Magic Traps can be handled via Detect Magic and Dispel Magic.
Standard Traps just need Disable Device.
Trapfinding isn't that big of a need.
Rangers can get Crossbow Feats easily. Crossbowmen are excellent for Ambush or Reactionary Firing as they get DEX to damage on Readied Crossbow Shots. One of the reasons why I am changing it to be more like the Gunslinger.
Slight problem. What if you have a Sorcerer in the party? Dispel Magic isn't gonna be high on the Sorcerer's list to pick up, and the Rogue's Use Magic Device is horrible because of a severe lack of Charisma. That's the current situation in the party I am running now. The Sorcerer is a firebug, the Rogue likes to toss Alchemist's Fire but has a horrible Cha score, and the entire party has class access to Stealth.
I dunno, most of the time Rangers end up using bows, because they have a decent Strength bonus already. Haven't found one yet that refuses a medium Str score.
|
Why shouldn't a sorcerer take Dispel Magic? I'd say it's a good spontaneous spell - the amount you need per day varies wildly, so not having to pick a number to prepare is wonderful.
Also, Dispel Magic is on pretty much every spell list, including the divine casters who therefore have it whether they want it or not.
Trapfinding is a misunderstood ability. It's not meant to be the standard solution for magical traps, it's a last resort for rogues in a caster-less party.
Anybody can 'fire' a crossbow, just add a str. 13 prerequisite to the crossbow reloading feats.
I have a Crossbow Ranger. Who focused on DEX and uses Dervish Dance for Melee. It is actually pretty thematic for her character.
Dispel Magic is wonderful especially if you can get a Wand of Dispel Magic.
Well, most Sorcerers I know of would far rather put their few magic spell slots into more utilitarian combat spells, like Fly, Fireball, etc. Dispel Magic and the like tend to fall by the waysides, which is why I prefer having a Wizard in the party over a Sorcerer. You don't have that kind of restriction with Wizards.
Most Sorcerers need to be augmented with staves or wands to be a full replacement for a party Wizard, and I haven't found a class yet that does it better than a Wizard for their particular role. That's why I tend to look at the APG a mite askance, because those alternate classes don't seem to cut the mustard compared to the standard classes.
Like I wrote before, it's kinda rare to see a Ranger with a crossbow. Most have high Dex and Str scores, with crappy Con and at best medium armor. That makes for a standard bowyer.
I have seen a few Dwarven Crossbows Ranger with lower Strength and Higher DEX and CON.
Some other Crossbow builds were in the Advice Thread asking about how to do somethings in PFS. They couldn't get many replies that helped for a while do to people say build like what you said.
And a Sorcerer actually makes a better God Wizard than a Wizard if they are built right. Heck, a well build Sorcerer can be a Blaster and a Controller Mage while a Wizard has a Harder time doing both.
And if you have the Bonus Spells Favoured Class Bonus then you can easily get Dispel Magic which is an excellent spell for your party to deal with Mages.
I think this is the best example of how threads get derailed that I've seen in a while. I think I've counted 5 or so topics, and evena little rogue tangent too. Impressive.
There are no rules for this.
Crossbows were designed for the average human to be able to reload and fire them so I should no issue with 8-9 STR reloading them.
|
Crossbows were designed for the average human to be able to reload and fire them so I should no issue with 8-9 STR reloading them.
The average human strength is 10. I agree that a 9 strength character should be capable to reload a crossbow without undue problems but after that you should need some strength multiplier device.
All 3 of you are wrong. Average human Strength in Pathfinder is 11, or 10.5.
Actually, the only thing I've seen a Sorcerer do well is blast things with spells; they don't have much flexibility at all. For the same PC, you could instead have a nice bowyer (to do the same thing) or a utilitarian Wizard any day of the week. Plus, Wizards tend to be far more knowledgeable than Sorcerers any day of the week, simply because of their higher Intelligence. Why do you think Sorcerers got so much pumping in Pathfinder compared to 3.5? Wizards simply had them beat. Only thing I thought of them as being useful for is schmoozing with their high Charisma, that and blasting things.
