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

5,764 posts (5,765 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 5,764 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Harleequin wrote:
I really wanted to incorporate Kuji-in heavily.

The precedent has been set. That's represented by elementalist wizards. The last thing the game needs is yet another set of completely different mechanics for magic.

You're running into a problem with the meaning of damage.

For medium and larger creatures dexterity and strength are trying to represent overlapping things. Strength is representing slow and fast twitch musculature while dex is representing fast twitch musculature, kinesthetic sense, balance, and for the disable device skill fine motor control. (But int represents fine motor control in crafting, WTF?) Since fast twitch musculature is the primary determinant of force imparted to a weapon it only makes sense that both should effect damage.

For tiny and smaller creatures dex is artificially inflated. Dexterity is primarily representative of dodging and a cat has far less mass to move than a man. The ability to move it quickly that dex represents stops meaning ability to apply a large amount of force in combat. Small is kind of on the border.

Essentially, strength is ability to apply force and dex is ability to move, but ability to move is ability to apply force multiplied by size. Dex is also mostly lower body strength while strength is upper body strength, except when disarming dexterity is manual dexterity and when lifting strength is whole body strength and when kicking strength is lower body strength and the whole distinction gets very complicated and stupid very fast.

I would suggest applying small size modifiers as a penalty to attack and damage when using finesse and large size modifiers as a bonus to counter the scaling problem between dex and str. The latter probably won't come up in the bestiary or non-custom NPCs, but will allow dex based polymorphers to be competent. Natural weapons are light, but I don't think any large monsters have the dex to bnefit from finesse even if doing so lets them benefit from their size modifier instead of be penalized.

Alternately all the real problem creatures have 0' reach and you could penalize that instead, possibly with always provoking AoOs like unimproved unarmed strikes rather than only when moving into the enemy's space.

Ideally you'd merge the two stats, but untangling statblocks that not only have them separate but have them more different than size modifiers justify is a horrible mess and unless you're making a new system from scratch you're better off slapping another ugly kludge on top of the pile.

Chess Pwn wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
If there's an unchained ninja then there's no reason again because ninja is a better rogue.
URogue still has debilitating injury, edge, evasion and danger sense. All that in exchange for a Ki Pool? Meh, not nearly as lopsided as you make it sound.
The UNinja would have the debilitating injury and edge too, those were freely added to rogue so they'd be freely added to UNinja. The trade from Core rogue to Ninja would be the same as URogue going to UNinja. Evasion and danger sense for a ki pool and poison use.

Trapfinding was the only good reason to play a rouge anyways. The people only taking three levels of urogue for dex to damage might switch to ninja, but anyone who actually wants to fill the rogue role is still going to play an investigator, slayer, urogue, or a few scattered trap handling archetypes of other thematically compatible classes.

The ninja fights slightly better than a rogue, but not nearly as well as any of the classes it must compete with by stepping outside the protected trapfinding niche. The uninja fights slightly better than an urogue, but still not as well as any of the classes it must compete with by stepping outside the protected trapfinding niche, though it's less severely outclassed and people not indifferent to optimization might use it now for appropriate character concepts.

I have to warn against the Trailblazer solution. Removing iteratives with declining bonuses has the downside of narrowing the relevant AC band. Without them AC less than two more than your attack bonus just doesn't matter at all.

The problem is that iteratives are ever not used (or that the range of the random number source used by the d20 system is too small relative to the modifiers).

There are other possible solutions to the problem, such as directly applying overflow accuracy to damage in some fashion, but Pathfinder doesn't have any such option and 3.5 power attack was even more difficult to use than iteratives.

Lemmy wrote:

I suppose it's good to have a safety clause against pissy control-freak GMs who don't allow players to try anything not specifically called out by the rules...

Still doesn't give any real value to the trip weapon property, though. :P

It involves combat maneuvers. Of course it's not balanced.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't want to melt down coins. Coins almost always trade for more than their real value as metal. They're usually going to be adulterated with base metals to reduce wear if nothing else and will often have only enough precious metal to appear properly shiny while still trading at full nominal value if that's the rate at which the issuing government accepts them for tax payments.

The inhabitants of the elemental plane of bling use the prime material as a dump.

