Kain Dragonhand's page

I don't really see this as an apples to apples comparison.

Many half-orcs are the result of orcs raping humans, it isn't a common match full of love and butterflies. Goblins however as a PC race are not the product of one of the accepted core races, they aren't a half-breed. Also the way they are written into canon is an evil race full of crazy little monsters that act on pure whim. A half-orc still has a human parent, and while there is still much trepidation concerning them, there are sympathies present among the core races for them as a result of something evil and barbaric that was thrust upon them. As such, they are given the benefit of the doubt.

Where are they going to give the benefit of the doubt to a goblin?

Let's try and treat these 'points' one at a time.

1. I'm sure there are all sorts of problem players. Including quite a few whose playstyle simply doesn't mesh with the rest of their group. Either way, there's nothing here to suggest that gobbos are inherently worse than gnomes, elves, paladins, rogues, or evil and chaotic alignments all frequent targets on this board for allegedly fostering antisocial behaviour.

2. None of the behaviours you described are inherent parts of the goblin psyche. Take the horse thing for example. One of my best friends is a hippophobe, but miraculously has not killed a single horse in his 40 or so years giving them a wide berth instead. Same with dogs. Pyromania is a bit different due to the potential for accidental conflagration, but there's still a huge glow -in-the-dark line with spotlights and concertina wire between 'fascinated by flame' and 'serial arsonist'.

3. Assuming the guards in question are competent and the goblin in question isn't behaving in a hostile fashion,surely it would make far more sense to take her in for questioning if they suspect an impending attack and if they're not in conflict with goblins, why would they care one way or another? Again, if the town were at war with, say Chelax, wouldn't the same logic apply? Also, presumably, these same guards are ignoring the armed and armoured human fighter strolling through town (who, would likely have been killed on sight in the real medieval Europe)

1. Problem players getting to play a race of crazy psychopaths with an affinity for bombs? Sure, not much more of an issue...

2. There are two goblin weapons in existence specifically for killing the things they fear. Horse Chopper and Dog Slicer.

3. If I'm a guard of a town, I'm not letting the goblin in, sorry. He might not be acting up as we speak, but what happens when it turns to night? Also, what happens if that goblin does go on a killing spree? Who's responsible? In a world where it is generally accepted that Goblins are crazy, and evil, if I'm a guard I am not taking that chance.

Maybe to give the notion that the fighter's armor can make a difference against troops, whatever half of his armor bonus is, turn that into DR vs. Troops specifically, because it doesn't feel right that the rogue can easily handle a mass of enemies, but the heroic fighter type will get swarmed under. If the fighter has Plate and a shield +11 ac, maybe he gets DR 5 (1/2 rounded down) vs. troop types, unless that troop type uses magic or supernatural abilities as their primary attack. In that case, if a PC has SR they can apply 1/2 of that as DR against the troop type. Make the rules similar for Energy resistance. If you have ER 10 vs. fire and the enemy troops are damaging with fire, then you get DR 5 vs. fire against the troop type.

Obviously this is just a quick "what if we do this" but it would allow different classes to excel vs. different troop types. Wizards fighting against magical troops, rogues against skirmisher/archer types, and Fighters against physical attackers.

That or simply make the save based on the troop type.

Fortitude = physical attackers
Reflex = ranged attackers/skirmishers
Will = Magical attackers

Put a clause in that either evasion doesn't work due to the mass of enemy combatants.

When I first encountered the troop type it was poorly ran by an inexperienced GM, and made things akward and annoying. However after that I looked into troop type enemies and I fully intend on implementing them in my campaign.

This is going to sound dumb and petty, but I absolutely want the rule of, "Iconics must be Core Races" to get thrown out. Big time.

If the Iconics are supposed to be stand-ins for the PCs, and the PCs are supposed to be exemplary, why do they have to fit into some Word-of-God defined restriction? I would be a little more forgiving if all of the existing iconics we had were of different ethnic groups, but all of the elves and dwarves are white and there are like three Varisians.

Sorry. I got REALLY salty when the Iconic Shifter was revealed to be a Varisian. :>

I'm going to respond to this with something petty and dumb.

This does sound very petty and very dumb.

TheFinish wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

For example, one think I recall reading about katanas is that they are superior to Western swords at slicing through unarmored opponents but inferior to them at hacking through heavy armor of the sort commonly worn in medieval Europe.

They really aren't, besides the fact that they're both equally good at hacking through armor. That is, they're both absolutely terrible at it and you should never try to do that. A curved sword may cut deeper due to the more extended blade contact, but that's about it.

Katanas aren't really better at anything, they just have that reputation because of being....well, exotic. In reality they're just okay swords, nothing special. So, I've no problem with the game treating them as martial weapons, so long as they aren't better than the other weapons in the class.

One does not hack with Katanas. One slices. Never hack. That's what European swords are for.

(That's the short, abridged and nicer version of a very long, earnest speech my old Sensei would have given you only for implicating Katanas are used the same way)

One does not hack with European swords either, and many of the European blades were far more versatile than the Katana having more points of attack. They aren't just bladed "clubs"

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

The scimitar will outclass the greatsword. Not at first, but at the point where you're threatening on 15-20 (or 30% of the time) and you start tacking on critical feats which are fairly substantial. Because trading a small variable % on the dice for things like bleeding, blindness, etc. is much more valuable than pure damage.

Also with the Scimitar you have the option to use it one handed and pick up a shield. That kind of versatility will give you more options with your character.

graystone said, "does more damage," so I had not factored in feats which add a condition or the versatility of a one-handed weapon. (My bloodrager uses a longsword for that versatility.) However, though graystone did not mention Improved Critical, that is so obvious I should have thought of it myself. My campaign has a magus, and if the spell warrior skald does not make his blackblade rapier keen with his weapon song, then the first words out of the magus are, "I make my blade keen."

Thank you for pointing that out.

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

And to your non-math explanation, improved crit throws that out the window.

No, it doesn't. I just have to adjust the explanation to correct my oversight, so that instead of the scimitar have an advantage on a nat 18 alone, it has an advantage of a nat 15 or 16. That is twice as good and the requirement for the static bonus drops from 73.5 down to 38.5. That is possible, with Power Attack at -6/+18, +5 enhancement on the weapon, +4 from a bard song, and Strength 26. But with a static bonus of 39, having average damage of 55.25 on a scimitar versus average damage of 55.20 on a greatsword is trivial.

