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

4,822 posts (4,823 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 4,822 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

VampByDay wrote:
Yup, they are NEVER useful. Not that spy-archetype rogue that my friend plays in PFS that regularly gets self-perpetuating bluff up to 40 at level 4. Nope, he hasn't saved the party's butt ever. Or that pirate/scout in my skull and shackles game who can charge in any line she wants for sneak attack damage. Never useful ever, nope.

SPAM is useful too. It has decent protein content. It's just not pleasant.

VampByDay wrote:
Okay, good. Good to know that my utility wizard is pointless and hasn't saved the party's butt on numerous occasions because he's smart and preps the spells he needs ahead of time, like hold undead, or heroism, or whathaveyou. Weird, I thought that existed, and that I DIDN'T blow through all my spells every day so that the extra-spell a day thing would have been nice, but not required. Good thing you set me strait (eyeroll)

Sure, he's a wizard. He'd be even better as a specialist, though. As long as you're only preparing one opposed school spell per level you'd have at least as many spells and usually more. Taking a big focus school like conjuration and opposing small schools like necromancy and redundancy filled schools like enchantment is cheap and you can still prepare hold undead and heroism and come ahead at every other spell level.

VampByDay wrote:

-Swashbuckler with 7 Str, fencing grace, weapon spc, level to damage, etc.

-Tengu Slayer with TWF and TW Feint, sneak attack, etc.
-Shield-bashing tank slayer with improved shield bash, shield slam, etc. I don't do a lot of damage, but I make sure people don't get near the squishies by bashing them away.

Your swashbuckler was almost certainly illegal at low levels. Adventuring kit is heavy. Even 11 strength is low for a light armor character and that's just two buy points from qualifying for power attack.

Your tengu slayer should have power attack. Lots of things are immune to sneak attack. Lots of things that aren't immune to sneak attack will have feint DCs that you won't always hit. Nothing is immune to power attack. If he also cheated on the encumbrance rules and lacked strength he should have had piranha strike, which is power attack by another name.

Your tank slayer should have power attack. He really should have power attack. Really. Even if you never intend to use power attack this character should have it. Power attack is a prerequisite for improved bull rush. You're sabotaging the reliability of your main tactic by not taking the improved maneuver feats.

5) Yes, rogues are terrible and you should not play them. Playing rogues is like buying SPAM for immediate use when premium sirloin is on sale cheaper per pound. You should stop making yourself miserable. I would use the term pointlessly stubborn rather than stupid, though.

4) All wizards are not equal. They're all wizards, but they're not equal. Universalists are the least equal. Except the archetypes that get no specialization school while eating three opposition schools to be able to do something pointless like use a firearm. Still, playing a universalist or necromancer or abjurer is playing under a handicap and people don't search the internet for advice forums to learn how to build weaker characters.

3) If power attack is not your best feat choice you do not have enough accuracy to be worthwhile in melee. Your two weapon fighting rogue example is not proof that you are right about power attack being bad. It's proof that you're wrong about rogues not being bad. Also, two weapon fighting is penalizing your accuracy for far less gain than power attack. Yes, even on a rogue.

2) If a specialist can grapple and pin dragons but a generalist cannot how is specialization not being rewarded? You get to grapple and pin dragons. If you dabble in grapple a bit without heavy specialization you can't grapple dragons or giants or outsiders or elementals or magical beasts or really anyone except classed humanoids and have pretty much wasted any investment you put into grappling. If you heavily specialize you can grapple anything except incorporeals and there's almost nothing a martial can do to not be weak against incorporeals. Similarly, you can sink everything into archery and if it doesn't work there's no generalist martial build that could do better. Casters are even more pushed towards specialization because they're flat out generalist plus: if you sink everything into having the best fireball you can have you've lost nothing from the effectiveness of your cloud kill. The trick is to specialize in something that works. Like grappling or archery and not like tripping or disarming.

Also, your dwarf barbarian will do just fine with a bow against a wizard. Wizards have a very tough time getting AC so they tend to rely on miss chance illusions that don't care what your to hit bonus is. NPC wizards are particularly unlikely to have a magic haramaki and darkwood buckler. Or he could not rage until he's had the needed spells cast on him. That's also a good option.

1) You know, I once had a chess teacher tell me that one should "never ever move a pawn ever." It wasn't meant literally, though I remember encountering a chess program in the early nineties where the AI actually did futz around with knights until you stuck something in the sixth rank. Never healing is like that. It is never desirable to have to heal. If you have to heal the first thing to do is ask yourself if you really have to heal. The second thing to do is ask yourself if you're just enabling bad play because maybe everyone would be better off if mister Jenkins learns when not to charge as a consequence of having to keep rolling up new characters until he does so. If you need an entire character dedicated to healing someone is screwing up really badly.

