|
Swags posted:Seems like he's just giving the people that're getting a taste of his setting a pretty bad taste, really.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
Colon V posted:Honestly, if this is how he deals with criticism, he's doomed from the start. Maybe all the people in his setting are barely functional cripples that pale in comparison to these mighty champions of 14 in their primary statistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
AC is a mug's game. I'd need to re-look psions over, but you are in absolutely every case better off stopping the enemy from attacking you in the first place, or using a static defense that just ignores the whole AC thing. It's why Mirror Image and Displacement are such powerful wizard spells.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
If you really want to go the AC route, just Inertial armor and Force Shield it up. +8 to AC at level 1. If you have Thicken skin, it's now 19. Assuming you have a +1 in DEX, congrats, you now have 20 AC at level 1 and are better than the fighter who can only have ~18 with starting gp. edit: My level 5 Psion can boost to 31 AC with only using 3 PP and blowing one of my psionic focii. I always make sure the GM knows I spend exactly 18 seconds meditating before a battle. B.B. Rodriguez fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
So I am making my first PF character, and I am going for the two-weapon style Ranger. Any advice for which feats to avoid? Improved/Greater Two-weapon fighting seem Starting at level 7, if that makes any difference. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So I am making my first PF character, and I am going for the two-weapon style Ranger. Any advice for which feats to avoid? Improved/Greater Two-weapon fighting seem TWF is kinda terrible due to how full attacks work. Archery tends to be better, but runs into problems due to there being some spells that simply cancel out archery. Like, entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So I am making my first PF character, and I am going for the two-weapon style Ranger. Any advice for which feats to avoid? Improved/Greater Two-weapon fighting seem The main thing you need to realize to do a decent TWF Ranger is that you don't need to meet the Dex pre-reqs for your Combat Style feats, which lets you have a high enough Str to hit and deal some damage. Double Slice would not be a high priority for me. If you have a nice, high 18 Str, it adds +2 damage to a number of your attacks that will never exceed half and may not even come close. TWF requires a lot of investment to get any results - as Cirno says, if you just want the damage, Archery is basically straight-up better until you run into Wind Wall. If you're set on playing a Ranger, definitely talk to your DM about making the best Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain choices. Without those bonuses, you'll probably find yourself feeling fairly mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So I am making my first PF character, and I am going for the two-weapon style Ranger. Any advice for which feats to avoid? Improved/Greater Two-weapon fighting seem TWF is decent at lower levels where getting that extra attack in means you kill your opponent instead of severely wounding him. The problem is later on the downside is compounded the more you have to move - like Cirno said. I would disagree with his opinion on Archery, though. It is far more versatile and capable of dealing more damage much more consistently than Two Weapon Fighting. If you're dead set on it though, consider getting an Animal Companion that you can ride.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
I'm playing a Ranger|Rogue archer in my 4e game, so I wanted to go melee in this campaign. I was planning to go with: STR 18, DEX 10, CON 14, INT 12, WIS 14, CHA 10 I assume CON is more beneficial than DEX (don't need it for prereqs) but will I be gimped for AC this way? Just in case, can anyone recommend a good stat array for an archery build? We're using 20 pts (+2 from race and +1 at level 4) If I take an animal companion I can use as a mount, I assume I should take some Mounted Combat stuff as my Feat-feats. The rest of the party consists of a Cavalier, Cleric, Wizard(evoc), Wizard(conj), Druid, and P.d0t fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I'm playing a Ranger|Rogue archer in my 4e game, so I wanted to go melee in this campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Magic Rabbit Hat posted:TWF is decent at lower levels where getting that extra attack in means you kill your opponent instead of severely wounding him. The problem is later on the downside is compounded the more you have to move - like Cirno said. I would disagree with his opinion on Archery, though. It is far more versatile and capable of dealing more damage much more consistently than Two Weapon Fighting. Oh no, I think archery is simply better in just about every way as a ranger. I was just pointing out that there's a few "HAH HAH NO, gently caress YOU, ARCHERS!" spells, abilities, and items out there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
I don't' mean to start an argument about 4 vs ect but I do like the 4e Warlord class, both playing it and role playing it, and I was wondering how I might achieve something similar in Pathfinder because I am done with 4e. INT Warlord if that helps. Not a pretty boy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
