ImperatorK's page

Abusing that poor plant and killing it intentionally IMO is not reverent.

And summoning animals to fight for him and get slaughtered is? Also the plant isn't killed. It shrinks back to normal after the spell is over. Taking a Druids powers for something like that is a jerk move and punishing a player for using his head.

It is power gaming when he specifically manipulates the rules in his favor to make him significantly more powerful than the average hero, or even major boss monsters.

That's not powergaming.

He sounds more like a douche and munchkin then a powergamer.
I don't see mentioned what types of characters he's making or how does he "powergame". Because what you call powergaming might not be powergaming at all. I've seen that happen.

Do you think archers are getting too much support (compared to other classes)? Or do you see this more as a much needed "fix?"

I see it as mundanes finally getting their deserved nice things.

Maybe in 3.5, but Paizo did a FANTASTIC job of balancing the classes in Pathfinder. I think you'll find that no 1 class is superbly stronger than another. There is still much variation and each class feels different than the others, but by themselves the classes are pretty even as far as potential power goes.

Hahahahahaha!

Oh, wait... you're being serious?

Socothbenoth.

And Kamina is obviously a genius - nobody else could come up with a line like: "Don't believe in yourself. Believe in me! Who believes in you!"

Actually that's stupid, but thanks to high Charisma it sounds clever and inspirational. Remember, it doesn't matter what you say, what matters is how you say it.

In a way it sort of blows me away that these kinds of guys are even playing an RPG, if they really just wanted combat and "oh look how awesome my build is compared to your weak ass build!" why arent they just playing magic, or minatures games, why play a role playing game and just live for the annoyance factor?

Why are the Roleplayers playing a role-playing GAME instead of going to the theater club?

Also theres nothing wrong with saying "oh by the way I do hand out a lot of extra Xp to players for various reasons that dont have anything to do with combat" and ta-da it does not matter how well the powergamer knows the rules.

Oh, I don't know about that. The Powergamer could always try to roleplay. Then he would be good at combat AND get more XP.

wait so your telling me its wrong to give the player struggling with combat a b$&@%en magic item and not give an equally powerfull weapon to the guy who is absolutely dominating?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. It's not my fault that the other guy sucks at the game.

houstonderek wrote:

Ganryu wrote:

The core problem here, and I've discussed this with several other people, isn't the powergamers. The problem is that DnD/Pathfinder et all premiere combat as the main form of conflict.

Oh, wow, that is sooooooo bizarre. A game that sprang from tabletop wargaming features combat as the main method of conflict resolution? A game based on Conan and Elric and the like features swordplay and combat magic?

The horror.

It would be like me being frustrated because community theater doesn't allow me to resolve conflict by stabbing the director in the face.

There is no "problem". Just people trying to use a feather duster to drive nails. Wrong tool for the goal.

Take that attitude elsewhere please.

Why? He's totally right.

Luffy from One Piece is a good example. People follow him even though he's an idiot.

This scenario was awesome. If your players had fun then there's no problem, because that's what most important.
Incidentally, I'm going to start a new campaign with adult themes and am hoping to create encounters as good as this one.

Don't mess with the rules. Do you really want this to happen?

But on a more serious note, I like how it is done. If your players are underpowered you can simply give the monster some unusable treasure like coins, gems and stuff and let it fight with it's own power. But when the PCs are decently optimized, you can even the odds by also optimizing the monster this way (giving it some items).
A monster of a particular CR is supposed to be a normal challenge for an averagely optimized team of PCs of an appropriate level. If they're below average in power, the encounter will be tougher. If they're very strong, it will be easier. But instead of scaling the encounter by using higher CRed opponents or something like that, I think it is better to simply bring the monsters to the party's power level, either by downplaying/nerfing them when the party is weak or using smart tactics/optimizing them when the party is strong. The "treasure" is good for that.

That's my 2 cents.

So, we have a succubus on a Material Plane. Her mission is to damn as many mortals as possible to go to Abyss by turning them Chaotic Evil. She'll use any means possible. How do you think does a succubus usually do that? What are the common but effective/proved tactics or methods most succubi use? Obviously I don't mean PG-13 stuff, but actual things for adults. We're speaking about a demon after all, and a very cunning one at that.

Monsters should use their treasure to buff themselves? That's just crazy.

