Search Posts
Well, after reading over the advice I think I'll be going with persistent. A big chunk of that is I decided I wanted to add utility to fireball rather then better it's current purpose, which is to do damage. Thank you all for your input, it is very appreciated!
A diviner or abjuration specialist would fit the bill quite nicely. Both provide you with abilities that'll help the group significantly. Divination specialist might be even better, because going first might ensure you getting off a spell to protect or buff your allies before they need it rather then after. Unfortunately, with that party make up, your group is lacking healing of any kind. You'll be forced to rely on either UMD, potions, or hired help, which are all useful, but have significant drawbacks. So cleric, or even oracle, might be the smarter choice.
I'm playing a blaster type sorcerer, which I already posted about, but this is a more specific question. My plan is to at some point, be tossing out Dazing Fireballs, which makes the save more important then usual. I have only 1 feat that I can really change out in this build, and it is currently occupied by Intensify. With my end goal in mind, would it be better to switch out Intensify for Persistent, and then get a rod of intensify? Or should I get persistent as my rod? Mind you, I'm already planning on getting a metamagic Rod of Elemental (acid). Relevant information; currently I have Magical Lineage and Outlander (Lore Seeker) for fireball, providing a +1 CL, +1 DC and a reduction of 1 spell level cost on metamagic. Thoughts?
That's what I figured. I was pretty certain you couldn't use metamagic on Spell-like abilities, but since you chose the spell in question for this ability I wasn't sure if you could pick a modified spell. Thanks for your clarification!
So that's how the cost works, good to know, and I'm assuming I cant exceed 9th level? If I have reducers, such as Magical Lineage, would that still come into effect to determine the slot I consume when creating the scroll?
I know when casting from scrolls you don't use any of your feats or stats, that I'm clear on. What I'm curious about is how this functions when I scribe my own scrolls. If I scribe a scroll, can I add metamagic feats to it, as long as I have slots of a high enough level when crafting it? Do the scrolls I scribe use my caster level (if I don't lower it deliberately)? And do the scrolls use my caster stat to set the DC, if any? Obviously once crafted these stats would be set in stone. Clarity would be appreciated! Thanks!
I'm making a tattooed Sorcerer, a blaster type, and had a question on one of it's abilities. The ability in question is: Enhanced Varisian Tattoo (Su): At 9th level, the tattooed sorcerer can pick any one spell she knows for which she has a Varisian Tattoo feat. This spell must be one that lacks focus components and costly material components. She can now use that spell as a spell-like ability once per day. This spell-like ability is not enhanced by her Varisian Tattoo, but it functions at +2 caster levels above her sorcerer caster level. Whenever she gains a bloodline power at a later date, she may change this spell-like ability to another qualifying spell. This ability replaces the 9th-level bloodline power. The question is, when I designate the spell I want for my spell-like ability, can I designate one with metamagic attached, as long as I could otherwise cast it? For instance, at 9th level, I could designate an Elemental (Acid) Fireball as my spell-like ability with the enhanced tattoo, or say, an Intensified Fireball? I don't see rules for or against this anywhere, but then again, this isn't a normally occurring situation. Clarity would be much appreciated!
So much good advice already, so much to ponder and mull over! :D Intensify spell is pretty key here also, more important for a blaster than elemental focus I feel. I agree on the importance of Intensify, I'm just not sure if I'll be getting it via the feat or a rod specifically. Elemental metamagic is also drawing my attention for the same slot. [quote=]Take a long hard look at Tattooed (Varisian) Sorcerer archetype.
I'd looked at the tattooed archetype, I didn't realize it gave a free spell focus. The main reason I wasn't going with it was because I lost my 7th level bloodline feat, which I didn't want to lose. We're on the same page as far as the Wildfire heart :) Persistent Spell - what for at 5th level? You can only use it for 1st level spells at 6th-8th level, so unless you have a specific strategy in mind I'd really skip this until you have enough spell levels to make it useful. The idea was to use it on fireballs via magical lineage and metamagic master, forcing double saves at 5th level seemed like a solid choice. The same logic applies to the use of empower at 7th lvl. On the subject of bloodlines if you want one which provides much the same flavour but has far better bloodline spells then have a look at Efreeti. I'd been considering it actually, I hadn't made the choice to switch because I liked the idea of giving some big baddie fire vulnerability via Elemental Blast. I'll consider it more heavily though. Your feats look fine although as mentioned I would pick up elemental spell, probably instead of elemental focus. I might try and fit in Greater Spell Penetration or take some SR: No damaging spells to attach Dazing to. Acid Arrow, Ice Spears and Acid or Hungry Pit are interesting options. Good thoughts, I'll be changing out elemental focus, the consensus seems to be universal that it should go bye bye. Dealing with your build, notice that trait bonuses as a general rule do not stack. Were I your GM, I wouldn't let you pick Magical Lineage (Fireball) and Metamagic Master (Fireball) to have a 2 level discount on the final adjusted level. Normally I'd agree, but they aren't really bonus's and are generally considered to stack, but they can't reduce a spell to lower then its base spell level. The consensus online seems to agree, this thread holds more info in that. For quick clarification, when I say metamagic master I'm referring to wayang spellhunter. If you're running PFS scenarios you might run into issues with not allowing it, but for your home games, well, your game your rules :) I've never seen Lore Seeker before, what's the source material for it?
