2 months in... PFS - The good, the bad, the ugly...

[TriOmegaZero]

I may be offering some tables at oddball hours during my night shift schedule here soon.

[Daniel_Clark]

HWalsh wrote:

So... I enjoy PFS it has been really helpful to me...

That having been said, nothing is perfect...

The Good:
Thanks to online play I get to play a lot more, the wheelchair makes it hard to get around so I rely on online play most of the time. The discord server is great.

The Bad:
This may come down to area variation, but there have been players I don't want to play with ever again. On the discord, it is really simple, I keep a list of names and if they are in for the same game I am looking at, I don't sign up. Be it because they are rude (has happened) or simply because their playstyle and mine doesn't mesh well. In real life, this is harder to manage, and I gather I will just have to grin and bear it.

The Ugly:
Some of the PFS rules are... Silly. This comes down to certain items being made legal, but then the standard house rules of PFS make the item borderline useless. This one I ran into today, and while there is a cheaper alternative to get the same mechanical bonus... It begs the question of why make something legal if you, at the same time, make it impossible to use.

The bottom flaw can be remedied but it would take extra work on PFS's end for some kind of blanket errata on the item cost. (Something like, divide the cost by 10, or give such items a number of uses like we do with wands.)

Just wondering for myself, do you have a link to the discord server? I would love to do some online play.

[Jesse Heinig]

This is a fascinating read, especially because our experiences were so different. I think that the online play format has also created some different expectations, which may alter how collaborative play functions.

In my time in PFS back in season 0 & 1, I played with several friends and we built a themed group so that we could play as a family of adventurers. We frequently got flak from players who derided our role-playing or even became upset and angry that "you're taking away from the time slot, I'm just here to get my rewards." We had people derisively tell us that because our builds were not peak optimized, they wouldn't let us play at their tables because "I don't want my character to have to carry yours and risk failing the adventure."

My experience was that the local PFS players were about... 35% fun and engaging people who played interesting characters and were happy to game with anyone with a cheerful attitude, about 35% indifferent folks who were just there to play the game and either lacked the motivation or the social skills to play a character or bring any life to the table; and about 30% players who were so socially dysfunctional that they clearly played PFS because they couldn't get into a home group.

The last time I happened by a PFS group was at a convention two years ago when I passed by the PFS organized play room. I peeked in to try to find out which room it was (they weren't well labeled) and someone asked if I was there to play Pathfinder. I said no, I was looking for the D&D 5e room, and the individual literally swore at me and told me to get out.

I guess this could be considered "table variation"?

[HWalsh]

Jesse Heinig wrote:

This is a fascinating read, especially because our experiences were so different. I think that the online play format has also created some different expectations, which may alter how collaborative play functions.

In my time in PFS back in season 0 & 1, I played with several friends and we built a themed group so that we could play as a family of adventurers. We frequently got flak from players who derided our role-playing or even became upset and angry that "you're taking away from the time slot, I'm just here to get my rewards." We had people derisively tell us that because our builds were not peak optimized, they wouldn't let us play at their tables because "I don't want my character to have to carry yours and risk failing the adventure."

My experience was that the local PFS players were about... 35% fun and engaging people who played interesting characters and were happy to game with anyone with a cheerful attitude, about 35% indifferent folks who were just there to play the game and either lacked the motivation or the social skills to play a character or bring any life to the table; and about 30% players who were so socially dysfunctional that they clearly played PFS because they couldn't get into a home group.

The last time I happened by a PFS group was at a convention two years ago when I passed by the PFS organized play room. I peeked in to try to find out which room it was (they weren't well labeled) and someone asked if I was there to play Pathfinder. I said no, I was looking for the D&D 5e room, and the individual literally swore at me and told me to get out.

I guess this could be considered "table variation"?

I'm sorry you had those kinds of experiences. Most of the people I have met through PFS have been incredibly open and friendly. I love a good RP heavy group and theme characters.

That having been said - Nothing beats a stable home game.

