Combat Monster's page

And that's how you slay the dragon.

Step 1. Rocks fall.
Step 2. Everybody dies.

Anadi-Man, Anadi-Man, does whatever Anadi can. Spins a web. What's your garment size? Origin? Ka-blam! Uncle Ben dies! Hey, there goes Anadi-Man!

All I'm going to say is that I'm glad I didn't end up in a certain posters group.

With that, I wouldn't have stayed past the first "But the baddie knows you're not dead and you maybe could have been healed." excuse.

And if you're trying to jadedly snark your way across ... I am the singular, best, utterly superior person on these boards when it comes to sarcasm. You'll lose. :)

And this is why you're the bag of holding I want to use to bludgeon my enemies to death.

Hulk is good because he ignores encumbrance.

It's easy to do with a str in the triple digits.

Also for removal of ability scores.

They serve nothing in the game except "legacy".

And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.

Couldn't we turn that logic around and say if you don't like legacy, there are other games for you?

We don't need "all new, all different" for it's own sake. Having ability scores isn't broken. Considering it will alienate some players out of buying into 2nd Edition, what bonus is there to remove them?

Suppose your combat monster who can hit anything and turn it to dust fails their will save, and are now on the opposing side? Ignore that you can probably wipe the party out by yourself, if you just stand there and do nothing, your party is doomed against the combat threats that were merely a challenge for you, but an impossible threat to them. Some might think this far-fetched, but I know of two campaigns local to me that ended that way, with the barbarian or fighter who had a poor will save because they optimized every other way but that, being dominated or vampire-charmed, and the rest of the forces were too strong for the now-more-average group.

Hey, my will save isn't that bad.

I'm going to toss this out there for any dev's reading.

The +1 per level math needs to be made obvious.

As per the title, I disagree.

Because it's looking like my group will still be on hiatus through the playtest, I may have to go it alone.

If so, For the first run through I'm going to try to make the MCU Avengers.

Here are my initial thoughts on what I'll build.

Alchemist=Wasp
Barb=Hulk
Bard=Nick Fury (or Maybe Spider-Man)
Cleric=Thor
Druid=Antman
Fighter=Captain America
Monk=Black Panther
Paladin=Vision
Ranger=Hawkeye
Rogue=Black Widow
Sorcerer Scarlet Witch
Wizard=Iron Man

Class Lineup is subject to change based how well classes and characters mesh.

After that, I'll likely tinker out a Conan, maybe try out the Pathfinder Iconics, Probably tinker until the damned covers comes off of the books.

Spell's are Pathfinder's most popular and played concept. Why would it need to be playtested?

To see how they work in the new success/fail system.

Also, I don't know how a playtest would work if you took out the basics. Archetypes are not a must. Having feats and spells (If a magic user, anyway) are.

Keep following the logic-- do I need an archetype to be a Hellknight or does it just make me a better Hellknight?

I used Pirate as the example because Pirate is the example we have, but there are going to be plenty of times where...

Different goalposts. A pirate is generic, while a Hellknight a specific in world faction.

You don't need a Knight archetype to be a knight. Be a fighter, Put on some heavy armor, wield a sword and slay dragons. The Knight Archetype may or may not help you be better, but you could make one as a vanilla fighter.

My take is this. Some time ago I considered a martial (a Barb) who could blast a bit. I went Cleric. I playtested and ran up some levels and what I discovered was that he was decent at punching people in the face with an axe, but he couldn't compete with his spells.

The one time shooting became a real option was if he was taking on an airborne foes he couldn't otherwise hit, and even then he'd be subpar.

I suppose that to a degree, the Bloodrager may have filled that niche, but I still bet that buffing would be much better than trying to shoot fireballs.

I'm excited for this new multiclassing. It looks like I may finally get to build a martial who can blast a bit and not be totally useless.

ALright, It's confirmed my Barb (or fighter) will be throwing lightning bolts.

Hopefully to finish off that aberration he just tossed into orbit.

Finally! Oh, I could just sing!

Just how long have you been waiting on this blog so you could say that?

Joy, another thread starting to be taken over by icon preference.

A bounty hunter needs to remember, if he wants to get paid, "No disintegrations!"

I've never been a monk guy, but I have to admit this all sounds pretty cool.

