Llyr the Scoundrel's page

Strength doesn't help one block a blow against them unless that's how the individual is choose to weather a strike; a thousand times more important is a sense of timing, balance, and coordination... i.e. Dexterity. There are entire martial arts forms based on this theory. Strength only helps when the shield is already set and squared to the blow. Dexterity is making sure your feet are properly set and you've moved the shield in the proper trajectory to intercept the incoming strike.

The mechanical reason that Dexterity isn't included in damage and attack bonus is in part because then you virtually make Dex a key ability score for every character. It then helps determine that you move first in combat, that you're harder to be hit, that you hit more frequently, and that your hits do more damage. The majority of warrior types would then be Dex oriented. It unbalances the game. Now, that's not to say that I totally disagree that Dex could be used to imply that a person's strikes are more accurate. The problem is, the d20 system doesn't have a correlation between how accurate a hit is and its damage... EXCEPT where it concerns critical hits. Which sounds to emulate the scenario you're trying to argue for. My personal suggestion if that's what you want to bring about? Perhaps allow that the Dex bonus is added to the confirmation roll of a critical rather than Strength. Showing that the critical is more about a good aim than a strong arm. I say "rather than" because otherwise you're increasing the chances that every confirmation roll is increased. It's better to keep some sense of balance in the mechanics of the system.

There's that guy in every gaming group, that when there's a creature with a tentacle ALWAYS makes the comment "I've seen enough hentai to know where this is going!"

...

I am that guy. :D

My 2¢ on this issue, both personal and anecdotal...

It's my observation that in Pathfinder and many RPG games, versatility is underrated vs. specialization. Some people say that one weapon is "better" than another... but that's very subjective because not every weapon is best in every situation. Think of it this way; in real life would you want a greatsword in an alley too narrow to get a full swing in, or would you want a weapon of more manageable length? Certainly, in situations of formation warfare some weapons were favored for mass combat, but that didn't mean they were "better" than those favored for duels.

Now, the anecdote for which I will apologize because this was a story I read over a decade ago and I can't recall the specific names. There was a classic disagreement between some Japanese martial artists of which was the superior weapon, the katana or the quarterstaff (bo stick). Two masters of each weapon decided on trying to settle this disagreement by having a personal contest between the both of them, and the wielder of the katana was agreed between them as the winner. However, after the match the master who used the bo stick made an observation, and after some time he asked for a rematch which was granted. However, he'd made an alteration to his stick and cut about a full foot off of its length, so it was only about five feet long (a jo stick). They competed again, and this time the master who used the jo stick was agreed to have won. The reason? By making his weapon slightly shorter, he'd made it so that it was able to use movements that were not only complimentary for the staff, but also for the sword. And that versatility gave him the edge.

Now, my personal account. Years ago when I began to study swordplay with a friend of mine teaching me, he asked me whether I wanted to wished to learn to use a weapon in my off hand or not. I thought on it for a while because it was already uncommon that I was using a rapier in my left hand, but the more I thought on it I realized that with a free hand if I were to clinch up with an opponent I would like to take advantage of my martial arts training in ways that might be unexpected. Take hold of cloth and pull them off balance, that sort of thing. When I explained my thinking he commended me, because he admitted too many people thought "more blades are better!" when that isn't always the truth. (Although privately he wanted to joke about me using a main gauche in my right hand being inherently wrong... language pun.) The point being, again - versatility is a good thing.

The spear is a wonderfully versatile weapon, a jo stick with a metal point. Unfortunately as I said, Pathfinder and several other game systems don't like to work in versatility as a virtue because it becomes overly complicated in the mechanics. Picture this in your head; two combatants face one another, one with a greatsword and one with a spear. By Pathfinder, the fellow with the spear is woefully outmatched. When the reality is that while the fellow with the greatsword is winding up for a big swing, he's been jabbed maybe twice by the fellow with the spear. Weapon speeds play a very important part in a real fight, but it isn't properly represented in most game systems, either.

In my own gaming group, we made the following concession. The standard, simple weapon grade spear was what any peasant could cobble together and use. True combatant types preferred a higher grade of spear, with a heavier spearhead of metal that could be used for both piercing and incidental slashing. It did 1d10 damage but required a martial weapon proficiency. It felt more appropriate for the sort of weapon Odin or Cú Chulainn would favor.

Hey, I'm up for a challenge. Let's crunch some numbers!

