|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Another good one is start out as a half-orc hunter, take 5 inquisitor levels for bane and judgements maybe even sanctified slayer for studied target and sneak attack, and keep your animal companion up to par with the boon companion and beast rider feats. Put the rest of your feats into archery. If you need to melee, cast lead blades, pump your str and to hit with judgements and animal focus, and possibly pick up power attack if you can spare the feats. Of course, the downside to this losing hunter spellcasting. It can be mitigated a bit with magical knack.
Pirate Rob wrote:
Not really. It's ok for ranged characters and casters, but at that level melee types need AC in the mid 20's before buffs unless the have crazy dr or miss chances.
As I said before, if your group isn't optimized past 7th level or so, it will stop being fun because some pc's have to get raised after every significant encounter. It really gets that bad. If you have 4 people and no healer, you the dm, needs to play one. 4 pc's isn't enough for this adventure path anyway, and items do little to nothing during the actual fight. They can fix you after the fight, but if the fighter or the rogue are using a scroll, wand, or potion instead of full attacking, you have already lost.
Well, I really don't see people telling others what to play but offering helpful suggestions. If you ask for advice, most people will tell you how to build or play a character so that it is more effective (min/maxing, optimizing,etc.) because most of us assume that you will have more fun, and your friends will as well if you play a very effective character. There is noting wrong with that. If their suggestions don't fit your character concept, you are free to ignore them. If they are being a jerk about it, report them and ignore them afterward.
Narrow down what you want your character to do (lots of damage, hinder enemies, social skill, heal and buff, etc.) Then look at the appropriate class guides. If you want something simple: For damage, play a human barbarian with high strength, a two-handed weapon, and the power attack and cleave feats. For hindering enemies play a human sorcerer with improved initiative and dodge as feats and mage armor and sleep or color spray for 1st level spells known. For healing and buffing, a human life mystery oracle with the channel revelation, and extra channel, and selective channel feats. For social skills, play a bard. Race and class don't matter much. Just have a high charisma and pick diplomacy and bluff as skills.
The reason for the summoning isn't so much to fit two types of summoner into once class. It's so the summoner has something to contribute when his eidolon can't do much. If the eidolon gets beat down to nothing, he can still summon stuff. If his eidolon is a land bound melee machine and the party is fighting a flying creature, he can dismiss the eidolon and summon something more appropriate. To replace the summons, you need an ability to spontaneously increase the versatility of the eidolon. An evolution pool that he can use to give his eidolon temporary evolutions for a round per level may do the trick.
pres man wrote:
Exactly. It's fine to say "homophobes" (which is a misnomer since it's disgust not fear that is the relevant emotion) are evil. It's not okay to say "I believe homosexual behavior to be immoral." That is hypocritical and definitely not tolerant. The fact that they made a gay paladin (Really? There are many DM's that could not conceive of him engaging in such behavior and remain lawful good and keep his paladin abilites.) and the only one in a small town that disapproves of the homosexual couple is "evil". That isn't just putting gay npc's in an adventure path. That is Paizo saying "Homosexual behavior is defintiely not evil, but disliking it is." That definitely has no place in an rpg.
I wasn't aware of that feat. Sounds nice.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Exactly. Would you prefer the other side of the coin, where every combat has PC's near death, and they have to go back to town to rest for days or weeks, thus putting the campaign on hold? I know most players would bail on a campaign like this, me included.
I have no problem with North Carolina admitting that they are a bunch of bigots. Its their right to be wrong. Just like it's my right to boycott businesses located in North Carolina, while letting them know why I'm boycotting them until the law is overturned or they leave North Carolina.
Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots? Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there. I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy. I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.
This sounds like the best way to do it. If a faction wins, it means something, but they won't exactly dominate the other factions.
I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.
Who where you responding to?
I was responding to the above quote. When WotC was hyping 4E, especially before they revealed much in the way of mechanics, their 4E "marketing" was essentially trashing 3.5 or certain styles of play. James Wyatt ranted about how the 3.5 paladin sucked because he could only smite a few times a day. They put in print things like "D&D isn't about traipsing through fairy rings," and "If you used profession skills in your games, then they probably weren't very fun." If they had said, "Some people had a problem with this in 3.5, so here is how we are trying to improve it in the new edition," it would have been much better received than trashing 3.5 and any style of play that didn't revolve around killing every monster you see like murderous hobos.
Scott Betts wrote:
It's one thing to say we can do x better. It's another to say "if you used x in your 3.5 game, then it probably wasn't much fun." That's the kind of thing that ticked people off.
They are trying to make an edition that has the basic core elements of D&D. Vancian casting is definitely a core element of D&D whether you like it or not. It will be core, but I'm sure there will be options to have non-Vancian casting.
Even more than this, they need quality adventures, both for home games and organized play games. Most of WotC's published adventures and modules for LFR are terrible. They need more story and more roleplaying hooks than, "Here's a skill challenge so you can get another milestone." Even if 4E was a great version of D&D, you'd be hard pressed to see it if you just played their published adventures and LFR mods.
Scott Betts wrote:
Well, the people that didn't like 4E don't have much to be negative about. They either have Pathfinder and don't care or just want to see 4E die and be replaced by something that is more like the D&D they know and love (plus saying "I told you so." feels good). I would expect a lot of 4E fans to be at least a little upset.
Scott Betts wrote:
I don't know about that. It would be more like, "This is kind of like D&D, but I don't think it really is D&D." One of the main reasons 4E failed is so many gamers took a look at the books or played a game of it and said or at least thought "This isn't D&D."
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, lots of combat encounters strung together with the barest hint of a plot tying them together (which is what most of WotC's 4E adventures are) doesn't make for much of an adventure. If you are going to publish adventures, make them at least somewhat interesting or don't bother.