Maybe someday.

Who would have expected so much rage in the barbarian thread?

Divination Wizard.

Popping in and out of rage every fight doesn't make sense to me.

I'm looking at it like a fighter gassing. You put forth so much effort that you just have to stop and catch your breath every now and then.

Combat Monster wrote:

Also, you can bet I'm going to be pushing for martials to be flying around chucking boulders at the monsters.

Myself, I want to chuck monsters at boulders. Say hello to my sharktopus missile! ;)

I want to grab that thing by the tentacles and fling it into orbit.

Combat Monster wrote:

I'm sorry you're still crying yourself to sleep

Very classy. That one sure did sting!

Combat Monster wrote:

at something that wasn't intitally directed at you in particular.

You literally posted "I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it" in response to one of my posts.

You also posted "Maybe what I should have said is 'Yo, quit trying to take away toys because you don't like them.'" when I never said Paizo had to "take away" anything. I said I wouldn't use it at my table.

So if you feel you were just being conversational, sharing your inclusive attitude, and encouraging playtest feedback and don't think you were out of line, then I hope your Congeniality award is on its way.

I'm also having a really hard time believing that if I or anyone else had told you to "quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like" that you'd be all "sure, no problem".

I'm sure you'll get over it.

As it is, King of Anything hit it on the head. I saw a number of people who even after being told that Legendary stuff could be easily bypassed wanted to push for it to not be included at all. You were one of a number whose close mindedness irked me.

I don't think I said to shut the hell up. I was more or less saying that people who want to remove options should take a break, because more options don't hurt them.

Honestly, I don't think a loud minority is going to get Paizo to not include stuff in the playtest. I also don't think they'll get Legendary removed for 2nd edition. "It hurts my sensibilities" isn't going to dissuade Paizo from implementing it. You're gonna have to find some major balance issues with it, so good luck. A martial surviving a large fall or a rogue stealing gear isn't anything compared to what casters do.

Also, you can bet I'm going to be pushing for martials to be flying around chucking boulders at the monsters.

BPorter wrote:

Combat Monster wrote:

I keep seeing complaints that some don't want martials to have cool powers. That is fine. Don't use them at your tables.

Some of us would prefer to be more Thor than Conan or Aragorn. I'm all for more stuff. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it.

So, you'd appreciate it if your likes are met and mine are discarded? So you're opinion is more valid/valuable than mine? Got it.

While I disagree with BPorter on most of the things said in this thread, I'm with them here. This is absolutely not the place to be telling each other not to notify the developers when we have an issue.

I happen to have liked most everything in this playtest, and so have many others, but that doesn't mean that those with problems should be shushed down.

I completely understand the urge to protect what many feel is a good addition to the game, but the developers are good enough at their jobs to get a feel for the community's opinion, so long as everyone in that community feels comfortable actually sharing what they think about the new system.

The best way in my opinion would be to have Legendary included by default but easy to detach if need be. Going by what Mark said, that seems to be what they're trying to do with this. As I said before... I really want to be able to play Beowulf, but I'd also really like for other people to be able to play Conan if they want to as well.

This could be a system that works for a bunch of different playstyles, which would be a nice continuation of Pathfinder 1's versatility with hopefully a little more core-support.

Maybe what I should have said is "Yo, quit trying to take away toys because you don't like them." Sure, everybody is welcome to their opinion, and likes and dislikes, but it seems really asinine to me to gimp stuff just because a person doesn't want to exclude it from their table.

For example, if I didn't want to play a Mythic game in PF1, I'll just not buy the Mythic book, not complain that Paizo wanted to sell one.

Combat Monster wrote:

I keep seeing complaints that some don't want martials to have cool powers. That is fine. Don't use them at your tables.

Some of us would prefer to be more Thor than Conan or Aragorn. I'm all for more stuff. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it.

So, you'd appreciate it if your likes are met and mine are discarded? So you're opinion is more valid/valuable than mine? Got it.

Here is your membership card to the "You're doing it wrong, having bad/wrongfun Enforcer Club."

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

And on general principle of your "do it my way or shut up", eff no.

How are your likes discarded? If you have options 1, 2, and 3 and say to your table "Option 3 isn't allowed at my table." It's not a big deal. You just don't use a skill or feat or spell. If you lobby Paizo to not have options then those of us who might want to do those things can't without creating content.

