JGL's page

A very... creative player. I think alignments are for the character to extend his generalized concept/view of the world... kind of because that's really what it's for. If you look at individual events, the sum of events should round out to their alignment. But that doesn't mean a CG character isn't banned from torture.

When enforcing an alignment (which should be rare) I would not look at the event, I would look at the perceived event (through the players eyes). When they do something that I thought was grey, or beyond, I would ask "Why would you do that?" Then, get a response. If I felt it was flimsy or not thought out, I would paraphrase for them the moment. This is what's happening, your character is only aware of this, etc...

Once we both understand what they know, I would have them attempt to re-form what they are thinking. In this case, they woke up on a different plane (I assume). This is unsettling. He is told that he is in a prison, on a CE plane (I assume in game terms were used) and that he is expected to fight to the death for amusement. The character is now scared (understandably). They then subdued and tortured the characters for information. If the player phrased it this way, it is acceptable as NE. Their life is important, and the lives of theirs are not.

Now, if I said "Why are you torturing them?" and he said "I don't know... for fun!" I would say that their actions are beyond the realm of reason for his character, his ability scores and alignment (I'm assuming he doesn't have a super low int/wis). If they asked why, I would say, torture for the simple purpose of pleasure is sadistic, and you are not CE. You are NE, your main concern right now should be survival. If you don't know why you are torturing someone, then you simply aren't torturing them... especially since torturing them would A) create noise and draw other guards, and B) other guards may appear while you're torturing them anyway. Both scenarios could end in likely death. I would then re-affirm that their life is what is important, and try to act again.

Unfortunately, your player seems new to the game, or, wholly usure of who they are or what they're doing. Attempting to fight guards that are not threatening him, then burning the building down, setting the alarm, all brought risk of death. Yes, he's in a prison, but so far none of these tactics have any logical reason to make him believe it will bring him any closer to escaping to safety. Even when setting the alarm, he didn't do so as a distraction to escape, he's distracting everyone to... not escape??? In doing these actions, a non-CE character needs to be able to express how the event is worth risking their lives. If he did these actions without expressing how risking his life was worth the risk, then he can't possibly be CE. In your descriptions, his chaotic and erratic actions (I'm assuming) were not followed by sound reasoning for ones own life.

Without additional information (his responses) I would have easily slotted this character as CE. He has crossed the line between good and evil. He is erratic in his actions (even beyond that of scared an confused). His actions show no sense of welfare for his own life.

I have a very similar situation with a GM and this is my response. I do nothing a whole lot. I have some of the best combat abilities in the group and I generally just stand back. Unfortunately my GM likes story and intrigue more than combat. So I generally stand around and do nothing. It drives him nuts, and I just point out that i am a combat build and I have no interest in intrigue or subtlety. Also the fact that I am on such a railroad that even if I participated I wouldn't find any answers because he doesn't want us to yet. I just shrug sit in the corner and read.

It's o.k. to enjoy one element over the other, but saying you're a combat build so you don't care about the story, then ignore the actual game itself. That is rude, and your GM is right to be irked by it. He takes the time to put together the story elements as well as the combat. What it sounds like to me is that you simply don't enjoy tabletop gaming.

If you have poor rping stats you don't 'avoid' playing outside of combat. RP'ing low stats is just as relevant as rp'ing high ones. You simply only care about high ones, and only as far as they relate to rolling to hit and drooling over damage. If you're feeling railroaded, that's legit. I would talk to him about it, and if I wasn't enjoying the game I would just not play.

Maybe you should pick-up a copy of GTA and sit at home next time.

Instead of making life even more difficult for your GM like this guy above me wants, try actually talking to the guy about your issues with the game. Better if you all do it so he realizes that it's more than just you being bothered by the game.

Take this mans advice. This is supposed to be a game. It's supposed to be getting together with friends and having fun. This is a situation where players and the DM need to sit down (not playing) and simply talk about what they are, and are not enjoying.

If you talk about dice, levels and abilities. You're muddling into the game again. Take your DM out of the game, and tell him how you're feeling. No DM wants to run a game that isn't being enjoyed, whether or not they are trying to fight against the player. The game can't exist without both the GM and the players. They need each other.

I would also say, and I'm not trying to judge, that though your group may have had some rough rolls, using massive damage + trips + daze effects would usually be considered producing a powerful character. I don't think we have enough information to make those decisions, but demons are tough and do have DR/cold iron.

I think this is a mix of some characters simply hack/slashing (snore) and a DM trying to hold together a game that is interesting, both story-wise and combat-wise. If he is having trouble, you need to help him see that over-countering your characters isn't fun. But when he speaks, he will also say that he is finding it difficult producing challenges based on some of the tactics you have described.

