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

4,221 posts (4,225 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The description for crafting Rods can be found here. It is a little vague and will lead to mixed results, meaning GM FIAT is required.

For the record, though, 1/X abilities can be improved upon by increasing the charges per day. As an example, Boots of Speed are calculated as 3 (spell level) x 10 (caster level) x 2,000 / (5 / 1), which results in the 12,000 gold price, and allows for a 10 rounds/day increase. You can alter the equation slightly, giving you double the round usage per day, resulting in 3 X 10 X 2,000 / (5 / 2). This doubles the price of the item, but allows more uses per day.

On the same vein, you can simply remove the need for charges entirely and just make it an at-will/use-activated ability that lasts up to 10 rounds at a time, and the cost becomes 60,000 gold. It could even be made into a Continuous item, which then increases the value quad-fold, into a whopping 240,000 gold. Considering that activating the item is a Free Action anyway, there's no reason to do this unless you're trying to circumvent the Nauseated condition from screwing you over, but regardless, you're still screwed.


Elita wrote:

In the scenario that you're ambushing someone, as a touch spell can't you cast it discretely the turn before? The next turn put the rock from your free hand into the one holding the spell, and throw it as the spell triggers.

Still takes two turns in combat, but as long as you don't touch anything, you can prepare it beforehand right?

Well, if you have BAB +6 or higher, you could, in the first round, cast the spell to hold the charge, then do a full attack action, your first attack to discharge the held spell onto the object (which doesn't require an attack roll, but still an attack), and then your second attack to throw the object into position.

The upside is that you can still get an entire rounds worth of surprise onto the enemy, and that it can affect multiple enemies. The downside is that it still takes 2 rounds to pull off, can still be easily countered with the right set-up (or creature type), and can only be done when you're half-way through your PFS career.

On top of that, there are much better and more effective ways to gimp an enemy or three besides utilizing Darkness. Silence, Blindness, need I say more? They are all much stronger, and much, much more debilitating, especially if pulled off properly, costs the same amount of spell slots, and doesn't require more than a single round to actually initiate with, meaning any round-to-round variables are irrelevant.


To begin, long title is long. It's obvious, and blatantly so.

So I was reviewing battlefield control tactics on the forums, and one of the many suggestions made by posters is to cast a Darkness/Deeper Darkness spell in an area that the enemy inhabits, so as to effectively blind them (and thereby making them sitting ducks for your Martials to basically eat up). Granted, I know of ways to counter this (specially crafted Dull Gray Ioun Stones), there were two things that I noticed which would make this tactic highly impractical.

To reference, from the PRD:

Darkness wrote:

School evocation [darkness]; Level bard 2, cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, M/DF (bat fur and a piece of coal)

Range touch

Target object touched

Duration 1 min./level (D)

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

Based on what I have highlighted, the first thing that instantly springs out is that it's a Touch spell. This means that unless the area you wish to effect is within your melee reach, you cannot reasonably discharge the spell. You can't shoot it at an area with Close, Short, Medium, or Long range unless you improve it with a Reach spell. This means that the Darkness/Deeper Darkness spell can cost as much as a 3rd level/4th level spell slot, up to and including a 6th level/7th level spell slot, depending on what range you're going for. And this still doesn't exclude the possibility of a specially crafted Dull Gray Ioun Stone, or even a Daylight/Heightened Continual Flame spell, which can only be countered by a similarly heightened Darkness/Deeper Darkness spell.

So, straight off the gate, this makes the concept of ambushing via magical Darkness (at least, by casting spells) a not-so-cost effective measure, since you will need either a Feat, high level spells, or a special Metamagic Rod.

The second thing I have highlighted is that the target requires an object. Not a creature, not a specific area, but an object. This means that if you try to affect a creature, or even just a random area, it won't work. Although a lot of creatures carry around objects, that doesn't mean every creature does; certain animals, magical beasts, etc. that don't have Darkvision do not carry objects to apply this spell to, meaning you need your own, and the aspect of casting it on a rock and then throwing it at the target gives said target time to react and avoid the ruse entirely, since it takes a standard action to cast the Darkness, and then another to throw the object, accurately, into an appropriate square. This set up may or may not be possible at the time of conception, and quite frankly becomes an extremely practical and tedious endeavor.

I've seen and heard players make the Darkness spell something that can be cast away from themselves, on an area, or even targeting (and following around) a creature, and according to the spell description, that's not possible without further investment on the player's behalf. The stranger thing is, I haven't heard or seen said players add such investments to their claim.

Let's also not take into consideration that all the Darkness spell does is reduce the light level by one step in a 20 foot area centered on an object, it doesn't just make things automatically dark to see (as you would expect the spell to do). But that's beside my original point.

---

In short, is the Darkness spell, being 2nd level and all, REALLY that limiting and inefficient of a tactical battlefield control spell, and home games simply handwave it to function on a level that it should?

**EDIT** Spell level math is hard apparently. It's fixed now, I hope. If not, well at least one of us can math.


Blindmage wrote:

Ok, so I know that everyone loves their Metamagic rods, go it.

I noticed that rods are usable by anyone, and they're dammed cool. Why don't we see more people using or building them? As far as I can tell, the rules for crafting them are virtually non existent. I'd love to have a character focused around rods that's not a caster.

Just looking for folks take on non Metamagic rods in general, favourite rods, or one you've made in games.

Metamagic rods are very flexible, universal to all casters, and are usually the most powerful (and therefore the best price-efficient purchase of all the Rod items). Because of this, you won't really see many other sorts of rods unless you craft one yourself, or find one in a treasure trove.

That's the same reason you don't see things like non-Metamagic Rods, or even Staves, unless it's randomly generated or specifically owned by a BBEG or something, because they usually aren't worth the money to purchase. It's an optimization thing, sure, but a lot of the "good" Staves and Rods are way too expensive for what they provide you.

The rule of cool might be nice and all, but like everything else, it's limited by the Pathfinder chassis and design principles. It's also the same reason why a lot of the Specific Weapons and Armor suck.

Am I saying that there aren't any good Rods? Sure there are, a Rod of Cancellation, an Immovable Rod, some of the other utility stuff is very nice to have and convenient for certain purposes. But it's not exactly a necessity for every party member.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

1) Open PDF of UE 2nd printing.

2) Turn to page 12.
3) ?
4) Profit!
Okay, how do I open the PDF of UE 2nd printing? Where do I find it?

For the record, the Errata changes citation document doesn't list it (and neither does the PRD). Why, I don't know. Could be a mistake forgotten to be put into the Errata document (how convenient), could be something that took place after the Errata document was published (more likely), who knows.

Regardless, you have to buy the PDF from the site in order to get the actual PDF copy from the products page in order to actually see the text for yourself. The other alternative is that you take Gisher's citation for what it is, a citation in the 2nd printing PDF. If you feel spending ~10 dollars for self-confirmation, then by all means do so. Others may not feel that way, however.


MeanMutton wrote:
With all the various options out there for casters, I tend to always be able to have plenty of spells, scrolls, potions, wands, etc., to be fully productive all day every day.

The irony is that we actually got two scrolls so far during our adventures, one of Spiritual Weapon, and one of Remove Curse. Neither of those spells are on any of our character's spell list, so we gave them to our highest UMD character in the party; the Alchemist.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Besides the casting time, the inefficient creature list, and the lack of further investments, the other big problem is that summoning creatures that are worthwhile take a lot of my Spell Power. Being a 5th level Druid, Summon Monster III costs 25% of my Spell Power for the day, and summoning anything less (even if I get more creatures out of it) seems like a waste of resources, especially because the only way they can contribute is by lucky rolls.

First of all, what is your natures bond? For this kind of game with a dm that obviously likes to stretch the party you should have gone with an animal companion in barding armor that has good combat options. In which case you can spend a lot of your time letting your tiger or what have you do your work for you.

Second, you are missing the point of summon spells. They are as much control spells as anything else. If an enemy spends 2 turns attacking your summoned creature instead of you or your allies, that IS a contribution. THey can provide flanking bonuses to your combat oriented allies (a +2 is nothing to ignore, particularly at 5th level, and if theres a rogue they will love it. You can also close down lanes of movement with the right summons with careful placement and consideration. One summon can have more of an impact then 3-4 other instantaneous spells even if it never does a single hit point of damage to the enemy.

