Rub-Eta's page

2,490 posts (2,495 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 403 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Talk to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From another thread:

Rub-Eta wrote:

Had a bad DM who just couldn't for the life of his campaign make anything interesting. We didn't want to go on his adventure, our characters found much more interesting stuff to do. Every NPC we'd meet didn't want us to go on his adventure (for many different reasons). When we (the players) threw him a bone and went on his adventure anyway, he constantly tried to convey to us how everything we tried was impossible (because he had thought out some "puzzles" with very specific solutions that we in no way could figure out). It was over after one session.

The worst DM (who almost made me quit my group and role-playing altogether, before I kicked him out instead):

  • Took one and a half session before introducing a new player's character (while the new player sat and waited, for one and a half session).
  • Spent an entire session (about four hours) telling us how our characters traveled for a week by boat, repeating basically the same day seven times, with a bit of variation. As soon as we got to our destination he called off the session.
  • Did not know how to read a simple Bestiary entry, which lead to some very questionable on-the-spot rulings.
  • Stole from the PC's during impossible circumstances.
  • Knee-jerk house-ruled away PCs' abilities mid-sessions.
  • Would occasionally overrule role-play and fully ignore player agency. He would actually "correct" players and tell them "no, that's not at all what your character does".

  • Any attempt in correcting him was met with a very degrading and demeaning attitude and always ended up in an even less favorable result.
    Oh, it also turned out that he sent dick-pics to one of the players' girlfriend... f$~! that guy.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    pennywit wrote:
    Each player must play a vigilante (magic child) who dresses in a different color and has a different animal as a familiar. And each of the players has access to a Huge golem modeled after its familiar ...

    ... what's the problem with this?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm starting to see Starfinder more and more as basically a wild-west in space. So guns are probably just natural.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Any class that requires deep knowledge of the system and options, or a class that has complex class abilities.
    Fighters, Brawlers 9th level spell non-divine casters are good examples of how there are too many options to build. Though any 9th level caster is a bit too much, as spells require a lot of understanding of the general system.
    All the occult classes are good examples of classes who has too complex class abilities.

    I feel like the Ranger is a good class to introduce new players to. It starts as a straight martial class, 2nd level they get a limited option of feats and they eventually get some spell-casting, and animal companions don't require much at all.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I vote lobster.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    It's not the race, it's the player. Some people are disruptive no matter what.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    You guys seem to know a lot about second edition already. Enough so that you're able to make accurate assertions about it and very specific pieces of the rules.
    I'm impressed.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    ... Yes that's definitely why they're releasing 2nd ed, as clearly stated...

    If you don't like it, stay with first edition until they re-release it.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Claxon wrote:
    Pfff, potatoes, that's weak sauce. You gotta eat pure fat to keep up with your energy requirements.

    Yes, I tried that but my players protested and said I was going to far if I forced them to eat that.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    I heard somewhere that IF a human had wings and could operate them properly to fly, he would need to eat two sacks of potatoes per minute to stay in the air.
    So I've been assuming that this is the case for the fly spell as well. Since I want my players to roleplay and not rollplay, I've invested quite a lot in sacks of potatoes. If they can't get the two sacks down in a minute, their character is exhausted and plummets to the ground, until he finishes the second sack. Makes for some hectic moments.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

    I just kind of had a revelation and sort of realized that outside of rage....barbarians aren't that good.

    [...] when they are raging which you don't have many rounds of.
    Compare that to their arcane counterpart the bloodrager, who has access to bonus feats is just as capable of dishing out pain, doesn't "need" rage to be effective and when they DO rage its more then just a damage and health boost.

    That's like saying "a Fighter without feats" or "a Wizard without spells".

    A bloodrager isn't close to what a Barbarian peaks at with rage, the number of extremely good rage powers makes sure of that.

    Also, as people already have said; they have well enough rounds of rage. Since entering rage is a free action, enter rage when you actually need it, not at first sight.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    Had a bad DM who just couldn't for the life of his campaign make anything interesting. We didn't want to go on his adventure, our characters found much more interesting stuff to do. Every NPC we'd meet didn't want us to go on his adventure (for many different reasons). When we (the players) threw him a bone and went on his adventure anyway, he constantly tried to convey to us how everything we tried was impossible (because he had thought out some "puzzles" with very specific solutions that we in no way could figure out). It was over after one session.

    The best DM I've ever had made personal side-story-arcs for each PC to follow along with the main story, to spur our characters' motivations. He occasionally posed our characters in very personal situations, just to let us resolve it however we wanted. This way, he offered several opportunities for us to experience drastic character-development with our PCs.