That is what I intended for my original argument. A 0.1% difference is a immensely harder to notice than twice as good or six times as good. graystone chose a weak example.

Kerrilyn further supports her argument well, but I still feel it is the wrong argument. We are talking about whether characters can observe the exact different between...

Yes, but it still remains that the critical feats are very good and the ability to add status effects on top of damage trumps straight damage, does it not?

There's also the versatility issue, you can use the Scimitar one or two-handed, not just two handed. Leaving a hand free to grab a potion or multitude of other items.

It's not all about the damage really, and the increased crit chance will make much more of a difference in the long run.

Anyways, good talk, but I'm finished de-railing this topic.

Since this was brought up, no, just because people find shirtless heavily muscled guys sexy does not mean those guys are automatically sexualized. It’s how they are presented.

So a man with less clothes that some people find sexy isn't sexualized.

but

A woman with less clothes that some people find sexy is sexualized?

Is that not the slightest bit sexist at all?

Again, sorcerer is a charisma based class. Charisma determines your attractiveness (whether through personality or physical appeal, it doesn't matter). Visually representing attractiveness is what they did with Seoni. So what?

Most of the arguments against Seoni's outfit are "it's not sensible, she wouldn't wear that in the cold!"

Well what about the monk? Bloodrager? Or any other character drawn with a lesser amount of clothing?

Rysky wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You can try and justify it after the fact as much you want, it's disingenuous to claim that her design was not based on sex appeal.

Case in point, Ezren, Wizard, suffers the same ASF chance as Seoni, still wears a lot more clothing.

As another point, Sorcerers are highly charismatic, and to numerous players, it highlights how well groomed and beholden a given entity is. In other words, low charisma = ugly, and high charisma = beautiful. (Not saying it's the case, just saying that's what a lot of players believe.)

Even despite that, force of personality (AKA high charisma) may also lead that Seoni has the kind of personality to dress the way she does and be comfortable with it, whereas Ezren is a shrewd elderly man who may find such displays distasteful for one who can wield arcane spells.

And that might be justifications in world for why, but here's the thing, Seoni does not pick her outfit, no character does. That was decided by the writers/art directors/artists.

So any and all justifications after the fact doesn't change the why. Her design is based on attractiveness.

I don't think it really matters on who or what decides, because in-world, Seoni decided to wear that attire. It's more silly to say some outside influence forces her to wear that outfit and nothing else, unless you posit that the outfit is a cursed item of some kind, which is dubious at best, than to say that she chose to wear it. Occam's Razor and all that.

I still disagree. Iconics are primarily designed to highlight key aspects of classes and hone in on the concepts of what the class offers. Nothing in the Sorcerer class writeup says or implies the standard definition of "sex appeal," so suggesting that the character was purportedly designed to have it (which is subjective, I might add,) is equally disingenuous a claim to make.

So a class based on charisma, being attractive is disingenuous?

Ah right, Man, bare chested, puffing his chest out, standing with shoulders square. That's not sexualized at all is it? Or does he have to be hunched over jerking one out to be sexualized?

What about the Bloodrager? Bare chested, standing with his pelvis thrust forward a little bit?

You can try and justify it after the fact as much you want, it's disingenuous to claim that her design was not based on sex appeal.

Case in point, Ezren, Wizard, suffers the same ASF chance as Seoni, still wears a lot more clothing.

And? So what?

Sex appeal obviously sells, does it not? I don't see people crying about covering up the monk character. It's all specifically complaints about Seoni.

Making rules for specific emotion will just bog roleplay down. Also where would it stop?

You wake up
*GM rolls* "make a fortitude save"
"7"
"You fail, you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and are having a bad day, -1 to X"

Or you might have GMs dictating to people that they're so angry they can't sleep, or so sad they don't feel like pressing on, etc.

If you want it as something optional? Sure, knock yourself out, 3rd party that stuff, houserule it. Please do not codify it into the core rules of the game.

Not necesarelly dictated by GM. Maybe it is something you decide yourself, the deal with penalty and bonus from it.

You can already do that. Let's say your character is feeling angry and wants to hit something, you can tell the GM "I am rolling a voluntary will save to see if my character can handle his rage and prevent him from punching the closest person/thing/tree/etc." and make the roll. You or the GM could voluntarily set the DC.

If you want to do this type of stuff already, you can. Do not codify it where GMs are forced to deal with it.

Yes let's go back to being sober protestants.

There's nothing gross about the 1E CRB at all. Seoni is a sexy character and she's drawn that way, so what? Isn't she also supposed to be a tattooed sorceror? In that case wouldn't her dress be plenty sensible (easy access to spells and the like)? I mean in a world where you can mitigate extreme weather with magic, she isn't unreasonable at all.

The Paladin character is decked out in full plate.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

graystone wrote:

Why? What is it that prevents them from estimating their health in comparison to damage they might take? As pointed out, there are abilities that will give you an EXACT total.

Have you ever seen a thread with a new player, or a less math oriented player, asking why 2 handing a scimitar is better than using a 2h sword, which does more damage? Have you seen how it invariably becomes a math proof, that shows why, beyond a certain level of static dmg mod, the scimitar comes ahead because of crit chance? Well, the character has even less info than the new/less math oriented player. He only has his feelings. And those deceive you.

...

Let's see. The scimitar's damage is (3.5+x)(1.15) where 3.5 is average damage for 1d6, x is static bonuses and 0.15 is the chance of a crit. A greatsword's damage is (7+x)(1.10), where 7 is average damage for 2d6, x is static bonuses, and 0.10 is the chance of a crit.

(3.5+x)(1.15) > (7+x)(1.10)
4.025 + 1.15x > 7.7 + 1.10x
0.05x > 3.675
x > 73.5

Sorry, but the scimitar deals less damage unless the two-handed static bonuses are 74 or more.

I can even explain it without the algebra: if you roll an 18, the scimitar crits for 7+2x damage while the greatsword does not crit so does only 7+x damage. Since that advantage of x occurs only one time out of 20, that x has to justify not having the extra 3.5 damage on the other results. Even if you miss on half those results, say you hit on an 11 or higher, that is nine results where the greatsword does more damage. And missing half the time means that crits fail to confirm half the time, of you get that advantage of x only half the time, too. So x has to be at least 19*3.5 = 66.5 in order for the scimitar to do better. (I got 66.5 instead of 73.5 because I did not throw in that the greatsword gets an extra 7 damage rather than an extra 3.5 damage when it crits on a 19 or 20.)

