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

5,156 posts (5,157 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
I've seen archers balk at going underwater...

Everyone balks at going underwater. Most melee weapons don't work, most popular spells don't work right, and almost all characters can't breathe without magic.

And there is no communal or mass version of water breathing so the spontaneous casters can't afford to know it and the prepared casters can't afford to have enough castings prepared for the whole party unless the underwater encounter is telegraphed a day in advance.


Sneak attack is badly tactically distorting and a fighter with it would do too much damage with a way to get it reliably. Skills and rogue talents wouldn't be amiss, though.


Sadly, only cleric and healing patron witch have all the condition removers on the expected schedule with no spells known limit. Well, unless one of the occult classes has them; I haven't looked at them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a should for death. Death should not ruin the player's enjoyment of the session.

Game design has been studied enough that we can now say what's important: If death is to have a real presence, the player must be able to get back into the game with minimal delay. I'm not aware of any serious tabletop RPGs that do this well, but GMSs looking at gritty realism through rose colored glasses are making the game worse for anyone playing with them in system game that doesn't have simple player re-entry.

D&D 3.x/PF do not have simple player re-entry. Making anything but a template character can take hours. Dieing at low level doesn't reduce the problem unless the character will be discarded after a oneshot since most classes need to plan their builds ahead or run into prerequisite walls. Coming up with a new character identity and backstory can be an equally involved process. Fitting a new character into an old group is yet another serious hurdle for anyone who cares about roleplaying.

There's a reason story-centric CRPGs never have permadeath.


There's nothing in the trap rules that overrides normal perception (formerly spot and listen) checks being reactions to stimuli. Non-magical triggers are always visible somewhere unless the environment is deliberately engineered so that *everything* looks like a trap trigger so trap spotter isn't giving you your only perception check, it's giving you a second at a set range where there isn't a distance penalty. If everyone is stacking perception as all guides seem to recommend the party has enough checks. If you only have one scout who does all the looking ahead and traps are being used it's still one of the better rogue talents, but it's not mandatory. Unless your GM is a jerk who uses magical traps that have their auras hidden. Or mechanical traps with illusion concealed triggers that have their auras hidden.

Trapfinder does very little for a dip. It's +1 and the ability to handle magical traps, but you can take disable device without it. The class skill you can grab with extra traits or cosmopolitan. Let the casters dispel the magic traps that publishers feel obligated to sprinkle sparsely through most adventures.

Good GMs don't use traps unless they're thematically important. The trap-rogue interaction is bad for the metagame. If this were single player CRPG where having a rogue only cost a party slot not an actual human being forced to play a specific class it would be fine, but it's not.


Rhedyn wrote:

This is my fix for fighters

Our group play tested it and thought it worked well.

I suspect the 8 hour respec to combat feats and stances isn't necessary. Stances give enough versatility and being able to completely retrain everything in 8 hours will tend to make all fighters alike. I'm not a great fan of spell preparation, but at least it's magic. Feat preparation doesn't have that excuse and with stances this fighter can get as many feats as a sorcerer knows spells mid game, which should be enough.

I don't like conditioning. Immunities are very all or nothing and charm/compulsion are going to become mandatory with a weak will save. That leads to the issue that compulsion immunity can be a double edged sword: a number of morale buff spells are compulsions. I'd toss conditioning for a better will progression. It's a simpler and more tested solution.


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

I'm of the opinion that the fighter needs a strong will save.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that every non-caster except barbarian needs a strong will save and the arcane casters don't.

There's one other issue that needs to be kept in mind ... we can't build The Ultimate Invincible Class here. As nice as it is to make sure fighters get nice things, let's watch the balance thing.

If good fort and will saves make a class invincible clerics, druids, inquisitors, maguses, and paladins need to be nerfed.

Inquisitors and Paladins are generally considered near the ideal balance point.


The purpose of the bag of holding is to allow complete looting. It can pass all objects the DM put in the adventure as loot and none of the objects the DM put in the adventure as furniture.

If the statue has a given value it should fit in the bag. If it doesn't it shouldn't.


Malwing wrote:

Prerequisites: +6 BAB, Trick Shot

Benefit: When you use trick shot you may make one attack to make one of your remaining attacks ricochet off a target if that attack is a thrown bludgeoning weapon. If the weapon thrown this way successfully damages a creature you may catch it as a free action action at the end of you turn. You must have a free hand to catch a weapon this way. You must be in the same space that you have thrown the weapon or in any space between that space and the damaged target to catch the weapon.

***

This is one of those feats that made me think twice about making these feats weapon agnostic. I'm continuing the way I am doing things but this may change as I'm just developing how these will work in general.

I do wonder if everyone is reading my goals here. To reiterate, I'm not looking to 'fix' martials, these are for the most part groundwork for generating resources for martials to use for something else I'm working on. Each reasource is purposely made to be bought with stamina and scale with BAB. But I'm having trouble coming up with actual effects that is reasonable for martials to do and work out with how fast stamina can refill so if you have any suggestions on what martials should be doing with these resources please let me know.

