|
Devorum posted:We have a two-hand fighter, a bow inquisitor, a specialty mage...one of the evocation subschools, can't remember which, a rogue/Alchemist(me), and a support cleric of Desna. What level is this at? I mean, at level 2, the Gunslinger is doing, what, 1d8+0? Maybe twice a round if TWFing with pistols? And he's making touch attacks, but he still does need to hit. Joe Greatsword with 18 strength is swinging for 2d6+6, or he can power attack for -1AB/+3 damage. Let's take an enemy with, I dunno, 11 touch AC and 16 regular AC. A pretty nice scenario for the gunslinger at this point. Gunslinger attacks twice at +2 (TWF penalty) for 1d8. Hits on a 9+, so 0.55*(4.5, average of 1d8). Two attacks, so *2. 2*0.55*4.5 = 4.95. Joe Greatsword swings at +4 for 2d6+6 (hits on a 12+, so 0.4*(13, average of 2d6+6)), or at +3 for 2d6+9 (hits on a 13+, so 0.35*16, = 5.2, or 5.6 with Power Attack. If for some reason the Gunslinger can't full attack (he has to get out of melee range, say), he falls even further behind. Half a point of damage per round isn't particularly significant or anything--but things get a LOT worse from there, as the greatsword guy stacks feats, gets damage bonuses, etc. And it's not like the gunslinger gets to do anything that's better than mediocre damage.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
I've read the Armor as DR variant rules from UC twice now. There are no really good defense boosts built into the system. You get 10 + Dex + your armor's plusses, a shield bonus, and that's basically it. I just don't see how that's going to work. Slug, slug, slug. And monks? sigh
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:What level is this at? I mean, at level 2, the Gunslinger is doing, what, 1d8+0? Maybe twice a round if TWFing with pistols? And he's making touch attacks, but he still does need to hit. We are level 9 at the moment. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but he seems to do well and the player has fun. When someone says something is a "bum class" I think of a class with no value that is good at nothing (think 75% of 3.5 PrCs), or takes a good concept and makes it mediocre at best, like Mystic Theurge. Gunslingers are one trick ponies that could have been MUCH better, but I don't think they are useless or unplayable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
Devorum posted:We are level 9 at the moment. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but he seems to do well and the player has fun. When someone says something is a "bum class" I think of a class with no value that is good at nothing (think 75% of 3.5 PrCs), or takes a good concept and makes it mediocre at best, like Mystic Theurge. Mystic Theurge is actually not that bad, at least if you understand what you are dealing with. Gunslingers have to spend a point of grit to Pistol Whip someone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 05:24
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:I've read the Armor as DR variant rules from UC twice now. There are no really good defense boosts built into the system. You get 10 + Dex + your armor's plusses, a shield bonus, and that's basically it. I just don't see how that's going to work. Slug, slug, slug. And monks? sigh We used a similar system in a pathfinder game I played in, only armour added its normal AC bonus (including plusses) as DR, while your AC was increased by your base attack. We found it working a lot better than the regular system
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
Just saying the Gunslinger in the level 8 campaign I'm running has scored more kills than any other player so far. fake edit: And we've got an antipaladin rolling breakable scythes with a crazy power attack bonus and Furious Focus, not to mention an Alchemist with Fast Bombs and Extended Extracts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
Devorum posted:We are level 9 at the moment. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but he seems to do well and the player has fun. When someone says something is a "bum class" I think of a class with no value that is good at nothing (think 75% of 3.5 PrCs), or takes a good concept and makes it mediocre at best, like Mystic Theurge. At level 9 everyone else should trivially be outdamaging him. He has very few ways of boosting his damage. I'm honestly not seeing where the class contributes even remotely. It's like a 3.x Warlock without any of the utility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 14:15
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:At level 9 everyone else should trivially be outdamaging him. He has very few ways of boosting his damage. Well, looking at those contesting in the same arena... Warrior 9, Archer with a +2 Composite Longbow(Str 16, Dex 20) -Deadly Aim(-3/+6) -Point Blank Shot +1/+1 -Rapid Shot -2 -Precise Shot You got +12/+12/+7 for 1d8+11 per shot. With monster ACs at this level thats 2 hits per round without buffs. That'd be (4.5+11)*2 =31 damage on average per round. The gun version is down a feat to start with, if hes proficient. Thats an NPC class(because I'm lazy), a Fighter would have twice as many feats(manyshot, weapon focus and specialization for starters) and another +2/+2(which goes to 2.5 hits per round). A Ranger would have gotten the starter feats for free and spells to rock on. A Paladin would go SMITE ON and vaporise the poor evil sod(true story), or enchanting the bow to be flaming or something. So yeah, alchemist/rogue would be doing more damage just with mutagen+claws+flanking/invis+TWF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Captain Hats posted:We used a similar system in a pathfinder game I played in, only armour added its normal AC bonus (including plusses) as DR, while your AC was increased by your base attack. We found it working a lot better than the regular system That's closer to how True20 does it, and that should work pretty well up to about level 10 or so. After that, I think hit points might cause some clashing expectations. How high did you go up in that campaign?