Snallygaster's page

I make up DCs all the time. Right on the spot. I generally write my games from scratch, and if it isn't something I thought of in my notes, obviously I have to make up the DC when the player wants to do it. I generally do 10 for something simple, 15 for a fairly average act of prowess, 20 for somewhat tough things, and so on. The game basically demands this on occasion.

However, I don't artificially inflate the DC of a task that a player should be able to accomplish on a certain roll just to synthesize drama that should come from good encounter design and compelling narrative elements.

That's bad, son. That's real bad.

Snallygaster wrote:

...

5. If you want to really squeeze out more sneak attack damage, might I suggest the knife master archetype? They get d8 sneak attack dice instead of d6 when using daggers.
...

Not core, sadly.

Neither is Ninja Trick, for that matter. Ninjas are definitely non-core. Weapon training is a good idea, though. You need all the bonuses you can get, and Weapon Focus(Dagger) is a straight +1 to all your rolls. . .

Look man they're rogue talents I don't have much to work with here cut me some slack I'm trying to keep the guy from standing up as a free action while holding his breath.

But yes, it would certainly be helpful to know if "core" means the CRB or the core line of books.

*catches breath*

6. What frequently helps me is to come up with a clear design idea irrespective of the class system, and then use the class that best fits my idea for a character and their abilities. You might find that when you have your character idea fleshed out that he'd make a better bard than a rogue, or a better barbarian than a fighter.

7. On the flip side of that, don't let class abilities hamper your creativity. Remember, you can flavor your abilities basically however you want. A trained soldier can be a fighter just as easily as he can be a barbarian.

Ok I'm done. Back to Bloodborne.

I have a few things here, so I'm just going to put them in an artless laundry list. For qualification, I'm covered in salt, work in demolition, and I've made at least one rogue that I was sober for.

1. It's been brought up at least once, but I can't stress enough how much you want to use the Pathfinder Unchained rogue over the standard rogue. It's a pure upgrade, and it is far, far more functional than the standard rogue. There's no game balance reason your GM shouldn't let you use it. Pathfinder Unchained also upgraded a number of rogue talents that were otherwise lacking. The best part? The class is totally compatible with everything the standard rogue is compatible with. The rogue unchained makes me happy.

2. The nature of the rogue's sneak attack class feature means two things: You want to get a lot of attacks and you want to be flanking ALL THE TIME. ALL TIME. EVER TIME. FLANK TIME ALL TIME DO FLANK FLANK. Sneak attack doesn't have a use limit, and you get it every time you're in the situation to get it, so you want to get it with every attack you possibly can. This is why rogues do well with two weapon fighting, as they get extra attacks. They can stack up all that sneak attack damage. The decrease in accuracy from two weapon fighting is basically offset by the extra damage dice from sneak attack. What's more, when two weapon fighting, you want to use two of the same weapon because any weapon specific bonuses (like weapon focus) will apply to both of them. Talk to the guy who plays the fighter (or barbarian or cavalier or whatever. The guy who beats things up) and come up with some strategies to work in tandem so you can get into flanking positions better. See if he's willing to take the outflank teamwork feat with you for an extra bonus while flanking. Talk to your wizard or cleric or druid and get him to summon things opposite your target. For extra shenanigans, get him to summon something with trip. Hell, you might want to take the improved trip line yourself if you're willing to take the awful combat expertise feat. Tripping things makes them far more vulnerable to melee attacks, and they provoke attacks of opportunity when they get up.

3. Don't take powerful sneak or deadly sneak. As Admiral Akbar said, "IT'S A TRAP!" Do take combat trick, weapon training, and ninja trick. Those are nice. You want to be as accurate as possible. If you go for the rogue unchained, you can achieve this through debilitating your opponent. If you go for the standard rogue, you should squeeze out every bonus to hit that you can.

4. Use your skills to support your party as best you can. Rogues are ok in combat, they can do some heavy damage, but you want to use your skills as much as possible to keep your party out of danger and help them work their way around obstacles. Keep your perception skill maxed out. The ability to notice things is extremely important, and you'll be using perception more than any other skill.

