Search Posts
I would hope so. I glossed over OP's last post. "This time we probably will be" is pretty clear, so I am become fart. Yeah, when resiliency is on the short list for best core rogue talents, there's a problem. But I don't want to turn this into a rogue problems thread. Which is what everyone says before every rogue problems thread. *glances at popcorn*
I think the only lich I ever included in a campaign was a former king who faked his death and became a lich so he could hide away in his burial chamber writing the longest and most epic poem ever. The poem was so epic and mind-blowing that anybody who read it would take intelligence drain as their mind tried to collate the fabulousness therein. He also had a bunch of marut heads mounted on the wall of his room.
Yeah I mean, you know, I'm basically bothered by everything now. For awhile, I thought my medicine wasn't working as well anymore, but now I'm pretty sure it was the advanced class guide errata. But thanks, OP, now I know one more thing to avoid in the pipe dream system I'm writing with some friends. One build classes. That's good.
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.
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*
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.
I do have a rationale for that, and I struggled with it for a good while to determine if it was what I wanted to do. Dumping INT is such a common thing for the fighter in a point buy (barring goofy builds that require combat expertise) that I figured with 4+int the average fighter was still only going to have 2 or 3 skill points per level. Furthermore, I expanded the fighter's skill list to include a couple of knowledges, as well as acrobatics and stealth (things he might actually be able to do given my buff to armor training). I figured the fighter should be a more measured barbarian; someone who has been trained, a soldier, you know? Lastly, (and I don't wanna get into complaining about caster martial disparity here) I think I could have just said "At 17th level all of the fighter's skills are considered to be arbitrarily high" and gotten away with it without causing too much of a power imbalance. I'm also working on expanding the utility of skills, but that's a project with a much longer term. Edit: Also thank you!
I've been working on a full rewrite, but I haven't posted it to the boards yet because I'm not entirely ready. I tried to shore up the fighter's defenses without gimping their ability to do damage while at the same time giving them some skill utility. Weapon training starts at level 1, now, and increases at 5 and every 5 levels thereafter. (Translation: Now you can take a 1 level dip for something other than a combat feat!) Bravery has been replaced with dauntless, which begins as a +2 against mind affecting effects and increases by +1 at the same rate as bravery. Eventually this gets capped by the "indomitable" ability, which allows the fighter to roll twice and take the higher result on all mind-affecting effects. Armor training now increases max dex, decreases the penalty, and provides a higher armor bonus to your AC. At 9th level I gave him the inquisitor's stalwart ability, and then at 13th I gave him a +4 to saves against death effects, negative energy, and energy drain, though I'm not sure what I'm calling that yet. And then to increase his skill utility I beefed his skill points per level up to 6+int (Let's face it, you're still going to dump int), and I gave him the abilities "Soldiering life", "Second nature", and "Tactics". Cumulatively, these allow the fighter to select skills that he can use his profession (soldier) modifier in place of (which he receives a bonus on equal to 1/2 his fighter level), and he can also assume an automatic twenty so many times per day, much like the bard's lore master ability. It seems to be working out well so far, but I've yet to test it in high level play.
I like the system on which Pathfinder is based, but I consider the game's uh, glory days I guess you'd call them, to be a happy accident. I think we've all gotten to see Paizo's gooey underbelly a lot lately, and it makes me distrust them to some extent. I've been running the same campaign for two years now, and I don't want to throw that away just because I'm disenchanted with the company that makes the game, but when my game finally wraps up, I don't think I'll be purchasing more PF material or playing it all that often. Onto greater things, I reckon.
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.
I always figured that dragons just ate spacetime or whatever. Plenty of spacetime around.
Let's see let's see let's see. Bladebound Magus
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'm really bad about this sort of thing. I just let my players switch things out at every level up, the only cost being that they have to write why and how they're doing it in game, so they have to maintain some degree of internal consistency. It actually seems to enrich the story being told though, so I'm good with it.
I was going to say mosquito swarms in particular are really irritating but this thread seems to have become a different monster than the one I was initially reading so... Ima just...back away...slowly...
Yeah I came across that while helping a player reroll his ranger. Blatant contradiction. Hit FAQ for you.
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.
Yeah, in practice I've had a lot of mixed experiences with tabletop games in general. The players that are as dedicated as I am have been problematic and irritating to be around, and the ones who aren't, well, that problem's obvious. I've got a pretty big audience on a Tumblr blog I put my writing on, so for my latest game I just recruited from my followers (mostly other writers), and threw people at the game until I got a group that stuck. I've been running the game for about nine months and I've probably been through ten players. Fortunately, most of the current six who play have been around since the beginning, but the crappy ones were boiled out in the agonizingly slow play by post crucible.
I. . .I don't think so?
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.
