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

Black_Lantern's page

965 posts (1,611 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 965 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

There are many instances where you could modify swift actions so you can trade down for them and just make a clause in overpowered swift actions that doesn't allow them to be performed multiple times a round. Maybe you might think that's too much work for your campaigns though. -shrug-


It seems to me that instead of modifying the rules for flanking you should introduce rogue talents that alleviate the problem.


Are you looking for poison that's actually functional in combat or are just interesting? It's quite a feat to have either one of those properties for poison, let alone both.


Mirror Mephit.


Use magic device is an excellent thing for rogues to have.


Point buy and here's why:

1)Large attribute discrepancies can make the player who got shafted feel not as useful because attributes influence nearly every aspect of the game. A player with a thirty point buy and a ten point buy can be a huge difference in their ability to contribute to the party. I've seen it happen time and time again where the high-roller(normally myself) has significantly more skills, abilities, and access to feats due to how I rolled than a couple other players solely because my stats were better.

2)Rolling isn't as random and organic as people claim it to be. Every DM I've met will let you reroll if you get terrible rolls, most of them will allow you to place them where ever you'd like. This is hardly random, or organic character generation.

3)People that intend to optimize will always put their lowest points in the stat that means the least to their character, regardless if they use an array, roll stats, or use point buy.

4)I want the players to feel as if they have the same ability to pull off certain builds as anyone else in the group.
e.g.
It's not fair to player A if he doesn't have high enough stats to make a tripping fighter like Player B does just because he can't afford to spread his stats to strength, dex, etc.


The eidolon stat block you provided would be considered pathetic in most groups, there are builds at first level that can do double that amount of damage per round and still aren't considered overpowered. I'm not talking about optimized builds, I'm talking about builds that are considered to be normal. It's not the eidolon that's overpowered, it's that the majority of the party is exceptionally below the curve. If you honestly feel like the party balance is being threatened then sit down with the group and allocate attribute bonuses to those that you think need it the most to keep up with the summoner, you can just increase the CR a little bit if necessary as well.


K177Y C47 wrote:

Ok, what is with everyone saying the witch could be done with an Archetype? The Witch is NOTHING like the wizard, sorcerer, or the oracle. Sure it cast spells, but it's spells are drawn from a familiar, not some stupid book (like wizards). Additionally, the patrons are pretty cool and flavorful. Oh, and the hexes are actually pretty cool. They are things that none of the arcane spell casters can really replicate in the way the witch does.

Also, HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THE CLERIC DO THE INQUISITOR JOB??? Last I checked Clerics don' get:

4+int mod skills
Ability to drop detect lies on a dime
Monster lore which is pretty much bardic knowledge, but just for the most useful knowledges....
get a bonus to things like sense motive.
bane ability on demand
and judgments (which are just cool and flavorful).

As for the Magus, JUST SHUT IT. The people suggesting that just multi classing fighter-wizard really don't know what they are talking about... Sure, EK becomes viable... eventually... But he tends to stay fallen behind the Magus for a while. Additionally, no other Gish builds can ACTUALLY dual-weild a spell and sword, of which is actually a popular trope...

Honestly, I hate when a GM says they are limiting classes to CRB only... All that means is that the GM is too non-proficient to understand the other classes, is too close minded and dislikes a class purely over petty things (like disliking the Ninja class because "its too asian" when you can simply rename is Assassin, Sulk, or anything else), Or the GM has poor system knowledge and believes the other classes are "too OP"... (which is funny because most of the powerhouse classes came from the CRP i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, and Paladin)...

Because usually having 6+int skills in pathfinder when spells exists is redundant, people put too much value on skills because they're used to them and enjoy them mechanically, but the vast majority of encounters don't require you to have an absurd amount of skills points. Detect lies and sense motive are overlapping class abilities that don't make up the power level gap between 6th and 9th level spells. Bane ability has nothing on save or die spells and the utility that a cleric brings to a table. It's not that the cleric does the inquisitors job, it's that he can be flavored as an inquisitor and be more versatile.


Antipaladin:
Serves no purpose as a class in pathfinder when the paths, modules, and character creation are focused around making good characters. There's the problem that antipaladins are weaker than their counter part as well.

