docbuzzard

As it turns out ATOs have been cheap enough that I can probably spend my stockpile of astrals on Kin Combat since I piled up quite a few of them expecting to buy all my ATOs with those. However market prices on the ones I want (nor scrapper or brute so far) have been cheap enough. Word to the wise, I would stock up on stalker ATOs now since they will likely skyrocket once i22 goes live.

You know, I find that unless I decided to get brave and run off in lambda to solo stuff during the destroy phase, I can get by just fine on the ambient buffs present on a given team. Now with the next issue and solo incarnate content, you are probably correct I will need to ramp up to kinetics, but until then I won't bother. Those sets are simply stupidly expensive.

The way IOs are set up, there is very little you can do to add more resistance through set bonuses. About all you can increase notably is negative energy resistance (Scirroco's Dervish) and fire/cold resistance (purple sets).

Given how defense is effectively double in value per percentage, it's not very worthwhile to pursue IO bonuses to resistance.

Being an oddball, I have done a bit of it in spite of the above. On my electric armor tanker I have used IO bonuses to shore up some lower resistance values. I have a bunch of Scirroco's, the psi resistance procs, and a couple purples in place to boost negative energy resistance and fire/cold resistance. The build has very high resistance (higher than anything short of a tier 9 in other sets, and I didn't even bother with power surge) over 70% against everything (I also use the +resistance alpha power).

The real question to be addressed is whether or not there really is a problem. Some players are more outgoing than others, and you are not going to change their natures, nor really should you. I would try to ask around (privately if possible) if people are satisfied with how the game is working, and then react. You say "The net result is that the majority of the party feels that the two more active/talkative/theatrical players are sucking up all of the playtime." is this something stated or just an impression you get?

Every table of a game I have played has had more and less active players. It's just how the games work. I would venture it is more important to make sure the less active people are given ways for their characters to feel important than to try and make them into leaders. I find that as long as people feel they are contributing, even if not leading, they are satisfied.

I don't really know that I would say the rules break down actually.I would also say what does occur (power disparity between classes, and the difficulty of writing plots for characters that essentially become superheroes) actually happens a bit later than in 3.5. Pathfinder nerfed a lot of the really broken spells, and limited some of the more overpowered 3.5 options (clerics and druids were both tamed some).

One of the things which has impressed me the most about Pathfinder is that while they have added a number of rules expansion books, they have mostly only provided more options without instigating power creep. In 3.5 you tended to be clearly more powerful with the more books you owned. In Pathfinder, you are often presented with options which will actually lower your power but offer interesting twists.

So the real issue with Pathfinder is that while every class gets pretty damned powerful at high levels, the spell casters are capable of being a lot more versatile, and are also capable of world shaking powers (the classic D&D issue). A high level fighter is an amazing death machine as long as you can win the fight by beating it down with a weapon. However is that isn't the solution to your current problem, the fighter is mostly a dud. A wizard or cleric, OTOH, can do spells which are capable of almost anything (at high enough level).

The 'breakdown' if you want to call it that really tends to happen above 15th level. Even then a decent adventure writer and made do (though the mundane classes will in some ways be carted around by the casters), but it take a lot of care, and combats are very numerically intensive.

If you play on justice yes. If not, no. I play most evenings. Same global as the name here.

I will say I'm pretty partial to war mace, and believe it to be the best weapon set (titan weapons may be comparable).

Considering you do end up stacking a lot of different powers to get all your defense, yes it probably will suck in PVP zones due to DR. I haven't checked myself of course.

The endurance drain protection is OK, but nowhere near as good as it is on electric armor. On my electric armor builds, I can simply ignore drain. On EA, it just bothers you a good bit less, but still happens. The heal is nice as well, and the fact that you get a recharge bonus for being surrounded is great.

Comparing them to some of the worst drek of all time does not mitigate how bad they are. They were sufficiently bad that I have completely lost interest in the franchise.

No, two was really more than enough.

Way I see it, I'll do DA content while waiting for trials to form. They aren't constant on Justice, so DA will eat downtime.

I found it well past kinda funny. It was damned funny.

Of course you do have to have a rather dark sense of humor.

Damn, now I feel like I've given something away.

Well I will say no more. It's a good flick.

Someone has watched Crisis on Two Earths too many times.

Was that supposed to make sense?

Maybe I'll try to get past the bozo, maybe I won't. I don't generally have patience for people that turn me off in short order.

OK that explains it. I've only taken a rogue over to hero all the way once, and it was in the 20s. These were 40+ missions.

So I just have rotten luck? Odd.

If the guy at the start of the clip was the writer (found it on some comics site), he came off as a pompous bozo, so I gave up in short order.