Furious Kender's page

Organized Play Member. 700 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 700 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Muser wrote:

When your 13th lvl Seeker is able to routinely end freaking gorilla liches, some paltry 5 percent increase in accuracy you missed back on level 1 doesn't really bother anymore. Yeah, going from +4 1d10+4 to +5 d+6 is banging at first, it quickly loses its luster.

The smallest possible increase in to hit on a single attack is 5.6%, which represents hitting on a 2 instead of a 3. Even then, it would give a 7.7% increase on your second attack (hitting on a 7 instead of an 8), and a 12.5% increased number of hits on your third attack (hitting on a 12 instead of an 13).

In short, your level 13 character is getting at least 8.6% increased hits on a full attack.

My only assumption is that the +1 to hit increases the to hit probabilities on all attacks. I.e., no hitting on a 2 or only on a 20.

Paizo has aimed at discouraging the taking of prestige classes, so I doubt most people have seen more than a few in play.

Also, you can be a Lion Blade or a Hellknight without the prestige class through prestige points. So even if you've seen a hellknight or whatnot, they might not have the prestige class.

For example, I saw a Hellknight in play. Whether they had the class, I have no idea.

thejeff wrote:
]Of course that quickly segues into the lack of difference between Spot and Search in PF and exactly how long does a search take?

Spot and Search was D&D. Happily pathfinder eliminated the distinction.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Broken GM wrote:

A very good point Jiggy and Nosig raise there, I admit I have never thought of it from that perspective and thank you for illuminating it for me.

Maybe something like asking for bullet points would be an acceptable compromise? Something like asking for the tone? Do you flirt, do you use reason, do you flatter, etc.?

In my experience, when running for someone who doesn't roleplay for whatever reason, you can ask what they are trying to accomplish and through what manner.

In other words, I ask "What are you trying to use diplomacy to do?"
Player: "I am trying to convince the guard to let us past"
Me: "Are you using any strategy, like flirting, blackmail, or your knowledge of the area"
Player: "I will flirt"
Me: "Your charisma is..."
Player: "It's an 18"
Me: "Ok, roll diplomacy"

I then have all the information I need to respond in character on the NPC's behalf and the player doesn't need to act it out.

I've only seen this approach fail maybe once, and that was because the person was clueless, not because they were shy. That guy just kept repeating, "I am trying to make a diplomacy check, you know, a diplomacy check" to every one of my followup questions.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I always ask people to describe their characters, such as what they look like etc, so I can have NPCs react to them appropriately. So after 1-2 players describe how their characters look and act, commonly someone says "I'm a level 5 cleric" or whatever class and then turns to the next player to hear their character description.

Getting some players to describe basic things about their character can be like pulling teeth. When players, after hearing other players give descriptions, still don't get what they need to do, I have learned to ask specific things like, "so what type of armor are you wearing. What race are you. Do you have an obvious accent or culture?"

nosig wrote:

3) Telling another player at my table: "you can't take 10 on (insert skill here), you have a chance of failure/takes 10 times as long/can't on Knowledge skills/one of a hundred other reasons"

FYI, almost all of this is from D&D and didn't get ported into pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another aside, over a year ago I was a GM running at a play day I helped organize. I saw a new PFS player with a Flurry of Maneuvers monk in spiked armor and shield, who had played that character until level 2-3. The character wasn't at all overpowered, but I told them that I didn't think this combination worked, and at best he was going to get table variation.

I never saw him again. I've seen this play out over and over again with different rules. From what I've seen, around 50% of new players who experience rules arguments involving the first character they are attached to simply leave PFS.

Ambiguity hurts. Even in home campaigns, I've just seen it add drama that didn't need to be there.

Andrew Christian wrote:

In this case, the precedent of how Monks have always worked, tells me that trying to argue RAW is abusing RAW, rather than simply adhering to it.

Monks cannot abuse RAW. RAW abuses them.

With that said, Paizo has frequently left poorly worded and ambiguous rules in the system. This is only one example of them doing so.

Judging intent is always a guessing game until the author and editors weigh in, who don't always agree. With that said, I've seen GMs argue intent even in the face of FAQ print outs stating which interpretation is correct.

With that said, I always thought that RAI monks should be cool and effective. I've seen Paizo staff say that monks are indeed cool and effective. So doesn't that mean that monks actually should be cool and effective?

