voska66's page

2,815 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 2,815 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

I've liked how other games scaled your power to make things way below your level non-threats. AC scaling addresses that as well as answering the age old question of my youth, "How can I get my AC higher?" You've got armor, dex, rings... a feat here or there, but other than that it didn't really scale...

Please don't post your AC 50 fringe munchkin build and try to derail the thread.

...anyway, I like +1/level. Leveling feels meaningful every time. You get better at facing challenges. I can throw more exciting foes the players' way. Pipsqueak monsters don't stand a chance. Players feel big.

Also really enjoying exploring the new feat paths with fewer feat taxes and cool new archetyping systems.

Not to derail here but average fighters get over 50 AC by 20th level PFv1 from my experience.

Still it makes sense to scale AC 1/level like BAB was. You get better at attacking you should get better defending too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Mekkis wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

If you don't have a money sink then who cares how much a wand costs? Currently the difference between a level 1 wand used at level 15 - and a level 4 wand is roughly 7.7% of your character wealth (a level 1 wand is 0.3% of your WBL - a level 4 wand is 8% of your WBL at level 15). This is being called 'game breaking'. By rights - if you are going to argue it's not game breaking then please explain why we continue to talk about it, because it's certainly held up as 'the problem' that resonance will fix.

In all the games I've played where the wand of CLW was used, the game hasn't broken. Therefore, it isn't "Game breaking". The game works fine with it.

I think you're misunderstanding what "Wealth By Level" actually means. Probably the "Wealth" part.

Wealthn. In the private sense, all property which has a money value.

Property which has a money value. Which does not include consumables consumed. The WBL tables are designed to say "At level 15, characters are expected to have 240,000gp in wealth". Not "At level 15, the total amount of gold that has been given out to the characters should be 240,000gp".

And with that in mind, there is no problem if at 11th level they used two wands of CLW to heal rather than a wand of CMW.

It simply provides cheaper healing. It doesn't break the game. It doesn't even break wealth by level.

Please remember that design is theoretically supposed to be based around an average of 5 encounters per day of CR = APL, with each encounter of that sort using up about 20% of a party's resources. The fact that a level 1 wand utterly obliterates that principle, making it a lot closer to 5% of their resources, suggests that yes, it does break the game.

I disagree. The wand is a party resource. If they use it to heal after the first encounter that is using resources of party. Part of that 20%. The party spent gp on the wand or found it as part of the treasure. It counts as 15% of their WBL as consumable items which includes wands. That's no broken.

Now it can be broken by hand out too much wealth or having the party tripping over wands of CLW as the move through the dungeon crawl. But not broken that's just a GM causing the problem that GM has to deal with and maybe it's something GM wants anyways.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is a WCL considered a bad thing and spamming. That's the purpose of it. I don't see problem with it.

There's loop holes in spell combos. Like take a witch with Hex Vulnerability and the healing Hex.

Squiggit wrote:
voska66 wrote:
I don't find Wizards over powered in general but they can be if you allow higher than normal stats and greater wealth. In those situation they can shore up weakness. Wizards are typically glass cannons. Higher stats means better saves, better hit points while keeping the 20 INT off the start. That leads to being over powered. Give the same stats to fighter and they are better but nothing like what the Wizard gets.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite. No one is going to say no to more stats or more money, but giving a wizard another point of AC or a few extra hit points ultimately isn't really going to change all that much and while I'll totally buy more scrolls and magic items only a fraction of that gold feels really necessary.

Whereas my martials tend to be the ones interested in a wider selection of magical equipment and with stats being more spread out in general more points makes it a lot easier to take a high primary without tanking everything else.

Higher stats allows that 20 stat in INT to occur. To do with normal stats it just doesn't happen. You'll see 16 INT wizard instead. That 2 points actually makes a huge difference. Then you have wealth. Give wizard too much wealth and they get access to more spells much faster to add to the spell book, more perfect combos sooner. Then on top of that scribe scrolls so they always have the perfect spell ready. Keeping with normal wealth by level ranges this is more controlled.

I don't find Wizards over powered in general but they can be if you allow higher than normal stats and greater wealth. In those situation they can shore up weakness. Wizards are typically glass cannons. Higher stats means better saves, better hit points while keeping the 20 INT off the start. That leads to being over powered. Give the same stats to fighter and they are better but nothing like what the Wizard gets.

