Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Atarlost's page

5,915 posts (5,916 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,915 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

RJGrady wrote:
If you are a martial character, the feats Bludgeoner and Enforcer can open up a whole new world of hurt.

If you're a martial character you use an x3 crit warhammer or earthbreaker. Or you save a feat on bludgeoner and use a sap. If you're a rogue you just save the feat on bludgeoner and use a sap. Or you use a morningstar and get an extra point of damage and get to penetrate an extra kind of DR and fight underwater.


lemeres wrote:

Bardiche.

A. It is the 'ax one a stick' thing- works well enough when trying to wade through the muddy waters of weapon entomology.
B. It is just a plain better reach weapon that most of the items mentioned. It is 1d10, 19-20/x2. IE- the martial reach weapon with actual crit range.

Except it's not. Pollaxes are not standardized. They're defined by a method of construction and can have a hammer or axe paired with something else. A very unscientific look at google image search for antique pollaxes and excluding things that don't have pollaxe-like construction ndicates that most have a hammer and an axe or spike. They should be non-reach polearms like halberds. Certainly those are the options that don't already have weapons for them since a pollaxe with an axe and spike would differ from a halberd only in the method of construction.


52. The inside of the gazebo is decorated with numerous permanent symbols of vulnerability, strife, and insanity. The latter are heightened to ninth level. The symbols are recessed in the ceiling so they can't be seen from outside the gazebo, but anyone stepping inside the gazebo come within vision of all of them. The center of the gazebo contains a marble plinth enchanted with a permanent magic mouth that warns anyone who enters that they should carefully check the ceiling for traps. On top of the plinth rest a pair of +5 vorpal daggers.


Burnscar wrote:
Things that have tonnes of bonus damage generally don't care about what sort of weapon you wield, aside from crit range.

Too bad clubs have the crappiest possible crit range. You're going to be way behind Falchion Fred, and farther behind Longsword Luis than he is behind Falchion Fred.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
For a high level campaign a staff with Wish burning two charges per casting would allow you to cast Wish five times consecutively and thus create a +5 inherent bonus to a stat. You could then recharge the staff to repeat that every 10 days. After boosting five stats that way you'd have recouped the material component cost of the staff... and every stat boosted thereafter would effectively be 'free'.

I would question that math.

Crafting a wish that uses 2 charges is easy and relatively inexpensive enough at ((9x18x400)/2) =32,400.

However the material component requirement alone would be 625,000((25,000X50)/2). Unless you're starting at level 18 then I suspect that amount will rarely be available. I sincerely doubt it will be for me.

Edit: Just checked and you do divide the the material cost by the number of charges also. That's new.

A staff of wish is a party benefit and should not be paid for by one character.

If you have 4 characters splitting the cost it's 164.35k per character, which is a little steep at level 17, but if the ABP assumption that only half of character wealth goes towards mandatory +# items is correct the party can afford to save up for it.

Alternately, if you can start with a 5 charge and upgrade the same staff to use fewer charges you can get everyone +2 to all stats for less than the difference between level 16 and level 17 WBL, which in turn justifies not upgrading other gear that level. You can then upgrade or sell for the same half price you spent crafting and make a 2 charge version at some point before reaching level 18.

Also, with that permanency staff consider flipbooks of symbols. And if you want enough of any one symbol it's a candidate for a staff as well. Past a certain point a staff of permanency and a staff of symbol of healing are cheaper than CLW wands. Other symbols probably aren't useful in quantities sufficient to justify their own staves, but are worth using if you have a permanency staff. Touch triggered symbols can't be used offensively, but the logic used doesn't make sense for observe triggered and the party can be attuned to the symbol and unaffected.


SheepishEidolon wrote:

Clubs have a few advantages over longswords: They are cheap, can be thrown without penalty (synergy with 'cheap' here) and they count as simple weapons. Average base damage is only 1 point lower than for the longsword, but crits only at 20 hurts. If you rely a lot on precision or elemental bonus damage, it's less of an issue.

Why the comparison with longsword? Because greatsword, bastardsword, falcata etc. need extra investment - a second hand, a feat etc.. With a club you can spend this ressource on something else. Doesn't make it superior to the standard choices, but should be considered.

