FighterGuy's page

Looking for mature gamers; We are looking to form a new Pathfinder group that will be playing in Stow, MA (just over the Sudbury Border). The location is easy to get to form most points. We would like to meet Friday nights twice a month.

Please message me if interested.

FighterGuy

I am trying to put together a Pathfinder group in Metrowest Boston in the Framingham area? any interest in that?

Hi ya - still looking???

Need for a DM for an existing Pathfinder/D&D v3.5 group in Metrowest Boston

We have a place to play in Hudson, we have players...what we need is a DM. Our current DM is just having to much of a demand on him in real life to keep doing it.

Some of the players could step up but we would be new to it - if possible we'd like to bring in an experienced DM.

We are a group of late 20's and older, some married some not...mixed bag. Amongst us we do have all the materials any player or DM would need for Pathfinder or v3.5

Feel free to mail me or respond here if interested.

p.s. snacks and soda included :-)

Looking for a D&D v3.5 or Pathfinder game in the Metro West Boston area; or really the greater Boston area.

I am highly experienced in both systems.

I'm starting up a new campaign in Arlington/Woburn, MA and I'm looking for 1-2 more players. The current plan is to play once per month on Sunday starting in July or August.

I'm going to solicit player input on what sort of game it will be, so I don't have firm plans in that regard yet.

If you're interested, shoot me an e-mail at:
pathfinder [at] nekocode [dot] org

Interested - emailing you now

Thanks. I wish I could get in Pandemonium but I don't think i could swing that given work, family, etc.

I really need something that is near where I live - I appreciate the help in any event - Happy gaming!

bump

I am a very experienced player looking for a Pathfinder or D&D v3.5 group (Pathfinder preferred) in the Metrowest Boston area. Please feel free to email me here if you have an open slot in your group or are looking to open a group. Thanks.

Gorbacz wrote:

.........

So, they came up with a better plan. They carry around a bag of small marbles, cast silence on exactly one of them, and throw the lot around the BBEG. Stupid spell.

This tactic is actually used in Shackled City against the PC's. It is a valid tactic.

Other tactics I have seen were to disarming the cleric of his holy simple and to sundering spell component pouches.

Yes - however the caster has to spend a standard Action casting it (provided he can in silence) then when he finds it go and pick it up and toss it far away - so he looses two full rounds dealing with it - and after round 1 Mr. Fighter says hello anyways - Bye Bye casterguy

Blazej wrote:

Thurgon wrote:

All we do know is they did hide it, for whatever reason.

And all I know that they didn't hide it, but you are insisting they did, for whatever reason.

Was it revealed? No. Omission is a form of hiding, it matters not if it is intentional or not.

I tried to make that point a few days ago myself...you are totally right - heavy armor is a very, very important attribute - more so now than in 3.5 given the movement rule changes.

They changed it because it makes sense - in what cleric school do they teach heavy armor? A few...in what fighter schools do they teach heavy armor - depends on your theme but by standard RPG logic - all of them by necessity.

Feats are to customize characters - so now take a feat and get the proficiency

The Cleric - in the end just take the Heavy Armor Proficiency Feat - or houserule it - the change was there for a reason that apparently will never be agreed upon by some people.

Comparing a Fighter, Palidan or Barbarian with Armor to a Cleric is nonsense - complete nonsense. Thats like comparing a plumber and a heavy equipment operator - whats the point of it? They ain't the same -they never will be the same and armor to these actual frontliners is different than to what it is to other classes - gas to an engine vs. usin a name brand car wax...which one is actually required to make the car run?

"Its always been that way..." - not a good reason - if that were true then we'd all still be playing 1st edition.

Clerics have a completely different role. Having Heavy Armor had always been a fringe benefit; now its gone with the budget cuts. Please get over it.

FighterGuy wrote:

Then taking Improved Bull Rush or Improved Overrun are essentially pointless.

That CMD number has to be dropped somehow - as stated here and elsewhere at higher levels its impossible to perform a maneuver on anyone and excessively difficult at lower levels. I'd say drop the BAB portion or the "10" - the CMD would still be greater than the CMB (which sort of makes sense that it might be easier to defend against a maneuver than make one) but not so high as to make it impossible.

