TheJayde's page

Looks a bit like a modification of the wealth bonus from d20 modern. Which would be a great place to start in figuring out a system like this.

Wow - this system of which you speak is almost exactly the idea that I was describing. A few modifiers, but yeah... pretty much that.

How do I know that a cloak of resistance +1 and a cold iron dagger cost 6 credit? Is there a price list, or a '150 gold is 1 credit' exchange rate? If I don't know how much things cost, it's going to take longer to shop...

No, you wouldn't. The DM would decide the rate by which things would cost. The DM may also choose a relative worth for the credit rating to make things more convertible when purchasing items.

Matthew Downie wrote:

How do I know that a cloak of resistance +1 and a cold iron dagger cost 6 credit? Is there a price list, or a '150 gold is 1 credit' exchange rate? If I don't know how much things cost, it's going to take longer to shop...

No, you wouldn't. The DM would decide the rate by which things would cost. The DM may also choose a relative worth for the credit rating to make things more convertible when purchasing items.

I will look into that. Thanks.

Can you give more a more concrete example?

In the standard economy, I come back from a quest with 1500 gold pieces. I buy a cloak of resistance, a level 2 scroll, a cold iron dagger, and role play by buying drinks for everyone at the inn. I now have 173 gold left. (Or some amount like that.) If we take a week off I can make some money with my Profession skill.

How would this look in your system?

My character has a credit rating of 5 before the adventure. I come back with treasure, which improves my credit rating by 10.

I spend one credit rating to replenish gear such as any vials used, rations used, clothes or other gear damaged in combat. This may include a week at the Inn.

I spend 6 credit to purchase a cloak of resistance and cold iron dagger.
I spend 1 credit for two scrolls.
You take a week off and may make profession checks, and if you succeed at least 4 checks out of the seven, you increase your credit by one to a maximum equal to how many ranks you have dedicated to the profession. The DC of the profession check increases as your credit increases.

The major point is to not have to manage the little parts of the income.

Bump

I'm considering making a severe change to the economy of my pathfinder game in a home-brew sort of style.

The premise of this concept is to make the concept of wealth a little more abstract for the purpose of verisimilitude. To help represent the world with a barter system, credit, reputation, as well as actual gold on hand. The idea is also there to help simplify the economy as well, allowing the players to not have to worry about every little silver or copper piece.

The system would ultimately be a credit score of sorts. They purchase the items as normal, and start off with a Credit Rating of 1. As they adventure, they can increase the credit rating as they gain treasure. They may have businesses that increase their credit rating, or even resets the credit rating to a certain minimum of say... 5 if its a relatively successful business. The business can also increase your credit rating, each month but it increases no higher than say... an 8, though you could have a much higher credit rating, even to say... 100.

When magic items, scrolls, food, etc are in need of purchase then the credit rating goes down. The DM may also conclude that expenditures that are small such as, a single night at the inn are incidental and do not lower the credit rating. However, if the character buys a horse, or a lot of little pieces of equipment together, it would warrant removing a little credit.

The advice I'm asking for - What do you think about the basic system? I'm not even sure I like it, but I think I find it intriguing. I like the idea, but I just... don't know that it will, or will not work. So please, break it down for me. Why is it good to you? Why is it bad to you? Why will it work? Why won't it work? Anything you have to say I'm interested in.

TheJayde wrote:

On the flip side though, if you're playing in a Drow society, the matriarchy is going to do anything and everything they can to keep that sort of magic out of the hands of men because it underminse their societal constructs.

In any sort of sexist society such as that of the drow, there would surely be a social stigma attached to changing your sex. That stigma would be strong enough to discourage a male from changing sex (since socially he would be male at best and a freak at worst) and is exactly the sort of rumor that one house might spread about the matriarch of another house to undermine her authority.

In such a society, the only "safe" time to administer an elixir of sex shifting would be as soon as the baby is born -- especially if they take the additional precaution of murdering the midwife and any other witnesses.

Yeah but with magical (a wizard did it), you could argue that they are indefaticably a female/male and therefore superior. Okay I wouldn't argue that, but other people who were part of the society would. The Drow could even argue. "Why not have all Drow Female? They are superior right? It would make us a better species as a whole."

Heh, imagine having an uprising in Drow Society. The Matriarchy trying to stop the rebels from administering Sex Change Potions to all the males of the Drow as to make a level ground for them to work with.

You could also take the potion after a self exile, and subsequent transfer from one major Drow Hub to another. Just change your name. You just become a new person, and leave the old world behind.

TheJayde wrote:

I feel that the gender change issue would likely be based on the world that you're playing in and the GM you're playing with. With magic being able to do... whatever... I find that the gender changing stuff would be more commonplace and maybe even more accepted. Heck - it may not even be something people consider an issue at all because its so easy to attain. I mean... who would even know in a world where people rarelly even leave thier village thier entire life?

Equally it could be something that the decadent nobility plays around with and the common people never even consider.

In a world where people rarely even leave their village, the girl who's really a boy may wind up married off with 3 kids before even considering the possibility of transition - unless he runs away to be an adventurer.

Go look up Aleister Crowley. He is a prime example of a Noble who might use this sort of thing for his own uh... benefits...?

TheJayde wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

You need to open your eyes, sheeple. Gender, Race, Sexuality; these are all meaningless in Pathfinder.

I would take this more to heart, if you didn't start off calling everyone sheeple. Sheeple being a term that pretentious jerks like to use to think that they know more than other people, and have a more open or enlightened mind. If that isn't the case, then instead you're saying that everyone else is stupid and extremely closed minded, which is just an insult to us all. Either way, there is no winning by using the term.

Just a joke post, friend. Sorry if you felt looked down upon.

Hey! No sweat really. I didnt see it as a joke... some people use it seriously so I can never tell in text.

