that I doubt you, I just haven't seen any), so I have to go with the spell wording on this one. That being said, I don't have a problem with applying the sneak attack damage once per target, but once per spell seems a bit punitive in this corner case where an Arcane Trickster attacks multiple flat-footed targets with one casting of Scorching Ray. It seems to me that they should all suffer sneak attack damage, both RAW and RAI and in the spirit of fairness.

Edit: What Jacobs said.

Just to be clear, Scorching Ray attacks are simultaneous, meaning all rays get sneak attack damage.

Ranged attacks in general are difficult to sneak attack with effectively, because flanking and feinting are not helpful in these cases.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Noah Fentz wrote:

ElCrabofAnger wrote:

Noah Fentz wrote:

Well, Gary created D&D with accurate simulation in mind knowing full well not everyone is created equal, and it was an inherent part of his plan. I happen to agree with it.

???

What

???

legallytired wrote:

All along I didn't know that rolling stats was a comment on how us humans are all different. If only simulation of reality was my goal during character creation..

I'm going to go ahead and deduce that neither of you have played Chainmail or 1E.

Early versions were indeed combat simulators more so than the role playing games we know today. They took realism to a level that complicated matters extensively.

By 1E do you mean OD&D? I've heard that AD&D (also known as 1E to most people) is really similar to 2E, there's just less stuff and a few more restrictions?

In AD&D, there were things like weapon type vs armor type, weapon speeds, and many other mechanics that could make your head spin. It was very difficult to play RAW, because of the complexity of the system.

As much as I hate to say it, and hopefully this isn't going to be taken the wrong way ...

Since it's inception, every version of D&D has become a dumbed-down version of its predecessors. Not to say there's anything wrong with that, but Gary was painfully thorough in his mechanics.

I've played 1st edition. And Gary was often painfully thorough in his mechanics. No problems there. But what you did was to ascribe a motive to Gary that happens to mesh with your motives, and I don't think that there is any evidence of such a thing.

Chainmail was invented to simulate small-scale unit combat. Each figure represented 20 combatants, with no individualized stats at all.

Early D&D rules recommended that the user own a copy of Chainmail, and the d20 was considered an alternate system (which eventually became the standard.

In 1e the difference between stats was strange, to say the least. A 9 Str was as good as a 15 in terms of combat. Who is the stronger? Why, it's the 15, naturally. And of course, the person with the higher STR got bonus XP, (sarcasm on)just like in real life, where people gifted with more natural talent learn faster than those who have to work harder for it (sarcasm off). Unless you had to bend bars or lift gates, why, then the 15 STR person was 7 times more likely to succeed. But using a battleaxe in combat? No difference.

I don't think Gary had some plan to demonstrate the horrible inequities of genetics or to demonstrate that life wasn't fair. I think Gary wanted to have fun playing fantasy/medieval games (because that's what he said). I think he used dice because that was what was done at the time, and yeah, old-school RP is different than the modern stuff we have now. But don't try to use necromancy on Gygax to support your position; that's more than a little tacky. I also find it odd that no one has actually addressed my arguments upthread. Either you like to gamble or you don't. That's it. Gary's rules were ununified, overly complex in some places, completely absent in others. Should we bring weapon speed factors back just because Gary used them?

Don't do it. Don't drag Gary (or any other dead people) into this pointless debate on who has more fun, the point-buyers or the rollers. I'm asking you, please. Unless you find a proven citation, this is uncool. And irrelevant. And the last thing I want is real life's inequities intruding on my fantasy alter-ego, anyway. I'm a clumsy, ignorant crab in real life, why would I want to pretend to be one in my dreams, too?

Well, Gary created D&D with accurate simulation in mind knowing full well not everyone is created equal, and it was an inherent part of his plan. I happen to agree with it.

???

What

???

