Sajan

Ryan Freire's page

2,605 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,605 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Armed Bravery. It's an Advanced Weapon Training option, but Fighters can take that as a bonus feat once they have Weapon Training. At the levels we're talking about it's not any better than Iron Will, but at higher levels +4 or +5 to all will saves is so good as to be basically mandatory, and is a huge loss for any Fighter archetypes that trade off Bravery or Weapon Training.
Can you cite and quote the rule that says that Armed Bravery can be taken as a Bonus Feat? I'm having trouble finding it.

Here or here for something similar. Both combat feats.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
By the way, I don't know if I made this clear, but I do appreciate the pointers about the awesomeness of Advanced Fighter Training. I will be revisiting and updating some of my builds!

Its really amazing, its also basically completely invalidated every fighter archetype that takes BOTH armor training and weapon training away.


I don't think hells rebels and hells vengeance are mutually exclusive. Ravounel is just a tiny little part of cheliax that iirc has nothing to do with hells vengeance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Alzhan wrote:

I think that for a dedicated archer there are a bit more than Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Deadly Aim.

You really need Rapid Shot, Manyshot and Clustered Shot, with the later one being mandatory in high level play, when monster start stacking DR.

Point Blank Master and Improved Precise Shot are really useful too, but i take them only if I have feat to spare.

I'd add to that. Dip a level in Ranger, so you can use a Wand of Gravity Bow, so your arrows do 2d6.
Just be a halforc with an orcish hornbow
Be a half orc with an orchish hornbow, and cast Gravity Bow on yourself. Now you do 3d6!

At that point vital strike can become a reasonable maneuver with a bow too


I think its probably reading 2


Its necromancy. I know people hate alignment and that no strict rule applies that makes necromancy the "evil" wizard school but it does have more evil tagged spells than any other school than conjuration (if you interpret every summoning that picks up the tag when you summon an evil creature as a specifically evil tagged spell). Confess is enchantment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or Improved bravery from ultimate intrigue.


A few things:

Shield brace is 1 feat after level 4

Giving up weapon AND armor training is just bad as of weapon/armor masters handbooks. The advanced training options are strong, very strong.

Your reach weapon counting as a 2 hander still > using it in 1 hand from phalanx fighter.

Bravery is 1 feat away from being a scaling will save bonus vs all mind affecting and 2 from sharing that with your party. Giving up bravery is a bad thing now.


Dasrak wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
But If he interprets Pushing Assault as forcing the opponent to stop period, then the feat is superdope

That's just incorrect. Attacks of opportunity do not end the target's movement; they interrupt the movement, the AOO is resolved, and then the movement continues. Nothing Pushing Assault does changes this and would prevent the target from completing its move.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Consider the Phalanx Soldier Archetype.

Phalanx Soldier is a terrible archetype. Reach weapon and shield really isn't as good as it sounds; I allow longspears as one-handed weapons (with martial weapon proficiency) at my table as a houserule and even getting that bonus for free it's just not a very impressive fighting style. Great for clerics who just want to poke stuff at a distance, not so much for fighters that want big damage. In most cases a Fighter would rather have 1.5 strength bonus to damage than shield bonus to AC, and having to lose out on strong class features to do it is just a dealbreaker. Losing out on Weapon Training is also pretty terrible.

?

reach weapon + shield is 2 feats...and those feats re better than the archetype Shield Brace even lets you keep the 2 hander mods on your reach weapon. As a fighter you can even use your "retrain a bonus feat" to train away the shield focus feat once you get armor training and its no longer necessary for shield brace.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Alzhan wrote:

I think that for a dedicated archer there are a bit more than Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Deadly Aim.

You really need Rapid Shot, Manyshot and Clustered Shot, with the later one being mandatory in high level play, when monster start stacking DR.

Point Blank Master and Improved Precise Shot are really useful too, but i take them only if I have feat to spare.

I'd add to that. Dip a level in Ranger, so you can use a Wand of Gravity Bow, so your arrows do 2d6.