I had assumed that gustavo iglesias was right, and did the math to argue that a small...

The scimitar will outclass the greatsword. Not at first, but at the point where you're threatening on 15-20 (or 30% of the time) and you start tacking on critical feats which are fairly substantial. Because trading a small variable % on the dice for things like bleeding, blindness, etc. is much more valuable than pure damage.

Also with the Scimitar you have the option to use it one handed and pick up a shield. That kind of versatility will give you more options with your character.

And to your non-math explanation, improved crit throws that out the window.

If you need an 11 or higher (50%) to hit and both users have the feat, the Scimitar is critting 50% of all hits. Where the greatsword is critting only 20% of all hits.

If you need a 15 or higher to hit, the scimitar is threatening crits on every strike.

Obviously it's a lot more variable than just simple numbers and when you factor in a lot of the feats that the scimitar wielder can use as opposed to the greatsword wielder, the scimitar again wins out.

On the topic of CLW wands however, I was never really a fan of it.

Mainly just clear up the language.

Weapon Training
Rapier Training
Spear Training

Why there was ever a need to name these abilities something other than weapon training and needing errata to say they are in fact the same ability is silly.

The archtypes should have simply read

Weapon traiing: This class gets weapon training as a fighter does EXCEPT it only works with "X" weapon.

Basically clear up any ambiguous language, because there are tons of situations like that and it'll give you the death of a thousand cuts.

I really don't like the idea of the GM determining the emotional state of my character based on how the DM feels my character should feel. No thank you. Now if a spell gets cast and I fail my save, that's a different story, I still get a save. This is entirely too situational and gives the DM too much discretion to decide ways in which to penalize or give boons to characters.

Side note: I take notes about the narrative based on my character's intelligence.

7-8 - pictures, misspelled words, etc.
9-10 - Cliff notes
11-13 - Add more details
14-16 - Very specific notes
17+ - Might as well be scrivener's chant going on.

Orville Redenbacher wrote:

What happens when a code pally breaks the code?

It depends on who gives him his power. If he gives it to himself, not a damned thing. I like 5e's oathbreker path myself.

So you really just want to have all the benefits that a powerful class like the Paladin has with none of the restrictions. You want the mechanics of the class, but not the heart of the class.

It has often felt that those who push for the most exclusionary practice in a given situation are attempting to use it as an in-game method of pushing a RL agenda -- whether this is just the perception of this player or a reality is uncertain.

It has often felt that those who push for the most inclusive practice in a given situation are attempting to use it as an in-game method of pushing a RL agenda -- whether this is just the perception of this player or a reality is uncertain.

What should really be done is put Paladin as an archetype under Knight, Champion, or Cavalier (which should really STILL be lawful at its base). Make the Paladin Archetype LG and put abilities like Smite Evil on the archetype.

Wild Spirit wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

I'm inclined to agree on Wish, or at the very least make it a 20th level capstone class ability like in Starfinder. But I can just see the outcry if they do...

Hell, I'd be okay if they took a page from 4E on "Rituals" for stuff like Raise Dead and other powerful effects with long casting times and high material costs. Set them partially or entirely outside the spell system entirely. But that will also cause a huge outcry because "yer getting FOR EEE in muh Pathfinder!", so I'm not sure there is a win-win for Paizo that will allow them to both balance the game and make everyone happy.

I'd be OK with lengthy rituals but not with the material cost. I hate to be eternally broke, just because I keep resurrecting people.

Mind if I inquire which characters in the team keep dying?

To add to that, why is the group not sharing the cost of the Raise Dead/Resurrection spell? I would not bring their character back if they weren't willing to help pay the cost of ripping the soul from it's new plane of existence and stuffing it back into their body.

I think spells that require expensive material components should still require them, but replace misc. components with something like a Cleric's focus.

Perhaps each school of magic has a particular focus. Each of these costing 5 gold pieces.

Abjuration - A crystal bead
Conjuration - A candle
Divination - A piece of incense
Enchantment - A snake's tongue
Evocation - A petrified piece of bat guano
Illusion - A tail from a chameleon
Necromancy - A black opal
Transmutation - A piece of licorice root

Then you remove the need for the smaller components that most GMs will hand waive. However the more powerful spells should have an expensive material component and that should still be required (and if more GMs would enforce this than it would help bring more balance to the martial/caster disparity).

I myself rather enjoyed collecting odds and ends and specific gems, often times when our party divided up treasure I would opt for the things I needed to make my spells work. Not only that there are the need to quest for specific things to make things work.

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

I wasn't being insulting, if you felt insulted by what I said, that's your problem. People multi-class to increase the effectiveness of their character, and yes to flesh out a concept that might not be readily present with the classes available. However most will find a combination that optimizes their character even though they're also fleshing out a concept. Looking at the best feats, skills, and powers to gain to make the concept work. That's not a bad thing and that was the largest draw to 3.5/Pathfinder for many to begin with. The sheer amount of customization you can do to a character.

Mystic theurge might suffer in the short run, but the power it gains in the long run is most certainly worth the effort, wouldn't you think?

Wiz 5/Cleric 5/Theurge 10 ends up as a 15th level caster of both. Can't access level 9 spells?

Wiz 8/Cleric 3/Theurge 10, ends up as a 18 wiz/13 cleric. That seems powerful enough to me. 9th level arcane spells and 7th level divine (or you could reverse that.

When you phrase it as "we all know why it's done" that is insulting.

As others pointed out, Mystic Theurge has to survive to those levels. Even the one level delay of Arcanist or Sorcerer can make some things very difficult because you don't have access to the top level spells. You are delaying it by three levels.

Also, 8 + 3 + 10 = 21 levels when most games don't even make it up past 15th level. Yes, I know you could do 7/3/10 and finally get access to 9th level spells when others have at least three more of those spells.

The thing is, multi classing done right should remove the need for something like the Mystic Theurge PrC, many of the hybrid classes, and things like the Minor Magic rogue talent.

No, YOU took it as insulting. Just look at some of the things people have said in this thread alone. I already pointed out one in my post. You're also approaching what I said as if I was of the opinion that optimization is a bad, evil, terrible thing. I don't think it is.

