GameFire's page

I have Stunning Fist and a decent Wisdom. Medusa's Wrath won't come up often but there are not a lot of good options. Local Core players lean heavy on damage dealers but very little battlefield control so my focus will be on grappling with damage being the backup. Going before the enemy makes grapple a lot better.

I can't take Greater Trip because I lack the Int for Combat Expertise.

I overlooked the low Int Stat, my bad. I still would suggest Scorpion Style and improved trip. You can still attack other enemies when you are grappling (At a negative) which means you can trip or slow people who are trying to move around you.

Is there any reason you are not planning on taking Scorpion Style and Gorgon's Fist? Medusa's Wrath will be severely limited without those two feats. If you do not plan on taking those two feats, i would suggest swapping out Medusa's Wrath for something else.

I am not familiar with the Core PFS rules (I assume it means Core Rulebook only) but I would suggest Combat Reflexes and Improved/Greater Trip could really help you control the battlefield.

EDIT: Due to the following Comment, you can ignore the next paragraph.

@Secret Wizard I've already played at level 2 so already have Improved Initiative. And you are right, Toughness would have been the better call.

I would also suggest removing Improved Initiative. Personally I feel that unless going first has a huge gain for you (Such as sneak attack damage before other characters have acted) then that particular feat is not particularly useful, You are going to get a turn regardless.

I almost think I would require a feat to use this weapon effectively. Think about a doctor trying to give a shot to a child who is afraid of needles. That sometimes requires a whole extra person to hold the child still. Now consider trying to give someone a shot when they clearly do not want it and are swinging a battle axe at you. Seems basically impossible.

Another thought is instead of a feat there is just a flat percentage chance that the poison will not take full affect due to not making it into the blood stream of the creature.

Last thought, combine my two ideas and have a large miss chance that taking a feat would reduce or remove.

GameFire wrote:

Personally I have a strong distaste for Diplomacy rolls. I feel they are often used (intentionally or not) to bypass role play sessions.

And this is WHY they were rewritten, Gamefire, so that it's not role-play or skill check, the way it is now, but role-play AND skill check, the way it is when a player tries to bravely leap across a pit and attack a foe.

I did check out Rich Burlew's rewrite and I do not think I fully understood it. It seemed to me to make diplomacy something like CMD, which could be interesting I guess, but still does not seem to address encouraging players to role play.

A good balance is key imo, if people can roleplay the situation great, take it into consideration and perhaps give them a bonus on the roll, but to allow those unable to eloquently convey a characters feelings to be effective as these sorts of characters you have to be willing to let them use skill rolls in an area they are not personally good at.

I may have not stressed it enough, but while I have a strong distaste for diplomacy and other social checks I do not eliminate them entirely. If a player is not particularly articulate, I just want them to give the gist of what they want to say. I try to facilitate role play as much as I can, so even if a non-articulate player still has an excellent argument that I can see no reason that the NPC would disagree with, then I see no need to roll.

The best way to balance "roll for diplomacy" and "roleplaying", IMO, is simply to give people "stunt" bonuses when the player gives speeches that are some combination of convincing, well-considered, and good roleplaying. That way you're encouraging people where they might need encouragement, but you're not punishing people for not being able to come up with something on the spot.

Feel free to give just ridiculous bonuses if what the player comes up with is really good.

I actually kinda like this idea, I think I might consider something like this when I feel a roll is necessary. Something similar to giving a PC a bonus to damage when they jump down from a higher place.

I also find the Diplomacy skill sub par as written. Rich Burlew's rewrite is stronger at Giant in the Playground, and the Alexandrian rewrote that, so either one is an upgrade.

Personally I have a strong distaste for Diplomacy rolls. I feel they are often used (intentionally or not) to bypass role play sessions. I suggest minimizing social rolls and actually playing out the conversation that happens.

If your players need to convince a king to send money to a struggling village then let them come up with reasons for why doing so would benefit the king. If the king is particularly stubborn or a player is having trouble being articulate where their character would excel, then the players can roll in addition to the role playing (Which is how I feel it should be done).

But if the players have a very convincing argument, or the king is kind-hearted, then there is really no reason to have to roll for diplomacy.

Greetings Tormsskull,

So I frequent these forums for opinions, but have never posted before. Just a heads up.

One thing that I love to do is to give players opportunities to Role play during combat. Allow them to describe their attacks, describe the enemies attacks for them, and make use of the "Talking is a free action" rule.

Let the enemies taunt the players, allow the players to attempt non violent, creative solutions to things. I believe that your players will appreciate how fresh and fun combat can feel when it is not just *Roll dice* You hit, deal damage.

If you already do this, Great!