For any profession that just makes weekly profession checks cyclops is the way to go. They can always get natural twenties.

If starting from scratch I'd say a wizard with a domain instead of a school and the important or iconic non-gish divine spells on his list.

A theurge is a wizard that is also a cleric, but his primary role should be wizard like the paladin's primary role is fighter.

Well, you could always compare rogue to oracle. Rogue gets a nominally feat equivalent feature evey even level and sneak attack every odd level. Sneak attach is maybe worth a feat per level. Oracle gets a nominally feat equivalent ability every even level and they're a lot better than rogue talents. Rogue gets skill points nominally worth 4 feats and maybe 4 feats worth of class features. Curse is probably value neutral.

So full spontaneous divine casting is worth at most 18 feats. With the gap between revelations and rogue talents it's probably a lot less.

Aralicia wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
If you really don't like the obvious ninja as rogue archetype solution the thing to do is probably to completely de-rogue it.

This is what I was thinking.

But I wanted to really focus on the Kuji-in

So you would start by choosing your 'Source of Power' - earth, water, fire, wind or void. This would then grant you certain level based abilities and 'spells'.... although these would function as either SLA or SU, and be purely somatic in nature (in keeping with the idea thematically).

From this description, taking some inspiration from the Kineticist may be a good idea.

Inspiration isn't the right word. He's literally describing the kineticist with some new options for utility talents and proficiency in common eastern weapons instead of common western weapons. That's not really a theme in need of a class.

Unless he just means he hates the kineticist's mechanics and wants another with this as an excuse.

Something quasi-historical rather than purely mythical is more useful, though. There are already a glut of heavy casters.

Have you considered how this will effect your group? Unless everyone is an antipaladin this is a concept that may not work.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A kid wants to take a Smallpox Blanket to show and tell, anything that stops them is for the greater good. You don't mess around with plagues. Something like that gets out and lots of people die. All NPC classes except Warrior have poor fortitude saves. The majority of NPCs are non-heroic skill NPCs by CRB table 14-6 with 11 con. Not more than 1/6 of humans should have their +2 in con. None of them probably have cloaks of resistance.

CRB diseases range from DC 12 to DC 18. NPCs don't tend to have very high stats so diseases will kill them faster than most PCs. You're probably looking at around 4 failed saves to kill, maybe less for some of the really nasty ones. A lot do con damage which will make further saves more likely to fail. Someone with a 50% chance to save has a 12.5% chance to die before making a single save if it's not a con effecting disease. Recovering usually takes two consecutive saves so the death rate is higher than that. It's 5 HD to have that 50% save rate against the least dangerous diseases. Non-warrior NPCs will never -- even with 20 HD -- get a 50% save rate against the worst unless they're wearing cloaks of resistance or putting some of their level up bonuses in con instead of one of the stats they use to make a living. Cloaks of Resistance are a far less universal accessory among non-adventurers.

Fireballing a crowd to death could be justified to stop a plague under Pathfinder rules unless they constitute a large fraction of the total population to which the plague could be spread.

If you really don't like the obvious ninja as rogue archetype solution the thing to do is probably to completely de-rogue it. Make it a monk archetype. From the core monk I'd trade out flurry for sneak attack, unarmed strike scaling for a properly scaling accuracy boost of some sort, and all the quigong tradeable stuff for an every even level ninja trick progression. Also the ki pool needs to be 2/level+stat+2 like barbarian rage rounds and bardic performance rounds if ki effects are going to be mostly single round.

I'm not sure exactly where I'd go from the unmonk as a base, but something similar can be achieved.

Chess Pwn wrote:

If alternate classes are archetypes then you can have an unchained ninja.

The DEVs decided no unchained ninja.
Making alternate classes not archetypes makes it easy to say that ninja isn't unchained.

The Devs made a stupid paranoid decision if that's their excuse. An unchained rogue ninja isn't going to push any power levels. It's still weaker than the 6 level casters and quasicasters, several of which fill a similar role.

Melkiador wrote:

The rogue is slow on BAB, which means slower access to archery feats, and the ranger's greatest strength, instant enemy, has a short range.

The slayer has the accuracy, abilities and feats to make a strong archer. As for "tiers", I'm pretty sure all 3 classes are on the same one. And tiers are more about versatility than combat strength anyway.