EDIT: Bludgeoner feat (nonlethal damage without penalty) can be nice, if you play a merciful character - but is not club specific, just bludgeoning specific.

The price differential between a club and a real weapon becomes trivial the moment you invest 300g in making them masterwork. If you don't do that and then invest thousands more in enhancement bonuses you're going to lag really badly.

As a martial, druid, rogue, bard, cleric of Sarenrae or Caiden Caylean, or dwarf a club is costing you a 10% total damage increase since you could be wielding a scimitar, rapier, or heavy pick. Because if you valued the ability to two hand that the rapier lacks you'd be using a spear or longspear at least.

As an elf, half-orc, or cleric of Iomedae, Torag, or Norgobear a club is costing 1 damage before a 5% total damage increase because you could be using a longsword, battle axe, warhammer, or shortsword. Again, if you were two handing so it had an advantage over the shortsword you should be using a spear or longspear.

At the very minimum if you are not a wizard a club is costing you 1 damage and the ability to bypass DR/Piercing and fight underwater with a morningstar. Or if you're a monk you're losing flurry.

Ezren uses a club at all levels and that's okay because he uses it as a cane not a weapon and wizards have almost no weapon proficiencies. Anyone else is being penny wise pound foolish.

Throwing away your melee weapon is never a good idea, but if you want a weapon that can be thrown you want something that doesn't suffer range penalties against anyone you couldn't just 5' step and strike normally. A spear does more damage and flies twice as far and the price difference matters only if you're buying several of them at first level.

Shillelegh is a dead end because the enhancement bonus doesn't scale. It will be obsolete by level 8 if you spend money on your weapon at the minimum rate anyone who uses their weapon should.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
7.) Clearly dragons are just trying to save us financially! Once they have all the money, it will trickle down to everyone else.

That only works if the money is being spent or invested. Dragons are hoarders. Taking money out of circulation is a measure to control inflation not grow the economy. And looking at the price lists Golarion desperately needs inflation controlled.


NPCs don't usually get traits except from the extra traits feat and the character is not suitable for a PC unless the entire party is composed of outlaws. You simply won't mesh with any good or nonchaotic party and chaotic nongood parties tend to not be stable.

And even if you are in a party of outlaws you need to axe the uncontrolled kleptomania. Stealing from the party or when the party will take the heat (which is pretty much any time you're in a party) is not good social gaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Is any one form of good more good than the others?

Well, I think we can rule out LG being the most good because

1 Timothy 1:9 (KJV) wrote:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

I guess that leaves it between NG and CG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

It is interesting that nobody has put forward an argument that Chaotic Evil is the most evil alignment in this thread.

I have seen it stated in other threads in these forums that Lawful Evil is the least evil and Chaotic Evil the most evil.

it's because you asked the question in the opposite direction.

if you lined up 3 people, said which was worse and then told people to give them an alignment, I almost assure you in a vacuum most people would put the worst people as CE.

like i said, people seem to attach chaotic evil to people who aren't even that chaotic.

Only if you leave the really evil people out of the lineup. If you line up the most evil people of the twentieth century and aren't a blatant communist apologist you're going to wind up topping the list with mostly lawful evil tyrants. The only maybe neutral evil who might possibly make the top five is Mengele and chaotic, hah. Chaotic evil is the alignment of pikers. You need a whole horde of chaotic evil to even approach the evil that can spread from a half dozen lawful evil people and they'l still lack the discipline to be effective against civilization.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Fighter

CMB = 4 str + 5 bab + 1 weapon + 1 weapon focus + 1 weapon training + 2/4 focusing on maneuvers = 14/16
CMD = 10 + 4 str + 5 bab + 1 deflection + 2 dex=22

So a fighter needs a 10 against himself and an 8 or a 6 with a little specializing.

Only because you've built a straw fighter with only 10 dex. NPCs aren't built like that. They'll be built from a 15/14/12/11/10/8 array. That will leave any martial with 14 or 12 dex. Only the barbarian is vulnerable to maneuvers relative to his BAB.