I generally don't play blaster types, or damage dealers for that matter, I usually focus on utility, support and battlefield control. So I decided to go out of my comfort zone a bit, and play an arcane blaster for once. I just have no clue on what to pick feat wise and such, and could use a bit of help, or at the very least confirmation that I'm making good choices. The character will be an Ifrit, Elemental (Fire) Sorcerer. This isn't really up for discussion, it may not be as optimal a choice as a Human Arcane sorcerer, but it's the character I want to play. Traits I was thinking of taking Magical Lineage (Fireball), and Metamagic Master (Fireball). I figure with this I can empower or persistent metamagic my fireballs without increasing the spell level slot used. I chose Fireball since it seems like overall the best choice, but I'm open to suggestions on this, as well as the traits in general. For my feats I was thinking something like the following:
Metamagic wise, I still want/need Elemental, Selective, Intensify, but I don't see how/where to fit them in, perhaps a rod or 2? Spell selection I'm still uncertain of, other then the fact that I'll be keeping it to 1 or 2 blast spells at most per spell level, with good utility spells thrown in every level (like haste, invisibility, black tentacles, etc). Any thoughts, suggestions and such would be very appreciated, thanks!
You're correct the monk has more dump stats (Int and Cha) and still the warpriest comes out on an overall stronger position (at least when considering base classes and not archetypes). However, the monks issues stem back to 3.0 and the legacy of its design, which is better in Pathfinder, but still a weak class. That's a different discussion for a different thread though :)
I think we should all post our agreement that the class is spread too thin on attributes and is quite MAD, so fervor should be changed to being focused on Wisdom. Everyone who agrees please post something to say so and we will show how much we agree before this playtest closes and they make their final decisions regarding the class. The class is too MAD. What needs to be understood is that this does not mean the class is weak or underpowered. The class is overall, capable in what it does; healing a bit, buffing itself and the party, and hitting stuff with weapons. The problem is that being MAD causes the class to require more system mastery and stunts creativity with builds. When a class requires too many stats to do it's job correctly, it emphasizes optimization and power gaming. This hurts new players the most, who are more likely to not have a solid understanding of the system, and generally make sub-optimal choices when making their first character(s). Let's face it, a roleplayer will focus on roleplay and will make unoptimized choices for the sake of story. But that doesn't mean they want their character to be weak or incapable. Powergamers will optimize, it doesn't matter how MAD or SAD the class is stat wise, they'll make the most powerful choices they can. So lets not penalize our new players (the ones that provide our hobby a healthy future) or our non-powergamers choices as a means to "thwart" the powergamers and optimizers. There isn't really another good reason to keep the class so MAD (that I can think of). If you're worried about balance, then balance around it keying off just wisdom and not wisdom and charisma.
The main problem I have with your comparison is that you're comparing a non spellcasting melee class to a spellcasting melee class. You're really just underlining the power gap between mundane classes vs spellcasting classes, and not whether the warpriest is too MAD or just MAD enough(which I assume is the point of your post). Do a comparison between an Inquisitor and a Warpriest, or a Battle Cleric and a Warpriest, that'll be a better comparison. Honestly I don't think anyone would argue with you that the warpriest, using his limited resource abilities to gain a buffs, will edge out a fighter without buffs. That's why they are limited on the number of uses per day. The other issue I have with your comparison is that the warpriest build is really just show casing how good that trait is. You take out that trait, and they're very comparable, even with scared weapon. Once a warpriest runs out of his spell/special abilities, he'll always fall short of the fighter.
While I understand your point, I'm going to have to disagree with you. While every class needs Con, as it is so closely tied to survivability, melee oriented classes (which the warpriest is skewed towards) need higher Con or they simple don't survive encounters. It's been my experience that a melee with less then 14 Con will likely not make it to 2nd level, barring being straight up lucky. By your logic, you could ignore any ability score because all classes "need" it. We can ignore Int because all classes need it for skill points, we can ignore Dex because all classes need it for initiative, AC and reflex saves, I could go on. If a melee oriented character wants to be able to fulfill his role of going into melee and fighting effectively, they cannot ignore Con as a required stat. It's just as necessary to their effectiveness as Int is to a wizard, or Cha is to a sorcerer.