Herr Tog posted:I don't' mean to start an argument about 4 vs ect but I do like the 4e Warlord class, both playing it and role playing it, and I was wondering how I might achieve something similar in Pathfinder because I am done with 4e. INT Warlord if that helps. Not a pretty boy. Not really. Bard lets you divvy out attack/damage bonuses if you can handle the really annoying per-round system, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Herr Tog posted:I don't' mean to start an argument about 4 vs ect but I do like the 4e Warlord class, both playing it and role playing it, and I was wondering how I might achieve something similar in Pathfinder because I am done with 4e. INT Warlord if that helps. Not a pretty boy. Is your DM ok with third party stuff? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/tos---warlord
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
For those of you more familiar than the Pathfinder setting than I am (I know who some of the gods are and that's about it), how far up there on the Mary Sue Scale is playing a Gnoll Monk of Desna? Because that's kind of what I'm playing in a game I'm in at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
Eox posted:Is your DM ok with third party stuff? Holy poo poo this is awesome and I love you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Oh no, I think archery is simply better in just about every way as a ranger. I was just pointing out that there's a few "HAH HAH NO, gently caress YOU, ARCHERS!" spells, abilities, and items out there. Very true, though given that wind-wall and epic storms aren't exactly that common in the grand scheme of things, its not so bad. Basically it'd be an issue if you're going into arena scenarios, antagonistic GMing and high opt games where NPCs and monsters regularly come with custom spell and item selections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
veekie posted:Very true, though given that wind-wall and epic storms aren't exactly that common in the grand scheme of things, its not so bad. Basically it'd be an issue if you're going into arena scenarios, antagonistic GMing and high opt games where NPCs and monsters regularly come with custom spell and item selections. I would just flat out ask the DM if they are ever going to cast Wind Wall or not and explain that a level 3 spell completely invalidates your guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
Well, its basically wind conditions creating an absolute effect, so rather than a large penalty it just says 'no shooting ever'. But then that'd be houserules-land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
CAPSLOCKGIRL posted:For those of you more familiar than the Pathfinder setting than I am (I know who some of the gods are and that's about it), how far up there on the Mary Sue Scale is playing a Gnoll Monk of Desna? Because that's kind of what I'm playing in a game I'm in at the moment. Let's see, Gnoll, usually CE aligned, and the favored race of Lamashtu. Lamashtu, the Goddess of Madness, Monsters, and Nightmares, and the eternal enemy of Desna, Goddess of Dreams, because on top of the whole dreams/nightmares diametric opposition, Lamashtu also killed Desna's teacher Curchanus and stole away the care of natural beasts from him, a portfolio that was supposed to go to Desna if anything happened to him. Also, you're playing a Monk, a class that has to be Lawfully aligned, in the service of a CG-aligned deity. You're basically Drizzt, if the drow was also a Paladin, and probably a Paladin of If you and your GM are cool with it, hey, whatever, more power to you, but the Mary Sue-ism is strong with this one. Kvantum fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
Kvantum posted:Let's see, Gnoll, usually CE aligned, and the favored race of Lamashtu. Lamashtu, the Goddess of Madness, Monsters, and Nightmares, and the etersol enemy of Desna, Goddess ofalleams, because on top of the whole dreams/nightmares diametric opposition, Lamashtu also killed Desna's teacher Curchanus and stole away the care of natural beasts from him, a portfolio that was supposed to go to Desna if anything happened to him. Also, you're playing a Monk, a class that has to be Lawfully aligned, in the service of a CG-aligned deity. Fortunately, alignments are a complete bullshit idea so you can ignore pretty much all of this except the "serving the hated enemy of your races default god" bit. Which is still significant and fraught with potential issues from a roleplaying perspective, but it's not insurmountable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
Kvantum posted:Let's see, Gnoll, usually CE aligned, and the favored race of Lamashtu. Lamashtu, the Goddess of Madness, Monsters, and Nightmares, and the eternal enemy of Desna, Goddess of Dreams, because on top of the whole dreams/nightmares diametric opposition, Lamashtu also killed Desna's teacher Curchanus and stole away the care of natural beasts from him, a portfolio that was supposed to go to Desna if anything happened to him. Also, you're playing a Monk, a class that has to be Lawfully aligned, in the service of a CG-aligned deity. So, what, should I change it? I mean, the GM is okay with it, but I know next to nothing about this setting because the setting book is impossible to find in Australia, but I'm what I'm taking from this is that what I'm doing is pretty wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 10:05
|
|
|
CAPSLOCKGIRL posted:So, what, should I change it? I mean, the GM is okay with it Kvantum posted:If you and your GM are cool with it, hey, whatever, more power to you
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 10:46
|
|
|
