Redjack_rose's page

Organized Play Member. 297 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

bitter lily wrote:
Oh. Thanks. Yeah, not coming soon to my game, I think.

Yes, I'm not a fan of it either. Or player crafting in general.

@GM Rednal: I'm inclined to agree, just looking for the writing on the page essentially. Thanks though!


Hi Pathfinders,

So this conversation has gotten purely academic [And so is not a matter of balance but of RAW].

If your campaign allows off-slot crafting, can you wear two robes of arcane heritage [one in an off slot] and do their effects stack? Ie. Your sorcerer level is counted as 8 higher for the purpose of determining bloodline abilities.

Is there anything as RAW that says these don't stack?


I did see that table and thought it clearly must be wrong. Even in a non-rare scenario, it means only 5 gp of the 500 gp crafting cost of full plate is the iron... leaving 495 gp to nebulous crafting materials.

I will suggest to my crew something more arbitrary like you suggested, with light armor needing X amount, medium needing Y amount, and heavy needing Z amount.

Of course, then I'd need to decide amounts for simple, martial, and exotic, etc...


Thanks. I have one player who's already not happy about tracking inventory weight but the rest are pretty excited.

I did rearrange crafting to go by material used rather than what's made. So Craft; Bone can make anything conceivably made of bone assuming they roll high enough, while craft Wood or Metal is the same. So in a sense they have a separate skill, except I didn't include a softer metal.

Hmmm... I was hoping not to do a rewrite of value.


Hey folks,

I'm about to start a campaign in a very dark suns-esque setting. The campaign is low magic, with an emphasis on survival and crafting over the traditional murder-monsters dungeons. I have changed the crafting process/time to make it more viable as a player option and plan on giving out crafting materials as part of monster kills, like skinning a dragon [only in this case they would probably be skinning wolves]. Some monsters might have things useful for making weapons like sturdy bones, or chemical things like pheromone glands for alchemy.

Which brings me to a small problem.

One of the things I want to do as a really good reward is give them metal [rare in this world] but I'm having trouble placing a Gold cost per pound of metal that is consistent with crafting costs of items. The weight per gold value is important because they will need to haul the resources from where they found it to where it is usable.

An example of the problem;

The crafting cost of full plate armor is 500 gp and weighs 50 pounds while the crafting cost of half-plate is 200 gp and weighs 50 pounds.

The gp per pounds of full plate is then 10, while the gp per pound of half plate is 4. This is a very large difference and I have a few ideas but would like some input before proposing them to the group/

1. Decide on some price per pound for the carry weight but then not care about it during crafting. They can spend 50 pounds worth of metal to make a 25 pound item or they could spend 25 pounds of metal making a 50 pound item, as long as the gold value works out.

This makes for less complexity at the cost of realism, especially if players start wondering where the extra pounds are coming from/going.

2. Set a very low cost per pound based on the crafting cost of a dagger. This puts the price per pound at about .60 gp per pound. Then when crafting require them to spend the minimum pounds of the metal for the item and then allow them to use ''universal'' crafting materials [ie fuel cost, sanding, chemical finish, etc...] that I don't track as strictly to pay for the remaining crafting cost.

This option seems to be more realistic and avoids the losing/gaining pounds issue, but does end up making them track more materials.

Any ideas/comments?


Alakallanar wrote:
Since it was mentioned that the original eidolon is vastly better than an druid animal companion, I compared an eidolon to cat AC at level 8:

I think the issue with your comparison is you're building an eidolon like the Cat AC, which isn't why the eidolon is better. Things like Rake and Scent aren't part of the build that makes an eidolon better than the cat.

It's builds like this;

8th level, Quadraped.
Free EvolutionS; Bite, Limbs-Legs [2]

Claws [1 pt]
Rend [1 pt]
Large [4 pt]
Pounce [1 pt]
Flight [2pt]
Gore [2 pt]

11pts total.

This eidolon has 4 attacks [5 if you successfully rend] over the cat's 3 and has flight for superior mobility. This is of course, a mild build since it doesn't take into account magic items or buffs for more shenanigans.

Just one of the top of my head is replacing the flight [can use spells for it] with another ''limbs'' and using an Abyssal Blooded Amulet for 2 extra claws. This gives you 6 attacks over the cat's 3, and depending on how your GM interprets the eidolon Rend rules, 1-3 rends a round. Sure the amulet is about 1/3 of your wealth by level, but it's still nice.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
...

Fair enough.


Anzyr wrote:


I gave a run down of how a wizard with craft could easily beat a druids perception/high wisdom. You are of course, assuming the druid put 1 of their 4 skill points per level into perception to keep it maxed.