Had the skald blown his wad on a cure moderate (that should not have been on his spells known list) and the witch also done so (that she should not have had prepared) you would have eaten an attack of opportunity standing up and been down again. You were probably in this situation in the first place because your party didn't respect point 2.

DocShock wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Fighter's better offensively. You can use the fighter only feat martial versatility to apply feral combat training to all attacks and feral combat training applies anything that boosts unarmed strike to your natural attacks. Once you have 26 polymorphed strength dragon style is better than rage and at 30 it's better than greater rage. It's not like you need to get pounce from rage powers. You have to be human, but polymorphs throw away the best things about nonhumans anyways.

I'd argue that with the combination of superstition and witch hunter a barbarian gets a pretty big boost to damage against anything with spells or SLAs, which are both common. Also, he has stupidly high saves compared to the fighter (although he can't accept friendly buffs willingly).

That said, when I play a druid, I always play controller with blasts as a backup. The beauty of the class is that many of its control spells do damage too, so you can play offense in a couple different ways.

Dragon Style alone is beating rage. That leaves weapon training and weapon specialization to compare against witch hunter. Even without gloves of dueling the fighter druid is going to come out ahead. There's a delay caused by stunning fist's high BAB prerequisite, but the barbarian will take a while to get his rage rounds up as well. Whatever level barbarians normally stop worrying about them the druidarian will have to wait another 4.

The barbarian has better defenses when raging, but I said the fighter was better offensively. I think you're better off without superstition and therefore witch hunter, though. You have the druid levels propping up your will save and the size penalties will make your reflex hopeless no matter what you do. Better to be able to accept friendly spells, especially since the non-superstitious barbarian still gets +2 to will saves while raging that superstition would overlap. I agree the DR is very nice, though.

DocShock wrote:
Bradley Mickle wrote:
Sadly, the full on shapeshifting druid (that loses all casting growth) is not a thing of Pathfinder.
You take 4 levels of Druid, the shaping focus feat, and then as many levels of invulnerable rager barbarian as you can. It's stupidly powerful. It has the wildshape of an 8th level druid which covers pretty much all your bases, and the morale and size bonuses of rage and wild shape stack. You also get pounce and rake for free.

Fighter's better offensively. You can use the fighter only feat martial versatility to apply feral combat training to all attacks and feral combat training applies anything that boosts unarmed strike to your natural attacks. Once you have 26 polymorphed strength dragon style is better than rage and at 30 it's better than greater rage. It's not like you need to get pounce from rage powers. You have to be human, but polymorphs throw away the best things about nonhumans anyways.

Dasrak wrote:
The oracle lacks a front liner's traditional fortitude.
They have 3/4 BAB, good proficiencies, and access to a plethora of excellent self-buffing spells. If you don't build your Oracle for front-lining then you won't get much in that regard, but if you do it's excellent in that role.

They lack fortitude. It's the save for ghoul paralysis, disease (that often comes on melee attacks), poison (that is also usually on melee attacks), and permanent negative levels (usually from melee touch attacks). Clerics have it.

chbgraphicarts wrote:
The main difference between Divine and Arcane full-casters is that Arcane Casters have a much-wider and superior list of spells, while Divine Casters have a decent BAB & Hit Dice, but both categories are more potent than all other classes at the end of the day regardless (with the exception of maybe the Summoner, who is a half-full-caster in its own right).

That may be true of the druid and shaman, but the cleric has always been the dumping ground for spells to fix other peoples' problems. Every time the original developers came up with a new idea for a way to make the party miserable they gave the cleric a way to reverse it. Those all make the cleric weaker, not stronger. More of their resources have to be devoted to being the first aid kit and less to being an adventurer in their own right. Mid-day preparation into open slots has done a lot to fix the bloated spell list, but for the oracle it's every bit as bad as it's ever been.

The other big difference is that the arcane list was written with the understanding that not every wizard would learn every spell. The cleric list was written with the understanding that every cleric would learn every spell. The cleric is the game's backstop. It's okay to throw permanent negative effects at the party because there's always a cleric to clear them up the next day if not earlier, but having all the tools spread among so many different spells leaves the oracle unable to fill a cleric's shoes. They may be powerful, but they're unfit for any purpose.

They make questionable front liners because of their poor fortitude save. They fine as long as you're only facing HP damage or will saves, but that's not filling the role.

They make terrible healers. They can do HP damage maybe better than the cleric, but a monkey with maxed UMD can do HP damage adequately most of the time. Dealing with other kinds of damage and permanent debilitation requires the spells known they don't have.

