Spartakos's page

To me, nothing is cheesy unless it twists/perverts the way the game should function.

If you build a superfast horse archer who can kite anything in the Bestiary, you're being cheesy.

If you take abilities that are balanced by having drawbacks and then make yourself immune to the drawbacks (immunity to fatigue is a common one), you are being cheesy.

If you make an elf with Profession: Whatever and say that you spend the last 50 years making profession checks, so you should start with a ton of extra gold, you are being cheesy.

Slavery (meaning the ownership of a human being, or the fantasy equivalent of such) is evil, regardless of how the slaves are treated. Respect for others and their rights of self-ownership and self-determination is part of being good, and slavery is automatically treating people with a lack of such respect.

Remember, D&D (including pathfinder, as I understand it) is not one of subjective morality: things are objectively good or evil, and can be readily identified as such by spells. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself good: in my world, if you keep slaves, you are evil, and Detect Evil and Smite Evil will show this.

How can you say that CE is useless and that trading attack bonus for AC for a fighter is bad?

Have you ever played a role play game?

Only for 20 years. I'm assuming that was an honest request for information, not a veiled insult (i.e. "STFU NOOB, U don't know what ur talking about").

Have I made characters that took CE? Sure. But not many, and in all honesty, I just started playing PF recently, so I'm less familiar with their version. The only time I've seen it used to good effect is combined with Deadly Defense from Complete Scoundrel (which was an awesome feat).

There is an infinitive number of situations in which CE is useful. If not for the 13 Int requisite, almost every full-BAB character would take it. There is a time for smashing DR with PA; there is a time to hold the line with CE.

"Infinite".

If you seriously think that "every full BAB character would take it", I can only assume you're trolling me. With the incredible variety of feats available, I don't think I can name any that "every full BAB" guy would take. Not even Power Attack, which is much better than CE.

I think combat expertise should give +1 AC compared to what it does now. That's enough. I don't think it's horribly bad, I've seen it used to good effect especially for half-warriors to survive for a round or two. My issue with it is that before BAB +4 it's basically a much worse Dodge.

So with +1 AC compared to now, I think it'll do fine.

I'd compare it to Power Attack, personally...perhaps give +3 AC per -2 penalty, or +2 per -1 if using a shield. Progression would go something like...

1 BAB: +1 for -1 (+2 for -1 with shield)
4 BAB: +3 for -2 (+4 for -2)
8 BAB: +4 for -3 (+6 for -3)
12 BAB: +6 for -4 (+8 for -4)
16 BAB: +7 for -5 (+10 for -5)
20 BAB: +9 for -6 (+12 for -6)

Of course, I'm given to understand that Paizo has some sort of policy against high AC bonuses (I mean, they nerfed Elaborate Parry of all ridiculous things...).

If you don't want the bonus to get outrageous, perhaps instead of cranking up the bonus as the penalty steadily gets bigger, simply increase the bonus modestly but the penalty more slowly?

Why is it that I see SO many debates on these forums that go something like this:

"If you follow this interpretation of the rules, than the game is more fun. If you believe in--and follow--the other, then it takes away from the game."

"That doesn't matter. MY interpretation is the correct one. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong."

I would think that if two or more interpretations were possible, people would simply choose the one that most enhances the game, or is the most fun, or takes the LEAST away from it.

That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.

Just. Why?

Because when someone claims that an interpretation will "make the game less fun", they are making a subjective claim.

When someone claims that an interpretation is in line with the literal wording of the rules, they are making an (allegedly) objective claim.

I believe it is easier for people to agree on what is right than what is fun.

Not to mention...for some (maybe many) people, being right IS fun. :)

Based on non-heroic NPC stat arrays, one in six Commoners has sufficient INT to qualify for Combat Expertise, before racial modifiers. Once you start adding in racial mods, the number goes up as one sixth of humans/half-humans have their +2 in INT. Additionally, fully half of Elf Commoners meet the requirement.

A human farmer could easily have Improved Trip at first level.

I'm sorry, what was your argument again?

That I don't understand why a guy with 12 Int can't learn jujutsu. I still don't.

If your point was simply that "a lot of people have above average Int"...I'm really not sure what you're arguing. My question is why only those people can learn how to trip guys.

@Donovan Lynch, toppling spell blows. Ask RavingDork. Loss.

*shrug* Haven't looked at Toppling spell. My "win" was mainly that people think you need to be a genius to stick a guisarme between somebody's legs, but someone dumber than that can learn to make fire come out of their hands. It's a bit absurd.

Divine power was severely neutered from 3e. It no longer ups your BAB, so you'd still be nerfing the ever loving crap out of a class

You're asking me to cry for Clerics? Seriously?

Gyarados. :)