One hundred and forty words:

You could use a Balor to power your smoker and really lock in that "Abyssaly Smoked Flavor". Mmmmmmmm, imagine the delicious, delicious ribs that'll come out of that bad boy. Plus, since the Balor is inside the smoker, it can constantly baste the ribs, which is awesome, and no heat loss from constantly opening the door to check and baste the ribs. This means that the ribs will be better tasting, more consistent in quality, and will cook faster. All in all, pure profit. And Balors are really smart too, so it'll probably have some good ideas for new flavors and side dishes and whatnot, like maybe summoning quasits that turn into toads to make frog legs that disappear shortly after being eaten so that they're completely non-fat, leaving more space for ribs. I know, right? That would be bodacious.

Is there a definition of Powergamer or Optimizer that can be universally agreed upon here? There seems to be some conflict over what behaviors constitute that label.

Powergaming - when someone who prefers the other system does something you claim not to like "to squeeze every last bit of advantage out of the system." Those filthy dirtbags!

Roleplaying - when someone who prefers your system optimizes their character "to play their character correctly." Those gaming geniuses!

Neither point-buy nor rolling have anything to do with "powergaming" or "munchkinism" or any other such folderol. Those things are completely irrelevant to each other. "Powergaming" behaviors are just that, and will be evident regardless of the method used.

Rolling the dice does not make you a "powergamer". Devising a method to roll dice involving dropping ones or rolling 8d6 per stat or some other such thing is what makes you a "powergamer".

Point buy does not make you a "powergamer". 56 point point buy does.

All dice rolling methods can be statistically equated to a point buy method. So what we're really seeing here is that regardless of the methods the group must agree on an acceptable level of statistical power for starting characters.

The only real difference between the two methods is this question:

Do you like to gamble with your stats, or not?

That's it right there, that's the only difference. Any other perceived differences between the methods are red herrings; they are completely irrelevant. Yes, the random methods allow for more diversity, also known as randomness, but that goes right back to the only real difference, which is if one likes to gamble or not.

Casinos love gamblers, but they do not like to gamble. That's why the odds are always stacked in favor of the house. Casinos spend millions to be sure that the odds are always in their favor, and they make money doing it. There is something basic in human nature that gambling appeals to, and there's nothing wrong with that in the context of the game, which is all one big crap shoot anyways (given the number of rolls made over the length of a campaign). Remember, though, that Las Vegas wasn't built on the dreams of winners.

Remember that when you devise a method to roll dice for statistics, what you are saying is that you like to gamble. If you build in methods such as rerolling 1's or adding extra dice to the mix, what you are saying is that you like to gamble but want to limit your losses, also known as guaranteeing a minimum level of baseline stats.

When you prefer point buy you are saying you do not like to gamble. When you set the amount of points, you are saying that you want to guarantee a minimum level of baseline stats.

I like point buy. I only use point buy. I do not like to gamble (in this case). This does not make rolling wrong, or right, or better, or worse. Those terms are only relevant to one's personal preferences in the matter. There is no rational argument one can make in these cases other than "I like it this way". Point buy has one advantage over rolling, and only one - it allows standardization and transferability between campaigns. That's it. If you don't need those things, then point buy is no better than rolling. As long as the group is having fun.

That all said, man, I hate rolling for stats.

I can dig it.

Or maybe the military could try war machines that don't have glass cockpits against the bow and arrow wielding natives. Seriously. A competent military commander with today's technology could beat the natives. Quickly. Without resorting to nukes. With ridiculously minimal to no losses.

Fun to watch, yes. A model of how things would really work, not even close.

The rules are not unclear, so don´t need to be clarified.

Just like they don´t need to clarify ´yes, high level Wizards really do rock out and can do practically anything´
There´s nothing giving the slightest hint that any effect based on HD is not benefitted.

Wow. Hey, glad you're here to clear this up for me. And my steaming hot cup of morning snark was running a bit low, so thanks for topping that off for me.

I agree with you in terms of how the rules appear to be written, and how they should work. This does not mean that there is not some room for clarification. It's a minor issue, but it could be addressed at some point, if they wanted to. Effect is NOT an all-inclusive word.