The term I find bothersome mostly because... well you know. Its used a lot with politics as well which makes it even more bothersome to me.

S'all good man.

I feel that the gender change issue would likely be based on the world that you're playing in and the GM you're playing with. With magic being able to do... whatever... I find that the gender changing stuff would be more commonplace and maybe even more accepted. Heck - it may not even be something people consider an issue at all because its so easy to attain. I mean... who would even know in a world where people rarelly even leave thier village thier entire life?

On the flip side though, if you're playing in a Drow society, the matriarchy is going to do anything and everything they can to keep that sort of magic out of the hands of men because it underminse their societal constructs.

Like I said, it really comes down to the GM and the world your characters are surounded by. It only plays into the background if you want it to.

I played a Doppleganger character once that nobody was aware of the original race.

You need to open your eyes, sheeple. Gender, Race, Sexuality; these are all meaningless in Pathfinder.

I would take this more to heart, if you didn't start off calling everyone sheeple. Sheeple being a term that pretentious jerks like to use to think that they know more than other people, and have a more open or enlightened mind. If that isn't the case, then instead you're saying that everyone else is stupid and extremely closed minded, which is just an insult to us all. Either way, there is no winning by using the term.

next time shoot twice ;)

I tried that too... but one of the attacks missed.

No. I don't.

I don't know why you're so hung up on the fact that the class whose fists transcend the damage dealing capabilities of many weapons isn't harmed when deflecting your puny bullet.

I'm hung up on the idea that... any class including the mage who has no martial combat education beyond improved unarmed strike and a Dex of 13 can take it.

Its not a monk class feature. Its a feat.

Per the FAQ Deflect Arrows does not cause attacks to miss (and so abilities that are triggered on a miss, such as Snake Fang, do not proc).

But neither are they a hit. They are deflected.

The bullet wouldn't do ANYTHING to him, per RAW, RAI, or story. He would simply slap the bullet aside with no ill effects whatsoever.

You wouldn't think there would be some... cut... or damage done to the hand? Maybe not sufficient damage to be considered... damage, but... no marking at all? Sure no ill effect, but some remnant? I mean... if it was an arrow.. maybe because one end does the damage, but a bullet is pretty much all damage dealing power based on the muzzle velocity.

Playing last night my cohort made the bet that my character could not hit her character with a shot from my gun. I took the bet, and took the shot and he used deflect arrows.

As far as I can tell, by RAW the attack is still a hit, but just didnt do any damage. It certainly wasn't a miss by the RAW.

However that isn't really what I want to discuss. The RUI is what I'd like to speculate on. With the deflect arrows feat you have to stop a bullet by putting your hand in the way to stop/deflect.

Did it hit and just do damage that was insignifigant enough to deal damage? Did it miss because it was turned aside? Is it like attacking something in motion and you hitting it before it hits you?

Me - Personally... I prefer considering it a hit still and even having it dent armor or draw blood a little bit. I like to live in a more gritty world where this sort of stuff happens. Where a Fireball still singes the Rogue who took no damage and blackened and his hair singed.

That is what I like, but I would like to hear some counter-thoughts and some variance on the idea. I'm very interestd if somebody has an opposing thought that may modify or outright change my theory. Thanks in advance

TheJayde wrote:

Mergy wrote:

A metamagic rager that invests a bit in charisma can throw spells (even Quickened spells) while in melee. In fact, thanks to Blood Sanctuary, he has a better chance of making a save against a fireball he throws.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Quickened spells? They have level 4 spells, and quickened requires a spell slot that is 4 levels higher. As bloodragers do not have orisions... I must simply ask... Que?

Sure you could use a rod, but... why do that when you can have two weapons or a single big weapon in two hands?

The metamagic rager archetype can use rounds of rage to cast spells with metamagic feats. It costs twice as many rounds of rage as the final level of the spell, so it's important to take advantage of things like the human favoured class bonus.

Quickened fireball + fireball for two 3rd level slots (craft some runestones of power) and 14 rounds of rage. Definitely enough to take out an encounter of mooks.

Oooh. Neat. Didnt know you were referring to an archetype, and just saying a bloodrager that used metamagic feats. Good to know.

A metamagic rager that invests a bit in charisma can throw spells (even Quickened spells) while in melee. In fact, thanks to Blood Sanctuary, he has a better chance of making a save against a fireball he throws.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Quickened spells? They have level 4 spells, and quickened requires a spell slot that is 4 levels higher. As bloodragers do not have orisions... I must simply ask... Que?

Sure you could use a rod, but... why do that when you can have two weapons or a single big weapon in two hands?

The narrative dictates what happens to the person. Whether it be the DM or the player, or a combination of both. The only thing that strictly matters mechanically is that the creature becomes dead.

36.EVASION gives you an ‘Immediate Action’ to move up to your base speed, in order to acquire Total/partial cover or escape the blast radius.This movement cannot be used to get closer to the point of emanation.
· Failure to acquire cover or a safe square results in full damage,or half damage if you have improved evasion.
Any form of cover is acceptable,even an ally;but something has to between you and the point of emanation.
· Cartwheel dodge allows you to move up half your base speed CLOSER to the point of emanation.

I use something very similar in place of evasion. Except they get to move a number of squares equal to thier Agility modifier, and if they use up thier movement for this immediate action, they end thier turn prone. Though I didnt think about cover... just moving to escape the area of effect of the spell.

Good stuff.

Based on what you've said in the last post, I want to comment on something so much deeper than the damage stats of a high dex build over a Strength build. Your statements actually brought me to a more interesting conclusion about Dex fighters, and why I think that they are so much better than STR fighters... and Im talking about before the dex to damage boost.

