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

4,744 posts (4,745 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,744 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Since you're gestalting to compensate for small party size you should be gestalting for maximum diversity.

Remembering that Kingmaker is a hex crawl, Swash adds very little to Bard. You have enough performance duration to be an effective combatant. Swash lets you skimp on your physical stats for charisma with the BAB and HD advantage being worth +2 each to your attack stat and con and Swashbuckler Finesse letting you use dex in place of strength (at a damage disadvantage, but an acceptable one). You're not really gaining any new capabilities, though.

Just for starters you could do daring champion cavalier. You keep the panache, get tactician and challenge, and get better saves. But you could be picking up supplemental divine casting as an oracle or paladin or wider arcane selection as a summoner or eldritch scion magus as well.

Brawler/investigator is a good plan. Investigator is really good with any full BAB class that isn't charisma based.

Druid/rogue or druid/slayer can maybe be made to work solo, but it'd be a fog based build and not very party friendly. You do have the option of making everyone take a druid archetype or oracle mystery that can see through magical fog and be absolutely terrifying, but that's probably more coordination than you'll actually manage to pull off. You'll also suffer from a lack of condition removal unless the bard pairs with oracle. Druids do enough that oracle can handle the rest without overstressing their spells known, but you need someone with cleric list casting. Reincarnation is a crapshoot. I'd suggest straight cleric/slayer or cleric/ranger or even cleric/rogue. A battle cleric build isn't bad and adding sneak attack isn't going to actually make anything worse. If the bard is pairing with oracle and you're not doing the see through fog party slayer is better than rogue but you'll miss out on the combat style stuff because the natural weapon style is terrible.


A guy whose username is an obvious Three Billygoats Gruff reference conflates education with genocide.

Obvious troll is obvious and no more merits a serious response than a smurf post.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The correct fix to the rogue:
Remove the rogue completely. Increase the skill points of all other classes by 2 (4 to a maximum of 8 for non-casters). Give everyone +2 class skills selected at chargen. Give fighters sense motive and bluff as class skills. Reduce the perception and disable DCs of all traps by 33%. Remove the restriction on who can disable magical traps and trap-like spells.

That puts the skill balance more or less where it should have been all along and lets any class pick up the now obsolete trapfinding niche. You'll still have an excess of boring traps in published adventures, but other than that it repairs most of the damage the rogue has done to the game in a single short paragraph.


I think you undersell storm and tempest druids. They give up basically nothing. Multiclassing ruins the animal companion and your summon effectiveness pretty thoroughly so getting different spontaneous casting and a domain is no hardship. In return you get to see through magical fog and your spontaneous domain casts will include magical fog. With 10' or more reach (dire hyena, large elementals, and all huge forms) you can strike from total concealment if your cloud is placed right, and will have partial concealment for 20% miss chance even if your enemy is adjacent. At worst you're not using any of the archetype abilities but wouldn't be using the abilities you traded for them either. I'd call that strictly superior to an unarchetyped druid for a multiclass build and therefore at least worthy of a yellow rating. In fact I don't see how anything that doesn't give up or delay wildshape or casting could possibly get a rating less than yellow.


163) You inherit a major artifact magic longsword sword. If you do not have a caster level it counters any hostile magic targeting you or any allies who also don't have caster levels as if it were a level 20 wizard casting dispel magic. If you are not normally proficient with longswords you are treated as proficient with it and treat your level as your BAB for attacks made with it. It provides fast healing 1.

Unfortunately it comes with a geas to help women in danger and doesn't distinguish between a woman being yelled at by her husband, a woman being sacrificed to demons, and an eyrines being menaced by a paladin.


Quark Blast wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
With a gamey magic system not susceptible to sufficient analysis the only way to mix magic and technology is for magic to either be new (or newly returning after a long absence) or magic users marginalized to the extent that mainstream society doesn't know they exist.

So how to explain Eberron then? Magic is tech there. Or at least there is no functional distinction.

Atarlost wrote:
You also can't have divine magic at all. Science requires either no creator or a creator that likes systems that operate on consistent laws without intervention and no significantly interventionist gods. If divine capriciousness can be used as an explanation for anything there's no reason to look for patterns and science is stillborn.
Again Eberron fails this standard, so there must be a distinction between tech and "science" (as you use it) that I'm not picking up on.

Eberron is a stupid setting that violates everything we know about societal development. It is not alone in this, but that doesn't make it not stupid. Most game designers aren't even amateurs when it comes to history and it shows.


The presence of magic will tend to stunt the development of science unless it's either susceptible to it or so hazardous it's ignored until people forget it's anything more than myth or it goes away long enough to be relegated to myth long enough for scientific thinking to solidly take hold before returning.

So long as magic is accepted as inexplicable it can be used to explain anything and most defined systems of magic really are nonsensible.

We can discard the peasant railgun as a degeneration of the readied action abstraction. We cannot so easily discard spell levels, for example, as a bad abstraction because they effect clear in game things like the price of a scroll, but spell levels are determined by the combat effect of a spell, not the energy is requires. Any explanation of magic is going to come with predictions about how it should work and game systems never fit unless deliberately designed to match a system of metaphysics rather than game balance.

