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

4,610 posts (4,611 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,610 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The GM should *NEVER* enforce the child characters rules. They render the young character completely useless. Any child character concept should either be blocked completely or allowed to use the normal rules (with or without the young template). There is no concept for which forcing an NPC class on a character is beneficial.


blahpers wrote:
I see! Using the classic "casting most of the spell during preparation and the last few words on casting" works pretty well for wizards, but I agree that it makes less sense for clerics.

That doesn't work unless you get rid of all spontaneous arcane casting. If spells can be cast in a standard action by sorcerers and bards there's no reason to precast anything. There needs to be one casting mechanic per class of magic or the metaphysics break down. Points are just the best mechanic for actually simulating fiction.

But the real problem isn't preparing, it's slots. There's no workable reason for preparation time or magical power or memory to not be fungible. People make excuses based on electron shell analogies, but they fall apart because slots don't follow a mathematical progression. Even Vancian magic would be best simulated by a spell point system.


Seranov wrote:

The straight Warpriest is hardly a slouch. Nobody claims the Bard should be doing more damage than it currently does when not spending resources.

And for the record, the options you can take as a straight Warpriest (Vital Strike, TWF or Weapon Specialization, for example) boost it up over a straight Warrior that gets no special class mechanics, with ease.

Do I think the Sacred Fist is better? Yes. Do I think the normal Warpriest is worse than an NPC Warrior at fighting? HELL no.

Warriors also get feats. The Warpriest doesn't even get that many more.

The warpriest is a pointless failure of a class because there are too many stupid nova classes already and the others are just better. Maybe not as explosive, but they're actually capable of things other than combat. The Inquisitor can also nova, but has things like skill points and class abilities and a spell list that isn't just coming late to the party with cleric spells. The Magus, being int based, also has skill points even if it's otherwise a boring nova class. The Cleric can already pull off divine nova based combat with quicken spell and actually has remove/restore/heal spells in a timely fashion. The Oracle, too, can pull off divine combatant novaing with quicken spell.

There is no room for yet another nova class that's completely tapped out 16 minutes into the adventure because it's having to burn resources in even the breather encounters barbarians and paladins and cavaliers can sleepwalk through.


Eldritch Scrapper? Do all of Paizo's freelancers live in some alternate universe where Sorcerers get full BAB?

P.S. Empyreal Wildblood Eldritch Scrapper//Zen Archer.


Investigator//Slayer

Investigator's problem is not having any combat abilities until level 4. Slayer has full BAB and studied target at 1. Studied target is untyped while studied combat is an insight bonus so they'll stack and they're both move actions at the start going eventually to a move for one and swift for the other so there isn't the sort of swift action crunch some buff stacking builds get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
It seems like you think a hybrid class should fully fill the roles of two core classes. And saying "it falls behind the NPC warrior when not burning resources" is like saying or "Sacred Fist falls behind the NPC warrior when not burning resources or using flurry" or "wizards falls behind the NPC Adept when not casting spells". Why wouldn't you use your resources and class feats?

Using class feats is fine. They don't provide enough accuracy to make a difference. Using per diem limited resources just to keep up with the NPC warrior when you're supposed to be a martial class is not fine.

Flurry is not use limited. Everyone except certain druid builds and pure casters suck when not making full attacks. The Sacred Fist at least gets pummeling charge at 12 without dipping, which is better than most martials can manage.


Inquisitors are a good 'tween class. They have enough skill points to be interesting and have ways to use or add their casting stat to a number of skills they'd otherwise be poor at, have several of the skill augmenting spells, and have three distinct buffing pools (spells, judgement, and bane) that let them either nova hard or ration their buffs over a more than fifteen minute day even if their unbuffed state is less viable than an unbuffed paladin, barbarian, or cavalier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes. The Sacred Fist is just better. The pseudo-full BAB from Flurry makes is a viable "long day" class rather than just another redundant nova class. The SF therefore actually fills at least part of its hybrid role while the base WP can't handle the cleric load because of its slower casting progression and can't handle the fighter load because it falls behind the NPC warrior when not burning resources.


Bard: Chelish Diva (Diva on PFSRD) high strength tank bard using a longsword with a quickdraw shield. Key feats are arcane strike, power attack, quickdraw, and discordant voice. Use spells for defense and mobility.

Summoner: high strength reach build. Key feats are arcane strike, power attack, combat reflexes, and any summon boosters. Summons put bodies on the grid so the eidolon should be dismissed for serious group vs group encounters.