CAPSLOCKGIRL posted:For those of you more familiar than the Pathfinder setting than I am (I know who some of the gods are and that's about it), how far up there on the Mary Sue Scale is playing a Gnoll Monk of Desna? Because that's kind of what I'm playing in a game I'm in at the moment. Mary Sue typically requires a character who is overwhelmingly powerful in a large number of areas, and you're making a monk so Alternately, if you're asking if you're too much of a special snowflake, here's the thing. If you are playing a more mythic, heroic, or story/character driven game, you are by default the most special of snowflakes by being a PC, so it does not matter. If you are playing a meat grinding "character skill" old school game, you don't even name your character until like level 5, so it does not matter. If you are playing a SIMULATIMILITUDE super open ended no plot game, and your DM has harsh restrictions on what you can and can't do, he's probably a dick, so gently caress him, and thus it does not matter. I know there's this bizarre harsh hate towards Drizzt types but here's the dirty little secret: the only reason people hate Drizzt was because he was popular. Boom, that's it, that's the whole thing. Redemption stories are loving everywhere in every form of story because human beings like redemption. We like thinking that there's no horrible bottom that we can never climb out of. We like thinking that bad people can become good people. Renegade from an evil <blank> is especially satisfying because it means who we are isn't intrinsic, and fat smelly nerds can one day be beautiful and loved. But Drizzt was really popular and got oversaturated. So people started to hate him. And hey, that's fine. Wolverine was pretty much a laughingstock by the end of the 90's for that same reason, appearing on comic covers just to literally say "I'm not in this comic!" so they could still have him on the cover. But don't swallow the dumb regurgitated idea that being a rebellious member of a bad group is wrong and bad. People love to give a hard time about Drizzt having a cardboard personality, as if loving GORD THE ROGUE or Bigby, Zigby, Rigby, Sigby Griggbyson, Nigby, and Digby are these bastions of character and pathos. gently caress that. Play what you like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
"Mary Sue" is pretty much the laziest criticism of a character ever invented. And since alignment is bullshit, there ain't no reason why your nice-guy Gnoll Priest of Happiness can't meet up and have a drink with my jerkface Aasimar Barbarian Stab-everything-'cause-you'll-eventually-stab-the-problem. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
I think that character would only be Mary Sue if you, yourself, were a Gnoll Monk of Desna. And the character's name was CAPSLOCKGNOLL.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 12:08
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I know there's this bizarre harsh hate towards Drizzt types but here's the dirty little secret: the only reason people hate Drizzt was because he was popular. Boom, that's it, that's the whole thing. Redemption stories are loving everywhere in every form of story because human beings like redemption. We like thinking that there's no horrible bottom that we can never climb out of. We like thinking that bad people can become good people. Renegade from an evil <blank> is especially satisfying because it means who we are isn't intrinsic, and fat smelly nerds can one day be beautiful and loved. More than that, actually, one of the most common things an immature player does is to make a copy of their favorite characters. Popular characters tend to be high on the favorites scale, so what you wind up with is dozens of bad players running cheap knockoffs of Drizzt. What people hate is well, the people playing these cheap knockoffs. You could give them a deep insightful character and it'd STILL come out the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
Mazed posted:"Mary Sue" is pretty much the laziest criticism of a character ever invented. And yet, the phrase "tiefling ninja" is enough to make many players worry (with good reason). That character/player has about a 90% chance of being smug and insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 13:00
|
|
|
CAPSLOCKGIRL posted:So, what, should I change it? I mean, the GM is okay with it, but I know next to nothing about this setting because the setting book is impossible to find in Australia, but I'm what I'm taking from this is that what I'm doing is pretty wrong. Wrong? The only "wrong" is if your GM has a problem with it, at least when it comes to your home game. Now for a Pathfinder Society character you'd basically have to scrap everything in your description but "Monk", but if you and your GM like the character, then go play. Have a blast. Edit: Oh, now ask your GM before you start pouring over this site, but if your GM is ok with it, check out the Pathfinder Wiki. It's a Wiki covering Golarion, the default (but by no means mandatory) setting for Pathfinder. Kvantum fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
When you're confronted with these burning questions, ask yourself "Is everyone having fun?" If the answer is yes, you're good. This is the only justification you ever need in a game like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:When you're confronted with these burning questions, ask yourself "Is everyone having fun?" If the answer is yes, you're good. This is the only justification you ever need in a game like this. In the face of rules lawyers, munchkins, drizzts, and people squeezing every single point of damage out of their ragelancepouncer, this is really the only question you need to ask yourself when playing an RPG.