Wrexham3's page

I restrict access to stuff they can buy in towns and cities. They gain most of their magical equipment by buying it. They can manufacture potions and scrolls fairly easily, but anything else can be quite hard. There was a old article in White Dwarf called 'Eye of Newt and Wing of Bat' - basically listing the ingredients needed to make magic items. If one of the PCs wants to create something powerful they tend to have to collect a couple of things - like a giant's shin bone or the blood of a demon - to make it.

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric

I think some of the latest interpretations of evidence suggest that neanderthals were much more more adaptable than was once thought.

You could try and get your hands on a 'Vest of Escape' from the Core Rulebook - it costs 5200gp, and has magic lockpicks that give you a +4 bonus to Disable Device. The vest itself adds +6 to Escape Artist.

Wrexham3 wrote:

xn0o0cl3 wrote:

Yup, monk is objectively screwed, probability says so. End of story.

On the other hand, What if the fighter rolls really badly? Not being funny here, but I play this game with dice - I don't compare tables to see who loses. Have I been doing it wrong?

Of course if the fighter keep rolling badly and the monk keep rolling good the monk will win. So, the monk attack with quivering palm and hit because he rolls high. The fighter rolls extremely low on his save: tries again and rolls really low again. The fighter dies. The odds of that happening have been calculated, it's not impossible but it's extremely unlikely.

Thanks, Crysknife. I was just worried about Probability making all these definitive statements before Outcome said anything. Carry on.

Yup, monk is objectively screwed, probability says so. End of story.

On the other hand, what if the fighter rolls really badly? Not being funny here, but I play this game with dice - I don't compare tables to see who loses. Have I been doing it wrong?

Its a hole. Leading to infinity. I think infinity is core....

Fighter gets lured into an infinite hole, fighter loses. These things can happen.

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

Wrexham3 wrote:

Dave Arneson put a crashed spaceship in his 'Blackmoor' campaign ... while Gygax himself wrote 'Expedition to the Barrier Peaks', which explored similar themes.

Pleasure to read Barrier Peaks typed here on the messageboards, Wrexham3.

To topic, I'm not sure where Pathfinder's headed, but I'm along for the ride.

-- Andy

If I remember at the time, Gygax and Arneson were engaged in a bitter war of oneupmanship.

They had two very different visions of how a role-playing game should be played. Gary ultimately produced AD&D - the rule-bound, level-based system a lot of us are familiar with (I have 1st and 2nd ed. at home, although I don't play them any more). Dave released 'Adventures in Fantasy' - which apparently is a looser, more intuitive, (sort of) skill-based game. Anyway, 'Adventures in Fantasy' is very hard to find these days.

houstonderek wrote:

Paizo's "old school" roots aren't in the rules (obviously - calling 3.5 "old school" is just wrong on so many levels - heck, I call 2nd Ed. "middle school" because it was the fifth version of the D&D rules published). Their old school roots are in the way they approach world building and adventure making. Much of it is homage, really, Easter Eggs of a sort in many of the adventures and in the campaign setting.

I wasn't aware of that. Do you have an example (without spoiling anything if possible)?

Well, as a specific example (hopefully not spoiling anything), Golarion has a land with a crashed spaceship in its background. Right at the beginning of RPGs, Dave Arneson put a crashed spaceship in his 'Blackmoor' campaign - the Earth explorator 'FSS Beagle'. Players could visit it to get their hands on advanced technology. Blackmoor and the 'Beagle' were later incorporated into TSR's Mystra/Known World setting, while Gygax himself wrote 'Expedition to the Barrier Peaks', which explored similar themes. I don't know if the Paizo designers are deliberately referencing these, but I suspect so.

Specific and General all at the same time... it really doesn't make a lot of sense :0

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Historically, building wooden ships was highly specialized work with a different knowledge set from carpentry; carpenter and shipwright were not the same occupation. Anyway, that's approaching your questions for a historical point of view.

I love it, Nearyn.

The inside of a god's giant puzzle box.

No.

A first level party I'm running was routed by humble skeletons a couple of nights back. Sadly, only the dwarf cleric had a bludgeoning weapon. They had to retreat with casualties, leaving one skeleton 'alive'.

My friend's paladin had an awesome aerial battle with a naunet protean.

Always played it as TWF.

Advanced Player's Guide is a must. I found it really changed the game for the better. Also, Bestiary 2 - you never have enough monsters.

Furthermore, that's just to be able to disarm magical traps. Considering the possibility to require more skill checks/other tactics to overcome a challenge means you might be investing even more to do what the rogue can do for free.

Plus there seems to be some disagreement as to whether you actively search for hidden traps (costing you a move action) or if you can just walk up to them and get a free perception roll. I always rule you have to search for them (people actively sweep for mines in the real world, as far as I'm aware). In which case someone with 'Trap-Spotter' comes into their own, particularly in 'against-the-clock' scenarios.

To be honest the rogue class suffers from two really ambiguous rulings - 'free mine sweeping' or not, and whether you can sneak attack from Stealth.