Fighter: Your brother-in-law knows what he wants to do already and there's a lot less building with martial flexibility. Pick up the common tax feats (power attack, combat reflexes, maybe improved unarmed strike, and eventually critical focus) and then I guess build archery since that's a huge long chain you'll never be able to pull up with martial flexibility.

I don't recommend going cleric instead of bard because if you do that you'll have far too few skill points across the party. Your GM is going to have to softball either social/skill challenges or the use of condition inflicting monsters and one of those adds fun to the game while the other subtracts. If you could replace the fighter with a battle cleric (not a war-priest, a real cleric) that would be different.


Those who truly respect the writer must read the text with the assumption that they are competent.

Taking the corpus of rules as a single text it is perfectly plain that Pummeling Strike must be interpreted with the understanding that Zen Archers and Sohei and that non-monks can take the feat at 6 BAB and monks and brawlers can attain longbow proficiency by spending a feat or being elves and that all brawlers are proficient with crossbows and can take rapid reload. Indeed Martial Weapon Proficiency (Longbow) or Rapid Reload (Light Crossbow) are among the combat feats brawlers are designed to pick up at need with Martial Flexibility.

If we are not to assume the authors are incompetent they must be aware of the classes the feat prerequisites explicitly reference.

Besides, modern literary criticism tells us that authorial intent is irrelevant anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a publishing standpoint I'd like to see a new PHB with a proper index, working skill rules (particularly stealth and perception), all the additional rules hidden away in other books, probably some spells and feats that supersede old material, and no cruft. The GM portion of the CRB is less troubled, but a new GMG for future GMs who don't have the CRB or really want a better index would go along with it. Moving forward there would be the Revised Rules line, which is for people who don't have first edition books; and the New Rules line, which are for everyone. There would also have to be a few free PDFs like "upgrading legacy adventures" with guidelines for running 3.5 and PF1e material in PF2e and any new rules (like stealth and perception) that can't be fit into a last CRB errata sheet. There probably should be a CR revision as well, but that could actually be done in the form of bestiary errata, though a full list of monsters with new CRs would help with running APs.

Old statblocks don't get invalidated (though some may find themselves with open feat slots if some overly long feat chains get compressed).

Philosophically I think Archetypes need to stop. It's hard to sift through them for some of the older more easily archetyped classes. They can't be invalidated without breaking statblocks, but there should be a complete moratorium on any new archetypes in the rules line outside of the first book a new class appears in. There are better ways to handle real differences between character concepts. Stuff like schools, mysteries, curses, bloodlines, totems, patrons, and ranger combat styles. Some archetypes should be deprecated, though. A number of things that should have been class restricted feat chains were made archetypes in order to pad the archetype lists early on.

Except Wildblooded, Totem Warrior, and Quiggong. The first can be superseded by turning the alternate bloodlines into independent alternate bloodlines without breaking statblocks, the second was a misprint that does nothing anyways, and the third can be incorporated into the base monk without impacting statblocks at all.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

So, random question:

If there was going to be a second edition of the game, should the base assumption of the combat field be squares, hexes, or theatre of the mind?

Hexes are better but that'll never happen, we lost that during 3.0.
Hexes are different. For an open field - I'd agree with you. Squares are just so much easier to draw out when there are buldings/walls etc. (like most Pathfinder games)

Hexes are also better for forests and caves and pretty much anything that isn't buildings. And some buildings: fortresses are often non-square.

If the rules are grid agnostic (which means picking either the Manhattan or Chebychev distance metric for squares and sticking to it for all purposes so you don't need reach and area templates) you can actually transition from one grid type to the other whenever someone builds a building in a field or an orthogonal mine runs into an irregular cave. I strongly recommend Chebychev: it's too easy to get hemmed in with the Manhatten distance metric.


You should never accept reincarnation unless you're a pure caster who doesn't care about physical stats or being able to use weapons or armor. Whether you're dex or strength oriented there are too many ways to get ruined and almost nothing that actually improves things.


K177Y C47 wrote:
The problem with this is that many of the things that can look like caster are also melee monsters (clerics, druids, summoners [yay DD as a Su ability!], bards, magi, ect).

So, things that look like casters. Two (four actually since you didn't list oracle or shaman) are also full casters. One may as well be a full caster, and one is a major force multiplier. The only classes that can look like casters that shouldn't have absolute priority over all non or 4 level casters are the magus and monk. And the only reason the magus doesn't also take absolute priority is that he can sack his attack modifier in spell combat to pretty much guarantee successful casting.

