https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/extras/community-creations/wint er_soldier-s-lab/swashbucker-handbook-in-progress
My first handbook, for the Tome of Secrets Swashbuckler, is finished!
Search Posts
There are a ton of healing things in 3.5......but this is PF, and the 3.5 sources allowed are extremely limited.
*headdesk* For the third time, the party is being played about as smart as can be. It's just a very tough campaign, and getting hurt is a forgone conclusion at this point.
You may want to think about healing items that are renewable. If your wizard can craft a 3.5 healing belt (since you are planning to use ultimate magus I am presuming that on some level 3.5 material is allowed) that would help. 2 would help more. The renewable healing will save the oracle spell slots and the party money over time. It would also allow other characters to be able to do some measure if in combat healing in an emergency without ranks in UMD. If only.....the Healing Belt is so, so banned in this campaign.
1) This is tough, but the group IS good at winning initiative most fo the time. 2) This is a big weakness of the party, limited distance superiority, but very, very dangerous up close. 3) We're pretty good at utilizing that sort of thing. 4) The mage has Craft Wondrous Item, so that WILL go a long for as far as magic item dollars.
Yeah, he's going into Ultimate Magus. It's going to suck until then, and even after the fact, it's not what I would have chosen to do with an arcane caster at all.
3 of the players in the party are very, very good, from a tactical standpoint. Doing dumb stuff is not the issue, it's the toughness of the campaign. I say that anything but a Life Oracle won't be as effective because they're the only one that gets Channel Energy, and the previous Healer WITH Channel Energy was barely keeping up. Part of the problem might have been that they don't have much to do to contribute but low-level spells and the like, and that results in fights not being over as quick.
Our group has been running through Savage Tide under PF rules, and we've had some personnel changes recently. A player who recently left was playing a Priest (from the Tome Of Secrets), and we are without a strong healer in the party. Current party makeup is Swashbuckler 5, Fighter 5, Rogue 5, Wiz3/Sor2. One player who is definitely coming in is playing some sort of Oracle, likely. But if he plays anything but a Life Oracle (of course, we're not forcing him), the party won't have enough healing to keep up with what we're going through. Is there a better way around this then spending more money than would be normal on healing items?
I agree, BUT it's not like he could USE all 6 wands in one round, unlike a thrown weapon specialist. I would have no problem with 6 dummy corded wands. But I WOULD impose a skill check penalty, prolly equivalent to a light shield, for having them all a-dangle during tumbles, climbing, swimming, and such. Also, a -1 penalty to attacks with that hand. And since a wand doesn't threaten, they would be awfully vulnerable to sunder attempts.... That's an important point about sunder attempts. Even if you weren't trying to use weapon cords with wands in some dirty trick attempt like the one detailed above, wands are so fragile that a weapon cord will essentially nothing to survive one or the other. The problem is that it goes against the action economy, as set by the designers. Drawing a wand is a (move?) action for a reason, and something that changes that at no cost imbalances the game further than is acceptable.
As stated above, it is a BLATANT violation of the rules as intended. You shouldn't even have to ask, but I know better than to think that at this point.
How does a Sending spell manifest to the recipient? Is is an audible voice, a "psychic" message? Would other people near the Sending hear it as well?
Sean, James, anybody have an opinion on this?So let's look at flaming sphere. The spell says it can be extinguished by any means that would normally put out a fire of its size—in this case, we're talking about a five foot diameter ball of fire. That's a Medium sized ball of fire. More fire than would fit in a bathtub... but let's say that a bathub of water is probably enough to put out that much fire. An average bathtub can, let's say, hold 70 gallons of water. That means that to fill a bathtub with one casting of create water, you'd need to be caster level 35. At which point I don't really have a problem with you using a... Thanks, that's a big help.
I see. The downpour thing suggests otherwise, if you hadn't read the above ruling.
I suspect the extinguishing contingency was put on the spell from the beginning, because without it, it's WAY too good.But you always get a saving throw for no damage. Eh. I don't think it's that awesome. It's extremely situational, sure, but it can be very good at higher levels at big dumb things with crappy Reflex saves.
Right, because there's nothing magical about water that was just created out of thin air........ I suspect the extinguishing contingency was put on the spell from the beginning, because without it, it's WAY too good. Even with it, it's easily one of the best direct damage spells in the game. Think about it: at 10th level, in a combat in a target-rich, or cramped environment, this spell will do 30d6 damage in 10 rounds. 45d6 with Extend Spell, in the same time. Plus, the size of the fire never changes. Because of that, I've got issues with, say, a Flaming Sphere cast by one 9th level caster, which is 5' in diameter, not being outright put out by 18 gallons of water created by another 9th level caster. C'mon. Sean, James, anybody have an opinion on this?
