Kais86's page

As a wise man once said: a truly evil man takes all of the good options, until he's in charge, and then BAM! Off-world slavery.

Quote:

But yes, a level 5 item crafter who happens to have 43000 gp can spend over a month making an item that will cast wish exactly once.

This is broken.

The word you are looking for is "unbalanced". "Broken" is when it doesn't work.

I think that some of the feat chains are utterly needless. Two-weapon fighting and vital strike in particular. Two weapon fighting should just be a -2 hit when using it. Vital Strike should just be a single feat.

Gunslingers. I don't like the flavour (guns don't belong in my faux-medieval fantasy) and I loathe the mechanics (the "primitive" guns have a significantly higher rate of fire than WW1 rifles had).

Firearms predate Fullplate in the real world. Actual guns came around the same time frame. I'll accept that it's -YOUR- faux-medeival fantasy, but I want you to understand that in the world without magic, they showed up a lot earlier than where that faux-medeival fantasy world is more or less set, and we -DON'T- have access to brain-enhancing magic.

That said: I don't like that guns are so prone to breaking. Especially properly-maintained guns, like what you'd expect an adventurer to have.

Anyone who says fighters are ONLY good for fighting, and also those who constantly create humdrum fighters that aren't really in-depth characters, but faceless PC placeholders that swing swords repeatedly.

So....silly people?

That's an expensive notebook there Drejk.

Improved and/or greater feint are, but improved two-weapon feint only eats a single attack and 2 feats you normally wouldn't pick up. Yeah, it seems like a lot, but your opponent is flat-footed for your remaining attacks and you don't need to rely on anyone else for sneak attacks.

Charlie Bell wrote:

You can't make your players do pushups if they don't show up to the game on time.

I can't? Now I have to go find a new punishment for them.....

Flutter-kicks, that will make them show up on time.

TOZ wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?

Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.

Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.

Wait... if integrity went out through the chimney, then who did I see going out the window? Dignity?

I'd give them a good will save, takes a lot of mental gumption to do what a fighter does.

I didn't think Michael Carpenter was that funny, now Sanya, that's a funny paladin.

Modern society makes me want to bang my head on a wall sometimes. "War is okay, but natural bodily functions are not." It's why I feel free to burp or fart wherever I want to.

I'm just saying that the reason it's weird for a paladin to not drink, is because it's a quick way to die of dehydration. All kidding aside: ale and beer were amongst the only safe things to drink in the rough approximation of the pseudo-medieval-Europe that all of this takes place in.

In the real world the English longbowman is not shooting 6 arrows in 6 seconds .Hes lucky to get one off in that time.

The bow is only a super weapon in roleplay games.

Also most works of fiction that have elite archers, if you see a guy who is supposed to be awesome carrying a bow, he might as well be walking around with an assault rifle.

Just act like Batman, he's a LG Rogue. ;-)

Except all those times where he's just a CN child taking out all of his issues on poor people.

Think about it as a constable, a counter-rogue even, things like that. Jack O'Neill of Stargate SG-1 probably had levels of rogue in him, even if he's only loosely lawful. Samuel Vimes definitely has levels of rogue in him and he is very lawful good once he manages to get back on his feet.

Having worn some of the heaviest armors made by man, both new and old, I've come to the conclusion that the ACPs being as big as they are is just silly, at least if the armor was made for you. The plate armors in particular have ludicrously high ACPs. Maybe I have lots of levels of fighter, the endurance feat, and I've only ever worn masterwork armor, but somehow I don't think so.

I'm not even going to get into why they have max dex modifiers, that's absolutely ludicrous. I can see them having dex penalties based on weight, but if you know how to operate a suit of armor well enough, you can function almost as well as you can without the armor.

Here's a thought that makes ACP look incredibly silly: The heaviest modern armor is worn by bomb-squad units, who use disable device to turn off bombs, disable device is a skill affected by ACP.

