I dislike the constantly repeated theme that after character level 11 all combat takes place in the air, over a wide open space, with no cover for the poor groundlings. That somehow Overland Flight, Air Walk etc. makes non spell casters useless; as if flying items and potions don't exist. All of this somehow ignores the reality that a flying opponent ( who hunts on the wing, prefers the air, and generally has a better fly speed than that of spellcasters) will ignore squishy spellcasters to focus on the armored tanks stuck on the ground with no cover.
First, by raw potions are at the min level, so it's a +1 magic fang, not +5. So we'll ignore that part. Even if you could get a 20th magic fang, it only affects 1 attack (or gives +1 to all 3).
Second, they are still very squishy... said dump monkey will have low AC and poor saves. Which is OK (solid HP probably), but the returns aren't there.
D8 + 7 * 2 d6 + 7 * 2, at +8. VS same level fighter (18 strength, power attack, weapon focus and spec) 2d6+15 * 2 at +10. And don't get started on archers /summoner beasts. And both do their damage with no prep alll day, every day; not 50 mins / day (works in dungeons, not so well over-land).
The alchemist just can't do anything sadly; even trying to pull off neat combos.
I am playing a "Mr. Hyde" Vivisectionist in a game right now and we are 5th level. Working with the fighter my damage output is much higher than his, and he is a 2 handed power attack smash build. 22 strength, plus power attack, plus 3d6 sneak attack, and whatever buff infusions I have access to add up quickly.
You're forgetting the alchemist "enhance potion" discovery which lets you buff a potion caster level to yours, so it's a +1 to all weapons right now, eventually I will be able to buff 1 weapon higher or ramp up all three attacks over multiple rounds of prep (or get both claws in one go thanks to the ability to combine potions).
Most people also are not aware that there is no stipulation on how many mutagens you may make in a day, just that it takes an hour and you may only have one active mutagen at a time, so although you may not have it all the time, you can make use of it multiple times per day depending on encounter flow. Master Chymist eventually means that you have access to your mutagen as needed.
Personally I sort of feel cheesy running this build, because it kind of just crept up on everyone. No one thought the alchemist, which our group considered a sort of clunky concept class, could turn into a sneak attacking, mauling, behemoth.
Edit: also by RAW there is nothing that prohibits you from making a potion at 20th caster level, it only has this to say "The price of a potion is equal to the level of the spell × the creator's caster level × 50 gp." Most potions are just made at minimum caster level to save on the cost. Greater Magic Fang +4 is listed in standard pot tables as 2400gp
First, by raw potions are at the min level, so it's a +1 magic fang, not +5. So we'll ignore that part. Even if you could get a 20th magic fang, it only affects 1 attack (or gives +1 to all 3).
Second, they are still very squishy... said dump monkey will have low AC and poor saves. Which is OK (solid HP probably), but the returns aren't there.
D8 + 7 * 2 d6 + 7 * 2, at +8. VS same level fighter (18 strength, power attack, weapon focus and spec) 2d6+15 * 2 at +10. And don't get started on archers /summoner beasts. And both do their damage with no prep alll day, every day; not 50 mins / day (works in dungeons, not so well over-land).
The alchemist just can't do anything sadly; even trying to pull off neat combos.
Ah, never noticed that about GMF. Well, give it to your bite, and get it for two attacks after being hasted.
At least an Amulet of Mighty Fists will affect all attacks :D
By RAW, potions can be any caster level, but are usually at lowest level possible for the spell.
The price of a potion is equal to the level of the spell × the creator's caster level × 50 gp. If the potion has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create. Table: Potions gives sample prices for potions created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class
Should clear that up. Note that the example potions (the actual list) has potions of multiple CLs!
Why would he be squishy? There's nothing stopping him from wearing better armor. Two feats, which he can easily spare, and he'll have Heavy Armor :D That's on top of his Natural Armor increase from Mutagen.