I would also ask what your physical stats are like? You said without buffs you cant really make the best use of wild shape, why? Again, given the nature of the campaign, you should be going for a more combat oriented druid then a casting focused one. If you have low physical stats, well theres your problem. Wild shape should be 5 hours of at least mild contribution to every encounter per day all on its own.

I chose the Fire Domain as the Nature Bond, partly for thematic reasons, but also partly because I wanted some blasting (because aside from Flame Strike, Druids can't do crap for blasting), and stuff like Fireball is great for that; I'm our only full spellcaster, meaning I'm the only one with access to 3rd level spells currently, so having to fill the shoes of both a Divine and an Arcane full spellcaster is a very arduous task.

I considered an animal companion, but to be honest it's a lot of work, I'm not particularly familiar with their rules, and on its surface, they fall off very fast. If anything, right now they're at their strongest, but in the coming levels, they will become extremely weak, and really only serve the same role as a summoned creature.

That tactic would work with stupid or animal-like enemies, but smart enemies would realize how pointless and weak they are and simply ignore them after maybe the first round. Sure, flanking is nice, that's why I try to set them up to get a Pouncing Flank, the burst damage on that, presuming some decent rolls, is pretty high. In our hardest encounter, I actually did ~70 points of damage in total between my summoned creatures in a single round on one enemy, and came very close to killing it outright.

My physical statistics aren't that great since I actually originally planned to build a sort of summoner type of character, but didn't realize that SNA is a crappy, ghetto version of SM. I am at a 16 Strength (it's 14, but with ABP at a rate of Level + 1, I get the +2 Enhancement bonus). With a Medium-sized Wildshape, that becomes an 18 Strength. I also acquired the Barbarian VMC and am able to apply the UCBarbarian Rage (which at this point in time is actually better for me), granting an extra +2 to attack and damage for those moments when casting spells is useless or isn't necessary, Elemental Assault through extra Race Points allows me to add 1D6 Acid/Cold/Electricity/Fire damage to all of my attacks, and I use Power Attack, which is at a -2/+4 rate [we are actually 6th level, I took a dip in UCMonk for better Wildshape survivability by adding my Wisdom bonus of +5 to my AC at all times over my crappy armor].

Unfortunately, my to-hit actually sucks, and as much as I'd like to remove Power Attack, I need the damage it provides, especially against enemies who have DR. Presuming my Deinonychus form, I have 5 attacks, with 3 Primaries. My total BAB is 4 Base + 4 Strength + 2 Rage + 1 Enhancement - 2 Power Attack = +9 to hit for my primaries, +4 to hit with my secondaries. Most enemies at 6th level that we've faced so far usually have ~24 AC, which is difficult for me to hit (and all of us, except our tank, is 3/4 BAB).

Presuming I hit, I have 1D3/1D6/1D8, depending on method of attack (1.5, 3.5, or 4.5), +4/2 Strength, +2 Rage, +4/2 Power Attack, +1 Enhancement, and 1D6 (3.5) Elemental Assault. This totals in an average output of 18/19 damage per Primary attack hit, or 12 damage per Secondary attack hit. Presuming they all hit (highly unlikely, but I've come close before), I'm dealing ~ 80 points of damage per round, which is pretty ridiculous considering that I don't have an optimized Strength, nor do I have access to Dragon Ferocity and Feral Combat Training, which would allow me to apply 1.5x Strength to my Natural Attacks (a plan that I just might pursue later down the road). Enemies with DR 10 or Resistances (which seem to be becoming commonplace) reduce that damage to 8/9 or 2, perhaps even less than that, which isn't much, even when they have average hit dice (and we have 3/4 Hit Dice).

The problem I have with Wild Shape as of right now, is that I only have one use of it. The duration is decent and good to last over the course of a few encounters, but it's not all-day, and I don't know how long we're going to be in this dungeon (if we plan to rest, the 5 hours that I have with Wild Shape won't last long enough to be relevant if we're ambushed), so I'd rather not waste it during the day, even if we could use it, when we're ambushed with low HP, when we'd need it.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Paradozen wrote:

Well, summoning helps here. Round 1: Summon Giant Frogs (or whatever). Round 2 find cover and lie down (+8AC v ranged attacks) Round 3: Take a 6 second nap. Round 4: Complain about how long the fight is. Round 5: Repeat 1-4.

But to be honest, as a Druid, SNA has a very crappy summon list; unless you get something with good to-hit and Pounce, or something that has very high AC or some special attack ability (i.e. Elementals), it's just....ehhh...

I mostly agree. However, I had a druid that thoroughly enjoyed summoning a bunch of celestial big cats to pounce on things.

Side note: Did you know a group of cats is called a Clowder? It became a running joke and the other team mates would make angry cat sound effects on my turn. The comic value alone made this build worth it.

I have a feeling we'll be fighting Evil things soon enough, so I'm curious as to how you're able to summon Celestial creatures, even though Druids, AFAIK, can't summon creatures with Celestial or Fiendish templates because they require a Neutral alignment (on either axis).


WormysQueue wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It ultimately stems from what "competence" means; it is a relative term, and subjective to certain ideals and perspectives. What may seem "competent" for one, may not be so for another.

Let's take a 16 Strength Cleric as an example. Is that competent? Superior? Incompetent? Overpowered? To me, it is competent, since Clerics need good Wisdom and acceptable Charisma as well. For those who wanted to optimize the melee capabilities of the Cleric, perhaps not so much. There's also the factor of considering the attribute in relation to the others, such as having only a 14 Wisdom for that Strength, or an 8 Dexterity, Intelligence, 12 Charisma, etc.

For classes that don't rely so much on multiple attributes, like the Wizard, the stakes for them become higher, because they have close to no reason to spread their attributes; Dexterity becomes obsolete later on (and if you're smart enough, you won't have to use it), same with Wisdom as you carry a good Will save. Constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig; that isn't to say Constitution is worthless, but improving it won't make it all that much better. Charisma, like most other classes, has little to no impact on the character's general function (i.e. casting spells), so not pumping Intelligence to the top invites weakness to the character.

You're right from a pure mechanical standpoint. That's not the way everyone looks at its character though.

When I create a character, I don't start with the mechanics but with the background story. That may for example mean that my wizard PC has overage strength (think Hagrid), wisdom (Dumbledore) or Charisma (Snape) even when that means that I can not maximise my primary attribute. Naturally this assumes that the challenge level of the game is such that those characters are viable and it also means that some challenges may be more difficult to overcome. But I like it this way, especially as I feel that it gives me more options in character creation.

The problem is, the mechanics of the game go hand in hand with the flavor of the game as well. You can't look at one without contemplating and evaluating the other, otherwise you get mixed, incoherent, or unwanted results.

I'm not saying that nobody wants to play inoptimal, there are people who enjoy inoptimal, or critical flaws in their character because they value the flavor of those flaws, and want to play them out in-character more than the strength that could be generated by shoring up or eliminating that weakness. And that's fine. That's enjoyable gaming for those who appreciate such priorities.

But that doesn't change the fact that, in order to have these flaws, or even strengths of that character, the mechanics and build of the character have to reflect it; having a gullible person requires reducing Charisma, making them more susceptible to Charm/Dominate results, a weak-willed person reducing Wisdom and their Will Saves, and in the case of making powerful characters, you must do the inverse, making their relative attributes at high (or even peerless) levels of strength.

As an example, I wanted to create the most powerful Master Blaster Caster. I attempt to accomplish this by pumping my Casting statistic (and class feature statistic) to its relative highest (20 Intelligence, 16 Charisma), taking feats for the purpose of maximizing my potential damage output and spell slot flexibility, and transmuting any other subject to serve those purposes. If I don't do those things, then I can't say that I have created, or at least succeeded at creating, the most powerful Master Blaster Caster.

