Snakey's page

109 posts. Alias of Mr. Subtle.


1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Mask of the Living God 23

Well, I'm sure that can be emulated just fine with an ability other than sneak attack, but I get were you two are coming from.

I think that taking away sneak attack is an excellent move. They can add some ability to rebuff the damage loss. What about Investigator says sneak attack? I can see giving them a slower progression that starts at first level, or possibly just using d4s and the standard progression, but I definitely do not think they need to sneak attack as well as a rogue!

Cuàn wrote:

All I have to say is please don't give it trapfinding. If you do it basically because Rogue 2.0 and we don't want that (or at least I don't and I get the idea the designers don't either). Trapfinding isn't versatility, it's a burden. The moment you give the class Trapfinding you basically say that every Slayer should take Disable Device to use it because they are the trap guy. The Slayer should not be the trap guy, he should be the kill guy.

Trapfinding as an option, sure. Make it an archetype or a talent but please don't make it baseline.

A thing I do find surprising though is the lack of a Hide in Plain Sight equivalent. He comes from two classes that both have it in some form and the small blurb at describing their role even says they specialise in getting in, killing, and then back out again. Why is it not one of the talents?

As for the poison use mentioned before, I agree that that should also be in, either baseline or as talent. Then again, baseline might be overdoing it a bit.

I agree, NO trapfinding or Disable Device in the base class!

Yep, very feat starved, and being a ranger/rogue hybrid, I think something akin to ranger fighting styles would be best. Even whole-cloth, I think ranger fighting styles would be an excellent fit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ranger's Fighting Style would be sweet on the slayer. Also, sneak attack at first, scaling at every 4th level, wouldn't hurt. It'd even be worth it if they scaled back Favored Target to add these features.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

We don't need another Wisdom based class like the ranger, inquisitor, or hunter, Intelligence will help the Slayer stand out and bolster his assassin likeness.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please do NOT add disable device to this class! But bluff SHOULD be added to the skill list. I think basing the Slayer's abilities off of Intelligence and giving him some ability to make monster checks untrained would make up for having less skill ranks. It would be cool if the Slayer had to identify his target's weaknesses as a swift action in order to utilize his favored target ability, also like the idea of having to split the bonuses between targets later on.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


The following official updates apply to the Slayer.

• The Hit Dice should be 1d10 per level.

• Disregard the first sneak attack paragraph. Use the second Sneak Attack entry. The slayer gets 1d6 sneak attack at 3rd, and an additional 1d6 at every 3 levels thereafter (the table is correct).

Ahhh, now that soothes the ache I was having. I will now playtest this for sure.

The NPC wrote:
Is the slayer supposed to have a d8 hit dice despite being a full base attack class?

With a d8 hit dice the slayer does seem weaker at level one than a ranger, even with the guide archetype.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like all of the poison abilities are an ill fit for the investigator class and should be replaced. Also, not sure about the amount of sneak attack...


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Snakey wrote:
Sorry, but what does YMMV stand for?
Your Mileage May Vary.

Oh yes, that saying... thanks

Sorry, but what does YMMV stand for?

Kaisoku wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What does he want from the paladin class?

Everything else other than the smite?

The way some people are talking here, it's like they've never heard of ability swapping before, or maybe the impression is that the Paladin is some one-trick pony, and without smite he's basically a Fighter with some added restrictions.

Asking to play a Paladin with an alternative to smite is a perfectly cromulent request. They have the Lay on Hands mechanic, which was boosted with Mercies. They have the Divine Bond (weapon or mount), and a series of Auras.
They are a Charisma-based divine caster, with great magical defenses, and a great selection of spells for a half-caster.
All wrapped in a combat-focused class (d10 and full BAB).

At least three of those mechanics would be impossible to find anywhere (and could only be replicated with judicious use of magic and items, which really makes for a completely different concept of character).


Considering he wants to go more of the healer route, I think giving extra Lay on Hands and Mercies would be perfect.

Note that giving more mercies means he can heal status effects while healing, making up for the lack of spell slots and levels (curing blindness and such without the need of the spell).

I agree fully. I think the extra mercy/loh is the route I'll go. Need to find a sub for aura of justice though at 11th level...

I try to be flexible for character concepts, a sorcerer should be able to get a familiar no matter their bloodline, so I allow them to swap the equivalent power out, if a ranger doesn't want spells, I allow them to take a animal companion at 1st level in exchange, etc. It's not about power-gaming, and it is not about keeping perfect balance (which isn't their to begin with) it's about building unique characters.