5. If you want to really squeeze out more sneak attack damage, might I suggest the knife master archetype? They get d8 sneak attack dice instead of d6 when using daggers.

*out of breath*

???

Snallygaster? Is there something about the Spontaneous casting mechanic you don't like?

The only thing the wizard had going for him is being able to change out spells and having an unlimited amount of spells in a tome. To me, it isn't enough to make up for the amnesia that he suffers from.

I notice you didn't mention the Cleric...

I didn't mention cleric because the cleric is a pretty good wizard. One class feature, nine spell levels.

Also I'm just messing around and I don't believe anything I say.

You can be a crappier wizard.

Just like every other class.

Sorcerer? Crappy wizard.
Bard? Crappy wizard with a lute.
Occultist? Crappy wizard that hoards shiny things like a crow.
Rogue? Extremely crappy wizard.
Fighter? Worst possible wizard. Doesn't even get spells.

A small thing that came up after I let my players use the ACG. The Wild Whisperer druid's wild shape ability is extraordinary, rather than supernatural. The wild whisperer is just so good at pretending to be various animals that there is no practical difference between them and an actual member of the species they're pretending to be.

And you know what? It's still there after the errata.

And the errata for the archetype had a major grammatical error.

We're going for this. Elhorn of Baltim can wild shape in an anti magic field now.

Let's see let's see let's see.

Bladebound Magus
Vivisectionist Alchemist
Invulnerable Rager Barbarian
Qinggong Monk
Archaeologist bard

Honorable mention goes to that wizard archetype in Cohorts and Companions that lets you replace your arcane bond with another wizard. Not because it's particularly well-written or flavorful, but in terms of power upgrades the only way to make the wizard more powerful was just to give him another wizard.

In my set of house rules, combat expertise is just a thing you can do (that nobody does), and it isn't a prerequisite for any feat. I got rid of intelligence requirements for combat feats, as well.

I guess in PFS you're out of luck, but I mean yeah...I don't know anybody who doesn't think combat expertise is stupid and useless and indicative of a major flaw in the feat system.

I can only encourage anyone with gamer connectivity issues to check out roll20.net.

After I moved to the other side of the country recently I tried it and it's quickly grown on me to evolve from a crutch to keep things going to a in many regards next-level experience of tabletop gaming.

Oh absolutely. I don't know what I'd do without roll20.net now. I have a player in Australia, one in Alabama, another in New York, one in Texas, and one in Colorado. It's more than just a substitute for an actual tabletop. The tools it provides are incredible.

I haven't gotten to the point of reading the final shaman thoroughly, but I was worried about this during the second playtest. The witch is probably my favorite 9th level caster, and if it is true that the shaman outshines the witch, I don't think it would be impractical to let them take hexes from one another.

I've read this thread from beginning to end, and if there's one thing I have realized, it's that Paizo needs a community manager with a license to leap into angry threads and fight scathing dialog with even more scathing dialog. A former crab fisherman or maybe a lumberjack or a prospector who barely knows how to use the Internet hired specifically to spout out barely legible harangues and textually beat into submission any uppity gamer who dares ask for something nice for mundane martials. And they'll pay him in giant bricks of salt and bottles of amphetamines. Maybe one day that man will be me. A snallygaster can dream.

I generally don't consider it that much of a problem when my players get some idea of what a creature's AC is, or what its other stats are. These things are largely abstractions, but it can be written off as the player characters making judgment calls based on empirical knowledge. For instance, the fast guy might be hard to hit, or the giant guy with the hammer can probably mess up my brain case pretty easily. Or a sorcerer who drinks a potion without any obvious effect could very well have just made his spells more potent. As long as there's some in game rationale for it, you shouldn't let it bother you too much.

I suppose if you really wanted to obfuscate the numbers, you could deviate from bestiary entries, put individual variances on groups of the same monster, keep most of the dice rolls directed at you through skype, and curtain your own dice rolls.

Some more info would be helpful. Of course if he's just being a grump about things because he thinks the GM is trying to murder him and all his friends, then it sounds like there might be a little bit of a trust problem on his end.