I do admit there is a reduction in RP within PFS. I've seen a GM say, "We can skip all this, it's just Roleplay." I've been told, "Nah, you don't need to say anything, just roll the dice."

Though that isn't a constant.

As to the idea of having to.optimize...

I have mixed feelings on that...

Do you have to optimize? No, but you do need a certain level of system mastery.

Allow me to explain...

In the low tier a you don't need to optimize anything. At all. Period. You can cakewalk through everything.

The game is built that way because 1-3 could have fresh faces, with no healing, etc.

In my experience, this drastically changes in higher tier.

I have done 2 higher tier sessions. A high tier 1-5 and a high tier 3-7. The latter I was level 4.

The sharp difficulty spike did indeed push my character.

The 1-5 not so much. I ended with 3 LoH's and had used Hero's Defiance. I had a lot of fun though and fights took multiple rounds.

The 3-7? That pushed me to my absolute limits and the level 5 with us was nearly killed outright. He came within 1 roll of total death, while I blew all my LoH's, my Hero's Defiance, burned my remaining boon wand charges, and this was also while our cleric had been using multiple Channels to heal us.

We had 3 7's, a 5, and a 4.

None of us were poorly built. I'd say we had a decent degree of system mastery.

Fair note:
It is virtually impossible to screw up a build like mine. You have to try, I went with as simple and straightforward as possible.

In combat, however, we moved like professionals. Covering each other to neutralize flanks. Using delays so that one character could provide multiple flanks...

-----

"I'll delay until after the rogue because I'm providing flank..."

The rogue attacks, flank triggers, sneak attack goes off.

"Ok, I'm going to attack that one (the one the rogue attacked) then five-foot-step to here to provide flank attack for the Swashbuckler, who goes next..."

-----

And that level of system mastery was required for us to succeed. We would've had multiple deaths without it.

This also was with us tactically using consumables like antitoxin and such to resist poison effects.

I had a ton of fun.

So it's hard to gauge why people had that reaction to you. I'm not running a hyper optimized build, I'm a Human Pally with:

18/10/12/10/8/19

At level 4... (I have a 19 Cha due to level 4, and +2 headband)

I use a Longsword in 2 hands even though I know optimally a Bastard Sword or Greatsword is a better weapon for damage. I do it because he's a Paladin of Iomedae.

I do have Fey Foundling, which I know is a cliche at this point, but I've flavored his fey-influence in his RP.

I don't consider him min-maxed though.

So, I mean, a moderate level of system mastery is needed at high tier's, but anyone who makes it to high tier should possess that already.

You may just have run into a group of unfriendly players. It does happen.

[Kerney]

Jesse Heinig wrote:

This is a fascinating read, especially because our experiences were so different. I think that the online play format has also created some different expectations, which may alter how collaborative play functions.

In my time in PFS back in season 0 & 1, I played with several friends and we built a themed group so that we could play as a family of adventurers. We frequently got flak from players who derided our role-playing or even became upset and angry that "you're taking away from the time slot, I'm just here to get my rewards." We had people derisively tell us that because our builds were not peak optimized, they wouldn't let us play at their tables because "I don't want my character to have to carry yours and risk failing the adventure."

My experience was that the local PFS players were about... 35% fun and engaging people who played interesting characters and were happy to game with anyone with a cheerful attitude, about 35% indifferent folks who were just there to play the game and either lacked the motivation or the social skills to play a character or bring any life to the table; and about 30% players who were so socially dysfunctional that they clearly played PFS because they couldn't get into a home group.

The last time I happened by a PFS group was at a convention two years ago when I passed by the PFS organized play room. I peeked in to try to find out which room it was (they weren't well labeled) and someone asked if I was there to play Pathfinder. I said no, I was looking for the D&D 5e room, and the individual literally swore at me and told me to get out.

I guess this could be considered "table variation"?

For awhile I had a job where I was on the road a lot and I found that community variation was a big thing. I played with supportive and friendly people in most places, but sometimes I did sit at a table where it was not so welcoming, snide or whatever. I had a 5e player who I was asking for directions give me the exact same treatment you describe.

