Balkoth's page

386 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Cavall wrote:

And he's right it's only way to get it is usually retraining, which may not be allowed. That's bothersome.

For the OP, allow retraining.

At the risk of turning this into an advice forum question...why?

Let's start by distinguishing between retaining and rebuilding.

A. Retraining uses Paizo's rules here. It allows you to...

- Retraining ability score increases one at a time
- Change archetypes (longer per alternate feature)
- Change a class feature to another "you could otherwise qualify for at that point in your level advancement." (that part is really important)
- Change a class level
- Change a feat to another that you currently qualify for, even if this would not be a legal build starting at level 1
- Increase hit points up to maximum
- Learn a new language above and beyond the normal maximum
- Change racial trait
- Change a few skill ranks at a time
- Retain a spell known

B. Rebuilding is the ability to just adjust your character per GM approval (aka, don't remake your character to specialize against whatever the party is currently facing -- so far I've approved every rebuild). Aka, you can rebuild your character from the ground up, essentially. This allows to you...

- Change every ability score increase if you wish
- Adjust your level 1 stats if you wish
- Swap archetypes
- Swap a class feature to one that was legal at the time
- Swap levels
- Swap a feat to one that was legal at the time
- No effect on hit points (players already get maximum hit points)
- No effect on languages except being able to change them
- Swap racial traits
- Swap all of your skills if you really wanted
- Swap out a bunch of spells if they're not working as you hoped

Retraining costs time and gold. Rebuilding is free and instant (though not in the middle of combat).

Now, as far as I can tell, there are only three ways where retraining isn't flat out worse than rebuilding...

1. Rebuilding doesn't allow you to learn extra languages
2. Rebuilding has no benefit for hit points...but they're already maximized
3. Rebuilding feats follows the same rules as rebuilding class features...unlike retraining.

And the third point bothers me most -- why can you give up a low power level 3 feat to get a high power level 15 feat while you cannot give up a low power level 4 rage power to get a high power level 16 rage power (or rogue talent, or magus arcana, or whatever)?

For the record, I think the way the class features handles it is correct...hence why that's how I treat both feats and class features during rebuilds.

But the player is arguing that the existence of this feat proves that retraining is intended because otherwise there's no way to get the feat at level 10 when you can qualify for it.

Of course, there's not a level 11+ Skald sitting around nearby so this would require the Skald to spend his own gold (fine, it's his gold) and hold up the party for 10 days...in a reasonably time sensitive campaign. Or he could take time to search one out which would then likely take just as long. All to get a character that wouldn't be legal if built again from level 1. And all solely because it requires Perform 10 rather than 11.


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/afflictions/curses/curse-of-the-ages

My players want to cast this curse on a friendly dragon to rather quickly make it into a Great Wyrm (so it takes a few years rather than 1200+ years). Does that work?


https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/greater-skald-s-vigor/

I have a player who's bothered by the fact that Greater Skald's Vigor requires 10 Perform rather than 11 Perform. He's trying to figure out how the feat could even be taken at level 10.

My guess is it's just that way because things like Skill Focus double at 10 HD and Improved Blind Fight takes 10 ranks in Perception...but the former can be taken prior to 10 HD and the latter can be taken by Fighters.

Can anyone take Greater Skald's Vigor at level 10?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Flagged the above post as abusive. Angry Adventurer, I'd be willing to sit down with your group on Discord (or Mumble or Teamspeak) and walk you through this if you'd like. And answer any questions you have as we go.


Hmm. So...

"Starting on your next turn, as a swift action you can extend the glowing area by an additional four 5-foot squares; each new square must be adjacent to a square that was previously glowing."

...you're reading "previously glowing" as meaning glowing in the previous round rather than previously glowing, period, as you expand the squares?


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Again, claw blades. A catfolk puts little metal tips over their claws (changing them from natural to light manufactured) and under your proposed system suddenly gets two attacks instead of one with a standard action. That makes no @#$%ing sense.

Sure it does.

The catfolk gets full strength and full power attack bonuses to each claw because he's putting his full weight into each swing. And thus also suffers no AB penalty.

But if he swaps to manufactured weapons he swings more quickly and tries to flurry -- this is why he can fit in iterative attacks at higher levels. However, he gets a -2 AB penalty to all attacks, needs an additional feat to avoid massive upfront penalty, and only gets 50% damage from strength/power attack on his offhand.