Let's say that you have two individuals, both of them with improved critical AND keen on their weapons. One has a greatsword, the other has a greataxe. Going through the 20 rolls concept again, in which you hit on an 11 or higher, the greatsword will still have an average hit of 7 on 2d6 but with a critical range of x2 on 17-20. The total comes to be 98 points of damage on average. Compare that to the greataxe, doing 1d12 with an average roll of 6.5 but with a critical range of x3 on 18-20. Their total damage after 20 rolls is 110.5. You know what, you're right. I wasn't even thinking of the rolls that keen and improved critical might play. Good catch!

I'm curious now, let's look a the longsword / rapier comparison. A longsword has an average roll of 4.5 on 1d8, with a critical modifier of x2 17-20. After 20 rolls, that figures to be 63 average damage. The rapier does 3.5 average damage on 1d6, with a critical of x2 16-20. The result of that is 52.5. So, it's still not quite up to snuff. However, it makes me want to take a look at a weapon like the battleaxe. Usually 1d8 with x3 criticals, so it does an average damage of 4.5 each roll. In my above sums, a longsword pre-feat and keens does a final result of 54 damage. A battleaxe will do exactly the same on average. However, if you figure in the improved critical and the keen property, that same battleaxe does 72 damage over 20 rolls. Not bad at all.

So, I guess it goes to show you that there are extenuating circumstances where depending on your build (and your game masters allowing you to choose the magical natures of your weapons), the choices of you weapons might shift from one to another. However, if there's one constant, it's that the weapon choice is always going to one of the choices that does the most damage regardless of the critical.

I'd also offer that most weapon choices are hamstrung aside from others that are numerically superior. There's a reason why the weapons of choice for a group aren't going to vary too greatly unless they're forced to by conventions of their class or feats (the cleric's favored weapon, the selections available to the swashbuckler to benefit from panache).

Let's look at warriors who choose a weapon that uses two hands. More often than not, for the sake of simplicity they're going to use a greatsword. It doesn't require an extra feet to use to the best of its ability, works in close, and has very good steady damage. Take a peek at that critical modifier; x2 on a 19 or 20. Let's propose that through 20 rolls a player hits on an eleven or higher, and we tally up the total. We can say by the numbers that since 2d6 rolls an average of 7 each time, and doubling the damage dice for criticals, through 20 rolls a greatsword on average does a total of 84 points of damage. Not too shabby. Let's compared that to greataxe at 1d12 with an average roll of 6.5 and a x3 multiple. Through 20 rolls that figures out to be 78 points of damage on average. Not bad, but mathematically not as good a result. Who doesn't like a scythe wielding character? I know I do! Great imagery, all dramatic. However, with 2d4 damage the average roll is going to be a 5, and with a x4 critical the average roll after 20 rolls comes to be 65. Hmmmm. Lacks a bit of punch, doesn't it? Doesn't make it half as appealing.

You experience a similar problem when you look at one handed weapons, there are clear choices that will just be better. A longsword through 20 rolls will do an average of 54 damage. A rapier or scimitar might look tempting with that increased critical range, but their average damage through 20 rolls comes to be 45.5.

Now, I'm not just throwing this out there as a way to complain without offering a solution. You see, in a real fight you don't simply chose a weapon because it gives you the biggest hit. How fast you can maneuver a weapon matters quite a bit, too. If in real life I had to defend myself and I had a choice between an arming sword (a longsword by Pathfinder standards) and a rapier, I'd choose the rapier against most opponents. It's faster to strike with, faster to pull back into a guard posture and parry an incoming blow. However, this is an element that Pathfinder doesn't include in their combat mechanics. I suggest bringing back the attribute of weapon speeds. Think about how it will affect game play. No longer are those brutish tanks just charging off into the middle of the fray because they rolled well on their d20. Now, their heavy greatsword slows down their initiative so the spellcasters and the lighter weapon combatants act first with greater frequency. They're not domineering the combat because they do the most damage, more often reacting than dictating the flow of a fight.

I would propose an optional combat rule that would have weapon speeds effect initiatives. You could even have similar rules for armor, make their Dex penalties inclusive to their initiative roll. You'd suddenly see advantages that weren't present before to the lightly armored, lighter armed warrior who favors speed and maneuverability in a fight. And it doesn't suddenly invalidate those combatants that arm up with their greatswords and heavy plate, but rather adds a complicating wrinkle.

