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

4,557 posts (4,558 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 4,557 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.

Ravingdork wrote:

When I first read this upon the arrival of my subscription materials, I too was stunned at the possibilities for power and game slow-down. I too wondered "who on earth wrote this feat?"

This feat appears to be tailor made to troll gaming groups. Imagine a player of a master summoner with two dozen minions on the field trying to do the math for his metamagic'd spells while also playing out the turns for two dozen minions he's summoned onto the battlefield. Every turn would eat up an hour of game time!

My first thought is the exact opposite.

The GM who's sick of the summoner delaying the game writes up an encounter against half a dozen minion level wizards all of whom use this feat. Because payback's a geometer.

My other thought is that it might almost make still and silent worth using: you can use them spontaneously for the slot price they're actually worth.

You have to do a lot of changes to make nonscaling HP work.

First, spells and spell like effects (including any su or ex effect that does damage based in any way on the user's hit dice) need to be at most weakly scaling like the cure/inflict line.

Second, iteratives have to go and multiple natural attacks need to be nerfed into the ground.

Third, to compensate for the loss of iteratives as a mechanism for expanding the relevant AC window you need to make attack an defense an opposed roll.

Fourth, bonus damage needs to be limited. No scaling power attack or deadly aim or arcane strike, no stackable magic or supernatural sources, no lead blades or gravity bow. No +damage from weapon training or favored enemy. No scaling smite or challenge. No increasing your charge multiplier. No bonus damage from magic weapons. No flaming weapons. No scaling strength bonuses from rage or mutagen or progressively shinier belts. No scaling sneak attack.

Basically if HP don't scale with level then everything that makes damage scale with level has to go. This would probably work best in concert with removing the magic item treadmill and the rest of the necessity for it.

Your allies have to be able to hear you to get the benefits of performance. There is no restriction on how noisy performance needs to be.

I suggest using the message cantrip to whisper out to 100+ feet.

Pyrta and Ruby both apparently have sonic thrust or telekinesis as an SLA and the CL is ridiculous since it's an object per CL and they threw a *lot* of soda cans and tableware back and forth.

Oh, and Ruby has it quickened since she was making a charge action at the same time.

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

wild shaping barbarian
Completely Pet-less unmounted Cavalier that still has Tactician

Uncursed Oracle (or spontaneous cleric, but I don't think the archetype design rules allow a switch from prepared to spontaneous)

Grippli (if it doesn't require a boon, probably ratfolk if it does or gnome if both are out) Sohei on a combat druid. With mounted Skirmisher the Sohei gets to full attack after the druid moves and the druid reaps the benefits of monastic mount. Using a small monk allows the combo to start at level 4. This can also work with a mounted fury barbarian (gnome in this case).

Two reach gish builds will also work well together, especially if one is a bard or evangelist cleric. You can separate to control more ground or stand back to back to create overlapping zones of control.

archmagi1 wrote:

Druid: Has a pet. Do not want.

Ranger: MADDEST of the MAD classes (Pal's too, but they're funner). CLR is bad with 3 MAD's, but ranger needs 4 if he's gonna be ranged! Luckily they get a meh class feature to replace the "Do not want." pet. If only...

Druids have an alternate option to the pet that's far better than what rangers get. None of the domains they generally get is spectacular, but they're more spells/day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monks have fine defenses and escape capability. The classic monk problem is that they're all defense no offense so they get ignored while their companions get butchered. That's not a problem here. As long as the PC survives the game continues.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any alignment chart that reflects reality must be multi dimensional and possibly multiply connected.

There's group vs individual, but there are two mid-points: balance and apathy. There's altruism and selfishness, but there's also realism: the recognition that systems must expect people to behave selfishly even if the people designing and/or implementing them are altruists and that naive altruists interfering with such systems can break them producing undesirable outcomes like the tragedy of the commons. Then there's the consequentialist/deontologist/traditionalist issue (are good acts acts that result in good, acts performed for good reasons, or acts in accordance with what your predecessors considered good for reasons you don't know and don't care to explore?) Also universalist/tribalist (who do you consider people? your tribe or nation/ all humans/civilized humanoids /all humanoids/ anything with int>2 that isn't naturally evil/ any creature of your socioeconomic class regardless of species but not creatures of higher or lower status/ coreligionists/ anyone int>2 who doesn't worship Rovagug?)

Arachnofiend wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Since I don't think anyone's said it so far: EntrerisShadow, sneak attacks works on constructs now. And plants. And undead. Also, Shadow Strike works on both melee and ranged attacks. That does mean the Snipers Eye talent is kind of pointless in comparison, but then that's a pretty standard evaluation of a lot of rogue talents.
Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Missed this before, but . . .