You also only picked out a portion of my quote, I said "BY AND LARGE (which means usually) we all know why it's done." If we didn't there wouldn't be a thread about it. You took offense perhaps because you realize somehow you're guilty of doing it yourself, and scoff at the idea maybe? Well relax, it's not some evil thing

So I mathed wrong on the levels (yes, mathed isn't a word, I get it). I wasn't paying attention, yes it would be 7/3/10. My intent was that you'd still gain access to 9th level spells.

As for that "valley of suck" in the theurge build, I've played one and it really isn't as bad as people say it is. You sacrifice power for a little more versatility. Avoid the damaging spells, the save or suck spells at first, focus on buffing your group and you'll have plenty to do during combat until you start gaining all of that power later on.

So I'm playing the game wrong then?

Good to know.

Me saying there are other ways to deal with variance, and with situations you presented is not the same thing as you playing the game wrong. No need to get all chippy.

Also, take a look in the mirror. You're telling the company "you're building the game wrong"

As with any system there are going to be things that are good, and things that are not good. Show me a perfect system, give me a few minutes and I can likely point out several flaws in it.

Honestly it sounds like you want an iron grip on the narrative and do not allow your players much agency at all. So you spent some time on a BBEG and the dice resulted in him being dispatched in a matter that didn't please you. How did the one responsible for killing him react? I imagine they were fairly excited, I know I would be if I got the jump on someone in the game and landed a crit and ended the danger right then and there.

You don't need to math the game down to x hours for this fight, x hours for that fight. X rounds for this bad guy, x rounds for that bad guy. Well, maybe you do, and it's not like you won't be able to do that. 1E Pathfinder has quite the volume of material, enough to play a campaign or several for the rest of our lives most likely and not see all the material in play.

You wanted your 15 minutes, you got it, you pouted. Expecting people not to react to that is a little silly.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Martially inclined 4-level (or whatever the Paladin and Ranger get now) Int based spontaneous arcane caster. Forget the Child of Acavna and Amaznen existed and do this right.

Call it a Myrmidon.

The word Myrmidon has two definitions:
The warrior race created from ants that followed Achillies into battle in the Trojan war.
And "a loyal follower; especially : a subordinate who executes orders unquestioningly or unscrupulously"

In Pathfinder, a Myrmidon would be a knight and adherent appointed by an outsider, dragon, fey, undead, or other higher being. Fits the archetype of King Arthur and his relationship to the Lady of the Lake, or Darth Vader and his relationship with the Emperor.

Would fill the huge gap between Paladin and Anti-Paladin for a heavily-armored semi-caster.

That's quite different than the Myrmidon from 2nd Ed. AD&D, the second part anyway, (I miss playing that character) but I like the concept.

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

Notsonoble wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

When you design an enemy that's meant to last more than one turn how do you make sure they have enough.....

I will confess I am a lazy GM but... I don't design enemies to any specific combat goals.

I throw together their capabilities according to their theme and target CR and cut them loose to let the dice fall where they may.

I also refuse to spend more than half an hour prepping per session of gameplay.

I used to do this, and the only thing fun about it for players was when the fight went there way, which was not always what you'd expect.

When a "the party is supposed to win" CR target at APL-3 was risking a TPK because of bad dice rolls, things were bad.

When a CR APL+3 boss fight was won in the surprise round off a crit, things were bad, because the party were looking for something guarded by a great unknown monster, and their first response was to go back and check a room they nearly died in.

Now I spend lots of time preping for sessions, not just mechanically, but also world checking, 30min piffle, everyone's favorite game in town to play and simply watch is the mythic game I put 10hrs a week in for prep, when the sessions only meet every other week. (And everyone can tell when I'm slacking). Admittedly, only about 2hrs of that two week span is spent on mechanics.

But there should always be the risk of dying when you're going on life threatening adventures. That being said, if you get the jump on someone and are able to act before they do and you kill them, I don't see the problem. They managed a surprise, ran in and hit with a critical. That is not unrealistic. Similarly if they have a run of bad luck and they're missing their blows, maybe that particular monster was exceptional for his kind, then you could write in on the fly that there was something peculiar about it. Have the knowledge person make the check and add something to the narrative

...

Well I don't think you should plan an encounter to be X number of hours long myself. Just plan the encounters according to how much of a challenge you want (and if you know your group you should be able to do this just fine). Then if something happens and the encounter is cut short due to luck of the dice, player ingenuity, or something else, move on to the next thing. Just because players make it past where you're prepped doesn't mean you have to stop playing. In fact, learning to evolve the narrative and move the story on the fly is something that every gm should learn to do.

I've had entire dungeons created with a plot hook to get the characters into it, they 180'd and went the complete opposite direction. Well there goes that prep time, that's fine, let me figure something else out right now. Things might move at a slightly slower pace, but this is also a social game. Tell your players to take a 15-20 minute break, and start plugging in some stuff.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

When you design an enemy that's meant to last more than one turn how do you make sure they have enough.....

I will confess I am a lazy GM but... I don't design enemies to any specific combat goals.

I throw together their capabilities according to their theme and target CR and cut them loose to let the dice fall where they may.

I also refuse to spend more than half an hour prepping per session of gameplay.

I used to do this, and the only thing fun about it for players was when the fight went there way, which was not always what you'd expect.

When a "the party is supposed to win" CR target at APL-3 was risking a TPK because of bad dice rolls, things were bad.

When a CR APL+3 boss fight was won in the surprise round off a crit, things were bad, because the party were looking for something guarded by a great unknown monster, and their first response was to go back and check a room they nearly died in.

Now I spend lots of time preping for sessions, not just mechanically, but also world checking, 30min piffle, everyone's favorite game in town to play and simply watch is the mythic game I put 10hrs a week in for prep, when the sessions only meet every other week. (And everyone can tell when I'm slacking). Admittedly, only about 2hrs of that two week span is spent on mechanics.

But there should always be the risk of dying when you're going on life threatening adventures. That being said, if you get the jump on someone and are able to act before they do and you kill them, I don't see the problem. They managed a surprise, ran in and hit with a critical. That is not unrealistic. Similarly if they have a run of bad luck and they're missing their blows, maybe that particular monster was exceptional for his kind, then you could write in on the fly that there was something peculiar about it. Have the knowledge person make the check and add something to the narrative as to why the monster was so difficult.

Maybe the BBEG in the other room was mentally controlling the monster, enhancing it, and that's why they were having trouble hitting, and when they killed the monster it shocked the BBEG, which gave them the jump on him, and the surprise round crit was a natural result of that.

