Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Atarlost's page

4,953 posts (4,954 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 4,953 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Multiplying lice or insects of Angband from Angband or its variants.

The worst were Hummerhorns in ToME 2. They multiplied quickly, hit to inflict confusion, and in some of the "dungeons" where they could appear the walls were trees they could fly over so you couldn't contain them with doors or choke points.

In Pathfinder terms they hit to confuse (fort save since it's described as a poison effect) and create another hummerhorn as an Ex ability probably on a 1d4 round cooldown like dragon breaths.

Have fun.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

78. A peon saved is a peon earned.

kestral287 wrote:

Frankly Atarlost, you're playing the wrong game.

Because if you carry out your plan... you still have all the same feat options so nothing is solved. You still have skill points. The only thing that you've 'fixed' that's listed in that post is dips, and those are easy. 90% of the time you just don't dip. The other 10% of the time you already know what you want, and it's a marginal gain that you can freely ignore anyway. The builds that require dips are not the builds that casual players play.

The point isn't that complexity is a bad thing. It's that Milo is straining at a gnat.

Cyrad wrote:

This is giving me way too many ideas. I'm now brainstorming a plot where an evil guy commits mass murder or assassinations by mind controlling cats and having them coup de grace their owners.

I mean, why not? I had a villain try to spread a plague by baleful polymorphing infected people into cats and giving them away as pets.

A similar thought is to have a villain that was baleful polymorphed into a cat but made the will save. Imagine a Psion/Telepath cat as the ultimate antagonist of a political intrigue game. A good mouser is welcome -- and ignored -- everywhere. A telepathic mouser can not only rule a kingdom from behind the throne but rule every faction in the capitol from behind whatever their nominal leaders rest their rumps on. And if the PCs eventually catch on he's a mind controlling caster that can go places a kobold couldn't follow. It looks like it would start working at level 8 when you get get the second discipline ability and can have 4th level powers so Vizier Cat could work as a "big" bad for a 5 level campaign.

Milo v3 wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Only because leveling up is already very, very complex, and if multiclassing weren't fundamentally broken an awful lot of archetypes could be deprecated which might actually make things easier.

What it is is in need of tuning.

I'd say more because of how classes work. Not because leveling up is complex. It isn't, especially not if your using fractions rather than totals for saves and BAB.

Maybe if you play core only. Otherwise there are too many badly organized character options to decipher to call it anything less than ridiculously complicated. Do I dip another class? Is this the level to do so? What feat do I want? Can I actually take it this level? What feat that I don't want do I need to take before I take the feat I do want? Do I still want that feat? What spells should I learn? What spells known should I retrain? Do I have any slack in my skill plan? What skills are worth scattering points in that won't become useless if not maxed?

Compared to that a little math is the very platonic form of simplicity.

Yeah, best solution is to get rid of level 1 human or near-human adults and teenagers. An awful lot of classes don't do what they say on the tin until level 2 anyways.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

If you DM allows for Scion of Humanity Aasimar, there is absolutely no reason at all to play a Human.

For the "price" of a Racial Bonus Feat (you don't get one as an Aasimar), you get to play a Human-Plus: elemental resistance, ability bonuses, etc.

You get access to all the Human Favored Class Bonuses, all the Human Racial Class Archetypes, all the abilities which require you to be a Human, etc. etc.

tl;dr: Play a Scion of Humanity Aasimar.

Most racial bonuses go away when polymorphed so Aasimar isn't offering much. The racial bonus feat is probably better and if not dual talented is better. I think all aasimar heritages waste one of the stat bumps on charisma and charisma is a dump stat for druids.

strayshift wrote:

Reactive = Situational = Exactly what you need at the time = a Proactive use of your abilities.

Over a whole adventure I've yet to see a prepared caster predict everything and be prepared for it (and I've seen a lot played by many different people). You can worry about being 'reactive' but when a sorcerer needs to repeatedly cast dispel magic or fly or invisibility or fireball or whatever on the entire party or to kill an army they often can. If that is reactive then I'm happy with that proactive reactiveness. And metamagics give them even more options than you give credit for (e.g. heightening your fireball to bypass defences or even a simple light spell to counter darkness) to achieve that. And to keep this on thread I'll repeat the point that a cross-blooded sorcerer suffers because of fewer spells known.

