Mesmalatu

TheDailyLunatic's page

102 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

TheDailyLunatic wrote:

Pardon thread necro:

They ARE compatible. It's not like charge and full attack... it's more like the Alchemist's Explosive Missile, which says that you load and fire as a standard action (EVEN IF you're using a crossbow or firearm which normally requires an additional action to load).

Same thing here... a railgun can be used with Dead Shot by a Techslinger with Heavy Weaponry Deeds. The difference is that you attack a single target as per DS rather than a line as per RG. The rules for one supplant the rules for the other.

That said, I don't believe a Heavy Weapon Harness allows this. It only allows you to wield them as firearms, not use them as firearms for deeds like the techslinger. Open to interpretation, though.

After DM'ing many sessions with a techslinger... I totally changed my mind. Dead Shot rail gun is extremely, ridiculously OP. Even without dead shot, it chews through encounters like crazy.

My justification for changing my mind: the rail gun is a line attack and NOT a precision attack. Therefore it ignores concealment, but can't be used with precision attacks such as sneak, deadly aim, dead shot etc.


alexd1976 wrote:

We have always just used Leadership and allowed for monsters, using CR as level.

Subject to GM approval, naturally.

Actually, you should be using CR+1 as level, considering that NPC's CR without PC gear is Level - 1. Also, your cohorts should never have PC-level gear.

With my houserule... In order to keep the power level of this feat in line with Leadership... I'd probably apply a CHA 15 prereq or else everyone would be running around with hippogriff clerics or leucrotta sorcerers or giant owl wizards or what have you.

Also, for creatures with INT>2, you should be within one step of their alignment.


Seriously, it's implied that nobody enters a mindscape physically with mindscape door... but it's not explicitly stated. If it's true, then where do you exit and who's the conduit if it's permanent? Does it always take you back to the same place? If it's not... then you have that goofy situation where you cast a funky door spell and everyone who goes through gets stupid then flops in a pile.

Also... "Typically, a mindscape door operates in both directions, but you can create it as a one-way door if you so choose" but "You still designate who can use the door from the real world to get into the mindscape, but you can't prevent creatures within the mindscape from exiting to the real world." Is it possible to trap someone with a 1-way door or not?

I'm guessing that the images you control don't do actual damage... but I have no proof of that. There are zero explained rules on how combat works in mindscapes that aren't binary psychic duels.

Seriously, these rules need mega clarification. Also... they need an explanation of what the hell they're good for. What is the point of having a goofy vivid dream space? I can think of moderately effective uses for communication, deception, combat etc. (looks like it can't be used for travel or physical safety) but ALL of them could be more easily and safely accomplished with other spells.


Duncan Forsyth wrote:

So ... immersive harmful mindscapes ... such as created by 'Create Mindscape' ... 4th level spell for a psychic ...

It's an illusion which allows for real damage to be done. So it makes me think of spells like Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation. But those spells have very clear limits, and Create Mindscape, doesn't seem to.

Other than Rule 0, what's to stop my ever-ingenenious players declaring that:

... their target is immersed in lava (20d6/round), while the caster stands at the volcano's edge?
... their one believable creature is the tarrasque, who immediately attacks at (+37, 4d8+15) ?

I wondered if I should use the Psychic Manifestation rules to handle such attempts ... but they're very explicit about those being used only in a binary mindscape, not an immersive one.

What text am I missing that will give me a handle on this?

Seriously, there is a giant hole here where specific rules should be. One question I have:

How the hell does Mindscape Door work? You create an illusory door and everyone who walks through... just becomes a vegetable? The party walks through the door and just fall into a pile? Do following members see this? What the hell is the point?


My DM thoughts:
Monstrous companion totally blows. Fiercely. A level 10 druid with Leadership and an Animal Companion has 2 effectively CR6 minions, for a combined CR8. Math: an NPC with 7 PC levels -1 for NPC equipment and an animal with 9 hit dice per monster creation table.

If the very same druid uses this dumb feat to swap for a Hippogriff with ECL 6... you get a CR2 creature. What the actual eff?

My thoughts: ignore the text on the feat and just say you can swap your Comp for a monster on the list with CR of up to your Level-2, with class levels for the remainder. That way it's literally the same as taking a cohort, but you get one buddy instead of 2. If it's unbalancing, add in CHA math or something.


My DM thoughts:
Monstrous companion totally blows. Fiercely. A level 10 druid with Leadership and an Animal Companion has 2 effectively CR6 minions, for a combined CR8. Math: an NPC with 7 PC levels -1 for NPC equipment and an animal with 9 hit dice per monster creation table.

If the very same druid uses this dumb feat to swap for a Hippogriff with ECL 6... you get a CR2 creature. What the actual eff?

My thoughts: ignore the text on the feat and just say you can swap your Comp for a monster on the list with CR of up to your Level-2, with class levels for the remainder. That way it's literally the same as taking a cohort, but you get one buddy instead of 2. If it's unbalancing, add in CHA math or something.


My DM thoughts:
Monstrous companion totally blows. Fiercely. A level 10 druid with Leadership and an Animal Companion has 2 effectively CR6 minions, for a combined CR8. Math: an NPC with 7 PC levels -1 for NPC equipment and an animal with 9 hit dice per monster creation table.

If the very same druid uses this dumb feat to swap for a Hippogriff with ECL 6... you get a CR2 creature. What the actual eff?

My thoughts: ignore the text on the feat and just say you can swap your Comp for a monster on the list with CR of up to your Level-2, with class levels for the remainder. That way it's literally the same as taking a cohort, but you get one buddy instead of 2. If it's unbalancing, add in CHA math or something.


Thread necro to note:

Any time you're wish-binding, I strongly recommend using the rules from Legacy of Fire AP. I'd rule that all successful wish-binding requires the diplomacy/knowledge/charisma system in there.

My feelings: if they're hardcore enough to convince a genie to give a wish (with all the dangers that entails) and take the time to negotiate (it could take DAYS OR WEEKS) and pay them appropriately (often the cost calculation will EXCEED the material cost of the Wish spell)... why the hell not give them one?

Any treantmonk style curse/charm/whatever stuff will result in automatic cosmic wish badness.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole discussion really is pedantic.

