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

Cheburn's page

Organized Play Member. 421 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Chess Pwn wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

Reward them for a BRIEF creative description AND rolling ALL of their attack and damage dice at the SAME TIME. Or saying "I need a DC 14 Reflex save please" as opposed to "Make a saving throw."

"What kind?"
"What DC?"

I think this is the direction I'm heading after reading the responses in this thread. If they resolve their turn quickly and give a cinematic description, then I'll award the bonus damage.

To address some of the other points in this thread:

On the "metagaming" criticism, my issue with metagaming in general is that it ruins the immersion. Whereas the entire point of this houserule would be to increase the immersion. If I can create a more immersive world for my players at minimal cost, then that's worth it for me. (Besides, do you also consider Hero Points to be metagaming?)

On the "do it secretly but don't tell them" suggestion, I don't understand what that accomplishes? The whole point is to encourage immersive gameplay. If I don't tell my players, then they have no extra incentive to do it. It just becomes a bookkeeping exercise for me with no actual benefit to the game.

I'd write a short line, ask the GM if that was enough, and then just use that line every time.

It just turns "I cast fireball DC 15" to "I cast fireball and I add this extra bit for the +1 DC thanks you! So the DC is 16 since I gave the description."

And this wouldn't be meeting the purpose for what you wanted. All this turns into is you saying that everyone has a +1 to DC and +1 to damage rolls and combat takes 25% longer.

Since this plan seems to be in clear violation of what the GM is trying to do with his house rule, why would you expect the bonus? Passive aggressively antagonizing the GM rarely works out well.

There are suggested rules for removing iterative attacks in Pathfinder Unchained.

They're not perfect, but they try to address a number of the same issues dealing with. There is even a Mobile Melee variant that sounds like it might be of interest.

If nothing else, it may give you another example of how someone has tried to "fix" the system of iterative attacks. ml

Daw wrote:
I should ask you natural scientists, in your bastion of various strong personalities that you are quick to discount: Who is it that is getting the grants? Perhaps you do not Feel Their Power because they don't really feel the need to influence you. Try being helpful, or even just non-condescending, and maybe their focus towards you might be more than keeping you at a distance.

As far as I can tell, the ability to get grants is very decoupled from how you treat others. I've known amazing scientists (who have a lot of grant money, which is a very different statement) who are great, friendly, outgoing people. I've known complete jerks who are struggling to keep their labs running because they can't get good funding. The you could reverse those previous statements and they would also be true.

Protoshoggoth wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
...I work in natural science. The building I work in is full of strong, memorable personalities. Few of them are charismatic.
Yes, but do they get their way?

Not as often as they would like. More importantly, from what I can tell, that metric is decoupled from what I would consider "strength of personality" without concern for other metrics.

Protoshoggoth wrote:
BTW, I work in the natural sciences also (Physics) - yes, it can be quite a collection of "memorable personalities." Some of ours need to be kept in a broom closet :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Protoshoggoth wrote:
Meraki wrote:

I'm not usually a fan of people playing complete jerks at the table for any reason, low Charisma or not.

Low Cha doesn't necessarily mean someone is rude. They could just be that kind of person who everyone overlooks for whatever reason. (Like Kellam from Fire Emblem: Awakening. The running joke is that no one ever notices him.)

That makes me modify a point I was making earlier, and to agree with Meraki - lacking the personality to even get noticed is probably just as good an expression of low Cha as being unlikable, and maybe even better; unlikable people can still have significant force of personality.

We talk about "strength/force of personality" a lot. But charisma is fundamentally not the strength of your personality. It's about the ability to influence others. These aren't necessarily the same.

I work in natural science. The building I work in is full of strong, memorable personalities. Few of them are charismatic.

GreyYeti wrote:

A stat of 7 is not extraordinarily impaired. It just means you get a -2 malus on checks. To give some numbers:

A character with a stat of 10 (mod +0) and a stat of 7 (mod -2) try to do the same task:
57,25% of the time the 10 will be better
4,5% of the time they will be equal
38,25% of the time the 7 will have a better a result than the 10

The 7 still has a more than 1/3 chance of beating the 10.

A stat of 7 for a human is 'extraordinarily' low (not necessarily extraordinarily 'impaired,' which is different) compared with everyone else. Ordinarily, 'bad' ability scores are an 8 (based on NPC guidelines). I would argue that it's probably best described as 'slightly impaired.'
  • You fail about 10% of the time on some tasks that are so trivial that an 'average' person would never fail at them.
  • You are much less likely to succeed at 'hard' tasks for than an average person (they are two or three times more likely to be successful than you).
  • An 'average' person will be more likely to succeed at you at any task.
  • Some tasks that an average person would have a low chance of success at are simply too hard for you to succeed at.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seven is actually quite low in terms of an ability score. Your basic/heroic NPC statblocks have a low score of 8 (and an average of 10.8 and 12.3 for humans respectively). That means an 8 is already someone who is uncharismatic compared with the vast majority of NPCs. Below 8 is someone who is extraordinarily uncharismatic.

Similar, someone with a strength of 7 is extraordinarily weak, and someone with an intelligence of 7 is extraordinarily dim.