With a gamey magic system not susceptible to sufficient analysis the only way to mix magic and technology is for magic to either be new (or newly returning after a long absence) or magic users marginalized to the extent that mainstream society doesn't know they exist.

You also can't have divine magic at all. Science requires either no creator or a creator that likes systems that operate on consistent laws without intervention and no significantly interventionist gods. If divine capriciousness can be used as an explanation for anything there's no reason to look for patterns and science is stillborn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Not this question again. First of all it is not "hate". Nobody hates the rogue, monk, or fighter, and many people that complain want them to be better. There are probably 20 threads on the topic. If you do a search you will find the answers, and you will not do any less reading by starting your own thread on it.

raises hand

Actually, I hate the rogue. I think making a skill class makes the game less fun for everyone by forcing other classes to be unskilled. I think the rogue's 3.x trap handling niche encourages the inappropriate use of uninteresting traps to justify the existence of the niche. I think the connotations of the name rogue, particularly its use in D&D and other places as a euphemism for thief encourages antisocial play. I think the stealth skill, particular in combination with the lack of skills for other classes to protect the rogue niche, promotes 1 on 1 gaming while the rest of the table plays Angry Birds. The rogue introduced deliberate spotlight balancing, which I consider toxic and antithetical to a good shared gaming experience, but good for Roxio.

The rogue isn't like the monk or fighter. People are indifferent at worst to them because they don't make the game worse just by existing.


If one of the goals is to do less damage than the kids, maybe a dex build is the way to go. You just need enough strength to lift your gear if you go shortsword/kukri/light pick/light hammer/hand axe and light shield, or 13 strength if you want to use a rapier. 14 strength is probably actually what you'll actually wind up with since you'll need some for your gear and 14 is the breakpoint for actually adding to off-hand damage. Everything else can go in dex, cha, and con.

1) TWF, weapon finesse
3) improved shield bash
5) piranha strike or power attack
7) improved TWF
9) shield slam
11) shield master

Appears to work as long as you don't take an alternate racial that loses you your bonus feat.


justaworm wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Protoman wrote:

That's why I use gamescience precision dice!

Dice roller app would be more randomized, but too slow for actual play use in my opinion.
Dice roller apps and software are actually not randomised AT ALL. They simply work on a seed number which is usually how many seconds have passed since last midnight.
Sort of true. There is no such thing as true "randomization" in a random number generator, but there are way more options and science behind picking the system clock as your seed.

This isn't actually true. On most linux implementations, /dev/random uses environmental noise as an entropy source to re-seed a pseudorandom number generator every time it approaches its period. Apple's posix derived OSs including iOS only have pseudorandom number generators, but wikipedia doesn't mention Android one way or the other.

If you have a linux laptop at the table for SRD reference you have easy access to a truer random number generator in the laptop than in your dice cup. There should be more than enough noise coming off the wireless adaptor to provide all the entropy you'll ever need.


ZanThrax wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I replied to EVERY SINGLE COMMENT, with quotes, and all that fun stuff in one post and you know what happened? When it posted, it only posted like the last 1/5 of my post.
You need lazarus http://getlazarus.com/

Actually, Paizo needs to get real forum software instead of trying to roll their own. I believe some of the free forum packages aren't even restricted to noncommercial use these days.

Everything about these forums is terrible. The moderation is binary (delete or leave up, no infraction system or even mod editing), the quote system is broken, editing is time restricted (very bad for guides and homebrewing and anything else where ), and the text formatting is more limited than real forums have been in over a decade.

I suspect the broken, post eating, quote system is in some way responsible for thegreenteagamer's problem. If so Lazarus wouldn't really help: he'd still be unable to post it because the forum software eats long quotes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Invisibility never worked right in PF because of the merging of listen and spot into the same kind of check. Fixing it is part of fixing the stealth rules in general, which I believe is slated for Unchained. Silence probably needs work for the same reason, as do all variants on both spells.

Most blasts could probably do with a rebalancing, especially if ditching legacy cruft means ditching boring metamagic. Blasts haven't balanced right since monsters got uncapped con to HP per level.

I'm of the opinion that the whole way spell save DCs is calculated is bad and that everything should use a static modifier above or below the Ex/Su DC standard of 10+level/2+stat based on things like how nasty the effect of a failed save is and how much consolation effect there is on a passed save and how many targets are effected and not on spell level at all.


The wizard gets more free spells known. If the GM is excessively miserly with spell availability the wizard has the same human favored class bonus as the sorcerer. If the GM makes spells available as pages of spell knowledge the wizard can add to his book a lot cheaper. The wizard is always spending less and getting more. When the wizard adds to his book he can memorize those spells in the morning or access them through his bonded item, allowing him to add combat spells and not have to actually have a reference in hand, allowing him to actually use metamagic rods with them.

