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

Darksol the Painbringer's page

4,056 posts (4,060 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,056 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

FAQ or Errata isn't required, as the answer is in the rules:

Spell-Like Abilities wrote:

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

The italicized portions are all of the conditions that are listed as being unlike a spell; everything else functions as if it were a spell being cast. This would include effects that apply to a spell being cast, such as your bloodline abilities.


QUICK UPDATE

-The Errata for Ultimate Equipment has been applied, and their impact on the character choices (and existing builds) have been implemented.


This reminds me that I should apply the current errata to the guide, so people are up to snuff on their character options. I'll work on that right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Yeah, Fate's Favored is better than most Feats.

Really, FF should be Errata'd to increase ONE specific Luck Bonus Target of your choosing.
E.g. Will Save, AC, Attack. Not anything that gets a Luck Bonus, just one thing.
That is in line with other Traits.

And if Jingasa or whatever was going to use Luck Bonuses to AC, it should have been Luck Bonus to AC VERSUS CRITS (Confirms).
And have it negate any ability that auto-crits/ auto-confirms crits, perhaps once/day only.

But for all the people b~~!&ing about how this errata is outrageous or unbalanced on it's own,
where were you when Jingasa was released and nobody said it was an outrage?
That's the kind of audience that just doesn't care about balance in the game, they just want their cheap powerups.

And if people want to discuss Jingasa they should make a thread for that,
not try to pretend they are discussing high and mighty topics like "the Errata Cycle and Health of the Game".

I did already say that they're repeating the same process as Crane Wing. Let's review the overall history of what they did.

First, they practically destroyed the feat chains that allowed the supposed "abuse", making the second feat useless and the third feat broken (Surprisingly, first feat is still pretty strong option). Then, they nerfed the archtype that provided said venue to supposed "abuse," which was all that had to be fixed to solve the supposed "abuse" in the first place. (It's still a functional archetype, but it has a lot of unnecessary bonus feats now.) Lastly, they "fixed" the feat chain to not be as useless or broken, but it still kind of is.

Let's compare that what they did here: They practically destroyed the value of this item that allowed the supposed "abuse" of everyone taking bonuses related to that item (which actually resulted in people to basically change which item is granting their AC). Based on their previous track record, they would nerf Fate's Favored so it's not causing such abuse, and then perhaps raise the bar back up some for the Jingasa (maybe re-grant the Luck Bonus, or the 1/day Critical negation, but not both obviously), though this will be over the course of several months or so before this happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
a +1 bonus of an unorthodox type to AC for 5,000 gold is overpowered, then quite frankly the Dusty Rose Prism should be nerfed into oblivion too

What you apparently fail to see, is that it is an order of operations problem.

If Dusty Rose came first, change Jingasa to deflection or insight.
If Jingasa came first, change Dusty Rose to defelection or luck.

On to the topic of price increase, people are up in arms about the brawler enhancement, I can't imagine a price increase to the Jingasa wouldn't do the same.

That's not relevant, nor was it the problem. The devs didn't say "Hey, the Jingasa is the earliest release compared to the Ioun Stone, let's nullify that instead!" (I kind of wish they did, since that'd explain why they decided to do something as silly as this.) It doesn't matter if the Jingasa or the Ioun Stone came first, what's relevant is what they provide; a +1 bonus of an unorthodox type to AC. The Jingasa had other goodies, but it was a slotted item, meaning its price was only half as much.

What's relevant is the reason why it was nerfed. It was nerfed because:

1. It was too good for its price.
2a. Everyone and their grandma had one.
2b. Everyone who had it had a 95% chance of possessing the Fate's Favored trait. Which is stupidly overpowered for a trait, and should be a benefit from the likes of a Luck Subdomain, or similar class feature restriction. (Fate Subdomain, anyone?)

You could substitute the Jingasa and Dusty Rose Prism's types around, and I can assure you that the same nerf(s) that went to the Jingasa would've went to the Ioun Stone instead, especially if we want to consider the Jingasa and the Ioun Stone as effective equals in their (base) benefits. And if they didn't nerf the Jingasa based on the factor that it gave a Luck bonus to AC, then I assure you that they nerfed it as a kneejerk reaction to their true intentions, which is to nerf Fate's Favored. (Which, for a Trait, is stronger than nearly every damn feat in the game.)

They're up in arms because it was too much of a price increase for what it does (+2 to Attack and Damage rolls with Unarmed Strikes and Grapple checks), and plus it's an extremely niche armor enhancement anyway; most of the characters who would want it either can't have it (No Armor requirements), or would rather be using heavier armor for the AC instead. Who would want it after those conditions are factored in? Not a whole lot of people, I can tell you that much.

@ Sissyl: Except by your logic, the Jingasa wouldn't be the only "problem" that's prevalent and requires fixing. It makes no sense to nerf only the Jingasa when there are other equivalents to work with that are providing the same "problem" that is "+1 to AC for 5,000 gold is overpowered!" Extrapolating that logic further, upgrading to a +3 or higher Armor/Shield is overpowered, upgrading your Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor beyond +2 is overpowered, the list goes on.

So yes, the Ioun Stone is definitely relevant, because it's effectively the same damn item. How many players substituted their Jingasa for the Ioun Stone to maintain their AC? I assure you about 90% of them did. So now, instead of people running around with "silly war hats", they're running around with "Rose Stones" swirling around their pretty little heads, and their AC is as good as it was before (well, almost, if we're factoring Fate's Favored).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A price increase wouldn't have destroyed the helmet, hell even the removal of one of two effects (the +1 AC or 1/day Critical Negation) wouldn't have destroyed the helmet. It would still be an attractive item, but it just wouldn't be as readily available (or as appealing) to the adventuring types as it was before. A lot of people (myself included) would've been "satisfied" with that. (Not exactly happy, but such is the way of compromise.)

Are there going to be people that are unhappy? Of course, that's just the nature of the way change works. But it's more prudent of Paizo to take the lesser of two evils.

In my (and a lot of others') opinion(s), they didn't do that.

From this, I stem that Paizo doesn't believe in, or can properly execute, compromise between two (or more) parties. If they can, they do it quite inconsistently.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The "woe" crowd here has an interesting situation. First, they say that a +1 luck bonus to AC is not overpowered, not dangerous to the game, there are better things out there, etc. Then they try to convince us that the jingasa is now "eviscerated" now that it doesn't have the luck bonus to AC. Well, which is it? Is it overpowered and a problem (and if so, why protest the errata?) or is it nothing special (and if so, why whine that it is gone?)?

It's not overpowered. If a +1 bonus of an unorthodox type to AC for 5,000 gold is overpowered, then quite frankly the Dusty Rose Prism should be nerfed into oblivion too, because it's basically the same thing, a +1 bonus of an unorthodox type to AC. The same applies to others that are Sacred/Profane, Dodge, Untyped, etc. The sad part is, it doesn't even require a slot to use, whereas the helm did, and it's still priced the same (probably because of the 1/day critical negation, but again, apparently 2,500 gold for a +1 unorthodox bonus to AC is too cheap). I mean, surely this would mean that the Ioun Stone should be, say, 10,000 gold, right?

Except, the rules explicitly state that a +1 bonus of some other type besides Deflection equates to Bonus Squared X 2,500, instead of the Bonus Squared X 2,000 that the Deflection version is. So really, if you're going to say that a +1 bonus of an unorthodox type shouldn't be worth a slotted 2,500 gold, or a slotless 5,000 gold, well..then the problem isn't with the item, as by the rules it's priced correctly, but with the formula used to calculate the price that's currently listed. I mean, I could invent a bunch of weird typed bonuses (or some other sort of existing bonus that's not viewed as AC to apply as AC) and I'd stack them all together into some sort of ridiculous item that boosts my AC by about, say, 20, it'd be priced at 2,500 X 20, and it'd be ~50,000 gold in price, for an effective +20 bonus to AC. All this does is prove that this formula, if left in certain hands and ideals, can be stupidly broken when you exploit all of the different bonus types you could apply, like Racial, Competence, etc. And not just this formula, ever heard of the whole "Constant True Strike" items? Yeah, same thing there. So as it's been proven, time and time again, this extends well beyond what a Jingasa provides, so saying that the Jingasa, and only the Jingasa is an issue, when there is actually something much larger at play here, is a ridiculous and short-sighted claim.

As for the critical-negation, it's 1/day. For those who are using a X3 or X4 weapon, it'll make them not absolutely destroy a PC on the spot (unless they get very lucky on their die rolls, in which case the PCs were dead regardless of whether they had the helm or not). For those who are using Keen 18-20/X2 weapons, it'll really only slow them down for a single attack. Against those types of enemies, using Moderate to Heavy Fortification armors would be much more effective; the factor that a Jingasa is really only absolutely good against a niche sort of enemy just tells you that it's "stupidly overpowered" in one situation, and "fairly useful to have" in another. Hmmm...what does that remind me of? Oh, Crane Wing, that was "stupidly overpowered" against one-attack enemies, but against enemies with a multitude of attacks, it was "fairly useful to have." Just because players abused a specific niche doesn't mean that the means of abuse itself is overpowered. Items and effects are only as useful as the situation they're relevant in, and just because they're "stupidly overpowered" in one situation doesn't mean they're "stupidly overpowered" in every situation. I can actually come up with several where this item does absolutely nothing for the PC.

And the reason it's viewed as "eviscerated" is because of what it was compared to what it is. If it was what it is now, people wouldn't have even considered it as a good item, especially when there is a slightly more expensive (and now more reliable) option. The thing is, because it's existed in a valued state for so long, people have come to rely on it more and more. Now that it isn't, and there's no real alternative to use? It's the equivalent of Apple or Samsung effectively destroying the technical support of their currently released product in favor of a supposed non-existing product that isn't available to the public (or even anyone at all, actually). Of course people are going to be mad and say that their course of action obliterated their Smart Phone. Just like how we're going to be made and say that their errata destroyed the ideal of the Luck Bonus to AC.


