pathfinder game

Dorian

1:08 AM

@Miniman Do you know PF much?

Specifically, the Magus class?

Metool

@Dorian Magus. What about magus?

Dorian

@Metool I was wondering whether a Gunslinger/Magus (Myrmidarch) would be a good combo. Other archetypes might apply, and this was originally for Aaron's gestalt game but I don't think that character concept would fit well for that game considering the character has alot of focus on magic items.

Metool

I would avoid that, yeah...

Dorian

Otherwise, are there any other Magus archetypes you would recommend, any Gunslinger archetypes you'd recommend, or just any other classes you'd recommend instead of Magus?

Metool

For a different reason altogether, though.

That being misfire chance.

Dorian

1:16 AM

@Metool You can reduce that.

And even eliminate it.

Also, the reason I'm dropping it was because this was the Caster Gun character.

Who relied heavily on the obtainment, use, destruction, and crafting of magic items.

And Aaron has stated that magic items would be restricted in that game.

Metool

I've been trying to puzzle out a woodborn psychic warrior, actually...

Dorian

I still plan to use the concept at some point, and that would be either Gunslinger or perhaps the ranged archetype Swashbuckler, but not for that game.

Miniman

@Dorian Late answer, but I know 3.5 reasonably well and PF only what I've picked up here and there

Metool

Wrath of the Forest, I think I'll call it

Dorian

@Miniman Ah alrighty.

Metool

1:19 AM

and perhaps not even psychic warrior

Inquisitor (plant [growth])

Dorian

As it is right now I'm considering various other gestalt combos for Aaron's game... Hmm...

Metool

What would you gestalt with inquisitor on a race that has +Str/+Wis/-Int and slam attacks, given that it's a treant/elf hybrid?

Dorian

Swordsage (if I were playing 3.5 :( )

Hmm.....

Warpriest would be interesting.

Metool

... yes.

Yes it would.

Dorian

Give you some serious divine utility

And you'd be pretty potent in combat too.

If you're going Inquisitor and have a solid Wisdom score I'd almost suggest any other Wis based divine caster.

Unless you're specifically interested in going with the stealthy/sneaky style.

Metool

1:24 AM

Hmm, is slam a valid pick for Weapon Focus?

Dorian

Hmm...

I think it is.

Afterall you can weapon focus claw/tail/bite attacks can't you?

Metool

Any weapon, or unarmed strike or grapple, or ray (if a spellcaster).

Oh, good.

Dorian

Yes, you can get Weapon Focus for natural attacks.

Hmm... How do you think Adept Scion/Dragonrider sounds?

(ps, I might abscond at any minute, but I'll be back if I do)

Metool

@Dorian Sounds third-party.

Dorian

Yes, that's why I need to know if they're allowed lol

Metool

1:30 AM

This for another game? If so, I'll go familiarize myself with the classes.

If it's for Aaron's game, it's trying to be trimmed down to Paizo/Dreamscarred Press.

Dorian

Dang...

These used Rogue Genius and Kobold Press/Open Gaming

Adept Scion is for the most part an arcane paladin. Dragonrider gets an underpowered true dragon as a mount and some other interesting features.

Problem is Dreamscarred has like nothing I want ;-;

Metool

What do you want?

Dorian

Dunno, but nothing in Dreamscarred :P

That other person kept recommending the Machinesmith to me too... and that's not Paizo/Dreamscarred... Wish Aaron had said something back then what he was limiting to.

Heh, I could go Sneak Attack Rape and go Ninja/Rogue for the lulz

+20d6 by lv 19

Metool

Gestalt has you use the better progression of same class features.

Dorian

Sneak Attack stacks when you get it from different sources. Always has.

I've built alot of characters around prioritizing Sneak Attack. Haven't done so in PF yet, but I see no reason for them to have changed it.

Metool

1:37 AM

Doesn't matter, gestalt has Things to say about same class features.

Dorian

Afterall, it's probably still the only way to make a viable sniper.