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:At level 9 everyone else should trivially be outdamaging him. He has very few ways of boosting his damage. Well, I know when he crits...things die. He has a double-hackbut he has gotten to use a couple times, and rolling 8d12 for damage on a normal attack was impressive to watch. Even his normal guns do either 4d8 or 4d12 on a crit, and he gets to add his dex mod on the damage. I think a lot of people look at the gunslinger on paper and assume it is an awful pile of suck, but so far I haven't encountered anyone who has one in a group that is performing that badly. The Paizo forums DPR thread has a 15th level Gunslinger at 95-144 DPR, which is right around the DPR of similar level archer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
Devorum posted:Well, I know when he crits...things die. He has a double-hackbut he has gotten to use a couple times, and rolling 8d12 for damage on a normal attack was impressive to watch. Even his normal guns do either 4d8 or 4d12 on a crit, and he gets to add his dex mod on the damage. There's a definite floor, in that you can't go too wrong with a couple of dice of touch attack damage, but it's pretty difficult to get them to do anything powerful or interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
Devorum posted:The Paizo forums DPR thread has a 15th level Gunslinger at 95-144 DPR, which is right around the DPR of similar level archer. But if the damage is the same between the two and the gunslinger has little to no utility, why would you pick it over the archer who has at least a little utility? You gain something and lose nothing if there is no significant difference in damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:But if the damage is the same between the two and the gunslinger has little to no utility, why would you pick it over the archer who has at least a little utility? You gain something and lose nothing if there is no significant difference in damage. I guess he just likes shooting guns and acting grizzled. Dude is having fun, so it works for him. I'd be bored to death if I didn't have multiple options for actions...so I like my rogue/alchemist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
Devorum posted:I guess he just likes shooting guns and acting grizzled. Dude is having fun, so it works for him. I'd be bored to death if I didn't have multiple options for actions...so I like my rogue/alchemist. Yeah I feel you on that, it's part of why I don't play much Pathfinder/3.5 anymore. If it fits the flavor he's going for, then good for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:Yeah I feel you on that, it's part of why I don't play much Pathfinder/3.5 anymore. If it fits the flavor he's going for, then good for him. It's our "off-game" run by a guy still learning the GM ropes. Our main game is nWoD. Also, your username is my father's name. Without the lovebuckets part. Weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
It seems the spell "Monstrous Physique III" allows a player to "assume the form of a Diminutive or Huge creature of the monstrous humanoid type," but Paizo forgot to make any Huge Monstrous Humanoids! Do you guys think the intention of the spell was for the player to assume a monstrous humanoid's shape and then set the size separately (allowing for a diminuative or huge medusa), or is this feature of the spell just kind of wasted? e: another newbie question: What happens to a player's armor when this transformation happens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
Porkness posted:It seems the spell "Monstrous Physique III" allows a player to "assume the form of a Diminutive or Huge creature of the monstrous humanoid type," but Paizo forgot to make any Huge Monstrous Humanoids! Do you guys think the intention of the spell was for the player to assume a monstrous humanoid's shape and then set the size separately (allowing for a diminuative or huge medusa), or is this feature of the spell just kind of wasted? It's wasted (for now, maybe they'll fill it in in Bestiary 3). The new shape changing spells were just adding spell sets for the monster types that hadn't been covered yet. Though I'd personally have no problem with that as a house rule, since the entire idea behind shape changing spells in Pathfinder now is basically "the monster you choose might as well be flavor".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
Just keep wandering around unti you find a Giant Minotaur, and turn into that. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 08:20
|
|
|