They make lousy archers for lack of feats or big per attack bonuses and lousy blasters because they lack blasts that don't hit fire resistance.

They make lousy anvils. They have summon monster so they can do it, but in the most boring and table unfriendly way possible. One mystery spell per spell level can't make up for the dullness of the cleric list.

They make lousy skill monkeys at 4+int on a class with a primary stat other than int.

Oracles are like one of those flashy sports cars with no back seat and a boot the size of a wellington. You struggle to carry groceries, can't carry more than one passenger, can't carry groceries and a passenger at the same time, and get lousy gas mileage. They're powerful, but a sedan or van or wagon of pickup/ute is able to actually fill the purposes for which people own motor vehicles. An oracle is the class you tack on when you already have all the roles filled.

I'd say oracle if you hadn't said PFS. With three to five of them the spells known problems are a lot less gnarly and they have enough skill points to spread the important stuff around and some of the mysteries are okay anvils, but since you said PFS they're not planned to fit together perfectly so cleric is the only option. Only clerics have been given all the tools for recovering from sadistic legacy crap like mummy rot and permanent blindness and level drain.

The lack of a cleric is occasionally disastrous. Will you face mummies or shadows or specters or necromancers or poisoners? Only the cleric can easily have all the tools in his toolkit on the CR schedule. Blame Arneson and Gygax for their sadistic bestiary and the people at WotC who didn't clear it out when they cleaned house for Third Edition.

jasin wrote:
The dominance of spellcasters in the responses just makes me want to go with either the lore warden or the cavalier, out of purse spite for the dominance of spellcasters in the game. :)

If you intend to ask for advice and then do the opposite you should clearly play a rogue. Or a non-quiggong vow of poverty monk.

Underpowered? Perhaps not, but the oracle is not fit for a purpose, which is even worse.

The oracle lacks the spell access required of a real healer. The cleric list is full of spells that have both narrow application and no substitute. The oracle simply doesn't have enough spells known to get remove blindness/deafness and remove disease and remove curse and neutralize poison and restoration and breath of life and raise dead and so on and so forth.

The oracle lacks a front liner's traditional fortitude. It was a problem oft brought up in the swashbuckler playtest and it's a problem here. There was a fix feat published recently, but it's generally considered unacceptably strong. Clerics have the saves to handle contact poisons and contact paralysis and such out of the box. Considering that most healing spells are touch spells this makes oracles mostly unfit for any healing role not so all encompassing as to justify a life link build. Few people want to either be or carry a pure healbot.

The oracle lacks flexibility. You must roleplay a curse or disability. The whole class is built for Tiresias (but can't actually do Tiresias because there's no actual blindness curse and Tiresias), but most oracles and prophets are not Tiresias and most people who are lame or unavoidably lapse into esoteric languages under stress or can't see anything more than thirty feet away bow to the inevitable and stay home. And there's no reason that lame people who want to adventure should be divine casters either. As well as being unfit for playing most oracles it's also unfit for playing someone based on eg. Timur the Lame.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:

Just to lay out where I'm at.

-I'm not looking for a new system, I like PF, 4E, even Palladium for what they do.

-I totally understand that PF would completely fall apart if one removed the iterative attacks, I have no intention of doing so.

-I'm aware that iterative s have been a part of D&D and it's counterparts throughout the ages.

But, if PF was written without iteratives, would anyone miss them?

Yes, unless something else filled the same role.

Iteratives stretch the relevance of AC. Without iteratives, someone who attacks at +35 does not care about AC less than 17. With iteratives their second attack can be influenced by AC as low as 12 and their third by AC as low as 7. A wizard might have 14 dex and mage armor for 16 AC. Without iteratives they're wasting a slot.

There are other ways to stretch out the relevance of AC, but a lot of them aren't backwards compatible with 3.5 content, which was a primary design goal of PF. If PF couldn't use 3.5 content enough people would have missed that for the system to flop.

Le Petite Mort wrote:

Two things:

1) As has been pointed out, "army of one" characters like Batman, James Bond, etc. aren't terribly feasible.

I don't think James Bond really qualifies. At least not in the novels. He's not a huge melee threat. There are a couple stories in which gunplay is important, but The Man with the Golden Gun is the only novel where it matters that he's exceptional rather than any old medium BAB character with a modern firearm, and it's kind of an informed ability. There's a short story in which he acts as a counter-sniper, but that's minor enough to ignore in a game conversion and the only real indication he should be full BAB.