The same is true for any character concept, regardless if they are attempting to optimize, or creating flaws on purpose. Of course, people do build in different manners, and that's fine and to be expected; for myself, I find it easier to set the mechanics of a character in stone, and then apply flavor to those mechanics, especially since it doesn't particularly require tinkering the mechanics (which can be a much bigger headache in my opinion), but others may find themselves more malleable with their mechanics once the flavor is set.


Paradozen wrote:

Well, summoning helps here. Round 1: Summon Giant Frogs (or whatever). Round 2 find cover and lie down (+8AC v ranged attacks) Round 3: Take a 6 second nap. Round 4: Complain about how long the fight is. Round 5: Repeat 1-4.

The sad thing is, I actually have all of the Summon feats, up to and including Superior Summoning (+1 to the number of monsters you summon). I have certainly used them (or at least tried, 1 Round casting time can bite if I'm in the wrong position) in combat before, and they are good as distractions, soaking up damage, or even dealing damage if they can feasibly hit their target.

But to be honest, as a Druid, SNA has a very crappy summon list; unless you get something with good to-hit and Pounce, or something that has very high AC or some special attack ability (i.e. Elementals), it's just....ehhh...

Now, if I had access to Summon Monster, that'd be a whole different story; there are better creatures to summon (and better feats to select and synergize with it, such as Evolved Summon Monster), meaning I would have much more utility and my spell power would be infinitely more valuable since my ability to summon potent creatures reduces the necessity for increased expenditures.

Besides the casting time, the inefficient creature list, and the lack of further investments, the other big problem is that summoning creatures that are worthwhile take a lot of my Spell Power. Being a 5th level Druid, Summon Monster III costs 25% of my Spell Power for the day, and summoning anything less (even if I get more creatures out of it) seems like a waste of resources, especially because the only way they can contribute is by lucky rolls.


Dracoknight wrote:

Mesmerist with the Vexing Daredevil archtype.

Either you could do a 3 level pop into Unchained rogue to get the finesse and dex to damage for free, or you need to pick up a rapier and do Finesse + Fencing grace.

The point with the setup is to made sure that your enemies is always feinted to set up for your abilities and have the added benefit of giving your allies a easier time to hit them.

UCRogue dipping isn't "free," it costs character levels (and therefore time) to get what you want from the class, before you actually take levels in the class you originally wanted (which will be denied its capstones and have significantly reduced progression).

The only real reason to go UCRogue is to pick up an Elven Curved Blade (AKA a giant scimitar) and get 1.5x Dexterity to damage; which is actually not bad, and makes you on par with other two-handed attackers, but it requires natural proficiency (a la Elf race, which UCRogue doesn't provide, meaning you'd need to take a class that grants all Martial weapon proficiency in addition to UCRogue, something that wouldn't take place until ~5th level), or spending a feat to gain proficiency, as it is an Exotic weapon (which could be done with the proper Rogue talent, but there may be other Rogue talents you would rather have).

Regardless of the Dexterity route, unless you're Human, it won't take effect until level 3, that's 2 essentially dead levels (or levels where you're just as effective in combat and damage as a non-dump stat Wizard, since the low levels, anyone can contribute due to the fragility of creatures). In truth, the fastest way to get Dexterity to Damage is by being a Human (which, by the way, still allows for a +2 Dexterity bonus).

@ Rosc: I forget that Summoners are Charisma-based, and they would be a solid pick as well. If his physical attributes weren't so good, I'd suggest Synthesist, but perhaps something that makes him more of a "Battle Summoner," similar to a "Battle Cleric," would still be fairly appropriate, and would still allow Dexterity to Damage as an option.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Melkiador wrote:

The problem is that this quote is very vague and open to interpretation:

Quote:
A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with shield spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with shield spikes.

1) Does that make any attack with a klar a shield slam?

2) Does the klar also count as a light weapon for the purposes of benefiting from weapon finesse and two weapon fighting?

3) Is the klar's damage affected by its virtual shield spikes?
3a) If so, is the damage listed for the klar its damage before or after being modified by shield spikes?

4) Is the klar meant to be two separate weapons, with one the blade and the other the spiked shield?
4a) If two separate weapons, is the blade's damage still meant to be a shield bash and modified by the shield spikes? Because technically the shield spikes only modify the damage of a shield bash.

And then there is the issue that the bashing property doesn't seem to have language limiting it to shield bashes. So, if the klar blade is a separate non-bashing weapon, then its damage couldn't have been modified by the shield spikes and would be increased 2 times by the size increase of bashing.

(FTFY)

My interpretation:

1. Technically, yes, since it is established that it counts as a Light Spiked Shield, which is a single weapon. There is ambiguity that it counts as two weapons (one case where it deals 1D4 Piercing damage, as per a Light Spiked Shield, another where it deals 1D6 Slashing damage, as per the "short blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard" description), and a possible interpretation where it counts as 3, if we included the Armor Spikes description, but for sanity's sake, let's not.

2. This is where things get contradicting. The Klar is cited as a One-handed Martial weapon, whereas a Light Spiked Shield, the item that the Klar emulates, is a Light Martial weapon. An item can't be both a Light or a One-handed weapon, it's one or the other. Sure, there is the whole Rapier thing, where it's a one-handed weapon that can be Finessed, but that's because it specifically says so. The big question is, does the fact that it counts as a Light weapon circumvent the factor that it's actually a One-handed weapon? If you can logically answer that question, you'll have your answer here.

3. Again, per the fact that it counts as a Light Spiked Shield, this means that it's already affected by Shield Spikes, especially if we want to argue that you can attack with it as a Light weapon. Because of this, it's safe to say that its damage increase is already factored in to the damage given on the table.

4. If that was the case, it would be called a Double weapon, or have two sets of damage dice, like other items that have a similar design scope. (To be honest, I kind of wish they'd do that if that was the intent, but they instead decided "Hey, let's just have people argue through the description instead!") Yes, Shield Spikes only increase the Shield Bash damage, but if you subscribe to the theory that the only attack a Klar makes is a Shield Bash, then yes, Shield Spikes would apply. As I mentioned in 3, the damage would probably already be factored in.

Bonus Round(s) What about making it a Throwing Shield? Or a Quickdraw Light Shield? If it's two "separate weapons" (a la Double weapons), would you have to enhance each "head" separately, and its effects apply based on which weapon or "head" you attack with? These are also all things that need to be "Klar-i-fied" to the messageboard public.

Trust me, when I said that the OP only grazed the surface of the minutiae of problems that the Klar is plagued with.


Letric wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
CON not so good

I always have 14 CON on any character, and usually do HP on FCB, unless it's something very good like extra spell known.

I don't know, I'm not the best player and I like feeling safe. I don't feel comfortable having less HP per level.

If you feel the increased Constitution is worth the investment, then go for it. I'm just saying that I haven't invested that much Constitution and I would have lived/died just as much than if I had 14 Constitution, or even more. Experiences differ, YMMV.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cavall wrote:
How the hell are you both looking at the same document and not seeing the same thing?

They aren't the same.

I'm taking the 1st print UE and applying the 2nd print UE Errata to it. (Also, I'm using the PRD.)

He has a copy of the 2nd print UE PDF.

They should be the same. But they aren't.

Ok so his is more official then? Actual printing vs patch to an earlier edition? Then there isn't really an issue now that we can see that.

Technically yes. But the PRD and the Errata document doesn't reflect that. And there's no reason as to why that is. Bad Errata is bad, I guess?

@ BNW: I apologize, if only because Paizo can't really get their s!@# straight. After all, that's the only reason such a debacle occurred.


Letric wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Stuff.

My point somehow. There are classes were having a high stat has a significant impact.

Wizard I think it's the prime example, because you not only get more skill points, but possibly spells and DC.
For a cleric having high CHA might be worthless. Channel is a feature that works at most up to level 5, and unless you invest feats into it, it's usually only a non combat heal, and besides that, Cleric in all honestly can't afford to drop points into Diplomacy with 2-3 skill points. And even if you do, with low charisma it's not going to be that great.
And usually if you have someone with a better stat, that guy is led to be the party face, and you just don't do much talking.
Does this mean you're not supposed to talk to NPCs? Of course not, but maybe if you meet 3 strangers on the road, better let the party face do it.