Dex damage guys may not do huge amounts of damage, but...they don't have to. In many cases, the Dex fellow can be sneaky to accomplish thier goals. Armor is noisy and clunky and causes a lot of issues with movement, and stealth. The ability to wear no armor... and have a respoectable fighitng utility (maybe not the best) is awesome.

You can 'defeat' combats by avoidance, or making an opportunity to strike at the right time. Use distractions to pick off your opponents one at a time. Set up ambushes as well.

Being Dex based gives you so much more options outside of combat that not only let you avoid combat, but let you win it if you use it correctly. When we get to level 10, we tend to stop thinking about things like that... I think... i feel... I dont know for sure, but once we get all that power, we start to apply that first instead of tactics.

Anyways...

TL;DR
Dex provides so much more than combat, and I think we have collectively undervalued this aspect of the game through the conversation. We have brought it up, but it's a big bonus.

So, for Slashing Grace you allow full DEX mod for offhand?

I did not. I put half. However, I added 4.5 damage instead of just 4, which was a mistake, but shouldn't equate to much of a difference in the DPR really. Offhand Damage is 22.5 which is 7 less than the 29 of main hand. This accounts for 4.5 from the Dex, and 3 from the power attack.

TheJayde wrote:

Kudaku wrote:

Stuff

Tell you what. I will adjust the character a bit. Maybe change him to a halfling (lulz) and make the necessary changes. Give me a bit, and I will repost the character here again.

Thanks! :)

Revamped Character is in the spoiler.

My DPR went down by about 15 as I suspected. A lot of the damage comes from ability to hit, and my to hit bonus was overkill for the specific parameters. I improved a lot though as far as Will saves and the like. Anyone who says this build isn't survivable is insane. Also... I have 9 attacks of opportunity, and at level 11 I get an additional 3rd attack that will improve my damage even further.

I stayed human. I improved my Will Save dramatically, and changed out of the Vicious because it really didnt provide that much extra damage.

Stuff

Tell you what. I will adjust the character a bit. Maybe change him to a halfling (lulz) and make the necessary changes. Give me a bit, and I will repost the character here again.

Im with Galahad here in suggesting its not really controvercial, but I'm really not losing too much DPR with it.

Since you're so s*@+ hot at optimising, why not write an optimised dex based build? For melee, obviously. 20 point build, WBL, say level... oh, anywhere in the range 6-12. Oh, and make it something that was playable from level 1, not like it just popped into existence fully formed with PrCs.

Lulz. I did. It exists. Its listed above. Made a tenth level fighter with 181 DPR. Its survivability is fine, albiet I would be more survivable with dropping down 11 DPR. It was being ignored so yeah... I stopped presenting it. It was based under the DPR Olympics rules, which do require minimum defenses as well as maximizing damage. Everything is playable from level 1. I had a wizard whose highest stat was 13 ( rolling is hilarious sometimes) and it survived just fine. perhaps you should define playable.

As for your previous comment regarding pulling the numbers out of the air... they arent. I showed you the numbers and where they come from FIRST, and showed you the differences. In fact... I showed you TWO different ways and undercut my own maximum benefits by comparing them to a standard structure.

Stuff on Races.

You guys are both right, and both wrong.

There is no neutral race for a baseline, except no race. However.. using no race or 'neutral' bonus of +2 is more detrimental to the Dex build than it is the strength build because Dex gets to focus so much more on thier one stat to cover everything, that they actually lose more with each lack of benefit.

Its an interesting conundrum really. However, my build used Human, and could benefit sooo much by choosing goblin instead. I had not even thought to use that race.

Now it is worth noting that it would not be hard to write a computer program that could calculate all of this out for you. The trick is sorting through all of the data it will spit out at you. This whole process is very doable, but it takes people willing to put in the effort to sort out the info and put it all together in an intelligible manner.

I think the proper values of each point or variable point would be the hard part. Like... I feel an Iron Will Feat protects a Fighter 4 better than say... a Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Monk. Plus... how do you pit point values for defenses to an equal number for damage? Hold person can stop a character dead in thier tracks before anything can happen... so how do we deal with initiative bonuses as well?

This is only going to result in a complex build that values everything. Character power may also involve skills as well. Spells are another value as they can supercede skills, deal damage etc.

You could assign a point value to each benefit like... a +1 to hit may be worth 100 points, where as a bonus to damage may be worth 35 points. However, the problem with that is the point values for many situations are going to be based on the percentages. Example: A Bonus to hit is going to be valued more for each bonus to damage, because a bonus to hit with 1-3 damage is worth less than a bonus to hit with 1-6+10 damage.

I don't think that there is one single way to legitimately apply value to a character. Statistically yes, but even if you have +25 to your will save, and you roll a 1 to fail your domination save, all the value in the world means nothing, and in fact turns that value against your own party. Very rare situation of course, but there are other situations such as hold person and other incapacitations.

I think the way you can check for balance is to look at the highest output in numbers. Like we could compete in DPR, or compete with Will Saves to see who can produce the highest numbers and see who has the best components for those gains. Figure the costs for those gains agianst each other to see if they are 'worth' them. Also... there are too many situational values. A ranger (without instant enemy) is going to be better against favored enemies than non-favored enemies. A +20 to Diplomacy may mean that much less if your DM just prefers to give you spoon-fed ifnormation. There are really a lot of variables to consider.

I think this is a decent way to describe the whole issue.

If I have a 24 Dex, which I think is an easy assumption that I could reach that. I would be getting a +7 to my ability modifier.

I think its fair to assume that the standard Dex build fighters/rangers/etc are relatively balanced with thier strength based counterparts in the current iteration. Dex may not have equal damage output, but they get other bonuses to help sustain them.

With the above information... balance and everything, please name me a trio of feats that provide a bonus to hit equal to +8, and bonus to damage equal to +7. Those three feat 'taxes' are what the chain provides. This is where the crux of the issue lies with me. Even assuming a decent strenght of 16... the effective bonuses are still +5/+4 which is pretty signifigant.