I don't think the GM would let the cracked Ioun Stone fly. That being said, the regular Ioun Stone, while damn good, is a little too expensive for the GM to pass off to us.

The AoMF option would decrease my actual Enhancement bonus to hit and damage that I currently use now through the ABP, since I would have to subtract my current enhancement bonus to make use of the property. I do use Flanking regularly (we have a Ninja in the party), so I'll be picking up the Outflank feat soon enough.

Also, I didn't consider debuffing (though that usually requires hitting them first); are there other spells that I can cast that would reduce their AC or otherwise make it easier to hit them?


@ Das Bier: The Rogue has the red-headed step-child title. UCRogue is less so, but it's still a trap, and also not Core.


Mergy wrote:

Pearls of power would allow you to make the most of your more limited spell slots. If you're buffing up and wading into melee, a 2nd level pearl of power would give you multiple uses of something like bull's strength. This is assuming you have Natural Spell.

By the way, 26 AC for a level 6 party is WELL above what you should be fighting on a regular basis. If you are fighting those enemies on a regular basis, maybe ask your GM what gives.

Bull's Strength wouldn't stack with the +2 Strength bonus I get from ABP. It'd override it, sure, but a 2nd level slot for a +1 to hit and damage seems very underwhelming.

And for the 26 AC, they were Warpriests. They had Shields, they have Sacred Armor/Weapon benefits to apply (which stacks with their ABP benefits), and had copius amounts of buffs out that boosted their To-Hit, something which Druids are extremely lacking on. To be fair, I can have AC 29 at this current level in comparison to them, but not having the to-hit to fight those in kind really sucks if I want to contribute in melee.

@ Kazaan: I didn't realize there was more than one kind of Hybrid. For the last couple fights, I've been wading into melee, but I do throw out the occasional combat utility spell (Burning Disarm, Summon Nature's Ally, etc).

Since I have the relevant Summon Monster Feats, the summons are fairly durable and can create a good enough distraction for the bad guys. (They certainly lack AC though.) The only thing that could make this better would be to be able to summon them as a Standard Action instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Cool, so the Core Fighter doesn't "suck" if we cater and pander to his every whim by allowing backwater rules sources and optional rules such as Stamina. I could've told you that would happen, and I'll go ahead and tell you that for several people, that's still not enough (myself included) to make the Fighter a more bearable class to play.

The funny thing is, several of those benefits aren't available or even banned in PFS, so in organized play such as PFS, or tables which stick to Core Only or the main RPG hardcover line, they're still pretty crappy. Which is a lot of tables.

The same can be said for every other class that might have this very same treatment; they might have alternate rules systems that make them stronger, or some abilities/features require backwoods sourcebooks (even if they're Paizo products).

I mean, I guess you can say that the Fighter is "fixed," but several people will still disagree, and like any other operation where you close an entry wound (even if the operation is fixing the wound itself, or what have you), those stitches need to come off so that it meshes smoothly, otherwise what you're left with is an ugly patch of skin after sealing what was a very difficult issue to address, one that not a lot of people will find pleasing to the eye.

If your table refuses to use fighter fixes that doesn't mean the fighter isn't better. That means your table doesn't want better fighters.

At this one game I played in where half of the spells and most of the bloodlines were banned from play Sorcerers sucked. That doesn't mean Sorcerers need buffs or that the sorcerer is a bad class though. It means that when you ban most of the content that makes a class good it isn't worth playing much at that table.

Because clearly, I stated somewhere in my post that I am at one such table. I'm not. What I said is that these rules are only supplements to the Fighter, and not features hardwired into the class like they should've been since their Core release, especially if we want to make the assumption that Fighters, by themselves, don't suck.

Plus, rules and resources may not be allowed for reasons besides "I hate Fighters." It could range from "I don't like the system, it needlessly bogs down gameplay," to "I don't have that rulebook to implement it into the game," and several of these rules and resources apply to more than just the Fighter, so suggesting that rules are disallowed for the sole purpose of denying a single class is absurd, as it could be any multitude of reasons besides that single one.


Self-explanatory title.

So, we completed our second campaign arc and the GM is rewarding our party with a magic item (for each of us, of course. The monk in our party gets to fire Hadoukens at a 30 foot range by spending his copius amounts of Ki Points, as he can't get magic items). However, I'm not sure as to what I'd want as an item (without having to custom-make it, which I'd like to avoid so as not to throw the GM a curveball).

We're 6th level currently, and technically severely under WBL overall. The thing is, I took a level in UCMonk so that I can maintain some semblance of AC when I Wildshape (because losing Armor and Shield bonuses is too much), and since I have over 20 Wisdom, it was actually better then my existing armor, and it applies while Wildshaped as the expectation became that I will be in the front lines. This makes me Druid 5/UCMonk 1. I also took Barbarian VMC, so as to shore up the fact that I have only 14 or so Strength (though I can certainly fight and beat things down when needed), so I am lacking in feats (though I do have the basics intact).

To clarify, we're using ABP at Level+1 progression, so no Big 6 items are available.

Here are some things I'm looking to shore up:

-Bonuses to Hit: I can hit pretty hard (5 attacks, usually ends up being ~12+ average damage per hit, or 60 damage total), but I also hit pretty inconsistently. Even with Wild Shape giving me bonuses to Strength, I can't reliably hit with a lot of my attacks; a smart enemy's AC is pretty damn high at our level, and with only +9 to hit, with Power Attack and everything, AC 26 (which is the amount the stronger enemies had) is only hittable 25% of the time, and for my secondary attacks, I'd need a 20. That's only going to get worse over time, so anything which increases this is good (and if it increases damage, it's Double+Good).

-Spellcasting Ability: This is sort of more of a raw numbers thing; being down a caster level is a bit of a drag, even with using my Menhir Savant archetype to shore that loss up. I'm fine with delaying spell level progression so that I don't go splat when I Wildshape, but doing so at a rate of reduced spellcasting compared to what I could be doing is a hamper. There's also the matter of having a garbage spell list; items which give me other (or better) spells would be huge as well. (Before anyone suggests it, the GM turned down the Caster Level trait.)

-Combat Utility: I sort of have some of this, with a trait to cast a Cure spell 1/day as a Swift Action, as well as the ability to detect Undead, Fey, Outsiders, etc., but some things that have been cropping up are the ability to see through Fog (as our Alchemist throws out Smoke Bombs for battlefield control, which also screws me out of targeted spellcasting), or even the ability to cast spells while Raging. (I know there's a metamagic feat with Occult Adventures that fixes this, but I'm feat-starved.) Anything which provides me this sort of stuff would help.

So, anyone know or can find me an item that can do or fix at least one or even more of these issues that my PC currently has?


Cool, so the Core Fighter doesn't "suck" if we cater and pander to his every whim by allowing backwater rules sources and optional rules such as Stamina. I could've told you that would happen, and I'll go ahead and tell you that for several people, that's still not enough (myself included) to make the Fighter a more bearable class to play.

The funny thing is, several of those benefits aren't available or even banned in PFS, so in organized play such as PFS, or tables which stick to Core Only or the main RPG hardcover line, they're still pretty crappy. Which is a lot of tables.

The same can be said for every other class that might have this very same treatment; they might have alternate rules systems that make them stronger, or some abilities/features require backwoods sourcebooks (even if they're Paizo products).

I mean, I guess you can say that the Fighter is "fixed," but several people will still disagree, and like any other operation where you close an entry wound (even if the operation is fixing the wound itself, or what have you), those stitches need to come off so that it meshes smoothly, otherwise what you're left with is an ugly patch of skin after sealing what was a very difficult issue to address, one that not a lot of people will find pleasing to the eye.


James Risner wrote:

The staff is an item intended to help in a pinch when stuck in a EPL+3 or EPL+4 encounter.

If you don't see the need for a fallback "get out of jail death free" staff, then you are not the target buyer.

Too bad it's usually cheaper to just purchase a 4-party Raise Dead + 2 Restoration contingency more often than not than it is to purchase a staff.

I mean, sure, the staff might also grant some passive benefits to whoever holds it, but most of them aren't particularly overwhelming or valuable for an intended spellcasting buyer, so all you'd really buy it for is the spells and/or not having to use your own spell slots.

There are cheaper and smarter ways to fix those issues than purchasing staves, and to be honest, unless the staff is a McGuffin, they're more valuable as vendor trash than as an actual item to use.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
1) PFS, by and large, informs what does or not get changed, and not everyone plays PFS. Moreover, PFS doesn't even operate under the same rules framework and assumptions as the core game; it doesn't even reflect what playing through an AP is typically like.

I'm addressing not just you, but a number of posters who seem to be under the impression that PFS somehow drives errata. That's not the case. Errata is driven by a number of things, but among the biggest are messageboard discussions. Sure, a lot of those discussions start in the PFS forums—after all, they're generally highly active players with a very deep knowledge of the game's most intricate details, so they tend to raise a lot of really good questions... and when there's a real problem, it's likely to be a major problem in PFS. So they often end up being the canary in our coal mine. But their questions don't automatically have more or less weight than questions asked in the Rules Question forum, or elsewhere on the boards.

And when the design team is crafting rulebook errata, they do so with the full audience of the original book in mind, not just PFS; after all, PFS has to reevaluate the errata'd items suitability for their campaign just as any GM would.