The fundamental unit of Pathfinder balance is the encounter. To most consistently balance between fast and slow games resources should either regenerate on a per encounter basis or regenerate entirely in a breather period reasonable for a fast game. Or from round to round like grit and panache are supposed to.

To match existing unspeakably* bad class design they should be yet another stupid, boring daily resource pool.

* because profanity is filtered


I'm of the opinion that the fighter needs a strong will save.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that every non-caster except barbarian needs a strong will save and the arcane casters don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, we still don't have a proper original flavor bard. Hunter's a little closer, but still has too much druid in it and too little fighter and thief and no bardic knowledge at all.


The "no increased blast damage" clause isn't an invitation to look for loopholes. It's a declaration that you're not allowed to get added damage from larger than normal objects full stop. Be glad you got something with utility and stop pushing before it gets errata'd into "no, you can't have nice things."

If you were meant to do 20d8 damage all the elements would have some way to get 20d8 damage, not just kinetic.


Alexander Augunas wrote:

The base kineticist is designed around bringing both all-day damage and consistent, caster-like utility. Are they as good as martials? No. Do they have as much utility as casters? Again, no. But in both cases, they shouldn't. Balance-wise, the kineticist is a work of art.

Now, if you want to be Captain DR, the elemental annihilator archetype is for you. If you want more utility, consider the kinetic chirgureon.

Yes, but it's the Le Déjeuner en fourrure of classes. It's not particularly attractive, you can't drink tea from it, and a Chinese Gazelle died to make it.

Well, not a Chinese Gazelle per se but the hopes and dreams of everyone who liked the 3.5 warlock.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Paizo, if you're going to buff the Oracle please do so in a way that lets it fill a cleric's shoes without spending a fortune on pages of spell knowledge. That would actually make the game better rather than worse.
What is the point of 'buffing' the oracle is it's just going to be a cleric? Just play a cleric. The Oracle is a wholly different thing from the Cleric, and should not fill it's shoes at all. If anything, what the Oracle really needs is more varied and interesting curses. The current list of Paizo sourced curses is extremely small.

The ranger, barbarian, paladin, monk, druid, cavalier, antipaladin, samurai, slayer, brawler, and -- within certain encounter/day limits -- the warpriest, inquisitor, cleric, magus, shaman, and oracle can fill the fighter's shoes.

The sorcerer, arcanist, witch, summoner, and to a degree shaman, oracle, and druid can fill the wizard's shoes.

The bard, inquisitor, ranger, alchemist, investigator, ninja, wizard, and sage sorcerer can fill the rogue's shoes.

Only one specific witch patron can fill the cleric's shoes. No one else has all the spells outside crippling spontaneous spells known limits or severely delayed spell access.

There are tons of fighter substitutes and no shortage of wizard or rogue substitutes, but there's only one cleric substitute and it's not the default build. Eleven classes exist just to do a fighter's job without being a fighter. Four classes exist just to do a wizard's job without being a wizard. Five classes exist just to do a rogues job without being a rogue. There's just one witch patron for doing the cleric's job.

The game was made better by introducing alternatives to the rogue. It will be made better by introducing alternatives to the cleric.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Lord Van Hohenheim wrote:
So a level 2 Bard spell can perma kill a Lich without the whole hassle of hunting down the Lich's phylactery. Need to be sure to pick this up.
[mind-affecting]. Sorry.
Threnodic Spell.
I don't know how I forgot that given Heaven Oracle shenanigans. That's pretty awesome against Liches then. Hilarious to.
That's a 4th level spell slot for the bard... level 10 min... with a 2nd level spell DC... Will save... yeah... so that's not too OP IMO, as the lich will probably always save against this. But sure: while I maintain inspire courage I'd be hammering a lich or wizard with this every round. Hopefully you have a friendly witch cackling nearby to bring the lich's saves down...

The new broken cyclops themed oracle casts it as a 3rd level spell from a 5th level slot quickened with a lesser rod after using his standard action to reduce the lich's next saving throw by his oracle level, which is at least 10. The CR 12 stock bestiary 1 lich's will save modifier is +12. The oracle's charisma is at least 13 to cast the spell so the lich needs to roll at least an 12 to pass. Probably the oracle's charisma is rather higher. Possibly since he's a divination focused archetype and there are now divinations that are actually useful he even has spell focus. With a modest 22 charisma the lich needs to roll a 17.


Paizo, if you're going to buff the Oracle please do so in a way that lets it fill a cleric's shoes without spending a fortune on pages of spell knowledge. That would actually make the game better rather than worse.


