Rambear's page

Nobody is posting with outrage. Most people are just stating that it would cause all sorts of issues with balance.

I personally feel like going for the explanation that since Large creatures are bigger they have a smaller area of exposure relative to their total mass. Besides this, they are more hardy

Now you could argue that each Square would get covered, but a real explosion would only target part of the animal and the fire would have to move through the creature, but is stopped by it's body, essentially providing cover for itself. Whereas a human would be consumed and the blast would travel around/through a human, large/huge creatures would just absorb the blast and every part behind (or underneath if you blast from a flying vantage) would not be hit because it's body absorbs/stops part of the force and the fire.

Take as an example the fire blast against the awesome Indominusaurus in Jurassic World. Humans got consumed in flame, Dino only had half his body on fire. Should he then take double damage, or half damage?

That is besides the fact that larger creatures have thicker skin and should be able to shrug fire/acid/cold (and even force due to their higher mass) off much more easily.

Now in game this is ofcourse partly represented by SR, a high CON modifier on size increases etc. But by recalculating per square damage compared to relative part of creature affected you will needlessly complicate the game, while screwing with balance between AoE and single target effects.

AoE damage covers the surface of people. People are known to survive being caught in fire. A sword wound has a much higher chance to target vital organs, although that could also be survived.

A Game needs to be balanced. It could be said that AoE damage balances with weapons based on the fact that they do different types of damage. However, without critical strike tables (such as Rolemaster had) and simply working with HP totals you need to assume some commonality between damage types, despite the fact that they would work very differently when used in a Mythbuster scientific experiment.

So no, I don't think AoE should do more damage based on the amount of squares. If you want to rationalise this as bigger beasties being tougher and only having a smaller area exposed, or that AoE only does superficial damage, or whether you want to put it on the willing suspension of disbelief is completely up to any individual person. However, within the Pathfinder rules it is the only way to really deal with AoE damage. Feel free to make a suggestion in Homebrew about how you would balance it, and work it into your game in whatever way you want. The rules question though has been answered by referencing the appropriate rules.

I second the starting at level 1.

Without wanting to be harsh, even dragonhunterq made a mistake, in stating hitpoints need to be " 5d10+(5*con mod)." However, you take max HP on your first HD, meaning the correct value would be 10 + 4d10 + (5*Con Mod)+ any HP for Favoured class bonus.

This is not to b#$~+ at Dragonhunterq, who I think would never make this mistake while building his own characters. It just shows that it is very easy to miss steps if you go straight to level 5 (or higher).

What I usually do is make a table of what a character gets at each level and work through it (especially with archetypes) leveling up if it starts at higher level.

Besides that, I second that Fighter is as easy a class to start with, especially coming in at higher level. Some more intricate classes have too many moving parts which you only get to know by playing with them one by one when they come online, which means you are bound to make mistakes/forget stuff when you start out.

As for a class, I would look at:

- Slayer/Ranger (without Pet) because it is full BAB but has some tricks and can contribute out of combat, without being too complicated.

- Barbarian/Bloodrager is also fairly easy to handle and have some nifty tricks

- I would stay away from full casters, but if your player leans that way try for a spontaneous caster, since dealing with 5 levels worth of spells known in one go is challenging enough as it is, without needing to know all of them.

In general, going for something with mostly combat, some skills seems a good place to start. We had a new player trying to deal with playing a high-ish level cleric and he got bogged down with options. In our new campaign he plays a monk and he is enjoying this way more.

Me on the other hand, I usually played beat-sticks but got bored with it and am now enjoying more freedom playing a caster, compliments of higher system-mastery. (Not to say you cannot enjoy a properly built melee as an experienced player!)

Cavalier and Druid both do come with their respective problems (Mount in dungeons, while druid needs to make some choices on what to focus on), but just take it step-by-step and it'll be fine!

Fortuitous weapon proper, counts as +1 and lets you make a second AoO at -5.