Slayers and Rangers are in the "can do one job competently with some ability to contribute to other things" tier while rogues are in the "can't even do their own job competently" tier and even unchained rogues are dangerously close to it since their accuracy boosts only come after they've successfully sneak attacked someone.

ElterAgo wrote:

Ok, it looks like most people think it is mostly great for the high levels that I have almost never played. I will keep that in mind for the future.


Quickened Ill Omen may be worth a top level slot for one of the familiar-less archetypes or if either craft wand or improved familiar is banned. Quickened Ill Omen into a save or lose hex or major hex is better than persistent metamagic on a third level spell and unless it's a limited use hex -- and I don't think any of the save or lose hexes are -- it costs the same resources. If you can have your familiar use a wand that's even better, but that's improved familiar being broken, not quicken being weak.

That's level 9 or 10, usually not in the unplayed level range.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I don't think a dex build is a great idea. Climb and swim are strength skills and this is the AP where they actually matter. Also, rapiers cannot be used with piranha strike and dex builds can't really afford the prereqs for power attack.
Bards don't really have the spare accuracy to make either of those things good choices anyway.

Sure they do. They wind up with the same accuracy power attacking as a non-smiting paladin.

Atarlost wrote:
A shield of some sort will help your AC almost as much as a dex focus
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Why not get both? Nothing bout Slashing Grace or Fencing Grace disallow using a shield so long as your hand remains free. My combat bard uses Fencing Grace with a light shield.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute a free hand. You can't cast or fight with it. The wording is slightly different across dex to damage feats, but the intent is that no one that isn't an unchained rogue or giving up enhancement bonus for agile should be able to get dex to damage and use their off hand for anything productive at all. I'm pretty sure this has been dev clarified in one of the many threads complaining that martials can't have nice things (dexterity edition).

Atarlost wrote:
Under the literal interpretation of the rules you can juggle a quickdraw shield if you have the quickdraw feat and attack two handed during your turn while benefiting from the shield bonus outside it, though you don't get access to a two handable martial piercing weapon so it's less attractive to do so in S&S.
Only in the most ridiculous form of RAW. No GM worth their salt would allow it, and they could easily disallow it by RAW limiting of free actions.

Not without a completely ad hoc ban. It uses four free actions of two types per round. A bowman with 6 BAB and rapid and manyshot uses four free actions of the same type per round.

Cyrad wrote:
keeping an unchained ninja from stealing too many goodies from the unchained rogue.

It's not stealing. The ninja literally is a rogue archetype printed in a more verbose format. This is why alternate classes can take base class archetypes that they have the trade out abilities for. The unchained rogue is allowed to take rogue archetypes, therefore ninja in groups using unchained rogues get any unchained rogue addons that aren't on abilities they trade out.

They just need their ninja talents brought up to the quality level of unchained rogue talents.

There are a few first level spells with lots of longevity. Divine Favor gives a respectable +3 to attack and damage and quicken means getting into the fight with it a round earlier. Ill Omen with one of the rerolls on the save against the spell or hex you're using your standard action on has been mentioned.

I don't think a dex build is a great idea. Climb and swim are strength skills and this is the AP where they actually matter. Also, rapiers cannot be used with piranha strike and dex builds can't really afford the prereqs for power attack.

Add in the inability to use your second hand for anything at all without losing your damage stat when you're a spellcaster with immediate action spells in an AP where it isn't unreasonable to expect you might have to fight while holding a rope and fencing grace is really not attractive.

A shield of some sort will help your AC almost as much as a dex focus (possibly more depending on your point buy, wealth, and feats), preferably either a buckler or a quickdraw. Under the literal interpretation of the rules you can juggle a quickdraw shield if you have the quickdraw feat and attack two handed during your turn while benefiting from the shield bonus outside it, though you don't get access to a two handable martial piercing weapon so it's less attractive to do so in S&S.

