Godwyn's page

Pulling from my thoughts in another thread, this ability needs to be reworded, or possibly reworked.

Silent Dispatch

This ability needs some way to work with Pull into the Shadows!

This ability needs to be reworded very much so. As is, it applies only to sound, and as such is nearly useless. It also runs into horrible timing problems.

Example: Surprise round Stalker acts, Guard does not. Stalker is also higher in initiative.

Surprise round: Stalker attacks Guard. Damage is not enough to drop him, and he makes his fort save against Mighty Ambush.

Round 1: Stalker acts, and successfully drops Guard unconscious from damage. Silent dispatch now kicks in because Guard was dropped before his first action in combat. Suddenly, the surprise round attack is silent also. But we do not know this until the result of Stalker's actions in the next round.

If the Stalker is unable to drop Guard in round one, then suddenly the surprise round strike wasn't silent.

Even if Guard is higher in initiative, so would go first in Round One, Stalker uses Leave an Opening. We again do not know if the first attack was silent until the start of Guards turn if Stalker can drop Guard with the attack from Leave an Opening.

My suggestion would be to require Hide in Plain Sight first. And remove the part where it only works if the target is completely taken out in the single attack. Basically, turn it into a melee version of sniping.

This does limit it a bit more, as is, it currently could work with a full attack, despite the wording referencing a single attack.

I would like to see it function with Pull into the Shadows somehow. It is obviously supposed to align with the ability mighty ambush, but it would be nice if they could all work together. This would give the Stalker some more synergy among the abilities that it sorely lacks. And just the mental image of the stalker rushing out of the shadows, dropping an opponent and dragging the unconscious body out of sight before anyone can do anything is wonderful and needs to work.

Any other thoughts on this?

The more I have looked at it, the more this class really seems like a mashup of archetypes from other classes. Splitting it apart actually works really well.

Vigilante Stalker - Rogue archetype for Unchained rogue. This one especially, it trades out features almost level by level, and not one of its talents shouldn't already be a rogue talent. One of the Vigilante Stalker talents IS rogue talents. It even gets Hide in Plain Sight, an ability that Paizo has consistently denied rogues in any useful fashion. Given in whole for a single talent. As abilities, it has many that I want on a rogue, but gains nothing meaningfully unique (except a good will save, LoL again Unchained rogue is already being surpassed).

Avenger Vigilante - Ranger Archetype. Same base skill points, Full BAB, saves change a little (good fort instead of will).
Level 1 - Trade out favored enemy and animal empathy for dual ID and social grace. Let them keep track, it fits the flavor just fine.
Level 2 - Talents for combat style. One of the talents is combat feats, so it would change progression little.
Level 3-Renown for Endurance. In its current form it has little enough impact that it is easily equivalent. Keep the favored terrain, it suits the class well enough, maybe make the first one required urban ( and then let the bonus from favored terrain apply on the environment weapon in some way).
Level 4 - Replace Hunter's Bond for a talent.
Level 5 - Favored enemy replacement Startling Appearance
Level 7 - Loyal Aid replaces Woodland Stride

I will post the others tomorrow. I lost track of time going through these. But it seems pretty clear that the class lacks focus. It tries to have too many options compared to the other classes, and seems like it should be split up into archetypes of those classes.

To me it feels like it is built a lot more like a 5th edition class than a 3.5/PF class. Which is not a bad system, but I feel it doesn't fit well on its own alongside the others.

This discussion is solely for purposes of discussing and arguing how they could work applied to the PF system, not whether or not they should be included in any version of PF. If you dislike the very premise of it, that is fine so long as you provide a decent criticism of the system to go along with your opinion.

I thought of this while reading the bounded accuracy thread, and also saw others propose similar later on in the thread. Sadly it got closed before I had an opportunity to post as well.

Sample system I have been thinking about. The bonuses on a roll can total no more than 10+level. Specifically though, the base skill or BAB would not be part of that limit.

