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

5,531 posts (5,541 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,531 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Give this a look over.


Yomabo wrote:
Danielle Burgess wrote:

Saleem Halabi – for sure, I'm just observing that Natural Spell Combat says you can use one additional natural attack, but it doesn't explicitly let you use your spellcasting hand to make them, so claws are still fairly useless without monk levels.

*edit – if anyone has it, I'd love a hard reference to where it is mentioned that you can't punch with the same hand as a claw attack; I know I've always heard that ruling, but I can't seem to find where it comes from.

Natural Attack wrote:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

Unarmed strikes occupy the "arm slot" to attack. So you either attack with a fist or with your claws, unless you are a monk. He can strike with every part of his body.

Now, my character has monk levels, claws, natural spell combat and spell combat/strike. How do these interact and what are the most amount of attacks I can do in a single round.

Actually, it doesn't have to. Ultimate Equipment entry for Unarmed Strike says:

Unarmed Strike wrote:
An unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick where the attacker is not using a weapon to make the attack. A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

The Monk entry simply restates the general assumption. Yes, it has some other added stuff (such as counting as X for Y), but it is more thorough in what you can make unarmed strikes with than the actual entry.

Regardless, this FAQ says he can use Spell Combat with his Claw or his Unarmed Strike without any investment.

Question is whether you can use other weapons in conjunction, to which I say probably not, since Spell Combat is a special Full Round Action that counts as a Full Attack, and isn't an actual Full Attack (where you can take all relevant attacks you can make). Even with Natural Spell Combat taken for your Claws, both hands are occupied by casting and making Unarmed Strikes. Relevant FAQ for confirmation of intent.

The good news is that you won't need to spend an Arcana for your Claws, and with a level in Scaled Fist, you can get Dragon Ferocity fairly quick (5th level), meaning you're always hitting as hard as any two-handed martial. The bad news is that you'll be lacking your Claw Attacks, and your Bite Attack is going to be sub-par due to it always being a Secondary Natural Weapon. Of course, if you pick up Feral Combat Training for your Bite (which requires a Weapon Focus feat), it can still be a powerful option for you to take.

Of course, since you have a Monk's Unarmed Strike, which counts as both a Manufactured and Natural Weapon for abilities and effects that improve such subjects, one can argue that you can take Natural Spell Combat for your Unarmed Strike, and execute said Unarmed Strikes with one of your feet.


Carry a portable pot of molten lava.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope. If that's the case, then Warpriests could take Fighter-Only feats whenever they wanted. Except, they can only take them with their Bonus Feats, and they use their Warpriest level as their Fighter level.

In this case, the requirement is levels in Witch. Shaman doesn't possess a clause similar to Warpriests, meaning they can't take that feat.


Nope.

Full Attack wrote:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

First bolded part says that the highest to lowest clause only works when you're dealing with iteratives (such as BAB +6/+1). Second bolded part says that if you're using two weapons (which two separate Natural Weapons would easily be considered two weapons), you can choose which one to attack with.

Of course, the clause does not apply to TWF, which mandates that you take all Primary attacks before any Secondary/Offhand attacks, as shown by the TWF FAQ.


Remember that you can choose Magus Arcanas in place of a feat by taking the Extra Arcana feat, so you can get access to both Natural Spell Combat Arcanas by 3rd level at the cost of a feat. (Since Magi don't need many feats, it's certainly worthwhile.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Goblin_Priest wrote:
Trips are bad enough why insist on making them utter garbage?
Trip is nonetheless like the third best combat maneuver (after grapple and dirty trick). Overrun has its uses (bullette style on a Molthuni Defender fighter can be fun), but it's not like I've seen a Drag, Steal, or Reposition maneuver in forever.

Trip being the third best is inaccurate. It's perhaps the third most applicable maneuver, but it being the third best is hardly proper, since it can be negated if you're big enough or if you can fly, or don't even have legs to trip with. In fact, Bull Rush is probably more applicable than Trip in this case, since it has a fraction of the limitations that Trip has.

Disarm, Sunder, and Bull Rush are all certainly better than it, since Disarm can nullify anyone who relies on weapons (or any sort of hand-held item, really), Sunder works for anyone who wears anything (which makes for powerful debuffing, even if at the cost of potential loot), and Bull Rush has better tactical application, optimization methods, and rules consistency compared to the other stuff you've mentioned.

Overrun is outright broken (i.e. doesn't work at all), Drag is a big waste of time, Steal requires super-investment for very little returns (a lot of which can be covered with proper Sleight of Hand checks), and requires out-of-feat abilities to make truly work, and Reposition is like Bull Rush, except more stupid.


nicholas storm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
VMC Barbarian is a really good idea, since Paladins need very few feats. Once you get the Proficiency feat and Power Attack (bonus points for Fey Foundling via Human feat), all you'll be sinking your feats into is Extra Lay On Hands (or even Extra Rage Powers, once you get your first Rage Power at 11th level; a Paladin VMC Barbarian with Smite and full Beast Totem chain is extremely scary, and very much worth the two feats).
Do you qualify for the beast totem feats? VMC says on rage powers her effective barbarian level is equal to 1/2 her character level.

...Well damn. I thought that clause wasn't there. Maybe I confused it with the Rage Powers you'd get from, for example, Primalist Bloodragers.