Monks are regional and magi are rare. All non-CRB classes are intended to be rare.

Don't let the wizard or sorcerer or arcanist cast haste becomes don't let the summoner or bard cast haste or the cleric or oracle cast blessing of fervor. The logic is the same. A buffed enemy will hurt you for more than the AoO.

Taking a few AoOs and then fighting the front line after the casters are gone is better than exchanging full attacks with a front line benefiting from haste or blessing of fervor.


Artanthos wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
Might point out that the rules state many spells have a materiel component. Which means one quick way to tell a wizard from a monk is the number of pockets and belt patches a guy in robes have. People tend to forget that since for the most part the materiel is free.

That souds like a really easy way to confuse the enemy. The Flowing quinngong snake style Monk in the party use a robe with many pockects and a couple fake spellcomponent pouch and a pointy wizard-like hat.

With the logic of this thread the enemy have to rush to attack the monk, eating a couple of AoO and getting flanked and probably full attacked next round, because otherwise the enemy are stupid. Meanwhile, The sorcerer in the party with no spell component pouch is free to cast his spell.

The monk, or the kensai who will also be unarmored and carrying a spell component pouch. The kensai will even use magic on his turn, reaffirming your belief he is a wizard.

The possibility of disguising a monk as a wizard is not a sufficient reason for NPCs to prioritize peoople who they think might be wizards. Monks just aren't that common in most places. That's why all the monk weapons are classed as exotic rather than simple.

The Kensai has a martial weapon and is even rarer than the monk. Having one is a good countermeasure a party can take against rational opponents, but the existence of a regional archetype of a not at all common class is not a reason for NPCs to not target suspected wizards first.

You're demonstrating that subterfuge is a good idea, not that ganking the caster is a bad one.


Flight is good. Unlike Spring Attack, Flyby Attack works with Vital Strike and lacks useless prerequisites.


I think Leomund's Tiny Hut is lower level and just as obscuring.


Because martials can't have nice things.

Full Casters, on the other hand, can charge and grapple with a +4 on each of five attacks while also reaping the CMB modifiers for large size and don't need to spend feats to not provoke.

Silly fighter, combat maneuvers are for druids.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Forget Animal growth. Polymorphs only meld equipment when used to turn into an animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin unless the spell itself overrides the general polymorph rules.

What happens when a halfling archer bard uses Alter Self to turn into a half-orc or a human turns into a ratfolk?

Then there's Giant Form. That's pretty much always a size changer. Undead Anatomy can be a size changer as well.

This is not a niche problem for druids with a specific feat. It potentially comes up every time someone builds an alchemist or bard as an archer or gives a magus a ranged backup weapon.

I was making the same mistake. Animal growth don't polymorph you into an animal, it is a transmutation spell but it isn't a polymorph spell, so with this feat it become a way stronger enlarge person: +8 size bonus to Strength and a +4 size bonus to Constitution, -2 to dexterity and 2 points of natural armor vs +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity.

Animal Growth is a red herring. It has almost nothing to do with the problem of what die size to use for ammunition and thrown weapons after a size change. There needs to be a consistent rule in the transmutation section of the magic chapter because any polymorph not into a specific list of types brings it up, not just because of an edge case with a new druid feat from a poorly edited book interacting with an older spell.


Forget Animal growth. Polymorphs only meld equipment when used to turn into an animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin unless the spell itself overrides the general polymorph rules.

What happens when a halfling archer bard uses Alter Self to turn into a half-orc or a human turns into a ratfolk?

Then there's Giant Form. That's pretty much always a size changer. Undead Anatomy can be a size changer as well.

This is not a niche problem for druids with a specific feat. It potentially comes up every time someone builds an alchemist or bard as an archer or gives a magus a ranged backup weapon.


wraithstrike wrote:
If a barbarian hits you for 35 points of damage in one hit I can understand the reluctance for wanting to take an AoO. However, if you are also having to deal with him being buffed further, or your team getting debuffed by the guy with robes in the back, who might be doing worse things then the AoO might be the lesser of two evils.

The AoO is always the lesser of two evils from level 5 on. Unless you know you're up against someone who took transmutation as an opposed school you're looking at haste if you can't keep the caster too busy getting away to cast it.