An example attack would be a raging orc barbarian at level 1. BAB 1, 24 str for +7, masterwork weapon +1 height advantage +1. Total bonus to hit over BAB is +9. This character can receive only a max of +11 from any number of sources. This leaves the barbarian able to receive only +2 more on the roll no matter what modifiers get applied.

Things I see

Pros:

1. Players know at what point they do not have to worry about trying to squeeze out more and more bonuses. At a certain easily discernible point, more bonuses really do not help at all.

2. Balancing CR becomes (maybe) slightly quicker. Certain CR opponents/challenges are obviously impossible.

3. Leveling and choosing what you level (BAB or where to put skill points) matters more than finding the right splat book. A higher level character can succeed on a challenge that a lesser character truly cannot, no matter what weird race/trait/random splatbook #2345 a player finds.

3a. The goal is to narrow the gap between the utterly optimized and the just well optimized. NOT to bridge the gap between the optimized and unoptimized. A character not designed well to do something should not do that something almost as well as a character that focuses on that task.

3b. Just because of a glut of resources a character should not be so much better than another well optimized character that simply doesn't have access to those additional source books as to render an otherwise well optimized/designed character ineffective. It can be fun to find a way to get +30 to diplomacy at level 1. It should never be necessary or expected. This is not the same as a character being superfluous simply because the need for the task is already covered.

4. Continuing on from 3, this allows players to reallocate resources. There never needs to be a worry about an arms race with the GM (which the GM can always win). Players and GMs know what can be easy/medium/hard and what is impossible for a given level, no matter the degree of optimization.

5. Many spells give bonuses that already vastly shoot over these limitation. This could lower the power of some until higher levels when a character can make use of them, or invalidate some of them entirely.

Cons:

1. Could disincentive teamwork. In the above example, if a rogue provides flanking for the barbarian, he would become unable to benefit from a bard in the party using his inspire courage (for the attack at least, not on damage). Heavily optimized characters could instead get less benefit from having party members help.

2. Massive rebalancing could be necessary. Given the setup above BAB +10+level or Skill+10+level lets characters have decent success (often gauranteed) on any level apprpriate challenge I checked, but I have not had time to check them thoroughly.

3. Corollary to 3 above, finding just the right combination to make something work can become less effective. Delving into the resources and working out combinations is just fun for some people, myself included.

4. Many spells give bonuses that already vastly shoot over these limitation. This could lower the power of some until higher levels when a character can make use of them, or invalidate some of them entirely.

Most obvious low level spell is true strike. +20 to hit would max out a characters bonuses even if they have no bonus at all. Could be good or bad. Good: Useful for a character with a poor to hit to get a decent value. Bad: Becomes limited to ignoring concealment to anyone that has decently focused on attack.

Another idea was tying the bonus you can receive directly to BAB/skill ranks. The better you are at something, the better you could utilize things that make you better. Limit being 10+BAB or 10+Ranks.

While the unchained rogue disappoints me in many ways, especially the rather lackluster skill edges, it adds just enough new options to try building a character concept I have tried to get off the ground before but was never satisfied with. So here it goes again; advice regarding the actual playability of some of the selected abilities would be great.

Kaylea Octavius V NG Elven Unchained Rogue (Scout) 5/Unchained Barbarian 2
Currently Building at level 7
Str 13
Dex 15 (+2)(+1)
Con 14 (-2)
Int 14 (+2)
Wis 12
Cha 8

F: 5
R: 8
W: 2 +2 v. enchantment from Elf

BAB: 5
Feats
1: Weapon Focus (Elven Curve Blade)
3: Power Attack
5: Furious Focus
7: Blind Fight
Rogue Talent (Minor Magic) (Acid Splash or Ray of Frost)
Rogue Talent (Major Magic) (Obscuring Mist) 2/day
Rage Power (Scent)
Rogue's Edge ? Undecided on Intimidate, Sense Motive, and Perception
Eventually will have all 3, but not until late.
Other Non optional things included to.

