kestral287's page

What honestly baffles me about this is how much people care.

Is the use of a first-level spell that, let's be serious, exists as a mediocre healing option and nothing more that big a deal? Is its use really hurting the story in some way, such that we need to deal with it in such massive and dramatic fashion as an alignment shift or throwing a god at the party?

Or, conversely, do you really think looking at your party and saying "Hey, I know you don't have a Cleric, I know that you're using that spell because it's the best healing option the Wizard/Sorcerer/Magus/whatever has, but I think screwing with your character over that spell is going to enhance the game" is going to enhance the game in some way?

Seriously. I want to point out that it was sincerely suggested to use a Deus ex Machina in order to put the party on a very short timer to counteract a second Deus ex Machina because one of them wanted to use a basic healing spell. By throwing a god at them.

The player isn't trying to use Animate Dead to create an army of skeletal flaming puppies and trying to pass that off as CG because he's using them to visit orphanages to bring cupcakes to children. He's trying to heal his buddies, and he's using the spell because he doesn't have a better option.

The OP recognized this with the notion that he didn't want to punish the player. Advice like "well, just send them to Asmodeus' home turf to deal with the plan he's been working on for eons, oh and give them a two-day timer" isn't really helpful to the OP's point or, well... any kind of logical. The response is way out of proportion to what's actually going on here.

First: if you need to use Spell Recall in the first round of actual combat, you deserve the beating that's coming. You should either be using that in the pre-buffing stage or late in the fight. First round means you got caught with your pants down, and given how carefully you have to pilot a Scion I would really not want to assume bad play.

Second: At level 9, I wouldn't be bothering to Empower Grasps; I don't have enough third-level slots to justify it. Maybe if I took Spellhunter and Lineage both, to bring the cost down to two points and give me a whole lot more slots. But, for a point of comparison:

1/2 level = 4 points. Starting Int 18 isn't hard to achieve (base Dex and Int of 16, +2 Tiefling or Elf, drop your Cha and maybe Str to get some decent Con and you're set for stats). At this level another +4 between gold and level-ups is well within reach, so 22 Int is reasonable; you could fall anywhere between 20 and 24. So we're looking at 10 points. Nine free, spending the tenth is an emergency use because it will disable Precise Strike. Scion will have the same number of resources.

Hasted Assault costs one point and will last us six rounds. Recalling a Grasp costs one point; if we're really going all-in on Grasp we're be Recalling Intensified/Empowered for two points. A straight Scion needs to spend one point every other round, so he has eighteen rounds of combat time at full functionality. We need to spend one point every six rounds, so three points over the course of the day. That leaves us six points, so we can Recall six Intensified Shocking Grasps or, in the all-in variation, three Empowered Intensified Grasps.

Of course, that's a very simplistic viewpoint. It's not taking into consideration the probability that either Hasted Assault or the bloodline activation will have wasted time on the clock. Let's adjust:

We'll assume four fights per day, half of which last three rounds and half of which last four rounds, considering only actual combat time (I.E., we're not including time spent on maneuvering before the fight and pre-buffing). This means that our straight Magus' costs rise to four points per day, while the Scion needs to spend eight. Thus the straight Magus has a 'mere' four points more than the Scion free. He's only almost doubled the base first-level spell slots of the Scion, rather than more than doubling it as the previous example.

Let's dial it in a bit more though, shall we? Magus accuracy sucks at the baseline, and they really want Keen. We're going to be augmenting our weapon too. Once per fight.

So the straight Magus needs four points for enhancing his weapon, four points for Hasted Assault, that leaves him a mere one free point. Kinda sucks. What about the Scion?

Well... two points per fight only left him with one point in the first place. He's used his last free point, his Precise Strike point, and still had to do without weapon enhancement on half his fights. Now we're talking losing two points off the to-hit and ~15% of your damage for half your fights. Suddenly, this is a much bigger deal than some spell slots.

And recall-- 9th is the second level where the Scion can actually be considered functional. Let's try this again at level 4, shall we?

4 levels = 2 points, 18 Int/Cha = 4, we have a total of 6.

Number and duration of fights is relatively static. Scion is still spending two per fight, meaning he runs dry after fight #3. Straight can enhance his weapon on all four fights and still Recall two Grasps. Of course, the Scion has Blur for three of those fights, so he's harder to kill for the fights he can fully participate in, in exchange for straight Magus' longer combat endurance and higher to-hit and damage (or doubled crit rate, more likely) on all fights.

Now, if we really want to get detailed, the Scion will simply let his party mates finish the job of those shorter fights. This rests on the assumption that he can consistently and accurately predict the duration and difficulty of each fight, but let's assume both Magi are piloted by experts here.

That gives the Scion another two points per day at all levels. He can actually fight in every encounter at level 4, making this a question of offense (two more first-level spells, either boosted hit/damage or higher crit rate) vs. defense (20% miss chance) with a side twist of anything going wrong being dramatically worse for the Scion than the Magus.

At level 9, those extra two points mean that the straight Magus is down to 'only' two more Shocking Grasps per day with the second set of assumptions, and with the third...

Well, with the third the Scion still runs dry, but at least now he doesn't do it until the end of the day and only has to forgo Precise Strike, so he's 'only' down +9 damage (you can make a case for either ditching the enhancement's +3 to hit/damage but those are roughly equivalent in results, or for ditching your Haste/Blur setup but that's probably a larger loss).

And really, let's take stock of something here.

This was a long set of examples and comparisons that consist of a prepared caster stealing a spontaneous caster's key advantage in casting spontaneously. He's still a prepared caster. And as much as I, personally, don't like prepared casters, they certainly have some significant advantages over spontaneous casters. What does the Scion get to compensate for the straight Magus' larger list of spells known (assuming the straight Magus never manages to get any spells outside level-ups and level 9, he has 20% more first-level spells and 50% more second- and third- level spells known. We won't bother with cantrips, because seriously, even the Scion has six and beyond that who cares).

What does the Scion get to compensate for the straight Magus having twice as many Pearls as he has Runestones? You actually noted that in your build that you'd have one Runestone at level six. That's at least one more spell per day, probably a Grasp, in favor of the straight Magus.

How can the Scion reverse this? Okay, let's figure he has one feat open because the straight Magus did take Preferred Spell. How does he leverage that feat to negate one of the straight Magus' advantages here, as the straight Magus was able to negate his only advantages in casting? Heck, two feats. The Magus had to burn an Arcana slot on Hasted Assault, so that's reasonable.

That's your problem. Even at the levels where the Scion is capable, he's gimped. And at the levels that are the worst for Magi-- the first three-- he's screwed. Five pool points to last through four fights per day? No accuracy booster rendering you literally less accurate than the Rogue? Good luck.

But!

What if we just... stop and think?

What if we stop pretending that the Scion is a straight Magus who's somehow better--or even equivalent--at spamming metamagic-boosted Grasps?

