Female Fighter

Forever Slayer's page

100 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Davor wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
I know your miles may vary but I am seeing a lot of wrong reasons to like a certain type of character. I'm seeing a lot of "choosing mathematically and in a white room" vs "what I just like to play".

Watch out, guys! It's the fun police! :P

Seriously, for some people, playing an effective character is fun. I can enjoy playing a fighter just as much as I enjoy playing a bard, because I have fun playing an RPG at the table. The truth is, though, that if I were given the choice I'd choose the a caster over a martial character every time, because having options and cool things to do all the time IS fun.

Well your reasons are wrong based on the assumption that martials don't have anything "fun" to do all the time.

Also, define "being effective" because as far as I know, all classes are effective in some shape or form.

The vibe I get out of some people is competitiveness vs other players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know your miles may vary but I am seeing a lot of wrong reasons to like a certain type of character. I'm seeing a lot of "choosing mathematically and in a white room" vs "what I just like to play".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My way has worked with various groups for 31 years now. If something isn't broke you don't need to fix it.


wraithstrike wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.
It does for me. If I feel like your are being too unreasonable I will find a new table, not so much because of the ban, but because I will know our gaming ideologies are too far apart.

And now you know my secret. I don't get my feelings hurt if you find another table.


BadBird wrote:

Personally, I think insisting that mechanical class choices must define anything more about a character than what they can do (and perhaps an explanation of how/why they can do it) is a peculiarly unimaginative way to approach what's supposed to be a supremely imaginative activity.

A multiclass Sohei/Martial can make a perfect Templar if you stop imagining feudal Japan, and just work with "warrior-monk who can flurry a sword while wearing chainmail, and is a master of mounted combat".

Why do you assume restrictions to a class lead to being unimaginative?


Neal Litherland wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.

It does change things, though. It shows that the DM is willing to communicate with players, rather than treat them like children who are expected to accept the "because I said so" approach.

A table has to be a cooperative effort, and nothing can happen if the players don't all agree to let it happen. Which is why if there is a logical reason for a ban, it hurts no one to lay that logical reason out. Even if that reason is as simple as, "for plot reasons I will not disclose right now, I don't want any players to have access to ki powers."

There doesn't always need to be anymore communication. I find that open conversation leads to arguments. If I wanted to allow something then I wouldn't have banned it in the first place. There is nothing a player is going to say that I haven't though of already. Because I want to enforce and back my restrictions has nothing to do with treating someone like a child.


When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ackbladder wrote:

I'm on the anti-bloat bandwagon, and have abandoned PF for 5E, which I find a wholly superior rules system. I'm saddened by this, as I have a lot more affection and respect for Paizo as a company than Wizards. I also really miss the quality of the Paizo AP's (their strength IMO) - Wizards' efforts have been improving with each AP, but they're still far short of the quality of most Paizo offerings.

So how does the bloat lessen my enjoyment of the game?

1) The other characters are often stupid and/or bizarre. I confess to liking a fairly standard Tolkeneqsue flavor to my role-playing. I enjoy a few flavorful steps outside those bounds when they are appropriate to a setting and really add something (ie Dark Sun). When I end up in a group with a ratfolk gunslinger, a kitsune occultist and an oread skald, I'm pretty much ready to pack it in. I understand that gonzo over-the-top fantasy really appeal to some, but I'd rather pass. Also, I've noticed a tendency for people using the latest/greatest races/classes to build to have much less of a personality, being all crunch and no fluff. Nothing says this has to be true of course - you can have a boring halfling thief or a grippli witch with an interesting and well-developed personality, but it is a trend I've noticed (or perhaps most discussions on forums focus on crunch and just leave off the personality aspects as irrelevant to the topic at hand).

2) The AP's being produced are now less usable. The last AP I subscribed for was Mummy's Mask, and I found it frustrating to even read through with the magic items from many varied books and monsters from sources I had no interest in buying (ToHC etc). Yeah, I can work around anything as a GM, but the more work it requires the more likely I am to reach a point where I'd rather just convert to 5E.

3. With each new chunk of rules released, there comes a chance of power creep and unfortunate (from a non-munchkin's POV) rules interactions. Paizo seems to have done a reasonable job of combating power creep, but it is...