I've recently begun SCAP with 3 Gestalt PCs. I have a witch/rogue, a ranger/fighter, and a paladin/fighter. We haven't got to Jzadirune quite yet, so I don't quite know what I'm in for with this group in alot of combats, but so far the roleplaying has been excellent.

I am adjusting everything as I go along, and updating it all to PF, which means tougher NPCs. But, I am down-scaling the largest dungeons, because my PCs would kill me if I threw them in a dungeon with over 60 rooms!

I started the PCs with some intro adventures to compensate for the xp trimmed from Jzadirune, and help tie them to the setting better.

I am trying to retain alot of the difficulty, but adjusting the scale to fit three PCs. I converted the Skulks and gave them a level of warrior, which pushed them into the CR1 range for pf (no where near a CR2 monster!).

I am also using medium xp progression, but will make sure PCs are at appropriate levels along the way. Will scale-back the amount of magic items as needed throughout.

Basically, I am doing alot of work editing the AP for my group, but it has been worth it, and I can still get-in 2, 4-6 hour, sessions a week!

Also my PCs notice the little details I throw in for them (like things I know they like, or things tailored to their character), and then they know I pay attention to their characters.

Rathendar wrote:
Snakey wrote:

Yes, some great Ideas folks!

Doubling LOH might be a good solution, something like Level+cha, starting it at first (with channel still coming at 4th, or move to second level?). Not sure how I feel about double mercies though...

Seems a little weak for giving up smite... but you know, have your cake and what not.

as a different thought, how about the Cleric Warpriest(Holy Warrior?) substitution from the..hmm..campaign setting book? basically a cleric that gives up domains and gets full BAB and d10 HD? i forget if they get heavy armor and/or martial weapons but it sworth looking up. they can play melee guy and have full cleric spells plus channel energy.

Hmmm, don't have the setting book, but this is interesting...

Yes, some great Ideas folks!

Doubling LOH might be a good solution, something like Level+cha, starting it at first (with channel still coming at 4th, or move to second level?). Not sure how I feel about double mercies though...

Seems a little weak for giving up smite... but you know, have your cake and what not.

Hi everybody,

The Paladin in question is the primary healer. The party is composed of a Witch a Rogue a Ranger and a fighter. He's not interested in the smite mechanic or being a Cleric. I guess, being an ultimate evil-smasher is a little extreme for his character, he is more of a soldier/hospitaler. I want to find a suitable substitute, some ideas:

Ranger favored enemy (already mentioned)
Extra LOH and channel (start it at first level)
Casting as Inquisitor (maybe too much?)
Cavalier's challenge (almost the same thing, but more mundane)
Inquisitor's judgement (again, similar, but not so severe)

Of these, the most likely is number two, extra LOH... but how much extra?

If you had a player who wanted to play a Paladin, but did not want smite-evil, what would be a fair trade-off to replace the smite ability?

Well, I'm using this AP so I don't have to homebrew everything myself, I don't have the time for that, but I do have time to re-write and adjust as I go. Anything that is just to "difficult" to run as is, and too complex to make adjustments to (like large dungeons with many interconnected events) I will simply re-write. Even if I don't use some of the AP, it still saves me alot of time (and creative energy), and I am sure there is alot of material to work off of.

To update:
Ezme is going Witch (told her it was a perfect fit for her character!).
My GF wants Uulmec to go Paladin (my GMPC).
Iddunr is still vacillating between ranger/rogue.

Considering starting AP at level 2, or including a level worth of prologue, my PC's have high stats already, but I'll just have to wait and see the AP before I know what I need to do.

Still waiting for book (expect it by early next week)

Thanks everyone for your input.

P.S. Not interested in Gestalt!

Lathiira wrote:
Instead of thinning out the encounters, you might instead break them up a little bit. Give the smaller party more opportunities to avoid encounters or run away or use smart tactics. Make sure there are plenty of friendly NPCs around to help with things (in that AP, I recall that there are plenty). Maybe Nidrama helps out mysteriously from time to time, using magic to appear as a wise old woman who tends their wounds or feeds them information. The Striders make an excellent information source and could easily serve at need as reinforcements if the PCs get into trouble.

I think these are great ideas, and once I get the AP I will look to implement them. She is not very fond of super long dungeon crawls, so I see myself trimming things in places for that reason at least.

