|
Inverse Icarus posted:We are playing two entirely different games. Agreed, i've run encounters with a single wizard and a few meat shields vs my player party of 6, and as long as they aren't undead/evil (so the paladin doesn't do ridiculous damage) and had the encounter take over 5 turns. Yeah a couple party members aren't optimised, but a couple lucked out into being death machines. So if the increasing-in-power villain I want to create has some tough minions and maybe some form of teleport, the combat can take much longer then 1-3 rounds. I am surprised there is no class out there that gets better as the day passes.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Personally, I've found that the higher you go in level, the fewer rounds it takes to determine a victor, even if the caster's turn might take half an hour, and the fight is immediately followed by several rounds of wandering around and murdering blind/stunned/sleeping foes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:Agreed, i've run encounters with a single wizard and a few meat shields vs my player party of 6, and as long as they aren't undead/evil (so the paladin doesn't do ridiculous damage) and had the encounter take over 5 turns. Yeah a couple party members aren't optimised, but a couple lucked out into being death machines. Last week our party fought a single Wizard with a Climb Speed in an encounter that lasted well over 3 hours real-time. Between Hideous Laughter taking out our main damage dealer and Silent Image/Flaming Sphere spreading out and isolating the party, nothing could be done about killing the rear end in a top hat. When he finally ran out of spells he ended up using a Wand of Web to trap us in a room and obfuscate his escape. The worst part was that we didn't even get to kill him - the Rival party we were trying to beat to the ancient ruins got to cutscene kill him (in an incredibly smug, 'your owl animal companion spots the Wizard and your rival party fighting - they dispose of him quickly and take all his items'). My DM is a prick and never even noticed that none of us were enjoying that loving slog of a fight, but the bitching should be reserved for the proper thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Magic Rabbit Hat posted:My DM is a prick and never even noticed that none of us were enjoying that loving slog of a fight, but the bitching should be reserved for the proper thread. I've thrown many extra enemies into a combat, and even boosted the stats of them, and my party has been enjoying it. Quite a few are table-top wargame veterans, so they like rolling damage. Even the characters that don't do that much damage (the thief when he can no longer sneak attack) still likes the longer combats since they have so many things they can do in a turn. Of course if the combat turns into an uninteresting slog (there is no way the party can lose, taking too long, etc) I'll find ways of wrapping things up quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
So pertaining to my TWF Ranger, I was confused about some of the wording. Specifically, in the combat section, as well as under the TWF feat itself, it says:
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So pertaining to my TWF Ranger, I was confused about some of the wording. Specifically, in the combat section, as well as under the TWF feat itself, it says: Your DM's wrong about that, it means any attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Idran posted:Your DM's wrong about that, it means any attack. I disagree. You only get your one main-hand (or off hand if you want) attack unless you make a full round. Pathfinder Core Rulebook wrote: Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
^^^ I think that's only intended to mean "when you have a high enough BAB to give you additional attacks" It'd be a huge nerf to the TWF feat chain if you can only benefit from it on full attacks, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
Anyone have any advice or resources as to balancing home-brew feats, races, class archetypes, etc.? I know Advanced Race Guide hits soon for races, but I'm wondering about general guidelines of damage per round per level, etc. For the obvious responses, yes, I know PF isn't perfectly balanced as it is, but there've still got to be some general guidelines. Working on a small campaign player's guide for a setting with some new races, racial feats, and class archetypes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:^^^ I think that's only intended to mean "when you have a high enough BAB to give you additional attacks" Yeah that is pretty much it, TWF is pretty weak because of the way multiple attacks works in 3.5/Pathfinder. I think there was a discussion about it just a few pages earlier saying that archery gets around that but is countered by a level 3 spell. quote:If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Full-Attack
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:It'd be a huge nerf to the TWF feat chain if you can only benefit from it on full attacks, IMHO. Full attack rules: quote:If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. Unless you are full attacking, it is impossible to get more than one attack in your turn (unless you have pounce or something), regardless of what weapon or weapon combination that you're using. That said, unless you're doing society or something, play it in whatever way your GM is okay with and which is the most fun. e:f,b
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:It'd be a huge nerf to the TWF feat chain if you can only benefit from it on full attacks, IMHO. Ahahahahahahahahaha Funny story! Welcome to why TWF is so heavily looked down on. Well, one of the reasons. TWF is typically inaccurate, time consuming (in that you MUST full attack and your offhand is effectively worthless unless you do so), and to add insult to injury, usually does garbage damage since you lose so many modifiers compared to two hand fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
Hey guys I've got a solution. Make full attacks a standard action. There you go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