Paizo is just really bad at weapons. Some cases are justified by legacy issues since WotC is also really bad at weapons, but this isn't one of them. TSR was not quite so bad at weapons, but they succumbed to pressure and took the weapon to hit adjustment table out rather than explain to their customers why it was so freaking important to making weapons and armor make sense.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
As someone who worked on Unchained, is very enthusiastic about it, and has a vested interest in seeing people buy and enjoy the book, nonetheless, I would personally recommend that you do not buy Unchained if you don't want a toolbox to use to mod your Pathfinder games but just want the Unchained classes. The classes are nice, but Unchained is all about the spirit of exploration and tinkering throughout all the chapters, opening up options in the same way as a mod creator for a video game lets you make new twists on your favorite games; the classes are just one facet of that.
Please don't let this be a veiled statement in which you are saying that there won't be any further support (Rogue Talents, Rage Powers, Unchained Monk archetypes) for these classes.

Why would he need to veil such a statement? Everyone knew optional stuff would never get further support ever since Ultimate Combat came out with new spells but no new words of power.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
This isn't about flavor. The point is to make a two person party work. That means that what's important is having the capabilities expected of a four person party. Action economy isn't as important as having the out of combat capabilities that come from full casters.
Are you mixing your threads up? We know he's got a small party, but 2 people doesn't seem to be mentioned, and we have no data on the rest of the composition, or even if they are playing an AP.
DalmarWolf wrote:
The one who is still in the game is a Magus and the one that left was a Druid. Thanks for all the suggestions so far :))

His monk and his friend's magus make two. We don't know they're playing an AP, but lots of GMs like using "classics" that do "interesting" things that need cleric spells to fix even when not running APs.


I would not use any unchained class other than rogue. All of them are downgrades in my eyes, even the monk. Will save is too fundamental to the entire point of the monk to trade away for anything but immunity to mind affecting.


This isn't about flavor. The point is to make a two person party work. That means that what's important is having the capabilities expected of a four person party. Action economy isn't as important as having the out of combat capabilities that come from full casters.


The unchained rogue may be much improved, but I'm pretty sure TWF is still a horrible trap.


Snowlilly wrote:
Benefit of acting as both a martial and a full caster in the same round.

Not quite. You don't have the accuracy of a martial and for most of the game you're giving up what little accuracy you have to reduce concentration DCs if you want to cast reliably in combat. You need more accuracy and some way to use spell combat at range to live up to that claim.

You could ditch magus for another class after level 6 to help accuracy, but nothing will really help concentration checks unless you find a way to spell combat with a bow so you can be a martial without them coming up.


I'd suggest cleric. Preferably Iomedae (I misspoke before about which cleric gets good hope). Followers of Irori can cast haste as a 4th level spell, but it's not that much better than blessing of fervor which all clerics get. Still, if you already follow Irori, which is likely for a monk, it may be an upgrade.

Warpriest offers too little. You can already do unarmed damage with arrows beyond anything favored weapon offers and nothing else the class offers is worth the slower spell progression. Fervor isn't very good for you. You can just not bother buffing for most fights or spend your round casting something the warpriest doesn't have access to yet. Or you can quicken divine favor

You're going to need restore and removes on the cleric schedule. Their levels are mostly set based on the CR of the enemies that make you need them. Or vica versa: both the spells and monsters in question are first edition legacy. They often appear at that level in APs. You'll level a little faster not having to share XP as many ways, but since XP requirements rise it will resolve to a small boost that will stay small. That might get oracle onto schedule to be able to cast with pages of spell knowledge since that's just a 1 level delay, but it won't get a warpriest on schedule with his increasing delay. I guess if the magus is an eldritch scion going for oracle you don't have to be the healer and can be a warpriest, but if you don't have to be the healer why be either?

If your friend is taking suggestions I'd suggest he add investigator to get more skills, a huge damage and accuracy boost, and extracts for general utility. Unless he's one of the unarmored magus archetypes in which case witch, wizard, or sage sorcerer might offer more.


DaemonArcher wrote:
*The posts about the Skald requiring the right party is entirely true. I've played one in a party that unfortunately rendered at least 1/3 of his kit entirely useless but they are really fun to play nontheless. Make sure your party works with what you can offer and you'll tear face!

We already know the party doesn't. Everyone casts spells. The Paladin gets very little benefit from rage because rage powers are melee oriented. The Bloodrager doesn't get his class rage benefits when using inspired rage. The wizard is a wizard.

Raging Song just isn't very flexible. You need a party with multiple melee characters that aren't maguses or warpriests or barbarians or bloodragers and don't get their combat bonuses from something that requires thinking (so no bards or investigators or probably slayers and possibly no swashbucklers) or need to use skills other than dex, str, and intimidate (so no feint sneak attack builds).


If the guy who left was a front liner:
Brawler is ideal to get back your melee. There's a bit of overlap, but it does let you pick up pummeling style.
Ranger (TWF, mounted, or two handed) is decent if brawler//monk gestalt isn't allowed, though it doesn't qualify for pummeling style. You get archery boosting spells as well.
Hunter will get a front line pet while boosting your archery.