Interestingly enough, they do not have sense motive as a class skill... which opens up all sorts of fun for someone else getting them in the metal armor.

There are no druids that don't max perception. So that's right out. And having Sense Motive as a class skill is close to meaningless in PF since it's a whopping +3, which means the Druids WIS Bonus is going to be better then that from level 1 and only get better from there. Finally, even if the Druid puts *no* points into Sense Motive, no PC I know is going to put on something they haven't run Detect Magic/Arcane Sight/Identify/a batter of Divinations. Hell, your "strategy" is undone by Augury for Arkalion's Sake.

Furthermore, any Wizard that *could* manage to somehow do this ridiculously circuitous scheme, could have just killed the Druid with way less difficulty. Since it's easier to actually just kill the Druid, the metal armor limitation is not a real limitation and any success of getting them into Metal Armor is going to be GM fiat.

I recommend conceding this point, or putting forward a tactic that is not GM fiat.

I reject the premises that all druids max perception.

Secondly, this is a "scheme" that is no more complicated than any other villain scheme from a cunning. It's 1 item, barely worth a 9th levels time, snuck in using a few 1st level spells and maybe a 2nd/5th level. It neuters 1/4th of a party. It takes 5 minutes out of the wizard's day (or more likely, one of his minions).

You don't just get to say "oh that's GM fiat" when it's been shown clearly it's not. Either give some counter arguments other than "nuh uh, the druid would notice" or "No one ever takes their clothes off."

Here's 3 ways to get that on;

1. Swap their clothes while they are bathing/sleeping/making love/any other reason they might have their clothes off. Use glammer and (if your players are especially whiny) a craft check to conceal it's metal nature for the 3 seconds it takes to put it on. Use invisibility and/or a stealthy minion to make the switch.

2. Send them a pretty boy/girl with high bluff and perhaps the Innocence spell (1st level bard spell), who after a wild night of passion helps them into their clothes. Again glammer and craft check to conceal.

3. Disguise the armor as another magic item, like an unfettered shirt or druid vestments. Magic aura fools detect magic. Identify is not a druid spell. At 6th level, assuming there is a party wizard, he only has 3-4 1st level spells. Is he really going to waste an identify on every magic item? Assuming he does, he still has a chance to fail the will save and believe irrevocably the false auras.

Those are 3 easy ones. Legitimate ways, all with APL and Wealth by Level, all giving a chance to avoid the trap but with a decent degree of success. All doable by GM or Player.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

This druid thing is stupid....

I would like to point out that druids get perception as a class skill... AND have high wis....

oh and we cannot forget their animal companion...

I gave a run down of how a wizard with craft could easily beat a druids perception/high wisdom. You are of course, assuming the druid put 1 of their 4 skill points per level into perception to keep it maxed.

Interestingly enough, they do not have sense motive as a class skill... which opens up all sorts of fun for someone else getting them in the metal armor.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:
As for the nerf, it is a matter of opinion. Honestly, someone saying "I don't like the class" doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when someone comes here and rants "Worst class ever, devs are stupid." I want to defend the class and analyze their claims....

Ofc people will say that is "the worse class ever" since it didnt even had to exist in the first place , the unsummoner is nothing but a nerf to the summoner , that if isnt done right , has no point. If the unrogue was also a piece of crap , you bet people would complain all night and day about it, since it would also be a missed opportunity just like the unsummoner.

Ofc this doesnt mean the class couldnt be used , just that they made a crappy job while nerfing it and like he said , what should have been easy for people to accept , instead made many just burn these pages of the book.

Considering what i love the most in the summoner class is exactly the fact i could come up with any eidolon and with any backstory for it i wanted , the unsummoner is something i atleast will never play anyway.

On the other hand the only change i see is in the PFS , outside it i also dont see such difference from a GM that already banned the summoner away. Just get up , thank the invite and leave , problem solved as far as outside PFS goes for me.

So outside of Pfs, even told to play the unchained summoner, how can you still not make just about any backstory you like? I seriously doubt any GM is going to hold it against you if you want to make a Kyton opposed to a devil, or a Quippoth rather than a demon. Same basic set up, maybe a few tweaked resistances.

Overall, the nerf provided a much need balance to the summoner... mainly the reduction of the freeform evolution points, adjustment of evolution costs, some additional requirements/restrictions, and a readjusted spell list.

Everything else is fluff to most GM's, and much needed for PFS (which runs solely in Galorion).


Kerney wrote:

Denver, Co. I've shared tables with Mike Brock. I've also played in Pasedena, Orange County, KC, and Atlanta but never online. I watched the Superbowl two years ago with two people from Seattle and that was depressing.