Just because that is all you seen doesn't mean it isn't possible for a Character outside of that.
& Sorcerers are able to cast multiple Control Spells without needing to Plan ahead unlike a Wizard. They can also go through more Encounters than the Wizard for cheaper*.
*No need for Pearls of Power.*
|
I think this is the best example of how threads get derailed that I've seen in a while. I think I've counted 5 or so topics, and evena little rogue tangent too. Impressive.
There are no rules for this.
Sure there are. This thread has the Multiple Tangent alternate racial trait and has acquired the Derailed template.
|
|
All 3 of you are wrong. Average human Strength in Pathfinder is 11, or 10.5.
Actually, everyone is wrong. The "average" scores given only apply to PCs, not average humans. I think it's safe to assume no PC is "average." We don't really have any guidelines for what an average, non PC might have. The best we have is the Str for an average sailor, or average barkeep or average farmer, etc.
All 3 of you are wrong. Average human Strength in Pathfinder is 11, or 10.5.Actually, everyone is wrong. The "average" scores given only apply to PCs, not average humans. I think it's safe to assume no PC is "average." We don't really have any guidelines for what an average, non PC might have. The best we have is the Str for an average sailor, or average barkeep or average farmer, etc.
Nope, 3d6 averaged out is 10.5, which means humans have an avg Strength of 10.5. Math is your friend.
PS I have no idea what "control spells" are. And that bit about Sorcerers being able to handle more encounters than Wizards is untrue. Most Wizards have this new power, involving a fairly decent damage dealing ability, like a ranged touch d6 of energy damage. Or a magic missile. Again, most spells that one would be okay with having lots of (and nothing else) are combat spells, like Burning Hands etc. You don't really see most spells like Cat's Grace in Sorcerers repertoire often.
S'okay, there's always a place for ranged artillery. I'd just rather have a Wizard along, personally. I myself as a elf Wizard have done a frightening amount of damage with Sleep, Grease, Color Spray, and a simple dagger, snickering all the while.
|
|
All 3 of you are wrong. Average human Strength in Pathfinder is 11, or 10.5.Actually, everyone is wrong. The "average" scores given only apply to PCs, not average humans. I think it's safe to assume no PC is "average." We don't really have any guidelines for what an average, non PC might have. The best we have is the Str for an average sailor, or average barkeep or average farmer, etc.
We have this from the Bestiary: "Ability Scores: The creature's ability scores are listed here. Unless otherwise indicated, a creature's ability scores represent the baseline of its racial modifiers applied to scores of 10 or 11."
|
|
Nope, 3d6 averaged out is 10.5, which means humans have an avg Strength of 10.5. Math is your friend.All 3 of you are wrong. Average human Strength in Pathfinder is 11, or 10.5.Actually, everyone is wrong. The "average" scores given only apply to PCs, not average humans. I think it's safe to assume no PC is "average." We don't really have any guidelines for what an average, non PC might have. The best we have is the Str for an average sailor, or average barkeep or average farmer, etc.
I'll believe that 10.5 is the average of 3d6, but I don't believe that "3d6" is the point from which we measure ability scores. If anything, "3d6" still applies to PCs and PCs are not average.
|
|
We have this from the Bestiary: "Ability Scores: The creature's ability scores are listed here. Unless otherwise indicated, a creature's ability scores represent the baseline of its racial modifiers applied to scores of 10 or 11."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but humans are not in the Bestiary.
I submit humans do not have an average Strength.
I'll believe that 10.5 is the average of 3d6, but I don't believe that "3d6" is the point from which we measure ability scores. If anything, "3d6" still applies to PCs and PCs are not average.