Too many class features offering identical benefits with different caveats these days, because that's twice now I've misremembered a rule like this.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

It's a good time to be a blaster sorcerer, with bloodline mutations and what not. I'm intending to make my first blaster for book 1 of Rise of the Runelords. Mostly pretty standard build. Draconic, Human for early access to spell specialization, Shoanti specifically. Taking a drawback so I can get Outlander Lore Seeker on top of Magical Lineage. At level 1 my Burning Hands does 4d4+8.

My hang up is Wayang spell hunter. As a regional trait, it feels kinda cheesy to take it as someone not from there. I'm also thinking it might just be overkill for optimization and move me into cheese territory. Has anyone done a fire blaster without that trait? Was it still fun and useful? What trait should I take instead?

Thanks!

You should try a Blood Arcanist. All of the solid benefits of both Sorcerers and Wizards in one class.

Here's some more information to help you out. Even if you don't make a Blood Arcanist, there are things that can help your character build out.

Thinking I wanna stay sorcerer because it fits the back story I came up with before, and I do like that bloodline havoc. Good guide though.

A lenient GM can allow you to substitute the bloodline powers you gain from Blood Arcanist (which are the same exact powers of a Sorcerer) for the Mutations, since you get Bloodline Powers as the Sorcerer class. Also, since the powers are derived from the same effects, there really isn't much back story to alter.

But, if you are going to go Sorcerer, then I suggest you specialize in Battering Blast, pump your Dexterity up to a decent level, and get as many CasterLevels for that spell as you can.

Why would a sorcerer particularly want battering blast over fireball where an arcanist wouldn't? I'd prefer fire as a native of...

Because Force Damage has little to no counters, whereas Fire damage is the most likely to be resisted element in the game. Battering Blast also synergizes better with your Blood Havoc and Blood Intensity abilities than Fireball does.

Battering Blast creates a ball that deals 5D6 Force Damage. With Havoc and Blood Intensity (and Orc Bloodline), and a 26 Charisma, that now deals 13D6+26. On a SINGLE Ball. WITHOUT Metamagics.

You create an additional Ball for every 5 Caster Levels you have. With an Arcanist and the proper feats/items, you can create 7 Balls that deal that amount of damage, which is again, without metamagics. Sorcerers can create 6, which is respectable, but cannot expect to outshine an Arcanist who can also get access to the Bloodline Mutation effects.

Tack on Empower, Maximized, Intensify (if you run out of Blood Intensity uses), and Quicken (with the same results), and you're looking at being able to absolutely obliterate anything that you come across, by increasing your 13D6+26 by 50%, or making all of the D6's come up as 6, or even basically doubling more of the same effects.

Sure, Fireball is great for clearing out the mooks, but it's a pittance for usage against big bads compared to an optimized Battering Blast.


Gray Warden wrote:

Traits are linked to categories. For this reason, Reactionary is NOT a reskin of Warrior of Old, since the first would impede you from selecting any other Combat trait.

The fluff of WSH (and of many other traits) is part of the trait mechanics itself, which therefore includes, but are NOT limited to, the metamagic cost reduction.

Mechanically, it is. Because both grant a +2 Trait Bonus to Initiative. The only big difference is that the flavor for the two options changed.

Fluff isn't joined at the hip for the rules like mechanics are, and in some cases, using fluff that is different from the rules is the best thing for a GM to do, especially when the original fluff isn't coherent with his setting.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

It's a good time to be a blaster sorcerer, with bloodline mutations and what not. I'm intending to make my first blaster for book 1 of Rise of the Runelords. Mostly pretty standard build. Draconic, Human for early access to spell specialization, Shoanti specifically. Taking a drawback so I can get Outlander Lore Seeker on top of Magical Lineage. At level 1 my Burning Hands does 4d4+8.

My hang up is Wayang spell hunter. As a regional trait, it feels kinda cheesy to take it as someone not from there. I'm also thinking it might just be overkill for optimization and move me into cheese territory. Has anyone done a fire blaster without that trait? Was it still fun and useful? What trait should I take instead?

Thanks!

You should try a Blood Arcanist. All of the solid benefits of both Sorcerers and Wizards in one class.

Here's some more information to help you out. Even if you don't make a Blood Arcanist, there are things that can help your character build out.

Thinking I wanna stay sorcerer because it fits the back story I came up with before, and I do like that bloodline havoc. Good guide though.

A lenient GM can allow you to substitute the bloodline powers you gain from Blood Arcanist (which are the same exact powers of a Sorcerer) for the Mutations, since you get Bloodline Powers as the Sorcerer class. Also, since the powers are derived from the same effects, there really isn't much back story to alter.

But, if you are going to go Sorcerer, then I suggest you specialize in Battering Blast, pump your Dexterity up to a decent level, and get as many Caster Levels for that spell as you can.


VMC Barbarian is a really good idea, since Paladins need very few feats. Once you get the Proficiency feat and Power Attack (bonus points for Fey Foundling via Human feat), all you'll be sinking your feats into is Extra Lay On Hands (or even Extra Rage Powers, once you get your first Rage Power at 11th level; a Paladin VMC Barbarian with Smite and full Beast Totem chain is extremely scary, and very much worth the two feats).


Dual-wielding Bastard Swords isn't so much "over-the-top" than it is silly and does nothing to aid you. -4 penalties just because you like Bastard Swords isn't really doing much to show that you're Ragathiel-based, only that you have some weird fondness with using Bastard Swords like a child using sticks they find in the woods.

