Search Posts
It depends on the game. If you never get iterative attacks, feint isn't a trap. I used it heavily with my rogue until I started to get iteratives. Then it became dead weight. However, I was heavily invested in bluff and in a campaign that I was mostly opposing other humans so I didn't have to worry about penalties. If you mostly play at low level, feint can be a very useful way to get your sneak attack if you don't have a flank buddy.
Not so much about the balance but: Man I would hate having to do all that book keeping. Constant cash worries...not to mention how fast you would tear through cash preventing you from using it for fun stuff. I've never actually seen one of these classes break the game though. Sure, they theoretically can, and I'm sure sometimes they do. But one thing I've noticed is that these classes tend to be best at making the non Tier 1 classes better. Haste is a great spell....for the rest of the party. If I were the fighter I wouldn't want my wizard to not use it because it costs to much. So I'd end up covering part of the cost, which would prevent me from getting that next +1 on my weapon. I think adding these costs would be a huge amount of extra work and may not actually balance anything, just make everyone worse.
What's the effect on an AP campaign if I require the PCs to start with an NPC level? My intent is to add flavor to background and have that ordinary people become heroes arc, but I don't know what the mechanical effect would be. I think it depends on a whole host of factors. How many people are in the group, whether you're going to start at level 1, and how much do your players optimize are all important. So is the ability generation method. I'm running Carrion Crown for my group now, 4 players, not very optimized, 4d6 drop lowest and they're doing just fine (although luck has played in their favor). I don't know if I'd start them with an NPC level at level 1 and expect them to survive though. If there were 6 of them, or if they optimized seriously or if we did 25 point buy I think it would be fine. You may want to look into giving them something like a free Skill Focus (profession: whatever) feat instead. Helps give them a bit of a background without changing balance much. EDIT: Also, I think it's important that you give them Max 1 NPC level if you don't want them to die terribly.
Depends on interpretation of it. But I prefer True Neutral. Not in the 'everything is balanced' way, but in the regular human working for himself way. Not evil, and given a black or white option will probably do the good thing, but pretty easily swayed into inaction or twisting the rules for his preferred outcome. I also enjoy CG an awful lot.
Why should the bard be Alpha in combat? They're alpha in social situations. That's ok. I don't want my bard, or my rogue, to be the equal of the fighter in a fight. That's his schtick. Why would I take it away? These classes have plenty of effectiveness in combat, so it's not boring for them. They shine in social, so that's good. I don't see a problem with having second tier combat classes. Support is fun too.
This is good advice. Our group runs like hell. A lot. Very often, in fact. This is because our DM is a killer. If you run, he'll give you experience for being smart, but if you fight something bigger than you with plenty of warning, I hope you enjoy rolling a new character. It's funny actually, since we normally run unless backed into a corner now. Still a great game, because there are things we can still beat up on, but we tend to think through all of the options, including running before making our decisions. Less of I'm a super hero and can kill anything, more of: I'm a mortal man with mortal flaws and holy shit that's an army marching towards us....run! But the key is warning. Even the very blatant, "Are you sure?" is a really good way to make them think of alternatives.
How about an elementalist? Like a summoner of elementals or golems. Summoner kind of works, but I like the idea of a caster that uses the environment exclusively. So reaching down and touching the earth and having an elemental form and fight the bad guys.
Master Spy also gets sneak attack at a slightly slower progression.
Endurance. Run.
I'm actually ok with this too if it makes sense. One of my problems with PA (other than it's must nature) is that anyone can swing a sword as hard as they can. You shouldn't need special training to give up accuracy for power. So, this is open to caster feats too. Anything that a class absolutely must have or fall behind the curve, I'd like to simply give it out when the requirements are reached. Leaving feats for customization of the concept.
You'd probably be better off giving them skill focus(whatever). Make power attack a "free" feat and they'll probably just grab another combat feat. Not really the case with us. We have a 10th level fighter in a different game w/o power attack because he wanted Skill Focus(Perform: Flute). I normally wouldn't care about this, but I'm new to AP's and wouldn't want my PC's to die because they want a flavor character over an optimized character.
Bear in mind, that this may be unfair to those that are not combat inclined. I'm not too worried about the pure balance of it. The players I'm running are not optimizers at all, but I'm running an AP and would like for them to use feats that are more for the flavor of their character, rather than having to spend feats on almost necessary options. I'd much rather the 2handed fighter(if there is one) spend a feat on skill focus(whatever) than power attack.
