Scott Viverito's page

Goblin Squad Member. 17 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Scott Viverito wrote:


If you are ROLL playing, not Role-playing yes the mechanics monkey always wins...but I at least perfer Role-Playing and lets be honest in a Role-Playing campaign, how would the character even know about most of the prestige classes in the first place...unless you've seen one or heard of it through RP where would you start looking for a Eldritch Knight?

You see, it's this kind of attitude that makes me contemplate quitting forums, people pull that 'roll playing vs role playing' crap.

Well I definately don't want to make someone leave a forum. So, I apologize for using a pair of well known terms(can also read as buzzwords) that states two different styles of character design/play that I have encountered in groups and CONs.

I used the terms I was familiar with, sorry if some find it offensive.

But back to the point there are many schools of thought on character design, the two I was meaning to reference were:

Type I - where the mechanics only drive the design. And combat only drives the adventure.

and

Type II - where a concept and mechanics drives the design. And hopefully there is non-combat interaction as well as the combats.

And in truth there are those that feel only concept should drive design...not sure what I would call that.

I have found playing with people that have a concept for character, more fun than the one that is just looking for the better ability for his combat effectiveness. But that is just me, and I thought forums like this was a place to air those opinions.

In answer to your later question about the Eldritch Knight, I see no reason he should be able to create his own merging of his multi-class, I pulled the EK for my example because he was used before in this thread. But my point was many(not all) of the various prestige classes can be used as role-play opportunities as rare and wonderful/dire legends of someone who can do X. And be a whole quest chain trying to find them and after finding them convincing them you are worth training. Just an idea....and if it offends it was not intended to.


Deyvantius wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
That's my question. Why do people jump on optimizers just because they milk the mechanics? Like I said the mechanics are a framework, roleplay the pretty details above, you can be a good smith and craft a really strong sword and still make it pretty with various decorative items.
Well you actually provided the answer to your own question. People don't like optimizers because THEY MILK THE MECHANICS OF THE GAME. (I don't know how to bold letters so please excuse the CAPS). I mean can a optimizer honestly look anyone in the eye and say "I chose these 5 prestige classes for the concept I'm building, not because I want my guy to be uber-powerful" with a straight face? Nope. You said it yourself in your post, you are exploiting/milking the mechanics of the game not trying to fit into the concepts of the prestige classes.

If you are ROLL playing, not Role-playing yes the mechanics monkey always wins...but I at least perfer Role-Playing and lets be honest in a Role-Playing campaign, how would the character even know about most of the prestige classes in the first place...unless you've seen one or heard of it through RP where would you start looking for a Eldritch Knight?


Shadow13.com wrote:

For some reason, our group never seems to play past level 12.

Interest just seem to fizzle out.
Maybe players are bored with their characters or maybe the campaign becomes stale.

Our last several campaigns have ended at level 12, except for one campaign which ended at level 8.

Is there some kind of Level 12 curse or something?
Or is there some hidden mechanic that changes the way the game plays at that level?

At what level do you guys usually wrap up your games?

Normally at level 8 or 10 by a TPK when the players get too big for their britches :)


Loopy wrote:

Thanks for the advice, gents. Hopefully all will be well. At any rate, the Druid player informed me he wants to be of the Desert and have a swarm companion.

I said yes.

So I have some work to do. LOL.

Neat....

Also consider dogs and horses get along ok, but most horses/ponys avoid wolves and run in fear from most others on the list. So a penalty(decreasing the longer the animals in question have been around) to animal based skill checks as well as ok the townfolk might understand the lion is safe but understanding and belief are two different things...and besides what sane inkeeper will allow a lion in the commonroom(scares away business) while a traveller and a dog(even a big dog) is more normal....


Xum wrote:

Folks, thanks for the reply. Specially u Jason. But as it was pointed out, the only problem I really see is that the humans were "nerfed" and the other races were boosted.

It really is a viable choice and I am sure many people enjoy it, as do I. But all I am saying is they should, in my opnion get something more, even if it was something like "Always Favored class" It looks like a human thing cause of the versatility.

Nevertheless, the game is fantastic, thanks for the AWESOMENESS!

From what I am seeing in my games and the posts here it looks like maybe they were too good if between 75% and 90% of the players are playing them....but I see your point. If you really feel they need some more versitility I have 2 suggestions(both houserule types at the moment):

1) Allow a second favoured class
and/or
2) Allow humans to add one skill to the list of allowable class skills for their 1st class.

Either should up the feel of versitility without changing the balance much.