Furthermore: do you really think a suit of full plate, made for him, would slow Jackie Chan that much? Think about it.

I'm not touching that argument with a 10 foot pole, I know a trap when I see one.

That said: people are more likely to take a level in a different class than EWP.

@3.5L: Your argument is flawed because you are bringing realism into a place where it doesn't exist.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

So what you want, shallowsoul, is for all of us to be required to use this system too? No, thank you.

I for one would appreciate a response to this, shallowsoul.

This is like talking to 3.5Loyalist all over again.

Wounds are trivial in Pathfinder! News at 11.

Wounds are typically trivial in games, that's just how they are. People get stabbed all the time in RPGs, but only the OCD ones cover the chances of catching a disease each time you are wounded. Besides, no one wants their character to get nicked once, then laid up for 6 months, just so they can die of dysentery.

I don't normally say this, but:
1. Play a bard.
2. Pick one style of combat (ranged/melee/spell).
3. ????
4. Profit!

@Finn K: No, you don't want them to lie to you, but they are going to anyway, because of the arbitrations you've made. You do need trust, but when that trust is based on having to make up some reason to do anything, there's a problem with it. For example: I trust that I'm going to have to make something up (read: lie) to this feat. Trust also goes both way, you have to trust them as well, and it sounds like you don't trust them. See how this works?

You can't rely on everyone in your group being on the same wavelength. I've met people who think on the exact same wavelength before and it's actually kinda creepy. That was an example and not a particularly good one, but I picked it for simplicity. Most fiction doesn't accomplish that very well, I've found, and most player characters are about as realistic as the characters in those books. When it's a problem it's usually apparent immediately. Which makes them easily removed.

Building a character the way we do isn't min-maxing, as the people you mentioned argued about the definition of min-maxing, and I don't think they ever came to a unanimous conclusion. What we all seem to agree on here, is that we shouldn't have to play "mother may I" with the GM every time we want to do something with the creation of our characters. That's a "GM has control issues" problem.

The fact that you would ban someone at all, for doing what they want with their character, within reason, is (in my opinion) bad GMing. This is their character, they're adults, or nearly adults, and they should be allowed to make choices without having to beg the GM. This has almost nothing to do with role-playing, feats that you would object to are mostly combat-oriented, and don't affect roleplay. There aren't that many non-combat oriented feats. Not until the Ultimate Social Combat book comes out. No one is talking about not role-playing their character, or running around like a war-robot. Except you.

I'm as much for roleplaying as anyone, but I think it's asking too much for us to justify everything we do with something other than "I wanted to".

I'm taking the feat because I want to punch people in the face, how's that for justification?

So basically, what you're saying is, because I'm an archer I can't take improved unarmed strike, simply because "it's not my fighting style"? Captain America would have words with you, just like he did with Hawkeye.

It's kind of hard to justify most feats as a roleplaying aspect, aside from skills, they mostly pertain to combat, or spellcasting. None of which gels well as a "roleplaying" aspect.

...My enemy, the random order of operation, strikes again. One day, I will strike him down, and create a standard order of operation for all to use, but until then, the eternal struggle carries on.

ME GRIMLOCK CANNOT BE REPLACED! ME GRIMLOCK DESTROY MORLOCKS!

I'm of the opinion that two-weapon fighting should only be one feat, that scales up, there's so many restrictions on it, you can even make the restrictions scale up, need a 19 dex to get the 2nd off-hand, 21 to get the 3rd, 23 for the 4th. I also think the full-attack should just be "attack" which is a standard action, makes the game a lot more dynamic for noncasters.

Mergy wrote:

Everybody travelling with the fighter gets some bonuses because he's making them get up and jog in the morning.

I love this imagery, lol.

I'd be cool if there was some crafting niche geared toward the fighter. Though he still won't be able to touch magical crafting, which doesn't really help.

1.Take master craftsman.

I'm of the opinion that not believing in gods in pathfinder is silly.

Not worshiping them? Cool with that.