Other classes get confusing, like melee. Your job is to hit things, that is most of the times what you can mechanically do. If you're not decent at that, you're character has no use from a numbers point of view. Anyone can RP, whether you have 5 CHA or 26.
But if that beautifully roleplayed Barbarian swings his 2 Handed axe and misses 60% of time, something IS wrong.
But the has harshes choice than a Wizard. He needs high STR, CON. If he wants skill points, he can't afford them, if he wants to be a Lancelot guy, charming and sexy, he can't do it. He suddenly is torn apart by all this decision making.
Anyone will tell you that at least a 14 CON is a necessity if you're a front liner.

Channel is a very powerful feature, both defensively and offensively, until you get access to Mass Cure spells, and even then it will generally outweigh their healing output since the scaling of D6's by 9th level (Mass Cure Light is 5th level AFAIK) will be ~5D6, whereas Mass Cure Light will be like 1D8+9, tops. On an average roll between both, the Channel will win out; plus, with the right investments, you can do that in addition to your most powerful feature, spellcasting. It's also a resource that doesn't consume any of your spellcasting, which offers much more significant utility, such as Lesser Restoration, Remove Poison/Disease, etc.

You are right about the Skill Points though. Presuming Intelligence is dumped, you get 2 skill points/level via FCB, which you will be putting points into Knowledge (Religion) and Perception. Everything else for a Cleric is optional. The Party Face would be for people who use Charisma, and/or have a lot of skill points/level. Think Bards. (I'd suggest Paladin, Rogue, and Ranger, but they either don't use Charisma, or don't have the Skill Points to spare.)

The problem with melee is that they are more inclined to be MAD due to the combat system. You use two sets of attributes for melee combat, for offense (Strength) and Defense (Dexterity). You use one set of attributes, for spellcasting (Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom, but never two of the three unless you multi-class). Channel, as explained above, would require its own set of attributes, as it is its own thing. Regardless, all this tells us is that the combat system favors spellcasting over melee, because it requires investment into a singular thing, not two things, and because the current gaming chassis rewards specialization over diversification...

For the record, I have done just fine with 10-12 Constitution frontliners. Most of the time if I get dropped, it's because of a lucky critical, bad decision-making, etc. Constitution helps make you not die to basic stuff, but having excessive amounts of it, unless you're a Barbarian who needs it for Raging Vitality and because you have no other defense besides your HP, isn't really all it's cracked up to be. Why do you think most people take the Skill Point? Because the HP/level sucks, and is no better than a Toughness feat, which is also pretty meh. I mean, sure, lower Constitution means you should play more careful, but the most masterful of players (and perhaps the most lucky of players) need not worry about what their Constitution score be.


Cavall wrote:
How the hell are you both looking at the same document and not seeing the same thing?

They aren't the same.

I'm taking the 1st print UE and applying the 2nd print UE Errata to it. (Also, I'm using the PRD.)

He has a copy of the 2nd print UE PDF.

They should be the same. But they aren't.


Scythia wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
When 16 becomes the upper end will we then have threads asking if 14 wasn't better?
Probably not, because that's not going to happen. But the Stormwind Fallacy isn't going to go away, so there will always be some idiot arguing that "character" must mean "incompetence."
Conversely, there's always another person (who although I disagree with, I wouldn't describe as an idiot) insisting that only "superiority" means "competence".

It ultimately stems from what "competence" means; it is a relative term, and subjective to certain ideals and perspectives. What may seem "competent" for one, may not be so for another.

Let's take a 16 Strength Cleric as an example. Is that competent? Superior? Incompetent? Overpowered? To me, it is competent, since Clerics need good Wisdom and acceptable Charisma as well. For those who wanted to optimize the melee capabilities of the Cleric, perhaps not so much. There's also the factor of considering the attribute in relation to the others, such as having only a 14 Wisdom for that Strength, or an 8 Dexterity, Intelligence, 12 Charisma, etc.

For classes that don't rely so much on multiple attributes, like the Wizard, the stakes for them become higher, because they have close to no reason to spread their attributes; Dexterity becomes obsolete later on (and if you're smart enough, you won't have to use it), same with Wisdom as you carry a good Will save. Constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig; that isn't to say Constitution is worthless, but improving it won't make it all that much better. Charisma, like most other classes, has little to no impact on the character's general function (i.e. casting spells), so not pumping Intelligence to the top invites weakness to the character.


Gisher wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Gisher: I just checked the PRD, and in both the Armor and Weapons sections, they refer exclusively to Armor Spikes. Maybe the UE Errata didn't hit the PRD yet.

**EDIT** I just downloaded and checked the UE 2nd printing Errata PDF document. The only mention of Klars is them being added to the Close Fighter Weapon Group. There is no mention of Armor Spikes, Shield Spikes, or anything else related to the Klar being changed. So I have no idea where you got that text from, but from what I can tell, it's made up, according to the PRD and UE 2nd printing Errata PDF sources, which are the official, Paizo-endorsed rules sources.

I take great offense at your suggestion that I am lying. I cut and pasted those quotes directly from my 2nd printing UE pdf. Is that not an official, Paizo-endorsed rules source?

Making stuff up and lying are two different things, even if they appear similar in effect, or possibly synergistic. Regardless of whether that is the case or not, that is besides the point:

The official PRD that is currently updated with Paizo Errata, and the UE 2nd Errata printing document that I downloaded from this address makes no such change as you've posted. So people aren't going to come to that same conclusion unless they re-downloaded the already-errata'd PDF from the site, which isn't everyone, nor may they actually believe that's the case, since most everyone who cites rules for people on the forums here do use the PRD over whatever PDFs they may possess, myself included (usually for ease of reference to the poster[s] who ask).

I will go ahead and say that even if you are correct (which you probably are), it doesn't solve anything, and further creates inconsistency.


Gisher: I just checked the PRD, and in both the Armor and Weapons sections, they refer exclusively to Armor Spikes. Maybe the UE Errata didn't hit the PRD yet.

**EDIT** I just downloaded and checked the UE 2nd printing Errata PDF document. The only mention of Klars is them being added to the Close Fighter Weapon Group. There is no mention of Armor Spikes, Shield Spikes, or anything else related to the Klar being changed. So I have no idea where you got that text from, but from what I can tell, it's made up, according to the PRD and UE 2nd printing Errata PDF sources, which are the official, Paizo-endorsed rules sources.


This falls into GM FIAT territory, since there is no actual answer to this. So the best answer for you is to ask how the GM would interpret the interaction between the two subjects. If you are the GM, then the answer is your oyster; it can be anything you want it to be.

If you want a more objective answer, then we go based off of what the weapon does:

-It increases the enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5, for each time you hit a given creature with a weapon enhanced with that property.

-The bonus is removed entirely if you kill the opponent you were attacking, if you switch your attacks to a different opponent, or if an hour passes between attacking that opponent again.

We then go based off of what the AOMF description says:

-It can provide an Enhancement Bonus to attack and damage rolls with Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons.

-It can provide Special Weapon Properties, so long as they can be applied to Unarmed Strikes.

-These properties can be applied regardless of the AoMF having an existing Enhancement Bonus to attack and damage rolls.

From what's mentioned in the description, there is argument that it won't apply to Natural Weapons, since the description only mentions Unarmed Strikes being something that the Weapon Property can apply to, and not Natural Attacks, so at certain tables, the Furyborn AOMF wouldn't apply to any sort of Natural Weapon, and only Unarmed Strikes.

That being said, a lot of tables run AoMF properties to apply to Natural Weapons as well; the most common example is an Agile AoMF to apply Dexterity to Attack and Damage Rolls with all Natural Weapons, so at those tables (which are common and widespread), Furyborn would apply to every Unarmed Strike and Natural Attack you make. The only question would be to whether it's cumulative with only one natural weapon, or if it applies to each one that you possess.

To that end, I would personally vote that it's to each individual Natural Attack, because each is its own Natural Weapon being enhanced by the Furyborn enchantment, and therefore calculates its own bonus. But, since this is strictly a GM FIAT territory, YMMV.


