Darius Finch

Kaelan Ashenveil's page

Organized Play Member. 213 posts (362 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is only a problem when people put the cart in front of the horse, metaphorically. Your RP defines the alignment, not the other way around. Just because I'm LG, for example, doesn't mean I'm not down for some serious hoodrat activities. I think there was a picture floating around that was able to make a convincing argument that Batman is every alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which class, in your opinion, makes the best archer?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They're as intelligent as the plot/backstory requires. I know that's not a great answer :\ But for all intents and purposes they're as intelligent as Salem, as Nall, as Crookshanks, as... you get the point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It also makes me really sad that this makes a dwarf cleric one of the worst choices now. Which is supposed to be like... THE cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
Of course any good boy scout would avoid a spontaneous casting class. Their motto is "Be Prepared" after all.

For what?

For the death of the King!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Iomadae. Because Lawful Good is the Best Good(tm)

</sarcasm>

But in all seriousness, probably Sarenrae. I would consider the rose in one hand, scimitar in the other the best metaphor for Good is Not Nice, and she gives evil the chance to repent, when practical.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the big issue is that AMF is called out in the rulebook explicitly as a rare spell, so this should not be a common effect to find, and having it wreck everybody's day thus is appropriate.

It doesn't really wreck anyones day per se. It just makes the fight take 8 million years (hyperbole). The fighter is less dangerous when the magic is turned off... which feels extremely counter-intuitive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It took me a minute to figure out, but I think I finally got my biggest (personal) reason why I don't like that essentially all of a martial's damage is tied up in his (magic) weapon. It makes my Hollow Knight concept invalid.

To backtrack a bit, I have a few characters that I keep in my campaigns as a sort of recurring thing. They're basically a corrupted kind of einherjar - they can't exactly die, if they do so, they go back to their plane to await being called again. There's a restoration period they have to go, but that's not really important. There are a few of them, Hollow Knight, Silent Knight, Shadow Knight, etc. They all have auras of X on their armor. The Hollow Knight has an anti-magic field centered on his armor. If I were to use this character in 2e, the front liners would be swinging 1d12+str at each other... for 10/12 levels worth of hit points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I was playtesting a Fighter alongside my buddy's barbarian... and it was my observation that it felt kind of weak. I was a fighter in fullplate and was more accurate than the barb and dealing extremely similar damage (I was a dwarf, barb was human). That... kind of bothered me and then I came to the forums where I discover that, allegedly, every class was intended to have more or less similar numbers.

Was anyone in PF1 upset that the barbarian outdamaged fighters? I always figured that came with the territory - a fighter has more AC, and the barb deals more raw damage and hopes the other thing stops moving first. So I look around and I do some thinking (as well as finding out that my playtest data was wrong - I thought a large weapon increased the damage die, which it apparently does not). Would it break anything too badly if rage gave another weapon die? It would be strong at level 1 - but so is everything else. Honestly my bard should die if I fail to notice a orc barbarian hiding in a tree with a greataxe above me.

Barbarian as of right now seems to not hit enough and when it does the damage dealt... is just unremarkable. Thoughts?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Now imagine they're goblins. : D

I was unsure who to imagine as a goblin, so I imagined every sentient being in my head as one. I was not disappointed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always found the reasons why Paladins exist is the reason why legions of good guys don't summon mass Angels, whereas cultists summon mass demons. The nether planes bring themselves to "do it themselves" while the upper planes empower mortals.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hearing there's a mechanical buff to bravery is fantastic. Fighter McBrave cannot be shaken??? Come at me Frightful Presence!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Long John wrote:
With a name like Zon-Kuthon, was there any hope for him in the first place?
How well do you think Dou-Bral would have fared? That's the name he went by before becoming Evil.

Poor guy didn't have a chance. It's the hyphen that did it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mass props for the surveys. Although I would hazard a guess that everyone who throws up the massive wall of negativity on the boards aren't willing to sit through the survey. Only the people who WANT this to really succeed would invest the time. As an aside... Make Dragons Great Again*!