Fencing Grace is two feats. For two feats you could get dodge and, if using a shield, shield focus for +3 AC from a buckler, equivalent to a gap of 6 dex between the strength and dex build. Having an extra place to put enhancement bonuses to AC will increase that as you level, though the dex build would get a dex belt instead of strength. On the other hand the dex build will run up against the dex limit on the standard bard armors (elven chain or mithril breastplate with armor expert, probably the latter since armor check penalties are actually going to come up) and have to shell out for celestial armor, which will widen the enhancement budget gap a little. Initiative is nice, but you're an arm not an anvil. You can do your job without going first every single combat.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'll just leave this here...

I really don't like per diem stamina. Per diem pools are the enemy of good narrative flow and any rewrite should strive to remove them from classes that have them rather than add them to classes that don't.

The Pathfinder XP progression, like the combat maneuver system, is a simplification at the expense of poor handling of edge cases. With the combat maneuver system that's small, dextrous opponents. With XP it's any situation where two characters in the same party have different XP totals. The downtime rules are a poor patch and in both cases you should use the 3.5 systems (or in XP's case not use it at all) if the edge cases are going to come up. There were two parameters in XP and two rolls for combat maneuvers for a reason.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chelios wrote:
i really like to build around intimidate debuffing, because YAAARRH I'M A PIRRRRRRRATE ESCPAPE FROM ME
If you go with a melee build with a slashing weapon you can go with the Blade of Mercy/Enforcer combo.

But then you're using a slashing weapon. You want to be using a piercing weapon for the same reason you don't want to be an archer.

There are a few P or S weapons, but none of them are both good and on the bard proficiency list or on any racial proficiency list I'm aware of. If he were a warpriest he could go dagger, but since he's not I wouldn't recommend it.

If he decides to go skald he can use a halberd, but we've already established that skald doesn't suit his party composition as well as bard does.

Even if it means must, it's a penalty to one use of one skill. Lots of builds wouldn't use sense motive anyways.

Wiggz wrote:
One thing to consider - if your BIG BRUTE FRONTLINER can be convinced to dip a level or two of barbarian (I find Wild Rager is an excellent choice for this), the benefit he receives from a Skald jumps significantly.

No it doesn't. He gets to use his rage numbers, but if it's a dip they're the same or lower than the skald's. He doesn't get to use any of his rage or bloodrage powers on a skald's raging song.

Claxon wrote:

I will agree with you that cure x wounds spells and inflict x wounds spells probably shouldn't be restricted. /QUOTE]

If you think cures and inflicts are what are important there's clearly no point discussing anything. You're clearly from an alternate universe where shadows and spectres and mummies aren't in the first bestiary, cause blindness/deafness isn't a spell, poison just does small amounts of HP damage over a few rounds, and there are no disease rules at all. Who knows what else is different.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Golux wrote:
There's little reason why clerics of Erastil and Iomedae should be so similar, even with the same alignment.

They need to be so similar because they need to fill the same role in the party that very few non-clerics can fill anywhere near satisfactorily. If only clerics of a minority of gods could heal properly there would be no purpose to the other gods. Their clerics would be cut rate blaster wizards or necromancer witches or other inferior and redundant garbage like that. The self buffing spells can't be domain locked either. Many deities with a strong battle cleric bent have no combative domains. Torag has Earth, Artifice, and Protection. Erastil has Animal, Community, and Plant. Because domain sets like that exist the core list needs to supply the spells for some combat role.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blithelight wrote:
On what you said, Storm Druid, I'm intrigued about that. Secondly, the kind of I guess role I want to play, is I've always played kind of a Jack Sparrow character. One that doesn't like, want to be good or bad, but can still ruin everything for everyone just because he's bored. Whether he's helping the good guys or messing with the good guys. All mood dependent I would say.

That's not really a party friendly heroic archetype. What you're describing is a textbook example of how you should not play Chaotic Neutral and why Chaotic Neutral is not uncommonly banned by GMs who ban evil alignments.

Blithelight wrote:
That's one of the problems I have, I don't want to rely to heavily on spells or melee, I really want a mix between the middle, but to still be powerful if I do go down the middle between the two.

Pathfinder deliberately doesn't permit that. Druid is the closest you can get, but you can't have both effective save DCs and effective melee stats at usual point buys. And the style of magic you want is one of the most save DC sensitive styles.