The vast majority of the wizard's ability is from the CRB: only blasters need other books to function. The Sorcerer has no spells known favored class bonus unless the APG or ARG is allowed and no pages of spell knowledge without I think UE.

The sorcerer pays three times for spontaneity. He has limited spells known, cannot use metamagic other than quicken without sacrificing his move actions, and has delayed spell access. Metamagic rods allow a wizard to spontaneously apply metamagic without increasing the casting time, but a sorcerer using the same rod on the same spell isn't moving more than five feet or controlling any of the move action controlled spells.

The sorcerer has worse class features than the wizard. He has nothing like the evocation, conjuration, or divination school abilities, but does pull off bloodlines every bit as useless as abjuration. He has fewer bonus feats from small flavor uber alles lists packed with stuff like power attack.

Paizo has obviously been trying to rectify things over time, but as long as they're stuck with WotC's legacy garbage sorcerer it cannot be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have a silencer. The Paizo firearm rules do not allow you to get a non-silenced firearm because deafening everyone within 15' (tripled in rooms smaller than 20' in the smallest dimension) for 2d6 rounds was considered too powerful an effect for a nonmagical device.


Zombie Ninja wrote:
Smurfs.

I'm pretty sure that's just a racial slur against deep gnomes, who were in the first bestiary. Let's hope Paizo isn't desperate enough to start repackaging old monsters as new.


Jiggy wrote:

Start here: Monster Statistics by CR

For whatever level you want to look at, estimate the CR of the monsters you're likely going to be facing. Not the CR of the total encounter, but the CR of individual creatures.

Now, make a subjective decision as to what an "appropriate" number of rounds would be for how long it takes you to kill ONE of the creatures you're looking at. Involve your group in this decision.

Based on your decision of "rounds to kill" and the average HP value of a creature of the selected CR, determine how much damage you would need to deal per round. This is your target DPR at that level.

From there, you can use various maths to determine what your attack and damage bonuses could be to get that DPR.

Hope that helps!

In a sense that helps, but many classes don't progress smoothly and the game transitions over time.

At level 1 if you can't routinely one shot "typical" CR=APL monsters you're not trying, but one rounding a CR 20 at level 20 using HP damage is probably impossible without many more confirmed crits than average. Table 1-1 has CR 1 HP at CRx10 and CR 20 HP over CRX15 while most damage sources scale slower than level and later iteratives are increasingly chancy.

The real question is "have I put enough resources into DPR on this character?" and that's harder. The hard part of it isn't dividing HP by rounds to kill, it's determining what fight duration is acceptable at what levels.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
UsagiTaicho wrote:

EDIT: Somewhere on this site, someone is working on updating the Tome of Magic for Pathfinder, fixing it and expanding on it. A company I think, and there was a kickstarter.

If you can find it, please send me a private link, would you? I am HAPPY to hear this - I particularly loved Pact Magic, and have not been happy with the direction Dario Nardi et al took it.

Regarding Intelligence VS Charisma: The 3.0 Player's Handbook described Sorcerer magic as being based on "imagination and talent," which I'd no question ascribe to Intelligence, and I am firmly of the mind that arcane magic should require one be at least halfway smart. I have always been inclined to say that Sorcerers should require, or at least benefit significantly from, BOTH scores. One idea I had was that Sorcerers might receive bonus spells known for high Intelligence scores (higher INT = superior imagination = figures out more spells). "Force of personality" certainly does make some sense in the context of Sorcerer-style magic. "Charisma becomes a dump stat if it isn't for magic" is something I've heard before - one thing I'll point out is that I do still support its being the basis for Bard and Summoner magic; the other is that I'm inclined to suggest that Charisma be made more generally useful through other means, perhaps by rerouting the Will saving throw through it (the "liberalization" of which ability scores may govern saving throws, giving individual characters choices in this regard, is possibly the single best thing to come out of 4E). Wisdom is a serious "hodgepodge" ability score, and it might not hurt to streamline its portfolio.

The problem isn't the sorcerer, it's the stat names. CHA is how witty and clever you are in conversation. Your character's sense of humor, ability to improvise, and artistic talent are also here. INT is raw memorization. WIS is paranoia: how much you expect traps and ambushes (perception), how much you distrust your own senses (saves against illusions), and how much you distrust the very thoughts in your head (saves against mind effecting effects).

Okay, it's also that WIS is a dumb stat to have in a heroic game and a dumb stat to govern clerical casting unless all "gods" are eldritch horrors that will eat your mind and/or soul if you ever miss an undotted I or uncrossed T. INT and CHA are okay, though, as long as you forget that they're shorthand for the misleading intelligence and charisma.


Falcata is not numerically equivalent. Rapier is +15% from criticals. Falcata is +20% from criticals. That's why it's an exotic weapon.


Wheldrake wrote:

Ever wonder how those strange critters came to be? Yes, it's part of the prehistory of D&D:

http://diterlizzi.com/home/owlbears-rust-monsters-and-bulettes-oh-my/

IMO, Rust monsters are only second in ridiculousness to flumfs.

I used to have those toys.