If you dropped the 10 portion, you'd make success virtually guaranteed. Take two first level fighters with Str 16 and Dex 12. They would each have a CMB of +4 (+1 BAB + 3 Str). Without the 10, they would each have a CMD of 5 (1 BAB + 3 Str + 1 Dex). If one tried to grapple the other, even a roll of 2 would beat the DC. Only an auto-fail on a natural 1 would fail (without an auto-fail, any roll would succeed).

However, keeping the 10 in there gives a CMD of 15, allowing success on a roll of 11 or higher. A 50% chance. Sounds about right to me.

edit: fixed some spelling

I concede in part - numbers wise it works. From an intrinsic and theoretical POV - However one thing to think of at higher levels - the ability for one to boost AC factors that effect CMD are far greater than one's ability to boost Strength (or Dex if there is a Feat). Thus, item wise, one could become far more difficult a target by others.

GentleGiant wrote:

You know what, I have a serious question for you. What argument WOULD convince you that it's a good change?

None. It's removal is indefensible.

What argument can I make that makes punching random people good? ... Also none. It too would be indefensible.

Just because one can't concieve of a good reason for something, doesn't mean there is one you know. It could just be a bad idea.

Now hold on - I know a LOT of people who really need a good punch right in the nose! :-)

FighterGuy wrote:

The difference you are ignoring is that fighters train to FIGHT - Clerics are different than that. Fighters would be default be able to use most armor and weapons because that is what they do for a living. It is by no means an equivilent comparison.

Fighting is done with weapons, thus fighters, paladins, barbarians, and rangers all get martial weapon skill.

Armor is for protection. Clearly clerics are meant to be protective.

War or words I see...semantics now come into play..

Fighting means COMBAT in general which is offense AND defense. Though perhaps with the Barbarian, at least in part, this is true :-)

Protection of ideas, people, etc - not literal - there are some good arguments for Clerics with Armor - this is not one of them.

Why would a Cleric of peace, healing, or travel (travel is debatable) not want the best protection they can get. Saying clerics of this deity don't need it is a kind of a cop out. Particularly for healing. They need to be right in the thick of things to actually heal. A cleric of peace needs to go to places that are not peaceful to spread the word of peace. Not having armor just means they have less chance of succeeding at that goal.

As for trying to make Fighters and Paladins feel special, there is no more need for each and every fighter to be trained in full plate than there is for a cleric. It's a illogical arguement. I'm not talking about past editions, or fantasy itself, just D&D. There are more player and combat related NPC clerics that us full plate than there are fighters because it is a lot easier for fighters to go dex based. It is pracitcle that an archer fighter would go with light armor, and armor training really makes it worth it.
The cleric really can't though. Medium armor does not offer any better manuverability, so it is purely a change to spite the cleric and to make a change. If you don't like clerics having full plate, that is perfectly fine, but there is no sense is saying it is good for all fighters, but not all clerics. It is hard to make a dex based Paladin as well, but not so much as it is a cleric.

I keep saying reasons that the cleric needs better protections to do their job, so how are these not good arguements?

Between having to be in combat to really use the party heal button (channel energy) there is a good chance that the cleric gets swarmed afterwards. In order to cast spells like Remove Curse, Remove Poison, Remove Paralysis, Cures, Heal, and many Buffs, the cleric has to be adjacent to the fighter (or whoever). That pretty much means a 5ft step away from harm and many times now not being able to do any magic. Dropping AC adds even more chance of failure. Not fun failure either. It's the type that gets people aggrivated after a few times of not being able to do...

I agree with others - this argument is pointless - some folks will simply never give it up - my last word - a fighter ain't a cleric and a cleric ain't a fighter. Cleric's, in NPC land stay at the church and do goody good things for the locals. Those few that venture out (PC's) can take the feat; just like a fighter has to pcik and choose feats - forgoing one thing for another...like step up...

pres man wrote:

FighterGuy wrote:

One issue I see here with the posts is the complaint about Clerics and Heavy Armor. Yes - its been that way since the start but that does not make it right.

A Cleric of a love goddess gets heavy armor? Or a God of farming? The buff masters get the bonus of making out AC without a single spell being cast...what exactly is it in Clerical school that would get one ready for heavy armor?

I don't quite understand that argument. Why take it away from all clerics just because some clerics might not use it? It is not like having the ability to wear heavy armor without penalty is forcing them to do so. If a cleric believes his deity wants him to run around in nothing but a thong, having armor proficiencies can't keep him from running around in a thong.