I'm going to directly address the example of the goblin dilemma as I see it. My first question would be... what is the standing law of the land when it comes to goblins? In the land where the encounter transpires, do goblins bear a "kill on sight" order? Because then and only then is the Paladin obligated to kill the goblin in obeyance with the law, and even then they have their own personal latitude (depending on their nature) to interpret what may constitute an extenuating circumstance. In addition, only when they can conduct such actions without putting themselves and others in undo harm's way.

Then, we get into the really big philosophical point of this argument. Because we have to define what is good, and what is evil? This isn't as simple a question as you might suspect, and it's one that theologians and philosophers have wondered over for centuries. You see, one of the most classic views of good and evil is that they are opposite forces in constant conflict. Likes values on a number line, moving from the positive to the negative depending on intensity. This is often called the Manichean view of evil, and the struggle of good vs. evil is the point of most standard stories.

However, that isn't the only point of view of good and evil. Another (in very short summary) is frequently called the Augustinian view, and it alludes to another way of seeing both. What if evil was not an opposite of good, but rather a corruption of good? A sickness of the spirit that one who is good would rather see cured than eliminated if possible? This is the point of view that stresses redemption and compassion, and it's certainly the more difficult and challenging to carry out... but then, isn't good supposed to be about taking the more difficult but right way and evil is about taking the short cuts?

If any good character is faced with a circumstance where they have goblin captives and have to puzzle over what to do with them, those that subscribe to the Manichean view might see it as a matter of "I'm good, they are evil, and for good to win there need to be fewer evil things so I should kill them." The Augustinian view would be to judge their nature, and to consider if any amount of compassion would sway them to not be evil. Whether the corruption of their souls was too far gone to return towards goodness, or whether that one kind act of mercy might be the proper action that would put them on the path towards a better life; or risk more innocents to suffer harm at their hands. Which will require some input on the game master's part, whether they see certain creatures of certain alignments impossibly bound to their nature or whether they have sufficient sentience to rise above their bestial impulses to change and grow. Or, as might be the case of beings such as demons and devils, anchored towards their nature by forces greater than their own will?

Which is not to say that should the decision to not kill them be the final one that they would be permitted to carry on without some form of punishment. Even then, if there is to be punishment or execution of these goblins, it should never be carried out in a method that would be considered cruel. Goodness not only in result, but also in action.

Now, here's an interesting dilemma to consider. Let's say you have a helmet of opposite alignment. You might consider that to forcibly change the nature of another creature against their will is an evil act, as free will is valued and important. Ah, but if you view evil as a corruption of good, does this constitute a curative measure? An interesting topic to consider, don't you think?

It can be fun to complain about “bad luck” or “The Fates” and cultivate a reputation for complaining and being a whiner to gain sympathy or to help fill your friends with joyful schadenfreude (perhaps both)....

- Adopt a confident attitude...

CONGRATULATIONS! You, Devilkiller, have taking a commanding lead in the most condescending post in this thread. I sure you're Momma's proud of you. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you weren't meaning to talk down to a fellow gamer, but you did. And it wasn't well received. So, for the sake of progress I'm just going to be ignoring any posts from you from this point forwards on this matter so not give you any chance to threadjack.

Second; have somebody else roll your dice.

No offense on the "high school jock with a C average" comment, but I think you knew the point I was going for. And secondly... participation is kind of half the fun. If I'm not rolling my own dice, my own level of participation has diminished. Which makes me less engaged.

Trade dice with someone just in case.

This has been attempted, with no better result than buying a new set of dice.

Instead of Wizards and Clerics try Sorcs and Oracles since you don't like the prepared casting and have no luck with it. Also they're CHA classes which lends itself to being the party face, so you'll be a shining star out of combat.

I have to admit, I really liked the Sorcerer in principle when the class was first introduced. Thematically, the idea is closer to the whole "you have a special gift", which is always cool. Mechanically, however... the lack of access to higher level spells compared to the wizard really feels like an unfair trade off. Compared to the wizard which gets increased spells known for a high ability score and an inability to swap out spells until two levels have passed, I simply don't see the bloodline abilities as a fair trade off. For example, you could have a 5th lvl Sorcerer who has a singular 2nd level spell they know that they can cast four times a day at best. A 5th lvl Wizard can have one 3rd level spell, and if they're using a bonded item they could have a secondary version of the same spell saved up in there. That faster advancement is too advantageous compared to the spontaneous casting of the sorcerer.

It sounds like you want to be the obvious hero this time around, rather than the 'unsung' hero, so I won;t suggest support characters like life oracles, bards, evangelist clerics, etc. (notwitstanding that I really like those sorts of characters).

Yes! This fellow gets it! Well, this part of it at least.