Also... you can get higher Dex than what is being presented as you advance and continue to get more and more bonuses because of it. You consolidate almost everything into one line of stats.

Edit:
If you want to argue the opposite way... provide me a set of three feats that provide a +5 bonus to Initiative, Reflex, AC, and several skill checks while having a 24 strength instead of Dex.

No. (Though nobody has completed the build yet, and I'm too afraid to try as I already build powerful characters in comparison to my compatriots.)

Illusion - Have an image of the character going into a dimension door, and appearing at a higher level of the chamber and escaping. Then when half the party goes off and chases, you can have the villain attack those who are left behind, or those who are incapacitated, which might make things REALLY personal.

Barred Door Cheap Trick - Have a villain simply walk through a door that is easily barred from the other side. Then characters have to take time to chop through it. This one is really unfair, but if you want to have the villain survive... the barred door leads into a room with a hallway. They either assume the hallway was the path the villain took, or hid in the room. Whichever they choose, he did the opposite. Maybe there was a secret escape door in the room.

Hellgate - Is your Villain a demon? Have a hellgate opened. A small one... secret. The Villain can die... respawn in hell... come out again... and then the goal for the party is to close the gate.

Summoned - Villain could be a demon again, and a mage is summoning him. The mage is more powerful really, and is using the demon to perpetrate his goals, that are the same as the demons. Then you kill the mage summoning him over and over again.

Uninterested - The Villain uses some mooks to handle the party because whatever he was doing in the current adventure has already been done. He got his Maguffin so he can just move on. Maybe throws a couple of spells for his mooks to deal with you more easily.

Special Travel - Swimming is slow. Boats are fast. Villain escapes on a row-boat through a cavern exit. Ever seen the Three Musketeers with Charlie Sheen? The Cardinal would have totally gotten away on that boat.

Wall of Stuff - Wall of Force, Stone, Iron. All great ways to simply stop a PC for a few rounds. Even an illusion of these will work.

Self-Clone - I have an NPC who has the ability to clone himself, but with each clone he has active at any given time, his individual power is weakened. Kind of like the Movie 'The One'. However - each clone isnt a perfect clone. They have mildly different personalites which has caused the character to shift from being a villain to... well a villain, but also a neutralish villain, a madman, and a sorta good guy, but only because he wants to kill the evil that created him.

Anyways... there are a ton of ways to do it.

The core players of my group have also been playing together for 20 years, but that's mostly irrelevant. It's a question of playstyle, not experience. Some groups are going to like PVP, while other groups won't. Personally, I find it very disruptive to the cooperative nature of the game.

-Skeld

Well I feel the opposite. I think the possibility of PvP enriches the characters you're playing.

Though I do feel experience really helps. When you see a player who plays a paladin of Cuthbert, also play an evil wizard, then back to a cleric of Heronious, and then a Bard in service to a chivalric kingdom who has no compunction for killing people in thier sleep. The more times you see a player make a character that is different, the easier it is for you to divorce the player from thier characters. This is just the first idea that experience may assist with on the subject. I'm sure there are more as well. We used to ban PvP too, but we got over it.

Stuff

Maybe I'm using maturity in the wrong sense. I believe it is... accurate, but then the actual definition of the word isn't refined enough to discuss what I'm speaking of. When I say maturity... I mean that they are capable of seeing that it is a game. That they know that the stuff doesn't matter, and don't let that argument come through to the real world. That its something to laugh about.

Anyways - I would say that you can be mature and play the game. To me -the game is just a way to express a story... so to argue that playing the game is inheritly immature (I know that you are not making that argument) would be saying that any form of reading abot fiction, or watching TV would also be immature. I would even say Pathfinder is a more mature medium than those aspects due to the idea that you're required to think and interact.

TheJayde wrote:

Skeld wrote:

You're wrong for this reason: "So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to..." That very excuse ("That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!") has been used for over 30 years to self-justify all types of dickish behaviors by players. Those kinds of phrases are red flags. Intra-party strife (conflicts between PCs) can quickly and directly lead to intra-group strife (conflicts between players) and are not for the enjoyment and well-being of everyone involved.

You saying he is wrong based on the assumptions we are talking about. You didn't even give an option for variance. Not generally wrong. Probably wrong. Maybe wrong. Then, you use a generalization to validate your statement, but still may not apply. Things like that tend to bring up this sort of conversation. Which is why you can't have nice things. I know I don't like being mislabeled, and when I mislabel people because I use generalizations... I expect there may be some pushback.

I'm saying he's wrong based on the facts he lays out in his OP. Don't forget that I also think the other player is wrong and the GM is wrong for the reasons I outlined in my initial post. This is an advice thread, so I'm completely comfortable making generalizations, especially when I can back them up with my own experience as a GM. As a GM, I actively try to avoid PVP for the reasons outlined by Kydeem de'Morcaine and Tormsskull above.

-Skeld

Fair enough. I try to do the opposite, but then I have a really good group that I've played with for 20 years now. Though I do play with a group that has a trouble player that I would assume... well I know that he does this sort of stuff.

I just enjoy the PvP aspects as it allows for more.. uh... realism when dealing with mature players. I had a Fighter (who thoguht he was a paladin. The world had no gods at the time.) who was going to betray the party and his gods uh... avatar? A super powerful wizard who became a stand in for the gods. It turns out that this avatar was keeping the god from returning to the world. It also kept the evil gods out. I wouldn't have been able to even conetmplate the idea if PvP was heavily declined.

TheJayde wrote:

...

Also I find inter-party strife to be something that can help get less active players more active in the environment, and help develop characters further. ...

I have usually found exactly the opposite. Two characters (or players)start arguing/fighting and everyone else gets quiet and uncomfortable. People shut down and don't roleplay anything at all because apparently, that just leads to arguments. If it happens very much, the group and maybe the friendships break up.