One thing, I'm listening to you and you seem be very concerned about being "right" asking people to conceed points, claiming you've proved things etc.

I would say, its irrellevant if you and the people around you aren't having fun.

There seems to be several arguements here. One of which is whether the Nerf was quality work. You can argue numbers but if at the end of the day, half the people who look at the class and say, this class is not attractive on all sorts of levels (thematically, a successful nerf, etc).

The only thing I've seen proven is that what should have been an easy sell i.e. a toned down summoner, should have been an easy sell. However, the quality of the nerf has divided opinions.

Don't believe I've had the pleasure of meeting Mike, was it fun?

I do care about being "right" in the sense that this is, among many things, a debate. Not a formalized debate mind you, but a debate nonetheless. If people are willing to concede the point when they are wrong, then the topic moves forward. Otherwise it spins its wheels and goes no where (oh well).

For example, if someone came out right now and pointed to an errata that "druids must willingly wear armor to lose their powers, they can not be coerced or forced," I would concede the point. There would be no need to talk about it more, and it would invalidate some of my argument. Futhermore, if two pages later I brought back up the "chain shirt" someone could point to my words and hold me accountable to the point being conceded.

As for the nerf, it is a matter of opinion. Honestly, someone saying "I don't like the class" doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when someone comes here and rants "Worst class ever, devs are stupid." I want to defend the class and analyze their claims. Perhaps I shouldn't feel such a need, but I do.


Hurray, time before class.

Nicos wrote:

Yes. Their opinion on the rules is exactly as valuable than any other experienced gm out there, not more not less.

That literally like saying joe schmoe in the field with his telescope has an equal chance of being ''right'' over the Astronomy Community with a direct line to NASA.

Nicos wrote:

You have given examples of contrived and ridiculous scenarios that will never happen in real games, not even in your games according to you and that only prove that GM Fiat wins everything. If you can't see why your example is irrelevant after the complete explanations people have given to you then there is no much more to say.

You're not worth responding to on this topic. Go back and check how a 9th level wizard could do this while staying well within Wealth by Level and be a decent challenge for a 6-7th level party. Once you can discredit that, then you might be worth my time.

Nicos wrote:
you know that "the PFS GMs I've played with think I'm right" is an anecdote right?

Yes. Do you know what applicable means?


memorax wrote:


Thanks Redjack. i still think your tactic with the chain shirt requires too much DM fiat ;). Still a viable tactic though.

I disagree, but we'll agree to disagree. The post I just posted before this wasn't directed at you btw. See ya later.


Like I know Memorax and myself have gotten into a few disagreements, but I really don't see half of the things he's being called out for. Maybe should tone it down a smidge.


Kerney wrote:


As a frequent pfs player (16 characters, 3 retired after level 11, 3 gm stars) I can think of several venture officers who were great organizers but not particularly good gms.

Of course, not knowing where you live I'm not discounting what you're saying, just adding additional information about myself.

I live in the Seattle, WA area, and many of the GMs/Friends I meanted do as well. They're on friendly terms with people like Erik Mona and Jason Bulmahn, and many of the other devs/authors. I've personally met and played with the former [and met but not played with the CEO, Lisa Stevens]. Now I Can't comment on what they would rule, nor will I pretend to. I'm inclined to believe though that my GM's have been playing it ''right'' more than someone on the internet laying down a ruling without actual rules.


Nicos wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:


I would believe you, except for many of those GM's have been from PFS and of those, many are Venture Captains/Lt. .

...that means nothing...

and more importantly, this whole tangent about illusion is pretty irrelevant, even if the rules are correct, the scenario proposed is contrived, silly and proves nothing.

So... the people who run the organized play, are in contact with the devs, and are responsible for ensuring fairness when players/gm's disagree meaning nothing. -slow clap-

I have given proof after proof how this could be done, with in the rules, with APL appropriate enemies and within Wealth by Level, as well as why it's a valid tactic for an enemy to spend 5,000 to neuter 1/4th of the party. None of these require GM fiat and are all with reasonable expectations of play. They are perform-able by the GM and Player.

If you want to be on an even field with me in this debate, you'd better start disproving things with data or applicable anecdotes rather than just calling things silly because you couldn't think of them or haven't encountered them. Once you do that, then I'll consider responding further to you.


Milo v3 wrote:


Then you and your GM's have been using houserules. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is the facts.

I would believe you, except for many of those GM's have been from PFS and of those, many are Venture Captains/Lt. You still haven't showed me anywhere where it says touching an illusion automatically disbelieves it.