I remember one game session years ago where two players were planning on killing off an absent player's character in the next session when one would be GMing because he was playing an f---ing Summoner. I winced because my favorite character was a Summoner. I then went to the local pfs website. I was in the city for another 2 months but I never went back.

Hearing Henry's version (and living in his community) rings true. Unfortunately so does your experience.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

One of the local org groups has been complete... pieces of work to the PFS group at the local convention venue. The 5e group, on the other hand, gets the 'golden child' treatment.

Every event they run, they give primary focus to 5e, and don't let the organizers for PFS know deadlines until sometimes well after they've passed.

In addition, the 5e players and GMs also do passive-aggressive things like come over and disrupt tables while we're trying to run, and drop 5e stickers on the Pathfinder tables, and try to give us swag from the AG instead of Boons (because of the missed deadlines, the conventions sometimes don't qualify for Paizo support).

So I could easily see a salty PFS player/GM/organizer in a similar situation after a weekend of this sort of treatment react poorly.

It's not acceptable, it's not professional, but I can see it happening.

[Qstor]

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

I have found that PbP is the only way that I get to play PFS. There is a group here where I live but the group is very insular. The same people are the only ones that sign up for stuff and not room for new people.

That sucks. As a VC I always try to make new people feel welcome.

[Tallow]

Mike McKeown wrote:

That sucks. As a VC I always try to make new people feel welcome.

Same. And I think at a couple conventions I was the lead at, we had people walk in and ask where the AL 5E stuff was, and I directed them to where it was (walked up two flights of stairs with them and showed them where it was physically). Invited them to come try out Pathfinder Society and wished them fun.

There really is no need for edition wars.

[Cyrad]

HWalsh wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

The biggest problem I had with online play is that no one runs regular games and it's rare to find a 1-5 tier game.

I have a friend who's new to PFS and it's impossible for us to find a game because there's a huge reliance on pick-up games and almost everything that becomes available is a 3-7 or 7-11.

There is an awesome Discord for PFS that runs 1-5 games *constantly*

I am not level 5 yet.

I have played 8 different adventures, all 1-5

In 2 months give or take.

There is a 1-5 going on at least once every other day, some days I even did 2 in a row...

PFS Discord Link!

That's the discord I used to check for games. I've been looking at them for the past month and a half. Most of the games are 3-7s and evergreens are uncommon.

[Ferious Thune]

The evergreens tend to happen more as PUGs. I’ve definitely seen several 1-5s running in the past couple of weeks. The entire Quest for Perfection series, Birthright Betrayed, and I think Unseen Inclusion. Seats do go quick, though, and it can be tough to find something you haven’t already played.

There are definitely fewer games being scheduled far in advance than there were a few years ago. Many more pickup games. Tarracon is good about scheduling things several weeks in advance, so I’d advise getting on their Warhorn. They’re UK based, so I’m not sure how that matches up with your time zone. I’m fortunate to have a lot of afternoons available, which matches up to their night games.

I have success sometimes just going on Warhorn and searching for “online.”

Also don’t forget TPKon is coming up at the end of the month. Registrations are open, and games will likely be added during the convention.

[Sir Belmont the Valiant]

Jesse Heinig wrote:

...We had people derisively tell us that because our builds were not peak optimized, they wouldn't let us play at their tables because "I don't want my character to have to carry yours and risk failing the adventure."

I have heard about this happening, but never seen it. I only play at local cons (western suburbs of Chicago) and we tend to get the same 50-100 people with friendly organizers. You have my sympathy.

Quote:

The last time I happened by a PFS group was at a convention two years ago when I passed by the PFS organized play room. I peeked in to try to find out which room it was (they weren't well labeled) and someone asked if I was there to play Pathfinder. I said no, I was looking for the D&D 5e room, and the individual literally swore at me and told me to get out.

I guess this could be considered "table variation"?

This I have never seen _or_ heard of. I save my edition wars for D&D 4th ed. It killed my long-term RPG group. And by long-term, I mean the same guys sat at the table (mostly) for 20+ years.

