Tyinyk's page

I think you did it.

The plan as your character planned it was unarguably chaotic good. If everything had gone as planned, no one would have been hurt, and the church would have been knocked down a few pegs. Intent's important to keep in mind.

Then the dude made a sharp left turn and did something so stupid that he got himself killed. Not planned, but still a positive event for good, since that freed many people who were being coerced into literally going to Hell. Many chaotic good characters would have just killed him outright, and still achieved a net gain, despite being more questionable in methods, but your character used nonviolence to bring down an evil church.

That's a magnificent play of chaotic good, right there.

Man, it was almost a whole month that time.

There's one interesting thing I've noted for Sword Saint. The full-round Iaijutsu Strike can be performed using the Start/Complete a Full-Round Action actions.

With Start/Complete a Full-Round Action, you spend a standard action in one round to "start", then another standard action in the next round to "complete" and the Full-Round Action takes place as part of the "complete" action. The Start/Finish actions explicitly exclude Full-Attack, Charge, Withdraw, and Run actions, but Iaijutsu Strike is none of these (it's a Use Special Ability action). So you can move into a good position and issue your challenge in Round 1 and Start Full-Round Action, then in Round 2, you can move into melee range (if needed) and spend your Standard action to Complete and execute the Iaijutsu Strike against your designated target. It makes it a bit easier to execute.

This is probably the best way to use it to keep it from being complete garbage.

It's still bad, but at least it doesn't make the ability almost impossible to pull off.

I'd say it's in-line with verisimilitude for the criminal element of the land to recognise targets that are out of their capabilities to rob.

"Hey, I've heard of those guys, they could probably kill us with a single swing of their sword. Let's rob those peasants again, it's not much gold, but at least we'll live."

I want a gunslinger archetype that is good at stopping spells.

"The enemy wizard casts fireball."
"I shoot his spell out of the air."
"...Make an attack roll."

I had a DM who did something similar to this to me, once. He wasn't a dick, but he GMed like a dick, which sounds like what you're dealing with.
My feeling from your two threads is that your GM really just wants to tell "His" story, not the groups, and screw you if you don't want to just ride the rails.

I wouldn't recommend falling on your sword right away. Run with events a bit, see if an out becomes apparent, and try and get your problem cured.

But the second your GM makes you roll a will save to avoid murdering someone (Which I expect will happen, given what you've said about this DM), that's when you take out your blade and stab yourself in the heart, since you can no longer be trusted to be in full control of your actions.

yeah... I'm curious what his definition of 'murder' is. Death can follow a righteous warrior pretty easily, but most wouldn't consider it 'murder'. Every killer, every bandit that attacks you... dies in a fight and you get healed. Iomeda isn't Saranrae after all... Premeditated would simply mean... There are bandits attacking people. I'm going hunting for them!!

It MAY not be that bad if THAT's the route he's thinking. Somehow I doubt it though. I think he wants the paladin to fall.

In that case... I think dying after 70 days (if not sooner) is a perfectly legitimate strategy. Draw a line in the sand... and do NOT cross it. Either the character dies... Some holy presence rewards him for his principle... or The DM gets bored and shows you the way out of this mess..

He already said it has to be a non-evil, non-combat death.

I'm with the others, your GM's a dick.

I'd like to see a martial field controller. It would be interesting.

I'd like to see a lot of style feats that don't rely on unarmed fighting. I really like playing characters with styles, but I only like playing fistfighters every so often.

The Brute also has some delightful talents.

Accept that your God's definitions of Law and Good seem to be far beyond your comprehension, because you were sure you were in the right. Retrain all your levels into inquisitor or fighter. Keep worshiping your God, but without as tight of a leash around your neck.

The situation involved obviously had more thought put into it than that. I mean, think about it. He made it so that the three options he had all resulted in a lose. No walking away, no matter who he attacked he would have lost, and because of another party member, under control from the DM, there was no avoiding it. He really thought it through.

Ha Ha Ha, :) Good reference. Or, better still, collect them all and put them in glass cases in a long hall. Let them sit there and glare at each other in all their impotent rage.

I'm making a rogue whose sole goal is to do that now.

I don't think you should have fallen, but that sounds like the GM carefully engineered a classic box full of Goblin babies for you.

Pointing out a rather basic rule for the action economy isn't exactly rules lawyering.

First, don't get caught up in the world too much. You don't really need all that much, and the player's aren't going to care what the deal is with the country on the other side of the world, unless they go there.

I'd suggest start building the world where the players are going to be, then balloon outwards from there.

I'll agree with everyone else here and say you're not metagaming.
It's still not really good form to go talking about the setting OOC all the time, though, which is probably what's upsetting the other players. They want to discover things for themselves, through play, not here you talk about it to the GM, then have the GM suddenly have it be so (Which seems weird to me, assuming I'm not misunderstanding.)

I'd recommend spending the time you'd normally spend fanboying on the setting on in-character conversations and banter with the rest of the party. It keeps everyone in the mental space of the game, gets everyone involved, and gives the GM time to get everything in order for the next encounter.

Hellknight it up, then.

I think fudging is fine when done to keep the party, or a great (Fun) PC from biting the bullet. There are times where it works well from a narrative standpoint to have a party member die, but many average fights are not that time.