Next time your dice roll a 1, line them up then summary execute the offender by smashing it with a hammer in front of them. Muttering "you have failed me for the last time" is optional, but appropriate.

While a cathartic answer, it would eventually prove to be an expensive one. And wouldn't improve my results.

Do you mainly only roll low on d20s, or on other kinds of dice too?

I roll poorly on all dice. I think sometimes I need to blame my no-good-dirty-rotten pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather for not carrying Madam Zeroni up the mountain to drink.

I agree that this is often the case, but it doesn't have to be, and that might be something to talk to your GM about. Failing a social event might not be a TPK, but it might mean you're all thrown in jail for a crime you didn't commit, or fail to unmask the corrupt baron behind the whole scheme. Maybe the magic treasure you're seeking is protected not by a powerful monster, but a series of Indiana Jones-like traps that your rogue is best suited to get through. In other words, in most campaigns the DM can create situations that let less combat-oriented characters be the star sometimes.

I appreciate the suggestions, but sadly my game master isn't the sort who listens to suggestions. In any aspect of his life. I've known him for 28 years, he's as flexible in his ways as a rock. I've been telling him for over a decade that not all campaigns have to end with a planned need for one of the characters to sacrifice themselves and half of the remaining members to be burdened with joyless responsibilities that are contrary to their natures. Yet, he won't plot his stories in any other way. Still, it was a good suggestion.

... and talking to the min/max'er doesn't work, either. I've tried to convey to him, "Maybe you could try a more challenging concept? Something a bit more unique and off kilter, maybe? A warrior who isn't human so you don't grab up that extra feat, or a wizard who isn't this perfect combination of Dex and Int?" He just looks at me like I've grown two heads, and makes it clear that he simply doesn't find the idea the least bit interesting (in his words). As I said before, if it isn't the ULTIMATE combination possible, he doesn't find it appealing.

A quick word about summoning-type characters... sadly, no matter the level or the buffs you can push into them, the creatures you summon are never equal to the team tank. Even when you augment their summoning, they're still a far cry from that brute warrior. I often consider summoning as a way to delay an attack or two against you, which for most spell levels is worth the price. However, as an offensive option, it's simply not an efficient one.

My gamemaster runs every single encounter like the creatures we're facing are brilliant military strategists who were allowed days to set up every ambush. Which is unpleasant enough on its own... except that for one of the few times we've played together, I'm playing the party's heavy hitter (a bloodrager) and he focuses the overwhelming effort of every assault on me. Meaning that roughly 1 out of every 2 combats we're involved in, my character goes unconscious in the first three rounds. Or, the encounters are primarily bested by our range combatants, and my character can't close the distance fast enough to be effective.

The flip side of this is when someone else is gamemastering, this is the same person who habitually power games and creates these min/max'ed powerhouses that tear through the ranks of enemies. This, because our other steady gamemaster doesn't try to perfectly shape each encounter as though the opponent has perfect forethought for planning and irrational understanding before the encounter of the strengths and weaknesses of each member of our party.

You have no idea how much I wanted this campaign. Especially the Lantern King... have you ever encountered a sideways mention with too little detail that grabbed your attention in a way that you couldn't describe? That was me with this individual. All of the Eldest and the First Realm really draw my attention, too. I look forwards to this campaign setting, and I'm curious to see what twists and turns it provides.

thaX wrote:

That is when Vancian Casting would be ripped from Role Playing games forever. Like it should have been in 3.0.

Yeah you keep barking up that tree, pal.

Actually, I'm completely on board with that as well. It's a clumsy system that shackles the character even as it stifles the imagination.

There are multitudes of examples of spellcasters in other media that have "themed" magical effects... they're from the distant north, so all of their offensive spells have a cold element to them. Not something that costs extra feats to possess, but that since they're equal in nature cost the same to cast. How about a Hold Person spell that requires a Fortitude Save rather than a Willpower one, as it targets the body and not the mind? I would have adored to use the words of power system Paizo released... if it wasn't inferior in every way.

Also, the Feat system is completely unwieldy. You can easily spend a full hour pouring over the various books just to chose what Feat you receive at 1st level. That's absurd. It changes the game from being fun to being a chore.

Don't get me wrong, every gamer is going to have their own house rules to "fix" the little things they see is broken in the existing system. But as much as I enjoy Pathfinder, these are two elements that simply become worse as more books are published. It's proceeded to the point that there is an increasing sentiment amongst my gaming friends to try Mutants & Masterminds as the basis of our fantasy game, and simply use the Pathfinder setting (that we enjoy) as reference material.