If forming the bond and calling the companion is a day proccess I could see letting your wolf go join a pack for awhile and have fun while you bond(make friends with) an alligator before adventuring in the swamp. Then on leaving the swamp, thank the gator and send out the call for your wolf to see if he still wants to travel with you...and honestly I could also see if the wolf found a mate him showing up with her and an unmated wolf and regretfully renounce the bond by allowing the new wolf to assume its place(a wolf mates for life if I remember right)....the extra abilities would fade but lets be honest with the new system animal companions have levels for all intents and porpuses and I don't see all the experience at fighting goning away so any released companion at least at higher levels would become the alpha male of thier herd/pack/whatever....might be a nice adventure touch for the party that was camping to heal up, to hear wolves, prepare for a wolf attack, only to have elusive shadows of the pack show outside the camp at extreme range, until a large wolf lopes up and playfully nudges the druid in greeting....after a happy if somewhat bittersweet reunion the wolves head off, maybe after bringing some small game to the camp.

But then again I like my worlds to have histories....


I like the casting time, though a version I tried running at a con lately was almost the same. Spells took initiative count instead of lower initiative, same difference I realize but that way any attack during the time between the caster starting(at his initiative and when the spell went off was used against the concentration check. We were also playing with the targeting as in it was set at the start of the spell, which caused placing of fireballs and such touchy as well as single target spells having to be redirected(with a concentration test) if the original target died before they went off.

We were working with 3xspell Level-stat mod-Levels spell level is available. minimum 1 the 3xspell level was to allow for the stat to have some impact as well as familiarity.

Example Wizard 5th level 18 int casts fireball if his init was 15(high I know) he would declare spell and target at 15 and have it go off at 3x3=9(level)-4(int mod)=5 15-5 is 10...so any damage taken before init 10 would effect the concentration ceck as well as if the rogue notices everyone bunched up he could try to move out of the way if he went before the wizard's init mod in 10.

Same wizard at 9th level would take:
11 count for 5th level 15-4-0=11
6 count for 4th level 12-4-2=6
1 count for 3rd and lower 9-4-4=1

so with good stats and levels the lower spells become faster....

Course a minimal wizard that had a 15 Int or a wizard affected by int damage would cast:
13 count for 5th level 15-2-0=13
8 count for 4th level 12-2-2=8
3 count for 3rd level 9-2-4=3
1 count for 2nd and lower 6-2-6=-2(1 minimum)

it does add to the bookkeeping but everyone seemed to enjoy it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

@ Joe: I'm running a session tonight, so I'll try to get to the email tomorrow after work. If you don't see anything by Wednesday am, post me a nasty reminder!

P.S. Character building still sucks compared to the classless rules I wrote for the Beta, but using a class-based system with separate tracking of wealth and xp, there's really only so much you can do.

Any chance of you CC ing me on that Kirth?

scott_viverito@cox.net


Kirth Gersen wrote:
For example, changing the "cast defensively" DC from a static 15 + (2 x spell level) to a scaling 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) is bound to have an impact as well (slightly easier task at low levels, much harder at high levels).

ohhh I like that one, specially after looking at the tumble vs CMD mechanic.

Let's break it down a little:
1st Fighter vs 1st wizard DC 10+0+2 or 12 for a 1st level
10th Fighter vs 10th wizard DC 10+5+2 (17 for first and 25 for 5th)
20th Fighter vs 20th wizard DC 10+10+2(22 for first and 38 for 9th)

Normal would be:
1st DC 17
5th DC 25
9th DC 33

nice :)


Peter Stewart wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Don't Paladins have to give away a decent percentage of their treasure/gold? This further limites their power as they level up as they get less money to buy magic items with.
No, they don't have to, I don't know what you are thinking of here (maybe the vow of poverty), but they should to stay in keeping with their fluff. One of the things that has long bugged me about D&D is the expectation that you will spend all of your wealth, or the vast majority of it, on magic items to make you stronger. That is, simply put, not realistic.

Actually in at least 1 version of D&D(maybe second or first) Paladin's were limited to a certain number of specific magic items and had to give a 90%(I think) tithe of everything above thier expenses....I think that is what Frogboy had in mind....


DM_Blake wrote:

OK, lower on the page it says:

Paizo Core Rules, Moving Through a Square, page 193 wrote:
Tumbling: A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent
...

I think "Attempt" is the key word here if you fail you fail to move through that square and provoke...not sure if I would allow the player to continue to move if they had additional movement or not(i.e. tried to get through the orc's square got body blocked so moved to the side to try to get away) but I definately read it as a failure to get through the square.