Attack with a masterwork weapon at level 7: +11 for 1d10+12 +3d6 with nothing else boosting the damage.

Thoughts going forward were Edge to Intimidate then Cornugon Smash and Hurtful.

Also considered spring attack into circling mongoose as a very thematic darting in and out of the fog sneak attacking each attack.

One Goal is to get Greater Blind Fight, so that concealment will never prevent sneak attacking, not even invisibility, and with only a 20% miss chance with a reroll. Part of the character concept, and seems fun if you can get everyone blind, such as by deeper darkness.

Will save is weak. Still hard to do anything about that on a rogue. Attack bonus is a bit low as well, still same rogue problem as usual.

Pretty much the title. For my next character I was thinking of building a TWF based off of Kirito from SAO.

For those of you not familiar with the anime (though first season is amazing, watch it) basically what I am looking for are
Excellent to Amazing TWF using 2 longswords, not light weapons. I know it is going to be a bit less optimal, but thats okay so long as it is sound
Little to no Magic (anime sword techniques but nothing overt)
Preferrably light armor, but not necessary.
Not reliant on sneak attack

So! I would appreciate some help as TWF builds are not my forte, but I feel like trying something new.

Currently looking at slayer and ranger as they can cheat into TWF without all of the dex requirements.

Okay not really. That spot is taken by ninja/slayer/investigator. But...

After going from a pummeling style thread to a stealth thread, I had this revelation, if it works. So help me make it work forums!

Pummeling style + Pummeling charge + sneak attack.

Perhaps not ideal, as to qualify without a dip anywhere the rogue has to be at least level 16, so its not exactly early that it is even possible.

Asides from two-weapon builds that people already wonder about, how does pummeling style work with sneak attack? When sneak attacking from stealth, the first attack gets to add sneak attack dice. Pummeling style is a single attack, but does the damage of multiple. Would the multiple attack rolls part of the feat get sneak attack damage? Should they?

If that part is a yes, let us find the ways to maintain stealth on a charge in as many conditions as possible.

Prerequisites: BAB +6
Add BAB to damage when making a single attack. Bonus damage multiplies on a critical hit as normal. Works with charge and spring attack. Applies only to that attack so does not continue on to attacks of opportunity.
VS and PA work together for a single devastating hit

For full BAB class
Level___Vital__v. Power Penalty Full attack
________________ 1h/2h w/o 2 weapons

1________-________2/3 -1
2________-________ 2/3 -1
3________ -________ 2/3 -1
4________ - ________ 4/6 -2
5 ________ - ________ 4/6 -2
6 ________ 6 ________ 4/6 -2 8/12
7 ________ 7 ________ 4/6 -2 8/12
8 ________ 8 ________ 6/9 -3 12/18
9 ________ 9 ________ 6/9 -3 12/18
10 _______ 10 _______ 6/9 -3 12/18
11 _______ 11 _______ 6/9 -3 18/27
12 _______ 12 _______ 8/12 -4 24/36
13 _______ 13 _______ 8/12 -4 24/36
14 _______ 14 _______ 8/12 -4 24/36
15 _______ 15 _______ 8/12 -4 24/36
16 _______ 16 _______ 10/15 -5 40/60
17 _______ 17 _______ 10/15 -5 40/60
18 _______ 18 _______ 10/15 -5 40/60
19 _______ 19 _______ 10/15 -5 40/60
20 _______ 20 _______ 12/18 -6 48/72

I have been thinking about this solution for some time, and finally decided to work out some of the math on it. Just slightly more powerful than using power attack for a single attack, which may or may not be a problem for some. I think it works quite well. It makes it not as useful for things with a single big attack, but makes it more desirable as a single feat. Weapon choice is not penalized, and gains the bonuses associated with static damage such as critability.

Question is pretty much just do they work together?

Is "concealment against ranged attacks" sufficient concealment for moonlight stalker feint to function.