I've seen suggestions around here that certain feats, such as Power Attack and Combat Expertise should simply be combat options, rather than feats. I really like his idea and would like to implement it in some form in the next game that I run. The basic idea is that anyone should be able to Power Attack, for example, as soon as their BAB is equal to +1. Do you have any suggestions for other feats that this sort of thing should apply to? I have plenty of time before the game starts, and I plan to dig through the feat list myself for feats I think should automatically apply, but I was just hoping for some community input. Thanks.
"It's the player" still stands. Guess you'd better brush up. ;)Yes yes yes... the super top secret tricks to playing a rogue that make that player superior to all others... Rogues are situationally great. Depends on the game and the player. Heavy skill games are great for a rogue. Heavy combat games...yeah they don't shine so much. As for cleric? I find them boring, but they are quite tough.
Reward in an RPG is a funny thing. Are you worse at combat? Yes. Is this a super huge vital thing? Maybe. Maybe. It's always fun so long as you have a group that you enjoy playing with and doesn't make you feel like dead weight to choose less than stellar flavor options. None of our group optimizes. Our GM balances the encounters for us as we are. Which means I only consider something a trap option if I will never end up using it. Optimizing and Roleplaying are compatible. But it's just as valid to not optimize and focus more on the roleplay. It's ok that there are options that keep that in mind.
I don't think that anybody said such a thing, it's you who said that suicide choices are golden opportunities for RP.These archetypes are great for RP=heavy or themed campaigns.They are not so great for munchkins,however. Well...they are. Being optimized doesn't preclude RP. But not being optimized doesn't preclude RP. VoP monk works fine in a social low combat type of game, I suppose, although I admit that it is an extremely weak option. But a pirate for example, is a bit weak for a bunch of flavor. So in a party that doesn't optimize, it's a fine choice and a nice flavorful option. Don't take it in a party that optimizes.
Y'all forgot one thing, point blank shot only helps with your attack roll NOT your damage roll. Point-Blank Shot (Combat) You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets. Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.
I've played a rogue(Spy archetype, now prestiged into Master Spy) for the past 2 years or so, from level 1 up to about 10 now. I grabbed improved feint very early on and boosted bluff crazy high. I used feint an awful lot early on to get my sneak attacks, but as we got higher it has become less and less useful as the martial characters have learned to help me flank. Combat Expertise was a pure feat tax, since I don't believe I've ever used it. My build is very different than yours though, so maybe you'll see more long term benefit from the CE/IF combo. I went with high charisma and int for being the face of the party, bluff being my main focus (Deceptive/Skill Focus bluff + archetype/prestige bonuses = +29 bluff right now baseline). I like having Improved Feint in my back pocket in case I get left alone though, since my non-sneak attack damage is pitiful at best.
By allowing them to take the leadership feat :P
This is actually exactly what I meant. I think it's also what Aardvark Barbarian has been saying
I believe he was talking about a DM controlled mayor. DM's cannot, by definition, metagame.
Bingo. Thanks Kirth. My table recently added your charisma to will saves wisdom to ranged attacks rule. Not that we had any particular problems, just it made sense for all 6 abilities to have mechanical benefit beyond skills.
I can pick up what you're putting down. The issue is that there isn't anything for charisma in that case, is there? If every time you talk it's diplomacy, then charisma is a useless ability. I think what ciretose is saying is this:
Asking a woman out is diplomacy, random bar chatter with no end goal in mind is charisma. Maybe you get some good information out of that random chatter, but you weren't trying to? I'm grasping at straws with that last sentence. Admittedly, I want charisma to do something fundemental.
But you're putting words in people's mouths. It's not about when interaction has begun. It's about pre-interaction. At least pre-verbal interaction. I don't expect 18 charisma to auto have friends. I do see the 18 charisma as being gravitated towards naturally. If a guy walks into the bar with an 18 charisma, chances are he'll come off confident and cool. Without trying. That's not diplomacy. It's charisma. Now charisma 7 guy walks into the same bar. He may be one hell of a speaker and can make friends super-easily once he starts talking, but the first impression won't be the same. He won't give off the air of general coolness. Because coolness is charisma, not diplomacy.
How about expanded social rules? Something that makes the social stuff in the game have closer to the level of depth that combat has. I'd buy it.
