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

4,573 posts (4,574 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 4,573 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Kimera757 wrote:
The fiendish template gives them spell resistance too, right? The things have loads of hit points and spells just wash off them. And just think of the huge size bonuses to grapple. Houses aren't remotely balanced.
It's entirely possible that you'd end up with a House of Fire.
Hey, if it's already going House of Fire 1, you may as well prestige a bit.
That particular PRC got a rewrite recently.
Off-topic, rather meh cover, imo. Still, you get a plus one for keeping the joke running.

Typical new edition filler. Lots of bells and whistles, but the soul of the original is gone.

Maneuver Master 1 Lore Warden 19 is still going to be better. Unless the ACG has some way to do dirty trick as a weapon maneuver, the Lore Warden is unique in actually having CMB scaling vaguely near monster CMD, but that free maneuver with a full attack from the monk dip is nice.

KC's got it.

If you have a racial +2 in a physical stat it's gone.

Suppose you have +str. Most melee builds are strength based. 50% chance of a 2 point loss. 24% chance of a 4 point loss. 3% chance of a 6 point loss. That's a 77% chance of shafting your character. You have only a 6% chance of improving.

If you're +dex it's still bad. 53% chance of losing 2 points. 1% chance of losing 4 points. No chance at all of improving. Then there's the fact that size matters. If you're small 62% of the options that keep your dex require you to replace all of your equipment. If you're medium it's the other 38%. Going medium to small also turfs your strength and that cuts damage for everyone but crossbowmen and may make dervish dancers and swashbucklers catastrophically stop qualifying for power attack.

Nobody voluntarily puts a +2 in con, but dwarves happen. Dwarves are just screwed 88% of the time because if you're building a dwarf it's probably for hardy and steel soul. Oops.

Pretty much the only time reincarnate doesn't screw you over is if you're a human, half-human, or elven primary caster.

the David wrote:
Now, the party is PL8, so the highest possible CR would be 11. That's 3xlv8 or 6xlv6.

Level 8 is an important breakpoint for bards so I'd go with a trio.

Chelish Diva (Diva on pfsrd) uses Inspire Courage (+2 attack and damage)
Archivist uses Naturalist against humans (half-orcs count as humans) (+2 to AC)
Detective uses Careful Teamwork before battle (3 rounds give +2 init for an hour) and then moves to Dirge of Doom (-2 attack, saves, skills, and ability checks to enemies in 30')

The Diva is the primary front liner. Feats are heavy armor proficiency, arcane strike, power attack, quickdraw, and lookout. His stat array is str 15 +2 (racial) +1 (4HD) dex 12 con 14 int 8 wis 10 cha 13 +1 (8HD). He uses free actions to switch between wielding a longsword in one hand and his quickdraw shield in the other and wielding the longsword two handed.

The Archivist is the secondary front liner. Feats are arcane strike, weapon finesse, power attack, lookout, and skill focus (knowledge (local)). His stat array is str 13 dex 15 +2 (racial) +1 (4HD) con 14 int 12 wis 10 cha 12 +1 (8HD). He use a buckler and rapier and a chain shirt. Damage is lower, but init is higher.

The Detective is the ranged backup uses the same setup as the Archivist except has spell focus (evocation) instead of skill focus.

Arrange the bards to get a surprise round at short range (possibly using Invisibility Sphere) and they can start performing and cast their first spells in it. One does Haste, another Good Hope, and the Detective throws a Sound Burst where it will hit the PC bard. Most PCs will probably pass, but with dirge in play not all. Then the bards probably win initiative and can mirror image up and move into places 10' from PCs. Round 3 they start hitting. They should be frustratingly hard to kill. If anyone has a chance Grease is probably a good spell of opportunity since most of the PCs have weak reflex.

The warlock doesn't look like a match for the witch.

The Witch has at will hexes capable of targeting multiple saving throws with DCs based on half her level.