Exactly how you RP that is up to you, but I would encourage any player at my table to take that into consideration when they're deciding how they want their character to act.

Irontruth wrote:

My example is not about what solutions are possible, my example is what solution is iconic.

What is the iconic solution to that situation that you would stereotypically consider to be "fighter"? What solution, if presented without the class, would immediately make you jump to the conclusion that the character was a fighter?

I'm not asking you to judge the other ones, I'm asking for what the fighter's would be.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you arguing that the Fighter doesn't have good enough "fluff" for the class, or are you arguing the class lacks the mechanical tools to solve the problem?

If it's fluff ("iconic solutions"):
... a cavalier ... challenges someone to a duel over the cow?
... an alchemist ... wonders why these farmers are such idiots and goes to work in his laboratory?
... a summoner ... scares everyone with her Eidolon and takes the cow?
... a barbarian ... gets really angry at the conflict and murders everyone?
... a monk ... recommends the farmers detach themselves from their possessions and then meditates on self-perfection?

Of course, each of these classes has methods of dealing with the Cow Crisis. I don't think they necessarily have "iconic solutions" to it though, and I also don't think that's a bad thing.

If you're arguing mechanics, I'm more sympathetic.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Glamer is actually now also a weapon quality. :-)
Is it? I didn't know. Well, that just makes it even more expensive to kit out all my minions. I think I'd be better off with potions of disguise self,... except that still doesn't address the 100% chance of disadvantage vs 50% chance of advantage issue.

To clarify, I was posting in a hurry and was discussing using a decoy in the party, rather than in a group of NPCs. Glamered weapons or armor are too expensive for most NPCs, though proper use of Illusion spells can mislead parties pretty effectively.

JDawg75 wrote:
Regarding SM IX: I have a fantasy of using an empower spell rod to empower the spell with Superior Summons and Spell Perfection for awesomeness later on. But you're right, it does leave a dead trait for most of my career, and we may not even make it up to the teens, level-wise. What would you suggest? I've already got reactionary, though I'm not sure if all of the initiative stuff I've taken is stacking correctly...

If you decided you personally wanted UMD (for casting Divine spells etc.), you could always go with Pragmatic Activator. (You had mentioned wanting your familiar to use wands, so if that's set in stone, ignore the suggestion).

Eldritch Delver I always thought was fun (if not the strongest trait) for a Conjurer.

Student of Philosophy can be pretty useful to make your Wizard a passable party face as well, since your Int mod is likely to be quite high.

Seeker is generically useful, and make Perception a class skill.

Or just keep the 'dead' trait -- the difference in power is unlikely to make or break you.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Why would an example of when a decoy wouldn't work well suggest that, in general, using decoys would be a bad tactic?

Because decoys are, almost by definition, playing out of their role. Put a wizard or a druid into full plate and they stop being effective casters. Take a fighter or a paladin out of full plate and they stop being effective damage sponges. Give a zen archer a pair of short swords and his ability to deliver damage drops immensely, but the TWF rogue with a longbow has the same problem.

Now, if you've got useless wastes of space, you don't lose much by putting them somewhere and hoping that someone confuses them for combat effectives, because there's not much there to lose. But by the same token, those won't be particularly effective decoys, because they'll be destroyed so quickly. And in that case, why are you carrying useless wastes of space around with you in the first place?

Glamered armors and weapons could be particularly effective here. Nothing says that full plate and a greatsword can't look like normal clothing and a rod (until you attack with it and that is suppressed for 1 min). Similarly, spell component pouches don't necessarily look all that different from other belt pouches, which are common equipment.

That wouldn't likely won't be effective for the whole combat (because the character will be acting wrong and in the wrong positions), but it could help confuse the enemies initially, which is often enough to gain a tactical advantage.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
So, um, fabricate isn't able to turn ice into water?
Water and ice aren't the same material, so by the strictest reading, probably not.

Well, that tells me everything I need to know about your interpretation, I'm afraid. I reject it utterly. You've acknowledged that the consequences of your reading are, to me, absurd -- I'm not simply misinterpreting you.

We have here a magic spell that's capable of fitting two pieces of lathed wood together to get a plank, something impossible even to the most skilled craftsman, but it can't melt ice?

Magic does what it says it does. That's a (un?)balancing factor in the Pathfinder system.

Fitting two pieces of lathed wood together is what the spell says it does. Therefore it does it.

Heating or cooling a material is not. Therefore, it does not do it.

You're giving a purposefully innocuous example, but once you allow Fabricate to change temperatures, then you can use it to cool water to 0 K (absolute zero), or heat it to 10,000 K (around the temperature of some stars). There is absolutely nothing in the text of the spell about using it to change the temperature of a material, so there is no limit on what temperature you can go to.

After all, we're in Pathfinder and magic can do "anything."

See my example of using Fabricate to set off a nuclear blast -- you could justify it using very similar logic to that expressed in support of changing charcoal to diamonds.*

Therefore, the spell does what it says. It doesn't change temperatures, and it doesn't change one material (charcoal) into another (diamonds).