*(By making lesser dragonkin such as wyverns or drakes for them to use as mooks, thereby allowing a dragon encounter have numbers to help combat the action economy advantage players historically have over big solo dragons).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just really like the thought of Trained, Expert, Master and Legendary being more than just vague "the DM sets things you can and cannot do" especially with regards to weapons and armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back. SO I averaged out the critical damage for the strongest attack on every combat CR1 monster in the playtest bestiary. If the monster had a conditional bonus (for example, the wolf getting extra damage on a flank) I averaged the damage between a regular strike and this "empowered" one. I averaged the hit points of the level 1 PC as if they had 16 Con (Note this does not take into consideration that say, elf really has a racial HP of 5 due to a racial penalty, and cannot actually have 16 con).

The average health of a level 1 PC with 16 Con is... 19 even.
The average damage of a critical Strike of a CR 1 creature is... 11.

I haven't gone further yet, but your proposal would effectively made any critical strike (at least on a CR 1, I'll be doing CR 5 next) a risk for an insta-kill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Epic Meepo wrote:

Something else about the fighter class that made me wonder:

Will saves: Why are fighters only trained in Will saves while rangers are expert in Will saves? That seems backwards to me, especially now that rangers are not spellcasters. Rangers have no Will-related class features, while fighters at least get Bravery by default. It feels almost as if the fighter and ranger saving throw proficiencies got swapped in a copy-paste error during layout.

Well, my "educated guess" would be that the inspiration for Ranger never succumbed to the Ring, and the Fighter of Fighter (Boromir) most certainly did.

But I highly doubt that is the actual reason. Even though it would make me happy if it was.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to concur with this. I've had a character concept for a long time, based on the first JRPG I ever played. It's essentially a magic swordsman with a talking, flying cat familiar. When I learned from the teaser that I can have a flying cat familiar, I was over the moon. Then I learned about how multi-classing worked. I can make DragonMaster Alex, I thought. But even for roleplaying... I just... can't justify taking the familiar. A flying, talking cat accomplishes absolutely nothing other than flying and talking. Maybe with sorcerer dedication rather than wizard (and by taking the expanded familiar feat) but they need... more. At least 3 choices at base, and expand the Master traits so that they are... useful.


Big Lemon wrote:

I know that, when this was introduced in SF, the effect of this (along with how that game handles ability scores and every class is MAD) was that race made a LARGE difference at 1st level, but that difference gradually faded over time so that by mid levels, the choices you made mattered more than where you came from (a good idea, imo).

In PF2 the goal seems to be making ancestry matter throughout your career: a gnome fighter will always feel quite different from a human one.

Speaking of which, is anyone ever going to NOT take the fuzzy animal friend feat for gnomes?

Fuzzy animal is for the familiar right? My 5th level gnomish bard is a sea captain, and most certainly has a familiar. And obsessive for Lore Sailing. Which is awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just had a mental image of two Paladins standing back to back with Halberds doing monk flips over each other covering the others 6, 12, 2, etc. That sounds almost as cool as having two clerics in a party (I am currently running a game with 2 clerics and if I don't drop a player in one round, he will be back to full nearly immediately).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reticent wrote:
Long John wrote:
Reticent wrote:

I have to admit I don't like +1 per level. It works fine as a game mechanic, but it really breaks believability and immersiveness on a lot of story elements.

A Str 8, Dex 10 old man with a scholarly background and 20 levels of wizard shouldn't be mechanically favored to win fist fights over Str 18, Dex 16 Fighters with a background of street tough who are just starting their adventuring career.

+1 per level kind of takes the normal drawback to having a level system and exaggerates it to its maximum detrimental effect.

So Merlin would get punked by some kid with a knife if they were in, say, an anti-magic field? I have to 100% disagree with that man. A 20th level wizard would have been in an absolutely ludicrous number of fights. He's not going to be at the mercy of some kid with a knife who's never seen anything more dangerous than a particularly large rat, magic or no.

I don't know about Merlin, who had some supernatural heritage going on, but yeah pretty much every septuagenarian is done for in that situation.

Experience counts for something, but if it mattered this much then pro athletes would keep competing at the highest level until they reach the normal retirement age of 65.

Put it another way, Thud the Int 3 lvl 20 Barbarian plays a game against a 17 year old chess prodidgy. Sure, Thud takes a -2 penalty for being untrained in board games.

That's apples and oranges. You can't tell me that a guy who has literally survived hundreds of encounters against things far more frightening that some punk with a knife is done in for. Pro athletes IRL are NOTHING close to a level 20 in a tabletop RPG.