Don't believe in them? May as well not believe in elves.

I'm going to paraphrase Granny Weathwerwax "I know the gods exist, but I don't believe in them any more than I believe in a table."

Sounds like a house rule for the GM's game. And I'd say it is a good one.

I disagree, to say that you need a god to resurrect someone, what if they don't worship the same god? Would you deny them as well? If so, then why bother having a resurrection spell at all? This spell also requires a 5,000 gp or more diamond, that's a hard enough reagent to get in the first place, adding a further requirement seems a bit extreme, especially for something that you also have to wait a long time to get.

The simple fact of the matter is that player characters don't need gods to function. None of the classes require you worship a god, except the Inquisitor, and that's literally only for their domain/inquisition. Which can very easily be house-ruled out.

Would you also place similar restrictions on healing? Especially when it's the Cleric's power and not their god's power?

Blue Star wrote:

Squawk Featherbeak wrote:

Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.

Therefore...

Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.

Cayden approves of a lot of things that are questionable in nature, for cryin' out loud he's the god of adventurers.

And yet he still won't sponsor my paladin. I even got the blinked out mount, and a whole harlem of harlots that I take care of!

That's because those aren't questionable, you have to make it questionable before he will approve.

Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.

Therefore...

Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.

Cayden approves of a lot of things that are questionable in nature, for cryin' out loud he's the god of adventurers.

If we are going to base this off of a single piece of artwork then I suggest we start looking at the Iconics, then several of the other creatures' pictures in the bestiary. Many are much more risque than the catfolk.

Pretty sure a large portion of the views stated here (particularly the "against catfolk" views) are using pinholes as spyglasses, they are blind to the things around them, and have latched onto one concept.

That said: we should ban humans, there is so much porn of humans out there, that one can hardly take a step without tripping over it. Way more porn of them than anything else, so let's just stick our ultra-conservative heads into the ground, and ban humans.

Appearently catfolk is the moral high ground you want to pick.

I wouldn't call it a moral high ground, as it's not really moral, and it's not really a high-ground. It's kind of an evil "no fun allowed" unstable, and rather flat ground, to be standing on. The argument is weak at best, what with all the other examples readily available that predate the catfolk by numerous years.

@Dudemeister: you can't possibly convince him of that. James has explained his actions, not that he needed to, it's not like he owes us anything. The fact that he's even participating in this... whatever this is... is laudable.

Level 5 Gunslinger pistolero/mysterious stranger, level 15 Ninja. +5 Guided, Lucky, Distance revolvers, full attack from invisibility all day erry day at 300 feet. If you are worried about going first, take 2 levels of inquisitor, switch to an ordinary gunslinger 1, and take 2 more levels of ninja. Take the seen invisibility and invisible blade master tricks.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Another thread on this?

The answer is 4e. Or something like 4e.

Or Kirthfinder. Which is nothing like 4e.

Or a point-buy system, like Champions.

Actually, change my post somewhat, give the fighter additional skills based on a concept, kind of like the Cavalier's orders.

I'd give rogues/ninjas +1 hit/1d6 of sneak attack and they'd gain half of this (so on non-flanking/flat-footed/surprised strikes they would get +1hit/+1d6 damage at first level, +2hit/+2d6 at 5th and so on) when not actually qualifying for sneak attack. I'd give them a floating good save.

I'd give fighters more skill points and a large skill list. I'd give them a good will save (I'm aware this makes them incredibly durable against fear, the paladin is immune to fear, so hush).

I think the barbarian is fine.

The Cavalier would have a floating good save and the ability to ride a mount indoors.

I'd give all of the non-magical classes access to skill-based tricks (the rogue would get all, the rest would gain access to a number equal to a mental stat of their choice) that would scale up with level.

I'd give the aforementioned classes access to spell-like abilities (the fighter would get the largest selection, with the rogue coming up second, and everyone else gets a smaller number) that would also scale up with level.