These are all valid suggestions and I appreciate it, but note that I am not looking to alter the rules or anything at this point. I'd like to avoid playing an additional character as GM, unless my player picks-up an NPC's help momentarily during an adventure or such. Also, we are playing core-only.

I tend to control and limit what magic items are available for sale, but am not afraid to drop a wand of CLW as treasure or on an NPC, as long as it seems somewhat "organic" to do so (not that the heal-stick isn't full-of cheese as it is). Not really looking to force things too much.

What I do intend to do though is adjust encounters, thin-out the herds a little, adjust the bad-guys if necessary, and make sure the PCs have what they need for any situation they need to overcome. It seems there is a bit of dungeon-crawling in the Shackled City AP from what I've read on the boards, and that is something I will probably tone-down a bit, I do not expect my group to be able to endure as many encounters as normal, and my player can't stand to be in a single dungeon for 12 sessions.

I may have my work cut-out for me, but it is still less than creating my own homebrew campaign, and we are looking for something long-term. I will tailor things to the party.

Here's our rolled stats and tentative builds:

Ezme: Human, str14 dex15 con14 int17 wis11 cha12 (+2/race-int)
Most likely going Wizard/enchanter (divination/abjuration-prohibited).
She wanted to keep her pretty-much exactly the same as before, trying to get her to at least look at the Witch class.

Uulmec: Half-Orc, str17 dex15 con15 int10 wis11 cha16 (+2/race-con)
Paladin, party mainstay for healing, and damn resilient. Was a fighter in previous campaign, but we need some healing and Cleric hardly fits the image of this guy.

Idunnr: Elf, Rolled stats: 16, 15, 14, 14, 12, 10.
Likely going Rogue or Ranger.
She was a ranger previously, but a Rogue may fit this AP/balance the party better.

Shouldn't be to hard to adjust the AP, right? I think we rolled high enough (yep, we rolled high! 4d6 drop the lowest, only Idunnr got any fudging and was allowed to re-roll two low stats) that we will survive most anything level appropriate. The Paladin gets ridiculous saves and becomes immune to nearly everything, and has really high survivability for front-line, plus decent enough healing, I think. We will be lacking certain Cleric goodies at times though, like restoration/remove disease, etc., most of which the Paladin can handle much later on than the Cleric, so it is a gamble.

I will consider going Cleric with Uulmec deeply, but it really is a stretch for the character, he would have to be built more melee/tank-like, and not seem so...priestly, and come-off more soldiery and Orc-y in battle, and still needs his iconic greatsword. He needs to be tough!

Ravenot wrote:

About a year ago I ran a single player campaign from homebrew. In my opinion, homebrew games are the way to go for single player, but premade modules can be shaped to fit as well.

Villains and encounters can be made specifically to play against the players strengths and weaknesses. NPC's can be focused on more, allowing them to be more emotionally connected as close friends, family, or lovers, rather than healbots and mindless lackeys that blend in to the background.

Even a module can be tweaked to personalize it to the player. Make it His/Her story that they are a personal part of. Make the end villain PERSONAL and not just a mad wizard with something to prove. Personal adventures are memorable.

Well, I have to convert the AP to PF anyway, so I can adjust it to fit our characters as we go. I probably will use the AP more as a backbone, than a play-as-written, I can use the setting and the story elements as are, and adjust the flow and focus to fit as we play along, depending on how awesome the book is when I finally receive it.

Man, i drank too much wine last-night when I started this thread, I barely remembered it this morning until I saw the little dot next to it... uhh, got to go to work with fuzzy-head

meatrace wrote:
I'm sorry


So my girlfriend finally convinced me to run a one-on-one campaign (can't seem to find reliable/enjoyable players in our area), so I whipped something up, and we played for a few months. We played 2-3 times a week, and I didn't really take the idea seriously at first so my campaign is showing cracks that grow as we play (undeveloped story/setting), but we're growing attached to our characters. With exam week + busy work schedule, the campaign has tapered-off a bit.

Not knowing how much characters would actually develop playing solo, I feel I've let us down with a shotty attempt.

Seeing as though I just ordered the Shackled City hardcover (still in the mail), and she is just getting back from vacation, we have agreed to start fresh, and play through the campaign.

