unforgivn's page

A level 5 gunslinger is usually looking for around a +8 to hit (+5 BAB, +5 DEX, +1 Point Blank, +1 weapon enhancement, -2 Deadly Aim, -2 Rapid Shot) and d12+11 damage (+5 DEX, +4 Deadly Aim, +1 Point Blank, +1 weapon enhancement). Picking the bearded devil as my random CR5 to compare against, this gives the gunslinger an 85% chance to hit when withing touch targeting range for an expected DPR of 29.75 before crits are factored in (I'm doing this without the aid of Excel).

Your character, not being a gunslinger but rather a gun-using alchemist, has a bit more complex math. With mutagen, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim, his to-hit ends up at +7 for an 80% chance to hit. Using Alchemical Ordnance, you end up with an expected 18.4 damage between your two shots before crits plus another 4.2 from the bomb that isn't subject to critting totalling up to 22.6 DPR. This is 25% less than the pure gunslinger, but what you give up in damage you're getting back in skills and magic. Using the larger gun doesn't seem like it will result in average higher damage since you're paying for it by dropping your chance to hit by 10%.

I heard Warhorn is a thing, maybe check that out.

Other than that, just ask. Women are people too, they want the same thing (fun) everyone else does. :-)

Basically this. We run 2 or 3 tables every Wednesday at our FLGS, and every week we have 3-6 female players from across the age spectrum. Just run a good game and be good to each other. If your table fills consistently, then you're doing it right.

It's absolutely the GM's job to try to attract players -- a game that never has enough people to run productively should be a red flag to any GM -- but no, beyond the common decency that everyone here agrees should be part of every gaming experience, it's not anyone's job to try to attract specific types of people to a gaming table.

If a player says that the don't feel comfortable at a table that I'm a part of, then that immediately prompts me to evaluate what's going on at the table that I might not have noticed. It doesn't, however, compel me to agree with that player at all. If I take stock of the situation and don't find anything to be the problem, then hey, I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable and hope you find another table. No one is entitled to a seat at a game, and I have no interest in entertaining unreasonable demands for accommodation.

The same goes for claims of feeling unsafe. If there's a player at a table that has a history of harassment that I'm not aware of, or if there's some other threat to anyone's safety, then absolutely bring it to my attention. If harm were to somehow come to one of my fellow players as a result of participating in my game, then I would feel responsible for allowing that to happen. But if all a person can come up with is that they "feel unsafe" but can't give anything specific, then sorry, I hope you find a game that's more to your liking.

Other people's temperaments and/or mental health situations are not within my direct control, and I'm not going to put the rest of my table through a situation of feeling like they're walking on eggshells just to meet some arbitrary demographic quotas.

Already seeing a few things that will get a big, giant "NOPE" stamp when it comes to PFS play. Oh, well.

Roll your to-hit die and your damage die together if at all possible.

"It's unbelievably hot in Seattle right now"

*looks up Seattle forecast for the week*

*sees not a single day with a high above 80F*

*looks up Seattle record high temp for August 1*

*it's 86F*

*weeps internally*

That's a really potent feat. Hopefully it won't get banned in PFS.

So, I haven't read the Unchained book yet. But this means that the Unchained rogue is just plain better than the old rogue and a new player who uses the core rules effectively plays a worse version?

Sorry if I'm sounding cynical, but it just feels weird telling the players I am trying to get hooked with PFS "You don't want to play a rogue before picking up Unchained."
Keeping new players away from awesome classes for the sake of their own sanity (because they tend to be a bit more complicated than core classes) is one thing, but this sounds more like "This class can do what yours can, but better."

"You don't want to play a rogue before picking up Unchained" sounds a lot better to me than "you don't want to play a rogue."

The plan is to have an individual printout for each of the factions that are more than just another Chronicle sheet. Something akin to a half page, double sided document similar to what is used for quests at Gen Con and PAX.. The plan is also to put them up for download so they can be downloaded by anyone at anytime.

Something the size of a chronicle sheet would actually be preferable over something smaller since it makes organization easier. When your character consists of several dozen 8.5x11 sheets, adding a smaller sheet is more of a burden than a benefit.