It would be the same as taking heavy armor away from fighters because one built on dex will stay away from it for a long time, or a paladin looking for mobility going with a chain shirt should mean all paladins don't need heavy armor. Weak arguement made to defend the undefendable.

The difference you are ignoring is that fighters train to FIGHT - Clerics are different than that. Fighters would be default be able to use most armor and weapons because that is what they do for a living. It is by no means an equivilent comparison.

I don't quite understand that argument. Why take it away from all clerics just because some clerics might not use it? It is not like having the ability to wear heavy armor without penalty is forcing them to do so. If a cleric believes his deity wants him to run around in nothing but a thong, having armor proficiencies can't keep him from running around in a thong.

The Argument - same one that says why don't fighters get Spellcraft as a class skill? They must do some training in fighting casters after all?

The point I am making is the one I said above - What in Cleric School would make one proficient in heavy armor? I answered this in part myself when I talked about relating Armor proficiency with Domains - that makes sense - warrior gods with warrior like clerics.

Heavy Armor is the NFL of Armor - "Welcome to the NFL" as they say to rookies after their first hit in training camp. It take training and practice to fight in any armor; especially the big stuff.

Why would many clerics get training in this? One could even argue that for Medium Armor if they wanted.

10d6 of healing or damage when you have 20d6+X as a MINIMUM is NOT enough to matter. Especially when monsters are dealing that 10d6 in a round, reliably.

Not enough? For the entire party to be healed in one shot - ya - if one PC needs more then ya still got the spells; but a Cleric can just stand there and blast out healing for the whole team round after round...come on now - if you have say 4 party members that is 40d6 going out in one action...

I'm not sure if that was sarcastic or not? On more than one level, too.

Nope - not sarcastic - sorry if it got taken that way.

I meant that Paizo is very thorough with Pathfinder and things that are pointed out as issues are addressed (if enough people talk about it and its actually possible).

By the president thing I meant that Paizo listens to its constituents...

One issue is the CMB/CMD mechanic. CMB is fine - a great way to deal with these types of things (maneuvers/special attacks and such) but the CMD makes it almost impossible to ever actually use it effectively unless your fighting a total weakling (compared to yourself). CMD NEEDS to be fixed.

My second issue is Overrun - not knocking the guy down? Seems odd to me but I am not sure it's broken all by itself; taking CMD into account it is broken (since actually successfully making the Overrun is hard enough let alone beating the DC by 5 or more...)

One issue I see here with the posts is the complaint about Clerics and Heavy Armor. Yes - its been that way since the start but that does not make it right.

A Cleric of a love goddess gets heavy armor? Or a God of farming? The buff masters get the bonus of making out AC without a single spell being cast...what exactly is it in Clerical school that would get one ready for heavy armor?

I have not read the domain section of the cleric fully as of yet but perhaps associating Heavy Armor proficiency with certain Domains would be an answer - such as War or Destruction.

Well I'm not one who dislikes pathfinder, quite the contrary.

And there really aren't any parts in the book that I do not like, but rather wish more thought or perhaps time were put into certain aspects of the rules.

From a GM standpoint, I've read quite thoroughly Chapter 13 on environments over the last few evenings, and overall I find the chapter quite confusing. That is not to say that the 3.5 DMG content wasn't any better, but I really don't see an improvement.

I bring it up because this particular chapter has the potential to really liven up encounters, in addition to monsters. There is a lot o good stuff in the chapter, but it is difficult to navigate through it for quick reference during play.

I think I would have rather liked all the charts in the chapter clustered together in the chapter, or maybe added in the appendices. I also feel that a lot of the rules "hidden" within the text could have been better referenced as tables as well: for instance, under Sleet it says that it has the same effect as Rain while falling and Snow once on the ground. Rain, in turn, says that it has the same effect as Severe Wind for perception checks. It would be nice to have a chart that references all of these to make flvoring encounters with these dynamics relatively simple.

I may attempt to make my own charts. In defense of the Jason, though, it does seem that it is a hard chapter to write.

I bet the new GM screen will take care of that for you...knowing how Paizo does things - very, very well - after all they actually read these boards and take them into account...

If only Paizo were running for President...

That's right. A base of 10 plus both ability mods.