If you want a Ragathiel themed character, his deity icon uses 1 (count: ONE) Bastard Sword. Therefore, it'd make more sense to use one Bastard Sword, and not two. This means you won't have to spend over half your Point Buy just to have 15 Dexterity for feats that are meh.

Honestly, it's easiest to take Paladin levels and spend your Human Feat on Proficiency. From there, you can either use a Large Bastard Sword (which is the more preferred "over-the-top" approach) for 1.5x Strength, or use a Light Shield (shaped in the form of a crimson wing, the other component of Ragathiel's icon).

Bonus points if you can get Celestial Plate Armor with Ragathiel's symbol and turn your Light Shield into a Celestial Shield, and take an Oath of Vengeance for smiting Demons. After all, nothing says "Screw you, demons!" than bypassing any DR it has, and being able to do so at the cost of 2 Lay On Hands.


I must've confused the Dragon Disciple stuff with the Abyssal stuff. Oh well, we know those won't stack.


As Maezer says, the arcana is the only way for you to do this.

At best, you can take Extra Arcana at 3rd level and take both Bite and Claw, which means the class comes online by 3rd level, leaving you your 1st and 5th level feats.


Captain Morgan wrote:

It's a good time to be a blaster sorcerer, with bloodline mutations and what not. I'm intending to make my first blaster for book 1 of Rise of the Runelords. Mostly pretty standard build. Draconic, Human for early access to spell specialization, Shoanti specifically. Taking a drawback so I can get Outlander Lore Seeker on top of Magical Lineage. At level 1 my Burning Hands does 4d4+8.

My hang up is Wayang spell hunter. As a regional trait, it feels kinda cheesy to take it as someone not from there. I'm also thinking it might just be overkill for optimization and move me into cheese territory. Has anyone done a fire blaster without that trait? Was it still fun and useful? What trait should I take instead?

Thanks!

You should try a Blood Arcanist. All of the solid benefits of both Sorcerers and Wizards in one class.

Here's some more information to help you out. Even if you don't make a Blood Arcanist, there are things that can help your character build out.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I'm personally fond of using Eldritch knights to make transmutation wizards work

Going sorc, barb, dragon disciple, Eldritch knight balancing it to get 8th level casting you can get Str starting 16+4(rage)+4(dragon diciple)+4(level)+6(belt)+10(size)

To have a huge dragon with 44 strength if you got manuals that can be 50 really min max it and start with 20 STR and you can have 54 being a dragon with like 17BAB and 8th level casting

I consider that kewl.

Sub the Barbarian for Bloodrager, and you're golden.

**EDIT**

One problem, though, is that Inherent Bonuses won't stack. The Dragon Disciple bonuses and the Manual bonuses are both Inherent.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQed!

FAQ wrote:

Throwing Shield: The throwing shield says that it has special straps “that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action.” It seems likely that “unclasp and throw” means “unclasp in order to throw” but it could also mean “unclasp and additionally throw” which could give a character any number of extra attacks. Which interpretation is correct?

Throwing shield’s wording means you can unclasp as a free action in order to throw it. The wording will be updated to disambiguate in the next errata.

Thanks for the answer, PDT.

**EDIT** A quick follow-up question that could be helpful for newer players.

If I'm not proficient in a Throwing Shield, do I suffer penalties for making shield bashes, assuming it's an eligible shield to bash with, or only with throwing it? (As an attack, of course.)


Can't really say for sure that the RAI is that it's an optional benefit.


I believe you're referring to Fey Magic, which grants Druid spells, which are Divine spells. So, no Mage Hand.

Even if you were somehow getting Mage Hand, you still have to be able to cast a single 2nd level Arcane Spell, which neither the trait nor Vivisectionist fulfills. Relevant FAQ says they're not spellcasters, so it wouldn't qualify.

Easier way to do this would be to take Tiefling with the #4 option from the Variant table. (Even if GM doesn't allow it by default, you can take a feat for it.)


It doesn't "recharge" in the normal sense.

You can reuse it over and over, but you'd have to recharge it by normal means (which is taking the 4 Constitution damage).

That being said, since burning the charges requires a Standard Action all the time, it's a pretty big pile of crap.


zainale wrote:
feats for martial PC's that roll a lot of 1-3s for damage. I enjoy the game a lot. but when it comes to combat I feel a lot of dissatisfaction and that's because i tend to roll low. I could always play a casting class because at what ever level they can start casting spells with the metamagic feat "Maximize Spell". as much as i would like to play one at later levels there is no way my spell caster would live long enough to get to that level. so i was wondering since spell casters can maximize their damage is there a way for a martial class to boost/maximize his or her damage so a player who sucks at rolling can enjoy the rigors of combat?

My suggestion is to not worry about damage dice and pump up your static modifiers. This is especially true if you're Dexterity-based, since you'll probably be doing piddly damage dice anyway.

Damage Dice are for classes that maximize in size increasing effects; things like Enlarge Person, Giant Form, Lead Blades/Strong Jaw, and so on, are really the only means to make Dice-based damage work. And even then, that has a limit, and can theoretically be countered depending on feat choice.

Most characters don't have access to those things. The next best thing that boosts damage is static modifiers. Strength, Weapon Specializations, Weapon Enhancements, Buffs, and so on.