There's your rationale -- natural weapons get full strength/PA and no AB penalty.

I'm running two campaigns right now with a house rule that you CAN take an attack with each weapon (if dual-wielding) whenever a 2H would get an extra attack (which means as a standard action, as an AoO, or during Haste). So far only one PC is dual-wielding (a rogue).


First campaign I've GMed is almost to level 10 with it planned to go to level 20. I suspect I'm an outlier, though.


Is the following legal for a cast of Path of Glory?

Round 1: Circles.

Round 2: Squares.

Round 3: Crossed arrows (X's).

Picture.


CBDunkerson wrote:
In that case, I'm not seeing the problem. The Skald COULD be useful to the Bloodrager... but apparently the composition of the rest of the party makes them MORE useful there.

Because if the Skald was a Bard he'd have been useful to the rest of the party AND the Bloodrager throughout all of those fights. That's the problem.

Alternatively, if the Bloodrager was a Fighter/Ranger/Slayer/Paladin/etc then he'd be getting the Skald's buffs throughout all of those fights. That's the other problem.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Effectively, they're giving up the increased damage for 3 levels while they take archetyped fighter. So it can be the difference between 1d6+3 and 1d8+1 (comparatively).

Brawlers don't get +1 AB/+1 damage at any level, just increased damage on unarmed strikes.

So it's more like...

Level 5 Brawler (class): +10 AB, 1d8 damage

Level 2 Brawler (class)/Level 3 Brawler (archetype): +11 AB, 1d6+3 damage

So that's +1 AB and +2 damage...which is like having Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Archetypes don't change because of other classes you have

My concern is that it seems the Brawler archetype was written to try to make unarmed Fighters viable and thus gave them some higher bonuses than a Weapon Master to make up for the style being weak, not having Flurry, and not having increased damage dice. Which is all fine...but it's then being combined with a class that didn't exist when the archetype was written. Both are definitely fine on their own, it's the combination that has me worried.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Cause that +3 damage applies to all the close weapons listed in that group and some of them are 1d6 or 1d8, so there's no need to worry about needing to nerft it.

From your perspective, how do you think the Brawler (archetype) was designed to be used? And why do you think the "weapon training" equivalent has a larger damage bonus than any other Fighter archetype?


Diego Rossi wrote:
The attack of opportunity happen when you are leaving the square, so you have moved. Maybe only half a step, but you have started your movement.

I suspect someone arguing #1 (like Melkiador) would claim that if you get tripped before leaving your square (and thus fall prone in your square) then you haven't effectively moved.

So that's effectively 1 vote for #1 (Melkiador) and one vote for #2 (Diego).

I agree that standing up from prone doesn't preclude a 5 foot step.


So...it sounds like SR will prevent an image from being destroyed? That seems to be the consensus?


CBDunkerson wrote:
instead looking for options to 'nova' powers on top of each other for a brief period.

How would you define a "brief period?"

CBDunkerson wrote:
If your game trends towards the '15 minute adventuring day' then yes the benefits a Skald can grant to a Barbarian are limited. If you instead have long slogs where everyone has to ration daily abilities for the right circumstances then a Skald is of tremendous value to a Barbarian.

Well, let's bring some actual numbers into this. The party is level 9 currently and the two characters in question are a level 9 Skald and a level 5 Bloodrager/4 Dragon Disciple. The BR/DD has 4 (base) + 8 (levels) + 3 (Con) + 5 (FCB) = 20 rounds of rage per day.

On top of that, the BR/DD is reliant on their Bloodrage to grow their claws and their bite -- without those natural weapons the BR/DD is massively weaker.

But from what I hear, fights in "optimized" parties tend to last 2-3 rounds. Let's say 3 rounds -- that means the BR/DD has enough rage rounds for 6 encounters, close to 7. However, a lot of people report closer to 4-5 rounds...again, let's go with the higher number of 5. That's still 4 encounters of 5 rounds each assuming the BR/DD is raging every round for the entire fight.

My days, frankly, are longer than either of these due to tougher fights and maximized HP on creatures. But the players know not to pop Rage immediately on easier fights or to end it early during wrap up.

Perhaps most importantly -- how many rounds of song do you think the SKALD has? Because the Skald is buffing other people in the party (and himself). Or do you think the Skald is avoiding singing until the BR/DD is out of rage?

