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

Cheapy's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 6 Season Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 17,006 posts (17,312 including aliases). 21 reviews. 5 lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 12 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a number of people I'd like to play (or play more with). I played with Rogue Eidolon only once, but would be fun to play again with. Same with Ssalarn. A game with Endzeitgeist would be very interesting (and he uses so much 3pp that I wouldn't even be able to metagame capabilities!).

Wraithstrike would be good fun as well, I feel.

RavingDork would be amusing to watch play. Not sure if I could handle his type of games tho.

I'm also wondering once again where Mikaze went.

I'd enjoy a game with CalebTGordon, Abraham Spalding (Who is back from serving, apparently!), Umbral Reaver, Steel Draco (who I learned from another forum is doing Savage Fallout. I'll join that one, thanks.), Diego Rossi, TacticsLion, Robert Brookes, ....

Now that I think longer on it, as long as there's pre-gens and beer, I'd probably play with most people.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This forum is for character advice on 3rd party stuff, so it's probably a good place to ask such questions. But here works too!

Linda's and my goal for this was to allow for multiple types of builds with the class, so it really depends on what you're looking for. We wanted to support a few different types of commanders with this, the chief two being the the leader from the front that leads by example and would probably focus on more physical abilities, and the leader from the rear that could focus more on mental abilities (and some physical ones), and give her troop commands. Internally, I believe we referred to the former as the Badass, and the latter as the General. It's been a bit, but I believe there was also a split between Charisma and Intelligence for the General type, namely through the Tactician archetype to use Intelligence in place of Charisma. The Strategist archetype is compatible with the Tactician too, and it goes further in replacing abilities associated with the Badass, allowing for some hybridization if you wish.

As general (ha.) advice, I'd suggest at least 12 Charisma regardless of the type you want to be (unless you use Int instead), so you can use Motivational Speech an additional time, especially if you start at a low level. The troop is pretty easy to hit until you teach them some ways to avoid damage or be in a more advantageous position, so being able to heal them after combat will be key. Silly soldiers think it's fine to be next to 4 orcs at once!

For the character (Strategist archetype only) I played, I believe I focused on Strength, some Constitution, and then I think Charisma and Dex in equal amounts, as I wanted the option at least to switch between ranged and melee.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're right, and it appears that the product no longer is on the Paizo website.

Looks like you can get it here though.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Rest in Peace Steve. I'll never forget you for your generosity and for helping me get started in the industry. I learned a lot from you, and wish your family the best in these dark times.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FWIW, the core line has already assigned the power level of swift action potion drinking at:

1) Mythic
2) Requiring selecting a specific talent (Assured Drinker)
3) Requiring you to spend a mythic point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The PDT doesn't do FAQs on non core-line work. The closest they've done to that was some encouraging for the Golarion team to answer the Freebooter Ranger archetype question.

Your best bet is to ask the question in the product discussion page for the product it came from.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Either it was announced at GAMA today or there's some very fast photoshopping by twitter user UnclesGames: Slide announcing the hardcover.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Mogloth wrote:

So, based on the way that James has been trying to manage expectations about this secret project, which of us will be the first back here to say, "Uh, that's it?"


I'm certainly preparing for everyone to say that. ;-)
Out of sheer contrariness, I will now be completely over-the-top in my enthusiasm for whatever the sekrit projects are, no matter how mundane.

Today, Paizo announces Pathfinder, The Toaster(tm), the newest way to bring the excitement of Pathfinder and the giddy flames of goblin kind to a breakfast near you. With exciting toast burn configurations such as "Ezren's Chin", "Griddle of Opposite Germination", and "Runetoast", breakfast will never be boring again!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hetherington wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

It's clearly powercreep.

Currently if you want a familiar (and don't have a class that does so), you have a cha of 13 and spend 2 feats. and get a familiar at level -2.

This is 1 feat and it gives you an improved version of one of the most popular familiars along with all that entails.

tl;dr; This feat gives you improved initiative, alertness and a little flying

Based on the actual feat text, yea, it seems fairly obvious that it was banned for power reasons and a huge expectancy of table variation.

Spend 1 feat, acquire the most valuable resource in pathfinder: an extra set of actions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your time to shine has come.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to go through a lot of effort to actually create a character that "isn't viable". People routinely play at a power level above what the game was built for, and that provides a huge buffer space. You'll do fine, and magi that aren't the bog-standard-cookie-cutter dervish dancer with intensified shocking grasp do just fine in the game, especially with a competent GM.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

In combat? No, not at all. They have many nice things and there's been a huge amount of power creep / lowering-of-level-where-rocket-tag-is-an-issue since the release at Pathfinder.