Your 3 int Barbarian that is completely untrained in board games wouldn't even be allowed to roll in that example because he's untrained, as in literally knows nothing about the game or it's rules. The proficiency system is set up that way - to gate things behind proficiency so it doesn't matter he would allegedly have a +15? (forget the modifier for 3).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Reticent wrote:

I have to admit I don't like +1 per level. It works fine as a game mechanic, but it really breaks believability and immersiveness on a lot of story elements.

A Str 8, Dex 10 old man with a scholarly background and 20 levels of wizard shouldn't be mechanically favored to win fist fights over Str 18, Dex 16 Fighters with a background of street tough who are just starting their adventuring career.

+1 per level kind of takes the normal drawback to having a level system and exaggerates it to its maximum detrimental effect.

So Merlin would get punked by some kid with a knife if they were in, say, an anti-magic field? I have to 100% disagree with that man. A 20th level wizard would have been in an absolutely ludicrous number of fights. He's not going to be at the mercy of some kid with a knife who's never seen anything more dangerous than a particularly large rat, magic or no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CommanderCoyler wrote:
Long John wrote:
You still 100% pay attention to the Step action. You never know if what you're fighting can make AoOs. Like Dragons. Forget what color, but one of them laugh at your Step not provoking, and tail slam you anyways.
I would assume most, eating a tail slap for moving around dragons is a staple of D&D

Green. It was green. Black interrupts attacks and skill checks, Blue uses it's wings as a shield, Red has regular AoOs with his bite, and White sprays freezing blood when injured by piercing or slashing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You still 100% pay attention to the Step action. You never know if what you're fighting can make AoOs. Like Dragons. Forget what color, but one of them laugh at your Step not provoking, and tail slam you anyways.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been a long time lurker on these boards, and spent mindless hours on this during my downtime from my first deployment way back when. But perusing it recently it just... kind of depressing, honestly. So I decided I was going to put a thread saying that I'm a pretty big fan of this new system, as I feel the people who dislike it are much much more vocal.

That isn't to say there aren't people who are offering legitimate criticisms without being over the top vitriolic. But just as a whole, I like how the system seems to highly encourage other actions that just - I get into range and full round, and then continue to stand there whacking each other with sticks until one of us falls down.

There are kinks to work out, but I can have fun playing the game and, as designated DM, there's going to be some learning pains. I expected that. Now it's just down to playing the friggin game to learn the ins and outs of this one too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two in total I'm afraid. Which is a huge bummer for me because I want to recreate Alex from Lunar, who is a swordsman with minor magic... that has a flying talking cat. I can't justify taking a feat that would then give me... zero benefit whatsoever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Aw, hell Jim. I could never harm you. You're honest and brave and true. You didn't learn that from me,"

The man who planned a mutiny and was a legitimate pirate, not the caricatures mostly seen, and the only one Billy Bones ever afeared... could not bring himself to shoot Jim, who was going to literally blow the whistle on him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

102. (To the gunslinger upon rolling a natural 1 on his attack roll)

You hear an audible pop.

He immediately threw the pistol behind him XD Can't tap rack bang a flintlock.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

I kind of love screwing with old-timer's assumptions.

"One kobold? Feh, I won't even break a sweat."
... one 12th level kobold sorcerer, that is ...

Mayhaps one with precognitive powers...? XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.

102. You find a ruins underground, reminiscent of Numeria. One of the chambers is collapsed, and you see these pipes/ cables leading out of it. Upon clearing out the entrance, you find a glass like pod and a red android laying inside, cloaked in a bed of what looks like blonde hair. The purple gem on its forehead pulsates... almost like a heartbeat, and you can faintly see the number 0 etched into the top of the pod.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grangerer wrote:
Long John wrote:
I'd... honestly absolutely allow it as long as it was made in conjunction with an acrobatics check to jump. Because I think it'd be cool, and then he'd fall at the end of the flurry.
You'd allow it because it's cool, but would generally say that the intention of the ability does not include flying?

Absolutely. This to me feels more or less the same way that, until recently, there wasn't ACTUALLY a rule prohibiting NFL players from kicking each other in the head while hurdling each other. You shouldn't have to say it explicitly... but apparently we do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To answer the thought though... when a LG character needs to do an evil act, that player should probably think long and hard about the concept. In a homebrew setting, I had my PCs draw from the Deck of Many Things, and the Monk ended up Geas'd by a CE dragon goddess to kill 5 powerful dragons of her brother's brood (I split white/black apart from red/blue/green).