It matters not from where the extra attacks flow. At least AoOs only happen once.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Likewise, many of the tactics suggested here, while good for dealing with casters, smell of treating NPCs more as a weapon than a collection of enemies.

Someone as utterly terrified of Wizards as the OP is implying I think would rather flee than anything else. Even if that's not the case, putting the death of a wizard above everything else (including their own life) is something that only a certain niche of NPCs would do in the first place.

Look, this isn't rocket surgery.

If the NPCs don't believe they can win they won't start a fight. Encounters that actually happen are already filtered for the NPCs expecting to win. They're overly optimistic, obviously, or you'd have a really short adventure, but they are confident in their victory. They're staking their lives on it.

If they do believe they can win the safest way to do so is always to take out force multipliers first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lathiira wrote:
If you think that's bad, go look up mistletoe. Four families IIRC, not closely related?

Loki must have been handing Hod darts for a while before he found the right one.


dragonhunterq wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

stuff

Not all illusions are visible so not seeing it is not the sole factor. Interacting with it through any of your senses is how you get the save, not just seeing it. So when you go to attack the caster, and your weapon goes up against it, that is your interaction. You can't see ventriloquism and that grants a save to disbelieve.

But you interact with ventriloquism, you still have a way to perceive it. I'd allow an auto-successful save against ventriloquism if you were deaf for instance.

Illusions rely on your belief, if you are unaware of the illusion it can't affect you (for the most part, I'm sure there are exceptions, but none spring to mind :)).

The shadow subschool are the exceptions. They are really conjurations at heart: they conjure from the plane of shadow in the same way "real" conjurations conjure from other planes.

According to my CRB only Figments and Glamers do not effect objects. While I don't think there are any non-mindless objects for Patterns and Phantasms to effect if there were they would effect them.

Nonmagical unattended objects don't make saving throws so Shadow Mage Armor is 100% effective against traps that aren't using magical ammunition. Similarly, Shadow Fireball ignites flammable objects exactly like Real Fireball unless they're magical or attended. Shadow effects are real until disbelieved.


Nicos wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
One AoO from every combatant in the party is worth it if taking them lets you get the caster before he can cast haste so a less than solid line isn't a deterrent to adversaries who know in general terms what casters are capable of.

perhaps it is worth for the enemy groupa s awhole, for the guy that will just die isn ot a good choise. And it is not like most enemies have the tools to kill/disable the spellcaster in one movement.

Besides, for the caster to be the biggest threat they have to be optimized. THere a re alot of things an optimized high level martial can do in an AoO that just ruin the enemy life.

There are two cases. Either the party is facing a single NPC or a group of them.

A single NPC should not be involving itself in a fight with the PCs unless it believes it can take them all on. Taking the force multipliers (ie. casters) or SoD threats (ie. casters) out first is always his best move unless a cramped dungeon or lack of visibility makes this impossible.

A group of NPCs should also not be involving themselves in a fight with the PCs unless they believe they will emerge victorious. Two or three opponents hitting the caster probably will drop him in a round if they have any business in the fight in the first place. It is, again, always best to eliminate force multipliers first, though if they knew they were up against a pure SoD or blasty caster with no force multiplier or domination capabilities at all a group might not prioritize him.

The last thing most NPCs should do is move into melee combat with melee opponents. That's trading a single attack against a full attack. Only pouncers and supercharger cavaliers should even consider attacking a melee line that isn't weak summoned mooks. Eating movement AoOs is better than staying in position to be full attacked. Hitting the back line is better than standing around while they bombard you.


Nicos wrote:
Asuming you can target the target with impunity. I mean, If you can then go for it, but asumming that is the smart thing to do always have little credibility.

If the caster is visible you generally can. Cover's +4 AC, but the caster isn't wearing armor and AC is a case of go big or go home so it's not really relevant. Archers should always at least probe for fickle winds and casters should always hit their opposite if they can localize him unless they have no non-will offensive magic.

A large enough melee line can take long enough to go around to be an obstacle, but very few games have enough PCs to form such a line without relying on multi-summons, which are going to amount to a speedbump. AoOs aren't a serious mobility threat unless backed by a trip maneuver focus, and that's ineffective against quadrupeds and big monsters and completely useless against fliers. In damage terms AoOs are generally minor past low levels. One AoO from every combatant in the party is worth it if taking them lets you get the caster before he can cast haste so a less than solid line isn't a deterrent to adversaries who know in general terms what casters are capable of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
I'm sorry but this thread makes about as much sense as the "logic" behind trying to sunder a spellcaster's spellbook... it just reeks of GM meta-gamingand class punishing.

