Search Posts
Not possible without houserules unless I am missing something. Can't dip into fighter or monk if you're a brawler? Nevermind, I see they changed that from the playtest. You now can multiclass into the base classes.
You'd still count your hit as one attack for the purposes of DR. It would make Pummeling Style effectively a melee Clustered Shots. Definitely worth taking for a TWF build I'd think, but not the tactical nuke it is now. That's true, I hadn't thought about that. Still, I am very much against dropping that "all crit" part. That really makes this a very nice feat. I would be very fine with them limiting this to unarmed attacks only, or maybe unarmed strikes and the close group.
Again, thanks for accepting my apology :p I agree, checking against 2 ACs does feel in spirit of the the rules, but goes against trying to make the game run smoother and simpler. But with your view on things, it seems like the only fair way to deal with this issue of retaining the charge or not. This factor here, coupled with the idea that the devs try to avoid complicating the rules mechanics as much as possible, made me think that its easier to take the simpler case of a miss retains the charge. However, as with you, I really like the mechanic of checking spellstrike vs both touch and normal AC. Its a very fair way to deal with things, and while it complicates the matter, I don't feel its anything TOO complicated. I feel its an elegant way to deal with the magus in your game! I hope you take that matter of resolving the charge issue into your home game until you can hopefully get clarification on the matter. I know I will use this interpretation for any Magus in my games from now on!
Ill agree my tone was not the most conducive to debate, I apologize. However, I still think even with your interpretation there HAS to be some wiggle room. With your current setup, a missed attack is a missed attack and AUTO discharges the spell because it made contact with the armor, but the sword made contact with the armor. It doesn't have to be so. You are the one bringing the missing normal AC but still making contact with the armor (IE hitting touch AC) argument, but you do it in a way that isn't consistent or fair to a magus player. Lets say I did agree with your interpretation: Why is it so difficult to test a spell strike attack and compare it to a second number to fully follow up on said interpretation? There 3 cases instead of 2: Case 1) melee attack missed both touch and normal ac: attack did not make contact with armor, so the charge is held and melee attack misses. Case 2) Hits touch AC and misses normal AC: Charge is dissipated and melee attack misses, because the attack hit armor but did not deal damage. Case 3) Hit touch AC AND normal AC: Damage and Spell damage as normal. This way at least gives the magus the CHANCE of holding onto that charge. I have to respectfully disagree with you that your ruling doesn't nerf anyone. It nerfs the magus. Personaly, I kind of like the idea of checking the spell strike vs touch and normal AC: hitting touch AC means the touch spell went off, its still a touch spell after, just being dealt through the sword instead of a normal touch attack. So in my house rule, case 1 = charge held, melee attack missed. Case 2 = touch hit so touch spell goes off but melee attack does not deal damage and Case 3 = normal, melee + spell damage. Anyway, just throwing that out there. I very much apologize for my snarky and demeaning tone earlier. Wasn't called for.
@ Jo Bird I'm not saying they are right because there are more of them, Im saying they are right because they are the ones posting the rules to support their arguments. You've posted nothing more than the rule in question, with nothing else to support your "Theory". /shrug Riddle me this then, since you are arguing that this all because the Magus has to make an attack vs normal AC vs touch ac: if the sword attack hits touch AC but not normal AC, does the Magus get to have their touch attack take effect? Thats the ONLY way your interpretation makes it fair for the Magus. Because sure, the sword wont hurt the target, but by your own reasoning it did TOUCH the target, which is all the spell needs to take effect in the first place. EDIT: More careful reading of your previous post says no. Really? Its "needlessly complex" to check an attack roll against 2 numbers instead of 1 to see if the touch attack hits but the melee attack misses? Ok then! That tells me a lot: You just want to nerf the ability. Your reading of the rules is silly, and cripples the Magus. I have nothing more to say on your house rule. Its obvious that the mountain of evidence against your interpretation will do nothing to sway your opinion, and nothing short of a Paizo Dev coming in (which probably wont happen) will change your mind. For what its worth, I've flagged your original post for FAQ and Im walking away with sanity intact, Im sure much to your delight.
1) Remind me not to play a Magus in your game, as you are seriously nerfing the class. 2) When its 15+ people all with documented support against your ideas and none backing you, its pretty obvious who is making the wild assumptions. There have been documented, quoted sources from the rules, where as you have NOTHING quoted to support your arguments. Sorry. No one is telling you that you CANT run your games like this, only that its not RAW. Basically, if cant quote rules to support it, your injecting your opinion into things. Nothing wrong with that for your home game, not at all. Just don't go trying to spout off about thats RAW when you cant even quote sources to support your argument.