Monsters are much worse. Except moving from diminutive to fine increasing a monster's size always raises strength by at least as much as it reduces dex and this on top of the direct size bonuses. Past small the increase to strength is always larger than the decrease in dex.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation


Orfamay Quest wrote:

I can't help that this is taking the wrong path.

I'm still not sure what "epic" is supposed to mean to the OP, but I'm seeing a lot of proposals for ways to make the PCs more powerful, followed by ways to make the monsters more powerful, followed by ways to.... I'm reminded of when I was a child and would try to make a peanut butter sandwich with extra bread.... and extra peanut butter. Why not make two sandwiches instead?

Seriously,... rather than trying to tweak level 1 PCs so that they're as powerful as "normal" third level characters, why not run level 3 characters? Similarly, rather than boosting up CR 1 monsters to be CR3, why not just use CR3 monsters.... or two CR1 monsters?

The OP says exactly what he means by epic. He wants the dice equivalent to the PB listed as "epic" in the CRB, namely 25.

Raising level is not the same as raising point buy. They do completely different things. Raising starting level makes characters stronger, allows them to be more minmaxed, and increases the relative strength of strong classes. Raising point buy makes them more rounded because the 18 base stat cap doesn't go away, and raises the relative strength of weak classes.

You won't raise CR by raising PB unless you're starting from something like 0 PB. The advanced template raises every stat by 4 after the base stat limits and is only +1 CR.


Raving Nerd wrote:
So you're adding Strength AND Dexterity to CMD? Doesn't that make it unusually hard to perform a combat maneuver? Or am I missing something? Especially since some combat maneuvers require a standard action to perform, I'm tempted to drop the DC to 5 + whatever if you're adding TWO stats to it...

Yes, CMD scaling is broken. I'd suggest going to the OGL 3.5 rules. They don't apply two stats to the same roll and except for the touch attacks required by some maneuvers all the rolls are "fair" (opposed str with or without size modifiers or opposed attack roll). I'd also remove the size bonuses/penalties except to bull rush since size already includes a strength modifier and all size effects apply to strength checks.

You need to come up with something for dirty trick and if they ever comes up drag and reposition. Steal in 3.5 is listed under disarm.

Dropping the DC to 5+ won't fix anything. It will just make it broken in two different directions depending on the opponent. Since enemies trend towards having much more than 5 excess CMD as CR increases that doesn't fix them being useless at high level and they will be ridiculously overpowered at low level and against PCs. The incorrect scaling and double dipping size bonuses have to be removed to actually fix the system.


Primary stats will usually be maxed out or nearly so at any point buy so higher PB just makes less fragile and more rounded characters. Your fighter will have some skills and pass more than one will save in twenty. Your wizard will be able to carry his own backpack and might even be personable.

Maxing monster and NPC HP is reasonable in any case unless your players are using Paizo iconics or similarly terribly built characters, but beyond that you're making more work for yourself deconstructing monsters so you can change their base array. Just applying the advanced template isn't a match for raising PC point buy because that will boost their high stats as well as their low undoing all the benefits epic PB has in helping your PCs survive to become epic.


BadBird wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
  • PCs can be competent at their main job without severe dumping other things, helping to maintain well-rounded PCs.
  • The irony, of course, being that plenty of people will take a 20 point buy and min/max like mad, and then gripe that their class doesn't grant enough skills...

    I do agree though that 20 is a good place in general.

    20 PB with a MAD class is comparable to 5 PB with a SAD class. Unless their fourth stat is int or they're named "bard" they really don't have enough skills.


    I think the cleric should go back to its heavy armor Saxon Smasher roots. That's what their spell list is designed for. They're a situational and self buffing 7 level list stretched out. Except summon monster. That's probably a mistake. Especially with clerics able to use it better than connjuration focused wizards.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    3catcircus wrote:
    Derek Vande Brake wrote:

    A masterwork backpack makes you treat your strength score 1 higher for carrying capacity purposes.

    So imagine the following scenario...

    A person with a strength of 12 is wearing equipment and carrying a masterwork backpack with 1 lb. of stuff in it. The total weight is 50 lb. He's carrying a light load.