Gruuuu wrote:

Or a centipede:

Bite—injury; save Fort DC 20; frequency 1/round for 2 rounds; effect daze 1 round; cure 1 save.

Basically, only the DC changes. A 19 or 20 DC at 20th level is a JOKE.

Fair enough. But still, several of the improved familiars get abilities based on HD that are higher issue (like the LOH). As far as I've understood it, by RAW hit dice do not increase except as a response to effects - not abilities based on hit dice. You might very well be right though, won't bother to search it.

'Effect' is not a clearly defined term, with that being said, this really should be clarified by the designers. 1 (should be 2 by RAW for the Silvanshee, Cha bonus not taken into account I suspect) lay on hands/day at 1d6 vs 6/day at 5d6 is a HUGE difference to a 10th level sorcerer.

This really needs to be clarified. Until then, I err on the side of all HD related things being based on master's level.

Actually, there is no reason you can't have both by taking levels in Witch and levels in Wizard (choosing the bonded object). Of course, by choosing the bonded object, you are choosing not to have a familiar as a class feature, and so the levels would not stack to determine the powers of your familiar. This seems to be fair and equitable, for the most part, and also RAW.

Note that the bonded item does, in fact, scale with level, in that it can only be used to cast spells in the Wizard's spellbook, with no oppositional schools allowed, and if you want to be a hard@ss (I would), and has effects based on the number of Wizard levels the character has. So yeah, you could enchant it based on your caster level, but that extra first level spell per day isn't all that big of a deal. N.B. this is assuming you go Wiz 1/Witch X, or something similar. Multiclassing is not all that great in this circumstance, so why not?

Ah, the metric system.

Logical.

Concise.

Internally consistent.

It'll never catch on here. Give it up.

I use point buy. I prefer it. I'm not a lucky roller.

Our group by default uses point buy. We used to roll, until I showed them the light. I think almost all of the arguments against point buy are intellectually bankrupt. The only one that makes any kind of sense to me is "We have more fun rolling." That argument is both cogent and strong, as fun is exactly the point. I do not have fun when rolling stats. I like point buy.

I have been gaming for 23 years. BECMI, then 1st, then 2nd, etc. I collect RPGs, so far too many systems to list here.

I entered on the old Red Box from the BECMI line. I loved that damn box.

Perhaps. Right now it is the little things, we fought a creature that did ability damage with each hit. The eidolon can't heal at all. The DM ruled that Augment Summoning doesn't work for the Summoner at all, because it doesn't specifically say spell like ability. The DM suggested that the Summoner learn to cast Summon monster spells so that augment summoning will work.

The party doesn't like to take the time to let the Summoner dismiss and resummon the Eidolon every 10 minutes, to take advantage of some feat.

Basically it is an extreme cluster, and I am trying to convince the DM to just let the Summoner scrap the character, the DM said no.

Right now the best feat that the Summoner has is improved initiative followed by toughness.

The guy playing the summoner tried to commit suicide via Life Link, since it only works on an eidolon about to die at its negative constitution score, usually while unconscious. The summoner hit 0 hp, the eidolon vanished and the cleric healed him.

I'm not really going to try to convince you that Summoners are a fairly powerful class. If you're not convinced by now, you probably won't be. I can say that your DM is being a bit nitpicky, and should allow the Summoner's feat selection to be changed if he (or she) didn't make the limitations on cetain feats clear (as they pertain to that DM's game). That's kinda uncool. As for the ability damage thing, yeah, that's RAW and it a lousy deal, and yeah, an animal companion would be able to heal from such a thing. I find, however, that most DM's are pretty lax on just how much effort it should take to properly control an animal companion. So, I think that Cheapy is right, you're judging the class based on bad play and a stingy DM.

I've seen an eidolon get hit by this:

Ray of Enfeeblement
A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1. A successful Fortitude save reduces this penalty by half. This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead.