8 classes. Where have I seen 8 classes. Oh, of course.

Fighter
Bard
Wizard
Artificer
Druid
Paladin
Ranger
Commoner

And every party must have one of each.


Riuken wrote:

I reiterate that the difference between spontaneous and prepared floors isn't in knowing which spells to learn, but rather in the added complication of having to guess how many of each spell to prepare each day. In the same way as a melee character's player knows to get something like power attack, toughness, or dodge, a caster character's player knows to get at least one spell they can imagine using in combat, usually a damage spell.

And "leave open spell slots" isn't a valid argument. Players operating at the effectiveness floor don't know to do that.

By day two a wizard player that isn't actually stupid is going to prepare all his non-specialty slots with things useful in combat. Worst reasonable case is something like taking burning hands and magic missile and using them at the wrong times, not taking floating disk and magic aura and failing to find any use for them at all.


If I could change one thing about the rogue it would be that it ever existed. I believe the thief is responsible for the poor skill progressions of the other classes starting from when they were nonweapon proficiencies. If there had never been a rogue the fighter and cleric would be less boring and the idea of skills as something you distribute with minimal overlap between party members may never have developed. Instead of it being stepping on toes and an inefficient distribution of scarce skill resources for everyone to be able to be useful in social situations it would be standard roleplaying because nobody would have been shorted skills to protect the rogue's niche.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The problems with this class go all the way to the roots.

Mark says he wants to balance the class perfectly. That's a horrible mistake. What we need isn't perfect balance; it's robust balance.

The class can put out exactly the right numbers against CR appropriate foes. It doesn't matter. The fight that really matters isn't the one against the exactly on-CR devil, it's the one against the APL+4 tricked out Asmodean cleric/hellknight who put up exactly the right spells to stymie you after he heard you fighting his guards. Not that you're going to do much against something with several energy resistances and alignment DR.

The fighter and paladin and barbarian and inquisitor and all those other martial and semimartial classes have enough excess accuracy to get through hellknight plate and a light shield and magic vestment on each and shield of faith and resist energy even if their iteratives become lost causes. Does the kineticist?

You can't balance around low accuracy/high damage because in the fights that matter low accuracy matters more than high damage. It doesn't matter how much damage you do if you miss. Variance is the enemy of balance and low accuracy/high damage is high variance. To be balanced against real challenges accuracy and ideal damage need to individually line up with similar classes, not the aggregate dpr. DPR isn't consistent enough for balance because not all creatures of any CR have the "right" AC and every point of relative accuracy doesn't have the same effect on damage. It's only good for casual comparisons.

You also can't balance around high stats. Some people roll stats or use low point buy no dumping or the elite array. If you need more than 16 starting in your high stat to cut it your class is too brittle. Some people actually use the item availability rules. The barbarian doesn't care if she finds a longsword or a glaive or a greataxe. Any martial weapon she can put two hands on will do and some of the simple weapons are also acceptable. If she finds a nicer weapon than expected and lags a bit on the stat belt or visa versa it's a wash. The kineticist needs the right belt and any weapons he finds are vendor trash at a 50% discount if the GM lets them get at a large enough city to not have to roll for individual items. The paladin doesn't even need to find a good weapon, she can use divine bond as a substitute when it really matters. Just because fighters have a flaw of being excessively finicky about gear doesn't mean it's okay for new classes to share the flaw.


The fundamental problems of the cleric are mis-valuation and polytheism for polytheism's sake.

First, the misvaluation: Clerics are not full casters. Take away the return-to-status-quo-ante spells like restoration and remove blindness/deafness and the spells that let them not quite catch up to fighters in martial prowess and the situation tax spells like water breathing and the NPC spells like sending and there's just not a lot there. They summon, but the summoner is proof that just having summoning at wizard rates doesn't make a class a full caster. The healer tax isn't added value on the cleric. It's subtracted value because the cleric is forced to expend the resources he could be using to be an effective class on compensating for poor game design.

Full divine casting really is worth about 1/4 BAB less than arcane casting like WotC claimed when they designed 3e. The PF wizard got school powers and the PF cleric got domain powers. Fair enough, but the PF wizard got arcane discoveries and the PF cleric got nothing. Channel Energy is, absent expensive stat and feat investment, worth a few first level wand charges.

Second, the polytheism. In real polytheism there are typically a few gods that matter per pantheon. Most polytheistic deities have no church militant and no reason to interact with adventurers. This means that a realistic pantheon needs far fewer full domains than were printed. The elemental domains could have been a single template domain. Artifice is for NPCs and therefore doesn't need to be fully written up. The alignment domains could have been a single template domain. Charm is filler. Community and Protection lack distinct identities. Darkness and Trickery lack distinct identities. Glory, Nobility, and Sun lack distinct identities. Healing is the boring thing we're trying to get away from and shouldn't have a domain at all. Magic and Rune lack distinct identities. Strength and War lack distinct identities.