The number of stats necessary to make the warpriest work, really needs to be reeled in a bit. I understand the idea of making the class MAD to balance out it's strength, but I feel like it's too much so. All this will do is stifle build creativity and penalize anyone who builds a character outside the norm. With a 20 point buy (before racials): Str 14
With a +2 to one ability score for overall racial modifiers. This is obviously a melee character, and I just don't see anywhere to really tweak this without hurting the character mechanically. Being a melee fighter, you really don't want less then 14 Con, you also want some Dex and Str for AC, initiative, and melee attacks. Wisdom being our casting stat needs to be somewhat acceptable, and some charisma is needed to fuel our class features. Sure you still have racial modifiers to apply, but an overall +2 to an ability score won't alter this basic setup much. Being a martial character with a casting/ability stat is already pretty MAD, it doesn't need both wisdom and charisma to fuel its abilities. God help you if you're in a game with something less than a 20 point buy, or you want to make a character outside of the norm. Needing 4 stats is enough (Str, Dex, Con, plus Wis or Cha), that's my opinion at least.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the investigators Intelligence should play directly into Studied Combat and studied strike. Part of me also keeps thinking that moving away from additional damage dice and instead towards conditions and effects makes more sense for studied strike. Have Studied Combat also add the investigators Int Mod to all damage rolls (have it multiply on crits, but things immune to precision damage are immune to this extra damage). Studied strikes then can be used during an attack as a free action, usable once per target of Studied Combat. When studied strikes is used select one of the following options: All war is deception: Your attack made you look more vulnerable then you truly were, causing your opponent to act carelessly. The target is flat-footed for this attack and X amount of time. Relax, I'm a doctor: You know the human body fairly well, you've seen a dozens of crime scenes, you know what bends, and what breaks, and you've shared your findings. Allies within 30ft gain your Int Mod as an insight bonus to melee and ranged attack damage rolls for X amount of time. Discombobulate: Leave your opponent guessing where the next hit will come from and you'll find they're much less of a threat. The target is staggered for X amount of time. Heel kick to diaphragm: We are fragile creatures, and a well placed strike can take good advantage of that. The target is sickened for X amount of time. At higher levels, you can do it more than once to a target, taking sickened to nauseated, flat-footed to dazed, staggered to stunned, etc.. The investigator would get additional damage they need to be effective from Studied Combat (Int Mod) while not being too ridiculous, and can also contribute to the group by applying conditions/buffs through Studied Strikes. The investigator's fighting style should feel like it's leveraging his brain, and not as much his brawn, hit them where it counts and leave openings for your friends to take advantage of. Anywho, that's more my mind has gone on this at least... Also, here is the fight scene from the Sherlock Holmes movie, it's kind of fun to read!: [in a bare-knuckle boxing match, Holmes sees Irene and tries to forfeit and leave] Sherlock Holmes: That's it, big man. You've won, congratulations. McMurdo: Oi, we ain't done yet! [He spits at the back of Holmes's head. Holmes stops] Sherlock Holmes: [voice-over] This mustn't register on an emotional level... [in slow motion] Sherlock Holmes: First, distract target... [Holmes flicks a handerchief in front of his opponent's face] Sherlock Holmes: Then block his blind jab, counter with cross to left cheek. Discombobulate. [Holmes claps his hands over his opponent's ears] Sherlock Holmes: Dazed, will attempt wild haymaker. Employ elbow block, and body shot. Block feral left, weaken right jaw, now fracture. [a cross to the jaw fractures the bone] Sherlock Holmes: Break cracked ribs, traumatize solar plexus, dislocate jaw entirely. [Two more body blows, and a right hook to the jaw hinge] Sherlock Holmes: Heel kick to diaphragm... [Holmes finishes with a heel kick to his opponent's chest, sending him crashing out of the ring] Sherlock Holmes: In summary: ears ringing, jaw fractured, three ribs cracked, four broken, diaphragm haemmorraging. Physical recovery: six weeks. Full psychological recovery: six months. Capacity to spit at back of head: neutralized. [Back in real time, Holmes picks up the handkerchief, as though wiping the back of his neck, then does all of the foregoing in about six seconds, and kicks McMurdo out of the ring]
This is a lengthy post so I'm going to put the larger bits in spoilers. I took the abilities as written, and tried to tweak them into something interesting and different. I looked at this ability and so a kind of domino effect, as in, you study your opponent, and beat on them in rapid succession, each hit more brutal then the last. This is what I came up with. Studied Combat:
With a keen eye and a calculating mind, an investigator can measure the mettle and combat skill of his opponent, and take advantage of any gaps in talent or training. At 1st level, an investigator can take a standard action to study single enemy that he can see. Upon doing so, he adds half his investigator level (minimum 1) as an insight bonus to melee attack rolls against the creature for a number of rounds equal to his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1 round).
An investigator can only have one target of studied combat at a time, and once a creature has become the target of an investigator’s studied combat, he cannot become the target of the same investigator’s studied combat for 24 hours. Studied Strikes (Ex):
At 4th level, an investigator makes studied strikes against the target of his studied combat to deal additional damage, dealing your bonus damage equal to the investigators Int modifier. Studied Strikes also deals extra damage for each consecutive hit against the target of studied combat, for each of the previous consecutive hits you have made against that opponent this turn, deal an extra 1d6 + Int modifier. At 12th level this damage increases to 2d6 + Int modifier, and at 3d6 + Int modifier at 20th. The damage of studied strike is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit; creatures that are immune to sneak attack are also immune to studied strike.