I'm not sure why you think they'd have poor saves. They get 2 Good tracks, just like the Cleric, which you think has good saves! And again, they don't need that many feats, so they can afford Iron Will.
Since you're using Weapon Focus, I shall too! Also, you're using a base Str of 18, so I'll update mine for that too.
This alch will have at level 5 (taking into consideration the potion of GMF only affecting Bite)
+3 +9 +5 = +17 to hit with bite
+3 +9 +1 (WF) = +13 claws
So, with power attack and haste (since your fighter won't have a 2nd attack otherwise): +17 1d8+13 / +17 1d8+13 / +13 1d6+8 / +13 1d6+8.
Same fighter!
2 attacks.
First attack: +5 BAB, +4 str, +1 enhancement weapon, +1 weapon focus, +1 weapon training -2 Power attack: +10!
Times two!
Damage: 2d6 + 6 str, +1 weapon training, +2 weapon spec, +6 PA = 2d6+15
So, +10 2d6+15 / +10 2d6+15.
This alch has twice as many attacks, and all of them are at a higher bonus than the fighter's.
So, let's look at some round by round. This assumes a ton of things, like the enemies are within range at the first round, there was absolutely no prep time, the Alchemist didn't drink his potion of GMF (which has a duration of hours per level) before hand, and that enemies just happened to step right up to where their friends just died:
Fighter: 90 points of damage!
Alchemist: 17.5 * 2 = 35 dmg + 23 dmg = 58.
Round three:
Fighter: 135 dmg!
Alchemist: 116 dmg!
Round four:
Fighter: 180!
Alchemist: 174!
So in a completely unrealistic situation given above, the alchemist catches up at round 4.
In the (slightly) more realistic situation where the alchemist is already under the effect of the potion.
Round 1:
Fighter: 45 points of damage!
Alchemist: 58 points of dmg!
Round 2:
Fighter: 90!
Alchemist: 116!
Do I even have to continue?
Mutagens last for 10 minutes per level. They can use them the moment they think there'll be danger, and they'll be rocking that awesome buff for an hour. Oh, and with an hour of downtime, they can make another mutagen! There isn't a daily limit on them, only on the number you can have made at a time.
And Swift Alchemy could make that time only 30 minutes to make!
This guy gets Greater Magic Fang up at almost all times due to how it's never used up, and lasts for hours per level. Mutagen lasts for 10 minutes per level! There's no situation other than enemies getting the jump on them when they had no clue they were in danger that he shouldn't have it up already. And that's pretty rare!
With Combine Extracts, they could get Shield and enlarge Person in one action, as a 2nd level extract! +4 AC (by squishyness), reach, more strength, etc.
Completely forgot about sneak attack! Give both fighter and alch flanking, so increase to-hit by +2. But this gives +12d6 (3d6 = 10.5 * 4 = 42 extra points of damage per round).
This means that the alchemist will match the fighter the *first* turn he attacks. 58 + 42 = 90, the average damage of two of the fighter's turns.
I'm not even going to bother doing DPR calculations, since the fighter has a worse to-hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Straw man= anything i disagree with.
Anything that isn't completely objective is completely subjective
Alchemists are for smashing things.
Two weapon fighting does soooo much damage! Look what a full sneak attack gets you!
The wizard is only over powered because DMs aren't trying hard enough to squish them like bugs. (metagame more!)
By the way is there any way this thread isnt going to either devolve into a total flame war OR a dozen separate arguments?
Nope, that's why it's the popcorn thread :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
well lets see.
X class is better than Y class.
You have to have the most damage output to be effective. LOL I played with a player who felt that way. he hated Sorcerers because he felt that they made his fighter sub par. The sorcerer in question could only really cast a fire descriptor spells. But after awhile that turned into copious amounts of fireballs ect...
Never seen some one so bored at a game table before. Since he couldn't whack things with his sword and kill it in one strike it was boring to him.