Just be a halforc with an orcish hornbow


2 people marked this as a favorite.

whenever someone says "fill the role of the skillmonkey" + powegamer i always have to go with "Play an investigator, they're the best skillmonkeys around and built properly do really good damage as well"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:
Persepolis wrote:
MY demons and devils absolutely do teleport away if they think they're about to die. It frustrates the hell out of my PCs...
Does their frustration advance the story?

Given the creation of recurring villains, and the fact that demons and devils are generally an "end game" form of monster, yeah i'd say it does. If it gets too frustrating pc's can always learn dimensional anchor


Derklord wrote:
They don't not stack because they accidentally happened to have the same bopnus type, they don't stack for balance reasons.

Its this

If they stacked 12+ crits would be a thing and with critical feats, class features and enchantments that trigger off crits, rapier and scimitar would be the only weapons used.


I mean....and also as its "high level" you can go from "has hundreds of hit points to ooop dead in one round" I imagine most dont teleport away because they eat a horrendous amount of damage in one round and die.


Evil eye is solid
cackle
Slumber
Misfortune is kind of the module for control hex wise I think witches are probably uniquely suited to debuffing and save or suck.


Quixote wrote:
Derklord wrote:

The problem is that it's not always an actual decision (beyond selecting a class and maybe combat style). Some classes are just way too weak (often due to crippling over-specialization, e.g. Swashbuckler), as are some playstyles that seem like they should be competitive...

What was that about "I'll make it clear that any opposition worth their salt will recognize your weakness and exploit it."? Because it would take a single enemy with blindsight/lifesense, or some snaring trap that might get overlooked, to outright kill the hunter. And that's not even touching the issue of the rest of the players being sidelined while the GM handles the hunter's multi-round combat.

When one of my players chooses a mechanically inferior option, I just change it until it no longer feels inferior.

As to your second point, I'm not sure I understand the specifics, but I believe I get the jist: yes, I did make it clear to him. He had to make a hasty and bloody retreat a couple times, and his reckless behavior did get him killed.
And the other players were "sidelined" for less than fifteen minutes each time he went a-scouting. I know enough to keep the pace clipping along, and to keep the risk factor dialed up enough that he wasn't too eager to engage in combat for more than a round or two. And I certainly have enough storytelling ability to hold the other player's attention for a handful of minutes that didn't directly involve them.

The more I think about the math behind the argument that hit-and-run tactics are inherently inferior, the less I like them.
the group I'm currently running with has logged just under 30 hours of gameplay so far, and I can count on one hand the number of times that they were all able to rush into combat together against a single foe. Multiple waves of opponents. Changing priorities. Distance and terrain. The argument against spring attack and similar tactics is mathematically sound in a vacuum, But there are just too many variables....

There's absolutely a dpr gap in mobile fighting and single hit fighting, but i think its really just a slight rework of vital strike away from fixing it.


Sorrol wrote:

Hello,

Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember at some point seeing some rule/feat/trait/whatever that buffs a character making small cuts.

What I'm thinking of is a character dashing in and out of combat (perhaps even stealthed) and it just makes a tiny slice every single time.
This slowly wears down the opponent.
Now I remember something along the lines of a slight stacking increase on damage until you miss an attack.
Think along the lines of: +1 damage per previous round you hit the target of your attack. This resets when you miss.

No clue if it truly exists... but if anyone knows anything, please do tell me :)

Cheers,
Sorrol

Someone a while ago posted a bleed focused build that was based on the lamashtu fighting style and a bunch of other feats + bleeding critical. I honestly dont remember where that was though

edit: Found it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yknow what...Shield champion brawler


I mean...you can be done with it at level 15 as a human fighter....that basically means no one else can do it. I suppose a martial master fighter would be finished earlier, you could use the martial flexibility to "top off" the trip/disarm feats you need


Actual rules text of shot on the run wrote:

Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single ranged attack at any point during your movement.

Shot on the run is fine

Ricochet toss: Thin splats are iffy on wording vs author intent, as written yes.

Eldritch eyes are third party and therefore rules interactions can be iffy.