    My worst DM (who almost made me quit my group and role-playing altogether, before I kicked him out instead):

  • Took one and a half session before introducing a new player's character (while the new player sat and waited, for one and a half session).
  • Spent an entire session (about four hours) telling us how our characters traveled for a week by boat, repeating basically the same day seven times, with a bit of variation. As soon as we got to our destination he called off the session.
  • Did not know how to read a simple Bestiary entry, which lead to some very questionable on-the-spot rulings.
  • Stole from the PC's during impossible circumstances.
  • Knee-jerk house-ruled away PCs' abilities mid-sessions.
  • Would occasionally overrule role-play and fully ignore player agency. He would actually "correct" players and tell them "no, that's not at all what your character does".
  • Any attempt in correcting him was met with a very degrading and demeaning attitude and always ended up in an even less favorable result.
    Oh, it also turned out that he sent dick-pics to one of the player's girlfriend... f%&@ that guy.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Occult Adventures is one if my most used books.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    James F.D. Graham wrote:
    Long story short: A powerful entity (fey/fiend/genie) decides to empower the wishing well of a small thorp or hamlet so that it actually grants wishes.

    It really matters what entity is granting the wishes. A fiend would definitely look out to screw people over and twist people's wishes. A fey would probably joke around with people's wishes and cause more of an annoyance rather than a menace. A genie, on the other hand, may very well fulfill the wishes as good as possible. So, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

    "I want to be the richest man in town":
    Fiend:
    -Poverty strikes the town.
    -A serial killer is on the loose and is killing all the rich people.
    Fey:
    -Richest, in what?
    -Who said your wealth was in form of gold?
    -The riches are yours, but where?
    Genie:
    -You gain a lot of money. Congratulations, you are now the richest man in town. Now you have to deal with it. All the greedy relatives, friends, lovers or anyone else who would consider to rob or blackmail you.

    I feel like the genie approach is the most interesting one.

    A girl wished to be the most beautiful woman in the entire country. Now she gets a lot of unexpected attention from several (different "quality") suitors. Jealousy starts to fester among her old friends. All in all, her life changes drastically.
    A fey twist: The queen has grown a snout!

    A lot of other wishes could be something that decays and can't be maintained over time. "I want to run a business" - community is to small to actually make said business go around.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Goblins are also a tinkering race...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Avoron wrote:
    Rub-Eta wrote:
    "He's killing demons! That means he's evil! Kill him, he's evil!"
    The qlippoth lord looked up innocently from his snack.

    "Someone really should, non-lethally, stop these relentless paladins!"


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I don't use xp, so I have no idea of what you're talking about.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This is only a problem since you don't like it. There's nothing inherently wrong with video games or the feel of them.

    Quote:
    Long-story-short, they want an action movie.

    If that's what they want, then the DM (you) should provide it for them. You can't make them play a game they don't want to play, then they'll just stop coming to your sessions.

    However:

    Quote:
    if there is an encounter too big for them that it is my fault for not presenting a level-appropriate encounter

    This is a very narrow mind-set on their part IF the don't let you work around it.

    They should be aware that seeking out the ancient wyvern means a not-level appropriate combat encounter. This does not mean that you have to baby-secure the world and remove all high-level dragons and NPCs. But you should not just present the players with an ancient wyvern without making it clear that the encounter is a chase encounter and not a combat encounter. Such an encounter can still be level appropriate.

    If they're not fine with that, baby-sit them.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Durable and socially capable are my two common denominators for pretty much all my characters.
    When it comes to classes and builds, I play everything from full martial to full caster, damage and utility, generalist and specialist. Lawful Evil to Chaotic Good. Stupid, Intelligent. Strong, weak.
    But I always make sure that my character won't die too easily and that I'm able to impact social encounters.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I don't like using NPCs that are exact copies from other media characters, unless I'm pulling a prank at my players... They feel out-of-place and they're not my characters and I don't want to be restricted to someone else's cannon.
    I do, however, very often use NPCs (with alterations to fit my specific story/scenario) greatly inspired by other characters from other media. Simply to have a basic frame of reference when I role-play them.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    A very typical encounter setup is for the party to get into a heavily guarded building or area. A castle or the like.

    First time my group got up to this task, we had reason to believe that the, otherwise friendly, fort may have been attacked by Ogres. We didn't see any guards posted atop the wall to great us when we approached... So we walked up to the fort's ramparts, to the portcullis armored gate and knocked...
    The new denizens of the fort opened up the gate and rammed us with a rhinoceros, followed by a barbarian and an anti-paladin and the rest of the ogres. It wasn't until after we had retreated and almost lost three of our four player characters that I realized what strategical masterminds we were.