Well yeah, I've had that too. Though that is two players that need to hash something out, not two characters. I'm talking about character conflict. This works better with players who are better at separating themselves from thier in game selves.

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Attacks of opportunity would also favor the strength fighter, though I suppose one could make the case that a dex fighter would get more out of combat reflexes. Though really, without reach it would be rare to have a chance to make more than one attack of opportunity per turn anyway.

Besides str based benefit more from enlarge person that also give reach.

Reduce person benefits the Dex build. Doesnt give reach, but improves hit, damage based on improved Dex... and then again... hit and AC from the benefit of the reduction in size.

TheJayde wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Another thing to consider on strength vs. dex, a 2wf build suffers a lot more when it can't make a full attack.

True. However, they are more mobile due to lighter armor and move restraints, and will more likely be able to get an attack instead of denied attack based on movement.

Which would help a lot more if you didn't lose your full attack once you moved more than five feet, regardless of how mobile your character is (barring abilities like Pounce, of course).

Attacks of opportunity would also favor the strength fighter, though I suppose one could make the case that a dex fighter would get more out of combat reflexes. Though really, without reach it would be rare to have a chance to make more than one attack of opportunity per turn anyway.

What I'm saying is that you may not get an attack at all if you have heavy armor because of your 20ft restriction. That can be mitigated, but it requires resources.

Also... the attacks of opportunity are only better with strength characters who use a two handed weapon, but would be virtually the same (Depending on level) for two weapon fighters who use strength.

Another thing to consider on strength vs. dex, a 2wf build suffers a lot more when it can't make a full attack.

True. However, they are more mobile due to lighter armor and move restraints, and will more likely be able to get an attack instead of denied attack based on movement.

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

TheJayde wrote:

Generalizations are often wrong.

O_o

In general, generalizations are often wrong.

This is why we can't have nice things.

-Skeld

Whatever the case... The questions remains... What if this is not the case of being indicative of disruption and actually playing out a character the way the character should be played?

You're wrong for this reason: "So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to..." That very excuse ("That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!") has been used for over 30 years to self-justify all types of dickish behaviors by players. Those kinds of phrases are red flags. Intra-party strife (conflicts between PCs) can quickly and directly lead to intra-group strife (conflicts between players) and are not for the enjoyment and well-being of everyone involved.

You saying he is wrong based on the assumptions we are talking about. You didn't even give an option for variance. Not generally wrong. Probably wrong. Maybe wrong. Then, you use a generalization to validate your statement, but still may not apply. Things like that tend to bring up this sort of conversation. Which is why you can't have nice things. I know I don't like being mislabeled, and when I mislabel people because I use generalizations... I expect there may be some pushback.

Also I find inter-party strife to be something that can help get less active players more active in the environment, and help develop characters further. Even if it does go to the lengths of killing another player, it develops people. Shows what lengths a person will go to. I can definately see this being the case more when there are strong beliefs like those that would be involved in Religion.

TheJayde wrote:

Generalizations are often wrong.

O_o

I didn't say mostly wrong... just that they are often wrong.

My solution:

You and your friends attack your party-member. Tell your 'allies' that you're going to keep him alive once he is unconscious to see if he can get any information out of him, and that you will dispose of him later.

Take him to an abandonned, and tie him up. Go all Misery on him. Keep him injured, but alive and tied up out of the way. Takes the character out of the equation. It sidelines him for a while, but it gives him an opportunity to come back later, or stop being a jerk.

Think of it as a Time-Out you might apply to a child.

Kazaan wrote:

That is a generalization fallacy. Just because that has been used to justify "dickish" behavior by some doesn't mean that it always means that.

We have generalizations for a reason. Whether or not that's a fallacy is ultimately unimportant. When a player says something like "That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!" to justify attacking another character, they're attempting to push responsibility for the action from the player to the character, ie "I'm not the jerk! It's the character that's the jerk!" It may not always be the case, but it's certainly indicative of disruptive behavior.

-Skeld

Generalizations are often wrong. You can predict that 100 people will generally walk 100 yards and be 90% right as most will not turn into the shops or alleyways. HOwever... for the one person that did turn into a store, you are 100% wrong. People don't like to be generalized because of this reason.

Anyways... Does it really matter WHO is to blame whether it be character or player? The player may treat a piece of paper to be less valuable than a human life... but then again they live in a world where they will likely kill 100 living creatures in thier time, and where a person can die at the drop of a hat. Anyways - my question is... why does it matter that they are trying to shift blame to the character? Maybe that character WOULD actually kill the other? Why is that so hard to believe? I have a bloodrager that wields axes, but I think my preferred weapon would be a gun... or ya know... if I had to use a melee weapon, a Claymore. I am not my character.

The Warriors (A Mercenary guild of Mages)

The Butcher Butchers (A guild famous for hunting down another mercenary company known as the butchers).

The Slashers... of Prices.

Assuming you meant "equal to its strength equivalent" - no, no it isn't. At the start, the dex-to-damage build is terrible. It eats all the feats, it requires multi-classing in specific ways, it restricts racial options, it locks you into a single fighting style and it's just generally terrible. Does it get better later? Yes, because there is no down from the floor. Does it have other advantages? Yes, a couple. Like, it can use acrobatics to move in combat - though it doesn't want to, since it's probably TWFing. Does its AC scale ad infinitum as you seem to think? No, because max dex limits are still a thing, and armour with a better max dex limit is armour with less armour.

I've been trying to build dex-based fighters who are functional at low levels, because that's my favoured style and I have to start at level 1. And I can't do it, it just doesn't work very well. And it's really frustrating. I want a smart fast fighter who does cool tactical stuff, and that can't be done with dex, because dex restricts my weapons and eats all my feats. And this conversation about how dex is too powerful? This is really silly.