James Risner wrote:

TL;DR

EFS by RAW is a square 10 ft by 10 ft by 10 ft and you are in there somewhere in 3 dimensions.

Holds 4 medium fine.
Holds only 1 large, so we got a FAQ so large can bring 3 medium buddies along.

If it was a full sphere, it'd be 10 X 10 X 10.

But it's not.

It's a HEMIsphere. So, the dimensions are actually 10 X 10 X 5.

Which means you most likely won't be fitting in that space, especially if we apply hemisphere logic in that there is a curve from the point of origin to the edge of the effect, scaling from 5 feet down to 0 feet, which makes sense, and a GM is well within the rights to use that argument.

Which means the spell doesn't work for anything that is 5 feet or taller, because then you'd be trapped in the spell effect. Or, you'd have to be prone or some other crap.

Also, I have no idea where you're getting this "3 medium buddies" crap. The FAQ says that Large+ creatures treat their entire space as the spell origin. Which means the spell origin is a square, not a grid intersection, which means that all creatures, NOT three, NOT two, but ALL creatures adjacent to the Large+ creature are affected. Oh, and the height of the Hemisphere would be equal to the creature's height, so it can comfortably fit in the hemisphere without recourse of being stuck by the spell effect. Same goes for the Medium- creatures adjacent to the caster.

Compared to a Medium- caster using it, with most likely unintended consequences. Congratulations, you broke the spell.


Hendelbolaf wrote:
I was not talking about the large creature in a 5ft radius hemisphere in regards to the spell in question, I was just speaking in general terms that a large creature should fit into a 4 square area provided it is 10ft tall. If it were only 5ft tall they would not fit within the hemisphere. Sorry, that was not clear st all.

Except, because it's a Large sized creature, the Hemisphere is as tall as the creature is.

But Medium- sized creatures? They get stuck in the effect. Because Magic is stupid as hell when you least expect it to be.


Balkoth wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nothing says you have to be standing to fly, or that the Prone condition prevents flight.

On the flip side, the rules do say

"Creatures that take lethal damage from a fall land in a prone position."

So if a Balor crashes into the ground and lands prone on his back (and thus on his wings) I'm hard pressed to see how he'll start flapping them and fly off without needing to stand up. (and yes, you could argue that he lands on his stomach or on his side, whatever, it doesn't technically say what prone means)

Frankly, the rules for prone aren't exactly clear or condensed. For example, nothing in the prone condition says you can't move normally:

"The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.

Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity."

But if we look at the rules for crawling:

"You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity."

The reasonable conclusion is that you can only crawl while prone. But it says that a crawling character is prone, not that prone characters can only crawl.

Too bad the rules are abstract on what you land on. In the same vein that the rules are abstract on which direction that you, as a character, face. By RAW, you see in all directions (and by relation, the universal monster ability called "All-Around Vision" should be possessed by everything).

Honestly, if you were going to argue against "Flight while Prone," the best thing would've been to say "You have to take the Stand Up action to remove the Prone Condition, which Flight by itself doesn't do." But even then, you'll be hard-pressed to find a GM who'll bend to that line of reasoning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hendelbolaf wrote:

Everything is stated within the parameters of game mechanics and those say a small or medium creature fits in a 5ft square which is also assumed to be a 5ft cube due to the 3rd dimension. A 6ft 9in tall half-orc fits in this 5ft cube as does a 3ft 2in gnome.

A 5ft radius hemisphere will fit in four small or medium creatures or one large creature. There are no game mechanics that take into account the curvature of the hemisphere at the edges.

If you want ultra-realism, Pathfinder is not the game for you.

I know many will disagree with me, but this is the rules forum and the rules just do not count for curves in hemispheres or tall half-orcs, etc.

Actually, the RAW doesn't really mention anything about the third dimension. So, at best you're offering conjecture that isn't backed up by the real-world math, and technically everybody is houseruling how the game's 3D rules interact. It's actually very ironic, and it's a glaring rules issue that's been present for multiple editions of this game. The fact that no developers can wrap their minds around how to calculate the 3D rules of the game, and yet constantly create rules that supplement said 3D rules (such as flight, burrowing, etc.), should bring you to that very same conclusion.

It's not about ultra-realism, it's about consistency. It's always been about consistency, because the FAQ has created a case in which you're having two different versions of what constitutes being centered on a creature. And it's bulls#!^.

The FAQ was designed to make Large+ creatures not get screwed by spells with radii smaller than their own size; being obtuse and creating a situation where a Medium- creature suffers a similar issue is clearly not the correct answer here.


Ravingdork wrote:
Does a prone creature need to spend a move action to stand up before it can fly away? Or can it just "fly out of the prone position?"

Nothing says you have to be standing to fly, or that the Prone condition prevents flight.

So, you can simply fly up. Of course, that still requires movement, which means it would still provoke as normal.


Hendelbolaf wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's a logical fallacy, because the effect we're talking about is a hemisphere. Which means that it extends 5 feet tall from the grid intersection (because it's a 5 foot radius hemisphere, using the grid intersection as the point of origin, right?) and then curves down to 0 feet at the end of the 2x2 square.

No, because in a game with square grids, there really are no curves or perfect hemispheres. The edges are squared off, not rounded off like we would like it to be.