Not ever playing a "solo" campaign before, I've made some mistakes, but more importantly- there have been some triumphs. My "main" character, and hers have developed a rich relationship, we would like to retain those characters, and re-tell their story.

The low-down:
I am starting Shackled city with one player. She will play two PCs, and I will play one GMPC (I'd prefer not to play more than one as much as possible)

The PCs:

  • Ezme: Human caster, probably wizard (The Witch fits, be she hasn't seen the class yet, I think she'll have to get-over the name first!)
  • Idunnr: Elf, ranger or rogue most likely.
  • Uulmec: Half-Orc, fighter-type. (this is my GMPC, he has a background as a soldier, so has to fill that niche, but he is otherwise most flexible, as long as he can protect Ezme!)

    The issues:
    We need a balanced party, especially going three PCs. Healing will be an issue, and cleric doesn't really fit any of our characters.

    I thought about going Paladin for my GMPC, but Smite-evil+GM+metagame is hard to avoid and clunky, but niche-wise is perfect. Barbarian also fits, but will be doomed without a cleric. Fighter works, but not very versatile. Inquisitor works, but more mechanically than thematically.

    So what I would like advice on, are:

  • General tips for campaigns/written adventures with one player.
  • Building a balanced party, within the limits I posted above.
  • Things to watch-out for in the AP with a three person party.

  • Nermal2097 wrote:
    Possible issues with Homebrew Campaign Set up

    Besides being awesome, damage would be the main issue.

    Remember that halfling rogues rock, with the +4 stealth, and +2 dex, and a sneak attack that relies not on size.

    Assuming that there will be a cleric, his/her buffs will really help, bull's strength for the fighter, etc. The travel domain would be enjoyed by a little guy (my dwarf-cleric loves it)it gives you +10' speed, and the first level bonus spell is longstrider, plus a bunch of movement abilities and movement focused bonus spells.

    Someone should try to optimize for damage, a two-hand fighting barbarian would do well for this, with enhanced movement and str increase during rage. (Especially enlarged via the spell).

    Halflings make good casters due to size, and won't rely on puny weapons for damage.

    I like this concept party, I think their strongpoints will be sneakieness, agility, and little-guy coolness. I wouldn't worry about damage too much, sure you won't be able to max-out DPS, or whatever, but you will have a lot of fun roleplaying!

    What I would watch out for as GM, is throwing a bunch of big grappling/swallowing/choking monsters at them, other than that I would not adjust CRs or anything.

    Remember that they can fit into small places big monsters cannot, and add terrain accordingly to difficult encounters if need be. There are a lot of benefits to being small, sneakieness, high AC, etc. Large monsters or tough NPCs may not even recognize them as a threat right away, never underestimate a halfling's courage!

    The small die weapons are not as big of a problem as it seems, it's the -2 strength that hurts the most. If the PCs play into the strengths of being small, they should be able to handle just about anything you throw at them.

    Haven't explored naval combat too much yet, but halflings get +2climb and acrobatics, which should help...

    prd wrote:
    Cryohydra/Pyrohydra (+2 CR): Variants of the standard hydra, the cryohydra lives in cold marshes or on glaciers, while the pyrohydra prefers deserts or volcanic mountains. A cryohydra gains the Cold subtype, while a pyrohydra gains the Fire subtype. Each of its heads has a breath weapon (15-ft. cone, 3d6 cold damage [cryohydra] or 3d6 fire damage [pyrohydra], Reflex half) useable every 1d4 rounds. The save DC is 10 + 1/2 the hydra's HD + the hydra's Con modifier. Although fire attacks cannot prevent a pyrohydra's neck stump from growing new heads (since it is immune to fire), 5 points of cold damage does. Acid works normally on both hydra variants.

    ...every head. So on a full attack, that's alota breath.

    It's funny, shortly after reading this thread yesterday, I had a four hour session in which I used my Bestiary. When I went to open it at the beginning of the session the binding separated from the spine, only the green first and last pages are saving the cover from falling-off.

    I store my bestiary in my desk, lying flat. It has left my house once in a book bag, in the dry cold Michigan winter for a ten minute drive to somewhere else and back. The thing is brand new, and treated like a baby, but who knows what conditions it has suffered before falling in my hands!

    I rarely use monsters straight out of the thing, so it gets alot less flipping than my rulebook (whose only problem is easily rip-able pages).
    My 3.5 monster manual looks awful, it has scratch marks, bite marks, dents, but the inside is pristine along with the binding.