My point is Dex builds are equal to Str builds in thier current iteration. They have a higher AC and do less damage, but the trade-off is fair. The Dex builds do NOT need to go straight for Dex To Damage Feats, and can build normally (pretty much like they are now) to play and survive. It requires NO racial options. I see that it is no more restrictive than any other weapon style format and being locked into it. Once they do get the Dex to damage, the gains are exponential. Max Dex limits are not really a major concern as they are limited, but its at the minimum equal to Full Plate when you get that much dex. Also, the dex is better for scenariors where you are considered to not have armor like... being captured. I will admit that those scenarios are rare.

I have a level 4 Bloodrager (Ironblood Archetype) right now that is very functional at low level. He is our party's tank, and has respectable damage with Two Weapon Fighting Style. We even have a fighter who is our highest damage dealer, but a lot of his damage from the single attacks gets lost because its overkill. However, we serve different roles, and I believe in a fight, my character would beat his because... well... I have higher Initiative, and can steal his weapon with Improved Disarm and I get two chances to try for it.

The question is not whether Dex is too powerful as it is currently. My statement is that it is currently balanced. The argument is whether a Dex to damage feat is going to tip the balances. Will it outshine the Strength based equivilent? Low levels- no... high levels... well that is what the debate is about.

TheJayde wrote:

I've consistently used a level 10 example that out DPS anything I've been presented in the Strength counterpart.

I'd lend your level 10 build argument more credence if it was properly statted out - like I mentioned before, there are numerous mistakes in the build. Not saying this is your fault, you mentioned that you took someone else's character and tweaked it to use dex instead so the errors might very well have been there from the start.

Secondly, I'd suggest considering the defenses of the character as well as the offensive power - a will save of +3 at level 10 is... Well, I have a hard time believing this character survived to level 10. TWFing vicious weapons makes the character an utter pain to keep alive when you have ~80 HP and vicious takes an average of 15 HP each round - removing half your HP every three rounds is probably not an ideal approach to combat, especially when you have no way of healing yourself. Good optimization is about making an effective character, not a character with the highest numbers.

Finally, is your point that your dex fighter does more DPR than a THF fighter, or that your fighter does more damage than any other build? If it's the former then I'm actually fine with that - I'd guess a THF fighter would have ~20 or so less DPR, but massively better saves, 15 foot reach and many more options available to him. If it's the latter then that's patently false. One example among many, I'd say that AM BARBARIAN will dramatically outperform your character in the DPR department. So will numerous other builds.

Well I knew there were mistakes, which is why I initially didnt post it. Though I felt like the insane DPR that it deals showed the peak by which Dex achieves, and that it will scale back equally with each weakness being shored up by other abilities.

I was talking about DPR olympics which has specific requirements for defense as well. They aren't heavy, but the defense requirement has been met for the ruleset we were using. Changing Vicious out with Elemental damage only reduces my damage output by about 11DPR. 17 is still insane DPR. Remember that the typical monster only has 130 HP, and the DPR is based on hitting the typical monster of equal level. I could drop out Desperate Battler to gain Iron Will and lose another like... 4 DPR.

My statement has always been... build equal damage with any other build and that it is consistent. There is a build in the DPR olympics that does 200+ damage on charge rounds, but less than 100 in non-charge rounds. The DPR of the fighter that I restatted this from had 40 less DPR, not 20. If you think that there are other builds of any type that will outperform my character in raw DPS, by all means, please - present me with the evidence. Do the math, and let me know. Don't tell me that you are 'sure of it'. show it to me.

TheJayde wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Can we pick a position and stick with it? It's rather hard to make a counterpoint when there's a completely different argument every time I post. Are dex builds:

1) Superior at low levels, but strength catches up later.

2) Slow to start, but then catch up once agile weapons are available.

3) Equal and low levels, and superior later.

I haven't changed my position. I've consistently used a level 10 example that out DPS anything I've been presented in the Strength counterpart.

My statement is that they are equal at low levels (albiet different) and then Dex only bulids exponentially grow if they have a cost on Dex to damage feat.

Granted, but you were only one of the people in the conversation. And jumped in with a third position that was different from the ones under discussion.

Fair enough. I've been posting throughout the whole thing though, so I just jumped in here.

Can we pick a position and stick with it? It's rather hard to make a counterpoint when there's a completely different argument every time I post. Are dex builds:

1) Superior at low levels, but strength catches up later.

2) Slow to start, but then catch up once agile weapons are available.

3) Equal and low levels, and superior later.

I haven't changed my position. I've consistently used a level 10 example that out DPS anything I've been presented in the Strength counterpart.

My statement is that they are equal at low levels (albiet different) and then Dex only bulids exponentially grow if they have a cost on Dex to damage feat.

Ah, but having a build that doesn't come online until it gets a specific magic item at level 6-8 rather defeats the argument that dex builds are superior at levels 1-3, doesn't it?

I think it is reasonable to say that the Dex build is equal to its strength component at early levels. Even with the Dex to Damage feats. The scaling is the whole issue. It scales SO well, and things get so much better and better with each new advancement.

At low numbers there just isn't room for variance. Thus the numbers are going to look that much closer if they look much different at all.

Kazaan wrote:

Large>Huge>Gargantuan>Colossal>Titanic>Behemoth>Venti> Cosmic>Yourmom

Behemoth is another one I like.

However, I don't like your mom.

Aw man! Why you hating on his mom?

I'd say I was ninja'd if it wasnt just completely my ownmistake not hitting submit post during my lunch period. heh.

My only advice really boils down to one word: Relax.

Just remember that this is all for fun. If you make a mistake, you dont need to really worry about it. Your NPC's dont all have to be different. For now, just reply as though you were replying. As you get comfortable with that, you can start inventing characters, quirks and what not for them. You're just starting out and you gotta learn to walk before you can run.