    He drops the backpack, losing the 1 lb. of stuff plus the 4 lb. of backpack. Now he is carrying a medium load and suffers speed and armor check penalties.

    What is the other stuff that is weighing 45 lbs? If it is armor (which i assume part of it is from you using the word wearing), you've forgotten the rules which stipulate that you calculate armor by encumbrance unless weak or carrying a lot of gear. Chainmail and a light wooden shield alone gets you to 45 lbs. and drops your movement rate same as a medium load. So even with a MW backpack, he'd still be carrying a medium load.

    Cold weather clothing and 19 spell component pouches.

    Or a chain shirt, a guisarme, a sling, and a belt pouch containing 9 sling bullets.

    Or a chain shirt, a longsword, a longbow, and 120 arrows (quivers don't appear in the CRB item list so I'm assuming the 20 arrow weight includes 20 arrows worth of quiver).

    Or the character is a 3rd level fighter who treats medium armor as light.


    Didn't someone at Paizo admit that the 15 standard point buy was due to a math error?


    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    Atarlost wrote:
    Charisma is not a mental stat, it's a magical stat. Charismatic people unconsciously use mild charm and compulsion effects to influence people. Otherwise the same stat wouldn't influence both diplomacy and intimidate. It should have no roleplaying impact at all.

    Have you not met people with real force of personality in real life? I have, and trust me, they can easily use that to either charm or intimidate quite readily.

    Now, a lot of people aren't equally good at both, it's true, but you can pretty readily explain that with skill ranks.

    I've met people who are both strong and clever too. It doesn't mean strength and intelligence are the same stat.

    In a system where the most effete minstrel is more naturally intimidating than an orc barbarian something is seriously wrong. You don't get to pass it off "because dragons" unless you also admit that the stat involved is pure magical b%+%+~%+ just like dragon biology and aerodynamic.


    Charisma is not a mental stat, it's a magical stat. Charismatic people unconsciously use mild charm and compulsion effects to influence people. Otherwise the same stat wouldn't influence both diplomacy and intimidate. It should have no roleplaying impact at all.


    Sundakan wrote:
    Feats would be better served by actually being FEATS.

    That's actually the worst thing to do with feats. That kind of thinking is how being able to ready an attack to hit the head of the dragon with more reach than you became locked behind a feat.

    Unless a technique is truly esoteric and impossible to even attempt without specialized training (eg. stunning fist) it should probably not be a feat. There might be a feat that improves it or removes penalties like the current combat maneuver feats, but feats should with rare exceptions not be actions.


    The gestalt rules forbid using hybrid PrCs. Eldritch Knight, since it existed when they were written, is specifically called out.


    Pathfinder simply has far too many races to fit believably on a single world.

    When two intelligent races compete one is going to go the way of the neanderthals. They can only coexist if the stronger is already very cosmopolitan (which requires they already be civilized which they won't be since the genocides or where fantasy b++#*@$@ genetics apply absorption would happen in the neolithic or earlier when contact occurs) or if they do not occupy competing ecological niches.

    A reasonable setting would have one surface race (which pretty much needs to be humans due to metagame concerns with class balance and in any case must not have darkvision), one underdark race (which must have light blindness or it would compete too much with the surface race), and one aquatic race. Maybe split aquatic sophonts into deep and shallow, though deep ocean dwellers could certainly not adventure with surface or underdark races. The more you pile onto that the more implausible the setting becomes. Every additional race requires a contrived excuse. Paizo for the most part hasn't even bothered to provide that.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    Atarlost wrote:
    Kaisoku wrote:
    Basically, I want a person to go "I'm making a Tough Guy, so I'm going to pick this feat called Die Hard" and have it change the way that character feels in the game compared to if he had picked a feat to be a powerhouse or nimble acrobat. Tough Guy should be able to wade into combat, and survive despite getting hit a lot, and even take advantage of the surprise and positioning this reckless abandon...

    This is not feats job. This is something that should be determined by stat distribution and class selection.

    For instance the feat you're describing is called the Barbarian class.

    Then precisely what DO you want out of feata?