The fluff might call for a 5ft radius hemisphere, but the game mechanics only allow for a cube 10ft wide x 10ft long x 5ft high if the intersection point selected is at the caster's feet (meaning it is at one of the bottom vertices of the caster's 5ft cube) or 10ft wide x 10ft long x 10ft high if the intersection point selected is at the caster's head (meaning it is at one of the top vertices of the caster's 5ft cube). I know we always use the game language of square, but it is better to think in terms of cube.

We usually look at the rules in a 2D manner as that is how they are most often presented, but spell effects, height considerations, and other game mechanics really exist in a 3D world. Even though the rules do not always say this specifically, it has to be included or else the game begins to really break down quickly.

Even with square grids, you'll have to bend 45 degrees to symbolize that it's a hemisphere (which has curves, similar to a winding hallway published in several Paizo APs), which means you have to be 2.5 feet or smaller to fit comfortably within that Emergency Force Sphere.

Otherwise, you're either shunted out of it, or you're caught in the middle of it and you're basically paralyzed/helpless, because you're immobile.

Either way, all you're doing is proving that regardless of how the area is interpreted from the rules, it's still stupid, illogical, and fallacious.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
I like radiant charge too!

It's basically a 1/day feat that drains all of your remaining survivability.

No thanks.

It is also the grandest boss killer of all time. Nothing says BY THE HOLY LIGHT like being a level 12 human paladin with a cha of 20 slamming some dude for Weapon+Strength+Smite+up to 17d6+5. Double points if you describe it to your GM as dropping a giant sword of light from the heavens on the boss.

Is it efficient? No, but if the spooky dragon or devil is the last foe in the dungeon then it is a good bit of heavenly fun.

And then you roll a 2 and miss, and now you're in the jaws of the BBEG with no means to save yourself.


FangDragon wrote:
Extra lay on hands is what I'd spend most of the feats on, this is assuming oath of vengeance archetype.

Even without the archetype, it's still worth more than most any other feats.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
I like radiant charge too!

It's basically a 1/day feat that drains all of your remaining survivability.

No thanks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mako Senako wrote:
there seems to be some misconceptions, and some information I myself didn't have. Where does it state you get your weapons enhancement bonus to CMB? and does this apply to feats that improve a weapons attack like weapon focus? cause if so then I have a +6 that i didn't know about before hand.

From the Combat Chapter under Combat Maneuvers:

Combat Maneuvers wrote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

Also, relevant FAQ regarding Weapon Finesse states that certain maneuvers (Trip, Disarm, Sunder) use weapon benefits.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt2VK wrote:
Louise Bishop wrote:

Combat maneuvers are frowned upon typically because people invest feats and can't get as good a return on the investment.

Most monsters have insane CMB and CMD. And the unusual anatomy or abilities that can negate some as well.

Some people just do it anyways and they tend to optimize around it.

I recommend dazing Spell. Not sure what class you are but Dazing Spiritual weapons are pretty fun to let fly.

If you will tell us what class you are we can make suggestions on how to keep enemies down without having to make huge feat investment for small pay off

This is not true.

CM, if built around it and with the correct gear is so crazy powerful, it's OP broken, my opinion.

Course these builds do suffer a serious drawback in not being able to do anything else.

So the main reason CM gets bad mouthed is it's worthless or OP broken. Doesn't really have a middle ground.

That's by and large, false.

Combat Maneuvers suck because players cannot make as much use of them as the GM can. Monsters are usually larger (which gives them more CMB/CMD, and affect more types of creatures with their maneuvers), have special gimmicks to further amplify their Combat Maneuvers (which likewise gives them more power), and have special options tailored to their every whim.

Players have practically none of these benefits, and if they did, it's very limited (at best, you have Enlarge Person or some other magic that gives you special options, at the cost of action economy). On top of that, any benefits the Players can get, the GM can get tenfold (both in terms of availability and power scaling).

Let's take Grapple; you gotta take Improved Unarmed Strike (which is a feat tax for a lot of players, whereas monsters basically have this built in for free), and in a lot of cases, Grappling doesn't inhibit the use of Natural Weapons (which again, most players don't have or specialize too much in, whereas monsters once again have it built in for free), which means Grapple can, more often than not, screw you over more than help you. And that's assuming you're the better Grappler; in a lot of cases, with bigger monsters, and the growing disparity of CMB/CMD, you won't be.

That's not including maneuvers like Bull Rush, Overrun, Trip, and others that require you to be of a comparable size. Players often face Huge+ sized monsters, and have little to no ways to reach the comparable size required to even pull off those maneuvers, which means in a lot of instances where the players are specialized in such maneuvers, it just simply doesn't work. Maneuvers like Disarm, only work on specific enemies (a lot of monsters have Natural Weapons, which Disarm doesn't work on).

There's Dirty Tricks, which is perhaps the most powerful of the maneuvers, but also has the most investment required, and like Illusion spells, is too heavily reliant on GM FIAT to make work.

The maneuvers are not as universally useful as simply attacking and dealing hit point damage is, because there is always someone or something that will be better at that maneuver than you, or have means to make said maneuver useless (can't exactly Trip an enemy when they're Flying).


Sammy T wrote:

I'm not sure why some people are saying EFS won't for medium (or smaller creatures).

You pick an intersection. You count 5' out from that intersection. You draw the wall on that outside edge. The 4 squares inside (you + 3 other medium creatures) are protected. None of you are violating this clause from Wall of Force:

Quote:
The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails.