The Klar has bigger and more notable problems than what the OP mentions.

For starters, is the Klar's weapon entry its Shield Bash damage, or does the Klar have its own entry because its description of "a short metal blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard," makes it become its own sort of weapon (apart from it being a shield, of course)?

It also failed to mention as to whether the shield actually means Armor Spikes or Shield Spikes. If it means Armor Spikes, then you actually have 3 methods of attack, which is a Shield Bash, an Armor Spikes attack, or its own attack from said "short metal blade". Are all of these methods of attack valid? If not, then which ones are?

It's not so much that I'm trying to undermine the OP's points, but it really only addresses one or two things out of several that actually require fixing to get a consistent and coherent item, because it's all over the place; there are tables which rules all 3 attacks apply, and others rule only one or two. There are tables which rule that the Klar's entry is for its Shield Bash damage, and others state that it's a damage entry separate from what it's damage as a Shield Bash actually is, and even others that state the damage type should be changed to reflect that it's a spiked shield, and not a bladed one.

And in a game such as PFS, where consistency and reliability should be enforced (and supported), that's not acceptable. While I understand there is Table Variance in certain areas (and there should be), something as basic as what a weapon actually does for the user shouldn't be nearly as radical as I've seen and described.

I did hit the FAQ button, but I sincerely hope the PDT considers changes on a larger scale besides "Is there Armor Spikes or Shield Spikes on a Klar?"


hypnothing_00 wrote:

I am playing a homemade adventure with friends and don't know what class to be. It is a shipwrecked adventure that starts at level 1.

My stats are:

Str-12
Dex-16
Con-14
Int-14
Wis-13
Cha-17

Our party needs another powerful melee character.

What are the rest of your party? This would help greatly to clarify what your party actually needs; you might have a good enough melee set-up, and may need other subjects. Your attribute array (presuming this is pre-racials) is amazing as far as Point Buy is concerned, even if a little unorthodox.

Have you considered a Battle Oracle? They are Charisma-based full 9-level spellcasters that have 3/4 BAB, and can function quite well in melee with their personal buffs and curative utility (Divine Favor is your friend). They are usually MAD, but with your stat array, you'll have plenty of HP, AC, and utility to survive.

Although they aren't the most powerful melee characters, they are still quite functional, and their utility for the party is invaluable. With the right Mystery selection and feats, you can convert a lot of your abilities into Charisma-based options (though for some that are Dexterity-based, you might just say screw it, which is also still a good option).

Races which improve your Dexterity and/or Charisma will be your bread and butter for your stat array. There are a lot of them, so there is a lot of choices to be made.

Another alternative is to play a Dexterity-based Magus, which is very common. One option is to take Eldritch Scion to optimize your Charisma, but taking a Dexterity/Intelligence race would still make a base Magus function with your current stat array, or even a Kensai would be amazing, since you'll have two sources of Initiative boosting, as well as AC, Attacks of Opportunity, etc., since your Intelligence applies to all of that through class features. The Magus is also an amazing Nova character; that is, it can do a lot of damage in a short span, a burst character if you will. With Arcane Pool points and the ability to Spell Recall as a base Magus, you can last quite a while when you get to that point. They are a little confusing however, so I suggest you read up on Grick's post for how Touch Spells work, so if the GM has any questions, or doesn't know how it functions, you can show it and/or explain it to him (as well as know for yourself), because it is a fairly convoluted subject.

Either one of these, with your current attribute array, would be effective at melee, and the former would be great all around for your party.


Melkiador wrote:

But a spiked light shield does d4 damage as a light weapon. And the klar does d6 damage as a one handed weapon, so mathematically there is no evidence that the klar's damage is the result of a virtual size change from shield spikes.

And you are confused that bashing on a spiked shield does nothing. It still increases the damage by two sizes, which is one more size than is given by shield spikes. So if the klar damage is it's listed value because of a one step increase in size from shield spikes, then it would still benefit from the two size increase from bashing.

BNW's arguments aside, the fact that the Klar is a one-handed weapon and the Light Shield is a light weapon, could pose speculation that because it's handiness went up (by increasing the size of the object, as per the rules regarding weapons as objects), its damage dice increased as well in relation to it, supposing that it's an adjustment to its base size as a weapon.

This does mean, however, that if people are suggesting TWF with a Klar, that it is a one-handed weapon for all intents and purposes, and therefore cannot be Weapon Finessed, nor does it count as a Light weapon for reducing penalties, especially if the argument is that the Klar bashes as a One-Handed Slashing weapon, and is the only way to attack with the Klar.

**EDIT** Also don't forget that Shield Spikes function in an AMF; while not a big deal, this can be a worthwhile selling point to still apply Shield Spikes, even if you have a Bashing Shield, because there will be points where an AMF will be cast, and you're in the middle of it. As a Fighter that would plan to pick up the Penetrating Strike feats, it's definitely worthwhile, since all physical damage DR is reduced, if not negated entirely, making the necessity for dealing Bludgeoning Damage worthless.


fretgod99 wrote:

*sees a PDT response*

Oo! Nice to see this resolved! I mean, it shouldn't have needed further clarification *cough* gang-up ranged flank faq *cough* but at least that should solve everyth-

*keeps reading*

G&&%+&mit.

The response reinforces and specifically applies the precedent to Shield Spikes and Bashing Shields. To that end, I appreciate the answer.

The issues with the Klar are a subject separate from what the response addresses, even if they are related in a sense. The Klar really does deserve its own FAQ thread and answer, as well as its own errata, because it really needs clarification and/or revision as to how it works.

Unfortunately, I feel like the PDT is either unsure as to how it should function, feels like it doesn't need clarification (which the player base from the forums severely disagrees on), or can't reach a consensus amongst themselves as to what the final result should be.


Kurald Galain wrote:
Nohwear wrote:
If it is not too late, the party should look into spells, class features, and items that will let you turn a cleared out room into a place that you can rest.
...and the druid actually has spells for that :)

I would be inclined as to hear what these spells are, because I can't seem to find any that would indicate such.


Alright, I think we need to take a step back for a moment, as we're reacting to something that hasn't happened yet (and probably won't for quite some time, due to Errata cycling).

To sum up what we do know has happened thus far:

-The PDT post says that Spiked Shields and Bashing Shields do not stack for damage, period, and was supposed to be reinforced by the original FAQ they cited. Not to say we told you guys so, but...

-The PDT post also says that there is an "extraneous mention of armor spikes in Ultimate Equipment's shield spikes entry," that it is "in error, and it should be reflected in the next errata."

To be honest, I don't even know what the second part refers to. I see no mention of Armor Spikes anywhere in the Shield Spikes entry. It could actually mean the reference it gives in the Spiked Shields entry, which would indeed be correct, as it references to look at Armor Spikes on Page 10 for more details, but it's hard to say that's actually what it is until they either come in and clarify, or until the Errata actually takes place. I mean, it could include the Klar (and I sincerely hope it does), but we don't know that for sure, and I won't hold my breath since they won't tackle either that or Throwing Shields for whatever reason, just like how they won't tackle things like the Dead condition not actually doing anything per RAW, the Overrun rules, what "wielding" means, etc.

And that's because I believe Paizo uses "Let the tables argue how it works" method to fix that problem. Well, that and in the case of "wielding," multiple interpretations are not only valid, but required too, otherwise you invalidate several options that should normally be doable.

*EDIT* Repetitions in Engrish is hard to avoid.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I've always read it as weapon finesse still means a shield applies a penalty, but proficient shield users don't have a penalty to apply.

Huh.

That is probably why this needs a FAQ answer. Can be interpreted in multiple ways.

No, it doesn't. Jiggy solved the case already.

You have a PC with a Light Shield. He is proficient in Shields as both a piece of armor and a weapon. This means that normally, he does not suffer extraneous penalties to attack rolls due to lack of proficiency with Light Shields, neither as a piece of armor or as a weapon.