Balance:
Beast shape II is a 3rd level spell. This feat allows you to use that spell for the dumbest reason possible --> to become a Tiny animal without flight.

It's really not unbalanced. You lose spellcasting even with natural spell, wild armor doesn't qualify, your only attack is a 1d3 bite, you provoke aoo's when you attack medium creatures and the only specials you get are +4 acrobatics/scent. I guess you can fit through really small holes. Whoop de doo.

Being a Kitsune:
The feat requires you to be a kitsune and specifies that you turn from kitsune to a fox. Racial heritage means you ARE a kitsune as far as race is concerned.

Flavor:
Racial heritage means you have the heritage of a particular race. I see no reason why heritage of a particular race wouldn't give you superficial traits (not a capitalized Racial Trait) of that race or allow you certain abilities of that race (for instance... a tail, not to get into the kobold discussion torpedoed by some random designer talking smack).

Many forms:
The feat does not require you to have many forms. It requires you to be a kitsune, which racial heritage allows you to be considered as. That is fluff text.

Bite:
The feat does not require you to have a bite. If you do have a bite, you lose it and gain the standard fox 1d3 bite (JUST LIKE NORMAL).

Changing back:
This is really moronic. You don't need to speak in order to dismiss a self-polymorph spell. Even if you needed verbal components to dismiss Beast Shape (which is ridiculous), you don't need them for Fox Shape because it's an SLA and not a spell.

Shapechanger subtype:
Shapeshifter rangers, druids and shapechanging transmuter wizards don't get the subtype. Pretty much nobody does. I see no reason why not getting the shapechanger subtype is OMGMUNCHKINEXPLOITWIN.

Lawl:
I'd rule that realistic likeness works with Racial Heritage and Fox Shape... but only to impersonate specific foxes =P


Chemlak wrote:

Perhaps the most common house rule in the Ultimate Campaign rules is to allow settlement magic items to exceed the gp value for the settlement.

As mentioned, this was altered as a double-whammy (alongside no selling items for BP) to reduce runaway economies, but many people consider it a step too far.

Now, if you do houserule it (and most GMs will, and indeed should, in my opinion), one word of advice: be ruthlessly and scrupulously impartial on randomly determining the items to go in the slots. Never succumb to "ugh, another potion, boring, I'll roll again". If it gets rolled, it goes in the slot. It's up to the players to decide whether to clear that slot for something else. Remember, there's only a 50% chance per district that one slot in that district will be filled each month. It can take quite a while for slots to get filled.

Absolutely agreed. Now the only thing I'm using base value for is for settlement quality bonuses like Strategic Location. Tempted to have base value set as a minimum (some of the kingdom's cities have ZERO base value... which strains credulity).


Pardon thread necro:

They ARE compatible. It's not like charge and full attack... it's more like the Alchemist's Explosive Missile, which says that you load and fire as a standard action (EVEN IF you're using a crossbow or firearm which normally requires an additional action to load).

Same thing here... a railgun can be used with Dead Shot by a Techslinger with Heavy Weaponry Deeds. The difference is that you attack a single target as per DS rather than a line as per RG. The rules for one supplant the rules for the other.

That said, I don't believe a Heavy Weapon Harness allows this. It only allows you to wield them as firearms, not use them as firearms for deeds like the techslinger. Open to interpretation, though.


Thread necro:
This rule is extremely mind-numbingly stupid, and runs completely counter to the standard settlement rules.

Also, it really annoys me when I look through these forums and find snark from a dev. Too many magic items was only a problem when they could be farmed for BP. Now that that's gone, this is a completely unnecessary kneecap to item purchasing.

I mean... how the hell is any character supposed to buy a major magic item EVER? I'm not saying it should be like freakin' high-level Walmart... but it makes sense that one or two big-time items should be on offer.

DM HANDWAVE


Pardon the thread necro but I couldn't let this semi-consensus stand:

Deeper darkness is a target object spell, not an area spell. It CANNOT be dispelled by Dispel Magic unless you cast dispel on the object, because it only targets the object, not the area.


I did a DPR analysis for level 11 & level 6.

Link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dj94dBJo2BLEtJvDPIDehq1FWVJ2xNSdP5c y0qTcb0k/edit?usp=sharing

Some notes:

The kineticist does pretty much average DPR. Telekineticist and energy builds consistently lag about 25% behind in DPR. That's assuming average CR AC of 25: obviously much higher AC favors energy and much lower favors physical (in this case the point where energy is better is AC30+)

Since pyros are energy-based, they also lag behind, but their AOE abilities which ignore AC but focus on reflex probably more than make up for it.

Force damage deals about half DPR until you get disintegrate at level 13, when it deals more but fortitude saves come into play (which probably edges out the DPR boost from full CON to damage). That's VERY rough, but it may make the most sense when you're fighting something with high AC + resistances. Also the disintegration effect must be worth something. It's still about 40% more damage than a magic missile, for what that's worth.

Aetheric boost blows hardcore. It's basically half level to damage across the board, which doesn't nearly compete with empower. An extra d6 per die rather than +1 per die would still be less of a boost, but at least it would put it on a similar level.

At level 15, a telekineticist should probably take an expanded element which offers a physical composite. Then again, at that level they're flinging free disintegrates.


Aetheric blast just blows full stop. At practically no point does it make sense to use, when you can just use empower/maximize instead.

It should really have been an extra damage die to damage or something. That would have kept total damage lower than other actual composites, but still in the same ballpark. As it stands, empower makes more sense until you get supercharge and then it's maximize all the way. Even then, you're only doing 77% damage compared to composites with the same energy cost.


Attention peoples:
It was NOT a mathtastic deathfest. A LOT more fun than the standard rules.

My review here:
http://paizo.com/products/btpy991r?The-Very-Last-Book-About-War


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm generally in agreement with others on this thread that the class is relatively under-powered and suffers some pretty annoying smacks with the nerf bat. That said, I also think this class is easily serviceable with a bit of creativity. I for one plan on mutilating the s*** out of my party with one of these this coming Sunday...

One change that would be very welcome is cutting the wait for Infusions. I understand not giving me 2nd spell level equivalents at 3rd level... but why in the Nine Hells do I have to wait until 5th? Better to have 1/2 level + 1 utility talents on evens and 1/2 level infusions on odds. Hell... why are utility talents ahead in the game anyway when infusions are central to the characters? Expanded element levels should give infusions as normal, with a bonus infusion for expanding primary.