Most of the time James Bond is just a stealth and social guy. Under common firearm rules he's probably doable as a rogue. Under Golarion firearm rules I'd go Steel Hound investigator.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
The barbarian is usually fine. It's the sorcerers that need leashes. They run off without armor and with d6 HD.

Sorcerer may attract its share of yahoos. It's perhaps not as famed for it as rogue because there weren't funky bloodlines in 3.5, but I've read at least one berserk hostage incinerating sorcerer horror story.

I suspect bloodragers are going to be a problem too. The iconic's story is the story of someone that no sane person should be willing to spend time around and there's no Fahfrd/Conan/Beowulf stuff to pull them to character (as opposed to mechanical) archetypes that aren't complete nutters. Still, if a problem player rolls up a bloodrager he's probably going to just kill his character, not ruin the game for everyone.

Bloody special snowflake fluff
** spoiler omitted **

If you want an archetype for the Bloodrager look no further than the Brutal Legend video game (really the heavy metal music Brutal Legend is based on but y'know).

Not sure what you're talking about, though the name doesn't inspire confidence in the sanity of the protagonist. But the existence of reasonable characters that aren't widely pursued isn't going to make up for the class attracting people who want an excuse to play crazy.

The iconic bloodrager has uncontrolled murderous rages that leave no memories. That's too good an excuse for antisocial gaming to go unused.

The OP seems to be complaining about a barbarian leeroy jenkinsing, but there are a lot of gamers who play barbarians who don't froth at the mouth because barbarians in classic fantasy literature weren't berserkers. The bloodrager doesn't have that so it's likely to develop the same sort of horrible reputation as kender.

I think the real default skill guy in PF is the bard. The default divine caster is still the cleric because the cleric list sucks with the limited spells known of a spontaneous caster and the druid list has important spells like restoration missing. The default arcane caster is up in the air a bit, but is probably one of the ones using the sorc/wiz list. It doesn't matter who the default martial is because he's not going to do anything.

So we have a bard, a cleric, and let's say a sorcerer because that's the worst case arcane caster. A fighter's will and reflex saves at level 10 are +3 for class and probably +3 for a cloak and likely another +1 from a headband and probably +0 or +1 from base stats and +2 from iron will. At level 20 naked he has +6 from class and probably +2 or +3 from base stats including a manual +2 for iron will. That's not a big difference between the weak saves of an ungeared level 20 fighter and the weak saves of the fighters the party would normally face fully geared.

So the bard uses dirge of doom and the fighter's save drops to +8 or +9. The cleric's wisdom may be as low as 13 base +4 headband if she's a beatstick build. Plane Shift is DC 18. >50% chance of failure without iron will. Since, as has been pointed out above, you don't know the DC when you choose to use greater iron will you will probably use it up because the DC for a caster cleric could be as high as 24 (20 starting stat +2 for leveling up, a +4 headband, and spell focus conjuration with a 5th level spell). Do you really want to know what the sorcerer will follow up with? Could be hold monster. Could be persistent slow. Could be magic jar. Could be dominate person. Most offensive will save spells can wreck a fighter if they land. Or the sorcerer could just cast enervation before the cleric goes in for plane shift. The bard only used a move action so he could land a 4th level spell as well if built as an offensive caster.

I'm seeing at least an even chance of a CR 18 (A single level 20 NPC is CR 19 with -1 for inadequate gear) character losing to a CR 13 party (3 level 10s with PC wealth) with the fight decided in the first round.

TarkXT wrote:
Where's that damn horse when you need it.

Dry bones don't have very high hardness.

HyperMissingno wrote:
The barbarian is usually fine. It's the sorcerers that need leashes. They run off without armor and with d6 HD.

Sorcerer may attract its share of yahoos. It's perhaps not as famed for it as rogue because there weren't funky bloodlines in 3.5, but I've read at least one berserk hostage incinerating sorcerer horror story.

I suspect bloodragers are going to be a problem too. The iconic's story is the story of someone that no sane person should be willing to spend time around and there's no Fahfrd/Conan/Beowulf stuff to pull them to character (as opposed to mechanical) archetypes that aren't complete nutters. Still, if a problem player rolls up a bloodrager he's probably going to just kill his character, not ruin the game for everyone.

Bloody special snowflake fluff

pun intended

Anecdotal evidence suggests that rogues go off the reservation worse than barbarians. When a barbarian decides to ignore the plan all you have to do is not charge in after him and let him roll up another character. When a rogue wants to cause trouble it usually involves theft and may result in someone being kicked out of the group or the group disintegrating entirely. I've never heard of a barbarian causing stuff like that. Sorcerers, yes, but not barbarians. They may sometimes be as dumb as a box of rocks, but they're usually as uncomplicated and therefore uncomplicating as samurai or monks.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

179. Procrastinate until they become an adult goblin problem.

As long as you don't abuse non-key class levels adding class levels to a bestiary creature won't add more to its difficulty than adding the same number of class levels to a human cohort. Barbarian is a key class for riding dogs so there's no issue at all.

