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

4,777 posts (4,778 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,777 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't believe he was shooting at authentic mail and gambeson. We know that Saracen archery was mostly ineffective against that combination from eg. the battle of Dorylaeum during the First Crusade.

Reproduction mail is of uncertain quality. Medieval European steel was impurity ridden, but reproduction mail is usually made from mild steels that are easier to draw into wires rather than more difficult to work steels that perform better as armor. The misconceptions about how gambesons were made are also almost as bad as those about archery: The surviving examples do not match the literature and still exist, both of which make it unlikely they were ever actual field armor. The surviving examples are two layers quilted with cotton batting. the reproduction Lars Anderson used as a target is probably also just two layers quilted. The written descriptions are 10-30 layers quilted together with cotton batting and sometimes leather. I'm inclined to believe that the absence of descriptions from the crusades is evidence of an absence of standards rather than an absence of quality armor given the ability of upper class Europeans to withstand arrow fire.

gambeson reproductions


It looks like someone needs to take oracle. Possibly both. Chelish Diva bard is another thing to look at. They can cast in medium armor at level 5 and mithril heavy armor counts as medium for all purposes except proficiency. Both characters already have heavy armor proficiency covered.

I'd put Chelish Diva on whichever has the lowest charisma and oracle on the one with the highest or maybe oracle on both. I don't think I'd mess around with prestige classes unless both characters are oracles: you're going to need mercies to get all the condition removal and a PrC isn't going to progress those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You misunderstand Silent Table. It's completely useless for its putative purpose because it's a 5' diameter (probably a misprint for radius, but what is written is what is written) which means one square, but it can target an object. Your hat is an object. That makes it a mobile +20 on hearing based perception checks. Since hearing is a component to perception versus stealth opposed checks it's almost as powerful a sneaking enhancer as invisibility, which it stacks with. Most blindsight and blindsense are sound based and it will give a -20 penalty to those as well. That -20 to hear your audible spell components makes the invisible wizard gambit even stronger and may impact spellcraft rolls to identify your spells.


I think the correct fix is to allow any style to be entered as a free action the first time a character comes up in the initiative order in an encounter the same way the action to activate flaming swords is ignored.


TarkXT wrote:
Oh, and the reason why reach warpriests aren't really a thing is due to their incredibly good action economy by dint of fervor. They simply don't have a need to be a passive melee character.

Warpriests also don't offer much of a casting threat compared to a full divine caster or medium arcane caster. I wouldn't build a reach inquisitor or hunter for the same reason.


Another thing to point out is the SLA prerequisite ruling. Most races can't take advantage of it in a CRB only game, but gnomes have arcane racial SLAs even there. He won't be using his swift actions for anything else so this is a good feat for him. Also urge him to run down the weapon focus/specialization chain for damage. He has nothing else to use his feats on unless he wants to try to make a switch hitter because gnomes are absolutely terrible at combat maneuvers and the critical focus tree doesn't come up until much later and isn't good for axe wielders anyways.


Uwotm8 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike - Too situational and will often times hurt your damage output.
I agree on less than full BAB classes. For full BAB it's fine. Each of those characters I've always ran into the situation where I was needing not-a-1 on my highest attack to hit or needing a 10 for my lowest attack for CR appropriate AC per the stats by CR table and have to work to diversify the build.

Nope. A typical augmented medium BAB class will have the same accuracy at most levels as un-augmented full BAB when both are power attacking and at many levels has one fewer iterative to miss with. Any time a samurai or ranger not fighting his favored enemy or cavalier not charging or paladin not using smite should power attack an inquisitor or alchemist or divine caster running divine favor or selfish bard should also power attack. Bards can also hit the "power attack by default" accuracy level, but won't match an unaugmented full BAB power attack accuracy solely because they boost him as well. Investigators have over-augmented medium BAB and a power attack viability threshold more like a fighter or raging barbarian or slayer.


pickin_grinnin wrote:
FatR wrote:
Witches do have a good deal of options that are pretty much worthless for PCs
Worthless in combat. Not in other scenarios.

Worthless period. Take Child Scent for instance. It gives a restricted form of scent. Your familiar already has scent.

Cursed Wound is another example. It's annoying to PCs, but NPCs will be dead or irrelevant and there are no noncombat applications for it.

Nails is worthless in combat and, again, has no noncombat applications.