You have the option of not only picking the options you want to play but the option of who you play with. If people are playing characters that are too crazy then find a different group who appeal more to what you want. I think the problem is more personal than an actual problem with the amount released.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:

I don't buy it nor do I comprehend the issue. This is a bit of a rant so I apologize ahead of time.

I've been hearing this argument far too often when the issue of Pathfinder vs 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I keep hearing the argument that Pathfinder is slowly being eaten alive by the sheer amount of books and bloat and that it is difficult for new people because of the amount. Then what is said about 5th edition is that it is so easy because of it's level of slow release. I find this argument wrong because technically you only need two books to play Pathfinder forever while you need three for D&D. You could also do just fine with the starter set for both games. Anything outside of the core books are optional. If you are a gamer then you know there are core books that you start with and if you are new to gaming then just ask someone where do you start. I don't buy this whole "I'm overwhelmed with the sheer amount of product and options."

So who's forcing people to buy all those books out there? You don't need anything outside of core to play the game so why give out and keep others from having the options they want when all you have to do is limit what you buy? Are these people compulsive buyers who can't help themselves? When I go out for dinner I don't order everything on the menu. I pick and choose what I want. I also wouldn't give out about the menu having things on it I don't like because there are others who eat there that do like it.

I also hate this attitude that Wizards seems to have bred that lots of options are bad for the game. I find this false because all Wizards/Hasbro is interested in is meeting a specific profit target. Trying to spin and justify their weak release schedule in this manner is just BS. This then spills over to Pathfinder and people spouting crap about the game is dooming itself with all the "bloat".

I'm happy Pathfinder gives me options. Do I use everything? No I do not, but I have sense enough to pick and choose what I want

...

I think the whole "because I don't want to lose my friends I have to allow everything" is a corner case bordering on myth. While there may be a crazy case where friends have blackmailed their DM, I don't think it happens enough to justify it as an argument. I have never seen a group of friends force someone to DM something they don't want to. I would say they aren't really your friends to begin with. I've had friends moan and give out but that's usually it.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
So who's forcing people to buy all those books out there? You don't need anything outside of core to play the game so why give out and keep others from having the options they want when all you have to do is limit what you buy?

The reason the production of bloat that I don't want affects me is due to opportunity cost. Paizo can't do everything - when they make a book with lots of rules options, they are devoting corporate resources they could otherwise be spending on additional campaign material, adventures, etcetera (the things I want more of than what they currently produce).

Any time some product is produced, we miss out on something else. Providing feedback in the hope of increasing our personal "hits" and decreasing our personal "misses" isn't about stopping anyone else from getting what they want - it's just an economic fact of life that if you get what you want I get less of what I want and vice versa.

I get what you are saying but it's not like Paizo hasn't put out loads of adventures already and still continue to put them out. I would agree withd your comment if it was 5th edition D&D you're talking about.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:


So who's forcing people to buy all those books out there?

Inter-party game balance, for example, in PFS.

If you're playing a chained monk for flavor, while someone else is playing a cheeze-blooded aasamar sorcerer, you've just opted to be Commissioner Gordon in the local Batman comic. This is less fun for you (since you're going to be hard pressed to find anything useful to do at the table), and also less fun for many of the players at your table, since you're basically taking up a table slot to do little or nothing.

As more and more adventures are written, they will of necessity include more and more options on the GM's part, and you may find yourself strongly disadvantaged. A simple example is "ghost salt," which is not a Core item (it was introduced, according to AoN, in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide) but provides easy/cheap access to the ghost touch weapon special ability. Suddenly, incorporeal undead are no longer a death sentence to low-level martial types. In fact, weapon blanches generally are a win for martial types as it makes golf-bagging practical before you can get a +5 weapon.

So if you restrict yourself to Core-only, you're putting yourself and your party at increased risk unless the GM is also restricting herself to Core-only.

The flip side of this is that more options == more power. Newer material makes everyone more powerful, which means newer modules need to pay attention to this new power. The witch's slumber hex takes an already bad trope (a lone boss monster) and makes it unworkable.... but also puts much of the Stolen Lands adventure path into "granny mode." Now designers need to ask themselves "how would a witch break this encounter," and they will design new encounters assuming the higher level of power.

So Pathfinder has chosen -- deliberately, in comparison with the old 3.5 model -- to strongly restrict new material. And they're not doing particularly well with it. They're doing better than...