Monstrous cohorts are almost always absurdly weak for their leadership value unless they're a low leadership value creature brought up with class levels.

Frostbite is probably not worth the actions unless it's a rider on a real attack. It only really gets good with relatively large numbers of natural attacks or unarmed strikes. A magus can do that with polymorph spells at high levels. A druid can do it at low-mid levels. A samsaran sacred fist warpriest can also pull it off at mid levels, but without pounce.

A hunter, unless there's a wildshaping archetype I don't recall, isn't going to get much out of it.

Gorbacz wrote:
Rogues fail at devouring civilizations. You need a Master Summoner or an Archer Paladin for that...

Rogues may not devour civilizations, but arguments about rogues get pretty nasty.

ChainsawSam wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

So rather than thinking "what classes do we need?"

You ask. "What jobs do we need covered?"

That's actually quite liberating as it frees you from the burden of having to meet some imaginary class standard the game doesn't naturally enforce.

You raise a very good point that I'd like to reinforce.

I don't know how many times I've been asked to build a certain class or played with someone who was asked to build a certain class, and in either case been disappointed.

"We need a Cleric."

If the only information you give me is that you want a Cleric, I'll probably show up with the biggest, nastiest Iomedaen around. A murderstorm of longsword, butch haircut, and divine energies.

If what you meant to say was "We need buffs to increase our capabilities and some healing for back up," then what I'll show up with is entirely different.

Saying, "We need an Arcane caster" and "We need an Anvil, someone to control and debilitate the enemy," will provide two entirely different outcomes from a player trying to build a Wizard.

Classifying characters by their role rather than Class is a clearer and more direct way of communicating and thinking.

No, that cleric is fine because cleric is a noncombat role. A cleric's role is, after each battle, return the party as much as practical to the status quo ante. Her job is to have open slots into which she can prepare remove disease and remove curse if your fighter failed a fortitude save fighting a CR 5 mummy at level 5. It's an indispensable role in some games, but it has nothing to do with the forge model of combat. Because of the delay on spontaneous caster spell access, their lack of spells known, and the absence or delay of some of the condition removal spells on all the other full divine lists the role is pretty much synonymous with cleric.

Similarly, in some kinds of games "person who learns teleport and greater teleport" is an important noncombat role that is almost synonymous with full arcane caster, but has nothing to do with the forge model of combat.

You talk about heavy shields when comparing bard AC to magus AC. Bards, other than arcane duelists, cannot use heavy shields without sacrificing their ability to cast spells with somatic components. Only light shields and bucklers can be used for the free action grip shuffle. Bards can use shields a lot earlier than magi can use heavy armor, but they don't want to use heavy shields.

In your brief discussion of teamwork feats you focus exclusively on those used in combat, which suck. Even the ones you approve of are kind of situational. The three I'd look at are Lookout, Shake it Off, and Stealth Synergy. Lookout provides more actions in the surprise round. Shake it Off provides saves. Stealth Synergy makes stealth more effective rather than less the more people participating, which makes whole party stealth practical and solves the isolated rogue problem. Lookout and Stealth Synergy combined give a party a lot of front loaded extra actions to buff and set up the battlefield with.

You rate Heroic Finale high for being an extra action, but Jester's Jaunt low. Jester's Jaunt is a second move action out of turn from a lower level slot that doesn't end your performance. I'm biased against offensive enchantments, but I'd consider it somewhere between a third and fifth choice for its level depending on what the other casters in the party were doing and if pages of spell knowledge were available.

If you're doing stealth, Zone of Silence is very good because it lasts an hour/level and allows you to cast spells without breaking stealth. It interferes with sonic spells, but language dependent spells and audible performances can be applied over the message cantrip or ventriloquism if that doesn't provide enough targets for you. It also no sells tremmorsense and all examples I'm aware of of Ex blindsight and blindsense since they're sonar based. Obviously as a very long duration spell it's good for a page of spell knowledge, but if those aren't on the table it's likely worth knowing.

Speaking of pages of spell knowledge, some commentary on which spells are best used from a page might be useful.

There's very little point in defense that isn't even. It doesn't matter how much armor you have as a fighter if your wizard or cleric gets attacked. Your wizard tops out at an ablating 12.5% miss chance from mirror image with next to no AC if he can't stay out of reach. Your cleric is in medium armor. Your bard might be okay with light armor, a shield, and mirror image, but if you have a ranger, alchemist, inquisitor, investigator, or heaven forbid a rogue as your skill guy it doesn't look so good. If you go up against anything with true seeing the bard is in trouble and the wizard is in even deeper trouble.

