Gauthok's page

I agree with the general trend here. Leave in SoS/SoD effects, but give them some way to have an effect no matter what.

I like the idea of "half dex damage on a save, full on fail, petrified on critical".

Though I do wonder if removing ability score damage/drain might not be a better thing overall. It it just difficult in play to recalculate everything on the fly, and frequently people miss something. Fine when using tools like Herolab but annoying on paper.

Having the spell instead be "-2 on AC and attacks on save, -5 on fail, petrify on crit" might be smoother to play

Tippyverse was, as I recall, originally constructed according to RAW based on 3.5 - in that rule set, there are a set number of casters of an arbitrarily high level in the cities. Since that is, by default RAW; the mages are presumed to be there.

Good point. RAW dictates their existence in that case. Though I thought it didn't call out classes, just levels. Never really bothered with that in 3.5 anyways, so I'm sure my memory is fuzzy.

What's more; although a caster can do these things, they don't necessarily need or want to - high level casters are not monoliths of "I want to control everything" - instead, they can rely on other, "lesser" people to follow up on the paths they don't want to bother following up on - either arcane or divine.

Again true, but I do wonder about the whole "sociopaths are the ones to seek power thing". Are the high level casters really all likely to work together well? And the difference in ability between a well built 20th level caster and several mediocre built 15th level casters is a lot more than the CR of them would suggest. I'd think cities would be a lot less stable than the Tippyverse suggests.

Another point about "non-monolithic" casters. The Tippyverse says that you might have casters start out in the wastelands, but of course they'll emigrate to the cities at some point. After all, no one has ever shown any loyalty to their homeland or people. /s

Oh, my GM is going to allow it. We've already talked about it a bit.

The char will be a half-elf with a desire to prove himself to "his people" (elves). I plan to have Ancient Lorekeeper and take Simulacrum, and pull shenanigans like having several sims of myself that go around guiding young adventuring parties, esp of elves.

That way, I am both Gandalf the Grey (sim) and Gandalf the White (astral). :)

Skills are as useless as the GM makes them.

If the game centers around Nuke the Orc, then yes skill are pretty worthless at high level.
On the other hand if the Gm try to make the players think, runs villains that can plot ahead and are smart then skills become far more important.

People keep saying this, but I would love to see concrete examples that magic isn't the answer.

Btw, I mostly GM, and I try to make skills relevant, but it gets hard. Except for knowledges, those stay relevant for a long time.

Nope, they are still terrible even then as actually getting sneak attack dice remains a real problem.

Stealth just doesn't work as written and tumbling into a flank is at best a crap shoot against anything vaguely threatening even when you focus on it and you don't have the resilience to remain in melee even if you get into position.

I was thinking of Scout archetype so you get SA on a charge, and then Gang Up so at least if you're all fighting one BBEG you get your SA. Generally though, yes, it will be hard to make a rogue work.

I was thinking to trying to do it in an upcoming game. Most of my group is pretty optimization light, so it would be a way for me to have fun tweaking without stomping on their fun.

There are two "fundamental styles" of play:

(1) I have my PC mapped out from level 1. I know exactly which feats, skills, and spells I am taking to build the PC I want to have by level 10/15/20.

(2) My PC is a dynamic creature. I choose feats, skills, and spells based on what has happened to my PC over the last few sessions played.

This is exactly what I was talking about. I think I'll steal this phrasing in the future, because it's nice and neutral, not preferring one style to another.

I agree that there is definitely hostility towards style 2, but I believe some of that is based on personal experiences with style 2 players. I'm clearly a style 1, as a I said above. Being called a "rollplayer, not a roleplayer" by style 2 players is insulting (especially if they aren't good at getting into/staying in character).

I think GreyWolfLord's initial post struck me very much as a style 2 player decrying style 1 as badwrongfun.

Btw: I wouldn't give you any grief over taking Remove Disease as an oracle. Might not be optimal, but as long as you're contributing, it's all good. And you can swap that out again later if you stop needing it.

I just have to say, I can't stand the "bad touch" term. ESPECIALLY when you're talking about clerics, or, as you could say, priests.

My brother still owns the issues of Dungeon with it. I'll have to convince him that we need to play it someday.

I'm sure you mean well, but I still think you're coming across as "optimization = bad roleplaying".