Then run your own games at home.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing that used to bother me were the people who insisted a system was broken because of the possibility of what you "could" do using options XYZ plus a little creative reading of the rules. Kind of like the whole Pun Pun example. Not the fact that no DM in their right mind would allow it, but the fact that it was possible.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't buy it nor do I comprehend the issue. This is a bit of a rant so I apologize ahead of time.

I've been hearing this argument far too often when the issue of Pathfinder vs 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I keep hearing the argument that Pathfinder is slowly being eaten alive by the sheer amount of books and bloat and that it is difficult for new people because of the amount. Then what is said about 5th edition is that it is so easy because of it's level of slow release. I find this argument wrong because technically you only need two books to play Pathfinder forever while you need three for D&D. You could also do just fine with the starter set for both games. Anything outside of the core books are optional. If you are a gamer then you know there are core books that you start with and if you are new to gaming then just ask someone where do you start. I don't buy this whole "I'm overwhelmed with the sheer amount of product and options."

So who's forcing people to buy all those books out there? You don't need anything outside of core to play the game so why give out and keep others from having the options they want when all you have to do is limit what you buy? Are these people compulsive buyers who can't help themselves? When I go out for dinner I don't order everything on the menu. I pick and choose what I want. I also wouldn't give out about the menu having things on it I don't like because there are others who eat there that do like it.

I also hate this attitude that Wizards seems to have bred that lots of options are bad for the game. I find this false because all Wizards/Hasbro is interested in is meeting a specific profit target. Trying to spin and justify their weak release schedule in this manner is just BS. This then spills over to Pathfinder and people spouting crap about the game is dooming itself with all the "bloat".

I'm happy Pathfinder gives me options. Do I use everything? No I do not, but I have sense enough to pick and choose what I want used in my games.

I'm glad Paizo gives us a game that benefits us the fans instead of worrying about making specific profits and then trying to tell us that wanting more is bad for the game.


roysier wrote:

When it comes to an issue of Paizo losing money and has to lay off staff or come up with a 2nd edition to boost sales, I guarantee there will be a 2nd edition at some point. Its probably at least 2 years out, but 5e out sells Pathfinder in most local games stores so there will be a breaking point at some time.

Too be honest it looks to me Paizo is running out of sales ideas. The early books everyone in my game group bought, that would be 6 copies of each book, but by bestiary 4 & 5 by group had no interest, inner race guide, also no interest, the strategy guide sits as my local game store without a single copy purchased, so now my local game store only stocks 1 book instead of the before 3 books. I have only seen the Inner Sea Race Guide in 1 of the 6 games stores I frequent. The stores simply didn't stock it.

Don't forget that Pathfinder can be found on it's own website, which is where it sells most of it's products, other online outlets such as Amazon, and brick and mortar shops.

5th edition D&D is only sold on Amazon and shops. There is only one AL store in my whole country while there are tons of shops involved in Pathfinder Society.


Anything Chris Perkins has a hand in I try and stay away from as much as possible.

I can't stand the silliness and humour he brings.


He's being brought in to do something with FR lore.

Strange candidate.


R_Chance wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:


Steve Geddes wrote:


It's probably on mine, somewhere. :)

What I meant is that I wonder if they now require you to advise "in app purchases", even if it's free. As I say - I subscribed and there was no mention of a cost.

Perhaps, being more cynical, there's going to be a period of no cost so people get in the habit of checking it and then they'll introduce a nominal charge per issue "to meet costs we've been covering up until now".

I would say that the subscribe option means you will receive the mags which you will then have to pay a fee to get full access to each issue.

According to them: "Dragon+ is indeed free, and our plan is to keep it that way... Yes, the content will be free but there are ads that point to our products and partner products."

So, you get free content and advertisement for other D&D related material that does cost.

The quote is off an article on EN World about Dragon+. From WotC.

I don't see why they couldn't just resurrect the old mag format and charge a monthly fee.

I believe the free stuff is going to be limited.


Steve Geddes wrote:

It's probably on mine, somewhere. :)

What I meant is that I wonder if they now require you to advise "in app purchases", even if it's free. As I say - I subscribed and there was no mention of a cost.

Perhaps, being more cynical, there's going to be a period of no cost so people get in the habit of checking it and then they'll introduce a nominal charge per issue "to meet costs we've been covering up until now".

I would say that the subscribe option means you will receive the mags which you will then have to pay a fee to get full access to each issue.