In other words... none of the following should be interpreted as me thinking that the kineticist doesn't need to be seriously fixed upwards.

Here are my unfiltered thoughts on the telekineticist since a lot of folks were talking smack about it (with varying degrees of reason):

I did relatively optimized builds for a tel + a pyro finding that they were actually doing comparable DPR at L11. The pyro edges to the fore, especially considering its energy composite.

The tel's maximized simple blast is going to deal about 77% of other foci's composite blast damage for the same energy expenditure. However, the tel can boost damage because they have less forms with saves (so they can boost CON over DEX more) and their Wild Defense ability is better (you're trading HP for regenerating HP 2 to 1, but it also can negate concentration checks, poisons, debuffs etc) so they can afford to put more into Elemental Overflow.

Also... the Telekineticist practically never has to worry about energy resistance. Seriously now... Who the hell has Force resist???

Aether Blast sucks. Really bad. I can't think of a situation where I'd ever want it ever. There are a million better things that 2 burn gives you than 1/2 level to damage.

Despite the save for 1/4, Disintegration is really good. Probably on par with Blue Flame, with the added benefit of ignoring energy resistance and preventing heal/breath-of-life/various-escapes. Combine with Foe Throw or Wall or Kinetic Blade/Whip or Mobile Blast to really spread the fun. It kills me that you have to wait for 13 for that crap. It really should be a L11 ability.

The tel shines on special abilities, though.

Free unlimited:
* Telekinetic maneuvers AKA MFING RANGED GRAPPLE (including STEAL! grappling can wreck a caster's round... stealing a bonded item can wreck their life. In a surprise round you can steal the beefy barb's +3 Greatsword. BTW: I rule in my games that telekinesis can damage when maintaining)
* Invisibility
* Flying
* SUFFOCATION
* MOVING TEN THOUSAND POUND ROCKS/WAGONS/BOATS/X-WINGS
* Force barriers (I can't wait until someone tries to charge my tel and smacks face-first into an invisible wall)

Mostly free and unlimited:
* Animate object
* Healing
* Telekinetic Sphere / 100% cover from force walls (the former especially can be used to Gather Power massively and safely for huge take-downs)
* Wall of Force
* 30ft Uncanny Dodge + Auto-succeed surprise rounds
* SPELL TURNING!!!

The telekineticist loses out on a lot of raw damage and AOE... but they have a VERY impressive bag of tricks if you're creative. And you should be. Speaking as a GM, I've seen parties rock insane encounters with ingenuity more often than with DPR.


HFTyrone wrote:
Snip

Nitpick: you can gather power while flying. Greater Flame Jet & Self Telekinesis both allow you to hover without any action.


By that math, even at maximum burn 3 + 5 you're looking at only 16 WP, which is easily less than half WP.

Normal rules:
HP is 48 base average plus 50 from Con = 98HP. The kineticist can accept maximum 8 points of burn for a total of 80 HP, which puts them at 18/98. HP is a little over 18% of max.

AJ W&V:
VP is 48 base and WP is 40. The kineticist can accept maximum 8 points of burn for a total of 16WP, which puts them at 48VP & 24/40WP. Over threshold WP is exactly 20% of max.

The maths have spoken. 2WP per burn it is!


Wow.... DM seems to have the right idea here and I think #2 doubled is the only viable option.

OK, so RAW: every point of burn takes HP basically equal to what's gained by having 1 extra CON mod. In W&V, every point of CON mod gives you 4 wounds instead, only half of which is treated as "positive HP". Ergo: every point of burn should cost you 2 wounds that heal instantly every night.

Think about it this way: A 10th level telekineticist with 20 CON and 40WP could take 3 burn for 6WP while using Force Ward to gain a 30HP force shield with 2HP regeneration/minute. Elemental overflow gives +3 to attack & +6 to damage, as well as 4 WP from +2 CON. Worth it? YEAH. You're getting f***tons of bonuses for a net -2WP.

It's inelegant, but makes a LOT of sense. Also, if you burn yourself past 1/2 wounds, you have to make checks to stay awake. Makes sense to me. Sounds like a good candidate for the Toughness feat.


OH GOOD LORD... it's just $10??? I'm sorely tempted.

This better not be another mathtastic deathfest...


It's funny... I'd forgotten I'd posted that stuff. Good to see people checking out my thoughts. I'll take a look into Ultimate Rulership.

I ended up doing proportional bonuses and penalties to Loyalty, with Waterfront halving penalties. It actually makes the whole thing somewhat balanced.

Since everything's proportional, that means you'd best be boosting the hell out of Loyalty alongside Economy if you want to keep raising taxes.

Unrest might be a good thing to add... but I'm pretty satisfied where things are. An extremely wealthy and prosperous nation, softened by peace, can get away with obscene taxes and obscene spending for a long time as long as the people are happy. But as soon as s*** hits the fan, everything's up for grabs.

Think ancient Rome: they were so rich that they literally had generations joining street gangs and living off of free bread and circuses before things came to a head. And then they went to imperial rule where they continued that for CENTURIES. I don't think it was logical or efficient by any means... but it was sustainable right up until it wasn't.

I just killed half my PC's NPC leadership team in a recent session as part of a quest, which prompted the beginnings of a civil war with almost all of their old friends lining up to kill each other. Previously kingdom checks were a "don't roll a 1" breeze... but suddenly they started CARING.


I've been diving deep into the Mass Combat rules in the run up to WOTRK... and I'm hitting some snags.

Here are the Big Questions:
1) What guidelines should I use to cap levels or sizes on player armies?

2) Is there any functional benefit at all for a CR5 army of 500 Level 2 Fighters over a CR5 Army of 25 Level 10 Fighters?

3) All things being equal, is there ever a reason NOT to use a higher level but smaller army?

I lean in general towards capping individual humanoid army units at level 5, but that creates significant problems later on in the game. I also notice that a couple of armies in WOTRK and a number in the addendum to SOATS have humanoid units leveled 6-8. It feels unfair to limit the players if it's considered kosher for other unnamed nations.