What if we accept that, like the Staff Magus, it's an archetype with some solid advantages for us to leverage in exchange for not being able to smack the target for hilarious damage every round? What if we start playing like a caster?

Well then. We'll ditch Shocking Grasp, won't we? I mean, it's usable at the low levels, we'll certainly learn it and keep it around, maybe retrain out of it at 8th when we get that free swap.

Now we have two feats and a trait free over the Magus. Three, if he wants Hasted Assault down the line.

Now we start using spells like True Strike and Grease in our first-level slots.

Now we're eager to disrupt enemies with Frigid Touch, Darkness, and Web, instead of being eager to rush in with Bladed Dash and Shocking Grasp

Now we're conserving pool points and surviving those critical early levels, because in the early levels we're not far off in our spells from the full casters, so we don't need those points every fight. But when the fight comes to us, we're ready for it, picking up that swift action Blur and going in sword-first.

Now when the straight Magus is a bit higher leveled, and he's trying to juggle the need to support his party with the desire to electrocute faces, we're running support, taking the burden of casting necessities like Haste off the full casters-- and we're doing it from the front lines.

Now we're everything classes like the Fighter and Swashbuckler wish they could be-- martial characters who can control and influence the battlefield, without ever taking our hands from our swords.

The Magus spell list is not large, but it's large enough. It has the pieces of the puzzle.

Can a straight Magus still match what you do? Well... sort of. The thing is, when running control and support as a Magus, prepared casting does lose its big advantage. There just aren't that many fantastic spells of that nature on the Magus list. They're there-- in batches of, oh, about six per level. Enough that you can learn all of the key spells on your list as a spontaneous caster-- and now your benefit really does shine, as the straight Magus has to divvy up his spells, really no more spells than what you know, into slots while you can change course on the fly. And when he struggles, at the mid-game, to find a way to adapt to the game's shift and winds up throwing Empowered on all his spells, maybe learning Monstrous Physique, and just going at it, you already have the solution well in hand.

You won't win the Shocking Grasp game. You can't compete with straight Magus' Spell Recall or Kensai's plethora of abilities. Their resource edge matters, in a straight fight. And trying to win? Trying to compete?

Well. I misspoke earlier in this post. That, more than anything else, is the Scion's problem. Don't compete-- change the game to your strengths.

The very notion of the Eldritch Scion trying to invest four feats into Empowered Elemental Intensified Shocking Grasp and touting his ability to cast that as something of an advantage staggers me. It's a huge level of investment, and no matter how you try to prop it up, it's more investment than what a straight Magus spends on the exact same thing. But for that same spell slot and zero feats, you can Dimension Door to the enemy caster eight hundred feat away and stab him in the back.

For a mild comparison:

A 17th-level Fighter gets brand-new access to Stunning Critical. BAB requirement of +17. It also requires two previous feats, so he had to build into it. When he scores a critical hit (at best, this is a bit under one hit in three), he forces a save (at DC 27; 10+BAB) or the target is stunned for 1D4 rounds; if they make the save they're instead staggered.

A 17th-level Wizard gets brand-new access to Dominate Monster, a 9th level spell whose only requirement is "be a 17th-level Wizard". Whenever he feels like it, he forces a save (At DC 19+Int mod; an Int mod of +8 is easily within reach and he has access to DC-boosting feats, so we'll call it DC27 but it could be higher) or the target is his b+$+@ for seventeen days.

The Fighter's ability to influence his enemy's actions with a class ability is limited to reducing or removing the actions they can take for 1D4 rounds, and he has absolutely no control over when this activates. The Wizard outright controls the actions they take, for 244800 rounds (minimum; it's probably higher), and can activate this ability with a limit imposed only by his number of spell slots-- and then he can do similarly dramatic things with his 8th, 7th, 6th, and 5th level slots, and probably even lower (note that 5th is the level of Dominate Person, which gives the Wizard a similar level of power to what he has here, eight levels earlier, albeit with a more restricted list of targets).

I do think it's worth considering how obvious the immunity is.

The handful of comments about throwing fire at ifrits, for example-- I, as a GM, would (almost) never have an intelligent NPC do that.

Might he throw a fireball at the party, and it catches the ifrit? Sure.

Might there be some Flaming weapons scattered about? Sure, of course. Flaming is a very popular and common weapon enhancement, and you can't change those on the fly-- but no, if they fight a Magus he isn't going to activate the Flaming property on his weapon and charge the ifrit.

Intentionally aiming at something that is well known as fire-resistant? Not unless there are no other options, or the guy has a lot of fire (heh) power at his fingertips.

Now, you wear a Ring of Fire Resistance? Unless you give the NPC reason and opportunity to Spellcraft-check it, he's not going to know.

Of course, I lump this in the same "the guy in robes is probably easier to hit than the guy in armor" theory, so a bit of polymorphing magic could play with this (for bonus points, wear a Ring of Fire Immunity and polymorph into an Aasimar, who resists the three basic elements that aren't fire).

How often do characters with purposes greater than "I need the gold, for reasons," or "I accept this quest, because it's the right thing to do (and the DM clearly wants me to)" make themselves known in your heads?

Often. In fact I think literally every character who moved beyond the concept stage and onto the actual bench. It is, however, really not hard to line up your purposes with that of the adventure so that they don't distract each other. If your ambition is to reclaim your rightful place as King of Nealandia, then perhaps you believe the best way to do that is to protect the common people, understand their struggles-- and perhaps slay a few great and powerful dragons so that when the time comes for you to return home, you can serve your own people well, as a warrior and ruler both.

Only once have I ever not done something like this actually, and looking for a purpose was something of a recurring thing for her. Her reason for doing most things was, basically, "because I'm bored and it pays, even though I don't really need the money". The few times she was actually given a personal stake, her demeanor shifted and the kid gloves came off as she actually got serious.

All of which detracts for the origin of the thread though. Your take is interestingly backwards from mine, based on how I'm reading that article. I go from "this is who the character is" to "what would the character do in their free time", whereas you seem to be advocating figuring out what they do in their downtime in order to understand the character.

Sometimes that's reading books. The big, thick kind that nobody would possibly be interested in... and maybe occasionally one of those torrid little romance novels, but she'll never admit it. And no you can't look at her textbook on the construction and history of interdimensional prison systems right now, and she is not blushing right now.

Sometimes it's lovingly planning out battle strategies and tactics that will probably never come to be used, because this little leader of a band of three dreams of commanding a legion of three hundred thousand.

Sometimes it's just trying to build a bigger gun, or even a better mousetrap.

But always it's the character who picks the hobbies, not me picking the hobbies that make the character.

kestral287 wrote:

The third one is generally a non-issue.

The second one is, nine times out of ten, used to loop back into the first. The other one time out of ten it's usually just funny, or the gain is minor enough that it's not a large difference.

The first is a problem unless your table is okay with it, but most tables don't tend to be so we get the stigma.

well how do you define OP, because I have no problem with people combining unusual abilities to create a character who is able to create an unusual but powerful combo, providing that the combo isn't game breaking.

