MassivePauldrons's page

It's a Fantasy RPG that has a very large player base and an absurd amount of viable source material.

As a player I have little to no problem with overpowered characters, usually the characters I make are optimized to one degree or another, sometimes to the point that they are completely unfair vs typical CR appropriate challenges.

As a DM I have little to no problem with overpowered characters, the entire system is your playground and you aren't governed by any sort of character creation rules. Crushing an entire party of optimized player characters under you thumb as if they were nothing more than bugs is easily accomplished. Doing so in fashion that feels fair is a little more of an acquired skill.

That said if you're one player in a group of 2-5 others and DM(Who just FYI has to put a lot more effort and prep into the game than you do) and enough of them have a problem with what your doing with your character.
Then it's your job as an individual to come to some sort of reasonable solution with the group. It's not their collective responsibility to tip toe around your victim complex.

MassivePauldrons wrote:

Lem has some +1 impervious adamantine balls facing down those grey maidens with just his trusty flute.

Going by Ileosa's dress, that Lem is a 14th level Scarwall-wizened badass facing a troop of 5th level fighters. He'll be fine.

They're 8th level fighters, and going by the original print they each have more hit points than Lem. So I think my point is still somewhat valid... but I guess one song of discord later and the problem would solve itself. To be honest I just saw a chance to use, "adamantine balls" in a sentence, and leapt boldly through the breach damn the consequences.

Lem has some +1 impervious adamantine balls facing down those grey maidens with just his trusty flute.

"I'm pretty sure I'm a girl; I wish people would stop treating my the wrong way and my body didn't feel so disgusting and smelly."

What's so smelly and disgusting about the male body? I'm a little dubious on how any talk of trans representation seems to skew quite heavily towards trans women at the near total expense of trans men.

I guess I just don't understand how to write from the cis perspective.

That's a really lame out. If you want to change someones mind you should try to avoid indicating how much disdain you carry for them.

I actually really like Shardra as a character though, so you can still consider this a positive review.

I keep noticing this irritating trend of bringing personal grievances to bear and wrapping them up within the messaging of more important overarching topics. It serves nothing save to muddle otherwise cogent points and cause tangential conflict to drag over into discussions where it has no place. It constantly amazes me that while generally speaking mainstream liberal points of view are the ones with which I can find the most common ground. Many of the people proselytizing for these same ideals come across as some of the most obnoxious individuals I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. You can't pick your allies I guess, but g%! d%*n...

Yes, but most stuff doesn't send that at you right off the bat so you'll be a god of smashing things for at least three levels. But--as soon as something targets Will you are screwed.

Also, you completely misread the statistics, the stuff in [brackets] is the point buy, while the stuff in (parenthesis) is the attribute breakdown, and the stuff on its own is the final attribute.

You should actually read things and learn their meaning before arbitrarily assigning meaning.

The will would be at a -2, not a...

No it would be a -3, but thanks for the personal attack. I understood your point buy numbers. Your arrogance is amusing though. No will saves early huh, yep sleep and color spray sure are bad spells that never get used at early levels sounds about right.

Probably about 28-32(I just whipped up a couple builds to test this and it holds true though the range is a bit more like 25-33) depending on the wealth of your campaign is good for a dps fighter. Two handed fighters will probably be at the lower end of the range with archers and two weapon fighters a little higher due to better dex. Depends on the magic level, but that seems fair to me.

I'll just leave this here...

I fail to see how wizards are so broken, when by core every other class can have a legal level 17 wizard companion.

Now of course the easy counter to my theory is, "Well what if your dm doesn't allow leadership"? First off I would like to note that such a counterpoint is highly ironic when it is presented by a demographic that consistently downplays and dismisses the contribution of GM fiat to the balance process.

However regardless of that amusing anecdote I would posit that said response is without value in the context of this discussion. For the purposes of the situation presented there are only two meaningful distinctions of GM that exists. The kind that would allow the game breaking, illegal(Con bonuses to hitpoints scale with hitdice) creation presented in the OP's example(Type A) and the type that would not allow it(Type B).

Type A is fine with unbalanced nonsense; which in and of itself is perfectly reasonable. They might have their own funky ideas to contribute and likely the rest of the group has similar tastes. Pretty much the furthest thing from my personal cup of tea, but the world wasn't built to be my oasis. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility that a Type A GM would disallow leadership, while allowing the "Standard Level 20 Wizard".