I've never run out spells with wizard. Sorcerer I have but not wizard. The reason, scribe scroll is class feature. 25 gp to and day to scribe a 1st level spell. Even starting at first level keep 25 gp to craft a scroll. Petition you party as the scrolls help them too.

I hate level 1 as GM. It feels like spoon feeding the characters experience to get them to level two. Even the APs feel that way though they do try to spice up 1st level a bit. The adventures really don't get started till level 3.

Nothing wrong with rogue in PFS, the rogue doesn't run into problem till higher levels. In my games the rogues really start to suffer after to 12th level. It's at that point in combat that the ACs get too high and damage output start auto hitting on the rogues low AC. Then for skills at that level the rest of party has caught up on specialization (feats, magic items, and magic) in skill areas making the rogue redundant in out of combat situations.

Rogues peak at about 8th level. The slowly go down hill till about 12th. After that they've gone too far downhill.

So being capped at 12th a rogue shouldn't be much of issue.

Lanathar wrote:

The big problem with ignoring the code is it makes the paladin too powerful

They are supposed to be restricted to gain the abilities

One look at the gray paladin archetype shows you what they have in mind in terms of what extra playing with the restrictions grants you . I think it might be a useful thing for me to print before the next game to share as a comparison

What makes a paladin too powerful? They are on par with the Barbarians and Rangers who don't have those pesky restriction. Sure Barbarians can't be lawful but have no code. Compared to fighter sure you have point but you can say that about almost every other class compared to the fighter. The Paladin pales in comparison to any full casters. I'd even say the Inquisitor is more powerful.

So that's why I don't play up the code that much. Blatant violations sure but I don't sweat the minor stuff.

I think guns would be much quieter. A magnetic rail gun for example would probably replace tradition combustion fire arms. You can't really shoot gun in space with no oxygen. So they would come up with better guns for space. Instead of expanding gases magnetic rail guns powered with battery pack. Not sure what the book has, don't have it in front of me but I'd assume basic slug through type weapons don't rely on combustion to work.

Of course you would weapon you just can't silence just like today. You can silence a grenade.

I want to apply starfinder to StarWars universe.

Starships are just a method of getting from point A to point B. Skills related to starships are like skills related to horse, wagon, sailing ship in Pathfinder. Ship operations isn't really a thing. It will get hand waved after a short time and only come up in a combat situation. No different that riding a horse when mounted combat comes up.

I've played other sci-fi games. The starships are always a big deal at first then fade into the background as the game progresses and make the odd cameo appearance here and there. The bulk of the adventure take place at the destination where you have the pillars in full gear.

"Parent Classes: Each of the following classes draws upon two classes to form the basis of its theme. While a character can multiclass with these parent classes, doing so usually results in redundant abilities. Such abilities don't stack unless specified. If a class feature allows the character to make a one-time choice (such as a bloodline), that choice must match similar choices made by the parent classes and vice-versa (such as selecting the same bloodline)."

Seem to me if you chose combat trick from both classes it falls under that one time choice since you can only choose that combat trick 1 time so if you took it with second class it would have to be the same feat and redundant.

I find if you need to post "Should the Paladin Fall" then no they shouldn't. Really, if that Paladin is to fall you'll know it. If there is any question then you shouldn't be punishing the paladin, maybe warning in roleplaying omen but that's it.

Paladin's get nothing for the restrictions, they are equivalent to the Ranger who has no such restrictions.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

So a paladin that still has their mount and the ability to cast divine spells when attempting to overthrow a non-legitimate authority should be able to use this as proof that they are in the right and get any good people and possibly lawful people who believe the ruling authorities haven't done anything wrong, who are trying to stop the paladin to instead join them.

But that's assuming everyone knows this information about paladins.

Would you allow this in your games? It'd be very circumstantial if it were to work. What do y'all think?

This would be like a random guy saying he's always right therefore he is right this time. I'd say if anything that kind of behavior would make it more difficult to gain support.

As GM I typically have bad guys take the 50% miss chance a close their eyes when wizard has mirror image up. Running monsters I find this works much much better than dealing with the images. So my player tend to use blur more often. 20% miss chance is better than 50% with eyes closed.

