Additional Resources that should be rethought

[David_Bross]

Monstrous Mount (Griffon) is essentially a flying tiger that has 3 less strength once you get the advance and no grab ability. A 5th level paladin (cavalier, barbarian with archetypes, etc) shouldn't be able to take a feat and get a better animal companion than the pouncing tiger. Major power creep for all mounted characters, and for another 7th level they now have a flying mount.

Pageant of the Peacock: This one is just terrible, and needs to be removed. A 2nd level spell for all knowledges from bluff or versatile performance (perform).

Double barreled firearms: -4 to attack for doubling your attacks...

I'm sure there are plenty more, but these are fairly egregious and I think need to be addressed.

[Nefreet]

Could you expand on your reasoning, besides simply claiming these options are "just terrible" or "fairly egregious"?

I think that a two feat investment, and 8 skill ranks, is a rather fair price for a Paladin to obtain a flying mount by 7th level. And I'd love to see more Sable Company Marines. Or, really, any.

Also, as someone who has played a Gunslinger to 12th, double barreled firearms may look good on paper, post-13th level, but they're really terrible up until then. Increased chances of misfire, and twice as many opportunities? Yay! I had enough troubles with a single barrel musket. I can't imagine duct taping another barrel to it.

I've never heard of Pageant of the Peacock. Do you mean "terrible" as in "it's a terrible feat/trait/spell" or "it's a terribly overpowered feat/trait/spell"?

[BigNorseWolf]

Pageant of the peacock is a bardic masterpiece, which you can get by giving up a feat or a second level spell (so... a second level spell).

If it were terrible on its own people wouldn't select it. You don't USUALLY hear calls to ban prone shooter.

It turns perform dance into knowledge skills: ALL of them. It makes having knowledge skills a little useless when its around.

[Jeff Merola]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Pageant of the peacock is a bardic masterpiece, which you can get by giving up a feat or a second level spell (so... a second level spell).

If it were terrible on its own people wouldn't select it. You don't USUALLY hear calls to ban prone shooter.

It turns perform dance into knowledge skills: ALL of them. It makes having knowledge skills a little useless when its around.

Slight correction. It turns Bluff into K: All, not Perform: Dance.

[kinevon]

Jeff Merola wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Pageant of the peacock is a bardic masterpiece, which you can get by giving up a feat or a second level spell (so... a second level spell).

If it were terrible on its own people wouldn't select it. You don't USUALLY hear calls to ban prone shooter.

It turns perform dance into knowledge skills: ALL of them. It makes having knowledge skills a little useless when its around.

Slight correction. It turns Bluff into K: All, not Perform: Dance.

I think BNW is presuming the Bardic Versatile Performance ability that let's them use a Performance skill for two other skills, so any one of Act, Comedy, Sing or String can serve as Bluff, which then can be used for Pageant of the Peacock to serve as Knowledge: Any.

And, since Act can be used as one of the prerequisites for Pageant, well..

And Bardic Lore probably still applies to the KNowledge check, along with the Pageant's Bluff bonus...

[David_Bross]

I was told I should post my reasoning.

With Pageant of the peacock, my wizard who has invested 10 ranks into some knowledges (level 10) and 1 rank in others, has a knowledge check that goes between +13 and +22, on all of them, with int being his primary stat. I GMed for a bard today who invested two feats to have a +38 to bluff, diplomacy, and all knowledges, who was level 10.

A Bard, giving up one 2nd level known spell, can now use versatile performance, to get Bluff and Sense motive and all knowledge skills, from perform. Or they can forgo versatile performance and just use ranks in bluff. Either way, with a competence bonus of +5 to that (much easier to get to Bluff than to all knowledges). The bard is now doing substantially better, in all knowledges.

Double barreled firearms, even if they "sound better on paper" are taking a -4 to hit, in return for double the number of attacks you make per round. No other class can do this, and if for no other reason, I think that is a good enough argument for removing them. You can compare to Rapid shot, a feat, that gives you one extra attack, not double, for -2.