LazarX wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Adjule wrote:

To get a D&D movie that would actually work, be good, and make Hasbro their money back and then some, would require more than Hasbro is willing to give. They would need to find a director that will do D&D justice (like what Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings), either license it out to a decent studio (or go the Marvel route and make an in-company studio), and fork over a big enough chunk of money to where it doesn't look like either a SyFy made for TV movie or something a beginner student would make.

I honestly don't think Hasbro would dare do that. Also, they need a good story. There are plenty good ones from past adventures as well as the novels. I would love to see the War of the Lance from Dragonlance done justice (not that horrendous animated travesty), but since D&D is all about the damn Forgotten Realms, I don't see that happening.

But I don't see Hasbro actually putting in the required resources to make a good D&D movie, despite them saying they want to expand the "brand" into movies and/or TV shows.

Battleship had a budget of $220 million. I don't see budget being a crucial problem here.
Keep in mind that Battleship the Game made as much or more money in one year, than the entire history of the RPG industry combined. The reason the movie drew people in is that many many more people played Battleship than roleplaying games and it had a strong nostalgia factor going for it.

I'm sure it was more of a "They made a Battleship movie? I've got to see what this is about."


Of course the introduction one is going to be free.

I could see certain things being at an actual cost, if this is actually going to be a Dragon mag. This one just looks like a big advertisement with no crunch and very little fluff.

Reminds me of a demo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

This is pretty good for a free e-magazine.

Granted, there's a lot of marketing. Nonetheless, it's hard to go past free and there's some very nice artwork. It says it offers in app purchases, though I couldn't find any yet. Maybe there'll be some pay-to-view material in later issues?

Im not a fan of the micro transaction route. I would rather pay a monthly fee and get everything in good quality.


Here:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dragonplus

Not sure what to think.


Kthulhu wrote:
The D&D movies are downright Oscar-worthy when compared to the Dragonlance abomination.

They had a hoard of great actors. What the hell happened?!


knightnday wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:

Hasbro is going to do what makes them the most money, even if it's not whats best for the actual game and that is the problem. They see less product as less money they have to spend. They have a tiny design team because it's less money they have to pay people.

Their minds are on other things besides the TTRPG but they have a bog problem with tunnel vision. They have their hearts set on making a blockbuster movie and I bet you here and now that it won't happen. They seem to believe they can repeat what Marvel has done and that idea is dead in the water I'm afraid.

Instead of focusing on everything, they tend to focus on one thing and it ain't RPGs.

I haven't seen any statements about them wanting a D&D movie (although I don't follow their every word.) And yes, they and everyone else on the planet would like to replicate Marvel's success with movies right now. That isn't much of a surprise; that said, without the clout of Disney they will probably find it as hard as everyone else.

I'm not sure I buy that Hasbro or a large corporation is the bane of RPG games. Hasbro certainly gives D&D a little more push into certain markets like Toys R Us for example (at least around here). I think that the worry that a megacorporation (is this Shadowrunesque fear of the megas here?) is going to somehow ruin the game is unfounded. I lived through all the TSR years and the WOTC years and those small companies were able to do well and do poorly by the brand over that time.

If Hasbro somehow, someway, utterly destroyed D&D as a brand tomorrow there is enough material out there to play any of the previous editions for decades if not longer.

Worry less about the evils of Hasbro and worry more about playing and having fun.

I would recommend you do a little research then.


knightnday wrote:

I don't think Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D nor do they want to. If the brand started ailing for whatever reason, they could shelve it for a few years before bringing back a retooled edition on an anniversary date to appeal to the nostalgia crowd. They seem to do this sort of thing all the time .. look at Operation, for example. It probably has ok sales, maybe around Christmas but nothing special. Then every once in a while they will release a "new" version with Doc McStuffins or Planes and it pops the sales numbers again.

I have doubts that Hasbro is twirling a mustache and demanding that D&D make material come out slowly just to stymie players. Their edicts are probably more along the lines of "Go make money and try not to screw up. Have some new products for X time period if you could." Then they go back to swimming in gold doubloons.

I would expect that their minds are on things making a little more money for them, like GI Joe, Jurassic Park (new movie coming out, get your toys now!), Star Wars (same), and so forth. I don't have any insider knowledge of this, mind you. I just know that I'd certainly pay more attention to the properties about to blow up for a movie than one of the dozens of others that are trudging along doing fine. They have people (WOTC) to worry about the day to day.