The Warlock burns spell slots for his equivalent feature and the damage and save DCs are based on spell level and the riders target the save that rises most with level. The scaling is also poor. A fourth level single target spell should be dealing 1d6/level to a max of 15 dice with a minimum of 7 or truly multitarget with a max of 10 dice with the same minimum. Witchfire is stuck down at 5 dice. Not worth the spell slot.

In terms of power this is a pure downgrade.

If you're trying to balance against the sorcerer don't forget that the witch list is much weaker than the wiz/sorc list and maybe even weaker than the cleric or druid lists.

There isn't really tanking in PF because there are neither good aggro nor good martial lockdown mechanics. For blocking round one charge lanes to the wizard the monk is as good as the fighter. For making oneself a priority target in spite of one's hardness neither will do. That's a job for a cleric or bard (or oracle or skald).

For a dungeon crawl or wilderness adventure the fighter. For intrigue in any but the most cosmopolitan of cities, though, he's too memorable.

An ambush with DoT will get the party moving. For example a 4th level goblin cleric or 5th level adept with 3 or 4 similar level goblin warrior friends ambushing with alchemists fire in flammable terrain while under the effects of resist energy (fire) will probably make your players not want to stand around.

The investigator is not a PC class for at least two levels, three unless you can guarantee that all fighting is within the duration of your mutagen or that you can have an hour in a lab between fights. A five person group with a paladin and barbarian can carry you, but you're going to need to be carried for longer than any other class besides the rogue, mystic theurge, or an eldritch knight not taking advantage of the SLA ruling.

Studied Combat requires int 16 to get a useful duration so depending on your rolls you may be stuck going int primary.

Ross Byers wrote:
How many spells have a specific price for their components that is 1gp or less?
None. If it costs less than 1 gp, there is no cost listed and its assumed to be something incorporated into the cost of your component pouch and background shopping and rounding errors. Because remembering you have to spend three copper pieces to buy a palmful of bat guano, three newt eyes, two dried bat wings, and a live spider isn't a useful way to spend game time or a fun thing to track when actually casting spells.

Actually, there is one exception. Abundant Ammunition uses a projectile as a material component when cast as an arcane spell. An arrow has a definite price that can be less than 1 GP. If you have one arrow and cast abundant ammunition on it a Wizard winds up with 50 arrows for the duration and then no arrows. A Cleric has 51 arrows for the duration and then 1 arrow again. A Sorcerer behaves like a Wizard unless it was a mundane or cold iron arrow, which are 5 cp or 1 sp and therefore below the eschew materials threshold.

Malwing wrote:
Wait, who doesn't track arrows? Arrows are often varied and special ones are expensive, ignoring it is like gaining a ton of money.

Most people don't track mundane arrows. At a certain wealth level some probably stop tracking special material arrows as well.

TarkXT wrote:
Also, Bookish Rogue looks like a very very good feat for the Minor/Major touch rogue crowd. All cantrips are in wizard spell books by default. What do you think?

Not really. It makes resistance less of an issue, but the touch rogue really needs at will cantrips or a wand if that's going to be his primary attack mode.

That means either dipping wizard, in which case this feat doesn't help, or putting points in UMD, in which case this feat doesn't help.

TOZ wrote:
*shrugs* There's very little difference between fantasy and science fiction.

There are huge differences between fantasy and science fiction.

What there aren't many of are differences between fantasy and space opera.

The problem is still that fighter is an incomplete class. Taking away the abilities that make it functional doesn't help. What the fighter really needs is acknowledgement that any level that's just an existing ability scaling is a dead level. That's every odd level between 7 and 17 inclusive. Replacing the one good ability it has with the ability to fail at a lot of things rather than succeed at one thing is a bad deal. Mutagen Warrior might be workable, but it's not a better fix than lore warden.

Ventnor wrote:
If you know that this is going to start an edition war, then why did you post it?