Not according to the text of Create Water: "This spell generates wholesome, drinkable water, just like clean rain water. Water can be created in an area as small as will actually contain the liquid, or in an area three times as large--possibly creating a downpour or........"
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?board=9.0 Behold the Min/Max It! section of the Brilliant Gameologists boards. Pay particular attention to the Dirty Tricks handbook.
Whoops, you're right, I had 4th level on the brain because my character just spent a lot of time there. That's even worse! If the character FOUND the wand with 17 or fewer charges, that's not so bad. If the player made the character with a wand with fewer than full charges, which I don't see as specifically forbidden (but not specifically allowed, either....) by the rules, I would consider that dirty pool.
I can't believe everybody missed this. That's a 4500gp item, well over half the appropriate treasure value for a 3rd level character. The damage output from this would have ended a lot of encounters quicker than it should have, throwing things off more.
What kind of action is it for a Heavens Oracle to create a Moonlight Bridge? The APG doesn't specify.
You can pick up Point Blank Master with one of your many, many feats, and you get manuevers at range at a -4 penalty. Seems like a featsink waiting to happen to me.
I found a lot of the Fighter archetypes meh, especially Archery, which offered no improvement over a "vanilla" Fighter made up of archery feats. But the Two-Handed Fighter? Holy cow.......
This drove me nuts about the TOS Swashbuckler. The class has full BAB, Weapon Training as a class feature, but doesn't qualify in any way as having Fighter levels for the purpose of feat qualification? Really?
I'm so disappointed......nobody's mentioned Wolfhound yet? That movie's better than half the films on that list!
Wouldn't Wind and Lightning stances plus Vital Strike or Cleave be good combat options for the swashing of buckles? Concealment seems as good or better than AC bonuses to me, but I have never gotten a character up in levels enough to find out. A TWF Swashbuckler will outdamage a Fighter when they get to full-attack, though. Not at first, but they get formidable later on. Other builds unfortunately aren't as viable.
Assuming for a moment that the Duelist PrC wasn't available and you were looking to make a Swashbuckler-type character (combat-focused, emphasizing light weapons, mobility, and lots of stupid, stupid tricks and nonsense bound to make any sane DM sigh), would you think that a better build would be constituted of more rogue, or more fighter? Play a Swashbuckler from the Tome of Secrets. Full BAB, and precision damage.
I got a second opinion from the pastor of the church I used to go to and he said that for someone that doesn't have a knowledge of the game that he would say he would treat it as any other thing that takes our time away from god and say that we must have a balance of how we use up our 24 hours each day and that if the game becomes the center of who we are then maybe it is a bad thing for us. "To much of a good thing can become a bad thing" So I will continue to play the game but I will not let the game play me to the point that it controls my life. Also I made a phone call to my therapist and discussed his statement with him and he said the reason he mad such statements he had heard bad things about the game I asked him have you ever seen the game played he said no I asked him how he can judge something when he has no knowledge of the thing he is against and he said I'm right his statement was wrong and that he felt that he let his religious up bringing as a catholic get in the way of treating me. I will be seeing him on the 14th again and possibly will be switching to another therapist. That pastor's advice sounds quite a bit more evenhanded. RPG-trashing aside, I would drop this therapist immediately, because what sort of counselor is giving advice on things HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, BASED ON HEARSAY? Scary stuff..........
In many ways it's a SoD spell. After all most enemies that get affected by it are out of the fight and can't do anything. Like most SoD spells if you bump the DC up enough it get very, very nice. Feeblemind should be used judiciously by GMs, especially when a party has no internal access to ways to cure. It's not so bad for fighters and such, but it can be pretty obnoxious to rogues, and it sucks every last bit out of fun of the game for INT-based spellcasters. I'd say that it's harsh, but fair, for a party that has an 11th level or higher Cleric. Other than that, it's cheesy and extremely frustrating. I was a little disappointed to see that it hadn't been changed at app for PF.
What would folks say their ideal ratio is? How much of the game should be combat and how much should be RP or other non-combat play? Myself, I like about 60-70% combat and 40-30% non-combat. I do like to have the chance to use my combat feats fairly frequently, after all. 60/40 is a good number. I love combat, but I don't want it to significantly dominate the sessions, especially when I'vve put a LOT of work into background and characterization.
There is a feat called piranha Attack that is power attack for light weapons, requires weapon finesse. So, you can kiss that 13 str pre-req goodbye, and hello to Str as a dump stat. Where is that feat? EDIT: NM, found it.
The Gang Up feat lets you flank when two other allies are adjacent to an opponent. Aside from party members, what counts as an ally? Summoned monsters? An Eidolon? NPCs fighting with you on your side?