Come on people! RPGs are games of imagination. If you restrict it too much you're completely missing the point.
I understand reasonable restrictions like "No Evil alignment". But not allowing a half-orc monk just because nobles are racist? Really? Ever heard of Disguise? Magic? Does he even have to talk with the nobles? I'm not understanding the problem here.

Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible.

Take Signature Mount. Or Wild Cohort if 3.5 is allowed.

Selfish people on the boards give selfish advice. Because you can do so anonymously when it's somebody else's friendships and game on the line. And because foolish minds try to "prove" foolish points. But there's no wisdom in such advice.

Whoa there fellow!

Like I said, stop building for survivability and these killer DMs will discover that it's not fun any more after the third of fourth TPK. If you don't, you character's continued survivability justifies their killer tactics.

Or he will learn nothing and simply derive pleasure from destroying the PCs. Some people have a hidden sadist in them.

Figuring out who is the biggest Internet Tough Guy is pointless.

Yes, exactly. Especially because the answer is obvious - It's me! :D

Look up monsters with high Charisma. How many of them are actually attractive? Idk about PF, but in 3.5 there are many monsters that are ugly or terrifying, but have high Cha scores. Demons, Devils, some Aberrations. Aboleth is a good example. Cha higher than some Sorcerers and yet it's a fish-looking monster.

Also they added appearance to Charisma so they have justification for sexy Sorcerer and Bard chick pics in the handbooks. And that I'm thankful for.

I agree with almost everything you are saying about Pathfinder, but the ad-hominem troll-baiting isn't helping anything. Even if he is a teenager, lying about his age, so what? (For the record, I don't think he is.) That's not relevant; teenagers can play Pathfinder too, and they can misrepresent themselves on the internet all they want. If you're not going to take them seriously, it's no wonder they would try.

I'll sooner take seriously a kid who is honest than a lying adult.

Friendship is Dragons

I think we have been trolled to the greatest extremes.

Duh.

What if I play a character that has high Cha, but is shy and doesn't really use the charisma? An example of this is Fluttershy. She's cute, great with animals, can Intimidate if pressured, but normally she's timid and unnoticeable and can't speak up.

DigitalMage wrote:

ImperatorK wrote:

I don't understand. I know there are adventure path. So?

I guess some people feel that the quality of the Golarion setting and the Adventure Paths makes the Pathfinder RPG what is? I have seen it before in RPG.net threads where someone asks to sell them on the Pathfinder RPG, some people talk up the setting rather than actually talk up the RPG.

Exactly that. In fact, I mentioned it earlier in this thread.

In many ways, the APs as complete campaigns lend a missing balance component to the rules. And the intent of the rules is clarified by the campaign and the contexts that it generates.

This is not whimsy. Without this understanding of the APs, I would probably be in the camp that complains about all the balance problems etc. But if you see the rules in practice, and in context, in the APs, the game makes a lot more sense.

That's why it's "okay" and not "horrible". PF is my favorite system, I play only it, but I wouldn't say it "rocks".

Pathfinder rocks. That's all there is to it.

Meh, it's okay I guess, but only because it's based on D&D 3.5.

Imperator- its not "a little stronger" it's 20 pts damage vs 100, it's ac 15 vs AC 28... The PG is WAY more powerful than any two other characters, maybe 3.

That little? It's hardly an issue.

as a player I don't just want to fight the bbeg's thugs and pets, and that sounds repetitive as does just forcing a will save on the PG every single encounter.

If you'll disregard every fix for the problem just because you don't like it, then you won't fix the problem. Simple.

A character with a reach weapon AND natural reach.

If there's problems with Powergaming then it's the GMs fault. He should step up his game. Learn to play better. A player is at fault only if he's a munchkin. Powergamers are no problem. Seriously, if one player disrupts a game just because his PC is a little stronger than the other PCs, then it's the DMs failure for not being able to deal with such a minor problem. Like it's soooooo hard to throw a stronger enemy at the Powergamer and some mooks at the weaker PCs. Or make an encounter where the Powergamers strengths aren't that helpful. Or simply target his weaknesses once in a while. I don't see an issue.

I refused to have anything to do with 3.X, however I was delighted to get a hold of Pathfinder and frankly I have enjoyed it immensely.

Don't know if you've noticed, but Pathfinder is 3.X.