The largest possible reserve army is Huge (when stationed in a Garrison). If I keep with a lvl 5 cap, this means that a CR4 base + 4 for huge results in a maximum CR of 8 for regular armies. The first mass combat encounter for WOTRK has a CR10, a CR6 and a CR5. If my players want a ghost of a chance out the gate, they need either several garrisons full of armies or they need to raise massive armies on the fly (which always struck me as weird).

If I allow up to lvl 10 armies... things get really weird. All of a sudden, it makes zero sense to recruit a huge army of anything, since the best armies are the highest levels. Worse, the higher the level, the bigger bonus stats they get from spellcasting etc. and the LESS they pay in upkeep for weapons/armor/mounts/etc. AND the less penalties you take for defeat.

Even in lower levels, size makes no sense. Why make a colossal army of CR1 humans when you can make a huge army of CR3 humans? The latter is the EXACT SAME THING with 1/5 resource costs.

WOTRK's guidelines for armies are pretty unhelpful too. The kingdom will probably be Size 100+ by then... which means they can recruit a gargantuan army of 2nd level fighters? Whoop de doo. Is anyone in Kingmaker actually going to make an army like that?

Anybody have thoughts on this? I'm thinking about implementing an experience point mechanic for armies, but that may just make things even more complicated and less sensible.

Maybe I'll just say they can't recruit units of more than half of APL and use the WOTRK's guidelines for max army size (Huge at this point).


Signature deed is only 1/round. Works great for slow-firing heavy weapons tho. Rail guns anyone?


Just spitballing here...

Assuming these tax receipts:
Minimal - 1/10
Low 1/5
Normal 1/3
Heavy 1/2
Overwhelming 2/3

The Economy bonuses/penalties should be thus:
Minimal 25%
Low 10%
Normal 0%
Heavy -15%
Overwhelming -30%

I'd probably keep the same static bonuses to Loyalty. I"m considering applying half the economy bonus, but that might be too significant a change.

For a kingdom with an economy of 100 the receipts would be:
Minimal - 1/10 * 125 = 12.5
Low - 1/5 * 110 = 22
Normal - 1/3 * 100 = 33.3
Heavy - 1/2 * 85 = 42.5
Overwh - 2/3 * 70 = 46.67


I can't help myself, I have to thread necro so I can economy nerd:
The taxation discussion hinges on the concept of the Laffer Curve.

The general idea is uncontroversial: that extreme taxation reduces tax receipts as much as extreme lack of taxation (at a 100% tax rate, there is no incentive to earn income). As taxation increases, people have more incentive to reduce their tax burden either by not earning income, not reporting income or engaging in practices which reduce tax burdens (e.g. investing in public bonds rather than in businesses).

Therefore, predicted tax receipts theoretically form a bell curve.

The controversial part is where exactly the top of that bell curve is and what factors go into the equation. The question of how much taxation affects the economy and the growth of the economy (two separate things!) are another controversial discussion entirely.

My feeling is that the Economy bonus/penalty from taxation should be a percentage rather than static modifier. One of the major effects of this would be to significantly affect the ability to make successful economy rolls: large taxation regimes should be more difficult to collect.

Ideally, the growth of "Economy" should be based on the growth of the market and not how many "Markets" etc. the Kingdom builds, but that'd be very difficult to simulate. The strange conceit of these rules is that the kingdom builder runs every single aspect of the economy and controls the construction of every building, down to the local brothel.

Also, I'd like have a "Regulation" edict which applies penalties to Economy in exchange for Loyalty and Stability (more regulations theoretically mean a safer nation and a more secure populace, but should harm business).

And don't get me started on inflation... or the fact that every GP is worth approximately $500 in today's money...


I'm guessing RAI is +4 to saves since "Neutralize Poison" is a component spell. Beast form I, another component, doesn't grant poison (Beast form 3 and above do).

That said, until it's clarified, I'm ruling one of my players gets to use it for a +4 to dc's.


I'd still like to know what the hell this thing does


Ravingdork wrote:
Pretty sure the rules assume the GM will prevent such things. Ultimate Campaign even has an example of players building too many graveyards I think.

I dig that. Still... a stacking +2 blanket Disguise/Diplomacy bonus throughout an entire city (which is assuming, contrary to RAW, that it doesn't apply to the entire kingdom) is kind of insane, neh? Where's the limit?

Even large kingdoms in Avistan have 3-5 major neighbors, but in the River Kingdoms there are a couple dozen fiefdoms. That's a LOT of possible embassies.


I've got an easy answer for why the Strategy track exists:
Multiple armies.

If you have one army facing several armies, it makes sense to be cautious because you'll reduce damage from multiple attacks.

If you have several armies facing one army, it makes sense to be reckless so you maximize damage. Except, say, if you're pretty sure that one enemy army is going to attack a particular one of your friendly armies, in which case you should be defensive with that one but reckless with the others. If you're besieging a city, you'll want your castle crashers to be reckless but your siege gunners to be defensive (since the siege engines deal damage vs fortifications every melee phase regardless of whether or not you hit.

If you have multiple armies on both sides, it gets even more complicated.

That's it. One-on-one, though, it almost always makes to go reckless.

That said, there are certain scenarios where an army should be defensive etc. in a 1-1 battle. Let's say you have a CR3 army with high DV facing a CR1 army. You're pretty sure you'll beat them if you get in 1 good hit, but you don't want to take any damage ahead of another approaching battle, so you minimize the chance that you'll take damage at all in exchange for a more certain victory.


Hahahaaa... it's funny to see that this thread is still going since my last campaign derailed over a year ago.

Did anybody figure out what the hell is the deal with embassies? I'm just going to rule that the +2 society just affects capitol cities. They're too crazy otherwise.

I might also seriously houserule settlement modifiers altogether. 5 embassies means a blanket +10 on all disguise checks. That's the same you get from Disguise Self. I don't care how open-minded your city is, there's no way that just being inside it gives you as much benefit to disguising yourself as magic.


Arcane strike is activated by a swift action and applies to all weapons for 1 round. Rays count as weapons. Whether or not they existed at the time doesn't matter. If you use Mythic Arcane Strike to imbue your weapons with Bane (which lasts for a minute) and pick up a rock 5 rounds later, that rock will be a Bane rock if you use it as a weapon.