But a feat is more expensive than a skill point. A feat you get once every 2 levels, as opposed to an absolute minimum of one skill point per level. My beef with int and charisma is that they don't do anything other than skills and therefore can be more easily dealt with. I always play high charisma/high int, very low combat games. It's not a problem at my tables, at all, ever. My issue is with the theorycraft. Spending skill points in climb is all well and good, but it doesn't overcome all the problems of low str. Spending points in the charisma skills apparently completely overcomes low charisma. That's the root of the issue.
Which is one of the things that bothers me the most, actually. I'd like social stuff to be much more developed, allowing for charisma and intelligence to come into their own as valuable abilities.
Doesn't this strike you as a problem though? Charisma and Int dumps (excepting class abilties) specifically can be mitigated by allocating skill points. Strength, Dex, and Con cannot. I can't just spend skill points to hit harder. Or spend skill points for better initiative. Sure, there are feats, but feats are more expensive than skills. I think the core problem people have comes from the fact that a player can fairly easily overcome dumped int or charisma by RAW, unless class abilities depend on it, but can't overcome low initial physical scores. I'm not saying that your reading of the rules is incorrect, it's not. I'm saying that the rules are lacking in this area.
You are correct. I stated it too simply. Rule books do not necessarily mean player options. Evil Lincoln is saying he won't buy player option books, not saying he won't buy rule books. They are not the same thing in this case. Now I totally agree that my idea is player option, but I think it would sell well among players, just for the novelty of looking up how it works. I know I'd let my players bring me homebrewed up feats or spells to review if a book that outlined their creation existed.
I could go back and quote 4 or 5 posts if you like that flat out said, I'm not buying books of player options anymore. Would that make it on my screen then?I did read the thread, for the first 15 or so posts, and almost every one of them was along the lines of "I refuse to buy any more rule books, stop producing them".What is in your head is not what is on the screen, MDT. Player options != rule books. I'd love to see books about the mechanics behind the screen as it were. Easy ways to implement new homebrewed things such as races, traits, feats and the like and how to make sure they're correctly balanced.
Not always true. If it had to do with authority everyone would always listen to the lead engineer, which is often not the case. Sometimes it's the junior graphics engineer that is dizzyingly intelligent but is fresh out of college or doesn't want to lead people necessarily. Station admittedly affects the way people interact as well, regardless of their charisma either way. The point I was trying to make is that charisma is not the only thing that affects social interaction. This may be best dealt with by nuking charisma as a mechanic at all, rather than building a more robust social system. I was just trying to make the point that in general I find the social system to be weak. Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate and Sense Motive govern every social interaction unless the GM factors in rp (which of course comes with its own issues). I can think of a few times that our GM has had to think for a while before deciding what social skill I just used, or if any one of those skills covered it.
Absolutely true. And part of the problem with the entire social system revolves around this. Charisma is a very vague thing. Diplomacy (in reality) is not just your charisma, although it affects it. It can be wisdom or intelligence depending on the situation. An example: I work with a number of engineers, some of these people do not have what would be defined as charisma. However, everyone knows to listen to them when they speak of their area of expertise and will follow what they say. This is Intelligence affecting a social situation. Sometimes these people can be smart enough to make others gush about how awesome they are. Classically charismatic? No. Able to lead others through their intelligence? Yes. It's very hard to define charismatic because it is based on thousands of little factors. Looks, personality, wit, sense of humor, compassion, even athletic ability can convey the sense of leadership and charisma. Everyone has a slightly different definition of charisma. I feel as though this is why their are so many threads about dumping charisma. It's by far the hardest ability to quantify, and unlike intelligence or strength it's hard to define or train. Ideally there would be an elegant solution that would make charisma valuable on the same scale as strength or int, considering there is no skill to boost to up your carrying capacity or skills be level while their are skills that nearly completely offset negative charisma modifiers.
I see the value in this statement, but I can't agree with it entirely. RAW, this is correct, but I feel as though it's an area that the rules are too light. It reality it's absolutely true that there are people that make bad first impressions before even opening their mouths. The game in no way handles this case. I feel as though it's a missing part of the rules. I feel, and I admit it's a houserule, as though initial attitude should be in some way governed by basic charisma. Perhaps in a much more mild way than indifferent to unfriendly. Maybe a 2 point swing instead of the full 5 points. But the fact is, some people make bad first impressions. Others are great with first impressions. All of that interaction occurs through body language and bias. There is no way to handle this in the game short of GM fiat. As for it taking to level 4-8 to get better at social interaction, it requires just as long to be able to carry just a little bit more equipment, which is a fault of the ability score boost system, rather than any other rules.