Reactive and proactive are by definition exclusive. The same action cannot be both.

When a sorcerer needs to repeatedly cast dispel magic he's paid for that with delayed spell access and pitifully limited spells known compared to a wizard.

When a sorcerer needs to repeatedly cast empowered fireball he pays again in action economy. Since he knew he would be empowering any fireballs he cast not just in the morning but back when he decided empower spell metamagic was worth a feat just like the equivalent wizard he gains no flexibility. He still has the flexibility he had without metamagic, but the increased action cost doesn't get him anything. The sorcerer pays more for all metamagic other than quicken but gets the same effect. In any situation where metamagic use is planned (and if you don't have a plan you shouldn't have wasted the feat unless on an insurance metamagic like silent or still spell) the sorcerer only gets the flexibility he already paid for with delayed spell access and limited spells known.

You're overselling options. A hyperfocused single spell build might want to use heighten to get around protective magic, but a hyperfocused prepared casting build will have preferred spell if it has heighten. A generalist build, especially a spontaneous casting generalist, is better off just casting a higher level spell. Heighten gets you no versatility you didn't have without it. Spontaneously heightening a light spell is for those who aren't prepared. Wizards -- and sorcerers who for some reason took heighten and can get a page of spell knowledge -- heighten eternal flame on at least one wearable nonmagic object per party member at least a day before they go adventuring.

LazarX wrote:
If you as a GM feel that way, then ELIMINATE THE TRAIT. If you feel like tossing extra gold at your players, keep the trait eliminated and simply do so.

You're completely missing the point. The short term advantage (getting more starting gold) can be offset by a short term disadvantage (not getting your real trait until that gold is no longer relevant).

Being able to start out better geared is an advantage at level 1 and remains relevant at level 2. Just giving extra gold screws over anyone who doesn't want to use that background.

Compare to Amateur Gunslinger. If made obsolete through multiclassing it gets automatically replaced with a different feat that is still useful.

There's one colossal weakness to that gestalt: it's not a caster.

I wouldn't gestalt bloodrager. You can't cast spells from other classes in a bloodrage and none of the non-casting classes fit with it.

I wouldn't normally gestalt barbarian for much the same reason. Rage doesn't generally play nicely with other class abilities.

Skald's completely ignore the action limitation from their own raging song so Skald is the best rage class for gestalt. They already have the most important saves so anything full BAB is a good second half, though slayer, brawler, or paladin are probably best.

Melkiador wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Those traits have nothing to do with archetypes at all. Nothing on that page ever actually describes an archetype. The page is completely sodding useless.
What do you think an archetype is?

Archae Type. The original type. The established form a character fits into. Are you a tragic hero in the style of Jason or Oedipus or are you an epic hero in the style of Beuwolf? Or maybe you're one of those usually religious figures that follows the monomyth. I don't recommend the last for gaming, though.

Milo v3 wrote:
That sounds very very very complex...

Only because leveling up is already very, very complex, and if multiclassing weren't fundamentally broken an awful lot of archetypes could be deprecated which might actually make things easier.

What it is is in need of tuning.

kestral287 wrote:
We already have rules for how you add class levels to monsters?

Yes. Yes, we do. Monsters have key and non-key classes. Key classes add fully to CR. Non-key classes add half until there are as many class levels as either racial hit dice or the monster's base CR, I forget which.

I'm suggesting something like that for multiclassing

So for instance if your largest level total is wizard there are no key classes for wizard because nothing stacks with it. Any levels of anything else would count half for APL or CR and you get two per XP threshold until you have more of that class than wizard. On the other hand fighter and barbarian do stack pretty well and would reasonably both count fully to APL or CR and come with no XP discount like they do now.

The two to one ratio used form non-key classes on monsters is certainly not the right ratio to use for multiclassing because a non-key medium BAB class would give better than full BAB and there probably needs to be three ratios rather than two for classes where some stuff works together and other stuff doesn't. Or possibly half the levels of the lesser class could be treated as gestalt with the primary class to keep BAB and HD from going over 20.