Give me that exact wording, or concede the point please.


Milo v3 wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:
So touching an illusion automatically beats it? Yeah I don't thinks.

Touching an illusion automatically disbelieves it, if touching it would show that it is not real. That's not only a rule but common sense.

There are no quotation marks here.

As for your bolded part; It still doesn't say touching is proof the illusion isn't real. I have played and always played that if you see an illusion wall and run up to touch it, you think there's a wall there till you disbelieve it [such as a companion walking through it or casting detect magic].

This is not my ruling, this is the ruling of every GM I have ever played with.


@Memorax

I don't think it's contrived and it doesn't take GM fiat considering things like invisibility, negate aroma, etc... that make stealth and sleight of hand pretty easy.

Grant it, if I was going to do something like this I'd blitz the party with poisoned supplies and other nasty surprises as well, rather than just ''get that darn druid.''

It is however, getting off the point I was making. I just wish people would be reasonable from the get go, rather than trying to get in a pissing contest with a GM. Given enough time I will be able to beat anything, well within the rules and reason. It's not the point though.

Again, the point being the druid does have restrictions and limitations the summoner did not. -shrug-

Edit;

I think something people are missing is I'd let players do this. I had one munchkin who got his stealth up into the 30's, then went invisible and used sleight of hand to steal the enemies arrows. Turned a challenging encounter into a joke because his preplanning neutered the enemy archers. Annoying as a gm, but fair and within the capabilities of the game. Not contrived, there was no ''player fiat'' involved.


I not only see no quotation marks in your post, I'm on the magic; Illusion section of the SRD and I don't see any where that touching an illusion automatically disbelieves it.

I do see;

Quote:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

Secondly, in reference to the crafting/disguising it as non-metal;

With spells like crafter's fortune and assuming the crafter is an int base class... it's much easier for the wizard to get a high dc they have to beat then the druid to get a high perception roll.

Assuming the wizard is 9th level and the druid is 6th, as in my example, you're looking at a base of +17 [3 class skill, 9 ranks, 5 crafter's fortune]. Assuming the wizard has a decent Int [18 for a +4] he starts at +21. Taking a 10 gives him a DC 31, or if your GM is feeling snippy he could take a 20 for a DC 41.

Your 6th level druid is going to have a base of 13 [3 class, 6 ranks, 4 wis]. He'd need a 18 to catch it if your GM is nice, and couldn't catch it if your GM is being realistic.


1. Show me the rule where it says touching an illusion automatically disbelieves it. You've just rendered an entire school of magic pointless.

Secondly, the fact it's made of metal is part of it's true nature.

Thirdly, let's assume your right, and illusions are not only useless, their the cosmic joke of the magic world. Great, the bad guy instead uses some mundane skill to do it. Maybe disguise, or craft, to disguise it's feel. Won't hold up to scrutiny, but with a glammer it should be enough for the druid to get it on before he realizes hey... somethings off here.


Milo v3 wrote:
Are you suggesting that invisibility makes you silent and scentless as well?

The invisibility spell gives you the invisible condition which specifies;

Quote:
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.


Milo v3 wrote:


"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." They don't believe it's a wall.

So touching an illusion automatically beats it? Yeah I don't thinks.

Milo v3 wrote:
Glammered the special armour is not a spell of the glamer subschool. Even if it was, it says or. The look part is what happening, not any of the others.

If you'd like to get tecnical;

Quote:
Only a true seeing spell or similar magic reveals the true nature of the armor when it is disguised.

Only true seeing can reveal the true nature of the armor, not your sense of touch or hearing, only true seeing.

So are you sure you like to be technical on this one?


Milo v3 wrote:

... That's a very different definition of appearance you have their. Appearance: "The way that someone or something looks."

Going by the definition of appearance, glammered does not do what you suggest. Also, it's very very obvious sound is still like the normal outfit, you still take a penalty to sound based stealth checks with a glamoured full-plate.

So when you make an illusion of a wall and someone fails their will save, to they feel a wall or do they feel nothing but still believe it's a wall?

Edit; Taken from the Illusion section of magic.

Quote:
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.


Milo v3 wrote:
To be completely honest I'm still wondering how you're getting metal to feel like cloth or hide.

Glammered.

If takes on the appearance of a normal pair of clothes but keeps the properties [like weight/armor penalty] of the armor.

Smell, Feel, Taste, and Sight and Sound are all aspects of appearance.


Milo v3 wrote:


Except it was done in a silly and contrived manner of "trying to trick druids into wearing metal armour", where so far none of your described methods would have worked on any player I have GM'd...