Hasbro is going to do what makes them the most money, even if it's not whats best for the actual game and that is the problem. They see less product as less money they have to spend. They have a tiny design team because it's less money they have to pay people.

Their minds are on other things besides the TTRPG but they have a bog problem with tunnel vision. They have their hearts set on making a blockbuster movie and I bet you here and now that it won't happen. They seem to believe they can repeat what Marvel has done and that idea is dead in the water I'm afraid.

Instead of focusing on everything, they tend to focus on one thing and it ain't RPGs.


The title says it all.

Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and a lot of other movies have been there done that. I remember something about that Seventh Son movie that came out. Looked very much like a D&D type of movie but it looks like it got bad reviews.

Hasbro is so focused on a movie that I believe they aren't really worried about the D&D TTRPG game itself, but what exactly could a D&D movie bring that other movies have not? I mean we already have those other god awful movies that people haven't forgotten.

Do you think they could pull off a blockbuster?


I thought it was a bit of a dickish move that they would use the Sundering to get a lot of us interested in the game only to find out absolutely nothing about it.


I believe gamers want to feel that a game is being actively supported and 5th edition just doesn't feel that way, well at least not to me.


Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
4E also did quite well, dominating the field for years, despite the nerdrage and growing competition from PF.
Yes, despite all the "We're number one!!!!" cheerleading from the Paizo Defense Force, they didn't really take that #1 slot until 4E had all but shut down production of new material. Which makes being #1 SUBSTANTIALLY less impressive.

I only saw 4th edition being number 1 on IcV2 which doesn't say a whole lot to be honest. Paizo has it's own online store and sells PDF's. 4th edition did not so it's only common sense that they would sell more books in stores.


The more responses I see, the more it shows that if you enjoy the D&D TTRPG and you want to see it supported with more product then it would be better off with a smaller company.


captain yesterday wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

You think Hasbro know about making RPGs?

I'm a little confused as to what your point is (other than being disappointed they're releasing expansions so slowly - which is probably WotC's decision, based on their recent experiences making RPGs, rather than anything mandated by hasbro).

What makes you think Hasbro aren't calling the shots this time?

It's already been stated that building the brand through movies, video games, mugs, tshirts,etc is what's important. That sounds more in line with how Hasbro thinks and not WoTc.

yeah certainly a small company like Paizo has no interest in expanding into video games or T-shirts or adorably cute plush goblins so why would WotC :-) that's all basics of brand building, like taught in elementary school basics :-)

Certainly WotC didn't need Hasbro to tell them to do that :-)

Thing is, Paizo has shown they can do all this and still keep Pathfinder in the spotlight with no slowing down.

Wizards can't seem to grasp that concept.


Steve Geddes wrote:

You think Hasbro know about making RPGs?

I'm a little confused as to what your point is (other than being disappointed they're releasing expansions so slowly - which is probably WotC's decision, based on their recent experiences making RPGs, rather than anything mandated by hasbro).

What makes you think Hasbro aren't calling the shots this time?

It's already been stated that building the brand through movies, video games, mugs, tshirts,etc is what's important. That sounds more in line with how Hasbro thinks and not WoTc.


Pan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Pan wrote:
Who cares about D&D as long as alternatives that are just as good are around? I mean I had no problem jumping to Pathfinder when they rolled it out since D&D at the time wasn't what I wanted to play.

I want the brand name to survive. The better known it is and the more likelihood there is of mainstream possibilities, the easier it is to raise serious capital (for movies, novel franchises, television shows, computer games or anything else).

I may not care about any of those things, but the more capital coming into the industry, the easier it is for people to carve out a career. The more fringe-y it gets, the more we have to continue to rely on part-timers and creative types doing us the favor of working for peanuts.

Yeah I have zero fear the brand will go away. I mean Atari is still a thing and its history is much worse than D&Ds. Some brands will never die. I don't think a strong TTRPG is necessary for a strong brand. I could have made my point much better I guess. Who cares if the D&D TTRPG sucks or diminishes into a poorly supported game as long as they pump the brand. The alternatives will benefit from it like you pointed out with additional career launching and a community interested in TTRPGs that dont suck.