It seems like it could be a fun concept, especially adding in spring attack.

I have been thinking about the subject for awhile, but finally sat down and worked out some statistics for persistent spell effectiveness. Failed horribly, and pulled up a dice roller to do the math for me :). A lot of which is still by hand, and I am feeling too lazy too transfer it to a post right now.

For applying a status effect to a target. Where the target makes a save on 3+, but a spell 2 levels higher they make on 5+ because of the increased DC, is the break even point for a higher level spell being as effective. Even there, persistent is slightly more effective by 1%.

From succeeding on 4+ onward, persistent spell is ALWAYS more effective at causing a saving throw failure, and thereby inflicting an effect. If they succeed on 2+ against a spell 2 levels higher also, persistent spell is again more effective.

What is worse is that as the required save to succeed increases, persistent spell becomes increasingly MORE effective. In the utmost extreme of saving only on a 20 going from a 1/20 chance, to a 1/400.

Forcing 2 saves for a single spell slot 2 higher is more efficient by far than using quicken spell to force 2 saves from 2 spells, 1 at 4 levels higher. (Yes I am aware you can add persistent into that combination enhancing it even further).

smallroller for the program I used for the math, its free, and pretty good.

Title of the thread is pretty explanatory. I am looking for what people perceive as the likely effect on the game of including revolvers with the rules for commonplace guns.

Obviously, I expect most characters to have one for use. That is fine. What I want to avoid is certain archetypes being made useless by their inclusion. Other than crossbows, which are poorly represented anyways.

Mostly just looking for people's thoughts on how it will affect the game.

This feat would be complete if it worked with spring attack, and make spring attack more worth doing even without vital strike. But I am sure we all know it doesn't :(. However, all is not lost!

For a rogue, Lightning Stance + Rogue Talent Fast Getaway from the APG.

Allowing the rogue to withdraw as a move action after sneak attacking lets a rogue, so long as they manage to sneak attack each round, maintain the stance for 50% miss chance while still getting an attack.

3 feats and a talent, but seems like it could be amusing. I posted here in the rules forum to see what everyone thinks; whether this is RAW (decently confident it is), and whether anyone thinks it would actually be viable.

Maybe more than one character.

I'm the GM for this one.

Trying to make sure it is not just my own bias on -wanting- the characters to die that is coloring the set up. The evil characters have already done stints in jail for their actions, and nearly been killed by the other PCs for their actions as well. So its not like they don't know its coming, but. . .

Half the party (or so depending on who shows up) is evil. Some of them didn't start out with that listed as their alignment but refused to play anything that could remotely be called anything but evil (attacking innocents just because the bad guys were already dead as an example. Killing their source of information they are specifically there to talk with, because, well. . . no reason really).

So they accept a quest from the Thieves guild. Its morally grey as the thieves also help escaped slaves escape, as slavery is legal where they currently are. But the quest is to retrieve an item of evil. (Literally one with an evil aura and negative levels to good characters wielding it.)

There is also a schism in the thieves guild that they helped start, even though they don't yet know this, but attacking people during a diplomatic meeting doesn't usually make good friends. One of the thieves from the other faction within the guild has tipped off a powerful paladin about the item being retrieved.

The characters have encountered the paladin before, so they know he is in the area, and tough.

So far some of the characters have not managed to -not- start fights at inappropriate times. Hence the stints in jail, being banned from some major portions of the city, the schism in the guild from the players actions at a diplomatic meeting, and more.

So I am pretty sure the paladin showing up and demanding the item so that he can destroy it will cause problems; he had a somewhat confrontational attitude towards evil. And the evil characters are quite clearly stupid evil.

The situation just feels -so- right that I want some input to make sure my bias isn't overwhelming it, as I am the GM and clearly hold all the cards.

And I have never wanted 2 characters dead as much as I want 2 of this group dead. And some of the group will be happy to not have to deal with their characters anymore either.