zachol posted:Hey guys I've got a solution. Urgh, I think I'd rather not have my players using Death or Glory and moving in the same turn. I want to play a game with a bit of a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Urgh, I think I'd rather not have my players using Death or Glory and moving in the same turn. I want to play a game with a bit of a challenge. I mean obviously you'd have to let wizards get multiple spells per round too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 11:30
|
|
|
zachol posted:Hey guys I've got a solution. This counterintuitively enough, screws melee PCs pretty hard. Monsters absolutely go up in their offensive output, and they get far more attacks than melee dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
zachol posted:I mean obviously you'd have to let wizards get multiple spells per round too. Why? They only need to cast one to end the encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
What if I added a paragraph to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat that states if you move and attack, you can attack once with both weapons? Would that make TWF slightly less bad? It'd be like a poor man's pounce. Speaking of which, I want to make Pounce a feat. You know, one that can be taken by characters. Should it have a base attack bonus prerequisite of +6 so warrior-types can take it as soon as they get their second attack, or should it be higher? Or should I expand it into a whole feat chain for second, third, and fourth attacks -- or would that just be considered a Fun Tax?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
Fudge Handsome posted:Pounce Are you giving it to monsters? If it is just players then it'll help bridge the gap between two weapon fighting and power attacking with a two-hander but that isn't really a big problem with the system. If you're giving it to monsters then all their natural attacks will be hilarious. If you're just going to do a Pounce feat then a BAB requirement is probably a good idea if you want your full BAB fighter guys to get the advantages before your rogues do but that is up to you. Why're you wanting to add it in the first place? Is it a specific issue in your group? Depending on how you do it it'll probably benefit sneak attack people the most but if you've got a two weapon fighter in your group who is feeling left out then go ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Why're you wanting to add it in the first place? Is it a specific issue in your group? Depending on how you do it it'll probably benefit sneak attack people the most but if you've got a two weapon fighter in your group who is feeling left out then go ahead. Those are a couple reasons, yeah, but I'm also experimenting with houserules to try and make non-magical combat a bit more exciting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
veekie posted:This counterintuitively enough, screws melee PCs pretty hard. Monsters absolutely go up in their offensive output, and they get far more attacks than melee dudes. I'd houserule it as players-only or roll it into the melee classes' 1st-level ability lists. That also slightly de-craps the monk and gets rogues more consistent sneak-attack instagibs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Note that a pounce feat would make the Scout Rogue Archetype extremely nasty. Honestly I haven't even looked at it to see how it would stack up with other classes with pounce, but it is the first thing that came to mind. Also, how would this work with lance charges. Could you make iterative attacks with your Pounce and have them all doing double (triple with Spirited Charge) damage? Could you do this, and then Ride-by-Attack to let your horse pounce or overrun as well? I'm not saying either of these would be overpowered or whatever, but they might be worth being aware of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
I'm thinking about creating an Elf Barbarian. To offset the low CON, I would take up the Savage Barbarian archetype and max out my DEX as much as possible. I'd swing an Elven Curve blade and stack on top Improved Crit so I can get a whopping 16-20 crit range  . Any thoughts? Any feats/traits/rage powers/etc. I should pick up to max out my AC?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Huh. I've been using TWF wrong ever since I played 3.5, I guess. Sorry for the false correction, then. Also, another route might be saying full attacks are standard actions for manufactured weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
veekie posted:This counterintuitively enough, screws melee PCs pretty hard. Monsters absolutely go up in their offensive output, and they get far more attacks than melee dudes. I always just added pounce to the feat list with the pre-req of being able to make multiple melee attacks and give it to rangers for free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Fighters etc. obviously already get shat on and it's not going to make them "even," but simply saying "players are pretty awesome and can take a full attack as a standard action (monsters don't get this)" at least makes it a little more interesting. The point is to let them use their move action to do something as well. I don't really like "give them pounce," because that only applies to charges. You want it so they're moving around every round, not just closing the first and then sitting there full attacking. Or you get this thing where they focus on making their charge super amazing and do nothing but charge each round which feels dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
I find the fighter as it stands to be lackluster because every fighter is pretty much the same, whereas wizards can be vastly different from one another. We all know it's not balanced as it is, and doesn't even stand up to most fantasy tropes (seriously, in what book does the fighter get scared and run from the dragon instead of charging it head on? I haven't read it yet.), and frankly the fighter's +1 to hit is really not worth the bonuses that wizard/sorcerer bloodlines give. So I was wondering about possibly putting in fighter 'schools' of training, such as with a rapier, or with sword and cloak, etc. This is not an archetype, just another form of training to kind of set them apart and put fighters in a more historical context, etc. I rewrote a lot of the system for a home game I DMed recently (trying to balance out spellcasting with martial classes, giving each class one or two free archetypes, playing with special abilities, etc) and while it did work to balance everything a lot more, it was still a real fuckload of house rules and I'd rather see if it's possible to stick to the core book and only change a class or two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