*Assuming that nuclear blasts can happen in Pathfinder, and that in Pathfinder, diamonds and charcoal are actually related to each other. To my knowledge, these aren't actually defined in the rules.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Fabricate wrote:
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.
Charcoal and diamonds aren't the same material, any more than diamonds, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes are.
So, um, fabricate isn't able to turn ice into water?

I think it might be best to go with two things being made of the same material if there is a known mundane process for turning one into the other.

That reformulation either doesn't help, or it's needlessly restrictive. What about cases where A can be turned into B, but not B into A? Or, for that matter, where neither A nor B can be turned into each other, but C can be turned into either?

I admit, I think of "same material" as an equivalence relationship; if A and B are the same material, then so are B and A -- and if A and B are the same material, as are B and C, then so are A and C. Therefore, a chair, a bed, and a table are all the same material (wood), and the fabricate spell can convert a bed to a chair, a task possibly impossible to a mundane crafter.

Water and ice aren't the same material, so by the strictest reading, probably not. In terms of chemical connectivity, however, water and ice are much closer than charcoal and diamonds; you just ordered the (unchanged) molecules a bit.

In a game I was GMing, that strictest reading probably wouldn't come up unless a player wanted to do something like use Fabricate to generate diamonds from charcoal.

However, you do generally have a temperature change though on going from water --> ice, which is not part of the spell. So I might not allow it for that reason as well. Similarly, I wouldn't be inclined to let a player use Fabricate to make liquid nitrogen or a superheated plasma.

Neither would I let a player use it to 'reorganize' the gas in a room and kill themselves by setting off an improvised fusion bomb.

Obviously, a bed, chair, and table are all made out of wood, and you could make one out of the other with Fabricate, assuming you had enough volume of material to work with.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Java Joe wrote:
+3 adds about 10% chance for every attack to hit.
It adds +15% chance to hit. If your chance to hit before was 15%, your chance to hit with the extra +3 is 30%. (Which would increase DPR by 100%!)
That's true if -- and only if -- you're not at either end of the RNG. If your attack bonus is +10 and you're attacking AC 40, the +3 grants you a +0% chance to hit. Likewise, if your attack bonus is +10 and you're attacking AC 10, the +3 to hit isn't doing much for you. So the +10% estimate is actually probably pretty close -- closer, in fact, than your "corrected" value.

In general, 15% is a pretty significant underestimate of your increased hit % from +3 attack.

If you normally hit on a 19 or 20, +3 to hit increases your hit % by 150%. You used to hit 10% of the time. You now hit 25% of the time. Out of 100 hits, you now on average land 25 instead of 10. That's not a 10% increased chance to hit (which would be landing 11 hits on average), which is the common meaning of "increases your chance to hit by 10%".

Even if you normally hit on a 5, it's actually a 20% increase in your hit rate to get a +3 attack bonus.

You are correct that at the far extremes of 'AC - attack bonus,' there is no benefit. But in region where there is any non-zero effect to adding attack bonus, the average benefit is about +60% chance to hit. In the more common region where players need 10 or less to hit, it's about a +25% increase in chance to hit.

Claxon gets around it to an extent by talking about '15 absolute %,' but even that's pretty misleading. It's like a bank increasing the interest rate on your loan from 1% to 2% and saving "the interest rate was increased by 1%." Your interest rate was increased by 100% (doubled). Your interest rate was increased by 1 "percentage point."

Describing +3 to hit as a '+15% chance to hit' is ambiguous at best, and (probably accidentally) muddies the waters in terms of the effect the buff has on the performance of a party.

Fabricate wrote:
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.

Charcoal and diamonds aren't the same material, any more than diamonds, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes are. Their characteristic properties are completely different. You shouldn't attempt to use a non-standard definition of "material" (like "same atomic composition"), because it leads to silliness not covered by the rules ("I'm going to turn this charcoal into nitrogen, because I have the right ratios of protons, electrons, and neutrons.").

As an aside, I feel it's often people who want to make their decision to apply Bodyguard based on their metagame knowledge who argue for #2. If I had someone at my table who (A) really wanted to have it be #2, and also (B) wanted dice rolled 'in the open,' I'd get out my Yahtzee cup.

"Dice are rolled, do you want to apply Bodyguard?"

"But I can't see the dice!"

"Well they've been rolled. I'll reveal the results once you say if you want to use Bodyguard or not."

Players are smart. If I roll dice, and they see the result, they usually have a good idea whether or not it's a hit. Heck, some players have the Bestiaries memorized, and will immediately calculate whether or not a roll is a hit if you're using an unmodified/unbuffed monster. So saying "after the dice are rolled but before the results are declared" can be quite meaningless unless they don't actually see the dice. They already know the results if they see the dice.

While there's no specific 'declare phase,' it's unambiguous that AoOs happen before the provoking action. I think you're pretty safe if you're ruling it as #1.

SnowHeart wrote:

When in the course of an attack must the use of the Bodyguard feat's aid another ability be declared?

1. Before the attack roll
2. After the roll but before the result is declared
3. After the result is declared?

AoOs generally occur before the provoking action. So it would go:

Enemy declares an attack against your ally --> You use an AoO (Bodyguard) --> Enemy attacks

Given that your action (AoO from Bodyguard) happens before the enemy's attack, I don't think there's a strong case for any but 1. Before the attack roll.*

That doesn't mean someone won't argue about it.