Maybe stick to the topic, eh? This isn't a "Bash Forgotten Realms" thread.

Aid Another wrote:

In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial...

.....
The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

If it doesn't make sense for helping someone to be possible in the first place, then you're fully within the rules to disallow Aid Another altogether. I currently can't think of a reason to allow Aid Another on knowledge checks, though I'm open to suggestions.

Ever watched 'House MD'? During their differentials Dr. House was making a Knowledge (medicine) check and his team was Aiding Another by throwing ideas at him, making the tests, finding new symptoms and giving him inspiration for brilliant deductions.

I have a few houserules and the list slowly gets bigger and bigger:

1. I use Pathfinder/3.5 mix. Everything from 3.5/3 edition is allowed under observation and after conversion. When there are two slightly different versions of something, I'll allow to take the better version (mostly 3.5 combat feats instead of PF combat feats).

2. I use the Diplomacy and Polymorph rules from GiTP.

3. Some of the epic feats are made into normal feats and their requirements are lessened. (Under construction. Refer to point #17.)

3. I use the Defense Bonus and Armor as DR houserules.
Defense Bonus overlaps with Armor Bonus. You lose your Defense Bonus when flat-footed. Enhancement bonus is added to armor bonus and DR of armor.

4. Class abilities, feats, and magical effects that give extra attacks (such as TWF, Flurry of Blows, Haste, etc.) grant these extra attacks to standard action attacks as well (but only once during a full attack). For example, a 6th-level ranger with the TWF combat style tree could make a full attack involving two attacks with each weapon (for a total of 4), or move up to his speed and make 3 attacks (one with the on-hand, two with the off-hand via TWF and Improved TWF, each doing half Str mod to damage as usual for off-hand weapons). Similarly, a 5th-level monk who has been hasted could make 3 attacks with a standard action, taking the normal penalty for flurry of blows for all attacks that round.

5. When rolling damage where you use 1.5x your strength bonus, if your strength bonus is odd, round down if you have an even strength and up if you have an odd strength. For example, a fighter wielding a greatsword with a 16 strength would do 2d6+4 damage, or 2d6+5 if he had a 17 strength.

6. Iteratives and additional attacks from TWF, ITWF and GTWF are at +0/-5/-5/-5 instead of +0/-5/-10/-15.

7. The only prerequisite for learning a martial maneuver or stance is initiator level.

8. THe following changes were made to classes:
- Fighter, Swashbuckler, Samurai, Barbarian and Knight are gestalted together and called Warmaster;
- Monk, Ninja and Battle Dancer are gestalted together and called Martial Artist (use 3.5 FoB);
- Marshal, Knight, Healer and Paladin are gestalted together and called Champion;
- Ranger, Dragon Shaman, Dragon Adept and Scout are gestalted together and called Hunter;
- Rogue and Factotum are gestalted together and called Specialist;
- Invisible Blade and Master Thrower are gestalted together and called Invisible Blade;
- Druids can't take the animal companion option of their Natural Bond class feature (but they can acquire an animal companion by choosing the Animal domain);

9. New system for attribute increase on later levels:
a) Abilities beyond 18 cost 4 points each
b) Give all characters 2 points of pointbuy to use on 2nd level and 1 point on all later levels
c) Unused points are lost, but you can "stack" points in an attribute (for example: having 18 Int at 2nd level you can put 2 points into it, then 1 point at 3rd and then 1 point at 4th, geting the attribute increase to 19 Int).

10. All spells other than cantrips have a minimum casting time of 1 round, unless they previously required a swift/immediate action.
Classes which get only up to 6th level spells (bard, duskblade) use the original casting times, while classes with spell lists up to 4th level (paladin, ranger) can Quicken their spells for free.

11. I use the Bell Curve Rolls variant from SRD.

12. Damage caps do not exist, and HD caps increase to your caster level if higher than the original. If a spell had multiple HD caps, the highest one is equal to your caster level and other caps remain the same distance from it. (eg. if a spell had caps of 5HD, 6HD and 8HD then casting it at CL20 would result in caps of 17HD, 18HD and 20HD).

13. If you take damage while casting a spell you lose the spell automatically, unless that damage is backlash from the spell itself (but look point 18).