These aren't just situational, they're out right garbage.

The difference between the witch and other classes is that the witch doesn't have much leeway for archetypes. Compare Child Scent to pretty much any ability that substitutes for Inspire Courage in a bard archetype and it's obvious the problem isn't that the witch is for NPCs. It's that Paizo needs to pad out their page count.


The game breaks down for characters less than small and small only works because it has a bunch of exceptions to the normal size scaling that make it act just like medium for most purposes. Just say no.


If your goal is to get the rest of your party killed while you run away Expeditious Retreat may be better than Haste, but if you go into a cooperative social game with the intention of getting everyone else killed there's something wrong with you.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Marking for interest.

The Pathfinder weapons tables have a number of other inaccuracies. For instance, from what I can find, the historical Falchion was mostly used 1-handed and was not obligate 2-handed, and the Fauchard was a relatively lousy pole arm rather than one of the best (and the spetum is missing entirely), and the Falcata is missing Sunder vs Armor/Shield (and the Falx is missing entirely). I got the impression that EGG at least tried to maintain some historical accuracy with weapons, although the implementation left something to be desired, hence causing it to be dropped somewhere on the way to PF.

There was a weapons versus armor table in first edition. I understand it was dropped in second because it was commonly ignored. This was probably the worst game design decision in the history of D&D. You simply can't have meaningful armor variety without it or something similar.

There's also the issue that good scholarship was just less available before the maturation of the Internet. Gygax et all worked with what they had, but I don't think anyone since has even tried to write good weapon rules. Or rather no one working on D&D or PF in an official capacity.


If you want a non-evil subterranean race that has thought put into it you want Discworld Dwarves but taller and with less facial hair.


LazarX wrote:
DesolateHarmony wrote:

For all of you saying that DR is worthless, my samurai (Order of the Shield) in Jade Regent swears by his Resolute ability which acts much like DR 3/- if there is healing around. It just means he takes significantly less damage, even against big hitters like dragons and oni.

** spoiler omitted **

The OP seemed to be complaining that DR wasn't making his monsters survivable enough, not so much concerned about Player DR uses.

This is working as intended. He may not like it, but monsters are not intended to be survivable. If they were then players would also have to be more survivable. Maybe 4e or Next. I think I've heard 4e combat tended to last longer than 3.x and Next is supposedly a throwback to the TSR era.


Skill Mastery for UMD, even if it worked, gets you little that casters don't already have.

A level 10 sorcerer or caster oracle who invests in UMD and takes skill focus will have 30-32 charisma for a +10 or higher modifier and 10 skill ranks. Wands and staves have a fixed UMD DC of 20 and a charisma caster therefore cannot fail to activate one. Skill Focus and UMD as a class skill (using a trait for oracles) gets +29. That's enough to use a 9th level scroll or emulate an alignment or an ability of 15 without chance of failure or a 16 95% of the time (100% of the time with 32 charisma). Any spell on any charisma list needs no ability emulation so the only possible issues are 6th level inquisitor exclusives and 6-9th level druid or witch exclusives. And sorcerers and oracles don't suck for the first 9 levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tonyz wrote:
53. Somehow their clothing never seems to get filthy, even when they have just emerged from an implausibly large sewer tunnel on the night of the Great Bran God Banquet and Jalapeno Festival.

That's arcane casters, not adventurers. Prestidigitation is a wonderful thing. Also people around arcane casters because what arcane caster wants to go to the Great Bran God Banquet and Jalapeño Festival with a cleric who's covered in sewage


Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen
Hymn of Breaking Strain by Rudyard Kipling
A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall by Bob Dylan
The 23rd Psalm by King David


N. Jolly wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
My lvl20 Healing Hand Monk is named Asmodeus/Sarenrae/[insert deity of choice here].
My lvl20 Healing Hand Monk is named 'The.'

Please. You can manage intelligibility without articles.

My 20th level Healing Hand monk is named 'Be.' He's an identical triplet. His brothers are 'Being' and 'Been.'


Fighters. AoOs are about locking down the battlefield, or at least your corner of it. That's a fighter's job more than anyone else's.


Arachnofiend wrote:
(Any) Court Bard - Satire stacks, and that's all you need.

Human. With the alternate racial trait that trades the bonus feat for several skill focuses. Because apart from Chelish Diva this is the only one in the party with versatile performance.