Monstrous Mount is probably the most contentious thing I posted. To put it in perspective, a 10th level PC can spend two feats, as an aasimar, to get a 30' fly speed. Instead, a 7th level cavalier, or paladin, or barbarian with the right archetypes, can now get a flying Griffon as a mount, who flys faster, and hits quite hard. I don't think that adding a griffon who is on par with the big cat combat AC, who also flys, is a good thing. This is especially the case when considering the fact these mounts were supposed to serve as such, and instead end up being as potent in combat as the PCs in some cases (the last two games I GMed had this as the case, in 7-11s).

[Acedio]

To expand on the Pageant of the Peacock point, purchasing a Mask of Stony Demeanor yields a problematically strong combination.

[Coraith]

Acedio wrote:

To expand on the Pageant of the Peacock point, purchasing a Mask of Stony Demeanor yields a problematically strong combination.

That mask only assists in lying and so wouldn't combo with pageant.

[andreww]

Steven Huffstutler wrote:

Acedio wrote:

To expand on the Pageant of the Peacock point, purchasing a Mask of Stony Demeanor yields a problematically strong combination.

That mask only assists in lying and so wouldn't combo with pageant.

That is true. However, if you take something like Skill Focus (a versatile performance which gives bluff) you just effectively added 3-6 to every knowledge skill. Add in a performance boosting competence magic item and you add another 5. Paegent of the Peacock is extremely potent and renders anyone heavily invested in knowledge skills fairly irrelevant.

Having said that so does the Lore Oracle ability to add +20 to a knowledge skill check multiple times per day but at least it cant be used to ID monsters easily as it has a short delay.

[David Neilson]

I think it is worth point out the normal bard is good at making knowledge checks. Especially given that they get the ability to take twenty on one of these knowledge checks once per day. Admittedly peacock lets archetypes without bardic knowledge be good at this as well. So really it boils down to how much it bothers you that the bard will be able to make a knowledge roll. Especially when the stock bard is most likely already going to be overkill for most of the knowledge checks you are going to have them make. Really it mostly feels like you are making the bard good at something bards are good at.

Secondly the flying mount is no worse than a druid's companion at seventh level. Especially given the Druid is much more capable of buffing their companion and getting them airwalk. Not to mention the Druid that uses a Roc, or the Ranger, or Mad Dog Barbarian. Not to mention Paladins who can use skystead to make their normal mount take to the air. Also you are getting it at the point where natural attacks start to run into difficulties due to damage reduction. Elementals and the various constructs do show up and will greatly hinder a companions pouncing strategy. I mean what is the complaint that the mounted combatant is not going to be spending gold on potions of fly for their mount, or getting the cleric to tap it with airwalk?
Exotic companions are also something that comes up in various bits of Golarion lore. So players wanting to have a flying mount too is understandable. It would be like if you had several references to teleportation but no such spell in the game. Making exotics fliers available is simply to let you make use a griffon and have it be survivable. Rather than a low CR critter than evaporates under a higher level area effect.

[thistledown]

And to consistently use the double-barreled firearm, you're going to misfire a lot. Be prepared to break your weapon a lot, or have some way to mitigate misfires like Slate Spider, or your gun is useless.

[Nefreet]

David_Bross wrote:

Double barreled firearms, even if they "sound better on paper" are taking a -4 to hit, in return for double the number of attacks you make per round. No other class can do this, and if for no other reason, I think that is a good enough argument for removing them. You can compare to Rapid shot, a feat, that gives you one extra attack, not double, for -2.

You're missing a couple things, and they're rather important. I'm going to assume you haven't played a Gunslinger from levels 1-12, because no player with that experience would make your argument.