grah posted:Note that a pounce feat would make the Scout Rogue Archetype extremely nasty. Yeah, pouncing with a lance means you get them all doing the bonus damage and, yeah, something that can apply sneak-attack is going to get the most mileage out of pounce as a feat. zachol posted:Fighters etc. obviously already get shat on and it's not going to make them "even," but simply saying "players are pretty awesome and can take a full attack as a standard action (monsters don't get this)" at least makes it a little more interesting. The point is to let them use their move action to do something as well. Yeah pounce is the quick and lazy option and does really encourage charger type things rather than just being a bit more mobile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Anyone tried the new AP yet? Specifically, I want to know whether or not a party of 3 gestalt characters will be able to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Anyone tried the new AP yet? Specifically, I want to know whether or not a party of 3 gestalt characters will be able to do it. I don't really know what the gently caress a gestalt character is, but based on a googling, it looks like a multi-class where you take the best features from both classes with no discernible downsides. So, I expect they'd probably be able to handle it better than normal characters would. e: Just make sure they've got the player guide so they know to pick appropriately pirate-y skills. If you're DMing, maybe let them co-ordinate their level 1 skill selection since it turns out to be very important (also let them know that it will be important, this is not the place to throw away a point into a random crafting skill for flavor). I've never played any campaign that required this many skill checks so early on, though thankfully paizo didn't set the DCs to anything unreasonably high like they did with some things in the Carrion Crown AP. lesbian baphomet fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jun 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
Are you guys familiar with GMs making rules against the leadership feat? There was a long discussion on this at my weekly game the other night, where one of the players spoke out against the feat as being over the top. The GM seemed on the fence at the beginning, but was eventually convinced by the other player to say "No leadership." Have you guys made any houserules to tone down the cohort to something a bit more acceptable for the group? Any suggestions on running cohorts and followers in and out of combat without slogging the process down for everyone else? Is this other player suffering from a "no one can have more fun than me" attitude? To make clear the story situation, I have been playing a cleric that buffs/heals and rarely if ever swings a weapon in combat. For storyline purposes I was looking to establish a temple for the pantheon in a new settlement, and populate it with my followers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Beach posted:Are you guys familiar with GMs making rules against the leadership feat? There was a long discussion on this at my weekly game the other night, where one of the players spoke out against the feat as being over the top. The GM seemed on the fence at the beginning, but was eventually convinced by the other player to say "No leadership." It's an action economy thing mixed with a utility problem. For one feat, you get to take at least two turns to everyone else's one, and you'll take a caster for your cohort so it will be a long turn and your little minion will be better than the fighter/rogue/anything but a caster. Higher charisma and levels make it get out of control quickly, as you can essentially travel with an army. Even though they're level-5, some can be casters that only memorize buff spells for you or utility spells so you won't need to waste your own resources for them. Essentially Leadership is an extra turn every round mixed with a few hundred wands of low level utility spells that you didn't have to pay for. Edit: Leadership in the context that you describe works fine, populating a village or temple with people that are loyal to you. But in practice, it's just waiting to be broken and it's usually outlawed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:It's an action economy thing mixed with a utility problem. For one feat, you get to take at least two turns to everyone else's one, and you'll take a caster for your cohort so it will be a long turn and your little minion will be better than the fighter/rogue/anything but a caster. Higher charisma and levels make it get out of control quickly, as you can essentially travel with an army. Even though they're level-5, some can be casters that only memorize buff spells for you or utility spells so you won't need to waste your own resources for them. Thanks, yea I did a bit more reading and I am starting to see how it can get out of hand. These modified rules seem like they might be a good way to go: http://paizo.com/products/btpy8pkq?Bullet-Points-2-Options-for-the-Leadership-Feat quote:
I am personally not a super min max player, so I was looking at it from a story line perspective, but I can see how it can be exploited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Why not talk with your DM about what you want to do and see if you can work out a way to build your temple and fill it with followers without taking leadership? Basically it would just be a building for you and the party to rest in, knowing that the people around you won't kill you in your sleep. It also provides the DM a way to funnel you information, and/or anything else that he needs to send your way, without having an army of followers/cohorts trailing behind the party. Doesn't every cleric start a church as a front eventually anyway? Mine always seem to...