Because it needs saying. Any criticism of Pathfinder's legacy mechanics is discarded by analogy to 4e. Until it sinks in that 4e is a mixed bag rather than unalloyed failure people will use edition warring to shut down any push for fixing Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The solution is ridiculously simple: give the classes that are supposed to be mobile (swashbuckler, monk) an ability at level 1 which says that if they take the full attack action then they can move up to their speed, breaking up that movement between attacks as desired.

What's the worst that could happen? The guy isn't getting any more attacks than usual, just getting the attacks he's earned while being, y'know, mobile!

And then everybody dips, and two handed barbars, fighters and paladins are making their full attack sequence while moving. Nevermind that they can somewhat do it everytime, now not every barbar needs beast totem to do so, fighters don't have to wait for level 11 on dervish of dawn, and paladin can now smite full attack while moving.

Right. They shouldn't have to dip to get that. It should be part of the base combat mechanics.


Zark wrote:
xavier c wrote:
Is it true?

If you just want to play it as a caster the list not very exciting.

Spells don't scale well and high level list is kind of meh

In a nutshell Clerics have the spell list of a martial. They get the stuff a good GM would have to drop scrolls or potions of if you weren't there and they have mostly selfish combat buffs.

It's almost impossible to make a caster cleric that isn't summon focused, but it's easy to make a cleric that does a fighter's job and not all that hard to do the basic front line two hander shtick better than the fighter. (having a strong will save covers a multitude of sins)

The wizard is the other way around. It's easy to be a caster but very hard to build for combat and requires carrying a badly written legacy prestige class.

The druid has a casting list on a natively combat capable chassis. With the advent of dazing spell the druid's DoT blasting focus turns into powerful control and lockdown capability. It's not the wizard list, but it's workable.

The reactive spells are a necessary evil, but they aren't really a credit to the cleric. The Paladin got a lot of them as a tacked on class feature in the 3.5-PF conversion.

Having the ability to fix things that should never have been put in the game in the first place is not a positive good.

Aelryinth wrote:
I much prefer the realism of a guy who focuses on Sword and Board for his initial training, picks up longbow for some ranged punch, then longspear/lance for use in a spear line or mounted, then the dagger for emergencies and short range throwing. (shrugs). Those are his PRIMARY weapons...the one he uses all the time and practices the most. Weapon groups by 'type' is for emergencies and versatility, not preference.

In that case you shouldn't have any weapon specific stuff at all. That's way too many weapons to spend even a focus feat on each.

That includes weapon specialization. It's not really a feat that depicts specialization. It's a feat that makes a fighter not an embarrassment. For it to be an optional feat weapon training would have to be at least 50% stronger.

The cleric list is weak for a 9 level list. It lacks good non-mind-effecting offensive spells, good battlefield control, and good focus spells. This is appropriate because clerics are 3/4 BAB, but I consider the druid list better post-UM.

P.S. You can happily fill all your 3rd level slots with dispel magic if you have no better ideas.

Just use Samsaran with mystic past life to get things like Restoration and Breath of Life and to get Heal as a 6th level spell. In combat HP healing is not something you should need a lot of unless your party is doing something wrong, but not having Restoration in particular completely ruins you as a healer.

For designing a world that actually makes sense there should not be more sapient species than biomes. Based on the only model we have for sapience (and the one every customer will be comparing to when judging whether or not behavior is actually intelligent) sophonts do not tolerate competition. Look at what we did to the megafauna and they weren't even competing for the same ecological niche, just dangerous. Eventually civilization reaches the point at which trade is more interesting than extermination, but by then it's too late.

Underdark cannot conventionally support sapients. Big brains are expensive and there just isn't enough energy in the system. Magic could be used as an excuse, but cthonians would be too alien to use as anything but monsters due to different senses and different means of sustenance leading to wildly different psychology. If they evolved the latest common ancestor with surface life would be extremophile bacteria. Think abominations not humanoids with different skin color.