Definition of OP: "A level of power that the rest of your table is not comfortable with".

This varies between-- and even within-- groups, yes. This makes the term nigh-useless on the internets, yes. And people (myself included) use it anyway, yes.

And no, cheesy is not always bad, or even problematic. And again that will vary between tables.

For an example from a power perspective-- my gaming group has two Pathfinder games going; one where I GM and one where I play. One of our players is a huge dinosaur fanboy (as in, "career of choice"), and with Jurassic World out... yeah, he wanted a raptor pack, and the traditional options (Pack Lord and the like) suck too much to be usable for that.

As an amusing thought exercise, this weekend I worked out how to get three of the same animal companion going at full character level (amusingly something I'd called impossible less than a week prior, but hey). I told the player that it wasn't something I would allow in my game; too cheesy for my tastes.

But while my game is Runelords with a slightly higher power base (generous stats, gestalt, free VMC), our other table is a home-built campaign with characters that are balls-out ridiculous by the standards of normal play (custom-tweaked races, gestalt, mythic, generous stats, free VMC or a bunch of bonus feats, and oh now we're in the middle of a dungeon to find magic weapons that the GM designed to our tastes/desires). What's cheesy in that game is an entirely difficult ballpark, even with the same players, so a character running around with three animal companions? Fits right in. Have fun.

As with so many of the problems and issues on these boards, this is a simple matter of communicating with your table to establish where the lines are.

For another example, of the 'exploit' perspective-- Magus, Spell Combat, Dimension Door. Spell Combat uses a single action to both cast a spell and make a full attack. Dimension Door prohibits taking any other actions after casting it. Combine the two, and you can make a strong argument for the Magus being able to all but ignore D-Door's restriction and make teleporting full attacks.

Does that fall into definition #2? Definitely. I highly doubt that such a combination was meant to be part of the Magus' design, but "easy access to teleporting full attacks" is a pretty strong point of theirs in the back half of the game.

But is that a problem?

Well, that's when it loops back into #1. The first time I mentioned it on these boards, I was surprised by the reaction I'd gotten. I'd never even considered it was broken; it's a superspecific combination that does one thing that isn't even a good idea more often than not. And my GM was the one who showed it to me, so I didn't have any concerns about it being broken...

But that was my perspective. Others disagreed, because their perceptions were different-- running different games, used to different power levels, playing with different people-- that changed the way they saw the exploit.

So it's definitely cheesy, in that it exploits a rules loophole really blatantly. It may also be cheesy in that it creates an overpowered character by allowing the Magus to teleport all over the battlefield-- but some tables will work with it. Some won't.

Use your judgement. The infinite-shield-loop is the sort of thing where any sane GM is going to slap the player with a codfish until they stop. It's definitely a rules loophole and it's pretty obvious that most GMs are going to find "I get infinite attacks per round" broken. So it's cheesy, by point #2 and #1. Hence you should pretty much know to avoid it. Really not that hard.

The third one is generally a non-issue.

The second one is, nine times out of ten, used to loop back into the first. The other one time out of ten it's usually just funny, or the gain is minor enough that it's not a large difference.

The first is a problem unless your table is okay with it, but most tables don't tend to be so we get the stigma.

It even hits the flavor better!

I mean. What is "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" but a Challenge?

General rule: bloodlines are only active while raging.

Specific rule: some bloodline abilities (Draconic's 20th is an example) specify that they are active at all times.

Specific beats general, but absence of a restatement of a general rule doesn't mean you ignore the general rule.

This means that a 20th Draconic Bloodrager outside of rage does not have claws, natural armor, energy resistance, a breath weapon, wings, or the ability to turn into a dragon. He does retain Power of Wyrms, which has a specific statement that says that the benefits last even while not bloodraging.

The absence of that line from the other powers does not mean you always have them. It means that you default to the general rule.

As for "do I think the different wording is a mistake"... it's the ACG.

They make better Rogues than Rogues.

They explode things for a living.

They turn themselves into monstrous doom machines for fun and profit.

They have all kinds of weird and unusual rules interactions for you to discover and alternate between hugging and cursing the devs for.

They're fantastic debuff machines (every time I read Curse Bombs, I laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of it).

They explode things for a living.

Explosions are fun.

That would be pretty great, but I'm iffy on whether A.) Paizo would put that much effort into this class or B.) Dreamscarred Press would allow a Paizo base class to rip Path of War wholesale.

B doesn't really work. "Oh no, Pazio ripped the same 3.5 material that we ripped!" doesn't really go far.

Dex combatants are in a really weird place for encumbrance, that's all.

Your standard martial doesn't have this problem. He's going to have six more points of Str, which translates to "all he needs".

Your standard caster doesn't have this problem. He's either going to still have ~4 more points of strength or he's not going to need the majority of that equipment.

It's only the tiny subset of characters that choose to be martials without investment in the Strength stat. And, to hopefully nobody's surprise, not investing in Strength has penalties to the things Strength is meant for.

You can play a 10-Str front-liner with full kit very easily. Do you have to pay attention to weights? Sure. Would you do well to burn a trait on Muscle of the Society? You would, but it's not necessary. Does the fact that you have to work at it mean that the system isn't working as written? Not in the least.

My only concern is the warlock specialization. Will it eclipse the magus class because it has a more powerful spell list?

No.

The broader list makes a big difference, but the Magus has always had to deal with competitors with a broader list. Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK X, even with the two lost caster levels, has a broader spell list than the Magus.

What lets the Magus compete are its class features, and most specifically Spell Combat.

I think the only thing I MIGHT allow it for is Humans, and at the cost of their Racial Bonus Feat.

Humans get the short end of the stick compared to a lot of the half-human races; there's no reason to play a Human when Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Throwback Gillmen, or Scion of Humanity Aasimars are allowed, except for that bonus feat - and even THAT may or may not be terribly useful, honestly.

... Wait what.

That is literally the only time I have ever heard Humans describe as underpowered. Boring, yeah. Underpowered? Never.

You could be rocking a 19 ac if you swapped out the haramaki for a chain shirt (as canny defense requires light or no armor).

And then you have arcane spell failure to contend with. Not worth it.

Arbitrary changes are bad, and changes before the game (barring stuff like "Sorry, this doesn't fit in my world because we don't have jet airplanes, why don't you try this instead?") are bad.

Twists, like Kalindlara pitched, are okay. But they should never be "the things that your character knew and experienced? No, they actually knew and experienced this"*. Things the character didn't know happening around them? Fair game, so long as it's plausible. Things that were kept from them (by family, for example)? Fair game. Things that happened after they left? Oh definitely.

*There are exceptions to every rule. I do like Kalindlara's twist with the Witch-- but a lot of why it works is because the player isn't attached to that backstory.