From spell Descritpion: "An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply)."

I'd allow it in home brew game where I designed the game around the concept of players being a grave knights or party of mixed undead of equivalent power.

I've done this in the past with vampires, it worked quite well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cleave is great now that you can train it out for little gold as per the Ultimate Campaign rules. Used to be only fighters could swap out feat ever 4 levels so if you find it not be useful get rid of it.

Still it's useful though situational but a situation that comes up a lot. At least it does in my games. I find single bad guys die too fast due to lack of action economy. So most fights have lots lower CR monster ganging up and in doing so they become adjacent. So cleave it quite useful in my games as is great cleave.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never worry about what I roll on dice for damage. I I work out my damage based minimum rolls and see if that is acceptable.

Like I CRB barbarian with 18 str and Great Sword Raging Str +9, power attack +3 So I do 14 damage minimum per hit at 1st level. That one shots pretty much anything I'll encounter, I'm more likely to not power attack as missing is my greatest problem and 11 minimum is still pretty good.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

This person did their homework.

Outside of that there's Eclectic Training and Esoteric Training. It's a specific PFS thing, I think. It references Fame.

It's also a Pathfinder Campaign thing in Inner Sea Magic book.

I've run games with a Grid Map and miniatures. It's more work for the GM, you need to be more descriptive of combat and distances. You need to get the players to tell you what they want to do.

It works find it often better. The combats get more descriptive vs a move movement of miniatures or pawn on grid map. As play you focus more on the description and get really feel for the dungeon. I find miniature distract from the game.

It doesn't work well for player vs GM games.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The most useless magic item I find in the game are magic arrows. They are a consumable that cost as much as magic bow so why any one ever craft magic arrows when you can craft a bow that is permanent.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I loved the magic items in 1e and 2e. MANY had no combat buffs or things like that, but were just cool and fun. I miss having those.

Lots of cool stuff like that in the books but they just get sold so the player can better sword or belt or of the other big 6.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Being banned in PFS isn't really an indicator that it's too powerful. PFS dislikes certain playstyles, particularly Dex based one and defensive styles. Most things are banned for either flavor reasons (see: Vivisectionist) or in the interest of keeping build variety within manageable bounds.
Just going to second this. PFS tends to demand simple, straightforward builds that work in the new-group-every-game format of PFS. Basically, anything with iffy flavor, complicate, or likely to cause table variance is likely to get the banhammer. Plus, as mentioned, defensive boosts tend to get targeted because they can mess with encounter design: that's why Crane Style got multiple nerfs.

Defensive builds I think get banned because they can turn a quick encounter in very long encounter. I have party of defensive players right now. They usually run 10-15 rnds of combat slowly chipping away at bad guys who need 18-20 on D20 to hit them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
The weapon design tool isn't for players to design weapons. It's for GMs.

I'm the GM and reviewed those rules, looks like it's for players to me. It's so restrictive you can't even make a rapier. As GM I get to bend the rules and can make exotic weapons that use more points. If I were to use that GM the rules are largely useless.

I did Kensai BlackBlade and definitely effective on the battle field. Just one warning, no mage armor kind of sucks. Find a way to get it, I paid the party wizard to write scrolls to use on me. That worked well till I could get bracers of armor. Having the black blade and not being to wear armor left me with a lot gold to spend as I had no need enhance weapons or armor. Over all fairly solid class, grab toughness at 1st level you'll need the hit points.

McBugman wrote:
I'm interested in hearing how people play their androids and constructs in regards to explaining why skill checks, attack rolls, and things of that sort fail. Since the characters are essentially computers, is it chalked up to an algorithm they're still testing and debugging? Is their firmware faulty or glitchy? Were they designed with failure chance to better blend into biological societies?

Our own brains are computers too. They run on electricity but biological. How do we fail a skill check? The path ways in the brain aren't as established as we though and failure is method of learning. Would this not be the same with android that can learn and adjust to situation. Failure would be learning experience and next level another rank in that skill might be applied.

I just take it as that saying "A good defense is strong offense".

So I picture it as the rogues attacks are putting the opponent on the defensive till they can formulate a offensive plan. So that attacks would be weaker applied by a higher AC.