Nope, officially 4d6 take the top 3 dice results is the PC method of rolling stats, not straight up 3d6. It's right there in the main book. Therefore, 10.5 stands as the average score.
|
|
I think 10-11 is the baseline because it gives a +0 modifier; not better or worse than "normal". Also, it's of course just a traditional thing inherited from previous editions where 3d6 got you an average of 10.5
That said, a friend of mine once made an interesting argument that every +1/-1 represents roughly one standard deviation away from the +0 point; in other words 70% of the population has a modifier no lower than -2 and no higher than +2. Before applying racial modifiers, of course. I think if you compare the probabilities of 3d6 generation to a bell curve, that matches fairly nicely.
So that means a -2 is about the worst you can have and still be more or less normal; and higher than +2 are the truly exceptionally gifted people.
After checking out human physiology for years, I honestly think the +2 to stats during human character creation really should go to Constitution. For example, most humans can walk darn near improbable distances, never stopping. That was actually one of our primary hunting methods, once upon a time. We'd wound a beast, then track the thing endlessly until it dropped.
Most species don't have that capacity. Either that, or have the +2 go into Intelligence. In the animal kingdom, our brains are a wild extravagance, right up there with peacock tails and other exaggerations. Wouldn't it be interesting if we found that upon contact with alien life, WE were the smart ones?
Sorry, just some random musings. Don't let this post derail things too much, hey?
I think 10-11 is the baseline because it gives a +0 modifier; not better or worse than "normal". Also, it's of course just a traditional thing inherited from previous editions where 3d6 got you an average of 10.5
That said, a friend of mine once made an interesting argument that every +1/-1 represents roughly one standard deviation away from the +0 point; in other words 70% of the population has a modifier no lower than -2 and no higher than +2. Before applying racial modifiers, of course. I think if you compare the probabilities of 3d6 generation to a bell curve, that matches fairly nicely.
So that means a -2 is about the worst you can have and still be more or less normal; and higher than +2 are the truly exceptionally gifted people.
oh, and at around IQ 70, you have difficulty forming words. Therefore, Int can't be lower than 8 (assuming 10=100IQ, and every attribute point equals 10 on the IQ scale) if you want to have a conversation in game.
|
|
oh, and at around IQ 70, you have difficulty forming words. Therefore, Int can't be lower than 8 (assuming 10=100IQ, and every attribute point equals 10 on the IQ scale) if you want to have a conversation in game.
Given that Int can drop all the way down to 3 and still allow a character to speak and understand a language, and even be literate in it, I don't think Int = IQ or that there's even a correlation. Of course, this has never stopped anyone from role-playing otherwise. :)
As I recall, those numbers I cited were based on real world attributes. 3 Int was perilously close to animal level intelligence. Yeah, the core book says you can still speak with an Int that low, but I always looked askance at that guideline, being into psychology as I am.
The only time I have ever seen a PC with a super low Int score was the time I translated El Ravager of KoDT fame from Hackmaster to Pathfinder stats. Worked out pretty well, except that I had problems figuring out how many skill points he had per level; turns out 3 is the absolute minimum no matter how low Int gets for a human Fighter (with Fighter as favored class). El Ravager had a 5 Int, dumber than a bag of hammers. I was still tempted to take away more skill points, based on massive stupidity of both player and character, but didn't.
In my games, any PC with an Int lower than 8 has to talk like Cookie Monster whenever they open their mouths. Ensures a lot of comedy, lemme tell you!
LazarX, try suggesting to them taking a MW backpack from the APG, and getting a pack horse with a wagon to haul their gear. Or just give it to the Fighter (warrior), they always have lots of empty weight limit left...
Control Spells: Black Tentacles, Wall of X, and Grease.
Originally, 3d6 rolled for each stat was the PC creation method.
BTW: You might need to look at Canines & Felines. Especially Wolves. Most of the ones I have dealt with are more intelligent than your Average Modern Human.
Heck, I would say a Wolf would easily have an IQ of 80 if it could take the test. Or even gave a crap about the test.