    Finer scale customization. The gross themes should be handled by stat arrays and classes. Kaisoku's "tough guy" is a guy with lots of con even if he insists on building it as a non-barbarian. If something can be described in terms of strong, tough, quick, meditative, careful, or dashing it's a strength, con, dex, int, wis, or cha build. Any of those is only appropriate for some classes. The tough guy is only really a good fit for barbarian and kineticist (the latter of which is horrible theming).

    Which style of kung fu your monk favors is a good example of what a feat should do.


    Kaisoku wrote:
    Basically, I want a person to go "I'm making a Tough Guy, so I'm going to pick this feat called Die Hard" and have it change the way that character feels in the game compared to if he had picked a feat to be a powerhouse or nimble acrobat. Tough Guy should be able to wade into combat, and survive despite getting hit a lot, and even take advantage of the surprise and positioning this reckless abandon...

    This is not feats job. This is something that should be determined by stat distribution and class selection.

    For instance the feat you're describing is called the Barbarian class.


    Ugh. The 3.x/PF casting system is horrible and gamey, why would you want to emulate it for martials for whom it makes even less sense?


    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    Atarlost wrote:
    Neutral. Evil acts. Evil can be opposed to other evil. Sometimes it is, at least within a given context, the lesser evil. Neutral just sits and lets the world fall to ruin.
    I don't understand. Are you saying neutral evil is less evil?

    The OP lists four alignments. I'm putting my hat into the ring for the one everyone else is ignoring.


    Neutral. Evil acts. Evil can be opposed to other evil. Sometimes it is, at least within a given context, the lesser evil. Neutral just sits and lets the world fall to ruin.


    Bandw2 wrote:
    Mining simply requires too many calories of work to be useful unless done by many many people. Then to make that mining product useful, you have to spend calories on transporting it to a specalist that can melt it down and craft it.

    Carnivores simply require too many calories of work to be useful unless provided by many herbivores.

    Also, the same argument applies to flint. Flint is mined much like metal and requires specialized skills to craft and would be shipped great distances.

    The European Trade Community predates bronze. And once trade exists bronze isn't that difficult. As should be obvious if the constituent metals weren't shallow enough and in soft enough places to dig with bone and stone tools there would never have been a bronze age. Working it takes no great amount of effort compared to shaping flint, particularly given how great a labor saver it is. Neolithic and Bronze Age people weren't stupid. They didn't ship copper and tin and before that flint around Europe because it was harder than living without them.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Bandw2 wrote:
    137ben wrote:
    Also, in 3.5 at least, the core rules use the term "natural" to describe abilities which are not Ex, Su, Sp, or spells. I'm AFB and on my phone now, so I can't easily check if PF kept the same terminology, but if so, it would seem spellcasting would be contrary to being "natural". No more spells for druids!
    that's the point I was trying to make that you missed, they aren't about what's natural they're just only pro animal and plant stuff

    Leather is anti-animal.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    137ben wrote:
    Also, in 3.5 at least, the core rules use the term "natural" to describe abilities which are not Ex, Su, Sp, or spells. I'm AFB and on my phone now, so I can't easily check if PF kept the same terminology, but if so, it would seem spellcasting would be contrary to being "natural". No more spells for druids!

    Craft (blacksmith) checks are not Ex, Su, Sp, or spells. Steel armor is therefore natural.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Hmm. No casting spells on people, no buying pre-existing restaurants, and no making the food yourself.

    I don't see anything about using undead and bound outsiders to murder people and take their stuff. I also see nothing about the restaurants being profitable.

    I'd suggest starting with De Beers because diamonds are price fixed and used to fuel Wish. Wish is going to be a lot cheaper than building buildings. Then start taking over OPEC countries to offset the loss you'll take on restaurants. And then blanket Africa with locations because land is cheap there. That old joke that you can't go half a mile without running into a Starbucks? Make it true of your chain anywhere that land is basically free. Who cares if they lose money, you've conquered every oil producing country in the near east.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The thing about special snowflakes is that the term is one of sarcastic derision. Like a real snowflake a special snowflake is functionally identical to all the other snowflakes.