If we're wandering off-topic to include "movies with swords in them", anyone on these boards who's never seen old Musketeers films starring Michael York and Ollie Reed must immediately seek to rectify this shortcoming in their lives. Fantastically choreographed swashbuckling duels, a brilliant undercurrent of Pythonesque humour (plus Spike Milligan!) and a few surprisingly dark moments.

ABSOLUTELY. 'The Three Musketeers' & 'The Four Musketeers' were movies without compare in the swashbuckler genre. And what a cast! Michael York, Oliver Reed (such an underrated actor!), Richard Chamberlain, Christopher Lee, Raquel Welch, Faye Dunaway, and Charlton Heston... I'd go so far as to say these two movies were to the swashbuckler genre that the 'Avengers' are to the comic book hero genre. Great call!

I play in an exceptionally small group... it's just 3 of us, so even if 2 of us double up on characters, a fifth group member is very handy. We're accustomed to the GMPC, but I think it's because we're very mindful of our roles in the group. Most often, the GMPC ends up as someone like the cleric, rogue, or bard - an important character to the group, but who isn't the direct impact player of a warrior or wizard. They contribute, without taking the lead.

In the storytelling aspect of GMing, they can be handy as the "mouthpiece" character. They're the rogue who knows a few rumors to help direct the action, the cleric who has received a message from their deity, or the bard who knows of a legend relating to the topic at hand. Done subtly, it can guide the players without making them feel as though the story is railroading them in a direction.

They can also provide a good flavor element for a group that gives them something the other personalities are absent of - because you're the GM, and you should be more motivated towards the objective point of view of the story rather than the personal motivation of the lone character you're playing. So into a group of eager novice adventurers, you can include the snarky and moping gloomy gus. Or if the party is too grim, they can be the colorful gnome with an impish sense of humor. Perhaps someone you might not run if you were focused exclusively on your characters, and provide a bit of fun.

I've seen a few mentions the warm my heart. 'Dragonslayer', 'The Golden Voyage of Sinbad', 'The Last Unicorn', 'Excalibur'. All great movies. I actually enjoyed Jason Momoa's portrayal of Conan more than Ah-nold... he was just sabotaged by a bad director, a patchy script, and the very limited acting range of his co-star Rachel Nichols.

For myself, I would add the forgotten movie 'Arabian Adventure' with a very young Emma Samms. A film that includes Christopher Lee as the villain, and unexpected appearance by Mickey Rooney, and smalls roles by Peter Cushing and John Ratzenberger. LOVED this movie as a child.

It's been a few months, I'm curious to hear what direction your campaign took. I say so, because I'm planning a campaign myself set in Isger as well.

I've always tried to take the cultural influence that inspired the land to spur the direction of my story. Looking at Isger I thought, "Hmmm, lorded over by the Roman/Taldans first, then by the British/Chelaxians... these people strike me as being Celts." So, that's the flavor I'm steeping the game in. The game is going to start with the party as a group of youngsters, gone afoul of the local law and having to join in with the Isgeri bandits. Working with a spy leaking them information and a mysterious supernatural benefactor setting them on missions to make Isger the free land it used to be.

It starts on the outskirts of Gillamoor, where they will see the beginning of the zombie plague. (Which started as a mistaken attempt by the local Chelaxian lord to kill off the bandits!) Over the course of the adventure the heroes will discover that the spy's help dries up as he's offered to join the Hellknights, and has to struggle with his conscience versus the needs of his family. They'll delve into ruins that will illustrate the land Isger used to be, and their supernatural friend is hoping it begins to resemble again. His nature, meanwhile, is revealed to be none other than the Lantern King himself, wanting to anchor a link from the First World to Isger. Allowing he and his brethren an influence that will disrupt that horribly boring order the Chelaxians have put over what used to be a fairly interesting plot of land. In the long run it might not make the land any safer for the Isgeri people... but it'll be more fun in his eyes.

The major curveball my players threw my way as I told them the initial pitch was two of them decided they wanted to play psionic characters... one a wilder, another a swashbuckler with a wild talent. While you don't normally think psionics and Celtic folklore, I'm putting a slight spin on it to say that such powers are akin to "second sight" and "the gift". For an extra dash I'm attributing to the Fey influence in the old days of the Isgeri tribes. An influence that happened when the Lantern King and his sort used to come across and have a bit of a poke around in this world. Which works well, describing their powers as being not truly arcane or divine, but something more primal.