Raynulf wrote:
Wolin wrote:

I suppose it's just what you're used to, but it's difficult to care about getting used to the bizarre conversions just within the imperial system. I mean, the number of feet in a mile? Who even came up with that?

The Imperial / US Customary (they're not exactly the same*) is based on a few things... but the short version: Arbitrary and what is easily divisible by hand (hence the use of 12 and 16 in such systems).

Speaking as an engineer... It saddens me that the US opted to stick with their customary units rather than convert to metric like the rest of the world. So, so close to a global standard on units and measurements, and the joy that could have been... well, okay, at least the reduced frustration of having to convert things constantly whenever dealing with anything from or going into the US.

*Interesting note: The US gallon is 3.785 Liters. The Imperial gallon is 4.546 Liters.

3.785 Liters of water weighs 3.785 kilograms (convenient!) or 8.344 pounds.
4.546 Liters of water weighs 4.546 kg, or 10.022 pounds.

According to the CRB, one gallon of ale weighs 8 lbs.

Ergo, D&D and its derivatives use US Customary units, not Imperial.

That's why I prefer Imperial Pints of beer or US Pints.

Spaceships are kind background in a game really. Sure having spaceship is great but it's not different that having a ship in Pathfinder. It's mode of transportation over great distances in areas you can't just walk over. If you bump in to other ships you have ship based weapon to take the other ship out but it rarely comes up. 98% of sci-fi adventures occur at the destination. You can have some ship based adventures, like Skull and Shackles but those the exception not rule.

I used play Traveller, having a ship was the goal. Then we'd get it and was just way to go from point A to point B. Maybe make little credits on the journey. Then the adventure would at the space station or on the planet.

So I hope they don't put too much into space battles or focus too much on the space ship. I'll play SFB for that type of game.

Gino Cocolo wrote:

Hi, I've recently decided to GM again and I'm running Rise of the Runelords with some friends. They are a THW summoner, a magus and a THW paladin. The other one wanted to try in Pathfinder one of his favourite class from 3.5, the Artificer. He found the class converted to Pathfinder, and I said ok. They are lvl 8, and are now about to assault Fort Rannick, and I think it's been easier than it should be for them. The paladin deals the "normal" amount of damage with smite (if normal means almost one-shotting a boss), the magus and the summoner aren't that far from him. But I think the real problem is the Artificer. He does nothing during combat, except using CLW wands if needed (it's been a while since he had the need to do that), but crafting their gear and every wand they could need, I think is unbalancing the game, since they don't have to care for their health nor during combat or after, and it's cheaper.

I haven't GM'ed a long campaign before, and as a player I didn't see this kind of problems, but I don't know what to do to balance things before the battles become more boring.
All suggestions are welcome, thanks in advance

I remember playing that AP not that long ago. At 8th level we were not challenged either and we had a rogue, wizard, fighter, Oracle/Barbarian. That didn't last. Let the players have their time in the sun. I got the feeling that around level 8 it was just exercise in leveling up so you fight the tough guys later in the AP.

Having run many APs I find level 8 is where you are in book 3, that is the book that seems to be about getting the party treasure as up to that point the AP has been lean. So you get loot and XP with connective story that is full of easy encounters. Then book 4 things start getting hard again and the treasure drops off again. Usually lots to sell but nothing usable till you get to a place to sell all the +1 weapons you found and hopefully buy some new stuff. In RotRL lack of wealth was never an issue, access to buy magic items was.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Those guidelines don't allow for a crafter character who doesn't directly participate in combat. Three characters with extra gear isn't normally going to be more powerful than four characters at WBL.

The guideline give a range. 1 feat 25%, multiple 50%, a whole class would there for be 75% or 100%. If the class truly isn't capable of participating in combat I'd go with 100%, if the class is able to participate a bit then 75%.

I find the Sorcerer at low levels is the simplest class. You have few known spell and bloodline. As you play and grow you learn. It doesn't get any more simple than that. You'll end up with bit more out of combat stuff with that Chr but lacking skill points will limit it. I think the fighter is equally easy if people tell you the feats to pick no different that what to pick for you known spells. Both combat and magic need to be learned anyways.

ultimatepunch wrote:
Is your game 100% combat? How is the player at the other parts of the game? Does he roleplay?