[Incendiaeternus]

Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:

Jesse Heinig wrote:

...We had people derisively tell us that because our builds were not peak optimized, they wouldn't let us play at their tables because "I don't want my character to have to carry yours and risk failing the adventure."

I have heard about this happening, but never seen it. I only play at local cons (western suburbs of Chicago) and we tend to get the same 50-100 people with friendly organizers. You have my sympathy.

I've seen this at times, as well as people not liking 'role-playing' people because were taking too much time. I used to live in-between major cities and took the effort to drive in an hour to play, the second time I did, listened to someone else at the table get an 'your not an optimized build' speech from two members of the table and one was the GM and never went back.

I've moved since then but still places that I have mentally checked as 'role-play friendly' and 'hack and slash' groups that determines if I'm going to consider playing or running there.

Online I see RP a little more clipped than in person because of the start-stop nature of posting but only ran into two or three players that I would put in the hack'n'slash category.

Having been through something abet only temporary as the OP has, if you ever want someone to run a game drop me a line and I'll be glad to put something up.

[MadScientistWorking]

Tallow wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

But the reason behind all these legacy issues is because the did not approach the rule book from a technical writing standpoint.

Spellcasting is overpowered because no one bothered to swap out the old balancing mechanics for new ones along with a lack of play testing. Feats need to be rewritten because as a D&D designer put it best there are too many mechanics that feats work with for them to be used in a fun way. The math is nonexistent and inelegant making mechanics like AC and combat maneuvers useless after a certain point. Monster creation is a disaster to the point where my eyes have gone cross at PFS scenarios.

EDIT:
Combat favors ranged attacking simply because how full attacking works.

Hmm... none of these issues are issues based on my experience of the game. They are only really issues in PFS, where GMs are restricted to running as written instead of using common sense to make things work as intended.

EDIT: And I've seen combat maneuvers work quite well (both characters and monsters) all the way up to 19th level.

No from reading this board in general most people's solutions is to throw the game into the most broken state possible (ie. Core). PFS is weirdly balanced in that regard and most of the issues I provided can't really be fixed with common sense.

[Tallow]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

But the reason behind all these legacy issues is because the did not approach the rule book from a technical writing standpoint.

Spellcasting is overpowered because no one bothered to swap out the old balancing mechanics for new ones along with a lack of play testing. Feats need to be rewritten because as a D&D designer put it best there are too many mechanics that feats work with for them to be used in a fun way. The math is nonexistent and inelegant making mechanics like AC and combat maneuvers useless after a certain point. Monster creation is a disaster to the point where my eyes have gone cross at PFS scenarios.

EDIT:
Combat favors ranged attacking simply because how full attacking works.

Hmm... none of these issues are issues based on my experience of the game. They are only really issues in PFS, where GMs are restricted to running as written instead of using common sense to make things work as intended.

EDIT: And I've seen combat maneuvers work quite well (both characters and monsters) all the way up to 19th level.

No from reading this board in general most people's solutions is to throw the game into the most broken state possible (ie. Core). PFS is weirdly balanced in that regard and most of the issues I provided can't really be fixed with common sense.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on what's broken and why. Because I'm pretty sure that this game can be fixed without making a whole new game. Especially since some of the things you claim are broken, I don't feel are broken.

[Stunt_Monkey]

Cyrad wrote:

That's the discord I used to check for games. I've been looking at them for the past month and a half. Most of the games are 3-7s and evergreens are uncommon.

Hey Cyrad, if it's any help there are currently 4 or 5 scenarios that are for levels 1-5 listed for signup in the game links channel already this week as well as a Phantom Phenomena which is a fantastic evergreen for newer players to get started with (and just an all round great scenario in my opinion).

I'm guessing your times might not match terribly well with some of the GMs since I've seen at least two 1-5s going off pretty much every day in the pick up game channel, so I'd suggest that sending some messages to those GMs or simply asking in the channel in general if someone is willing to organise a game at a time that works for you, people tend to be very willing to do so if they can!

