Hakken's page

Hakken wrote:

I will say the one rule which should not be crossed for people playing homosexual characters is the same one that exists for people playing heterosexual ones.

If your hitting on another character and they ask you to stop--you stop. If a female is playing a female character at a table and a male playing a male character keeps hitting on her--it can make her uncomfortable.

The same would go if a male playing a male character was hitting on another male playing a male character. If it bothers them--stop.

You don't have a right to roleplay your character (taking actions to include another character) that crosses over onto rude. A male character who was bothered by your male character hitting on him is no more homophobic than a female character who was bothered by the male character would be heterophobic. It is basic courtesy in both cases.

The person making the unwanted advances is the one being rude and intolerant.

so long as you don't cross that line (either homosexually or heterosexually), then have fun and play your character.

Yeah for sure. Taking a game that is meant to be about adventure, and then playing a character that bothers others with attempted seduction, trying to "convert" them to a different sexuality is a specific type of annoyance and disruption of play.

I was chatting to another dm yesterday, and he was saying that the only time he has seen someone play a trans character, they were being a disruptive nuisance. Yes, yes, your flipping gender and orientation are very interesting, now can we get back to the game--was how it went, unfortunately.

Turning the game into a showcase for identities that didn't help the game in the slightest. Urgh.

it isn't just about homosexuals and converting. I have seen male characters of male players hit on female characters of female players even when it was obvious the female did not want that kind of attention for her character. It is about respect in general.

2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,

yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.

I actually did see the benefit of having different strengths for different genders---what they should have added was an ability for a woman to increase her weight to the equal of a mans to get equal strength IE become a body builder.

otherwise the woman has a clear advantage as she has less weight to lift herself up or for her mount to have to carry--all for the same strength.

Darkflame wrote:

if my GM ever broke my blade when i would have 1 point in the blade i would trow a fit!

thats just absurd the abilety is clearly intended for the black blade not to get damaged.

i don't see how you can die if you are never hurt!

You need to actually read the power.

BladeBound Archetype wrote:

Unbreakable (Ex): As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition. If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired. If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete.

Now, let's break that down.

"As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition."

At no point in that sentence does it say 'The black blade cannot be damaged'. Damaged is not Broken. If an item has 30 hp, and it takes 5 hp, it has been Damaged. It is not BROKEN, and it does not have the Broken condition.

A black blade may have 30 hp. It may take 10 hp and be damaged. Then it takes another 10 hp. If it has one arcane point, it is still conscious and immune to the broken condition. That is not the same as 'undamaged'.

Why is the broken condition important then?

"If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired."

Ah, we see now why. A normal sword can continue to be used when it has the Broken Condition. The Black Blade, on the other hand, reverts to being a normal broken sword, it loses all it's special powers.

"If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete."

And here is the proof that your supposition is wrong. If this power negated the ability to be destroyed, it would not talk about the situation that occurs when it is destroyed. Or at the very least, it would have some text about the...

lets apply your reasoning to the reliable feat of a pistol and a gunslinger. reliable lowers the misfire chance by 1 to a possible zero. SO the gunslinger firing a +1 reliable pistol with regular ammo never misfires. But the second time he rolls a 1---the GM has the gun blow up in his face.

He never suffered the misfire problem and had to clear the gun--thus avoiding that penalty. but the gun still blew up the second 1 he rolled.

the reason it talks about it being destroyed is simple. The magus may not have one point in the arcane pool to prevent it being broken. Monks and gunslingers have many feats that say "as long as the character has one ki or grit point they can do this" that doesn't ensure they will have that one point.

My magus deliberately keeps one arcane point for just this reason--sacrificing the enchantment on the blade sometimes.

a flying creature is immune to tripping

so you didn't trip it--but you did knock it prone to the ground?

So you did not trip it by swiping it's feet out from under it--but your force of blow knocked it to the ground. It is only immune to tripping--not to being knocked to the ground.

makes as much sense.

it is like saying you go up to high altitude and you have immunity to becoming fatigued due to high altitude so the GM skips right to exhausted. You go from feeling fine to exhausted without the in between step.

removing balefull polymorph is not the same as the bad guy buying the bead of newt prevention or getting a ring of spell turning.

If the players are making a habit of using ONE particular spell-then word is getting around in an AP and the monsters will start preparing for it if they have intelligence. THey are 10th level-they would be becoming well known.