With 12s and 13s for all stats the character would drag the party down on skill rolls during roleplaying.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a player did this in my group they'd roleplay kicking the fighter out of the group and hiring a fighter that was good in combat. It's happened in the group I the GM for.

If you want simple make a Sorcerer. That's as simple as it gets.

You get 4 cantrips and 2 1st level spells known. As new player that 6 spells to know. You get a blood line power. That's it. The feat you pick isn't important not like it is for fighter, barbarian or ranger.

I remember my first game of AD&D, I had wizard. The GM prepared a little spell book with the spell I knew with the spell description. They started me off at 5th level. I still remember frying that room full of Orcs with my fireball. Casters are by far the simplest to learn as you can screw them up and still be tough. If you screw up fighter they suffer big time.

TrustNo1 wrote:

When you are GMing a group do you have a tendency to let your players make characters that are over-powered or under-powered. This could be in terms of point-buy or even the level range that you run your games. I personally like to under-power my characters. However, I have played with people that like to play with characters that are greatly over-powered. They used a 42 point build and allowed their PCs to use templates.

So my question is... Over-powered or Under-powered and why?

my group likes to play over power characters. It's all relative though. Just means more work for me as GM. I just increase the monsters power leaving the CR the same. I typically put the advanced template on give them max hitpoints. Add few consumable some times that they use. I might add a class level or two. I just raises the bar and is no different that playing the game with normal powered characters.

I have done under powered and found that even harder till they get higher level. At level 1 it hard because the selection of monsters is less and reducing their power is harder. Once you get to 3rd level it's not too bad so my solution it start at 3rd if players want to play under powered characters.

As GM I'd like to run a game with in normal parameters but no one wants that where I live.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

The more I hear about adventure path design, the more convinced I become I would be wasting my players' time and my own trying to run one for them. If decent AC and damage is all it takes to take one of those apart those things won't stand up to any class played by someone who knows what the class is good for. No wonder PFS got thrown off by something as simple as Crane Wing.

Outside of adventure paths, though, do watch out for incorporeals. They can reach through your armor, and the majority of them outright ignore your HP in favor of just strength/constitution damaging you to death or stacking up negative levels. Something every weapon-user needs to keep in mind, really, incorporeals are almost as bad as swarms for fighty-types.

The more I think about it, yeah APs do seem to set on easy mode. The reason for that is most people don't play APs with the default 15-20 pt buy. My players hate that which is kind of ironic as I have state adding advanced templates to everything. So my players hit +2 better but everything has an AC +2 higher. It's all an illusion.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the fighter. It fills its niche perfectly. If you don't like there are tons of other martial classes to choose from that might suit you better.

I find the only reason I'd play a fighter is to tank, they excel in that. With armor masters guide, you can really max out that AC easily and still do enough damage to make you a threat. That's what a fighter does. You can even get good with skills doing this so you can be useful out of combat.

razor34 wrote:

saves, bab, hd, skills, all that stuff goes on at the normal pace.

Spell slots is where it gets weird. at lvl 21 casters get a lvl 10 slot, at lvl 22 they get 10 lvls to split into spell slots, like another lvl 10 or 2 more lvl 5s.

And then at lvl 23 they get a lvl 11 slot, and at 24 they get 11 lvls worth of spell slots to split as they see fit. and it just keeps going from there.

Spell casting slots above 9th aren't problem. You use them for meta magic or preparing lower level spells. It just means you meta magic a 9th level spell really.

Bazaku Ambrosuis wrote:

I dont get it well, you say boring cause all levels are kind of the same thing?

Not really the same but limited in scope. For example the aristocrat will be socializing with the nobility but he warrior will want to bashing heads. So you make the warrior the body guard, well nothing happens to require a body guard in most cases. So bored warrior.

This happens with normal classes too but those classes usually have enough features to useful in those situations. The fighter is the exception, they suffer the same as the warrior.

Now in solo, you can focus better on the scheming nobility with the aristocrat or send the warrior out as armed patrol with city watch. With normal class the whole party go out on armed patrol. An aristocrat would not.

It's not that it's impossible to do. It's just more tricky. It's hard enough to do with normal classes using NPC classes just makes it harder.

