Justin Sane's page

367 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 367 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Gambit wrote:
Just wait for Path of War to come out, there is a generic Dex to damage feat in there.

Deadly Agility is a really nifty thing. My party's monk loves it, it's the only way to make an otherwise core Dex/Wis monk work.


Re: Fracture Pattern
Well, numbers crunched.

For my math, I'm using this for a lower-end estimate and this for a higher-end estimate. Also, we'll assume CR = APL, for simplicity. Not a perfect model, but using established numbers really cuts down on my work :P

Results found here.

Thoughts: Like Haste, its worth varies wildly based on party composition. Unlike Haste, it must be augmented as levels go by, because that "Fortitude Negates" bit is harsh. Boosting the 1st augment to 1:1 (like many other damage-dealing powers) would soften the blow a fair bit.
That said, Haste is at its best at low levels when it can double a teammate's damage potential and loses some steam later on. Fracture Pattern is the exact opposite, being somewhat lackluster early on and shining at higher levels.


DrDeth wrote:
Choices!

Ivory Towers!


I've been awake 42 hours straight now, so I'll try my best to be coherent.

Biokinetic Endurance wrote:
As you can see in the thread, there's been some serious contention about this power. The use of DR vs. ability damage isn't really precedented, so...can I ask you to expand on your thoughts re: balance here?

Well, it's a "magic psionic bullet" power. Really great when needed, but not something I'd spend a power known for (wands of Lesser Restoration are cheap). Has some limitations: low-ish duration, most useful for melee (most ability damage is caused in melee, right?) means a Psion won't get as much mileage out of this, so...

I'd say Death Ward is more powerful than this, so level 3 seems fine.

Melpomene’s Psionic Howl wrote:
Yay!

One thing strikes me as weird, why is the deafening mind-affecting? On a Psychokinetic power? Maybe it's the sleep deprivation, but... huh?

Sympathetic Drain wrote:
The surge augment lets you attempt a save to literally double the damage dealt. Admittedly that sort of check isn't normally done in PF but I wanted to gate it with something beyond just blowing your Surge on it. Interaction with temp HP removed, definitely hearing ideas on improving or replacing the surge augment.

So I manifest the power, and I (as in, not the target) have to make the save? Why would I ever augment the DC if I just want to deal damage?

As-is, this seems a two-fold power: either augment as much as possible and deal no damage, just for the debuff; or ignore the debuff and go for as much damage as possible.

Kyria’s Crystalline Aura wrote:
current thoughtline

IMHO, it could use a way to boost that bleed damage, or the DC. Other than that, I kinda liked the "pushing away" shtick and am sad to see it go, but as-is, seems solid enough (and really nasty on a Psychic Warrior -- use Defensive mode to wade in, switch to Offensive mode to shred opponents to bits).

Mental Contagion wrote:
Full-round is a power control. There's a lot of mind-affecting abilities to spread around, and many of them are excessively nasty. Spreading a dominate, for instance, means that you've saved someone two spells and now have three mind slaves. First augment isn't more granular because I want to hard-gate getting additional targets. Requiring two targets has been fixed.

a) Why not make it a one round casting time, like Astral Construct? I'm under the impression that a full-round casting time is the same time a Sorcerer takes to cast a metamagic'd spell, am I correct?

b) Mind Control is level 4 (granted, for Telepaths). This is level 6, and IMO around the same power-level. Not a good position to be in.
c) What happens when the surge debuff gets a longer duration 5 rounds? Does it persist independently?

Fracture Pattern wrote:
Yay! Balanced at third level power?

Honestly? No idea :) Gut feeling says it's fine, but I'll try to run some numbers.

Euterpe’s Prophetic Song wrote:
That cap has been placed, but consider the power as it evolves for me. By the time it does all of that it's still a concentration-duration buff that's trying to be a 9th level power. So, as the augments evolve, my question is this: do you feel it's balanced as a 3rd level power (1st augment), 5th level power (2nd augment), 7th level power (3rd augment) and then finally a 9th level power (final augment)?