Now, that same PC later takes Weapon Finesse. The feat says that if you're carrying [read: wielding] a shield while performing attacks through Weapon Finesse, those penalties apply to any attack rolls you make. So if I decide to perform Unarmed Strikes? The penalty applies. If I decide to draw out a Rapier or similar weapon and attack with it? The penalty applies. If I decide to attack with my Light Shield? The penalty applies.

Nothing else matters with Weapon Finesse; you don't suffer penalties due to lack of proficiency, you suffer penalties on all of your attacks with Weapon Finesse, not just ones made with a shield, because you're using a shield in those times that you are performing Weapon Finesse attacks. The condition to apply the penalty to every attack you make with Weapon Finesse is if you are or are not carrying [again, read: wielding] a shield. If you are, it applies, if not, then no.


Lorila Sorita wrote:

If you are above level one, some spells can be used longer than others. For example produce flame lets you get one attack per level. If you got a spell like that and like 3rd level or something that is one spell you can keep using for three rounds.

The other options is to get a weapon and get in there and take a few swings. Range is likely better for most. A reach weapon is decent too.

Or zero level spells or things like cleric domain powers are useful. Which you can get one as a druid as well if you don't take an animal companion.

Also, you can stop to rest too. This depends on the situation a lot but is often valid. If you said 3 sections as in 3 encounters then a rest probably isn't expected. However if each section is 2 or 3 encounters then a rest is probably expected.

I do have Produce Flame as a level 1 spell, and as a level 2 Domain (Fire Domain I picked); it's an okay spell, I generally use it if melee/physical damage is pointless (and there have been encounters like that before).

I have Wildshape as a level 5 Druid, so melee is fairly covered. I do need more to-hit, but I lack the buff spells to really make that shine.

I have my Cantrips/Orisons spent for utility/necessity things, like Create Water, Detect Magic, Light, etc. My Domain Power can be easily replaced with my Produce Flame bonus spell if necessary, but it is servicable for the meager stuff.

To be honest, I'm not sure if we can rest. It's not so much that we don't want to, it's more that even if we keep watch, we're going to be overrun with bad guys. If there was a surefire way to guarantee safe resting, then I'd like to hear it, because this "keeping watch" crap isn't going to cut it.


Abraham spalding wrote:
What class are you? That adjusts stuff too.

I am a Druid, if it helps.


Although I'm late to the party, I can officially say that people have no excuse to deny the validity of the effective size FAQ now outside of houseruling.

Thanks for the answer, PDT.


thorin001 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

{. . .}

I could instead just focus on Battering Blast, hit you with 6(1.5(15D6+15))+10, with no Save, is Force damage (means can't be reduced in any way), and can Quicken for yet another set of the same; with this stuff combined, I would be deal over 500 points of damage on average: {. . .}

How do you get that much damage? Battering Blast caps out a 5d6, and even Intensify Spell won't get it past 10d6, and Empower Spell gets it to 16d6, and then Maximize Spell gets it to 90, while Bloodline Shenanigans might get it to 105 or 120. If you Quicken an identical one, that is still at most 240 in 1 round.

Hmmm, it appears I miscalculated the CL scale of the spell, and that does reduce the damage output significantly. Let me break it down as to how it would be by the Endgame, with using authentic math and options.

Magical Lineage + Wayang Spellhunter/Metamagic Master, and 2 Metamagic Rods of my Choice (probably Maximize and Quicken because reasons), and a Gloves of Storing to switch between the two during spellcasts. Usually start with the Maximize Rod, with the Quicken stored.

20 Base CL + 2 Potent Magic + 6 Spell Perfection(Spell Specialization and Mage's Tattoo) + 1 Orange Prism Ioun Stone = CL 29. Looks like I'm just shy of that CL 30 for the 6 blasts; drat. There has to be something I'm missing...Oh well, let's roll with it.

First cast is an Intensified Empowered Maximized [Heightened] Battering Blast, which results in 5(0.5(3D6+3)+49)+10, or an average of 285 points of damage. With Spell Perfection, this can be cast as anywhere from a 4th level (subtracting the Empowered through traits, and using a Rod for the Maximize, though that is optional) to a 9th level spell (leaving everything alone), so I could do that all day long.

Second cast is a Quickened Intensified Empowered Maximized

...

I'm not. I use one for one spell, and then I use one for the other. I'm not double-dipping rods. Even so, I wouldn't be able to benefit from both and still be able to cast unless I had 3 arms, because then I don't fulfill Somatic components. There's Still spell, but that too would function better as a Rod than as a feat.


Self-explanatory title.

We're delving through a dungeon from a 3.X tournament module, and I find that I'm too afraid to use any of my spell points (well, spell slots, but it's an alternate rules system, you get the idea) because I'll end up not having enough of the spell power for the big bad(s) that we'll end up having to fight.

From what we're told, the module is split into 3 parts, and we're about done with the 1st part now. I've spent ~1/3 of my spell power, but it's all been 1st level spells (3 of them have been Cure Light spells). I know there's a big bad in the dungeon since I designed her (of course, the PCs don't know, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't try to save our power), so if I spend too many spells in the fight, I won't be able to contribute too well to the boss fight coming ahead (or the fights inbetween).

Oh, and wands with Cure Spells are not allowed for our table. Don't ask, because I'm sure you'd know why that is.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

{. . .}

I could instead just focus on Battering Blast, hit you with 6(1.5(15D6+15))+10, with no Save, is Force damage (means can't be reduced in any way), and can Quicken for yet another set of the same; with this stuff combined, I would be deal over 500 points of damage on average: {. . .}

How do you get that much damage? Battering Blast caps out a 5d6, and even Intensify Spell won't get it past 10d6, and Empower Spell gets it to 16d6, and then Maximize Spell gets it to 90, while Bloodline Shenanigans might get it to 105 or 120. If you Quicken an identical one, that is still at most 240 in 1 round.

Hmmm, it appears I miscalculated the CL scale of the spell, and that does reduce the damage output significantly. Let me break it down as to how it would be by the Endgame, with using authentic math and options.

Magical Lineage + Wayang Spellhunter/Metamagic Master, and 2 Metamagic Rods of my Choice (probably Maximize and Quicken because reasons), and a Gloves of Storing to switch between the two during spellcasts. Usually start with the Maximize Rod, with the Quicken stored.

20 Base CL + 2 Potent Magic + 6 Spell Perfection(Spell Specialization and Mage's Tattoo) + 1 Orange Prism Ioun Stone = CL 29. Looks like I'm just shy of that CL 30 for the 6 blasts; drat. There has to be something I'm missing...Oh well, let's roll with it.

First cast is an Intensified Empowered Maximized [Heightened] Battering Blast, which results in 5(0.5(3D6+3)+49)+10, or an average of 285 points of damage. With Spell Perfection, this can be cast as anywhere from a 4th level (subtracting the Empowered through traits, and using a Rod for the Maximize, though that is optional) to a 9th level spell (leaving everything alone), so I could do that all day long.

Second cast is a Quickened Intensified Empowered Maximized [Heightened] Battering Blast, which results in the same exact damage calculation as before [5(0.5(3D6+3)+49)+10]. Similar to above, this can be cast as a 4th level spell (Empowered subtracted through Traits, Maximized applied through Spell Perfection, Quickened applied to Rod, but also optional), up to a 9th level spell (using either a Quickened or Maximized Rod, and leaving some or all of the other metamagics alone), meaning I can do this fairly reliably too.

Of course, the Quickened spells can only handle so much of this power, due to the rod's limitation of 3 spells/day, but even if we sacrifice Empowered to maintain the spell levels, we're still left with 5(49)+10, or 255 points of damage.

This means, over the course of a single round, I am doing ON AVERAGE, 570 points of damage (or even as low as 510 if we're trying to conserve power by just simply letting Empowered go), with the ability to adjust spell level costs based on the needs of Heighten spell and Spell Perfection, meaning I can be practically constant.

570 points of damage equates to a full-on dead Tarrasque, and 510 points of damage would leave the Tarrasque hanging by a limb (and most everything else would be dead).

This damage is not reduced on a successful saving throw, and can bypass most forms of Spell Resistance without trying (CL 29 + 8 Spell Penetration feats = Minimum SR 38+; The highest SR creatures have = 12 + HD, highest would be ~37).