Alchemist:
Alchemists are thematically cool, great switch-hitters, moderately versatile, and are an excellent addition to any party; however, half of the time people build them to deal ridiculous amounts of SA or bomb damage that leads others to dislike the class.

Cavalier/Samurai:
The Mounts should be more adaptable to the terrain their in and should be stronger. These classes could be Fighter/Paladin archetypes.

Gunslinger:
The pathfinder touch attack mechanics are striped directly from 3.5, and therefore are broken; this leads to an interesting situation where you have to find ways to increase touch ac or negate one of the gunslinger's main mechanics without causing the caster in the party to fail hitting the opponents the majority of the time with rays. There defenses might be too high.

Inquisitor:
The class feels strong enough mechanically, but looks pathetic when compared to a war oracle.

Magus:
Feels like the spiritual successor to the duskblade, but feels moderately gimmicky if it attempts to keep up dealing the damage other characters are doing in combat.

Ninja:
The class is an attempt to fix the mechanics of a rogue, but still relying drastically on the mentality of the creation of the rogue, which is terrible.

Oracle:
Oracles are excellent because they're like favored souls, but done right.

Summoner:
This class is very polarizing in the community, primarily because the class is easily abused, has access to powerful spells earlier than it should, slows down combat, and feels like the spiritual successor of the Codzilla druid.

Witch:
They are thematically cool, but really serve no purpose as being an actual class, they could of been an oracle, wizard, and/or sorcerer archetype. They lack versatility of other spell casters and their abilities can feel useless really fast in some encounters.


mimimi wrote:
Black_Lantern wrote:
Falcar wrote:

Full Orc fighter/ranger/paladin on a mount with spirited charge, weapon spec, and power attack against the favored enemy of an evil undead while Smiting 1D8+2 WS+6 PA +9 (1.5 STR) +2 FE +4 Smite =31 X 3 =93 and it ignored all DR. This also has very high chance to hit with a 7 BAB weapon focus, charge, favored enemy and smite (if positive charisma) giving a 12+ charisma bonus. That's about all I have right now, I'm sure there are others that hurt more but this is a strange character that can really hurt.

Or swap out fighter for paladin 6 ranger 1 to get
8+2+12+9+6 (37 X3 =117) (33.5 X3 =100 damage on average)

I think you're confused, he said no stats, so the exercise is pointless for martial classes to participate in.

Edit: I don't even know how one casts spells or qualifies for feats without items or stats.

we all know you can do point buy to get max a stat for damage, so they can still compete, but in reality, would you dump a stat to get something to +5?

I'm sorry, but the exercise makes no sense without incorporating stats and isn't fair without buffs and items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Is there any feat that's spawned more threads than Eldritch Heritage?

Prone Shooter.


Falcar wrote:

Full Orc fighter/ranger/paladin on a mount with spirited charge, weapon spec, and power attack against the favored enemy of an evil undead while Smiting 1D8+2 WS+6 PA +9 (1.5 STR) +2 FE +4 Smite =31 X 3 =93 and it ignored all DR. This also has very high chance to hit with a 7 BAB weapon focus, charge, favored enemy and smite (if positive charisma) giving a 12+ charisma bonus. That's about all I have right now, I'm sure there are others that hurt more but this is a strange character that can really hurt.

Or swap out fighter for paladin 6 ranger 1 to get
8+2+12+9+6 (37 X3 =117) (33.5 X3 =100 damage on average)

I think you're confused, he said no stats, so the exercise is pointless for martial classes to participate in.

Edit: I don't even know how one casts spells or qualifies for feats without items or stats.


Power Attack man, martial characters do so much damage. Leadership, it's just too much work to deal with it. Fey Foundling, an incredibly viable feat with no real drawbacks or requirements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who says an experienced rogue doesn't have the ability to look for multiple openings while they're attacking? I don't understand this from a mechanical or realistic stand point. Do you want the rogue to be an NPC class, or are you convinced that they actually have something to offer that spellcasters can't already do?


memorax wrote:
I get that some traits are more powerful than others. Yet Trapfinder makes taking a Rogue while not obsolete just not needed in q gaming group anymore. All that is left is sneak attack damage and some Rogue Talents. Not saying rogue Talents are useless. Except some are good, some bad, some too situational. A regular bard with this trait truly becomes the Jack of all trades.