1st level, +1 hit? Meh, compared to Bless.

3rd level, +3 hit and +3 skills? The cost is getting a bit steep to use as a skill-booster alone, and 3rd level gets this compared with Haste, and the extra attack beats the +2 hit.
5th level, +5 hit, +5 skills, +5 damage? Bards can probably buff this hard at this level, but not the whole party at once.
7th level, +7 hit, +7 skills, +7 damage, +7 AC? Yeah, at this point, it's just getting silly. There's nothing in the game comparable to the raw numbers you're giving out.
9th level, +9 hit, +9 skills, +9 damage, +9 AC, +9 Saving Throws? We're officially past silly, now.
Granted, that Concentration duration hurts, but the pay-off is huge. And that surge augment makes losing concentration not that much of a big deal, especially because you can contribute with more actions during those rounds.
[Edit: Forgot a detail. No matter how much you augment it, it's still a 1st level power, which makes the Concentration DCs relatively low.]


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
I know Paizo prefers to use full-color art, with minimal art reuse, but the discussion of pagefitting causing trouble is making me think of those oft-reused sketches inside WotC's 3.5-era softcovers. You know, the ones with no real context other than be dungeon-dressing?

I'd rather see reused stock art and good text than magnificent art and badly-written text. Especially because I don't use the art in-game.


Make sure the product doesn't hit layout until all text is complete; don't set the pagecount until it leaves layout. Really, for a book of this scope, it just doesn't make sense not to work with some kind of extra space margins.


That's still not much, compared to Galeena, the Conqueror Ooze.


Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
A multiclass Monk/Magus has the highest damage of the system.

[Citation Needed]

Actually curious.


CommandoDude wrote:

Muscle Wizard [Barbarian/Wizard]

The Muscle Wizard's casting stat is based on STR. He makes spells work through sheer physical might.

A casting style that has been passed down the Armstrong line for generations!


Inviktus wrote:

I foresee lots of partly filled traveling spell books, so that only a subset of spell records can be taken out with a single hit.

Also expect a master backup spellbook stashed in an extra-dimensional space. For re-copying spells to replace the sundered books.

So, standard procedure, then?


Imbicatus wrote:
Ah, I see. The feat says that if any one attack crits and confirms, they all crit.

Well, it *is* a nice thing for martials, then. Guess that's what blind-sided me :)


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Net Rager (Barbarian/Commoner): Has no special powers; gets really mad about it.


Imbicatus wrote:
It should be the same damage either way, I'm not sure where you are getting 4d8 from.

I meant 1d8 + 1d8 + 1d8*2.


I still don't understand how that crit part is supposed to work.

Let's say a monk hits 3 times for 1d8 each, one of the rolls was a natural 20, confirmation roll confirms crit. How much damage is that?

A)Sum up all damage, then apply crit multiplier, for 6d8 damage;
B)Apply crit modifier to individual attacks, then sum up all damage, for 4d8 damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathius wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks Justin you made my day. Shall we try and derail the thread with paranoia war stories? Probable should not do that.

Spoiler:
That would probably be above our security clearance. Besides, I have nothing but joyous tales of work for the Great Computer.

Mathius wrote:
DrDeth you make me think of the the Paranoia RPG. There is a system with total character balance. All stats are completely worthless and referring to them is treason.

Spoiler:
And how do you know that, citizen? Please report for termination ASAP.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
I have to say this, someone saying "I don't ever run into the same problems as you" is not being any more dismissive than the person saying "Just because you don't see the problem doesn't mean it isn't there".

People aren't saying "I don't ever run into the same problems as you". They're saying "I don't ever run into the same problems as you, so your issues are nothing but the result of theorycrafted situations". One of those is an acceptable comment, part and parcel of an healthy discussion. The other is not. Choose wisely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
Putting on my devil's advocate hat here...