Because PFS does drive errata, Vic, and that's because PFS, even for all of its quirks and houserules, is still viewed as a highly valuable playtest asset for the Paizo developers. In fact, it's not unreasonable or ridiculous to view PFS as a leading drive in playtesting errata and the such, because it's practically the largest playerbase that Paizo officially endorses, and is also one where Paizo can have table functions and stuff on record to where they carefully examine a player's actions in relation to X item or Y rule, and when something trips their unwritten rules that they have amongst themselves, they proceed to evaulate and determine if an errata/FAQ is needed.

I won't disagree that messageboard discussions don't drive errata, because on occasion they do (I've had it happen first-hand). However, there is a key phrase, and that is on occasion. Saying that it's more valued than PFS, or anything PFS-related, is silly, especially considering the sort of upside(s) that the Paizo developers have for comparing PFS playtest data in comparison to other data, even from the messageboards.

Even if we take into consideration that PFS has its own houserules, that it re-evaluates all of the pre-existing errata (and then chooses to either allow, disallow, or whatever in relation to an option or rule), they are houserules that Paizo has documents of, whereas if we went to Home Game #217532, that has Z and Q houserules instead of PFS' officially endorsed X and Y houserules, it doesn't change the factor that PFS is a player base that the Paizo developers use in relations to playtesting.


All I can say is you've just encountered yet another broken part of the rules, where you can't actively plant something on a creature without their knowledge or consent, because there are no rules that allow you to do such a thing.


I second the Character Traits option, though some of them may be difficult to implement with their current flavor; still, it shouldn't be too difficult to alter what that flavor actually is to suit the needs of your campaign.

For example, a lot of people joke that the Reactionary character trait, which most everyone takes, makes everyone a child who was bullied when they were younger, and just ran, based on the flavor text "You were bullied often as a child, but never quite developed an offensive response. Instead, you became adept at anticipating sudden attacks and reacting to danger quickly."

I'd prefer to think of that as an anecdotal example of why you developed such quick combat intuition, not something that should've actually happened. Though this is one of the easier ones to reflavor; others require more planning and consideration.

I'd also consider the Story Feats, especially in relation to current events that may involve the character's background (i.e. they caught up to the jerk who stole the Elder Scroll), here. A lot of them are usually in relation to a character's background, so when they complete their respective background sessions, I'd consider tossing them a story feat, and if they end up resolving whatever issues that cropped up from their background, give them the completed effect of their chosen Story Feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


If this statement was true then yes. But on the other hand you have 98 items not worth wasting gold on and 1 item that is worth it for a slot but you always have 6 excellent choices that literally must exist because you can't maintain game balance without them. Nerfing the 1 worth while item will not result in people spending money on the 98 garbage ones, people will use that gold on a different item that is worth buying either from the 6 necessary items or the 1-3 items that are decent in any given slot which you were already planning on getting.

Just. Use. Pathfinder. Unchained.

There are several options there to fix Big 6 items issue.
Paizo already created for you all rules that you can probably need, but no, I don't want to use them, I want to complain about Big 6 items again and again and again.

Not all tables or GMs use or enforce the alternate rules about Pathfinder Unchained. Ever heard of Core Only tables? There's a lot more than you think, and it's evidenced by multiple threads on this messageboard that specifically state "Core Only" or "Core + APG," or some other similar subset of rules, of which Pathfinder Unchained probably does not fall under.

Also consider PFS, where this (as far as I know) is not an option, and consists of a very large amount of Paizo's player base.

Telling people to just use an alternate rules system when A. They aren't at liberty to, and B. Shouldn't have to if the first rules system is so great and a lot of the player base uses it over said alternate rules system, is no different than telling them to play a completely different game, like Shadowrun, or Star Wars: Imperial Assault.

That also doesn't solve the flaw that's presented in the original system either. In fact, I already expanded upon why that isn't really a solution to the actual problem presented, and to put it simply, it's because the alternative rules really only change what the players value the most. Experience Points are now significantly more valuable than Gold Pieces because a lot of the Gold Piece items, sans special material armor and weapons, and the occasional off-magic item that is actually worth its value, are not only as relevant (because there are less worthwhile magic items to purchase, and your WBL is cut in half), but because the other "items" that you would normally "purchase" with your acquired Gold Pieces are instead locked behind Levels, or Experience Points.

There is more incentive to players to just go out and kill stuff or RP every single situation possible for Experience Points to get the benefits that most nearly every PC needs, instead of going to find said stuff in treasure that they won't look as forward to now.

I'll go ahead and tell you that I am at a table using this very same alternate rules system, and while I might be satisfied about having a larger focus on combat, not every player will consider combat the most fun or important aspect of the game as I do, and the amount of loot and/or gold that we actually acquire, beyond it being cut by half per the rules, is almost irrelevant, because there are hardly any worthwhile magic items to buy that are cheap enough to purchase, and a lot of the high-end magic items are way too expensive to consider even acquiring through any means, drops or otherwise.

Seriously, we hit level 6 as a 5 player party (count it as 4 for this argument, since our Monk can't have loot), and the only magic item drops we acquired were a modified Ring of Spell Knowledge II (which I'm using to gain access to Shield as a Druid), a stat-less Headband of Shifting valued at 500 gold (which, to be honest, I have no spell to use it on; ironic isn't it?), a Pearl of Power II adjusted for our Alchemist to use (a tie between the Ring for the best loot drop thus far) and an Acid Scimitar (that our Magus uses which I question as to why he is, since he can't hit worth a damn, and the +1 to hit and damage would be way more valuable to him than 1D6 damage with an element that can be easily resisted or negated, as it has before).

That's about 12,500 gold worth of items, and we have spent maybe 1,000 gold on consumables across the entire party (primarily thanks to the Alchemist in our party, but still), so call it 13,500 gold. According to cutting WBL in half (and applying the Brew Potion benefits from the Alchemist), we are still SEVERELY under WBL, by A LOT, especially if each PC is supposed to have 8,000 gold worth of items (and our Alchemist should have 10,000 gold via his Brew Potion feat). So, we are at 13,500 gold out of the 34,000 gold that we should have across our 4 PCs; we are only ~40% of what our WBL actually should be.

And the worst part is? I don't think we really need any other items, especially with our given composition.


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Blood Arcanist with the Orc Bloodline and School Understanding (Evocation) that specializes in the Battering Blast spell can kill anything that's not protected by an Anti-Magic Field, Spellbane, or Mage's Disjunction. It bypasses all DR and Resistances (as it's Force Damage), and casting two of them in a round, you deal upwards of 572 points of damage on average.

Me like

Me want build

Me want blow stuf up!

(I'd like to see this, as I might like to build this)

psst

Did you get that thing I sent ya?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Grue wrote:
For instance a Mnemonic Vestment is a 5k item. Just how many of these things are spontaneous casters buying to gain access to unknown spells on their caster lists? At what point does it become viable for a PC to budget buying a wardrobe of Mnemonic Vestments considering they have some basic resistances & enhancements to buy as well? 12th or 13th? Most campaigns are in their endgames by that point (and it's far from an 'I win' button). If a lower level PC wanted to spend his resources this direction and sacrifice basic coverage in other areas (and still have to use a spell slot to tap into it)...more power to them. But with the change it makes me wonder if paizo folks grok how the system comes together within a campaign.

I'd like to actually defend Paizo here.

You ARE wrong. At least check published adventure paths and you will (surprise!) find that a lot of campaign go up to 17th level and even after that level they have ideas/recommendations to continue up to 20th level. Game is designed to be played from 1st level till 20th level, it's a FACT. So stop forcing your way of thinking - if you prefer to stop playing at 13th level - fine, but please take into consideration that a lot of us want to play up to 20th level and I applaud Paizo that they've nerfed Mnemonic Vestment.

At 15+ level sorcerer with old item (before nerf) basically could become wizard with +2 slots at each level and ability to cast them without any preparation. Mutliple times per day.

I don't want this happening in my games and I'm happy that this broken item was nerfed.

Same for bracers of falcon's aim and jingasa.

And for those of you that don't like Big 6 items - just buy and read Pathfinder Unchained. You will find all rules you will ever need to get rid of those items like belt of strength or cloak of resistance.

I agree on the Adventure Path argument. I disagree on the Big 6 and Items argument.

Tangential Explanation (Caution: Wall of Text):
Ignore these alternate rules for a minute, as we do not have access to them for whatever reason (maybe the GM passed a "No Unchained" rule over the table). The items that got nerfed (not saying it wasn't necessary to nerf some of them, but that it was overkill) were presumably because they are being taken a lot across other characters, and/or were overpowered due to things outside of what said items could normally do (at least in the case of the Jingasa). Since these items have been significantly reduced in effectiveness (and not reduced in their value), the odds of purchasing said items are treated likewise. This is what I'd call a result of an inverse singular inflation (that is, the cost of the item is still the same, but the non-commercial, or practical value of that item is reduced).

Another way to look at this is by viewing this as a Corollary Stock Comparison, with the Big 6 being one brand of Stock, and the other Magic Items being another brand of Stock. Each Stock has two sets of values, one is commerical (GP costs), and one is practical (The effect and purpose of the items in question). In theory, the commercial and practical values of these two stocks are synonymous; that is, if one's commercial value is high, its practical value is likewise also high. Unlike typical stock, however, another important factor is that these values are subjective based on the consumer's wants and needs, as determined by the rules set in PFS or Home Games.

Let's take a single consumer base for a moment. If we weighed the value of purchasing, say, a Big 6 item, in comparison to purchasing any other item for that consumer base, the practical value of purchasing the other items in comparison to the Big 6 has taken a large hit for that consumer base, and therefore the desire to purchase these other magical items suffers a similar fate due to following the theory of the ideal consumer. In other words, for an ideal consumer in regards to that consumer base, it is more tactically sound to purchase or improve upon a Big 6 item now than it was to purchase some other magical item, because the practical value of a miscellaneous magic item went down, but its commercial value remains the same (and therefore makes its combined value less than what it actually should be). Any consumer who wants his currency as high as possible would back the more stable and more valued stock, which is the Big 6, and not the less stable, less valued Miscellaneous Item stock.