My pick for most broken feat is Dastardly Finish. You can coup de grace people who are stunned or cowering. It's way too easy to stun people to make it a death sentence. IF you can get them stunned or cowering, which isn't the easiest thing in the world at the level at which one can take Dastardly Finish.
So a feat letting spellcasters cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity is OK? +1 You can do a lot more damage, and a lot more types of damage with spells. With arrows, you can damage, and that's about it. Comparing the two is a very flawed argument. Also, keep in mind that one of the things that are attractive about archery is that you don't HAVE to close into melee.
When a character has an item that enhances an attribute that they've been wearing for more than 24 hours (say, a belt of Giant Strength +2), and they're attacked by something that drains said enhanced attribute (say, a shadow), is it possible for them to die of ability damage, or will the item prevent that attribute from slipping below whatever it's enhancement bonus is?
Definitely not, unfortunately.
Civil War had so much potential, and it was so flawed in execution. Here's a dangling plot thread: Wouldn't Thor wanted to have had some serious words with Reed Richards over the cloned Thor? Or was that all Skrull-Pym and Stark?
No, I clearly remember a fairly cowering Bruce begging Cap not to hit him, then Cap saying something like, "Good God, man, you wouldn't expect me to hit a man with glasses, would you?", then clocking him HARD in the head.
Agreed. I shouldn't think he's wrong for his opinion. Actually I DON'T think he's wrong, just that his attitude overall turns me off on an intellectual level.And like I said above, I've seen him stray into that territory from time to time. That aside, it doesn't make his discourse on what superhero comics should and shouldn't be wrong.A Quote from Dixon True.....if you want to be heard on something, it helps to be as level-headed as you can manage. Captain America? Not something I can be level-headed about. If the Cap movie is less than stellar, my nerd rage is going to look something like the third act of Akira.
Come on. What do you want him to do, give them the frowning of a lifetime? I'm not saying that he should go all Punisher on people, but he slugged Banner -ONCE- for potential mass murder, and beat the crap out of a wife-beater. I don't think he should get a medal for it, but I think it just shows that he's human and can lose his temper, just like anyone else.When you can curl 500lbs, kicking a helpless 98lb weakling in the face goes far beyond being "a bit of a jerk".I must disagree here. Just because he's strong minded and a bit of a jerk doesn't mean he would turn a blind eye to offenses. Quite the opposite, I'd say. But I don't think we're going to see that in this comic, Millar or no. Welllll.....now that I think about it, Banner did inject himself and cause that whole ramapage, didn't he? My point isn't whether or not Pym and Banner deserved their beatings: they absolutely did. My problem is that Cap is enjoying it way too much both times, to the point of even taunting the physically punt un-Hulked Banner before practially putting him in the ICU. It's WORSE than what the Punisher does, because he doesn't enjoy it. It's sadism, and that is mental illness.
I'd never say Dixon was unintelligent- the man has done more for comics than most. However, once you start going down the know it all road, it's just a hop, skip and a jump to "everyone is stupid except for me", which is a turnoff for me.I post pretty regularly on Dixon's board. He can definitely put out a "know it all/you darned kids know nothing" vibe from time to time, but the guy IS really smart, and he understands the medium much better than he's routinely given credit for.A Quote from DixonI would say he's falling a bit into his own stereotype of sub literates here regarding some of his later comments. And like I said above, I've seen him stray into that territory from time to time. That aside, it doesn't make his discourse on what superhero comics should and shouldn't be wrong.
When you can curl 500lbs, kicking a helpless 98lb weakling in the face goes far beyond being "a bit of a jerk".I must disagree here. Just because he's strong minded and a bit of a jerk doesn't mean he would turn a blind eye to offenses. Quite the opposite, I'd say. But I don't think we're going to see that in this comic, Millar or no. No, that was some other time. This was just after the Hulk trashed NYC. Granted, Steve had a good reason to be pissed, but kicking him in the face and knocking teeth out crossed the line from righteous anger to sadism. Matthew: Same thing with the fight with Pym. Steve probably had an even better reason to be pissed in this situation, but again, I felt like he derived too much pleasure from the beatdown for it to be righteous.
Hey, I didn't name that "law"...... Yeah, there's no accounting for taste, sure. And there has been some good stuff from the Ultimate line, mostly Team-Up, early X-Men, and Spider-Man. But are you seriously going to defend something like Ultimatum? Because that seems to be the norm for most Ultimate stuff.
Brubaker SHOULDN'T have been able to pull off bringing Bucky back, but he did. And fair's fair: Bucky NEVER died on-panel.....only in Steve's memories, in flashback. Brubaker's run has had one or two slow spots, but has been really, really good. As for Johnston: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002653/
A little unfair for those of us who want a bit of claret, as the 90s have been over for several years. The characters that came out of that period are still beloved and are still followed; many could be credited with keeping the genre alive in some respects while the big two diddled with alternate realties and clones.Have you followed the 'Shatterstar controversy'? It's been rather amusing watching a Liefield character get three dimensional under someone else's pen, and Liefield's reaction. "He's not gay, he's a soldier, like a Spartan!" was exceptionally humourus. That WAS pretty hilarious.