There is plenty of dev support for rays counting as weapons for spells and effects:

FAQ wrote:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

There's nothing in the Bane description that says it can't be applied to rays. Just like there's nothing that says it can't be applied to unarmed strikes (an AOMF can grant Bane to unarmed strikes even though fists can't be enchanted).

As for it costing a mythic power... sure it does: for a full minute of Bane. Like I said, it's not crazy overpowered but it's not stupid either. I'm just wondering if it works. The difference is whether it makes sense for a level 6 gish to arcane strike his composite longbow or his ray of frost.


The mythic version of Arcane strike says "If you expend one use of mythic power when using Arcane Strike, you can also add any one magic weapon special ability with a base price modifier of +1 to your weapons. This base price modifier increases to +2 at 4th tier, +3 at 7th tier, and +4 at 10th tier."

Previously on the forums, it was clarified that rays, ranged touch attacks, melee touch attacks and bombs are all considered weapons for Arcane Strike, as well as other effects. Does that mean that a mythic level 6 Evoker can use Mythic Arcane Strike to give all of his weapons for 1 minute, say, the bane ability and shoot Ray of Frost for 1d3 + 2 (Arcane Strike + 2 (Intense Spells class ability) + 2 (enhancement) + 2d6 with a +2 to attack? A level 6 DPS of 16 isn't really crazy, but it's free. Thoughts?


Well someone asked for a thread necro a year down the road...

I can't believe nobody saw it but, obviously, these feats don't work on undead or constructs. Does dazing assault daze objects on a failed fortitude save? Is it harmless? No? Then it doesn't apply to undead or constructs (even if you implant them with living hearts and this is including inevitables and robots with the one exception of androids).

These are the only things affected by daze but not by stun:
Elementals, Oozes, Plants. I'm not so excited by those that I'd give up on Touch AC -2 plus weapon drop.


This whole thing is kind of a giant s***show. Apparently the only thrown weapons that count as ammunition for the purpose of masterwork & magical effects are shuriken and crystal chakram. I just did a search of the forums and I'm pretty sure I saw SKR say essentially that. I'm pretty tired though so it may have another dev. He wasn't even that sympathetic about it.

It sucks. It's insane. It makes no sense. But pilums (which break as soon as they hit) take full weapon cost to enchant and so do darts. I don't understand why ninjas and monks are the only classes in the game which have access to the one useful throwing weapon in it. Everybody else needs to either take exotic prof in shuriken or crystal chakram if they want to have cheap ranged with STR which they can draw as a free action. Even people with quick draw are screwed by the outrageous cost. I don't see why they can't add a western equivalent to the shuriken called "really fragile throwing pointy thing."

As an aside, you could make a RAW argument that you could use divine bond to temporarily enchant up to 50 pieces of ammunition. I'd be sympathetic to it as GM.

Welcome to the houserule zone...


Any answer on this? Thread necro plz?


I FAQ'ed it just for jollies, but this is my ruling:

  • The imp retains the Devil subtype (along with Evil, Lawful, Extraplanar as well as the Outsider type), which means that it retains its resistances, immunities and see in darkness ability. Also, it treats its weapons as Lawful and Evil for DR.
  • Specific overrides general, so it loses full BAB and gains hit dice/bab/skills etc. as per the animal companion.
  • Since they're unrelated to type, the imp retains only the specifically noted SLA's.
  • The only question that remains is the fast healing and the poison. The former I'll allow because I don't think it's TOO unbalanced and the latter one I'll allow to function as the original with the +2 racial for the same reason (also... flavor-wise, losing them is gross). This is definitely FAQ material, though.


Xaratherus wrote:

@TheDailyLunatic: Actually, metal cartridges are alchemical:

Metal Cartridge wrote:
These sturdier versions of alchemical cartridges serve as the ammunition for advanced firearms. They can hold either bullets or pellets.
My argument has always been that since the only ammunition that advanced firearms can use is metal (alchemical) cartridges that the base reload time for the weapon must already include the reload action reduction.

Exactly, so reloading is a move action even with rapid reload, right? I'm not saying that it SHOULDN'T (in fact, I believe it should). I'm saying that's not RAW now and it's why a FAQ is needed.

David wrote:
That's funny, I get the feeling you haven't read about cartridges. Since they couldn't be more clear about them being alchemical.

Yes... and reloading an advanced firearm to its full capacity is a move action. Rapid reload doesn't affect this.

Apples increase the reload speed of a mouth which can be reloaded 1 at a time as a standard/move. A fruit salad is an advanced version of an apple which can reload the full capacity of an advanced mouth as a move action. Rapid Nom reduces the reload speed of a 2 handed mouth to 1 standard action and a 1 handed mouth to a move action.

There's nothing in there to suggest that a fruit salad retains the properties of an apple in addition to its own properties. Here's a wiki link to what a paper alchemical cartridge is: LINK. Its purpose is similar to a metal cartridge, but its function is completely different.

Here's another link to a wiki about cartridges which may shed some light on the differences between paper and metal cartridges. Note:

Wikipedia wrote:
But this big leap forward came at a price. It introduced an extra component into each round — the cartridge case — which had to be removed before the gun could be reloaded. While a flintlock, for example, is immediately ready to reload once it has been fired, adopting brass cartridge cases brought in the problems of extraction and ejection. The mechanism of a modern gun not only must load and fire the piece but also must remove the spent case, which might require just as many added moving parts. Many malfunctions involve this process, either through failure to extract a case properly from the chamber or by allowing the extracted case to jam the action. Nineteenth-century inventors were reluctant to accept this added complication and experimented with a variety of caseless or self-consuming cartridges before finally accepting that the advantages of brass cases far outweighed this one drawback.


Dabbler wrote:

To answer:

2) I should have clarified that I'm not using guided as-is, but as a wis-to-damage (instead of strength) for those with wis-to-hit. That basically means the monk or clerics with several feats. It's no more broken than agile in that respect. I agree, as written it's way too strong.

5 & 6) I am not convinced Dragon Style is broken in the long run. It seems broken now at low levels when the monk has access to it before the other combat-types get multiple attacks, but try comparing him to a sword & board paladin smiting...better? Also, you could modify the style so it's only ever strength x 1.5 to damage, not strength x 2 on the first hit.

Also going strength-high means less wisdom means less ki. Kingmaker falls into the 15-minute adventuring day trap a lot, if you aren't playing that way then the limits of ki become a lot bigger - you simply cannot use it round-on-round.