Now, let's throw in the alternate rules (which effectively take the Big 6 Stock and abolishes it completely, sort of like a nation-wide Medicare solution-thing). Although this makes spending money on the Big 6 impossible, and their benefits instead granted to all relevant consumers through a specific prestige or loyalty system (as if viewed like a progressional graph), this actually properly demonstrates a factor of inverse singular inflation, and doesn't diminish the factor that the value of gold has dropped in relation to purchasing these other magic items, because the desire to purchase said other magical items has been significantly reduced, as evidenced by their lack of practical value. The thing is, since these miscellaneous items are the only stock, and not just the Big 6, this means the value of currency (gold pieces) itself drops. I originally made a post saying that the value of Gold becomes worthless. I'm incorrect when I say this. What I should've said, was that the value of Gold becomes worth less, which is a significant difference.

You also don't fully understand the ramifications of these alternate rules, because now I'm going to expand the second part of this analogous argument. So let's postulate for a minute that there is actually a second set of currency, called Experience Points, something that isn't spent, but is accumulated to show the prestige and overall skill of the consumer, and reaching certain amounts of Experience Points gives you certain benefits.

(Time to dial back the analogies, as the argument is getting a little convoluted and difficult to follow. Anyway...)

Let's re-implement the alternate rules. They state that you receive a set amount of the Big 6 benefits once you acquire certain amounts of Experience Points (i.e. whenever you gain a character level), as evidenced by the table. This means that the value and availability of the Big 6 is tied to Experience Points, not Gold. That is in addition to the other values that Experience Points grant you (such as an increased character level, added features, improved features, higher statistical benefits, etc). In other words, all these alternate rules do is lock the benefits of the Big 6 behind a "currency," Experience Points, separate from one that is acquired and then spent, which is Gold Pieces. Now do you understand what that all entails?

TL;DR: The alternate rules only makes Experience Points even more valuable than what they already were, and makes Gold Pieces even less valuable than what they already were, because the Big 6, which is now categorically more valuable than it was before the errata, is now locked behind a resource separate from Gold Pieces (which is Experience Points). Implementing the alternate rules actually depreciates the value of the Gold Piece, and instead appreciates the value of the Experience Point; this makes players value the Gold Piece less, and value the Experience Point more.

Whether that's better or worse for the game (or your table) is debatable, and subjective. However, those are the objective facts in relation to the errata's overall impact of the game.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

This has already been asked and answered.

The answer was perfectly clear, strait, and understandable and objective.

They do not stack.

Save the FAQ friday slot for something we don't already know.

I agree with you completely. However, a lot of people would object to the bolded part.

The way I see it, James Risner effectively started a "shut them up once and for all" thread in relation to that subject. To that end, I support it. We shouldn't be seeing countless threads that result in "YES IT IS/NO IT ISN'T" statements that eventually die off due to lacking in fervor; there are more important things to expend server bandwidth and search options on than repeating the same arguments over and over until they decide "Screw it, I'm done arguing this point, let's wait for the Devs to say something about it."


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That Fighter with the 36 AC would be carrying a giant neon sign that says "Ignore me!"

Also, if that Fighter can reach 36 AC, then consider the rest of his character build. He probably doesn't do a whole lot of damage, or have a lot of to-hit. He probably can't use Combat Maneuvers too well. He probably can't move too fast, nor might he have extremely good Saves or CMB/CMD. Touch AC can still be a big problem for someone who's wearing Heavy Armor, even if he has Deflection, Luck, Insight, etc.

I've played that character, Roland, to 11th level. When I'm out with friends, like last night playing a level 5 PFS game, they still bring up how much that character annoyed the GM. When you annoy the GM apparently you get attacked a lot.

Roland was a AC 35 (at level 7) guy using a Sundering Adamantine Temple Sword dealing 1d8+13 with Greater Sunder to break (usually in one hit) just about every enemy armor or weapons was "hit on a 2" with a +23 Sunder CMB.

If you can't hit us because I broke your weapons, then you can't harm us.

In the cases where the enemy was a creature without weapons or armor, I'd fall back to grapple with +20 Greater Grapple, which also usually got me there.

I'm surprised you actually managed to acquire a Greater Grapple feat; that usually requires a fair amount of Dexterity, as well as Improved Unarmed Strike, and Improved Grapple, and at Level 7, no less.

The thing is, Grapple is usually unreliable because enemies are going to be Huge size or larger most of the time, and Sunder requires manufactured items, which a lot of Huge size or larger creatures don't use. Their size also exponentially increases the strength to hit them. Not to mention, breaking potentially valuable loot. (Which doesn't matter in PFS.)


James Risner wrote:

The problem with the luck ac bonus was that a fighter could use it to get AC 36 by level 7 and 24,000 gp.

That is a problem for the underlying system.

Killing the item (and luck bonus in general) is a good thing. Moving the item to say a body slot so it doesn't work with armor would help monk's and other unarmored folk without pushing fighters to 36.

That Fighter with the 36 AC would be carrying a giant neon sign that says "Ignore me!" or "Save me for last!" Because any NPC with half a brain will not be attacking them after a couple rounds of absolute whiffs, especially if they rolled 18's and 19's and still missed.

Also, if that Fighter can reach 36 AC, then consider the rest of his character build. He probably doesn't do a whole lot of damage, or have a lot of to-hit. He probably can't use Combat Maneuvers too well. He probably can't move too fast, nor might he have extremely good Saves or CMB/CMD. Touch AC can still be a big problem for someone who's wearing Heavy Armor, even if he has Deflection, Luck, Insight, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Letric wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I think that complaining about being forced into putting umd on every character who can't cast because magic items are a hard troll for non casters is a reality we seem to want to enforce.
Spells are just better. You're better off casting a spell than doing a full attack

The sad thing is, that's true, even if it's a Blasting spell.

A Blood Arcanist with the Orc Bloodline and School Understanding (Evocation) that specializes in the Battering Blast spell can kill anything that's not protected by an Anti-Magic Field, Spellbane, or Mage's Disjunction. It bypasses all DR and Resistances (as it's Force Damage), and casting two of them in a round, you deal upwards of 572 points of damage on average.


CBDunkerson wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Wonderstell wrote:
With a new page comes a new beginning! And a new chance to try and redirect this thread to the actual reason it was made!

Oh, look... optimism! Faith in humanity! Hope for the future!

That's adorable. :]

As long as there is life, there is hope.
And yet... not one on topic post to be seen.

To be fair, there are multiple threads about similar subject matter, and people do confuse them from one another.

I certainly do; it's making my head hurt a little keeping track between what I said on this thread in comparison to what I said in another, and what everyone else said...it's just an amalgamation split into 3 parts, and they're all about the same looking blobs of text. It's skull-splitting...ugh...

Though, if we really want to get back on topic, I will go ahead and say that the OP's answer has already been given, which was "There isn't really another alternative to Brawling, sorry." So really, unless we want to rehash that same answer (because nothing has changed since the few days or so that the errata took place), there isn't anything else to add on to the OP's original question, meaning it's technically more productive to continue the discussion as to why there's nothing that can feasibly replace Brawling (or some of the other strong magic items that got nerfed).


I'll go ahead and FAQ this just so people can get a completely straight answer. A lot of the answers are extrapolations and are from rules that may or may not be relevant.

I will go ahead and say that if they do give a straight answer (such as explicitly saying "Spiked Bashing Shields deal 1D8 because of the Stacking Size FAQ"), and people still don't accept the answer, well...

(Keep in mind, I'm not saying they have to like it, just that they acknowledge that the answer given is correct.)


Aelryinth wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Alex, the Jingasa is an unaffiliated slot for AC bonuses. The price would be doubled.

The Jingasa at 5k giving both the +1 Luck Bonus AND the crit negation is underpriced by the very rules. Given the example of the Buffering Cap being 2000 gp and not even NEGATING the crit, the Jingasa should have been an absolute minimum of 9-10k gp.

The artificial inflation of the Luck Bonus with cheap traits is what prodded the change to the deflection bonus. They could probably have made it a competence or insight bonus, but eh.

==Aelryinth

If by "unaffiliated" you mean "slotless," then that's clearly incorrect.

If by "unaffiliated" you mean "shouldn't grant AC," then a citation from the book would be needed. Even without the book citation, I will go ahead and say that there are precedents, both historical and literary, that would disagree with your claim of a helm being "unaffiliated" with protecting you, especially if we want to consider what a helmet designed for war is supposed to do (though as of recent history, isn't particularly helpful).

And guess what, the artificial inflation applies to more than just the Jingasa, why not change them to a different bonus type too?

I said unaffiliated, and meant unaffiliated.

Rings are affiliated with all effects...you can stuff any spell effect on a ring and it will be the minimum price.

Look at the elemental resistance things for armor. Compare the price to a ring. They are unaffiliated effects, and they cost more.

The Helm slot is not affiliated with Luck or Deflection bonuses to AC.

Look at the Helm of teleportation. Then look at boots of teleportation. They do the exact same thing, and the helm costs 50% more, because boots are affiliated with movement slots, and Helms are not.

So, the 10-11k price range is not bogus, it's an estimate based on existing magic items.

Critical deflection is an armor-slot affiliated item, not a helm item. So we know the price is going to be...

You're really going to need to explain this "affiliated" stuff, because nothing like that is explained in the Magic Item rules. The closest thing is "Compare to existing items," and there aren't any existing items to compare it to.

Also, a Luck bonus is calculated as Bonus Squared X 2,500, not Bonus Squared X 2,000, as the Deflection bonus would be calculated. So it still makes a difference.