I just realized that Shadow Strike is a combat feat that requires a BAB of +1 and doesn't apply to Total Concealment. Also it's not part of the core rules so no luck if you're playing PFS, or if your GM just says "Core Only". Having taken a closer look, I think that reiterates my point.

The devs are saying to be effective at what should be your schtick as a rogue you have to be 3rd level, with a feat, AND you still can't use it if the target has total concealment.

Sneak Attack is really NOT that powerful of a mechanic, fellas. It really doesn't need to be nerfed into the ground like that.

Shadow Strike is from the Advanced Player's Guide and is perfectly legal for PFS. Paizo considers anything in their PRD (basically any non-Inner Sea hardcover) to be part of their core product line.
...So does that mean I don't have to drag in my copy of the APG (and furthermore, cash in for UC/UM) to use its contents in my first Society game this Saturday. Because if so that changes everything for my Inquisitor

Yes, or watermarked printouts of the relevant sections of the PDFs.

Kerney wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Oracle: Ew, I'd rather just go Cleric. I can't really put my finger down on why I don't like this class.

One thing I've noticed with this class and cleric is that some people's perception of RW religion effect how they perceive these classes.

I love the Oracle but I think it matches up with my views of RW spirituality, and is great for representing figures like Moses, Joan of arc, a lot Native American figures I know about, legendary figures like Tirsias and Odin.

Meanwhile, the cleric (to me) represents the guy I went to school with and then went to seminary. From a rp perspective that's pretty boring.

Meanwhile, I've gotten into passionate arguments with people who see, say Moses, as one of the first clerics of their Jewish/Christian tradition (and which their clerics are the spiritual descendants of) and the Oracle as something weird/alien/heretical i.e. outside of what doesn't square very well with how they view the sacred.

Hope that was helpful,


That reminds me. I hate oracle curses. They don't actually represent anyone.

Moses' "curse" was that he was a poor public speaker. Possibly he stuttered. There is no such curse, but it could be represented by dumping charisma: something you can't do on an oracle but can do on a cleric.

Joan of Arc had no "curse" except being the wrong gender and social class for her calling.

Tiresias had a curse. Win? Nope. There is no blindness curse.

The oracles at Delphi had no curses unless they were brought on by overexposure to the halucinogenic gases rising from the crack in the rocks the temple there was built on after they had started prophesying.

Paul might be a possible success as some scholars believe his "curse" was poor vision, but this occured late in life. During the segment of his ministry that would be considered to involve divine casting he didn't have a curse.

Odin gave up an eye for understanding. What book is the "no depth perception" curse in again? Nope. Odin inspired oracle is also not going to work.

I'm not thinking of any oracles that the oracle class actually represents.

Then there's the "why are you adventuring with someone who can barely see or can't hear?" problem for everyone else in the group.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pets. I don't care if I could have a tiger better than a fighter. I don't want to muck about with the handle animal rules or worry about where my mount can go or whether I'm wasting my familiar. If I wanted to manage pets I'd play Pokémon.

Maybe a gnome cavalier if I'm assured that the GM thinks riding dogs can climb stairs.

I consider the primary draw of the fighter to be build versatility. Even if a vancian fighter would be strictly superior all fighters would then be alike.

What the fighter needs are better real defenses (eg. will saves, earlier DR, maybe fighter only feat access to SR and low grade energy resistance), better skills, and to not pay stupid feat taxes. I would like it best if unchained rebuilt the feat tree to get rid of stupid feat taxes but since I doubt that will happen I will once again advocate that every level or at least every odd level the fighter get a bonus feat with improved or greater in the name that he qualifies for and that he in some way mitigate stat prerequisites for combat feats.

Buri wrote:
Scavion wrote:
I like to think that if you build up enough, it causes an isolated climate change. It'd be pretty hard to contain all that rain in a 2 mile radius without wind pushing it outside of that.
The spell does what the spell does. No more, no less.

That's like saying that Wall of Stone doesn't leave rubble behind if destroyed by mundane means just because it doesn't explicitly talk about difficult terrain.

Weather means something.

Iteratives perform an important function in increasing the meaningful AC range. You cannot safely remove them unless attack rolls become an opposed check to increase the range of variance. Damage also needs to be made to scale more directly with level in their absence.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This completely defeats the purpose of iterative attacks.

Iterative attacks exist to make AC less than 2 over your attack roll relevant. With this change armor does not matter at all to anyone past low levels.

1 to 50 of 4,557 << 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.