In addition to all the regular troubles that Gunslingers have at low levels, double barreled firearms increase your misfire chances by 1, and double the number of occurrences. We're talking about a 30-40% chance that any double shot ends your attack sequence. And depending on GM interpretation you can "wreck" your firearm if you roll two simultaneous misfires, which most likely removes you from combat.

You aren't simply "doubling your number of attacks".

The only ways you can mitigate this are around level 12 or 13. By level 12 I had the Fame and gold to finally purchase a Greater Reliable Musket, which doesn't misfire, but even Greater Reliable Double Barreled Muskets still misfire on a 1. Or you could wait until 13th level, when Gunslingers no longer misfire. But what are you doing until then?

Dual-wielding double barreled pistols really doesn't work, either, for a number of reasons, but all people need to do is imagine it and scream "That's FOUR TIMES your number of attacks, BAN it!!!"

Please, look at the whole picture when you make an argument such as this.

[LazarX]

Nefreet wrote:

Could you expand on your reasoning, besides simply claiming these options are "just terrible" or "fairly egregious"?

I think that a two feat investment, and 8 skill ranks, is a rather fair price for a Paladin to obtain a flying mount by 7th level. And I'd love to see more Sable Company Marines. Or, really, any.

What's new and noteworthy to me under those rules, is that carrying a rider halves the mount's speed.

[Nefreet]

Only for those mounts, though. It's not a general rule.

[Jiggy]

David_Bross wrote:

The bard is now doing substantially better, in all knowledges.

Good; bards are supposed to be able to have the best Knowledges at the table. Working as intended.

David_Bross wrote:

Monstrous Mount is probably the most contentious thing I posted. To put it in perspective, a 10th level PC can spend two feats, as an aasimar, to get a 30' fly speed. Instead, a 7th level cavalier, or paladin, or barbarian with the right archetypes, can now get a flying Griffon as a mount, who flys faster, and hits quite hard.

Which also costs two feats (just like the aasimar you're comparing to), but requires you to be using certain classes/archetypes, while the aasimar can be any class. Additionally, to actually ride the griffin effectively, they're going to have to spend even more feats (and skill ranks).

Okay, so the mounted PC spends more than the aasimar, and gets more in return. Sounds okay to me.

David_Bross wrote:

I don't think that adding a griffon who is on par with the big cat combat AC, who also flys, is a good thing. This is especially the case when considering the fact these mounts were supposed to serve as such, and instead end up being as potent in combat as the PCs in some cases (the last two games I GMed had this as the case, in 7-11s).

So you want an animal companion that costs two feats to be no better than one that comes standard? I don't think that's how things are supposed to work. More investment = more return, generally.

[Lormyr]

Nefreet,

On the contrary, this fine gentleman played a gunslinger in PFS from 1st to 19th level, and he would be the first to tell you that double barrel firearms are ridiculous. Using alchemical cartridges, his double-barreled pistol missfired on a 1-3 if my memory serves.

Did he lose a portion of to a whole round of attacks from time to time until 13th level? Totally. He spent grit to quick clear at least once a session in scenarios, and often 4-10 times in modules and APs. He also stopped firing altogether after one missfire occurred so he never risked explosion.

Did he (and the rest of us) still find it incredibly powerful overall, even at those levels? Yes. Unless his missfire came early in the attack sequence (which did happen from time to time), he usually still managed to put out enough damage to rival our two-handed fighter. When he did not missfire (which also happened very frequently), his dps was staggering.

I personally believe the whole picture has been well examined. You can choose steady, consistent damage. Or you can gamble a little bit for up too double the other damage potential.

Now I will agree that it is less of a glaring issue for those who only play PFS 12 and lower.

[David Neilson]

I found I misfired far more than once per session while playing a gunslinger.

[Lormyr]

Please note that I did say at least once per scenario. Our combats tended to be over very quickly, rarely lasting more than a round past 3rd level. So a typically full scenario for us usually held 3-5 rounds of combat through out (not including surprise situations).

The more rounds of combat you act in, the more missfires you will see. So in that sense YMMV.