I'd suggest something like this. That was an off the cuff idea so there are probably a few refinements it still needs, but replacing action types with fungible action points lets you trade movement against attacks freely rather than any movement over 5' costing all but one of your attacks.


Hopea wrote:

I can beat that, at least you gain something for losing an ability.

Summoner - Master Summoner Archetype

Quote:

Lesser Eidolon

A master summoner’s class level is halved (minimum 1) for the purposes of determining his eidolon’s abilities, Hit Dice, evolution pool, and so on. The eidolon otherwise functions as normal.

This ability replaces the summoner’s normal eidolon ability.

So essentially, your main class ability gains power at half the usual rate, nothing given back.

Of course the Master Summoner Archetype more than breaks even with what they're given to replace, but this thread is for single abilities after all, not to argue which Archetype is the worst in total.

The master summoner is at least balancing between two abilities that come at the same level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Risk based balancing doesn't work. Humans are not good at intuiting risk. Conservative players will just stop using magic and reckless players will use magic like always, get burned, and then become conservative players and your game will become poorer for it.


Senko wrote:
It's an interesting thought however while the no magic weapons/items at the start of the film isn't so much of a problem given the different worlds I'm not so sure about the lvl 6 restriction. Especially if you include the elves like Legolas. Personally I'd go up to 10/11 for their levels.

Right, the Alexandrian assumption about genre shift only applies to casters. Martials and skill classes stay in the gritty and realistic venue for all purposes except environmental damage. Considering the fall Bilbo takes in the orc caves before encountering Gollum without impairment or healing we're not talking about a setting with realistic environmental damage anyways.

Bard kills what is by size an ancient red dragon that's been PfNAing everyone else in one arrow (or knocks it unconscious and drowning kills it). He needs to do 362 damage. Assume the arrow is +6 holy dragon bane so it does 4d6 non-critting and 1d8+10 critting x3. Assume maximum rolled damage. That's 78 damage max. Still need 284 damage. Strength multiplies. Let's give him 26 strength. That's another 24 damage. 260 still to do. Greater Vital Strike and Devastating Strike add another 6 critting and 3d8 non-critting. That's 42. 218 left. Deadly Aim at level 20 is 12 critting or 36. 182 to go. Maximum favored enemy is +10 critting. 152 left. Gravity Bow bumps those 1d8s to 2d6s. There are 6 of them so another 24 rolling max. 128 to go. We're going to have to go mythic. Mythic Vital Strike takes us well over and I'm not going to calculate it out, but I don't think we can escape Bard being a mythic character of at least level 11 and probably 16.

Bilbo's falling damage we don't have the numbers to calculate out, but a low level aristocrat he's not.


The reason classic D&D could use different leveling tracks was that the classes were either designed from the ground up to level at different rates or the leveling rates were used to balance classes not designed to level at the same rate.

You can't really do that with 3.x classes. Even if your fast leveling group is "classes everyone agrees suck" and your slow leveling group is "full casters" you'll have problems.


Eryx_UK wrote:
Haflings make good rogues, bards, druids, sorcerers and anything where their pants size weapon damage isn't going to be a hindrance.

Actually, halflings make terrible druids. Small races don't get polymorph adjustments. You don't get back the strength penalty for being small when shaping medium or larger, but medium druids do get the dex bonus for shaping small or smaller. You don't get screwed over by the polymorph rules quite as badly as, say, a centaur druid, but it's not good.


N. Jolly wrote:

Okay, rather than assuming a custom campaign that coddles commoners, why don't we take it a different way?

Rise of the Runelords, which single classed party do you take to this AP?

Four Samsaran Shamans. Wandering spirit in I think Lore lets you crib from the sorc/wiz list. Being a samsaran lets you grab the clerical self-buffs or druidic blasting or some usually arcane stuff like invisibility off the inquisitor list. I'd say two mystic past life clerics, one druid, and one inquisitor.


rainzax wrote:

on Ki, Stunning Fist, AC Bonus:

Law = WIS
Chaos = CHA

Rogues can and traditionally are chaotic but use wisdom for ki. Ninjas can be lawful and use charisma


The campaign would have to be written around the target class. Only int based or 6+int classes are going to provide enough skills to be viable. I would recommend Investigator or Bard for an intrigue campaign, though a wizard, arcanist, or alchemist school campaign is possible.