Harleequin wrote:
I actually think that the Ninja should be a D6 class who gets 6+ skill points per level (as opposed to 8) but who gets 2 good saves (Reflex and Will). The ninja always strikes me as physically less resilient than the rogue but mentally more resilient...

d6 is for noncombatant casters and commoners. Ninja don't fit either category.

HyperMissingno wrote:
And some domains might need spell revamping if we're getting rid of the domain bonus spell slot since many domains have spells already in the cleric spell list.

I don't think revamping to get rid of cleric spells is viable at all. Name nine spells suitable for the healing domain that aren't on the cleric list.

RDM42 wrote:
Rechain the rogue and make him pointless again by gving all of his new stuff to another class?

It's not another class. Alternate classes are archetypes written in class formate. The Urogue can still take Crogue archetypes. I'm not seeing a problem other than that ninja tricks are balanced as Crogue talents not Urogue talents.

Chess Pwn wrote:

1) Yes, each iterative attack is it's own thing and doesn't care what's before or after it.

2) If using TWF, currently I think the rules are that once you start attacking you're locked in to either not doing TWF or doing TWF and you are locked in on what weapon is your off hand.

So no, no 2wf and then using a THW.

Can you provide a link to a FAQ that explicitly says you are "locked in" to anything? I don't remember seeing that or similar phrasing anywhere.

Jafakur wrote:
Atarlost wrote:


I wouldn't leave paladin for sentinel. Therefore skip deific obedience and take power attack there instead of the sentinel bonus feat you aren't getting.


Why wouldn't you go sentinel? You gain 2 feats, one of which can be weapon specialization, and the boons are really nice. (Bull's Str, Better Smite Evil, etc).

Paladin has lots of scaling abilities. Sentinel does not progress them. If you're running with unchained monk you lose your will save. Weapon Specialization is a dubious feat and you have to pay two feat taxes to get into Sentinel so you're not really getting bonus feats and your important feats are severely delayed. You're not even taking weapon specialization in your feat plan anyways.

You should not be playing a non-casting paladin unless casting classes are banned. Especially not if you have no magic mart. Divine Favor covereth up a multitude of crappy weapons.

The divine boons you mentioned aren't so great either. You can get your first boon at level 12. Divine Favor surpasses Bull's Strength at CL 6, which you get at level 9. Level 7 if you boost caster level with a trait. As a proper non-sucky archetype paladin you can cast Bull's Strength itself at level 7 if you have at least 14 charisma, or level if you don't. Better Smite is offset by losing smite. By going into Sentinel you lose 1 smite damage for every sentinel level and are stuck at 2 per day. If these are your examples of good boons you need to look closer at what you're losing.

According to this FAQ you can switch weapons between iteratives when not using TWF. Does this apply generally?

That is, can a character with improved two weapon fighting switch which weapon is considered primary between his first pair of attacks and his iterative? (eg. to better get around DR that he only became aware of after the first attacks) If he has more iteratives than he has TWF feats for can he switch which weapon is used for which iterative in accordance with the above FAQ? (eg. because he is in position to attack two enemies with different kinds of DR and one drops while he has iteratives remaining)

In a related case, does initiating TWF with a double weapon (or unarmed strike and a one handed weapon that can be regripped as two handed) prevent the weapon from being used two handed if the character has excess iteratives? (eg. if a character only the first TWF feat but at least 6 BAB can he make two attacks with a quarterstaff as a double weapon using TWF at 1x a 1/2x strength but still make his unpaired iterative as a two handed attack at 3/2x strength)

cuatroespada wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

Because the concept of "virtual hands" as a system of action economy is not clearly defined anywhere in the PRD, or the FAQ (that I was able to find). As such I had always been under the impression the rules for weapons referred to literal hands. So it seemed reasonable to assume that if you can clear the hand, you should be able to use it.

Regardless, I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect to find every official ruling in the location where the official rules are supposed to be found. If the forum post written by Jason is indeed the official ruling on virtual hands being a pseudo-consumable resource, then it should have been moved to where official rules go three years ago, not left to gather dust in the middle of a long forum thread.

iirc Jason explains somewhere in that thread why they don't make the virtual hands unwritten rule a written one, but you'll have to read the rest of the thread yourself. many of us have and that's why you're met with such frustration. the forums have already had this entire conversation... several times.