[Gwen Smith]

David_Bross wrote:

Monstrous Mount (Griffon) is essentially a flying tiger that has 3 less strength once you get the advance and no grab ability. A 5th level paladin (cavalier, barbarian with archetypes, etc) shouldn't be able to take a feat and get a better animal companion than the pouncing tiger. Major power creep for all mounted characters, and for another 7th level they now have a flying mount.

So a regular tiger with a potion of fly is also overpowered?

And if "flying, pouncing monstrosities" are a problem, then 8 out of 10 eidolons should be banned.

I guess I'm not clear on what specifically the issue is--that pouncing critters shouldn't fly? That flying critters shouldn't pounce? That no critter should ever be more powerful than Battlecat?

[pauljathome]

Pageant of the Peacock is seriously broken.

I love skills. I have characters who invest serious resources in order to know things. And they are completely eclipsed by a bard. That seems very, very unfair to me.

It also makes NO sense in world. You lie so well that reality rearranges itself?

And you make the choice of whether to lose bardic knowledge for an archetype almost irrelevant.

I love bards and have several characters with at least 1 level of bard. I refuse to take Pageant because it is so broken.

[David_Bross]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

David_Bross wrote:

Monstrous Mount (Griffon) is essentially a flying tiger that has 3 less strength once you get the advance and no grab ability. A 5th level paladin (cavalier, barbarian with archetypes, etc) shouldn't be able to take a feat and get a better animal companion than the pouncing tiger. Major power creep for all mounted characters, and for another 7th level they now have a flying mount.

So a regular tiger with a potion of fly is also overpowered?

And if "flying, pouncing monstrosities" are a problem, then 8 out of 10 eidolons should be banned.

I guess I'm not clear on what specifically the issue is--that pouncing critters shouldn't fly? That flying critters shouldn't pounce? That no critter should ever be more powerful than Battlecat?

A regular tiger can't use a potion of fly, and they need a trick to use a scroll of air walk on them. I agree flying pouncing monstrosities are bad, and I'd argue for banning summoners* as well. It isn't exactly a slippery slope, they do obscene amounts of damage and solo scenarios as well, which is exactly the same as the synthesis summoner…

The problem is not that its more powerful, it is simply everything you could possibly want, and it is available to ANY archetype that gives a mount. Now people with mounts have things stronger than animal companions, and can use them as a mount additionally.

*:

I would at least set limits on what evolutions mounts can take. Eidolons are simply more powerful than martials of a comparable level, and you're playing a pocket buffer for the "Eidolon" or actual character. I personally don't think summoners add anything constructive to PFS, and in particular become problematic as play progresses to higher levels.

Personally I don't like ANY option that increases the number of characters you field beyond one. I think the reasons for banning leadership are the exact same reason we shouldn't allow these options, but rather than railing against all of these options, I'm going against the opening of new options to characters who were mechanically sound and had plenty of abilities before these options, and will become vastly more powerful now.

In particular, mounted martial characters built to charge now can fly and do so. And they can give their mounts Dragon Style so their flying pouncing monstrosity can full attack along with their potent spirited charge.

[Mattastrophic]

Speaking of flying-pouncing monstrosities, I can make a few contributions to this list off the top of my head...

-Source severance
-Slumber Hex
-Lessons of Chaldira
-Summoner
-Gunslinger
-Bladed dash
-Alchemical allocution
-Clustered Shots
-The resonant power for the clear spindle ioun stone
-Emergency force sphere

-Matt

[Tamec]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

And if "flying, pouncing monstrosities" are a problem, then 8 out of 10 eidolons should be banned.

lol

As far as this post goes....I now want to get the Pathfinder Companion: Dragonslayers Handbook to take that masterpiece for my bard. Thanks David_Bross

[David_Bross]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Speaking of flying-pouncing monstrosities, I can make a few contributions to this list off the top of my head...