Paizo spokespeople have said that the cleric design was constrained by pagination issues and that each domain might have had more numerous and better spaced and weaker abilities if there didn't have to be so many. That's the problem. There never needed to be so many. Someone wrote the early D&D pantheons with too many gods and made up too many vacuously defined domains to distinguish them instead of cutting to the chase and admitting that Mars and Nike and Athena are pretty much interchangeable as far as adventurers are concerned (to say nothing of their equivalents in other pantheons) and don't need a huge mess of domains for the sake of having a huge mess of domains.

There's only so much detail a publisher can construct and fit in a book and the cleric's entire budget was spent on polytheism for polytheism's sake.

A real cleric fix has two parts: take the healer tax out of the class and make it something everyone can do (possibly off the heal skill), and replace the domain powers with a pseudo-feat setup like rage powers if not actual class restricted feats like arcane discoveries.


The people in modern fiction that resemble adventurers most are spies and special forces. You can imagine converting any James Bond book into an adventure for 3-4 people. Paradrop into occupied France and secure this bridge is actually too large scale for a typical party, but if you don't sweat realism you can just use lower level Germans than the PCs.

What these have in common is that the players are no longer directly responsible for budgeting gear and probably don't loot. Q or the army quartermasters provide appropriate gear and anything you don't use goes back to them. You may pick up immediately useful stuff like ammo and the foreign guns that fire the ammo the people you're killing are carrying, or first aid supplies, but the loot treadmill is just not applicable: you get the same gear next adventure whether you came back from this one in your underwear or managed to come back with a stolen submarine and half the contents of the Louvre.

The looting mentality does apply to criminal protagonists, but in modern-ish societies not to heroic protagonists and probably not to mercenaries that are trying to maintain a good reputation.


mplindustries wrote:
Honestly, I don't really have any problem with the Burn thing. The thing people are missing is you're not supposed to take any burn, beyond your Feel the Burn cap, at least.

Just capping FTB eats away at your hit die badly. You effectively have an unprecedented d2 hit die at level 9, and it keeps dropping. If FTB was replaced with a static bonus there'd be less issue.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
After you kill a caster and take the book, who's spellbook is it?

Still some other guy class feature.

The rules are clear and giving tongue in check replies don't change them.

Spare spellbooks and Blessed Books aren't your class feature either, but they are still your spellbook. If they weren't your spells would be limited by the capacity of a mundane spellbook, or 100 levels with cantrips taking the same space as a level 1 spell. A wizard gets -- for free -- 421 levels of spells not counting all cantrips not in opposition schools and first level spells equal to his starting int modifier. This should be proof enough that the class feature can not be tied to any specific spellbook.


lemeres wrote:

Well, you can work with arcane strike. You can qualify for it using an SLA, so you just need to grab a trait based SLA.

The problem with trait based SLAs is that they usually do not scale with level, but with highest caster level obtained. For Slayers or cavaliers, that would mean that their caster level would not scale, and thus arcane strike wouldn't scale.

This isn't true. The precedent is set on CRB page 23 with the gnome's SLAs. "The caster level for these effects is equal to the gnome's level." The APG racial traits that give elves and gnomes (again) SLAs have similar verbage. If Paizo ever stopped putting this in it's not because newer racial traits don't have caster level. An SLA without caster level is a contradiction under the rules. It's because they decided it was bloody obvious that the caster level followed the precedent set in the CRB and APG.


Definitely nothing worth having from swash. Parry/riposte is an iffy mechanic and there are some low hanging fruits for defense with which you could go into combat as just a bard. An amulet of natural armor and ring of protection are 2000 for +1 AC each. Elven Chain is about 4000 more than a mithril shirt for 2 higher base armor. The armor may not be worth losing the sunk costs in your mithril shirt if cumulative enchanting is available in PFS and rebuilding to WBL isn't, but the ring and amulet are obvious choices.

Nothing out-tanks a shield using bard with mirror image and properly allocated wealth.


The fundamental problem here is the same as the investigator had: you're using a bad class as your comparison base.

The fighter is widely considered to be horribly underpowered when viewed holistically. The allegation that the Kineticist will have noncombat utility should not mean it needs to lose combat utility because the fighter should never have been allowed to see print with as little noncombat utility as it has.

When considering the existence of burn and the current necessity of using FTB to boost accuracy the kineticist should be massively outperforming the fighter archer because the fighter archer has a d10 hit die and the kineticist starts at d8, then effectively drops to d6 at level 3, goes down to the unprecedented in Pathfinder d4 at level 6, the completely unprecedented d2 at level 9, d0 at level 12 and goes into negative hit dice at level 15. Even if balance is abandoned past level 12 where society play stops the kineticist would need a d20 hit die to justify being only as offensively powerful as a fighter so long as burn exists in its current state.


Only druids can become viable combat skirmishers. Unless you're Nudel or a similar stacked single natural attack build it just doesn't work. Swashbucklers stand there and exchange full attacks, same as everyone else. They're certainly not worth leaving bard for.