Treefolk wrote:

At level 9, Cleave is just fine for a Two-handing fighter. Without haste as a buff you're basically upgrading your second -5 BAB attack to a full BAB attack on another person. We're not really loosing tremendously much (the extra naturals are shrug worthy as you said yourself). Furious Focus might be a solid option, stacking with the Accurate Stance you should be able to put your first attack every round into PC meat.

Take a look at No Escape over A.Mark. Withdrawing is a common enough tactic and it's a great way to stick close to your intended meal ticket :<

They're only shrug-worthy because it is way too feat-intensive to make them equally as effective as a two-handed weapon, I'd need Dragon Ferocity (which needs Dragon Style and Stunning Fist), and I'd need Feral Combat Training for every single natural attack I get. Quite frankly, the only reason that would even be viable is because the GM removed Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus from the game (and is no longer a pre-requisite for feats that require it), otherwise that would be impossible to be done, and even if it was, wouldn't be available until the endgame levels, which would be a complete waste of feats that I could get elsewhere.

I've already decided to replace Auspicious Mark with Deadly Accuracy, allowing better confirmation on the critical threats (considering they'll almost all have high AC, this will be important, otherwise it makes a manufactured weapon choice like the Nodachi pointless). To be honest, between Expeditious Retreat and the Fast Movement, nobody's going to be able to get away.

@ Gambit: I'll wait until the GM announces which campaign book he'll use for us, so as to help give you an idea as to what would and would not be a spoiler for us. As I've said, just some basic information regarding the universe (, such as common factions, cultures, races, etc.,) would be appreciated, as it'll help me to immerse the BBEG into the universe. I'm also usually pretty good at not spoiling stories, as I developed a quick adventure hook for the GM to throw at us, and we all enjoyed it. I didn't even spoil anything, so the PCs were always in the dark about what was really going on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Alex, the Jingasa is an unaffiliated slot for AC bonuses. The price would be doubled.

The Jingasa at 5k giving both the +1 Luck Bonus AND the crit negation is underpriced by the very rules. Given the example of the Buffering Cap being 2000 gp and not even NEGATING the crit, the Jingasa should have been an absolute minimum of 9-10k gp.

The artificial inflation of the Luck Bonus with cheap traits is what prodded the change to the deflection bonus. They could probably have made it a competence or insight bonus, but eh.

==Aelryinth

If by "unaffiliated" you mean "slotless," then that's clearly incorrect.

If by "unaffiliated" you mean "shouldn't grant AC," then a citation from the book would be needed. Even without the book citation, I will go ahead and say that there are precedents, both historical and literary, that would disagree with your claim of a helm being "unaffiliated" with protecting you, especially if we want to consider what a helmet designed for war is supposed to do (though as of recent history, isn't particularly helpful).

And guess what, the artificial inflation applies to more than just the Jingasa, why not change them to a different bonus type too?


Nature Oracle; with the right items and feats, you can get Charisma to EVERYTHING.

You can cheese their Capstone by getting an effective infinite Charisma and Intelligence and Hit Points, by draining their Intelligence to 1 or 2, use their Capstone, cast Awaken with their new-found element-type, and then using Greater Restoration and/or Heal to bring their statistics back to their newly-adjusted normal statistics.

Otherwise, a typical God Wizard will work. Start out with as much Intelligence as possible, build nothing but Intelligence/Spellcasting items, have the highest Save DCs and Spell Penetration in the world, and eventually everything will be forced to bow before your narrative powers.


Rysky wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Skull wrote:
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.
And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?

Sure it is.

And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.

You survived. You're lucky.

Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.

It'd still be more cost effective to put 1,000 of that 5,000 gold spent aside for a Reincarnate spell, and leave yourself with 4,000 gold to spend on more important things that actually work.

Hell, even setting that 5,000 gold aside for a Raise Dead would be more cost-effective, and that's saying something...


Rysky wrote:
Skull wrote:
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.
And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?

Sure it is.

And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

You made up an argument that I never said, then you made an argument against that thing that I never said.

That's called a strawman.

My statement was that an item granting a cheap stackable bonus to AC is probably bad for game design. The backlash from the item being changed to deflection proves that is what people cared about.

No seriously, luck bonus to AC from an item was probably a bad idea from the start. It was a very common, exploited item.

I extrapolated your original argument (people exploiting Fate's Favored for Cheap/Easy Luck Bonus increases) to something that has occurred previously that happened in the same manner (people exploiting Master of Many Styles for quick and easy Crane Wing benefits) to demonstrate the similarities of the two situations I presented, because (at least from my perspective) they're basically the same thing.

It's not technically a strawman, since I made my answer in relation to what you said. I just answered your argument as if it were analogous; sorry if it didn't appear that way, as that was my intent.

Of course it's bad design to have an item extremely good become cheaply priced. Which is why I'm surprised they didn't go with the two smarter and easier solutions first: increase the price of the item (because they feel such an item at such a low price and character level was unintended), or remove Fate's Favored from the game (especially if it's as problematic as people claim).

@ Wonderstell: I reset the chain; to be honest, I blame the quoting formats, it does take up a lot of necessary replying space.


thorin001 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Remember you can hold the charge on a touch spell indefinitely. Cast it before combat and then start Vital Stike/Spellstriking people.
Vital Strike specifically requires the Attack Action. Delivering a Touch Spell is a special Free Action, not an Attack Action, so no go on Vital Strike.

Delivering a touch spell in the round it was cast is a free action. If you are holding the charge you can use any action available to deliver it.

Yes, but I'm saying you can't cast the spell and then Vital Strike in the same round, and is the same reason a spell like True Strike is pretty crappy.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No it wasn't. If it was obvious to many, a FAQ wouldn't have been needed, and there would've been no thread or argument made otherwise.
Not going to re-fight a battle that has already been won (indeed, the devs had clarified it even before you posted that FAQ request you linked). While it WAS poorly worded, obviously many people were able to divine the intent correctly... otherwise there never would have been any argument.

Yeah, the damage was done. Barbarians are still very strong, but still, sad days.

If by "many," you mean less than 10, then sure, I suppose it was "many people," just like how Cavemen thought "many" was 3 or more of a given thing. Not an insult, but that is how the thread progressed. Anyway...

@ N. Jolly: Spellcasters wouldn't necessarily need it since their Swift Action would be occupied with Quickened Spells, but it's still 1,000 gold, which is great for the levels that you can't cast Quickened Spells (I'd presume about 11th level would be when Quickened Spells would become commonplace).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Courageous was a game balance adjustment too, since it nerfed the effectiveness of Morale Bonuses for those who used Courageous Weapons. It just occurred as a FAQ before it got officially patched as Errata.

I should know, I'm the one who made that happen.

LOTS of people made that happen... because it was always obvious to many that the interpretation that it applied to ALL morale bonuses was just wrong. Thus, it was a clarification. The only 'balance' issue was with the incorrect interpretation.

No it wasn't. If it was obvious to many, a FAQ wouldn't have been needed, and there would've been no thread or argument made otherwise.

In fact, a lot of people in that thread state that there was no other possible way to reach another interpretation based on how it was worded, myself included, which is what Mark said happened; and there were very few who said it functioned otherwise, basing their argument on some very fishy (and fairly easily contrabanded) evidence.

Seriously, a lot of people pressed FAQ, if only just to try and call the bluff on the supposed "evidence" that was presented to support the given interpretation, and we all got sucked in and were ran dry like a novice poker player.


Johnnycat93 wrote:
Remember you can hold the charge on a touch spell indefinitely. Cast it before combat and then start Vital Stike/Spellstriking people.

Vital Strike specifically requires the Attack Action. Delivering a Touch Spell is a special Free Action, not an Attack Action, so no go on Vital Strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Courageous was a game balance adjustment too, since it nerfed the effectiveness of Morale Bonuses for those who used Courageous Weapons. It just occurred as a FAQ before it got officially patched as Errata.

I should know, I'm the one who made that happen.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

'My character concept cannot possibly work unless he wears a culturally anachronistic hat!'

Actually, that would make more sense than, 'the hat must have this set of powers'. Once you are complaining about the numbers that isn't a character concept. It's a math problem.

If math was abstract of a character's potential to do XYZ, you'd have a point.

But the problem stems that the numbers are almost always linked to the character concept and how effective it is pulled off.

Want to rule the world through kindness? Better have the highest Charisma and Diplomacy in the freaking world, as well as any abilities which improve upon it.

Want to be an unhittable juggernaut? Better have the highest AC, Saves, and CMD in the world, as well as any abilities (Spell Resistance, etc). to help further protect you.

This extends well beyond flat numbers, but onto the ability to do a subject itself; Crane Style feat chain says hi.

So saying that nerfing an item's effectiveness is "just a math problem" because that's all it currently is, is a fool's taunt, one that invites even worse problems to come at some time in the future (like it just did).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Well not everybody plays this game to win.

It's not about winning. It's about being able to accurately portray character concepts for whatever gaming that I see fit. And in a lot of people's minds, that is winning.

If I want to portray someone who is strong enough, extremely weak, or who specializes in X subject, but I cannot portray that level of power, or that type of character, then why would I use the system that doesn't get the job done?

I'm not trying to sit there and say "Optimize or Die" (though that is practically synonymous with how the game is currently designed, so it's not unfounded), all I'm saying is "Don't destroy my ability to portray characters who are powerful/weak or can accomplish X," a request that is infinitely more reasonable and widespread among all types of gamers.

Because if the system doesn't work, then I can't "win" with this system. Sure, you can't please everyone, but this was a pretty big blow across multiple types of gamers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

What if I were to pop in here and suggest that there is no real solution to be found in rules changes? The real problem is much bigger than the woes of one little hat, and it lies in the intangible culture that has developed, which is far more powerful than written rules - the problem in particular here appears to be, let's call it the "powerless power gamer" culture (or "slave to the beans," which I like even better), that spreads this doctrine of "The Numbers command me to take these character options, these items, etc to get the Perfect Number, therefore I MUST DO SO...or else I am surely *gasp*...STUPID!"