This is nothing like sundering spellbooks.

Sundering a spellbook inconveniences the caster tomorrow and makes him angry at you.

Killing a caster makes the caster dead.

An angry caster is just about the most dangerous mortal thread for a given CR. A dead caster is no threat at all.

The former is tactically stupid in character. The latter is tactically smart in character.


What you're proposing isn't hosting a Pathfinder game. It's you playing Pathfinder Solitaire while everyone else plays "guess the GM's biases."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead of Tank/DPS/Heal you need to think in terms of Anvil/Hammer/Arm.

The Anvil pretty much fills the tank role, but not like a tank. The Anvil controls the field. That means magic since martial control isn't versatile. The Anvil is usually a sorcerer, wizard, druid, or summoner. Summon focused clerics can also pull off the Anvil role.

The Hammer does damage. The character archetypes that become tanks in games with aggro mechanics are almost always Hammers in Pathfinder. Melee hammers have some Anvilishness in that they occupy squares and threaten AoOs and therefore need to be able to take hits, but the main job of even the most defensive front line character archetypes is to deal damage not to absorb attacks. Casters generally make inefficient hammers.

The Arm is the enabler. The Arm buffs and sometimes heals. Bards, clerics, and oracles are generally the best arms. Cavaliers have some potential as well. Wizards and sorcerers have some Arm capability, but not really enough to be a full time Arm at most levels. Most Arms can be built very tough.

Your problem is that your party isn't tactically sound. You have no Arm or Anvil and one of your Hammers has a glass jaw. You need an Anvil if you're going to have any squishies. As a GM, unless you're planning to throw softballs, you should share TarkXT's essays and hope their next characters are better designed after the inevitable TPK or near-TPK (monks are good at running away).


Daring Champion gives up a several features including a full progression animal companion even if it is by default restricted to commonly mundane domesticated options. The cavalier's only source of accuracy boost is their charging related class features, all of which except banner are gone and banner is a lot less reliable on foot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If a game is going to have three sources of power they should have three completely different mechanics. I'd say spell slots for divine, cooldowns* for arcane, and power points for psionic.

* cooldowns have precedent going back to the beginning AFAIK in the form of draconic breath attacks.


davidvs wrote:
Am I correcting in thinking an Unlettered Occultist Spell Specialist is possible, and we thus finally have a caster that excels at both healing and summoning?

I would say even if they stack they don't excel at both healing and summoning. The witch list is short a number of key healing spells unless she uses the healing patron and the unlettered arcanist doesn't get a patron.

Also, clerics have long been able to standard action summon outsiders with the same alignment as their aura and their place as the best holistic healer has never been remotely challenged.


Blistering Invective also doesn't interrupt your other performance and uses the demoralize rules. Demoralize isn't actually called out as mind affecting or a fear effect and neither is the spell itself.

Sure language dependent mostly overlaps mind affecting, but I think constructs can have languages without having minds, and anything immune to fear will shrug off Dirge, but not Blistering Invective.


Zhayne wrote:
Indeterminable. Things vary so much by what you're combining, and the CR system is a loose guideline at best, so it's impossible to just give a flat answer.

Is it really that much worse than comparing a rogue 16 to an arcanist 16 to a CR 15 dragon?


There are a few things going on for melee druids:

Natural attacks don't suffer iterative penalties. This lets you actually hit things as a medium BAB character.

Pounce at level 6.

Medium Earth and Air elementals can use normal adventurer equipment (just remember to stay in a light load ass an air elemental so you can fly).

Huge forms have 15' reach. The Dire Hyena, the elementals, and any bipedal plant forms have 10' reach at large. If you get proficiency in a reach weapon and a large or huge instance of that weapon elementals other than possibly fire can get 20' reach at large or 30' reach at huge. There's also the quickwood with 60' reach on its secondary attacks (take multiattack to reduce the penalty to -2).

Flight at level 4.

Standard attack builds are possible. Flyby Attack works with vital strike because screw groundlings. Also consider the dwarven non-adjacent cleaving feats. Orc Hewer works on cloud giants when you yourself are huge.

For casters it's pretty much about pretending to be a familiar and exploiting that size bonus to AC and dexterity. Also, nobody notices the pigeon until Suddenly Contagion! There need to be more modules about terrorist druids. So much potential.