A brute or archer bard can multiclass but shouldn't unless you're just better than the other people at your table. It's suboptimal, but not hopeless. A skill/casting bard shouldn't multiclass full stop. There's just nothing of value to your primary functions. It's like saying "I'm just going to stop leveling here."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Death or maiming as a penalty for even petty theft is pretty common in pre-modern societies. Stealing a man's spellbook is like stealing his horse in a western: it's likely enough to result in death if not recovered to be treated with the same seriousness as murder.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Special clause in Create Water, "This water disappears after 1 day if not consumed." So the question is does irrigation count as "consumed"?

I would interpret it that if it's absorbed by a living thing (including plants), it stays, but if it's soaked up by something non-living (sand, a towel) it disappears. Which means that if you're trying to irrigate a desert, you'd lose a significant percentage of what you created.

Magic traps, on the other hand, break all the laws of economics. Set up a single auto-resetting Heal trap, and you provide a hospital for an entire city.

If you have a decanter of endless water or an actual river in a desert a significant percentage is wasted. The 24 hour limit is insignificant next to natural evaporation.

But you don't want to farm a desert anyways. The soil quality is poor. You want to farm somewhere like California where the soil quality is high but you get droughts with alarming frequency. Even so, wheat isn't rice. It's grown on land that drains and would rot if the water stuck around. The 24 hour limit is actually benefiting the farm by reducing runoff. That means less need for fertilizer.

Mathew Downie claims that 16 hours of first level create water will water 8 acres and feed 8 people. 17 hour workdays are not sustainable, but 13 hours is and will water enough wheat to feed 6 people. But the average adept isn't first level. First level is used for mooks that are just there for killing, not real NPCs. A second or third level adept or cleric can provide enough water for a dozen of eighteen people. A community that relies on conjured water will train up as many low level adepts and clerics as possible. Half of the population has at least 11 wisdom. If all of them are pushed towards the church in their youth in fishing for vocations a lot more will make cleric or adept than in a less faith reliant society and most of those will hit at least second level.


I hope that Unchained will have a section on legacy issues in the magic system. I'd like to see not only inexpensive spell components abandoned as an unfunny joke between Gygax and Arneson, but expensive components made to simply eat coins from your purse or any gem indiscriminately. The Paizo team doesn't appear to have considered gem availability when they turned XP costs into expensive material components.


There is not only bloat, there's quadratic bloat. There are a lot of classes that are just wasted page space to me: the nonfunctional rogue, the overly ambitious summoner, the poorly thought out oracle, the redundant warpriest, and their like. Within the classes that are worth the headspace to remember the archetypes are mostly a complete and total waste of paper and screen real estate. I'm lucky if I find a third of a classes archetypes worth the time to read them, but they're too many to remember so I'm stuck wading through the crap repeatedly.

And then there's all the other crap. Inquisitions upon Subdomains upon Domains. Bloodlines, Wildblooded bloodlines, and now Bloodrager bloodlines as if half the existing bloodlines weren't already inexplicably designed for a melee class.

That's bloat. There's more fat than meat.


There is precedent for enhancement bonuses not penetrating DR. Greater Magic Weapon gives an enhancement bonus that does not penetrate DR/material or DR/alignment at the appropriate levels.


I don't think you'll get bows and crossbows holding out as military weapons, not if you can build steam engines with tolerances fine enough to be worth the trouble.

Bows are good for hunting and crossbows would be better if they were legal, but with alchemy emphasized you should be using breech loaders, smokeless powder, percussion caps, and possibly even drawn brass cartridges. Guns would reload faster than crossbows and be easier to use than bows and they'd all be rifles (except the shotguns).

Oh, and on the actual question: gas masks. Because Bandw2 is right about trench warfare, but he forgot to mention the joys of Cloudkill and Poison Bomb (ie. cloudkill for alchemists).


Perhaps the real problem is not Burn but Feel The Burn. Replace FTB with a non-conditional accuracy boost(like, say, full BAB) and burn would become something you keep in reserve. It would end up a wasted feature most of the time, but at least you wouldn't have to (almost literally) shoot yourself in the face to be able to hit things. Lots of classes have useless thematics only features like Tongue of the Sun and Moon or Well Versed or Trap Sense or Resist Nature's Lure or alignment auras or forgettable bonus feats like Endurance or Eschew Materials.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Undone wrote:
Perhaps a better question line would be why on earth do you like low magic is more fun? Even Aragorn has a magic weapon.
So did Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, likely Legolas (Galadriel gave him a "special" bow, but remember the elves rarely say anything is "magic"), and if you beleive the Official Licensed RPG,also Boromir and Gimli.

None of them have rings of deflection. None of them have amulets of natural armor. None of them have headbands of vast wisdom. None of them have belts of anything. None of them have handy haversacks or portable holes. Most do not have magic armor (possibly none). No one has a CLW wand. No one has boots of springing and striding or speed or slippers of spider climb. Legolas might have boots of feather step, but is just as likely to be a ranger that didn't archetype away spellcasting.

You have a party outfitted by people once so profligate with magic weapons that they made orcbane/verminbane daggers in case they drop their orcbane/verminbane longswords and they're still less equipped than a typical Pathfinder party.