*Please note I dont think 5E sucks, but even if I did I wouldn't be worried about D&D.

But you see, I care about the TTRPG and couldn't give a rats arse about the brand. I don't think they are going to have a blockbuster movie, nor do I think D&D is going to become this world wide fad. They really should stick with what they know and that's making RPG's.


Hitdice wrote:
I don't really think D&D even can have downfall at this point; D&D might be no more popular than cribbage in the next century, but at least D&D has named the genre, if you see what I mean. Let me say, I'd love to see a world where the public recognized "polyhedral dice games" the same way they do "card games," but at this point I feel like it's D&D vs "Things Normal People Do."

That is exactly why D&D needs to be away from Hasbro. There are companies out there who cater to the TTRPG crowd and don't care about reaching the general public.

I am very happy with the 5th edition ruleset, I am not happy with their s@#!e release schedule.


Ron Lundeen wrote:

On the most recent earning's call, Hasbro's CEO acknowledged that its games were overall on an upswing, and singled out Dungeons and Dragons in particular as doing well.

In all, D&D sales probably contribute an amount not much more than a balance sheet rounding error to Hasbro, but the CEO calling it out seems a good sign for the game.

It's a brand new edition what did he expect? All the new editions of D&D come flying out of the gates and 5th edition is no different.


I'm not here to blame anyone for the sale. I am discussing the destructive force behind a megacorporation when it gets it's hands on something they think they can turn into a mega money maker. The problem with companies like Hasbro is they are trapped in the ever increasing profit treadmill. Profit isn't enough to companies like these, they have to maximize their profits because of shareholders. I believe Hasbro will strip D&D of the name and let the rest just fade away.

I would rather see D&D progress for years to come without trying to make mega profits. I mean look at GURPS or Shadowrun, or even World of Darkness, while not mega brand names, the game keeps going with that being their primary goal. That is what works for me. Not this bare bones of a joke schedule we get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Big corporations are the bane of RPG's and Hasbro is no exception.

I believe D&D would be better off in the hands of a smaller company who does not see D&D as a mega money maker but as a table top game that may not earn you billions, will earn you a nice profit while giving gamers the game they want. I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would break that antique piggy bank in order to get to the money inside. I could see them getting frustrated because D&D didn't meet their crazy goals and shelving it.

What get's me is a company like Hasbro and WoTC can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time.


Who cares to be honest?

What kind of outcome are you people hoping to get out of this?

People in "real life" Pathfinder games still play Fighters, have fun playing them and contribute nicely.


I think the DMG will be the real test when it comes out.


With regards to the dragon scenario.

Time is something a dragon doesn't worry about. He would not just gobble up the sister right away. He would more than likely take his time and not really worry about any outside intrusions. Remember, dragons are arrogant and live for a long time, there will he plenty of time to become that hero and go save her.


Well we all know the basic rules for D&D 5th edition are free for download. If you've read over them, what do you think?

Does it seem like a game you are going to play?


I actually like the Swashbuckler in the SRD.


Lemmy wrote:
Frerezar wrote:
I think there is a difference between making a fort save and having a good fort progression. Thematicaly, for some people at least, giving the SB a good fort save just does not seem right, so finding a way to permanently boost their fort or will save through either luck, self confidense, nacicism, obliviousnes, etc without giing hem a different fort or will progression would make everyone happy.

I'd disagree with the notion that good Fort doesn't fit the class theme. Like I said, they are the kind of guys that would deal with poisoned daggers and alcohol drinking on a daily basis, so it makes sense that they'd naturally grow used to resisting them. But that's beside the point...

Alcohol SRD: Just like drugs, alcohol can be abused and have significant negative effects. In general, a character can consume a number of alcoholic beverages equal to 1 plus double his Constitution modifier before being sickened for 1 hour equal to the number of drinks above this maximum. Particularly exotic or strong forms of alcohol might be treated as normal drugs. Those who regularly abuse alcohol might eventually develop a moderate addiction.

Where have Swashbucklers been associated with dealing with poisoned daggers? If you want that then take Great Fortitude, up your Con, a trait that gives you a bonus on saves vs poison, a feat, and maybe a magic item.


Lemmy wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
Who said anything about needing them to do your job?

Dunno about you, but being able to make your saving throws is always a big deal in my games. Past 8th level or so, Fort and Will saves are way too common and way too dangerous.