I found it doesn't work well with party. It works great solo though. The problem I found was with out the more feature rich class features you needed to focus more character. In solo you can really do that well in larger party divided attention makes that limited per player and player get bored really quick.

kestral287 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
What makes you not want to play it?

Getting what I want out of them is way too clunky.

One day I'll make it work, but right now they're looking better on paper than in reality to me. Sacred Fist's Weapon Proficiencies and being locked into Style feats are annoying, particularly the latter.

I found quite the opposite. On paper the War Priest looks unimpressive so much so it was struggle to build one. In play it turned out pretty good. I didn't play one but a player was kind of forced into it. Needed a healer and didn't want be the healer. So I told them to pay Inquisitor or War Priest. They chose a War Priest, I was more thinking they'd go inquisitor as the war priest seem dull to me. In playing they were quite good. The thing he loved was he could play a follower of his favorite god but pick any favored weapon. So he was war priest of Sarenae with Falcata as favored weapon.

My advice is do not optimize your characters. If you optimize the AP becomes very boring. You need optimize bit just don't over do it. You'll have more fun that way.

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

On first glance, the feat looks amazing. A -free- bull rush attempt with every attack! But then you realize: Combat Maneuvers are hard to land. And then you also realize: You use the original attack roll instead of a combat maneuver roll.

This sucks. At level 10, average monster AC is around 24 (as per the bestiary). Players have looked at the average CMD and found it to be at around 32. Hitting with an offhand attack is pretty good, but planning on using the same attack roll to score 8 points higher is really asking a lot.

The odds of Shield Slam succeeding is akin to threatening a critical hit.

At 10th level a martial class can be hitting AC 24 only missing on 1. They could hit with 9 or better on the free bulls rush. Not that bad for free attack really. Still I never though this feat was great just feat in the chain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The key with larger groups is encounters with more of the same monsters they'd normally fight at 12th level.

The APL is a guide. I'd increase the APL to 15 only for determining the XP value of the monsters then select the monsters from CR 11-15. You still have to be careful though as some monsters have synergies with more of them. Watch out for thing with area of effect. The characters might be able to take 1 or 2 breath weapons but when they get hit by 6 it's TPK even if the encounter is CR 11 creatures. Had that happen in one of my games so learned the hard way with that one.

Also what ever you do do not put the party up against a single monster. Action economy is just favorable to the party when you have 8. That's double the action economy of typical party.

Another tip which works great for big group and high level. Make use of interesting terrain that gives the bad guys the advantage. I typically put something good for the PCs if they can figure it out too.

Point Blank Mastery(PBM) isn't a problem. It only come up on rare occasion where you need it. As archer you don't want to be using your bow where an enemy can hit you with full attack. At 6th level it's almost a waste of a feat. At higher levels its way more useful when you fight multiple monsters with reach but even then it doesn't come up that much.

Better to get clustered shot at 6th level. That's in the Ultimate Combat book that you are not using though. That feat allow you apply DR once for all your shots. This feat is one that gets me as GM. I mean no penalty so every thing is clustered. I'm thinking of applying -2 to hit when you use clustered shot.

Also there is the Snap Shot chain that gives a archer threat range of 10 for AoO. Now combine that with Combat Patrol. An archer could threat 20 feat at 10th level. I use this against my players. It has made some encounters very challenging.

I don't an issue.

You have weapons you are proficient in. Those happen to be simple weapons plus or melee or exotic weapon of your choice. Those are what you are proficient in.

Then you class feature that require to pick chosen melee weapon. No restriction on the type of melee weapon just has to be a melee weapon. It's as per the Dual Prestige Class. Once chosen that your chosen weapon.

In running King Maker my players went off on big tangent in book 6, they never completed the AP. I just ran with it and we ended on high note a few session later.

Perception in my games is rarely used in combat except for the odd ambush. Where perception gets used a lot in out of combat situations like noticing things. Average DC 15. So no skill you have a 30% chance to notice things with no ranks and no wisdom bonus. Some DCs are a low as 5 in some cases. The higher DCs are meant to thwart someone with a most basic perception. So that just makes sense. Secret doors shouldn't be noticed by the average Joe with no perception ranks as they walk by.

So Perception isn't really a skill tax as you don't need it unless you want to be skilled in perception.

1 to 50 of 2,815 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>