A Type B GM(Please excuse me for my presumption, but I consider this represent the vast majority.) for balance purposes, setting consistency, consideration for other party members, simplicity of adjudication, or really just any reason doesn't allow, or at the very least presents some sort of rational obstacle to the unbridled accumulation of power that is a, "Standard Level 20 Wizard". A Type B GM may or may not allow Leadership, but such a consideration is inconsequential to my overall point.

It's either A no meaningful outside influence exists, so everyone gets to be crazy and it all works itself out. Nobody needs balance when the league isn't regulated. Or B there is some amount of external pressure outside the player's control that will reign in their ability to completely break the system.

There might be a meaningful argument towards class imbalance, but so severely over-exaggerating your position only weakens it.

Just my 2 coppers.

If you really miss more options try looking into some third party products. I get that they have a stigma, but dream-scarred press and some others have put out some real winners. I personally think Ultimate Psionics is a better thought out book than a good deal of what Paizo puts out and I don't like Psionics at all.

Well regardless of the quality of the content of the book, this is in my eyes far and away the coolest looking cover page of any Paizo product thus far. I know no poster prints have been sold of any past cover, but one can dream that an exception might be made! I'd love to put a framed copy of this up on my wall.

Juggernaut’s Pauldrons (40,000) - These massive pauldrons take the shape of a pair of clenched fists made of beaten bronze. They bestow a +4 bonus on CMD, and grant the wearer the ferocity ability (Bestiary 300). On command, the wearer can increase its size, as though subject to an enlarge person spell, and can revert to regular size with another command. Three times per day, as an immediate action after the pauldrons’ wearer kills an opponent, the wearer gains the benefit of the deadly juggernaut spell (Ultimate Combat) for 1 minute.

Meh, enlarge person on command is what I like about these (only item i know that does this). the deadly juggernaut spell isn't that impressive in my opinion *sigh* I just wish they gave me a ring of enlarge person or something that was like this :(

I know I'm excited!

Play Way of the Wicked, or alternatively steal ideas from Way of the Wicked. Book 2 has some pretty functional rules for running an evil organization.

Haha even its starting gold is higher than any other classes...

MassivePauldrons wrote:

...The part where you openly mock anyone making slight modification to the Golarion setting based on their personal preference...

This is going to sound very rude, but you do not understand what is being discussed in this thread. Please read it, or if you have, read it again and pay close attention to what the "don't ban for default flavor" group is saying.

I understand completely, it's not exactly complicated... Yes a Gunslinger could be played entirely with crossbows with some slight house rules. Yes your ninja could be a rambunctious Taldane with no sense of honor other than the next big score. The point is to, "some" people who are familiar with those classes they would still feeeel like their progenitors and that might be, "enough" for, "some" people to decide they don't want them in their campaign.

Regardless it's a moot point because the "I'm going to limit my table!" people and the "What? You limit your table!" people obviously have some disagreements. So the perfect solution already exists, don't play with them. Now that we've reached that remarkable conclusion, get ready for the real banger! If you don't play with those people, then why in gods name do you care what they do with the setting and classes.

Da'ath wrote:

You can find this in the "Getting Started" section of the PRD. It is a pretty old school rule from as far back as I can remember that has went through a lot of minor revisions. Thankfully, Pathfinder kept it around. Relevance should be pretty obvious.

** spoiler omitted **

I don't recall anyone disputing this. Perhaps I missed a post?

The part where you openly mock anyone making slight modification to the Golarion setting based on their personal preference. I hope you realize the setting is built to be modular so that it appeals to wider player base and can be sectioned out as necessary per a parties taste, in all other applications than pathfinder society.

It's not canonical sure, but that hardly matter because neither is your home based party even if you use "all the rules". If Karzog triumphs over your particular party for whatever reason it doesn't mean he's not dead in the lore. By definition a group is going to be heading off canon I don't see what the issue is as long as everything, "controversial" is discussed up front. If your PCs rule the Stolen Lands it doesn't mean they do in the lore.