As written deflect arrows wont stop thrown non ranged weapon attacks.

Look yall are acting like i think this is fine, its not, thrown weapons are a mess by the way the rules are written, they're a mess in the amount of energy you have to put in to make them a focus of your character. As written. This whole thread began because people couldn't wrap their head around the idea of daggers qualifying as melee weapons simply because they have a range for when thrown, and the argument that keen vanishes if you throw the weapon because somewhere inbetween your hand and getting tossed it ceases to qualify as a melee weapon.


That doesn't imply anything. Chakram can use precise shot, throwing axe can use two weapon fighting. By the very nature of thrown weapons you are going to need to offer some melee and some ranged weapon abilities because thrown has some melee and some ranged weapon.


I grok do u wrote:
SuperJedi224 wrote:
Creating magic items still requires skill checks; by RAW the DCs are typically a bit on the low side though.
Got it. With my luck on rolls, though, I would still occasionally have to charge 300%.

They require either a spellcraft check or an appropriate craft check (Armorsmithing, jewelry,etc) but that isn't necessarily to create the nonmagical item You can just buy a masterwork item and enchant it.


You don't have to assume intent though, they make a complete distinction right there.

Core wrote:
Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

A dagger or handaxe is effective in melee, therefore cannot be a ranged weapon even if they are also thrown.


bbangerter wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
baggageboy wrote:
Many people would disagree with this interpretation and there are good reasons for it. It is ambiguous at best.
except its not, people just don't read the rules, and when they do they try to infer hidden meanings. You don't get clearer than putting ranged weapons in a section labeled ranged weapons and melee weapons in a section labeled melee weapons.

This is a bit ironic when you claim precise shot works with a dagger (under the assumption daggers are not ranged weapons).

Precise shot wrote:


You can shoot or throw ranged weapons...

It's not a matter of us not reading the rules. We read them. Then we also apply context. We understand that a weapon can be classified as both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon. We understand that they don't need to list them under both tables because that would be duplication of information and take up unneeded print space.

Eh, you're right, i was looking at an old phrasing of the feat where it said you may make ranged attacks, looked at a newer version and thats what it says. Nope, you cant use melee weapons with a ranged increment with precise shot.

and no, you're inferring intent, you aren't applying context. There's nothing wrong with playing that way, but weapons aren't classified as ranged AND melee unless they actually put them there or actually write a rule stating so.


You use butterfly sting to pass your crit off to the beast with a X4 2handed crit weapon threatening your target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

double weapons have to have each side enchanted seperately


baggageboy wrote:
Many people would disagree with this interpretation and there are good reasons for it. It is ambiguous at best.

except its not, people just don't read the rules, and when they do they try to infer hidden meanings. You don't get clearer than putting ranged weapons in a section labeled ranged weapons and melee weapons in a section labeled melee weapons.


I didn't say "thrown weapons are not ever ranged weapons" Javelins are thrown weapons that are also ranged weapons. Throwing axes are thrown weapons that are melee weapons, instead of rapid shot with a throwing axe you use two weapon fighting.

You don't get point blank shot with melee thrown weapons, it specifies ranged weapon

You do get precise shot, it specifies shoot or throw into melee.

You don't get rapid shot, it specifies ranged weapon.

Ranged disarm: No
Ranged feint: no
Ranged trip: no
Clustered shots: no

Its simply a matter of reading the rules and not pretending they're trying to fool you. Thrown is a bad combat style.


Leitner wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


GMs have been trying to "keep the balance" between martials and casters since the dawn of time. you cant keep balance between players, some players are frankly more mechanicallyadept, playing a stronger class or are simply better built.

Or have three times as much gear. :)

And are "just better built" by exploiting crafting rules and their fellow players to gain a mechanical advantage.

Or yknow, are a martial built by someone who knows what they're doing vs an illusion focused sorcerer or poorly built monk.
Is your argument that because the party might alright be imperfectly balanced we should be fine making it worse?