A 6 was rolled and the eidolon was knocked down to 7 strength. The summoner is hoping to get this cured before he reaches level 4, but as he is currently level 1 there is very little hope. The DM has ruled that since the eidolon can't heal all that tends to happen is that the Summoner summons and buffs Summoned creatures that can't attack.

The caster in question had 2 spells that he used on us, Ray of Enfeeblement and Protection from Good. The Summoner is useless until level 4. The next 3 levels are going to be very difficult.

Yeah...this is a penalty, not damage. It expires when the spell runs out. Even for Eidolons. So, no. Not a problem for the Summoner (beyond the battle the spell hits the Eidolon in, anyway).

NPC Dave wrote:

Until the government gets out of medical care and people take responsibility for their own health(not medical) care, costs are going to rise, medical(not health) care will decline in quality, and life expectancy will continue to decline.

You weren't doing too bad right up until this.

The problem is that the government isn't in medical care at all. Corporations are. We don't have a "medicare price" crises, we have a "health and medicine price" crises. We have that crises because we're letting pharma create a monopoly with medicine and we won't let the government negotiate prices. We literally stripped power away from the government for and only for the sake of increasing pharma profits.

I'm not even sure why this is shocking. We went to groups that literally exist for and only for the accumulation of capital and asked them to be in charge of our health. That we're now dying in the street while they make record breaking profits isn't in any way out of the ordinary. It's what was inevitable.

I cannot stress this enough: The system is working. The system is working entirely as it's supposed to. You are dying, they are making more money. That was what the system was set up for.

People kept ranting about how the government needs to act like a business. Well, this is the end result. Maybe instead, we should ask the government to act like a government and put people before profits.

I haven't always agreed with you, but you've hit the nail on the head here.

Medical/sickness care(not health care) in USA was already dropping in quality and Obamacare will continue this phenomenon.

How exactly, now?

This area is a little less cut and dried than some of the posters above make it seem. In general, Undead are immune to fear effects. This is because Undead are stated to be immune to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms). Fear effects are often Necromancies, and what makes Undead immune to them is that they are also mind-affecting. Threnodic Spell (from UM) would allow such a spell to affect undead. If Undead were immune to fear as its own descriptor, Threnodic Spell would be a lot less useful (incidentally, Threnodic Spell is unclear as to whether or not Undead can be affected by compulsions and charms. This is important because a giant pile of mind-affecting spells also have one of these two descriptors. RAW, you're SOL.) Nowhere in the description of Undead does it say they are immune to fear in and of itself. In fact:

Turn Undead

Calling upon higher powers, you cause undead to flee from the might of your unleashed divine energy.

Prerequisites: Channel positive energy class feature.

Benefit: You can, as a standard action, use one of your uses of channel positive energy to cause all undead within 30 feet of you to flee, as if panicked. Undead receive a Will save to negate the effect. The DC for this Will save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. Undead that fail their save flee for 1 minute. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each round to end the effect. If you use channel energy in this way, it has no other effect (it does not heal or harm nearby creatures).

So what again is the argument that Undead cannot be demoralized? Demoralizing someone with the Intimidate skill is not called out as a morale effect (despite the name), nor is it called out as mind- affecting (by that same logic, you could not use Diplomacy on the Undead, since, you know, mind-affecting, insofar as you are attempting to change (influence) the attitude (mind) of a target when using Diplomacy.).

So, near as I can tell, Undead are immune to many things that inflict fearful states. The Intimidate skill is not one of them. While vampires and liches may not feel emotions in the same way that humans do (and this is really up to your GM), a creature with the potential to live forever might very well be intimidated by someone willing and able to deliver a rather permanent beatdown on the spot. They might well indeed conclude that discretion is the better part of valor.

Some thoughts that have been running through my head.

I noticed the other day that the Iconic Wizard is an Atheist. I was wondering how one could come to have this point of view in a world where some of the Gods themselves were once mortals who ascended. Could it be that the atheists of Golarion just think of the Gods as really powerful, albeit long-lived beings, but still essentially mortal?