    You reap what you sow.

    Scott Betts wrote:

    Now I have to come out of lurking... This thread was fine, and no one was actively participating in any warring. Then you show up, quote every reference to 4e out of context. This thread had a friendly tone, with little bashing of 4e.... But now you've done it, YOU brought the edition wars. I hope this thread doesn't crash and burn now!

    Broven wrote:
    I'm not sure why they didn't just include stat blocks for each age category, frankly.

    Well, let's see. 10 Dragon types x 12 age categories = more than a third of the book's pages, just on Dragons!

    I give max on the 1st HD, then allow re-rolls on 1's for the rest.

    Laurefindel wrote:

    In all games that involve % rolls that I own, the % roll is explained as such:

    You roll two dice. One is "tens" and the other is "units". Now most dice sets include the "tens" as "10", "20", "30" and so forth until "00" for convenience purposes.

    When you roll a % dice, the unit dice result of "0" is 0, NOT 10 as if it was rolled as a stand-alone roll (like damage of a bastard sword for example).

    So a roll of "80" and "0" = 80, not 90. The only exception to that is when "00" and "0" come up, you get 100.


    That's the way I've always done it. Also, if you have a 30% chance of failing, you want to roll above 30. If you have a 30% chance of success, you want to roll 30 or below.

    PRD wrote:

    Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

    Don't forget this use of bluff!

    erithil wrote:

    Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I'm having a hard time interpreting the poison rules.

    From the Core Rulebook:

    "Poisons delivered by injury and contact cannot inflict more than one dose of poison at a time, but inhaled and ingested poisons can inflict multiple doses at once. Each additional dose extends the total duration of the poison (as noted under frequency) by half its total duration. In addition, each dose of poison increases the DC to resist the poison by +2. This increase is cumulative"

    Please tell me how an injury poison, which cannot inflict more than one dose at a time, can have additional doses that extend the duration and worsen the save?

    I think it is saying, a single attack cannot inflict more than one dose at a time. As in, you cannot load your dagger with 2 doses of poison, and then deliver those on an attack, but if you were to be attacked by two assailants with a dose of the same poison on their blades, and they both hit you, you would have two doses to contend with.

    Edit: Now that I go back and read that section, I kinda get what you are saying, but look at the example further down the page with the spiders, it should help clarify.

    I have a player in my group who has never played this type of game before, and she built a cleric. Now, access to your whole spell list at any given level can be daunting, and she does sigh from time to time, but she LOVES it.

    You just have to be very patient with a new player, and expect your first several sessions to focus on teaching this player how to play. When I have a new player, the campaign always starts off like a tutorial, I introduce the basics, then build on them, in an organic "in-story" way. You really have to glaze-over alot of the more "advanced" mechanics to make the game flow, until the player(s) are ready.

    You also have to throw some fun stuff down for the more experienced players to have fun with, and use some complex bits on their chars first to give the newbie an example, and give the other players a chance to explain what they are doing. Of course, this has to be minimal enough as to not interrupt the feel of the game, but D&D is always a balancing act. If I hear groans from the more experienced players, when I'm trying to explain a rule or mechanic to a newbie, then I just throw that rule or whatever out the window and tell them I'll explain it later, but here is how it works for now.

    If a new player builds a really crappy character on accident, then they most likely don't understand the mechanics of the class. If the other players don't want to help this person be more effective, then the DM needs to sit-down with them, and help them, there is no excuse for not doing this, D&D is not a fraternity, and we do not need to haze new players or make them uncomfortable before they even learn the game!

    I always take time to sit-down with a new player before we play to make sure they are ready, I will even help them build their whole character, if they need me to. I'm in no way saying you need to hold your players hand, but you don't want to come off as arrogant, or turn someone off to the game for no reason. I find that given time anyone will become proficient enough to play an effective character, they just might need help at first.

    I've found that if the players are jerks to the newbies, then those new players either become timid, or jerkish in return. No one needs to walk on eggshells, afraid of saying the wrong then, using the wrong spell, or taking the wrong feats, just 'cause they are new, it ruins their fun. Some people grasp the mechanics right-away with little intervention, and to some people it's like learning a new language. Give new players time to get their feat wet, and be forgiving in letting them retrain and give them an "undo" button for a while.

    Now, don't take this out of context please, this is a general vent, and not aimed at anyone, and if the person who was offended by me earlier is reading this, don't bother to respond if this somehow pisses you off, please.