Then there are the fighter's will save and the wizard's and bard's fort saves. The longer the fight takes the more chances people have to fail those.

Then there are spell durations. The heavier your emphasis on offense the shorter your fights and the more rooms you can clear on each casting of your minute/level buffs.

This was all discussed to death in the monk threads. Defense doesn't work because you're in a party with people who can't have adequate defenses against everything. No matter what you do the only way to protect them is to do unto others first.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.
A 2-handed attack is not an offhand attack... Or at least it wasn't... Paizo idiotic FAQ for Schronsigger hands made everything needlessly complicated and confusing...

It doesn't say off-hand attack. It says attack with a weapon in your off-hand. A two handed weapon is in both hands. One handed missile weapons that only require two hands to reload may let you use your buckler, but they'd also let you do the hold with light shield to reload with unburdened hand trick so the buckler doesn't really gain you much.

Now if only shields could do something to offset the greater number of at will SLAs outsiders will target you with over the course of the longer combat permitted by an emphasis on a single aspect of defense. If you only had to ever worry about mundane threats they'd be a better deal, but that's not Pathfinder.

w01fe01 wrote:
advice on what i want to do, not give me something else to do lol

That's what mplindustries is giving you. You make exactly the same character and build, you just don't use the archetype because the base druid makes a better saurian shaman than the archetype.

Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.

A shield only protects you from non-touch attacks. Killing the other SoB first protects you from that and touch attacks, save or dies, save or puppets, and even just-die-no-saves.

If you need to buff, buff. Monster AC roughly tracks with medium BAB, which means an unbuffed cleric cannot generally afford to use power attack enemies, but with divine favor she can. You may be looking at 1d8+8 at level 9 (18 strength on a 2 handed spear and +2 from GMW). Divine Favor, by enabling power attack, bumps that up to 1d8+17 while still hitting at +1 relative to a bare attack. That's more than a 70% increase. If you will make two attacks after buffing that's worth the standard action.

A paladin probably doesn't want to cast divine favor. She already has full BAB and is likely to invest more in strength and a better weapon than a cleric.

A utility gish. None of the touch attack focus or action economy cheating or quirky spell list of the extant gishes. An actual EK substitute that can carry the noncombat load of a wizard for a group where nobody actually likes playing straight wizards, possibly through 25% or 33% early entry self only, save (harmless), and willing target only spells on a wizard list using 6 level medium BAB chassis with something like weapon training. Or maybe the ability to reduce the level of a spell by up to 33% at the expense of raising the casting time.

I've speculated on this before, but for three different characters.

There's a passive barbarian rage power that grants the barbarian's mount the effects of all of his passive rage powers. (And, obviously, a prerequisite that duplicates the base rage effects). The Sohei can spend a ki point to give his mount some temporary HP and a bunch of monk abilities and the ability to get the benefits of any ability for which the Sohei spends ki points for an hour per level.

If you allow mount stacks either of these can cascade down the stack, though the Sohei's ability can be interpreted as requiring a ki point per step of the stack, first to give the ability to benefit from ki spending and second to spend the ki for it to benefit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

79. Put them in a timeless demiplane.

Hey, this actually came up in a RotRL:AE solo run. There was a goblin druid that was at odds with the tribe for reasons I can't remember.

66. Leave them in their cages. Tell the goblin druid they're there in case he cares. Shrug and move on when he doesn't.

To make a character effective in battle there's no substitute for the big six.

Elven Chain is good when enchanted (it's more expensive than normal mithril chain, but counts as light for proficiency and cheaper than a +2 chain shirt and just gets better as the enhancements get higher)

A better sword or whatever weapon he uses.

A +charisma headband or about any stat belt will help.

A better cloak of resistance is always helpful.

A better ring of protection or amulet of natural armor is good.

A magic light shield or buckler may be good depending on his weapon preference.

A lesser quicken metamagic rod makes a big difference on getting buffs out quickly.

1) unless the GM is willing to level the ship's cleric so you have access to the three Rs you need either a cleric or a focused healing patron witch or multiple oracles or a druid and an oracle.

2) This is not an AP about exploring monumental architecture. You're going to find yourself having to deal with 5' doors and corridors on occasion. Reach will sometimes be a liability. Archery will sometimes be useless. Of course sometimes you'll need ranged options, but don't overspecialize.

3) Swimming is kind of important. So is having spare skill points for profession sailor and climb on everyone.