People making monk-barbarian or Barbarian-paladin builds before the game starts assuming they will just switch alignment whenever their build demands, without a proper in-game reason for the change. Mechanics should not trump fluff in my opinion.

Something is going wrong here.

First, Feral Combat Training can only be taken once. Second, if you combine the bite with main-hand and off-hand manufactured weapons it becomes a secondary attack at -5.

I am not sure even if the two-weapon penalties should not apply because they are part of the same full-attack. I would rule that way, though I understand that you could argue the opposite.

Yes, because at 8th and 16th levels, the duration extends a round. So 1-7, you get one reroll. 8-15, you get one in round 1, then one in round 2, and it's over. 16-20, you get one in round 1, one in round 2, then one in round 3, and it's over.

Really? Like, for real?

But, cackle says it extends the duration. In the entire game, any effect which extends the duration you get the same effect for extra rounds/minutes/hours. It even says in the hex that it can extend to more rounds at higher level.

An effect has a duration. For that duration, you get an effect. The effect is "once per round something happens".

At some point the effect end. For haste that is after one round per level. If you use the extend meta-magic it becomes 2-rounds a level. Not 20 rounds in which you can select to use it 10 times, depending on your fancy?

Cackle let's you extend an effect. It can go on indefinetely, 1 round at a time. After the effect ends (1-3 rounds depending on level+ extension from cackle) you can not be targeted again for 24 hours.

If all cackle did was letting you "hold the charge" longer it would be a really bad use of an action.

It would also make Misfortune really bad, like, not worth it, same as agony.

Funny how you can focus on the fact that you can benefit from it once per day (and take that to imply once you use 1 reroll it's over), but you completely ignore the fact that you can make a re-roll once per round. Once per round clearly implies the ability can be used once PER ROUND, as long as the fortune lasts. Once it ends, it is done. But the once per round and the fact that it is mentioned as a target for cackle makes it 100% clear imo.

Make sure you go to an alchemical house. Cast Charm Structure. Get all your brews on the House. Profit.

Dark Netwerk wrote:

I think the book needs another once over followed by thick erratas and FAQs.

I don't think anyone on the planet disagrees with this.

You think wrong. The book is fine. Yes, it needs errata. But so did every other damn rulebook of any gaming system ever.

PFS will ban or make calls for organised play. DMs in regular games will make some calls based on the most importamt rule, RAW and RAI, which is that the DM is always right.

It is an exciting book, with cool options.

So what if some things are wonky or a tadbit over/underpowered, again not something new :).

Anyway, imo unarmed damage does not stack, FOB BAB does stack (but you'd still need level 8/15 for the 'extra' attacks mirroring two weapon fighting) and you get to count Wisdom twice. Two classes, two abilities, two different sources which happen to use the same stat.

They are technically different. I'm not sure if they should or shouldn't stack.

As a GM, I wouldn't allow it until I see something specifying that it should be allowed because both are the same bloodline.

I take this to mean that you would ban it from your table based on the fact that the Abyssal bloodrage line and the Abyssal sorcerer bloodline are the same bloodline.

Would this also mean that draconic bloodrager bloodline equals the draconic sorcerer bloodline, allowing a player to stack Dragon Disciple and Draconic Bloodrager?

These boards always amuse me. Rigtheous indignation because we hear a one-sided story in which the other party is always the one to blame.

Nobody dares ask the question what might have caused the behaviour (if the story did unfold the way it is portrayed).

Perhaps the other players were badgered into agreeing to you playing with them, but weren't all that keen to begin with, also perceiving you wouldn't fit the attitude of the DM or the rest of the players.

Hell, maybe they like you for watching football with. I sure wouldn;t invite some of my poker-buddies to my Pathfinder games.

Anyway, not blaming the OP in any way. The advice people gave you is sound. For whatever reason playing with these people is not in the cards. You could ask why they feel this way, see if it could be resolved, but I reckon the best idea is to find some other people to play with.