There are three major issues with the Swashbuckler.

They have per diem abilities on a class where the primary mechanic ebbs and flows over the course of the day. Panache says they're a long day class. They need to not run out of saving throws after a couple fights. Especially when they need to compensate for having the worst save set outside of commoner. If the swashbuckler is going to be locked into the short day paradigm by his defenses he needs offense on the same paradigm with nova to match the barbarian and paladin. The last thing the game needs is more nova classes. This requires either better saves (I favor ref/wil for the same reason I want that on rogues) or for charmed life to be divine grace under another name.

They don't have proper florentine or buckler fencing support. TWF just doesn't work, the off hand weapon is used primarily for defense, not attack in florentine fencing. Two Weapon Defense is a pitiful joke. D&D bucklers do not represent real bucklers and this needed to be fixed or accounted for. The closest approximation currently is the light shield as the smallest shield that can be used for bashing, though real bucklers are center grip shields that occupy the hand completely. This requires a two weapon defense feat or class ability that (a) scales similarly to a shield and (b) is not part of the TWF chain and the allowance of light shields as well as "bucklers." Fortunately Precise Strike does appear to work if you have an off-hand weapon you aren't attacking with unless pfsrd miscopied it.

Piercing weapons don't get dex to damage in core materials and I don't think the short sword and dueling cane ever do. There is also no reason to exclude stick fighters from using the class, particularly since a number of such styles are derived from the same sword schools the class purports to represent. The class should be damage type agnostic as should the dex to damage feat provided in the same book, or dex to damage should be a class feature. It's not like there are any light or one handed bludgeoning weapons that are more powerful than their slashing peers when you have blanket martial proficiency.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Ruling that any spell that doesn't use iteratives but has multiple missiles is a volley. Ruling that volleys only get sneak attack once per spell.

Because Paizo mandates that even when they're also wizards, rogues must suck.

Also, human Reincarnated Druid 10 Tetori 9 Lore Warden 15 Magus 6

He has 21 feats, 9 fighter bonus feats, 2 arcana, combat expertise, improved unarmed strike, Improved Grapple, Stunning Pin, Greater Grapple, and stunning fist from fixed bonus feats.

Those feats should be Weapon Focus (bite), weapon focus (unarmed strike), Martial Versatility (weapon focus (unarmed strike)), feral combat training (bite), martial versatility (feral combat training (bite)), weapon specialization (improved unarmed strike), greater weapon focus (improved unarmed strike), greater weapon specialization (improved unarmed strike), rapid grappler, dragon style, dragon ferocity, weapon focus (grapple), greater weapon focus (grapple), all 6 save boosting feats, improved initiative, natural speech, natural spell, improved concentration, warrior priest, extra arcana (x2), hamatula strike, body shield, improved critical (unarmed strike), hamatulatsu, power attack, and rime spell metamagic.

He has a domain, probably plains, so he qualifies for warrior priest and can, a few times per day, charge when shaped like a Quetzalcoatlus. The only weapon training group that matters is the natural weapon group.

His arcana are Natural Spell Combat (bite), Natural Spell Combat (claw), and Broad Study (druid), and ki arcana.

He prefers to spend his days as an allosaurus or quetzalcoatlus, but being a dire tiger or even leopard is acceptable if squeezing is an issue. He uses martial versatility in feral combat training to apply every single feat or effect augmenting unarmed strike to every natural weapon. He pounces and uses hamatula strike to make a grapple attack for every weapon he hits with (both bite and claw do pierce, but then with hamatulatsu and feral combat training and martial versatility every natural attack can do piercing damage) until he succeeds.

Sure, he's no kensai 20 wizard 20 or druid 20 cleric 20, but he's pretty good at making his one trick stick. Besides, save DCs for spells and class abilities stop scaling when you stop taking levels in the class, but stunning fist just keeps on scaling with all of your levels, making it one of the few abilities with a saving throw that might occasionally work against CR 40 foes.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I've been through a number of weapon threads. They're all full of conflicting historical jargon, throwing in the odd anecdote or video of a bow-wielding acrobat. They're not productive, and more importantly, they've been done.

So then what's the purpose of this one? Are you here for any reason other than to insult large sections of the player base while retaining plausible deniability?


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

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


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


KC's got it.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

In terms of power this is a pure downgrade.

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

There are huge differences between fantasy and science fiction.

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


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

1 to 50 of 4,610 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.