RobRob's page

15 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


I am buying the beginner box for the pawns so count me among those that will buy plenty more of them if you choose to publish more of them.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Low-tier superheroes anyway. You don't see anyone as the equal of even Iron Man in all of this, even at 20th level, much less someone more powerful.
And some of us see that as a problem. In my opinion the non-magical capabilities of Thor (the super hero) line up with what a high level non-epic fighter should be capable of.

Thor the Marvel superhero can press 100 tons, 200 tons with his magical belt and 10 times that while berserking that would be the equivalent of lifting 2000 medium cars... that is NOT somthing i would like to see in Pathfinder.

Arnwyn wrote:

I see you're new to messageboards! In any case, essentially telling a poster to 'shut up' isn't a very smart thing to do on internet messageboards.

In any case, mentioning such things now may not affect this particular AP, but it is a good thing to get it into the heads of the developers for future APs. (Further, if Paizo has anywhere to improve, managing expectations is fairly high up the list.)

Whatever dude...

The very same thing has been posted ad nauseam in virtually every thread about Jade Regent and every time James hurries out to apologize... Magnuskn has expressed his opinion... it has been noted by Paizo... he has gotten several apologies and explanations... stop beating the horse it is dead!

magnuskn wrote:
Not talking to you, but the devs. And I'll see if they got it when the next adventures release.

Thid adventure was allready written when you gave your critique they might take your "advice" to heart when writing upcoming adventures but you repeating yourself over and over and over and over again will not change anything in this adventure path.

magnuskn wrote:
Hope it's more roleplaying heavy and less of a monster bash/dungeon romp than the last two ones. Although with the theme of this module, I fear that is not that likely.

Let it go dude you have been whining about this for weeks now... we get it!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Unless you play a class that needs it, cha will always be the safest dump stat. Unless you get a generous point buy or some great rolls, you have to dump something.

Where does it say that? You don't have to dump anything unless you play with something like the elite array wich includes an 8 otherwise it is a choice you make.

Abraham spalding wrote:
RobRob wrote:

I just had to comment on this because it has pissed me off in the past.

Cyberpunk 2020/FNF may have looked good but it was super unrealistic, you could be shot with an AP round from a 7,62 assault rifle at close range while wearing just a flak t-shirt and you would just get a scratch... ridiculous.

Let me see -- Ap round halves armor, A [bkevlar[/b] t-shirts was SP 10, meaning 5 (a flak jacket was sp 20 or 10 against ap), the 7.62 was popping 6d6+2 dice meaning 23 damage meaning 11 points after penetrating the armor putting you at critical if the shot hit where the armor was covering. If it hit you in the brain bucket that would be 46 damage (halved is 23 again) with no SP and your brains scattered all over kingdom come (putting you deep in mortality 3). At the point you are at critical your Int, Ref, and CL stats are automatically halved, and you have to make a stun save at -2 or be useless for the rest of combat.

Oh by the way if that bullet hit an arm or leg instead, that limb would have been shattered in cyberpunk and instead of being at critical you would be at mortal 9 and have to make an immediate death save.

So yeah if you are extremely lucky and the gun flukes out and you get minimum damage you get to be that one in a million that came out okay while just wearing kevlar -- otherwise you're parts... meaning loot.

Except with an ap round the damage that slips through is halved wich makes it ((23 - 5) / 2) - 2 (average BTM) = 7 wich is a serious wound... so yeah it was not a scratch but the fact that that is the average dmg from a heavy assault rifle at close with AP rounds versus the weakest armor in the game is ofc totally ludicrous in reality the flak t-shirt would not do a damn thing and you would be super dead.

Sieglord wrote:
Pathfinder (just like D&D, and every single other role-playing game before it...with the POSSIBLE exception of the Cyberpunk 2020/Friday Night Firefight rules) bases its weapon damage/statistics on the premise of GAME BALANCE and THEME...not on the real-world ability of that weapon to do damage to a human body.

I just had to comment on this because it has pissed me off in the past.

Cyberpunk 2020/FNF may have looked good but it was super unrealistic, you could be shot with an AP round from a 7,62 assault rifle at close range while wearing just a flak t-shirt and you would just get a scratch... ridiculous.

Mikaze wrote:
RobRob wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Guess that's one of the problems with codifying RP. You wind up with barbarians, monks, and fighters unable to find love.
That is not a problem with the game it's a problem with the players. Not being able to "afford" starting with 16 in strength as a fighter instead of 17 (giving you a couple of points for charisma) is just powergaming.

No powergaming, just the grim truth of how things tend to pan out for some classes.

1. Is 12 CHA going to really help that much?

2. 15 point buy is a harsh mistress when you're remotely MAD.

I'm going barbarian and I'm spread thin as it is trying to meet a certain theme. I'm most likely not going to be able to afford anything above an 11 in CHA.

And anyone playing a monk is going to have it worse.

Just get a twelve in charisma and get either the "Charming" trait or "World traveler" (if you are human) and you are good to go, one less +1 to hit/dmg is not going to break your character.

I admit that a 15 pt buy is prohibitive though, we play with 20 and that gives you a little more room to manuever.

Mikaze wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
My only doubt is if I should go for Ameiko or Shalelu. Well, perhaps my character can be a cheating bastard, hehe.
I am sure your other male party members will have something to say about that. ^^
Nah, the other guys in my party are old school. Cha is their dump stat.