Multiclassing needs a proper fix and it needs to acknowledge like the monster class rules that some classes stack and others don't.

strayshift wrote:
Sorcerers OWN metamagic even with the increase in casting time (not got me killed yet) as they can use precisely the spell/metamagic they need at the time.

That's only an advantage for reactive metamagics. It's great for still spell (except on the armored builds that get around ASF by stilling every spell with a somatic component) and for silent spell and maybe elemental and merciful spell, but if you're planning to use metamagic proactively there is no flexibility. You decided way back when you chose the feat that there were certain spells you intended to use for which the metamagic effect was worth the slot increase.

One Trick wizards almost always have some means to cast one spell spontaneously, often preferred spell, which doesn't raise casting time. They're not the only wizards who plan their metamagic, though. If you're a save or something caster who decides persistent spell is worth taking it's because you've concluded that the reroll is more important than the -2 to save DC and the benefits of a higher level spell and you're going to use it pretty much all the time. You will cast most of your spells that offer saves with it because if you didn't think it was worth it you wouldn't have taken the feat. The alleged flexibility of the sorcerer is that the spell with and without the metamagic are like different spells known, but if you don't intend to use the spell without the metamagic they're not. The sorcerer is trashing his action economy for no more benefit than the wizard gets.

Dekalinder wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

The OP specifically went on to define his version of hero "as the trope". That would be this.

His analysis of what that trope means and TVTropes' analysis of what that trope means are two wildly different things, mind. Hence my giganto-post.

That's a bunch of description, but completely lacks definition. If I say "I want to play the hero," I'm not talking about a guy who wears blue or red and is the primary love interest of the group's token female character. I don't think anyone is. The actual heroic archetypes are less superficial.
I think you lack understanding on the definition of tropes. In any case,, The Hero is commonly accepted as one specific archetype of hero, with his primary definition not being about what he can do, but how important he is for the story as a whole. He is the centerpiece that makes the story go forward. In that page you find out listed many ways in witch such importance can be emphasized by the autor. A generic character respecting this trope does not have to adhere to all of them.

Those traits have nothing to do with archetypes at all. Nothing on that page ever actually describes an archetype. The page is completely sodding useless.

kestral287 wrote:

The OP specifically went on to define his version of hero "as the trope". That would be this.

His analysis of what that trope means and TVTropes' analysis of what that trope means are two wildly different things, mind. Hence my giganto-post.

That's a bunch of description, but completely lacks definition. If I say "I want to play the hero," I'm not talking about a guy who wears blue or red and is the primary love interest of the group's token female character. I don't think anyone is. The actual heroic archetypes are less superficial.

What was really needed was something like the rules for how adding class levels effects the CR of monsters with racial hit dice. Probably with a special case for stacking casting of same source magic like wizard and magus or druid, hunter, and ranger.

Remember, XP used to be tracked separately. A fighter 10 magic user 10 needed as much XP as the sum of his levels, not as much XP as a level 20 character. Or I think with demihuman multiclassing you split your XP in half and the levels wouldn't line up, but until some class capped out the sum of the XP for each class would still be your total XP.

In 3.x a fighter 10 wizard 10 requires far more XP than the sum of his classes. The change that's needed is to fix that or at least remediate it as much as practicable if there's no way to truly fix it without being too complicated for the average GM to audit at the table.

There are two or three reasons to not just say "we need an arm."

First, it doesn't address noncombat roles. Unless those are all filled you'll say "we need an arm cleric" because there's really no other way to get non-HP healing on the schedule expected by the CR system or "we need a hammer that's also a face."

Second, if you have some a role but not enough you don't want more of the same. If you have a druid hammer who can summon in a pinch but no dedicated anvil maybe the anvil you want isn't focused on summoning. If your hammer is a cleric maybe you don't want your arm to also be a cleric or oracle because a bard or wizard or sorcerer would have less overlap. Damage is damage and always stacks, but even so you might wind up asking for a sustained hammer to go with a magus or warpriest or a ranged hammer to go with a barbarian or even an AoE hammer if you know your GM is fond of large combats.