An F-bomb or other expletive is not the same as a derogatory, dehumanizing term used to describe an ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Excusing away that behavior as part of a machismo culture, military or otherwise, does ZERO service to the inacceptability of those terms. I know plenty of people with racist, misogynist and homophobic tendencies; just because they have other wonderful aspects of their character (like every single human on this planet) doesn't mean they don't deserve to have society collectively come down like a ton of bricks when their flaws cross the lines of propriety.

There is absolutely nothing acceptable in the term, "homo." If I were at a table where this term was used (whether I was GM or player), it would be made clear this was not acceptable. If there was even so much as a question or argument about that unacceptability, I'd be heading for whichever VC or VL was closest and raising hell about it.

add religion to the above derogatory terms. Insulting someone's religion is just as bad.

I don't care so much for the DPR olympics. If your monk does a little less damage than the fighter, I am ok with that.

BUT if you totally messed up your monk so he doesn't even contribute to the group anymore?----well why divide treasure and exp with someone who is not doing their part?

Flavor is nice and makes the game fun---when you take it too far and quit contributing to the group? Then you step on the fun of others. You don't have to keep up on DPR (or other ways of contributing--ie diplomacy, trap finding etc) but if you are not doing your fair share expect others to get a little upset sometimes.

If you want to take basket weaving, origami etc to make you feel all role playing god----and then your party fails because you can't contribute when it counts?---expect some resentment

Iced2k

I would not have taken your powers.

I would have taken one of two routes---1 the religious one

However depending on which god you worshipped something may have happened.

Torag--probably nothing

Sarenrae---you would have had nightmares for 2-7 days. in which you were defending a village, got taken prisoner, found yourself tied up and helpless while people spoke to you in a foreign language you did not understand and then slit your throat.

that would have been my warning to you.

the second route--and more likely one i would take is nothing from your god--but an obvious negative reaction from people who watch you behave so viciously. Even people who believe that someone deserves death will react negativly to a violent beheading of such individual and to the harbringer of death who brings it on. think the executioner wearing the black hood----a bringer of justice yes---but all fear and kind of loathe them.

I have said it before and I will say it again

Paladins should not be held to a strict standard and beaten about the head for it.. their character is not any more powerful.

but in the same sense, paladins should never pretend to be holier than thou unless they do follow a strict code.

Your God may not take away your powers, but the common people see you take the easy route.

If you claim that you kill the goblin because you smite evil when you see it OR that you do it to protect innocents AND THEN you turn around and turn a blind eye to the slavery of children occuring in your home nation because (it is legal such as in Absalom or many other nations)-----then you really dont care about protecting innocents or smiting evil. You just use that as an excuse to take an easy way of disposing of something that would inconvenience you.

that goblin who may have never killed anyone and was maybe just defending his land is no more evil than the slaver in your home city that you just turn your head and pass by. He most probably has hurt less innocents.

Your god may not strip your powers---and I dont believe you should be stripped---especially if you worship Torag for example. Torag just doesnt care that you ignore one evil-(slavery so long is it isnt dwarves) while killing goblins.

But the common people notice---and realize that you are after all just like them---with no more compassion or mercy and willing to pull the code out when it makes it easy-----and ignore it when it is inconvenient.

Think of your travelling companions---if you are zealot about destroying evil and punishing betrayal--what happens if they get feared and run? Will the paladin execute me for desertion?

Run your character how you want---but don't whine to me about Paladins having to follow a strict code. Because (almost )every paladin I have seen---"Lawyers" it to death. When it is convenient they pull it out, but if it is inconvenient, they ignore it.

take the goblin---inconvenient to transport him back---so the code comes out-----I must destroy evil and protect the innocent. Same paladin gets back to town and goes by children on the slave block---turns his head and tucks that destroy evil and protect the innocent thing way down deep in his backpack.

If you all TRULY protect innocent and fight evil---why no march on absalom and the other nations where slavery is legal--to include children? Oh thats right--that would be inconvenient.

which in actuality would probably be fine with some of your gods. But dont trot out the old---"we follow a strict code and it is hard to play" line when you rules lawyer it at times.

You either DO protect the innocent and fight evil or you don't. You dont CHOOSE to do it based upon how inconvenient it is to you.

as a GM, I would not strip your powers, BUT if the common people see you picking and choosing when to follow your code? Don't expect adoration from them---you are just a cavalier with spells then.

What does that child on the slave block see when he sees you ride by him? A force of lawful good smiting evil and protecting the innocent? I think not. Because that would be inconvenient wouldn't it. whereas the goblin?---inconvenient to have him around so pull out the code and say I MUST SMITE HIM---because I ALWAYS destroy evil.

see the hypocracy?

Jiggy wrote:

sunshadow21 wrote:

too many of them are round/level, making them all but useless at lower levels.