If the guy who left was a healer:
Cleric is still the only complete healer outside one witch patron. You're probably going to sacrifice the least by taking a healer role so unless someone else wants cleric or two people are planning to share the role or there's someone dying to be a paperwork oracle

Spoiler:
Oracles don't have enough spells known but can do the job with lots of pages of spell knowledge and scrolls (the paperwork oracle above). Druids never get remove blindness/deafness or restoration, get reincarnate instead of raise dead, and get heal late. Shamans never get remove disease and get a bunch of important stuff only from the life spirit and get heal late unless they take the life spirit. Warpriests get everything except resurrection, but get it late -- up to five levels late for heal. Paladins can do everything with mercies and ultimate mercy, but are so late to blindness/deafness and restoration they may as well not have them except for scroll access.

If the guy who left was an arcane controller or blaster:
Druid
Celestial Sorcerer

If the guy who left was a debuffer:
Shaman

If the guy who left was a buffer:
Evangelist Cleric (preferably Erastil) gets you prayer, blessing of fervor, good hope (if Erastil), and inspire courage. Your charisma penalty will impact your perform rounds, but you'll still have (2/level)-1 rounds. Hopefully if you've lost a buffer someone with more charisma will gestalt bard and you won't have to.

If the guy who left was a blaster:
Druid
Celestial Sorcerer
Or buy a swarmbane clasp and double down on archery with inquisitor, hunter, mounted combat style ranger, or luring cavalier.


The core monk was good at one thing: not getting puppeted while also not laboring under the paladin code of conduct. Barbarians are okay, but are vulnerable in the surprise round and don't have enough decent rage powers other than superstitious to be interesting. Against a GM that aggressively uses charms and compulsions and doesn't cater to paladins the core monk is the martial: doing a little less damage is worth it to not be doing your damage to your wizard friend.

The APG came along and zen archer and the monk became the best archer. The barbarian became worth playing, but still has that surprise round vulnerability that monks lack. Antipaladins provide an alternative to the paladin, but are even less playable at most tables.

UM brought quiggong powers which let you ditch the anti-feature of spell resistance. None of the non-paladin martials gained anything to encroach on his turf.

UC brought style feats, the maneuver master, the tetori, the sohei, and the flowing monk. Now the monk does a bunch of things well. The monk is the best mounted combatant, the best at maneuvers, and can be pretty good at being monkish as well. And they still don't get puppeted while other non-paladin martials still do.

The ACG gave us more style feats and brought out the competition for the future unmonk. And that is a good name for it because it's not going to be filling the monk's niche.

The unmonk doesn't laugh at save or puppets. He doesn't fight like a sohei. He doesn't grapple like a tetori. And most damning of all he doesn't out-fight the brawler. He doesn't really out-save a brawler either. Any stat spread the unmonk can live with the brawler can do better with. The unmonk hits slightly better but the brawler has options and is leagues ahead at combat maneuvers. The unmonk may need wisdom more, but he doesn't need strength, dex, and con less.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Correction: The game ultimately fails to work on the adventuring day concept.

Sure. But that's how the game works.

Atarlost wrote:
Classes need to be designed for the game writers are making, not some ivory tower four encounter per day garbage that never happens except by accident.
This is the game we have. If you run games where the players fight 1 monster a day then you're going to exacerbate martial/caster disparity, rocket tag and PCs curbstomping everything they see (with the only alternative being TPKs). Also I have never seen anyone describe the four encounter per day as being the height of game design, or even desirable.

It's not desirable. Its stupid, but it's what 3.5/PF is designed around. A CR appropriate encounter is by definition supposed to use 1/4 of a party's resources.

The inability of the game to work properly with shorter or longer adventuring days is a product of a stupid obsession with per diem abilities.

It didn't have to be this way. The Recharge Magic variant rule for 3.5 is OGL. There was no need to stay with the broken per diem paradigm.


I used to. And then the ACG happened and it both passed the point where the options were manageable and the point where Paizo had stuff worth publishing.

Not that the Ultimate books were great, but UC had good monk stuff at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:


The game ultimately works on the adventuring day concept where players manage their resources according to this daily timespan. HP, Spells and all those class features you cite (minus the ones that replenish throughout the day) all work off this time scale. D&D 3rd edition (and Pathfinder has inherited it) removed the concept of HP as a daily resource thanks to wands of cure light wounds. But the rest have remained a daily resource and not all groups use wands of CLW. Whilever spells allow casters to be bursty, martials need a way to burst as well.

Correction: The game ultimately fails to work on the adventuring day concept.

because the game is designed around the encounter. A day can be anything from Kingmaker's one slightly over CR encounter to a sixteen hour slog through a massive dungeon with dozens of encounters, which will go on high alert and combine into an impossible APLx6 encounter if you leave for a day and come back.

