Wolfgang Rolf's page

This message is posted on all the discussions threads of the games I am apart of.

I will be quitting PBP and Pathfinder. I do not know if I will come back and if I do it will probably be after much time has passed. I apologize for the suddenness of this announcement and the trouble I am causing you by leaving so abruptly.

Good luck to you all, and happy gaming.

This message is posted on all the discussions threads of the games I am apart of.

I will be quitting PBP and Pathfinder. I do not know if I will come back and if I do it will probably be after much time has passed. I apologize for the suddenness of this announcement and the trouble I am causing you by leaving so abruptly.

Good luck to you all, and happy gaming.

This message is posted on all the discussions threads of the games I am apart of.

I will be quitting PBP and Pathfinder. I do not know if I will come back and if I do it will probably be after much time has passed. I apologize for the suddenness of this announcement and the trouble I am causing you by leaving so abruptly.

Good luck to you all, and happy gaming.

You will be missed. Take care of yourself.

You know...seeing those rolls actually made me feel better. Sad to know that the RNG has been hating you since then.

Milo v3 wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

The quote may be Jacobs, but between the design choices we've seen in Pathfinder and everything SKR revealed after leaving the company, the sentiment seems to apply to at least some of the people in the design team as well.

... that must be why rogues and monks were strengthened, summoners were weakened, theres is a whole chapter of a RPG-line hardcover about weakening mages, a system that you can give martials to make them abit more powerful for free, the weaker spellcasters in occult adventures, and they've started making more powerful feats for fighters like the bravery feats in Ultimate Intrigue...

The design team seems aware of the issue to me. Whether or not they have always agreed, I cannot say, but recent materials seem to indicate they are taking more action (YMMV on whether currently level of the action is enough of course).

I am inclined to agree with this. Besides Unchained, recent books have also been giving martials a lot of love and trying to patchwork improve them somewhat. And for the most part most of classes original to Pathfinder fall out somewhere in the middle between overpowerful wizards and weak core rogues and fighters.

Really most of the issues with Pathfinder are grandfathered in from 3.5, When Paizo was new enough that I don't think they had a concrete vision of the style of gameplay they wanted, were under time constraints to get there own version of the game out to support APs, and were worried about backward compatibility and annoying die hard 3.5 fans by making too many radical changes. A new core rule book that just addressed many of the problem issues people have pointed out (spells, class disparity, feat chains) wouldn't even require revamping the rest of the game, and would probably be the only real "fix" to martial-caster disparity.

So Pathfinder Core Rule Book Unchained? I'd buy that.

I think a quick but not entirely perfect way of making pathfinder more balanced is only allowing classes from the 4th, 3rd and 2nd tiers to be picked.

This has been mentioned in other threads before and probably mentioned here too...somewhere. Still I believe it is worth repeating because it is a fast enough fix for those who do not want to add too many house rules or use 3pp.

Player agency is about choice and having the BBEG pass a save on round one or last an extra round does not remove it in any way.

Yes it does, you are basically altering how the rules work because you want to push your narrative, and by doing so you invalidate the effects of the players actions and the rolls of the dice.

Your decisions still affect the fight and its eventual outcome you are still in control.

Not when you are extending the encounters based on unwritten rules and handwaving more health to your monsters and bosses.

killing the PCs is a failure in some respects

No it is not, it is an unavoidable risk.

in this example he thinks fudging rolls on his end or making the boss have more hp so it survives and extra round furthers the story or uses certain resources he hoped it to. he does not feel the need to tell his players this, they were not "cheated" out of anything, it is his encounter and his story that is taking the flow he wants it to. it has no effect on the players out of the game. Its all done in hopes of everyone having an enjoyable time.

Here is the thing, the story isn't just the DM's story, it is the story of everyone on that table. Unless of course a DM doesn't like the idea of the players having any kind of agency, which in my opinion is pretty tyrannical.

The players should be able to affect the world within the parameters of the rules, and when a DM starts messing with these rules they might as well be saying to the players "you all have no control and the rules mean nothing without my say so" and that's a DM I would never want to play with.