    Oh, another drow who, even if he uses different mechanics, is clearly based on Drizzt or that one chaotic neutral guy who also has a couple novels or a horribly generic evil female drow stereotype. Drizzt the sorcerer is not any more interesting than Drizzzt the dual scimitar ranger with 50% more zed.

    Oh, another tiefling. Is he based on Hellboy? Is he based on one of those horrible dandified satan figures from popular culture? Is he Drizzt with red skin? Is he a cookie cutter mechanics uber alles build that uses the variable stat array and the prehensile tail alternate racial ability to enact horrible munchkinry?

    Oh, a Dhampir. Is he based on an Anne Rice imitator or Anne Rice directly?

    Oh, a Kitsune. Is this one furry fanservice or is she yet another fairly generic oriental flavored trickster or a specific anime trickster?

    For a human at least I get until the first sentence of the origin story when they tell me where they're from before the boring stereotypes start piling on. And maybe if they're from somewhere like Absalom that isn't a thinly disguised national stereotype they might be vaguely original.


    Wizard//Sorcerer is a really weak gestalt combination. You get very little useful over a normal wizard or sorcerer and even less over an arcanist. For comparison that cleric//bard, bad as his stat needs are, can stack divine favor with inspire courage to fight better, has no weak save, and has access to two different spell lists. And it's still a weak gestalt because the evangelist archetype does most of what it does.

    Instead, pick one arcane full caster and mix with a durability boosting class.

    Wizard goes great with Alchemist. Cognatogen will boost your save DCs and bombs will give you a fallback option for when your preparation is inappropriate to the task at hand. The grease bomb, entangle bomb, smoke bomb, and any discovery that has smoke bomb as a prerequisite will serve you well as a controller wizard. And you're less squishy and have no weak save. Arcanist will also do well in this combination and give you pretty much everything you were getting from wizard//sorcerer

    Occultist is another option with wizard or arcanist, giving spells with psychic components and spontaneous casting.

    Sorcerer is weaker in gestalt with paladin being the only really good complement, though if you change your casting stat the wizard friendly classes will work or if you switch to wisdom the unchained monk is an extremely strong survivability boost.


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
    Derklord wrote:
    Extremely limited feature? Spells? Only at the first few levels.

    About a half dozen combat relevant slots compared to more than twice your level in rounds of e.g rage.


    GreyWolfLord wrote:

    I'm going the opposite way of others here.

    Any spellcaster that takes damage while casting a spell or immediately prior to casting a spell, loses the spell they were going to cast.''

    If no actual damage is taken, but there is a disturbance (loud fighting, screaming, explosions, etc) they have to make a concentration check.

    That would be reasonable if instead of losing the spell you fail to cast it without losing the slot. Or if all spells were at will and limited only by concentration checks. Losing an extremely limited feature that may be the only meaningful thing you can ever do is too much of a weakness.


    Druids don't need an equipment restriction. It's hardly relevant when wildshaped and they aren't better than similar classes with no such restriction when not.


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

    Why does someone asking a straight forward rules question with no advice needed get moved to the advice forum?


    BretI wrote:
    You do realize that just because two characters have the same alignment, it doesn't mean they will get along right? You could have two LG Paladins that intensely dislike each other.

    Being the same alignment doesn't mean getting along, but being different alignments sometimes means not getting along.

    Opposite corner alignments for instance are never going to get along. Good and Evil don't get along unless evil is so inactive as to be functionally neutral.

    Law and Chaos are going to interact badly, but they won't automatically feel obligated to kill each other and if they're both good will feel obligated to not kill each other. Most systems of laws have some allowance for chaos (and any that doesn't can't be good) and most chaotic people aren't full on anarchists (and those that are can't be good).


    Talonhawke wrote:
    Yeah some guy got his post deleted and made a post a bout it then it got deleted so he copy/pasted that same post into every thread on the rules forum page 1 yesterday.

    The moderation here is really bad. They try, but they have the wrong tools. The tools that actually work on other forums are infraction warnings and editing out really objectionable content. Deleting is pretty near never the right solution for a post made by an actual human. Even reducing the post to nothing but an infraction warning if it's all highly objectionable works better because it doesn't give the impression that stuff disappears for arbitrary reasons. Not appearing arbitrary is a lot more important than actually not being arbitrary.