Not legal, unfortunately. Even when it seems like the two archetypes wouldn't step on each others' toes, if they both alter the same class feature in any way, they're incompatible.
I rolled a four armed flying purple people vivisecting alchemist as a boss encounter awhile back, and he would have worked excellently had he not been critted out of the sky and drowned in a river. I don't think the bloodrager is going to sweat it too much. He's probably not committed to the idea enough to dip, but the polymorph spells could become an option later. I offered rebuilds for my players when the ACG came out, and now the Gaggle of Disreputable Death Vagrants consists mostly of spellcasters.
I'm having a comet fall and change everything.
Thank you. I was thinking that it was a two way street and he'd lose them regardless of the attack order.
One of my players recently rebuilt his barbarian as an abyssal bloodrager. Naturally, he got two claws from his bloodline. He is built to fight with two handed weapons, which would normally cause him to forgo those claw attacks. However, he argues that with a called weapon, he could conceivably do both attacks, call his weapon as a swift action, then do his greatsword attack. Does this fly? Does making his natural attacks with both of his hands while they're free cause him to forgo his weapon attack? I'm leaning toward yes, but I'm not totally sure of what to make of it.
Obviously they're heavy with the weight of their racial avarice. Not sure what that means for the tengu.
lol how dare they take away our clerical kaiju. Don't worry about it, fella. The cleric, sorcerer, oracle, witch, and wizard will always be 9th level casters even if the arcanist has an edge over them. And in a larger context that counts for a lot. I was worried about the arcanist once, but eh, I don't think it's enough to warrant fear.
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.
Most recently, I kicked out a player for routinely no showing sessions and refusing to commit any of her time to learning how to play her class or the game in general. To provide an example, after several months of gameplay, she was still somewhat foggy on how to make an attack roll, or how channel energy works (She was playing a cleric of Pharasma). First I threatened to kick her out if she didn't improve her playing habits. This generally didn't go over well with the rest of my players because they were capable of things such as "mercy" and "love", so I let her slide on the promise that she'd step up her game. I did my best to be a diplomat about it, telling her I'd spend any amount of time necessary to help her improve, and that it was a good GM's job to make sure their players aren't having problems. And that wasn't just talk. I would have done whatever needed to be done. For a week or so, she did much better (which suggested that it was certainly within her power to at lease be passable), but after that she fell back into her old habits. She had been playing so poorly for so long that my players were getting tired of her themselves. She was seriously hampering the pace of the game, so I gave her a final ultimatum. Shape up or bow out. We had a long talk, and I was stupefied by what she told me. She was apparently under the impression that she was only to make her character do something when the GM explicitly told her to act. According to her, she didn't know that she could roleplay of her own initiative. After clearing that up, I thought everything would be ok. But it totally wasn't. After all that I just had to face the music that she was just a bad player, so I dropped her and gave her cleric to the guy who plays the barbarian. Whew that was long-winded. But yeah if I had any advice to give, it would be to be polite and tolerant and understanding if you have a problem player. Communicate with them and see if there's a solution to whatever problem may be. However, don't let your willingness to work with them stop you from doing what needs to be done if it in fact does need to be done.
Qaa Chirlan, a chaotic neutral forlon elven bard who made a living as a school teacher before going mad and taking up a sword and a shamisen to go adventuring. Qaa wasn't right in the head because he had lived for a hundred years watching the stupid children grow up to be stupid adults and then die. His work was thankless and he only derived joy out of the deaths of the former students he didn't like. His build was focused on being the party encyclopedia and buffer. Wasn't much of a fighter, Qaa. Then there was Son Houzi, a chaotic neutral vanaran martial artist monk/savage barbarian. I was reading Journey to the West at the time. Houzi was the self-appointed leader of a tribe of Vanara who lived in a jungle that was being slashed and burned by a more modern civilization. Houzi, believing that he was his village's only hope, set off into the world in search of a legendary stone city that traveled through the clouds. Little did he know that the elder of his people made the story up to get rid of him. Houzi was kind of an idiot like that. Then there was Jeremiah Underwood, a neutral human preacher inquisitor. Jeremiah traveled under the guise of a salesman, but he wasn't very good at it. He was secretly an agent of a Norgorber worshiping cult dedicated to keeping secrets of a magical nature. Jeremiah's job was to track down magical artifacts and either destroy or contain them before they could fall into the wrong hands. Jeremiah wasn't a good man, but he did good things, though they were usually a peripheral benefit of his cause.
Think of it this way, OP. Does a doctor just treat ailments that have already happened, or does he provide preventative care as well? You'd argue that they're both important things to take care of and you'd be right, but treating ailments in a reactive way is inferior to ensuring they don't occur in the first place. In a way, buffing is the same thing as healing. Think of your shield of faith or your heroism as preventative care rather than suturing a wound. I prefer playing healers too. Buffing is just part of the job.
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. |