Most of the rest of us were more into character roles than combat and stopped to talk to things.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I dislike the constantly repeated theme that after character level 11 all combat takes place in the air, over a wide open space, with no cover for the poor groundlings. That somehow Overland Flight, Air Walk etc. makes non spell casters useless; as if flying items and potions don't exist. All of this somehow ignores the reality that a flying opponent ( who hunts on the wing, prefers the air, and generally has a better fly speed than that of spellcasters) will ignore squishy spellcasters to focus on the armored tanks stuck on the ground with no cover.
Just to back you up on this:
My current level 14 fighter (phalanx soldier) is the only one who can fly in combat without changing into a small elemental. Celestial Fullplate for the win! Flying Spartan anyone?
|
I'm very confused where the alchemist posted a 28 strengh, and how often are you drinking these 3000 GP potions? It's not practical to drink one daily, so unless I missed a way to get copies before dilute at 12, I have to ask that removed.
Also, the fighter sprouts feats because, well he has them. And also less use for less stats (though I'm fine assuming the fighter is a trippy build and has a 14 Int too, so basically the same stats).
So I agree with your numbers on the two-handed fighter. Where did you get the "+9 in the equation above". I see +3 (BAB) +6 (Str 22) + 1 WF (claws) - 1 (Power attack) +1 (haste) for d8 +8 / d6+8, each *2. So 4 attacks, which do equate to slightly higher damage than the fighter, so better than I thought there. But then if we get to 6, or are taking time to drink mutagen during combat, the fighter surpasses them in every way.
But let me know where the +3 came from, or if that potion is a renewable resource (beyond spending 3K at 5th level), and it'll be more in business. Obviously i'd like to be impressed; +13 for the listed damage would be v good.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one:
"If someone disagrees with you about the relative power level of the Alchemist and Fighter in a thread only tangentially related to that topic, the best thing to do is to write lengthy and unspoilered algebra dissertations to prove your superior knowledge of class balance while simultaneously forcing everyone to incur repetitive motion injuries from trying to scroll through said dissertations and discuss the topic of the thread. Under no circumstances should the aforementioned dissertations be avoided, spoilered, or taken to another thread."
Inorite?
I hatez maf.
I'm very confused where the alchemist posted a 28 strengh, and how often are you drinking these 3000 GP potions? It's not practical to drink one daily, so unless I missed a way to get copies before dilute at 12, I have to ask that removed.
Alchemical allocation (2nd level formula). You quaff a potion and it isn't used up, essentially.
The alchemist has a base of 18 strength. Sorry if I mistyped. That's the same as the fighter. By using the mutagen, it's 22 strength.
Trying to think where I got that +9 from.
+3 from BAB, +6 from Str, +5 from GMF.
Well, not coming to me. I wasn't taking into consideration Enlarge Person (which would be another +1 to str, but not +3) at that point, so who knows. Maybe I added the BAB twice.
So Two of his attacks are better than the fighters, and the other two are as likely as the fighters to hit. Still would come out on top, I think since the bite attacks will hit more often than the fighters, and do a close amount of damage (22 vs 17.5). The other two attacks will average about 11.5 each (at the same bonus!), so it's clearly past the fighter.
And with Sneak Attack, even if they did drink the mutagen in combat (little reason to, due to the long duration, but eh), they do the same damage on their first turn of attacking (2nd round total) as the fighter has done in his two turns :)
But without sneak attack, they're still doing about 28% more damage than the fighter, which isn't "slightly higher". It's "omgwtf?"
Not sure what you mean by "get to 6".
But this isn't immediately obvious when you first look at the class, and that's why I think it's one of the most subtly broken classes. He's getting 4 attacks at full BAB! Imagine if he got an amulet of mighty fists (Holy) for 20k! It's expensive, but it'll add +2d6 holy damage per attack. Give this guy pounce, and he'll shred anyone a new one.
A fighter will totally do better in an ambush when he's asleep when ambushed, after a day of rest.
