TRPG General Chat

12:10 AM

Rep cap y u wast my rep liek dis?

1:21 AM

@keshlam That sounds like either an answer, or an attempt to discuss the issue. Both are not what comments are for, though the former could find a home in an answer post. — SevenSidedDie ♦ 20 mins ago

@SevenSidedDie -- just what was this comment aimed at?? Either it's aimed at GMJoe's comment -- which I already suggested he make into an answer, but he declined as apparently that part of Planescape may not have been ported to 3.x (or he simply doesn't have the 3.x version of that sourcebook), or it's aimed at Keshlam's answer -- which is utter nonsense!

Miniman

@Shalvenay Presumably a deleted comment you can't see?

If it was aimed at GMJoe's comment, it would start with @ GMJoe.

Also, this sounds exactly like the kind of comment a mod leaves when they delete something.

Shalvenay

1:34 AM

@Miniman if it was aimed at anyone else but the person who wrote the answer it was attached to, it'd make sense

doppelgreener

2:00 AM

i sent up a custom mod flag saying: "SSD, did you really mean to ping keshlam, the answerer, here? Or did you mean GMJoe?"

Yuuki

ASDKLFAEFLKAJ;DFKL;ASJDFLKAEWFEKLAJFALSKDF

My build is ruined.

Slashing Grace does not work with rapiers because you choose a "light or one-handed slashing weapon".

Which, in hindsight, I should have realized.

But I was desperate to find any sort of DEX to damage option for rapiers without resorting to Rogue.

GODDAMMIT, PAIZO, WAS THE RAPIER-STYLE DUELIST REALLY THAT HARD TO IMAGINE?

4

Adeptus

In 2e, you had rapiers, which do piercing damage, and... (sabers?) which do slashing damage but were otherwise mechanically identical

Shalvenay

@Adeptus sounds about right?

@doppelgreener thx!

Yuuki

YOU HAVE FIVE GAJILLION WAYS TO CAST SPELLS, BUT OH NO WE CAN'T LET MUNDANES FLIT AROUND THE BATTLEFIELD WITH A FLIMSY POKE SWORD.

@Adeptus Sabers are for cavalrymen.

Adeptus

> In 2e the sabre was a light slashing weapon favored by swashbucklers using single weapon prof. Now in 3.5e PHB and FRCS the sabre is listed as a long heavy sword specilized for mounted use

(source)

> Problem is the term Saber/Sabre is used to several different sword types.
Because there were Calvary Sabres, which was basically a type of Longsword.
There were Fencing Sabres, a Heavy "Rapier" used for slashing.

Yuuki

2:12 AM

Fencing sabres were never used in combat though.

Adeptus

You expect historical accuracy from D&D/PF?

Yuuki

No, I'd like to be able to make a rapier build without having to resort to Rogue though.

Adeptus

2:30 AM

I'd ask your GM if you can use a fencing sabre (= "slashing rapier")

Yuuki

I doubt it will fly. The group seems somewhat strict on their reading of the rulebooks.

BESW

2:48 AM

**Cool stuff:** [Bundle of Holding](http://bundleofholding.com "buy RPGs cheap in bulk, support charities & indie designers!");
[Bring Back MST3K!](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mst3k/bringbackmst3k/ "Kickstart up to 12 new episodes of Mystery Science Theater");
[Mindjammer RPG](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/328469751/mindjammer-the-roleplaying-game "Transhuman Science-Fiction Roleplaying in the Universe of the Far Future!");
[Fantastic Locations](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1298145716/sly-flourishs-fantastic-locations "Fantastic locations to drop into your fantasy ro…

Are you or your group not open to re-fluffing? Keep the mechanics but say you're using a rapier?

doppelgreener

@Yuuki Paizo is notorious for totally shafting martial classes unfortunately

Yuuki

Also, the Holy Gun archetype seems completely non-functional.

You get a Gunslinger deed at 2nd level but you don't get grit points to spend on it until 11th level.

Shalvenay

3:04 AM

@doppelgreener just continuing in the sad tradition of 3.x

Miniman

@Shalvenay That doesn't really make sense - martials got better stuff in 3.5 as time went by.

doppelgreener

@Yuuki Paizo is also a little notorious for having sabotaged gunslingers, because they didn't want to make them - at least, according to the author I'm linking to, who writes for a third party publisher who publishes for Pathfinder, and who's deeply connected into the Pathfinder scene as a result.

Yuuki

I think I might have to settle for a Paladin/Gunslinger multiclass if I want to be Shepherd Book.