But what about the encounter I worked so hard on?! Sometimes the dice are cruel; just like the players have to accept that a string of criticals from their foes could end up killing their characters, A DM must accept that players may get lucky and end his encounter in a single round, even if he did plan it to last longer. Because as I've said above, the story is everyone's story; yes a DM may have had a grandiose idea for that particular encounter but things don't always work out as they plan, just like how a player never intended for their character to be killed against a bunch of minions but hey it happens.

Hmm, you could have also run with the Knivesies guy?

Wednesday, thank you! I just got an idea for a whole new backstory.

@Cassandra Oh come on, I am sure Tolenn and Amira wouldn't mind as long as he doesn't do thing that is outright evil...also if Tolenn is wonder woman and Amira is batman, who's superman in this party?

You do know Cassandra's a minor noble whose house fell out of favor when the queen ascended, yeah? :)

Not saying we can't have two in the party but I thought you'd want to know that.

I did not know that. I knew Cassandra was a noble but I didn't know that her house fell out favor or that she was a minor noble.

Back to square one I guess...it wouldn't feel right to use the same background, it would be interesting for sure, I admit I am already having ideas about the interactions between the two characters but, as I've said I would feel like I'd be stepping on your characters toes if I went with such a similar backstory.

Cass' house didn't fell out of favor because of rumors that they were inciting or helping rebellions in Chelaxian territories...did they? EDIT: Nevermind I am glad at least that part is different.

Wolfgang Rolf wrote:

Killing a sleeping enemy is something I could see a neutral character doing. It would have been smarter to capture and question her but that's not what is on debate here.

This assumes random people are enemies until proven otherwise. Because he killed a sleeping woman who'd never done anything to anyone he'd ever seen. That's cold blooded murder of a presumed innocent for the reason of 'Well, they might be dangerous.' Despite there being no evidence of that.

It's the moral equivalent of stabbing random people in the street because they might be dangerous.

So...yeah, that's cold-blooded murder for no good reason. I'd have put him to CE right there as a GM. And, as a Good character, probably attacked him physically.

I stand corrected, I had not looked at it from that angle. Yes it is an evil act, but I still wouldn't put it past a darker shade of grey neutral character.

I can't really use the hostile environment argument because that doesn't immediately make her an enemy. She could have been a prisoner or a spy working against the organization you are fighting against. So taking her prisoner is both the smartest and not evil thing to do it seems.

I think this is a great guide and I don't see how getting your character to succeed 70% or more on their primary role in the party is in anyway power gaming. If your character is claiming to be a great swordsman then I'd find it hard to believe if he misses his mark half the time he swings his sword.

I hope to see more of your guides in the future, and you have my respect for sticking to your stance.

Killing a sleeping enemy is something I could see a neutral character doing. It would have been smarter to capture and question her but that's not what is on debate here.

Attacking another player's character isn't an alignment problem. It's a table problem and should be discussed out of the game, and the player should know that this won't be tolerated if you guys are not ok with it.

Personally I don't care whether your alignment is lawful good or chaotic evil. Attacking another player's character is a big no and if the matter fell to me I would have the offending player evicted from the game if they persisted in doing so.

Agreed a Vigilante would make more sense.

What I am actually hoping for is more traits! I like the current traits very much, but I wish there were ones that lent themselves to more opportunistic and immoral characters.

Curse of the Crimosn Throne has always been one of my favorite APs, and so even though I am mostly a PDF guy I MAY make an exception for this.

The guide does not measure everything

It is not supposed to. Please reread the thread title.

"The extremely general guide" not just "general" But "extremely general" So yes it isn't supposed to look at specific cases like the invulnerable barbarian.

The importance of characters having huge weaknesses to be interesting is an opinion. I am of the opinion that a character can be competent(not perfect) and still be interesting without needing a sort of kryptonite like weakness.

As Deadmanwalking stated your party is there to provide things your character does not.

Can anyone give some info on the new ranger combat styles?

I'll admit I am still not completly sold on the vigilante but the book has so much goodies in there that I doubt I can ignore it, and the vigilante may actually work for one of the concepts I had in mind...it also helps that that particular character was made for curse of the crimson throne so the weakness of being not in an urban setting is not an issue.