All the classes can be alike, but if they don't match the standards for monster and adventure design they're all designed wrong.

Classes need to be designed for the game writers are making, not some ivory tower four encounter per day garbage that never happens except by accident.

And, yes, that includes the casters.


Why has this somehow become the crossbow thread anyhow?

Crossbows don't need to be buffed. Who uses crossbows? Wizards. Sorcerers. Occasionally Clerics. People who don't have martial proficiencies. In short, Casters.

Crossbows may be weaker than they should be, but there's no reason to destroy their character as slow loading weapons to buff martials because martials don't use them anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


Yes, a crossbow should have a strength rating. It is perfectly likely that you'll have a team with one crossbow person cocking and reloading the weapon, and one person with skill shooting it. That's the reason they don't put Str ratings on crossbows...they don't want 18 dex snipers benefiting from 18 Str quiverbearers swapping weapons.

==Aelryinth

just to point out that i would have no problem whatsoever with an adventuring group, carrying 18str crossbows, which the barbarian reloads out of battle so that they can fire a single opening barrage in a confrontation.

it seems both like a good strategy and realistic.

don't forget that the opposition, especially in an ambush scenario, could make use of the same tactics.

Crossbows shouldn't have strength ratings because anyone can reload a strength 18 or even a strength 24 crossbow. Almost all crossbows use some sort of mechanical advantage. This is especially true if they're going to be loaded out of combat where time isn't an issue and slow mechanisms can be used.

You could have a static value rather than larger dice, but that makes them useless with vital strike and makes the notation for magic crossbows more confusing. Bows arguably need the confusion. Crossbows don't. They just need to be several die steps deadlier.


The thing about crossbows is that they're not terribly efficient. Since the string doesn't travel very far it has little time or distance over which to accelerate the projectile. More force is stored in the bow, but it's not transferred to the bolt. The rule of thumb I remember is that a longbow imparts as much energy to its arrow as a crossbow with about three times the draw weight. That's why longbows can penetrate unhardened plate without crossbows going through it like tissue paper even though crossbows have much higher draw weights.

A 240 pound crossbow hits about as hard as an 80 pound bow. The heaviest reasonably portable crossbows hit about as hard as the heaviest draw longbows. That would be 1d8+5 or -- since weapons usually have base dice and to make vital strike a decent substitute for ridiculous rapid fire that certainly isn't seen from heavy crossbows -- 2d8. Light crossbows might weigh in at 2d6 or 3d4. Possibly even a die step up from that (3d6 and 2d8) to compensate for not getting to add deadly aim multiple times when vital striking.


Felyndiira wrote:
ZZTRaider wrote:
I do regularly see people suggesting sorcerer over wizard for new players. In some ways, it makes sense. Spontaneous casting is a lot simpler to understand than prepared casting. But those players are also the most at risk of failing because they lack the system knowledge necessary to select a good set of sorcerer spells.

I don't know if this is necessarily a problem. A lot of veteran gamers will readily be willing to help beginners with spell selection, and even blasts like fireball (that beginners are likely to take) aren't exactly useless - it doesn't need to be as good as Solid Fog for the sorcerer to at least contribute.

Wizards, on the other hand, can be frustrating. Especially if you're trying to leave slots open and don't know what spells to best handle certain instances.

*

Nonetheless, I think they are okay with a progression bump. Bump all of their bloodline spells by two levels, too. Do something similar for Oracles as well (bump both progression and mystery spells by 1).

Arcanists can stay with the delayed progression.

That's a start, but I also believe that no spells known table should ever have a 1 in it.

Actually, it's most of the solution. I think oracles would still be unable to fill a cleric's shoes without getting the remove and restore spells for free, but it would bring sorcerers to where they match wizards so the spell list can be nerfed without rendering them useless


My inclination is to work from both ends. The divinations, teleports, summons, and minion spells that need to be reined in with unwritten rules go away. Fighters shouldn't need to match those because wizards shouldn't have them either.

I'm a fan of technology and skill for martials. In a sense I'd make fighter the new wizard. The wizard re-preps his spells every day even in the wilderness or a dungeon. The fighter has what he prepares in town for the campaign. If you need one fireball you ask the wizard. If you need a dozen fireballs the fighter unpacks a case of alchemical bombs.

Something like a gunslinger/alchemist cross but with the alchemist type stuff using weight and expense limits the way the gunslinger's ammunition does.

I don't think there's really a need for SoD breaking stuff like Cu Chalain. No one needs to cut through a mountain. Cut through a wall maybe, but you don't need silver age Superman super cutting to do that if you can build an only mildly unrealistic bomb, and you can actually use dragons as an excuse if you use them as your saltpeter source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Okay, to recap last session you were captured by the dragon tyrant Drano. You all wake up in a cell. Bob couldn't make it today so his {sorcerer|fighter} is in a Geonosys arena type dealy with Drano's kobold jester on a smooth 30' pillar with a crossbow."