The only case in which you could not obviously make the campaign better by loosening the class restriction, though, is the minstrels or actors as spies bard party. The intrigue campaign will have less trampling of feet with a mix of skill classes and maybe an appropriate wizard. The school campaign would be better when you can have tensions between the thaumaturgical and alchemical departments as a long running B plot. Even the bardic campaign might benefit from a rogue with a perform skill simply because it's so hard to make thematically appropriate and useful bard archetypes not redundant.

You really can't make a single general purpose party out of anything but divine gishes and even that will struggle with skills.


The best use of the dwarven cleave feats is actually on a druid with a fighter dip since the goblin/orc/giant line scales with your size and Giant Killer has extra prerequisites. You also get a much bigger attack to cleave with when you get to huge, though at large you'll want to use the Dire Hyena as the only animal with "tall" reach. Note that with natural reach you don't have a hole in the middle like you do with a longaxe.


Zhayne wrote:
Since I've gotten 13 as it sits (if I use individuality/community, which is looking likely), I must disagree with your assessment, Atarlost.

Nothing stops you from coming up with a list. Nothing stops you from writing 2=3 either, but it won't make sense. Look at the way Hinduism has been evolving towards trinitarian monotheism because of the metaphysical weight of the Creation/Destruction/Preservation trio of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

And that's just with the idea of gods. If you have actual gods running around as you do in a RPG setting the ones with big, important portfolios would completely eclipse those with lesser portfolios by the time there were any civilizations around to worship them.


BigDTBone wrote:

Lawful

Not Lawful

One of these guys fails. I'll let you guess once before you click.

The one that isn't proficient in needle throwing, duh.

Any idiot with a casual grasp of physics or ballistics will tell you that hitting straight is really important. Otherwise a lot of the energy is going to go into spinning the projectile.

Since the Mythbusters only had a baseball pitcher to test with they should have just clocked the needle and then fired it *straight* at that velocity with an air cannon or other calibrated launcher, but they're more interested in getting their episodes made within schedule and budget than in actual scientific rigor.


If you want 13 gods you need to avoid metaphysically heavy concepts like Creation and Destruction. Those and Preservation can make a trinity, but they'll just wash out a larger pantheon.

Past/Future is another bad choice.

If any of your dualisms cover all or most of reality they can be a "pantheon" of two or possibly two parts of a trinity or aspects of a single god(ess) but are just too big to fit in a pantheon the size you want.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
If you don't know that education policies forced upon conquered peoples has led to cultural genocide... you have a lot of reading to begin.

There's no such thing as cultural genocide. Cultures aren't people. You can't possibly compare changing or superseding a primitive culture to actually massacring people.

Superstition kills real people dead by blocking progress that saves real lives. Next to that a loss of culture is less worthy of tears than the demise of Betamax.


Since you're gestalting to compensate for small party size you should be gestalting for maximum diversity.

Remembering that Kingmaker is a hex crawl, Swash adds very little to Bard. You have enough performance duration to be an effective combatant. Swash lets you skimp on your physical stats for charisma with the BAB and HD advantage being worth +2 each to your attack stat and con and Swashbuckler Finesse letting you use dex in place of strength (at a damage disadvantage, but an acceptable one). You're not really gaining any new capabilities, though.

Just for starters you could do daring champion cavalier. You keep the panache, get tactician and challenge, and get better saves. But you could be picking up supplemental divine casting as an oracle or paladin or wider arcane selection as a summoner or eldritch scion magus as well.

Brawler/investigator is a good plan. Investigator is really good with any full BAB class that isn't charisma based.

Druid/rogue or druid/slayer can maybe be made to work solo, but it'd be a fog based build and not very party friendly. You do have the option of making everyone take a druid archetype or oracle mystery that can see through magical fog and be absolutely terrifying, but that's probably more coordination than you'll actually manage to pull off. You'll also suffer from a lack of condition removal unless the bard pairs with oracle. Druids do enough that oracle can handle the rest without overstressing their spells known, but you need someone with cleric list casting. Reincarnation is a crapshoot. I'd suggest straight cleric/slayer or cleric/ranger or even cleric/rogue. A battle cleric build isn't bad and adding sneak attack isn't going to actually make anything worse. If the bard is pairing with oracle and you're not doing the see through fog party slayer is better than rogue but you'll miss out on the combat style stuff because the natural weapon style is terrible.