Here's a quote from the Beginner box Transitions Document:

Once you’re familiar with the rules in the Core Rulebook, you may want to try using some of the Advanced Player’s Guide classes in your campaign. Like most of the rules in the Pathfinder RPG, you can use the rules you like and ignore what you don’t. For example, if you really like the alchemist class in the Advanced Player’s Guide but not the cavalier class, it’s okay to use alchemists but not cavaliers!

What classes could your campaign do without?

The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.

In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?

Why do you keep making/heavily contributing to threads with the express purpose of disrespecting other GMs and how they choose to run the game. Not all of the setting material is ultimately necessary for running a campaign, and babysitting a bunch of flower children isn't as fun for many GMs as it is for you.

Pathfinder has extremely high player empowerment, even more so than 3.5. It's perfectly reasonable for the GM to pump the brakes now and again. Especially since some people run their home brew that surprise, "might not have guns in it" or, "woweee there's no allegory for ancient china in this setting".

I think it's really rude of you to keep dumping on other dms non stop on these forums. Just because you think the way you run Pathfinder is the ONLY right way, doesn't mean it is...

MassivePauldrons wrote:

The idea that 1 Bonus feat is better than a flat +2 bonus to your best or second best attribute is ludicrous. If there was a feat that granted you an untyped +2 bonus to one attribute and could only be taken at level one it would get taken every time by every class.

Versatile Human would be worth it every single day of the week if it didn't also remove skilled which is the only thing that makes it a sort of hard sell.

Aasimars are better than humans and half humans for many classes if you don't understand this A: You don't understand how to optimize. B: You don't understand how point buy works or you don't play point buy. They are flat out amazing for Classes that are already MAD ie. Clerics and Monks.

I really wish people would "READ" my post before they respond to it as I said Aasimars are perfectly fine. All I said to the contrary was that I supported the decision of a gm to make minor adjustments as that is their right as a GM, not that I thought it was necessary.

Being able to more effectively fight with two weapons, or have more healing capabilities, or any of a number of other abilities, is arguably equal to a +1/+1 hit and damage, or +1 save DC, or what have you.

And no one (or at least, I am not) arguing a GM's right to make changes he sees necessary, it's more that we're arguing the necessity of the change.

"Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection. The lovers, the dreamers and me."

Antagonize Feat

It works against 1 foe and only provokes aggro or hampers them a little. A ton of spells do much better job of this?

Please review the feat as it is CURRENTLY written before posting. It seems to have been reworked not so long ago?

1) It's not broken in anyway and in it's current form could maybe be considered underpowered.

2) Arcane Spell-casters are jealous of anyone who rains on their hurf durf "I'm the best at battlefield control, taunt mechanics shouldn't exist in table top rpgs unless they're in the form of a spell cast by me!" mentality.

3) It's basically just the rules equivalent of the cliche from movies/books where a hero/heroine says, "Hey you big ugly son of a b!@&~! Come and get me..." Thus distracting the ravenous beast/monster/evil-doer from the otherwise delicious mage/maiden/group of small children as the case may be.

In summary it's great flavor add for your campaign as long as you don't let your players bulldozer your game world with their stupid interpretation of the rules and when they can use them. I.E. this ability is great for starting a bar fight or making an otherwise reserved Guard Captain backhand the mouthy rogue in your party, but don't let it be the end all be all of social encounters.

Here's how I would break it down, sorry if I come off as harsh.

-Tell the player not to despite he's convinced "it's what my character would do"

Discussing it seriously with the player is fine. That said I don't think it's the role of the DM to tell a player how to role-play their characters, only to setup the boundaries and rules for a given setting.

From how it's been explained, I don't see how the player is "failing" to roleplay correctly.

-Let him proceed with the plan and give the party tools to find out what he's been up to so they can fix things, party turns on each other.

Metagaming, though that said having the party talk it out OOC might be an option. Really though you should probably, "remove" at least temporarily, the NPC. I think you've overstepped your grounds as a DM.

-Let him proceed and have a pivotal NPC simply vanish from the campaign.

Adjust, this is the purpose of the DM. If it becomes necessary True Resurrection exists as an option for PCs of this level, if you end up going down this road consider giving the NPC a reduced role perhaps dieing severed her ties with the BBEG.

-Give the NPC a sudden boost in power such that she can unexpectedly ward of the attack.