Then taking Improved Bull Rush or Improved Overrun are essentially pointless.

That CMD number has to be dropped somehow - as stated here and elsewhere at higher levels its impossible to perform a maneuver on anyone and excessively difficult at lower levels. I'd say drop the BAB portion or the "10" - the CMD would still be greater than the CMB (which sort of makes sense that it might be easier to defend against a maneuver than make one) but not so high as to make it impossible.

STR 30 ( 16 + 3Lv + 6 Belt +5 Inherent)

DEX 25 ( 17 + 2 Lv + 6 Belt )
CON 18 ( 12 + 6 Belt )
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 10

HP: ~ 232 (19D10 (~104,5) + 90)
AC: 39+ (Base 10 + 14 Fullplate + Amulett 5 + Ring 5 + Dex 5)
Dexterity not fully used sadly,

...

SOOOOOOO many people create builds that fit the particular situation they are in - can't do that in the game:

"Hold on GM; I gotta make a new fighter now to take on this new XYZ monster you just plopped in front of me; the guy I have this second isn't quite the right fit for the battle..."

Ya - GM's always allow that...

Fighting other humanoids that are NOT fighters or casters - seems to work fine for the most part. As noted above by someone else your saves will be pathetic (as noted above - Will saves for example; the Bane of all fighter types). But there is more out there than non fighters or casters. Another fighter of equal level with a different set of stats would crush this guy without question.

Additionally: this works just dandy if you start off at that level; not building a character from the ground up over time. Its a lot easier to create a high level character than build one level by level.

Not to mention the fact that I can make something with more AC, more balanced ability scores but does a bit less damage - but hit more often - irregardless it will take me longer than you but I'll take down that bad guy (or this guy) taking less damage myself as well as have better saves and the like to take on otehr party members with other abilities besides being a target for my sword. I won't get into a big numbers game with it on the board but those who know their stuff know what I'm talking about.

I have built no less than a dozen fighters under Beta (a couple played long term under the Beta Rules) and am duplicating that with the new rules.

If anything the new rules allow a fighter to have far more versatility than ever before. Under the older rule sets (V3.5 and Beta) you did have certain sterotypes you sort of had to go with due to the things that go with Armor - that has changed now.

DEX is in no way the best Build - no way. As stated above by several people you sacrifice ability scores for one another - so a high DEX usually means a low something else. What some say here is you have a 10 DEX or a 18+ DEX; nothing inbetween - which is not the way to think effectively.

To start off, thinking from the Min/Max perspective, if you wanted a fighter in Full Plate (or really any heavy armor) under v3.5 or Beta then having more than a 10-12 DEX was a "waste" since you would never be able to use the extra DEX in your AC. You would never get an item to enhance DEX and really the only answer to that problem is Mithral. However that can't be obtained until much later in the character's life and by that point ability score increases and investments in other ability score enhancements have already been made.

Now having a heavy armor fighter with a 14 or 16 DEX is attainable and outright desireable! Not to mention fighters are no longer hampered by movement restrictions in medium armor and in heavy armor after 7th level.

This with changes to other classes make the fighter, in general, the tankish (whether that means a fast light tank or a heavy front line battle tank) master he should be above that of most others.

I just got an idea how to solve this problem.

There should be two kinds of CMDs and CMBs - Strength based and dexterity based.

Of course it is hard to bullrush a giant - that's because your strength or size doesn't really match compared to it.

On the other hand tumbling is much easier because it's dexterity isn't that high.

So CMB would still be BAB+Str mod, unless you had "agile maneuvers" feat, when you could use it as BAB+Dex mod. CMD would be 10+BAB+size+str or dex, depending what the opponent is using.

This way it would be more "realistic" and it would still use both strength and dexterity. Of course untrained would be only using strength, and for them it would still be hard to tumble the giant.

Bull rush, overrun etc. would always use strength for CMD

I agree - STR OR DEX; not both. I am still confused as to what the authors were trying to accomplish with this process???

So it's not a typo - CMD does include STR and DEX? In addition to having a base of 10?

Ranger
Airborne
Air Assault
Pathfinder

Last posting 172d SBCT (now 1-25 SBCT) :-)

Ah ha! I new there was more than just some dirty nasty leggs out heres!

:-)

Ya got me beat; got the middle two; had to reenlist for a shot at going to #1 and chose to ETS instead

Ain't the SBCT up in Alaska?