Fighter - Dragoon

Rogue - Knifemaster

Wizard - Chronomancer

Ranger - Falconer

Sorcerer - Tattooed Sorcerer

When I DM a game, I want my players decisions and thought process to matter more than whether or not the dice favored them that night, because you know, role playing.

Dice give you a variance, sure, but if the entire game turns into everyone rolling a fistful of dice then where is the design going?

I imagine it's going the route of throwing dice is fun and is at the core of these types of games, which it is. So let's add more dice into the equation and making the math simpler on people where they can total up their dice instead of totaling a group of abstract bonuses/penalties they may or may not forget.

I have no problem with math myself but I see many new players struggling with the concepts of what does and doesn't stack. At the same time when they roll 5d6 they have a much easier time adding the dice together than 1d6+PA mod, divine favor, luck bonus, item bonus, multiple feat bonuses, etc. Yes if a player is prepared all of that is handled beforehand but that's not always the case, especially in organized play.

Also the reliance on dice variance will lead to more tense moments. That aside, getting a doom and gloom feel/approach to the new edition and damning it before you actually see it in action isn't the route to go. There's always the option of staying with 1st edition, it's not like the books are going to evaporate.

The d20 is not the problem. Rolling dice is not the problem. Relying on them as a paradigm of game design is my problem. To be certain, your presumption about how I play the game is correct, I do write my own encounters and I do have a dedicated gaming group. Aspects of the second edition align perfectly with my style, especially when it comes to skills. That's the direction I want to go in, where my choices matter, not where the dice matter more than my choices.

I was in a AD&D campaign that went on for years. When 2nd edition came out, we incorporated aspects of 2nd edition that we liked into our 1st edition game. Chances are you'll be able to take the aspects of 2E that you like and mesh them with the current 1E system in place.

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

How exactly are they unrelated? Adding some of different classes is generally done to increase the effectiveness of one's character (some do it for roleplay purposes, but by and large we all know why it's done).

Please, enlighten me. Why do I multiclass?

The other option would be to not make such sweeping and insulting generalizations.

“Kain Dragonhand” wrote:

You make it easier on casters to multi-class with something along the lines of keeping their spell progression, or part of it (just a guess) and now you exacerbate the problem of the Martial/Caster disparity.

Full casters are generally more powerful than those who are not, full casters who multi-class and don't get punished for it will naturally increase that disparity even more.

Yes, at their base they are separate issues, but that doesn't mean you can avoid taking this into account.

I don’t think people are saying take full casting and features from another class. They are saying that right now, if casting is your primary ability you take way too big a hit if you multiclass.

Look at the Mystic Theurge from the CRB. It requires multiclassing of divine and arcane spellcasting. It allows full progression of spells per day in both Wizard and Cleric!

The thing is by the time you qualify for it, you are so far behind in both of the classes that most people consider the class way too weak. That is using a prestige class. Just alternating Wizard/Cleric or Sorcerer/Oracle would be even weaker.

It would be better if the multiclassing system allowed you to combine spell casting classes with other classes without making the spellcasting become almost irrelevant. Allow options so that people can maintain their caster level would be a big step. Allow them to make trade offs. A balanced Mystic Theurge should be something that a good multiclassing system would allow you to emulate without needing a prestige class.

Same can be said for all the hybrid classes. Wouldn’t it be better if you could...

I wasn't being insulting, if you felt insulted by what I said, that's your problem. People multi-class to increase the effectiveness of their character, and yes to flesh out a concept that might not be readily present with the classes available. However most will find a combination that optimizes their character even though they're also fleshing out a concept. Looking at the best feats, skills, and powers to gain to make the concept work. That's not a bad thing and that was the largest draw to 3.5/Pathfinder for many to begin with. The sheer amount of customization you can do to a character.

Mystic theurge might suffer in the short run, but the power it gains in the long run is most certainly worth the effort, wouldn't you think?

Wiz 5/Cleric 5/Theurge 10 ends up as a 15th level caster of both. Can't access level 9 spells?

Wiz 8/Cleric 3/Theurge 10, ends up as a 18 wiz/13 cleric. That seems powerful enough to me. 9th level arcane spells and 7th level divine (or you could reverse that.

Not to mention you could go 3/3/10/4PrC to add even more abilities to either divine/arcane side.

So early on you're relegated to a support role because you're not as proficient as the straight caster. Later on you have plenty of options and catch up in power and have increased versatility.

The point is that if you multi-class you are spending time focusing on something other than what you're proficient with, so yes, there should be some drop off in ability to be expected.

Edit - I mean wouldn't the same be true in any aspect of life? Let's say you're working for 10 years as a sales representative for a construction company. Things change, maybe the job goes away, you find a sales position in an advertising company. Are there things that might translate? Perhaps, that doesn't mean you're automatically going to be at the top of your game as you will need to re-train your processes, knowledge, interactions. You will need to learn the culture, the language, etc. of your new job.

Heck, when I worked for a restaurant when I was in college there were things I learned that I was able to translate to what I do now, but I still had to learn and train for the role I am in now and it requires a completely different skill set than that did, and while I'm doing my job I'm not necessarily getting better at cooking.

There was also my Swampy Scaleheart Hunter who from level 1 was putting feats into getting a Mauler Familiar, and wound up taking some levels in Eldritch Guardian Fighter just because having both her pets being able to use her Teamwork Feats just made sense(they were a croc and a caiman, and only took just 4 levels of Fighter, so I didn't screw Ruby(my croc), Jade(my caiman) already had Eldritch Heritage to rely on). Her weapon of choice was this gnarled great club that looked like the head of a croc and used from first level on.

Here is a perfect example, they had a character concept and they fleshed it out through multi-classing, but what did they do at the same time?

"wound up taking some levels in Eldritch Guardian Fighter just because having both her pets being able to use her Teamwork Feats just made sense"

A little bit of optimization here.

"and only took just 4 levels of Fighter, so I didn't screw Ruby(my croc), Jade(my caiman) already had Eldritch Heritage to rely on)."

A little bit of optimization there.

That's a perfect example of what I was getting at.

1) Marshall type class, decent martial fighter with leadership/bard like support abilities (perhaps this could also be warlord)

2) Theurge Knight (Cleric/Wizard/Fighter) hybrid. 1/2 spell progression in both, but limited to one set of spell slots. Like a Red Mage from Final Fantasy, decent combat, decent casting of both divine/arcane. Master of none.