Out of combat? They could use a few things, yea.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

A wee bit melodramatic, no?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If anything, they increase the availability of options at the tables I play at, as the options were banned previously.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My cavaliers only ride horses with three spoilers on the back.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The overwhelming majority of these nerfs being aimed at casters is just undeniable proof that Paizo hates casters.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, people actually thought Divine Protection was balanced?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

They are already useful and competent. Ample playtesting has shown this out repeatedly. In-combat things are not the area they need help in. Buffing them up, or replacing them with a set of classes that just further exacerbate rocket tag and bring the levels that it's active at much lower won't help as much as working in logical out-of-combat abilities, and that's where you should focus your attention if you want to be successful.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

No no, this new thread someone will make will totally have a new perspective that hasn't been brought up in the past 15 years. It's definitely not rehashing the same thing over and over.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is what Mum-Rob just said, d'oh.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well said.

This is a messageboards problem and one seen predominantly in the games of people who are on the messageboards. Regardless of which messageboard it is. A tempest in a teacup.

There can be issues, but only when things are pushed to their limits, and in many many MANY games, martials are by far the most powerful characters.

This is especially true at the levels that most people play at (lower levels), and in the average game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


There's also this too.

They've been saying that it'd be released between those dates for a few months now. It's not really a surprise.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because he's a dwarf?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I get the feeling there's some context I'm missing, but I'm not so sure I'm actually missing much.

Reading the rules strictly and without trying to determine the intent isn't the best idea. In fact, I'm not even certain it's possible. It's easy to see why as well:

Written words have one purpose, and one purpose only: To convey the intent of the designer. The words and rules they encompass did not appear out of a void. The words first appeared when a human being typed them on a computer. And that wasn't the first time the rules came into being either. Previously, they were in the designer's head, jumbling about and sorting themselves out. They were bouncing off myriad other ways to implement the desired behavior. How can I best capture this feeling and action I'm trying to encapsulate? Should it be a bonus applied in a certain situation, or something that gives a new ability in that situation?

And, as surprising as it is, it turns out that the designer does not suddenly become a robot when they are designing new rules and transcribing their thoughts into words that convey their intent. Or if they do transmogrify, it sure as heck doesn't happen to me or any other of the many designers I know. This means that they are still just human. They can still make mistakes when conveying their intended rules.

So yes, applying common sense is necessary. Sometimes it's needed to fill in the gaps when mistakes are made during when transcribing rules from the mind to the document.

Of course, coming at the rule without preconceived notions is also very helpful. Sometimes the designer wants to do something that doesn't actually fit what would be called "common sense". Usually this involves being very specific about something to show how it's different from the norm.

And this isn't even getting into the idea of design blind spots, where you are so deep into a system and you know it so well that you simply do not realize that one of the rules in your head is not actually written down, and your mind just fills-in-the-gaps when you are re-reading everything.

But it all comes down to the designers not being robots. Things will never be perfect, and you need to try to figure out what the intent was in a fair manner in the cases where things are odd. There are often times very strong hints that point one way or the other, with a few principles that can be applied to figure out the intent.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, unofficially, I think it'd be fine for that case, although if they took other damaging tactics, I'd keep them at d8. It's feat for an effective +1 damage increase. You can also just say they have bastard swords, but some also have daggers that they use now and then, and then between pommelsmacks and thrown elbows, that accounts for the B,P, and S damage type.

The other reason Linda and I went with this model was because it ensured we could have better handle on the balance. When we removed the possibility of outfitting your own troop, it meant that the class wouldn't get massively more powerful or weak based on the wealth that the party got, which is a factor we can't really control. We wanted to take a complex concept, someone in charge of a bunch of people, and take away as many of the the aspects that made the archetypical idea difficult to run without massive spreadsheets. And part of that included outfitting the troop personally. (And paying them, although we experimented with that a bit and Linda made a great system for how to handle it.)

One thing I'd recommend though is to sort of divorce yourself from the thinking that it's exactly like an NPC. It's fine to just say "Yes, they all have bastard swords", without giving them the feat. The squad weapon is never really specified, so it can be whatever you want. In the base adventure that introduced the troop subtype, the auto-damage represented rifle buts, elbows, knives, bayonets, and the occasional-probably-too-close-pistol fire. It was just whatever the troop had in hand.

Fluid Tactics would probably help though, letting them switch easier between two-handing the bastard swords, and using them one-handed with shields.

In the game I'm playing in, I have a General that leads a group of half-elfs that are outfitted with a mix of longswords, falcatas, shields, crossbows, and shovels. Their squad name is the Ditch Diggers, which is somehow a term of honor given our nascent kingdom.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also remember that they changed how stealth works. If you start in cover or concealment, you can get to another place where you have that and make the stealth roll again, even if you're darting in open sight.