One level of Master Chymist, and they can turn into a beast without having prepared a mutagen.
Here's one:
"If someone disagrees with you about the relative power level of the Alchemist and Fighter in a thread only tangentially related to that topic, the best thing to do is to write lengthy and unspoilered algebra dissertations to prove your superior knowledge of class balance while simultaneously forcing everyone to incur repetitive motion injuries from trying to scroll through said dissertations and discuss the topic of the thread. Under no circumstances should the aforementioned dissertations be avoided, spoilered, or taken to another thread."
Perhaps the intentions of this thread weren't clear. It's meant to be a place to argue your viewpoint. I want long discussions on tangential topics, so that there's interesting stuff to read on my breaks, and to have people re-examine their own beliefs about these topics. Length doesn't always mean well-thought out, but there's at least a correlation.
But sure, I'll spoiler stuff now.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps the intentions of this thread weren't clear. It's meant to be a place to argue your viewpoint. I want long discussions on tangential topics, so that there's interesting stuff to read on my breaks, and to have people re-examine their own beliefs about these topics. Length doesn't always mean well-thought out, but there's at least a correlation.
But sure, I'll spoiler stuff now.
Oh. I thought it was more for listing.
My mistake, carry on!
I'm still very interested in hearing peoples thoughts on archetypes having the same problems PrCs in 3.5 had, because that's a cool topic. As long as people are being civil, I see no reason why this thread can't work :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The high level theory wizard- assumed to have any spell prepared for any situation, assumed to be both a master of DC's and have all the crafting feats at the same time. Also assumed to have foreknowledge of any encounter.
The high level theory fighter-type- assumed to be a chump who cries himself to sleep at night. Also assumed to have no access to magical crafting despite the fact the game is centred around an adventuring party.
The high level theory wizard- assumed to have any spell prepared for any situation, assumed to be both a master of DC's and have all the crafting feats at the same time. Also assumed to have foreknowledge of any encounter.
The high level theory fighter-type- assumed to be a chump who cries himself to sleep at night. Also assumed to have no access to magical crafting despite the fact the game is centred around an adventuring party.
HAVING FOUGHT BOTH MANY TIMES, CASTY AM GENERALLY EASIER. ALSO LOOT AM MORE. OR SAME. OR SOMETHING. STILL AM PREFER SMASH CASTYS.
|
|
I disagree on the archetype issue. I have seen absolutely NO archetypes that do not seem well balanced. A few subtlet power creep, but they are for classes that needed it (bards and monks). Most are interesting alts, and the game is much more fun with them.
Many of the PrC in 3.5 were "all that and more" classes; archtypes are more like having dozens of cool base classes.
HAVING FOUGHT BOTH MANY TIMES, CASTY AM GENERALLY EASIER. ALSO LOOT AM MORE. OR SAME. OR SOMETHING. STILL AM PREFER SMASH CASTYS.The high level theory wizard- assumed to have any spell prepared for any situation, assumed to be both a master of DC's and have all the crafting feats at the same time. Also assumed to have foreknowledge of any encounter.
The high level theory fighter-type- assumed to be a chump who cries himself to sleep at night. Also assumed to have no access to magical crafting despite the fact the game is centred around an adventuring party.
DRUID AM DODGE THE ISSUE BY BEING BOTH FIGHTY AND CASTY.
BE ALL, HURT ALL.
ALSO, DRUID NOT LIKE STEREOTYPE OF ALWAYS NEEDING PET TO BE EFFECTIVE. PET GOOD, BUT DOMAIN DRUID GOOD TOO. CAN BE MORE CASTY, AND ALSO MORE SELF-SUH-FISH-INT.
I disagree on the archetype issue. I have seen absolutely NO archetypes that do not seem well balanced. A few subtlet power creep, but they are for classes that needed it (bards and monks). Most are interesting alts, and the game is much more fun with them.
Many of the PrC in 3.5 were "all that and more" classes; archtypes are more like having dozens of cool base classes.