The recent monk 'flurry of blows' issue was interesting, because I'd always assumed that you had to use it two handed and played it that way. A flurry made up of someone standing there punching with one fist (or whatever) seems a bit odd to me.

Accept what the GM has to say in game. Bring up any issues out of game, preferably in private.

I think I remember one of the designers (in a thread) saying that this was intentional - so disarming remained a 'rogue' thing (sorta).

Tell them both to grow up?

I'm not so sure that 'Optimization' and 'Roleplaying' are necessarily such happy bedfellows. Of course you can be a good roleplayer and optimizer. However, all that effort in character building isn't going to count for much if there's not much dice-rolling in a session - which happens quite a lot in my games. If you've optimized your character to the hilt, surely there's an increased temptation to try and use that advantage - to find a mechanical dice-rolling means of overcoming an obstacle (like blitzing it) rather than trying something else.

Thanks Daemonlye. I'm building up quite a collection :)

I'm not sure you're taking this entirely seriously....

Both the Urban Ranger (Advanced Player's Guide) and Trapper (Ultimate Magic) are ranger archetypes that have Trapfinding.

The Tardis a MINOR artifact?

I think the importance of the bard's 'Versatile Performance' has been overstated by some posters on this thread. As Mike Schneider said, bards need Charisma as well as Dexterity. Intelligence may not be a priority. They have fewer skills and will need to pump them into Perception, Spellcraft, UMD and some of the Knowledges; I would say Linguistics is an important bard skill. These - in addition to multiple forms of Perform - are going to spread the bard pretty thin.

Also Versatile Performance is potentially a trap. If you start playing a bard at 1st level and manage to reach 6th, you can extend Versatile Performance to Perform (Act), using it to replace Bluff and Disguise. Great. However, any skill points you put into Bluff and Disguise PREVIOUSLY are essentially lost - unless you're not putting anything into those skills for 6 levels....which isn't going to make you a very good bard. Furthermore there's a lot of redundancy in the list - Perform (Act) and Perform (Sing) both replace Bluff, for instance. Admittedly, Bardic Knowledge is a great ability. Essentially it gives you 10 class skills with a free point every 2 levels. However, you still have to put some points into your Knowledges - if you neglect them, they'll become pretty mediocre over time.

Look, bards are a great class - my second favourite in the game. However possessing a wide and shallow range of skills is not the definition of a skill monkey for me. A wide and deep range is. A rogue needs to put points into Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist, a Knowledge, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth and UMD to do their job. They can do this, every skill, every level. Bards can't do that. They have too many priorities.

I've seen people on these boards advocate methods of bypassing traps such as using summoned monsters to trigger them off, like this is some kind of automatic slam dunk. Might work in some cases, but what about traps with automatic resets, or big area effects, or those that summon big otherworldly gribblies up? The 'summon monster' trick would have been absolutely disastrous against a recent portcullis/flooding corridor trap I used. What the party needed was someone with the best possible chance of disarming it - and luckily they had one at hand. I do think a lot of the tropes on these boards can be over-stated.

Wrexham3 wrote:

To me 'Shadow Strike' feels like a 'patch' for what should have been built into Sneak Attack in the first place. Sigh, go feat tax.

Shadowstrike sounded more like SA version of blind fight and elven accuracy (unless I'm reading the description in the wrong way). I can understand a SA being made from the stealthy shadows of a concealment, but to SA another concealed person would not fit into that.... right?

It just means that without the feat (or Darkvision) you can't Sneak Attack someone in a darkened alley - which seems a most appropriate place to do it. I thought that was just a little bit harsh, myself :D

To me 'Shadow Strike' feels like a 'patch' for what should have been built into Sneak Attack in the first place. Sigh, go feat tax.

I think Wraithstrike highlighted one of the intrinsic problems of the class in a recent thread. There's even a debate on something as fundamental as whether RAW supports sneak attacking from Stealth. I personally allow it in my games and take into account factors such as which way an opponent is facing, for instance. In these circumstances I find the rogue works fine and is easily one of the most effective and adaptable classes in my games. I just don't think the rules as written serve the class very well.

Might be better if they buffed up stealth to what it should be, and got rid of the flanking option.

What not just allow both?

A cloud you can stand on and fly? There was an old programme on British TV called 'Monkey' which had one of these. I think the programme was Japanese originally.

One specific feat to grab is lingering performance. It will triple the amount of archaeologist's luck you can make use of.

So at 17th level you get +4 to all attack rolls, saves, skill checks and weapon damage for - I don't know - 30+ rounds, on top of all your other bonuses. You realize, of course, that's pretty broken....

I downloaded it a couple of hours ago, although it didn't work the first time. Great adventure. Thanks Silke. Has anyone done a conversion of 'Steading of the Hill Giant Chief'?

Have smaller, more frequent encounters before the PCs can achieve goals, so they are forced to expend resources over a greater period of time. Intelligent (emphasis on intelligent) opponents should be able to adapt to their situation, varying tactics to adapt to what the party is doing rather than just mobbing the PCs again when that isn't working.