I must disagree here. Just because he's strong minded and a bit of a jerk doesn't mean he would turn a blind eye to offenses. Quite the opposite, I'd say. But I don't think we're going to see that in this comic, Millar or no. When you can curl 500lbs, kicking a helpless 98lb weakling in the face goes far beyond being "a bit of a jerk".
A Quote from DixonI would say he's falling a bit into his own stereotype of sub literates here regarding some of his later comments. I post pretty regularly on Dixon's board. He can definitely put out a "know it all/you darned kids know nothing" vibe from time to time, but the guy IS really smart, and he understands the medium much better than he's routinely given credit for.
Guess I should begin lowering my expectations for this movie right now. Mixed feelings about this. Whedon can direct hand to hand and space opera action, but he's untested as to the widescreen action this requires. Cautiously optimistic.
Edit-- I think a lot of that has to do with being in the military and realizing what's done on a battle field. I like Cap being a hero too, but maybe always felt like he was a little TOO good. I disagree. I don't think Waid or Busiek wrote him like that, and Brubaker CERTAINLY doesn't write Steve as a milqutoast. What CJ said.....I want to LIKE my heroes. Ultimate Cap is too sadistic. He enjoys beating down helpless opponents (Bruce Banner), and people under his weight class (Hank Pym) way too much. I'm trying to avoid getting on the topic of Ultimate Marvel, because (save Spider-Man), it sucks all the fun out of those characters. Grim and boring Hawkeye. Hank Pym spraying Janet Pym with bug spray. A depraved Hulk. The Blob EATING the Wasp. It's all Comics For Dummies. Chuck Dixon on this: "Sub-literates are not illiterate. In fact, most sub-literates read more than the average person. Because of this they consider themselves well-read and that their opinion is more valid than yours. But they read within a very narrow range of literature and shape their worldview around it. They take what they read very personally and are dismissive and intolerant of anything outside of the tiny area of their interests. These are the people who become upset when a favorite book or group or movie gains mass appeal. Why? Because now it is no longer exclusively "theirs." You will find them working behind the counters of college bookstores. Or waiting in line at the multiplex explaining to someone why the Aeon Flux cartoons were better than the movie. Or writing fan fiction on their laptop at Starbucks praying that someone asks them what they're writing. Unfortunately, they also provide most of the opinion makers in comics that the companies foolishly listen to. On to comic book profanity. Superman and Spider-man should never talk like "real" people. They aren't real people. They are fictional contrivances. In addition to that, most of the folks writing comics don't ever talk to "real" people and have no idea what they talk like. Uh...you know? "Real" dialogue in comics these days means that the writer has written as close to the patois of a Quentin Tarentino movie as his talents will allow. It means that he has watched enough episodes of Buffy to get the characters speech patterns down. Also, Superman and Spider-man should never use foul language no matter how many warning stickers you place on their publications. They should never be shown urinating. Or having sexual relations. They should never be diagnosed with cancer or be treated for AIDs. They should never learn that they were molested as a child. They should never have many of the things happen to them that happen to real people every day.
Superheroes are escapist fiction for children. You may like them and read their adventures as an adult but recall that their primary audience is children. Those millions of kids playing with action figures (actually removing them from their blister cards and playing with them on the living room carpet and in the backyard dirt) and watching cartoons and snuggling under Ninja Turtles comforters. And I am NOT putting superheroes down in any sense of the word. I still read comics. I WRITE the darned things and get a kick out of scripting masked guys and gals doing crazy, crazy stuff. As much as anyone might want to hold on to their childhood fantasies by having their favorite superheroes grow up along with them, it is wrong to want it to be so. If Spider-man uses foul language then it becomes a part of him and can never be taken away or ret-conned out of existance. And there cannot be two Spider-mans; one for the sublitertates and one the rest of the world enjoys. There is not an adult version of Donald Duck just to keep his longtime fans happy. (Not that they wouldn't be outraged by the very idead.) These characters have very long lives. Longer than any of us will be alive. They must be maintained and carefully watched over. It is possible to continue to have compelling adventures of your favorite characters that satisfy both the mass-appeal younger audience and the older devotee of the medium. But it requires skilled writing and long term planning and storylines far more sophisticated than the "stunt" storylines we see so often these days. Which is the more "mature" recent movie dealing in universal themes? Hostel? Or the latest Harry Potter?"
Dead on. Cap really is Superman's equivalent in the Marvel Universe.
|