    Complaining through official channels that aren't visible is emotionally no different from posting to /dev/null so of course people who are upset don't do it. Deleting complaints just furthers the impression that moderation is for silencing dissent not keeping the board civil. Now you have an upset person with a persecution complex. And cue vengeance spamposting.

    A more normal moderation policy backed by tools with a little more flexibility would probably have prevented that sort of problem.


    The Shaman spell list is by far the smallest 9 level caster list.

    The witch can have restoration and lesser restoration if you want by choosing the right patron. The Shaman can't have remove disease.

    Ill Omen
    Ray of Sickening
    Ray of Enfeeblement
    Snowball
    Mudball

    Glitterdust
    Ice Slick
    See Invisibility
    Touch of Idiocy
    Spectral Hand
    Vomit Swarm
    Web

    etc.

    And if you aren't trying to be a cleric (which the witch can do better than the shaman) you can choose a different patron.

    For instance the Agility patron offers
    Haste
    Freedom of Movement
    Polymorph
    Ethereal Jaunt

    If you consider Monkey Fish an example of a good spell you're not using your spells for much. I mean, as first level spells when the slots have lost value it's not bad, but it's not going to help win encounters and few of the Shaman's other spells will either. Against enemies for whom a DC 16 spellcraft check is nontrivial or in parties where someone else can apply a save or suffer or save or lose before the victim gets a turn Ill Omen can be a worthwhile contribution to combat at any level.

    Oh, and you can't get slumber and cackle. Cackle is what makes evil eye reliably still active on your next turn so you can exploit the saving throw penalty. The Shaman is also unable to get major hexes, which for Witches do come online before PFS stops.


    Grumbaki wrote:

    Somewhere out there, there is a burly half orc thief. He broke into an inn they were staying at and stole the dresses. Once he found out the enchantments in this thread he now wears it everywhere.

    If anyone asks why he is cross dressing he has to decide whether to make himself a target by explaining or a laughing stock by staying quiet.

    If a half-orc thief can overcome an ego 40 intelligent magic item he's the sort of threat that requires a mythic wizard's personal attention anyways.


    The mounted combat rules do not support mounts capable of independent action. This is a deep flaw in the system.

    The best way to get the melee fighter to the flying enemy is often to ride the druid.

    Paladins of int penalty races are probably less intelligent than their mounts since once you have 8 int there's no additional penalty to drop all the way to 5 on a 2+int class. So are int penalty race summoners who want to ride their eidolons.

    Then there are ridable monstrous cohorts. Dragons tend to be popular with people nostalgic about either the Pern or Krynn books.

    The ride rules work for none of these.

    As to why a centaur would allow himself to be ridden it depends. It's a very strong combat tactic since having an extra lancer on his back doesn't impinge upon his own combat ability and dramatically improves the rider's mobility as long as both the centaur and the rider want to go to the same place. In the military of a mixed society this would be pretty common. To the centaur it's not a rider, it's a slotless wondrous item that gives an extra full attack or a spellcasting progression. It's just too useful a tactic to remain taboo. It's not like the rider is actually in control in any way.

    If that's true for mixed societies it's also true for mixed mercenary companies and familiar to freelance mercenary centaurs as well.


    Ranishe wrote:
    So, in regards to "you don't need to have full ranks in a skill to be competant" what are the thoughts on half & 3/4 bab? Are such classes (assuming they target ac) competant at combat as the game progresses? Magi and druids tend to be, though by virtue of spell enhancements (shocking grasp / spellstrike / wildshape bonuses, etc).

    3/4 BAB without class features boosting them are not competent. This is where the core rogue sits.

    Ranishe wrote:
    As for skills, I had a thought about how to further tweak their impact. Ise the behavior found in the likes of Knights of the Old Republic where non-class skills can only have ranks up to half char level & cost 2 skill points per rank. This would allow further balance tweaking by management of class skills. I'm experimenting with creating such a system at least.