Stealth is unfortunately one of those skills where people don't really follow the rules.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I start punching trees until I get enough wood to make a crafting table, then I make some wooden tools. I then start to progress my way up the tech tree until I get killed by an exploding green thing.

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Because Ezren. And dat chin is the stuff of dreams.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have this weird condition where if I see someone seriously complaining that "martials can never have nice things", I just forget everything in the post I read.

It's weird, but it actually makes the forums a lot more enjoyable to read than before I developed that.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Additionally, here is commentary from a former member of the Pathfinder Design Team ranting about the rods.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Honestly, I think all of the metamagic rods are cheesy and should be removed from the game. The metamagic feats are already annoying and weak and there's no strong incentive to take them, and on top of that you can pick up the rod as a cheap feat-in-a-can and not have to prepare the spell ahead of time, and on top of that, they can bypass the 9th-level spell limit (normally you can't quicken anything 6th or higher with the feat because there are no 10th-level spell slots), so the rods are even better than the feat.

The parenthetical statement is clearly at odds with the idea that the rods allow you to prepare the spells ahead of time using the metamagic feat, as if that were the case, you couldn't use the rod of quicken, despite what the statement above states.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Caused too many questions to arise and unbalanced things that were made under the ruling they weren't spells.

When there are guides on which race to pick to get which spell of which casting tradition and which spell level, just so you can make a build using something that was never the original intention, things have gone way, way too far.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems like the immunities are doing their job fairly well :p

In our groups, we usually see minor forms of this, with wasted actions now and then. But we generally prefer more interesting combats than facerolls, which tend to happen when all those wasted actions happen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

4th edition had one such table, and it was one of the most hated things about the edition, as the characters never actually got better.

If you really want to go ahead with that, just make an excel chart that sets chance to succeed at 50%, and make an average build against that, putting every rank of a skill into that, etc.

You'll have to do that for ability checks too, because ability checks are already screwed up and scale much slower.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Doesn't need to be playtested," is the common refrain from those who armchair analyze, "it's obvious how this will work, given X, Y, and Z."

But the thing is that if you want your opinions to be considered more, you should still playtest. And playtest fairly! Because armchair analysis is prone to missing details and people on the forums almost invariably want things stronger during the playtests, so it's hard to separate actual good ideas from the usual "buff buff buff buff buff", and playtesting reports helps with that greatly.

I'm quite glad to see that others are planning on more playtests. Since high level playtests are rare, I will probably aim my own tests there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Saying that the design team doesn't know how to design is going to do an amazing job of getting them to listen to your ideas, good job!

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, a Tengu Stalker Vigilante.

Let's get dangerous.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they didn't have the extra staggered spells from bloodlines, then it would be an absolutely no-brainer choice for 99% of all sorcerers.

How would you go about trading out a weak ability that you probably won't use past level 2 for an extra set of actions, the most important thing you can get in Pathfinder?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

On the plus side, if you assume the game is written from the perspective of elephants, it makes the "What's the Acrobatics DC to jump a 10 foot pit?" question really simple.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing to keep in mind is that the rules were made with innumerable assumptions of what is common sense. For example, nothing in the rules prevents an elephant from jumping, even though it is impossible for an elephant to jump.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yiroep wrote:

Question about permanent bonuses for items:

- I have seen people do things like take the Horizon Walker prestige class, qualifying by using a Scarlet and Green Cabochon to get the Endurance feat.

- I've also seen people use a Phylactery of Positive Channeling to qualify for the Channeled Revival feat early.

1. Are these legitimate? They are not ability score bonus items, but a lot of people seem to think that this works since you can wear these items for 24 hours, which is why I have the confusion.

2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," then what happens to a Horizon Walker when he takes off the ioun stone? Does he/she lose the entire class?

To be honest? My players would not be happy if I allowed something like that in my home game (and neither would I). The answer to (2) is listed somewhere; if I recall, you lose almost all features and are left with what a fallen paladin has (BAB, base saves, skill points, and proficiencies). To go back to (1), while otherwise I never would have even imagined that such a thing would count as a prereq, I have a strong memory that Sean posted something on the messageboards at some point that could be used to support that argument, even though I think Sean only referenced the ability scores, which explicitly count as a permanent bonus after 24 hours. As such, it would be tough for me to make the call to disallow it in PFS, even if I might look askance.

You're probably thinking of this post and Sean's next one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Strategy Guide has a lot of concepts at the front, with recommendations on how to build them with the core classes.

I'm thinking Spheres of Power could use a document of that sort, just to ease people into the new system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which sphere covers prestidigitation/limited wish/wish/miracle?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the review, Eric!