Shalvenay

@Miniman it is true that WotC wizened up a bit re: martials as 3.5 went on, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong!) that Paizo forked 3.5 to create PF fairly early on, before things like Tome of Battle were published

Miniman

@Shalvenay I wasn't just talking about ToB - even PHB II had far more powerful martial options than were included in Core.

doppelgreener

3:14 AM

@Yuuki If your group's amenable to reflavouring, you may be happier working with a hand crossbow mechanically rather than a gun.

Shalvenay

@Miniman ah. as in feats and such, or more classes even? (I'm not familiar with the extra PHB/MM/DMG material)

doppelgreener

I don't mean to wail on Paizo since I have very little beef with them, but I do mean to point out where you may be dealing with a minefield.

Miniman

@Shalvenay I was thinking of feats, but that too. More importantly, PHB II isn't "extra" PHB material, it's an entirely separate sourcebook in the same vein as the Complete series.

doppelgreener

(Just so happens Paizo has a lot of those spread around the various parts of Pathfinder's design.)

Shalvenay

@Miniman ah. talk about a misleading title...

doppelgreener

3:18 AM

Like, myself, I'd really like to try the gunslinger. Except the 1/20 chance of my weapon breaking, the ease with which a bit of water disables my class's primary feature (but nobody else's), and the high expense of playing one, kinda makes them not viable in my eyes.

Yuuki

I'm just haphazardly fumbling through character concepts.

I had originally planned a Dr. Frankenstein-like Chirurgeon/Reanimator Alchemist, but someone said they were planning on making a Chirurgeon, so there went that idea.

doppelgreener

apparently they're also pretty strong though?

Yuuki

Rapier dex fighter went down like the Hindenburg.

@doppelgreener They're strong because they target touch AC.

But there's the problems like you listed above. If they do run into those conditions (rare as they may be), they're kinda boned.

I might try an Unchained Rogue.

Shalvenay

@Yuuki I've always wondered how far Unchained swings the magic vs mundane/martial pendulum...

(and in which direction, of course ;)

Yuuki

Apparently, Unchained fixed a number of the problems with Rogue and Monk (but depending on who you ask didn't go far enough in terms of buffing) and made a much-needed nerf to the Summoner.

Shalvenay

3:35 AM

@Yuuki hrm.

Yuuki

Hmm... should I try Skald?

Shalvenay

well, Monk needed fixing, Rogue in base 3.x probably had problems but was serviceable...but what about the rest of the martial world?

@Yuuki :notsure: the only Skald I've ever seen is the 2e version, and that was a monster of a character

Miniman

@Shalvenay Rogue wasn't serviceable, we all just pretended that it was.

Yuuki

Reading through the description, I can turn my party members into barbarians.

I wonder if the GMs will let me enrage allies by playing Friday?

Shalvenay

@Yuuki LOL

doppelgreener

3:42 AM

@Yuuki Friday: 5th level Bard spell. Everyone who hears your invigorating music activates the Barbarian's Rage, even if they aren't Barbarians. A Barbarian instead activates Greater Rage. If they already have that, they enter Mighty Rage.

Shalvenay

3:54 AM

@Miniman hahaha!

(I do know that 3.x rogues are lousy soloists, though. DOn't ask me how.)

Adeptus

@doppelgreener * targeted against the bard

Yuuki

Ugh, I can't find a character concept that's interesting me.

Shalvenay

@Yuuki yeah, I know the feeling at times :/

Adeptus

@Shalvenay Scouts may be slightly better. They get many rogue-like abilities, but are a bit tougher

Yuuki

Duelist was simple, but I had conjured up a whole backstory and everything.

Shalvenay

3:58 AM

@Adeptus yeah, although not quite what I'm used to for a tough, tenacious forward scout...;)

Yuuki

Hmm... Shield Champion archetype?

Ugh, I don't want to mess with Flurry.

I think I might try a bloodrager.

Miniman

@Shalvenay I hadn't realised just how bad they are until someone introduced me to the Same Game Test, forcing me to scrap a build I'd been working on for a while.

doppelgreener

@Adeptus Apocalypse World features a character type that can try to defuse a bad situation by having everyone go back to their lives, but if they fail, the whole mob just collectively turns on them instead.

Shalvenay

@Adeptus (although I'm probably terribly spoiled in that regard...)

Yuuki

Oh. Oh my.

I might try Steelblood/Crossblood Bloodrager.