Being too hard or easy on your players is... kind of a choice. You need to find your style, but no matter what the style is (hard or easy) you need to remember that your players need to be having fun. One of my games, we barely use the rules at all, and favor reason over rules. One game I play in is strict and by the book. You should check out some of the Pathfinder AP's to give examples and learn from them as to what the difficulty of encounters should be, and how to approach them. I've played 20 years and I still like to read through adventures and AP's to get ideas.

As for your trouble character... let him play what he wants (within the rules and reason)? What does it matter to you? Is he having fun? Yes? Great! Accents are a great tool to differentiating the voice of certain characters btw. Dont let him make new spells... for now. You guys are too new to understand some of the basics (such as carrying capacity) and making new spells is gonna wreak havoc due to imbalances and this is a concept that you're already suffering. Later... down the road you can make big changes. Just hold off on it for now.

Advice forum is for advice.

Basicly, the major gripe people have is not that it doesn't exist or that it is bad, it's that the only way of making a dexterous character is by following a very limited number of cookie cutter build. The debate about character build is ultimately pointless thread derailment, the fact that all build shown have very similar degree of power merely show that expended options would not warp the metagame, and even less your home game.

The gripe is fine. The results are the issue. This is why we bring in builds to show how imbalancing the dex to damage can be if it is too easy to use, or has too little cost to apply.

And no... all builds shown do not have similar degree of power. You aren't looking at them very hard. The Dex to damage based characters have HIGHER DPR than thier Strength based counterparts, while also having higher defenses, skills, and mobility with the ONLY downfall being carrying capacity. In the words of Jubal Early, "Does that seem right to you?"

Collossal > Titanic > Metropolic > Planetary > Galactic > Unfathomable > The Human Ego

You'll do tonnes of damage for sure, until you need to make a save... then you, and your party by proxy will be totally screwed.

@TheJayde - there already is one true build in the game, the strength build. You can't make a decent thrower in the game because you can't apply damage properly due to the constraints of the statistics. Basically, if you need to split your focus between stats like a thrower or something similar, than you can be pretty certain that after a certain point your character will be unable to push through DR.

At this moment, if you take a character without dexterity to damage and build him to fight using dexterity, you will not be able to deal enough damage to contribute. That is one of the issues with the agile enchantment because you have to trade away dr penetration for it.

The concept of calculating the maximum DPR is to show the overall capability of the ability score. For each feat or attribute that you retract on your build from damage to make your overall balance and quality of the character even out, I can do the same. Yes - I lose more damage with each feat lost to shoring up my weaknesses, but I still have more damage and my percentage stays higher.

The point is that my damage output is going to be greater than yours with strength because of these feats. You're clearly familiar with the issues presented with classes that are MAD. The whle debate really comes down to consolidation of MAD. Take away your dependance on Str, and apply bonuses those bonuses to Dex reduces MAD (Albiet with the cost of a couple of feats) and causes some MAD classes to step up, but classes that arent quite so MAD even better. The high tide raises all ships.

Low will characters are unviable.

Your character has like a 10% chance to pass the will save more than his character to pass will saves. Literally the WHOLE difference in will save comes from your racial bonuses.

Since we are also looking at your race, your base speed is 20. Which means, the fighter produced by Charon's Little Helper could out pace you by shooting with Ranged attacks (Since his high dex still makes him pretty good with those too) and you could just never catch him.

He could choose an Undine to increase his Will by +1 point and drop the feat step up, or... OR just drop Step Up for Iron Will, and balance it out.

Str is already linked to AC. High str characters can wear heavier armour. High dex characters need to wear lighter armour to avoid penalising their dex. And yes, that does work out okay for dex... but not strictly better. Just okay.

Strength is not tied to Armor. Lack of Dex is tied to armor. A character with a 10 strength can wear Full Plate and carry two weapons if needed and be no more effected by a Medium load than the armor effects them already. Also - Muleback Cord is pretty inexpensive.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

But - for the sake of argument - here's a ballpark for Joe - the human swash 1/fighter(weapon master)4.

A TWF STR-based ranger 5 would go for +12/+12 1d4+8 with a better crit range, or, strictly built for damage and not crits, you could get to +11/+11 1d10 +8 and 1d6 +8 (a Bastard Sword and a Sword).

I don't see it being lopsided at all honestly.

And I'm not even factoring in Ranger spells that might buff your damage OR Ranger's Focus, which is a +4/+4 to attack and damage against a target.

My competition also did a Ranger vs Ranger build, and I had more damage but I also had a higher movement, higher armor class, higher savs, higher initiative, and higher skills.

My opponent had 142 DPR, and my build was 176 with an all dex build. Though these builds did not include the animal companions as they are effectively equal DPR. Again, I copied his build... took away some feats that were small benefits, and added the Dex to Damage an hit feats instead. Almost the exact same builds and I still come out on top.

But - for the sake of argument - here's a ballpark for Joe - the human swash 1/fighter(weapon master)4.

I think you'd get more DPR by choosing a Fighter with the 'Mutation Warrior' Archetype as it will give you a +4 Dex and -2 Wisdom.

I welcome you to try building a similar build but for a STR fighter, then let me know how much worse it fares.

Funny. The character is based on my opponents character. I just modified his build. The build he produced using a strength based build was 141 DPR.

Why don't YOU do the math? I've done mine. You shouldn't tell others to do the same work you aren't willing to. Building a character is not the same as doing the math. Those characters you posted I don't seem to think will be very good in DPR. In Fact - I think that your level 12 characters won't out DPR my level 10 character.

Assuming 4 of the 5 attacks hit, vicious costs on average 14 HP each round.

Near as I can tell you haven't picked a mutagen discovery. I'd suggest Wings.