If the investigator’s attack used a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), he may choose to have the additional damage from studied strike be nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. If the investigator chose to make an attack with a lethal weapon instead do nonlethal damage (with the usual –4 penalty), the studied strike damage may also deal nonlethal damage. The investigator must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. An investigator cannot use studied strike against a creature with concealment. At 10th level, with 18 Int and wielding a single weapon this would mean a +12/+7 attacks against a single opponent, dealing normal weapon damage + 4 (Int Mod) on the first attack that hits, and normal weapon damage +1d6+8 (Int Mod x2). If they had a 3rd attack that hits, it would be +2d6+12 (Int Mod x3) extra damage. I hope that makes sense. Possible discoveries would add the insight bonus to saving throws and AC, increase the duration of Studied combat, increase the damage die type d6 to d8 on studied strikes, and/or an additional die to Studied Strikes. That's my idea at least.
Personally, I look at the warpriest and see the perfect vehicle for a party buffer/debuffer. Someone who can fight up front and nudge the fight in the parties favor, and provide some healing as needed. These are my suggestions: - Keep them at 3/4 BAB and spellcasting - Give them access to certain buff spells earlier then normal (similar to summoners and haste) - Allow them to spontaneously cast certain buff spells in the way cleric spontaneously cast cure/inflict; spells like divine favor, righteous might - Give them an ability to cast personal buff spells as a swift action - Give them a singular resource to key most/all of their limited use abilities from, I nominate channel energy - Make blessings 1st level power act like an aura that buffs/debuffs allies/enemies, possibly keyed off channeling - Weapon Focus can be any weapon they are proficient with, deities favored weapons are automatically a weapon focus - Certain abilities receive a bonus if used with deities favored weapon - Make them a little less MAD, key channel energy off something other then CHA Being able to buff as a swift would solve the issue that plagues most melee oriented clerics, allowing the warpriest to show off. Also making it an area based buffer/debuffer puts it in a role similar to a bard, but with a more divine and martial focus. This is the direction I'd like to see it go at least, less weaker cleric, more support/jack of all trades with a martial/front-line focus.
I agree with you but, unfortunately, as it is implemented it lacks the flavor you speak of while simultaneously putting a strict limit on player choice. As is now, all warpriests of Pharasma will have to use a dagger or completely miss out on an entire class feature. Not the best design on that specific feature IMO. I proposed the ability be made to include any weapon wielded with the deities favored weapon getting a more powerful buff from scared weapon, or getting a longer duration. Making it ideal to use the favored weapon, but not required. Alternately, scared weapon could be activated on any weapon as normal, but is unlimited and automatic when wielding the deities favored weapon (the bonuses used in this way would have to be chosen when picking spells each day to keep it from being too flexible). This would allow the warpriest exactly what you're talking about while also giving the flexibility to use another weapon and temporarily impart it with the power of your deity.
I'd just like to remind everyone that Irori's favored weapon is unarmed strikes. Favored weapons are just bad for a class feature.Because fighting unarmed isn't a thing that exists... I believe the point is more that unarmed strikes can't normally be enchanted and provoke attacks of opportunity unless you have the improved unarmed strike. Making sacred weapon either unusable or an exception to the norm, and making using it dangerous without an additional feat or special ability being added to the warpriest. Though I could be mistaken.
This new direction makes me excited, I look forward to seeing how they match the mechanics to the flavor.
Take the sacred weapon concept, and make it usable with any weapon you wield, proficiency and feats being irrelevant to its usage. When used on your deities favored weapon it gains a bonus of some type, maybe the duration is extended (rounds become minutes used), or the equivalent enchantment bonus is considered to have an additional +1. The ability now incentivize the use of the deities favored weapon, while keeping it flexible and still functional with other weapons. This also wouldn’t require much in terms of additional word count or explanation. Personally, I’d like to see sacred armor, sacred weapon, and the blessing concepts all tied together and attached to channel energy; make it function in some ways as the variant channeling in Ultimate Magic. When channel energy is used, all allies affected (when healing) receive a buff based off your blessings that lasts a minute, when using it to damage enemies it instead provides a debuff to foes based off your blessings. Sacred armor and sacred weapon could also activate on the warpriest when either channel is performed, lasting up to a minute (any new channels would overwrite/reset the time, no stacking obviously). Sacred armor and weapon could alternatively be a separate buff that consumes the channel energy uses per day, preferably as a swift action. Replace weapon focus of deities favored weapon with selective channeling for free, and also key channeling to work off wisdom, strength or constitution to make them a little less MAD. tl;dr Tie abilities more closely to a single resource, like channel energy, make channel energy more about buffing and debuffing.
