OOC Discussion

load previous
Aug 15, 2016 7:33 pm
Jabes.plays.RPG says:
Naatkinson says:
OOC:
Don't forget to give Arktos another feat and another skill point!
Will do! Thanks!

I just found out that Animal Archetypes are a thing. Can Arktos be a Charger or Bodyguard, for instance?
Chose Power Attack for his feat, and gave him the Charger archetype

I still have 1 skill point to assign. It says "Chargers treat Intimidate as a class skill." Arktos has a CHA of 6, which makes him not very intimidating at all! Or can he use STR for intimidation? Is that a thing in Pathfinder, or is that for D&D 3e only?
Aug 15, 2016 7:37 pm
Jabes.plays.RPG says:
Jabes.plays.RPG says:
Naatkinson says:
OOC:
Don't forget to give Arktos another feat and another skill point!
Will do! Thanks!

I just found out that Animal Archetypes are a thing. Can Arktos be a Charger or Bodyguard, for instance?
Chose Power Attack for his feat, and gave him the Charger archetype

I still have 1 skill point to assign. It says "Chargers treat Intimidate as a class skill." Arktos has a CHA of 6, which makes him not very intimidating at all! Or can he use STR for intimidation? Is that a thing in Pathfinder, or is that for D&D 3e only?
I'll allow it to be strength-based for the bear
Aug 15, 2016 7:40 pm
There's a feat in Pathfinder that lets you add your Strength to your Intimidate checks, along with your Charisma, but you can't just substitute it. I don't know why, it never made any sense to me, but there it is. I'm pretty sure that rule is for 3e only.

EDIT: Well, Naat beat me to it, as usual. I try to house-rule it myself when barbarians use CHA as their dump stat :D
Last edited August 15, 2016 7:41 pm
Aug 15, 2016 7:45 pm
Naatkinson says:
I'll allow it to be strength-based for the bear
Great! Thanks! I guess if Urthask wants to try it too he'll have to take the feat.

How do skill points work again? If you put 1 point in a class-skill you get an additional 3 ranks. So +4 and then the relevant ability bonus. So Arktos would have +7 on his Intimidate. Is this correct?
Aug 15, 2016 7:46 pm
Yes, that is correct my friend :)

EDIT: Well, actually, not quite. I read what you posted wrong. You get a +3 "Trained" bonus for any class skill that you put ranks in. So, yes and no on the being correct part. :)
Last edited August 15, 2016 7:48 pm
Aug 15, 2016 8:44 pm
Irvan, did you get a chance to read over the variant action economy rules? Still not sure how I feel about them and am open to feedback.
Aug 15, 2016 9:00 pm
I've looked it over. There's a lot there, and while it may streamline the process a bit, it seems to me like it overcomplicates combat a bit.

Plus, the way it's written, it almost sounds like you have to take three actions to make an attack with a spell that has a casting time of 1 standard action, like Scorching Ray...and if you have to roll multiple attacks separately for a spell, then it almost seems like it's an action spent for each attack.
Quote:
Cast a Standard-Action Spell (Complex; 2 Acts): You cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action. This isn't an attack action, even if the spell requires a ranged attack roll. If you provoke attacks of opportunity when casting the spell, you don't provoke attacks a second time when making the ranged attack roll.
That's a little ridiculous to me. I may be looking at it wrong, but at first glance, that's what it looks like, and that can really hurt a caster.

I'll give it a try, and let you know what I think after running through a combat with them...but looking over them again, I'm not sure I like them too much.
Aug 15, 2016 9:07 pm
I wanted to try it out, since it looked kinda nifty. I feel like if Pathfinder was built around this system it would work better, but it's confusing because they tried to build it around a complex action system.
Aug 15, 2016 9:11 pm
Yeah, it says that because ranged attack actions provoke an attack of opportunity, and they wanted to clarify that this action would not provoke two attacks of opportunity.
Aug 15, 2016 9:32 pm
Unchained is kinda hit or miss with me. Like, it simplifies some things, but overly complicates others. I think I'll like the standard combat system better, but I really won't know until I give it a try.
Aug 15, 2016 9:33 pm
I think they did a really good job with the unchained classes, and variant rules certainly aren't a bad thing to have, since they can be totally ignored if we don't like them
Aug 16, 2016 9:12 pm
Sorry I haven't posted my introduction. Ive been super busy with work and family. Hoping to get it done tonight.
Aug 16, 2016 9:15 pm
JoHoover says:
Sorry I haven't posted my introduction. Ive been super busy with work and family. Hoping to get it done tonight.
No problem, I'm fine with you and Malik posting yours whenever you get a chance :)
Aug 16, 2016 10:49 pm
Yah, sorry for my lack of activity here (at least I've made occasional posts in your other game Naat). RL has really come to a point for me, and the stress is making time management very difficult :/
Aug 16, 2016 10:57 pm
It's all good, fellas. Real life stinks, I understand completely. Take care of yourselves first :)
Aug 17, 2016 3:36 pm
No problem at all, real life comes first! We'll keep the game slow for a couple days so you don't miss anything.
Aug 25, 2016 4:31 pm
Naatkinson says:
Jabes.plays.RPG says:
Urthask strides past Archibald and storms in.. Roaring a challenge, he
OOC:
The suspense is killing me!
LOL! Sorry, my internet connection cut out and I couldn't reconnect. Updating that post now. :-)
Aug 25, 2016 4:53 pm
Rolled a 1 on the crit confirmation for a nat 20. You don't see that every day! :-P
Aug 25, 2016 5:01 pm
Quote:
Whistling for Arktos, Urthask strides past...
So I don't know if this is something I can do and if I need to roll anything to get Arktos to come charging in. Looking at the map it looks like he can fit in here. It's gonna be mayhem for sure though! :-D
Aug 25, 2016 5:07 pm
You could roll a Perception check for Arktos, with a -4 penalty for the noise of the furnace to see if he can even hear the whistle
load next

You do not have permission to post in this thread.