And yes, sometimes there's only one or two significant fights in a day. Those fights have also lasted 15-20 rounds -- which is within the BR/DD's daily limit. Not to mention the BR/DD could spend one feat (Extra Rage or whatever it's called) to gain 30% more rage rounds per day if he felt it was worth it.

P.S. Here's an example of a recent day the party faced at level 9 (six people, slightly above WBL, some extra consumables, books restricted mostly to CRB/APG/ACG)...

A. 16 Winter Wolves (CR13 total)

B. Three Frost Giants (CR12 total) and six Winter Wolves (CR10 total), so something like a CR 13 fight technically.

C. Four Frost Giants (CR13 total).

D. Four Remorhaz (CR11, though one had templates so probably CR12).

E. Seven Frost Giants (CR 14ish total...but somewhat spread out over a large valley so the party could sort of divide and conquer).

F. Two Frost Giants (CR11) and four Winter Wolves with one templated Winter Wolf, so something like CR12-13 total.

At this point there was still another encounter...

G. the Frost Giant Jarl (CR11) and a Rage Demon (CR11), total of CR13, but in a practical sense the most dangerous encounter of the day. However, the PCs were battered and a bit careless/splurging earlier and decided to hide and rest...which resulted in the two "bosses" fleeing and causing a bunch of havoc and some negative results for the PCs.

But hey, maybe that's a 15 minute adventuring day from your perspective!

However, when the party wanted to rest...both the Skald and the BR/DD were low on Rage Rounds. Because, again, the Skald was buffing himself and several other party members throughout all of those fights.


I have a player who is wanting to take the Brawler class as well as the Brawler archetype.

My main concern is the level 3 archetype ability that gives +1 AB and +3 damage. That's more than even the Weapon Master (who gets +1 to each). Now, this seems to be a result of the fact that the archetype doesn't get increased unarmed strike damage like a Monk or Brawler class would, so the +3 damage is just bringing the 1d3 unarmed strike (average 2) to an average of 5 damage (compared to 5.5 with a longsword for a Weapon Master at the same level).

...but if the character is getting increased unarmed strike damage from the Brawler class then it feels like that bonus should be +1/+1, not +1/+3. Since the reason it's so much stronger than equivalents (lower base damage) is not in play.


"You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance."

Say you're next to an enemy and decide to normally move away. Unfortunately, this provokes an AoO and the enemy trips you, so you fall prone in your starting square. You stand up as another move action (two move actions used so far).

At this point, which is true?

1, you can 5 foot step still because you didn't actually move any distance and the rule is "you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance"

or

2, you cannot 5 foot step because you performed a move action on failed movement and the rule is "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jae Wolftail wrote:
Uuuuuuuh... Rysky's right though.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Here you are clearly off base. A Barbarian DOES get their own rage bonuses without spending rounds of rage while benefiting from inspired rage;

Let's not talk past each other.

At levels 1-7, 11-15, and 20 a Barbarian or Bloodrager can gain +2 Str/+2 Con/-1 AC (and some Will in there) by accepting the Skald's rage but using the Barbarian's or Bloodrager's bonuses. However, this means the Barbarian loses every Rage Power and the Bloodrager loses their Bloodline powers AND their spellcasting. That's not worth the 2 Str/2 Con unless Rage is being deliberately rationed (or you're super low level, I suppose).

So in a big battle where everyone is going all out and people are novaing, a Barbarian or Bloodrager is not going to get any benefit from the Skald's raging song.

CBDunkerson wrote:
However, even in that case the Barbarian still isn't losing anything... they have just as much access to their own rage powers as before... plus some number of additional rounds of rage (w/o fatigue) from the Skald with Skald rage powers.

But the Bard would be giving them the Inspire Courage bonus WHILE the Barbarian is raging. That's the whole problem. The bard can raise the Barbarian to greater heights than a Skald. Which doesn't seem to make any conceptual sense.


CBDunkerson wrote:
less if they 'overlap' with Skald song so that they are getting BOTH Skald and Barbarian rage powers in the same round

Nope.

"When you either activate or are affected by a new form of rage (such as a barbarian’s rage, a skald’s raging song, a bloodrager’s bloodrage, and the rage spell), you can choose whether to keep your current rage or to accept the new rage instead, much like a creature affected by multiple polymorph effects."

Rysky wrote:
No they benefit, they can use their own bonuses without spending their rage rounds

Nope.