All the stuff I pretty much agree completely with everything you've outlined. Give the players recourse, using PP, and make it affordable without being trivial. I'd definitely add the limitation that should the player willingly give the item up (tribute, gift, etc) that it not be recoverable. Especially if such an action is used as a means of circumventing an encounter. The hardest part that you'll have is how to define this with out it being too complicated or easily abused. As for the quest idea, as interesting as it would be to encounter an old foe in order to recover a stolen item, or to set right a previous failure, designing the scenario would be next to impossible to do correctly. Too many factors and possibilities to consider, it'd just very likely become a convoluted mess. Better to bring back other Pathfinder corpses. Lots of good possibilities. This is probably the best way to approach it. An agent recovery/cleanup mission could potentially be a lot of fun, and could be an opportunity to bring back an old foe (preferably one that has a flee mechanic, but I suppose even the bad guys can be resurrected!). You could also do a black market scenario, in which pathfinders seek to recover relics stolen from the Society, and maybe they have the opportunity to recover a long lost "friend" in the process. :)
Again, we're back to stating opinions as facts and attacking another persons point of view instead of addressing the topic at hand. Ironic that you are doing exactly this to me. Your derogatory and condescending tone is not appreciated. You also seem to be putting words in my mouth. Never did I talk about recourse for all the different possible ways one can "fail" in Pathfinder. I'm only talking about a very specific set of circumstances, that relates to PFS only and is the subject of this thread: A player has gear lost, stolen or otherwise taken from them by the GM. The scenario ends, and they weren't able to retrieve it within the scenario. In a normal campaign you could spend time on the side getting said items back, PFS you do not have that option. What is the players recourse for getting said item back or replaced? You appear to believe there should be none, I disagree. On a side note I have seen some boon's that allow you to gain a PP where you'd otherwise not get one, so a precedent already exists. Everyone's experience, no matter how many stars they have or games they've played represents just a small fraction of the PFS games and experiences in the world. It's impossible for any one person to claim to know with certainty that their experiences represent the population as a whole. Wise words, you should heed them. Sass intended.
It should be a player's responsibility to help their character not lose their equipment. Neglecting your CMD, for example, and then arguing for a cheap recovery when your bow is disarmed and stolen is absurd. Normally, I'd agree with you, it is a players responsibility to secure their equipment and try to keep it safe. The problem lies in how PFS functions, and the ramifications losing wealth has. In a normal campaign, if you have your bow disarmed and stolen, you can attempt to get it back. Maybe you infiltrate the lair/base of those who stole it, or maybe you under go a quest to acquire a new powerful bow to replace it. In PFS you have no such options, once the scenario is done, or a situation moves outside of the parameters of the scenario, you're effectively permanently damaged. Permanent loss of wealth in PFS is as debilitating and damaging as permanent strength damage to a melee fighter, or permanent negative levels (both of which, if are not resolved at the end of a scenario, retire your character). Oh, and stating that my tongue-in-cheek response is not an appropriate response is merely your opinion, please refrain from stating it as a fact. I know many players who love the challenge their character has to face after their stuff gets stolen (right Chad?!). Whether it was tongue-in-cheek is rather inconsequential, the conversation isn't "How do I as a player deal with my stuff getting stolen in game?" it's "A player had an item stolen and could be permanently lost, do they have any recourse?" Your response is not appropriate because it doesn't answer the question at hand. Being a joke doesn't negate that. While your players may love the challenge faced after their items are stolen, it's the lack of recourse in PFS that makes this a jerk move, and the core issue at hand. Permanent lose of an item only promotes players to kill their characters and get them resurrected, rather then have expensive gear stolen or lost. I don't think anyone believes that's a good mentality to promote. This isn't fun for anyone, except maybe the GM. And if a GM is taking pleasure in a players misery, they shouldn't be GMing at all. (Kyle note that this is not directed at you nor is it intended to imply that you're a bad GM or shouldn't be GMing, this bit is just a general statement and opinion.) note: Maybe part of the problem is I've been mugged in real life, and so even virtual theft with threat of violence already has me emotionally charged and a bit serious. But even if that's true, I think my perspective and opinions still hold water.
Or, you know, you could not let your stuff get stolen in the first place.. That seems to me to be a terrible point of view. That's along the lines of blaming the victim when they get robbed at gun point, because you know, they "didn't do enough" to avoid being robbed. Permanently losing gear in a game setup like PFS, because a GM decides to use the steal maneuver and then retreat, is a jerk move. A big reason is because a player has no recourse once the scenario is over to recover the item due to the mechanics of PFS. So there needs to be a way to address that, and simply telling a player, "not let your stuff get stolen in the first place" is not an appropriate response.
There should probably be a distinction made between items lost/stolen or otherwise taken from the player against their will/desire, and a player that willing gives up an item. Significant loss of wealth can effectively retire a character, and so there needs to be a way to recover that loss. 5PP is not a trivial amount, especially with introduction of retraining rules. And while it may pale in comparison to the value of the item lost, it's still significant enough to not be a desirable price to pay. The way I'd approach it, is to recover lost or stolen gear (any item(s) taken from a character against their will by an npc, monster or environment/situation) costs 5PP. It's essentially an insurance policy, and it's in the Society's best interest to keep it's agents at full capacity. If a character willing gives up an item(s), as a bribe or gift in order to complete the scenario successfully, the item is replaceable with a PP cost based on the items value. Some sort of tiered system 0-5000gp = 5PP, 5001-15000gp = 10pp, 15001-30000gp = 15PP, etc.. Basically an insurance policy, something significant, but still reasonably affordable considering the actual gold value of the item. Either way, to lose a significant amount of wealth in PFS is a problem that can retire a character. If these were home games, then the character has options available to recover said wealth in a variety of ways, none of which exist in PFS.