It one of your friends, not you, was Large-sized and next to you when you cast EFS, EFS would fail because the wall would passing through the middle of your big buddy.

Only a Wall of Ice has "adjacent creature" language.

Quote:
A wall of ice cannot form in an area occupied by physical objects or creatures. Its surface must be smooth and unbroken when created. Any creature adjacent to the wall when it is created may attempt a Reflex save to disrupt the wall as it is being formed. A successful save indicates that the spell automatically fails.

It's a logical fallacy, because the effect we're talking about is a hemisphere. Which means that it extends 5 feet tall from the grid intersection (because it's a 5 foot radius hemisphere, using the grid intersection as the point of origin, right?) and then curves down to 0 feet at the end of the 2x2 square.

Logically speaking, no Medium-sized creature (that are 5 feet or taller, at best,) can practically use Emergency Force Sphere because the effect would basically cut them in half, or they'd be stuck in between the effect and the space in which they inhabit, which means the spell screws the caster instead of protecting them (since any creatures attacking that caster don't suffer any penalties or have to deal with the Emergency Force Sphere defenses in order to reach said caster). In fact, that caster is most likely immobile and helpless, since they cannot physically move from that square, and their ability to defend themselves is reduced significantly, because they're rooted due to the effects of the Emergency Force Sphere.

Or they're shunted out of the effect, in which case the spell will never do what the description says it's intended for; either way, you're left with a spell that tries to do what it says it does, but actually doesn't. Kind of like the Bodyguard feat, except worse.

The fact that the emanation changes for Large+ creatures, but Medium- creatures have inconsistencies across numerous personal emanation spells is just plain silly, and all the FAQ did was inverse the spectrum of that scale (instead of AMF being practically useless for Large+ sized creatures, now AMF and other similarly-placed spells are largely inconsistent for Medium- sized creatures).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins need feats?

At 1st level, you get Fey Foundling. At 3rd Level, you get Power Attack. At 5th level and above, you just keep getting Extra Lay On Hands. The only other feat that you'd want is maybe Unsanctioned Knowledge, but that requires Intelligence 13+, which is practically unheard of for a Paladin to have.

That's all a Paladin needs. A lot of the other stuff they think they'd need is covered by their class features.


Envall wrote:

Sure Flaming does nothing against a Red Dragon, but you can probably live without the 1d6 extra damage.

It is not a serious concern.

It's merely an example. The scale itself might be miniscule, but I imagine there will be cases where it matters.


Balkoth wrote:
And I agree with Greystone that the inability to have a back-up weapon or two of lesser power is a serious flaw. Hell, in my games, I let people have back-up or ranged weapons that don't count against their WBL.

You actually can. You just use the Weapon Attunement scaling with the two separate pluses.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Sounds like we need a another FAQ! ;)
Or just update that one to say medium and smaller use grid like normal.

So Spells like Emergency Force Sphere only ever work on Large or larger creatures now, gotcha.

Oh, and I can ready a 5-foot and spellcast from an Anti-Magic Field, while benefitting from its defenses.

Point is, using the Grid for spells with personal emanations is a bad rule that shouldn't be enforced. In fact, it's because of that very same concept that the FAQ was created.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bolded part best explains why I call it metagaming.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Maybe I'm using the wrong term...perhaps Cheese would be more appropriate

Well it's not metagaming for sure, and cheese? Not by a LONGshot IMO. If anything I find it unacceptable cheese that it takes a day to get a replacement for a destroyed/lost weapon when I can do so now by just pulling one out a spare I bought before. It's not like your to hit goes down now because you pull out a new normal longsword if you don't have the normal longsword you usually use. Why should the new system then do that as neither weapon is granting my any enchant bonus, the player is. After all, an attuned weapon picked up by someone else doesn't have an enchant bonus does it?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
its cheap for players to be able to custom-alter their weaponry to do certain effects, especially when there are class features that do those very same things

Is it? You're paying for those "custom" changes just like you do now; by buying weapons that have those properties. The only change is buying the enchant bonus or granting it to the weapons.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ Graystone: Scry and Fry and Spontaneous Attunement being an appropriate comparison is just plain silly, especially when Scry and Fry is mostly a GM tactic until endgame (in which case the game becomes boring and +X weapons don't mean anything unless you're just a lame Martial character), and quite frankly Scry and Fry is overkill when a simple Knowledge check will get the job done (determining X is immune to Y).

Scry is at the upper end but mundane scounting + Augury, Commune, Commune with Birds, Commune with Nature, Jungle Mind, Tectonic Communion, ect can get you information and you can start using some of them from 1st.

_Ozy_ wrote:
So again, unless people actually have experience that demonstrates the balance issues, this looks an awful lot like a solution in search of a
...

Nah, being able to only change attunement 1/day isn't cheese, it's bulls#!^, and that's subjective bulls#!^ to boot. Quite frankly, only being able to change it 1/day just means that the "golfbag of weapons" trick isn't viable, and is probably how they intended the rules to function (since multiple weapon attunement only ever applies to two weapons at a given time).

Point is, players changing weapon properties when they, as characters, wouldn't know to do it without information telling them otherwise, is metagaming. A character who faces a Red Dragon without the proper Knowledge check (or prior experience of facing a Red Dragon) wouldn't know to exchange that Flaming property on his sword (which is baked into the weapon, I might add) to something that actually works against the enemy until after he hits and realizes the fire does no damage to it. And again, as others have pointed out, the Bane cheese/metagaming is real, something that only an Inquisitor should have access to.