1st-level buffs, round/level:

None.

1st-level buffs, set duration (at least 1 minute) or min/level:
• Bless
• Divine Favor
• Entropic Shield
• Magic Stone
• Magic Weapon
• Protection from Evil
• Shield of Faith

Is there something I'm not understanding...?

Even a minute/level is pushing it for warning time at all but the highest levels and a set duration ensure that they don't scale. They aren't bad spells, but the action economy is such that outside of a particularly tough fight, you're better off simply rolling an attack and trying to kill the bad guys faster the normal way. Other people's mileage may vary, but I've never been overly impressed with anything on that list but bless for general purposes, and that one is only because you can hit a massive number of people with it. Single target buffs with a range of touch that last less than 10 min/lvl just simply are not the best choice for casting. The above list is good for scrolls and wands, but not, in my opinion, for actual spell slots, aside from the fact that the alternatives available for the spell slots are even worse for the cost to benefit ratio.

my bless or shield of faith will often go off and the next round the high DPR classes kill the monster, making me want to hurry the party to the next encounter before it wears off, but we wont ever make it.

aye the latest printing of the Core Rulebook has dog instead of riding dog

Hakken wrote:

I do appreciate a little feedback on why they banned certain classes. I played a master summoner. When I thought they banned it just because people thought it was too powerful, I thought it was unfair. There are many classes which are even more powerful--and basically one shot every mob.

Once it was explained that it was

a. flooding the board with summons and slowing down play for master summoners

b. lack of rules understanding leading to too many non-legit synthesist or whatever---then it gets more understandable.

If they leave the players thinking "they just banned my class because others griped it was too powerful." Then the people with banned classes look at the other powerful classes (more powerful than theirs perhaps) and think it is unfair.

The master summoner is stupid powerful in PFS because the PFS combats are weak enough that the small army of summoned monsters can roll them. I've hear horror stories of master summoners with skill-monkey eidolons that can solo entire scenarios.

I consider a master summoner to be literally a "PFS special" problem, because I think for a home brew, at least one I run, they will suck because my NPCs will curb stomp summoned critters. PCs want to run with str 18 two handers with cleave? Well the NPCs can have that too, and the summoned monsters don't stand up to real encounters well at all.

actually the summons are working real well then. If he summons 2-3 mobs withh each summon--and you spend 3-4 of your attacks killing them, then you are not killing party members.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=324?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#16169

james Jacobs---creative director said on Feb 27th 2012

2) The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps.

dwarves are given this ability on stone traps.

Go back and read my first couple of posts. I said

• I'll generally tell players about anything they'd notice by "taking 10"
  
• I later added that I'd probably make an actual d20 roll for the dwarf if simply taking 10 (+ bonuses) wasn't good enough.
  

There's nothing there that says I won't allow any other kind of active perception check - just that I don't want to waste everybody's time having them roll all the time to see if they spot obvious things.
If the character has a plausible reason to make an active check (and that does not include a player knowing that another player just rolled a '1'), that's fine. I don't insist on making all perception checks for the players, but I do try and keep metagaming out of the equation.

If I had a player who felt it was really important that it was his character who found the secret door, rather than just being glad that somebody in the party found it, I'm sure we could work something out (probably by my doing the check for his character first, and only going on to other characters if the dwarf failed). But generally it's not a competition - players work together, not in competition with each other.

not sure if I completely understand you John. but if you are saying the dwarf gets a passive check just like everyone else ie 10 + their perception check---and then if all failed it, you go back and roll a d20 passively (for a chance at higher than a 10) for the dwarf to give him a second chance?

yeah I would be good with that also---it at least recognizes the dwarf is better at it---ie some recognition of him being the stone master as outlined in his racial profile.

so if I understand you

party with elf-perception 8
half elf perc 6
human perc 4
dwarf perc 4
gnome perc 6
half orc perc 5

the elf, half elf and gnome have keen senses figured in--hence higher than dwarf.

on a dc 15 snare trap---everyone but the dwarf and human would find it--since the dwarf doesnt get to add his +2

on a dc 15 stone pit trap---everyone but the human would find it--since the dwarf does get to add his +2

on a dc 20 snare trap--no one would auto find it passively

on a dc 20 stone pit trap--no one finds it automatically---BUT you then roll a d20 for the dwarf and add his +6(4+2)---if he gets a 14 or higher he finds it?

I could live with that.

I do appreciate a little feedback on why they banned certain classes. I played a master summoner. When I thought they banned it just because people thought it was too powerful, I thought it was unfair. There are many classes which are even more powerful--and basically one shot every mob.