Actually rather hope PCs aren't punished heavily in that area for not being able to invest in CHA, since some classes really can't afford to invest much in CHA.

Guess that's one of the problems with codifying RP. You wind up with barbarians, monks, and fighters unable to find love.

That is not a problem with the game it's a problem with the players. Not being able to "afford" starting with 16 in strength as a fighter instead of 17 (giving you a couple of points for charisma) is just powergaming.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Because the fighter will never be charming.

Think about how skills in pathfinder rise - namely, they rise if and only if you put points into them. That means the fighter who wants to stay charming must continue to devout resources into "Be Charming."

In a skills-based game, it would be a simple trade off. But Pathfinder is not a skills-based game. Instead, due to the need for high physical stats, due to low skills, due to no character abilities, and due to poor class skills, the fighter is inherently bad at being charming.

He will allways have let's say 12 charisma he will allways be more charming than the average person he will therefore be a popular person whenever he meets npcs, sure when haggling/bluffing etc he will have only one more plus but in any social situation he will be thought of as a charming person.

I'm glad you have a lot of space for roleplaying. There's tons of space for roleplaying in my games too! BUT. At the end of the day, it's still a game about heroic fantasy.


So because this is a game about heroic fantasy all your fighters allways have a charisma of 7? That does not make any sense you can play heroic fantasy with one less point of strength then you usually have and in return you have a fighter that is not autistic.

ProfessorCirno wrote:
The places the game puts it's mechanics is where the emphasis is. Every game makes a decision on what the conflict resolution is. For D&D, overwhelmingly more attention is paid to conflict resolution of combat then of anything else, and that's held true for every edition.

Mechanics schmecanics... in the two campaigns i am preparing right now, Rotrl and CoC, there is tons and tons of space for roleplaying just because you don't have rules for it does not mean it is not there. And that does not take away from all the action either there is a lot off really exciting fights and you will get to experience them too.

Auxmaulous wrote:
Maybe there should be more rewards besides those gained from the 1-dimensional focus on fighting? Again I would blame the poor skill system which handles interactions and a biased rewards system that treats combat as hard rewards (solid xp, more xp) while using skills, rp and making choices as soft rewards (subjective, no skill rewards, loosely defined, limited xp, etc).

There doesn't have to be an xp reward you just play your character... you will get the experience from all the fights anyway having one less point of strength won't change that. You will get the reward when you roleplay the character who can now be charming instead of being that awkward/shy/obnoxious generic fighter.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Your gripe seems to be with optimization. Here's how optimizing works: "What is this character meant to be good at?" That's it. That's all it is.

Now, the basic and typical answer is "Adventuring." Because, well, it's a game about adventurers. The problem is that some classes aren't really good at much. Let's take the heroic warrior as a fighter. What's he going to be good at? Well, he has little to no skills, he has no magic, he has no class abilities...that basically just leaves killing things! That's why fighters rate so low - they really can't do much. They are the perfect example of a one trick pony.

I don't know why i bother but here i go...

I am not saying that I want to play a "well rounded character" I am saying that if you want to play a charming fighter (instead of an EFFECTIVE fighter with 7 in charisma) and therefore won't squeeze every last drop off DPR out of that character and put a few points on charisma because that is want you want to play then that is fine. The only thing that will happen because of that is that you will be a tad less effective in combat and that should not matter because you play a character that you want to play. Imagine the group that gets upset at the player of that character because he is not pulling his weight... those guys have not got it all.

There have been a multitude of D&D heroes that have had decent to high charisma scores (Tanis Halfelven, Gord the Rogue, Drizzt (shudder), The Simbul) through the years, much like any movie or fantasy novel hero, is it so weird that players wants to emulate them. I mean what do you do when you sit down with a new group of players and one of them says "-I want my warrior to be really witty and funny like Madmartigan" do you then explain that they can't because a character like that won't pull his weight "-you have to make a really dumb and off putting fighter otherwise there is no point playing your character".

And you know there is no fantasy rpg that "rewards" having a charming warrior because there is allways a lot of fighting the reward you get for that charisma score is that you get to play a character that you came up with that you like and for me that is what roleplaying is all about even in Pathfinder - The optimizationing.

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Robrob wrote:
Just don't play with douches or little kids and you won't have any problems with optimizers...

Not really.

Some classes require optimization and some don't. At higher levels, fighters need significantly more optimization then wizards or witches. Monks have a lot of "traps" built into the class that have to be navigated around.

The chassis of third addition AD&D is literally built around Ivory Tower Game Design, to quote Monte Cook. It's not a thing only "douches or little kids" do. It's something that's intentionally a part of the system.

Yeah i am sure Monte planted a few traps to weed out the poseurs like for instance:

-The greatsword and the longswords are for suckers any true roleplayer knows that falchions and scimitars are the one and only weapon for true heroes.

-The first sign of a poor fighter is a winning smile and quick wit... that guy won't be pulling his weight that is for sure.

Monte sure is a genius, he finally understood that the true way to build a heroic warrior in a roleplaying game is to start with your DPR and build backwards from that until finally when you are done your are left with only one character concept... an autistic, retarded idiot savant fighter. This is not only effective it also saves you a lot of time coming up with a concept, in fact i am quite sure that this could be of great help for ordinary authors, finaly a fool proof way to create fascinating, wellrounded and EFFECTIVE main characters.

It is laughable...