Best of luck getting some more games in.

[MrBear]

Guys, maybe take the edition wars nonsense elsewhere? It's as bad as talking politics, and doesn't really belong in this particular forum.

[Kalindlara]

My understanding is that it's also against forum rules, and has been for far, far longer than the ban on political topics.

[MadScientistWorking]

Tallow wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

But the reason behind all these legacy issues is because the did not approach the rule book from a technical writing standpoint.

Spellcasting is overpowered because no one bothered to swap out the old balancing mechanics for new ones along with a lack of play testing. Feats need to be rewritten because as a D&D designer put it best there are too many mechanics that feats work with for them to be used in a fun way. The math is nonexistent and inelegant making mechanics like AC and combat maneuvers useless after a certain point. Monster creation is a disaster to the point where my eyes have gone cross at PFS scenarios.

EDIT:
Combat favors ranged attacking simply because how full attacking works.

Hmm... none of these issues are issues based on my experience of the game. They are only really issues in PFS, where GMs are restricted to running as written instead of using common sense to make things work as intended.

EDIT: And I've seen combat maneuvers work quite well (both characters and monsters) all the way up to 19th level.

No from reading this board in general most people's solutions is to throw the game into the most broken state possible (ie. Core). PFS is weirdly balanced in that regard and most of the issues I provided can't really be fixed with common sense.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on what's broken and why. Because I'm pretty sure that this game can be fixed without making a whole new game. Especially since some of the things you claim are broken, I don't feel are broken.

That's because my criteria for combat manuvuers being viable is that you have to be able to take additional traits multiple times without your build suffering. That and I find it hard to believe that you haven't run a scenario where combat manuvuers are borderline useless. Season 9 has a great monster that basically nopes most of them outside of dirty fighting and one specific grappling build that trumps magic.

[Tallow]

There are always going to be creatures that are immune to one or all combat maneuvers, either due to high CMD, anatomy, or creature traits. Some creatures are also highly resistant or immune to magic or one or more elements.

But if you build a character to at least be decent at combat maneuvers, they can be just as useful throughout your career as fireball or hold person/monster. I have one myself that was successfully tripping rune giants and disarming swords at level 18. But I couldn't trip the naga due to anatomy. That doesn't mean trip is useless overall. Just useless against that 9ne creature.

[HWalsh]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

But the reason behind all these legacy issues is because the did not approach the rule book from a technical writing standpoint.

Spellcasting is overpowered because no one bothered to swap out the old balancing mechanics for new ones along with a lack of play testing. Feats need to be rewritten because as a D&D designer put it best there are too many mechanics that feats work with for them to be used in a fun way. The math is nonexistent and inelegant making mechanics like AC and combat maneuvers useless after a certain point. Monster creation is a disaster to the point where my eyes have gone cross at PFS scenarios.

EDIT:
Combat favors ranged attacking simply because how full attacking works.

Hmm... none of these issues are issues based on my experience of the game. They are only really issues in PFS, where GMs are restricted to running as written instead of using common sense to make things work as intended.

EDIT: And I've seen combat maneuvers work quite well (both characters and monsters) all the way up to 19th level.

No from reading this board in general most people's solutions is to throw the game into the most broken state possible (ie. Core). PFS is weirdly balanced in that regard and most of the issues I provided can't really be fixed with common sense.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on what's broken and why. Because I'm pretty sure that this game can be fixed without making a whole new game. Especially since some of the things you claim are broken, I don't feel are broken.

That's because my criteria for combat manuvuers being viable is that you have to be able to take additional traits multiple times without your build suffering. That and I find it hard to believe that you haven't run a scenario where combat manuvuers are borderline useless. Season 9 has a great monster that basically nopes most of them outside...

I don't think you need multiple traits to make combat maneuvers viable, but I also don't think they should be your primary combat method either.

I mean a level 10 PC can, without anything special, can have a +16 CMB, pretty easily. If they go the extra mile to get improved (insert here) they can pull that off on most equal CR opponents greater than 50% of the time.