Andrew Christian wrote:

It wasn't the disagreements I had issue with. It was when folks straight out said, "you are saying x, and x is ludicrous," when I never said x. They were extrapolating meaning from what I said that was never there. I hate the use of logical fallacy on the boards, because most posters who accuse others of them, do so incorrectly. But those were definitely straw man arguments.

You'll find plenty of discussions I've had where when I've felt misrepresented the other posters and I have been able to reconcile it. They still disagreed with me, but they understood what I was actually saying.

As an aside, I had the exact same reaction as Jiggy to what you originally wrote. I also didn't see much ambiguity in what you originally wrote.

Thus, if you feel you are getting misunderstood frequently, you may find it beneficial to try to state your beliefs more plainly.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wraith 235 wrote:
PFS Runs by RAW not RAI no matter how much people want to bicker about it

Yeaaaah. no. Waaaay too much insanity down that path.

My familiar lands on the bad guys head. Makes a dc 10 ride check to guide his new mount off a cliff.

Actually that doesn't work because a character cannot have both a mount and a familiar.

Muser wrote:
Their shtick isn't limited by slots or rounds per day, it goes great with exploration since Perception is always important and, unlike the rest of the party, Rogues still have skill ranks left after maxing a few key ones.

Perception is the most important skill in the game. So if the rogue is the only one with ranks in it in the party, you're simply not playing with a decent party.

As a PFS GM, many a rogue has nearly died at my tables from failing perception checks. In my experience, rogues tend to have moderate to lowish perception, except perhaps against traps. It's not uncommon for them to dump wisdom, as they have no more need of wisdom than a fighter does and getting perception as a class skill from traits is pretty common for all classes.

Zach Williams wrote:

The downside to easy retrains is that players can easily and quickly refeat, or modify their character to fit a scenario or party. This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all.

So how does banning stuff and errata on stuff fit with roleplaying, etc?

"Oh look, that neat trick I did must have been magic because I cannot do it anymore....."

LazarX wrote:
Azten wrote:
Just seems like an extreme reaction. You still get a stronger than normal animal companion, something Druids can't get.
For some that's not enough. These folks will be those who took Asimar oracles for NO OTHER REASON than to face roll encounters with a Supermax Dire Tiger. They'll be the ones screaming bloody murder over what for any reasonable player is merely a sane adjustment.

FYI, asimar nature oracles can have a horse or camel. Have you ever seen a horse or camel wreck a scenario?

Why don't you bother to look up the rules before putting down others?

Stealth doesn't work a good portion of the time. When I've used creative stealth, GMs tend to reward it, but the party gets angry.

I've learned not to do it.

Azten wrote:
Just seems like an extreme reaction. You still get a stronger than normal animal companion, something Druids can't get.

Nature oracles could get a really nice horse or camel. It was not even in the same ballpark as an optimized druid companion.

Now nature oracles pretty much can get a horse....

CAndrew Wilson wrote:

Overall, players need to be trusted to understand that they are part of a collection of people trying to enjoy a game. CN however is an exclusionary, highly individualist, alignment that tends not to encourage characters who are "team players". Ergo, this is why CN behavior can be difficult to deal with. This was what the original post was responding to (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qlgl&page=5?Why-does-PFS-punish-the-good# 242).

There is a decent argument to be made that Han Solo was CN,at least at the beginning of the story.

The problem is that some players like to trend toward "Being a Jerk," which lowers everyone's fun. It's not the alignment that is an issue.

Matthew Morris wrote:

Well Chaotic might be a bit much, they do have their own workflow, and have in the past, used diplomacy to legally access things.

I look at Warehouse 13, where they do things outside of the law, and hide their identity and affiliation and the like. Not good, but more neutral. (The warehouse also seems to be Pathfinder like in holding artifacts that are both good and evil. The Teslas don't seem to have downsides, and Claudia has built mini-Teslas, Tesla grenades and her own Farnsworth, but the US doesn't seem to be interested in mass producing them)

One difference is the Warehouse seems to take the long view, like with the episode where Claudia and Mrs. Fredrick saw the creation of an artifact and she said they wouldn't go after it until the creator/bearer died. Another big difference seems to be the Warehouse works with the host nation's government in a way the Society wouldn't ever want to.

Warehouse is CG. They don't kill, if they can prevent it at all. They flaunt laws, but they do what they do to protect people from harm.

Pathfinders do what they do for reasons that aren't entirely clear, but at least some of it is desire for power.

DM Beckett wrote:

There is also the issue that while the organization itself might be Neutral, that says very little about anything. The church of Abadar, for example, is LN, but also one of the stronger sources of paladins in the setting.