Have you tried it? Seriously, I've had people say run through modules checking every corpse for undead by zapping it, only to forget about it in the last room where there's an undead hiding as a corpse. It was a pfs module, I couldn't have b+%+%~&%ted "that's the undead one!'' it if I wanted to.

Unless you've actually tried to trick a player into something like this before, you don't have room to swing a cat talking about it here. I on the other hand, have pulled similar tricks before... it's easier than you think.

On another note; I once had a player go 4 levels before they realized their ring of protection was cursed and was giving them negatives. It was amusing despite the hints I kept dropping and rolls I kept letting them take to notice they were getting hit when they shouldn't.

Edit;

As for prestidigitation/create water ''I never take off my clothes!'' That's just being a munchkin. I would make you wear cut offs under your clothes out of general principle.


Snowblind wrote:


How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?

Because to actually work it requires either:

a)Lots of blatant GM fiat to handwave away all the problems
b)An NPC who is so powerful compared to the party that they could have easily caused a TPK instead of screwing with the Druid
c)The PCs to drop their guard with regards to their items, which usually cost roughly the equivalent of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A. Do you know what GM fiat means? Everything I've said is possible within the rules.

B. Lighten Object mass is 5th level, which makes it a 9th level wizard. All other spells I've mentioned are 1st level.

Generally speaking a big bad guy is going to be about 2-3 levels higher than the PC's. So a bad guy for a party of 4 level 6-7's could pull this of ability wise.

So it's about 5,000 [so 2,500 if they sell it] for the item. At 6th level, the 4 person party's combined wealth by level should be about 64,000 [16,000 x 4]. This item is roughly between .039 to 0.78 percent of their loot. In return, it takes out roughly 25 percent of their effective fighting force.

Why is this so unbelievable that a APL appropriate bad guy could/would pull this off?

C. Sure they might guard their shiny stuff, but are you really going to guard you 1 gp clothes you left hanging up to dry like a hawk, on the off chance a theif might want your knickers? Are you serious?


Milo v3 wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:
How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?
Tricking druids into wearing metal armour is not a classic trope of fantasy....

... Did you miss the ''Tricking people to lose their powers'' part?

Getting demons to stand in holding circles.
Vampires with dead man's blood.
Superman with kryptonite.
Dorian Gray and his painting.
Fairies and cold iron.
Bad guy drinks something to give him power, takes powers instead..
etc...


1. Sleight of Hand is a thing. So is invisibility, which states an item dropped by an invisible creature becomes visible, and an item picked up becomes visible if tucked away. It's not hard to switch an item.

2. I never said someone wouldn't get a roll. As a GM who believes in fairness, I'd probably give them a roll even if they wouldn't deserve one [such as the incredibly hot boy/girl that you spent the night with pulls your shirt on for you].

3. Bad guys are notorious for wanting to do thing with their own hands. The bad guy knows the part is going to confront him, so bam takes out the druid with it's achilles heel, maybe gives the wizard a fake spell component pouch, and gives the barbarian something to make him fatigued. Then attacks them later that day.

4. Here's an idea. Same glammered armor, made to look like a shirt but hidden not as non-magical, but as something magical. Magic Aura states;

Quote:
You alter an item's aura so that it registers to detect spells (and spells with similar capabilities) as though it were non-magical, or a magic item of a kind you specify

The bad guy slaps the glammered armor on some minion he knows they'll be fighting, doesn't even need to lighten or make it mithral now since it's a magic item [though maybe he lightens just in case] and makes it look to detect magic like something the druid really, really wants. Unfettered Shirt, Snakeskin Tunic, Druid Vestments, Whatever... any ''clothing'' magic item will do.

5. I've thrown out a number of creative options, all in line with classic fiction and all reasonable unless your a paranoid super-munchkin, that hammer on the druids Achille's heel. If you still think these are GM fiat I don't know what to say, other than if a player pulled this I'd probably give him a pat on the back for creativity and roll to see if the bad guy noticed [just like I'd see if the player noticed].


Nicos wrote:
The scenario is ridiculously contrived and silly, and even if it works it proves nothing at all. Just let it go people.

How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?


Milo v3 wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:
Unless your PC is just gross, they are going to bathe at some point.
Or the could just get the sorcerer to clean them with magic. That's what my players did one campaign.

Are you speaking of another spell besides Prestidigitation, because prestidigitation works on objetcs;

Quote:
It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round.

People/creatures are not items, the character as a person would eventually begin to stink. Not to mention definitely hit them with all sorts of nasty fungus and disease for poor hygiene. That s&@~ can kill you.