First, thank you for actually trying to understand the situation and keeping the spirit of the OP.

There's just one point I want to address:
Quote:
One side has come down saying 'casters are supreme' and making their argument based on certain theoretical scenarios and on suppositions arising from reading of the rules.

You see, it's not theoretical scenarios we're talking about. It's about what actually happens at our tables. Plus, when we actually state exactly what our issues are, they are dismissed as "theorycraft" and "Schroedinger Wizards". That's why I consider such comments condescension, because we've made our points, repeatedly, ad nauseum, in this very thread, and they keep getting dismissed as "your problem, not mine".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
I'm glad I didn't make the sort of comment I replied to then.

See, the thing is, for some groups, this *is* an issue. Posts, like yours, that claim "I have no issues, so you must be seeing things" are condescending, demeaning and insulting to us that actually experience the problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
If a person doesn't experience a problem, then by definition there is no problem for that person. If there is no problem then the problem, in fact, does not exist. People who continue to insist that a problem exists when only a subset of people experience a problem should not be in the habit of thinking they speak for everyone.

If a person experiences a problem, then by definition there is a problem for that person. If there is a problem then the problem, in fact, does exist. People who continue to insist that no problem exists when only a subset of people don't experience a problem should not be in the habit of thinking they speak for everyone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
(here represented by the forum spellcaster displaying superiority not displayed by the blue-water tabletop spellcaster)

Stop that. That's downright misleading and somewhat rude. Just because it doesn't happen at your table, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other groups. Stop decrying legitimate problems as "your GM is doing something wrong" or "it's just theorycraft".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pming wrote:
However, we have NEVER had a spellcaster be able to finish/complete an adventure "all on his own". There is simply no way that would happen. He may get close, but after that, without anyone else to protect him, he's a gonner.

Yeah, I'm just gonna leave this here for future reference.


LoneKnave wrote:

Something like: if you take weapon focus, you also get the benefit of one other feat with the weapon, but only when using that weapon?

So Weapon Focus: rapier would net you +1 to hit and weapon finesse, or Improved critical, or whatever.

Hmm, I'd make it scaling even.

Quote:
Weapon focus: Select a weapon and a combat feat you qualify for. You may use the feat as long as you are wielding the selected weapon. When you reach 5 BAB and every 5 BAB after, you may select one additional feat

I'd take that with an archer in a heartbeat.


DrDeth wrote:
I have suggested that very thing.

Many have. I don't claim credit for the idea :P


blahpers wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
blahpers wrote:

Then your definition of fun would require balance. You don't balance the class for the sake of balancing it--you balance it because balanced classes are more fun for you.

That isn't everybody's definition of fun. If someone's definition of fun doesn't even register balance as a factor, should that person care about whether the class is balanced? Should a class be changed just for the sake of balance, or should it be changed only when doing so actually increases fun?
Why isn't the reverse of the bolded statement true? Why shouldn't classes be balanced? If someone who doesn't care about balance won't notice anything different about his class of choice, why not?

Firstly, you haven't proven your premise--that someone who doesn't care about balance won't notice anything different if the class is changed. They very much can. Example: If you nerf the wizard enough so that it is balanced* with the fighter, wizard aficionados will most certainly notice.

*Assume some fitness function that places the wizard above the fighter.

Can we agree, at least, that there might be a way to balance the Fighter to be on par with the Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin that wouldn't be noticed by those who don't care for balance?

Quote:
Quote:
I want to play a Fighter and not feel like dead weight. Why shouldn't I be able to have fun?
As mentioned above, for the typical player who thinks fighters are too weak, there already exists one or more class choices that does exactly what that player wants, whether it's hit harder, wear armor better, have more skill points, cast spells, etc. Why not play one of those?

But what if I don't see my character as a raging warrior? Or a blessed champion? Or a rugged outdoorsman? Why do I need to have class features that simply do not mesh with my vision of my character? I'm my group's munchkin and even I look sideways at a class dip just for power.