From a GM perspective, I think a good way to handle it once you have their backstories (bonuses for backstories are great incentive to get those~) is to ask which parts they're most attached to and why. That can give you leads to target as well as things to avoid.

And while it's been beaten with a stick already in this thread... if you're going to mess with a PC, do it dramatically. "By the way your organization is evil now and your mother is a slave" is boring.

But returning to town, unrecognized due to your experiences on the road, and hearing shouts to catch a slave trying to escape... only to recognize your mother running toward you, filthy, dressed in rags and a collar with that animalistic, desperate look in her eyes?

That's something.

But Angel and Ares never ever ever ever do that, because those writers actually wanted their tragic heroes to succeed, and wanted their overarching story to succeed.

The OP has either forgotten that point, or never cared about it in the first place.

Those writers also didn't have three other writers capable of interfering with Angel or Ares.

Nine times out of ten I'd totally agree with you, mind.

kestral287 wrote:

I actually find this whole thing interesting, DM Blake, because you and I are approaching this with the same issue in mind, from totally opposite angles.

Given that players and characters are operating with full knowledge of this curse and that the character doesn't want it removed, what's the difference between removing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Good, even though you're Evil" and placing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Evil"?

From my angle, it looks like there's a pretty heavy PvP element on the verge of kicking in, but if it kicks in it's not going to be Malwing who instigates it, but the Paladin and Cleric. They're the ones who are actively-- and knowingly-- interfering with another character through the use of mind-affecting magic.

I don't think I would call removing mind-affecting magic using it.

I don't think that the characters present wishes have any weight. If you are being mind controlled, consent is invalid. Presumably, the uncontrolled character would indeed want the geas removed (and if not, then the geas is probably irrelevant.)

One could also make an argument that it is likely that eventually the Geas will be removed somehow, and that while being controlled no true redemption or reform is impossible. I know others have talked about the gaes itself causing redemption, but I think anyone can be good without temptation, and it is learning to control impulses, not removing them that makes a person a decent human being.

All that being said, if the other players know that the OP as a player doesn't want the geas removed, they are jerks for doing it and shouldn't, and should figure some reason why not (although asking him to refrain from special snowflake backstories designed to create conflict in the future would be reasonable). If the curse is removed, and the OP decided to go all serial killer on the party then he is a jerk, he should instead choose one of the thousands of responses that...

*Shrug* As I said, to my knowledge the curse is not forcing consent. If it is then that changes my position insofar as the good/evil scale goes, but that's strictly in-character stuff.

In terms of what the players are doing, I tried to consider it with my own character instead. What does she deem important that she wouldn't want taken away? Well, for her it's her gold; she's a greedy little thing.

What would she do if somebody openly discussed stealing her gold in front of her? Well, she'd oppose the notion vehemently.

What would I do, as a player, if the other characters were discussing that? Well, I'd probably warn them that if they carry out this act of aggression on my character that she'll respond violently.

And what would I do, as a player, if the other players went through with that despite being warned not to enact an act of aggression on my character? I'd play her character and we'd go from there. Good odds at least two people at the table are going to be rolling new characters though. And frankly... I wouldn't feel bad about that. I did my due duty, in character and out, to prevent the rest of the table from launching an attack on my character; they chose to do so anyway. PvP was initiated by the other party.

So, as long as Malwing gives the rest of his table fair warning and doesn't initiate any PvP on his own, I'm not sure it's fair to hold him accountable for other players and characters attacking him.

To further this, it basically means you can counter spell once when it's not your turn, but it will cost you your swift action NEXT turn, as all immediate actions do.

Magus is a pretty swift action dependant class so this could cost you some nifty tricks. But the trade off is decent and worth it.

Arcanist, not Magus. :P

I actually find this whole thing interesting, DM Blake, because you and I are approaching this with the same issue in mind, from totally opposite angles.

Given that players and characters are operating with full knowledge of this curse and that the character doesn't want it removed, what's the difference between removing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Good, even though you're Evil" and placing a Geas that says "you have to act as though you were Evil"?

From my angle, it looks like there's a pretty heavy PvP element on the verge of kicking in, but if it kicks in it's not going to be Malwing who instigates it, but the Paladin and Cleric. They're the ones who are actively-- and knowingly-- interfering with another character through the use of mind-affecting magic.

Depends on how the trap is built. You can devise them with a number of triggers.

It isn't one.

It's a cost to activate an ability, and each ability will have its own action. For Counterspell, that's an immediate action, so you spend the point as part of the immediate action to use Counterspell.

The counterpoint to this, is that characters should have built in drawbacks and issues.

Otherwise you end up in a game of Dungeons and Engineers where people constantly try to get the 'most gain' instead of RP correctly.

The cleric from the example, that's a bit backwards yes, but my own campaign setting has a requirement on its death goddess' followers that they properly bury (in the ocean) sentient dead creatures.

As such, barring severe issues, sapient creature's bodies have to be recovered and disposed of properly.

Sure-- and that's all well and good. But to tie it back to the example, this is what the Cleric was doing:

1. Give the dead their last rites
2. Watch them get raised as skeletons
3. Smash the bones of those who had just been slain, in the process desecrating the hell out of their corpse
4. Kill the necromancer.

Instead, he could...

1. Kill the necromancer
2. Give the dead their last rites.

With a little patience, he can still carry out everything his character wants to do, but better since no smashing skeletons.

Similarly, for your death goddess' followers, I would fully anticipate that he keep a cart or similar handy and insist on making arrangements for the bodies to be sent to the ocean. And I would understand and approve of that.

If, in the middle of a fight, he starts loading bodies into the cart and then trundles off toward the ocean because "my goddess insists I do this", then there's going to be one more body in that cart. He can wait three minutes to act on his beliefs with a modicum of intelligence.

On the flip side, yes, if another party member got onto him about following his beliefs, so long as he wasn't doing so disruptively, I would be quick to defend him-- he's acting as a good follower would.

But really, I can stand a lot of 'this is what my deity demands' in RP without much drama, unless the player's really taking it way too far. Where the "I'm just playing my character" issue comes up more often is with people who intentionally dick over their party; stealing from or even killing members in their sleep is pretty much the pair of ur-examples.

Your religious stuff creates an extra step my party has to go through? Sure, I understand that. Your character was intentionally built to be a dick and you're using the "It's my character, not me" line as an excuse? My character has a thing for carrying swords that are good at beheadings, do we want to test what she wants to do?

It's a shame that it always happens with the CN guys too, because I have a buddy playing CN awesomely in the game I'm in.

... Oh. Well then. This will be fun.

So, the way I figure it you have a couple targets.

The first is the heirs. Four basic options to deal with them:

Option The First: Kill 'em all, legitimately.

Does your nation allow duels? If so, find a reason to challenge each heir and kill them publically, in front of witnesses, while being totally safe from legal reprisals.

It's not subtle and everybody will know it was you, but it'll drive the point home just fine. The Cease and Desist might be a problem here though.

Option The Second: Kill 'em all quietly.