    "Just knock" became a running gag.

    We've done this multiple times in multiple games since then, with varying degrees of success. Last session we went the extra mile by stripping and handcuffed two of our three party-members (in an attempt to disguise us as slaves and slaver) before we knocked on the gnoll slaver's garrison. Little did we know, the gnoll slaver was expecting us and knew exactly who we were and led us far into the garrison where we got surrounded by his guards. We slew every single gnoll in that garrison.

    Moral of the story: Knocking is only stupid if you can't back up your intent.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dasrak wrote:
    Rub-Eta wrote:
    Dasrak wrote:
    Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.
    I have to disagree.
    Could you elaborate? I feel it's kinda self-evident that PRC's offer more combinations than archetypes possibly could.

    I really don't find PrCs to be sufficient. Out of the 100+ of them there is, only a hand full of them are attractive, who actually offer balanced mechanics and distinct flavor. Many times I find core/base/hybrid classes with archetypes to fill the bill of my character concept equally flavorful but with superior mechanical options (not breaking level progression for scaling abilities, etc). Some PrCs are even so bad so that regular multi-classing is better.

    I also find that a lot of the PrCs come into play way too late for them to actually be considered. I want my character to be online by level 5.

    And again, I really hate that PrCs are torn between being used as their own separate classes with prerequisites (take any of the PrCs from Path of the Righteous, by far some of the best PrCs I've seen) and blunt tools to hammer out the already poor multi-classing system (Eldritch Knight, Rage Prophet, etc).

    And about archetypes: There are a lot of sheite archetypes. But there are some really golden ones that makes it all worth it.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    18 deaths in two books? I'm surprised you guys didn't leave after 8!

    "he already went through the campaign and it's no fun for him if it's the same" - This mindset is completely flawed. He's DMing for his own enjoyment only, not his players.
    Be upfront about this, tell him that you are not having fun. If he can't understand that something needs to change by that point, you've found yourself a rotten apple. And you don't need to keep biting it, just leave.

    If the DM can't run Shattered Star a second time without ruining the fun for the group, suggest that you play something else.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dasrak wrote:
    Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.

    I have to disagree.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I don't know. While the newer PrCs have been miles better than the earlier, I still feel like the underlying system for multi-classing is kinda flawed. It doesn't help that PrCs are torn between poor attempts at hammering those gaps and stand-alone niche classes in both flavor and mechanics. Neither of the approaches work as is, right now.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    In my current game, one of the other player's character is closely related to the BBEG. This family bond is basically what kicked off the entire adventure.
    So while his character holds a very specific and important role in the party, he is far from the "main"-character. The rest of us are as much involved in this as he is, sharing equal amount of game-time between each other (hell, my Bloodrager is probably the one getting most screen-time, due to him being the face of the party).

    Remember that everyone is there to have fun. You can treat all player characters differently from one another, as long as the players are okay with the way their characters are being treated. What you should not do is treat the players differently from one another. You can give a player character the 'main character' status. Giving a player the 'main character' status is just playing favorites.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    @Yaba: If you want a FAQ, please refer exactly and specifically to what existing rules needs to be cleared up. Because you seem to be looking for new rules, not a clarification of existing rules.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    @Yaba: There is nothing that I know of that allows for additional off-hand attacks, except for the Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feats. They are all tied to BAB, however.
    There are quite a few ways of gaining multiple additional arms/appendages. But that does not have anything to do with number of weapon attacks or off-hand attacks possible. On the contrary, multiple sources to these additional arms specifically state that they won't grant you any extra actions or attacks.

    EDIT: A one-armed man can still use and wield two weapons and make off-hand attacks, as long as it doesn't require more than one arm: He can't wield two swords with one arm/hand but he can kick.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Circlet of Persuasion grants +3 to all Cha based checks (which includes all Cha skills).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Any stats for a playable Eoxian/whatever they're called?

    Shinigami02 wrote:
    David knott 242 wrote:
    Rub-Eta wrote:
    David knott 242 wrote:
    Their camouflage ability requires that no more than 25% of their body be covered in order for it to work.
    Never heard of space-mail-bikini?

    Heard of it? Yes

    Seen stats for it? No

    The Stationwear line of Light Armors can be literally any kind of clothing you want, so all I need ask is this: Is a bikini clothing? Personally I would think so, so you can have fully functional bikini armor with Stationwear.

    You don't need separate stats for the space-mail bikini. It's apparently as protective as regular armor (why else would it be so popular among females to wear?).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    wraithstrike wrote:

    Darksol you have been here for a while. I'm really surprised to see you say this.