I don't get how I'm the bad guy when Mr. Seifter came in here and said there are other options you could take that in most cases wouldn't hurt the party when compared to the monsters. There are also less flashy things that are still cool and useful you can do if some stuff hurts your sensibilities. But some people just keep stamping their feet and complaining that something may be in game..

Also how it easier to add something, to create a feat or spell or whatnot, and have to balance that, do the maths, blah blah, when you could simply say "At my table we don't allow X."

As far as speaking up, go ahead. I'll just be sure to point out the foolishness where I see it.

I keep seeing complaints that some don't want martials to have cool powers. That is fine. Don't use them at your tables.

Some of us would prefer to be more Thor than Conan or Aragorn. I'm all for more stuff. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it.

Hopefully with the new setup in place, most future fallen Paladin comments will be about trip maneuvers.

I've never been the most interested in Paladins. I'm doubtful I'll work on one during the playtest, but things look well enough to me.

Seeing how niche it is, I'd not hold my breath waiting.

Edit: I know I am being very semantic with this argument

I think if you replaced semantic with ridiculous, you'd be more accurate.

Eh. I'm gonna say that if a person doesn't like a thread or topic they should just avoid it. While Paizo can ban people, lock topics, and remove posts at their whim, heavy handed censorship does more harm than a few loudmouths in my humble opinion.

And I do think a lot of ppl came here to read more about magical weapons and how they'll work, rather than just normal weapons themselves. I can only assume we're getting more dice, rather than just "half your dmg is fire" ala STF.

I don't want to get ahead of myself but I'm hoping that magic abilities like flaming and shocking let martials use resonance to shoot that energy.

Hm. I gotta say the title is the most childish I've run across today.

Given the OP, I can't say I'm surprised.

I really hope the Paladin blog is far out, just because of nonsense like this.

I feel like Ninja's concern is more in the area of PFS. I don't play PFS, but I do understand the worry. Since rather than playing with a single GM who you can have a consistent understanding with and know how they interpret alignment and the world, you're stuck with whoever you get that night.

I have no idea what percentage of Pathfinder players actually play mostly in PFS rather than at home tables. But if it is any reasonably high percentage, it does make sense to be more clear in how ethos requirements like these are worded.

That sounds reasonable. My take would be to bring it up prior to play. "Yo, PFS GM. How do you interpret Shelyn's tenet of not striking first?"

It might suck to have to deal with table variation but at least they'd know ahead of time.

I'm also going to make an assumption here. I know a number of forum members also run PFS games. Community members including TOZ and Wei Ji. I've known them to be level headed and based on comments, I believe they want their players to enjoy the game. Taking them as examples, I don't think the average GM running the game for PFS is waiting for an "Aha!" moment to screw the player. So when obtuse language slips through the book, and it will, it seems like most of the time, common sense and player/GM respect can fix the issue.

Nope, the person didn't strike anyone, just grabbed. You fall.

The skeletons rolls crits, you die.

You adventure with someone who stabs people in their sleep?!? You fall.

They didn't attack you, so you shouldn't attack them, you fall.

They absolutely will if there's room for it to happen.

Things like "Never Strike First" are both vague enough to be open to interpretation and specific enough...

That sounds a lot more like a douchebag GM problem than a rules one. My advice if you're playing with that guy is to get into a better group, and if you're that guy to be better so you don't find yourself sitting at a table by yourself.

Also, Shelyn notes you can destroy art and whatnot to save lives. Lives are important to her based on that tenet as well as her NG alignment. So using the intent of her values, she would want you to save the child or your party member.

Common sense prevails.

With that, if Paizo tightens up the language, great. If not, it's not a game breaking issue unless the GM is a clown.

What does "strike first" mean in this context? Are clerics of Shelyn going to stand aside and do nothing because a kidnapper grabbed a child and ran off without actually striking anyone?

If a Cleric of Shelyn comes across a group of mindless Skeletons can they not drop a mass heal on them in the first round and instead have to wait for them to attack first?

What if you track down a group of evil mercenaries who attacked you a few days ago and find them sleeping? Will you have to wake them up and give them a free shot before you can do anything?