Alright then, out of curiosity, what is your proposal for the situation? I've thought about it, I'm a problem solver by trade. I haven't given a solution because I haven't come up with a satisfactory one as of yet. Anything I could think of would require a massive overhaul to how PFS is structured and I don't believe that's desirable. I've thought about adjustable difficulty considerably, part of my issue with it is the additional work a GM would need to prepare (since they won't know if they players are doing hard mode or not). Having to consider more information and additional rules only increases the chances a GM will make an error, and I've seen grievous ones that have killed players (such as a GM applying DR 10/magic against fire damage). Yes, GM's should know the rules, but even the best GM is fallible and can forget a seldom used mechanic. I suppose a good question to ask would be; How would you go about making the combat more challenging? -More enemies?
Each of these will increase the challenge, but poses more work for the GM and generally inflated combat durations. And while longer durations means more chances for everyone to contribute, it also means you're likely to start pushing your time constraints for the scenario. And all of these still put the sub-par optimized party members at greater risk, and the power builds might not always be able to adequately protect them. It's not a clear solution. Honestly, I've found that smarter enemies using better tactics is almost always a more satisfying challenge then inflated numbers whether that's the # of enemies, their hp, their stats or their CR. A group of lowly kobolds or goblins with a favorable environment can wreck havoc on a party of optimized players. And maybe that's the solution, some encounters written with enemies employing smarter more deadly tactics, using their environment to great effect. I'd also give the players the ability to avoid these deadly situation with cleverness and/or silver tongues. And if not completely avoidable, more favorable if they're clever enough leading up to the encounter. I've actually seen this already employed in several modules, one where we got to the BBEG before their scout got back to warn them, leaving them unprepared for us. Had they been prepared we'd have had a much more difficult fight on our hands and likely would have lost a party member or two.
My experience has been that in general, the event is not markedly more difficult, they're just longer and more involved. This does add some difficulty as you'll need to manage resources to make sure they last you through the event. Party tactics is usually the key, as well as your ability to avoid entire encounters through stealth, wit and social grace. But without details on the specific event, it's hard to say really.
If you mandate that they all must be the same level, then you are correct. If you let a lower level optimizer play alongside a higher level 'casual' then they could be roughly the same level of power. They've already said they do not want players playing out of tier, and have already shown they dislike players playing up. Why would they then go and implement a system that caters to that, or even needs playing up to even out? Not true. The players can discuss amongst themselves and determine the best difficulty. Players already strong arm weaker ones into playing up for the greater wealth, how would this be any different? If you're not optimized, or even sub-par your survivability is diminished already, deadly combat only makes this more apparent. Like I said before, if you're adjusting difficulty to challenge stronger builds, the weaker ones at the table will feel less able to contribute, while also being in great danger of losing their character. Even if the power builds can "protect" the weaker ones, how fun do you think that is for all involved? All this does is give us a new set of problems to consider while also managing to fail to address the issue at hand. And if they did implement a hard mode, would most players do it if there wasn't a greater reward for the extra challenge? My guess is no. Hard Modes and adjustable difficulties; maybe someone can use them as part of some greater scheme to balance things out, but as they stand on their own, just aren't the answer.
How does adjusting the difficulty of a given encounter solve the problem stated? If you make it harder you'll better challenge your optimizers, however, in the same stroke your weaker players will be less able to contribute and be at serious risk of losing a character. The problem doesn't go away, it really gets worse if anything. Having adjustable difficulty levels, aka a "hard mode", would only help the situation if you could guarantee the players sitting at the table were all of the same level of optimization and ability. And that seems highly improbable.
Items are only enlarged at the time of casting. So anything you pickup afterwards would remain the same size. I've never seen or heard of it enlarging items after the fact, and I doubt that would be the intended.
@Bigdaddyjug Yes, Selective Channeling applies to any source of Channel Energy you have, regardless of when you get the feat and when you acquire a source of Channel Energy. This is true for all feats, including Extra Channel, which gives you 2 additional uses of channel energy from any source. This doesn't add 2 to each source, but rather gives you a pool of 2 channels per day. Example:
Thanks Majuba! I was inclined to believe that's how it would work, but thought it best to seek additional opinions.
Each level you add half a use to any domain/school ability that has 3 + caster stat mod uses per day. So it takes a total of 2 levels of investment to get an actual use. If you have more then one qualifying ability that offers 3 + Caster stat uses per day, you can choose which ability the favored class bonus applies to at each individual level. Example:
At levels 1 through 4 you could apply the bonus to Bit of Luck, gaining a total of 2 more uses of that ability. Then levels 5 through 10 apply it to Agile Feet gaining 3 more uses per day for that domain power.