DC = 10 Base + 13 Intelligence + ~3 Spell Level + 2 Spell Focus = DC 28. Again, I feel like this can be higher, but I don't know how...That's okay, I don't really need a saving throw for it anyway.

There are very few raw counters to this, most of them involve level 8+ spells, one involves cheating a Magic Item, and another involves sacrificing your own spells to counterspell. Clearly, this is probably the most destructive blast spell in the game, however, there is a major flaw with its application; it requires a Touch Attack with each Blast for it to work.

Having 1/2 BAB and only maybe a +5 Dexterity, tops, leaves you with only +15 to hit, not factoring in other penalties (and very few bonuses to implement as well without sacrificing other options). Creatures with really high Dexterity, Deflection, Dodge, etc., will be able to shrug this off without so much as a hitch; very large creatures, like Elder Dragons, the Tarrasque and co., will have hardly any Touch AC, making them prime targets for this manner of spell.

If there was a spellcaster who could optimize the Battering Blast and had even 3/4 BAB, it'd be extremely effective.


It ultimately depends on the Martial, as well as the build being emulated.

If a Martial dumps his Intelligence to maximize his damage potential, he won't have skills to contribute to things outside of combat.

If a Martial doesn't have some form of spellcasting in his kit, he will be lacking in versatility, both inside and outside of combat. He'll also probably not have any buffs for himself, and that's just plain bad.

If a Martial doesn't have a method of attack other than hit point damage, then his relevance in combats will be linear; there are encounters where simply dealing hit point damage will not work, a lot of them are endgame encounters too, and in those encounters, the Martial will just have to sit on the side until his time to shine comes forward.

If a Martial can't protect his right and ability to contribute to combat, he's just going to be a liability (or even a detriment in certain instances). And ironically enough, in those instances, they probably aren't having fun, since their only actual time to shine is taken away from them.

A Martial is only as boring and unfun as the mechanics of the Pathfinder chassis, the Martial's class, and based on how much his build allow hims to be. Truthfully, those who optimize for pure hit point damage, and nothing else, find fun in being able to deal that much damage in a given attack sequence, or simply pumping as much damage as possible; in other words, playing the numbers game. And quite frankly, the Pathfinder chassis rewards optimization and specialization, so expecting Martials to be the best at more than one thing is an expectation made impossible due to the mechanics of the game.


bigrig107 wrote:

Ah, yes.

I, too, believe that we should make all traits* equally crappy instead of creating more interesting, more powerful ones.

(*Substitute any of the following here: feats, classes, items, abilities, or any option available to any player ever.)

It's simpler to bring one subject down to an appropriate amount of power than it is to raise every other subject to be on the same level as the original issue in question; you're basically comparing a simple fix versus basically rewriting the definition, implication, and power level of all other traits in the game.

Of those, which do you think is more likely for Paizo to do?


Cavall wrote:
Well if you're happy with changing Fates favoured instead that's fine. What would it provide then?

That's simple, make it a 1/day ability, and probably only make it apply to a single Luck Bonus, instead of all of them.

@ CWheezy: It's cookie cutter when everyone and their grandma takes it.


Cavall wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I can't even blame them for that. There's literally thousands of feats and traits and archtypes and racial options. The concept had often falls to the way side of optimization.

At this point we will see things like half orcs not gaining a +2 luck bonus for scars. Minor things which have a huge outcome.

FTFY.

No. You didnt. I meant what I typed. They don't erase options just change them. So they wont take away Fates favored just alter what the scars give as a bonus so it won't stack.

Which no one will be surprised about when it happens.

Yes I did. Sacred Tattoo by itself isn't a problem, what's a problem is people taking a cookie cutter trait to double something that Paizo doesn't feel should be increased. Fate's Favored is one of the most cookie cutter traits there is, right up there with Indomitable Faith and Reactionary, and is almost exclusively taken with Half-Orc War Priests.

They already nerfed one thing in relation to the fact that it grants a Luck Bonus, I don't think they'll be stupid enough to nerf another thing, and doesn't fit their nerf MO as demonstrated by Crane Wing.


Cavall wrote:

I can't even blame them for that. There's literally thousands of feats and traits and archtypes and racial options. The concept had often falls to the way side of optimization.

At this point we will see things like half orcs not gaining a +2 luck bonus for scars. Minor things which have a huge outcome.

FTFY.


Das Bier wrote:

Human Barb Superstition bonus:

1 +2
3 +3
4 +4
6 +5
8 +6
9 +7
12 +9
15 +10
16 +11
18 +12
20 +13

Reflex save is +6 at 20, so +19 Reflex save.
Let's say a 20 dex. +24 Reflex save
+5 CLoak of Prot. +29 Reflex save.

And what was that D B Fireball? 28? Ah. Fails on a 1.
At 15th, lets say a 16 Dex and +5 Cloak, +5 from levels. +23. Makes it on a 5, or less if the mage doesn't have 30 Int.

Impressive saving throws. Keep in mind that this is using an area of effect spell, so the damage would apply to all creatures in an area, not just a Barbarian. After all, using an area of effect blast spell to try and destroy a single target is highly impractical.

I could instead just focus on Battering Blast, hit you with 6(1.5(15D6+15))+10, with no Save, is Force damage (means can't be reduced in any way), and can Quicken for yet another set of the same; with this stuff combined, I would be deal over 500 points of damage on average: Nothing, not even a Tarrasque, would survive that damage. The only ways to stop it would be by using an Anti-Magic Field, Mage's Disjunction, Spellbane, or excessive Counterspelling, none of which the Barbarian can perform.


Das Bier wrote:

mm.

Orc bloodline is +1/die. Intense spells is +1/2 wizard level of 15, so +7. You can use Potent Spell to reach CL 25 and max out the spell if you can spend more then 1 arcane pool point, right?

So you'd be at 25d6 +25 (orc) +7 Caster level, for 25d6 +32 (182), +50%, so 12d6+16 (avg 58), for a total of 240. Note that a greater rod of maximize costs more then Empower.

Is there a magic item that would grant you the effects of an elemental or draconic bloodline for another +37?

:)

CL 24 would be the highest I could get. Potent Magic allows spending 1 Arcane Point as a Free Action for +2 CL or +2 Save DC, full stop; Spell Specialization and Mage Tattoo add +3 CL, and Spell Specialization doubles that to +6.

Short of an Ampoule of False Blood, which simply replaces whatever bloodline you have with an existing one, I don't think so. If there is one, well...


For the record, Wayang Spell Hunter only applies to 3rd level spells or lower.

Let's try it with a Blood Arcanist: Intensified Maximized Empowered Delayed Blast Fireball, with Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo, Spell Perfection, Orange Prism Ioun Stone, and Potent Magic at 15th level with CL 24, Orc Bloodline, and Intense Spells from School Understanding (Admixture). Intensified is handwaived through Magical Lineage, Empowered is added for free via Spell Perfection, and Maximized is applied through a Rod. This results in a standard 7th level spell slot.

This puts our damage at 24D6+30 Maximized (AKA 174 damage), plus 12D6+10 Empowered (average 52), 226 damage total, with a DC 28 Saving Throw (10 Base + 10 Intelligence + 7 Spell Level + 1 Spell Focus) that can be of a damage type of any of the 4 primary elements (Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire), so the chances of it being resisted or being immunized is nearly impossible, and the opportunity for it to affect Vulnerabilities (+50% increased damage) is greatly increased.


Melkiador wrote:
Except shield slam requires two weapon feat and shield master requires shield slam.

Ranger says hi.


Lemmy wrote:

The build is pretty solid.

I still think Vexing Flanker is unnecessary... I'd take it out, move a couple feats around and open space for Improved Critical (it requires BAB +8, IIRC) or Quick Dirty Trick... That feats make Dirty Trick go from good to amazing, IMO.

Honestly you could actually ignore GTWF and still be fine... An additional attack at -10 is not all that great. But it's not a wasted feat either.

Powerful Sneak is garbage. It'll hurt you far more than it'll help. Get rid of it and never look back!