    ...
    And when people say ranged combat is great they were talking about longbow 99% of the time ...

    I (very) second this.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    David knott 242 wrote:
    Their camouflage ability requires that no more than 25% of their body be covered in order for it to work.

    Never heard of space-mail-bikini?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Ah, so we're not actually quoting rules text. My bad.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Can't say that I've ever heard of anyone disliking that book. It's one of my favorite books.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Claxon wrote:

    Yep! I'm about to Moral Quandry the heck out of one of my Lawful Good groups (3/4 anyway.) They'll be asked to help guard a cart of what turn out to be slaves in order to establish trade for the city. They are bound by the laws not to investigate it, but are duty bound to probably free them.

    It pits their lawful side against their good side, which will probably earn them some kind of interesting character trait/flaw. There is the chance they'll find an ideal solution (free the slaves and repair relations with that clan, and also convince the town that the trade relations could be established another way or something.)

    [Note: I probably won't cause them to fall unless they do something very bad here]

    No offense but this is one of the worst things you can do to players. You're purposefully setting them up for a catch 22.

    Probably? I agree with Claxon 100%.

    If you want to know why this is a bad idea, just take a quick search on these boards and see how many players absolutely despise DMs who does this and are ready to leave a gaming group because of it.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Micheal Smith wrote:
    Again generally I don't do average. I usually track how much I do and again its not average. My 4 rounds was to prove that in one combat I don't do average. I roll high or low for everything.

    I don't always roll 10's either. I do, in fact, roll it as often as I roll 1's and 20's. So I don't do average either, it's much more spread out...


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Because all high-level full casters went back in time, before the Gap, to live on Golarion. Why? Because they could. And that's why there's no left.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    whew wrote:
    16 increases to 18, not 17.

    Right, not lower than 16, it's 16 AND lower.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I found probably the biggest difference between Pathfinder and Starfinder: In the Starfinder, the 'dead' condition makes you unable to act!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    With theme bonus you can make a 14 into a 15. At level 5, you increase it to 17 and at level 10 to 18 .
    Without theme bonus, you sit at 14. At level 5, you increase it to 16 and at level 10 to 17.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    I for one welcome out new rogue overlords.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    YogoZuno wrote:
    Multiattacks (double, triple or quad attacks) will reduce your accuracy. So, while your potential total damage is higher, the actual amount done will vary a lot more over a single shot.

    I'm well aware of that. Snipers are still not on-par with single trick attacks, though. And you still only need to land two of three/four hits to out-damage the sniper.

    YogoZuno wrote:
    In addition, while you don't get trick attack damage, you DO get to apply a debuff, even if it isn't at super-long range.

    You don't need Debilitating Sniper for this, small arms do this just fine.

    YogoZuno wrote:
    Sniper weapons also already have a decent range by default, even without using the sniper property - much longer than equivalent small arms.

    "Much longer", as in ~20ft longer? Somewhere around the distance that trick attack lets you travel?

    YogoZuno wrote:
    Also, the base damage of most sniper weapons is on par with equivalent longarms, and generally slightly higher than same level smallarms

    Again:

    Rub-Eta wrote:

    Did some calculation and I have to call b@%$!*#@ on this.

    Assuming a 7th level Operative:
    Trick Attack +4d8;
    Shirren-eye rifle, advanced (level 8, 2d10 damage);
    Knife, tactical (level 7, 2d4 damage);
    The single trick attack deals an avg of 5 (weapon base) + 3 (weapon specialization)+ 18 damage (trick attack) = 26 damage.
    The single sniper deals an avg of 11 (weapon base) +7 (weapon specialization) = 18 damage.

    At level 8 (still using the same weapons), triple attack has a potential of 36 damage (5x3 base + 4x3 weapon specialization) while trick attack and sniper only increases by 1 each.
    At level 9 (still using the same weapons), trick attack (31,5 damage) still doesn't catches up to triple attack (still at potential 36 damage), around 50-80% more damage than the sniper (20 damage).

    Snipers do not break even in damage. At all.

    Also, keep in mind: There are small arms that have a range increment of 60ft, cost less than the given sniper and deals more base damage than the given knife.

    So I'm wondering: What is the point of Debilitating Sniper if it decreases your damage output but still doesn't allow you to deliver debilitating tricks at a greater range?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Xenocrat wrote:
    One option is that this is a case of the specific operative rule overriding the general sniper rule unlike a standard sniper you give up your swift action, in return you get to move and add your bonus damage. Not saying that's intended, but it's defensible.

    No, that's not a defensible option. Nowhere is this stated to be possible.