They sent one of yours to the morgue, you send all of theirs to the morgue. Start finding places where you can isolate their heirs and eliminate them one by one. Between a Rogue and a Wizard that should be easy to do quietly.

Option The Third: Bribery To Victory.

The best way to make it look like somebody else did it is for somebody else to do it. Pay a couple low-ranking but trusted guards handsomely to stab a few nobles in their sleep and disappear.

Option The Fourth: Mind Control Is Fun

Sadly you don't have Dominate Person, but you have Charm Person, Suggestion, and Triggered Suggestion. Suggest to the secondary heir that he'd do well to get the primary heir out of his way and enjoy a nice rum and coke.

You also want their assets. Figure out what kind of companies, businesses, and trade they engage in and drop the heavy end of the hammer:

Option the First: Friends In Low Places

Feed you allies targets. If there's a trading caravan or warehouse or some other form of business that's nearish your allies, simply tip them off to the location, what's inside that's valuable, and that you'd really like it if it went away.

Option the Second: Disobedient Employees

Convince (through coercion or bribery or mind control) a few key employees (accountants, well-place guards, etc.) that they'd do well to make off with some of their employer's wealth, or skim a little off the top.

Option the Third: The Proper Authorities

Plant evidence of wrongdoing in some of these businesses (drugs, demon-worshipping, whatever the king hates most) and call in to the authorities with a tip. Again, Rogue and Wizard makes this easy.

And finally, you have their good name to sully.

Option The First: More Mind Control

Triggered Suggestion on some guards or thugs that they employ to cause some havoc in the wrong sort of places, while part of your mercenary company-- or better, party-- is conveniently nearby to sort out the mess.

Option The Second: Fake a Coup

Suggestion-- can you tell I absolutely love this spell and its Triggered variant-- to convince a few members of the house that they should try to kill the king. Tip the king off. Enjoy the show. Either they fail and you're heroes, or they succeed and you kill them in the name of Justice.

Option The Third: Buying Them Out

Simple, this one. Hire/buy their employees and businesses away. A bit taxing in gold, but you come out of it with more resources. Do this after your allies raid the place to drive down your prices.

There's a lot more you can do, but enacting a few of those plans at once can go a long way.

The teleport power is called Dimension Swap and does allow a Will saving throw. It's got the harmless tag, so it's assumed that you won't want to save, but you have the right to do so if you chose.

It also has a standard action cast time, so not really 'instant' but not too far off.

The healing is probably Body Adjustment. That said, the GM can easily rule that a lost finger is outside the realm of hit point healing and requires Regeneration.

The big thing to note is that using any psionic power requires expending Power Points. At 8th level, he has 20 points, plus his Wisdom modifier (and possibly a few more for feats, etc). Dimension Swap requires three points per use, as does Body Adjustment (though the latter can cost more to heal more damage).

If he's to the point of irritating your GM, I would advise your GM to pull his character sheet and note down how many power points he has, tracking them as he uses them.

Alternately, just tell him to knock it off, and if he persists show him to the door.

kestral287 wrote:

That's my view as well, bookrat. There was a discussion on it a few pages back-- but the existence of entities like Cayden and Iomedae, who gained their 'godhood' through the Starstone, could certainly be used to support the views of such a character. The same is true of the Empyreal Lords, who are god-like but really just the paragons of their kind.

I'm actually half-tempted to really run with the idea. The character would be a Sorcerer who grew up under Razimar's religion and figured it was a fraud somehow or another-- so now he assumes all of the gods are. He's particularly fixated on Cayden and Iomedae, who he thinks are a rare and advanced kind of lich, and wants to use the Starstone as his phylactery and become a lich himself.

The idea needs fleshing out more but I find it hilarious.

I am curious why he assumes lich and not immortal. I mean its not like any of the regular outsiders have a sell by date. Also being alive and immortal seems a lot better than a lich, which has a few obvious downsides.

Well, couple reasons.

The meta-reasons:
-Liches popped into my head first.
-The idea of trying to use the Starstone as a phylactery is hilarious to me.

The character reasons:
-Liches are evil. He has a very low opinion of deities, so automatically assuming they're evil is a good start.
-Liches are understandable. They're a framework he can conceptualize, understand, and eventually even target. "Immortal" is much more vague. Part of the argument against the deities being true gods requires putting them in terms that can be understood, and liches are among the best way to do that.
-Liches are attainable. He knows, at least in the broad strokes, how a mortal can become a lich. "Become immortal" without becoming undead in some way is tricky at best.
-Liches are killable. As a subset of his anti-divine crusade, I could see him wanting to actually go out and kill a deity or two. That's not a state of mind one can really enter if operating under the assumption of "this guy is truly immortal". To combine it with the above: Outsiders can be killed, but there's no real way for a human to become an Outsider. Undead can be also killed, but it isn't that hard for a human to become an undead. A true immortal, as he'd conceptualize the term, cannot be killed at all, and that's not something attainable by him-- and if he can't attain it, he doesn't think anyone can. His assumption is that Cayden and Iomedae stumbled across a 'better' Lich ritual, one somehow empowered by the Starstone.

Weapon Mastery + Scythe = 20/x5, crits are autoconfirmed. Weapon Mastery does not extend crit range. You could throw in Improved Critical to make that 19-20/x5, and Mythic Improved Critical for x6, but you're not getting to 18-20/x5 with a scythe. And incidentally, Falcata with Improved Critical only goes to 17-20, not 16. I think you may be under the assumption that Weapon Mastery increases crit range by 1? That's wrong if so, it increases the multiplier but not the range. The Inspired Blade has a rapier-specific capstone that increases threat range, but the normal Weapon Mastery doesn't do that.

And yes, I assumed the "stacks with Improved Critical" line of the Inspired Blade's capstone meant that it's fully integrated with IC, including the doubling. I can see the 14-20 interpretation though.

If we're thinking of 'best' as 'largest increase over base damage', then we have...

13-20/x4: Inspired Blade generous assumption, Improved Critical & Mythic, rapier: +120% damage (40% chance of critical hit, each crit increases damage by 3x)

14-20/x4: Inspired Blade conservative assumption, Improved Critical & Mythic, rapier: +105% damage (35% chance of critical hit, each crit increases damage by 3x)

19-20/x6: Scythe, Weapon Mastery, Improved Critical & Mythic: +100% damage (10% chance of critical hit, each crit increases damage by 5x)

15-20/x4: Rapier, Weapon Mastery, Improved Critical & Mythic: +90% (30% chance of critical hit, each crit increases damage by 3x)

17-20/x5: Falcata, Weapon Mastery, Improved Critical & Mythic: +80% (20% chance of critical hit, each crit increases damage by 4x).

I find this interesting, myself. Off the raw math, in a high enough level/power game the Falcata actually ceases to be the ideal weapon. And maybe not even that high level, what if you only had Mythic...