Middle Earth may be high magic on a scale suitable to literature, but compared to Pathfinder run by the WBL table it's low magic.

Wanting to move from banal magic to merely high magic is not some bizarre gritty realism fetish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definitely cleric or oracle. Clerics have the evangelist archetype, which is a huge deal, and better saves. Oracles have better skills and spell variety.

Shamans and witches aren't in the running because shamans don't have the melee cleric buffs and witches have poor BAB. Sorry.

No one else has restoration and all the removes on schedule. Samsarans can make team druid viable as well since only a few spells are needed and one back line druid can afford a con penalty. This doesn't help the shaman because they need off-list spells for the front line role where a con penalty is a real problem.

Honorable mention go to the inquisitor, alchemist, and investigator, who I think have all the required spells, but don't have them in a timely manner. So does the warpriest, but they're strictly inferior to clerics in this context.


LazarX wrote:
technarken wrote:

If you can use Ride The Blast to target a square or an object an Aerokineticist gets at will teleportation to line of sight within almost a quarter of a mile.

You really can't target a 5 foot square from a quarter of a mile away. Not going to happen.

Why? A 5 foot square has a lower AC than anything that might be standing in it. On what grounds is it impossible to target when creatures are?


FuelDrop wrote:

Now I have to test this theory.

Cheese Dip.

...

SCIENCE!

I object to your cheese dip. Jalepenos are foul and that quantity would be insufficiently spicy. Havaneros or any asian chili would be better, though not in the same quantity for some varieties because jalapenos really are depressingly mild.

So, yeah, people will even object to cheese dip recipes.

On the subject of Haste, it also increases the usual combat imbalances. Two weapon fighters get little and monks even less, crossbowmen and slingers usually get nothing, and only archers and people with pounce show reliable benefit. About the only decent martial builds that don't get their advantages exaggerated are lancers and vital striking druids.

That's more an implementation problem, though. The Words of Power version goes the other way by giving a move action. That's more beneficial for non-pouncing melee and mitigates one of the worst weaknesses of TWF. And it doesn't overlap the monk's speed bonus.


Mark Seifter wrote:
I would absolutely love to see level 7-10 playtests. But in those playtests especially, if you build the kineticist to not have access to both a touch blast and a full-AC blast, that's a design choice, and you could have chosen otherwise.

This is ivory tower game design and really not acceptable. Fire/Fire and Earth/Earth builds need to be functional at all levels and they really aren't. Fire/Fire especially since elemental resistance tends to be higher than DR and elemental immunity has no counterpart for non-energy damage. I would suggest making blue flame at least half untyped like flamestrike.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

That's actually very reassuring to hear Mark. Honestly if I buy this book on release it's probably going to be due to the pleasant way you've been handling the playtesters.

Thank you for not just responding to that concern, but going beyond the call of duty in an effort to give us two enjoyable classes!

It's very easy to make a small nudge and break the kineticist (as is evident by what happened when the word "blast" got removed in edit) with a variant ability or feat. For instance, the burn ability took me a long time to balance to avoid a lot of the concerns in this thread, which I had shared, and it lives on what I consider a razor cusp of working amazingly to the point that even something like "Signature Wild Talent: Now one wild talent costs 1 less burn, minimum 0" could make it teeter.

So what happens when a less than perfect optimizer gets his hands on it? It would be better to find a mechanic that doesn't teeter on the cusp between broken-nonfunctional and broken-gamebreaking.

Burn as it currently stands is almost con damage. It effects what is for everyone but kineticists and scarred witch doctors the primary effect of con as if it were con damage and is actually harder to recover from. In fact it would probably be less bad if it actually were con damage even with that as the casting stat since then 1d4 points could be cleared with a second level cleric wand making it effectively something incurred per encounter. That's a pretty bad cost.

The primary merit of HP costs is that they make the limits effectively per encounter and per encounter abilities are inherently the most easily balanced because CR is determined on a per encounter basis. Making burn unhealable turns this advantage into a liability and puts the kineticist in about the worst place possible for balance. Only making burn unhealable stat damage or negative levels would be worse. That in turn leads to your razor's edge balance of burn reduction.


One problem I'm seeing with a lot of "fixes" is that they hinge on existing class features. Of the 33 non-racial Paizo archetypes, 20 trade out bravery, 24 give up at least one of the first two armor trainings (the ones that actually have value), and 19 lose weapon training entirely.

Any fighter fix needs to either go hand in hand with completely scrapping the concept of archetypes across all classes or be purely additive and not hinge on any class abilities.


Hunter is dangerously close to being strictly inferior to druid. It's the class for when your GM bans druids but you still want to play one. It's certainly not a class to pick if you're sick of druids.

I'd be tempted to focus almost purely on survival while giving the casual gamer a simple buff and fight bard or skald build so that between the two of you you can handle most fights, while when he's not around you bravely run away and let the load keep rolling new characters until he stops with the inverse optimization.

