sacerd's page

27 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


How does this mat compare with the cloth/vinyl type of mats?
Do any of you have both and which do you prefer?

Huh I never noticed that mages don't have "real" spell components anymore.
Why in the world did they do away with that?

So I have been looking at all the, "fighters are not powerful enough at high level" threads. And I think I have found some ways to remedy allot of the problem.

1.) Do away with "save or die" effects and their virtual cousins "sleep spells" etc.
I think This can be achieved by doing the following...
- Spells or Abilities with save or die effects would simply be removed.
(Yes even for the Rouge)
- Sleep would only work against "Animals" or creatures with a 3 or less intelligence.

2.) Double the cost of all Spell components
(And most importantly make sure that Spell casters actually have the Component before they cast the darn spell)

I think the reason that this one is so important is simply this, The cost of spell components and Spell Books is supposed to be one of the "Balancing Factors" in the game design.
If a Mage has to spend Gold on Components and Spell Books they have less cash to spend on Magic Items and the Like, Meanwhile everyone else can buy Items for their characters increasing their abilities
Not to mention this should make casting "super weapon" spells expensive both in Gold and XP Cost, thus limiting their use in actual game play and thereby allowing the Fighter class to continue to shine at higher levels. The Mage in question should not be laying waste to everything before the end of the first round, and the likelihood of getting enough Gold in between encounters to be able to afford repeatedly casting higher level spells throughout any given adventure would be somewhat mitigated.

I don't know its a start.

hummm this is just a thought but would a good strategy against a spell caster be remove all armor (So that you can move faster)go ahead and take your damage (cause you know you are going to) And grapple the crap out of the wizard so that they cant cast spells (using pin I would assume)

Maybe instead of buffing the fighter to superman levels it would be easier to limit the other classes.
I know that would not go over well.

As much as I hate the phrase "Build" when describing a Character, I was wondering, what is your favorite "Build" for a Fighter?
Mind you I don't mean what are the most powerful combos but rather what is the most fun to play in your opinion?
Also what type of fighters do you prefer, Farm boy doing his family proud, a questing Knight, maybe a career military man gone mercenary?

Maybe because I am partial to fighters, but I cant help that think that fighters should be better fighters than monks.
Maybe its because I don't feel that Monks are underpowered by any stretch Sure they have on average 2 fewer hit points abut they more than make up for that with their saves.
Yeah, they don't have a fighters BAB progression but they do begin the game with flurry of blows without the need to use a feat. (Odds are they will hit at least once, which is about the same as a fighter hitting with his single attack.)
Remember at 3rd level they do get to use their level instead of their BAB for CMB, which makes them already = to a fighter in that instance, I suppose I could go on but I am sure everyone has already thought of all this stuff.

As much as I hate the phrase "Build" when in comes to character creation, what is everyones favorite "Build" (shudder) for fighters.
I don't mean what is the most optimal but rather what is the most fun for you as a player to play?

Xuttah wrote:
sacerd wrote:

Eh Half Orcs have been screwed over for too long, give'em a +2 across the board! (Joking)

Up with Savage Species!
Down with Civilized Species!

Up with kobolds! Down with gnomes!

I used to so want to play a goblin back when 3.0 first came out, (of course the modifiers scared me away) I was thinking a Goblin Bar Tender with one eye named "Winky"

I cant help but wonder how many Demi-Humans would "Catch on" if there were no ECL's and more Species were available to play at first level.
Eh waay off topic I suppose.

Better yet drop the paladin class completely, then substitute the cleric with the divine spellcaster variant from the PHB 2.
Knights should be fighters, Clerics are priests.
If someone wants to play a "Holy Warrior" then fill out that little line on the character sheet that says "deity" and play the character as a devout fighter.

I know not real popular idea huh?

Is this a bad question, or a unclear question?
Maybe a question which has been answered someplace else already?

Can anyone tell me what the "Assumed Power level" of Pathfinder is exactly?
I ask because Jason mentions it in the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger Design forum, as something we should keep in mind as people play test in regards to potential rule changes..
I asked there what he meant, by "Assumed Power Level" but I think that maybe because its a sticky people have begun to overlook that particular thread.

I am lost...
Why not just add to the AC a shield provides again?
I figure...
Two handed weapon fighting = Damage
Two Weapon Fighting = Multiple attacks per round
X & shield Fighting = Better AC

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As for assumed power levels, I think you can safely assume that they will remain as they currently are, unless I explicitly state otherwise (such as in the case with Feats).

Just out of curiosity what do you as the game designer think the "assumed power levels" are exactly?

I ask because I think it would help me to understand what kind of feed back you are looking for.

eh I think the grapple rules are fine as written (beta version).
As far as the AAO goes...its only an unarmed strike guys, not the most damaging attack in the game.
It could just be my opinion, because I am the only player that I know of "personally" who has ever actually taken Improved Grapple, heck most of the folks I know don't bother with Improved Unarmed Strike, preferring feats such as power attack, cleave, mobility, spring attack etc.
Basically they tend to find a "feat chain" and pursue it to the ends of the earth and Improved Grapple tends to be ignored.

On a related topic, Sense everyone is talking Epic,How does everyone feel about a Deities and Demi-Gods Type of book, with rules that include Deity Stats and divine ascension.
I would also include any planar information in this book as well if it was possible.