It's also possible to have a party built around a nontraditional hammer. A SoD caster is also a hammer and he needs a different kind of arm: one focused on penalizing saves and forcing rerolls rather than the usual attack and damage roll boosting. I think this special case only applies to arm requests, though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Given I have heard in this one thread that magus is the best VMC and one of the worst, I think it's safe to say that in total, we haven't had these to play with for long enough to come up with a conclusive judgment. One thing that takes a little while to kick in (for instance in the case of the magus, which I agree is a very powerful one) is the ability to look past one ability that is less useful for that many characters (spellstrike) and toward the abilities that are worth an extreme amount more than a feat but only sub out one feat (arcane pool) or just generally more than a feat, if not by an extreme amount (arcana). The same is true for wizard, another of the ones I've seen said to be both quite strong (I agree with that side) and weak, the latter judgments due to fixation on the 11th level ability being not as useful.

Even if every ability for every class were better than a feat (they're not) the system would be bad because there's no flexibility.

To take your magus example, the soul of the magus is the spell combat spellstrike combo. If you were using magus with normal multiclassing that would be the important thing. The VMC magus gets some peripheral stuff that isn't really important. Arcane Pool is a BAB compensator and not a very good one. It's not enough to make a wizard-magus work and it's redundant for a bard-magus or bloodrager-magus. The arcana is still not what makes a magus a magus. At level 11 the magus VMC finally gets one of the things the multiclasser actually wants from magus, but it's the one that doesn't work alone because it's only useful in melee, but it's not the one that lets you safely cast in melee. It doesn't matter how great you think arcane pool or arcana are. That's not doing the job.

In general the actual abilities people might want from a multiclass are too frequently delayed until level 11 in a game where the reality is that most campaigns fall apart before level 10. That does not a useful system make.

It's the old monk problem. A fixed schedule of abilities is worth less than the sum of its parts.

Mystically Inclined wrote:

Or, just dip a single level of Goliath Druid with Growth Domain and go back to fighter. I have a Dwarven Martial Master Cleave Fighter. After reading this thread, I did a test build. A single level dip gives me the ability to Enlarge as a swift action for 5 rounds, and I get 1 use of enlarge person (cast like normal) plus 2 other druid spells which can be spontaneously turn into Enlarge Person (self only). So not only do I get enough enlarge persons to last through 3 fights (and another 1-2 fights using swift actions) but I can keep two of those enlarge person castings as Faerie Fire and Longstrider, just in case. Should I decide to invest a second level in Druid, I'd get +1 to Fort and Will, and another level 1 spell.

That is a LOT of value for a 1-2 level dip. I'm quite pleased. Thank you, thread. :-D

But you only get to large that way. That will let you do nonadjacent cleaving to most evil outsiders, but you need more druid to get the big giants and most full grown dragons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The answer is probably no. You're missing something and VMC sucks. You're missing an actual post with content in it, but I'm not seeing much to like in VMC. It's too rigid and most classes don't give an ability worth a feat until level 7, which is rather late. Many don't even give a worthwhile ability until level 11. Some are never worthwhile.

The existence of a handful of VMCs that are sometimes worth using doesn't make the system as a whole not suck.

Xah Doom wrote:
Illeist wrote:
If you're not married to a given class, the abyssal bloodrager bloodline eventually enlarges when you rage, and the bear spirit for the medium makes you large and eventually huge (at least, the playtest version does; we'll have to wait a few months to see the release version).

A couple other options,

Goliath Druid archetype

Nah. You want a standard druid. Animals are generally better for standard action attacks than humanoids and the goliath druid doesn't get any animals that aren't dinosaurs or megafauna. The behemoth hippopotamus, which is the apex of standard action attack power, is not actually a megafaunus. He also gets no flying forms because pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs.

Druid really is the best class for the build. It's probably the class that best takes advantage of the dwarven stat array and the disadvantage of being slow goes away when you wildshape. Bloodrager might work, but you'd be a charisma casting class on a race with a charisma penalty and that really doesn't work out well.

thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Fourleaf wrote:
Also, would you let your players do this to their party? (I corrected this for you)

I would. I'm not going to tell a player "No, you can't do this" when it's totaly legal, rules wise. [

So when a player sez his pC murders all the other PC's in their sleep and takes their stuff- and keep doing this time after time, so that no one but him gets to play more than a day- - well, that's "totaly legal, rules wise

"? And it's not by the way.