Well, now my player's up and decided to build an Archaeologist. Thanks a lot, guys. :/

As an actual archaeologist, I'm here to tell you that that way lies the Dark Side. And tea breaks - lots of them.

Wrexham3 wrote:

But once the ninja has run out of ki points, half his much-vaunted ninja tricks don't work because they require ki. Bomb tricks don't work. Vanishing trick/Invisible Blade doesn't work. Forgotten Trick doesn't work. Flurry of Stars doesn't work. As half of a ninja's tricks work through a finite resource, when that resource is gone half these tricks become useless. However, the majority of rogue talents (including his wider range of combat talents) can be used again and again, including Crippling Strike, Dispelling Attack, Improved Evasion and a host of other useful stuff.

Doesn't that just mean that a well-built ninja will take only a couple of the best ki Tricks and spend the rest on non-ki Tricks and borrowing Rogue Talents?

Well then in that case the so-called superiority of the ninja class is based upon a couple of choice special effects which they can't do without ki points, as opposed to rogues, who don't have to buy 'evasion' or 'improved evasion', and can have access to 'extra rogue talents' anyway. I honestly don't see that much difference.

Which means of course that you are better off without a limited supply of power rather than no power at all?

Because the rogue has nothing. The ninja at least has a chance to have something. Besides its not like this isn't a problem that doesn't present itself for most of the other classes too, barbarians have rage rounds, bards have performance and spells per day, alchemist, wizards, sorcerers, clerics, paladins, druids, oracles, etc.

It's resource management -- which works best when you have resources... the rogue doesn't even have that.

But once the ninja has run out of ki points, half his much-vaunted ninja tricks don't work because they require ki. Bomb tricks don't work. Vanishing trick/Invisible Blade doesn't work. Forgotten Trick doesn't work. Flurry of Stars doesn't work. As half of a ninja's tricks work through a finite resource, when that resource is gone half these tricks become useless. However, the majority of rogue talents (including his wider range of combat talents) can be used again and again, including Crippling Strike, Dispelling Attack, Improved Evasion and a host of other useful stuff.

Well I don't know about useless -- it's a lot easier though for the ninja, monk, or barbarian to sneak in an hour here or an hour there to get up to their non-consecutive eight hours than the spell caster to get their consecutive 8 hours of rest.

You are quite right that it's easier if rest periods are non-consecutive, Abraham, and in many situations the PCs will be able to catch those breaks. But with all due respect, it can effect their flexibility in any number of instances. An example - the PCs are having to bust into a prison and get a condemned man out before he's executed at daybreak. Between the waves of guards, it's not going to be very practical for the ninja player to say 'Run out of ki points, guys - let's come back tomorrow.'

Wrexham3 wrote:

Yeah, but you need to meditate to get your ki points back - 8 (non-consecutive) hours if I remember correctly; there are a lot of situations and I run a lot of games where taking breaks can have very, very bad consequences. I prefer something more reliable that doesn't depend essentially on a 15 minute workday. Abilities that you can use at the beginning and end of the day are just more flexible. Plus a bad will save versus 'ki block' is going to render a lot of your combat tricks useless for a rather critical number of rounds. Still, what are the chances of a rogue-type making a poor will save?

Wow so you are really telling us that all spellcasters are nearly useless in your campaigns?

If you mean that spellcasters (which includes ninjas) generally have to manage their considerable resources carefully because they can't predict what might happen, and that the 15 hour work-day isn't a given in my games, then I have to admit that yes, spellcasters are next to useless.

Yeah, but you need to meditate to get your ki points back - 8 (non-consecutive) hours if I remember correctly; there are a lot of situations and I run a lot of games where taking breaks can have very, very bad consequences. I prefer something more reliable that doesn't depend essentially on a 15 minute workday. Abilities that you can use at the beginning and end of the day are just more flexible. Plus a bad will save versus 'ki block' is going to render a lot of your combat tricks useless for a rather critical number of rounds. Still, what are the chances of a rogue-type making a poor will save?

Haven't we had enough of the 'Rogues suck in all circumstances - play an urban ranger/archaeologist/ninja' debate too? We get it - you don't like rogues.

Perhaps the answer is to have the player roll up a character that is only ever one level behind the rest of the party.

Death must be present in the game - otherwise you're taking away all pretence of danger. Players should put their characters in harm's way knowing that if they mess up, they die. It'll make succeeding really mean something. I also wouldn't allow the player to use essentially the same character with a -1000 xp penalty - I'd probably make them roll up another character a level lower or with a more significant xp penalty.

I did home-rule 4 ranks for fighters while making Perception and Sense Motive class skills, while getting rid of Knowledge (Engineering). Otherwise I think the number of ranks is fine as it is.

Dead Can Dance. I've used 'The Host of the Seraphim', 'Rakim' and 'Yulunga' for a dark atmosphere in the past.

Thanks very much.