    He obviously built a crappy character, the Druid is a powerful class, even for a novice player.

    Paul Worthen wrote:

    I never saw that disparity in any of my 3rd ed. games, but I saw the opposite one far, far too many times. A group in which 4 characters were really awesome, and one character was downright useless. And it wasn't much fun for the useless guy. The very first 3rd edition campaign I ran, we had one player who thought it would be fun to play a multiclassed rogue/bard. While the rest of the party would beat up on monsters during fights, he'd generally be forced to hide in the back and sing his buff-song, because he couldn't hit anything, couldn't damage anything, and didn't have enough spells to make a difference anywhere.

    We ran into a similar situation when I ran Savage Tide. We had one player, a guy who was somewhat new to the game, who decided to play a druid. He didn't really understand how to optimize his feats very well, and wasn't really interested in the complexity of a prestige class, so in the end, his character just ended up weaker than everyone else. Because of that, the other party members didn't bother healing him during battles ("why would I heal the useless druid when I can heal the Warblade instead?") Thus, he died over and over and over again.

    I agree that the learning curve for 3e/PF is a little steep, and new players need to be helped-out alot at first. If you wanted to pull-off a combo like rogue/bard, you have to know what you're doing. It's funny that the Druid was the weak-link in the party, being arguably the most powerful class around. PF did knock the Druid more in line with everything else.

    Viletta Vadim wrote:

    There were some excessively generous rulings in there, though. Giving the players the surprise round on a monster that was actively stalking them to begin with? That really doesn't make sense. There shouldn't have been a surprise round at all. Rather, it should have been initiative, volley, beast attacks someone, then they probably finish it off. Or, alternately, the beast realizes it's been spotted, gets spooked because it's lost its advantage, turns tail and runs away.

    Also, you have to understand that 'challenging' is something of a joke in the CR system. A CR10 creature against a party of four level 10 PCs is defined as 'challenging.' For comparison, a level 10 party member is a CR10 creature. If you have a level 10 party with 5 PCs, and then everyone dogpiles on the Bard, the CR system defines that as a 'challenging' encounter.

    And solos are always a crap shoot. A few lucky rolls and they're done, pretty much no matter how badass they are. Generally, expect solos to go down very fast. If a solo can't kill someone or close to it in a single round, it's probably not a threat.

    A CR 10 creature vs. a party of four PCs is an "average" encounter, according to pp.397 of the core-rulebook. A level 10 party member is considered a CR9 creature, according to the same book, PC levels=level-1, and NPC levels=level-2. So the example with the Bard is technically an "easy" (APL-1) encounter.

    Everything else you say is true though.

    Nope, still appears when you click on some of the links.

    Wow...Plug-ins? No thanks!

    Michael Brock wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:

    Diplomacy is actually the go-to skill for gathering rumors (in its new role as replacing the Gather Information skill).

    Knowledge (local) represents how much you know about local laws, rulers, locations, local traditions, local secrets, and the like. It's also about what you know about monsters of the humanoid type. In addition, it represents your skill at quickly absorbing and learning and knowing this kind of information about regions you visit; that's why there's no need to specialize in Knowledge (local) for specific regions.

    The way I read that is that you don't even have to choose a region.

    So, if I take 1 point in Knowledge (Local) with my 18 int Wizard, then I already have a huge bonus to know all the above about every continent, country, city, village, outpost, fort, and any other place where people dwell anywhere on Golarion? That seems tremendously powerful. Now, my Ulfen character has a chance to know about local laws, rulers, locations, local traditions, local secrets, and the like for every location in the Tian Shu Kingdoms, even though he has never been close to that location, all because he took 1 skill point in Knowledge (Local). Doesn't that seem a bit unbalanced?

    It seems to me that the GM shouldn't be giving super specific info. that would be better covered by gather info (dip), or a higher DC. It's like the skill assumes that your character takes time to familiarize with his surroundings wherever he goes, at all times. Mechanically the skill works really well, you just have to find a good way to rationalize it in game. For campaigns with alot of travel, this skill is invaluable, and making the PC pick specific regions to be trained in would nerf it to death.

    Just compare it to the other knowledge skills, nature is extremely useful and of comparative power, if you made the PC pick a particular terrain or region, then the skill is hardly worth the points. Would you make a player pick a specific plane for knowledge (planar)? Or a specific deity or sect for knowledge (religion)?