Of course it's very easy to tell a player not to do this since you are the DM and you can say "Hey, this is a No Evils campaign, that was evil, that PC is now my NPC."

It's even easier to say: "Don't be a dick or don't bother showing up next week."

Metagame problems are best solved out of game.

But imagine how hard it would have been to get an NPC trusted by the party enough that his betrayal would sting without the players being upset at the GM for the twist. If you let the jerk betray the party and then declare his character an NPC after he does so you get the sort of personal antagonist you could never get otherwise in a normal gaming group.

It might even be worth giving him warnings to string the misbehavior along to get an even more hated antagonist out of the deal.

Dave Justus wrote:

I personally don't like the two character solution. If you are focused on the game as tactical combat, it is workable, but if you want much role playing and character development it is pretty hard to do with a player controlling two characters.

Gestalt can be a good option to allow characters to cover everything. Adding to magic would be a definite help, but action economy doesn't change with Gestalt, so the game still requires some adjusting.

If you decide you must have more characters in the party, I'd suggest giving the two main PCs a free leadership feat and having them control each others cohorts. This lets the main characters be the players focus and lets them role play the relationship with their cohorts as well.

Gestalts may not have any action economy advantage, but done right they're a lot harder to kill. The CR system is designed to avoid TPKs so there's slack in it in case someone succumbs to a save or lose or save or puppet at the start of the fight. Gestalts don't tend to fail saves very much. Gestalts also tend to be at least one step larger hit die except on full martials. The smaller party will also have better magic items because the same amount of loot is being sold but it's split into fewer shares. The same happens for XP and even if you normally do ad hoc leveling you should total up the XP you would be giving out and divide it by the smaller party size to see how often they level up.

Cap. Darling wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:

In Real life there are no numbers and things like training, confidence, and a shower can do wonders for your personal magnetisme.

Actually, the training and confidence are a large part of what makes up the stat.

You have a low Str? Hit the gym and lift some weights. Low Cha? Take a few elocution classes and buy a better wardrobe. Low Dex? Grab a few exercise balls, or learn to play the guitar.

But that is not how stats work in PF. Stat gains are not a few classes away.

Actually, they are. But most characters have already taken the classes they're interested in.

But how do you then reward a character that "Hit the gym and lift some weights.","Take a few elocution classes and buy a better wardrobe.","Grab a few exercise balls, or learn to play the guitar."? To use your own words.

That's the fundamental flaw of level based systems. Levels are a very disassociated mechanic.

Level-less systems tend to have a hard time putting enough of a gap between heroes and mooks to be good epic fantasy simulators, though, and you usually don't get to build a character.

I would consider the delayed spell access ruinous. Filling the slots with metamagic is no substitute because sorcerers are bad at planned metamagic. They get the most out of still and silent and quicken (outside the still everything armored wizard builds) but if you know what you plan to do with your metamagic then wizard has better action economy.

As a cross-blooded sorcerer you know you'll be taking some few metamagic feats and applying one to all of your top level slots. At that point you may as well dip sorcerer on a wizard, get your spells at the normal sorcerer schedule, have more spells known than a normal sorcerer, and have your move actions.

It's best to remove one or even two of the mental stats. There are too many mental stats for the breadth of mental variation they purport to represent. Cyrad may be right that wisdom is the one to get rid of, but there are too many mental stats. There are one martial stat, three caster stats, and two everyone stats, but apart from arcanist each caster only uses one of the three caster stats. There's just not enough mental stuff to make all the caster stats at all useful to a non-caster even if casters were made to use all of them.

The three mental stats between them do more than strength so it's probably best to remove just one, but if you also juggle physical stuff to make strength more generally valuable you can remove two and not have it overshadow the physical stats for non-casters.