Vexing Flanker is a ghetto, solo version of Outflank. It's not bad, especially since he will have a flank buddy, but Outflank is still better.

Improved Critical might save him some cash, but to be honest, there isn't much in the way of weapon properties that beckon him to not simply spend the money for Keen Scimitars.

I wouldn't say that GTWF isn't great, more that you need your increased BAB to pull it off. I'd actually pause it and wait until you get your 4th BAB before picking it up, so you can get better use out of it (and not have to rely so much on lucky rolls to hit).


Lemmy wrote:

I remember seeing a blaster build somewhere that dealt around 100 damage... On a successful save.

Yeah...

If that's on one spell, I'd like to see the math. If it's for a single round of casting, I've seen (and calculated) higher.


Melkiador wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Das Bier wrote:

Shield Master should have said "Your Primary weapon has no TH penalties from TWF while wielding a shield in your off hand."

WOuld've solved a LOT of problems that way.

Unless they were using the shield as their primary weapon...
Primary shield style should be its own new feat chain. I'd like to build two handed shield users who don't rely on two weapon fighting.

You don't need any new feats to do that, it's plenty strong on its own.


Lemmy wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Also, Dexterity-based Barbarians are a trap option. They can't feasibly work unless you can use an Elven Curved Blade and dip 3 levels in UCRogue (which still sucks, by the way), or have over 16,000 gold to spend, and a permissive GM which allows the Agile property. Needless to say, Urban Barbarian is bad and should feel bad.
Dervish Dance works quite well, actually...

One-handing for 1:1 Dexterity isn't enough damage, even if you crit-fish with a 15-20/X2. Buckler AC for Barbarians are crap, doesn't scale well, and quite frankly isn't worth the investment if you're picking up DR. Also, that's a two-feat investment that can be better spent on Rage Powers, Power Attack, Raging Vitality, etc.

Plus, your AC will be just as good compared to simply wearing high AC armor with a low Dexterity modifier, with increased Touch AC (and reduced Flat-Footed AC).

Seriously, trap option is a trap.

It's not a trap option. It's just a different option with different priorities.

When players go for Dex-to-Damage, they aren't going for maximum damage output. They just want agile characters with decent damage... Otherwise they'd just go Str-based and two-hand a falchion or something.

But outside of flavor reasons, what benefit is there to do that?

Better AC? Maybe a couple points, because Barbarians use Medium Armor and dump their Dexterity to maybe a 12 tops, but it's not the end of the world. They could wear Full Plate instead and be at the same exact amount of AC; less Touch AC, but Touch AC is hard to bring up to a good amount no matter what class you play, so it doesn't really matter.

Better means of attack? Maybe if you're trying to go ranged, but that lacks damage since Dexterity doesn't apply unless you get some niche ability or feature. It otherwise costs at least two feats, and doesn't deal anywhere near as much damage than just sticking with pumping Strength and getting 1.5x modifier and Power Attack bonuses. Seriously, unless it's 3 levels of UCRogue with an Elven Curved Blade, it's not gonna compare.

Better Skills? Sure, Acrobatics is like the only skill a Barbarian might bother investing ranks into, but quite frankly if he has to dance around the battlefield instead of just kill people dead with his ridiculous amount of damage, then why am I playing a Barbarian? That's some Ninja or UCRogue kind of stuff there.

Better Saves? This is probably the only selling point, but to be honest, it's still not worth it because of what you give up for it in return, which is significantly less damage, plus feats better spent elsewhere, and even class features depending on which route you take. There's also the issue of carrying capacity, since I imagine you'll be dumping Strength to bump your Dexterity to its peak, as well as the limited means to increase your Dexterity compared to increasing your Strength.

Trust me, I've vetted this stuff, did some compare and contrast, and it shows; it might look better, but on paper, it just isn't.


bigrig107 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Paizo being Paizo.

"Let's nerf a perfectly balanced class to push the stealth-nerf that is the completely unnecessary Unchained version of that class."

This is one line of thought I completely disagreed with once I first heard it.

Now, however? It's happened too many times to be just a coincidence.
-Scarred Witch Doctor taken away from Con right before the Kineticist.
-Dex-to-damage TWF options ruined before the Unchained Rogue.
-Now this.

I just don't know if it's intentional or not, but there's no doubt that the nerds are too many, too hard, and too fast.

Well, it tried to follow the same MO of the other two, but was late for the party.

That being said, I made a thread about the implications of whether this makes Invulnerable Ragers a worthwhile archetype, and apparently people aren't budged in the slightest; it's not so much that the standard Barbarian stuff is better (it isn't), but that they think no other archetype which replaces similar class features would be a better option at this point, which baffles me, since they think 2 DR isn't smart for the Increased Damage Reduction option, but is smart for giving up 3 class features that can be traded for something more valuable than what now amounts to 2 DR.


Lemmy wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Also, Dexterity-based Barbarians are a trap option. They can't feasibly work unless you can use an Elven Curved Blade and dip 3 levels in UCRogue (which still sucks, by the way), or have over 16,000 gold to spend, and a permissive GM which allows the Agile property. Needless to say, Urban Barbarian is bad and should feel bad.
Dervish Dance works quite well, actually...

One-handing for 1:1 Dexterity isn't enough damage, even if you crit-fish with a 15-20/X2. Buckler AC for Barbarians are crap, doesn't scale well, and quite frankly isn't worth the investment if you're picking up DR. Also, that's a two-feat investment that can be better spent on Rage Powers, Power Attack, Raging Vitality, etc.

Plus, your AC will be just as good compared to simply wearing high AC armor with a low Dexterity modifier, with increased Touch AC (and reduced Flat-Footed AC).

Seriously, trap option is a trap.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

I took IR on my barbarian because I had absolutely no use for Trap Sense. Like, none whatsoever. Uncanny Dodge was an unfortunate sacrifice I was willing to make. I took nothing else that affected DR in any way. So no, people do not chose IR just to "optimize DR".

Edit: By that build the IR is ahead in DR until level 11 (where it's behind by 1) then behind by 2 until level 18 where it's back to only behind by 1. So for half of its levels, the ones people are more likely to play, the IR is ahead. Again, after blowing a feat and two rage powers versus absolutely nothing spent by the IR. I'm really not seeing how this is so great. The UBarb can spend a bunch of feats and rage powers on stuff the IR doesn't have to and only gets one or two points ahead! Woooooo?

You did say it yourself, that UBarb doesn't have many good rage powers to spend them on. Quite frankly, the 2 DR scale is a lot more valuable than several of the Rage Powers that you want to stack together but can't because of mechanics and balance reasons.

After all, I can't take Witch Hunter or Spell Sunder as a UBarb, and those are integral parts to the Barbarian's optimized identity.

Again, I'm not saying that the UBarb or CBarb DR becomes better than Invulnerable Rager scaling; all I'm suggesting is that with proper investments, there may be a new 'de facto' archetype which defeats the entire purpose of the Invulnerable Rager (stacking DR by removing practically negligible class features) by replacing the same negligible class features with something else.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Invulnerable Rager is popular because you're getting a strong defensive bonus basically for free. Uncanny Dodge is a really pointless ability for most barbarians; your dexterity is going to be low so the difference between flat-footed and not flat-footed is negligible. The only category of Barbarian that falls under "can, but maybe won't" for IR is the Urban Barbarian because that's the only time your dex will be high enough to get value out of Uncanny Dodge.

True; I mean, denying Sneak Attacks may be helpful, but to be honest, that's few and far between because Rogues suck, Slayers deal much more damage beyond Sneak Attack, and any other class that uses Sneak Attack still sucks anyway.

Also, Dexterity-based Barbarians are a trap option. They can't feasibly work unless you can use an Elven Curved Blade and dip 3 levels in UCRogue (which still sucks, by the way), or have over 16,000 gold to spend, and a permissive GM which allows the Agile property. Needless to say, Urban Barbarian is bad and should feel bad.

But quite frankly, when a base Barbarian is only 2 DR less than what the Invulnerable Rager acquires by the endgame, the substitution of Trap Sense and the Uncanny Dodges are minimial gains at best.

1 to 50 of 4,221 << 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.