A guy whose username is an obvious Three Billygoats Gruff reference conflates education with genocide.

Obvious troll is obvious and no more merits a serious response than a smurf post.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The correct fix to the rogue:
Remove the rogue completely. Increase the skill points of all other classes by 2 (4 to a maximum of 8 for non-casters). Give everyone +2 class skills selected at chargen. Give fighters sense motive and bluff as class skills. Reduce the perception and disable DCs of all traps by 33%. Remove the restriction on who can disable magical traps and trap-like spells.

That puts the skill balance more or less where it should have been all along and lets any class pick up the now obsolete trapfinding niche. You'll still have an excess of boring traps in published adventures, but other than that it repairs most of the damage the rogue has done to the game in a single short paragraph.


I think you undersell storm and tempest druids. They give up basically nothing. Multiclassing ruins the animal companion and your summon effectiveness pretty thoroughly so getting different spontaneous casting and a domain is no hardship. In return you get to see through magical fog and your spontaneous domain casts will include magical fog. With 10' or more reach (dire hyena, large elementals, and all huge forms) you can strike from total concealment if your cloud is placed right, and will have partial concealment for 20% miss chance even if your enemy is adjacent. At worst you're not using any of the archetype abilities but wouldn't be using the abilities you traded for them either. I'd call that strictly superior to an unarchetyped druid for a multiclass build and therefore at least worthy of a yellow rating. In fact I don't see how anything that doesn't give up or delay wildshape or casting could possibly get a rating less than yellow.


163) You inherit a major artifact magic longsword sword. If you do not have a caster level it counters any hostile magic targeting you or any allies who also don't have caster levels as if it were a level 20 wizard casting dispel magic. If you are not normally proficient with longswords you are treated as proficient with it and treat your level as your BAB for attacks made with it. It provides fast healing 1.

Unfortunately it comes with a geas to help women in danger and doesn't distinguish between a woman being yelled at by her husband, a woman being sacrificed to demons, and an eyrines being menaced by a paladin.


Quark Blast wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
With a gamey magic system not susceptible to sufficient analysis the only way to mix magic and technology is for magic to either be new (or newly returning after a long absence) or magic users marginalized to the extent that mainstream society doesn't know they exist.

So how to explain Eberron then? Magic is tech there. Or at least there is no functional distinction.

Atarlost wrote:
You also can't have divine magic at all. Science requires either no creator or a creator that likes systems that operate on consistent laws without intervention and no significantly interventionist gods. If divine capriciousness can be used as an explanation for anything there's no reason to look for patterns and science is stillborn.
Again Eberron fails this standard, so there must be a distinction between tech and "science" (as you use it) that I'm not picking up on.

Eberron is a stupid setting that violates everything we know about societal development. It is not alone in this, but that doesn't make it not stupid. Most game designers aren't even amateurs when it comes to history and it shows.


The presence of magic will tend to stunt the development of science unless it's either susceptible to it or so hazardous it's ignored until people forget it's anything more than myth or it goes away long enough to be relegated to myth long enough for scientific thinking to solidly take hold before returning.

So long as magic is accepted as inexplicable it can be used to explain anything and most defined systems of magic really are nonsensible.

We can discard the peasant railgun as a degeneration of the readied action abstraction. We cannot so easily discard spell levels, for example, as a bad abstraction because they effect clear in game things like the price of a scroll, but spell levels are determined by the combat effect of a spell, not the energy is requires. Any explanation of magic is going to come with predictions about how it should work and game systems never fit unless deliberately designed to match a system of metaphysics rather than game balance.

With a gamey magic system not susceptible to sufficient analysis the only way to mix magic and technology is for magic to either be new (or newly returning after a long absence) or magic users marginalized to the extent that mainstream society doesn't know they exist.

You also can't have divine magic at all. Science requires either no creator or a creator that likes systems that operate on consistent laws without intervention and no significantly interventionist gods. If divine capriciousness can be used as an explanation for anything there's no reason to look for patterns and science is stillborn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Not this question again. First of all it is not "hate". Nobody hates the rogue, monk, or fighter, and many people that complain want them to be better. There are probably 20 threads on the topic. If you do a search you will find the answers, and you will not do any less reading by starting your own thread on it.

raises hand

Actually, I hate the rogue. I think making a skill class makes the game less fun for everyone by forcing other classes to be unskilled. I think the rogue's 3.x trap handling niche encourages the inappropriate use of uninteresting traps to justify the existence of the niche. I think the connotations of the name rogue, particularly its use in D&D and other places as a euphemism for thief encourages antisocial play. I think the stealth skill, particular in combination with the lack of skills for other classes to protect the rogue niche, promotes 1 on 1 gaming while the rest of the table plays Angry Birds. The rogue introduced deliberate spotlight balancing, which I consider toxic and antithetical to a good shared gaming experience, but good for Roxio.