    Skills should be really useful so that the classes that get alot of skills get their time to shine.

    Matthew Koelbl wrote:

    Well... in the end, I guess it just comes down to an irreconcilable difference of opinion. You believe the complaints being lobbied don't have any foundation in reality, and are the product of incorrect assumptions or number-crunching divorced from actual play. Those of us with the complaints are basing them on our legitimate experiences with the system.

    I'm willing to accept that your experiences with 4E haven't been the same as mine - you don't seem willing to believe that other's experiences with 3rd Edition haven't been the same as yours. And... I mean, that's not a bad thing - it means you have enjoyed the game without running into problems and have a system you are happy with. But as long as you aren't able to accept that our experiences with the system aren't made up, or the result of misplaying the game, I don't think any common ground can be found in this discussion.

    I genuinely don't think you are trying to stir up trouble or anything. But if your view of 3rd Edition is literally that you can only love it or hate it - that there is no view in between for enjoying the game but feeling certain areas need improvement - then I honestly don't think we'll be able to come to any sort of agreement.

    Well for one, intent and tone is notoriously hard to convey in plain text. I think part of the problem is that you are taking what I said too literal, I am in no way attempting to discredit anyone's opinions or experiences, nor am I meaning to polarize, or create an argument.

    I actually enjoyed playing 4e, and understand the draw to it, and why people play it. I respect that choice, and if Pathfinder didn't come along, I may possibly be playing 4e right now. As for game balance though, I just don't think it is the most important thing in my system, which is why 3e works fine for me and my group.

    I was simply trying to state earlier, that often people make assumptions about 3e which simply seem exaggerated, or unfounded. I wasn't accusing anyone here of this, specifically. I know that if I were to generalize, or to accuse your favorite system of being "broken" or "not-balanced", you too would also have a similar reaction. By "You either love-it, or hate-it", I meant to say, weather you like a particular system or not is not important to the discussion of game balance.

    This is my concluding statement on this argument.

    Ravenot wrote:

    Grappling is worse, as it takes 2 successive grapple checks, 1 opposed grapple check, and two rounds to deal 6 to 8 damage.

    I thought opposed grapple checks are completely gone, all being rolled into CMD.

    PRD wrote:

    Performing a Combat Maneuver:
    When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

    And, for further detail:

    PRD wrote:


    As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices). If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

    Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.

    Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

    Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.

    Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.

    I made a monk that was grapple-master, and he rocks against anything his size, casters beware!
    The bite attack sounds like a good idea.

    Snakey wrote:

    I don't think it's like that, I think that sometimes, people who dislike 3e* tend to exaggerate certain qualities, and it shows either a lack of experience with the system, or an unfair bias. 3e isn't crap, you either like it or you don't, but many, many, many people still play it and love it. Alot of the complaints about balance, just aren't true, especially in play, and I think tend to come from misunderstanding, or vacuous number crunching.

    Is that better?

    Matthew Koelbl wrote:
    Lots of stuff, some of it a little hostile.

    Nothing I said was meant as an attack on anyone. I did not say anything that attacked you personally, or was overtly offensive. Nowhere did I say 4e is crap, on the contrary I made some points for and against. Or at least that was my intent. If you feel I said something personal, than I apologize, but asking me not to attack you or 4e, by attacking me and quoting me out of context is hypocritical.

    If you don't understand where I'm coming from, then read some of my earlier posts in this thread, you'll notice that I am in no way targeting people who play 4e, and in no way trying to put anyone down. I played 4e faithfully for a full year, that is 1-2 times a week, about 6 hours to a session, when it first came out. I am just trying to make a point on balance, which 4e has in spades, then I offered my opinion, which no one should ever feel threatened by.

    So, please cool it a little.

    PS: If I could go back and edit my last post to remove generalizations and things that could be misinterpreted, I would.

    Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

    Have you checked the errata recently? Usually anything really broken in 4E gets nerfed, Certainly I know that at least one very potent invoker power got nerfed in the last major update

    Beyond that I think you just might be in for a rocky road ahead if your description is accurate. Its tough to break the 4E system but your players seem to have managed it - I strongly suspect that if you have players hellbent on busting the system they are going to find that Pathfinder is paradise for that style of play since your rewarded for specialization. As a rule 3.x characters are a lot more powerful then 4E characters and there are a lot fewer caps on power. If the goal is to make the most brokenly powerful character, that is just easier to do in 3.x and its derivatives then in 4E.