To answer your questions:

Flagbearer was indeed altered here. We thought it fit well, but that as written it'd be a bit too good.

Skirmishing is sort of a different way of damage than anything else in the system, so here is how it is supposed to work:

You have a dice pool. It's comprised of a number of d6s. If you get the tactic as soon as possible, your dice pool will have 1d6 in it. You also get 2 lines when you use this. Each line will do 2 points of damage, and you can assign any number of the dice from the dice pool to either line. If taken ASAP, that basically means you'll have 2 lines, one that does 1d6+2 damage, 1 that does 2 damage. Once you get a 2nd d6 in the dice pool, you could have 1 line that does 2d6+2 and the other doing 2, or two lines that do 1d6+2, etc etc.

The lines will follow the usual rules for line effects, same as spells. So, act like someone in the troop's squares is casting lightning bolt, and resolve it that way. :) Hopefully that helps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.

"What's brown and rhymes with Snoop?"

Not sure how that one made it into a PF module, but there you have it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever I refresh a page, a pop up, well, pops up, saying "f" with an OK button.

Then another pops up with 27, a radio box to say "Don't pop up again" essentially, and an OK button. And then another one pops up after I click that one, saying another number.

This is for every page, and another user has seen this happen on theirs too.

Version: 1.14.23352.166.23352 (2015-06-01 11:11)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sure, GM how you like.

My point is that at least I seldom use way lower enemies that often, nor do I suspect many others do.

I might use 4-6 enemies of roughly the same CR as the party, and I *might* use a sizeable band of enemies CR 1 lower than the party, but aside from that?

Any time the party encounters enemies lower than that I'm expecting a curbstomp by the party, it's not expected to be a challenge at all.

I'm not talking about my GMing, your GMing, or anyone's GMing. I'm talking about the guidelines for encounters laid out in the GMG. Encounters with CR from APL-1 to APL+3, doubling the number of creatures increases the CR by 2 (and a table from 2 creatures to 16).

That you don't follow those guidelines means nothing except for games you run. I would never presume to guess how other people run their games or even that I've met the tiniest fraction of people who run games. The GMG is on its third printing, I think? How many thousands of people is that? All I can use for determining encounters is the listed guidelines Paizo has provided, which include allowances for up to 16 lower CR creatures in a battle.

The question I'm trying to have answered is if combat maneuvers are significantly more effective against CR=APL-2 or CR=APL-4 monsters and therefore encounters with twice as many monsters two CR lower or four times as many monsters four CR lower would be a possible solution to make combat maneuvers more viable (while still keeping the difficulty scaling of higher and lower CRs). I don't know what CMDs Cheapy was comparing to, I guessed CR=APL and was hoping to get CR=APL-2 and CR=APL-4.

Your assumption about using CR equal was correct.

Amusingly enough though, I actually have a bit better numbers than that. When balancing a class I wrote, I tried to determine the average number of creatures in an encounter*. The numbers worked out to about 2-3 creatures per encounter for a given CR.

I think I checked 3 PFS scenarios and 2 AP modules? Not exactly representative, but do you have any idea how time consuming that is? :) The main module I remember was The Dead Heart of Xin, a real dungeon crawler with lots of encounters, and I used that one for high levels.

Which means for the average encounter, it's better to use not CR equal, but a CR equal to APL - 2 as the target numbers. Not that the numbers aren't entirely fair: if the party is level 15, a CR 17 encounter could be composed of 2 CR 15 critters, but for the numbers below, it's using level 17 CMB numbers for that. However, the original numbers already cover that case.

So, starting at 20, using a maneuver that can replace attacks but doesn't use a weapon, as a full BAB class that only uses things from the CRB:
1-6: 89%
7-12: 94.16%
13-20: 92.5%

Starting at 17 Str, other assumptions untouched:
1-6: 83.5%
7-12: 89.16%
13-20: 87.5%

Also, noticed a small issue in my formulas. Subtract about 5% from the level 1-6 range for all previous numbers. The other ranges are unaffected by it, and this post uses the corrected numbers.

Here are the numbers for against CR = APL+1 targets. Keep in mind that as CR overtakes APL, there's a much greater chance that we're getting into single target territory, and then the creature is going down fast anyways. This does not include the flanking that will generally happen in a single target situation.

Starting Str: 20

1-6: 61%
7-12: 66%
13-20: 58%

Starting Str: 17

1-6: 53.66%
7-12: 55%
13-20: 47.5%

3 people marked this as a favorite.

126 posts before the "But, wizards!" argument was brought up in a post about martial combat.

Maybe the forums are starting to get better about that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's because it has the coolest name.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome to finally see all the hard work pay off, Michael!

1 to 50 of 2,335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.