The rogue isn't like the monk or fighter. People are indifferent at worst to them because they don't make the game worse just by existing.


If one of the goals is to do less damage than the kids, maybe a dex build is the way to go. You just need enough strength to lift your gear if you go shortsword/kukri/light pick/light hammer/hand axe and light shield, or 13 strength if you want to use a rapier. 14 strength is probably actually what you'll actually wind up with since you'll need some for your gear and 14 is the breakpoint for actually adding to off-hand damage. Everything else can go in dex, cha, and con.

1) TWF, weapon finesse
3) improved shield bash
5) piranha strike or power attack
7) improved TWF
9) shield slam
11) shield master

Appears to work as long as you don't take an alternate racial that loses you your bonus feat.


justaworm wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Protoman wrote:

That's why I use gamescience precision dice!

Dice roller app would be more randomized, but too slow for actual play use in my opinion.
Dice roller apps and software are actually not randomised AT ALL. They simply work on a seed number which is usually how many seconds have passed since last midnight.
Sort of true. There is no such thing as true "randomization" in a random number generator, but there are way more options and science behind picking the system clock as your seed.

This isn't actually true. On most linux implementations, /dev/random uses environmental noise as an entropy source to re-seed a pseudorandom number generator every time it approaches its period. Apple's posix derived OSs including iOS only have pseudorandom number generators, but wikipedia doesn't mention Android one way or the other.

If you have a linux laptop at the table for SRD reference you have easy access to a truer random number generator in the laptop than in your dice cup. There should be more than enough noise coming off the wireless adaptor to provide all the entropy you'll ever need.


ZanThrax wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I replied to EVERY SINGLE COMMENT, with quotes, and all that fun stuff in one post and you know what happened? When it posted, it only posted like the last 1/5 of my post.
You need lazarus http://getlazarus.com/

Actually, Paizo needs to get real forum software instead of trying to roll their own. I believe some of the free forum packages aren't even restricted to noncommercial use these days.

Everything about these forums is terrible. The moderation is binary (delete or leave up, no infraction system or even mod editing), the quote system is broken, editing is time restricted (very bad for guides and homebrewing and anything else where ), and the text formatting is more limited than real forums have been in over a decade.

I suspect the broken, post eating, quote system is in some way responsible for thegreenteagamer's problem. If so Lazarus wouldn't really help: he'd still be unable to post it because the forum software eats long quotes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Invisibility never worked right in PF because of the merging of listen and spot into the same kind of check. Fixing it is part of fixing the stealth rules in general, which I believe is slated for Unchained. Silence probably needs work for the same reason, as do all variants on both spells.

Most blasts could probably do with a rebalancing, especially if ditching legacy cruft means ditching boring metamagic. Blasts haven't balanced right since monsters got uncapped con to HP per level.

I'm of the opinion that the whole way spell save DCs is calculated is bad and that everything should use a static modifier above or below the Ex/Su DC standard of 10+level/2+stat based on things like how nasty the effect of a failed save is and how much consolation effect there is on a passed save and how many targets are effected and not on spell level at all.


The wizard gets more free spells known. If the GM is excessively miserly with spell availability the wizard has the same human favored class bonus as the sorcerer. If the GM makes spells available as pages of spell knowledge the wizard can add to his book a lot cheaper. The wizard is always spending less and getting more. When the wizard adds to his book he can memorize those spells in the morning or access them through his bonded item, allowing him to add combat spells and not have to actually have a reference in hand, allowing him to actually use metamagic rods with them.

The vast majority of the wizard's ability is from the CRB: only blasters need other books to function. The Sorcerer has no spells known favored class bonus unless the APG or ARG is allowed and no pages of spell knowledge without I think UE.

