Sunnysideup's page

12 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Sunnysideup wrote:
Mechanics will stay the same for enemies using the spells, any situation where this change would make or break an encounter, it wouldn’t because those enemies would potentially be using this against you.
I've heard the "It's not unbalanced because the GM can do it back to you" argument before and I've never found it convincing. Let's say I pass a ruling (for the sake of logical consistency) that means "Reduce Person" doubles the damage output of an archer. Sure, the bad guys could in theory use that on the party, but only when there's an archer and an arcane caster working together. Unless the GM is going to rewrite the campaign around this spell, this won't affect the party in more than 5% of battles. Meanwhile, the party could use it to double their damage output in 100% of battles.

On top of what the other dude said, the change doesn’t break the game at all. It’s barely a notable amount of damage, by no means game breaking.

Daw wrote:

Actually if you are pretending to play at physics, you need to consider conservation of momentum, which all these weight and enlargement spells don't. The reduced missile slows down when it enlarges, this may be counterintuitive for some, but unless we are talking on object that can crush you with it's weight alone, or somehow waits to enlarge after it has penetrated, it will do less damage. Same with heavy weapons and similar things. If you throw out conservation of momentum, then you frankly have no basis for even semi realistic combat at all.

Now if you have an enlarged object shrinking in flight, it goes faster, and does more damage, again possibly counterintuitively, look up discard sabot ammunition if you want the specifics on this, or are just interested in the physics, so the realistic damage edge favors the enlarged archer, not the reduced archer, so for you physics wonks balance remains.

Since rather a lot of your tables will resist physics in favor of partial and psuedo-physics, you are better off just sticking to the rules as written, or go look at one of those overly complex physics based systems, some are actually quite elegant if you like that sort of thing, but I rather expect most of us won't have fun with them, and combat will be about as slow going as your average science seminar. It is rather a matter of pride getting through a fight, but unlikely to inspire a repeat for most.

This is a really long post addressing something no one said.

blahpers wrote:

It's justified by balance considerations. Whether one agrees that balance trumps consistency in this instance is a matter of opinion.

Not really. Mechanics will stay the same for enemies using the spells, any situation where this change would make or break an encounter, it wouldn’t because those enemies would potentially be using this against you.

Captain Zoom wrote:

5 year raise dead spell. Well done


These spells are stupid for this reason, being consistent within a universe is important. It’s the same magic, doing the same thing, the rules should be the same. No matter how you look at it, the differences aren’t justified.

Our party houseruled the size of the projectile dictates damage because these spells are stupid.

Yeah dude... you’re trying to nerf a massive class mechanic that specifically covers things like this via tricks for what? What you’re talking about is not allowing to have combat trained animal companions when the rules literally cover this. If you think it’s too powerful adjust your encounter CR.

I am kind of liking the archer idea... I usually get so buffer up with enhanced cars grace and reduce person that my AC is well under what it should be because of my armor. I’ll definitley look into that. I have thought of doing ranger with the skirmished archetype or fighter just for the feats and to become better at sniping.

Oh but the group does lack splash damage, I was planning on attempting to remedy it by mounting a culverin to my worgs armor and having him be the platform.

He has kind of a special forces feel to him, I’ve been out sniping and sabotaging armies as well as leading full on charges on horseback into the enemies face. I took the musket master archetype.

The thing I don’t like about him is that he brings little utility outside of scouting and survival, he just shoots everything like a tiny turret. Going into cavalier is giving him a bit of utility with teamwork feat and order of the paw,

Definitely dumped strength. I’m at 8/18/12/12/16/14 for my stat lineup. I’ve kind of formed him into a sniper as well.

Figure out what they’re bad at and pressure it.

We have a 6 man party with a war priest that protects me(gunslinger) while we have a few buff characters and a rogue. We can take down big baddies fairly easily but have issues with larger groups of small enemies, and after losing our psionic healer have issues with cleave damage.

An old man who is going through an end life crisis, and uses his eidolon as a suit to do the adventuring he never got to do in his youth. So synthesist.

I have a halfling gunslinger who’s the leader of a dragoon/scout unit as the marshal in our kingmaker campaign. My GM is letting me use leadership to use a Worg puppy I found as a mount, basing the mount level off of my leadership value over the cavalier level, so after 3 levels of luring cavalier I’m not interested in much more that the class has to offer.

His role in the party when adventuring is the scout/navigator. But he also has his marshal duties to the kingdom when not adventuring. I’d like him to remain a non caster, so what would be some cool class/archetypes that would be pretty synergetic be?