This looks appealing.

doppelgreener

4:11 AM

Ooo. What's that one like?

What catches your eye about it?

Yuuki

Wear heavy armor, have two bloodline powers.

And I'm leaning towards Aberrant/Destined.

Get bigger and have an aura of greatness when you enrage.

Cast arcane spells in heavy armor without incurring spell failure.

Although your selection is somewhat limited.

doppelgreener

Those sound like fun combinations.

Yuuki

4:34 AM

Hmm... Greataxe or Halberd?

1d12 v 1d10 with brace and trip.

doppelgreener

Brace relies on a readied action against a charge, are you likely to use that?

Yuuki

I dunno. I'm just being cautious since a GM recently used a charge attack to great effect.

doppelgreener

I'd be a fan of 1d10 plus the ability to trip some fools, provided I'm willing to get Improved Trip or I'm otherwise confident I'll be able to use it reasonably effectively.

Yuuki

Eh, I'll use d12 Greataxe for now. I can always switch it out later.

Miniman

4:55 AM

Worrying realization: the misunderstanding implicit in this question is actually my fault, stemming from my answer to this question.

Adeptus

@Yuuki It's not have two bloodline powers, it's choose one of two bloodline powers

Gives you a bit more flexibility in your build, but I'm not sure it's worth the drawbacks, personally.

Yuuki

I definitely want Aberrant but that 1st-level power is kinda balls.

The penalty to Will is definitely dangerous.

Especially since bloodragers inherit that low Will save and Wisdom isn't particular important to them.

Miniman

@Yuuki In some ways, once you've got that double dump, you may as well ignore penalties to a Will save when considering future options - you're going to fail all your Will saves anyway, so there's no point caring about it anymore.

Yuuki

And I do hope the GMs exercise enough restraint to not mind-control my character into killing everyone else. That's just bad feelings all around.

doppelgreener

Rubbish item idea:

Shalvenay

5:10 AM

@Yuuki yeesh. that'd be bad.

doppelgreener

> Tinfoil cap: Your character will never be mind controlled. At least, they think so, as long as they're wearing their trusty cap. You get +5 to resist mind controlling effects attempted upon you. Others will take a -5 to attempts to overcome any successful mind controlling effects placed upon you. (Worn on the head, but doesn't occupy the head slot.)

Shalvenay

@Yuuki'sGM: can't you find anything better to do with mind control than a TPK?

@doppelgreener harhar

doppelgreener

@Shalvenay It is very tempting though.

BESW

Last time I mind-controlled a PC, I had him walk straight into the monster's mouth.

...where he jerry-rigged the engine of the tank the monster had eaten earlier in battle, and with a little help from outside exploded the monster from the inside out.

Yuuki

I wouldn't mind so much if it was an IRL group of friends, but it's a recipe for disaster when it comes to a bunch of faceless names over the Internet.

Has a much higher chance of turning into real spite and circles of revenge.

doppelgreener

5:25 AM

If you feel there's a pretty good chance the GM could do this, might be worthwhile having a chat with them along the lines of "I'm picking a character who's going to have a low will defence, and I can't avoid that. Having such an important defense so low is pretty scary. What should I expect might happen? Can I get your assurance they probably won't be mind-controlled to kill everyone, since that'd probably suck for all of us?"

Tashio

5:50 AM

Is it just me or have we had this low will save/mindcontrol issue come up before where DM was basically going to TPK with it?

BESW

Yup. It's not uncommon.

Some GMs have the attitude that if a player chooses to have a low defence, they're asking for it to be exploited.

doppelgreener

6:10 AM

And sometimes the same GM has the idea that the GM's job is to try to kill absolutely every player character, and the players' job is to stop that from happening.

Adeptus

6:28 AM

@doppelgreener We had a GM who let us almost all get killed by one player's stupidity, but had one PC "left for dead", who could get the rest of us resurrected.

BESW

In my days as a DM (rather than a GM) I was generally of the "don't get in the way of player stupidity" mindset.

Adeptus

We had another GM who ran games in a kungfu/horror vein, and made us aware beforehand that we could expect at least some of the PCs to die. (mine, in the first session...)

He took inspiration from various horror/supernatural anime, and live-action films such as Chinese Ghost Story.

Adeptus

6:50 AM

Apr 24 at 5:16, by Adeptus

Though there was one close call... One of our players always wanted to be a ladies man (IC & OOC)... In this particular game, we were all Elves except for a human Paladin. We'd just come back from a dungeon crawl & head to the inn to divide the loot.

(story continues from there)