I agree, we've both got good changes here, and I think either can work.

Your words are wise, Dabbler. I'm really glad that you started this train. I'm glad to be on it!

2) That makes a lot more sense to me. I approve. I might go further and put some restriction like that it has to be the favored weapon of your deity, but that may be harsh. Ability to DAM as an item property squicks me for some reason. Maybe it's because I think that, if it exists, it should be a class feature.

5&6) Ooo... maybe I'll take you up on that challenge later. I'll bet it gives the S&B paladin a run for her money.

I can't wait until my next session! I've got all sorts of fun goodies for my players!!!


Dash Lestowe wrote:

Pretty sure this post has relevance to this topic.

This thread was in response to that post. That post is not an official FAQ or errata. It's SKR's opinion and it's not even a clear one.

Is he saying that if you use unarmed strikes and TWF then you shouldn't be able to use claw or slam attacks? Is he saying that using UA's or UA's with TWF means you can't use natural attacks at all? Does that mean that you can use all of both if you makes UA's without TWF? Does it mean that every UA you make (1 normally and 2 with TWF) takes up an arm even if it doesn't use one?

The last one makes the most sense (and, with sadness in my heart, I'll probably use it), but it's still not very clearly spelled out. Also, the thread says a FAQ answered it. Dunno where on Golarion it is, but this isn't it.


Honestly Davik... right now I'm just trying to understand what the hell you're saying X-D

Are you saying that you can load advanced firearms with alchemical cartridges as a free action if you have rapid reload? Then you're wrong. Advanced and modern firearms use metal cartridges. That's it. Nothing alchemical. Rapid reload reduces reloading for one-handed firearms to a move action. Advanced firearms already reload as a move so it has zero effect. Period.

I get the feeling you haven't read the text of Rapid Reload. It could not be any clearer. It's really stupid, but at least it's clearly stupid:

Rapid Reload wrote:
The time required for you to reload your chosen type of weapon is reduced to a free action (for a hand or light crossbow), a move action (for heavy crossbow or one-handed firearm), or a standard action (two-handed firearm).

If you're saying something else, then I have no clue what it is.


Suthainn wrote:
Re: Council roles I let my players all create a second character of their choice and give them to me as people recruited to join the council AND backup PCs should they die. This had the double benefit of filling out the council for them and also giving the backups a history with the kingdom and letting the players feel they had a reason to care for the other council members, etc. I added a couple of NPCs to fill in the last few slots (Kesten & Oleg) but mostly it was players which let them feel in control but still gave me avenues for in character advice.

I like your style!


Atarlost wrote:

I suspect it's the human bane AMF that's pushing you over the edge, not wisdom to damage.

Put him against more varied opposition and a bane AMF becomes useless, reducing his damage by at least 1d6+2 and his accuracy by 2 if he goes for elemental effects or 2d6+2 if he goes for an ANA.

If you go on the other thread, you'll see that I already did all the relevant math and it's not the bane effect or Wis-to-DAM. It's Dragon Style and the Ki attacks. Both have to go for my rules to work. Dabbler works on different math, but I prefer mine.

Christos Gurd wrote:
I recently made mighty fists a regular item enchantment for any worn item. Still playing with pricing however.

Umm... how is that difficult? No offense, but the rules are pretty clear on that stuff. Should be same price as the amulet, plus a penalty if it's applied to something already enchanted. Also... I'll warn you that this could be subject to abuse (multiple items with a different magic weapon property would theoretically stack). Also, there's a reason why it's a neck slot item. That way you have to choose between that and amulet of natural armor (or take both and take the cost penalty).


1) Yeah, the best way to fix that would be rejiggering that player's feats and abilities. Shifting some points to STR or adding Weapon Focus/Power Attack might be helpful.

2) I dig your style but... HELL NO! Guided weapon property is 3.5, not Pathfinder. Not allowed in my games. No way, no how. Using it to fix the monk is a cheap shot, in my mind. I understand your position about Wis-to-hit, though. Like I said in my analysis, your rules are actually very well balanced.

3) Again, I agree. Your rules are balanced. I like mine more, but we're both fine on DPR.

4) True.

5) Dragon Style is not just good... it's broken. Even more so with your or my rules. Hence my ban.

6)DPR without Wis-to-DAM is still 29.30 with Dragon Style and 24.26 without it. That's pretty damn high. Mind you it's 19.95 with DS & 16.17 without ki attacking... but ki attacking puts both well above the top normal DPR. Maybe that's OK? I'm not a fan of that, though. I think it's better to just ban Dragon Style and ki attacks. It makes things much more consistent.

All told... I think both of our systems work right now. We just need more playtesting to see how they work out. I'm really glad I ran the calculations because I was going to run a Dragon Style ki-attacking monk against the party next session. Would have been much rougher than I thought. I'm probably going to replace those feats with Weapon Focus and Power Attack or something.


Cheapy wrote:

Hey all!

A few months ago (ok, more like almost a year ago), there was a question asked about tentacles. Like anything involving tentacles, things soon took a turn for the weird.

Weird in this case meaning trying to use unarmed strike and natural attacks together. (The standards for weird have dropped lately.)

The question then became: How do natural attacks an unarmed attacks interact for purposes of number of attacks per round?

We see Sean here trying to explain how this works.

Quote:

And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."

The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.

(Emphasis his)

There are more posts in there going over it, but that's the main one.

I think this would be a fine candidate for a new FAQ entry, as it seems to rely on an understanding most of us don't have, similar to the THF / TWF issue that just came up.

So, most wonderful of people, please hit the FAQ button here so that perhaps we can finally lay this one to rest.

Cheers!

THREAD NECRO!!! The forum says that this question was answered in a FAQ. When the hell did that happen? I don't see anything in the current faq about this.


Starfox wrote:

My own very simple monk fix: The monk can use the Flurry of Blows ability as a standard action or as part of a charge action, but when doing so they cannot make any iterative attacks, they only get two attacks.


  • "Fakes" a full BAB by allowing movement + flurry.
  • Allows the monk to be mobile, while still gaining an advantage from standing still and doing full attack.
  • Helps most at low levels, where I feel the monk it weakest.