What if we removed all racial/ancestry things and your race was just flavor? [/idea that will never happen]

Because that is nonsense. Different races excelling at different things makes sense, those same races not being as good at other things also makes sense. This notion that everything should be the same with race and/or class is silly. This is the same thing as those who want full casters to not be penalized for multi-classing and want the ability to keep their full spell progression.

The no penalty thing also says "everybody gets a trophy"

But then again, I'm still fine with the notion that Dwarves shouldn't be able to cast arcane spells, but these Golarion dwarves, they're different I guess.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Are we sure that maybe "making power attack less good in PF2 than it was in PF1" isn't the correct decision? Like in Pathfinder to date, Power Attack was among the best feats in the game- a complete no brainer if you are anybody with 13 strength and good accuracy. Are we sure the game isn't better off if "do I want power attack" is a thing worth considering, and that sometimes the answer is even "no"?

Like I'd definitely like to see an end to most "obligatory" feats. Either get rid of them or make them more situational.

It's not about 'optimization'

It's about design. Do you really want to DM a game where you can't reliably know how much damage the fighter can do so you give the enemy 60 HP so he lasts more than one turn only for the fighter to do something like 12 damage overall?

Yes, I really want to DM a game where the dice matter more. Why? Because it is a game where you throw dice, always has been. If you want to convert it more and more to a video game, house rule it. When I DM my players actually roll for their stats, and roll for their HP *GASP* the variance there is not difficult for me to handle and my players will tell you they are having a good time.

If the fighter swings and the swing turns out to be mighty, then as a DM describe to the player the fashion in which he slew the enemy with a description that will fill the player's heart with glee.

If the damage isn't much, explain how his sword seemed to glance off of the carapace of the creature, or perhaps he became a little unbalanced as he swung.

This need to control every number, and perfect everything through math isn't necessary. So you spent a half hour on a design and your fighter killed it in two swings? Big deal.

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

One thing I do not understand is people calling for multi-classing to be more generous for casters.

"We need to address the power gap between the high level casters and the high level martials!"

At the same time they say

"Multi-classing needs to be better for casters!"

Multi-classing for martial type characters in Pathfinder is usually a way for martials to close the gap with casters. You make it easier for casters to multi-class and you're only going to increase the disparity at higher levels.

Some people dip for flavor, but 90%+ of them dip because it is entirely beneficial to their character to do so.

Because those two are unrelated issues.

How exactly are they unrelated? Adding some of different classes is generally done to increase the effectiveness of one's character (some do it for roleplay purposes, but by and large we all know why it's done).

You make it easier on casters to multi-class with something along the lines of keeping their spell progression, or part of it (just a guess) and now you exacerbate the problem of the Martial/Caster disparity.

Full casters are generally more powerful than those who are not, full casters who multi-class and don't get punished for it will naturally increase that disparity even more.

Yes, at their base they are separate issues, but that doesn't mean you can avoid taking this into account.

Proficiency will not be a binary on/off thing in the new edition anymore (see paizo blog: Are You Proficient?)

So you can't make it as simple as you propose. Simple weapons will still need an indication of how proficient someone is with them.

Also there are several weapons that defy the damage die categorization, and in fact you mention one, the spiked chain. It's a two-handed weapon with reach.

Finally i disagree with the flat damage bonus or penalty for size. I hate to bring up 5e again, but what they do, at least for larger weapons, i think is very good. Simply add the weapon's damage die on one extra time. So a Greataxe is 1d12, Large greataxe 2d12, huge 3d12, gargantuan 4d12 and Colossal 5d12. This is a massive increase in damage which makes sense since these weapons are also a LOT larger and its very easy to keep track of. It doesn't work as smoothly when scaling down of course

I'd be fine with just increasing the number of dice as well. Where it gets confusing is where like a 2d4 weapon goes to 2d6 instead of 3d4, or a 1d12 goes to 3d6, etc.

Simple weapons include daggers. Daggers have the finesse property so characters can use Dex on attack (no feat).

That's fine, you would still have categories of Close, Light, One-Handed, Two-Handed, etc. Make anything close/light finessable. Simple enough.

I propose you generalize the weapon groups. I've stated it before, but I'd like to talk about it in conjunction with exotic proficiency.

Change the damage of weapons to this. Then, instead of changing the damage dice of the weapon, throw in a modifier based on the size of the creature wielding it. -8, -4, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +4, +8

Close - 1d4
Light - 1d6
One Handed - 1d8
Polearm - 1d10
Two Handed - 1d12 (not 2d6!, D12 is the least used die in the set and it needs some love)

This will cut down on confusing size category charts, and make it simpler for DMs to adjust monster stats as they construct them

Then you have the categories of

Simple - Anyone can use, but they do not have any special properties.

Martial - you need proficiency, and martial weapons allow for use of things like trip, or something else that sets them apart from simple weapons.

Exotic proficiency - Instead of locking any weapon behind exotic proficiency, make it to where someone who specializes in the use of a weapon to get a bonus in how that weapon is used.

Example - Anyone with martial proficiency can use a spiked chain and perform trip maneuvers with it. However someone with exotic proficiency (Spiked Chain) gains a modifier to performing that maneuver with the weapon. (+2, 4, or whatever is deemed appropriate).

One thing I do not understand is people calling for multi-classing to be more generous for casters.

"We need to address the power gap between the high level casters and the high level martials!"

At the same time they say

"Multi-classing needs to be better for casters!"

Multi-classing for martial type characters in Pathfinder is usually a way for martials to close the gap with casters. You make it easier for casters to multi-class and you're only going to increase the disparity at higher levels.

Some people dip for flavor, but 90%+ of them dip because it is entirely beneficial to their character to do so.

This is probably wishlisting of the highest order, and I'm almost 99% sure that most if not all of these are going to be an integral part of the new edition just as much as they were before, in part because one of the stated design goals is to keep the game recognizable, which it might not be anymore if these were actually put into practice. But i'd like to express these thoughts anyway. I just want to put the thought out there and why I think they don't benefit the game.