I know I personally hear "I'm a roleplayer, not a roll-player" one more time, and I'll probably throw the person through a window. :)

I'll use myself as an example of what some of the "optimizers" might be thinking:

I was recently working on a Sohei (Monk archetype) build. I am an engineer by trade, and I like crunching the numbers to make a powerful character. I wanted to use a Sohei because it seems like an excellent "barbarian rider" type character, and I had decided I wanted to be a Shoanti. The concept calls for him to be a powerful warrior, so to ensure I didn't feel weak in a reasonably optimized group, I was looking for tricks. I found the Eldritch Heritage: Orc Bloodline, and realized it would be perfect for giving him a big bonus to attack and damage, something monks traditionally need. Part of the backstory I had in mind called for him to be a wanderer because his love had rejected him to marry another. Orc bloodline gives me a perfect hook for that, because the Shoanti generally hate orcs. So, some would say I was "powergaming" by taking an ability that (along with other tricks) will eventually let my character one-shot Balors and such. I disagree.

Another example: I found an interesting trick with an Abyssal bloodline sorcerer to summon in 3 powerful monsters at once. Comes online at about 11th level. I decided I'd like to combo that with Sylvan bloodline to get an animal companion, partially to help me out at low levels before a lot of my casting power comes online. I also wanted to go human so I could get the favored class spell option, and make up for the lost spells due to crossblooded. Also planning to take things like Dazing spell and Spell Perfection (ball lighting or chain lightning) eventually. After looking at that build, I decided the character will be the great grandson of a nymph that had a fling with an incubus, and has been watching her bloodline to help nurture/temper any abyssal progeny. So, he was raised by great grandma (though he didn't know it), and he has an animal companion because he was raised in the wilds. Does the fact I build him for abilities and then added backstory make him a worse character? I don't think it does.

tl:dr version - some of us will look at cool character builds, and then build a story for that character that makes sense for him.

For a rogue sniper:

Hide in this

Kill things with these

Only if the DM says something like"guys I want to DM this adventure and it's all I'm really into at the moment" and then the players buy in.

Otherwise just because the adventure is on the high seas,there is nothing bad/wrong with the party wanting to head inland and find the ancient lost dwarven hold.

That doesn't mean it's not annoying as all get out for the DM though.

It's not bad/wrong, but it's also not bad/wrong for a gm to say "I don't have anything prepared for that, so if you want to do that we'll have to stop here and start up again later". Some DMs don't improvise well. Even if they do, I think it's also not bad/wrong for a DM to decline to run a game just because it's what you want to play. After all, if I started a game and everyone brought a standard party, then as soon as we started they immediately started playing as evil characters, I think I'd say "sorry, I don't like running evil games, please let's rein it in or find another DM".

Perhaps one reason Stunning Assault is placed higher than Dazing Assault is the fact that a stunned opponent can be taken advantage of. They essentially do the same thing by negating your opponent's next turn (which we're all in favor of), but being dazed does just that. Having your opponent stunned, however, will let other folks come in and high-five you for setting them up for a good attack. (I'm looking at you, Rogues and Medusa's Wrath)

Just an fyi, dazing an opponent makes them vulnerable to Medusa's Wrath.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/medusa-s-wrath-combat---final

Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe

So Dazing Assault is a great choice for a Monk that can spare the attack bonus, like a Sohei using a Blade of the Sword-Saint.

I'm going to chime in on the side of "fix the rules".

I have been playing a long time, since AD&D. And I hated AD&D. I played pretty much any roleplaying game I could other than AD&D, because the rules sucked so hard. I love that 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder have introduced rules that allow me as a player to figure out a "build", because by nature I'm a planner.

Now, I GM far more often than I play, so it's not just a matter of wanting broken stuff to stay in the game so I can abuse it as a player. I want rules that are as solid and consistent as possible, so I can apply them fairly without having to put so much effort in. Is it too much to ask for a game that just works?

Speaking of, I am writing a Revamp of the Qinggong Powers and I plan on proposing it it after many drafts. Not to sound hopeful, as if it would ever be accepted or even partially accepted. I'm still going to get it out there though.

I've been thinking that Qinggong is probably the best fix to Monk that could be done, and just adding some new powers to the list along with a feat to let you select more would go 80% of the way towards fixing Monk.

I think Monk is being kept weak on purpose, as the exception to the "Asian=better" rule. :)

If studded leather is supposed to be like brigandine, it's the worst approximation I've ever seen. I've read several accounts of knights preferring brigandine to harness, so the game stats should be pretty darn good.

Both the Bone Creature and Corpse Creature are in the Book of Vile Darkness, and reasonably appropriate for low powered undead. I've got a Cleric in Age of Worms (set in Eberron) that is a Karnathi going to become a Corpse Creature. I think it's appropriate and reasonable in power, and my DM agrees. In this case, culturally he views it as making the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good, so I think you can have a non-evil character willing to become undead.