Had an issue come up at the table the other nite that I would like to get the community's opinion on. Basically playing a barbarian with ranks in intimidate and the intimidating glare rage power. An issue came up where my barb was grabbed by a gibbering mouther, and I attempted to demoralize the creature to make it harder for the thing to grapple me (which now im not sure would even work, as I don't think a grapple is an attack action, but that is another question). Anyway, my GM didnt think I should be able to demoralize a creature that didnt really have human intelligence. However looking at RAW for intimidate, it makes no mention of demoralize requiring a humanoid target. Am i correct in thinking there is no requirement in order to demoralize? You dont need to be intelligent to be shaken by the huge half-orc barbarian screaming at you in a guttural, feral howl right?
Gonna nit pick slightly here. It says you cant get any EXTRA actions in a round, it doesn't say you can't use the arm to load the crossbow as a move action with your vestigial arm INSTEAD of your regular hands. So as long a you don't try to do it to get an extra action in the round, but instead use it as your normal move action, there is no problem. This sounds purely like a role-play choice as opposed to trying to munchkin out an extra reload in a round.
Its called Agile, and I do not believe it is on the PFSRD yet.
Bandolier w/pure hooch (90-proof) in potion vials. More bandoliers in haversack. [grin] First rule of dwarven combat: never run out of booze, because you don't feel nothin' when you're plotzed. Fair enough, but still does you no good if you fail your save and cannot access it, or your bandolier gets taken/smashed/magiced away. If weapons are fair game, that certainly would be as well once any one saw the trick done, or knew about the trick before hand. <shrug> What happens to the Superstitious barbarian who didn't plan (i.e., Moment of Clarity) on losing several hundred hit points in one particular round and is just barely hanging on, the cleric is standing by with reach-spelled Quickened Cure Mod + Heal (which SB is +7 to nerf both), and Bad Guy #3 is on-deck after the cleric -- and SB can't do squadoosh because it's not his turn? This is a very specific scenario, but I'll admit it could happen. However its just as likely that the barbarian goes after losing all the hp and before the cleric and has time to react and enter his moment of clarity. Its also just as likely that the barbarian goes after the cleric and has time to retreat to a safe point to recover. Point being, without knowing the details of whats going on, any of those scenarios is equally as likely to happen. Basically, both gfwai and super have their chances to shine and chances to fail, and all things equal the chances for the situations above to occur are equally as likely. ...sometimes you're screwed no matter what you do (but the gods of irony will laugh all the harder if you set yourself up for it). Remember, it doesn't matter in the end if you fail because its how the dice goes, or if you set yourself up: a failure is still a failure. Sure, there was a chance it could have been avoided, but then again even with your method the dice can still fail. I think you just like it being "out of your hands" so to speak. I, however, have no issues with being the source of my own demise :) See Drunken Brute archetype -- it's a move-action for them. In any event, two chances to make a 50% save is 75%, and two chances to make a 75% save is 93.75%. Now the stats here are the one thing you have here that makes the most sense to me. But they mean nothing if you cannot, for MANY possible reason, get to your alcohol to make that save. There are just too many situations where failing that initial save would mean this is the case. As such, I place more emphasis on making that first save. I'm of the opinion that failing that first save is far more detrimental, there are far too many situations where passing the save the first time because you have the boost will be more beneficial in the long run. You are of the opinion that you'd rather risk that instead of worrying about failing a friendly save. Which is a very fair point. It comes down to the fact that each of us is more worried about different situations. And that's wonderful, as far as I concerned. As far as Drunken brute, the ability says "While raging, the drunken brute can drink a potion, or a tankard of ale or similar quantity of alcohol, as a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity." It doesn't say they can retrieve the drink as part of the action, just drink it. Drinking a potion is a standard action normally, but it still requires a move action to retrieve said potion. The real benefit here is that the action no longer provokes attacks of opportunity. So even with this archetype, you lose your round to get your extra save. Again, you've admitted as much from what I can tell, but both methods have their ups and downs. I see no point in continuing this, as its pretty clear we are in an "agree to disagree" situation on the value of this power. Simply, I am of the opinion that Superstition is not as bad as you claim it to be, and you just dislike it because it doesn't fit your play style. Nothing wrong with that at all, you are more than welcome to your opinion, just as long as you realize its just that: an opinion.