I think a lot of the wild talents should be combined to save space and improve readability of the class. If a talent simply refers to another talent for its entire rules text, then why not merge the two into a single generic talent that the player can add the proper elemental fluff to on their own?

If a PC is playing his character like a total jerk with the excuse of "that's what my character would do," the appropriate response is to ask why that player deliberately made a character that was detrimental to the rest of the party (and the game as a whole). "But that's what my character would do" is used as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card way too often.

This thread was basically beaten to death before I even noticed it, but I'll add this: the very concept of a dedicated "skill monkey" sucks.

You know all that sitting around and doing nothing that the skill monkey gets to do during combat? Well, that's what he's going to expect everyone else at the table to be doing out of combat just so he has a chance to play.

Making a character that has a smattering of good skill bonuses in addition to combat utility is a great idea, but making a character that is better than everyone else at the table in all skills is a pretty quick route to having most of the table start playing with their smartphones out of boredom.

Maybe certain players find playing as characters that actually succeed at the jobs they give themselves to be more fun that playing characters that can only reliably use the Aid Another action.

Maybe they also find characters that are well-suited for their designated roles to be more believable (and thus easier to relate to) than characters who suck at their jobs.

The focus on story immersion and roleplay cuts both ways in this discussion. If a would-be adventurer isn't even as good in his chosen role as an NPC hireling, then why isn't the party saving money by firing him and hiring said NPC?

Crysknife wrote:

Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?

Wow, really? Everyone starts somewhere.

Yes, but that starting point should be reading the book.

You're falling prey to the Stormwind Fallacy somewhat here. Character depth and roleplayability are not at the opposite end of a continuum with mechanical potency. You can, in fact, have a deep, well-played character that is also mechanically strong.

Consider the fact that while a character's fluff can be more-or-less anything, the builds that work mechanically are greatly outnumbered by the ones that don't. The simple fact is that building a character from a purely concept-first perspective is much more likely to produce you with one of the builds that doesn't work. Conversely, starting with a mechanical build and building the fluff from there doesn't hurt the roleplay potential of the character in the slightest.

Also, from what I can tell you're applying the "munchkin" pejorative to basically anyone who takes any sort of mechanical function into consideration, which I find to be a bit unfair. The way that you play isn't wrong, and I think that making those sorts of implications about the way your group-mates play is nonproductive. Gaming is more than just playing amateur drama club.

TOZ wrote:

Fun fact, only the Countersong and Distraction abilities of Bardic Performance require Perform checks to use.

Fun fact, Versatile Performance uses the Perform skill.

I find it funny that while Bards have to Perform (dance and prance around) to inspire, they don't have to be good at performing.

Perform(Comedy), Perform(Oratory), and Perform(Sing) which includes things like chants -- none of these require a bard to "dance and prance around" in order to apply inspire buffs. I have never seen a bard played that fit the "silly prancing boy" stereotype that you insist that bards have. In fact, the bard that I played a year or so ago was often confused for a cleric.

You're arguing against a figment of your own imagination at this point.

#1 Summoner - A fancy wizard

#2 Witch - Another fancy wizard
#3 Oracle - A fancy cleric
#4 Inquisitor - A fancy paladin
#5 Samurai - A fancy fighter
#6 Ninja - Another fancy fighter
#7 Cavalier - A fancy fighter with a mount
#8 Alchemist - A fancy fighter with bombs
#9 Gunslinger - A fancy fighter that violates the entire 'Sword & Sorcery' theme

Translated: GET OFF MY LAWN!

Clerics, wizards, druids, and any other class that is basically just a walking spell list.

BOREDOM.

My group and I are preparing to start up a new Pathfinder game, and at least 2 players are planning to run prepared casters (one is playing a witch and the other has yet to decide between a magus or an alchemist). The problem is that our DM seems to have a dislike for prepared casters in general (he runs clerics as spontaneous casters) and will pretty blatantly go after spellbooks.

What ways have my fellow players determined to be the best ways to keep your spellbooks safe and secure? The same goes for the witch's familiar.