I think going up every six or eight games is a good speed. I figure out how many xp to the next level (say 21K xp, for example), then divide that by 7, (that's 3K) and figure out what CR monsters or traps or whatever we will have to face in a given night to get about the right amount of xp. I think that this is based on how often you get to play though. We had one game that started on slow xp, when we were playing 10 hours a session every two weeks, the game eventually switched to every two months and we upped it to medium...we haven't played it in nearly a year and the GM has decided the next time we play we'll be switching to fast. Generally my feeling is less that 10 hours a month should be fast, 10-20 a month should be medium, and more than that can be slow. Because it is just rough to take 6+ months to level. (Obviously depending on the campaign as well).
Worshipping a concept makes sense in non-Golarian games. In a homebrew world it makes sense to allow the players to select two domains that fit whatever god they want to worship. In the first game I ever played, we had a cleric of Gozer the Gozarian from Ghostbusters. (Yes it was an evil game). Since Gozer obviously isn't a set god, allowing the player to grab two domains that make sense is a good way to handle that sort of situation.
I also agree with this. And that's a benefit of the randomness. When you first start playing tabletop it can be hard to grasp the robustness of the system. The idea that you can do nearly anything you can imagine. Having random stats and random hp rolls really helps new players branch into new concepts because the rolls change and you can't just make a carbon copy. In some ways I feel like randomness benefits newer players more than point buy, and point buy benefits seasoned players more. I still like the randomness for my own characters however, it's always nice when you plan for low hp or abilities and roll well, opening up possibilities you didn't expect. Off topic: We've found that a houserule that we found on these forums is a great method for abilitiy score generation. We roll 3d6, then give point buy points at every level. You can spend these points at any level to increase an ability score of your choosing, higher scores cost more to raise. This allows for randomness at creation, which we like, but also doesn't screw your character if you roll a 4 or a 5.
In fact I'm going to institute that houserule that before rolling my players can choose to take average HP, but that if they roll they have to take whatever the dice lands on, no re-rolls. And we'll see how many of them choose to just take average, I'm willing to bet they'll all still roll. My DM has this house rule. We all still roll. If he said average +1....I'd still roll. Rolling dice is fun. And we have decided that humor, entertainment, and cleverness outweigh a good build every time. Of course we aren't the most hardcore. We rarely plan feats much in advance, unless there's somethine we're going for specifically. I've had a fighter roll a 1 twice in a row on hp. That was rough. Lucky that the next two levels were high rolls. I'm not anti-point buy or anti-static hp fundementally, but I certainly prefer rolling instead. But then again, we rock the 3d6 for ability generation and then houserules for ability score increases.
I feel like PF is better for customization without having to own 1000 splatbooks (exaggeration). As a player I like the feel of PF, it feels cleaner. I like that the prestige classes (with an exception or two) feel prestigey rather than tacked on(obviously exceptions to this). I like archetypes. I like the changes to the base classes. I like the feat cleanup, like Power Attack and Dodge. Basic feats that make a little more sense and feel less 'newbie-trappy'. I love that the new classes feel balanced with the core classes. Everything feels like it was exhaustively worked on. Some of the 3.5 stuff felt rushed, I don't get that feeling with PF.
memory is right. Give it up ;-) If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature? No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all You can use unarmed or a weapon. It makes no difference to the resolution of the attack, but it can still be a choice.
Nope, all that says is that you can make a trip attack without a trip weapon. It goes on to say that if you aren't using such a weapon, the trip attempt is made, in effect, unarmed. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt. Therefore it is not an unarmed trip attack. It just resolves like one.
You can make trip attacks with any weapon: FAQ
Absolutely disagree. I just prestiged into a Master Spy in one of my own games. The boosts to bluff and disguise are perfect for my charisma based rogue. Things like being able to deceive truth telling magic, getting mind blank eventually, and the fool casting powers scream prestige class to me simply because they begin to move away from the core idea of rogue and blur the line with bard. I could easily see a master spy bard rather than a rogue. And while I approached the class from the rogue path, it would be rough to have the ultimate deceiver bard that couldn't get some of the Master Spy's better abilties. I could see...deceiving truth telling magic as a rogue talent, but mind blank and assumption are way past the the basic rogue concept.
This would be spectacular. Would the capstone ability be not cutting off your own head? |