I believe there are also hellknight paladins in the setting.

Sniggevert wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
Will that include Crane Riposte, or will we have to use retraining rules for the last piece of the feat chain? This smarts though, Crane Wing helped my swashbuckler rogue keep up with others in combat.
By rule, it is just the feat that changed. You can query Mike for an exception if you like.
Of course, if you use this to retrain out of Crane Wing, Crane Riposte becomes an illegal feat for the character and would have to be "fixed" before play. Normally fixes for illegality is done w/out penalty.
That's for mistakes or changes to legality. Changing Crane Wing us optional, and as such making the change to crane riposte would not fall under the same auspices.

Obviously we read it differently.

Removing Crane Wing as a feat from a character is now a legal option, as the feat changed.

This may result in the character now having a feat that they are no longer legally permitted to have. As such, it would fall under "change to legality" in my reading.

As Mark pointed out this may not always be the case, and if Crane Riposte is still legal for the character they have no option to retrain it outside of Ult Campaign method.

I have no dog in this fight, as it were, as my only character with Crane Style only has Crane Wing and can retrain it regardless. I just think this would be a bad precedent to set, as changing this feat does change the effects of the other and may remove a character from play without the player purchasing an additional resource to possibly change their character to make them legal again.

I see no ambiguity in what Mark said. If the feat changed, you can retrain it or keep the new version. As there was no paid retraining at that point, I assume it would be retraining for free just like the synthesist.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:

Showing Neutrality? Most nations are neutral, so being a fairly normal Taldoran, Osirion, or Qadiran would all be showing neutrality.

Thats not the same. You can have a Lawful Good Taldan Noble that takes noblesse obligee to heart, a chaotic neutral Osirion tomb raider that doesn't look for traps so much as enjoy running over them or a nit picking contracts obssessed LN Qadiran. Most nations have some qualities at least that can be slanted a few different ways.

Of course, you could also have Nagaji paladins from these factions, but it doesn't change the fact that fairly normal people following these factions would tend toward neutrality on the Good versus Evil axis. I don't mean true neutral, but N, CN, or LN.

Noblesse oblige is a post-revolutionary French concept, and would probably be considered non-lawful in such a traditional and feudal state as Taldor. It sounds like a NG or even CG concept to me, for Taldor at least. If you made this coming from religious devotion then I could see the LG.

But then again, these factions are diverse. Sarenrae is a NG god that forbids slavery, and Qadira is a N faction that enslaves heavily.

With that said, I've seen many neutral Qadiran/Osirion/Taldoran characters being threatened by GMs at one time or another with being evil for acting in accordance with their laws....or even pointing out what the laws of the country actually are. Amusingly, these disputes tend to be resolved through executing humanoid prisoners or handing them over to lawful authorities who then execute or enslave them. Once though, I did once have to violate VC orders and let enemy guards recapture a landmark in the tapestry to keep from being hit with the evil label by a GM. I don't think we killed anyone during combat in that scenario, so we literally beat them up and then went home, leaving them with the landmark. But we kept from being evil, so I guess that was a win for the Society!

I actually think it's harder to play neutral in society, as many people see neutral as a lack of good and evil, not a mixture of the two.

thistledown wrote:
I think they could do some balancing of things a bit by including a boon some time that if yiu accept it pushes your character a step towards good. Would be a start.

That would be nice. We do enough heroic things that it seems fitting.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The problem with showing neutrality is that it looks like your character just don't give a damn about the other characters you're interacting with, which looks an awful lot like the players that don't give a damn about the npcs.

Showing Neutrality? Most nations are neutral, so being a fairly normal Taldoran, Osirion, or Qadiran would all be showing neutrality.

As a specific named item, I don't think you can upgrade Elven Chain in PFS. I think you would need mithral chainmail to upgrade it.

Honestly, in PFS I don't know why you would ever buy Elven chain, as a +2 mithral chain shirt and mithral chainmail both have the same cost and armor.

Mike Franke wrote:

The best answer is that the PFS is not a good organizaiton. Why no evil then, because evil is not trustworthy so no organization that is not wholly evil wants evil members as they can not be trusted. However, in a certain sense good members can not be trusted either as their morals would likely trump loyalty to the organization.

You are confusing evil with chaotic. Chaotic people cannot be trusted. Lawful evil can be trusted to honor their oaths. They will do whatever it takes to do so.