No my argument is that balancing within the party is a specious argument on its face. You cant balance within the party, and more magic items on a caster isn't going to make the balance significantly worse.

In fact that more magic items on the non casters improve the non caster far far more than the more magic items on the caster improve the caster given that any class that relies on weapon damage to engage in combat already has a higher reliance on magic items.


And here i was expecting to return to dozens of examples from printed material of melee weapons listed under the melee section but counting as improvised in melee and ranged weapons that appear on melee and ranged tables.

I'll help you out.

Core wrote:
Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

There's the core rulebook separation out of the gate.

core wrote:
Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table 6–4), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or onehanded weapon is a standard action, while throwing a twohanded weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

And theres the core rulebook discussion of thrown. Being able to be thrown does not convert a melee weapon to a ranged weapon Ranged weapons that can be used in melee at a penalty are not automatically melee weapons, as the penalty represents them not being effective in melee.

In core, Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, throwing axes, light hammers, and tridents are melee weapons. They can be enchanted with melee enchantments + the returning enchantment that outright specifies it may be placed on thrown weapons.

Darts, nets, javelins, and shuriken are ranged weapons because they either cannot be used in melee, or are ineffective as represented by a penalty (javelins) They can be enchanted with ranged weapon abilities. Halfling sling staves could be confusing because they have a special rule saying they can be used as a simple weapon that does damage as a club. This does not change that they are in the Ranged weapon category, and the use as a club is a special rule for the weapon itself.

This is easy to extrapolate for every other weapon put forth.


You're the one who brought up the concept of balancing within the party. Once that box is opened you run into far far deeper structural issues than simply one caster having more money than others who are all 30% higher than recommended WBL


thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


GMs have been trying to "keep the balance" between martials and casters since the dawn of time. you cant keep balance between players, some players are frankly more mechanicallyadept, playing a stronger class or are simply better built.

Or have three times as much gear. :)

And are "just better built" by exploiting crafting rules and their fellow players to gain a mechanical advantage.

Or yknow, are a martial built by someone who knows what they're doing vs an illusion focused sorcerer or poorly built monk.


thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
blahpers wrote:
EldonGuyre wrote:
How the wealth is spent (or not spent) can change things dramatically.
I'm glad we agree! As the wizard accrues more wealth than the other player characters, the wizard's player has more freedom to spend that wealth on things that have little perceived effect on the game, while the other players' freedom to do so drops. More fun for the wizard player. Less fun for the other players. (This is especially interesting since the example is a class already designed to require less wealth than most others, but the principle doesn't require this disparity.)
Wrong, as the other players are getting their magic items at a discount, their freedom to spend extra money grows at a slower rate than the wizards player, which does not change the fact that they are still getting more wealth than they would if they had no crafter in the party at all

Sure. Assuming everyone sticks to this implied agreement to keep their character's gear around WBL and spend the excess on fun non power enhancing stuff.

Which isn't a premise inherent in the original question or most of the defences of the crafter profiting off their allies.

The GM controls WBL almost unilaterally. You might get ahead for a bit, but any GM could rein you back in within 1 level by simply....not giving gold value rewards.

It's trickier for the GM to keep the balance between characters though, which is the whole problem here. You can't rein in that imbalance by cutting back across the board. You have to start tailoring loot specifically for the poorer characters.

Which kind of defeats the purpose of this whole argument anyway.

GMs have been trying to "keep the balance" between martials and casters since the dawn of time. you cant keep balance between players, some players are frankly more mechanicallyadept, playing a stronger class or are simply better built.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Except daggers are in the melee weapon section of the book, not the ranged weapon section. Its convenient how they divide that up in the supplements and books

None of this is about daggers, it is about underlying mechanics.

I could name a dozen edge cases were weapons are on the melee weapon tables yet count as improvised weapons in melee (and thus inefficient in melee, as defined for melee weapons, but not mirrored by ranged weapon definitions), by being listed on the ranged weapon tables while having explicit usage in melee, or by being listed on both melee and ranged tables.

First off..name them and source the books.