Actually, a lot of animals HAVE been tested intellectually, and are not as bright as one would think. Part of the field I am into for a career investigates that sort of thing. For example, housecats are incredibly stupid, in fact. Humans keep attributing them with greater smarts than what they possess. Gorillas have horrible overall Intelligence, but they are in fact better than humans at a few tasks.
I personally don't have any problems with say, a Wizard or Sorcerer with a Str of 5. Most are bright enough to grab Great Fortitude and the like to help with defenses, so having a stat that low doesn't matter save for weight limits. That gets fixed by the party ponying up for a bag of holding or a portable hole, and having the warrior types carry said holding space item.
What I don't like is when I, as GM, tell someone it'd be smart to take certain protective feats, they blow me off, and later on have the nerve to complain when they get smoked for failing a save etc. Idiots.
I have seen Zweihander wielding Warriors get around 5-6 swings in 6 seconds. That is also with them running up to the Target.
So you can chock it up to them moving up and Standard Attacking then standing to Full-Attack.
so yea im not reading ALL the responses to this but since they went to 2 pages i guess there was more than enough arguing...
to those that believe a character that has a penalty to str should take a penalty when using a crossbow....GO FIRE ONE!!! there is more than likely a place nearby that sells arms and ammunition and most of those carry crossbows...even old medieval crossbows were made with levers or cranks that required almost no major strength to use...all u have to do is pull it back...seriously i took my cousin to a Ren festival last year and let him shoot one. If he was a character I would put him at 7 for strength max (and based on his horrible aim prolly 7 for dex too lol)
So if you are arguing the in RL it takes str to shoot or reload a crossbow then at least go test that "theory" yourself...if you are arguing that in game it should then maybe use a different system or houserule it...dont argue over it when its already in the rules...this is a forum for rule questions...if u want to change a rule then there is no question YOU ARE THE GM, THE ARBITER OF WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE IN YOUR WORLD :) enjoy it and bask in the power or follow the rules to the letter, just make sure your group has fun XD
I find slings are easier to use than a Crossbow... Same with Shuriken...
|
|
In my games, any PC with an Int lower than 8 has to talk like Cookie Monster whenever they open their mouths. Ensures a lot of comedy, lemme tell you!
Do you also require PCs with an Int higher than 15 to talk with the condescending nasal voice of an insufferable know-it-all?
I don't think Int has anything to do with with RL "intelligence." It's just a stat.
I have an Int 18 wizard who talks like Cookie Monster whenever he opens his mouth. Also ensures a lot of comedy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose those 18 or higher Charisma must be social butterflies, and are at constant threat of being raped.
In fact, any high or low score should be punished on a constant basis, because the true roleplayers are all 10 to 14 in every score.
Seriously, f*ck the "unique" PC.
In my games, any PC with an Int lower than 8 has to talk like Cookie Monster whenever they open their mouths. Ensures a lot of comedy, lemme tell you!Do you also require PCs with an Int higher than 15 to talk with the condescending nasal voice of an insufferable know-it-all?
I don't think Int has anything to do with with RL "intelligence." It's just a stat.
I have an Int 18 wizard who talks like Cookie Monster whenever he opens his mouth. Also ensures a lot of comedy.
Nope.
I find your statement hostile. That's unnecessary. Simply because I disagree, or that I do things differently, doesn't mean this has to get personal.
|
|
Nope.
I find your statement hostile. That's unnecessary. Simply because I disagree, or that I do things differently, doesn't mean this has to get personal.
You used one stereotype while I used another. My intention was to contrast, nothing more. My apologies if you received it otherwise.
If all is well, my point stands. All I'm saying is you should not enforce a style of RP on a player simply because an ability score is below an arbitrary threshold.
To return to the intended topic of this thread, this extends to enforcing any limitations (that aren't actual rules) on a character simply because an ability score is below an arbitrary threshold.