Devorum posted:Also, your username is my father's name. Without the lovebuckets part. Weird. It's my first and middle name, but Gary Lee Love was a radio host around here in the early 90's. When my parents would get pissed at me and call me "Gary Lee," my friends picked up on it and started calling me that. Buckets is another story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Just keep wandering around unti you find a Giant Minotaur, and turn into that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
veekie posted:Come to think of it, the Giant, Advanced and Young templates aren't excluded by the Polymorph spells are they? No, providing those monsters exist. Pathfinder in general treats templated creatures as monster variants. It was pretty bizarre that in 3e, you had access to all these outsider shapes, but not the common sorts of fiendish and celestial creatures. Pathfinder's taming of the polymorph spells was a good move, actually very close to what many people had been houseruling for a while anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 06:55
|
|
|
My group is starting anew this weekend, and we are going through Jade Regent. I need some advice on characters. My issue is that the group only has 3 PCs. We MAY be getting a 4th, but he's not sure. So far we have: Paladin Rogue Gunslinger (Guy who may or may not show, same guy that played a GS in our last game) Me Obviously, we are missing both arcane and divine spell casting. I still haven't settled on a class, and am torn because I have a compulsion to fill holes in the party. I WANT to play a Metal Oracle or similar, but we could probably use a wizard more. Any advice on what would be the best fit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
Devorum posted:My group is starting anew this weekend, and we are going through Jade Regent. I need some advice on characters. You have a front line blocker, three relatively high damage output characters, and a lot of equipment dependence. What you lack is area of effects, status removals, and healing. Thoughts that spring to mind: - Wizard with maxed out UMD. - Carefully built Sorcerer who gets healing or area spells as bonus spells. - Bard - Cleric - Carefully built Oracle who has flexible curative capabilities or who plans on packing wands. The cleric covers the gaps more efficiently than the other choices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:You have a front line blocker, three relatively high damage output characters, and a lot of equipment dependence. What you lack is area of effects, status removals, and healing. Thoughts that spring to mind: I was thinking Cleric or Witch (Hexes are nice, they can get cure spells...and use Cure wands, have UMD as a class skill, and get a few battlefield control spells). I'd like for the group to have some battlefield control. Bard and Oracle are my second tier choices. My only issue with Oracle, is I'm too tempted to make it a Metal Oracle and stab everything to death when we already have have DPS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
Devorum posted:I was thinking Cleric or Witch (Hexes are nice, they can get cure spells...and use Cure wands, have UMD as a class skill, and get a few battlefield control spells). I'd like for the group to have some battlefield control. Witches are pretty good, but they get neither a cleric's armor nor a wizard's defensive versatility. If you end up committing a lot of spells to curatives and control spells, yoi could be vulnerable to not having a lot of choices in combat. Witches work better as primarily offensive casters who can, in a pinch, heal or buff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Yeah, the sleep hex is hilariously powerful, to the point I've had a DM ask to see the book because he was so incredulous. It sounds like you're going to be playing with some relatively underpowered PCs, so maybe consider not rolling up with a full caster? A 2/3 caster like an Alchemist might be more suited to your group's power level while still remaining pretty versatile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
The bard option looks like it could add some truly monstrous output to Team Alpha Strike, and its got some healing and wizardly stuff to back it up. EDIT: And you can get some very nice skill spread with the Perform equivalancies, as well as rock Bardic Knowledge out for party Lore-whore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 13:03
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Yeah, the sleep hex is hilariously powerful, to the point I've had a DM ask to see the book because he was so incredulous. Yeah, they're all fairly new to gaming and don't optimize at all, really. Which I don't mind (it's kind of refreshing to not be in a group full of cheese-out combat monsters), it just means it's going to take some work for our tiny group to survive. I think I'll go Bard. I can be the non-lawful-stupid face, as well as party support. The alchemist is a little too self-centered for this, and I just played one in our game that is ending. I've never played a PF Bard, here's hoping they're better than 3.x bards!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:I've read the Armor as DR variant rules from UC twice now. There are no really good defense boosts built into the system. You get 10 + Dex + your armor's plusses, a shield bonus, and that's basically it. I just don't see how that's going to work. Slug, slug, slug. And monks? sigh Armour as DR was a really nice part of Iron Heroes. I mean, that system was a mess that requires using a hell of a lot of errata, but, for me at least, D&D was missing a distinction between hitting a target and penetrating the armour. Plus, I just loved Armigers. It's a tricky system to shoehorn in though. The variant rule book for 3.5e presented some fairly basic rules for it. Are these better, or just the same?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