What happens when you run out of drinks? What happens if you fail your save and CAN'T pull out your drink (Hold Person, Command, Glittedust and can't see your drinks, etc)? What happens if you pull out your drink, taking an entire turn to do so, which also means you aren't attacking that turn, and fail your reroll? A lot of enemies would consider it a success to make the Barb waste his entire turn NOT attacking (move to grab drink, standard to drink). The fact of the matter is there is just as much that could go wrong with GFWAY as there is with Superstition. As it stands, I understand your desire to not have to deal with the possibility of saving against friendly spells. I just don't see that as being as big of an issue as you do, however. It comes down to play style, really.
Moment of Clarity and roused anger are rage powers, and heart of the fields is an ethnicity for humans. Although personally I'd ditch roused anger, the downside is to high unless you had some way to alleviate the exhausted condition afterwards. So not that bad of an investment, in my opinion. I understand your concern with Superstition, but I still maintain its worth picking up for a Barb. Healing in combat, while sometimes needed, isn't the most effective use of time. If it comes to that, you're in trouble as it is. Im much more interested in avoiding the save or suck effects straight up, rather than having to fish out an alchoholic drink to try to fix the problem I could have avoided up front. And any healing spell besides Heal will give you half health on a save, so you will get something out of it at the very least. Channels will get through ok as well, which at lower levels will be a more likely source of healing also. So I dont think the power is as bad as you claim it, but I understand how it might not fit into your play style.
You bring up a good point on the bonus type, hadn't noticed that before. I have to imagine it was supposed to be another type of bonus, should probably clarify that. And cheating is such a strong word, be careful of throwing it around! More likely in my situation, where an honest mistake was made about the bonus type. However I still think it to be worth the risk. There is the moment of clarity rage power which just screams to be used in a situation like this. The bonus is just to good, assuming it stacks with the normal rage bonus as I imagine I was intended to do, to pass up in my opinion. And I like having the option to boost up my saves without needing to play a dwarf. Obviously, YMMV.
It also does not apply 1.5 times dex if wielding a 2handed weapon, but most chars taking probably wouldnt be using a 2 hander anyway. But yeah, the weapon being enchanted has to be finesseable, the weapon/s enchanted will lose a +1 by having this have to be put on there. I dont think its overpowered at all, and gives a nice option to dex based characters.
My primary problem with Dervish Dance isn't that it is there (it really isn't OP), but that nothing else is there for the "not scimitar." This is not true anymore! There is a new weapon enchantment in the Pathfinders Society Field Guide!! There is a weapon property called "Agile" that allows a weapon to use dex for damage, and its a +1 equivilant! I dont own a copy at the moment, but I plan to pick up a hard copy JUST for that enchantment.
Unfortunately, both MoMS and Sensei replace flurry, so you cant stack these. Which is unfortunate, as its a nice combo.
There is no denying that Monks got a lot of love in UC. Quite a bit, in fact, there is almost so much as to be overwhelming. So I'm starting up this thread to pick the community's brain on all the new monk options. If you have an interest in monks, or even if you dont, come in and give your opinion on whats new, I;d love to hear your thoughts! Also, I'm looking for fellow monk lovers, or even people who like building character concepts, to start throwing together some new monk concepts! What is the monk that might play with all the new goodies they get? Im still trying to throw together something that sounds fun, and I'm curious as to what others have come up with. One aspect I'd really like to make use of is the Dimensional Agility feat chain. I had been thinking some sort of maneuver master monk, using that to teleport around and take down mages with grapples and trips. Also, I was looking at a flowing monk, and I had originally wanted to mix it with master of many styles, but then I noticed that they both replace the bonus feats in different ways, so that wont work. Speaking of the flowing monk, it seems a bit odd to me that they lose the fast movement aspect of the monk, seems that fits really well with the whole theme of the archetype.
You are incorrect. As long as the archetypes don't replace or alter the same abilities, they are 100% legal to stack.
Its 100% legit to stack archetypes, as long as they dont replace the same abilities.
Im thinking it would be for situations like Grick discussed. As such the lie is being called into question, and the guard has to convince someone else that its true. That's a diplomacy check in my book. As I said, its a trick that wont come into play very often, as such its a niche trick. In a city based campaign I can see it being immensely useful.
Kaft is correct in the mechanical workings of the trick, at least in my interpretation of how it works.
Bolded for emphasis. It is not saying the target uses the bluff skill, only that they use your bluff skill MODIFIER for whatever check they make to retell the lie. So yes, they believe its true so they use a diplomacy check, however, they use YOUR bluff mod to do so. Actually a pretty neat trick, narrow in scope but cool never-the-less.