Also, could an Atheist/Agnostic wield Divine Magic or be a Cleric?

What about the Shoanti's (and others) Ancestor Worhship? Could you be a cleric and get your spells/Domains from your Ancestors?

And before anyone says "Check with your GM", I just want to add that I am the GM. :P

I guess what I am looking for also, is an official answer. Barring that, I'll settle for advice on how my fellow forumites handle or have handled these situations in their Golarion games.

Way late to the game, but I would like to point out that your description of the gods as "really powerful, albeit long-lived beings, but still essentially mortal" is how anyone with any sense on Golarion would have to see the gods, since, you know, they can die. Aroden, anyway, at least. As far as we know.

Maybe the gods are immortal and unkillable. But then, where is Aroden? Where is Ydersius? The populace of Golarion might look at these questions and come to different conclusions.

I like the new binding fluff. I wouldn't say I love it, but it's pretty good. There's some decent crunch in there too, if you look at it as a decent guide.

In the end I think its the electorate itself that really shares the lions share of the blame here.

We do get the government we deserve. After all, if the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are so different, why do the same things keep happening?

There are differences, though. But they are often not relevant to the elections. Politicians pander because it works. Society does NOT reward those who point out the fact that the Emperor has no clothes. Somehow, I doubt that any major political operative reads the Paizo boards.

I have disagreed with many of the positions taken by many of the posters on these boards. I have also agreed with many of those same posters. It saddens me that to get even a semi-rational, mostly polite political debate I have to come here or go to other places on the web, because my family just doesn't care either way unless the threat to their self interest is so obvious that they've already lost. This isn't about calling people sheeple, it's about people actively choosing to be apathetic in the face of decisions being made that will affect their lives. Sheep don't choose to be apathetic; it's in the nature of sheep to be sheep. People do choose to be apathetic. And that's sad, but hey, at least we always get the government we as a people deserve, even if we (the individuals on the Paizo boards) don't deserve it.

You know what, I had a huge rant for this, but I'm just going to shut up, because no one wants to hear it except to make me look stupid for being Christian. I'll only say this: if an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, why do you follow that path? Especially when you put your eyes at a value of the national debt, and ours at a value of a penny?

What does this mean? I'm not seeing what is intended to be conveyed here. And making you look stupid for being Christian (or anything else) is not the purpose of this thread, so I would hope that the relatively civil tone that has been maintained here would prevail. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm genuinely interested in what you're trying to say.

"Paying for someone else's mistakes" is only a part of the problem. A big chunk of the argument against Planned Parenthood is also "why are my tax dollars being used to support something I find morally reprehensible?" (aka. abortion)

Yeah yeah, tax dollars can't be actually used for abortion, but they do free up money from PP that IS used for abortion... therefore supporting it (in a roundabout way).

DISCLAIMER: I do not necessarily agree with the above, but I can understand where they're coming from. *shrug*

EVERYONE'S tax dollars go to pay for things that they find reprehensible. It's the nature of living in a large democracy.

I find the War on Drugs reprehensible. I find the War on Terror reprehensible. How do you "defeat" terror? It's an idea. Drugs are objects. How does one defeat a class of objects?

Why are we sending soldiers to die in Iraq but not in the Congo?

I accept that my tax dollars will go to the support of things that I find reprehensible, and I do my utmost as a citizen to combat those things that I find reprehensible so that my tax dollars do not support them. In general, however, I am a great believer in personal freedoms, and so I do not oppose privately funded actions by legal adults, even self harming ones.

Let no one be mistaken: the opponents of Planned Parenthood (with few exceptions) could give a Dire Rat's ass about the funding; what they want is an end to abortion, for anyone, anywhere, for any reason, period. Thus, I tend to view arguments posed in this manner as red herrings.

Disclaimer noted. It would be completely fair to say, however, that just because tax dollars may free up money for PP to use for abortions, the fact remains that they ARE NOT USING TAX DOLLARS for these purposes. This issue is ridiculously unimportant in the grand scheme of things, PP is doing nothing illegal, and the whole thing is red meat thrown to appease voters.