The oceans are not a useful biome. Intelligences of crustacean or cephalopod derivation are possible. Maybe even bottom feeding vertebrates could develop arms. The whale path may also be possible, though a homonid gone the whale route would be nothing like traditional merfolk. Truly aquatic sophonts cannot operate in other biomes at all, making them useless as adventurers and difficult to use as NPCs. Seal-like sophonts could possibly be adventurers, but need to reproduce on land and therefore cannot coexist before cosmopolitanism takes hold, by which point it is too late.

If humans exist they dominate all terrestrial biomes as on Earth. It might be possible to do race variants.

If humans don't exist I'm not sure what a plains sophont would look like. If we go for six limbed vertebrates the centaur is an option. Actually, let's do that. Having six limbed vertebrates allows the traditional western dragon and several of the chimeric monsters to exist. Centaurs need more sustenance than humans and therefore probably have more trouble settling into cities. Mongol, Sioux, and Bedouin patterned civilizations are possible.

An arboreal race would resemble the gorillion in medium size. They would not be comfortable on the ground. They must use mounts for long distance travel, but centaurs can probably comfortably carry them.

The alpine race is probably either related to the arboreal race but with a more upright posture or mountain goat centaroids. They need to be comfortable in the valleys and alpine meadows where the food is and also on the mountainous terrain between them. It probably has to be martial unsuitability that keeps them from encroaching on the other races. They are the most likely city builders, but once cosmopolitanism develops members of the other terrestrial races will move in.

Gorbacz wrote:

LotR: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Aragorn (whatever the story of his special ancestry was), GodWizards, Hobbits. I count 6 races in the Fellowship alone.

Only five races: Aragorn and Boromir are both the subrace the Azlanti were based on. The first base human to take enough of a role to need to be a fully statted out NPC was Eomer.

So no humans, 80% of the halfling adventurers over the last century in a single party, two guys that would have had racial adjustments in 3.5, and a guy with actual outsider hit dice. The oddballs outnumber the typical adventurers 7-2.

That said, I could accept racial limits as long as human was available. What I would not do is play in a party with those class limits. I can tolerate having fighters around, but if bard, ranger, inquisitor, alchemist, and investigator are all off the table I'm not interested.

Rogues aren't just an NPC class because they underperform. They also, like the antipaladin and NPC oriented prestige classes like the assassin and master spy, have anti-group thematics. The rogue has always been a mistake.

If someone wants to play a weakling and has a non-rogueish rogue character concept and everyone else is okay carrying the load that's fine, but if the GM says all skilled and semiskilled classes except the rogue are banned he's not going to be my GM.

I'm just imagining someone pulling out d% because it doesn't specify what size those 1d6 extra dice are.

The reason I dump elves is that they're really just humans with longer age brackets. To make an elf use a dual talented human with +dex/+int. Lighting conditions other than full light and full dark tend to be handwaved anyways.

Dwarves get to stay because of slow and steady and their strong defensive abilities and inflexible stat array. All the other core medium races basically play alike for any class they can be used for, but dwarves actually make people consider things like martials without +str of +dex and wizards without +int.

Halflings are boring and useless.

Half-races don't belong on the core list.

Gnomes stay because, as I said, they're the only small without +dex. Since they have +cha no other +cha race is allowed.

Wayangs are the only small race without -str so they have to go in. They have +int -wis.

That leaves a need for a small +wis race. Grippli is the only option.

Vanara have a climb speed which makes them different.

And I just realized I miscounted last time. Vanara were #6 not #7. May as well be boring and put elf back in so that people who don't understand reskinning won't whine. I wish I could put in something different though. Too bad strix have group unfriendly thematics and level one flight is munchking fodder.

Humans are the most versatile race, therefore they stay. There is nothing you can't build with a human except a small character.
For the small races the most distinct stat arrays that don't have +/-4 are Grippli, Gnome, and Wayang. Sorry gnomophobes, but they're the only ones I know of without +dex. Dwarves are pretty distinct with slow and steady and their defensive traits that aren't really duplicable with humans. The number seven slot goes to the Vanara because a climb speed is less broken than flight and more generally useful than swim.