Metool

For instance, if you have two classes that grant Uncanny Dodge (becoming Improved Uncanny Dodge if you gain it again), you only gain Uncanny Dodge

Dorian

And Gestalt had those Things to say in 3.5 too, and it still stacked.

Then I would assume that only happens if both classes get it the same level.

Which means all I have to do is dip something to offset the level gain for one of the classes.

Metool

[facedesk]

So that rule might as well not exist, by your reading.

What does it apply to?

Dorian

I've never seen an instance in which Sneak Attack does not stack.

Metool

1:39 AM

Indeed, but gestalt is special.

You are making a new class with a new Sneak Attack progression.

That progression is not 2d6 per 2 levels.

Dorian

In fact, where is Gestalt for PF?

Metool

This is something I've been trying to bother the GM about.

Dorian

Because as far as I can tell, if you're using 3.5's Gestalt ruling, it doesn't affect class features. It only takes the better of Saves, BAB, Skill points, and HD.

Metool

I wrote my own ruleset (for a different game) and showed it to him, and he approved of it generally, but hasn't said if he's using it.

> Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.

Source.

That said, those classes that have sneak attack probably deserve to have it stack.

But that's an exception you'll have to ask about.

Dorian

Huh...

Well in this instance, Rogue/Ninja, I've used it before in a gestalt game...

But the 3.5 Ninja's "sneak attack" is called Sudden Strike lol

Metool

1:43 AM

Right, and your GM was permissive.

Also, that.

Dorian

It's a different class feature Metool.

Metool

@Dorian I was responding to "Rogue/Ninja" which you didn't qualify with an edition label

Dorian

Yeah. It didn't quite click that the PF Ninja's Sneak Attack is literally Sneak Attack.

Metool

Assume that outside of the big core classes (wizard, bard, rogue, cleric, druid, ranger, etc), nothing is the same in Pathfinder

and assess it using as little of your 3.5 knowledge as possible

Dorian

The big core classes aren't the same either.

And the PF Ninja is essentially the same thing with the same amount of small tweaks they made to the core classes.

They just made the Ninja's Sudden Strike (which was a weaker version of Sneak Attack) more powerful by making it a legit Sneak Attack.

I could Gish it up by going Magus/Inquisitor lol

Metool

1:49 AM

@Dorian Yes, but things will go a lot smoother if you stop noticing that kind of thing.

Dorian

And take the appropriate archetypes to make it less MAD

And one person recommended to me using Aegis, since it essentially makes anything it's plugged into a secondary tank.

Metool

Ignore that Magus is a nerfed duskblade, or hexblade, or whatever class it's based on.

Dorian

I think someone was saying to use a Summoner and Aegis or something... IDK.

Magus is a nerfed and tweaked Duskblade.

There is no Hexblade from what I've seen. This saddens me, but the Hexblade was a flavor only class... It was essentially a horrible class regardless.

I loved it's flavor, but the thing was next to useless in most situations.

Metool

@Dorian Summoner calls an outsider pet, Synthesist archetype changes it so that it acts more like a fusion/possession/living armour.

Dorian

Synthesist was it then.

Metool

1:53 AM

Aegis takes ectoplasm from the Astral Plane and makes it into armour.

Dorian

Because that plus Aegis makes you a god or something lol

At least that's what one person recommended to me when I was trying to come up with gestalt PF ideas.

Also, Hexblade was a low T4 class in 3.5... In otherwise, if you min/maxed or optimized you can make it work as a T4, otherwise it was T5 or possibly even T6.

T5 is dictated by being only capable of doing one thing, and not even doing it very well. Or at being so spread out that they can't do anything well at all.

T5 = (if well built) one trick ponies or (if poorly built) utterly useless. Fighter and Paladin are prime examples of the best a T5 class can get on its own.

Metool

I am well-acquainted with the tier system.

Dorian

Ah, didn't know, cuz you went all silent :P

Metool

In fact, did you know there's a tiered gestalt variant?

Way I've seen it, T1 and T2 classes don't gestalt with anything, T3 and T4 classes gestalt freely with NPC classes (sans casters), and T5 and T6 classes gestalt with other T5 and T6 classes.