I could counter with "When I find errors with casual perusal of a Paizo book/pdf, thats unacceptable to me." I fail to see how its ok with books, but not ok with software. Also, you never go into detail of what bugs you've found. I've used the software for almost a year now, I can count the bugs i've run into on one hand. And, they are usually very quickly pointed out by the community and fixed by lone wolf.
You are quite entitled to your opinion, of course, but lines like this just leave me shaking my head. I have never found a single piece of software ship out bug free, EVER. You pay for the books and pdfs from paizo and they have editorial mistakes and mis-wordings, those are the printed version of bugs. Just saying.
Yup, I get that. However, other archetype replacements do rules type replacements, trading something for +x to saves or something of the like. In this case, they did a general rule so it would take up less space: they didnt have room to say "At level 4 you can replace slow fall with any of these powers:" and do that for every single ability. All im saying is i can understand how seeker came to his conclusion. As I have since edited my initial post, I can clearly see the argument from both sides, even though I want it to work as the majority are claiming it does.
I initially thought you were incorrect, now I think you might be correct. However, something bugging me about all of this is I could have sworn I saw a dev (possibly James, who some people yelled at me already about his word not being official) state that it worked that you didn't have to replace an ability if you didnt want to; in that case you couldnt later select the ability you kept if it appears in a list. Like if you didnt replace slow fall, you couldnt later replace something else with slow fall and quick advance it. I'll see what if I can find that post that I very possibly may have imagined. Barring that, I'm inclined to agree with Seeker: you have to replace the ability, but the difference is you get a choice of what to replace it with, and can later go back and add it back if you wanted to keep it. EDIT: Keep going back and forth on this, both arguments make sense to me. I see no issue with allowing it to work on a selective basis as the majority of people are saying it works. In fact, I like it better that way. I wish more classes had choices like that you could take to customize (rogue talents, ninja tricks, alchemical discoveries etc). So instead of it being an archetype, introduce monk insights, and let the player build the monk they want.
This, this, a million times this. I really think this is the most important piece of advice you can take into your learning experience with you, especially since you are the one to be GMing. When you are first starting out, try to familiarize yourself as much as you can with the rules obviously, but if you are unsure of how to resolve something, and cant figure it out exactly, run with something that makes sense! Using the basics and skeletons of the rules and improvising on some of the more complicated stuff in the name of learning and having fun is paramount to this, IMO. In other words, don't be concerned with playing exactly to the letter of the law your first time out, play within the skeleton frame work of the rules as you understand them. The rules are designed to be guidelines anyway. Even for those of us who are familiar with the rules, we change things up all the time to better suit our needs and personal tastes! As far as what you will need, there have been a lot of solid recommendations, so Ill just chime in with my personal opinion. 1) One of the free modules or PFS scenarios will give you a solid starting adventure to get going with. Plus the free ones are usually designed with newer players in mind anyway, so they might not be as complex or use obscure rules as AP books or other modules might do. 2) Core rulebook pdf, book, and PFSRD. About the book, I don't suggest everyone get one, but you might consider having everyone interested in learning throw in on purchasing one copy of the core rulebook to share at sessions. That way you have one hard copy for play, and can use cheaper pdfs/ srd when not there to help learn the rules. 3) Don't be afraid to ask questions here on the forums! As you said, the community here is, overall, a solid and extremely helpful one. There are instances of snark and bickering over silly/non-silly things, but if there is one thing that is a hallmark of the community on a whole, its their willingness of being helpful to new players. Once you get to be a grizzled old veteran you can take park in discussions on if metemagic is broken or not, or if <insert anything here> is evil or not ;) 4) Repeating what I said earlier. The first few times you play, dont worry about getting the rules 100% correct. Worry about playing the game the way you understand it, and learning the rules as you go along. Dont be afraid to wing something if you dont understand the rules. The number one priority of this hobby is to have fun, that makes rule number one to be "have fun". With all that said, welcome to the community and hopefully this is something that at least some in your group will enjoy and want to stick around with!
Add me to another one of the +1000 crowd. I do most of my GMing off my laptop: these features make my life easier! I would gladly rebuy maps for previous APs like these (I say rebuy because I've been an AP subscriber since 2nd Darkness. I would STILL gladly buy the maps for the APs I already own). Awesome, Awesome, AWESOME work. It is much appreciated, and Im excited to see what else might be done with these.
Strong accusations. I can assure you that the PDF is available for some of the subscribers to the main PFRPG line. Its 100% official, I've seen my friends pdf copy, complete with his name and email watermarked across the top.