-Source severance
-Slumber Hex
-Lessons of Chaldira
-Summoner
-Gunslinger
-Alchemical allocution

-Matt

I agree with some of these.

Lessons of Chaldira is fine now though, it was nerfed to allowing you a reroll before the failure/success is revealed, which is far less powerful. You could still argue about it and could say it is a lot better than the other trait bonuses giving a flat +1, and if you cared to do so, I wouldn't mind it going the way of other options.

Generally speaking I care more about options that are so powerful they negate other PCs ability to contribute, like the aforementioned knowledge skills vs Peacock, flying pouncing monstrosities for everyone*, and I do agree summoners and gunslingers are a problem.

Alchemical Allocution gives 4th level alchemists a 3rd level spell for a 2nd level extract, I don't think it is that bad either.

Slumber Hex should have a HD limit to bring it in line with sleep, but otherwise I think it is also a fine ability.

[Jiggy]

pauljathome wrote:

I love skills. I have characters who invest serious resources in order to know things. And they are completely eclipsed by a bard. That seems very, very unfair to me.

What if I had bard characters who invested serious resources in order to cast spells well, then got completely eclipsed by a wizard? Would that seem equally unfair?

I guess I just don't understand why having different classes be inherently good at different things is unfair.

[Mattastrophic]

David_Bross wrote:

Lessons of Chaldira is fine now though, it was nerfed to allowing you a reroll before the failure/success is revealed, which is far less powerful.

Okay, that's good news, thanks for that.

Alchemical allocation basically lets an Alch4 get the extract benefits of being an Alch7. And if the Alchemist can find a higher-CL potion on a Chronicle (ex: Ruby Phoenix Tournament), it really gets out of control. Also, there have been some items printed since Allocation which make it really spin out of control even more.

I'll have to think about the Pageant of the Peacock masterpiece. My off-the-top-of-my-head reaction tells me that Bards need a bone considering what's allowed in PFS these days. Either way, Pageant is definitely not the highest-priority option to remove. It would be silly to remove Pageant but keep Slumber Hex, for example.

-Matt

[David_Bross]

Jiggy wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

I love skills. I have characters who invest serious resources in order to know things. And they are completely eclipsed by a bard. That seems very, very unfair to me.

What if I had bard characters who invested serious resources in order to cast spells well, then got completely eclipsed by a wizard? Would that seem equally unfair?

I guess I just don't understand why having different classes be inherently good at different things is unfair.

That isn't the point Jiggy. The point is now a bard with pageant of the peacock who specializes in bluff now completely eclipses all other characters who make knowledge checks, including a bard who uses bardic knowledge to do so.

I posted that my character who has max skill ranks in knowledges, that are a class skill, and a much higher stat modifier, is completely eclipsed by another PC. They don't have to invest much, one second level spell known and they're already better, and if they do invest, they end up being much better, as the example I gave earlier.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

I love skills. I have characters who invest serious resources in order to know things. And they are completely eclipsed by a bard. That seems very, very unfair to me.

What if I had bard characters who invested serious resources in order to cast spells well, then got completely eclipsed by a wizard? Would that seem equally unfair?

I guess I just don't understand why having different classes be inherently good at different things is unfair.

Look at it this way. Bards with bardic knowledge are supposed to be good at knowledge. This lets a bard drop bardic knowledge for essentially no cost.

[Mattastrophic]

By David's logic, we would also have to revisit Aram Zey's focus, a few Oracle revelations (such as Focused Trance from the Lore mystery), and the traits which let someone use Int instead of Cha for Charisma-based checks.

-Matt

[David_Bross]

Mattastrophic wrote:

By David's logic, we would also have to revisit Aram Zey's focus, a few Oracle revelations (such as Focused Trance from the Lore mystery), and the traits which let someone use Int instead of Cha for Charisma-based checks.