Devorum posted:I think I'll go Bard. I can be the non-lawful-stupid face, as well as party support. The alchemist is a little too self-centered for this, and I just played one in our game that is ending. I've never played a PF Bard, here's hoping they're better than 3.x bards! Theres some ups and downs, for one, music is counted in rounds per day rather than uses per day now. If your party tends to finish fights fast you probably would never need more than 2-3 rounds per encounter. Skill wise, it's incredible, Versatile Performance really pays to round out a lot of skills with just perform alone. Bardic knowledge also lets you get a lot more out of knowledge checks though you're going to need some skill ranks put in. Racially, grab a Human and take the alternate favored class benefit for lots more spells, you're the only caster, so get some breadth to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 16:29
|
|
|
Mojo Jojo posted:The variant rule book for 3.5e presented some fairly basic rules for it. Are these better, or just the same? Not as good, actually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
veekie posted:The bard option looks like it could add some truly monstrous output to Team Alpha Strike, and its got some healing and wizardly stuff to back it up. The only reason I didn't recommend bard as the front runner is because so many bard effects are resistible. That leaves you with mainly buffs. In many situations you would end up being a self-buffing warrior... which is not bad, but situational melee advantages is what the group already has. Bard is not so great for energy damage. If I were going to go bard with this party, I would keep my UMD pretty buffed up, and probably use at least some summoned monsters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Yeah, but buffs, charms and illusions help cover what the party can't already. Besides, with that party, the first time you drop a Haste down on the whole party you'd be hugged to death with love.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
Actually, now that I think about it, the class that combines haste, battlefield control, direct damage, and melee synergy would be a Magus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 08:04
|
|
|
Yeah, but remember, he might not actually want to be twice as good as anyone else at exactly the same things everyone else does. A casting focused bard will have a definite role in the party while also not trampling on the rest of the players' hopes and dreams. 3.X really needs a sort of gentleman's agreement to run smoothly, and the Magus is probably too strong to maintain such a pact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 11:43
|
|
|
The alternative: balance through Mutually Assured Blandness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 11:48
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Actually, now that I think about it, the class that combines haste, battlefield control, direct damage, and melee synergy would be a Magus. J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Yeah, but remember, he might not actually want to be twice as good as anyone else at exactly the same things everyone else does. The Magus can't do much else. It's not exactly a top-tier class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
I personally have a lot of fun playing a non-optimized cleric who focuses on support and utility roles. It makes everyone else's fights smoother, and you get to be useful at all times without overshadowing the rest of the party. A bard could fill more or less the same niche, although you would obviously rely more on your skills and class abilities than a cleric would.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:The alternative: balance through Mutually Assured Blandness. I like this, heh. I'm rolling a Bard, a Magus, and a Cleric just in case. It's not like it's hard to get a 1st level character together. I'm not too worried about overshadowing the rest of the group...they don't get too hung up on things like that. I just realized that statement about blandness could be a blurb summarizing L5R: 4E.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
Well, the Bard's biggest deal is that with a standard action, the whole party is more likely to hit and hit hard, regardless of party order(since the melee guys will be a good distance from the missile). Even a single round of song is hideously potent with a party like that. Besides, looks like they're a bit lacking on the social skillz. Charms and illusions wahey! EDIT: Randomly ran across this Man, those would have been some fun firearms. veekie fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Aug 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 17:24
|
|