* Agreeing with Ectar, but spelling out the argument a little more.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Your GM hasn't heard of Touch Attacks or saving throws?

With AWT, fighters [can] have all good saves.

Halek wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Halek wrote:
Magic will always do better at healing. A first level cleric with a positive charisma can do more healing in a day then the best mundane healer. Aoe channel energy is that good.

Of course.

That doesn't mean that the Healer's Handbook had to focus on magic. They could tried to find ways to boost the Heal skill and reduce the opportunity cost of not having a Cleric in your party.

Wand of cure light wounds and someone with use magic device. Or a bard. Or an alchemist. Or a witch. Or (insert class with cure light wound son list).

Or go infernal healing and have your wizard/sorcerer use it.

Right. Those are all ways of dealing with the opportunity cost.* Paizo could have worked to improve the Heal skill to provide another method to deal with it. They chose not to, which is fine because they make the rules to their game.

But when someone says (approximately) "I wish Paizo would have provided better non-magical healing methods in the Healer's Handbook," and the reply is, "Well you can just use magic to heal," it seems like you may have missed his point.

*Some of them (e.g. Wand of Cure Light Wounds) have a literal GP cost that you are paying, and scale poorly with level, but that's another discussion.

Halek wrote:
Magic will always do better at healing. A first level cleric with a positive charisma can do more healing in a day then the best mundane healer. Aoe channel energy is that good.

Of course.

That doesn't mean that the Healer's Handbook had to focus on magic. They could tried to find ways to boost the Heal skill and reduce the opportunity cost of not having a Cleric in your party.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Stunning Assault and Blinding Critical are some pretty cool abilities for your high end shenanigans, but those cap out at DC 20. Which is a bit of a problem when that means the CR 15+ enemies you're fighting against at the levels you can get those feats have maybe a 10% chance of not making their saving throw against your specials. Against bosses like the Balor, you are guaranteed to fail with any of those DC 10+BAB feats unless it fumbles its save.

As mentioned, those feats cap out at DC 30. That's of course still bad against a Balor (+29 Fort save), but not that different from what many high level Wizards will be putting out in terms of the DCs

(most of Karzoug's spell DCs are in the 26-32 range)
I do wish that they had included a scaling factor (+STR mod? +1/2 STR mod?) in some of these feats, possibly specifically for Fighter, since it would make these more likely to land against CR appropriate enemies, and would be a buff for Fighter.

Heck, they could have made a Fighter specific combat feat that said "Add your +STR bonus to the DC for any Critical feats you have." Still way weaker than the stuff that Wizards are doing, but that's a feat that's actually fairly powerful, and Fighter-specific, especially if you have Critical Mastery as well.

Flaming Burst weapons come to mind (extra fire damage on a critical). So do Cruel weapons (user gets temporary hitpoints when he uses the weapon to KO or kills a creature). You also have things like Limning weapons that are more effective against certain types of enemies (those who use concealment), though you may be looking for more RNG effects.

Zippomcfry wrote:
Heya, I am running a campaign where the pcs recently looted a great sword with a surprise. Everytime the sword was used and the wielder rolled a natural 1 the sword would cast a fireball (cl5) on the wielder. This was not revealed until it happened.

I have to say though, if you didn't give your party a chance to identify the properties of that sword through (Detect Magic / Spellcraft), I think that's a bit unfair. If you did, and they didn't examine the weapon or blew the roll, ignore that comment.

If you're wearing Seducer's Bane, the caster will incorrectly sense that failed Enchantment spells have succeeded. I don't know of any ways for other schools of magic. It would work for Hold Person (until they saw you moving). However, it is 10k gold.

Lots of good suggestions above.

If your plot can handle it, an apprentice Wizard also comes to mind, as they could be dropping battlefield control type spells while your BBEG blows up the joint.

I'd also consider shenanigans like magic jar if you think your overly large group will bum rush the BBEG and ruin the battlefield.

In terms of other ways to even out the action economy, even a lesser quicken metamagic rod can be useful. And while not direct blasts, Evocation spells like Forcecage can also help quite a bit. 6v8 is very different from 6v12.

Finally, your BBEG could potentially have some bound planar servants -- I'd expect any powerful evil mages to have something like a few Ceutstodaemons or Erinyes if they know a major fight's coming. And Erinyes at least tend to attack from a distance, so they'd likely be out of the range of your BBEvocation spells.

Snowlilly wrote:

Item Mastery -> Teleportation Mastery. Take the dimensional feats.

Any class can do it. Easier to spare the feats, and you get more daily uses, with a fighter.

While I'd personally allow this combo, I don't believe there is a consensus as to whether or not Teleportation Mastery fulfills the prerequisite of Dimensional Agility. I'd expect table variation here.

Letric wrote:
Did they change it? I remember reading it was a swift. Im actually using it like that in my table

I don't believe it's changed since they released the APG.

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

If the statblock comes from the GM, then why the heck am I getting so much grief from people over how the gods are stated in my games?