Once it was explained that it was

a. flooding the board with summons and slowing down play for master summoners

b. lack of rules understanding leading to too many non-legit synthesist or whatever---then it gets more understandable.

If they leave the players thinking "they just banned my class because others griped it was too powerful." Then the people with banned classes look at the other powerful classes (more powerful than theirs perhaps) and think it is unfair.

Well I agree with that, because that exactly is the paladin's responsibility. He needs to make that choice because it is required of him, but he must bear the consequences. But sometimes the rightful choice is lawful execution, and I disagreed with those who deny that.

Re the hired sword: He has shown that he's willing to work for downright evil bastards for money. That is pretty much justification for lawful execution already. If you let him go you run the risk of him working for another evil bastard. Such a person better convince me (as paladin) of his sincere redemption. On the other hand, if he is part of a bunch of desperate fools making money not to starve, or bullied into service, or tricked into service and manages to convince me of his new perspective, there might be an opening. But the paladin has to keep the consequences of letting such a person go in mind. (Or the consequence of them languishing in some torturous dungeon, for which a quick death is the lesser evil.)

so my LG paladin looks at Absalom. They allow slavery and support slavery buying and selling. So I find a way to call a meteor down on the town and destroy the whole town. As a few scattered survivors crawl out, I start executing them---Little children and old women. Because after all they were supporting the slavery in Absalom and therefore it is my duty to be their judge, jury and executioner. If I allow them to live they will go to another city and pay taxes there and probably support slavery again.

funny how you can word lawyer anything to justify any actions your paladin wants. Once again--once your Gm says--that is evil--you do it, you should lose your powers. No word lawyering.

In my games, if someone wants to aid another they actually have to do something that helps, not just say "I aid him!". I also do the same for diplomacy and bluff, using what they say to judge the DC of bluff or if they are very compelling, lowering the DC for diplomacy. In fact the same goes for all skills. The thing that really started this for me was stealth. I got tired of players saying "I use stealth" when they should be saying "I creep alongside the wall staying in the shadows trying to remain unseen."

And yes, the "I aid him" thing bugs the crap out of me.

so to use their character skills--their player has to do something? how do you have your fighters use their combat skills? wrestling match on the floor? Kind of unfairly punishes people who have skills instead of combat.

a fighter with 7cha, 7int and 7 wis could downplay those weaknesses by using "player" knowledge and talking. Could actually be better at diplomacy than a bard or sorcerer played by a "player" who is socially more reserved.

so if the sorcerer player at the table is athletic and strong but the fighter "player" at the table is weak---do you let the "players" do athletic things to give the sorcerer get extra bonuses on their physical skills?

players and characters should be kept separate

um, -4 on each shot is -4 on each shot, not -4 PER shot on EACH shot.

The reason the guy was looking at -8 to each of two shots was that he was firing into a busy melee, OR firing with two-weapon-figthing [they were not very precise as to which in there but the post WAS in response to an above post regarding a specific combat situation].

-8 to each purely because its two shots at -4 with that wording would mean that rapid-shot is anything from -4 to two shots [2 shots at -2] to -10 to each of five shots [full iterative + rapid shot at -2 each]... with a questionable -12 everywhere instead if manyshot kicks in. It also makes hitting most things that aren't barn-sized dragons non-viable.

But what's this about gunslingers dominating combat? have people stopped rolling up composite longbow users? Because at higher levels, its very, very difficult to even approach those buggers with most builds

a gunslinger as a utility class with 4+ int skills and deeds for utility should not even be close in dpr to a fighter archer build with 2+int skills and no utility. All of their dpr is due to their extra feats which they get--which you counter by getting nimble and deeds. The fact that you are close to them in dpr is a problem. If you had their 2+in skills and less utility in deeds it would not be.

sorcerer going arcane route for a familiar?

skeleton key for chance at locks

start with double barrel pistol in right hand, left hand has double barrel pistol hanging from a weapon cord.

fire your double barrel pistol in right hand as many shots as you have primary hand attacks while using your left hand to reload as a free action. (first shot can be two shots---others depends on if GM lets them reload both barrels as free action--all GMS I have played with so far do--because the gunslinger just declares two free actions-one to reload each barrel)

after all primary hand attacks done--use free action to drop right hand gun

use swift action to recover left hand weapon---repeat above actions with left hand firing and right hand reloading

on next round just repeat the process but start by firing left hand gun first

all RAW legal from what I can see. But unless a GM steps in, it ruins it for everyone else.

unfortunatly Nani by RAW, there are no rules to cover how many shots. Legally they can fire all weapons from one hand, then go to the other. Unless a GM steps up like Andrew would. And then the gunslinger will start arguing that RAW allows him to do it.

so my master summoner got banned---but the gunslinger with two dual pistols doing 8 shots a round and about 200 dpr is still allowed. ANd archers who can do 30 damage with every arrow by level 5 are still allowed? Guess the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

for me I think the deciding factor here was the cleric stepped up and filled a role she should not have had to fill. If she had not stepped up it would have been a TPK. Therefore I think they all should pitch in.