Wolfgang Rolf wrote:

So new ranger combat styles...I am guessing(hoping really) that one of them(possibly Underhanded?) focuses on dirty tricks.

"I just don't get it boss! We had sentries, magical wards, traps, everything, but somehow he bypassed them all. Next thing I know he's in the middle of the room. He never said a word, just kicked each and every one of us in the nuts and walked out the front door."

My kind of hero.

So new ranger combat styles...I am guessing(hoping really) that one of them(possibly Underhanded?) focuses on dirty tricks.

I am sorry to hear that. Take all the time you need.

You know pen and paper rpgs are probably one of the few activities where ignoring the mechanical aspect of the game is considered a play style. I am not saying that everyone should build min-maxed characters, I hate min-maxed characters, but I equally hate characters that don't pull their weight, and I apologize but if the horribly functioning character is that way because of the concept for the character, some concepts are just not that well supported in the game. Some may argue "But that is why you have a DM, who's job it is to make sure that everyone gets to shine even if they built a terrible character" and that is one of the most selfish and weakest arguments I have ever heard, so your entire party has to suffer till the GM goes out of their way to make your terribly built character look good?

By terribly built I don't mean not optimized, even not optimized characters can pull their weight as long their made with the idea of doing whatever their class's party role is supposed to do.

Of course in the situation presented by this thread most of the players are noobs and there is one player who has very good system mastery. I understand wanting to pull your punches here, but I also understand wanting to look for another table and finding people of equal understanding of the game that can roll with your character ideas no matter how powerful they are.

From my modest knowledge of the game I am guessing that the character our problem player made is very min-maxed, and its fine to tell him to tone it down for the sake of the people new to the game, better yet it would be better for him to teach the new players how to build better characters.

What irks me though is that most people are so eager to go after power gamers, min-maxers and what have you, but I have rarely seen anyone say "man you've been playing the game for all these years and your characters don't even preform their intended role in the party? Get good". As much as some people want to deny it or at least not look at it favorably, there is a mechanical aspect to this game. You can't say oh my character is an amazing swordsman but your character has a terrible strength and dexterity score. Your party should not suffer because your character is mechanically abysmal, it saps the fun out of the game just as much as the min-maxers character does.

That free attack that seems to be bothering a number of posters can only be done for as long as the magus has spells. Sure you might say well what about spell recall? He has to spend arcana points for that. Almost everything that the magus does is tied to either arcana points or spell slots. His spell list isn't even that bloody good, and unless you are going for an int focused magus your spell save DCs are not going to be that good either so goodbye save or suck spells.

If the magus bothers you that much it tells me that your campaign may be running afoul of one of two things or both.

1. The time spent adventuring is very short or the challenges themselves are trivial, thus not making the magus regret burning all their resources to look badass by killing that one strong monster in record time.

2. The GM is very attached to their monsters and the sight of them taken down too quickly infuriates them. To which I say you are a dungeon master not a pokemon master, I am sorry to break your heart but that epic monster/villain you worked so hard on? Destined to be killed by the party and to add insult to injury probably have its body or head paraded to the quest giver so they'll believe that the deed has been done.

Oh no a 3/4 BAB character can get a "free" attack as part of a full attack and there is a spell attached to it too. You know the biggest weakness about all of that? It still needs to be a full attack, so if your monster is just standing there in front of the magus and not moving away I say it deserved to be demolished, just like it deserved to be demolished from eating a full attack from a great sword wielding fighter, or slayer. Who while may not have the burst damage of the magus can still do the whole thing more consistently.

If this class that is a tier 3 scares you that much, why aren't you showing the same fear towards the tier 1 classes? Have you not had any wizards break your encounters? Or the whole adventure for that matter? What about the druids that have the luxury of being a combat machine and a 9th level caster, while getting a pet? No, no its the class that broke our precious action economy, its the problem. Cause moving, attacking and delivering a touch spell is the most broken thing ever.

