|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I guess humans and other races come across to elves much the way the Ocampa on Star Trek: Voyager would come across to us. For those of you who are not familiar with that show, the Ocampa were a short lived race who were fully mature at 1 or 2 years of age and had a life span of 9 years. I would imagine that elves would have the same view of humans that humans would of Ocampa.
And that would mean that a core Monk is effectively a Qinggong Monk who opted not to replace any of his default abilities -- but his options still remain open for all future levels.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
She doesn't mind when some guys do it. But, given her gaming experiences, it's come to annoy her to no end. The "Beauty Queen Lesbian 75lb Amazon" syndrome, as I call it.
I think the lesbian bit can be considered a warning. If a straight male exclusively plays lesbian female characters, then it is a safe bet that he does not have the foggiest idea how real life women think. Just suggest to him that he play either a straight female or a homosexual male and watch him squirm. So why is it easier for him to change gender and sexual orientation at once?
I would love to see how Paizo would be able to publish a product that actually removes spells from the game.
The closest I can see them to doing this would be by adding a hypothetical spell Q to the game and then saying, "If you add this spell to your game, you should remove spells X, Y, and Z as this spell makes all of them obsolete."
Actually, you should look over the archetype to determine the earliest level at which the archetype has any effect at all. Without retraining, you can select an archetype at any point up to the time you reach that level. Thus, if an archetype does not modify or replace anything that your base class grants at 1st or 2nd level, you really do not have to commit yourself to the archetype until 3rd level.
In the case of the Mad Dog, you are just slightly too late unless your DM is in a good mood. The first core class feature lost is your 2nd level rage power. If you have played at 2nd level, you have presumably selected and started using a rage power, so technically retraining (or bribing your DM) would be required to replace it with an animal companion.
I could have sworn I either read or heard something about giving all characters two extra skill ranks per level being one of the ideas planned for Pathfinder Unchained, but I cannot recall the exact source for that information.
Definitely yes for the first question and no for the second one.
There is no question that a human with Racial Heritage (Kitsune) would qualify for the Fox Shape feat. Until I actually got a look at the feat, I would have said that you wouldn't be able to use it -- but it appears that the feat makes no reference to the Change Shape racial ability that a human doesn't have, so on that basis it appears that it should work. The one part that could pose a problem is the bit about your bite damage being reduced to 1d3 -- how do you reduce non-existent damage? In any case, the correct bite damage for a fox is 1d3 + Str mod, so that damage die would be correct for the Beast Shape effect described for this feat.
I always pictured Jeannie from I Dream of Jeannie as an eidolon. The only problem with this example is that Jeannie is a spellcaster and her master isn't. In fact, that seems to be a common problem with any sort of magical pet that could be represented by an eidolon.
One of these days I need to put together a summoner archetype where it is the eidolon and not the summoner who casts the spells.
As others have mentioned above the Adapt class is an arcane spell user.
The Adept is actually a divine spellcaster. It does not work well for characters who are training to become intelligence or charisma based spellcasters and have already dumped wisdom.
The GM should *NEVER* enforce the child characters rules. They render the young character completely useless. Any child character concept should either be blocked completely or allowed to use the normal rules (with or without the young template). There is no concept for which forcing an NPC class on a character is beneficial.
Those rules work fairly well in a campaign where ALL of the player characters are children who either never mature during the course of the campaign or all mature at roughtly the same time.
I suppose they could also be made to work in a balanced manner if the child characters get a level advantage to balance out their overall weaknesses -- but that does strike me as a bit counterintuitive.
There is a 3rd party product with traits that let child characters take levels in PC classes, so I suppose one approach could be to let young player characters do that at the cost of one trait.
I wonder -- Has anyone tried creating a monk/sacred fist for PFS? If, so, did that double Wis bonus to AC fly? The Sacred Fist is not on their list of banned archetypes, so in theory somebody should have tried this by now.
There is a basic reason that the Pathfinder Witch cannot be an accurate reflection of a Wiccan: Wicca is a religion, and thus any game representation of its practicioners would have to be a divine spellcasting class, not an arcane class as the Witch is. But as I see it, only the most narrowly focused divine classes would be unsuitable for that purpose -- you just need to select a compatible deity and/or ethos.
I rather like the Spirit Guide Oracle archetype. I don't know how many times I have wanted to play an Oracle who took most of his revelations from one mystery but wanted to grab just one revelation from another. This archetype comes close to allowing you to do that (assuming you can find a hex that is close enough to the desired revelation).
The rules for dealing with the Con increase of a raging Barbarian are immersion breaking for me. At sufficiently high level, a raging Barbarian can easily get into a situation of "OMG, you need to heal me quick before I drop out of rage or I am dead." A Barbarian should not have to be thinking about such details while raging -- giving him temporary hit points instead would make the whole situation far more manageable, although it would require some additional mechanic to prevent rage cycling.
Didn't somebody come up with a word like "dystheist" to describe people in fantasy settings who refuse to worship gods? In other words, they know that the gods exist, they just don't like any of them.
The best possibilities are in the ACG, unfortunately.
Failing that, you could go with an oracle and select one of the mysteries with a revelation that lets you take Cha instead of Dex for AC and then boost Cha as high as possible. That ever increasing Cha will eventually reduce your maximum effective armor to a haramaki (as anything more protective is offset by max Dex limits applied to your Cha).