"However, inspired rage does not allow the ally to activate abilities dependent on other rage class abilities, such as rage powers, blood casting, or bloodrager bloodlines; the ally must activate her own rage class ability in order to use these features."

ShroudedInLight wrote:

Which is kind of terrible design, from a world perspective. I mean, Skalds are Bards for Barbarian tribes and yet their people do not benefit from their song. Instead, they get more use from a civilized Bard using Inspire Courage.

Weird, right?

That was precisely my concern, yes. I'd expect a Barbarbian + Skald to be better than Barbarian + Bard since, say, a Rogue + Skald is worse than Rogue + Bard. I thought Skalds would be specialists at buffing STR types at the cost of not buffing others at much (or at all for spellcasters casting spells).


If a spellcaster casts Scorching Ray at level 7 (so two rays) at a target with Mirror Image active and the target also has spell resistance...how exactly is that resolved?


If I understand correctly, the Skald's Inspired Rage is a morale bonus so it won't stack with the Barbarbian's Rage...and the Skald's Inspired Rage won't allow the Barbarian to use the Barbarian's Rage Powers...so is a Barbarian better paired with a Bard rather than a Skald since Inspire Courage would actually grant bonuses? Or am I missing something?


Rathendar wrote:
Note it isn't restricted to what languages you know.

Ah ha, that makes a significant difference. Thanks.


Seems that probably the majority of them do not (including the most powerful demons like Balors and Mariliths) but enough of them do that it's not a super rare exception like Succubus/Incubus only...


So...no one has any input? That seems to be a first for this forum...


Grandlounge wrote:
Fighters need duleing gloves to keep there numbers on par with other classes and estate a little behind. Rangers, paladins, and cavilier will spike higher damage. Bloodragers and bard have more hp and better saves for much lower armor class. Animal companions are amazing at most levels when you put them a pc it is hard to keep up.

Bloodragers with Shield and Mirror Image seem to have better physical defenses that Fighters.

Fighters also aren't going to be able to afford Gloves of Dueling until, what, 9th level? 10th level? Possibly even level 11-12. The campaign I'm running has the PCs at 9th level right now and the lack of Gloves of Dueling bonuses for enemies is very noticeable (keep in mind, for example, that NPC fighters have far less WBL -- and according to the CR system, a level 9 Fighter with PC wealth is equal to a level 10 Fighter with NPC wealth).


Milo v3 wrote:
I have read it, it's nearly all small combat buffs. The problem with the fighter isn't needing more numbers in combat.

Y'know, I keep reading this, and then in my campaign I see several other full BAB classes crushing the Fighter in terms of raw numbers (better damage and/or better AB and/or better AC and/or better HP). Especially Bloodragers and Paladins. Hell, even Hunters seemed to crush Fighters at actually Fighting, even without casting any spells that last 1 minute per level or less.


Gray Warden wrote:
I was asked if I agreed with allowing sneak attack on elementals. I don't, because Paizo material is rich enough to include other rogue-like options less reliant on sneak attack, hence an invasive house-rule is not necessary. I answered, no further action is required.

To be clear, I don't care about sneak attack on elementals specifically and I'm not arguing it's a good house rule (nor have I ever heard of it as a house rule). You merely posted an example where a GM invalidated a class feature against certain targets, I was curious if you would be fine with a GM attempting to avoid invalidating a class feature against certain targets.

Basically, whether it was a matter of a GM trying to limit a player vs a GM trying to help a player mattered to you. Apparent answer: no, it doesn't matter.

Gray Warden wrote:
Yeah, while enjoyment is somehow subjective, I don't think a major house-rule could actually improve balance in the game (barring some very specific exception that might be seen as bugs), and while I welcome a bit of tinkering and experimenting with the rules, I do not accept the intensive use of RAW-altering house-rules as default, since I believe Paizo team is more qualified than a random GM in terms of system design, despite the length of his playing career.

Just out of curiosity, what do you make of Dazing spell?

Also, have you considered that Paizo is more limited than GMs in terms of what and how they can change things? Paizo couldn't alter the Fighter too much, for example, they tried to add in patches like AWT/AAT -- so if you're just playing out of the CRB Fighters are going to suffer.