Honestly, Channel Energy isn't that good for Paladins- at all.

For Clerics, Channel Energy is barely passable at higher levels- and mainly for out of combat healing. But as a Paladin, you are at Cleric level -3. So at 5th level, you are only curing 1d6! That is nothing. It would be a complete waste of a standard action to channel during the course of battle. So who cares if you can do it 8 times a day?

Your best bet is probably to go the magic item route. Sure you can't cast many spells per day- but wands of cure light wounds, and scrolls of lesser restoration (25g a pop!) are really, really cheap! And as a Paladin, you can use them without UMD!

That brings up another point. I don't really think that a Paladin Warrior of Holy Light makes that great of a primary healer, either, because he can't use items without UMD. No wands of CLW, no scrolls of Lesser Restoration. More Lay on Hands is nice, but not nice enough. And the other abilities just aren't useful that often...

Personally, I would just go straight Paladin with no archetype. That way, you can have that higher Charisma for more Lay on Hands and Spells, and still have plenty of Smites for it to be useful for combat. Then during combat, I'd use Lay on Hands when it is really necessary, but otherwise, I'd simply use magic items OUT of combat, and call it a day.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of channel energy. You are correct in that it is inefficient in battle. This is true for all channels across all classes. If used in combat, it is most useful when it targets multiple allies, which isn't always the case. So yeah, the Hospitaller's lesser channeling is even less efficient in combat. That being said...

Out of combat channeling is great. Very efficient, moreso than spells. The Hospitaller's lowered channeling level is offset by what should be a higher Charisma (meaning more channels and lay on hands) and the lay on hands themselves.

I can agree with the Holy Light things. Spells are far more versatile. And the magic items are definitely nice.

Calagnar, you don't focus on Charisma for the smites (and Charisma does not affect smite damage anyways, it affects the hit bonus). You focus on Charisma for the greater number of lay on hands, channels, spells, and saving throws. Really, it is just that good for a paladin, especially if you go Hospitaller.

Raise your Charisma. It will have the biggest impact by far of your scores if you want to be a primary healer. Also good for your saves and smites.

Wisdom 7? Ugh. Particularly since you want to be a healer. The Heal skill is Wisdom based, and it's not a bad backup plan for things. It's not like you need a Dex of 12 for anything anyway - that's what heavy armor and Cha bonus to saves is for.

Warrior of the Holy Light is good for healing. Spells are nice too, though, and more flexible. I can see going either way with that.

Extra Mercy is a great feat for the healing Paladin. With the swift action self healing provided by lay on hands, it may be better to stack up the mercies instead of adding 1 hp/level.

Just some suggestions. Have fun.

Specialization. Some people feel that Evocation is a great banned school in almost all cases. With the Shadow Evocation line of spells, you can get quite a bit of it back. The extra spells and powers granted by specialization are usually considered better than being a Universalist. So many builds dump Evocation and fill it with Shadow spells.

Versatility. You memorize one spell, with which you can duplicate many more. It allows for some spontaneity. Also, the spells allow saves, yes, but if you specialize in Illusion you'd be a fool not to recognize this weakness and buff your DCs up accordingly. This means, in general, that you have a higher save DC on your shadow spell than you would on your non-shadow spell.

Subtlety and Trickery. Nothing says you can't have both the real thing and the shadow thing. Throw some shadows. When your enemies get wise, and stop fearing you, throw in the real thing. Mix it up. Also throw in figments and phantasms. These allow you to simulate effects and summons above your level. Use a Shadow spell to conjure a leopard, say. Your enemy eventually (or sooner) sees through this. Now summon a real lion, wiping the smirks off of their faces. Both creatures deal damage, but the lion does more, obviously. Now use Major Image to create a Dire Tiger. Woo! The Tiger may scare them off, or can be use as a battlefield control (to corral enemies and waste attacks. With two layers of deception operating, your enemies may just assume that you conjured a shadow creature. Or not, since you can conjure a real creature. Can they assume anything is an illusion? Some GMs don't allow the spells to work as intended, effectively neutering this type of play. Be warned. But with a good GM who rewards intelligent play, this is good stuff. It also lets you use spells more efficiently due to the longer durations, shorter casting times, and in the case of figments, lower spell levels of the spells in question.