A good ninja: Kaede Nagase from Mahou Sensei Negima. She's the tall girl with eyes that are always closed. Aside from being 5'11", while in a Japanese Junior High(!), and probably having a weird hair color (green, but sometimes shown as gray) she doesn't stick out very much.

She's calm, quiet, wise, fairly smart (though it doesn't translate into being book-smart, her grades are rubbish) and incredibly deadly in a fight.

I meant what I said on an individual basis Muser, yes their job is to act as spies, assassinate people, and the like, but individually they share nothing with traditional ninjas.

Vishkanyas aren't freaks, they're tragedies, most of them really didn't get a choice in the matter, they were raised to kill people. The whole poisoned bodily fluids thing was a result of years of effort, that I'm pretty sure any vishkanya would have said "Nuts to that" if asked "would you do that again".

Naruto doesn't resemble any ninja ever, in fact, the characters of that series by and large are only called ninjas because that's what the author wanted to call them. They could just as easily be Jedi or some other kind of bizarre magic warrior with incredibly unsubtle magic.

Yes they use some tricks associated to ninjas (shadow clones, shuriken, that specific variant of throwing dagger, and several of their movement shenanigans), but let's be honest, when your best technique is a giant ball of brightly-glowing, swirling, energy, then obviously you are a bit closer to a mage or Dragon Ball Z character.

That said: fans of many a tv show/game/whatever are crazy (as such are also quite annoying), after all fan is short for fanatic.

If you want to not appear to be a fanboy, act like an actual ninja: be subtle, have your character dress to look like an ordinary adventurer, don't try to draw attention to yourself, when the spotlight is on you, give it to someone else, be prepared for emergencies, and have a profession other than murderhobo. Don't announce to the group that you are a ninja, don't use your powers in front of them, use notes to the GM to tell him when you ARE using your powers, and simply let your group make any assumptions they want to make.

This is one of those weapons that really needs to be given a few more rules, for example, which side does more damage, the bludgeoning or the slashing? Yes, you can make a reasonable guess, but it would make things a lot simpler to have them spelled out a bit more thoroughly.

Paladin does some gross stuff for a ninja if you have a decent amount of charisma.

Sun Tzu is mostly about strategy.

Which actually makes it more efficient realistically, but it's heavily dependent on the GM. Real life's GM is incredibly harsh and incredibly unfair.

I have read it. You have not tried everything. The simplest thing to do would be to give her the weapon you really do not need. But no, you tied to bully her and plan to kill her pc.

She never threatened you, you have a self entitlement issue. You think she exists solely to heal you when you need it. she seems to disagree.

No, you haven't, because you honestly think I'm the bully here. Come back when you've actually read it.

Blue Star wrote:

When someone has gotten to the end of their wits when it comes to solving a problem, it would be dumb for them to not ask for help. I am human, I can't have all the answers, and as such I asked for help. Your ego decided that "I'm better than that, therefore I should treat this person like dirt." as though you are some kind of "nobility" (in the ancient sense) when true nobility comes from magnanimosity, the ability to see someone who needs help, and to genuinely help them when they swallow their pride to ask for it.

You literally think you are so much better than me, that I don't deserve a proper answer from you, and I think, in reality, that makes you a much worse person than myself.

You need to sit down with your group and figure out a way of resolving treasure disputes that everyone thinks is reasonable. Clearly arguing about who can make best use of the item isn't working.

The few times I've had problems with this in the past we:

Diced off for items

Had a rotating list of who got first pick of treasure

Let the GM arbitrate

Player vote

None of these solutions guarantee you will wind up with the item but, unless you get buy in from the oracle's player on whatever solution there isn't going to be any resolution.

This is essentially what I suggested on P1 but you don't seem interested in finding a solution to the problem, only in finding ways to ensure you get your item.

Like all the suggestions made here, I will take it into consideration, sure I didn't think it was truly amazing advice, which means it didn't get a response from me, but I will take it into consideration.

Your more recent posts have taken it off the rails rather harshly.