A character who does everything right but dies to lucky GM dice?--I would pitch in

A character who has to fill role they normally wouldnt--like this? I would pitch in

A character doing something stupid and getting themself killed? If I knew the player, I would pitch in only if they did not have enough money.

magnuskn wrote:

ossian666 wrote:

Judging from the responses in this thread I have reached the conclusion that there are a lot of very linear and uncreative GMs. I couldn't imagine playing in a game where the GM couldn't figure out how to balance a class/ability without breaking it...

Disallowing a problem class from the start of a campaign solves a lot of problems and has little to do with "uncreativity". Some classes are simply built in a pretty broken way and I don't see it as my duty to completely rebuild it so that it does work. Especially since I got pretty argumentative players in one of my groups when it comes to rules and new interpretations thereof.

I'm not talking about disallowing the class...I am talking about all the people here that are complaining that dragons have a low touch and you can't stop a gunslinger from hitting you and gunslingers do so much damage and they can fly and shoot lightning from their arse.

Its not a superhero people. Gunslingers have a shorter range than archers, their Will saves blow big ones, they carry an explosive satchel of death, their guns and ammo are the single most expensive pieces of equipment in the game, and to top it all off it only takes 1 hit on an intelligent monster to having them focusing the hell out of that gunslinger.

There is no need to break the game just because someone can do damage...learn the rules and use concealment (there are a TON of monsters that give miss chance), use charm, hold person, illusions, etc., take a few steps back so you are outside their range and force them to move so they can't get a full attack, use a freaking wall spell, etc.

I can see people now looking at their screens reading this going "oh...well I didn't think of that." Yea its not hard...read the books and be creative don't just raise the touch AC of everything to be a d-bag.

oh I agree 100%. The problem is, a LOT of gunslingers then complain that because the monster focused on them, the GM is picking on them or singling them out. NO--the monster is just being smart. An intelligent monster is no different than the players, it will remove it's greatest threat first.

also, I have seen gunslingers fail saving throws against fire several times--still waiting for the first one to have any adverse affects from carrying gunpowder. If I run a home campaign and you are carrying a significant amount of gunpowder (and PCs who fire 8 shots a round have to be) and fail a save vs fire--you better hope your life insurance is paid up.

the problem with the gunslinger is in the way that touch AC works. Don't believe me---go look at dragons and their ac.

at 1st level--most mobs AC is close to equal to their touch ac---so while other characters are trying to hit ac 18--the gunslinger is trying to hit about 14.

but as you get higher level--others are trying to hit ac 40 while the gunslingers can actually go DOWN

young dragon ac 21 and touch ac 12
adult dragon ac 28 and touch ac 10
ancient dragon ac38 and touch ac 8

too many monsters are like this--the higher up you get---the easier it gets for a gunslinger to hit---only needing 1/3 to 1/4 of the to hit of other classes. A DM almost HAS to play the monsters against the gunslinger to keep from being one shotted (ie keep them out of PB range until they attack, doing fly by attacks and not letting the gunslinger get a full out attack in pb range.)

archers may be powerful--but say they do get the same dex as a gunslinger--both +5. they get a +5 bow, and bracers of greater archery for +2. give them focus for +1, give them point blank for +2.

for all of that they get a +15 to hit--at 10th level a fighter archer gets a further 10 BAB for a total of plus 25---so needs a 13 to hit the ancient dragon----costing him 2 feats and the price of a +5 bow and greater bracers

the gunslinger gets +5 dex, and +10 for level giving him a +15 to hit an AC of 8--meaning he needs a NEGATIVE 7 for no extra feats or costs

touch ac is broken when you get 8 shots a round at it with a X4 crit weapon and an effective NEGATIVE needed to hit it

great post. However as was pointed out to me by the group I played with today-there are two things that can drastically cut the life span of your character.
1. Painting the miniature
2. typing up a back history

as soon as you do either of these, you character will die much faster

when we played with critical misses in AD&D, a critical miss was rolling a 1--then to confirm you had to roll a 1-3 on your next roll. So even if you rolled a 1 and then rolled a 9 on the next dice and missed the target it would not confirm the critical.