If we are going to start nerfing classes for going for their best options than I say it's only fair to start with 9th level casters, after all they have an easier time breaking the game than the magus.

Oh and nerfing a class with the goal of making it use other less powerful or efficient options is terrible design.

swoosh wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Thoroughly agree with Rune - Magus would be an acceptable and interesting class without spellstrike.

A level 2 magus without spellstrike using both his arcane pool and spell combat in the same round does less damage than a fighter just making a standard action attack with a greatsword while also being less accurate against anything not metalish and fighting concentration checks and requiring a full round action.

I'm not impressed.

You know a Magus can take Power attack & 2-hand their weapon too. They just don't HAVE to do that ... options!

Yes options! Except one of these options is more superior than the other.

You do realize that spell combat gives a penalty to attack rolls, and power attack adds even more penalties! So thank you keep the magus that can't hit the broadside of a barn and I'll keep the one with spellstrike.

Hey Bill! Glad to see you here.

As you well know I am very fine with your style, other wise I wouldn't have asked you to consider taking over.

I haven't traveled in a while, do try to enjoy yourself as much as possible. It's always refreshing to see different sights.

I think the most efficient route for Medusa's Wrath is to get the Enforcer feat. Make your first attack non-lethal(Or use the Elbow Smash Style Strike), get a a free intimidate and if the opponent is shaken Shatter Defenses is online which leads to two extra attack from Medusa's Wrath.

Well I am glad the matter got resolved...even if the ban list sounds both reasonable and unreasonable{No blaster caster?}, either way should the matter come up again I suggest finding a gaming table with people who take the same approach as you do to building characters. I am not saying you should cut ties with your friends just that at the moment your play styles are not easily compatible and if the matter cannot be resolved it's better to step away from the table and consider other options.

Sorry to hear that, but glad to hear you are recovering from the concussion. Take all the time you need, we'll be here.

Scratch that last post just got a reply from the GM I pm'd and he's inquiring further. I will let you know if anything changes.

One of my DMs is running too many games so I didn't have the heart to ask. The other I'm asked on Sunday and got no reply yet.

I think it's time we started a looking for GM thread.

I think I am going to pull out as well. Good luck everyone.

I'll talk to the GMs I know and see if they still have room on their plate to run this game.

Probably going with an unchained monk this time or a slayer.

That would be fine with me.

I think I found a link error while looking through the guide. The skills link takes you to the brawler skills link page.

Will definitely give that build some extra attention. Time to break out the extra large eyebrows and auto repair shirts or just a really high rank in craft(tailor).

Awesome! A guide about how to beat up countless, overgrown, muscled thugs wielding axes and crossbows with just my bare fists while surviving a post apocalyptic wasteland.

Oh wait it's just an unchained monk guide...which I have been wanting to try out for a while! Much thanks for writing this guide.

Not done with the adjustments to the character or the roleplay preview just yet, but thought I'd let you know I'll be going for a Swashbuckler with the Inspired Blade archetype. I'll also be taking the Framed(Family Honor) campaign trait for his background story.

This is by far one of the most amusing recruitment threads I've read to date. I have a character that I made for curse of the crimson throne but I will need to work on him for a little bit so he'll fit the requirements you gave us.

If that is true(and I am not saying it is or isn't) then it would cause less confusion if they clearly indicated whether an archetype is or is not a preferable choice for player characters.

I think I am going to pull out. Don't think I have the time to complete the character before the deadline expires, good luck to the rest of you.

Gergo wrote:

Speaking of WoW, I've noticed an increased amount of hype for the upcoming expansion. Is it because they are revamping how the classes play?

I don't know much about revamps (but then they do revamp the classes all the time so...) but they are bringing Illidan back and giving Demon Hunters as a prestige class :3

That explains a lot. I remember people wanting to play demon hunter since way back when. Oh and Illadin being one of the most popular character certainly helps as well.

I'm interested.

Lots of characters built to be good at one thing would fail to trip.

You are trying to highly specialise a character to do X, and then complaining when they can't do Y.

You seem to like this way of designing classes. How about we apply it to casters as well.