The game will probably play better with gestalt. There's not much you can do to stack offense, but it's really easy to close all of the defensive holes. This means less rocket tag. It also means that more concepts are viable. Multiclassing is pretty much nonfunctional so any concept not described by a single class is not going to work normally, but with gestalt most class pairs work. The only ones that really don't are doubling up on similar classes.

RDM42 wrote:
Not just melee attacks. You don't just count front line meleeists - a point of damage is a point of damage whether from sword or bow.

Heroism doesn't boost damage. Unless they would still miss on a 19 after the bonus or hit on a 2 without it +1 attack is 5% of their damage.

Let's say our Gorumite is friends with some barbarians. Power Attack on 24 raging strength with a greatsword is 2d6+13 (19-20 x2) for 22 average damage. 5% of that is 1.1. The cleric himself is swinging for 2d6+6 (19-20 x2) and averaging 14.3 unbuffed. 5% of that is 0.715. The delta is 0.715 for the cleric and 1.1 per barbarian.

With DF boosted by FF that becomes 2d6+8 (19-20 x2) for 16.5 average damage. He's getting +2 to attack so that adds 10% for a total of 18.15. The delta from DF is 3.85.

Bless needs to be boosting 2.85 raging, power attacking, 20 base strength barbarians to outperform Divine Favor for an 18 base strength cleric with fate's favored. A typical party does not have even two barbarians.

Evangelists don't get Good Hope unless they follow a specific deity and don't get saving finale, blur, displacement, or greater invisibility. They have some situational defensive stuff bards lack, but I don't think they're better buffers.

Which is a good thing because they're certainly better healers and summoners.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The DC to notice a visible creature is 0. This is on the chart on CRB 102.
The penalty for invisibility is 20. This is also on the chart on CRB 102.
The DC for noticing an invisible creature is 20. This is an aside shoved in somewhere other than the skills chapter.

I'm not sure why anyone would take the random aside as a base DC when it matches the penalty applied to the base DC 0 as given in the skills chapter.

andreww wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
TOZ wrote:
TarkXT, can I get a copy of that spiel? I didn't screencap it before it was deleted.

I'd like to see it as well.

If the new moderation policy is destroying real content there's a serious problem.

The Human Diversion wrote:
Behold the Pandora's Box that was opened when hide and move silently were made into 1 skill.

Hide and Move Silently aren't the problem. It's Listen and Spot that are the problem, and merging the skills isn't the issue even there, it's not distinguishing between the kinds of checks so they can have different modifiers applied. No one gets confused by the Monk's High Jump ability not effecting tumbling even though Jump and Tumble were merged because the different applications of Acrobatics are kept distinct.

Fromper wrote:
The paladin, on the other hand, only has 10 dex, no feats or traits that help with armor class, and expects to take a lot more damage. But he's got high charisma to go with his Lay on Hands ability, and Fey Foundling for extra healing whenever he uses it. So he's intentionally designed to take hits, then swift heal himself and keep going.

Paladin self-healing isn't really healing. Since there's no real action cost* it's really having an extra pool of HP.

* except that you can't use swift action lay on hands the round after you use an immediate action spell. I don't think Paladins have much in the way of other swift action uses.

Artanthos wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Damage you take exceeds healing you can pump out even including all that, unless your GM's dice are ice cold.

If you are playing a barbarian with crap AC.

If, however, your AC is 20-30 points above APL, the need for healing will be minimal and will exceed damage incoming when required.

20 bucks says I can prove otherwise. :P

20 bucks says I solo tanked 6 advanced mummies in a 9-11 tier scenario a couple of weeks ago for 5 rounds, with a level 8 character, while the rest of the party was paralyzed. I got hit exactly once.