Now, is the response going to be "With no armor or stat boosters wouldn't the 1d6 bolts add up and kill him before we can rescue him?" or "But his character knows dominate monster, fly, dimension door, and form of the dragon III off the top of my head, and can breath a 60' line of electricity three times a day, surely he'd get out of that situation on his own."


Gohaken wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Gohaken wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I don't think there's any room for any martial except maybe paladin.

.

I beg to differ.

Can swap out a Bard for a dwarven Sensei Drunken Master Qinggong Monk w/ fast drinker, deep drinker, and that whole line of stuff.

Basically unlimited Ki; starting at 12th level, he gives all of his allies w/in 30' True strike every round (like all your summons Mr. Sacred Summoner), or he can use Restoration w/ zero real cost on all allies w/in 30' all day long, or have every summon, allied villager and follower use a CL 12+ Scorching Ray at the same time...

At level 19 he pulls the same stunt with Dragon Breath. Even if that's just 10 to 15 minor summons you flood the field with... 10 to 15 x 20d6 is a crap-ton of damage.

He can Shadowwalk the entire party all day long, and/or Dimension Door them all (as a move action) all day long.

Ever wanted to see what happens when your Cleric/Druid/Arcane types summon in 5 or 6 Fiendish Dire Crocodiles, and a gaggle of Rocs (or Vrocks?), and then your Sensei Monk gives them -ALL- Battlemind Link in a single round?? Cause you can.

Monks, who knew.
.

ALTERNATIVE: Go Sensei, Monk of the Four Winds Qinggong. Now you can spend a bunch of Ki to Slow Time for everyone... give all your meat shields 3 standard actions on their turn. Like the dozen Elder Earth Elementals all the casters just summoned, Bullrushing 3 times each in 1 round...

...it'd be kind of like watching old Football games where John Riggins just keeps running down the field while 3 Miami dolphins are hanging off of him like squirrels on a tree. OR the "Refrigerator" Perry mowing through the whoever was stupid enough to be in front of him... in triple time.

If you have the same BAB as a cleric and everything the class does involves a SLA you aren't proposing a martial.

.

Lol, a straw man argument, irrelevant.

Also very literally factually untrue --monk, Sensei and Drunkemaster and Qinggong (and four winds) all have Ex, Su AND SLAs.

Monks are martial, Unchained or not, and have access to SLAs. Rogues have access to SLAs, Slayer(Stygian) as well, even damn Winding Path Renegade brawler can steal some Monkishness.

Bloodrager is wierdly a caster but also very strong martial, what a lucky guy!

A straw man is a claim that the adversary holds a position other than what he actually holds. Know your fallacies.

Martials are characters that fight as their primary contribution to combat. A bloodrager, paladin, or ranger fights as his primary contribution to combat even though he has spells. He cannot cast spells as his primary contribution to combat because he's really bad at casting spells. He's a martial.

Your monk is lousy at fighting himself and spends his time using SLAs on other people. His sole purpose in the party is to use magic. He's a caster. He's a caster built like a monster using SLAs rather than a PC caster built with spell slots and spell lists, but he's still a caster. Having monk written on your sheet no more makes you a martial than having dwarf written on your character sheet makes you Scottish.


Shrink Item Shenanigans (CR 4)

Spoiler:
A level 5 transmuter with shrink item can maintain 100 cubic feet of lava in 10 "cloth" swatches at the expense of two of his third level slots. His third slot is for flight. He flies overhead and unshrinks all of his lava over the party as they travel through a forest.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Haha, so much for Dazing Fireball.

As long as you only fight enemies with prehensile tails or the vestigial limb alchemist discovery.


Stack o' Doom! (CR 13?)

Spoiler:

a sohei monk, a barbarian, and a druid; all 10th level. The barbarian must be smaller than the monk and the monk must be large or smaller.

The barbarian has as his rage powers superstitious, ferocious mount, witch hunter, greater ferocious mount, lesser beast totem, beast totem, and greater beast totem. Two of his feats are extra rage power. Ferocious mount causes his mount to benefit from his rage and greater ferocious mount causes it to benefit from static rage powers. The barbarian rides the monk. Since he probably has no reach he is built as an archer and admittedly doesn't add much besides greater ferocious mount rules abuse.

The monk uses monastic mount to give his mount 20 temporary hitpoints and the benefit of the following monk abilities: AC bonus, evasion, high jump, improved evasion, and ki strike. He also passes along the benefits of rage because the greater ferocious mount passes along ferocious mount and itself. The monk has weapon training in the spear group and can flurry with a lance. One of the monk's feats is mounted skirmisher and another is lunge. The monk rides the druid.