Hence, the reason that many of the good gods work with Asmodeous. They might not invite Asmodeous to parties, but he's a nice ally during tough times.

Truthfully, the society itself would have no problems with LE characters, which is why there is a Cheliax faction. It's player aversion to playing with evil characters that created the ban. You know, LE characters may not be family friendly and all.

Cao Phen wrote:
Ah, you are correct on just leaving the Full Plate as is for +0 and +1. As for +2 to +3, you can look to the Eastern Counterparts, the Tatami-do and O-yoroi. They both have an Armor Class equivalence of +10, but thier DEX are both at a higher base (7/D+3 and 8/D+2, respectively)

Yes, which means that your flat footed ac is lower, which comes into play frequently. Touch ac simply doesn't matter unless you're a dex build when it comes into play around level 5 as everything is going to hit on a 2 anyway.

Cao Phen wrote:

Taking a look at what ways you can maximize how you can save your behind from the big bad goblin that seems to always hit you, I took the time to see what ways can a person can maximize their AC (Armor) in contrast to the amount they have in their Dexterity Modifier (DEX).

Mithral plate is only ahead of normal plate when you get a +3 or +4 dex modifier. The 9000 additional cost is simply too high to justify it for like a +2 dex modifier. Plus, you won't be able to afford it until fairly high level, so you will most likely be buying plate twice.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by 'fragile'. Glorymane is a +2 heavy shield. Maybe not something for a dedicated shield fighter who would want upgrades, but certainly handy for a character that wants the option.

I was reading the bronze entry, which gives the shield the fragile property . However, I missed that the fragile entry has an apparent disclaimer that fragile magic shields like Glorymane don't break when crit like other fragile armors do.

I played this and it was fun. However, I had serious misgivings about the magical item found in it.

Namely, it's a fragile shield that cannot be upgraded. Nor can it be afforded by any character before level 7 or so, if they save all their money for the fragile shield.

I guess I just don't see the point of the item, other than simply a role playing tool for characters to keep in their backpack when they are much higher level.

Jiggy wrote:
Gisher wrote:
and a favored class bonus of one extra spell known would more than cancel out the crossblooded penalty to number of spells known.
Not really; the biggest downside to crossblooded is that you get your new spell levels later, and the human FCB doesn't change that at all, since you can only select a new spell at least a level lower than your highest slot.

Yeah, crossblooded sorcs get second level spells at level 5, which is painful. They're pretty much moving at theurge pace.

Sammy T wrote:

Any actual in-game experiences and thoughts about them so far in organized play?

I'm running a Heavens Shaman which I was digging 100% until they changed the spell list to the Druid Spell list. Otherwise, other than making sure my GM knows my key gimmicks (Heaven's Leap, Enveloping Void, I basically have two oracle-like 'mysteries' and the second is swappable), I haven't had any trouble.

I did one online game with all ACG classes and another with @redward's investigator, but otherwise haven't seen them at my FLGS gamenight.

Brad was playing a swashbuckler the other day. It was level 1 before they improved level 1 swashbucklers, so the class sucked. He was pretty stoked about its future though.

Because you cannot rebuild, I have avoided them in PFS so that I know what I'm getting when I start. I've stopped playing too many characters for one reason or another to jump in blindly at this point.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
The other day, one of my players said something along the lines of, "Nobody's using their GM-star replays, because they're per lifetime rather than per season, so they want to save them for just the right moment--I'm not sure they're ever going to get used."

I haven't used mine yet. I was saving them for the "perfect moment" or when I had nothing else to do other than replay a scenario.

It should be per year in my opinion.

CWheezy wrote:

I actually took lucky instead, I think a reroll is better than a slightly lower chance.

My gunslinger fires a lot of shots, and he misfires quite often. No gm ever remembers a misfire where I can't do anything for almost 2 rounds, but they always remember my full rounding a big tough monster :/

I think that is because melee types have rounds where they cannot make most of their attacks each and every combat. Namely, any round where they have to move more than 5 feet.

The power of gunslingers lies in:
1) ranged combat being the best type of combat rules wise
2) best ranged weapons, i.e., double barreled anythings
3) touch attacks meaning that you get more accurate and monsters get easier to hit as you level.
4) reloading as a free action becomes trivial after the first few levels
5) misfires can be easily negated

In short, gunslingers have all the pieces to be complete monsters with relative ease. Put two of the them on the same team and you pretty much don't need the rest of the party.

Finlanderboy wrote:
  Being snide and using a PC ignorance of the rules against them is debatable. Forcing them to waste their actions when you tell them they can is a jerk move.