I have a couple of questions regarding Channel Energy and getting it from more then one source (class). Variant Channeling:
Example:
Quick Channel Feat:
Example:
I was playing around, trying to figure out how to build my Half-Orc rogue, and came up with the following crazy idea. I figured I'd share it and see what people thought of it. Sneaky Cleaver
Str 18
FEATS
ROGUE TALENTS
Now, you might be thinking, why not a fighter, or a barbarian? Why choose rogue for this? Well 2 reasons, first off, I wanted to be able to fill the trap/skill monkey role. Secondly, Improved Surprise Follow-Through denies any follow-up targets of Cleave or Greater Cleave their dexterity bonus against you. That means, Sneak Attack damage fun times. Being enlarged or otherwise gaining greater reach is important to compensate for cleaves weaknesses. Lunge would be a decent choice to shove in there, not sure where though. I threw in Improved Feint, so that the first target could be sneak attacked too. Assuming you're enlarged, power attacking and completely ignoring equipment (except that you're wielding a Falchion), you'll be doing a base of 2d6+16 +6d6 +2 Str damage 18-20/x2 to clusters of enemies. You're like a martial version of fireball. As fun as this looks, I question how playable it would be due to the limitations of cleave. But it certainly looks fun on paper. I picture him/her screaming "SNEAK! CLEAVE! SNEAK! CLEAVE!" every round as enemies are mowed down. Any thoughts?
Thank you all for the responses. So from what I can gather by some of the conflicting answers; is that it's going to be a lot like any game, in that it will depend heavily on the individual behind the screen and the other players. Which can be a good or bad thing, depending on how well I mesh. Hopefully the people in my area are a good fit. All "what do you wish you knew" answers were enlightening too, good stuff to keep in mind while trying to figure out my character build! Thanks again :) On a side note, my example shenanigan was an actual game moment I had. Shoved the wizard into a dark hole after he made a crack about my dwarf being short. He managed to roll on his landing and took no damage. When I got down he asked me if I thought that was funny, I said "Yes!" And he replied with "Good, then you'll find this hilarious!" And he sparked the dust billowing around my feet, which caused a small explosion. No damage or anything, but I failed a sense motive check and ended up falling on my rear from being startled. And thus began our pranking war, and one hell of an in character friendship. Good times.
As the subject suggests, I'm new to PFS and I'm trying to get a feel for it as I start building my first character. Mainly, I'm curious about common gaming conventions in regards to modules/scenarios, how the DM/Player relationship works under the rules of society play, and general advice for someone starting out! Couple of questions I have off the top of my head are:
Thanks for any help :)
These are just... amazing. Had a blast opening them and getting amazed with the detail in some of them. My only complaint is that one of mine hadn't been well attached to it's base and had come off it. It was undamaged however, and is something some super glue will easily fix with minimal effort. Now I have to figure out where to put all these! There are so many. I've also been pondering what the best way to transport them would be. What is everyone else using? Any suggestions for good and inexpensive cases for these?
The first thing that made me think of was a secretly Evil mayor in a putatively Good town. I hope the system ends up flexible enough to allow some interesting shenanigans, or can be manipulated by abilities/magic that hide/alter alignment to achieve similar results.
Shield Turtling The ultimate defense. Stops swords, arrows, and fireballs! Why use another tactic to stay alive when you can be an unkillable ball of steel! Train your squad today! Over use of exclamation points to emphasize seriousness! I've found that choices, even the illusion of choice, is generally a good part of what makes for satisfying game-play.
My suggestion is similar, but more flexible.I proposed something quite flexible myself, but Ryan explained why he wasn't fond of that idea. I get his concern there, though, depending on how alignments actually work, that sort of problem could sort itself out. People playing evil characters in a "Neutral" settlement that is really more of a good aligned one will find themselves at odds with the leadership. Personally, I'm in favor of having a separate alignment selection for the leadership and populous. I picture the leadership being a more restricted, focused, range of alignments or singular alignment, with the population being more open, allowing for tolerance. The difference would be most pronounced in democratically oriented communities where everyone has a vote. Anyone in the community who is not of the allowed leadership alignments would lose their vote. It would be less obvious in a dictatorship, since only the leader has power anyways. This would require an heir/successor system.
Well my fears are alleviated for the most part. You all did a good job of countering my points on the subject, my point of view was skewed. Thanks for helping me in correcting it guys.
Units are resistant to mind-altering spells because they have trained to think as a unit, not as individuals. They are resistant to AoE spells (if in a ranged-damage-resistant formation) because they provide mutual cover and protection. Since training as a monk grants magic resistance, even in the PnP rulebook, I don't see why training as a soldier can't. You also have a point. You see, that all makes sense to me, coordinated actions to resist specific types of effects; using shields to provide cover from a fireball, or chanting a mantra to resist mind-effects, are sound ideas. I was interpreting it as some sort of general resistance to any and all magic. But I've come or at least am coming out of that frame of mind. Though, monks to me aren't the best choice for a counter to my original argument, only because I've considered their spell resistance a fairly magic oriented ability gained through a balance of spiritual, mental and physical meditations and training not commonly found in military training. But it is still an example of gaining spell resistance through intense training, so it's a valid example.
Indeed the formations sound to be based on the leader, what's to say it isn't a spell or ability of the leader cast in formation shape etc... or even an ability for a wizard in his position in the formation etc... You have a point, my fear is based on assumptions. My opinion of casters is colored by my experience DMing and as a player in the table top, and I'm pulling more from that then from other MMOs. Perhaps I'm just taking his wording too literally, as in by saying "Units get magical resistance for being part of a cohesive unit" I should take it as "Individuals in a cohesive unit get a bonus to resist magic". My brain just railed against the idea of 20 guys standing in tight formation somehow becoming better at not dying to a circle of death or other AoE magical attack.