Dorian

That's actually an option to fixing crap classes in the same thread :P

Metool

2:00 AM

Thread?

Dorian

The Tier system isn't a published thing.

Metool

Which forum?

Dorian

It's something some guy wrote up.

Metool

Because the tier system has been on like three, four forums by now

can't be sure we've seen the same posts

Dorian

brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293

Ooh, read in the spoiler for that bit...

Under the house rules options.

"All players get the benefits of Vow of Poverty, plus the bonus feats from that are any bonus feat you want (not just exalted), without the drawbacks (you can still use gear). However, there are no useful magic items in the game, so it's all mundane gear."

Metool

2:05 AM

Hmm, I wonder how Pathfinder Paladin would change if smite evil was a uses-per-encounter single-strike boost (in the style of the 3.5 smite, though using the Pathfinder bonuses) rather than a uses-per-day mark.

What would I need to tinker with to make that work...

@Dorian This means a rather pronounced lack of flight, among other things.

I'm not sure how that would particularly change things...

Dorian

@Metool Well this was also designed for a low magic game.

Spellcasting was also nerfed heavily, turning pretty much everything in T1/2 into T5/6

Except the Druid, the Druid dropped to T3 in his game.

So really, Wild Shape and a few other things are the only things going to get flight anyways.

Certain half-casting classes could be tweaked or use alternate features, and classes like the Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, and other low powered supernatural classes suddenly become much more viable to play.

Metool

Dragonfire adept, low-powered?

Dorian

Especially if you consider classes like the Warlock with their debuffs and utility invocations (invisibility becomes amazing against creatures who can't already see through it)

Metool

I'd love to see this argument.

(Not saying bring it in here.)

Dorian

IDK, I've never seen it as that powerful. I've seen it as interesting, but compare it to the Warlock for example. It would probably be about the same power.

(making it T3/4 ish)

Though the Warlock has more utility I think, a good Warlock build should be high T3, while an average one is T4. A good DFA build would probably be average T3.

(and I'm a bit of a dragon obsessed loon, soo yeah. for me to say a dragon based class isn't that great is a rare occurrence)

Metool

2:13 AM

Dragon shaman?

Dorian

Don't get me wrong, I love the DFA flavor wise, but I just don't see it holding its own in a T2+ class.

Dragon Shaman would be less powerful than the DFA I think.

It's been a while since I've looked at it though so I can't be sure.

Metool

@Dorian I think we have different definitions of low-powered.

Dorian

Again, compare to the Warlock clss.

At a solid T4, which can become much stronger with the right build, how does a Dragon Shaman compare?

Metool

Look at the specific message I was replying to.

It mentioned both warlock and dragonfire adept.

Dorian

Dragon Shaman is also a solid T4 class.

Yes. Warlock is T4

Metool

2:16 AM

You haven't addressed my point.

1 min ago, by Metool

@Dorian I think we have different definitions of low-powered.

Dorian

In a T3 average party, a Warlock would have a hard time keeping up if it isn't built right.

Comparatively, T4 classes are weaker than T3 classes, and so on.

On a 6 tier system, Warlock is considered below average.

Far below average actually if you total the number of T3+ and T4- classes.

Nevermind, didn't notice that the T3+ classes had a lot of stuff said in brackets.

Warlock would still be considered at or below average on that scale.

Yes, it has a good solid punch, but then again so does a well built Fighter.

In fact, that solid punch is probably what bumped it up to T4 since that solid punch comes with some decent utility.

Reading up on some of the psionics rules... because I've never used them for any system lol

Tactician/Paladin would be an interesting mix...

Metool

(And also a little MAD.)

Dorian

2:32 AM

Very MAD. But I think there are archetypes to change that.

I'm not going to dig into it though.

Metool

Oh, depending on race, probably.

I haven't seen anything from Tactician that encourages not having Intelligence

Dorian

Or other things.

And I was leaning more towards the Paladin, since that's more likely to have more archetypes

Metool

I have seen a forgeborn racial archetype that lets their strategies work off of Constitution, but as a paladin, you'd want Charisma anyway.