Unless your PC is just gross, they are going to bathe at some point. Unless they are paranoid, they're not going to watch their clothes 24/7. So a convenient switch while they are at the tavern, or bathing in the river, or any of the other hundred times during a campaign someone would believably take off their shirt because they're not disgusting. If your PC refuses to ever take off his clothing, then you should eventually give him penalties for smell, or tattered appearance, etc...

I'm sorry you can't possibly think of someone getting tricked, but it happens all the damn time. PC's mess up, they don't think, they roll low on their perception checks. Stories are full of crafty villains [or heroes] tricking people into losing their powers or worse. Dorian Gray is tricked into looking at his painting. Superman gets ambushed by kryptonite. The Warlock is tricked into picking up the Sword of Shannara... it happens all the time in fiction and for a reason

Also yes, I am aware the druid's animal companion doesn't leave if his powers do. Not the point, since we've already proven earlier in the thread the old eidolon is better than the animal companion.

Maybe the druid had a partner last night and he/she makes the switch. Fighting orcs isn't the only thing that gives you sore muscles. There are literally 100's of ways to trick someone.

Edit;
Yes I have been saying chain shirt, but any metal armor will do for this. Even a chained shirt can be brought down to 7 lbs. Odd, but not exactly condemning.

And yes, I think I will pat myself on the back over my creativity, considering I seem to have more than anything that's been suggested so far. If you haven't had a creative GM like this before, I'm sorry to hear that.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:


As in real life, my characters do not make a habit of wearing clothes that are not their own. Or magical clothes that they haven't identified yet. Or clothes that are heavier than anything else except the clothes of freaking royalty (and that's assuming mithral). In case you missed "The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised." So no, I've never played a wisdom-based casting class with low enough wisdom to fall for "try this 25 pound shirt, I swear it's normal clothes". Have you?

Edit: Sorry, unless you were talking about making the chain shirt look like their armor. Then I'd direct you to the first line: "Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing." Bolding mine.

Because things like Lighten Object and Magic Aura also don't exist. A lightened mithral parade armor has a weight of 5 lbs, most outfits range from 2lbs [monk's outfit] to 10lbs [noble's outfit] with 5 lbs being the average.

After a long day of adventuring you're tired, so your shirt is a pound heavier, maybe your muscles are just damn sore from all them orcs last night.

-Shrugs- or maybe I'm just a much more creative GM then most.


Anzyr wrote:


It's not missing the point. The point is that if a "limitation" is not really a limitation, then you can't claim a class is balanced by the not-an-actual-limitation. If *anyone* would be screwed in a particular situation then that isn't a limitation for the Druid, it's a limitation for *everyone*. Therefore, the Druid has no particular limitations, in much the same way a Wizards spellbook is not a limitation. The limitation you speak of simply is not one.

As to roleplay flavor, this too is no real limitation on a Druid as the Druidic codes imposes basically no restrictions outside of having to be Any Neutral and not teaching people a language you get for free. If you think that's in some way "limiting" within the actual scope of playing the game you are quite mistaken.

Have you missed that a druid must also revere nature and can't wear metal. It is a restriction. Munchkins hate restrictions.

Also, has no one seriously been hit by a glammered shirt before?


Anzyr wrote:
The chain shirt Druid thing is really really pointless. If the person has the Druid under some form of mind control/helpless, there's a hundred better things they could be doing then making them merely "Ex-druids". This is the same issue with "just steal the Wizard's spellbook". I have yet to see a single scenario that isn't just GM fiat.

Okay, focusing on whether or not the GM could ''really'' get the druid in a chain shirt is missing the entire point.

The point is saying a druid is just as bad/worse than the summoner in terms of brokenness is pointless, when the druid has restrictions and role-play flavor that the original summoner never had.


@Memorax

The only reason I call it out is we've all seen people apologize, then immediately say the exact same thing they are apologizing for. Either the summoner is the best, or wizards/bards are just as bad.

As for the rest of it, I agree if the villain repeatedly targets the druid [or any class/player] that's a pretty crappy thing to do.


memorax wrote:

I concede that if one wants a summoner style caster. Than Summoner is the way to go

...vanilla Bard with the right feats and spells can be just as bad.

...A Wizard can still do the same. To a lesser degree to be sure. But I can still do it.

Okay, not trying to be antagonistic, but you can't concede something, then turn around and pretty much say what you've said all along.

memorax wrote:
That trick with chain shirt and Druid. good luck trying to mind control the Druid with a high level Bard. A move action to sing. A immediate action to cast Saving Finale. That Druid is not putting on that shirt.