If you take a look at my DPR analysis here, you'll see that's not nearly good enough. Basically, the only way a monk isn't a complete turd is if it's mega-optimized and, even then, it's only just par (the best is an unarmed monk using Dragon Style).


Also: I didn't factor in animal companions into the ranger DPR numbers. They should be much closer to par with them (especially with Boon Companion). This makes core monks even sadder.


OK this has been bugging me all night...

I know I took liberties with the word "exponential." This should be a fairer way to express what I was trying to say:

THF Fighter = 1X + Awesome
TWF FIghter = 2X + Meh
Monk = 3X + Godawful Crap

If we fix the second part of the Monk equation, things can get borked for higher values of X. I'm sure this was part of the original justification for making monks suck so bad: "Hey, we'll give them the equivalent of x/day melee Manyshot and that'll balance them out" but what that does is it makes functional core monks reliant on boosting static bonuses to catch up with melee classes.

Funny thing: this is the reason why rangers actually make the best level 5 TWF class (vs favored enemies) and barbarians the best level 5 THF class and level 5 fighters are somewhere in between on both. The TWF rangers multiply their favored enemy bonuses by 2, the THF barbarians take full advantage of their rage STR and fighters have moderate static bonuses in general. (of course, the best DPR ever is going to be either a pounce druid or a paladin archer smiting Team Evil)


I did an exhaustive DPR analysis of various forms of the monk vs various par classes, hosted on GoogleDocs using Tejon's DPR Calculator. All calculations are based on a level of 5 and a CR5 par AC of 18. I know that DPR is not a be-all, end-all character aspect, but I believe it's a helpful gauge of base combat effectiveness. I feel that any honest discussion of changes to the monk should take a healthy look at DPR first.

I used TWF, THF and IUS/Natural-Attack builds for comparison and to establish a DPR par:

Build List:
For the sake of fairness, I'm assuming all SAD classes have ability mods of 5 and a double att class has a main mod of 4 and a second of 2 (in regards to STR/DEX). Every feat slot with ? denotes a place where I couldn't think of a feat which would increase base DPR.

Chingon Monk (with AOMF flaming):
1) Weapon Focus
2) Crap bonus feat
3) Dragon Style
5) Dragon Ferocity

TWF Fighter:
1 Exotic weapon (wakizashi)
1 TWF
2 Power attack
3 Weapon Focus
4 Weapon Spec
5 Double Slice

THF Fighter:
1 Weapon Focus
1 Power attack
2 Furious Focus
3 ?
4 Weapon Spec
5 ?

TWF Barbarian:
1 TWF
1 Weapon Focus
3 Double Slice
5 Power attack

THF Barbarian
1 Weapon Focus
1 Power attack
3 Furious Focus
5 ?

TWF Barbarian (with beast totem, toothy, AOMF +1):
1 IUS
3 TWF
5 MA

TWF Ranger
1 Exotic (wakizashi)
1 TWF
2 Double Slice
3 Weapon Focus
5 Power attack

THF Ranger
1 weapon focus
1 power attack
2 ?
3 Furious Focus
5 ?

TWF IUS Toothy Ranger
1 IUS
2 AOB
3 TWF
5 MA

Here's what I discovered about DPR par (not figuring in monk builds):

DPR discoveries:
  • Par DPR for a combat class at level 5 looks like 20. The best performer is a toothy bestial ranger vs any favored enemy (38.78/27.65). Second place is a TWF ranger vs a double-favored enemy (24.96). Third place is a toothy TWF beast totem barbarian vs anyone (24.92).
  • For the non-toothy builds, the best is a TWF ranger vs double-favored enemies (24.96). The second best is a THF ranger vs double-favored enemies (23.76). The third best is a THF barbarian (22.44).
  • For non-toothy builds vs non-FA's, the best is the THF barbarian (22.44). The second best is the THF Fighter (21.12). The third best is the TWF fighter (18.34).
  • In straight combat all rangers underperformed compared to everyone else when not fighting favored enemies.
  • Builds that rely on multiple attacks perform significantly better against lower AC's and favored enemies (or in any situation which gives them a flat bonus to attacks or damage). Obviously, they also perform horribly against DR they can't penetrate.
  • Toothy is probably one of the best things you can do to enhance DPR. If you're using a build that doesn't need a human's extra 1st level feat, pretty much anyone can benefit from a set of half-orc chompers (adding this to any of the THF builds increases DPR significantly without sacrificing much).

Here is my analysis vis a vis the Monk (note that, for every monk with GMF, I assumed that they had an AOMF adding 3.5 in extra dice per attack):

analysis:
  • The core rules monk using +1 ki attack without Dragon Style or Weapon Focus underperforms everyone except for the non-toothy rangers against non-favored enemies. Ki attacking every single turn is an absolute necessity to make a barely performing core rules monk. Also, without Dragon Style, Weapon Focus and Power Attack are similarly necessary. NOTE: a Dragon Style monk not using ki attacks deals about the same DPR (15.59) as a THF ranger vs non-favored-enemies and a core monk with WF & PA deals about the same (14.18).
  • Surprisingly, having or not having full BAB has no effect on DPR in full attacks, except for the fact that it qualifies a monk for Weapon Focus and Power Attack at level 1 (also the penalty/bonus size of PA).
  • The Dabbler rules monk actually does 24.54 DPR if he uses Dragon Style and has 18 WIS and 14 STR. A similar monk without it will do just about par damage (19.92) but he'd do significantly over par (23.39) with Weapon Focus and Power attack as level 3 & 5 feats. I have to say... your rules are very well balanced. Translation: If your PC were better optimized, he'd be dealing as much pain as a TWF fighter. If he were using Dragon Style or WF+PA, he'd be doing better DPR than a THF barbarian.
  • Mind you, with your rules and core rules, you need to be using Ki attack every turn or your damage is absolutely pitiful.
  • Using my rules, a fully optimized monk (AOMF+WF+DragS) does 36.86 DPR when Ki attacking. HOLY CRAP. Yeah that's overpowered. Better than a TWF ranger vs 2x-favored enemies. I eliminated abilities one-by-one to see what the culprit could be:
  • Full BAB: going to .75 BAB and eliminating the use of WF&PA only reduces DPR to 33.78.
  • GMF: Eliminating the Greater Magic Fang effect (therefore assuming that the AOMF grants +1 enhancement instead) only reduces DPR to 30.56. Also, without the GMF effect, monks can just purchase it permanently or have a party druid cast it on them.
  • Stacking WIS with STR for damage: By not adding WIS to STR for damage, DPR is still 29.30. Dragon Style is a serious beast.
  • Ki Attack: Removing the ability to Ki Attack reduces DPR to 26.08. Dragon Style is still a beast.
  • Ki Attack & Dragon Style: Removing both Ki Attack and Dragon Style reduces DPR to 19.44 or (by adding in WF & PA) 21.88. This, I feel, is a lot more balanced. It puts a dpr-optimized monk with AOMF-Corrosive on par with a THF fighter and, without an AOMF or vs creatures with resistance, on par with a TWF fighter (though, of course, without heavy armor or SAD or extra feats etc. etc.).