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Question, is there a class (preferably magic user) somewhere in the pathfinder or 3.5 rules who gets more powerful as combat goes? I have a great idea for a villain who opens with a couple mediocre spells, but every time he casts a spell or takes damage, either his caster level increases, or he unlocks fancier spells. Obviously I could just make up something, but I'd like to see properly designed and more creative rules then what I would think of. Basically I want the Hulk if he were a wizard 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:Question, is there a class (preferably magic user) somewhere in the pathfinder or 3.5 rules who gets more powerful as combat goes? The playtest version of Inquisitors worked kinda like this. Once they activated their Judgment(s) the bonuses granted by those powers would increase round by round up to whatever their maximum was. So at a decent level your Fast Healing 1 on the first round of combat was Fast Healing 5 by the fifth or sixth. For whatever reason that system was scrapped in favor of a (somewhat less interesting, if you ask me) straight level based bonus. I can see sort of pulling this off as a playstyle but I don't know of any mechanics off hand that explicitly support it. You could use something like a vampire's energy drain rules to allow a creature to actually gain hp as it goes along. Or you could have a summoner casting evolution surge and other buffs on his eidolon. I think you're mostly going to have to make your own though, actually strengthening a creature as it takes damage is a tricky idea for Pathfinder combat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
Well, the most important rounds of combat are the earliest, so anybody who relies on lasting a long time to power up is going to be weaksauce. I mean, PF combats have, like, 1-2 meaningful rounds already. If your guy has to wait until round 5 to actually be relevant, you're going to find that everything important has already happened before you get to make much of a contribution, whether it's because the wizard cast a couple Save-or-Dies or because the mounted lancer already pasted half the enemy forces. If you want to make a boss that gets progressively more powerful, you're going to have to include multiple 'phases' with seperatae hp and status tracking, otherwise he's going to get rolled in the first couple rounds and never be a threat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
That, and also combat in D&D/PF is astonishingly fast. Any competent group ends fights in 3 rounds easily. Optimized groups end fights in 1-2 rounds. Staggered powering up doesn't really give you much time before the PCs paste the enemy/gets pasted. So if you're going to make one such enemy, pay attention to the defenses. EDIT: EFB, I should refresh before I post apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:Basically I want the Hulk if he were a wizard
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
I'm confused about challenge ratings and average party levels. If my group of 3 level 2 PC has an APL of 2, then they should fight a CR of 2, right? But won't a group of 6 level 2 PCs also have a CR of 2? That can't be right, because of group of 6 goblins (1/3 CR each) would be much easier for the group of 6 than the group of 3... So what am I getting wrong? Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Yeah the recommended CR stuff is for a party of four, scale it up or down based on your party size. As for what they 'should' fight, you can bump it up a bit (and should!) but not all the time. A challenging fight can be +2 CR or +3 even at level 2 but just be careful about the particular types of monsters as some parties are more vulnerable to some types than others. For example, if you've got a cleric then a +2 encounter with a decent amount of Undead shouldn't be a big deal. edit: Actually, the PFSRD says it quite clearly, 4-5 PCs is the target but apparently adding or removing a whole player is equal to one level? At level 2 that might be right but (Like PF and 3.5 encounter design in general) you'll need to basically run it case by case as things get higher level. quote:Step 1—Determine Average Party Level (APL) Karandras fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jun 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
I would never use CR as more than a loose guideline to get you close to the difficulty you want to see. Monsters with the same CR can be radically disparate in terms of difficulty for a given party, and a lot of things that you may not be using the monster for will affect CR. By way of example this hedge witch is CR 2 and this shaman is CR 1. But the hedge witch is an utter non-threat. She has less hp, does a pitiful 1d4-2 damage (compared to 1d8+2, and hasn't got a single spell that is likely to pose a problem. Whereas the shaman has Cause Fear, which can take someone out of the fight straight away, as well as Touch of Fatigue, which at the very least can cause problems for a Barbarian. But the witch is a 4th level adept with 2nd level spells, so she is higher CR, because that's how the formula works. CR is never useful as more than a very rough approximation. It's a starting point from which to find stuff that is generally appropriate to a given power level. Figuring the actual difficulty of an encounter takes some finesse and knowledge of your players, their characters, and how you as a GM intend to run whatever monsters you throw at them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
veekie posted:That, and also combat in D&D/PF is astonishingly fast. Any competent group ends fights in 3 rounds easily. Optimized groups end fights in 1-2 rounds. Staggered powering up doesn't really give you much time before the PCs paste the enemy/gets pasted. We are playing two entirely different games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 21:16
|
|