    Also, as far as I know, you can't use swift actions and full actions in the same round.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    gigyas6 wrote:
    In this way, they need to be a bit closer to the fight.

    If that's the case, I really do wonder what the point of the sniper is...

    EDIT: I'm also not buying into this. Why shouldn't the operative be allowed to use it's class abilities with a sniper while sniping, when a soldier does? I'm referring specifically to their superior BAB, among others.


    3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Can Operatives snipe? Or what I'm really asking: What does"Debilitating Sniper" actually do?

    Debilitating Sniper wrote:
    You can use trick attack with sniper weapons. You do not add trick attack damage to your attack, but the target is still flatfooted, and you can use debilitating tricks.

    It seems to allow us to use "trick attack" with snipers (though not adding the trick attack damage). It adds snipers to the list of weapons that can be used while performing a trick attack, right next to "a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm", right?

    Trick Attack wrote:
    You can trick or startle a foe and then attack when she drops her guard. As a full action, you can move up to your speed. Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack with a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm.

    But wait... as a full action?

    Sniper wrote:
    If you aim the weapon as a move action and then fire it on the same turn, use the value listed with the sniper special property as the weapon’s range increment. You can still fire a sniper weapon as normal, but it has only the range listed under its normal range entry when you do.

    This means that "Debilitating Sniper" makes you able to use trick attack with sniper weapons, when you are not sniping... when you are not using the sniper correctly...

    Am I missing something here?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    First of all, are you playing the Rogue from the Core Rulebook or from Unchained? If you're not playing the Unchained one, ask your DM if you're allowed to switch at next level (the Core Rogue is considered the weakest PC class in the game).

    1) TWF (Two Weapon Fighting) takes quite a lot of investment if you want to follow it up (with Improved TWF and Greater TWF). As a Rogue, you will have a hard time hitting things anyway, the -2 penalty doesn't help. - It also only grants you an additional attack when you spend a full-round action to perform a full-attack action. This means that you can't be mobile while doing so.

    2)You can only create the generic bombs that the Alchemist "Bomb" class ability grants. So: You can make bombs that deals an amount of fire damage equal to your sneak attack and splash damage to all adjacent squares equal to the minimum damage.

    You will need the "Bomber’s Discovery" talent to gain access to other kinds of bombs (such as Entangle Bomb).

    3)Since you're not proficient with medium armor, stay away! Use light armor!
    Mithral Chain Shirt. As long as you don't have a higher DEX modifier than +4, a regular Chain Shirt will do.

    4)It's hard to be mobile in combat. As long as you only stick to one attack, however, you will have the opportunity. Anything that increases your Acrobatics check (so that you can avoid Attacks of Opportunity while moving around your enemies to flank). You should probably look into the "Circling Mongoose" feat - one of few ways to actually make a competent unchained rogue (though it doesn't save the core rogue).

    5) I'm waiting.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Wrath wrote:
    J4RH34D wrote:
    Rhedyn you never responded to my latest post.
    He cherry picks so he doesn't have to do anything but claim his one build wins.

    I'm still waiting for response to my initial post on page 1...

    But it doesn't matter since we're dealing with Schrodinger's Cavalier.
    Rhedyn wrote:
    The Goal is either out damaging a Cavalier while challenging without his mount or a Cavalier with his mount.

    All the time in between these situations are apparently null and void (you know, the majority of most games).

    I should just start a thread called "Can we just talk about how Pyrokinesist is just better than Cavalier" and demand a build that can out-damage them when they go full nova on creatures with weakness to fire.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rhedyn wrote:
    Darbius Maximus wrote:
    Rhedyn wrote:
    Ryan Freire wrote:
    So *cavalier wins initiative* is profoundly unlikely and right up there with "and then i paid off my student loans with a small win in the powerball lottery"
    Winning a pvp fight at level 20 because you go first means next to nothing.
    That statement is contradictory considering your previous statement of winning initiative to kill the Archer Fighter. Flagged for trolling.

    The same response where I said pvp doesn't really matter?

    And it is still true, if the cavalier wins initiative, he still kills the fighter. Most level 20 pvp fights come down to who wins initiative.

    But that doesn't matter since any good fight in an actual game will last 3 rounds or more.

    I... don't know what to say to this...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I honestly think you're missing the fact that fighters gain a ton more feats than cavaliers. This means a lot, especially with AAT and AWT. Some builds are not doable with other classes than fighter due to the feat intensity (and we're not talking unusual, worthless fighting styles).

    The only thing I can see the cavalier being strictly better at are mounted builds (and they should be the best in that area).

    1 to 50 of 403 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>