1. Per Day/Rest Features
Abilities that rely on a number of uses per day/rest, including pool mechanics, like grit and magus arcana, set a prerequisite number of encounters per day in order to balance the game. The current system assumes that a party will have about 3 combat encounters each day. This means players have to ration their limited use abilities between these encounters. If you only have one encounter a day, a class that primarily relies on limited use abilities can blow its full potential on that single encounter with extreme prejudice quickly becoming more powerful than any other. Meanwhile, if there are significantly more encounters the same class would become spread extremely thin being barely able to contribute while those who don't have this restriction can just keep going and going.

I used to run very typical dungeon crawling campaigns, but later I shifted toward a less combat-heavy style and it quickly became apparent that some characters could exploit this to generate massive damage output.

If we removed the per day restriction it would not only de-gamify some of the mechanics ("What do you mean, you're too exhausted to get angry anymore? You seem perfectly spry to me!"), it would help accomodate for more varied styles of play.

2. Classes
This is the big one. Classes exist to balance different types of characters by moving them along a certain predefined path of traits as they level up. Yet at the same time the game has mechanics such as multiclassing and archetypes so that people can build...

There is already a system that exists for that style of character building.

It's called G.U.R.P.S.

If I want that, that's what I'll play. I like that class system, and if people figure out clever ways to expand their class role beyond it's initial scope, then what is the issue?

I know right now there is a boon in PFS1 that does something similar.

I am on the fence about this because in general I don't like adding more paper work, especially for new players.

On the other hand, it would be nice if there was a way to do something like this.

I can't really get an idea though on a clean way to implement it.

Instead of listing 30 items on your chronicle that you can access with the proper book anyways, put a box for monster types.

There is on average 3 encounters per adventure?

Just put a table on the chronicle that has blank spaces, say 6 with a slot for GM initials. Whatever you encounter, list it.

Many times you're fighting the same creature type (humanoid) so you wouldn't need to list those.

Also note, while you're at it, stop making people make knowledge local checks for common humanoids.

GM "You see three figures in front of you, weapons drawn, they look ready for blood"

"What are they?"

GM "Knowledge local please"

"I got a 16"

GM "They're half-orcs"

Really? You're gonna make people check for half-orcs?

Don't list the monsters themselves on the chronicle, just leave spaces for the GM to write it in and sign off on it.

There should be some way to track what creature types you encounter.

For instance, you come across a Troll, and learn that the troll needs to be killed with fire.

Then you play the next week and you encounter an enemy, the GM asks for a knowledge check to identify the creature, only 1 person has it and doesn't make the requisite roll to identify it. "It's an Unnggghhhh"

Now nobody knows that you need to kill it with fire. This just doesn't seem right and if you play in an actual campaign, your character, even though he doesn't have the knowledge required to identify the creature, would likely remember to use fire on trolls. (of course, that's where the DM throws an alternate troll at you, and fire does nothing). The point is that characters should be able to learn.

If there were somewhere on the chronicle sheets for Monster types encountered as opposed to items that are in the books anyways. Hey thanks for listing that potion of cure light wounds, really needed that ink on my chronicle.

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

Do you play video games?

Would you be happy if we stayed with the Xbox original instead of the Xbox One?

Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?

The problem with this argument is that yes, I would have been happy to stick with the SNES forever. Mostly because that's what I play most of anyway. The move to 3d, in hindsight, put video games mostly on a route I've discovered I don't care for as much as those older classic systems and the games produced with (or perhaps by) their limitations.

/off topic

Yeah? Let's say Nintendo stuck with the SNES while their competitors kept advancing things.

What would happen to Nintendo? It would fold.

I love the SNES as much as the next, for it's time in my life it will probably be my most cherished console. That said, games today are far better in many cases. Sure there is a lot more junk out there, but there is also a lot of good.

Kain Dragonhand wrote:

Do you play video games?

Would you be happy if we stayed with the Xbox original instead of the Xbox One?
Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?

You probably don't want to see the walls of text I can still generate at the drop of a hat about how Civilization III is an infinitely better game than Civ IV or V.

One example of one game.

What you're saying is the equivalent of

"You probably don't want to see the walls of text that I can still generate at the drop of a hat about how x feat in 3.5 is a infinitely better feat than pathfinder's version"

I was referring to the advancement of the system as a whole, not a product of said system.

Dear lord why are some people so obsessed with breaking up the lawful good paladin?

Because they want all of the Paladin goodness without the restriction of actually being good and lawful.

Alchemist - Gunslinger, Some kind of bomber/sapper, Crafting focused archtype
Arcanist - Sorceror, Wizard, Witch, Summoner
Barbarian - Bloodrager, Skald, Shaman
Champion - Paladin (LG Only), Cavalier, Vigilante
Cleric - Warpriest, Oracle, Evangelist
Druid - Shifter, Hunter, Beastmaster
Fighter - Brawler, Monk (LG/LN/LE), Ranger, Samurai, Slayer
Psychic - Medium, Kineticist, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist
Rogue - Bard, Investigator, Swashbuckler

It also breaks completely any and all hope to build a character that depends even a little on items, since now you literally may never get certain items you want.

You pretty much roll with the punches now and get whatever your GM decides to toss your way next.

Not to say one cant trust the GM, but now having to go to the GM for each and every item you want for your build and making sure they add them to the game so you can use them would be a pain for both sides in my opinion.

Mind you, this is for every player.

Also you know APs and the rest? Now you literally will have to build for what drops in them, cause you know, you cant actually buy what you need now and then.

Why would you build a character around a magic item to begin with? I have min/maxed myself plenty, but building an entire concept and that being broken if you don't get the magic item you want? You're not building a character, you're building a gimmick.

Magic items used to make a difference in stories, and were part of the story. When Bilbo picked up Sting for the first time, did you think he thought, "man when I get back to town, I'm selling this right away and buying this other thing" He didn't, the weapon became part of the story.

The one thing 3.x system did is nullify the awe of finding that weapon or armor and it making the impact it did. Also one of the downsides of hyper specialization.

Do you play video games?

Would you be happy if we stayed with the Xbox original instead of the Xbox One?

Or the PS2 instead of the PS4?

Just because this game is played with dice, pen, and paper does not mean it can't change and evolve.

Also, one of the great things about the current system and volume of stuff contained within it? It will still be playable 10, 20, 30 years from now if you choose to do so.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do not want paladins of any alignment other than Lawful Good, full stop. I would rather see the Paladin class cease to exist than to open it up to all alignments.

Then we need classes that play very, very similarly to the Paladin but are open to the other alignments. They have certain play mechanics that are a lot of fun, but constrain the player by concept.