The sorcerer pays three times for spontaneity. He has limited spells known, cannot use metamagic other than quicken without sacrificing his move actions, and has delayed spell access. Metamagic rods allow a wizard to spontaneously apply metamagic without increasing the casting time, but a sorcerer using the same rod on the same spell isn't moving more than five feet or controlling any of the move action controlled spells.

The sorcerer has worse class features than the wizard. He has nothing like the evocation, conjuration, or divination school abilities, but does pull off bloodlines every bit as useless as abjuration. He has fewer bonus feats from small flavor uber alles lists packed with stuff like power attack.

Paizo has obviously been trying to rectify things over time, but as long as they're stuck with WotC's legacy garbage sorcerer it cannot be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have a silencer. The Paizo firearm rules do not allow you to get a non-silenced firearm because deafening everyone within 15' (tripled in rooms smaller than 20' in the smallest dimension) for 2d6 rounds was considered too powerful an effect for a nonmagical device.


Zombie Ninja wrote:
Smurfs.

I'm pretty sure that's just a racial slur against deep gnomes, who were in the first bestiary. Let's hope Paizo isn't desperate enough to start repackaging old monsters as new.


Jiggy wrote:

Start here: Monster Statistics by CR

For whatever level you want to look at, estimate the CR of the monsters you're likely going to be facing. Not the CR of the total encounter, but the CR of individual creatures.

Now, make a subjective decision as to what an "appropriate" number of rounds would be for how long it takes you to kill ONE of the creatures you're looking at. Involve your group in this decision.

Based on your decision of "rounds to kill" and the average HP value of a creature of the selected CR, determine how much damage you would need to deal per round. This is your target DPR at that level.

From there, you can use various maths to determine what your attack and damage bonuses could be to get that DPR.

Hope that helps!

In a sense that helps, but many classes don't progress smoothly and the game transitions over time.

At level 1 if you can't routinely one shot "typical" CR=APL monsters you're not trying, but one rounding a CR 20 at level 20 using HP damage is probably impossible without many more confirmed crits than average. Table 1-1 has CR 1 HP at CRx10 and CR 20 HP over CRX15 while most damage sources scale slower than level and later iteratives are increasingly chancy.

The real question is "have I put enough resources into DPR on this character?" and that's harder. The hard part of it isn't dividing HP by rounds to kill, it's determining what fight duration is acceptable at what levels.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
UsagiTaicho wrote:

EDIT: Somewhere on this site, someone is working on updating the Tome of Magic for Pathfinder, fixing it and expanding on it. A company I think, and there was a kickstarter.

If you can find it, please send me a private link, would you? I am HAPPY to hear this - I particularly loved Pact Magic, and have not been happy with the direction Dario Nardi et al took it.

Regarding Intelligence VS Charisma: The 3.0 Player's Handbook described Sorcerer magic as being based on "imagination and talent," which I'd no question ascribe to Intelligence, and I am firmly of the mind that arcane magic should require one be at least halfway smart. I have always been inclined to say that Sorcerers should require, or at least benefit significantly from, BOTH scores. One idea I had was that Sorcerers might receive bonus spells known for high Intelligence scores (higher INT = superior imagination = figures out more spells). "Force of personality" certainly does make some sense in the context of Sorcerer-style magic. "Charisma becomes a dump stat if it isn't for magic" is something I've heard before - one thing I'll point out is that I do still support its being the basis for Bard and Summoner magic; the other is that I'm inclined to suggest that Charisma be made more generally useful through other means, perhaps by rerouting the Will saving throw through it (the "liberalization" of which ability scores may govern saving throws, giving individual characters choices in this regard, is possibly the single best thing to come out of 4E). Wisdom is a serious "hodgepodge" ability score, and it might not hurt to streamline its portfolio.

The problem isn't the sorcerer, it's the stat names. CHA is how witty and clever you are in conversation. Your character's sense of humor, ability to improvise, and artistic talent are also here. INT is raw memorization. WIS is paranoia: how much you expect traps and ambushes (perception), how much you distrust your own senses (saves against illusions), and how much you distrust the very thoughts in your head (saves against mind effecting effects).

Okay, it's also that WIS is a dumb stat to have in a heroic game and a dumb stat to govern clerical casting unless all "gods" are eldritch horrors that will eat your mind and/or soul if you ever miss an undotted I or uncrossed T. INT and CHA are okay, though, as long as you forget that they're shorthand for the misleading intelligence and charisma.

1 to 50 of 4,777 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.