I don't LIKE the freakishly ridiculously powerful 'these are unapproachable entities that still possess personalities that cannot be killed nor can they be surpassed' narrative Paizo provides.

I don't have any problem with how you stat the gods up in your games. It's just not very helpful to use as a reference when talking about Pathfinder in general. When you said your PCs were god-level around 17 it wasn't clear to me (or apparently to others) that you meant your much reduced god level, not the standard PF god level.
Standard PF godhood is a meaningless term. They don't have stats so we do not know how strong they actually are. They don't seem that impressive though from the lore.

They've had such a long time to craft explosive runes though. They're unstoppable. It's only a tenuous peace treaty between them that stops them from ripping all of the planes apart in a flurry of dispel magic and unavoidable force damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
Could you post the rules for that scenario?

I'm assuming he's talking about

This scenario:
Rise of the Runelords, Chapter 2 The Skinsaw Murders (p. 98 in the Anniversary Edition)

Suicide Compulsion
... The haunted character must make a DC 15 Will save. Failure indicates he moves over to the desk and attempts a coup de grace on himself with the jagged length of wood, dealing 2d4 (pluse twice his Strength modifier) points of damage to himself. He must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + the damage dealt) to avoid being slain by the suicide attempt ...

So basically a normal coup de grace with a 1d4x2 weapon. The will save in this case is because the character is being compelled to do this, rather than freely wanting to.

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Yeah a 50 Gold Potion of Cure Light Wounds would heal 1d8+1.

Having a higher caster level would cost more.

"The price of a potion is equal to the level of the spell × the creator's caster level × 50 gp. If the potion has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create. Table: Potions gives sample prices for potions created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class. Note that some spells appear at different levels for different casters. The level of such spells depends on the caster brewing the potion."

This is correct. The fact that it cost 50 gp indicates it is a caster level 1 potions (50 gp x spell level (1) x caster level (1).

If you wanted a caster level 5 potion of CLW, it would cost 250 gp, and would heal 1d8+5 HP.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Someone just brought up two interesting points to me. How would you handle magi, warpriests, and other classes that gain "Make my weapon magic" special abilities? And do animal companions and eidolons get ABP?

At least for magus (arcane pool) and warpriest (sacred weapon), the abilities contain language indicating that the granted bonuses stack with any existing bonuses the weapon might have, to a maximum of +5. I'd handle that the same way with ABP as I would with the normal system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
powerdemon wrote:

One of my GMs did a good Vampire campaign. We got injected with some mystery poison right before we got turned so we kept our minds and alignment. It worked pretty well.


If it's a homebrew campaign, there's no reason the GM couldn't just rule that you're 'neutral' versions of many Undead. You could either be the exception to the rule, or Undead in that world could generally have more diversity in alignment than you'd expect in Golarion.

I'd just recommend that you and the GM sort out what the 'rules' for Undead will be in the world. How common are non-evil Undead? How accepted by the general public? etc.

Firewarrior44 wrote:

Seeking is in the CRB

Circlet of Persuasion is as well

So 5+ for Scrolls of heroism, and you can still ignore concealment.

D'oh. Serves me right for not looking it up properly in my PDF. You're correct.

andreww wrote:

Given the limitations I don't think you are going to see much better than what you have posted as a melee fighter. I decided to give it a go with an archer fighter instead. If I was looking at this as a character to actually play I would definitely be looking at more skills especially taking advantage of her decent dex score. I went with half orc for darkvision. Her stat block includes the benefits of heroism and longstrider.

** spoiler omitted **...

andreww, I agree with you overall -- given the restrictions in place (CRB only Fighter) -- my mind went to a ranged build that's very similar to your's (right after it went to "welp, you're screwed").

That being said, a couple of the items you included in your build are from 'non-CRB,' sources. Specifically:

  • Seeking weapon special ability - UE
  • Traits - UC
  • Circlet of Persuasion - UE
The biggest issue with losing these is that you lose -7 from your UMD (-4 from Dangerously Curious, -3 from Circlet of Persuasion), and you can no longer reliably use your Scrolls of Heroism or wands (though for the wands, you only have to roll a 3 once your Heroism is up). Without Heroism though, you need to roll an 8+, which is not guaranteed. That being said, it's very likely that someone in your party could cast it on you using the scroll you bought, and it's a long enough buff that shouldn't be an issue to have it up as a pre-buff. And a 90% chance to activate your wands isn't too bad.

OP: A CRB Fighter is going to be a relatively weak character. Using with all of the items you can dig out of hard/softcovers from Paizo really only brings Fighter to an "acceptable" level (even if I have a soft spot for Fighters). The Fighter you built would probably have trouble at 16th level, due to lack of flight and fairly low saves. If you're set on using a CRB Fighter, I'd try to make a ranged attacker (similar to andreww's). If you're willing or able to use non-core sources, I'd suggest looking at master_marshmallow's developing fighter guide, which summarizes many of the newer and more powerful options for Fighters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

That's not true. While Multiple weapon training is not that great. Trading those for bonuses to stuff is great. But only getting 1 free AWT at lv9 through lv12 means that a lot of play, and potentially the entire campaign, has 0 or 1 free AWT. Making the other option of using feats to get them, but now you're trading your big draw of lots of feats to get parity with where other classes are starting out at lv1.