15-20/x3: +60% (30% chance of increasing damage by 2x)
17-20/x4: +60% (20% chance of increasing damage by 3x)
19-20/x5: +40% (10% damage of increasing damage by 4x)

Personally I'd take a 30% chance of triple damage over a 20% chance of quadruple, so the answer to that other thread's "what's a katana good for" is apparently "Mythic game crit-fishing".

That's my view as well, bookrat. There was a discussion on it a few pages back-- but the existence of entities like Cayden and Iomedae, who gained their 'godhood' through the Starstone, could certainly be used to support the views of such a character. The same is true of the Empyreal Lords, who are god-like but really just the paragons of their kind.

I'm actually half-tempted to really run with the idea. The character would be a Sorcerer who grew up under Razimar's religion and figured it was a fraud somehow or another-- so now he assumes all of the gods are. He's particularly fixated on Cayden and Iomedae, who he thinks are a rare and advanced kind of lich, and wants to use the Starstone as his phylactery and become a lich himself.

The idea needs fleshing out more but I find it hilarious.

13-20/x4, with the ability to count rolls of 10-12 as hitting for double damage.

The latter ability is coming off of Improved Critical's combat trick from the stamina system. The actual range is from the Inspired Blade's capstone (increase critical threat range of rapiers by one) attached to Improved Critical. That capstone also bumps the multiplier by one; add in Mythic Improved Critical and you get x4.

I mean, that's a level 20 character with at least two mythic tiers and an optional subsystem working for him. Without all that, 15-20/x2.

If you're worried about the difficulty curve, start easy and ramp up. The first guy doesn't really aim for weaknesses, the second guy does sometimes, by the third you better have your blindspots protected. First-second guys doesn't use mooks, third-fourth have a few, that Cleric prepped a few Banishments for #5 right? Etc, etc.

Ah. Okay. Brawler's Flurry.

So first things first: there are three different Flurries that share only superficial similarities. Monk's, Brawler's, Unchained Monk's.

Brawler's Flurry will count as TWF for the purpose of feat prerequisites, but those feats will only apply while you're Flurrying.

Srtz wrote:

sameguy wrote:

Words: I wish to maintain harmony.

Action: I have specifically made a thing that makes another player's character pointless. Because I can.

My intent was never to "dick him over." this thread was started due to the fact he TOOK it like that. I was NEVER GOING TO REPLACE HIS ROLE at all.

Stop feeding the haters, stop defending action that needs no defense. You did nothing wrong. Everyone in this day and age thinks they can all win, but theres only one first place and theres nothing wrong with seizing it.

It's funny because there's no first place.

I honestly don't understand the idea that the player should be held to some kind of standard of fun for other players. Don't misunderstand me, everyone should be having fun and the disparity is a problem. But not one caused by the player. It was caused by the DM.

It was caused by both.

In no way is the player blameless here. He could have chosen to spend that money in ways in line with his other players. He could have chosen to spend that money on myriad smaller constructs that would be designed to support and assist the party. The DM opened the door, but it was the player who made the choice to step through it.

The DM's an idiot. But the player took advantage of the opportunity, knowing exactly what he was doing.

He gave away a truck load of money and didn't give any spending guidelines. He even approved the choices that were made. If this was an oversight or a bad call or whatever, then fine. That's cool. But the answer isn't "Oh I gave you too much money and approved your choices? Oh well then this is your fault for not also being psychic." it's "Hey guys, yeah it's legal but I goofed. Here's a a few ideas for how we fix this, lets go over them and see what we can do."

You don't have to be psychic. You have to be a reasonably intelligent human being.

I mean, are you honestly going to tell me that if I show up to the table with a guy who can do everything your character can do three times over, you're not going to be dissatisfied? It's not hard to see the results of his actions; five minutes of consideration demonstrates it.

Yes, the DM should have rejected the killbot. But so should the player.

Honestly, this all speaks to a greater problem that has existed for years. Some classes don't have rolls. Damage isn't a roll. This isn't an MMO. If all of your feats and class resources are spent to make you better at dealing damage than the conclusion isn't that damage is your schtik. It's that you don't HAVE a schtik at all. Being a big burly warrior comes with more aspects than just hitting things hard. If your entire contribution to the game can be supplanted by another classes features than the answer isn't to force others to abide by nebulous agreements (even if the vagueness can be mitigated by open communication). It's to fix the core problem.

That's far outside the scope of the discussion. You are literally saying that the solution to "one player wanted to supplant another" is "go play a different game".

Well yeah. If you're playing Rifts instead of Pathfinder, you don't have Pathfinder's problems anymore. Now go solve Rifts' problems.

Now, these problems can and do exist so a gentlemen's agreement IS necessary until they no longer do. My argument was never that it shouldn't exist. Merely that it's existence is problematic because it is merely a tool - an invisible and vague tool- that we use to sweep the large issue under the rug.

Barring a massive system revamp that is, frankly, not worth most DM's time or effort, the "large issue" is here to stay. And it's really, really easy to work around for a rational human being. The Rogue wants to be the Stealth Guy, and you're the Wizard? Don't cast Invisibility and Fly on yourself and go be the Stealth Guy, give them to him.

The Bloodrager wants to be the Damage Guy? Build him awesome constructs that help him be the Damage Guy, don't replace him.

You're massively overstating the difficulty of a really simple problem.

kestral287 wrote:

You're still delivering the spell. +3 applies.

As long of course, your target is metal or wearing metal armor.

Well yes. I would hope everyone in the thread understands how the spell being discussed works, thus rendering such a qualifier unnecessary.

The first post did indeed direct the flow of the conversation. But it in no way hinted to me that he wanted a dissection. And to be frank, I don't care too. He made an assertion that he shouldn't have to limit himself and gave an anecdotel reason why he felt that way. His build really couldn't be any less relevent if it tried. The gold his DM tossed at him is a complete non-starter.

Personally, I agree with you kestral to a degree. But I find it a troubling answer because it implies that we need shadow rules when making a character. These are always going to be nebulous because you are literally basing these invisible, self-imposed restrictions are based entirely on trying to feel out what is okay and not okay on a person by person basis. And you have zero control over the sensibilities of others.

Frankly, unless your group routinely hides things from each other... they are not shadowy rules. I can look at the rest of my table and see the character sheets for those players. I can probably figure out what they want to do-- and if I can't by looking at the sheet, I can, yanno, talk to them.

In fact, in relating the anecdote I did... that's exactly what happened. I built my character to be a hammer. She can support the group a bit, she can debuff the enemy or control the area a bit, but at the end of the day what she's best at is turning things into frozen corpses.

I did not hide this. In fact, I've openly told the group about her inherent weaknesses, and my GM knows exactly what's needed to stop her cold.

So, there was another player who was interested in running a damage dealer with a side order of debuff. I worked with him and what he wanted to do to figure out just what would be needed for him to match my character's numbers-- it was possible, but it meant basically all of his feats and options going forward. He hemmed and hawed on it for a while-- and last night, of his own volition, he altered the character and his plans to fill the debuffing/anvil role more fully. He fell into that in a way he never really got into figuring out how many dice he could roll at once, and I could tell right off that he was having more fun.