I'm right there with you. Almost every single archetype I've read has been a significant tradeoff. It lets you pursue a specific concept with a base class at the expense of overall versatility and often overall power. The only power creep I've noticed is with the weaker classes like bard, monk, and alchemist. Rogues just straight up got remade with Ninja.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm right there with you. Almost every single archetype I've read has been a significant tradeoff. It lets you pursue a specific concept with a base class at the expense of overall versatility and often overall power. The only power creep I've noticed is with the weaker classes like bard, monk, and alchemist. Rogues just straight up got remade with Ninja.I disagree on the archetype issue. I have seen absolutely NO archetypes that do not seem well balanced. A few subtlet power creep, but they are for classes that needed it (bards and monks). Most are interesting alts, and the game is much more fun with them.
Many of the PrC in 3.5 were "all that and more" classes; archtypes are more like having dozens of cool base classes.
I don't really know much about the 3.5 PrC's, but I like archetypes. Mostly, I use them if I'm playing a class that has a feature I don't really like/need, so I can trade it for something marginally more useful/appropriate.
For instance, I would take almost any rogue archetype that trades out Trapfinding and Trap Sense because I don't like those abilities, and I'd be happy with nearly anything in exchange. Similarly, I never really liked the extreme forest-y-ness of druids, so I never played one until I found an archetype (Menhir Savant, if you're curious) that traded out some of those abilities I wasn't interested in.
I can't speak for the person who thought they were similar, but I think what he was going at was the glut of PrCs is close to the glut of archetypes.
While I understand this concern, and it is a huge list of archetypes to go through for new players, I think this issue isn't the real problem of PrCs in 3.5.
To me, the issue with them was that everyone had 12 or so. They encouraged dipping too much, IMO. Archetypes mostly avoid that issue.
Except for cross-blooded and Spellslinger. Those are two very, very front heavy archetypes, that "punish" people who stick with them. Thus, they're great for one level dips, but not so much for playing. Those two, IMO, have the issue of 3.5 PrCs.
|
|
I'm still very interested in hearing peoples thoughts on archetypes having the same problems PrCs in 3.5 had, because that's a cool topic. As long as people are being civil, I see no reason why this thread can't work :)
Exact same problem, quantity over quality. Plus in my opinion a lack of a general theme amongst the options. While having interesting variations covering many books is not a bad idea for a splat book, having a coherent theme in say a Golarion book would be more likely to get money from me.
I'm hoping to get some interesting discussion here, kind of like this thread.
Do you think THF is overrated?
That wizards should be blasters?
Maybe you think Rogues are overpowered! (Related to this statement: Perhaps you are crazy?)
Be civil, and play nice. Or else the mods will swing the banhammer down on this thread.
I am confused. Are you trying to post things that commonly held to be true, or things that are considered to be false.
That god wizards, or spellcasters built like god wizards, are the only valid spellcasters.
Nobody ever said that. The argument is that they are normally more efficient. That does not make other ideas invalid.
Wait, what?
That bards, ninjas, alchemists, cavaliers, and inquisitors are not just as weak as rogues.Well, I think rogues take a lot of slack. After all, their big nacho (lots of skills) is generally too weak, they are low damage output, and are generally strictly weak compared to a ranger.
Many think the bard has improved somewhat because of archetypes; past mid-levels this simply isn't true. The summoner was inexplicably made a better buffer than a bard (lower level spell access), and they are a similar skill monkey with low damage output. Bardsong is a cute buff, but eats up actions, and while most try to use feats to be somewhat good in combat they are just not able to keep up. Plus Evangalist stole their non-skill shtick and do it with full spellcasting ability, better powers, and better saves.
Alchemists are both weak damage dealers and weak buffers; I've seen too many in play and still scratch my head. They are poor blaster mages with minimal skills and a not-great spell selection.