Dorian

The Stalker is terribly disappointing compared to its alleged 3.5 equivalent :(

Metool

Paladin has nothing that changes KAMs, unless you go Duergar, in which case the racial archetype lets you sing mad lullabies keyed to Wisdom, which Int/Cha Tactician does not enjoy.

@Dorian I seem to recall something about strikes and attacks counting for double coming up in a discussion on it.

Dorian

2:36 AM

Like I said, I'm not going bother with analyzing the potential combinations of Paladin/Tactician. I barely even read the Tactician class.

I just thought of it as a interesting flavor combo.

Metool

Thoughtsinger (bard) has a collective and keys to Charisma, buffing allies in a fashion similar to Tactician

Dorian

Paladin/Tactician could be the the Hero King type that lead a country to victory against a dark evil.

But I don't play those types of characters.

And I don't like psionics.

Never have -shrug-

Metool

From what I've seen, you enjoy tinkering and pets.

Tinkering's out, probably...

Dorian

So there is literally no point in trying to explain the potential situations of that combo lol.

As for what I enjoy, I enjoy making ideas and characters. I don't enjoy making someone for mechanics alone.

So generally I skim the classes, figure out a concept, and wrestle with the mechanics to make the concept work.

My recent charas include a stealthy one shot one kill sniper (3.5)(poorly built, mostly retired), a Kobold Yoda (well built I think, uses dips and a Bloodline Levels to boost power, hasn't seen much combat yet though), an evil Infiltrator Inquisitor (can sneak into any role, turn around and stab em all in the back).

Ideas included a tinkerer Half Faerie Dragon Gunslinger obsessed with Ioun Stones and Wayfinders

Dangit, forgot how to strikethrough again.

Metool

test

Dorian

2:44 AM

Kobold Yoda warlock (3.5)

Metool

~~test~~

~~Triple-dashes.~~

Dorian

Why does underscore italicize now?

Miniman

@Metool I know, I was going to point it out.

@Dorian Emphasis

Metool

@Miniman Why was that directed at me?

Dorian

But that's what single astrisks are for.

doppelgreener

2:45 AM

Underscore and asterisk always worked for italics and bolding.

Dorian

Oh, didn't know that.

Thought itw as only asterisk

Miniman

@Metool I don't even know why

I think I must've thought your comment was directed at me for some reason

Grubermensch

@Dorian daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax

Dorian

Hmm Rogue/Stalker, Inquisitor/Stalker, Slayer/Stalker... those are some interesting combos, but that doesn't get me past my disappointment with Stalkers...

@Grubermensch -grumble- I don't have the mental capacity to read up on that right now :P

I start my job on the morning of black friday... :(

not that I had any money to spend on black friday... and at least i'm not working retail lol

@metool you mentioned some rules you wrote up or something? Can you summarize them?

I don't want to be blindsided by them if they're implemented...

Also, @Metool, do you know what sorts of roles the party has already? Like if we have a pair of Strikers already it might not be a good idea to have me build another focused Striker, or w/e

Metool

3:00 AM

@Dorian Instead of making new classes at each level, you have two class progressions, which you take the better chassis values of, and each progression has its own favoured class setup (a half-elf has 2//2 favoured classes, and gains two favoured class bonuses if it advances two of its favoured classes).

It also adds in fractional chassis values to keep values in line (BAB on each track is guaranteed to be 1/2 your level in low +3/4 your level in medium + your level in high BEFORE rounding down; saves are +1/3 your levels in Poor +1/2 your levels in Good, +2 if you have it as a good save anywhere). Fighter 1/Wizard 19//Cleric 20 does not get +20 BAB, multiclass monstrosities don't have base saves of +18/+1/+15.

@Dorian Zen Archers and an uberhealer so far.

Dorian

Soo you combine fractional saves/bab with Gestalt? Gestalt still takes the better of the stuff already.

Hmm... And you're making that Inquisitor with something else?