Win/win. His character comes out stronger for it, my character comes out better off from having all opponents crippled before she gets to them, and we're both probably going to wind up having more fun since we can cheer each other on now. And now I don't have to worry about if I'm pushing the numbers too hard, since I'm not trying to keep close to him without passing him.

On the flip side, if a player breaks the contract I have no sympathy for them. The third player of our group, who joined late, declared that he wanted to build the tank. I just sort of raised an eyebrow at that, because my established character already did that, and did it better. And I'm not going to dial that back for him.

To bring things full circle: the OP broke the contract, by playing over and on top of the Bloodrager. And he did so knowingly. It is possible to do things on accident, and I can understand that, but we have enough information about the event, as well as quotes from before the event, to determine that this was premeditated. That's not the Bloodrager's fault for being 'beneath' him, it's the Wizard's fault for going out of his way to put the Bloodrager under his boot.

It seems to me the heart of this discussion SHOULD have been whether or not we should limit ourselves or hold back in anyway if it means not offending other Pcs. His story should have been an anicdote added to clarify his meaning and possition. It's a shame that the anicdote became the focus because I think a discussion could have been worth something. Why does anyone care how much money his DM throws at them? It isn't remotely relevent. "But his CP cost was too high!" Who cares? He's claiming he shouldn't have to cater to the feelings of the group. Shouldn't we address that...like...at all? I mean it is the thread title after all.

Title yes, but the first post directed the conversation.

I mean, to address the title... how much do you like playing alone?

If it's a lot, overshadow everybody and make them feel like they're not needed.

If it isn't, understand that there's a social contract and that dominating the party doesn't make you friends.

You can run a strong character among weaker ones effectively. You just have to make sure that the weaker ones have options that keep them in the picture so they don't ever feel obsolete. For an actual example from a game, if I can routinely deliver four-digit damage to the target, then I might try to help my table mate build a support and debuff oriented character, and note how much his support contributed. And I would do that early, so that he's not suddenly shocked into a role-shift he doesn't want.

Ideally, in the process of providing that help, the player gains better system mastery so that eventually I'm not 'playing down' to him, or forcing him to play up to me, but he does it naturally.

kestral287 wrote:

+5 Slams.

Scizore on all slams.

That is not a beefcake.

I realize this, but the fact is he is a beefcake. Most all the money is spent on making him tough. If you really think about it, the additional slams and scizore mods are an extremely cheap mod. Why cant i spend 80% of my gold on beefcake with 20% on wep. I dont see why i cant do both

No... no he is not a 'beefcake'.

Pecentage of wealth spent is irrelevant, results are.

If I manage to buy a bazooka for $1, does that invalidate the fact that I own a bazooka? Of course not. How cheap you got the thing for is immaterial compared to results, which are that this thing is not a meatshield.

As defensive melees go, it's a terrible design. It's rather bad at actually defending things compared to what you could do-- more on that one later.

As offensive melees go, it's ridiculous at your level.

So ultimately, that gives us two real choices. We either assume that the min-maxer who spent a lot of time talking to his GM about how to build this and "doesn't make mistakes" is actually really, really bad at min-maxing a tank, or we believe that you're actually pretty decent at building a hammer.

You had a lot of options on how to spend that money. You chose to spend it on five slams + increased damage. Let's evaluate.

Price of an animated object is as determined by CR (specifically, CR^2*500). The Slams + increased damage are 6 CP, or +3 CR.

So your base animated object is a CR7. You spent 20 CP. At a base CP of 4, you had to jack the CR up to 15 to support that. That's a buy tag of 112,500.

If you'd gone with one slam, no increased damage, you'd save 6 CP, so it'd be CR12. That's a buy tag of 72,000.

So-- first off, your 20%/80% was wrong. 36% of wealth, discounting the Scizores, is devoted to offense.

If you'd gone with the CR9 version, you'd have an actual beefcake. Still not a good one, mind, but it'd be something. Of course, you'd also have 40,500 gold still in the bag. That would allow you to immediately up the AC by a huge margin. You can craft a Ring of Protection for it, as well as upping its inbuilt armor. By putting a +4 enhancement bonus (16,000) and giving it a +5 Ring (25,000), you'd have spent 500 more gold (minus Scizore cost) to up AC by nearly 50% (almost doubled Touch AC, incidentally, though everything will still hit it)

More realistically, to build an actual tank that has an offensive presence, you'd also drop the four energy resistances (terrible value, those) and add in a second Slam (1 CP), Trip*2 (4 CP), Extended Range*2 (2 CP), and Grab (1 CP).

See how easy it was to leverage your wealth for greater defenses? Now you have a construct with a 15' reach who can trip and grapple anything moving through it, two different things when actually attacking, and your AC is nine points higher. It cost me 500 more gold, before factoring in the cost of six Huge Scizores.

It only has a third of the direct offensive presence of your current setup, which means it's still high, but now it only matches the Bloodrager instead of beating him three times over. On the flip side, it's far better at supporting him and defending itself and you.

That's how you build a tank. That took me half an hour. Are we really to believe you're not capable of something like that? Or are we to believe that you wanted something that could kick the Bloodrager to the curb three times over.

Also, from the first post of your other thread:

Like one bot i have planned, could easily 1v1 the strongest martial class in my party(even with all his money spent)

Are we still to believe that you didn't know the results of this? You told us that you didn't really run the numbers... but apparently you knew enough to know this.

If he hasn't hit the field, all that means is that you haven't made your party mate obsolete until the next session.

Unless you're planning on altering it, whether or not it's shown up is irrelevant.

What it was "supposed" to do is irrelevant and immaterial.

What you did matters. Your "big body" is worth, apparently, three of his Bloodragers post-buffs. That is not something built to stand and take damage. That's a front-line combat machine

Maybe you really did just mean it as a big body and it accidentally wound up offensively awesome. Maybe. To be perfectly blunt, I'll buy that right after I buy the oil well in New Jersey.

This is what you did: you made yourself at least as powerful as three other players combined. Three damage machines, the best of which does 35% of your damage, run the numbers. Everyone but the Shaman could stop showing up and you should be able to handle the same encounters. And you're surprised that one of the players you supplanted is ticked? Really?

I've been following the other thread. What were you advised to do with all that money? Well...

Make constructs that will actually help the party

Do your party members know you have the craft feats? Are you willing to craft for them? Might take the sting out of your min/max if you are willing to help them stretch their money too.

Another option is spellcasting services. You have a mobile base already, but installing a gate to your own demiplane, complete with the time, bountiful and positive energy will not just help you, but everyone else.

As for constructs, I assume custom is allowed, from Ultimate Magic? If so, building item carrier battle boars for the group could help. I will dig out the schematics later, but, iirc, it was a boar like construct that had bags of holding built in.