That's not what the game is about, folks. At all. Intelligence isn't about blind adherence to rules and making the biggest number possible, otherwise ENIAC would be smarter than all of us - it's about independent, creative decision-making, individualized and self-driven LEARNING rather than choosing to merely be passively TAUGHT, and being able to perceive and imagine those things that matter more than numbers, which are a means to an end, NOT the end in and of itself (if this sounds like I'm talking as much about the roots of the Real-World global political crisis as I am about Pathfinder, that's no accident - just as I don't believe it to be an accident that the mentality of the larger issue would infect the smaller; it brings me no joy to suggest that the notion of "escaping politics" appears to ultimately just be wishful thinking). This is a game with standards. It is NOT meant for the LCD. A certain level of individual maturity and ethics is expected, otherwise it doesn't work. The "nerf/errata" cycle (or whatever you might call it) can only be broken by people exercising personal restraint. It's not inevitable. We are not powerless. It is our choice.

As a veteran player (as in, "Generation Red-Box") I used to play with said, "Ethics, man" - those of you who've followed the trajectory of Internet culture for as long as I have (or...

When the "perfect number" becomes disproportionate to being the most powerful character, or even type of character, I'll keep this advice in mind.

Until then...sorry, that's just how the game's meta is designed. If a character's power was disproportionate to whatever numbers you possessed, well...then these magic items and such don't have any sort of value.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Grue: A lot of the "24 hour minimum" changes were implemented because people were cheesing the system. For example, carrying multiple Quick Runner's Shirts, Mnemonic Vests (for storing multiple scrolls and thereby saving money from keeping on buying scrolls), etc. Let's also not take into consideration stuff like the Ring of Inner Fortitude, which was used to get "free" Wishes through the likes of Blood Money.

Not all changes in the recent Errata were bad...some absolutely necessary (and some of them not made, even though there are glaringly obvious issues, such as Throwing Shields). But clearly, a lot of those changes were horrible.

**EDIT** Corrected something that could've been construed as offensive...


Rysky wrote:
No need to take blame all on yourself Darsol, especially since Courageous was FaQed a year ago :3

But I'm the one who caused the FAQ to occur. The fault is all mine.

Gee Gee my friend. Gee F!@#ing Gee.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Haru Drakestand wrote:
It has gone from a +1 cost (a great deal, but hardly game-breaking) to a +3 cost (ridiculous and useless unless you happen to find it on an armor in campaign mode.)

Well, the idea of the errata has precedent, if nothing else. As a general rule for item creation, you shouldn't make something that replaces other items at a cheaper price.

The armor property could go onto a +1 chainshirt, making it a +2. So, for half the price of a +2 weapon, you could get the same general effect while still getting a +1 to AC. And if you think of unarmed strikes as TWF, that is actually at the same price as two +1 weapons while getting the +2/+2 and +1 AC.

It was a VERY attractive proposition to ignore the amulet of mighty fists for quite a while.

Also, with brawler or even swashbuckler, it isn't such a huge trade off forcing you to go with light armor, since they get scaling bonuses to AC that make them like heavy armor anyway. Brawling armor was made to make an unattractive style (light armor unarmed) attractive, but other classes did that and exceeded the original boundaries when both set of incentives were stacked.

While putting it at a +3 seems a bit much, it is reasonable not to allowing it to continue as a mere +1. And seeing how desperately druids wait for their +4 wilding armor... it isn't exactly asking you to go to an impossible length to buy it. Particularly for an untyped +2 that stacks with anything, ever. IT makes this more of a mid game option, but it isn't useless.

While we're also nerfing Brawling, why not Bashing too? It provides a +1 to attack rolls, and your shield deals 2 damage dice higher, all for a measly 3,000 gold. That benefit would be the equivalent of a +3 Weapon (+1 with 2 Impact enhancements on the weapon), all consolidated into a +1 Armor enhancement for Shields. Why don't we nerf that into the ground too, because it should equate to the price of a +3 Weapon to get such benefits?

If we go with the concept that new options MUST be appropriated by existing options, then there's no such thing as creativity, and splatbooks would cease to exist (because every book would be filled with the same exact garbage as the first book). So clearly, not only is that logic flawed and wrong, but it also shouldn't (always) be used as a means to gauge an item's power. Especially for something as niche as a Light Armor enhancement that only works on Grapple checks and Unarmed Strikes.

Amulet of Mighty Fists still costs an absolute fortune to purchase, it's just that now you can only buy an Amulet of Mighty Fists or a Brawling enhancement, but not both, ever, at any given time. In which case, why even have the Brawling enhancement in the first place?

I'd also like to see all these supposed Druids that actually bother to save up enough gold for +4 Wild Armor. Because they need to get consumables and other items besides their precious Armor, which sucks. Like an Amulet of Mighty Fists if they Wild Shape, or Headbands and Belts for their casting/melee needs. And guess what? That +4 Wild Armor will run into the same problems as Brawling Armor; it's too expensive for one sitting, meaning you can afford either one or the other, and never either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight_Druid wrote:

I find this thread by the OP hilarious. In essence no one forcing you to use errata; it's your game, do as you wish. Also, if Paizo didn't publish errata people would complain about that too. I started gaming in 1988 using Palladium Fantasy and Rifts. We never got errata or updated books, and there was plenty of power-creep for new releases. If we didn't like a rule we changed it and moved on.

Consider yourself very fortunate that Paizo spends time correcting mistakes. If you buy the PDF the update is FREE. In fact as far as I can tell all erratta is free. It's like you're looking for a reason to complain. It's not that serious, my friend. Either use the updates or don't.

No one except the PFS GMs who are required to enforce and impasse the Errata onto you, as well as any newbie GM who looks the rules up online.

Then again, considering PFS is the balancing point that Paizo uses their errata for, everyone in PFS should be absolutely ecstatic about these changes.

Oh wait...


Treefolk wrote:

Grab anything other than Arcane Strike, its *only* two damage and you could scoop up Extra Traits instead (or Cleave or Iron Will).

Being a Rager, AC is not your game to play (no dex bonus, +7 AC, -2 penalty...), you'd be better scooping up other tasty things with that gold (Snap Leaves are funny, invisibility potions, potion of fly, there's a lot of options). AC22 for a level 9 boss isn't especially effective.

I really can't stress Superstition over Auspicious Mark enough, its a +3 to saves vs spells/SLAs compared to a 1/rage +1d6.

Those are the biggest issues.

I anticipate the party will be fighting him by 7th level, maybe 8th. The entire party, sans the "tank", is 3/4 BAB. They consist of a Menhir Savant Druid, a classic Magus, a classic Ninja, a Plaguebringer Alchemist, and an unchained Monk; their to-hit bonuses won't be especially high (they're level 6 now, and the highest I've seen is +12, and they're already fighting AC 24 enemies already which are difficult for them to hit).

Additionally, consider that the AC I pointed out is him when he's unbuffed. I forgot that Bloodragers could pick up Ironskin, which gives him an extra 4 AC, and apply Shield, which is yet another 4 AC. That's 8 AC, putting him at 32 when it comes time to fight (or 30 while raging), which is fairly good considering he's just a two-handing maniac. Let's not even take into consideration Mirror Images, which makes any potential hits affect images instead.

You probably have a point with the Arcane Strike feat, but Cleave is a pretty big trap for a Two-handed melee character that wants to full-attack consistently (though I will admit that it will be hard for him to hit them consistently, since they can closely hit the 30's in AC with their buffing), and Iron Will is such a staple, it's silly to take when his Will Save is actually pretty strong considering. I'd really want Ability Focus (Breath Weapon) so it's not that weak/easy to save, but I can't select it until 8th level, when I get the Breath Weapon, and having Improved Critical on the Nodachi is pretty damn important for pumping out that threatening damage. I can't take Extra Rage Power, even though that would be a damn good option to take.

The only one I can think of that would be relevant is Multiattack, and that's so that when I include my Bite and Gore into my full attack routine, they're only a -2 to hit instead of -5. To be honest, since I can't take Ability Focus, and I'm worried about the to-hit, that seems to be the best option.

I suppose you're right about Auspicious Mark. But picking Superstition makes no sense thematics wise. And considering the party composition and the lack of save-or-suck spells they have at their disposal, it's not that great mechanics wise. Though I did find a substitute: Deadly Accuracy. The ability to double my Accurate Stance bonuses on a critical confirmation roll, since I'll be using a crit-fishing weapon, is really helpful, and if he becomes a recurring BBEG, this opens the door for the likes of Sharpened and Lethal Accuracy at 16th level, especially if I'm going to focus on the Nodachi.

@ Gambit: To be fair, the BBEG would have Dragon blood, so I suppose that anything Draconian-themed would be appropriate. As for what and when we'll be partaking in Dragonlance, I'll have no idea. I have zero experience or knowledge of the Dragonlance world, so some basics would be appreciated.


Interesting set-up. I forgot Claws were the level 1 ability, not the level 4, which is actually fairly weak now that I look at it. Also you were right about the bonus feat. I can't believe I missed that.

A couple key things to note:

-We are using the Unchained Class rules over the standard ones. This is relevant for calculations and determining effects and such.

-I should've brought this up before, but I didn't think it came up, but the Haste and Slow spells are banned from the table. Because they're too staple of a spell choice and quite overpowered for their spell level, they're not available for anyone to use.

-Although the PCs get access to traits via a Special Points system (rewards for smart and well-thought RP, tactics, etc.), this isn't something that the bad guy would automatically get access to as you would expect from PFS. Additional Traits should be a valid feat to take though.