4) All those wizardly utility spells that justify arcane caster as a party role are useless. You can't teleport your boat. You can't make your boat fly. There's nothing exclusive to the wiz/sorc list that you really need.

5) You have a crew. Sometimes they'll need to fight. If you can make them fight more effectively you won't have to replace them as frequently.

I'd go for that healing patron witch as your primary healer. Learn every spell with remove or restore in the name and get healing hex fairly early. Hedge Witch is a decent archetype, but not necessary because this is an AP that begs for a druid.

That druid is your battlefield controller. I'd suggest the storm or tempest archetype. I think at least one is in UM. Druids are tougher than wizards and are good secondary healers. You don't want a companion because you can't use a shark on the deck of a ship, can't use a tiger in a water filled cave, and can't use anything large very well inside a ship or stricture with 5' doors. Weather magic is your shtick. Also, if your GM allows a single ship timber to count as an object for Warp Wood you can just arbitrarily give ships the broken condition and then fix it after they surrender. Being able to turn into an air elemental with a 100' fly speed is nice for finding prey. You can also get good use from turning into a water elemental (eg. to apply Warp Wood) and boats are among the few places where a fire elemental's burn special attack is genuinely frightening. Pirate druids are just incredibly metal.

Next up is the standard bard. Having a bard makes that caster built druid front line capable (provided she has enough con). Use a shield and throw up mirror image and a bard can tank. Illusions are a good focus.

And then if you can get Pirates of the Inner Sea accepted as a source go for Freebooter Ranger with a switch hitter build (balanced str/dex with the archery combat style, power attack, and quick draw, see TreeantMonk's guide for details). Otherwise alchemist is a good choice. Grenadier is the best archetype, but it's in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide so just do a standard alchemist and be sure to be an elf or half-orc or tengu so you can use a decent martial weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And yet again Paizo nerfs rogues. Arcane Strike and Riving Strike via Minor Magic was just about the only thing rogues could do that slayers and investigators couldn't.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Costs of potion are by caster, not by lowest cost maker. THus, only potions made by Paladins are going to cost that. Potions are actually variable depending on the maker!

Thus, the 300 gp is probably the better price, since there will be very, very few paladin brewer-casters, and they'll likely sell at the higher price point since there's no reason not to. If they don't, then the merchants will buy up the potions and resell them at the higher rate themselves, as caster level has no effect on lesser restoration.

Meh. It's more likely a paladin potion maker will sell cheap to friends and associates, and then at market rates to anyone else. It's not like its a high demand item outside the adventurer set.


There's nothing under potion crafting that indicates an exception to the general rule that another caster can provide the spells for crafting. The language about requiring spells to be known or prepared and expended in the process of crafting is the same for all item types apart from some not requiring material components or foci to be provided so if they were meant to override the general rules on spell prerequisites those rules would never apply.

That means you don't need a paladin who took crafting feats. You need a cleric or adept who took crafting feats and a paladin who had a spare spell slot he was willing to donate to the cause of making cheap healing available to those who needed it.

RumpinRufus wrote:
I wouldn't buy in to all the rogue hate if I were you. It sounds like your party has plenty of damage already, so not hitting for 200 DPR is really not a big deal. If you want to play a ninja, play a ninja. (Ninjas are like upgraded rogues anyway.)

DPR isn't the only thing rogues suck at.

The Swashbuckler has more HP, better AC (buckler proficiency), a parry mechanic, and better saves (a few times a day and the same at worst)

The Bard has better saves, better AC (shield proficiency and for some archetypes eventually better armor), and miss chance illusions.

The Slayer has more HP, better AC (shields and medium armor), and better saves.

The Investigator has better saves.

The Alchemist has has better saves.

The only rogue replacements not unambiguously more survivable than the rogue are the wizard, arcanist, and sage bloodline sorcerer. And in practice they're more survivable than any rogue that wants to contribute in combat.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the 75% rule is meant to imply settlements have a vast wealth of low value items. It's meant to imply that the first items the PCs ask about are the items most likely to be available. The game breaks down if the PCs can't spend their wealth on the right items so rather than roll for all of the wands a thorpe has they just happen to have the CLW wand the adventurers need.

You can figure the settlement's treasure value as an encounter, determine based on the NPC treasure rules what fraction should be magic items, subtract the big ticket items explicitly rolled for, and get a value. Once that value's been used up there are no more items for the PCs to buy. They have an elevated chance of getting the items they want most, but there's only so much blood in the turnip.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say there's been something of a bait and switch.

First we were told that Paizo's business model was content-centric and they weren't going to be forced to put out rules splats like WotC.