When you pay for those enhancements, they're permanent, and can't be changed, ever. They could be possibly upgraded, but changed? No way.

Attunement throws that level of sticking power out the door, which as I've demonstrated above, leads to unfair gameplay. Granted, the GM could use those same tactics, but all that demonstrates is that the unfair gameplay results in a two-way street, and needless to say, the GM can very much be the one causing the cheese/metagaming as much as the PCs can/are.

Mundane Scouting doesn't cut it past ~7th level, where a lot of good Save/Die spells are starting to become available. That scout is probably gonna have a bad Will Save, be subject to a Polymorph or something equally horrible, and then screwed and cut off from the rest of the party, left to die. I don't remember the last time any players actually used Augury or Commune. The Animal Communion spells are basically Druids only, and even that's not exactly helpful, since Druids are (ironically) rarely played. I never even heard of spells like Jungle Mind or Tectonic Communion, so I have no idea what the hell they even do. (Are they Occult spells?)


Calth wrote:
I mean, the spell mentioned in question, emergency force sphere, is unusable for medium or smaller creatures unless you use the FAQ. If you don't, it fails to take effect in all useful cases. The spell mimics wall of force, which cant come into effect if a creature occupies one of the target squares. If you don't use the FAQ and use the grid targeting, the caster by definition occupies one of the border squares and the spell fails. This goes along with the craziness that all medium or smaller creatures would be subject to their own auras.

It'd still fail anyway because one of the corners you pick on your square still affects you, since a 5 foot radius is simply the size of a Large creature.

And you're in one of those 4 squares.

And you'd have to occupy the intersection in order to be considered within the spell effect, which is physically impossible.

Congratulations, Emergency Force Sphere is now only usable when affected by Enlarge Person, or as a GM-Ex-Machina tool.

This is why we cannot have nice things...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
In short, why not have the rules work consistently instead of trying to carve out exceptions. What's the point in that?

For a decade we didn't have an exception. Emanations worked the same on tiny to colossus creatures. It was pointed out this worked strangely on large and larger, so we got a FAQ fixing it for large and larger only.

I'd forgotten that this was a deviation from RAW for those cases. But the FAQ is a deviation, not a power up fro Medium and smaller.

It's actually a nerf for Medium and smaller creatures, because they don't get adequate spell emanations compared to Large and larger creatures.

If a Large+ Creature casts Emergency Force Sphere, every single square adjacent to their space (I believe it's 12 total) is covered.

If a Medium- Creature casts Emergency Force Sphere, only 3 squares adjacent to their space is covered (out of the 8 total).

Mathematically speaking, that Large+ Creature is getting upwards of FOUR TIMES the size of its spell effect compared to a Medium- Creature.

Which is a bunch of bulls#!^. A creature's size shouldn't inflate the relative area of effect of a centered spell if they're big enough, and then for whatever reason deflate if they're small enough. It creates a logical fallacy that makes no sense.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Yeah, I don't get the metagaming aspect either. What attunement does is prevent martials from being able to use a selection of encounter-specific weaponry at full effectiveness. Like banes, elementals, ghost-touch, brilliant energy, and so on. They can still use the weapons, but they won't be able to apply their ABP enhancement bonus, and will be stuck with the +1 masterwork to hit bonus.

Furthermore, according to the base ABP rules, the weapon abilities 'use up' your attunement bonus anyways, so let's say you have a +1 weapon bonus from ABP. If you 'attune' a bane sword, you have a +0 bane sword. If you don't attune a bane sword, you have a +0 bane sword.

I suppose at 17th level, the difference is between a +4 bane sword, and a +0 bane sword, but I'm not sure that extra +3 to hit/+4 damage is really necessary to police at 17th level.

Is this restriction necessary to maintain game balance? I have no idea, and I doubt it's been play-tested enough to say for sure.

Bolded part best explains why I call it metagaming. Players being able to transform their weapon properties into whatever the hell they want at the time they want it is clearly not intended by the rules, and as such shouldn't be endorsed.

Maybe I'm using the wrong term...perhaps Cheese would be more appropriate, since I think it's cheap for players to be able to custom-alter their weaponry to do certain effects, especially when there are class features that do those very same things.

@ Graystone: Scry and Fry and Spontaneous Attunement being an appropriate comparison is just plain silly, especially when Scry and Fry is mostly a GM tactic until endgame (in which case the game becomes boring and +X weapons don't mean anything unless you're just a lame Martial character), and quite frankly Scry and Fry is overkill when a simple Knowledge check will get the job done (determining X is immune to Y).


I'd have to say that it was definitely unknowingly, since all he did was train in multiple styles as a means to prepare himself for trials he would face when making the journey to fight against Aku, and a lot of the styles that he was taught did involve multiple types of weapons. In the first episode, he's seen using a bow and arrow, polearms, and hand-to-hand, for certain. In the future episodes, he uses things like primitive spears (while mounted, mind you), throwing axes, and I think even giant rocks.

But, he specializes in the Katana because it is both a family heirloom, a magical sword that can defeat evil (at least a +1 Holy Katana); whereas most other weaponry is disposable, primitive, or basically made. (In one episode, Jack's footwear is perhaps one of the most difficult things to ever make compared to even basic weaponry.) At best, some of them are Masterwork, but hardly any weapons are magical, and most certainly not like Jack's Sword.