Gray Warden wrote:
- Allowing Robes of Arcane Heritage not only on Sorcerers but also on Bloodragers, since they also have a Bloodline. The item was written when Sorcerers were the only ones having a Bloodline, this is probably the reason why Sorcerers are the only ones being called out explicitly, and it's sensible to assume that it should apply to Bloodragers as well. While I'm OK with not allowing this, I see no problem in allowing it either.

That would be against RAW:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw#v5748eaic9ux4

Gray Warden wrote:
For the Rogue, again, not kosher, hence not good.

If I'm understanding you, then, you're claiming every single house rule that goes directly against RAW is a clear sign of bad GMing, per your earlier statements. There is no such thing as house rules that improve the balance/enjoyment of Pathfinder over what Paizo has as a default.

Is that an accurate summary?


Gray Warden wrote:
Minor. It is not clear at many tables whether a prone character can stand-up with a full-round action without causing AoO. I think it's acceptable to allow it.

Hmm.

Standing up from a prone position requires a move action and provokes attacks of opportunity.

How do you see your rule not violating RAW? Is it solely because it's beneficial?

Gray Warden wrote:
Major. The Halfling Rogue cannot deal sneak damage to the giant, despite being flat-footed, because his dagger is too small and the giant's skin is too thick to strike a vital spot. This blatantly goes against the rules and invalidates a whole class feature for the sake of fluff: absolutely not acceptable.

Let's reverse this to a buff:

In an elemental heavy campaign, the Rogue can sneak attack an elemental due to possessing significant cunning and knowledge. This blatantly goes against the rules in an effort to avoid invalidating a whole class feature.

Acceptable or not acceptable?


Gray Warden wrote:
I didn't reply to your post because you're just stating a bunch of things you do in your game. What do you expect me to say? This is OK, this isn't?

You said

"Of course I'm not talking about minor rules to cover holes in the RAW or to make the game more fluent, but about major alterations to the game that have no reason to exist in the first place, and that are there just because of the GM's delusions of grandeur."

I'm asking you to clarify where you see the line between those. How do you tell whether it's a minor /more fluent house rule vs major alteration house rule?

To help you out, I gave some examples and I was hoping you'd say which category you felt each fell into.

And to be clear, that's distinct from saying whether something is "OK" in a broader sense -- someone might very well have a major alteration that you actually approve of...but it'd still be a major alteration. The category is what interests me right now. Not asking you to evaluate the impact/balance/whatever of the house rule, just where you think it would fall on your spectrum.


Gray Warden wrote:
Oh my god.

Is there a reason you're choosing to reply to Lady J of all people and avoiding replying to my posts?


My players are currently level 9 in a demon infested/corrupted forest. They've expressed interest in trying to hire a low level elven tracker from a nearby elven city (which is about the only safe place in the forest currently), like a level 4-5 ranger with good Survival skill or something.

What would seem appropriate for this? The low level NPC is going to get clobbered and more or less instantly die if some of the demons target him, so that would probably be seen as a drawback to taking on the job. How much would he want to charge for his services?


I appreciate the attempts to help -- however, just to reiterate, I'm looking for stuff OUTSIDE the big six items or other staples. More like uniquely named items from things like UE that has a very significant impact on a single class (or a few specific classes).

To be clear, my campaign is using a more limited set of books currently and I'm trying to figure out what items I "need" to allow from other books to avoid significantly disadvantaging classes.

Set wrote:
Amulet of Mighty Fists for a Monk who goes unarmed or a Druid who uses a lot of wild shape, perhaps.

That'd be just like two weapons for a dual-wielder, standard.

Set wrote:
Scrolls, in general, for Wizards. More so even than Pearls of Power.

Also standard.

Set wrote:
Some Clerics get good usage out of a Phylactery of Positive Channeling.

That's a reasonable example, though only some clerics (or oracles or whatever) will care.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

There are some classes/archetypes built specifically to work with one weapon

Rapiers and knives are the most common ones me thinks.

Occultists are kinda the class this idea most fits considering implements.

I feel like a casting stat headband on a full caster is as if not more important than gloves of duelling to a fighter and furious weapons to a barb. And worth mentioning because many full casters won’t care much about the rest of the big six.

Lance is pretty big for mounted charge builds.

Not sure what you mean with the Occultist bit, but the rest is all standard gear.

avr wrote:
If your GM agrees that a decoy ring makes you invisible as per the generic ability and not as per the spell (which the item doesn't reference) then it can be a game-changer for rogues.