Cavaliers were given tactician, an ability I have yet to see be made useful. They make pretty good spirited chargers, but that is done better as a paladin or now a rogue. And that is the only thing they logistically can do.
Ninja Ki tricks do help, but losing trapfinding was just insulting. And thanks to the inability to get free tricks via human / feats, they fall behind rogues mid-to-latency RAW. They are just a weaker rogue with a cooler name.
Inquisitors... an attempt at the battle cleric, but buff-and-attack is too little too late in PFS. They should at least get the domain spells. Another skillmonkey class that fails to deliver in combat, albeit a little better than some of these. I may even renig listing them here, they are lower-tier, but a good head above the rest of these rejects :).
I think, like rogue, any of these can survive fine; but you are at a pretty big disad if you are on the list. The good news is barbarian and...
Can't argue with you on the Cavalier. Teamwork feats are useless, and would be even if they worked like everyone had Solo Tactics (like they should in the first place.) Likewise, they are so tied to their mounts that being indoors, in a city, or in any other situation that makes riding infeasible, they stop functioning.
But Bards? No one is more efficient or versatile at serving up buffs than a bard. Bardic Performances are a move action at 7, and a swift at 13, letting you toss down a significant boost to all your allies and have plenty of actions left over to cast a spell or otherwise help out. Add on the Harmonic Spell feat, and that buff is basically free. Then there's swift action spells to provide boosts by ending a bardic performance, and a spell that lets you keep two performances running at once.
You also seriously overestimate the value of the Trapfinding ability. Anyone can find a trap; the Trapfinding ability just gives a bonus to the roll. Between that, and so many different classes having access to it through archetypes, it's really not something a rogue-type has to be sorry about giving up.
my most hated meme is that any one can say any class is weak even though there is only 2 ways to make a class weak: the dm nerfs it, or the player made a bad build. but the second one only apples if the dm is weak.
to sum it up there are no weak classes only weak DMs(as it is your
responsibly as a DM to make the classes equally useful not paizo's)
Actually a weak build is not the GM's responsibility to fix. The player that won't fight, won't use skills, and only runs away in the name of RP'ing is not the GM's fault. Yeah I had to deal with one of those a few weeks ago. He did not get invited back.
I am confused. Are you trying to post things that commonly held to be true, or things that are considered to be false.I'm hoping to get some interesting discussion here, kind of like this thread.
Do you think THF is overrated?
That wizards should be blasters?
Maybe you think Rogues are overpowered! (Related to this statement: Perhaps you are crazy?)
Be civil, and play nice. Or else the mods will swing the banhammer down on this thread.
Really just any commonly held idea that you disagree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find the cavalier a bit lackluster as well, but they are still a full BAB class that can have spurts of big damage.
If I totally re-did the cavalier, I'd make it so they can give two teamwork feats at 7th level. Or 9th, whenever they get it as a move action. Then three at the level where they normally can get two. Why? Because some teamwork feats work best in conjunction with others (Paired Opportunist and Outflank is amazing to give if you have guys fishing for crits, our Precise Strike and Outflank). But UC gave some awesome teamwork feats, which helps out a fair bit.
I think battle herald is on the right track.
I don't like it= its like wow/mmo! Even if the MMO had to go back in time and place the idea there before mmo's existed! (darn you bronze dragonflight!)
There is A right way to roleplay.
There is AN optimal build
Your party will work together as a cohesive unit under your direction.
Archers can be stopped with wind wall/ entropic shield.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is law if it agrees with me. Otherwise, it's the stuff of munchkinism and anyone applying it is a dirty rules lawyer.
If any of your stats are above 16 or below 10, you are a neanderthal who is incapable of roleplaying.
No matter how high your Diplomacy bonus is (class skill, Skill Focus, max ranks, etc), if your CHA is less than 10, you're a toothless, smelly hick who repels people with his very presence. Failure to roleplay as such makes you a bad person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how high your Diplomacy bonus is (class skill, Skill Focus, max ranks, etc), if your CHA is less than 10, you're a toothless, smelly hick who repels people with his very presence. Failure to roleplay as such makes you a bad person.