The party then proceeded to go slay dragons. The first dragon was evil, and everything was fine. The third was neutral- they had to physically break into it's lair, as it had sealed itself off for the past three centuries. By the time they got to the fourth, some of the players had their doubts about the dragons alignments. The fourth dragon had no hoard, and was actively defending the village that worshipped it.

Point of the story, was one of the more experience players called the monk submissive to evil. Led to an out of game argument until we explained that that wasn't necessarily a bad thing- but for example, a Paladin would've let himself rot before assisting an evil god. The monk's concept was he needed to survive to rebuild his order. An inquisitor would probably see his own survival is more important than (random heretic B). But a Knight style character, follower of (the romantic concept of) chivalry would probably take his death with honor.

If any of this helps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love playing lawful characters. Do what you do because it's your responsibility, and it's the right thing to do. People actively disliking that blows my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup, Zaheer from Korra. A chaotic neutral lover of anarchy... that doesn't believe in queens.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Legitimately, and I've never been able to have a sea-faring campaign last long enough to do this, but have Zaheer as a "pirate". He's... CN played pretty fantastically, and is a very valid threat to good and evil aligned characters.

Other than that, I have a lot of fun playing seafaring campaigns in general. Remember to make your eventual sea captains have to give safety briefs to their sailors before releasing them for shore liberty, otherwise they're going to get in ~8 or 9 ARIs that you'll have to deal with after liberty is secured.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let the DM run with it. I find letting things like that happen usually end up more fun for the PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm essentially making the Illidari, but less edgy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The man who intruduced me to D&D had about 10 years on me. I've never seen age be a real issue, and if the old men (relatively) are the majority, it'd even stop the questions about what Jesus was like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS!!!!!!!

(On topic, this is awesome)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Archetypes definitely make you more powerful than the base class- in different circumstances. The ranger is forgoing his FE against non-evil outsiders, which is pretty significant. Meaning, he was be a Betrayer level BA against the Burning Legion demons themselves, he's less than every other martial against their cultists, summoners, thralls, etc.

I honestly don't think it'll be as bad as you're making it out to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If they want to be a graveknight, they need to overcome a few trials first. They need to go to a Northern Continent to save their Kingdom from an eldritch blight, then he must travel with his Dwarf mentor figure to find a lesser artifact sword.

When he pulls the sword from a block of Ice, the ice shatters and strikes his mentor figure, seemingly dead. He is then given a choice between saving the dwarf, or accepting the power of the sword. After this, his alignment will gradually change, until he falls to Evil and he acquires the Graveknight template.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

... why does this sound like Ganondorf?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm... that doesn't seem to fit as much. I'm thinking cavalier fits the image in my head the best- mostly as a sort of "golden boy" inspiring rich guy who, while is still competent, got to where his is by who he knows, rather than what he knows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters aren't bland T_T. Barbarians and fighters are awesome to play, especially for newer players, provided they have a more experienced player help them not suck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I houserule that Clerics are able to cast with a mace and shield. LIKE THEY SHOULD BE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.
Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?

What part of "if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him" did you not understand?

Yes, a GM can set up no-win paladin falls scenarios. No, they shouldn't do so.

Mind you, you could use a similar scenario, but one with a way out. A way to save at least those who hadn't already turned into monsters.

Your last point is what I'm saying. Being a paladin in a no win scenario doesn't excuse you from trying. As long as you tried and didn't "Oh. We must cull the city". And actually agonized over your decision, I wouldn't fall a paladin. Sometimes there isn't a way out irl, though. Why should there always be a way out in the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.

Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I legitimately entered this thread hoping you were talking about Arthas when he butchered a town of innocents that were infected, but before they actually turned undead, thus killing them "For their own good".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Earth can create deadly areas of difficult terrain that cause reduced blast damage—and special substance effects of course!—to everyone inside everyone (pair with grappling infusion substance to make grasping hands of earth that hold them in place to take damage again and again).

Yeah. My next DMPC is going to be a Dai Li Agent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's see... Omega (MegaMan Zero 3), Luca *********ing Blight (Suikoden 2)- seriously he doesn't have any regard for the initiative order, play the game again, he goes whenever he damn well pleases-, Sion (League of Legends), the Avatar (The Last Airbender/ Legend of Korra)... etc.

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>