-The GM ruled for Intimidate to scale based off of Strength. The Intimidating Prowess feat allows you to add your Constitution to your Intimidate check in addition to your Strength modifier. This means Cornugon Smash is a much more effective feat (and Intimidating Prowess is not-so-effective).

-We use Automatic Bonus Progression, so things like an Amulet of Mighty Fists, or a Magic Weapon would come automatically, so I can spend the usual WBL on other fun stuff to use at them. This of course, means that I can either enhance my weapon or my natural attacks with the highest, or enhance them both at a weaker level.

That being said, here's what I came up with:

The BBEG:
Human (15 RP); +'s is from having a Draconic Bloodline
Dual Talent (Strength + Constitution)
+Dual Minded
+Greater Spell Resistance
+Natural Armor (this will be increased by the Dragon Disciple feature, as it says it adds on to any existing Natural Armor you possess)

Bloodrager 5 (Primalist Rageshaper)/Dragon Disciple 4

Attributes
Strength 26 (16 Base + 2 Racial + 2 Inherent + 4 Dragon Disciple + 2 Enhancement)
Dexterity 10
Constitution 16 (14 Base + 2 Racial)
Intelligence 14 (12 Base + 2 Enhancement)
Wisdom 10

Feats
1. Raging Vitality
3. Arcane Strike
5. Intimidating Prowess
7. Cornugon Smash, Improved Initiative*
9. Improved Critical (Nodachi)

Rage Powers
Accurate Stance
Auspicious Mark

Items
Mithril Agile Breastplate (+2)
Masterwork Cold Iron Nodachi (+1)
Mammoth Lord's Helm
Deliquescent Gloves
500 Gold

Skills
Bloodrager 5 @ 6 Skill Points/level = 30
Dragon Disciple 4 @ 4 Skill Points/level = 16
46 Skill Points total

Intimidate MAX (9 + 8 + 3 + 3 = 24)
Acrobatics MAX (9 + 3 = 12)
Spellcraft MAX (9 + 2 + 3 = 14)
Knowledge [Arcana] MAX (9 + 2 + 3 = 14)
Perception MAX (9 + 3 = 12)
Swim 1 (1 + 8 - 1 = 7)

Stats
HP 97 [124 while Raging]
AC 24; Flat-Footed 24, Touch 12 [-2 while Raging]
CMD 26; CMB 16
Fort 12, Ref 5, Will 8 [10 while Raging]

Spells * = Bonus
Caster Level 8th
1st Level (2/day)
Shield*
Enlarge Person
Expeditious Retreat
Long Arm
Mirror Strike

2nd Level (2/day)
Resist Energy*
Mirror Image
See Invisibility
False Life

Breath Weapon
30 Foot Cone
9D6 Acid Damage @ Save DC 18, 2/day

Attack/Damage
Cold Iron Nodachi +1 @ +17/+12, 1D10+13, 15-20/X2
Dragon Bite +1 @ +17 when Disarmed, or +12, 1D8+13, X2
Gore Attack +1 @ +12, 1D6+5, X2
[Claws +1 @ +17, 1D6+5, X2] <--- Only when disarmed

Situational Modifiers: Accurate Stance [+2 Attack], Power Attack [-3 Attack/+9 Damage], Arcane Strike [+2 Damage], Bloodrage [+2 Attack/+2 Damage], Flanking [+2 Attack], Deliquescent Gloves [+1D6 Acid, average 3.5 Damage, hands only]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Hey, here's an idea, how about we lay off the vitriolic statements and blaming? You have made many assumptions about this player's knowledge and character which are frankly unfounded and inappropriate for a forum such as this one. They've already changed their stance and have been rather gracious doing so. Your repeated verbal harassment is not needed or even wanted here.
Thank you, I've even been getting PMs from a couple people expressing discontent and concern over the vitriol in this thread.

I have been very surprised and disappointed by the negativity in this thread. I personally found the Magus to be incomprehensible until someone pointed me to Grick's Guide. Even after that, it was a while before I felt comfortable with the class. Now it's one of my favorites.

But even if the Magus rules were obvious to someone from the start, I would imagine that there were some other areas of the rules that they struggled with. I don't understand the lack of empathy for someone who is trying to learn how the game works. I do suspect that there would have been a very different response if it was a player rather than a GM who was unclear on the rules. That worries me. The messageboards should be here to help everyone enjoy the game more. If these boards are turning anti-GM, then they will become worse than useless.

The way a situation is presented is extremely important when you're trying to determine what side people fall on, whether they're for the player, for the GM, or for a third unrelated party/option.

The way the OP presented the situation placed the GM in question at an "all-knowing" and very hostile or anti-player-fun position, stating that only a FAQ/Errata would change the GMs ruling, even though the rules already answer the argument the player presented. This was reinforced by the factors that the GM is, in fact, a PFS GM, who are required to understand and obey the rules set by PFS, which is to follow what is posted in the books, enforce any FAQ/Erratas published by Paizo, etc., and through the apparent requirement of officiality that does not exist.

Once the situation was presented, it's difficult to change first impressions after all the cards are laid out on the table; the damage is done, and if I wanted to repair it, it's not up to me to accept the fix

Now, if it was presented differently, I can assure you that the results and responses from the posters would have been different. But at this point, crying over spilled milk isn't going to solve anything. Mistakes were made, and as long as we learn from them and move on, I think it still results in an experience worth its points.


Oh dear, the Errata has come. Time for a summation and evaluation:

Mundane Items:
The Kikko and Four-Mirror prices were ridiculously low, but now seem quite high; I suppose that is the price you pay for outsourcing your Armorsmithing jobs to the Eastern lands.

Shields went up in price. I don't know why, but at least it won't break the bank.

Aklys and Bo Staff got a minor damage boost, the Elven Chained Spear got some extra weapon properties, and the Double Walking Stick Katana got a complete rewrite. It's basically a Shortsword Double Weapon now.

Scorpion Whip completely replaces the Whip in its general usage, since it has higher damage and doesn't require feat investment to keep relevant, and you can TWF with it easier, it being a light weapon and all.

They fixed the Double-Barreled Guns so they function properly. A little needlessly worded, but I imagine that's intentional because of wordwrapping and stuff.

Weapons in the Weapon Groups got some adjustments.

Special Materials:
Mithril Shields got cheaper. Interesting.

Wyrroot Weapons just became a bunch of foam beatsticks that you can only utilize to restore your resources once per day. Although this could've used some clarification regarding critical hits that they didn't expand upon, it's quite pointless to now, since your criticals to siphon points do no damage anyway.

Mithril Mundane items, such as Grappling Hooks, Cauldrons, etc. went up 200%. I don't even know how that makes sense, considering it just got infinitely cheap to make a Mithril Shield than it is to make Mithril Shackles. I mean...wat...

Goods and Services:
Weapon Cords finally got changed. This was bound to happen.

Mundane Services and Goods got their prices changed around. It appears a lot of stuff actually got more expensive. Them feels when it appears more and more people have their hand out because you're an adventurer.

Magic Armor:
Benevolent Armor just became a lot more expensive and harder to acquire, and requires an enhancement bonus now. I mean, it's now in-line with a Benevolent Weapon, but still, sad days for those who just wanna help.

Brawling Armor cost inflated like a balloon. Of course, its intrinsic value deflated, and is now flat like a pancake. I mean, it was a niche armor property, but now it's even more niche. And by niche, I mean extinct.

Spell Storing Armor now works as intended. Hooray. It's still kind of weak though.

Mistmail got nerfed, but I never played with that item, so I wouldn't know how bad it was nerfed. Still, it's there.

Magic Weapons:
Conductive Weapons just became more stupid. Not only can you not use Ranged abilities on Melee attacks and vice-versa, but you can only use it on one attack per round, nor can you activate it more than once per round, regardless of if you're TWFing with two Conductive Weapons. I mean, it wasn't a really strong property, but now it's headstrong, and that's not a good thing. Thanks for making Spell Storing Weapons the only feasible good thing to occur here.

Ahhh, the Courageous property; this day was bound to come, and you guys can thank me for making that happen. This is what happens when you try to fight for Martials to have nice things, they instead become things that nobody would think are nice to have.

Even if it's a slight boost, unless you're a Lore Warden Fighter who dedicates his life to fighting Evil Outsiders, and running away from everything else that comes your way, the Cunning property is still stupid.

Earthenflail is to Adamantine as Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer is to the other Reindeer on Santa's Sleigh. That is, it's almost as cool as Adamantine, but it's not really Adamantine. It was a stupid weapon in the first place, but if you're a guitarist, you like amplifiers, and this, my friends, is a magic item called an Amplifier of Stupidity.

Screaming Bolt got a clarification adjustment. Hooray. It still sucks though.

Rings:
Ring of Continuation was originally an overpowered buy that eventually got nerfed into nothingness. This just makes that all history now.

The Ring of Ferocious Action was one of the most unique and very useful non-Big 6 items to have for its price, and served to offset spells like Slow or being hit with a Staggering Critical, something which no other item could do effectively. Now it's just a one-hit wonder that can't be useful for more than a single combat, or even a single application of the Staggered condition. I mean, it's cheap for what it did, sure, but a price increase would've been the more favorable approach.

Ring of Inner Fortitude prevented any cheese people tried to extrapolate from it. The most common offender would've been the likes of Blood Money for Wishes. To be honest, I didn't realize people were doing this, so I suppose that's a good thing (though there are worse things that need fixing than this).

Ring of Revelation got fixed, similar to the reasons above.

Staves:
Staves got a bunch of price adjustments. There's too many to list, and the ones that did get fixed are niche and hardly see the light of day anyway.

Staff of the Master got nerfed, though only in relation to the spells that it can cast. Which, to be honest, don't do a whole lot for 30,000 gold.