Can you elaborate?

PossibleCabbage wrote:
A kineticist may end up spending over half of their WBL on their belt.

Standard item.

Toirin wrote:
Metamagic rods for casters. Silent, Dazing, Persistent, and Quickened come to mind.

Serious question: are those necessary for casters to function at the expected power level? I've mostly been hearing about how those rods are overpowered, frankly (and that they help make casters overpowered in general).

Chess Pwn wrote:

paladins have smite or LoH gloves

cavaliers have challenge gloves and a challenge banner

Lay on Hands gloves?

Smite gloves?

Is the Paladin balanced around having one of those?

BishopMcQ wrote:
Monks Robes are a staple for just about every monk I've seen play.

Noted.

BenS wrote:
Along those lines, Druid's Vestment for nearly all druids and feral hunters.

Is one extra use that powerful?

lemeres wrote:
Fortuitous for any build that uses a reach weapon/goes big.

Good to know, thanks.

Kaouse wrote:
Headsman's Blade for Slayers is pretty nice.

Basically +2 Attack/+2 Damage from Studied Target, yeah. Catch is that it's a very specific weapon I suppose.

Lady-J wrote:
any of the big 6 on pretty much any character class in existence

Those are all freely available and thus not a concern right now.


Gray Warden wrote:
House-rules. House-rules are even less reliable than 3rd party material, so their use is bound to break the game system. Of course I'm not talking about minor rules to cover holes in the RAW or to make the game more fluent, but about major alterations to the game that have no reason to exist in the first place, and that are there just because of the GM's delusions of grandeur.

Where exactly do you draw the line between "minor rules to cover holes in the RAW or to make the game more fluent" and "major alterations to the game that have no reason to exist in the first place?"

For example, in my campaign you can attack once with each weapon while dual-wielding as a standard action or attack of opportunity (and haste gets you an extra attack with each weapon as well). This has remarkable similarities to the Two Weapon Warrior archetype. Is that something that makes the game more fluent or an alteration?

I don't allow crafting, your expected WBL is roughly what you'll get (but you'll have access to reasonable items without hassle). This in part is due to the pace of the campaign which doesn't have much downtime. More fluent or major alteration?

We're only using a handful of books (CRB, ACG, APG) with everything else per approval. I also gave some baseline buffs to the core Fighter and Rogue. More fluent or major alteration?

Etc.


Chess Pwn wrote:
So like, having lots of feats as your class feature when you're then "required" to spend those feats to buy back class features that others get for free means that now you just don't have class features nor a feat advantage.

Hence some of the house rules in my campaign:

1. Fighters get Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization for free at the appropriate level if they have Weapon Focus.
2. Fighters gain an extra general feat per level (on top of what exists, so effectively two feats per level overall).
3. They also get 4 skill points, considering raising it to 6.

Now they actually have a ton of feats available.


Gray Warden wrote:
Rolled stats, OP races, 3rd party material, house-rules and ad hoc patches are all clear signs of bad GMing. I wouldn't be surprised if the GM also enforced critical failures on attack rolls and skill checks, or role-play for every little pointless thing such as shopping.

Hang on a second there. So if I DON'T...

- use rolled stats
- used 3rd party material
- use ad hoc patches
- use critical failures on attack rolls
- add in critical failures on skill rolls
- role-play minor stuff like shopping

But I DO...

- have some house rules

Then that's a clear sign I'm a bad GM? Just making sure I understand your perspective here since it seems to be fairly popular.


Ryan Freire wrote:
As of AWT the +2 to weapon training is less about the hit/damage and much more about the effect it has on numerous options from WMH. Its 2 more uses of warrior spirit 2 higher initiative 2 more uses of limited combat feats, etc etc etc.

Yeah, it's all that on TOP of the 20-30% more damage.


avr wrote:
If you're looking at big numbers changing things, a bane baldric for an inquisitor may count in the mid-levels. A furious weapon for a barbarian at any level. Magi really like their pearls of power.

Bane Baldric seems pretty key. Yeah, Furious Weapon for +1 AB/damage in effect (compared to a normal weapon...and it gets better at high levels since you can presumably have a +5 Furious weapon). That's the kind of stuff I'm asking about.

Pearls of Power are more about sustainment and also aren't pretty class specific.

avr wrote:
Merciful vambraces expand a paladin's condition healing ability a great deal, but I'm not sure it's a game-changer.