    I'm guessing it was the power that got nerfed later, I have not checked the errata, but it was ridiculous. My players aren't power-gamers, they are role-players, the power itself must have been broken. That said, the goal is to create a concept for a character that has meaning and depth, that you can relate to and bring to life. So, in my opinion, more options is better.

    What's wrong with specialization? In order to be exceptional at one thing, you risk being deficient at another. You may choose to be good at a couple of things in place of raw, one sided power, and gain more flexibility. If all classes could do everything equally well, then why would we need so many?

    Strengths and weakness's represent hard-lined roleplaying criteria that represent a more realistic balance then the be-all, do-all, mish-mash that everyone seems to want. If I want to smash things better than everyone else, than yeah, I'll pay for it somewhere, most likely in versatility. The moral is, if you want to be the greatest at something, then you will always have to sacrifice something else.

    Matthew Koelbl wrote:
    A DM can mitigate the problems of the system. They shouldn't have to, of course, but they can. Sometimes. But when there is power disparity within the party itself, it gets really hard. How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

    This type of disparity NEVER will happen. Your example is way too extreme. What do you do when the party includes an Invoker who can lock all enemies into uselessness? How do challenge the group? How do you challenge a group of players that you can't ever kill?

    Seriously, I found it very hard to challenge my players in 4e. They nearly never died, and throwing really tough monsters at them just meant the battles took extra long, which they already do anyway. I had to make the Invoker player switch classes, because he could shut-down anything, making it useless, I had them fight a much higher level dragon, and he just shut it down, and the dragon just shut them down, and the thing ended in a drawn-out stalemate that was exhausting.

    Matthew Koelbl wrote:
    SirUrza wrote:
    Paul Worthen wrote:
    What I mean is that in 3rd edition, making a few bad choices or playing the wrong class put you behind the power curve very, very quickly.
    Sweet! Power curves! It's awesome D&D doesn't have a flesh and blood, living DM who's job it is to evaluate what the PCs can handle and run adventure according.. wait...

    A DM can mitigate the problems of the system. They shouldn't have to, of course, but they can. Sometimes. But when there is power disparity within the party itself, it gets really hard. How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

    I'm really not sure what you're objecting to, here. Obviously the system worked for you. That's cool - that's great even! And obviously you don't like 4E and don't feel the changes were needed. But others clearly did, and are expressing the reasons for that right in this thread, both based on the principles of the game and their own personal experiences. Is it really that hard to accept that other people had these issues with the game and prefer a system that addresses them?

    I don't think it's like that, I think that everyone who dislikes 3e* tends to exaggerate certain qualities, and it shows either a lack of experience with the system, or an unfair bias. 3e isn't crap, you either like it or you don't, but many, many, many people still play it and love it. Alot of the complaints about balance, just aren't true, especially in play, and I think tend to come from misunderstanding, or vacuous number crunching.

    The problem with number-crunching 3e is, the balance of multi-faceted systems and subsystems is hard to quantify, and any mathematical conclusions drawn can only be true on paper, and fall apart totally during play...there are just too many factors, and relationships. The GM and the human element in 3e kills number experiments by the time they hit actual play. So, while true on paper, not so much in play.

    I can say that people who dislike 4e do the same thing. 4e's math is mostly simple and obvious, it is not complex to crunch, and is hard to break. What you see is what you get, and player choices are all relatively the same power, save for a few broken powers here and there. The options players get to choose though, can lack real impact, feats are subtle little tweaks and there is not much danger of accidentally miss-choosing something, powers are all scaled to each-other closely, so everyone and everything has equal opportunity.

    The problem with this, though, is that while a very forgiving system, 4e lacks the depth of 3e's labyrinthine options and builds. In 3e you can really build a character EXACTLY how you want them, while in 4e you are really pigeon-holed with very limited options. Both good and bad, on the one hand, in 4e you nearly never have to worry about balance, on the other hand, you just don't have as much control of things. One axe- wielding fighter is pretty much the same as another mechanically.

    4e, great game that plays well with little effort right out of the box, but lacks that familiar depth of D&D. 3e, great game that keeps the tradition alive with tons of options, and complex mechanics that make for a believable and in-depth experience.

    To each his own...

    *Note: All instances of "3e" refer mainly to 3.5 and Pathfinder.

    1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>