My conclusions:

  • Dragon Style is extremely overpowered. The only good thing I can say about it is that it makes the core monk playable, which isn't a plus in my book.
  • Ki Attack is an extremely problematic ability, because it's a quadratic buff rather than a linear one. Anything we do to fix the monk is going to be exponentially increased by the ability to Ki Attack.
  • The core rules are obviously crap. Monks have to ki attack all the time and invest in STR and Dragon Style to do anything approaching decent damage and must forego style feats at all and take WF+PA if they want to be useful otherwise.
  • Dabbler's rules are actually very well balanced and kind to optimizers at level 5. Still, if the player in my game had been using your rules, he'd still do more damage than a THF barbarian (even if he stayed at 14STR-18WIS; 18STR-14WIS is even worse). I don't know how you feel about that; if you're not down I recommend banning Dragon Style. Also: without full BAB, your player doesn't qualify for WF/PA at level one and his standard attacks and AOO's are going to just plain suck. I like the elegant way you blended 20ft move as a swift with free action ki attacks, though (even though I suspect that your rules may exponentially break at higher levels because of it).
  • My rules as they stand are obviously OP. I think the best way to fix that is to use the Banhammer on Ki Attack and Dragon Style. Without those two things, monks are much MUCH easier to balance. I could stand to lose full BAB if I had to and I could also reduce the WIS damage bonus to 1/2 Wis mod and still not sacrifice too much (though the latter might unduly harm DEX/WIS builds - I made a Crane Style DEX/WIS monk for this scenario which deals 16.17DPR vs 18.69 DPR with full WIS damage bonus - NOT including total defense penalty).

Thoughts?


Dabbler wrote:

I'd say your player has succeeded, to an extent. On a full attack he's then doing potentially 3d8+47...that's way excessive, compared to a barbarian at 5th level, who could manage maybe 2d6+16. A fighter would be limited to 'only' 2d6+14 (that strength boost is very good).

I'm guessing you made it wisdom-to-damage-PLUS-strength...and there's your problem right there. One or the other is much better.

Now here's the thing about glass canons: hit hard enough, and it doesn't matter how bad your AC and hit points are. This what the barbarian relies on, that his enemy won't live long enough to do anything bad back to him. Now for a monk with high perception and good initiative, the odds are good that an enemy will only get one attack in before he gets to full-attack them. After that, they usually aren't a problem.

Where I am more concerned your monk will be weak is where all monks tend to founder: accuracy.

Take your monk foes, and have them dip a level of empyral sorcerer, so they base off wisdom, and their two spells will be mage armor and shield. That means they get a +8 to their AC...and you watch the monk die, because he can't land a blow. This isn't an unfair test, some enemies WILL be harder to hit, and combat classes should still be able to hit them.

Oh bloody hell... you're right. Not about everything, but you're right. This build is OP. I hate to admit it, but it's true.

Let me start with where I disagree, though:

  • Par AC for a CR5 critter is 18 and high attack is +10. My player's monk has a to hit bonus of at least +10 (+11 if he and the target are touching the ground; +2 more if it's human) and an AC of 21. That means that, in a flurry, he hits on a par 10 or 11 and he gets hit on a par 11. He's easily on par with most combat builds at this level on to hit and AC, just under on HP and WAY over on damage.
  • The problem with going either WIS to hit or ONLY WIS to damage (not stacking with STR) is that it nullifies the reason to go STR. I think there are two main strains of monks: STR/WIS and DEX/WIS (also I think there should be an archetype that substitutes CHA for WIS, but that's another story). Your approach to fixing the monk takes away nice things from STR and gives them to WIS. That's problematic in my eyes, because it messes up STR/WIS monks. I like DEX/WIS monks more, but I don't think it's fair to create a system where they're the only viable build.
  • One huge issue with balancing any monk changes, I'm starting to realize, is the extra ki attacks. They're the equivalent of adding x/day free no-penalty melee rapid shot on top of TWF. Anything we do to improve the monk is going to get borked by having these extra attacks.
  • I'm not terribly impressed by the empyreal sorcerer example. Shield and armor will only last 1 minute and 1 hour, respectively, for 2 casts each per day. Par AC for a CR8 critter is 21, so he'd hit ground targets on a 12 for most level-appropriate threats in a flurry.
  • One of the things that totally borked my math was Dragon Style. In most cases, TWF gives +STR and +1/2xSTR (+STR & +STR with Double Slice and +1.5xSTR for another feat at BAB+11). Dragon Style gives, for two feats by level 5, +2xSTR for the first hit and +1.5STR for all the others.
  • As I see it, these are the major combat aspects to the class and one or more may have to go: full BAB (which adds +2 to hit outside of flurries and the ability to use Weapon Focus and Power attack at level 1); leveled WIS to DAM stacking with STR (adds +4 to DAM in this example); leveled GMF effect (increases att & dam by 1 at every 4th level); flurry (which functions as TWF); extra ki attack (which increases flurry DPR by 50%).

In conclusion, I think the only way to really find out what's OP here is to do DPR calculations using TWF fighters/rangers/barbarians as a benchmark. Do you think level 5 is an appropriate benchmark level or should we up it to level 10? The latter would be more fair, but it'd also be a lot more complicated. My vote is for the former. I'm going to start doing calculations and will post a link to the comparison spreadsheet (based on Tejon's legendary calculator).

Also, since we're basically trying to do the same thing here, I'd like to have all future discussions on your thread. Do you mind?

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>