First, the loss of a dump stat means point buys should be raised by 4. After reshuffling almost everyone will lose a dump stat. If you're one of those people who rolls stats roll an extra stat and discard the lowest unless you still do roll in order. If you remove two mental stats that messes with class balance more because eg. alchemists lost one dump stat while condensing two they were investing in, but monks lost two dump stats. In almost all cases stat prerequisites for feats should go to the greater of the remaining mental stats, though if wisdom is removed monk feats may be an exception.

To remove Charisma move all charisma based class abilities to wisdom unless they're from an arcane class and all racials to int unless they're from tiefling or aasimar. Diplomacy and bluff join sense motive under wisdom. UMD and perform go to int because UMD should have always been int and performance tends to rely on memory, which is the one thing that int unambiguously covers in the normal game. Intimidate goes to strength because it was stupid to ever put it under any other stat in the first place.

To remove wisdom move perception and the class abilities of all casting classes that use wisdom to int and all other wisdom based abilities to charisma. Monk feat prerequisites can go to just charisma.

To remove int move all int skills to wisdom and everything else to charisma.

Unless your GM is using the Unchained item bonus substitute system or one a system previously houseruled for the same purpose you should find another GM. The game's math breaks down if the players can't convert found money and vendor trash into the bonuses they actually need by purchasing or crafting items.

Or point him at one of the many threads about the magic item treadmill or big six and why you can't remove them without engineering a compensatory system and see if he can manage to wrap his ego around the way the game was actually designed. Then if he still won't let you shop freely or use one of the much more complicated than actually buying items alternate systems people have come up with; find another GM.

Just a Mort wrote:
Id ask the players to run animal companion classes. I don't see the problem with a sylvan sorcerer and an evangelist cleric with animal domain not being able to do what a regular party can, except for skill checks. Cleric can be a cleric of erastil and be a full fledged archer.

Demanding your players pick such highly constrained builds is not generally a good way to keep the few players you have.

If you think the gunslinger's player is the source of the problem and the others would be reasonable if he weren't there tell him him his character died in his sleep and he's no longer welcome at the table.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gestalt is another common solution to small parties as it tends to make PCs less likely to die and allows them to fill more roles.

The real problem is the guy who isn't always there. He can't fill any critical role or the party is incomplete when he's absent and there isn't room for a fifth wheel in a three person party.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using a single attack roll increases variance and variance is the enemy.

High variance turns fights that are supposed to be important into walkovers and fights that are supposed to be gimmes into party wipes. You, as a GM, want to maximize the number of dice rolled and minimize the importance of each individual die in order to keep the results mostly on track with what you expected.

Pseudos wrote:

Hey, being DM and having to play a character in the background, there's something I know how to do! Going back to what I suggested a few days back, be the warpriest. Since you're DM, just don't put any traps in; boom, rogue needs eliminated.

You can be as vanilla and boring as you want as a warpriest, and still accomplish your group's needs. Being either an investigator or an alchemist you're likely to draw attention to yourself. Only join them if they need help; show up for the encounter somehow, get introduced, and stay as long as you're needed. If your group does well not needing you, you can use the 'church' excuse and leave.

Cleric is far better than warpriest for this. The whole reason you need a healer is that some things are really bad and need to be removed. If you use a warpriest instead of a healer you have to wait an extra two levels to use diseases, curses, and blindness/deafness; three levels to use ability drain, negative levels, or poisons that are actually dangerous; and four levels for death to be reversible. Warpriests are basically useless for filling party roles. They get cleric spells too slowly to be healers and don't have the endurance of a proper martial.

Cleric is also a simpler class to build and run. You have more spell slots to prepare, but you're going to want to leave as many as possible open for mid-day prep that, other than obvious condition restoration stuff, should generally be done at the prompting of one of the actual players.

LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
To be fair probably not only allow it but allow people who take it to pick up a third trait a bit after it stops meaning anything, maybe level 4.
They literally got their money's worth of the trait at level 1. If you'e going to give them another trait for free then EVERYONE in your group should be taking Rich Parents.

Except it's not worth a trait. It's maybe worth a feat at level 1, a trait at level 2, and negligible at level 3 because it's a lump sum of money not a long term income that scales to remain meaningful. So you get something better than other traits for one level, borderline useful for another level, and pointless for one level. It averages out and then at level 4 you get an actual trait.