Railroading, plot armor, meta-gaming, overt DM NPC favoritism, and Mary-Sueism.

-Have the NPC grow wise to the threat on her life and vanish for a few sessions only to come back and make a preemptive strike against the rogue.

Railroading, meta-gaming, plot armor, overt DM NPC favoritism, and Mary-Sueism.

Gary McBride... Why you so handsome?

He is not changing his mind. He never decided to full attack by the rules. By the rules he makes the first attack then he makes a decision to full attack or not. Most of the time the full attack will be made unless other circumstances come into play. Maybe the first arrow killed an enemy, and now the archer will use his move action to move to a downed ally so he can heal him on the next round.

I'm talking about it a situation where it would be repeatedly used to make, "standard action manyshots" as is being described in this thread.

For example if you were standing adjacent to the BBEG, it wouldn't be rational for your character to say, "I'm going to full attack", then say, "oh whoops I meant run away" every single time this situation happens. It conveys a mechanical benefit sure, but for the same sequence of decisions to continue to repeat themselves each and every time is kind of irrational.

I'm saying this irregardless of this, "bug/exploit/proper use of the feat/whatever" being against the rules or not... Which for the record I think it is.

Jiggy wrote:

"Treated as X for purposes of Y" does not imply "treated as X for all purposes". In fact, it implies "NOT treated as X for any other purpose than Y".

Except when Y also says "and the like" and the two examples of Y have differing mechanics.

Strength bonus to damage depends on how the weapon is wielded, with an exception for light weapons.

Power Attack depends on both the weapon type, and how it is wielded.

Since the only common thread between the two named abilities is how the weapon is wielded, one could possibly assume that "and the like" refers to anything else in which the ability depends on how the weapon is wielded.

Spell Combat explicitly lists the type of weapon, but also says it must be wielded "in the other hand" which one could take to mean that it depends on both the type of weapon and how it's wielded (just like power attack).

So IF Jotungrip's "the like" refers to any ability that depends on how the weapon is wielded, and IF Spell Combat's "other hand" means it must be wielded exclusively with one hand (ruling out three-armed folks using two arms on a one-handed weapon) THEN it's somewhat reasonable to assume the jotungripped greataxe would work with spell combat.

That's a lot of IFs, but it's not completely cut and dry.

The quoted statement refers to how bonus damage from strength is treated while wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand with Jotungrip. It exist solely to prevent players from wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while also attempting to claim the x1.5 bonuses normally associated with wielding a weapon in two hands.

I strongly challenge how someone could claim that strength bonus to weapon damage and power attack are in any way, "like" abilities comparative to spell combat which is for all intensive purposes "magical two weapon fighting". All the rule is saying is that wielding a two handed weapon in one hand makes the Two Handed weapon count as one handed for damage calculations, it doesn't somehow change the category of the weapon to one handed.

Indeed the clause has nothing to do with mundane Two weapon fighting either, as TWF does not have a stipulation limiting the type of weapon that can be wielded in the main hand, egro Jotungrip will work for Two weapon fighting and does not require this quoted statement to function. Thus the statement has nothing to do with spell combat(and even if it did it would still be defeated by the stipulation that you cannot use spell combat with weapons not in the light/one-handed classification). It should be noted as well Jotungrip will not allow you to wield a "one handed" weapon in your off hand while two weapon fighting and claim only a negative -2/-2 as Jotungrip does not let you treat one handed weapons as light weapons.

Spellstrike is not a standard action. It is a non-action that modifies the free action attack that comes with touch spells.

EDIT: also, what full round action?
EDIT EDIT: nevermind, I see it. The discussion (not that instance), however, has been about casting a touch attack spell, let's say shocking grasp while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, moving to an opponent, and using the free action to make the actual touch attack using spellstrike to change it from a touch attack to a weapon attack. The argument has been whether the magus can do this because switching from holding the weapon to wielding the weapon is either a free action or even a non-action OR the magus cannot do this since he would need to use a move action to put his hand on his sword.

Well in the instance you specify "moving to an opponent" it would be irrefutably legal considering that drawing your weapon during a move is a free action if you BAB is +1 or higher.

However from a strictly personal perspective I would consider adjusting the grip you have on your blade to be an "non action", especially with the consideration that it is being incorporated into another action, ie. swinging your blade to attack.