The only way you're going to reliably hit a character with a solid defense is to massively exceed the suggested values in the CR charts. That would prove nothing other that that the GM can arbitrarily kill characters.

So healing was completely unnecessary then? Had a cleric also saved against paralysis and stood behind you healing she would have been spending most rounds readying an action doing nothing and the one time she did something it would be to waste a spell on something that could have been done after the fight with wand charges? That, in fact, if there'd been a non-paralyzed cleric in range to heal you she would have contributed more by poking past you with a longspear or even spamming the guidance orison much less channeling to harm undead?

Not that there aren't all sorts of things wrong with this encounter as an example. If you could stand in a corridor or doorway and block the mummies then at most three could reach you at a time. You were effectively only facing a CR 8 encounter apart from the aura saves because you were fighting melee only opponents in cramped corridors. A CR 10 encounter of two CR 8 or three CR 7 opponents would have been more dangerous under the circumstances.

This was a poorly designed encounter that would be extremely swingy based on group composition, but once you were past the auras and happened to be standing in front or where you could squeeze to the front before they started killing it was the sort of mookfest that shouldn't really tax any martial. Not really a good example of anything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
For all that I've toyed around with alternate rolling methods, I've yet to find one that I like as they either end up with far more powerful stats on average than I prefer or are comparatively complicated to explain to new players. While I keep experimenting, 4d6, drop the lowest, is still the best overall scheme for balancing ease of use and power level.

We like 4d6 but with seven sets, choose six. And/or any rolled 1's =2.

The OP's problem is that there is a special case that he cannot dump charisma below 7 or he risks true death from a single failure against mummy rot. He can't dump strength because the carrying capacity gap is too big. It's probably too far a penalty to dump wisdom on a high will class given the expectation of meeting enemies with a nasty will targeting aura. Dumping int on a non-human (and rolling for races as well as stats is screwing him over here) is ruinous for skill points and dumping int severely hampers roleplaying flexibility and therefore fun in any group that holds the expectation that the mental stats aren't balderdash outside their explicit mechanical impacts. Dex and Con are never viable dumps for anyone.

If he weren't playing Mummy's Mask he could dump charisma and be fine as an inquisitor or any martial or prepared caster other than a paladin but the mummy rot threat rules that out.

Maybe he could dump wisdom on a paladin, but if 15 and 13 are his two highest stats and he only has one of them he won't be able to both get his charisma high enough for divine grace to compensate for the wis dump and his attack stat high enough to be an effective combatant when not smiting.

If he were using your method we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. The 4 would be a 6 which is a 1/6 instead of 1/3 chance of rotting away in one minute and there'd be a seventh roll that would more likely than not replace it with something that gives no chance of rotting on the first roll. Or 6 might give enough carrying capacity to manage as a wizard.

Can't Aasimar get into monk from the NG alignment? Do that as a maneuver master for a level for wis to AC (and CMD), the first two feats of the grapple chain, and the ability to tack a grapple attempt onto the end of your full attack.

Otherwise Martial Artist. You can still pick up the bonus feats and wis to AC and don't have an alignment restriction.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of those options it has to be wizard, but don't play him like a wizard. Do an abjurer focused on counterspelling with a bit of buffing on tap. Normally wizards steal all the tactical decision making without even trying so he needs to be played simple and not pick up decisive spells.

Have you read DM of the Rings? Play the exact opposite of Gandalf. Gandalf is a GMPC who sits around doing nothing unless he has to compensate for a badly balanced encounter or move the plot along. A GMPC should be doing minor support all the time, not even have the capacity to pull the party's fat out of the friar if they mess up, and stay out of social situations. Work those knowledge skills as your lore delivery mechanism but otherwise keep him out of noncombat apart from applying necessary magic if you wind up running premade adventures that expect it.