Quote:
You're suggesting that Paizo change something. But rules have inertia--it costs considerable resources (time, money, and softer considerations) to alter an existing feature.
Agree, however note the simplest way to "fix" the Fighter would be new Fighter-only feats. No actual need to "alter" anything.
Quote:
Therefore, the onus is on you to prove that your proposed changes are worth the expenditure--not just to you, but to the player base as a whole.

Okay, here's proof: If new feats that "fixed" the Fighter were to be published, nobody would be forced to take them. Therefore, those who like Fighters as-is would still have the same amount of fun as they did in the past and people who want a balanced Fighter would have more fun. It's what we call a win-win situation.


blahpers wrote:

Then your definition of fun would require balance. You don't balance the class for the sake of balancing it--you balance it because balanced classes are more fun for you.

That isn't everybody's definition of fun. If someone's definition of fun doesn't even register balance as a factor, should that person care about whether the class is balanced? Should a class be changed just for the sake of balance, or should it be changed only when doing so actually increases fun?

Why isn't the reverse of the bolded statement true? Why shouldn't classes be balanced? If someone who doesn't care about balance won't notice anything different about his class of choice, why not?

This is exactly where I can't follow your train of thought: If there are people who don't care about balance and have fun playing unbalanced classes, why would they have less fun playing a balanced class, if they don't care about balance? Seriously, this boggles my mind.

I want to play a Fighter and not feel like dead weight. Why shouldn't I be able to have fun?


blahpers wrote:
More to the point, which is more important--that it be fun, or that it be balanced?

Why is that a binary condition? Can't fun classes also be balanced? What if I don't have fun playing an unbalanced class?


ikarinokami wrote:
I am going to go out on a limb and say, that in a class based role playing system, that "balance" is not a mechanical determination but is infact play distribution thing, and if a class is being played frequently, and players enjoy frequently playing that class, and those players had the freedom to choose any class that they wanted play, but still chose that class, then that class, for the most part is indeed "balanced" and doesn't need actual fixing.

I have fun playing commoners. Are commoners "balanced"?


Well, they did the same with Sneak Attack and Trapfinding...

PS: One of the pre-reqs for the LoH feat is Alignment: Lawful Good.


"We think the Fighter has problems" == "OMG we hate Fighters and wish no one would play them"?

EDIT: Or, more calmly: If one likes playing Fighters, but gets frustrated with his chosen class' inability to deal with certain issues, what is he to do?


So, if you think Divine Grace in a feat is bonkers, what about Lay on Hands in a feat? And hey, try to guess the pre-reqs :) Spoiler: Most Paladins wouldn't qualify.


Prince of Knives wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Yes, because Warblades were broken.
...You wanna run that by me again, in, say, detail?

I'm guessing Thomas' line was sarcasm.


Precedent set by Extra Channel points to "no".


Can we have more info on Barroom Brawler and Reactive Healing, please?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe Hex wrote:
In the case of the Witch, [the books] miss some of the classic (and obvious) themes you'd think of for Witch archetypes- Curses, turning highborns into ugly critters, full moon rituals, bewitching hexes and spells focused on mind and emotional effects, and so on...

Slightly OT:
Moment of Doubt

School: Enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting, language-dependent, curse]; Level bard 1, witch 1

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates (see text); Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION
This insidious utterance saps the confidence of those who hear it, but can backfire in some cases. The subject takes a Charisma penalty equal to his Charisma bonus. If the subject has a negative Charisma modifier, the caster takes the penalty instead. This penalty does not stack with itself.
Special: The target cannot benefit from abilities that allow him to add his Charisma modifier to the saving throw against this spell (such as Divine Grace, Swashbuckler's thingamagig and some traits I don't recall right now).


Joe M. wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
You want martials to have nice things?
Martial characters get plenty of nice things from the book, don't worry.

When I made my previous post, I was pretty sure the italics were a dead give-away I was joking. Maybe I should have added some emoticons.