Then the APG and UM came out in quick succession and we were told they were front loading the rules stuff so it would be out, but it was okay and they had learned from WotC's mistakes and were going to stop when they ran out of rules they wanted to have for use in their modules and APs.

Then more and more rules content of less and less value kept coming and it's pretty obvious that they haven't learned from WotC's mistakes and we're going to keep getting poorly designed rules padding to fill two books a year and character building is going from a fun intellectual exercise to a source of stress most people don't have the time or attention to deal with.

At this point, under the paradigm we were originally promised, we shouldn't be seeing new general player options except when something mythic rules are needed to support an AP like WotR.

For blasting probably fire. That gets you a blasty spell in most of your slots and I'm pretty sure you can prepare any domain spell in a domain slot eg. an empowered fireball in your 5th level domain slot if you don't like Fire Shield. I also think that if you acquire the ability to convert uncast slots spontaneously eg. with the Preferred Spell feat you can select a domain spell and then use non-domain slots for it.

Good feats are your typical blaster wizard feats. Since you can't element swap like an admixture evoker the only really good focus/specialization spell is flamestrike and it's a level higher than recommended for use with metamagic. It's also your first up front damage blast outside the fire domain. Everything prior is either more control than damage or damage over time.

If any druid has ever fallen for teaching druidic the person they taught it to knows the language but is not a druid and could therefore freely teach others. It should therefore be available for a point of linguistics if it's a sufficiently static language that the version that got taught and the current version are mutually intelligible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Read Julius Caesar. Every major character except Caesar's wife and Cassius would be well represented as a bard. Henry V would be a bard.

Pretty much any charismatic leader is well represented as a bard or battle herald (which requires bard).

Joe Bots wrote:
Of course none of the above takes magic items into account, but i wont have too much control over that and my GM wont have a magic store.

Do not play anything but a pure caster under this GM unless it's a Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu style game where failure is a foregone conclusion anyways. Anyone that engages in combat needs full access to the core magic item menu at listed prices to function past the very low levels. Being able to turn gold into bonuses is a core assumption of 3.5/PF and if your GM renders it false all of the balance math completely falls apart.

The only workable combat builds are standard action summon builds (cleric or summoner, though cleric needs feats to get it working and can only standard action summon stuff with an alignment subtype that matches his deity). Since there are no items that buff summons they're balanced the same whether you have items or not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards (or evangelist clerics) change everything. They essentially turn any divine or skill class not deliberately built soft into a martial.

If the existing skill class isn't a bard and the existing divine caster isn't an evangelist cleric player five will do the most good by bringing one or the other depending on whether the skill or divine casting role is better filled. This adds two or three heavy front liners to the party by promoting the existing skill guy and divine caster and if player five is bringing an evangelist she can also be a heavy combatant with a single martial dip or choosing a deity with a good favored weapon.

If there is a bard or evangelist (the best or second best skill class and the best archetype of the best divine casting class so not unlikely) then there are two ways to look at things. Either exploit the bard (or evangelist) or support the arcane.

To exploit the bard you want lots of attacks and needn't sweat accuracy the way you would in a vacuum. Pouncing druids are obviously great. They hit 5 attacks at level 8 with another 5 on the pet tiger. Archer sohei also benefit greatly. They can flurry and rapid/manyshot at the same time for 9 arrows at level 16 but they have a -4 to overcome from stacking the penalties. Finally there's the summoner. Eidolons can stack lots of attacks. So can standard action summons and they could really use the accuracy boost.

To support the arcane I'd figure on a magician bard. It's normally not a very good archetype, but it boosts caster level checks and spell penetration is a caster level check. I think that's probably more advantageous in the long run than the witch's saving throw reduction via evil eye because more things have SR than all good saves. Adding a witch also increases the squishy to crunchy ratio from 33% to 66% (assuming the existing skill and divine classes are crunchy, which most are) while a magician bard reduces it to 25%. A witch therefore reduces the protection the party can offer the arcane caster while the magician increases it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Because you can say this.

No, you can't. T-Rexes are gargantuan and druids can't shape into animals larger than huge.

More seriously, though, druids tick a bunch of boxes. They can turn into a bear. They get most of the iconic blockbuster spells (call lightning, flamestrike, the various weather spells, Gandalf's exploding Acorn (aka fire seeds)...) They get a pet kitty or puppy (rangers can only get pet puppies). They can befriend "innocent" woodland critters. They can turn into a fire elemental.

Essentially they're at least two, maybe three vaguely similar classes smushed together and as a result support a large swath of popular archetypes that are otherwise poorly or completely unsupported.

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.

1 to 50 of 4,822 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.