Yeah, I'd think that isn't quite to the degree I'm looking for.

DeathlessOne wrote:
Wait what? At what level? This is a 15,000 go magic item, something that would be rare for an 8th level character to possess (investing heavily into one magic item), and it's 25% of their damage? Two more points of damage per hit? Sorry, but... What?

All right, let's look at a level 8 Fighter. Say 18 starting strength, +2 strength from leveling, +2 weapon, +2 strength belt, greatsword. That's 8 (BAB) + 6 (str) + 2 (weapon) + 1 (weapon training) + 2 (GWF) = 19 AB. Attack schedule of +19/+14.

Damage is 7 (greatsword) + 9 (str) + 2 (weapon) + 1 (weapon training) + 2 (WS) = 21.

Say the party is fighting a CR10 enemy. Expected AC is 24 per the Monster Creation table.

Our fighter does (0.8 + 0.55) * 21 = 28.35 DPR average.

Now let's including the gloves of dueling. (0.9 + 0.65) * 23 = 35.65 DPR average. That's a 25.7% increase in DPR.

But let's assume Furious Focus and Power Attack.

Without gloves we have (0.8 + 0.4) * 30 = 36 DPR.

With gloves we have (0.9 + 0.5) * 32 = 44.8 DPR.

That's still a 24.4% increase.

We can quibble over some of the numbers I imagine but to paraphrase Churchill, now we're just haggling over the price.

DeathlessOne wrote:
However, this item is from the Ultimate Equipment book. The class was not balanced around it.

Your evidence for that would be?...

Or are you claiming the Fighter was balanced assuming Core Rulebook only?

And/or are you claiming the Fighter IS balanced assuming CRB only?

DeathlessOne wrote:
It does help even the playing field, though. There really shouldn't be any item that a class has to have to function properly (magic anyway) but there are plenty that improve their performance.

I'm talking about class-specific items that improve performance to the point where the class is balanced around having them. Pretty confident Gloves of Dueling fall into that category.


DeathlessOne wrote:
+2 AB/DMG is nice but far from critical/vital. A fighter is going to hit stuff more often than not, even without the bonus to hit from the gloves.

That's usually something like a 20-30% damage increase against most targets (especially tough enemies). If Barbarians had an item that said "Your melee attacks now do 25% more damage" you don't think that would be rather key?

DeathlessOne wrote:
Something that is critical or vital is something that the class requires or it Cripples the class. Example? Wizard without a spell book. Witch without a familiar. Cleric without a holy symbol (no spells). Inversely, Druids with metal armor.

I think we're getting bogged down in terminology here. Something not as fundamental as a wizard's spellbook but still something that the class is balanced around.


Pretty much, Priyd. It was an experiment and so far people like it, even if it's hardly perfect.


For example, Fighters really need Gloves of Dueling. Even laying aside the other benefits, +2 AB/damage alone is absolutely huge.

What other classes have such critical/vital items that they're massively weaker without? Not talking about generic stuff like Headbands of Intelligence for Wizards, talking about items outside of the "Big 6."


Ryan Freire wrote:
Seriously, next campaign try it, it makes a bigger difference on those non casting martials than you'd think.

I took an alternate approach in my game where we're using a more limited selection of books (no Weapon Master's or Armor Master's handbooks, for example -- or any Player Companion for that matter).

For example, I gave Fighters the benefits of Weapon Specialization, GWF, and GWS automatically at the appropriate levels, gave them a saving throw bonus when wearing armor that increases with Armor Training, and gave them an extra General Feat per level (so they get 2 feats per level instead of 1). That frees up a lot of options to take new stuff.

So far it's made a big difference -- like Ryan said Fighters actually have the feats to pick up more situational stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.

I started 1.5-2 years ago when a friend asked me to play in a game of his despite never having playing a table-top game before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Opuk0 wrote:

For example, level 1 is your average joe shmoe, level 6 is a veteran general of many wars, level 10 is a hero out of myth, and 20 is a demi-god.

Does that sound about right? Anyone got any more examples?

Paizo thinks a general is a level 11 Fighter.

A Pirate King is level 15.

Cavalry in armies are level 6.

Here's the link to the main list if you want to peruse it.


What books are available? Unchained Rogue is seen as much better balanced than the default Rogue (which is thought of as the weakest or second weakest class if I recall correctly).