US Army 5 Years; Light Infantry (with all the right fixins)

Nice to see some other 11 series out here though I am a bit dissapointed at the lack of light fighters and airborne...

:-)

My one idea: Change Cleave and Great Cleave back to what they were in D&D v3.5 or remove the full round requirement; one reason is that once you start getting multiple attacks the cleave feats loose their luster and become useless unless your fighting lots and lots of low AC badguys; provided the number of badguys exceeds your current number of attacks. These feats were staples of many fighters diets (including mine) previously with the "drop" rule.

Honestly: I think that one think in D&D v3.5 that looked good (not perfect) was the skills list. I like, for the most part, the current combinations that have been made but at the same time you loose some flair and flexibility; for example what about all the STR based skills? Gone. DEX is almost a necessity now for everyone. The rules in the Compelte Scoundrel was a good way to overcome combined skill checks.

So things like Perception to cover Bluff and Sense motive make sense to me other things like Acrobatics covers to much in my book - things that require "actions"; physical actions should be more granular in the rules IMO. It combines to much into one. At the very least add in a second STR based Skill such as (mentioned before above) Athletics.

I agree with everything here except Handle Animal and Ride should probably be different skills. On should have to do with how good you are with animals, and one is riding pre-trained creatures (or ones you just have trained with Handle Animal.) Anyways, you use Handle Animal on a Badger, ride on a Horse.

I've thought having Athletics and Acrobatics was a good idea for a long time, I made a post about it but the forums ate it, dunno where it went.

I agree with Handle Animal; there are more than just mounts out there. What about all those NPC's herding animals? what about rangers and wildlife?. Just because you can deal with a cow well does not mean you can ride one. Heck what about bird handlers?

There are so many threads on this I don't know where to put this!

I like the combining of skills but I'm no so
sure about eliminating the Skill Point system. The
Pathfinder System makes it essentially so that you are
maxed out in skill points in any skill you choose. So
essentially any PC on the same level as another PC
with the same Class Skill are equal except for their
ability score modifier. So in other words a Rouge with
Stealth at 1st level has a 18 DEX. Well what Rouge
does not have a maxed DEX? So every other Rouge at 1st
Level has the same exact modifiers? Same with every
other level. That is fine, I play fighters a whole
lot, but it makes Skills look a lot like Feats.

Skills - Ability Scores: The new Skill system seems to
make DEX a necessity (i.e what about all those DEX =
12/+1 fighters in full plate?) There is only one STR
related Skill; Climb. Combining the skills also means
making the "best" choice on what ability score to tie
to the new combined skill but I think its worth
talking about.

As for the concentration threads out there - I agree; it needs to be kept. It is, at least, an essential mechanic for spellcasters and those attacking spellcasters (one of my favorite hobbies when delving into combat).

The obvious options are to housefule some stuff, stay
with the "old" D&D v3.5 Skill system or just use what
Pathfinder has.

These issues certainly are not make or break for me
but I thought them worth noting for the conversation.

There are so many threads on this I don't know where to put this! So I chose this one first!

I like the combining of skills but I'm no so
sure about eliminating the Skill Point system. The
Pathfinder System makes it essentially so that you are
maxed out in skill points in any skill you choose. So
essentially any PC on the same level as another PC
with the same Class Skill are equal except for their
ability score modifier. So in other words a Rouge with
Stealth at 1st level has a 18 DEX. Well what Rouge
does not have a maxed DEX? So every other Rouge at 1st
Level has the same exact modifiers? Same with every
other level. That is fine, I play fighters a whole
lot, but it makes Skills look a lot like Feats.

Skills - Ability Scores: The new Skill system seems to
make DEX a necessity (i.e what about all those DEX =
12/+1 fighters in full plate?) There is only one STR
related Skill; Climb. Combining the skills also means
making the "best" choice on what ability score to tie
to the new combined skill but I think its worth
talking about.

As for the concentration threads out there - I agree; it needs to be kept. It is, at least, an essential mechanic for spellcasters and those attacking spellcasters (one of my favorite hobbies when delving into combat).

The obvious options are to housefule some stuff, stay
with the "old" D&D v3.5 Skill system or just use what
Pathfinder has.

These issues certainly are not make or break for me
but I thought them worth noting for the conversation.