-Matt

Not quite sure how we got here. Aram Zey's focus, allows a wizard who has disable device to be half as good as a rogue of that level (note DD keys off of dex now as well, so probably worse). The oracle revelations are a primary class feature that requires you to specialize in knowledges.

I'm not saying the ability to specialize in knowledges is wrong. I'm saying making all knowledges based off of bluff is not a good thing, for a 2nd level spell known. I've explained my reasoning earlier, but felt I should defend against straw man and slippery slope fallacies.

[Mattastrophic]

David_Bross wrote:

I should defend against straw man arguments.

I should clarify that I'm not opposing your position here, David, only pointing out rules elements which are in a similar situation to your position. Such as Aram Zey's focus opening up magical trap-disabling or Focused Trance's +20 to Int-based checks for the cost of a revelation.

-Matt

[WalterGM]

I think that there is an observable level of a power creep with this masterpiece. It's not that all Knowledge skills become Charisma based (like a lore oracle), it's that all Knowledge skills become based off a single skill. For the cost of one skill point per level and a second level spell, you effectively become trained in over a dozen skills. That's downright amazing.

This is the only instance of such a thing that I've heard of, as David has said, it effectively gives the bard 10 more skill ranks to spend in other things, not to mention that it covers Appraise, Linguistics, and Spellcraft as well.

Flavorwise, it is a very cool masterpiece. And it's nice that Bards can be less MAD with this masterpiece. However, it gives back quite a lot more than it's investment cost. So much so that any Bard going forward that invests in Charisma will likely be taking this.

Personally, I think whenever something (a feat, piece of gear, racial option, etc) is a "must have" for a wide spectrum of character builds, we should question it's inclusion in an organized play environment. That's the sort of discussion I want to hear more of.

[Mattastrophic]

Upon further thought, here are some other things to add to this list:

-Blood of Angels's aasimar heritages.
-The Misfortune revelation of Dual-Cursed Oracle.

It is also worth noting that any character can take /Bard1 and pick up Pageant of the Peacock with a feat, just as any character can take /Oracle1 and pick up the Focused Trance revelation and its +20.

-Matt

[Jiggy]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

I love skills. I have characters who invest serious resources in order to know things. And they are completely eclipsed by a bard. That seems very, very unfair to me.

What if I had bard characters who invested serious resources in order to cast spells well, then got completely eclipsed by a wizard? Would that seem equally unfair?

I guess I just don't understand why having different classes be inherently good at different things is unfair.

Look at it this way. Bards with bardic knowledge are supposed to be good at knowledge. This lets a bard drop bardic knowledge for essentially no cost.

Hm, good point.

[MrSin]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It makes having knowledge skills a little useless when its around.

Probably a dangerous question, but why is this a bad thing? Last I checked having a good knowledge check isn't a game breaker and usually does more to add to the game, and the fact its one of the class that's best at knowledge doesn't really hurt either.

I'd like to add full casters to the list though, too much power in being a lesser deity wouldntcha' know it.

[Nefreet]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Personally, I think whenever something (a feat, piece of gear, racial option, etc) is a "must have" for a wide spectrum of character builds, we should question it's inclusion in an organized play environment. That's the sort of discussion I want to hear more of.

I like that topic of discussion.

My first nomination: the faith trait, "Fate's Favored".

Taken by a Half-orc it gives you +2 to all saves.

Spend 5000gp on a Jingasa and you get +2 to AC.

It turns Divine Favor into an amazing 1st level buff.

At high levels it makes a Luckstone worth the 20k.

And thematically it has the perfect catch-all name, unlike some other popular options.

[Gnasher]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Upon further thought, here are some other things to add to this list:

-Blood of Angels's aasimar heritages.

This I completely agree with. Aasimar is already pushing the limits of an overpowered race, with 2 +2 to ability scores, no negatives, darkvision, energy resistance and a spell like ability. To give them more variety basically makes Blood of Angels the old "Complete book of Elves," in that, anything any other race can do, they can do better.