If your buddy is being stabbed repeatedly by a group of Kobolds who saw your Holy Symbol are you going to be able to do nothing but heal/buff your ally as long as the Kobolds leave you alone?

Using just a bit of common sense...

If somebody grabs a child, that would be reason to attack.

The skeletons would depend on your Gm. If you can't strike first even against nonliving/nonhostile entities, buff, ignore them since they are nonhostile, wait on another instigate combat. You have more than a few options.

Finding sleeping opponents? Well, rather than hacking them up in their sleep, call out and demand surrender. Or draw a pretty picture while the Rogue gets his chance to shine.

If the Kobolds are attacking your party, that's a pretty good sign they are free game.

YMMV but I don't think most GM's are going to make the God's act like idiots and turn Anathema into PF2's addition to Paladin circlejerk games.

Hm. Yet another thread that could have been folded into any of the dozen other Goblins are wrongbadfun threads.

It's looking like I'll be able to make a martial who has a magic attack or two. I'm optimistic.

Under the new standard rules, I think my big issue is that it seems like players will be hopping up and falling back down until they die for good. At least if I'm understanding the way dying works.

I don't think I'm going to like that much in PF2.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Ok.

I have this concept for a character: I want to play a druid that polymorph into a kung-fu martial artist tiger.

How can I play that concept without multiclassing?

Multi-class all you want. Just don't expect to be as good at druidic things or kung fu as a pure druid or monk with the same character levels.

I said early on that Paizo is not going to put the multi-classing genie back in the bottle.

I don't expect to be better than a focused guy, particularly if they are many levels in and focused, but I want to be competent.

If I want to play a barb or fighter who can throw lightning to make an expy of Thor, I shouldn't suck. There should be ways to get both physical prowess and be able to have a magic ability or so without having to resort to equipment. The more magic I want, the more levels in sorcerer I take, and less in fighter or barb. That's the trade off.

If I'm right, PF2 making level more important for casters on top of the modular classes means I could dip a bit just to get some blasty stuff to weld onto my melee build without having to gestalt or house rule.

That's how it should be. Classes bringing concepts to life, not limiting them.

After reading the past few pages, I realize multiclassing is more important than ever.

Penalizing characters for doing it makes the game unenjoyable.

If people don't want to multiclass, they are not forced to. If GM's want to reign stuff in, houserule it. The game shouldn't tell somebody it's wrongbadfun to want to expand beyond the confines of a certain class.

2) They cannibalized Hulk's most iconic storyline to give it to Thor. Was the Ragnarok story not strong enough to stand on its own? The movie already felt rushed. There was no need to squeeze parts of World War Hulk into it, especially since...

That probably has to do with the distribution rights issues Marvel has with Universal. MCU Hulk has to be a part of other heroes/team films or the two companies need to come to an agreement to make a solo film.

To be fair, Ragnarok could have used Beta Ray Bill and a metric crap ton of other Thor storyline cues from over the decades and not touched on the Hulk at all. In that vein Hela had a bit of the God Butcher going for her and the idea of bringing Asgard to Earth seems to be happening.

As is most often the case, the one thing a Paladin has to fear is a bad GM.

Then, it comes back around to playing humans. I have never understood why people like to play humans in the game personally. It feels silly from a roleplay aspect in a fantasy game about all powerful gods and magic (usually, not always) exuding out from some characters very pores to want to just be the same thing that you are, but I do understand that it's in many ways human nature to want human-like stories. Maybe it's just my difficulty relating to people in general and that factors in.

As a guy who plays humans exclusively, I just most often find myself drawn to the characters who survive by cunning, grit and force of will. They are the average guy who steps up to the impossible odds, and despite their human fallibility take up their steel, six gun, or now and again, magic to fight the good fight.

Also humans are viewed as underdogs in my circles. While they are objectively a strong mechanical choice, most often people assume Elves are graceful and Dwarves more hardy to a point being human is a negative. Being a human and showing up the others is a bit of icing on the cake.

To tie that in, I've also had games where everybody wants to be something different. When you are the only person being human, you get to be as unique as any Aasimar in the group.

Ensure they take you to see a play on the bad side of town. When they die during a robbery use the motivation to become Batman.

From where I sit it looks like two choices. Boot the problem player, or lose your game.