An less passive-aggressive option is actually the evangelist. It makes a darn good battle cleric with the extra buff type and a reach build can buy time to summon and buff those.

If things are going to be sandboxy enough you can try to get the casual gamer into a bard or skald and only tackle tricky stuff when he's available. Run a summoner next to that (or the evangelist if you get him into skald) and it hardly matters how good a player he is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Quote:
It depends of your level with that feat. My option wold get a save of 12 for a first level spell at level 1 (so, you get it on 8 easily). Academea Graduate give you a save of 16 (good luck).

I had +7 at level 1. It's not hard. It eventually becomes auto succeed but not until like level 7ish.

Quote:
If you want your fantasy setting to be arcane examples of modern technology, then perhaps PF Core fits. However, if you want to play Conan style games, or something emulating the Roman Empire where formations of soldiers are a threat and not an easy target for a fireball spell (or other area of effect spells.} Some themes of fantasy cannot be best achieved using the standard level of magic. Low magic can better fit the kind of stories that many fantasy settings are based. Standard levels of magic doesn't best fit every theme.
Think of wizards as magical catapults. Devastating entire formations in moments. Catapults accomplish the same as a fireball at that point.

They're really not. Outside RTS catapults don't hit an area. There are low arc arrow catapults that are sort of like lines, but can only go through so many ranks and there are stone throwing catapults that fire one or a small number of non-exploding projectiles. Later on there are cannons that effect lines with skillful gunners on ground hard enough to bounce a cannonball off of. A bit later, around the time what PF calls modern firearms are appearing, you finally get canister, but by then everyone except the cavalry is mostly fighting at range. It's not until timed fuse airburst shells make their appearance that anything resembling fireball appears, and shortly after that people stop fighting in formation and start fighting from trenches.

Artillery of any sort as mobile as a wizard (even a 3.5 wizard with transmutation as a banned school) doesn't appear until the seventeenth century when guns get light enough for a small team of horses to move quickly, but for PF wizards flying artillery isn't a metaphor. Accurate aerial bombardment doesn't come until the twentieth century. Accurate aerial bombardment from a platform that doesn't have to move quickly to stay in the air and can loiter waited until Vietnam.

So, really, nothing like anything you'd see in the Roman or Byzantine army. You might be able to fit evokers into the early modern paradigm if you ban any movement enhancing spell that's actually useful.


Claxon wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

Except in theory, the two hande fighter has other advantages over the 2 weapon fighter. Namely a higher dexterity, which can translate to a number of positives that the two handed build doesn't match. Namely, better saves, better stats in a useful set of skills. The non-stabing options that two weapon fighting and a higher dex can provide (higher defenses, extra effects added due to additional attacks made).

So if you want the two weapon fighter to be equal to the task of a two handed fighter in dealing out death, you have to prodive the 2hander with the added features the two weapon gets.

I think you mixed up two handed fighter and two weapon fighter in your first sentence, but otherwise I strongly agree with this sentiment.

If you make two weapon fighters deal as much damage as a two handed fighter, then the two handed fighter needs equal initiative, AC, and reflex saves to the TWF. Because otherwise you are strictly making the TWF superior to the THF.

If initiative and touch AC were so great the two handed fighter would be buying up dex at the expense of strength just like the two weapon fighter and still come out ahead on feat and enhancement costs. The fact that the two handed fighters are not pumping up dex is proof that they're not worth the trade off.


Slayer has bonus feats as a ranger through the slayer talent list. Since the archery style has exactly the feats you want that's far better than fighter/rogue. Wizard 1 Slayer 6 Arcane Archer 8 Eldritch Knight 5 is probably about the closest build to a classic fighter/MU/Thief.


Chess Pwn wrote:

no it's 2 AC.

Light armor - chain shirt AC+4 max dex 4
medium armor - Mithril Breastplate AC+6 max dex 5
no matter how you look at it the mithril is giving more AC and more AC potential. It just probably wouldn't be worth the -1 to attack rolls for it.

Check the page reference.

Elven Chain:
AC+6 max dex 3 counts as light for all purposes including proficiency.


Magda Luckbender wrote:

Comment about the Mithril Breastplate suggestion:

A character with proficiency only in Light Armor is not proficient with Medium Armor, whether mithril or not. Such a character in Mithril Breastplate takes non-proficiency penalties for wearing a Mithril Breastplate. This penalty is either -1 (normally) or zero (0) if the PC has the Armor Expert trait. Thus, this trait, plus 4000 gp, can increase AC by 2.

Lacking the Armor Expert trait it's best to ignore the mithril breastplate option in your case, as it won't help.

The Fates Favored trait, combined with the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, gives a +2 AC benefit. Both traits above, plus 9000 gp, would get this PC an extra +4 AC that stacks with everything else.

Only by 1 and that only if they have 20 or more dex. Elven chain on CRB 466 is an exception to the rule that mithril armor does not reduce proficiency requirements, but mithril chain has a max dex of +4 instead of +5 for breastplate.

1 to 50 of 4,744 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.