The chances just go up if they use magical weapons to do the maneuver, or are getting attack bonuses, or whatever.

I mean sure, you can't trip flying enemies, and you're not likely to grapple gargantuan foes, combat maneuvers are, as a certain blue muppet once said, a sometimes food.

[Tallow]

For example:

My Rage Prophet is pretty nifty with Disarm and Trip.

He uses a Dueling Furious Heavy Flail. Dueling adds double the enhancement bonus (it does not replace the enhancement bonus, so you are essentially adding 3 times the enhancement bonus) to trip and disarm. When raging, his enhancement bonus increases by 2. The flail itself adds 2 to both trip and disarm.

So with a fairly low number of resources, he is pretty good at trip and disarm.

He won't blow away most two-handed fighters or full classed raging barbarians focused on damage, but he does moderate to good damage and holds his own in most battles.

He isn't a master caster, but he uses most of his spells to buff or heal.

He isn't the best at diplomacy (he won't out face a Bard), but he's not just competent, he's really, really good at it.

So he is capably versatile and can still use combat maneuvers very effectively at higher levels.

EDIT: Zero traits taken focused on combat maneuvers.

[Ascalaphus]

If you make a wizard that tries to solve every combat with the same spell people will look at you like you're mad. Why should the same maneuver (or maneuvers at all) be the right solution for every combat?

[Bruno Breakbone]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Why should the same maneuver (or maneuvers at all) be the right solution for every combat?

Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, grapple memory and quote self:

Bruno, Handsome and Beautiful Tetori wrote:

Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, vote Tetori as Tetori have very versatile skill set:

Acrobatics: Bruno grapple ground

Appraise: Bruno grapple gem

Bluff: (See Perform skill)

Climb: Bruno grapple wall

Diplomacy: Bruno grapple words

Disable Device: Bruno grapple trap

Disguise: Bruno grapple own handsome and beautiful Tetori face and make it look like stupid and ugly not-Tetori face

Escape Artist: BRUNO NEVER NEED TO ESCAPE WHAT A DUM DUM SKILL FOR WEAK BABYMUSCLE NOT-TETORI DUM DUMS HAHAHAHA

Fly: Bruno grapple air

Handle Animal: Bruno grapple animal

Heal: Bruno grapple wound until boo boo better

Intimidate: Bruno grapple your insecurities

Knowledge (all): Bruno grapple you, pin you and then beat you with book.

Linguistics: Bruno grapple subtle nuances of inflection, tone and delivery of "Bruno grapple."

Perception: Bruno's eyes grapple the world

Perform: Performance is artifice, the intentional crafting of a facade of what we wish others to perceive and receive us as. While the essence of who you are can be gleaned in the cracks of the fictional persona you project into the world, ultimately, this artistic charade is an intentional untruth. To Bruno, there is more power in the reality of BEING than the illusion of PRETENDING TO BE and nothing is purer or truer than a firm grip on your foe or the feel of your fist striking home.

Also, Bruno not a bard.

Profession: Bruno grapple.

Ride: Bruno grapple saddle.

Sense Motive: Bruno grapple your lies, pin them and bind them in truth ropes. If you use Feint on Bruno, Bruno take moment to pity NPC for using combat maneuver that is not grapple.

Sleight of Hand: BRUNO'S HANDS MEATY AND CONSIDERABLE AND ARE NOT SLEIGHT

Spellcraft: Bruno grapple his saving throw

Stealth: Bruno grapple your perception

Survival: Bruno grapple nature

Swim: Bruno grapple water

Use Magic Device: Bruno grapple party wizard and ask him to use Bruno's wand of Mage Armor on Bruno

[The Sideromancer]

I was not aware AM had Lawful counterparts...

[Pirate Rob]

Bruno Breakbone wrote:

Sense Motive: Bruno grapple your lies, pin them and bind them in truth ropes. If you use Feint on Bruno, Bruno take moment to pity NPC for using combat maneuver that is not grapple.

Pirate sails away before Bruno realize feint isn't combat maneuver.