Or are you the uberhealer? :P

Metool

@Dorian Problem being that if we're going by that, Fighter 1/Wizard 19//Cleric 20 has +20 base attack.

That is the specific example, and it exists for a reason (namely, someone tried to pull it).

Dorian

@Metool How would it? Fighter gets full BAB, Wizard gets poor, and Cleric gets med doesn't it?

So you would add the fraction, not the full.

Metool

...

Dorian

I'm confused...

Metool

3:06 AM

Sorry, I had cleric mixed up with a different class

Dorian

Gestalt already takes the better BAB progression lol

Metool

@Dorian listen

pay attention

I am trying to compose my words and get my thoughts in order

this conversation is damn draining

The logic was that at every second and fourth level of four in a low BAB class, your BAB advanced by 1

so you would alternate the levels which granted the bonuses

Dorian

Oh I see what they tried to do... Yeah, it doesn't work like that in Gestalt. You take the better progression not the better increase

Metool

the text says nothing to that effect, as it is not fleshed out at all

Dorian

So essentially a Fighter1/Sorcerer19//Cleric20 would have +15.

Base Attack Bonus: Choose the better progression from the
two classes.

Exact words.

Progression means the entire 1-20 progression, not the increase from the level.

Metool

3:10 AM

feel free to think that

Dorian

So at lv1 a Fighter//Cleric would have BAB+1

However you would choose the Cleric Progression as you advance beyond Fighter 1

Into the Sorcerer//Cleric levels.

Even in the case where someone wanted to argue that, the RAI is "whatever class has the highest BAB, that is your BAB"

Miniman

I dunno, there are some pretty clear indications that gestalt characters were intended to be frighteningly overpowered.

Dorian

There are three BAB Progressions, those are the Good/Avg/Poor categories. That is what "Progression" refers to. You choose the better category. At most I might allow a +16.

That doesn't change their potential BAB.

If a Fighter/Wizard played for example, yes, they'd have +20

But in that instance, for lv1 you're working on the Fighter's Progression. At lv2 and up you're working on the Cleric's progression. So yeah, the end result would be +16.

Because that would essentially be a Fighter1/Cleric19 in terms of BAB progression.

Gestalt should still be viewed as a form of dualclassing in that you still only have 20 levels, you're just picking and choosing the best for each level.

Using fractional BAB/Saves, I believe that would still be a +16 at lv20.

Metool

@Dorian It would be +15.

Since you use the better from track A's BAB or track B's BAB.

Miniman

0.75 * 19 + 1 = 15.25, and you round down

So yeah, 15

Dorian

3:18 AM

Aah right, yeah, it would be 15.

I'm still a little tired from turkey lol

Miniman

I know how it is

Metool

@Miniman I didn't explain myself well enough, if you had that impression.

Miniman

@Dorian They don't look like they can move above a waddle, but when you try to catch them they're like roadrunner!

Dorian

lolz

Miniman

(Unless turkey is a euphemism for something, but I'd rather not know)

Metool

3:20 AM

Two entirely separate class progressions. Calculate values independently and then use the better of the two for BAB, then for Fortitude, for Reflex and for Will.

Dorian

It's Thanksgiving. Turkey has tryptophan in it so yeah, makes you tired.

Miniman

@Metool Ah, so you mean cleric 19 = +14 BAB, fighter 1 = +1?

Metool

@Miniman Cleric 20 = +15 BAB, Fighter 1/Wizard 19 = +10.5.

Dorian

Yeah... was trying to type that out and mathed wrong

Miniman

@Metool Sorry, I mixed up the original character

I was thinking of a Fighter 1/Cleric 19//Wizard 20

Dorian

3:25 AM

The thing is Metool that you can switch out to any other class whenever you want, which would make that an abomination to calculate especially if someone doesn't clarify what track each class is on. And when you factor in prestige classes too oi vey...

And using that they can say Track A was W/C/W/C/W/C... while track B was F/W/C/W/C/W/C...

Which would break that.

Metool

Again, fractional values. Count total levels in low, total levels in medium, and total levels in high, for each track.