The rogue was never needed in a gaming group, casters fill its role easily.


I've always had the mindset that poorly made up caster nerfs aren't the way to address power discrepancy between the classes; rather, it's best to encourage casters to cast spells that don't end encounters and allow for their martial party members to participate in combat; however, if casters fail to recognize the queues you give them then you distribute gear that suites the martial classes more so than the caster classes. Perhaps I'm mistaken though, there might be some easy house rules that fix power discrepancy between the classes without shafting the full caster classes.


Eptaceros wrote:

I don't think i'd choose bard because the concept of playing music and whatever seems entirely against the character personality/design i'd have in mind. The character would think that sort of business is for dandies and whatnot. Unless there's an archetype of a bard that doesn't 'perform' but then if there is, what's the point?

The human idea is a good point. I was thinking of something like an aasimar or possibly tiefling, but like you said, logically they would have a harder time blending into crowds/social settings.

You don't have to have a bard that plays music, instead your bard could bard could whistle, rap, hum, or even do a jig to use his abilities.


How does one determine alignment shifts or measure the moral severity of an action with an objective alignment system? How's D&D alignment objective in practice when everything within the system is subjected to a GM's discretion?


Do actions that cause alignment shifts affect the alignment caused by the helm of opposite alignment or the character's original alignment?


My recommendation is that you slightly increase the difficulty and see how it goes. Usually the first couple of combats can be used to evaluate the party's strength.


trollbill wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Can you define glass cannon?
If you can't survive a full round of your own attacks, you are a glass cannon.

Sometimes, but there are some builds that are sturdy and can deal massive damage.


Who else is going to be in your party?


Things that grant more class skills should grant something else in your campaigns.


The difficulty of a pathfinder campaign is entirely dependent on the DM; however, I would say that in most campaigns you can get away with suboptimal builds.


I think that you're spending too much time worrying about the language and not the feeling of isolation. If you want to develop a sense of isolation you should focus on creating different customs and cultures. If you're still really worried about them learning a new language then make a language progression chart and as they're exposed to the language make them roll linguistics checks to see how much they've learned.


Summoner, Wizard, or Druid.


master_marshmallow wrote:
One things for sure, Will is the most overrated save, y'all could probably get away with dumping WIS completely.

It really depends on the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The creatures of the night are far more frightening than some bandits.


This is a very bad idea in general for house rules. There are some creatures that have really poor ac such as oozes and then there's the question on how multiple magical and alchemical attacks interact with this mechanic. It may not seem like much, but when the alchemist bomber is generating 70 more damage consistently from it then it becomes a problem. I'd tell him even though it's an interesting mechanic he should really avoid it because it's an unbalanced mechanic that benefits some classes more than others.


HaraldKlak wrote:

As a GM, I usually have people roll around 10 d20s, at the start of the game for various passive skill checks, and have their skill ranks noted.

So when a perception, survival or knowledge check (or anything really) that I don't want them to know about, I just use the next d20 roll on the list.
Most of the time, I'll have them rolling for themselves.

As a player, I roll perception, whenever the GM tells me to.

Why go through the effort of generating a pool of dice when you're just going to fudge the results anyways?


Some races have great favored bonuses, others have access to great feats, and sometimes players want to roleplay another race. I'd say that a lot of classes do better as other races than human as well.


What do you mean by the best archer? There are several things that constitute a viable archer. The better question you should be asking is "what are the viable archer classes and what can each one of the do effectively?" If you find out that you like another class better for archery ask about switching your character around since you're not too far into the game.


I'm sorry, but why are you asking simple questions that are answered by the core rule book?


Challenge them in other ways besides health. You could do something like a health pool. For example, they can only heal 50% of their total health a day.


There is a very easy way to address this. Make them realize that this game isn't just about combat and that they should invest in other things like skills and items they may need. Also, give character incentives to do interesting things. There's nothing wrong with handing out cool things to the characters.


I'm made of fire and yet weak to cold? Who knew.


@OP Increasing attributes for lower scores does have its uses when it comes to making a character that will develop as time passes. Of course if you're starting out at a higher level and not considering how the character has grown then I agree with you.