Someone else (not you, I believe) was saying we 'owe it to Gygax' to keep the Paladin in a classical style.

I fail to see why. Simply because he originated an idea does not mean it cannot evolve without him. It should evolve.

Paladins and Monks really ought to lose their alignment restrictions so their play-styles can be opened up to more character concepts. If 'tradition' requires that we do not (and this is, frankly, ridiculous) then the designers would be well served to offer us extremely close equivalents.

So you think a chaotic person would make a good monk? I can see Neutral, definitely lawful, but chaotic? Not at all, go read about real life monks, then get back to me.

They wouldn't, but there is Brawler.

As for Paladin, the clamoring to remove the restrictions on Paladin is just as silly. A chaotic person simply wouldn't make a good Paladin, they wouldn't have the discipline to maintain that type of code.

Besides, there is the Warpriest.

Having played Living Greyhawk myself I was rather fond of it, even though where I lived (Alaska) there wasn't many LG tables, and most of my experience was in the Duchy of Urnst, I did enjoy that aspect of it, and I liked creating characters that felt tied to my region. Like my Sete Roughrider light cavalry Fighter/Ranger/Wild Plains Outrider, who's motivations were directly tied to the duchy. Also the meta-organizations (like the roughriders) that gave your character a sense of belonging.

One thing I miss more than the regional stuff from LG was the stuff you get on ARs, even items sometimes as well as "boons." More recent Pathfinder ARs are doing a better job of this, but many times it is restricted by your faction, and you almost feel punished if you go on an adventure and just because you aren't scarab sages, half of your boons on the AR get scratched off.

Perhaps something like

"This effect is based on the character level of the wielder, DC 10+1/2 Character level" or something to that effect.

Also magical items shouldn't have to have a +1 before adding special abilities, this kind of tax I think is as bad as feat taxes.

As for weapons, name them whatever you like, just base the damage off of category. Something like this.

Close: 1d4
Light: 1d6
One Handed: 1d8
Polearm: 1d10
Two Handed: 1d12 (not 2d6, the d12 needs more love!

Then have Piercing, Bludgeoning, or Slashing. Whatever the weapons are is flavor. Something similar can be done with armor.

Not a fan of them being core.

Please do this:

Make combat maneuvers something that all Martial characters are capable of (I.E. remove that AaO if they attempt it) instead of them having to feat tax into each type of maneuver. Anyone that trains in martial tradition will generally know how to bull rush/trip/disarm/etc. Now some (think monk) might specialize in it further, but don't punish the Fighter because he didn't take the feat. Think modern military, they train with guns and traditionally that's what they use. However they are trained in close combat situations as well and know general basics of disarming, tripping, and grappling.

Keep prepared casters, and keep the meta magic advantages they have in some way. Perhaps if a Wizard prepares a spell with meta magic, then it increases in spell level like before but it doesn't require an additional action. Whereas a spontaneous caster can do it on the fly but it requires additional actions for them.

It's race, add ancestry if you want, but it's race.

Re-vamp the social skills, as written they are easily abused, oh look the level 7 fighter made the dragon shake in his pants! Absurd.

Simplify weapon damage dice

Close Weapon - D4
Light Weapon - D6
One Handed Weapon - D8
Polearm - D10
Two Handed Weapon - D12 (The D12 needs more love in Pathfinder)

Maybe instead of increasing/decreasing the dice with size, you can simply things by baking in a size bonus/penalty instead of having to refer to a chart that changes the dice and you go from say 1d12 to 3d6

Instead let the varied weapons do something unique to the weapon. Trip/Disarm/Grapple/Etc.

Get rid of 0 level spells - this I detect magic/poison/alignment/evil all day long is ridiculous in my opinion. Or at least put a limit on them 5/day or something.

"You enter a room, (description) what do you do?"

Paladin - "detect evil"
Wizard - "detect magic"
Druid - "detect poison"

"You are approached by someone walking along the street"

Paladin - "detect evil"
Inquisitor - "detect alignment"
Druid - "detect poison"
Wizard - "detect magic"

Make all stats more relevant to saves (I do like the concept of each stat relating to particular saves in the game).

Make magical items more meaningful and not something so "necessary" like stat items.

Remove the requirement that a weapon has to be +1 before it can have a special ability, this just seems silly. If the wizard can enchant it with fire, why does it already have to have a +1 bonus?

Make the +1 scale mean something though like it should, as far as overcoming DR or the like. So you have the choice between special effects or static bonuses that help overcome certain defenses.

Allow for specialization but feats like Weapon focus/specialization could relate to groups of weapons instead, providing the martial some flexibility so he isn't boned when he loses his Greatsword and is more apt to make use of that magical Greataxe you designed instead of discarding it because he sucks with it.

Please Dont Do This:

Remove the alignment system entirely. This entire debate of "why must the Paladin be lawful good, I want all of the paladin's goodies but I want to be chaotic as I wish" is nonsense. A paladin should have something that sets it apart (like it does currently) but it should also have the restrictions it has, that is WHY it is not just a Fighter.

As for the morality of the game, yes people aren't always lawful, they aren't always chaotic, and they're capable of both good and evil. It's still a good system for certain class requirement tenants, spells, and a general sense of things.

Separate rules for monsters/NPCs if they're the same thing as the players, that is nonsense.

YogoZuno wrote:

Zarius wrote:

He already sits at a 28 at level 7.

Amateur...there was a character at a PFS table last year who was level 7, with AC54 (when buffed).

Well, while I was certainly tempted to crank it more, just because I could, I'd have spent all my dough on that. And oracle. I'm the healer (thank you, not-playing-PFS for Channel on an bones oracle), not the tank. :P That's also not buffed at all, except for his Armor of Bones.

Unchained Rogue 3, Brawler 3, sacred shield paladin 3

Martial flexibility gives him what he needs to not be ignored depending on the situation

YogoZuno wrote:

Zarius wrote:

He already sits at a 28 at level 7.

Amateur...there was a character at a PFS table last year who was level 7, with AC54 (when buffed).

Did he do anything beside be unhittable?

I have a character that gets around 53-58 AC depending on what he is fighting and he provides adjacent allies with a +8 luck bonus on their AC, and next level will provide them a +3-4 shield bonus on top of that.

He's not very offensive, but ridiculously high saves, hard to kill, holds the line. He's also a very social character.

Definitely makes use of Combat Expertise though.