The druid turns into a quetzalcoatlus. Two of his feats is multiattack and flyby attack. He pre-buffs with

They pounce. The lance bonus only applies once, but it's still a pounce-flurry with boosted strength. The druid hits with one primary and two secondary attacks and has pounce from the barbarian. Probably someone dies. Against dangerous melee threats they instead use flyby attack. The druid gets one attack and the monk a flurry at 15'.

The ability to ride a rider is dubious, but you're the GM and your players are unlikely to coordinate character design to duplicate the feat.

Barbazu Bard (CR 11 with two minions or CR 12 with six)

Spoiler:

This 8th level bearded devil bard uses scrying to track the party member with the worst will save then greater teleports in with a bunch of stock bearded devils when least expected. The bard will start performing and cast haste and then try to steal possessions or hair from other party members for future scrying while his minions do as much damage as they can. He flees with greater teleport if in danger but he'll be back with a fresh load of minions. The goal here is to murder the party in their sleep if possible and to at least prevent any arcane casters from preparing spells.


Gohaken wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I don't think there's any room for any martial except maybe paladin.

.

I beg to differ.

Can swap out a Bard for a dwarven Sensei Drunken Master Qinggong Monk w/ fast drinker, deep drinker, and that whole line of stuff.

Basically unlimited Ki; starting at 12th level, he gives all of his allies w/in 30' True strike every round (like all your summons Mr. Sacred Summoner), or he can use Restoration w/ zero real cost on all allies w/in 30' all day long, or have every summon, allied villager and follower use a CL 12+ Scorching Ray at the same time...

At level 19 he pulls the same stunt with Dragon Breath. Even if that's just 10 to 15 minor summons you flood the field with... 10 to 15 x 20d6 is a crap-ton of damage.

He can Shadowwalk the entire party all day long, and/or Dimension Door them all (as a move action) all day long.

Ever wanted to see what happens when your Cleric/Druid/Arcane types summon in 5 or 6 Fiendish Dire Crocodiles, and a gaggle of Rocs (or Vrocks?), and then your Sensei Monk gives them -ALL- Battlemind Link in a single round?? Cause you can.

Monks, who knew.
.

ALTERNATIVE: Go Sensei, Monk of the Four Winds Qinggong. Now you can spend a bunch of Ki to Slow Time for everyone... give all your meat shields 3 standard actions on their turn. Like the dozen Elder Earth Elementals all the casters just summoned, Bullrushing 3 times each in 1 round...

...it'd be kind of like watching old Football games where John Riggins just keeps running down the field while 3 Miami dolphins are hanging off of him like squirrels on a tree. OR the "Refrigerator" Perry mowing through the whoever was stupid enough to be in front of him... in triple time.

If you have the same BAB as a cleric and everything the class does involves a SLA you aren't proposing a martial.


Davor wrote:
I would let them die, but my character wouldn't. :P

You're rolling a new character. Role one that would.


1) Yes. Prepared full casters are flat out better than spontaneous casters. Delayed spell access sucks. Having just one spell known also sucks. Oracles have free cure or inflict spells and get their bonus spells earlier, but are on a list that's built around the assumption that a cleric knows all spells. The comparison between eg. normal and eldritch scion magus is closer because the spells come at the same schedule and the bard spells known table doesn't have 1s in it, but for full casters the "WotC resents having to put sorcerers in their game" tax is too steep.

Sorcerers are still worthwhile casters and arcanists may be slightly ahead of wizards except on odd levels between 2 and 18 where they're substantially behind. I'm very much not a fan of oracles, mainly because of the way the cleric list is constructed: Oracles may be powerful, but it's almost impossible for an oracle to do a cleric's job.

2) There are no offensive caster buffs to speak of. If they lack items they can get some benefit from the Animal's Stat line, but lacking stat items on a caster is unusual. And that's it. There are no spells that directly increase your CL or save DCs or anything. There's one bard spell that applies free metamagic, but the only good one is extend and it's only good for stretching hour/level spells into all day spells. You can slap heroism or haste on the cleric to good effect, but only when she's acting like a martial.


I don't think there's any room for any martial except maybe paladin. Gishes and alchemy classes may start pulling ahead of martials as early as level 3 when they can get a +1 BAB feat. By level 6 being a caster is better than not being one. Even only going to level 12 that's between half and three quarters of the game where martials are dragging the average down.

Paladin has a unique capability to raise dead either for free or without negative levels (that can only be cleared one per day).

No other martial has a unique contribution. Not even the barbarian, whose best rage powers can be given to everyone by the skald. They have to stop casting, but the gishes other than the magus don't cast while fighting. Bardic performance may count as an ability that requires concentration so a party of four probably doesn't want both, but if you're thinking about a barbarian it's probably wise to think about a skald instead for a super party.