If an individual has some sort of magic resistance through a logical source in the game, it doesn't pose a problem to me. Generally that is an established racial trait, innate feature, spell, or magic item. If a fighter without the assistance of something to explain why they get magic resistance gets it by simply standing there and moving in coordination with someone, that's a problem, unless that coordination involves getting the hell out of the magics way. And yes, a magic user of appropriate level can and will devastate an individual, non-magically supported character. A level 20 fighter with no magical items or magical abilities would have to work incredibly hard to achieve victory. At lower levels the gaps are much smaller since casters have such limited resources, but higher up? Non-casters need a lot of assistance, luck, and surprise. edit: fixed quote
I like the idea of armies, squads and formations a lot for territory domination and control. Though I worry that the system will break down once in the hands of players, as we tend to break things. My main concern is about how magic and armies will be handled. Mainly because a magic user is much the same as technology is for us, and the effect it has on military tactics. It's a game changer. If formations of units are simply "magic resistant" because they are a cohesive unit (assuming they perform well), I'm left with a feeling that can only be described as "Really? That's what you're going with?". A magic user of appropriate level should be a devastating force to a unit of, cohesive or otherwise, non-magically supported soldiers. A level 1 wizard would be a kin to someone with a semi-automatic weapon. Dangerous but overall can't do enough damage before being overrun or running out of ammunition. A level 5 would be like a soldier with an automatic weapon, and an assortment of grenades (explosive, smokes, flash bangs). A level 20 would be like a stealth bomber, aircraft carrier, nuclear bomb, and a tank combined and had a baby hell spawn of mass destruction. The point is, magic is a major force and simple cohesion shouldn't be enough to significantly impact that force. At least not without assistance from magic itself, whether that be an allied wizard countering spells, casting protective magic, or magically enchanted items. Without knowing the exact details on skills, mechanics and spells, it's very hard to understand how it will all mesh together. In the table top game, a caster is limited by his spells per day, as well as how effective those spells are due to caster or spell level. Casters can't necessarily win wars on their own, but their impact should be significant when employed. Any limitation or reduction in impact needs to come from a logical, lore based, source. Tactics, strategy and preparation should thwart casters, not a mechanic born from the necessity to make a desired format of PvP viable. Regardless of my concerns, I really like the overall direction.
@LazarX - Virtually nothing you've read in this thread represents the design direction of the game. Just pay attention to the blog, not the comments on this one. The discussion has gone down a rabbit hole and isn't real productive at the moment. I'm curious as to what your design direction is, because to me, nailing the alignment mechanics is a major part in how well many of the important game pieces will work. Class features, nations, a whole bunch of things seem to be touched by alignment, and alignment is difficult to do right in my opinion. Can you shed any light on it Ryan?
True Neutral can be someone who balances all things as you say, or it can be someone who simply has no conviction to uphold any specific ideal. And killing them on sight for something they might do, is in my book, a pretty CE action. And I'd disagree on the Chaotic Neutral being the cheaters alignment. Currently playing a CN witch, who is very much a wild card, and as it's player I am often at odds with it. I have done what I consider to be very stupid things in order to stick to my CN alignment. Now I've been thinking about Alignment a lot lately and I'm concerned that it is a big mistake as far as a sandbox MMO goes. It all depends on the mechanics behind how alignment shifts and changes. If they system is repeatable, every time I do Y I get an X point shift in my alignment, it will be something that is farmed and players will grind it. Having an alignment will simply be a matter of how much time you spent repeating the most efficient way of farming the points needed to shift it to what you want. It'll leave alignments being pretty meaningless unless there is a good way to tell who follows their alignment and who manipulates it. Unfortunately, role players who legitimately shift alignments for character reasons will get caught in the cross fire. How will alignment gains/losses affect a party of players? If one player in group does something evil does everyone get hit for it, or just the player responsible? Part of what makes alignments work in tabletop gaming is that, a reasonable DM presented with a reasonable argument, can change their mind on a subject. An MMO is set, it cannot be flexible or reasoned with. I just see a major headache in the making that will be deeply imbedded in multiple systems of the game.
Fun is so subjective.Totally agreed, perhaps a better phrasing would be "it needs to be fun for as many as possible" While it's true that fun is subjective, and the best you can hope for is to please the most people possible, the solution to achieving that is deceptively simple in its concept. It's the execution that proves problematic. To make things fun, you need to find the proper balance between giving the players as many options as possible (to find their own fun), while also restricting those options to stop them from infringing on others (griefing). In relation to war a variety of tactics should be available to players in order to achieve their goal, in this case conquering an enemy. The standard would be sieges and opposing armies clashing on the battlefield, but this shouldn't be the only option. Stealth, subterfuge, and other tactics need to be available to the players outfitted and interested in employing them. By offering a wide range ways for players to contribute and participate, you greatly increase the odds of people having fun. For every new option you need to be sure there is a suitable counter or way to deal with it. No mechanic can be griefer proof, but you can certainly make it more difficult to grief with by giving the players sufficient and reasonable ways to deal with "problematic" individuals. tl;dr More options available, the more likely you are to find fun. |