The chain shirt is in response to a post about ''How much of a super druid'' someone else could make in attempt to show summoner's weren't broken. My response was essentially ''That's nice, and I could beat it with a chain shirt.''

Stepping away from the chain shirt example, what about the fact druids must revere nature? Or maintain a neutral alignment? These are all restrictions on the supposed ''more broken'' class that can stop it in it's tracks... which is basically my point of why the summoner roleplay restrictions are good.

memorax wrote:
Not to mention while a validate tactic to use against a Druid it's still a dick move to do. Might as well put a big sign around your neck that says "I have it in for the party Druid". Valid tactic sure. If I was a player and a DM tried that I would probably walk out.

Is it really that dickish of a move? If I was a villain out to take down a party, I would definitely try and disable the druid with such a glaring weakness. Maybe I can't kill them in their sleep but I could definitely replace their armor with a glammer chain shirt.


CWheezy wrote:

I think it matters because pathfinder is a very dangerous world, and monsters really will kill and eat you. I think staying alive is pretty good pressure.

Also the people who call out munchkin are not really worth listening to, they are what's called a scrub. They Blame the player for using the tools the game gives them, which is nonsense. It is not up to me as a player to also be a game designer.

I understand the play to win [P2W] attitude, having been an MMO gamer myself. When you're playing a game where the objective is objective [to beat the environment or other players, in the case of pvp] then I fully support using any and all means within the system to beat the ever living snot out of things. Players in that complain about your ''optimization'' in that sense are quite frankly... scrubs.

Pathfinder is not an MMO, it is a shared story-telling experience. It's goal is Subjective. The ''P2W' attitude of making excessively powered characters doesn't stand because the Subjective goal of Pathfinder is the fun of the players involved. Now there are home game groups that invite such kind of optimization/minmax /powergaming. However, I submit that is the minority of players and most prefer less power/min-max [because those traits are often paired with a lack of roleplay].

I also submit that P2W attitude of ''using all available tools of the game'' falls flat when you consider the attitude was adopted for games that have limitations, where as Pathfinder has no limitations. There is no operating system, and theoretically it is impossible to ever hit the ''maximum'' the game has to offer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could let him take the master craftsman feat but let it work for craft construct.

Master Craftsman feat.

Then he can make things like; Clockwork Prosthesis.

Edit; Oh, and he could try the android race, just more steam punky... or a wyrwood.


That was a question about why is sadism inherently evil. The character I detailed could be considered good, despite sadistic tendencies.


Christopher Dudley wrote:
Christopher Dudley wrote:
Actually the hardest thing to deal with for his eidolon was his ludicrous armor class at low level, and UnSummoner doesn't fix that, either.
I deleted the line about a player's pouncy murder-beast in my Legacy of Fire game. The "his" refers to that player. Sorry, I need to proofread more.

In response to your earlier post, I know the Evolution Points, when combined with the freebie stuff, are about equal [give or take a couple points]. They are also less offensive options and more thematic like resistances or immunities to specific things like poison.

As far as fixing an Eidolon's high AC it's now a balancing act. Would they rather spend their much smaller pool of points on increased natural armor, or on offensive options.


@Taku

What is so inherently evil in sadism? Is it not possible to be a good person, but also be a violent person. A person with self control can be inherently violent, yet channel it into healthy ways.

For example, imagine the character as a monk. He loves violence. He loves inflicting pain, and so he channels that into his martial arts. He's not going to run around beating random people, but when someone steps up to challenge him, he will hurt them. The other person understands this, the nature of their challenge is violent. He doesn't have to kill them, or torture them, to get his fix. The violence and the pain inflicted as part of the fight can be more than enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Divinitus wrote:
I still don't see the issue with roleplaying an insanity. It's a FANTASY GAME! Last I checked, no one is roleplaying a real person.

It's one of those things that can be a touchy subject. For an example, one of the games I'm in one of the character's has an abused/raped story as a key part of their character. Another player who has suffered such trauma in their own life found their portrayal and actions related to the subject not only lacking, but in some ways belittling to the their own experiences. It was painful for everyone.


HFTyrone wrote:

Even if summoners were better than 1-9 casters, so what? Like you said, some classes are just meant to be better than others. If casters are supposed to be better than martials, than isn't it natural that a caster + a martial should be better than casters?

You can't have it both ways, either classes are supposed to be balanced against each other or some classes are just supposed to be objectively better.

Well actually it be argued casters should be roughly balanced around each other, and martials around each other. Considering martials (theoretically) have an easier time at low levels and despite their "max power" being lower, they have the staying power casters don't (once out of spells for the day, casters aren't that tough).