So easily being paralyzed or poisoned does stop the SB from doing his job.

Death stops everyone from doing their jobs, should we just make everyone immortal? You aren't always going to be 100% effective, that's the way the game works.

Forever Slayer wrote:

This is why I think people on these boards just don't get it. Your DM is not going to spam Charm effects at you because you have a low Will save and not having the best Will save does not mean you are going to auto fail your save. All classes have weaknesses so I wouldn't waste any more breath trying to convince the devs they need to change this.

The GM doesn't need to spam anything. Casters and monsters that force SoL saves are a very, very common threat. They won't stop using their abilities just because my SB has weak saves.
What creatures are used isn't broken down into being common across the board. Different DM's use different monsters at different times. You apparently want a class designed around your DM's games.
Forever Slayer wrote:
So you have to take Great Fortitude, a trait that gives you a +1 on Fort, and possibly a magic item that grants a bonus to Fort saves, that is just the name of the game.
Why not play a commoner, then? Wall that means is that you have to take Weapon Focus, a trait that boosts your saves and maybe a magic weapon that increases your accuracy and damage, that's just the name of the game.

Then how you just go and play a commoner then and be done with it? Exaggerate much?

Forever Slayer wrote:

Sorry that you won't be able to increase your DPR.

Condescending much? Who is talking about DPR? Wanting a class to be effective at its given role is not the same as wanting them to be overpowered.

Hell, check out the SB playtest threads! You'll notice I argued for Swashbucklers to lose their bonus damage in favor of more flavorful class features and mobility.

Well you are the one giving out about a low Fort save prevents your class from doing it's job. You have been told to increase your Fort save using stats, traits, feats, and items but of course what you want to be able to do is focus your attention more on DPR, AC, and a few other areas. You want a class that is designed to where you can focus more on combat. You might as well play a dex based fighter who uses a rapier and wears fancy clothes.


Lemmy wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
Why can't you just concede that some of us find our builds to be fun? If you don't think it's a fun build then that's your feelings, but don't sit there and say you doubt it's a fun build to play. Now if you said I doubt it's a fun build to play for me but you didn't.

Dude... Chill.

I'm not saying the build is not fun. In fact, I specifically said I don't doubt it's a fun build to play. I didn't doubt its effectiveness either. All I said is that it's not particularly creative or interesting to read.

Stop taking it as a personal attack. Read the thread, I've said similar stuff to other posters as well, including some with whom I'm currently playing on two different games.

It's not an attack against you, just my views on one specific build.

No worries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
So that's when the group actually works as a team and buff the Knight's areas he has a problem with.

trusting your friends to help you is very, very different than completely depending on them for you to be able to do your job.

Forever Slayer wrote:
Sorry but when has being a combat class auto assume you have all good saves? You will just have to bite the bullet and move away from other areas of your build and focus on enhancing your weaknesses, or maybe have your team actually work together and they give you some of the proper buffs to help against your weak points.
Who said anything about having all good saves?

Who said anything about needing them to do your job?

This is why I think people on these boards just don't get it. Your DM is not going to spam Charm effects at you because you have a low Will save and not having the best Will save does not mean you are going to auto fail your save. All classes have weaknesses so I wouldn't waste any more breath trying to convince the devs they need to change this.

If you fail a save vs an effect then that's just the name of the game. It's been happening for over 35 years now and will see no signs of stopping. The game is not all about succeeding. Failing at something doesn't mean you are a complete failure and your class is somehow flawed.

So you have to take Great Fortitude, a trait that gives you a +1 on Fort, and possibly a magic item that grants a bonus to Fort saves, that is just the name of the game. Sorry that you won't be able to increase your DPR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

The problem here is that classes must be fun to play, and in order for that to happen, they must be effective enough to fulfill their role relatively well. If mechanics didn't matter, we could grab a Warrior, give him Weapon Finesse, name it Swashbuckler and call it a day.

Having both bad Will and bad Fort progression means Swashbucklers easily fail at their role as a martial class. Charmed Life only works a few times a day and costs a immediate action, stopping Swashies from using one of their iconic class features.

I'm all for flavorful classes, but flavor won't matter if the character is easily neutralized. How can I enjoy the flavor of my dexterous combatant character when any schmuck with a poisoned dagger or low-level spell can take me out of the fight? (Notice how literally every single full BAB class has good Fort save. (Including not only both of the Swashbuckler's parent classes, but even Warriors!)