There are also episodes where he uses armor, but it's usually destroyed in that battle's episode (in which case his ability to dodge/deflect attacks is what really saves his skin, and not by simply wearing a giant suit of metal).

The skills part would be difficult to do starting out, but if he takes a skill point and divvies it up among several of those skills, he could make it work (though for a lot of those skills, he won't be good enough for it to matter in my honest opinion).

For the Monk portion, I'd also suggest an Archetype to go with it, especially if using the Chained Monk. Master of Many Styles can represent his varied styles of training, or Zen Archer so you can nab some ranged options without having to invest in it from normal resources (Jack is fairly proficient in ranged combat, and meshes fairly well with the base Samurai).

The Wakizashi substitution is a good idea. Based on how Jack wields his Katana and the size of it compared to typical Katanas, its appearance and usage would be more similar to a Wakizashi than a Katana. Needless to say, this wouldn't be the first time people say they use Katana, when the size and form of the blade is more similar to a Wakizashi. Of course, he could nab Swashbuckler Finesse and still wield a Katana if he so wishes, but refluffing exists for a reason.


Sammy T wrote:

Excerpts from the PRD:

Quote:

Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell's point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres

By RAW, medium and smaller pick a corner of their square for CENTERED ON YOU bursts of emanations. I would prefer the square be the source (vs intersection) but this the rules forum so RAW it is

If we're playing by those shenanigans, then the Dead Condition doesn't do anything, I can throw an infinite number of Throwing Shields (or a single Throwing Shield an infinite number of times), and Shield Slam can't be turned off.

RAW is only worthwhile when it's not counter-intuitive. It certainly is in this case.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Take that Greatsword example, and put it against a Red Dragon.
I did. How do you get metagaming from that situation? I'd do the same with or without attunement so I'm quite confused. Against a fire breathing lizard, a keen sword is better than a +1 sword [ignoring flaming as it does nothing] same as I'd pick a +1 keen sword over a +1 [ignoring flaming] sword. And in either case you paid the same amount of cash for both. So I'm going to need a roadmap to find that metagaming.

It's quite clear that Attunement isn't supposed to let you adjust magic properties on the fly, meaning if I normally have a +1 Flaming Greatsword, and then come across a Red Dragon, I shouldn't be able to adjust it to a +1 Keen Greatsword through ABP; the Attunement rules never allowed that in the first place, the new table doesn't change that factor.


Take that Greatsword example, and put it against a Red Dragon.


James Risner wrote:
I remember this now. The FAQ addressed a dragon casting a 10 ft emanation spell that wouldn't exceed their body. So the FAQ is only large or larger and only to fix that awkwardness. So medium is on a grid.

It only fixed awkwardness on one side of the scale.

Now it's broken for medium or smaller creatures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
It says "when such a creature" (e.g., large or larger) uses an emanation, treat their entire body as the source. The FAQ doesn't say anything that applies to medium creatures.

Well, that's just silly.

Medium creature picks a corner, but a Large or bigger creature gets his entire square?

That's a bunch of crap.


Loremaster Howlin wrote:

So the campaign i run at my school usually only has 4 to 5 players in it at a time.

easy enough

however for some reason one of my friend brought his friends to the session this week and last, convincing them to play.

and while two of the new players are okay, the rest are incredibly disruptive while together.

I would prefer to have a smaller group, but my school is small and the session i run is the only one they could go to, and i don't want to be THAT GUY who tells them not to come anymore.

Anyway, so half of the total party is made of calm, experienced, or undisruptive players that actually role-play.

the other half makes asinine irrelevant comments and frequently gets everyone off track.

this would be manageable in a small group of 3 to 5, the the party has 13 (enough to be a private mercenary group) and no one else wishes to be DM.

help?

Problem is you have more than 3 times what the game recommends for a party size (which is 4 people). While having a surplus can be managed (6 or even 8 players can be done reliably), 3 times more than usual isn't a surplus, it's more like excessive bloat. (Not trying to exaggerate the situation, but that's just how the math works out.)

You also proposed that half of the players are calm and on-task, while the other half is hectic and distracting. The answer to this is quite simple: Split the difference. Take your total, and split it into two groups to play separate campaigns.

Denote one of the hectic players as the GM for the other hectic players, who run their own campaign, and you can GM the calm players, and run your own campaign. This means that everybody is playing the way they want to play (the clowns play with the clowns, and the tranquils play with the tranquils). Most importantly, nobody feels left out, and the tables are more customized to the playstyle that they seem to enjoy. (Some groups enjoy messing around more than playing; it happens at our table more than I care to admit.)

If the other group doesn't get anything done, who cares? As long as they're having fun, that's what's important.


Sammy T wrote:

That FAQ only applies to large or larger creatures, for a medium or smaller creature, you'd pick one your corner intersections and measure from there.

Relevant DEV comment

If the Big Creatures FAQ says that for spells that say the effect is centered on you, and says that a creature taking up more than one square treats the entirety of its square as the origin, then a Medium-sized creature would only affect the other 8 adjacent squares (AKA 5 feet radiated from the the creature who cast the spell), because for effects "centered on you," your entire space is considered the origin of the spell.

That's what the FAQ says, which trumps anything Mark would have to say on the matter.

1 to 50 of 5,531 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.