On the other side of things, I once played with a DM who would try to kill party members (fairly, in most cases.) He would publicly declare when he was using the "Hand of God" to change a roll, and by his own rule, was only allowed to use a Hand of God once per [Session, if I recall.] It was actually fairly fun, and I didn't think it was unsporting at all. He always wrote encounters so that we could succeed, and he was up front about when he was giving the enemies a hand. Our Bard also made the enemy get a worse roll after a hand of God, which negated the advantage, and it was a good time all around.

It's all about how you fudge, not necessarily why. That said, I still think in most cases it should be done for the party's benefit.

Given that the hybrid forms of the lycanthrope creatures in the bestiary still keep their armor, I feel the intent is for you to keep your armor. RAW though, I don't think you do.

Tyinyk wrote:

This thread is a rollercoaster.

I'm sorry, can you be more clear? Do you think this webpage is actually an amusement park ride or do you only mean that the feelings you get while reading it remind you of riding on said amusement park ride?

You snarky bastard.

By which I mean the informal definition of "an unpleasant or despicable person" not someone born to parents not married to each other.

Hot damn that's tedious.

I believe the Automatic Bonus Progression rules were introduced for this very purpose.

This thread is a rollercoaster.

Nothing says safety like trying to kill someone drinking death in a bottle whilst juggling chainsaws using your own clone.

I always think letting the player do creative things is a good idea. Of course, I'm the kind of player that likes doing stuff like this, so I'm a bit biased.

I'd have them make a crafting check to make a bow capable of feeding the wire effectively through the mechanism, then have it take a swift action to load a 'Copper Bolt' into the crossbow.

Other than that, I wouldn't change much. Unless they have Spell Combat, it'll take them two rounds to actually get the spell to go through the bolt.

Happy belated 100th post, by the way!

It IS an acting cue, because the player chooses what they do when they've been affected. It doesn't change WHY they did it, however (They failed their save.)

The subject at hand would mean that the character suddenly has some character flaw they didn't have before, such as wanting to murder all their friends the entire time.

It takes player agency away from the player whenever they fail a Will Save. It's not about winning a fight.

The most unsightly orgy to ever be hosted.

Hey, I'm in Seattle too!

Add that to the fact that we're both keeping this thread alive, and we've got like, TWO things in common!

I had been wondering a while ago if someone with Deft Shootist could choose to provoke an attack of opportunity when firing point blank (Perhaps because they have levels in Gulch Gunner). The only person who responded said probably not, but I feel like you should be able to.

You could go for a nice stroll through the air with your friend by walking on each other's feet, so long as you're roughly the same weight.

The Investigator Majordomo Archetype is basically styled off of a Head-of-Staff styled butler.

If you really want to avoid the cheese suspicion, you could just list off the actual XP values of the stuff they dealt with. The math'll be your friend.

You could have the grateful citizens frequently write them letters over the course of the campaign, potentially with gifts, or with information the people have sought out to help the party.

A level 18 siege gunner operating a Firewyrm can unleash a 90-foot cone of fire, as long as he has one grit. He can spend one grit for a dead shot (I think.) dealing 18d6, reflex for half.

A character with 22 strength is at a light load with 173 lbs. Which means their max carrying weight for travel and such is 520 lbs. Which means that his suitcase of 160 lbs of chainmail is perfectly feasible to swing around willy-nilly. It's not shaped for use as a weapon, so it's still improvised, but it's really not that hard to use as a weapon.

There's probably some forms of life that either don't care about radiation, or even thrive on it.

You can also use a standard action to take a move action.

It's also less of anything. It's the same as a stereotypical supervillain wanting to blow up the world, despite living on it. Except, on a multiverse-wide scale.

If you want a wand-monkey, you can get a familiar on basically any class without giving up as much.
If you want extra action economy, you can get an animal companion on most classes without giving up as much.

As opposed to killing a bunch of NPCs who just popped up to get murdered, you could have the Villain casually slaughter the town that the PCs have been hanging around, developing feelings for. It has more impact than introducing one likable NPC just to kill, and WAY more impact than introducing a bunch of faceless NPCs just to kill.

You could have him use the Extinction Wave Device to wipe out an army/city. Then the players have no idea what he can do, and will have to figure out how to take this doomsday machine out of the equation.

You could pretty much just stop after step 4, since "The Tarrasque" as an engine of doom is dead, personality-wise. Now you have "Fluffy" the incredibly powerful force of law and good.

Just don't Jay-Walk around him.

At that point you're not even talking about "the Tarrasque" anymore, making its actual nature (and statblock) rather irrelevant. It could just as easily be a level 1 commoner that Rovagug (or any other deity) has taken a shine to for whatever "what if" reason.

That'll be my next campaign. The Reign of Joe, the Level 1 commoner the Gods made unkillable.

I actually think that makes it a good candidate for an 'Ultimate' book. Like how Horror Adventures gave a lot of suggestions and tricks for running a horror game in Pathfinder, which doesn't normally lend itself to horror. Ultimate Wilderness could give a lot of tips and rule alterations to make a wilderness survival game fun and challenging.

That's never a crepey idea.

See what I did there?

I would hope so, because it was super obvious.

I ate a couple of baked cheese sandwiches. They're like grilled cheeses, but made using an oven.

They were pretty good.

Funny idea for an evil gunslinger though. He needs to make regular animal sacrifices to maintain his talent.

The Figment familiar archetype might fit somewhat.

A book focusing on the real people playing the game is not a book I would buy. I think Paizo should stick to game content.