The saving throws seem off. Shouldn't the reflex save be +12, and the will save be +3? Reflex doesn't seem to have added the base save progression (+3), and I don't see any traits, feats or items that improve the will save. 10 wisdom means a +0 modifier...?

Shouldn't 10d10+30 average out to ~90 HP rather than 109?

I didnt change much of the stuff. Since I used my opponents stats as a base to work from (as I was trying to prove a point) I didnt change much of the other stats that he had modified. It was a DPR Race with certain paramters required. I needed the Ring of Protection and Mithril Shirt to increase my armor class to that which is required in the DPR olympics. My opponent required a +2 Breastplate and a Ring of protection.

Honestly, if we can have a discussion this long about the pros and cons of each build in a vacuum, then I think that one or the others superiority is debatable. If that is true, then I would suggest that the effect of dexterity as a damaging statistic is within the balance paradigm of the game. If a cleric can exist inside the same game as fighters, then perhaps dexterity to damage is not so large a thing.

Fighters surely need help, but I'd much rather see the power level of other classes brought down to thier level instead of increaseing the fighters(or other martial only classes) abilities to be raised up.

The point though... is if one build applies strictly beneficial gains over other builds, then other builds become sub-par. I hate not being able to contribute to my party because I chose a fighter who throws daggers, and the build has sub-par options. I dont need to do the most damage, or be the best at anything, but I want to contribute to a combat instead of sitting in the back doing nothing.

I actually have a Fighter Rogue in 2E right now that does that because at level 11 he is too frail (40hp) to take one attack from my enemiees, while also dealing less damage than every other character in the party. He does some damage, but its really not even comparable.

My playgroup has played with Dex to damage forever and STR characters are on-par, if not better.

Anyone who claims that Dex-to-damage, with two feats as requirement, overshadows STR builds, clearly hasn't made the math or thought about the implications.

Dex-to-damage characters do have two very important advantages: skills and initiative. Of course, that is VERY IMPORTANT for DEX fighters, because if they lost initiative, their flat-footed AC would be damning for them.

Anyway, I challenge anyone to make a character that has Dex-to-damage through a two-feat investment that is outright better than a STR fighter. Barring, as I've said, skills and initiative, I find it impossible. The STR fighter usually has much higher damage potential and more room for feats, not to mention more versatility in battle.

The one exception might be a Slayer, but I haven't been able to theorycraft with it yet.

Just because your playgroup doesnt optimize (or optimize well (or know how to optimize well)) doesn't mean that it doesn't have benefits. Anecdotal evidence is not really evidence.

I have done the math. Its extremely effective. The peak of damage for a Full Dex Fighter is higher with a Dex to Damage Feat structure that is universal. Two Requirements (particularly if they are ones you want already such as Weapon Finesse) isn't sufficient if its a broad ability. If its refined like Dervish Dance... sure.

If you can use the DRP Olympics rules that provides a 181 DPR on a round by round basis, I would be interested to see. Even if the damage is comparable, the benefit to Dex damage build is still greater. Keep in mind, the average level 10 monster has 130 HP.

Im not saying you can't beat the 181 DPR, but I havent seen too many builds that provide that sort of consistent damage. (Though... to be fair- I haven't done an exhaustive search for it, but I have looked.)

Find a local hobby store. They are everywhere. You dont even have to go to one that is dedicated to a particular game style as game groups tend to be... uh... incestuous I guess is a good term.

Games Workshop (Warhammer) stores are good to go to because people tend to be interested in similar types of games. You may not find anyone looking to play Pathfinder there, but the people that play there probably have friends that do play pathfinder or some similar game. If you find a place dedicated to board games, that works too.

Game stores often have spaces that people can come and play at the store. My local place (a place called GMI) runs all sorts of games from Magic The Gatherin, to Warhammer, or Hordes, or Pathfinder, or evne simple boardgames. Whatever people want to play.

TheJayde wrote:

Im aware of the feats. I like that they are limited. I still think that they are statistically too good for a two feat pre-req. Which is kind of what Im responding to.

I see where you're coming from, but it's worth noting that Slashing Grace actually takes up three feats (Weapon Focus + Weapon Finesse + Slashing Grace) while Dervish Dance limits you to only using one one-handed weapon so no TWF, and that both options more or less mandate weapon versatility if you want to get through DR or avoid splitting ooze etc.

TheJayde wrote:

I started with AD&D2E, so... I cant even fathom playing a mage with Int lower than 9... or a rogue dex lower than 9... its a restriction in that edition.

I started with D&D Red Box, though to be honest I was so young I don't really think I understood much of the rules at the time. I first started playing properly using MERP (still have my original character sheet somewhere), then progressed to AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and now Pathfinder.

Slight sidetrack, but: A 7 int wizard actually still faces a restriction in Pathfinder, though it's less stringent in AD&D - you need an intelligence score of 10+the level of the spell you're trying to cast. Even the worst wizard in all of Golarion would have at least 10 int in order to cast even the simplest cantrip.

The reason I mentioned the moronic wizard was that while I could absolutely see one of my players create a sickly and frail wizard with 7 con and make him viable, but they'd probably avoid the 7 int wizard. They could probably come up with a "moronic wizard" concept, but they'd probably realize it using a different class, like a sorcerer.

Right. I dont mind them because they are limited. I am against easy concepts that just directly or even broadly exchange Dex into the Str for damage. It takes too much away from Strength.

Nice. My uncles intorduced me into the game. Watched them play for YEARS. When I was twelve they finally let me and my cousins play. I made a fighter named Beethan Lietbur (Name ripped right out of M:TG. Sadly.)

I totally want to play a Int 7 Spellcasater now. Have a Sorcerer who simply reacts to situations. Has no percieved control of the magic, so a lot of the spells will just trigger from my first or funniest response.