Absent Minded Professor probably works for a theme: he'll talk their ears off about ancient Thassilonian dining arrangements given prompting but won't remember that he has teleport in his spellbook unless prompted. Probably aim to keep some slots open so they can get him to prepare stuff in mid adventure.

If those are in order stats a dawnflower dervish bard or some form of aldori duelist. You want to be a front liner to leverage that 17 con and your strength is a little low for an archer so you want some form of dex to damage.

Druid. Go into fighter after level 8 (if you go to druid 6 for wild speech the additional fighter feat you'd get from switching then would be eaten by shaping focus and druids have better saves). Get Goblin Cleaver and Orc Hewer and probably Great Cleave. Get the vital strike chain. Turn into a behemoth hippopotamus. Against a single foe bite it with vital strike. Against a few foes up to huge cleave non-adjacent within 15' reach. Against popcorn foes trample.

K177Y C47 wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
aceDiamond wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Chaotic Good Paladin

Lawful Evil Paladin
True Neutral Paladin
In fact every possible paladinoid except the already extant paladin and antipaladin

wild shaping barbarian

Bloodrager and warpriest will have your back this time next month.

No they won't. They are exactly what I am not looking for.

3/4 BAB is not full BAB. It never will be. Being able to nova with fewer wasted actions does not make the war priest not a nova or nothing class.

Bloodrager does not even resemble a proper war shaper.

There is a spell that makes you a mini-paladin you know...

and Actually An Arcane bloodrager can use Form of the Dragon while raging...

A mini-paladin is not a paladin. A paladin is always combat ready and doesn't have to waste resources on mooks. Someone getting cut down paladin abilities from a high level spell isn't.

The Druid can wildshape starting at level 4. When does form of the dragon come online? Does it offer huge forms by level 8? Does it get pounce? Does it last for hours so you're already shaped when a random encounter starts during overland travel? Of course not. It's based on a 6th level spell to start so it won't show before level 11. Probably 12 actually because they like to stick PFS capstones there. A warshaper that can't shape by level 5 isn't.

Mojorat wrote:
The mistake people make is treating. Vital strike like its a replacement for a full attack. If you have to move and desire to strike to injure after moving its a very good option and you will do more damage.

Not enough to compensate for the limited application and long feat chain.

Fighters don't have feats to spare since the only times it's worth playing a fighter are when you need those feats for something expensive like archery or shield bash TWF or crit stacking TWF with the critical focus tree or if your GM doesn't hate martials enough to use the nerfed crane wing crane wing dervish dance or crane wing Aldori dueling.

A small non-criting die boost is usually on the agenda somewhere after improved iron will and improved initiative and backup style support stuff like quick draw and deadly aim for melee primary or power attack for archery primary builds.

I would say yes. You can have spellbooks with spells that you cannot cast just by taking them from higher level opponents. (an APL+1 wizard has one spell level on the party wizard so this shouldn't be all that unusual) I don't see any reason you shouldn't be able to copy them to another book.

aceDiamond wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Chaotic Good Paladin

Lawful Evil Paladin
True Neutral Paladin
In fact every possible paladinoid except the already extant paladin and antipaladin

wild shaping barbarian

Bloodrager and warpriest will have your back this time next month.

No they won't. They are exactly what I am not looking for.

3/4 BAB is not full BAB. It never will be. Being able to nova with fewer wasted actions does not make the war priest not a nova or nothing class.

Bloodrager does not even resemble a proper war shaper.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kimera757 wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Kimera757 wrote:

That doesn't convince me. Crane Wing was broken. The game is filled with creatures that make only one powerful attack, but someone thought that feat was a good idea anyway. It was like they wanted to promote grinding combat.

Unfortunately similarly broken caster stuff doesn't get nerfed. You can still summon a "wall of horses".

Um... what? I am looking at the beastiaries... not many things only have 1 attack... unless your party is consistantly up against Hippos and T-rexes....

Or boars. Or ogres. Or level 5 orc barbarians. One of the "fixes" for the feat pre-nerf was to leave out large chunks of the Bestiary.