It's the trait most likely to be used for something that impacts roleplay (having an heirloom that doesn't get outgrown because it's eligible to be enchanted) so making it not be hopelessly worse than every other trait in the game is a good thing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You have PCs robbing a hellknight garrison repeatedly. That's not conducive to long term survival and the hellknights have a lot of very high level resources to put towards solving problems. Every level of escalation that doesn't stop the PCs is another step towards pulling out all the stops and dropping a small army of high level knights on them.

Claxon wrote:
However, you do have one problem. The mount cannot choose on it's own to attack, move, or do anything else without you having to make the appropriate ride checks. He will stand there like a stick in the mud unless you give orders to do something else.

That's pretty absurd. You may have to make checks to stay in the saddle, but the system does not assume stupid mounts. If a paladin dumps int and puts its stat bonuses into int it will be smarter than its rider at level 9 and that's in the CRB.

To be fair probably not only allow it but allow people who take it to pick up a third trait a bit after it stops meaning anything, maybe level 4.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fourleaf wrote:
To clarify for those of you who seem confused, I am not stealing directly from my party members I am looting the dead {the ones I kill/do the most damage to) before the rest of the party checks the bodies, they don't even know the things I'm taking exist.

Taking things out of the loot pool before it's distributed is theft from the party. I would declare that as your PC has betrayed the party it gets an 'N' and you're no longer allowed to play characters of his or her alignment or any below or to the right of them. Second strike you're on paladins only. Third strike you're not asked to come to the next game.

Any time you're rolling dice against another player without a prior agreement that the action is acceptable there's a problem.

Outside magus/caster (I think that there's a Paizo spontaneous magus archetype that uses CHA as of the UCG) a good gestalt generally uses one side or the other for passive effects.

Synthesist Summoner is good for bulking up charisma casters. Monk is good for improving the defenses of wisdom casters. Warpriest and Magus are good at getting buffs on martials. Martials are good for beefing up combat builds of bards, druids, clerics, and oracles. Rogues are good for getting skills on paladins or clerics. Bards and investigators are good for getting skills on martials that also need a better will save.

In general you pick a class you think you'd like to play, ask yourself what its weaknesses are, and then look for how to best fill those weaknesses.

Magus/Arcanist is fine. Sorcerer/Ninja isn't.

A sorcerer's weaknesses are her poor fortitude save, getting stuck in melee, and not knowing enough spells. What she wants is I think caballist magus. A ninja's weaknesses are her fortitude and will saves and being a rogue alternate class. She wants something like paladin or antipaladin to shore up her terrible saves and BAB or at least cleric or warpriest or magus for the saves and rely on spells for accuracy.

There's one more synergy build I'm aware of similar to the magus and that's to put scout rogue with a wildshape focused druid. Pounce and roll a lot of d6s. Then let someone else finish that enemy and pounce another. Some archetypes can also hide in fog and exploit reach to sneak attack, though not with very many attacks until quickwood becomes available. Well, scout rogue with unchained monk may also work, though depending on how flying kick is worded it may not work until level 8.

Imbicatus wrote:
It depends on what you mean by "healer". Warpriest will be a fabulous engine of destruction in combat, and should almost never waste spells or fervor on healing. Memorize a few condition removal spells and carry wands of cure light wounds and you will be able to provide all the healing needed out of combat.

The warpriest doesn't get condition removal spells on the cleric schedule so they're not entirely satisfactory for this either. The CRs at which nasty effects that require removal appear are usually set by when clerics get the spells to remove them. Since you're reliant on scrolls you're not any more of a healer than a cleric 1 fighter n.

For all the new classes Paizo has never addressed the condition removal problem and there is no substitute for cleric except to have a scroll monkey.

I consider the warpriest not fit for any purpose. You want a cleric with a hitting things build that leaves some slots open for as needed spell preparation. Especially third level slots: there are a lot of third level condition removal spells.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Atarlost and Darigaaz the Igniter,

As I said I like the idea, but I do have significant reservations about it, and I offer alternatives in the event that does not work out for our readers.