Playtest Swashbucklers are less resilient than you average militia guard!

And Swashbucklers are a combat focused class! All of their class features are directly related to combat.

Sorry but when has being a combat class auto assume you have all good saves? You will just have to bite the bullet and move away from other areas of your build and focus on enhancing your weaknesses, or maybe have your team actually work together and they give you some of the proper buffs to help against your weak points.

Maybe the designers don't want this class to have a good Fort save because it doesn't go with their image of a swashbuckler. They are an agile class who uses parry, dodge, tricks, luck, and acrobatics to avoid damage. They have never been depicted as hardy warriors.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:

Here is the problem I'm seeing. D&D has always been a team game where every character helped each other to cover any weaknesses. Couldn't fly, well the Wizard made you fly. Needed a boost in an ability, one of the spellcasters gives you a buff. Some people are trying their best t9 make classes self sufficient, almost like it's a shame to ask help from others or god forbid you have to divert options to cover the weakness.

Some people are just looking to have a class set up where they can totally optimize it.

Strong Fort and Will don't fit the Swashbuckler concept.

I think the problem people see is that without a strong save in one of the two, the swashbuckler is going to have trouble covering the weaknesses of the non-full BAB characters. Back in 3.5 my group had a player try the old Knight class out, and despite being able to dictate that enemies pay attention to him rather than the softer people, he never could do it for very long (despite the d12 hit die) before he was stopped by a failed fortitude save.

So that's when the group actually works as a team and buff the Knight's areas he has a problem with.


Here is a monk build I have been working on. He doesn't do a lot of damage but he likes to Grapple spellcasters.

Paladin 4 / Qinggong Monk 7 Aasimar.

Str: 12 Dex: 22 Con: 13 Int: 8 Wis: 14 Cha: 16

AC: 26 (29 with Barkskin) (33 with Ki Dodge) (Extra + 3 deflection from Smite Evil)

HP: 4d10 + 7d8 + 11 Initiative: + 6

Traits: Heavy Hitter & Honoured Fist of the Society.

Movement: 50ft land (Fly 50ft)

Saving Throws: Fortitude: + 16 Reflex: + 18 Will: + 18

Feats: Weapon Finesse (Unarmed Strike), Pirahna Strike (Unarmed Strike), Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Agile Maneuvers, Angelic Blood, Angel Wings.

Paladin: Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil: 2/day, Divine Grace, Lay on Hands 2d6 5/day, Aura of Courage, Divine Health, Mercy, Channel Positive Energy, Spells: Hero’s Defiance.

Monk abilities: Ki Pool (8), Evasion, Stunning Fist (Fort save DC 15 8/day), Still Mind, Purity of Body.

Monk bonus feats: Dodge, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip.

Qinggong Monk: True Strike, Barkskin, Spring Attack.

Aasimar Racial: Darkvision 60ft, Daylight 1/day, Acid = Cold = Electricity Resist: 5.

Skills: Acrobatics: + 15, Fly: + 15, Perception: + 13, Escape Artist: + 15, Diplomacy: + 12, Intimidate: + 12.

Gear = Monk’s Robe, Belt of Incredible Dex + 4, + 3 brawling Bracers of Armour, Cloak of Resistance + 3, Ring of Ki Mastery, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, Amulet of Mighty Fists + 1.

CMB: + 17 CMB to Grapple: + 21 CMB to Trip: + 19

CMD: 28 CMD vs Grapple: 30 CMD vs Trip: 30

Unarmed Strike: Flurry (+ 20 / + 20 / + 15) 2d6 + 5

Unarmed Strike: Flurry with Smite Evil (+ 23 / + 23 / + 18) 2d6 + 5 + 4

When using Piranha Strike: (+ 21 / + 21 / + 16) 2d6 + 5 + 4 + 4


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is the problem I'm seeing. D&D has always been a team game where every character helped each other to cover any weaknesses. Couldn't fly, well the Wizard made you fly. Needed a boost in an ability, one of the spellcasters gives you a buff. Some people are trying their best t9 make classes self sufficient, almost like it's a shame to ask help from others or god forbid you have to divert options to cover the weakness.

Some people are just looking to have a class set up where they can totally optimize it.

Strong Fort and Will don't fit the Swashbuckler concept.

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>