Swarms of homunculists can be useful as scouts and aid in battle (CLW SLA)

Create various 1 use/day items for each of the party:

So yeah. You can make statements like this:

That was the WHOLE points of the last thread. I didnt want to overshadow anyone, and needed some help on how to make it fun.

But actions speak louder than words, and your actions were to ignore the given advice. You were outright warned not to do what you did. Anyone who considers your actions and your situation for five minutes could tell you the results, which are exactly what happened. If you were reading that thread and understanding it, there's no way that you couldn't have known what would happen.

Is your GM at blame for handing a crafter that much cash? Sure.

Could your Bloodrager be a better player? Sure.

Are you at blame for taking his fun away? Yes. Either you did that knowingly or you really didn't consider the consequences of your actions, I don't know. Either way, you made choices. And because it was you who made choices, you, first and foremost, are the one at fault for whatever happens*. You need to accept that.

And you need to figure out how to fix it, or watch your table shrink through your own actions. That's your call.

*Okay, your GM too. He's either going to nuke this thing through blatant shenanigans or watch his game disintegrate, one or the other.

I like long composite bows better than crossbows, too. But the OP asked which weapons had the highest average base damage/hit, not which are the best overall weapons.

I don't see the allure of Falcatas. And personally, I think crit builds are overrated. Although I have trouble gauging their real value, and that in and of itself is a big reason why I don't like them.

"Highest average damage" =/= "highest base damage".

There will be a break point of when a heavy catapult will be better than a longbow, and yes, there is actually will be some set of static damage when that's the case.

It will be exceedingly low.

As for falcatas-- pretty straightforward. The allure is that they deliver more damage than any other weapon in the game.

I find this interesting, but not all that useful. I tend to play casters so worry about arm and anvil stuff rather than DPR usually. Is there anywhere that discusses DPR and the effects of common feats, weapon choices, magic and why the ones that are considered good are considered good?

I struggle trying to figure out things like whether to use a falcata or a bastard sword on a vital strike build. Is there some kind of guide like a class guide to DPR?

Eh... not really anything in guide form, but it tends to boil down to some fairly simple tenants:

1. Broader crit ranges are better, and better broader crit ranges are best. If you crit 20% of the time for double damage, then accounting for the 5% miss chance you deal 115% of your base damage on average. If you crit 20% of the time for triple damage, accounting for the miss chance that's an average 135% of your base damage.

There's no single feat or enhancement that will consistently add 20% to your base damage-- save for upgrading your longsword to a falcata.

2. If you're trading damage for accuracy, it should be on a 2:1 scale. The reason the oversized bastard sword strategy is weak is because it trades -2 to hit for +2 damage (as compared to a greatsword). This is below our golden 2:1 ratio, so you're generally better off in damage output with a greatsword.

By contrast, the reason Power Attack tends to be preferred is that it usually offers a 3:1 exchange rate, which is very strong.

This is why TWF is mechanically the strongest melee style if you can solve its issues in things like stat and gold costs: you trade -2 to hit for (more or less) x2 to damage.

3. More attacks are almost always better than less attacks. This seems obvious-- and it is-- but this right here is why Haste is considered so very good. Hitting at +11/+6/+1 as a full martial gives you one attack that's almost certainly going to hit, one attack that's probably going to hit, and one attack that's pretty much crit-fishing. Hitting at +11/+11/+6/+1, while only adding going from three attacks to four, will often represent a damage increase closer to 50% than the 33% that it can look on paper.

And in turn this is why Vital Strike is weak. A martial who's really, really invested in his weapon's damage die can use an oversized Growing Impact Bastard Sword and get a 4D8 weapon. If he uses Vital Strike, then, he'll boost that by another 4D8, which averages to 4.5*4=18 damage.

But in exchange, he gives up his second attack, which if it connects is worth a minimum of 18 damage in its own right, and probably far more when we factor in Strength bonuses and such-- if we assume those static damage numbers are also a +18 (probably fairly conservative for a two-handing martial at level 6 or 7), then Vital Strike only looks better if his second attack would hit less than 50% of the time, which should not be the case for a full martial's first iterative. And while his static damage will scale up, and thus push the value of Vital Strike down, Vital Strike's gains are fixed at that 4D8 for him.

I can go deeper into things if you have specific questions, but those are really three of the core tenants that will provide the reasoning behind most of the stuff that's commonly considered either really good or really bad.

Yeah... you're asking to kill a player here.

The guy who actually reads the letter gets no save, so he's eating 6D6. On average that's 21 damage, which is enough to knock most d6 characters and any low-Con d8s into the negatives on an average roll.

On a max roll it'll instagib (as in kill, not knock out) any d8 with less than 16 Con, and can put some Barbarians below zero.

And then after that, you throw them up against a Sorcerer who can wave his hand and Fireball them for another 6D6?

Somebody's gonna die here. And while I've got no problem with killing a PC, this is pretty close to a "Zeus chucks a lightning bolt at you, you die, roll a new character" scenario.

Greatsword beats Greataxe at any static bonus by a margin of ~.5 damage.

At 18 Str Greatsword beats Falchion. Break point there will be when your static modifier equals +37; at that point you want a falchion over a greatsword.

Keen/Improved Critical also kicks in, since I forgot to mention it. At a static damage modifier of +18 falchion and greatsword are equal when both are Keen; higher you want falchion, lower you want greatsword.

The Nodachi, however, will beat the Falchion 100% of the time just as greatsword beats greataxe. Subbing that in, we get our break point at +26, or +12 if Keen is in play.

Depends on what your static damage modifier is.

There are break points between when you go with a larger raw number of dice or a better crit range.

In turn that also depends on your size-- due to the way size changes affect dice, it makes the bigger dice weapons (which tend to have smaller crit ranges) more useful for a longer time. I.E., for a Medium creature, scimitar almost always beats longsword, but for a Large creature that change is far slower to kick in.

As a general rule, if you find the best crit range weapon in your given category, for a PC it's probably the best option.

With more specific numbers, or which categories of weapons (light/one-hand/two-hand and simple/martial/exotic) you care about better data can be provided, but those are the two general points.

kestral287 wrote:

I'd honestly love to see the roleplaying concept that absolutely required a katana, to the point that even the wakizashi and nodachi couldn't replace it.

A niten master? It's hard to dual-wield nodachi, and a wakazashi isn't a samurai's weapon, as commoners may carry it.

The wakizashi most certainly is a samurai's weapon. Merchants could also carry them, but it was a core part of the daisho that marked one as a samurai.

So yeah... you can build that with two wakizashis and still fit the concept. More specifically you label one (in the main hand) as an o-wakizashi and the other (in the off hand) as a ko-wakizashi.

You could also build it with two katanas (again, artificially labeling one as shorter than the other), and if you want to be truly correct you would wear one of each, but it's not even really reflavoring at this point.

Hence I stand by the point.