I think some people are getting the feeling that there is an attitude of "You're not good enough to join, but your good enough to do the work to fix things for us" I don't think that was UR's intent, but I can see how that attitude could be interpreted, I know I got that sense. Its some of the wording choices she used. I will repeat however, that even though I get that feeling through her posts, that she actually believes that. She was trying to get help while respecting the wishes of the community she plays in. So while I don't have an issue with UR, I do kind of take offense to being labeled as unfit for this community by people who don't know me, not that I have any interesting in joining. On topic here, asking on how to implement software fixes when you don't know how the underlying code works is not likely to get a lot of results. I understand and respect your desire to keep the project under wraps, however I just don't think you will get a lot of usable ideas. Its hard to fix something if you don't know how it works on the inside. And with code, its hard to come up with a way to fix the code if you dont know how its written. Furthermore, it just doesn't sound POSSIBLE to implement these archetypes as feats, not if you want to replicate the entire archetype. The problem is, as has been stated, that archetypes REPLACE certain features, which then leave your feats open to use for other things. With this system, you wouldn't be replacing the normal features, and you'd be losing feats you need to make your character to work to add what should be base features of a class. Unless of course this is what you wanted, but I think a lot of the features aren't worth having as feats, compared with the opportunity cost of feats you are NOT able to take. My 2 coppers.
I see you are going to be playing Serpent's Skull. Another point about the Rager barb that may or may not come into play. I dont know how your GM handles things, but one of the games I'm in, mine is VERY picky about things such as "How are you getting by in the intense heat". Heat he makes us track water (cleric always has create water handy). Jungles are HOT, HUMID, and can pose a problem if your GM tracks such things. The Rager barb gets to choose either hot or cold environments and act as is if under endure elements attuned to said environment (in addition to slow scaling fire/cold resistance). So if you choose fire, you get endure elements towards the heat. Could be useful if your GM delves in such territory as mine does.
I think the problem is we have no measuring stick to use to judge if this is good or not, because no one knows how your home campaigns are run. Its hard to say if this is balanced or not or good or not for your games when we dont play in them. Everyone just has regular PF to compare against this home brew to, and as has been said, it doesn't come close to PF as written. I just don't see you getting any feedback that can be useful to you without that measuring stick, if you will. Just to be clear, I'm not telling you in any way you are wrong for playing that way, or that this class cant be useful in your style of campaign. I just dont think you can get useful feedback, is all.
Nope. I have an argument, but you've already told me you wont listen to it. Part of it falls into your list, so you'll just dismiss it anyway. So why waste my time with a well thought out counter argument if you're just going to ignore it? I know you think otherwise, but your just as much guilty as everyone else of carrying an attitude and perpetuating the vibe of this thread. /shrug
Stuff /facepalm Ok, Im done. If you get together to play dnd and spend your entire sessions making ammo and selling it, and the rest of your party is cool with that, by all means enjoy your game. I'm backing out of this while my sanity is still intact. Congrats, you've "won" on the internet, by means of forfeiture on my part :)
Hm, that makes sense now that I think about it. Claws are 2 primary attacks for 1 evo point, a very good deal. It seems to be a way to make it more in line with the cost of other primary attacks, which are 2 evo points from what I can see: Gore, Slam, etc. Makes sense to me!
Obviously more profitable than adventuring? I think we might have a disagreement on the "obviously" and "more profitable" in this situation. Supply and demand, you keep making bullets then they are gonna be worth less than nothing, since, you know, you can make them pretty much at will. Also, you are hardly gonna be the only 11th level gunslinger in the world, Im sure the others have figured out this trick too, thats more competition. And to have made enough of them at 11th level to make more money than adventuring at that level? 5 silver a pop (at first) or maybe 1g a pop (again, until you flood the market with them) to be more profitable than a 100,000g+ adventure? Ok, get back to me when you've made 100,000 bullets. Sure, you can do 3 at a time, but it will actually be a lot more than that, because once you start flooding the market, the value will drop pretty quickly, and you will need to make more and more just to recoup that lost value. Look, this situation is pretty clearly not intended by the rules, and is fixed with a simple GM decision to say "no, that doesn't work." That's the beauty of this game, that there IS a GM to rule on such situations. I agree, its not the best solution to EVERY balance issue, obviously. Im not saying in EVERY case its ok to balance things with GM fiat. However in THIS and a lot of other cases, its 10000% enough.
That's true. Perhaps a summation post in here covering all the multiple cases that need addressed :)
|