Wondrous Items:
Belt of Fallen Heroes now actually gives you a hero, instead of some measly errand boy, and overall got a good buff. To be fair though, this is perhaps the only good change among this section...

Mnemonic Vest got fixed for people pulling cheese of having spells memorized outside of combat for fixing things instead of purchasing scrolls like good samaritans would.

Quick Runner's Shirt now doesn't allow you to attack if you use it. This means that all it's good for is a Spring Attack that doesn't work, instead of helping you to close the gap to get a Full Attack in. I mean, it still has use, but a lot of its offensive usage is gone. For a change this big, I think this should be allowed back in to PFS again.

Clarity for Boots of Escape. Hooray. They're still garbage though compared to Boots of Teleportation or the like.

Feather Step Slippers were nerfed from "All-Terrain Boots" to "You Can Only Run So Fast In These High Heels." Although there are better feet slot items than Feather Step Slippers, this was still one of the best low level feet options, since Difficult Terrain is a very common problem in adventuring. Needless to say, these are garbage now.

Jaunt Boots had a very strange set of strength; on one hand, it was very useless (if we went with the argument you had to spend a Standard Action), and on the other, it was ridiculously good (if we went with the argument that it activated whenever you used a 5-foot step). This helps clarify its usage, which is good, but really all it is, is it allows you a fancy way to Withdraw from a creature with a ridiculous amount of reach. Which isn't bad, but as far as it being worth the feet slot and price....ehhh....

Tremor Boots only allow you to feel tremors that originate on your square now. So really, all it does is allow you feel the earth beneath your very feet. Which is cute, since everyone can unless they're handicapped or no longer have feeling in their legs, in which case you might as well call these "Boots of the Non-Handicapped." (No offense meant here, but it helps demonstrate how useless these boots became.)

Gloves of Reconnaissance aren't anywhere near as cool as whatever gadgets that James Bond uses. Needless to say, this is Paizo's way of saying "Not everyone can be as cool as James Bond." The sad thing is, they didn't even need to nerf this item for them to be right.

Poisoner's Gloves got some clarification, and specifically can work with Alchemist Infusions. A slight buff, and a welcome one at that.

Cap of the Free Thinker only lets you think more freely once per day. Free Speech is an American thing, not a Pathfinder/Golarion thing, so this makes sense thematically. All I can say is, R.I.P. anyone with a bad Will Save.

Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier is priced wrong and named so incorrectly at this point. Not only are you no longer lucky, but your luck runs out extremely fast, and doesn't ever come back to you. It should've been named to the Jingasa of the Skilled and Not-So-Lucky Soldier, especially if they receive this as a dropped item. Seriously, a +1 Ring of Protection and a +1 Light Fortification armor item is the better buy at this point, and that shouldn't be the case.

Mask of Stony Demeanor? Now an 8,000 gold pile of trash? I'd prefer to call it the Mask of Larceny and Avarice at this point, who would pay 8,000 gold for a +5 bonus to two extremely situational benefits? An insane and greedy person who wants to have it all, that's who.

Plague Mask got a price increase. It's not a horrible item for its price (at this point, it beats out the Jingasa of the Skilled and Not-So-Lucky Soldier), but it's not exactly anything to write home about.

Amulet of Mighty Fist prices and costs were fixed. Clarity. Great. It's still ridiculously expensive though.

Torc of Lionheart Fury got a slight nerf. It's a niche item anyway. I wouldn't whine too much about it.

Highwayman's Cape got an interesting boost. It's no Cloak of Resistance, but at least it's a decent option for those Automatic Bonus Progression games.

Hunter's Cloak got a buff similar to how Boots of Speed function. It's still not better than a Cloak of Resistance though...

Bonebreaker Gauntlets are now called Bonebreaker Bracers to fit in line with them being a Wrist Slot item. Hooray for clarity. They still have some weird text in the description though...("If the save fails, the Wand reduces the target's Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution (wearer's choice) by –6."..I mean, wat?)

Bracers of Falcon's Aim aren't worth their salt anymore, now that it's a 1/day, 1 minute duration effect. I'll say the same thing that I said with the Ring of Ferocious Action: A price increase would've been more appropriate than nerfing its effect into nothingness. You might as well pay for a Wand of Aspect of the Falcon, and it would be more effective for its price compared to this pile of garbage.

Gauntlets of Skill At Arms are removed from the game (the name confused me to its purpose anyway). Now, it's called High Elven Bracers. More fitting. Still not extremely impressive though.

Sleeves of Many Garments got a "fix." I call it a "fix," because I don't think it's truly fixed (as several others may point out). As to what that fix is, I'm not sure. One thing is certain though, it's not over yet.

Goblin Fire Drums went from "This could be an interesting niche item," to "This isn't worth spending the time for the supposed increased fire power."

Harp of Shattering seems to have received clarity. Woohoo. There are still better ways for a Bard to contribute than to play a stupid Harp that doesn't scale or cast spells worth a damn.

Snapleaf can only be used while falling now, instead of before you decide to take a big jump. You know why it's called Snapleaf? Because you either snap the leaf when you're falling, or you snap your neck because you didn't have an Immediate/Swift Action to snap the leaf when you're falling. Sneaky double entendre, Paizo. Very Sneaky. Good thing I have a decent Perception check...

And of course, a couple random table fixes. Nothing too spectacular here.

Out of all of the stuff they nerfed, there's one thing that I'm shocked is not addressed that should've been addressed: Throwing Shields. There's so much wrong here that I don't even know where to start, so I'll just mention all of the big problems: People proposing you can make ranged attacks with it as a Free Action, it having a flat damage dice instead of it scaling based off of what shield type you're using (because as written, it's an attachment/adjustment made to an existing shield), whether you can make shield bash attacks with it like a normal shield, and if you can, if you need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to properly bash with it, or if it only applies to throwing it, etc. This stuff needs to be clarified, otherwise it's just a silly mess that no sane GM could really allow at his table without fear of cheese or unreliable mechanics.

I imagine there are some others, but off the top of my head, that's the biggest offender.

Overall, I'm severely disappointed with the errata; not only did player options get nerfed into oblivion, but this also puts much more stock into the Big 6 items that didn't need it. Sure, some things needed some fixing and/or adjustments, but a lot of these changes went way over-the-top in fixing stuff when all it really needed was a little fine-tuning. This also severely undervalues the Automatic Bonus Progression system that Pathfinder Unchained introduced by making these non-Big 6 items into absolute garbage, when the entire point of the Automatic Bonus Progression was to make purchasing the non-Big 6 items a much more attractive option.

This is the first Crane Wing errata all over again, where they saw a potential problem (which originated in PFS, mind you), and overreacted by nerfing the subject that didn't need to be nerfed all because of some weird niche that people exploited. So far, they haven't taken the steps afterward, where they proceed to nerf the subject that did need to be nerfed, and left the original nerf in place, but when it comes to the third or fourth printing, I can assure you this sort of thing is going to happen again.

**EDIT** Erratas for my Errata Evaluation. Errata-ception.


Treefolk wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd lose out on 1 BAB. Not much of a deal breaker at 9th level, or even at 6th level, when I would take the first level of Dragon Disciple. This is shored up by the factor that Dragon Disciple is a D12 Hit Dice, and has decent Fort and Will Saves.

The biggest bonus is most definitely the +4 bonus to strength for a melee character. The rest is shrug-worthy (an extra feat at most). The will save is only 1 better over what it would be from straight bloodrager.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


While you are technically correct on the bloodline power stuff, this FAQ here says that I would still gain the 8th level bloodline power, as the ruling becomes Bloodrager's Draconic Bloodline is increased by the Dragon Disciple levels.
Primalist wrote:
Primal Choices: At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, a primalist can choose to take either his bloodline power or two barbarian rage powers.

You're gaining the 8th level bloodline power from Dragon Disciple, not Bloodrager so Primalist would only work on the 4th level rage power.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So, I would still get access to my Breath Weapon power, and the Breath Weapon benefit of the Dragon Disciple class makes me able to use it an additional time per day.Did I mention the Saving Throw for that Breath Weapon calculates both my Dragon Disciple and Bloodrager levels together, and the Save DC is Constitution-based due to being a Bloodrager? Because that's certainly a telling power increase.

Scariness of the breath weapon will mostly rely on the shape (cone>line). 9d6 is also fairly shrug worthy (average 32.5 damage, base DC of 14+Con mod for half). You'll end up accidentally roasting any minions you're running for interference/flanking.

Wouldn't be high enough level for the extra feat. Even if I was, I don't have too many great feat options; maybe Toughness. Also, that 1 Will Save is equivalent to the Indomitable Faith trait, so I'll take it. I'd also gain a couple more HP, too, so silver lining.

I did ask a question about the Primalist subjects. That puts me at a bit of a pickle then, because I have to use the Bloodline ability to generate the free Bite attack (which functions at 1.5x Strength at all times), but getting the Reckless Abandon Rage Power is pretty neat too, making me not lose to-hit when I Power Attack, or even giving me more to hit if I decide not to Power Attack. Unfortunately, I can't lose the Breath Weapon to gain it back via Dragon Disciple, and losing Wings can be a real killer.

I was probably going to pick up an Acid cone, in accordance to the Green Dragon. Green Dragons are Evil, so it fits the BBEG concept, and it's also one of the few resisted elements in the game. I'd be having a pretty high Constitution modifier (at least +4), and I'll probably pick up an Ability Focus (Breath Weapon) feat to make it a DC 20, which is still pretty good. Sure, the 9D6 is pretty weak, but it's a solid gap-closing option so that, if the party is stupid enough to charge in and attack me, I'll full-attack them. I can also only do it 2/day, so its usage is sparing anyway.

1 to 50 of 4,056 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.