I was a jerk because I let a PC use a steal maneuver to steal a NPCs holy symbol? Wow...

It is not my responsibility to predict a players intentions and preemptively explain possible implications of doing something in game.

This reminds me of the time that time I had an player who grappled a monster and then got upset when he ate a full attack on his turn, nearly killing him, because he thought it would keep them from making full attacks.

Finlanderboy wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Sunder item

f) I've had GM's say "yes" when I ask if I confirm, then ask for damage, then do nothing. This usually happens when the scenarios put Clerics/Druids/Wizards in a Scenario without a Spell Component pouch or a Holy symbol written on the sheet. The fact that they need those to cast spells or channel and don't have Eschew Materials or Tattoo holy symbols doesn't seem to phase them. So they continue to use it despite if it existed it is destroyed.
If this happened to me I would get up and walk away from the table. The choice to do that and watse your turn is a debilerate jerk move and does not deserve an explantion as to why you are leaving.

I had a player sunder a spell component pouch. I then had to spend a few minutes looking up what spells were effected. The player then got upset because the caster had some spells without components and thus his turn was wasted. I had another player that stole a cleric holy symbol and therefore thought they could not cast any spells. He also got upset until he realized I was right.

In short, don't assume it's the GM's error or that they are being a jerk.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
So unlikely that is far more likely Lindsay Lohan will be playing Seoni in the Pathfinder Movie.

Well as long as it's a C list movie, I can see it.

Mystic Lemur wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
Well, I hope they answer this soon.
I'd rather they took the time to answer it carefully. Knee-jerk reactions cause confusion when they're implemented and more when they're reversed.

The FAQ came out in early October. Threads started appearing soon after. We are well past the "knee-jerk" phase.

Well, I hope they answer this soon.

I have no idea how many sessions I've played, but on my 10+ characters, I can think of two items I've ever bought off a chronicle sheet. Both of these items I needed to GM to get on the right character.

The items tend to be non-interesting, which is at least part of the reason why a +1 keen longbow on a cert got a "please ban" thread.

Some of the boons can be interesting, but the item selection typically ranges from poor to terrible. The rare items that are good, tend to be very specific to a build, so chances are that only GMs can take advantage of those rare few.

LazarX wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Who'd have thought that such a simple thing as keen would create such an uproar?

It really doesn't take much to cause an uproar in these parts.

Apparently suspension of disbelief is difficult for gamers.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
I just ran for a competently played level 1 swashbuckler in PFS. He played it well, but he was fairly pathetic due to his inability to do any damage relative to virtually anyone else in the party. I think the level 1 barb did more damage in one round than he did all scenario.
Despite the fact that I'm probably one of the main people saying that we need to be VERY careful about mid-to-high-level swashbucklers' combat prowess, I am in complete agreement that the class starts pretty slow off the gate, and unlike dervish magus, it can't just pretend it's a wizard for a little while either. It's a problem that the swashbuckler shares with several other classes and archetypes (zen archer is a good example, since they probably want 13 Dex and no more, but they don't use Wis to hit until level 3), but it will be tough to remedy it without making the class very dippable. There may not be a good solution, but I'm interested in thinking one up. Have any ideas?

The swashbuckler damage bonus doesn't counter the weak combat style until quite a few levels into the class. As is, Dervish Dance could come online at level 3. So giving the class a damage bonus fairly soon wouldn't make things out of whack.

I think it could be fun to have a level 1 or 2 panache power that gives a damage boost against an opponent if the swashbuckler is missed by them previously in the round. It could easily mirror two handed power attack for that matter while giving some nice flavor. Call it "Dashing Retort" or something.

Or you could make it a defender sort of thing and give the enemy who missed a -2 to hit other party members until they hit the swashbuckler. Both feel like a swashbuckler thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
ubiquitous wrote:

Let's put it this way:

Dex to damage ALREADY EXISTS in the game.

(Dervish Dance. Agile enchantment. The second isn't core, but is certainly in PFS, and a lot of people play PFS)

Are the classes that use Dex to Damage broken/overrunning the game?


What more is there to say?

Dervish Dance actually is overrunning PFS for all classes and archetypes that need to use one hand, such as magus, and if you search the PFS boards, you will find that some GMs dislike having these super-high-AC super-high-damage magi at their tables due to power reasons (I'm not one of them, but I've seen others post to that effect). One time recently there was a magus who used something other than a scimitar, and people were very surprised.