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:It's an action economy thing mixed with a utility problem. For one feat, you get to take at least two turns to everyone else's one, and you'll take a caster for your cohort so it will be a long turn and your little minion will be better than the fighter/rogue/anything but a caster. Higher charisma and levels make it get out of control quickly, as you can essentially travel with an army. Even though they're level-5, some can be casters that only memorize buff spells for you or utility spells so you won't need to waste your own resources for them. More than that, its a LOT of management work. You need to establish if you know all these people, where they are, what they compose of...and thats not even touching the imbalancing aspects of having a cohort along. I'd personally favor doing followers Exalted style personally. One feat/background establishing that yes, you Have People, and leaving them otherwise generic until needed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
On the subject of the "Skull & Shackles" AP: Our group is still planning on running it in the near future (and I get crazy coming up with character ideas. loving pirates, man.  ). How well do you suppose a Druid, specifically an Urban Druid archetype, would hold up? It seems like the focus of that is far more fitting to a roleplay-heavy "piratey" adventure, rather than something set deep in the wilderness. My intention mechanically is still to serve up support and control, as others will be playing far more offense-oriented (thus far confirmed is a Fighter and a Ninja...a Pathfinder Goblin Ninja, at that). But, in fortuitous relation to the Leadership discussion currently going on: I'm considering selecting the "Nobility" domain. At level 8, this grants Leadership, and it seems very intuitive to use this feat to help bolster the crew of a ship. The alternative is to play a Cleric of Besmara, which I understand also has specific hooks for that AP, but the spin the above idea puts on Druid makes it tempting simply for the roleplaying aspect. v Inverse Icarus posted:Turns were going slower. Eventually, the DM decided that every character got 10 seconds to say what they were going to do, and if they didn't spit something out, they delayed. When that still wasn't enough, he decided that players got 10 seconds, split between the characters he controls (including summoned monsters). He's not too strict on the time limits unless someone starts delaying the game too much. I honestly like this idea, as slow combat rounds are a constant issue in our games. When I run, I don't like laying down the law too hard, but it seems like it'd be for the best when your people have a tendency to overthink things. Mazed fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
In the only high-level PF game I've played in, my DM ruled that we could recruit NPCs, but not create our own. So we couldn't make a high-CHA sorcerer with buff spells, min-max them to all hell or anything like that, but if we encountered one, we could recruit them. They'd have randomly rolled stats, and all their feats, etc were chosen by the DM (somewhat randomized, but feats were chosen to somewhat make sense.) After that, we could customize them when they leveled. He said that if we wanted a certain type of cohort, that we could let him know and he'd mix one in to the adventure, but that never came up. We're playing in Rise of the Runelords and my Monk recruited Jakardros, the Human Ranger, and my friend recruited Scarecrow, the flesh golem with a hat of disguise. We did run into two issues, even with that house rule. Turns were going slower. Eventually, the DM decided that every character got 10 seconds to say what they were going to do, and if they didn't spit something out, they delayed. When that still wasn't enough, he decided that players got 10 seconds, split between the characters he controls (including summoned monsters). He's not too strict on the time limits unless someone starts delaying the game too much. The other player is that one player seemed to get "jealous" that two of us had essentially got ourselves two characters, with two very different skill sets. This player in particular was playing a really badly optimized Druid/Barbarian mix, and even being 2 levels lower, the Ranger NPC I recruited was outclassing him when it came to damage dealing. We dealt with this by telling him to shut up or take the feat himself, which was probably less elegant a solution than we could have gone with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
Mazed posted:
Be sure to check out the additional Besmara stuff that was put out specifically for that AP, including extra traits and spells for Besmara followers. Things like "Black Spot" and the ability to raise an undead skeleton crew to man the ship Mazed posted:On the subject of the "Skull & Shackles" AP: Our group is still planning on running it in the near future (and I get crazy coming up with character ideas. loving pirates, man. Here are the specific archetypes of druid that were recommended in the AP players guide (which is free from paizo): Aquatic Druid Tempest Druid Shark Shaman Storm Druid I am all set up to run this, but I am having the hardest time getting anyone who will commit to even once or twice a month  Beach fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Beach posted:Be sure to check out the additional Besmara stuff that was put out specifically for that AP, including extra traits and spells for Besmara followers. Things like "Black Spot" and the ability to raise an undead skeleton crew to man the ship That's a big draw. I'm feeling the flavor of Druid-of-the-Sea, but on the other hand, it almost seems wrong not to play something that the material has very special content for. I know the AP probably doesn't go all the way to where we've got 9th level spells, but the opportunity to cast "Salvage" (raise a wreck clear up from the depths and restore it completely, all Davey Jones style) shouldn't be missed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
I'm not going to spoil anything for you, but there will be pleanty of opportunities for a druid to shine in the AP, even right from the very beginning. In fact, the whole first part of the adventure is so skill check heavy that you will want to talk beforehand with the other players and everyone should choose a role they want to fill on the ship and then plan their skills for that role. So really you can't go too wrong in your class choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:13
|
|