Because starting with 6 skills and good will and THEN being able to boost those would allow a fighter to FOCUS on skills or FOCUS on will save, and not just be playing catch-up.

Emphasis on 'free'?

Feats in general are weak compared with real class features. AWT allows a Fighter to trade feats for a much stronger ability.

Level 5: 1 AWT (-1 bonus feat)
Level 9: 2 AWT
Level 10: 3 AWT (-2 bonus feats)
Level 13: 4 AWT
Level 15: 5 AWT (-3 bonus feats)

Given the relative power of most AWT options compared with individual bonus feats, it's clearly a substantial net buff of the Fighter's ability.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind giving the Fighter more skill points. But for anyone building a Fighter with AWTs allowed, you'd be nuts to not have 3 AWTs by level 12.

Cheburn wrote:

Fighters have in-class flight.
that's very much not in-class.

It's from a splatbook that was basically the first major "Fighter Patch." It can be taken with a single feat, which Fighters have a ton of. And with it, there's no reason that any Fighter who wants to can't fly starting at level 8. Sounds "in-class" enough for me. YMMV.

Let me rephrase though, to be more technically correct: Lack of flight is no longer a major problem for mid-level Fighters.

Also: Wind Wall is no longer a major problem for mid-level Fighters with ranged weapons.

The C/M disparity is a problem for every martial, and is separate from problems individually with the Fighter class.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

barbs have in class flight, paladins have in class flight, rangers have in class flight, monks have in class ways to reach you, inquisitors have in class flight.

That leaves rogues, which are also bottom of barrel with fighter, brawlers, which are more skilled fighters that get better things than fighter, slayers that gets many more skills than fighter and is as good at fighting, cavalier which is still more skilled, and swashbucklers which still is more skilled.

So only 6 classes have no way to deal with it in class, and of those, they all beat the fighter at basically everything that the fighter can try.

Fighters have in-class flight.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Hell, the last Fighter I made had a +15 Will save at level 10 (15 PB, standard WBL), which was roughly equivalent to a similar Paladin's Will save, and slightly lower than a standard Human Superstitious/FCB Barb while raging (~+16).
I literally threw that together in less than five minutes, like I said, give me time and I could come up with even more effective stuff. cant afford the metamagic rod, ok, rid of cancellation is only 11,000. Hit them with a scroll of maze, that'll give you 10 rounds to prepare for all sorts of nasty stuff. Hell, a simple fly spell and a wind wall makes them more or less untouchable to a fighter. The long and short of it is the wizard alone has an entire toolbox of things they can do, many of which the fighter has little hope of countering.

A one time use 11k item ... that requires a successful touch attack to use, and which decently-built level 20 Fighter has a 95% chance of resisting (on top of normal dodge chance). Even if it's not resisted, you're standing next to a level 20 Fighter for a round waiting to cast while he gets to try to full attack you into oblivion. And Maze is a level 8 spell, which puts us at a level 15 Wizard minimum. And as a GM, I would not generally allow a level 15 NPC to have a one-time use item that's 11k, since that's ~4x the 2800 GP that Paizo recommends for such items. We're clearly into special case scenarios already. Though to be fair, if you're casting Maze, no need for a Rod of Cancellation.

More fundamentally however, you're conflating the C/M disparity with problems with the Fighter class. Many {Barbarians*/Paladins/Rogues/Rangers/Monks/Brawlers/Inquisitors (if not ranged)/Swashbucklers/Slayers/Cavaliers} would have trouble with a Wind Wall/Fly combo, or with getting put into a Maze. It's not specific to the Fighter class.

If your point is, "almost all martials are brokenly weak, and you should only play lvl 6+ casters," it's not a problem with Fighter specifically.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:

A 20th level fighter with a WIS of 20 and a CoR +5 (+16 to Will total) has a 1/4 chance of outright failing their save against plane shift to the negative energy plane cast by a 13th level wizard with 20 INT, and that's before factoring in feats to increase DC, magic items to increase DC, or the fact that the wizard could first drop a quickened (via metamagic rod) greater dispel (which can negate their CoR and possibly their WIS bonus since your average fighter won't have it that high without a headband) which could give them as high as a 2/3 change of ending up utterly screwed. So even with their regeneration they're not a huge deal for even a significantly lower level, let alone one on par with the fighter in question. And that was just off the top of my head, give me a little bit and I could probably come up with a plausible way a 9th level wizard could take care of them as well.

And all that is going off a single wizard, not accounting for a party that includes other casters as well. A cleric really opens up more options.

In terms of the quickened greater dispel magic, a Quicken Metamagic Rod is 75.5k GP. A level 13 NPC should have ~21k in gear. How are they affording this rod? Even with PC WBL, that's over half of their budget on a single item, which goes against how Paizo says to spend WBL when building characters ("for a balanced approach").

And if your 20th level Fighter isn't a completely derp, and takes Armed Bravery and Iron will, add +7 to that number for a +23 Will save, and will only fail on a 1 (5%). If they were smart enough to take Improved Iron Will, they will need to roll a 1 twice (0.25% chance). If they're a Dwarf, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc, those numbers just get better.