I for one though, do think all classes should be roughly balanced around each other.


Lynceus wrote:

Wait so, Summoner beats Druid because you can make the Druid "fall" with a Dominate Person spell or figure out some way to make him wear metal armor?

That's...a ridiculous stance. I'm not even going to reach for the low-hanging fruit of comparing this to the Paladin (because By Arneson and Gygax, we don't need any more Paladin nonsense).

I'm going to compare this to "well, Wizards are pretty weak because all you have to do is get their spellbook".

Yeesh. Look, ANY character of ANY class can be shut down if the GM wants to be a jerk about it. It doesn't matter if they have RP restrictions or a code of ethics or whatever.

The key point of that conversation started with someone saying ''I can make a super druid that'll wreck face blah blah blah...'' My point to that posturing is; "That's nice, and I -can- end it with a chain shirt."

Whether or not a druid can end up being much better than a summoner is irrelevant, because that power comes with limitations and restrictions.

Let's take your typical murderhobo (as commonly found in PFS, where the unchained summoner is relevant). They want big crunchy numbers and little restriction. They could make a face wrecking druid, but then they have to be neutral, if they get alignment shifted it shuts down their groove, they can't wear armor or lose their powers. They have to revere nature or they lose their powers...

Then they look at the Summoner. Complete control over their own multi-armed murder pounce machine?! Awesome buff spells levels early?! No rules, no restrictions? They just get to laugh while their pet wrecks everything and makes the others at the table look terrible?! Hell yeah.

That's one of the problems I'm coming from. There are some more with the original summoner, but at least unchain fixed this one. For players that care about creativity, no one's gonna harsh your groove if you wanna call a devil a Kyton, or if your protean looks like a jabberwocky, or your robot is really an inevitable. For those that really like the pet/eidolon class, it's still a good option.

But for the powergaming, min/maxing, murdertastic people who just want to be the best at the table, go find the next best broken thing.


memorax wrote:
Tedjack I never said Conjurers are better than Summoners. Of a Summoner will be better as a class that summons creatures should be better than a Conjurer.

Sorry, is this not you;

memorax wrote:

It's one how those who say the old Summoner is too powerful either don't notice or pretend not to notice how much stronger those classes can be. Take Augument summoning and to

Me at least both if not the Conjurers are even worse than a summoner

Either way, my earlier comment is retracted, as it was at best a snippy comment (really shouldn't post before coffee). Apologies.


Christopher Dudley wrote:


So the root of this problem is entirely academic and I don't really consider this the hill I want to die on. I will, however, reserve my right to an opinion, and that opinion is that the Unchained summoner is an opportunity wasted, is unduly limiting, and fixes nothing.

May I ask how cutting back on the Eidolon's evolution points and making it impossible to create a multi-armed pounce beast till level 7 fixes nothing?


Psyren wrote:
memorax wrote:

Forget Summoner. A high level Conjurer summoning Elementsls can sit back and simply watch his Huge to Elder Elementsls make short work of most opposition.

What the heck is an "Unchained Fighter?" Do you mean Stamina? Because that's a whole subsystem, and every martial class can benefit from it.

Also, what? Elder Elementals are SM8 - you're not getting them below 15 at the earliest. They're also CR11. What exactly are they "making short work of" at that level?

Memorax is kind of stuck on a broken loop where some how ''Conjurer wizard'' using academy graduate and augmented summons is sooooo much better than a vanilla summoner using their Summon Monster SLA with augmented summons.

Never mind that they could use their Summon SLA to summon monsters for 16 minutes as opposed to like... 24 rounds. Or that they never risked becoming fatigued or exhausted. Or that they could still also use their spells to summon more monsters... Or, being spontaneous casters they didn't have to guess how many summon monster 8's they'd need that day. Or...

I feel like I could go on, but that dead horse is tired and would really just like to RIP.


@N. Jolly

Yep, that's about the best worded post I've seen on this thread [mine included]. Bravo.

My only disagreement would be having a high floor makes the class broken, not just look broken. When you consider a large amount of the campaigns [Pfs especially] are spent in the earlier levels [1-10] having a 4 from the get go is a broken class.


N. Jolly wrote:

I actually think one of the problems with the Unsummoner is that it came after the original.

...

The unsummoner isn't bad per se, it's just a much chained down package from something that was truly unfettered before, and that's causing a lot of strife.

I'd have to agree with some of this. If the unchained came first, there wouldn't be such upset and outcry. I've said before, people feel better when they are getting an exception than being restricted. Unfortunately the nerf was needed.

1 to 50 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>