You're free to believe it would be houseruled against or even that it's not RAI, but you said you didn't think it was RAW and that's demonstrably false.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Errant Mercenary wrote:

-Unchained Rogue, Ninja, Variant multiclassing, allowed
-All paizo published content allowed (leadership and usual offenders are not)
-20 point buy because your DM is amused at your futility
-In case of death new pcs are rogues too
-Avoid normal multiclassing
What about Slayers? They're a hybrid who is a partial rogue. It'd be nice to have one full BAB character for manuvers.

If slayers were an option investigators would add a lot more. They're also a rogue hybrid and having extracts would do wonders for versatility.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shakes magic 8 ball.

Huh, that's weird. It says "Wait for July."

In July they'll announce second edition and that the magic jar spell will no longer exist.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I like the idea, but I don't think it's square with RAW to make a 2 handed or 2 weapon attack, draw a Quick Draw Shield, and get an AC bonus that turn. You can start getting your Shield AC bonus next turn, but getting that turn runs afoul of the action economy.

You can hold a weapon in the same hand as you are using a Buckler, but you don't get your Shield AC bonus on the same round as you use that Buckler unless you take 19 levels in Fighter with the Thunderstriker Archetype. Then you can.

You get a +1 Shield bonus to AC when you use a Scizore, but not on rounds you attack with the Scizore.

You can get the Feat Improved Shield Bash, and then you can keep your Shield bonus to AC when you Bash.

If all of the cases where attacking deprives you of your shield bonus need to explicitly call that out then it's not a general rule. It's always in the individual item rules or the rules for a specific attack action, not in the general rules for shields or attacking in general.

RAW You get the shield bonus as soon as you wield the shield. RAW the quickdraw shield has no clauses that cause you to lose your shield bonus. The shield bash rules have such a clause, but it only applies to shield bash, not attacks not made with the shield.

I'm pretty sure that the swift action was a mistake. In 3.5 there was no swift action and all PF swift actions would be better as free actions that can only be used once per turn. There's no class balanced around the swift action limit that isn't crippled by it (ie. Swashbuckler).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:

I'm not sure I like the responses here.

How does this gel with the oh-so-common trope of a skilled assassin/ranger/stalker/whatever following behind a trail of enemies and picking them off one after another from behind without their notice (at least for a while)?

It is not possible to pick people off from behind because there is no such thing as behind in the Pathfinder rules.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I admit I'm not sure why the "Pounce" ability is considered so overpowered that developers have consistently avoided it regardless of what other new material they've introduced, but given the extent to which it HAS been circumvented except in the case of high-level/intended-to-be-high-powered stuff, I figure there is a reason.

The reason is that the developers want martials to be weak. Anyone who wants parity is a whiner with an agenda.

Skeld wrote:
The problem is that everyone's PF2e looks different right now. One person's "that's about right" is another's "table-flipping rage-quit." Like I said, uncertainty = risk. The risk analysis for Paizo (from the cheap seats) is that a big misstep on PF2e could literally kill the company; they don't have a M:TG or corporate sugardaddy to fall back on.

No one's going to rage quit over the conservative option. That's pretty much clean up the stealth and mounted combat rules and reorganize the important stuff into a PHB and GMG.

There are some rules that need work. Or just taking work that was done and blogged about but couldn't be fit into the PF first edition CRB pagination and dusting it off and making sure it gets a proper public playtest in the case of stealth. The most troubled rules don't impact content, though. Stealth is currently a botch job around the skill condensation from 3.5 and mounted combat is a mess trying to close mutually exclusive loopholes in the mounted charge rules without changing any terminology. The terminology needs to go ahead and change. I'm inclined to think the enchantment(charm) and illusion rules could also use a going over. Possibly the polymorph spells should get access to monster qualities that were introduced in bestiary 2 and on as well and the stat adjustment by size table for polymorphing be rethought so it's not gimped for creatures not starting at medium.

I can't imagine anyone leaving over a real edition change even if what they want are the completely new game systems TSR and WotC have always passed off as edition changes.

Summoned monsters, including the Eidolon, are projections, not real creatures. Unless something specifically says it is carried over to the real body of a summoned creature or specifically noted as carried between summonings in the Eidolon rules it isn't.

1 to 50 of 4,953 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.