Hell, the last Fighter I made had a +15 Will save at level 10 (15 PB, standard WBL), which was roughly equivalent to a similar Paladin's Will save, and slightly lower than a standard Human Superstitious/FCB Barb while raging (~+16).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Madokar Valortouched wrote:

That just leaves me and the Shaman left with corruptions. The Shaman is okay for now, aside from having no flesh on his forearms and a Paralyzing touch. But my Paladin now has a constant Life Drain effect that takes off 2 HP a day that can't be healed or regenerated normally. There is one way to overcome this. The GM has given my paladin the ability "Premeditated Murder Healing".

My paladin regains 1d8 HP for every sentient creature murdered with an INT of 3 or higher. This effect activates whenever my paladin directly murders someone or arranges a situation that causes someone's death in the presence of the paladin. Evil outsiders and other enemies in combat will not activate the ability.

My paladin is not about to become a serial killer. He has 140 HP at Level 10. That means he has 70 days to resolve this before he gets down to 0 HP. So I'm starting to feel a little pigeonholed at the moment.

Well, you are a little pigeonholed at the moment.

A lot of how to respond depends on how much you trust your GM, and based the last thread, I could see why your trust might be a little ... shaken.

I'd advise (as you're planning) to roleplay it like a Paladin. Refuse to kill anything for the purpose of dispelling the curse.

  • I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
  • I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
  • I will suffer death before dishonor.
Do your best and try to remove the curse. If your GM is not being a complete ass, he'll provide a way to save your character, or gain redemption or greater power by not falling and 'sacrificing' yourself.

I wouldn't 'fall on my sword' unless your GM is actively forcing your character to commit evil acts. Have faith in the Inheritor, and keep to the code. :-)

Talking with your GM OOC, as several people have advised, is probably also a good idea.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Can you provide a book and page number reference to make looking this up easy?


I like the rule BTW as IMHO it makes a lot of sense.

Yorien was quoting the Monster Codex, p. 223. Here's the pertinent section:

Monster Codex, p. 223 wrote:

A troll's greatest motivation is its constant, gnawing hunger. An adult troll needs to eat the equivalent of a large pig every day just to fuel its demanding metabolism. This constant consumption powers the ability that sets trolls apart from other giants: the effortless regeneration of damaged tissue. A troll can reattach its severed limbs or grow new ones within minutes, and even a hacked-apart troll can restore itself, given enough time. Since under ordinary circumstances trolls cannot die from injury, they are fearless in battle, aggressively attacking without fearing loss of life or limb. Trolls are well aware of the few ways in which they can be killed, but even when confronted by the possibility of death, they have a hard time comprehending that it could really happen to them.

It is extremely difficult to kill a troll as long as its regeneration is in effect, but there are several ways to temporarily impede the regeneration long enough for a troll to die, or to kill it via means other than direct physical damage. A troll who doesn't get enough to eat over the course of a few days loses its regeneration and becomes vulnerable, though a single adequate meal will bring it back into fighting trim, and starvation itself is a common cause of death for trolls. Drowning a troll is also effective. The two most common ways to negate a trolls regeneration, however, are fire and acid, both of which create horrible wounds that damage the flesh beyond the power of regeneration to repair. Burning the stumps and corpse of an unconscious troll is the best way to permanently kill the creature.

Gauss wrote:
CRB p214 wrote:
The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.


CRB p214 wrote:
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quartercircle in the direction you designate.
Shoots away from you in a quartercircle, not shoots away from the intersection in a quartercircle. A subtle but important difference. Here is the image that shows this

So it 'originates' from the corner of a grid, but it also 'originates' from your position in the center of a square?

Look at the this post, drawn following all three possible origins {(0,0)/A,(2.5,0)/B,(2.5,2.5)/C}. What you're describing is "C".

It's obvious which ones Paizo used for their templates, however. For all of the 30' cones and for the 15' cone at an angle, they used A. For the 15' cone straight, they used B (because you get a closer shape, with less extra AoE). For none of them, from what I can tell, did they use "C".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
That's not how the ranged cover rules work, and if it was handled your way, the field of view for an arrow slit would be close to 0 degrees. Saying 'don't worry about the grid' is in direct contradiction to the cover rules which explicitly tell you to use the corners of your square.
Depend on how it is drawn on the map. If it is drawn as a straight hole through a 5' wall, sure. But that isn't the shape of a real arrowslit. Look the Wikipedia page I linked for the real shape.

That's how total cover works, from the Core Rulebook. Where do the rules say that ranged attacks don't follow these general rules?

To determine if a target has total cover, it's "any line" from a corner of your square to the target.* If you can't draw one, you can't attack. This automatically creates an attackable area, which will vary depending on the shape of your arrow slit. As Diego Rossi's link showed, if you have a reasonable shape for your arrow slit, you'll get a 30-40° field of vision out of it, using Pathfinder's rules. If your arrow slit has a 0° angle, and is 10 feet long, that's poorly designed on the part of the architect.