AM OKAY. BARBARIAN NOT CARE.
BARBARIAN AM STILL COOL.
AM WAY COOLER THAN CASTYS.
YOU AM ALL BIG JERKS!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No matter how high your Diplomacy bonus is (class skill, Skill Focus, max ranks, etc), if your CHA is less than 10, you're a toothless, smelly hick who repels people with his very presence. Failure to roleplay as such makes you a bad person.
AM OKAY. BARBARIAN NOT CARE.
BARBARIAN AM STILL COOL.
AM WAY COOLER THAN CASTYS.
YOU AM ALL BIG JERKS!
There there, big guy; remember, I was listing a common idea that I disagree with. You're still okay in my book!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There there, big guy; remember, I was listing a common idea that I disagree with. You're still okay in my book!
AM APPRECIATED.
BUT WHY AM THEY CALL BARBARIAN TOOTHLESS? AM CLEARLY TEETHS ON PICTURE. AM LIKE. 5 TEETHS.
AND BARBARIAN SHOWER REGULARLY. SOMETIMES IN CASTY BLOOD, BUT STILL AM SHOWER. AM NOT SMELLY.
...AM DIRTY FIAT.
LITERALLY.
|
|
RAW is law if it agrees with me. Otherwise, it's the stuff of munchkinism and anyone applying it is a dirty rules lawyer.
If any of your stats are above 16 or below 10, you are a neanderthal who is incapable of roleplaying.
No matter how high your Diplomacy bonus is (class skill, Skill Focus, max ranks, etc), if your CHA is less than 10, you're a toothless, smelly hick who repels people with his very presence. Failure to roleplay as such makes you a bad person.
Who says the toothless can't be charming? Who says those who do not have a commanding presence cant be attractive?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If any of your stats are above 16 or below 10, you are a neanderthal who is incapable of roleplaying.
Oh my god, plus ****ing one.
I am so tired of the rages about this crap. "HOW DARE MY PLAYERS CHOOSE STATS WELL WITHIN THE REASONABLE BOUNDS ESTABLISHED BY THE CORE RULES AND POINT BUY SYSTEM?!" I don't understand why some people are so offended by wanting to be the heroes of the story.
wow. Just wow.
Its not role playing its optimization!
Fixed that for you.
wow. Just wow.
Its not role playing its optimization!
Fixed that for you.
What are you on about?
What are you on about?
-Those were three board memes that i hate, and want to kill in a fire.
What are you on about?
-Those were three board memes that i hate, and want to kill in a fire.
Haha, totally misread your post. It looked like a poorly worded d*ck response to something someone said.
Haha, totally misread your post. It looked like a poorly worded d*ck response to something someone said.
And thats WHY they need to die in a fire, because they usually give that impression.
Marshmellow?
Haha, totally misread your post. It looked like a poorly worded d*ck response to something someone said.And that's WHY they need to die in a fire, because they usually give that impression.
Marshmallow?
I think a "Fixed that for you" can be funny, if not used to do the nearest thing to strawmanning you can call strawmanning and still be mocked.
In other words: If you don't use it in a debate, to make your foe look stupid or to 'correct' him, it's okay in my book.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That every type of game must be run using Pathfinder.
That "roleplaying" is found in bad design.
That 'fun' somehow precludes good design.
Haha, totally misread your post. It looked like a poorly worded d*ck response to something someone said.And that's WHY they need to die in a fire, because they usually give that impression.
Marshmallow?
I think a "Fixed that for you" can be funny, if not used to do the nearest thing to strawmanning you can call strawmanning and still be mocked.
In other words: If you don't use it in a debate, to make your foe look stupid or to 'correct' him, it can be freaking hilarious.
Fixed it for you. ;P
That the "Stormwind Fallacy" is an actual logical fallacy.