Second off, every weapon is placed in either melee, or ranged sections on the tables. If they're in the melee section, they can be enchanted as melee weapons, regardless if they can be used as thrown weapons or not. If they're in the ranged section, they are enchanted as ranged weapons...regardless if special rules allow them to be used in melee or not.


thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
blahpers wrote:
EldonGuyre wrote:
How the wealth is spent (or not spent) can change things dramatically.
I'm glad we agree! As the wizard accrues more wealth than the other player characters, the wizard's player has more freedom to spend that wealth on things that have little perceived effect on the game, while the other players' freedom to do so drops. More fun for the wizard player. Less fun for the other players. (This is especially interesting since the example is a class already designed to require less wealth than most others, but the principle doesn't require this disparity.)
Wrong, as the other players are getting their magic items at a discount, their freedom to spend extra money grows at a slower rate than the wizards player, which does not change the fact that they are still getting more wealth than they would if they had no crafter in the party at all

Sure. Assuming everyone sticks to this implied agreement to keep their character's gear around WBL and spend the excess on fun non power enhancing stuff.

Which isn't a premise inherent in the original question or most of the defences of the crafter profiting off their allies.

The GM controls WBL almost unilaterally. You might get ahead for a bit, but any GM could rein you back in within 1 level by simply....not giving gold value rewards.


blahpers wrote:
EldonGuyre wrote:
How the wealth is spent (or not spent) can change things dramatically.
I'm glad we agree! As the wizard accrues more wealth than the other player characters, the wizard's player has more freedom to spend that wealth on things that have little perceived effect on the game, while the other players' freedom to do so drops. More fun for the wizard player. Less fun for the other players. (This is especially interesting since the example is a class already designed to require less wealth than most others, but the principle doesn't require this disparity.)

Wrong, as the other players are getting their magic items at a discount, their freedom to spend extra money grows at a slower rate than the wizards player, which does not change the fact that they are still getting more wealth than they would if they had no crafter in the party at all


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
A clean interpretation that is easy to apply consistently and that eliminates both the unintended interactions and edge cases is much healthier for a game.
You can argue that your position is right, but I'm not sure having someone's weapon properties arbitrarily turn on and off is necessarily clean, easy or consistent.
It isn't, its just jerkin off linguistically and deliberate misinterpretation of the text.

It is reading the text and looking at the underlying mechanics, rather than trying to come up with some convoluted series of interpretations.

What people are trying to push without understanding the underlying mechanics requires a long series of inconsistent interpretations that follow no easily defined logic except that they feel it is the "right" way to play the game.

Without being consistent on the underlying mechanics, the entire thing is just a house of cards. It becomes simple to find loopholes and exceptions that don't fit.

When the rules are interpreted in a manner that provides consistent underlying mechanics, none of that happens. Every edge case has a simple answer; the one that is consistent with the underlying mechanics. If something provides a specific exception, that is fine. The exception is specific and defined.

Except daggers are in the melee weapon section of the book, not the ranged weapon section. Its convenient how they divide that up in the supplements and books.

If P or S + melee then keen=ok

That is the sum total of whether you can use keen on an item. It does not matter if it can be used as a ranged weapon, because literally nothing stops a weapon from being both melee and ranged. Being used as a ranged weapon doesn't suddenly turn off enchantments that are only allowed to be placed on melee weapons.

The same applies to agile,

If light and/or weapons rules text says can be used with finesse then agile = ok.

All qualifications are from a Medium character standard, as you can literally see that they conveniently set out Light, one handed, and two handed, in how the book organizes the weapon table. Weapons classed light, or specifically finesseable, can be enchanted agile. Odd Size categories make no difference as it is a function of the wielder, feats make no difference as it is a function of the wielder and not a property of the weapon. A dagger for a huge creature could be enchanted agile, a greatsword for a tiny one could not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
A clean interpretation that is easy to apply consistently and that eliminates both the unintended interactions and edge cases is much healthier for a game.
You can argue that your position is right, but I'm not sure having someone's weapon properties arbitrarily turn on and off is necessarily clean, easy or consistent.