* You don't worry about following the squares on the grid with your line, which is what I meant, and is correct. I'm sorry if that's was not clear.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Arrow slits should restrict the field of fire as well, is that part of the rules?
It's also irrelevant. It's not the job of a defending castle archer to cover the entire defensive arc, just his part of it. That's why the upper wall is LINED with archers instead of relying on a single man. If you do have a super ace, He's probably shooting from a different kind of location.

It's quite relevant. If the rules don't define a field of view, then a single defending super ace castle archer CAN cover the entire defensive arc.

That's the whole point of my question, since obviously arrow slits should have restrictive fields of view and yet, in the rules, they don't.

Total Cover wrote:
If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Look at the character's square. Draw the "best" straight line (don't worry about the grid) to where they're trying to attack. If it goes through the open part of the arrow slit, they can make an attack. If not, they can't. No need for additional rules, since it's already handled in the normal rules for cover/total cover.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Níðhöggr wrote:
Yorien wrote:



A troll who doesn't get enough to eat over the course of a few days loses its regeneration and becomes vulnerable, though a single adequate meal will bring it back into fighting trim, and starvation itself is a common cause of death for trolls. Drowning a troll is also effective.
What's the source of that quote?

Based on where it's at on the PRD, I'd say the Monster Codex.

I'd suggest using the "Print" command from Hero Lab, and printing to a PDF. You should be able to print a standard character sheet, as well as full descriptions of gear/abilities/spellbooks.

Jiggy wrote:
Wait, if you're talking about the caster demanding a duel, why are you discussing surprise rounds?

The original discussion was just winning initiative. In a hurried response, I mentioned a surprise round, which is a mistake, since I wasn't being super careful as I typed. My apologies.

It's still true that you cannot cast emergency force sphere while flat-footed. It's also true that many casters find ways to boost their initiative.

Jiggy wrote:
Cheburn wrote:

My original point stands.


Nothing we have seen indicates that the caster in question is a wizard with the Divination school. If they're not, they can in principle be surprised, even with high initiative.

Even so, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the would-be assassin has the ability to initiate combat against the high-level caster at all (let alone as a surprise), which in Pathfinder is a flawed premise to begin with.

If you want to talk about taking down a high-level Pathfinder caster, you first need to demonstrate that you're capable of rolling initiative in the caster's presence. Until you can do that, all talk of winning initiative (or of having a surprise round) is illegitimate.

Actually, Jiggy, if you read my first post you'll see that the very first thing I said is that the first trick was ever being able to hit the caster, i.e., he's likely to lose the duel without ever landing a blow. Since (from other posts), I know that the caster is demanding some form of a duel, starting combat should not be the problem.

John Napier 698 wrote:
ryric wrote:
What I see in this scenario is that the GM has this idea for a Highlander style plotline involving the black blades, and he's punishing you for interfering with his cool story. There will almost certainly be more situations down the line where the magus has to fight a "good guy" because that's how the Highlander plot goes.

So long to campaign originality. Highlander? Seriously? There are quite a few fantasy novels which were written many years ago from which to "rip" a plot from. To take a second or third rate movie from the '80s and get an "enjoyable" campaign from it displays a distressing lack of imagination that the best GM's have in abundance.

facepalms, then sadly shakes head

While I agree that involuntary Highlander is pretty lame, it's possible it's just one minor subplot that the GM has thrown in. We don't know the specifics of the world, and it certainly sounds from the OPs latter descriptions like there's been more going on than just a Highlander ripoff.

Though even in Highlander, some of the immortals were on relatively good terms and would talk with each other, rather than just trying to murder each other every chance they got (e.g. Connor and Kastagir).

Also, it wasn't their swords making them fight each other. (—_—)

Chess Pwn wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
LOL, j/k Emergency Force Sphere is all he needs if he's a 7/8th level Wiz/Sorc.
You can't cast emergency force sphere if you're flat-footed, since it's an immediate action. You could have it as a contingency ("if I'm attacked by %n before I can act"), though then you're burning your contingency on that, rather than something better.
Well, that also assumes it's not a diviner wizard. Since those always act in surprise rounds and have crazy initiatives. So while this maybe will work against some wizards, a lot have awesome initiatives and some are diviners with crazy initiative.

My original point stands. Emergency force sphere gets thrown around a lot as the counter to ever getting surprised for a Wizard, but it only works if you get to act in the surprise round and also win Initiative. Now be honest, how many Divination school Wizards have you actually seen in play? My personal answer is not many. I see them all the time on the boards at level 20, but most wizards I've actually seen played are Conjuration (or Teleportation) with a handful who wanted to play blasters and picked Evocation instead.

In other words, you're correct. A level 20 Divination School Wizard with her capstone ability will be functionally impossible to beat on initiative in the surprise round. Of course, she shouldn't really need emergency force sphere in that case anyway, since she gets to act first anyway.

However, there are numerous schools of magic. Nothing we have seen indicates that the caster in question is a wizard with the Divination school. If they're not, they can in principle be surprised, even with high initiative.

In this case, I think the enemy an Arcanist, which means that initiative is not guaranteed, even if they selected the school understanding exploit and used it for Divination. All of this is build specific, and we don't know the caster build.

This idea goes back to when I said, "you should prepare and find out things about your enemy."

1 to 50 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.