There is NO acceptable excuse for refusing to make such a fundamental rule written. If they cannot do so in errata due to pagination constraints that does not stop them from FAQing. They have FAQed in contradiction to the printed rules before.

voska66 wrote:
The original rogue was fine with with appropriate CR enemies and challenges up to about level 12.

Appropriate CR is anything in the APL-1 to APL+3 range. Rogues start faring badly against the upper end a lot earlier because they don't have reserve accuracy.

Just say no to niche protection. Niche protection forces people to play classes they don't want to.

Not only should there be no protected roles, every single combination of noncombat role, combat role, and mechanical style should ideally have a class that can fill it.

Rogues that aren't eldritch scoundrels should just go. They fill a redundant role combination and therefore don't need fixing. Slayer is the nonmagical scout. Investigator is the alchemical scout. Archaeologist is the spontaneous arcane casting scout. Eldritch Scoundrel is the prepared arcane casting scout. Inquisitor and Hunter need rogue replacement archetypes and Ninja needs to better fit its role. It should probably have been a monk alternate class instead of a rogue alternate class.

thewastedwalrus wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
On that template, does it change your size? Because the polymorph rules are very heavily biased against starting as any size other than medium or maybe small.

To explain, the polymorph spell rules have you adjust your ability scores down to medium before applying the modifiers in the spell. This is so that you don't have a troll druid polymorph into a troll and gain 4 strength.

Specifically: Large base size = -4 str, +2 dex, -2 con

And because the person writing the polymorph rules didn't talk to the person writing the polymorph spells a troll polymorphing into a troll loses con for no reason.

CoI wrote:
It's a thematic thing. He'll be lvl 7, and I was going for a dex build with him unless I can be convinced otherwise

What do you want from each class? You'd probably be better off if you could do get one of the themes from a class with better stat synergy.

On that template, does it change your size? Because the polymorph rules are very heavily biased against starting as any size other than medium or maybe small.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
I never said that not having full BAB is a benefit. What I said was that since they cannot take many feats at first level picking up improved monster lore at first level is a good choice.

Getting better from your class and being able to qualify for useful feats is better.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The druid/monk is probably not going to be maxing out a lot of skills. That was my whole point. More than likely he is going to be spreading them out fairly evenly.

I've never seen a druid or monk not max perception. If he's not doing more than that it means the OP needs to pick up all the non-face skills.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The zen archer/inquisitor needs fewer high stats than the investigator/fighter. The original poster already said he was interested in an archer. That means if you go investigator/fighter you need a good STR, INT, and DEX, and all character need a decent CON. With a ZEN Archer you need a good WIS, and STR, you only need a 13 DEX for deadly aim. You have the same requirement for CON as any other character. INT should probably be left at 10 and you can dump CHA as much as you want.

The monk/inquisitor does not need the same con as any other character. He needs two con more because his hit dice are smaller. Leaving int at 10 is unacceptable because the OP needs more than 7 skills per level to cover what the other characters aren't. The investigator//fighter or investigator//ranger or investigator//slayer does not need much strength. Neither does the bard//slayer or bard//fighter. They have other things they can add to damage on a consistent basis.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Even at first level he still has access to spells, and judgements. He also has access to the monks unarmed attack so can use that for the first few levels until his archery comes on line. That allows him to attack without having to drop the bow when someone is next to him. Which by the way he gets at 3rd level. Since the fighter requires weapon specialization that means the fighter is not picking up point blank master until 5th level

Inquisitors get few spells and judgement does not match up to studied combat, studied target, or inspire courage until level 8, and all of those are either not subject to a use limit or can be used flexibly round by round. You get one judgement per day until 4th level.

Archers have been getting by without point blank master through all of third edition and through the CRB and APG years. 5' step does the job until enemies with reach start to show up and the melee action economy doesn't require quickdraw until level 6 unless you're trying to TWF. Obviously no ranged character should ever TWF unless they're a thrower, in which case they need quickdraw anyways. Everyone who can get PMB can get it at or before the level it's actually needed.