    You're talking about 3.5 cross-class skill rules. They make non-cookie-cutter skill builds nonfunctional and were discarded for good reason.


    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    This does not interact with any PFS specific rules.

    Yes it does. It interacts with the constraint of PFS that alternate rules are not permitted. The constraint on the available solutions are part of what define the problem.

    This is true of essentially anything posted in the PFS forum. That's most of why it exists in the first place. If it didn't have special rules constraints that make the same question substantively different when asked in a PFS context it would need a forum only for organizing and would not have subfora.


    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Atarlost wrote:


    The OP is having the problem in PFS and any solution that doesn't work in PFS is utterly useless to him. That makes it a PFS problem.

    That would make EVERY problem a PFS problem since "homebrew it" works for everything...

    Every problem that is had with PFS is a PFS problem. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time grasping that tautologies are tautological.

    This thread had no business being moved from the PFS forum because doing so changes the question in a way that makes the answers useless to the OP.


    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Atarlost wrote:


    So why was it moved? It's a PFS problem and being in the PFS forum is necessary context to the question.
    It's not really a PFS specific problem (martials require magic gear) but PFS does limit the solutions that have come up over the years.

    The OP is having the problem in PFS and any solution that doesn't work in PFS is utterly useless to him. That makes it a PFS problem.


    Mr.Fishy wrote:

    Mr. Fishy just wandered in here and he is without a clue...And sadly Mr. Fishy did not put ranks in....Mr. Fishy just don't know.

    Mr. Fishy thinks there is a fear that a fighter with 4+int per level would break Pathfinder...Or something.

    Mr. Fishy does not understand... Did Fighters become god monsters, while Mr. Fishy was away?

    Last Mr. Fishy heard fighters were still in the game because the wizards felt bad about making martial unless.

    A couple splat books put some lipstick on the pig and now everyone has delusions of adequacy.


    BadBird wrote:
    Assuming that 'he has the highest INT in the party' means at least a 16 INT...

    You have a massively distorted perception of what normal intelligence is. Do you perhaps have someone in your local group who never plays anything but maguses?

    The iconic Runelords party is a fighter, a cleric, a sorcerer, and a rogue. Valeros has 13 int. Kyra has 11. Seoni has 10. Merisel has 10 and her 3.5 incarnation had 8.

    Of the core iconics, only Ezren has more than 13 int. Of the iconics that have stats on pathfindercommunity.net only Balazar has more than 13 int while not being an int based caster. If there's no prepared arcane caster, alchemist, or psychic in your party the brightest bulb is still pretty dim.


    BadBird wrote:
    Atarlost wrote:
    Snowlilly wrote:
    Playing a "dumb" fighter is player choice.
    Dumb isn't about having a low score in an ability that allegedly represents intelligence. Dumb is about being incapable of learning to perform skilled tasks. A 13 int fighter is as dumb as an 8 int barbarian and dumber than a 7 int ranger.

    Class skill points per level represents the idea of how much time, energy, and opportunity a character of a given class spends on learning skills. INT-bonus skill points per level represents how easily a character learns. So an above-average INT Fighter who spends little time or focus on skills will learn as much as a below-average INT Barbarian who has more time and opportunity for learning. You can disagree with the ratios, but the rationale is pretty obvious.

    Personally I'd have no problem with a house-rule that grants every character +1 skills/level. But when I hear "I want to be an INT-dumped Paladin and not suffer badly with skills", all I can think is "yeah, and I want to be a WIS-dumped Rogue and not suffer badly with Will... too bad for me."

    The concept of the BSF doesn't refer to the int stat at all. It refers to how the fighter isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. A 13 int fighter still isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. It takes around 7 skill points per level to be "the scholar" or 3-4 and a lot more charisma than a fighter can justify to be "the face". It requires class features the fighter can't get to be "the trap guy" and spells he doesn't get to be "the healer" or "the utility guy". So, unable to do anything else he's stuck being "the big, stupid fighter" even if he has the highest int in the party.

    I want the 12-14 int fighter to not suffer from low skill points. I'd also like there to be a difference between the 3 int fighter and the 9 int fighter.

    1 to 50 of 5,915 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 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.