Arachnofiend wrote:
...Are there any good options like this that /aren't/ specifically awesome for divine casters?

You want martials to have nice things?


So, get LoH as a Paladin with half your HD?

Cheapy wrote:
I'm kind of confused what other details you'd want...

Prerequisites would be nice to know :) Also, the feat's name :P


wakedown wrote:
There's even a feat to get lay on hands.

Can we get some more details on that, please?


Oops, indeed it does. My bad.


SunsetPsychosis wrote:
This means that a Hasted full attack action, at a single evil target, expending your focus for Intuitive shot and Psychic Strike, would be at: +18 (2d8+2d8+4d6+42)/+20 (1d8+4d6+27)/+20 (1d8+4d6+27)/+15 (1d8+4d6+27)/+10 (1d8+4d6+27). That's a lot of damn dice.

Just FYI, that doesn't work. Intuitive Shot is a standard action, like Vital Strike. I'm pretty sure I spotted some other problem when I read your post, but my sleep-deprived brain (37 hours awake and counting!) can't spot it right now.

Other than that, looks cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You see, the thing is tiers aren't about combat prowess. They're about options.


andreww wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
andreww wrote:
Can you provide a character who can match them at a particular level?
You do realize most wizards would be able to handle that list with ease, right? At a high enough level, in the same day, too.
Yes, that would by why they are Tier 1.

Oh, my bad. I was under the impression you were in the "no character can do everything" camp.


andreww wrote:
Can you provide a character who can match them at a particular level?

You do realize most wizards would be able to handle that list with ease, right? At a high enough level, in the same day, too.


Question about terminology:
Why is it spelt "trans*"? Why is that asterisk there? Seriously, I keep looking for notes at the end of posts.


*sigh* Okay. Okay. I'm just gonna add two things, then can we get over the comic book contests, please?

1st -- If Batman, without his gear, was dropped from orbit, would he die from the impact? If yes, he's not level 20.

2nd -- Supes goes off-planet for a bit, finds a convenient meteorite, proceeds to fling it at the Batcave, with Batman inside (which Superman can indeed check from space). There, dead bat.

Now can we please drop this tangent? Please?


Another valid comparison is the afore-mentioned ring of regeneration (90k gp) vs the boots of the earth (5k gp). Although limited, the fast healing granted by the boots take care of all the OOC healing you'll ever need. Are they underpriced? Compared to the ring, yes. Compared to a half-dozen of wands of cure light wounds? Not really.


Spell Perfection is used, mostly, to create a uberspell. Something you know will pierce SR and won't be saved against. So, the exact kind of opposite spell of what you're planning on using. I'd say skip it.


Malusiocus wrote:
Going to start building that up. I'm currently making several characters with the stats presented above. Then when I get together with everyone, I'll choose a character that compliments the rest of the party composition.

My post will save you some trouble, his gear is in the rough 6k gp ballpark :)


Seconding BBT's suggestion here. Human archer Bard is a powerhouse. In the sense that he's individually awesome, and that he'll make the rest of the team even more awesome.

Stats and feats:
Str 17 +1 level
Dex 18 +2 racial
Con 15
Int 11
Wis 13
Cha 15

1: Point-Blank Shot, 1b: Precise Shot, 3: Rapid Shot

Assuming MW Comp Shortbow [+3], no buffs (AKA inside anti-magic zone): +9 (1d6+3, 20/x3) or +7/+7 (1d6+3, 20/x3)
Assuming +1 Adaptive Composite Shortbow, Inspire Courage, Heroism and Point-Blank Shot: +13 (1d6+6, 20/x3) or +11/+11 (1d6+6, 20/x3)

Assuming Cloak of Resistance +1, +1 Mithral Chain Shirt, Ring of Protection +1: AC 21 (touch 16, flat-footed 16), +4 Fort, +10 Ref, +6 Will, 29 hp.

1 to 50 of 367 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>