Dorian

Or for a better example: Paladin (P), Fighter (F), Wizard (W), Cleric (C), Rogue (R), Assassin (A)...

Metool

+2 High, +2.25 Medium

Dorian

Track A: P/F/P/F/P/F(cont to 20)
Track B: W/C/R/W/C/R/R/R/A/W/C/P/F/A/A/P/R/C/P/F

Metool

simple

+20

Dorian

3:29 AM

Now what if it's

Track A: W/C/P/P/P/F/A/F/F/F/F/F/P/C/C/C/R/R/A/A
Track B: C/P/R/R/R/F/A/P/P/P/C/C/P/P/A/A/P/P/F/F

Take note how levels 6 and 7 have the same class on both tracks.

Metool

same class on two different tracks

invalid (I can fetch you the pastebin)

(it clarifies that)

Dorian

If you're going to completely separate the level tracks that could make for an abomination.

So you make it so you can't have the same class on two tracks or you can't have the same class on the same level of two tracks?

Metool

Same class on two tracks.

Dorian

Because the latter makes sense, but the former does not.

Metool

Taking Cleric on track A locks you into not taking Cleric on track B

Dorian

3:32 AM

That doesn't make sense to me.

Metool

it's restrictive, but it cuts down on the headaches you are trying to give me

right now

Dorian

I wouldn't allow someone to take the same class on two tracks on the same level, but taking a class on two tracks should be no problem.

Metool

if you want to advance cleric further, put your other class on track B

Dorian

I would have told the character above to swap their levels 6 and 7 on one track so you don't have the same class parallel, but beyond that, having one track locked from a class doesn't seem like a good option.

Because each level you take the higher fractional increase, not the increased number from the book anyways.

The BAB progressions are +.5/+.75/+1. If you have a +.5 and a +1 on one level, you take the +1. If you have a +.5//+.75, you take +.75

It shouldn't matter what side of the track they're on.

Metool

Sure, go ahead and write up your own rules for it.

Dorian

3:36 AM

That's RAW =_=

Metool

Just open up pastebin and type away.

@Dorian Nothing about fractional chassis is RAW.

Dorian

I don't need to write up my own rules for it.

Yes it is.

Metool

Quote that for me?

Dorian

Fractional chassis itself is RAW.

It's an optional rule.

Metool

It's a variant rule and not an assumption of normal games.

It's entirely reasonable to put in, but it's not the default.

Dorian

3:38 AM

As is Gestalt.

Gestalt is not the default either.

Metool

Right, but having one does not imply having the other.

doppelgreener

@Dorian is this actually defined anywhere?

Dorian

"The progressions of base attack bonuses and base save bonuses
in the Player’s Handbook increase at a fractional rate, but
those fractions are eliminated due to rounding. For single-class
characters, this rounding isn’t signifi cant, but for multiclass characters,
this rounding often results in reduced base attack and
base save bonuses."

Metool

@Dorian Source?

Dorian

Unearthed Arcana pg 73

doppelgreener

3:40 AM

oh, is this D&D not Pathfinder?

Metool

@Dorian The header being "HOUSE RULE: FRACTIONAL BASE BONUSES"

Dorian

Gestalt and Fractional stuff were never defined in Pathfinder.

Gestalt is an optional House Rule, as is Fractional Saves/BAB.

doppelgreener

@Metool it at least seems to indicate what they use the word 'progression' to mean, i.e. the full track of gains rather than each level's gain, which is what i was after

Metool

@Dorian And, as stated, having one does NOT imply having the other.

Dorian

The optional rule is ignoring the rounding until after calculation.

The fractional increase is there regardless.

The optional rule is to help multiclass characters.

The Fractional increases are the progression.

doppelgreener

3:44 AM

y'all could i suggest that since you two have been talking about this for like 3.5 hours, you take this to Not A Bar or another room?

Metool

@Dorian I can buy chocolate chips and I can buy syrup at the grocery store, but I don't need either of those to make pancakes. Because someone chooses to add chocolate chips to their pancakes, you're assuming they have syrup to put on those pancakes.

I'm going to take a break, anyway.