14. A character gains the following benefits while wielding a shield (animated shields do not grant these benefits):
- The character adds their shield bonus to their touch AC, and on checks to resist grapples, bull rushes, disarms, and trips.
- A heavy or tower shield grants the shield bonus as a bonus to Reflex saves against spells and effects that deal half damage on a successful save. If the save is successful, the character suffers no damage (similar to Evasion, but without the armor restriction).
- A character wielding a tower shield takes only half damage on a failed Reflex save against a spell or effect that offers half damage on a failed save (similar to Improved Evasion, but without the armor restriction).
- A character using a tower shield may designate one opponent during their turn. They are considered to have total cover against all ranged attacks and spells from their designated opponent and they cannot attack their opponent with ranged weapons this turn. This has no effect if the character and their designated opponent are in melee combat with each other. It is possible for the designated opponent to affect the character with an area of effect spell, but not a targeted spell.

15. Using an immediate action does not take your swift action on your next round.

16. Homebrewed feats.

17. Houseruled feats.

18. When casting a 0th-level spell you may choose to cast defensively. For every 3 points of BAB this benefit applies to spells of one level higher.

19. Some spells are changed or removed:
- Planar Binding, Lesser does not exist;
- Planar Binding, Greater does not exist;
- Planar Ally, Lesser does not exist;
- Planar Ally, Greater does not exist;
- Detect Magic is a 1st level spell;

20. All spells with "Personal" range are now "One creature touched".

21. When you level up, you can replace one level of a class that you have for a level of another class (most probably the class you take the new level in).
For example: Fighter 3 levels up. He wants to either become a Wizard completely or he wants to become a gish and he doesn't need that 3rd Fighter level (he gains nothing of worth from it). He takes Wizard as the 4th level and changes 3rd level of Fighter into a Wizard level. Now he is Fighter 2/Wizard 2. The next level he will be Fighter 1/Wizard 4. And then Wizard 6 (or he will take some gish PrC). You still have to meet the requirements for PrCs with levels other then the PrCs (although other PrCs count).
If the class level has lower HD, you deduct the difference between the averages of the two HDs. for example Fighters d10 is 5.5. You swap it with a Wizards level, d6, 3.5. The difference is 2, so you subtract that from your characters hp. If the new HD is higher, you add. The same with skillpoints.

22. There are no magic items or spells that give skills, class features or similar abilities.

23. Opponent you make an AoO against is treated as flat-footed for that AoO.

24. To avoid provoking AoOs from movement you can make an Acrobatics check with DC being the opponents CMB+Dex instead of CMD.

25. Martial disciplines substitute their associated skills with this:
Desert Wind - Acrobatics
Diamond Mind - Perception
Iron Heart - Perform (weapon drill)
Shadow Hand - Stealth
Stone Dragon - Athletics
Tiger Claw - Athletics

26. You add Cha as a bonus to Will save instead of Wis.

27. Jump is removed from Acrobatics. Jump and Swim is added to Climb and Climb is renamed Athletics.

28. Feinting makes your opponent flat-footed instead of just denied Dex to AC.

Which, of course, assumes the DM wants to create and run the cohort. Provided the DM approves the overall concept for the cohort, there is no reason at all why the player cannot create and run the cohort.

A DM can do whatever he wants, but then it's his fault if it screws up his game. The bad rep Leadership is getting mostly stems from doormat DMs who let their players tramp all over them.

I reckon the majority of DMs who want to create and run a cohort are sub-conciously crying out that they want to be a player and not the DM :)

That's actually not a bad idea. It's better for a DM to run a cohort than create an overpowered DMPC and overshadow the players, because a DMPC is equally powerful as the PCs and has freedom, while a cohort is something like a servant to a PC and is lower level.

The OPs... friend can build his character however he likes. No one is forbidding him to make low Con Wizards, Fighters or Bards.
But he's got no right to complain how someone else builds their PCs, especially when it doesn't really disrupt the game. Tell him to chill the eff up and take his nose out of your business.

Sean, my mother used to say "Don't slap your name on something if you don't want to be blamed for it". If it's not you alone who is making all the rulings and FAQs then simply say that earlier or sign them as "Paizo Design Team", because until now people saw only your name associated with many decisions that they didn't like. Just saying.