I am one of those GMs who hate those builds, but only because every one of them is effectively the same scimitar+shocking grasp build. It's like they're playing an iconic, and just changing the name. In PFS, unless some change happens, I expect the swashbuckler to have the same mind numbing sameness. Oh, and if the magus in PFS, which is always a Dervish Dancer, is broken, the 4-8 damage coming from Dervish Dance clearly isn't the cause.

Another example, in PFS, I play with a dervish dancer rogue frequently and he's no where near overpowered even if he were to get his sneak attack off every round. My battle oracle out damages him consistently and easily even in rounds when he gets a full sneak attack off.

I just ran for a competently played level 1 swashbuckler in PFS. He played it well, but he was fairly pathetic due to his inability to do any damage relative to virtually anyone else in the party. I think the level 1 barb did more damage in one round than he did all scenario.

People seem to have a low bar for banning things.

I have never seen this trait in play. Thus it's obviously time to ban it.

Let's also ban Halflings because they always get a plus 1 to hit, saves, AC, and all social skills. Thus they are overpowered in every part of the game. Halflings obviously need to go!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
icehawk333 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

As usual, the contrived situation needed to justify certain positions requires a level of discontinuity only possible in the hands of a player deliberately playing the alignment opposite of what he wrote on his sheet.
Actually, a neutral can use holy word if their deity is also neutral. It's still a good act, so you become good aligned through slaughter.

And an actually-neutral-not-just-neutral-on-paper-but-actually-evil PC doesn't actually do that in the first place. Hence, contrived. That's not helpful to any intelligent discussion about the campaign.

I have an actually neutral tiefling oracle of battle that spams prot evil and infernal healing, lies like there is no tomorrow, has a large sense of duty, and follows whatever oath he makes. He is absolutely ruthless against his foes and protects innocents.

He would be true neutral in any form of Fallout style alignment system. When I have explained this to GMs, they tend to just glare at me. I've had GMs tell me I was acting CE because I lie and cast infernal healing, but they were going to let it slide due to it being PFS. It's like nothing else my character did even mattered to them.

It's annoying to put it mildly.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Whips! They shouldn't be just for bards

Nefreet wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
The Gaunt Man wrote:
Evil spells may be used for good ends
All the devils in hell would agree with you and eagerly await your arrival :-)

And all the angels in heaven would likewise shun you.

I think we have a pretty good (evil?) understanding of moral relativism in this thread, so how can we equate that to rules for PFS?

That isn't moral relativism. It's consequentialism.

Athaleon wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
What makes me laugh is look at the Arcanist and then the Swashbuckler. You can tell which one devs were concerned about breaking people's games.
That's just a general 3rd edition problem. I'm not sure anything can be done by now

Well, it's not hard to give dex melee classes dex to attack and damage. That can be done now, just look at the gunslinger or the dervish bard.

Sadly, even if a swashbuckler was given dex to damage and could attack touch AC, they would still be noticeably weaker than the gunslinger simply from the advantages of ranged combat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rather have a legal style system that says to be a pathfinder agent, you cannot murder, sabotage pathfinder missions, or intentionally incite the public against the Pathfinder society. Then we can do away with the alignment requirement all together.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am so tired of the argument that only casting evil spells or doing evil actions changes your alignment. I have gotten flack for my neutral Tiefling Oracle and witch using Infernal healing.

Literally I've been told that one evil spell taints your soul but saving tons of lives, like pathfinders tend to do, doesn't make you good. My only defense has been to say that this was ruled to be OK by Mike brook, at which point they tend to get huffy but eventually drop it.

Honestly I am extremely tired of feeling like actively neutral, mixed motives, and morally flawed characters aren't welcome.

Bob Jonquet wrote:
henwy wrote:
Sometimes shooting little girls is justified.

Um, no its not...

** spoiler omitted **

I don't disagree on the shooting issue, but in a realm of magic and shape changers being extremely suspicious is simply good sense. Especially given all the stories of pathfinders being eaten by little girls they saved.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What makes me laugh is look at the Arcanist and then the Swashbuckler. You can tell which one devs were concerned about breaking people's games.

It makes me laugh to think that Dex fighting apparently needed to be nerfed so badly, especially given that speed is more important than strength in real fighting.

In contrast, WOTC is making Dex to attack and damage a feature of light weapons in Next. I would rather prefer that as a solution for avoiding players dipping Swashbuckler.

1 to 50 of 700 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>