Unarmed Strike give you an acceptable early game. You're forced to overbuy strength because you need it to be your primary attack (that's two levels of not playing an archer at all) and you're sitting at medium BAB with very little boosting and a simple weapon with less than full BAB and no flurry. This is not an archetype you enter at first level if you want to enjoy the early game. You know, the part least likely to be canceled?

Buri Reborn (emphasis added) wrote:
I think a lot of contention around feats can be solved with some bravery around simply not picking the "core must haves." For example, play a wizard that takes all arcane discoveries. Mind you, I too hate the feat bloat, but there's some fairly interesting builds out there when you don't pin your character on power attack or TWF.

This is the problem. If you play a wizard you get interesting feats, though I'm pretty sure what you describe is illegal. Arcane Discoveries aren't feats with wizard level prerequisites, they're pseudo-feat class abilities that can be taken in place of a wizard bonus feat and only a wizard bonus feat.

Casters don't need specific feats and most caster feats are good. You could take fleet every time and your wizard would still be a wizard and if you actually printed a list of caster feats and threw darts at it you'd probably only get one or two you'd actually regret.

You can't take just any feat and do well if you're a martial.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Also the inquisitor is the skill guy. He gets bonus to intimidate, sense motive, survival, and all the monster based knowledge skills. If he takes improved monster lore he is actually better at identify monsters than a bard.

For a three person party with no other skilled or int based character 6 isn't skilled enough. Monster Lore is not a large bonus. It's just stat substitution without doing anything about the number of skill points per level.
Improved monster lore is a feat that adds ½ level to your monster lore. This is basically getting the same bonus as a bard for the purpose of identifying monsters. This is in addition to getting both INT and WIS on those rolls. Considering the neither the zen archer or the inquisitor has a +1 BAB at first level this is actually one of the better feats for an inquisitor.

Which is a feat on an archer. There are a lot of archery feats. If you're dropping a feat you need to compare to the investigator also using a feat on ranged study. He's 6+int with inspiration giving free +1d6 to trained knowledge, linguistics, and spellcraft checks, any other check he gets from a talent, and any skill or ability check several times a day. He's also int based and has trapfinding. It's going to be a long time before +half level beats 6 higher int and inspiration.

Not having +1 BAB at first level is not a merit of the monk//inquisitor, it's a flaw. You'll get delayed access to deadly aim, clustered shots, and possibly snap shot which a martial can qualify for 3 levels before the zen archer gets the equivalent ability. A zen archer also cannot get improved snap shot without wasting a feat on a redundant snap shot.

And while we're speaking of alleged merits that are actually flaws, what do you expect him to do for the first two levels of play if he actually tries to take advantage of wisdom to accuracy? Try to get by on an inquisitor's first level spell slots?

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Both of the other characters will be getting 4 skill points per level not 2. As I stated the inquisitor gets a bonus of ½ their level on intimidate, sense motive, and gets the rangers bonus to track. This effectively gives the inquisitor a +4 skill points per level for the cost of a single feat.

Intimidate and sense motive are almost certainly redundant with the soracle. You don't make a 4+int full charisma caster and not go for face skills. And you know who else gets the ranger's bonus on track? That's right, the ranger. Ranger is a strong gestalt choice for everyone that benefits from ranger spells that isn't needing charisma more than wisdom, which is everyone I suggested except the wizard and bard.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
All INT based classes get 2 skill points per level.

Blatantly false. The alchemist is 4+int and the investigator is 6+int.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
As an archer you want the stat that you use determine your chance to hit to be your highest. This means either DEX, or in the case of a zen archer WIS. You also want decent STR for damage o, and of course everyone needs CON.

This is exactly why monster lore is nothing but a stat switch. If it's not your casting stat it will be 10 because an archer that is also a caster needs too many stats.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

That means more than likely your INT base gestalt character is getting 4 +INT bonus skill points per level. This means the INT based character would likely get 7 or 8 skill points per level.