It isn't, its just jerkin off linguistically and deliberate misinterpretation of the text.


Gnoams is right, Play an unchained barbarian, they're better at two weapon fighting than the core barbarian, use high crit weapons like kukri and go down the accurate stance tree and beast totem tree.


avr wrote:
In pure value the +8 to an ability score (or split to more than one if you really want) looks likely the best. The sorc. extra bloodline looks fun but not as good. Analyzing all of them for a game I will never ever play seems like too much trouble though.

WM handbook makes the +2 to weapon training kind of attractive as well.

There's a fair amount of stuff you can do with that.


I'd look into the Midnight 3.5 campaign setting tbh. It does low magic better than almost any other campaign ive seen, with a logical reason why, and non handwavium consequences for magic use in game.


Nope its a firearm.


Dex to damage with firearms, Makes crossbows a useful combat style.

There are reasons to play gunslinger.


Kelvorn wrote:
So my wife hates the idea of bards because they sing or play instruments. I would like to make one that can do all the things like inspire but without singing or using a flute. I like how in 2E they use occult magic so maybe that can be used in a creative manner? So no feats or class dips, just pure imagination and creativity please. Any help is welcomed.

Dervish of dawn bard archetype with perform dance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The how it is used requirement forces a lot of recalculations of combat statistics the minute someone takes weapon versatility.

Maybe I missed something. Weapon Versatility the combat feat? Which changes the damage type dealt by a weapon on-the-fly?

If so, I don't see how that's involved. The enchantment doesn't apply to damage types. It applies to weapons. So even if a +1 keen dagger is used to deal bludgeoning damage, it's still going to crit on 17-20/x2.
Where's the recalculation? I assume I'm misunderstanding.

I know, i agree with you, im referring to the flaw in the "how its used" argument.


Anguish wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The keen property requires melee and P or S damage.

One word changed.

"Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen."

The keen property requires melee and P or S weapons. Which daggers are. There is no text indicating that a melee weapon which is thrown changes its type.

Quote:
You either rule weapon properties care only about the option to use the weapon in the required manner, without restriction on actual usage, or you rule the properties are dependent on how the weapon is used and only apply when weapon usage meets the property requirements.

The property says what the requirement is. "How it is used" is not such a requirement.

Quote:
Both are valid interpretations, but you need to be consistent in that interpretation and aware of how that decision interacts with the rest of the game.
I'd offer that both are valid options to run at the table. But I don't agree that both are what is written. And yes, I'm prepared to continue to rule as I do given that there's been zero cases documented where it's a problem, that I have seen presented.

The how it is used requirement forces a lot of recalculations of combat statistics the minute someone takes weapon versatility.


Reminder: wasp familiar came from one of the splatbooks. Those splatbooks have a tighter word count restriction than say, a core book might. Expecting them to be high and tight as far as covering all the potential interactions and requirements is expecting a bit much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thrown is a garbage combat style and no weapon property is going to suddenly break the game just because its on a melee weapon with a thrown range.


Eh, the party member still gets ahead on WBL. (in an IC format gets a big ol deal on a custom magic item)


gnoams wrote:

I don't understand the casters are so much better arguments. To me that's legacy 3ed that lingered for the first few years of pf and is no longer true. In every game I have played in the last 5 years or so, it has always been the martial characters that get complained about. It's always how the melee guy just killed the bbeg in one round, while the casters are sighing in frustration as even the mooks save against their spells on a 2. Anyway, that's a total tangent.

Back to the topic, I think it is important to know that the base game is designed assuming a 15 point buy and 4 players. If you increase your point buy and/or number of players, then the challenge rating system will no longer be accurate. If you are going with a whopping 26 point buy, then you will have to boost the stats on everything to maintain balance, and because all your numbers are bigger now things will have a tendency to get even more out of whack than usual.

Thats what I mean wen i say people probably don't get a lot of folks who know how to make their 9 level casters sing in their groups. Its not some legacy of 3rd edition, pathfinder does it too.

1 to 50 of 2,605 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>