Now taking the kobold example: if they don't tumble through the shield wall they could (unless the three meatshield close of a corridor or something, just run past taking the AOOs till the fighter on that side is out of AOOs and stream past to the mage...so I don't see bad tumbling changing life much unless you ignore the Attempt in going through a square....of and honestly with tumble being against the CMD I don't see many succusses if they did try to tumble through ;)


Zurai wrote:
Whoop-te-do. Being king of knowledge does jack s~*& for you in combat (unless you multiclass or gestalt to Archivist, of course), and one of the primary complaints about bards in 3.5 was that they had too little combat effectiveness and too much non-combat effectiveness. Their combat effectiveness hasn't really increased at all, while their out-of-combat effectiveness did. Yay balance?

hmmm Increased hitdie and being able to maintain a performance as a free action seems to free the bard to do other actions that may improve combat effectiveness....I might be wrong but I didn't see anything to indicate a bard cannot cast or use a bow while his performance is ongoing(common sense does seem to indicate performances that require something in hands(lute) or a verbal(singing) could limit the choises some but still it removes the ok I'm performing, over and over again as your action in a long fight.


[QUOTE}Actually you're wrong in 3.5 casting a spell with a touch or ranged touch component did NOT provoke.

From the 3.5 srd
Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

You provoked from the Cast a Spell action, not an Attack (Ranged) action. Casting defensively mitigated the AoO if successful. Therefore this is a specific change to the rule.

As for "aiming," I might have to aim a fireball to squeeze it into a tight space like an arrow slit... would that provoke too?

--On the chopping Vrock

Actually I'll have to check some FAQs when Wizards message archives come back up, but I believe the touching your target doesn't provoke but the using a ranged attack in melee does even under the rule you quoted, there was a discussion on Wizards forums after 3.5 came out and I seem to remember(might be wrong) that this wording was to remove the attacking unarmed aoo not the ranged attack in melee one.

Now I agree melee touch attacks only produce AOO on the casting but range ones even under the old rules did in most events I played in.


Zark wrote:

My point is Inspire Greatness is useless. It hade a place in 3.x and the beta since it stacked with Inspire Courage but now it's useless. at level 9 you get 2d10+con in temp hit points and +2 to hit.

Just a thought but what if you as the bard restart the performance instead of maintaining it. It would cost a standard action, but wouldn't it reset the 2d10+con hp(actually you get con on both the HDs so a 18 CON would make it 10-28 Temp hps enough to blunt a hit or two or really blunt a single damage spell). Also your forgeting the +1 Fort save...ok not much but it is there and the fact that the effected individuals are considered 2 Hit Dice larger to spell effects based on Hit Dice(not sure how useful that is, since I haven't reread the spells with HD based effects yet but it could be useful)


a +2 DC to a subschool seems in line with the other bloodlines, How about

Shadowy Illusions: Your illusions are made more effective due to affinity with shadows the DC of spells of the Shadow subschool is increased by +2.


It has been said in one form or another here, but I will say it again.

Sorcerer=best at what he is setup to do.

Wizard=Jack of all trades spellcaster.

Now since most sorcerer's are set up as battlecasters, in general they will have chosen defensive and offensive spells with a wide application(usefulness) potential. Wizards will try to specialize thier daily picks for the expected encounters or creatures to be seen. So if a Wizard knows what they are to be seeing(not common, but it does happen) they are more effective then the locked into spells known sorcerer. On the other hand the ability to spontaniously cast makes the sorcerer hands down a better combat caster to have around when that random encounter happens.

as far as wizard vs Sorcerer player-vs-player in most cases if it is an odd-level(wizard access to a spell level higher than sorcerer), I would perdict a wizard win, if it was even level, I would expect a sorcerer win.


I have to both agree and disagree with some of what is posted here.

Agreed the publisher's decision to stop printing the game has been the death knell of many a game. The inability to get the game materials will stop any new groups running the game pretty effectively and many of the groups still playing it will eventually get sidetracked or lured away to a game with current materials and/or a new take on a gameworld/characters/rules that catches thier fancy. Humans are like that we like some change and many of us like to see how something new works.

Disagreed the Pathfinder RPG is killing d20 3.5, it is a d20 3.5 system so unless it is very bad and makes people not want to play it, I cannot agree that it is killing it. Now if you meant it is killing D&D 3.5, to that there may be some truth but then again Wizards/Hasbro already made the decsion that the D&D 3.5 had gone as far as they wanted it to and chucked it in favor of D&D 4th addition. On the other hand I do not see how the changes in PFRPG could not be anything but a benefit to a long-running D&D game if introduced slowly and intelligently to the game.

Agreed there will be fewer D&D 3.5 tables and more PF tables going forward, both because of lack of access to the old books and because after playing in both many players are going to prefer how PFRPG runs and handles things. This is a normal process when a game company stops printing a game, to be honest I have not seen many Seven Seas tables, Hackmaster tables(come on I know it started as a joke but it really did recapture some of the AD&D 1st edition flavor) or for that matter any Gamma World tables period.

Oh and btw I also run Alternity and the old 2nd edition Runequest, so I don't think new is automatically better, instead I try to judge each game on its own merits.