A ranger//magus should get at least 9 or 10. An investigator//martial may get 10 or 11 because int is important for studied combat and studied combat on top of a full BAB gestalt means both strength and dex can be 12 and 16 instead of 14 and 18. Having a d10 HD class in the mix also means con can be 2 lower relative to whatever level you'd be comfortable with on a d8 archer. Alchemists can also shave off up to 4 dex for int because of mutagen since temporary int penalties don't remove skill points. Meanwhile the inquisitor is getting 6 or 7 depending on if tieflings have a useful racial FCB.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Don’t count on the druid/monk having a really high perception and survival. He will probably have some point invested in these skills, but he has a lot of other skills he will want. He is going to want some points into acrobatic, climb, fly and swim to take advantage of changing into creatures with other forms of movement. He will also want points into knowledge nature, perception stealth and survival. If he has an animal companion he is also going to need handle animal. And as a spell caster he is going to want at least a few points into spellcraft. That makes about 9 to 10 skills which is going to mean he is spread pretty thin.

So you're admitting that your earlier claim that the others having 4+int doesn't obviate the need for the final party member to have a lot of skills. Then why did you make it? While I'd be shocked if a druid didn't max perception come hell or high water that doesn't mean someone else shouldn't as well unless his check is at least 10 higher than they can hope to reach. The oracle is probably not, leaving the OP to be the second perceiver (possibly first against traps at higher levels if he builds something that involves slayer or investigator).

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Also the inquisitor is the skill guy. He gets bonus to intimidate, sense motive, survival, and all the monster based knowledge skills. If he takes improved monster lore he is actually better at identify monsters than a bard.

For a three person party with no other skilled or int based character 6 isn't skilled enough. Monster Lore is not a large bonus. It's just stat substitution without doing anything about the number of skill points per level.

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting or passing over:

The party has a probable face and a probably perception/tracking guy, but no knowledge guy and is kind of light on skills in general. This suggests that you should go for a relatively int heavy magus, alchemist, investigator, or bard or a full int caster.

The EA magus//slayer or EA magus//ranger people have been suggesting is good. Magus//ranger is slightly skillier.

Investigators are better in melee because of the extra feat tax and 30' limit on ranged inspiration, but it'll work with slayer, ranger, or fighter if you're mostly fighting within 30'. When you are, half your level to attack and damage is a lot of boost.

Alchemist doesn't really offer as much since bombs don't really combo with archery. There's some feat overlap, but having archery kind of makes bombs somewhat redundant. The saves also don't line up right since Alchemist is fort/ref and all the suitable martial combos are also fort or fort/ref.

Bard is MADer because you need some cha and the skill shortfall calls for int as well. Bardic Knowledge alone won't cover everything comfortably. It'd be a little easier if you were human. Alternately, running it with Lore Warden would work since the extra skill points for int based skills would stack. Inspire Courage is great. Discordant Voice is great. I don't see any good archetypes for your intended role that don't lose bardic knowledge, which is the whole point of going bard here. Slayer's going to have a little action economy conflict and ranger also needs some wisdom so fighter, ideally lore warden, is the ideal gestalt here I think. Maybe Luring Cavalier instead.

Wizard//Slayer is also possible. The wizard list has most of the archery boosting spells and as an archery you'll be more or less okay in mage armor. The spells are kind of redundant with ranger. Fighter would lack reflex.

Witch has a less appropriate spell list, though the strength or devotion patron will get you divine favor so Witch//Ranger has some potential.

I don't know the psychic or occultist spell lists. They might have good spells for you or not. You'd want to gestalt with slayer or ranger for saves.

It's difficult to come up with something that isn't comparable to just showing up in full plate harness carrying a bared sword or wearing eldritch looking robes and waving bat guano around.
The best reasonable mundane intimidate booster would be blackmail material, though you'd need to acquire it on a per target bases. Maybe a fully stocked dungeon, but I'm not sure even that is scarier than a wizard telling you he prepared Baleful Polymorph this morning.

Sundakan wrote:

My mistake, it's available to any Small size race, it was just in a Kobold book.

Small But Deadly

Assuming interpretation #2 is what his GM goes with though.

Interpretation #2 is pretty obviously wrong. A racial penalty to strength is not the same thing as a strength penalty to damage. Also, irregardless is not a word.

Sundakan wrote:
There's a Kobold Feat that eliminates the Strength penslty somewhere.

I can't find any sign of this, can you give more details?

Talk to your GM and see if you can get some sort of compensation for playing a CR 1/4 race instead of a CR 1/3 race like every other PC race except the overpowered underdarkers.

1 to 50 of 5,764 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.