In either case, the solution requires the group discussing the issue, and helping each other.

From what I've seen in PFS play, Synthesists tend to as we put it. "Pop like balloons." Once the eidolon has been banished, the summoner himself is a glass jaw.

I've been looking online for information on the Master Summoner. This statement alone makes me fully convinced it's the better choice for me.

I've found that all the OP'd builds are void because they were made illegally (based on rules). Add on how a well placed banishment = game over, and I'm sold.

Thanks.

Paladins, Fighters, Barabrians... they can all be great at what they do. Holding weapons and running in straight lines. The problem is (which is why tiers were conceived) they are simply too linear. To effect a flyer, you need to fly, to hit the ghost, you need ghost touch, the invisible guy, you need True Seeing (and the like).

Ones imagination can account for multiple tactics. To perform in those new or unconventional situations requires flexibility. Magic items cost money and BAB classes run short pretty fast. MAD kills your stats, but stepping toe-to-toe with the Bestiary will leave you dead at one time or another.

What Clerics/Wizards and other 9 level casters bring is the ultimate flexibility. They are able to deal with situations through 'thought' and not through numbers. This is what makes them the best, and no version will ever change this.

What makes the fighter weak is what it is, a fighter. There is no fix to standing toe-to-toe with the enemy and that's the way it will always be. Balancing a fighting class to the point that it will compete with the Wizard/Cleric is when it loses what makes it a fighter, and gains what makes it a caster. It will then be balanced when it is indeed not a fighter, and directly mimics the caster classes.

Once you overbalance the fighter past the Wizard/Cleric, you change his name to Druid.

@Bobson, your response is exactly what I'm talking about.

The two abilities between the Musketeer and the Pistolero are almost identical... except a Musketeer GETS A BONUS FEAT!!!

Pistolero does NOT get a bonus feat. The archetypes shuffle around and do some minor deed replacement. Other than that, the Musketeer comes out ahead against the Pistolero due to the feat. It is my assessment that they were meant to stack. That getting a double-dex was indeed the Pistolero's way of balancing with an extra feat.

The balance is the fact that the Pistolero's ability does in-fact stack. Just because the two abilities are almost identical, does not mean they should be identical.

@Cult: The weapons are supposed to be balanced pre-archetype. I can honestly say I haven't done the math on either weapon, but the intent is obviously to go into the archetype design pre-balanced, not to re-balance. We can then assume that what takes place within the archetype model itself is concerned with maintaining balance.

I started this thread to ask if anyone has any official errata information, and secondly, ask why they even thought there was an imbalance in the first place. I think the intent of the ability is to balance it with the free feat given to a Musketeer, and the stat changing ability of the Mysterious Stranger. This is why I was shocked to see people home-brewing. I personally think (and so far supported in there being no changes made, despite an FAQ release). I'm wondering if there's any update to it that I'm not aware of.

I thank everyone for responding with a no. The FAQ so far is the only official changes made to Ultimate Combat.

Yes, I've used the search button, google and have checked Paizo's official FAQ for Ultimate Combat.

When I read through the Gunslinger Archetypes, I found it interesting that more or less, they all dabbled around in adding/subtracting/delaying 'deeds' without actually over/under-powering each archetype.

I also noticed that each added something extra to each type. The Mysterious stranger got to switch which stat affected the class abilities. The Musketeer got a free feat (Rapid Shot), pretty nice. I also found that the Pistolero was given an ability that didn't replace Gun Training, allowing them to double up their Dex to damage.

When I went online to read about the class, I noticed many were homebrowing to ix-nay stackability under the assumption that because one of the archetypes replaced Gun Training, that this ability was 'meant' to replace it as well.

I have searched after this to find an official change. None of the websites have done so, and the official FAQ to the book itself mentions some other class clean-ups, but the Pistolero is left unchanged. I am curious as to whether or not the choice to ix-nay it is if it truly was meant to replace it (that I have found no evidence of) or that they just think there's really no reason they should get to double Dex.

I don't understand this though, even if we assume there should be an errata, then the Pistolero is no different than the regular Gunslinger... in-fact, they'd be weaker than the other archetypes, where one is able to switch the main stat, while the other gains a very critical feat for free...

Is my google-fu failing me? Can anyone show me some kind of official response, errata or FAQ that can clean this up for me?

In house-ruling Pistol Training, I simply don't see what the archetype does to entice someone by limiting their choices (forcing them to take a pistol, and limiting their proficiency) and to delay a useful ability like Deadeye until 7th level. Any help would be appreciated.