Chess Pwn wrote:
I'm pretty sure the point of it is to be bad but something to use. Like Monsters are supposed to have a weakness, ranged combat is often a weakness for strong melee people, fortunately this has a ranged option unlike animals that follow similar trends.

Interesting enough, this topic started brewing in my mind when one of my players asked me "Why aren't the giants throwing rocks at us?" Turns out he's mainly played 5E and in that game the Frost Giant stat block looks like this.

Apparently in 5E Frost Giants actually have the same AB with their thrown rocks and slightly more damage -- but only get one attack per round still (while the axe gets two attacks). Meaning the giant is doing about twice the damage in melee, but he can at least hit stuff with rocks.

In this case, though, I basically had to say "Well...because it's pretty terrible." Which I thought was odd.

Chess Pwn wrote:
So yeah, if you change the rock throwing to be really good you'll maybe need to increase the CR of enemies with that ability, as that weakness could be a balancing factor of its CR.

I'm not trying to make it really good, potentially looking to make it not suck.

blahpers wrote:

Rock throwing is fine. Particularly when the giant is standing on top of a 120' sheer cliff and raining rocks on the foolish PCs below. A PC with AC 30 won't be hit often, but that's okay because a PC with AC 30 is a PC who put decent effort into improving their AC. Plenty of PCs facing a fire giant won't have AC that high.

Once the PCs are in closer range, only a really foolish fire giant will stick to chucking rocks instead of switching to a proper melee weapon.

Here's the problem: why WOULD the PCs get closer? In all fairness part of the issue here is the dedicated archer in the group -- he could take on a small pack of Frost Giants from range while the rest of the group takes a nap. So in this context the PCs want to stay at range while the Frost Giants have to move in or be massacred.


A Fire Giant, for example, attacks at +21/+16/+11 in melee. However, his ranged attack option is +10 with a thrown rock. Meaning a PC with AC30 gets hit over 50% of the time with the Giant's melee attack but the Giant needs a natural 20 on the rock throwing. Which seems pretty terrible.

Was considering letting creatures with Rock Throwing either attack touch AC or use their Strength instead of Dex for AB...but concerned that either of those might be making it TOO strong (i.e. going too far in the other direction). Not sure what a happy middle ground might be (besides literally something like 50% of strength to AB or something).


Rogar Valertis wrote:
That said I think a party of 3 PCs wasn't the best benchmark for this kind of challenge.

Somewhat ironically, I think it might have actually been one of the best benchmarks. Why? Because three level 9 PCs are considered CR12 overall. So a CR10 dragon should have been stronger than any PC individually but the group overall would be twice as strong as the dragon.

But the dragon is CR12-13...then suddenly it's as strong or stronger than the group.

On the flip side, say we had four level 10 PCs (CR14). A CR10 would be a speed bump and a CR12 would still be half as strong as the party. So the CR incorrectness would not be as noticeable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Lam wrote:
Given other dragon examples, I don't see why the nightmare one being a CR 10 is overpowered.

Compared to the two other CR10 dragons you linked to, the Adult Nightmare Dragon has...

- 75%ish more HP
- 4 more AC
- 4 more Fort/Will
- SR21
- 50% faster move speed
- 6 more AB
- 4 more damage per hit
- Breath weapon that deals 50% more damage with 5 higher DC
- Better spells/spell like abilities

And you think the Adult Nightmare Dragon needs the advanced template on top of that to be a CR10? Perhaps you could explain your reasoning on this.


Lady-J wrote:
well its suposta be a nightmare to deal with so it looks fine to me

Let's take it a step further and claim it's a CR4 or something!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Relevant Adventure Path? It's a standard creature from Bestiary 5. It's not specific to any Adventure path.

I mentioned where I encountered one to give some context, but that has nothing to do with whether it's the stats of a CR12-13 creature that's listed as CR10.


Just compare said dragon to a Juvenile Gold Dragon, for example.

Or to the Monster Creation chart.

Its stats seem more in the CR12-13 range...not CR10.

Just had our party of three people (Armor Master Fighter, Alchemist, and Bard) get wrecked by one. We were level 9 at the time.

Spoiler:
Orsephellius in the Lunar Prison from in Strange Aeons

Didn't help that we were apparently breezing through encounters enough that the GM decided to maximize the HP of all enemies to make it harder...which when presented a problem when we ran into this seeming brick wall...

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>