Also, Roberta Yang please stay on topic. Wizards barely have an attribute dependency and monks have nothing to do with this discussion.

pH, please go make your own topic if you want to talk about house rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why you think charm person makes you able to interrogate them. Do all of your friends tell you everything?


People say that tripping is viable at lower levels, but there are many things you could be doing with all of those feats and attribute points you're losing to feed your one knack pony trick. So in the regard I don't think it's worthwhile unless your DM scales CMB to match CMD and makes tripping less feat intensive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I fuel my spells with my pretty looks and confidence" -sorcerer


Rocket tag parties and defense oriented parties both work at lower levels. However, as time progresses in the game it's more efficient to go the rocket tag route because of how health and defenses don't keep up when it comes to higher levels. Granted, if you go the rocket tag route then you're prone to encounter a DM that will TPK you because he wants to challenge you. So in the end it really depends on your DM and how you want to play.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Well, monks are a good counter to bards, pass the will saves, beat them in the attack, number of attacks, damage, greater movement, some better saves. The monk is not the weakest, I am not sure the bard is the weakest, but monks are not on the bottom (if there is a bottom).

Weak classes comes down to opponents and situations.

Meh, countering other classes really doesn't matter to be quite frank. I just am upset about the fact that the monk class can barely utilize its mobility to its full potential when other pouncing classes can. Perhaps that's all that have to change in order for the class to feel like it's good. Maybe Full attacks should be changed opposed to monks. It just seems to me that full attacking and not full attacking is a huge difference DPR wise.

@The Equalizer
I'm glad that you expressed that you think everyone on the forums are idiots. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people on the forums are people that actually care about the game they play and want to see it improved.


Optimal familiars grant initiative, have defensive abilities, have good utility abilities, and/or can umd.


Alchemist, Zen Archer, Ranger, and Summoner are also good options. An alchemist has the skills, buffs, and damage to do well as a rogue and not die. A zen archer is basically an archer that is hard to kill and moves faster. A ranger is good at tracking and can be a decent switch hitter. A summoner ties into the later game and is extremely versatile.


There is a couple of reasons why the rogue is behind. The rogue is going twf with two different weapons. Also the rogue is going twf. Also the rogue(one of the worst classes)is being compared to other classes that are known for being good in combat. Also why are you depriving a party of money when it hurts the rogue the most that I don't really understand. Another thing I'm wondering is why would you give a rogue something that sheds light when he attacks.

I'm not trying to insult you or anything I'm just pointing out somethings I observe to be wrong with your train of thought.


Monk uses wisdom for hit and damage.
amulet of unarmed strikes. (same cost progression as a normal weapon)
Old FoB
1 ki point to take a move action and full attack


Here's my guide.
Take things that boost your melee damage and chance to hit. Find a way to rage cycle, go two handed, and boost your strength. Guide complete. ;P

I'm just kidding though. It's good to see more guides come out even if it's for a simple class.


DeathSpot wrote:
Black_Lantern wrote:
2 handed paladin with fey foundling. You'll basically be unkillable and with the bard and master summoner will break his campaign.

"...break his campaign."

If your goal is to break the campaign, will it also break the GM's or other players fun? See, here's where I differ from some folks on the boards. Why break the campaign? Do you not want any sort of challenge? If you don't want a challenge, by all means break the campaign. Build the most effective, optimized character you can, and play below your APL. Level up a time or two before tackling the next bit, just in case. Just be sure beforehand that that's what everyone else wants, too - and that includes the GM, because he or she is playing the game as well.

...sorry, ranting a bit. Or maybe more than a bit. But you get my point, I hope. Before you decide to optimize to the point where the GM will have to alter the AP to challenge you, be sure that's what everyone wants.

I'm suggesting it because it's the only way he's going to keep up with the bard and master summoner. Personally I think the master summoner is the strongest build at lower levels. Coupled with a buff class it becomes next to impossible to deal with. So if he plays a paladin that's unkillable he'll be somewhat on the bards and the summoners level. This is the DM's fault for not banning the master summoner.


It's not a fault of metagaming, it's a fault of the rules.


Depends on the spell and if you plan on echoing or not.

1 to 50 of 965 << 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.