Dorian

No, that's not what I'm assuming. I'm saying flatly that the fractional increase is RAW. When you round it is not.

The fractional increase is RAW in every book. The rounding typically happens before adding it to the other results though.

Metool

@Dorian No reference is made to it outside of that sidebar, to my knowledge. Find me a source for it and you win.

Night, people.

Dorian

Math.

Oh also Text Trumps Table ruling.

Metool

@Dorian Great, find and quote the actual text that serves to trump the tables.

That is what I asked for.

Bring it to Pathfinder Game.

Dorian

3:49 AM

@Metool "For example, a 1st-level rogue/1st-level wizard has a base
attack bonus (BAB) of +0 from each class, resulting in a total
BAB of +0. But that’s only due to the rounding of each fractional
value down to 0 before adding them together—the character
actually has BAB +3/4 from her rogue level and BAB +1/2 from
her wizard level. If the rounding was done after adding together
the fractional values, rather than before, the character would
have BAB +1 (rounded down from 1-1/4)."

That's the paragraph right after the one I quoted earlier =_=

Metool

@Dorian Is that on page 73 of Unearthed Arcana?

The House Rule sidebar?

If so, it's explicitly not what I asked for.

I asked for any other reference to it.

Dorian

It's explaining the math. The house rule is plain and simple determining when to round.

Your exact words were "Great, find and quote the actual text that serves to trump the tables."

There is the actual text that trumps any tables

Regardless of whether it's under a sidebar or not.

The House Rule is the answer to "When do I round this math? Before or after adding it to my character sheet?"

And even if that doesn't answer the question, simple math does. When plotting out how much each level gets it is a fractional bonus. That bonus is +1 for a Good BAB, + 3/4 for an Average BAB, and + 1/2 for a Poor BAB. It's just rounded down when written in the table for the sake of convenience.

The only reason Fractional Bonuses weren't in the PHB was because they didn't intend for Multiclass Monstrosities.

They expected most people to be at most dualclass.

The reason Gestalt and Fractional rules aren't ported to PF is because Unearthed Arcana isn't SRD material.

Also, by your own words, Gestalt is creating a whole new class for each level. Said class would have to recalculate its BAB and Save Progressions at each level unless they always pick the same classes.

Though this matters very little to me as I doubt I'll be going beyond the two initial classes. The only reason I might break away is to Prestige or something...

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

4:51 AM

← 336 messages moved from RPG General Chat

← 1 message moved from RPG General Chat

Lord_Gareth

6:34 AM

@Dorian What's your beef with psionics?

Also with Stalker, though the latter is more "gathering data for future errata" than anything

Dorian

@Lord_Gareth IDK, they just feel wonky to me.

Lord_Gareth

@Dorian Do better than that.

Dorian

I don't have any real beef with them, not any more than I have a beef with learning any subsystem I've never used... They just feel weird to me.

Not mechanically wrong, just... off.

Lord_Gareth

@Dorian I have a vested interest in getting a more specific answer. What's off? The fluff? The feel of how the mechanics work? The powers themselves?

Dorian

I guess more the fluff. The mechanics I just have no motivation to learn? Or maybe it's something else. Maybe it's a deep seated psychological reason that I'm not fully aware of. Maybe the fact that most everyone I've played with for most of my D&D career avoided it entirely so that rubbed off on me a bit.

Dorian

7:33 AM

@Lord_Gareth Oh, and the Stalker falls short of my expectations considering it's an attempt at porting the Swordsage

Lord_Gareth

@Dorian It's not.

Dorian

Maybe not exactly, but it's the closest thing to it.

Lord_Gareth

@Dorian Let me rephrase my statement: if swordsage didn't exist, would you still have beef with Stalker, and if so, why?

Dorian

Possibly, not sure though. I didn't say I had a beef with it, just that I was disappointed in it based on my expectations.

If I did have a beef it would be due to Ki abilities which fell short in other incarnations like the 3.5 CA Ninja. But I wouldn't have made that based on a quick assumption, that would have been something that would come up after playing with it a bit.