[HWalsh]

Bruno Breakbone wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Why should the same maneuver (or maneuvers at all) be the right solution for every combat?

Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, grapple memory and quote self:

Bruno, Handsome and Beautiful Tetori wrote:

Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, vote Tetori as Tetori have very versatile skill set:

Acrobatics: Bruno grapple ground

Appraise: Bruno grapple gem

Bluff: (See Perform skill)

Climb: Bruno grapple wall

Diplomacy: Bruno grapple words

Disable Device: Bruno grapple trap

Disguise: Bruno grapple own handsome and beautiful Tetori face and make it look like stupid and ugly not-Tetori face

Escape Artist: BRUNO NEVER NEED TO ESCAPE WHAT A DUM DUM SKILL FOR WEAK BABYMUSCLE NOT-TETORI DUM DUMS HAHAHAHA

Fly: Bruno grapple air

Handle Animal: Bruno grapple animal

Heal: Bruno grapple wound until boo boo better

Intimidate: Bruno grapple your insecurities

Knowledge (all): Bruno grapple you, pin you and then beat you with book.

Linguistics: Bruno grapple subtle nuances of inflection, tone and delivery of "Bruno grapple."

Perception: Bruno's eyes grapple the world

Perform: Performance is artifice, the intentional crafting of a facade of what we wish others to perceive and receive us as. While the essence of who you are can be gleaned in the cracks of the fictional persona you project into the world, ultimately, this artistic charade is an intentional untruth. To Bruno, there is more power in the reality of BEING than the illusion of PRETENDING TO BE and nothing is purer or truer than a firm grip on your foe or the feel of your fist striking home.

Also, Bruno not a bard.

Profession: Bruno grapple.

Ride: Bruno grapple saddle.

Sense Motive: Bruno grapple your lies, pin them and bind them in truth ropes. If you use Feint on Bruno, Bruno take moment to pity NPC for using combat

...

Oh god I died. I totally died. I just made everyone here look at me funny for laughing like a lunatic. Thank you for that.

[Bruno Breakbone]

Pirate Rob wrote:

Pirate sails away before Bruno realize feint isn't combat maneuver.

Bruno enemy only maneuver in combat is to faint when Bruno hug them. Bruno just figured feint is fake faint...but it ain’t.

Bruno, a handsome and beautiful tetori, ponder this while pretty boat sail away.

[AM PALADIN]

The Sideromancer wrote:

I was not aware AM had Lawful counterparts...

AM HERE.

[Ferious Thune]

It was a little disappointing to me when they introduced a way for a ranged attack to trip a flying creature, without an equivalent for a melee attack.

Basically, unless you’re Bruno, have at least one other option besides whatever maneuver you specialize in. But in general, characters should probably have more than one option to begin with, whether they specialize in maneuvers or something else.

[MadScientistWorking]

Tallow wrote:

For example:

My Rage Prophet is pretty nifty with Disarm and Trip.

He uses a Dueling Furious Heavy Flail. Dueling adds double the enhancement bonus (it does not replace the enhancement bonus, so you are essentially adding 3 times the enhancement bonus) to trip and disarm. When raging, his enhancement bonus increases by 2. The flail itself adds 2 to both trip and disarm.

So with a fairly low number of resources, he is pretty good at trip and disarm.

And yet that's still more resources for a wizard to be good at said tactic. And because "magic immunity" exists most spellcaster usually are really good at disarm and trip.

[Tallow]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Tallow wrote:

For example:

My Rage Prophet is pretty nifty with Disarm and Trip.

He uses a Dueling Furious Heavy Flail. Dueling adds double the enhancement bonus (it does not replace the enhancement bonus, so you are essentially adding 3 times the enhancement bonus) to trip and disarm. When raging, his enhancement bonus increases by 2. The flail itself adds 2 to both trip and disarm.

So with a fairly low number of resources, he is pretty good at trip and disarm.

And yet that's still more resources for a wizard to be good at said tactic. And because "magic immunity" exists most spellcaster usually are really good at disarm and trip.

Your post really confuses me.