Avoron wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt:

Just out of curiosity, what makes you put wizard above arcanist for buffing purposes? Arcanist, for the most part, is about as strong mechanically, and I find that it's often frustrating as a wizard to prepare buffing spells and not get enough time before a combat to use them, or to not have enough prepared when buffing is really important.
And School Savant gives arcanists a lot of the perks of being a wizard, although Brown-Fur Transmuter is an excellent alternative for focusing on polymorph.
Maybe if you want to dump Charisma, I guess. Or maybe it's worth it to qualify for Annihilation Spectacles.
What's your reasoning?

I'm not Mr. Pitt, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that half of all levels between 3 and 18 the wizard has higher level spells than the arcanist and that pearls of power are half the price of runestones and if you're casting multiple instances of a spell you either have time to mess around with them in between or need the communal or mass version. It tends to be clear which buffs you're likely to need to learn or prepare mass/communal versions of from looking at the spell list so you're not likely to wind up with the wrong variant prepared. They say "target: single touched" and provide some benefit useful to multiple party members.


You're just going to have to suck it up and dump charisma where the sun doesn't shine. It has no mechanical impact at all. It's not even going to salvage your social skills when you've already dumped int on a 2+int skill per level class.


To the degree that strength and dex are different there isn't much strength should cover. Both are mostly fast-twitch musculature.

Accuracy with a bow is definitely strength. Unless it's a kiddie bow that doesn't do any damage. Holding a war bow at full draw to aim is not dexterity. Dexterity has very little influence comparatively.

Accuracy with any weapon intended to strike weak points in armor should use dex to both attack and damage exclusively. That's most swords and polearms.

On the other hand brute force weapons (other than crossbows and firearms because strength has nothing to do with their use) should use strength for accuracy even if they're ranged because they don't get around armor by hitting vulnerabilities but by applying more force. That includes slings.

Brute force strength invariant weapons like crossbows and firearms shouldn't add either stat to attack rolls, but crossbows should probably have a flat bonus that substitutes for strength.

Or you could just do the sane thing and merge the two stats while shoving endurance stuff like swim and carrying capacity to con and fine manipulation stuff like disable device to wis or int. That's better for martial/caster balance anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing about pirates is that they aren't generally in a position to be bigoted. You can justify almost anything that doesn't have alignment restrictions. And as GM in some cases you can get away with suspending those alignment restrictions.

Martial Artist Sensei Monk//Wizard: Some pirates want to get rich. Some pirates want to live a life of drunken debauchery. Some pirates are just misanthropes. Some pirates are bibliophiles who know that merchant captains -- as generally literate people who have little access to other diversions for long periods of time -- tend to have pretty good libraries. Probably best used as a captain.

Samurai (ronin order)//Rogue: Often a ronin has to resort to increasingly dishonorable means to survive, but it's not really dishonorable if nobody knows and gaijin don't really count.

Urban Barbarian//Swashbuckler: He didn't mean to kill that gnome in that duel. The little twerp just kept taunting him. Unfortunately the local authorities were unenlightened enough to consider gnome murder a crime and a life on the run eventually ended up with drugged wine and impressment. It's an improvement.


Joey Cote wrote:
Its pretty hard to write a rule that leaves "no room for misinterpretation" especially when some players, and even some GMs, are looking for any grammatical wiggle room in order to try to break some abilities/actions. At least without every skill/feat/action not having four paragraphs of restrictive text.

It's not easy, but there are lots of people out there trained to do so. They're called computer programmers.


It might be edifying to look at Tales of Maj Eyal.

It has martial abilities that, in Pathfinder terms, would translate to things like:

Once per encounter, for ~level/3 turns you cannot die and your health cannot drop below 1. Or maybe level/6 since ToME fights tend to be longer than Pathfinder fights.

Once per encounter when reduced below half your max HP get fast healing equal to to your level for 8 turns.

Stunning fist with weapons using your strength to set the DC.

As a standard action enter a stance for a round per level that gives you a miss chance against *everything*. Yes, even space filling area attacks.

Once per encounter true strike for all your attacks for the round as a swift action.

Move as a free action after dropping an enemy.

Perform combat maneuvers with ranged weapons.

Shoot down a projectile for an AoO. (most spells in ToME are projectiles)

Vault over an enemy at the start of a straight line move action.

Automatically gain AC when surrounded.

Every turn have about a 20% chance of removing a detrimental effect (not a new save, just flat out remove it) scaling upwards at higher levels.

Their (non-supernatural) monk equivalent has things like:

Render an enemy incapable of taking any actions other than movement and basic attacks with an unarmed strike.

Jump-charge-whirlwind attack combo.

Kick someone so hard they're effected as greater dispel magic.

The monk equivalent is slightly wuxia, but for all that some of the abilities are crazy powerful (like not dieing) none of them are blatantly supernatural if you accept that HP are a wonky abstraction that don't always (and indeed don't usually) actually translate into wounds.

1 to 50 of 5,156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.