The Pit Fiend has an ability called Deathmastery. So 7 should be changed to Lifeeater or something suitable spooky and necromantic sounding.

11. Lord of War - The Lord of War is proficient in all armor and shields, and has an additional pair of arms. It wears +1 moderate fortification full plate, and has a +1 heavy steel shield of arrow deflection in one arm, and a +1 mithril anarchic bane (lawful outsider) morningstar in it's fourth arm. (AC improves by 12, add 50% fortification, Ref DC 20 to avoid one projectile / round, and morningstar attack +30/+25/+20, +2 vs. lawful outsiders (2d6+7, +2d6 to lawful targets and +2d6 to lawful outsiders.) Replace two-weapon fighting with multiweapon fighting, and special abilities allowing iterative attacks with multiweapon fighting equivalent to the number of attacks it had via Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.

I like the Lord of War, and was actually considering something similar. I had decided, however, that it was not the best idea to assign feats unless absolutely necessary. The proficiencies could easily be bestowed by a level of fighter, and treasure is just treasure. Perhaps instead...

11. Dreadnought - The dreadnought has an additional pair of arms, and receives Multiattack as a bonus feat. Relace Two-Weapon Fighting with Multiweapon Fighting (note that there are no more feats in this chain, Multiweapon Fighting serves as a prereq to the feats in the Two-Weapon Fighting chain.). Any weapon a balor wields (including its standard longsword and whip) gains the vicious weapon quality. Weapons retain this quality for one hour after the balor releases the weapon, but after this the weapon reverts to its standard magical qualities, if any. This is a supernatural (Su) quality. The dreadnought gains Fast Healing 10.

This gives abilities that are not class related but still fit the theme. This Balor Lord probably has Fighter levels anyway, so just give the weapons and armor as treasure. I changed the name to avoid the "X of Y" construction, the original name works fine as well. I mean no offense by these alterations, this is just how I might do it. Your idea provided the spark to finish what mine was missing. Thanks!

Edit: I should be more clear. I didn't want to assign feats that could be gained by taking a single class level (e.g. Armor Proficiency for Fighters.) I also didn't want to assign things that could be gained from a small dip into classes. The only exception is in my earlier Deathmaster power, because the fluff states that Balor Lords don't take levels in Cleric (usually), so a Balor that command the undead and channels negative energy would need some decent way to do it. Also, the Deathmaster should be treated as Undead for the purposes of channeled energy.

I once (in the misty depths of 2003) decided to look up a specific friend from high school (you know, as opposed to my general friends). It turns out that he was killed almost two years earlier than the day I decided to look him up. He was crushed by a falling tree while on a one year anniversary trip with his wife, who also attended high school with us. She was severely injured, he died instantly. Just a day of high wind, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I hated him when I first met him. I thought he was a jerk. I got over myself, and, of course, we were ALL jerks (it was high school). We became good friends. Not close friends - I moved away too soon for that, but we genuinely enjoyed each others' company, and we parted on great terms.

The grief I felt when I read of his death was instant and deep, as though we had just spoken the day before. I contacted his wife, and we had a somewhat disjointed conversation, as my grief was fresh and immediate, while hers was two years old. It saddens me that this is what it took to reach out to an old friend. She and I still correspond, very rarely, and again I am saddened that this is how things are. I blame only myself. I should probably drop her a line.

Nothing weird or wrong about it. Just shows that you're human - aren't we all (except for me, of course. I'm a crab.) My condolences and sympathies go to you (and to the loved ones of the girl in question). While no two experiences are the same, I can honestly say I have a pretty god idea as to how you feel.