Alright lets say a caster gets two schools of magic which they will specialize in. These spells will be cast as they normally are now.The spells under schools of magic the caster didn't specialize in, will be cast with only half of their caster level taken into account, not only that, they will also be unable to access all of the spell levels of schools they didn't specialize in. It would look something like this:

-Full casters can cast spells of schools they didn't specialize in only up to third level spells

-Sixth level casters can cast spells of schools they didn't specialize in only up to second level spells

-Finally fourth level casters will only have access to first level spells of the schools they didn't specialize in

Oh and here is the kicker, if you try to cast a spell of a school you didn't specialize in the casting time is doubled, and if in combat there is a possibility for you to be interrupted even when no enemy is adjacent to you. Let's say if there is an enemy about 30 feet from you they'll be able to make an intimidate check as an attack of opportunity(Bending the rules here but it's a hypothetical situation) to psych you out of focusing on the spell. If the enemy succeeds in intimidating you, the spell will blow up in your face and you will have to take damage based on the level of the spell.

I hear you saying "well what if I don't want to go through that?", well we can have the spell focus feat serve as a double purpose feat that in addition to what it originally does it also lets you cast spells of unspecialized schools without risking them blowing up in your face, the spell specialization feat can let you cast them at full caster level and finally we'll add a feat called Quick Study Spell or something that lets you cast it at its original time.

Sounds fun doesn't it?

A mix between the brawler and sorcerer. Basically a sixth level caster with 3/4 BAB that punches things while utilizing it's bloodline powers to get extra effects or damage on its knuckle sandwiches.

I would like it to have this powerful but untrained feeling and of course a mechanic similar to flurry or whatever the warpriest has to buff their chance to hit.

Some bloodlines would maybe have them focus on polymorhing their bodies or parts of it to get benefits while others would just coat punches and kicks with arcane goodness(fire/force/acid/etc). It would have more of a focus on the bloodline itself with 6th level casting there to complete the package. Maybe an increase in unarmed damage like -4 monk level or something.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

I'm actually joining a M&M game as a skills based character. I'm not sure if HWalsh has actually played M&M or not. But the system is very much not a case of "everyone is the same, just slightly different flavors".

Oh I have. Many games. Many years.

You are right, to a point.

Until "optimizers" get involved. Then watch as every character (especially over a long game) starts looking the same.

That's pretty much inherent to pure point-buy systems. In theory they give far more choice/options. For optimizers there end up being only a very few viable builds.

That's why I prefer class-based systems - it allows for more asymmetry for optimizers. (I can't tell whether you're using "optimizers" as a dirty word.)

I'm not going to argue about how well it's executed in different systems, but from a game design standpoint class systems inherently allow more asymmetry for players with decent system mastery.

That's the thing, for min/max power gamers there is only one or two 'builds' they consider good enough to use. But one has to remember that the min/max power gamer is NOT the most common type of roleplayer. Sure they're disturbingly common. Or at least appear to be. But for every person who lives and breaths to min/max every character they will ever create into the maximum possible capabilities, there's 10 more who just play the game.

For every person who gravitates to the most overpowered flavor of the month build, there's ten more who make characters they find interesting regardless of how effective it is. And then you get people like me who ask the GM about bending the rules... to make their character weaker or more interesting without being more powerful. For every player who's willing and eager to trade away their ability to deliberately rhyme for another +1 to damage, there's at least 3 more who are willing to trade away +1 damage for the requirement they speak only in rhyme.

Because an optimizer can't enjoy roleplaying as well...right.

You know you're entitled to your opinion as is everyone else, but since when did weaker = more interesting? You want to intentionally play a weak character fine, go right ahead, knock yourself out. I would rather the class I chose be of equal standing with other classes when it comes to both combat and out of combat activities.

Oh and when I say equal standing I do not mean exactly the same, I mean as useful in its own way. Sure absolute balance without giving everyone the same class is impossible but that does not mean that their should be such a power and variety difference between the tiers of classes.

So if martials got to do fantastical things it would make casters feel not as magical and could hurt their feelings? Thanks I needed a good laugh.