Kevin Mack wrote:

Ok what the heck happend the catfolk seem to have gone from the mostly humanoid look in the Bestiary to Khajit? Also oh god not the multijointed (No way in hell I am ever wearing boots) feet

I'm still houseruling them to look either like the catfolk in the Beastiary, or as anime-style catgirls. The latter just might be Human-Catfolk hybrids. Anyway, the talents and spell are cool at first glance, but I'm hoping for some Ranger stuff for my friend's chara.

You don't have to houserule. It's not a rule how a monster or race looks like.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Wow and I thought I got into big fights with other people :P. You two have been going at it since page 1 if I recall correctly? lol

It is kinda funny. AD thinks I'm rude because advocate for out-of-game solutions rather than in-game responses. Table manners first, RP second.

Oh the horror!

I'd like to remind you that table manners where first broken by the Ranger player and DM. I think that the OP is in no way obligated to follow table manners at this point.

I still don't understand how one players whim can be more important than another players entire character concept. Because that's what it is, a whim. He has other options, quite viable ones at that. But no, he has to have an undead horse.

So zealot PCs take precedent over their more tolerant companions? Is that what you're saying?

So the undead animal companion takes precedent over a PC? It that what you're saying?

The Monk isn't allowed to have any advantages, even when they're provided by his class features, right?
It amuses my how apparently it is uncontested that the Monk will lose 100% and yet every nay-sayer is trying to fiat him into submission for the contest to be "fair".

Humans.

Add Dex to CMB then.
And I don't think tumbling would be too easy. Remember that CMD can get quite high. Many AC bonuses also are added to CMD and not one of them makes sense as an AoO preventer. What does dodging have to do with striking an opponent that walks by you?
If you invest into a skill, you should be successful using it more often than not. I consider maxing the skill ranks as a sufficient investment. Mooks and bosses that aren't build specifically to counter tumblers shouldn't cause problems to a tumbler. Enemies that are naturally resistant or build to be resistant should of course be a problem, but not an impossible one.
Just like a full BaB class is expected to be able to hit level appropriate opponents most of the time, so should tumblers be able to tumble past level appropriate opponents with high success.

ImperatorK wrote:

Whether Gilfalas is impossible to play with or not is irrelevant to his argument. Address his argument instead of insulting him.

I'm not arguing that it is fair. I'm arguing that crying over fairness, especially over something so trivial, is stupid. I'm also saying that it is the gm's business to decide if someone has an extra ability and I am saying that if such a thing ruins your fun, you are an unfun person.

I would rather be stupid than let myself get treated unfairly.

Whether Gilfalas is impossible to play with or not is irrelevant to his argument. Address his argument instead of insulting him.

Roleplay to me is getting into a character and trying to build a concept from a back story of your character and not going through and gather every single feat and point that maxes out your character.

One does not exclude the other.

Characters with low stats can be just as fun as high ones.

Characters with high stats can be just as fun (if not funnier) as low ones.

Off course Rollplay is basicly min-maxing every aspect of your character through out any concept of why your character even adventures.

I wouldn't say so.

I notice that Min-Maxers like to show off and take the feats and such to ensure highest damage.

Where did you notice that?

Is one form better than the other?

Yes, but it depends: Which one do you prefer?

How does the tabletop community feel about roll-playing.

It's the "Game" part of "Role Playing Game".

What would you all suggest to do about keeping it back at roleplaying and preventing this in a game.

Why would you do that?

For the record, I think you're playing the game right (because the point is for everyone to have a good time), but what you're doing isn't roleplaying.

Then what is it?

In India cows are sacred. That means that a Paladin can't eat steak in D&D.

Elves are bisexual by nature. That's a big plus for me.

I need suggestions for places that aren't actual dungeons, but can function well for dungeon crawls. Which means that they're enclosed, but also big enough for an entire adventure (likely one-shot or side-quest).

Characters have backgrounds. And I mean something more than what the player wrote about the PCs backstory. Ranks/positive modifiers in Knowledge skills indicate that the PC read or learned about the subject. It would be impossible to list everything the character knows, that's why there are Knowledge skills.
If a PC has +10 in History that means he read about history. Now, if there's a question about history and the PC makes a check, the success means that he learned it in his past and remembers. A failure means that he didn't learn it, or that he doesn't remember, or that he skipped that day.
Unless your PCs are born right there, at the start of your game, they have backgrounds. And in their backgrounds they trained and learned about stuff. Knowledge skills tell you what they learned and what they remember from the lessons.

You're just misunderstanding the rules.