[MrSin]

I'd like to add to the list: Everything. I think relative to everything every thing is broken. Especially everything! There's something about everything me, or someone else, might not like or find undesirable in a public environment when used the right way too. I mean... its everything!

[MrSin]

Gnasher wrote:

Mattastrophic wrote:

Upon further thought, here are some other things to add to this list:

-Blood of Angels's aasimar heritages.
-Blood of Fiends's tiefling heritages.

These two I completely agree with. Aasimar is already pushing the limits of an overpowered race, with 2 +2 to ability scores, no negatives, darkvision, energy resistance and a spell like ability. To give them more variety basically makes Blood of Angels the old "Complete book of Elves," in that, anything any other race can do, they can do better.

The heritages themselves aren't really overpowered compared to the vanilla version, unless the spell is particularly more powerful, but that's being a little picky imo since none go above 3rd level and I think the strongest option might actually be glitterdust. The fact you can change a few scores doesn't make it inherently better, it makes it more customizable to the players needs and wants, which should be a good thing. The fact not everyone has the option might actually be a bad thing.

[Mattastrophic]

The thing about the base Aasimar is that +2 to Wisdom and Charisma... really isn't all that big of a deal if you think about it, to the point where it is perhaps one of the lowest-powered stat combos (+2 to Intelligence and Charisma would be the other) based on 3.x's standards, the same standards which gave 3.5 half-orcs +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha.

The variant heritages take that balancing factor and totally forget about it.

-Matt

[Jiggy]

This thread's starting to feel a little pitchforky.

[BigNorseWolf]

MrSin wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It makes having knowledge skills a little useless when its around.

Probably a dangerous question, but why is this a bad thing?

Because this is a society dedicated to the acquisition and preservation and the occasional dissemination and use of knowledge. Why rumage through dusty tombs, spend years studying in libraries when you can just shake your groove thing and get the answer?

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

This thread's starting to feel a little pitchforky.

Sets up a stand

TORCHES! PITCHFORKS! GET EM WHILE THEY"RE HOT!

[MrSin]

Jiggy wrote:

This thread's starting to feel a little pitchforky.

*hands out the torches* Getcher' torches! Only 50 gold! That's 25 less than your everlasting torch, quiet the bargain for a torch you'll only need once!

Yeah, talking about things you don't like tends to turn into that kind of thing. Great time to make a profit on the side on torch and pitchfork sales though.

Edit: Ninja'd by a competing business....

[Nefreet]

There's no money to be made selling torches when clubs are free.

*sets up a stand selling flint sticks and tindertwigs*

[MrSin]

Capitalism Ho'?

Gotta say, slightly more positive topic than what to ban and why you don't like.

[Nefreet]

Agreed. Or Walter's topic of discussing options that universally benefit a wide variety of character concepts.

[pauljathome]

MrSin wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It makes having knowledge skills a little useless when its around.

Probably a dangerous question, but why is this a bad thing? Last I checked having a good knowledge check isn't a game breaker and usually does more to add to the game, and the fact its one of the class that's best at knowledge doesn't really hurt either.

I'd like to add full casters to the list though, too much power in being a lesser deity wouldntcha' know it.

My problem is NOT in how powerful it is. My problem is the way that it totally eclipses other characters in what are supposed to be their areas of expertise (including other bards). Better at spellcraft and knowledge arcana than wizards is just wrong, for example.

That and the fact that it completely ruins my suspension of disbelief when lies change the universe retroactively.

[Pirate Rob]

Too bad your clubs weigh 3lbs each and will cost a fortune to transport...

My sling shop on the other hand...

[David Neilson]

Well the other side of that is what else is the Wizard using those skill points for? I mean its knowledge skills, or what climb, or UMD? I am just saying that the normal bard is probably already going to be overkill on most knowledge checks. Also last I checked the masterpieces were magic, they do not need to make logical sense. I mean outside of a vague in joke why should licorice be needed for haste?