Eh Half Orcs have been screwed over for too long, give'em a +2 across the board! (Joking)
Up with Savage Species!
Down with Civilized Species!

toyrobots wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
I'm kind of partial to the idea of feat chains. I agree that having chains with worthless starter feats is bad but I think the idea that a player that invests in a series of related feats that build on each other should be rewarded by a greater effect. Some chains make sense, I think the PRPG version of Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack is a good example of a chain where the feats all progress and are all useful. If all of the chains followed a similar progression I think it would help significantly.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I see the allure. At the same time, pre-reqs cause undesirable behavior and detract from the character when players make mistakes. The absence of pre-requisites, with the guidelines I mentioned in my last post, has not in any way detracted from the game. Nobody has said "Dang, I wish I had to take dodge to get mobility!" nor have I heard "Dodge is worthless." (since it's the Beta Version)

It's worth noting that for setting level pre-requisites, I assume a non-human progression. I don't find that this penalized humans too much, because without pre-reqs it's easy for them to pick up some other worthwhile feat.

I'm not sure this would be a good change for the PRPG, although if Jason is serious about the above statements he could do worse than to pay attention to the logic here, if not the execution. Unless a feat has a great reason to hold another feat as a pre-req, replace it with Minimum Caster Level or Base Attack Bonus. Then the Fighter will be free to diversify.

This is as close to a perfect fix that I have ever seen. I will be implementing this in the next d20 game I run. Have you ever figured out what the BAB should be for the various feats?

This will be sooo unpopular but I will say it anyway.
Change Barbarians completely.
Do away with rage as a class feature replace it with damage reduction or something and make rage a feat.
There is one reason I have never played a barbarian, and that is rage. I often times try to find ways to make a Barbarian type of character using the fighter class just to avoid it LOL
I might suggest looking at Conan d20 from mongoose for a good variant.
I have never understood what being "rustic" and coming from a culture that does not use a whole lot of armor has to do with unbridled anger. :)

While no one probably cares what I think I will throw my two cents in anyway.
Beta is fine.
The "Power Creep" is fine. Why?
Because its not really power creep. You guys have taken a look at the rise of the Rune Lords AP right?
As long as there are "save or die" spells and traps there is no such thing as power creep, LOL
Besides how big of a deal is a +2 to any attribute when you are dealing with a demon lord at like 3 level?

I dont know if I would call what you described as "darker" just more complicated.

The diffrence to me is Dirty Harry vs the Movie Seven.
Dirty Harry had its share of Tough Decisions and Anti Heroes
Seven was Darker.
Why? The best I can tell is because in Seven no one wins. In Dirty Harry the "good guy" still comes out on top without having to feel like a schmo for doing so, and still gets to go home and feel like he did the right thing.
Seven not so much.
Of course as always YMMV

Selk wrote:

I'm curious, why is horror and viscera considered more mature and adult than your standard high fantasy? There are a lot of people in this argument who equate darkness with complexity and goodness with pabulum. Where does this notion come from?

-5 points to the first person to quote Dark Helmet. are now my Hero.

Sorry I had to say something, I am from Ohio just north west from Cincinnati and about 5 minutes from Indiana. Making fun of Kentucky (you guys spell it with a "C" there right? :) was a tongue in cheek kinda thing that I used to do alot of...but then I moved to Florida!
Now I have a whole new group of people to make fun of. MUWAHAHAHA.

When did people from Kentucky learn to write?
Who taught you these skills?

Birthright...Definitely Birthright.

Well I would like to but I doubt that our groups current G.M. would have anything to do with it, as I don't think that it is really his style. I suppose that if pressed he would allow a "one night stand" sort of thing but I don't know if they would want to use/play a reoccurring NPC enough to make it worthwhile.
I sometimes think that he is kinda uncomfortable making NPC's interact too much with the players, because I tend to want to engage on alot of "Sub-plot" type of things, and another player can sometimes act a little chaotic, as such I think that he may be worried that we will deviate a bit too far from the adventure path.
Although he did have Fox Glove attempt to show extra attention to one of the players, but the character did not bite. I hope that this does not discourage him from trying with other players.

So this is my first time posting here although I have been lurking for about the last month or so and all I can say just wow.
I have been talking about this topic with my wife recently and telling her that the conversation has been heated although informative and thought provoking.
Until just recently anyway, when Gailbraithe had layeth the verbal smackdown.
Now mind you I dont have a dog in this fight but I kind of have to say that my inital thoughts are very similar as Gailbraithe's upon reading R&R's comments.
Although his comments were harsh I do think that what he is stating is pretty much fact.
Men have indeed been taught to discount their "maleness" as something barbaric, also Men are very often portrayed as clueless morons in television who cannot hope to survive and thrive without the support of the opposite gender.
"Home improvement" for example is the perfect example of men being portrayed in less than favorable terms, by displaying the "average guy" as dim witted, shallow and must resort to articulating their thoughts with a grunt, and demanding "more power".
Meanwhile the "enlightend" men of the series i.e. the neighbor and Tim Allens co-host are portayed as hyper sensitive and philisopical men who behave in a more feminine way than my wife or mother.
We as men are expected by the media to not only mock ourselves for having a "Avergae Male" outlook on life but to buy the t-shirt and DVD set to remind us of our stupidity as well.
Mind you we are expected to, (as this thread has demonstrated) suffer the consequences of being treated as a shallow male without the benefit of actually being a shallow male.
Just look what happend when someone made a JOKE thread about acting like a sterotypical shallow man.