That's a bit like fixing Greater Invisibility... by only using creatures with Blindsight or echolocation or similar abilities. Well, that spell got nerfed, just in a really unfair way, and really shackles what the DM is allowed to use.

What a GM is actually supposed to do is let the players win sometimes. If your monk has Crane Wing and wipes the floor with some opponents that's fine. The wizard has Color Spray and wipes the floor with a different but overlapping set of opponents. And then along comes an archer antipaladin and they're flirting with TPK. There's supposed to be a mix of diverse encounters. Situationally powerful abilities are either fine or every save or lose ever published needs to be redacted.

It's very obvious that the jump DCs don't match what it's possible to hurdle or wall run over from vids if teenagers and low twenty-somethings are not tricked out high level characters.

There are certain style feats that let you generate counterattacks. Snapping Turtle Clutch would let you grapple anyone who tried to make an attack on you for any reason and I think panther lets you make counter AoOs on anyone who makes an AoO against your movement. You have a move action to use to give people AoOs for you to counterattack against.

Have you looked at an actual game scripting interface? The one I'm most familiar with at the moment is Transcendence/

There are two kinds of "things": objects and items. Objects are things with positions (usually, there are exceptions) and items are things that can be carried. In a fully VI environment everything needs to have position so only objects are probably relevant.

Objects are referenced by pointers or handles (actually array indices to an array of pointers). The latter have to be converted into the former to use but the former will do bad things if used in a non-instantaneous script.

Objects can be found by filtering for tags and proximity (or lack thereof) to another object or absolute positional vector if you aren't holding a pointer.

A hacker could keep his own handle and a list of ally handles in memory on a continuous basis, but for offensive casting he would need to either use collision detection or filtering to select targets in real time.

So for example Selective Fireball would start out finding a target. Since you might want to target an empty location you run a hitscan from your right index finger. (ranged touch attack)
Then you do a proximity check from that location for objects that are Active (ie. able to attack) and not on the caster's (relatively) global ally list. That gives you a list of targets. Iterate over them and apply the "burning" condition.

Magic Missile, you wouldn't want to target an empty location so you run a search for the closest n active non-ally targets within a maybe 15 degree cone and whatever range limit from your right index finger and create a 100 m/s^2 acceleration field over them pointing down (a reasonable approximation of force damage). No ranged touch attack, but you also don't get to choose targets because the script has no way of knowing what you want to target unless you can indicate it with a ranged touch by pointing. You could get a little fancier like the closest (in angular terms) to the finger vector for a single missile, but it would be very hard to designate multiple targets at once that way.

Mass Invisibility would just use your ally list for targeting and set the targets and all objects carried by them to not draw.

In any case the real trade offs are with targeting. You can apply any effect you have clearance to apply, but your reliability at designating what you want to apply it to is always a trade off between what the spell does on its own that you might not want and what you're able to designate in the heat of combat.

Heighten is for classes with limited spells known or a lack of higher level spells targeting a specific save. Persistent is better if you're going two levels, but if you're not raising by exactly two heighten helps.

It's also useful if you have restricted slots. What does a CRB only necromancer prepare in his 6th level school slot? Eyebite has a HD limit and everything else has an expensive material component. Heighten Spell to the rescue.

And then there are the low level spells that aren't superseded. Like Entangle. While higher level BFC spells have additional effects and aren't terrain restricted, nothing matches the size, range, duration, and tie down. In the right terrain, Heightened Entangle is worthy of its slot. Other examples appear in later books like Aboleth's Lung (save or die on will is rare).

And have you looked at the bard list? At low levels they have some save variety, but at higher levels they're mostly will.

Aelryinth wrote:
You can add realism, but what you're really doing is slowing down the game.

Just because you don't value associated mechanics doesn't mean people who do are wrong.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

An awakened dinosaur named Roget.

1 to 50 of 4,573 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.