No, that wouldn't work anyway since you would have fewer hit points with the eidolon suit than without.
What I was referring to was the situation where you are reduced to -Con (based on your eidolon's Con) but would have enough hit points once the eidolon is gone to be alive or even (at higher levels) still conscious. Would you survive that attack?
1st level example: With eidolon summoned, you have 5 temporary hit points, 9 regular hit points, and a Con of 13 -- so a hit for 27 hit points should kill you. The eidolon absorbs 5 of the hit points, meaning that you actually take 22 hit points -- but without the eidolon, you have 12 hit points and a Con of 18, which would mean (in this case) that you are at -4 hit points and merely dying rather than dead. So in this case, the question is whether the eidolon was banished in time for you to get back thhose extra 9 hit points between full health and death?
There is a Hunter archetype that lacks an animal companion. Would a Hunter who does not want an animal companion in the first place be better or worse off with that archetype? That archetype would be poorly designed if a standard Hunter or one of the other archetypes would be better off killing his companion than starting off with that archetype in the first place.
The Divine Protection feat would have to come later, as you have to be able to cast 2nd level divine spells before you qualify.
Somebody mentioned a Synthesist Summoner as a possibility, but I definitely would not make constitution one of the dump stats since that could turn a blow that knocks you unconscious into a killing blow. I would actually consider 18s in constitution and charisma, 8 in wisdom, and 7 in the other stats for that class. The only open question for this build would be exactly when the constitution increase from losing the eidolon suit kicks in -- would it happen in time to save you from what might be a death blow to your "suited" hit points?
I guess Lore oracle + paladin 2 (Divine grace) + the feat divine protection(ACG)...yeah divine protection is an insight bonus, divine grace bonus is untyped, so you get to add twice your cha bonus to saves, it's very ridiculous, on top of it cha for nearly everything. While cha is still your main casting stat so even with 2 levels down, you'll still reach 9th level spells.
You might want to take another look at the Divine Protection feat -- it explicitly mentions that if you are getting charisma to saves from another source such as Divine Grace, you just get +1 to all your saves from the feat.
The real benefit from that feat could occur when you reach 7th level and are an oracle 5/paladin 2. You could take Divine Protection at that level, so you are now adding charisma bonus +1 to all your saves. At this point you might decide to retrain your 2nd oracle level into a 6th oracle level, with the result that you still add charisma bonus to saves and get 3rd level cleric/oracle spells to replace your lost Lay on Hands ability.
In my campaign, we are at 15th level and closing in on 16th level. There is not much about it to discuss here, as our ranges of choices for the next few levels have narrowed considerably and would be based on peculiarities of the campaign (such as expected foes, rate of treasure acquisition, and a few house rules). I really cannot see myself posting a question like "Which feat should I take at 17th level?" here.
Not only are dragonlings not on the list of druid animal companions, they have no animal companion base stats. Using the Monstrous Mount feat as a precedent, I would think that you would need such stats in addition to a feat to "unlock" access to the pet in question.
By the way, there is an error in the question -- Accelerated Drinker is a trait, not a feat.
Since the answer is so brief, it is hard to interpret its full meaning. One possibility is that, since drinking an extract is in some ways like casting a spell, you need more than this trait to reduce the effective casting time to less than a standard action. Without that FAQ ruling, Alchemists could reliably use 3/2 extracts per turn as follows:
Standard action: Draw out and drink extract.
Move action: Draw out another extract.
Move action: Drink extract in hand.
Standard action: Draw out and drink another extract.
I suspect that the action economy was the primary concern here.
I understand why they left out races like the Merfolk and the Strix -- those races had abilities or limitations that put them too far outside the norm of what a standard race could do. But the Nagaji racial abilities seem to be fairly standard and calculable, so I have no idea why they didn't just work out the total.
The "Epic Meepo Presents Archetypes" thread has a Fighter archetype called the Aspect Armiger. From what I have read in this thread, it is probably a bit weaker than the other archetypes mentioned.
Does this mean that if a feat offers you a choice of prerequisites to meet, you must meet all of them? I recall seeing a feat whose qualifications included something like a choice of BAB +6, Monk level 6, and Brawler level 4. Many characters could qualify for this feat normally, but there would be hardly any characters who would meet ALL of the possible prerequisites.
How are his tactics? A character like the one you described could easily advance too far and get himself surrounded by the bad guys, leaving him in serious trouble unless the rest of the party bails him out.
If he can easily survive such a situation without help, then his character does need to be toned down.
If you really believe that your players love to hear the villain's monolog, then maybe you should point out to them that the villain might not say everything he wants to say if you interrupt him with an attack, then ask them, "Are you sure you want to do that?"
In my own games, I would not bother doing that since I already have an idea what the answer would be.
I think you forgot to throw in a rapid sequence of 5 Wish spells, unless one of the other items grants an inherent bonus of +5 or greater. These Wishes would not count against the time spent casting buffs because they would be permanent effects.
Erm... Possibly a dumb question, but would a wizard be able to prepare any spells if he had a negative int modifier?
Only if there is an archetype that lets him use something other than intelligence as his spellcasting attribute. There is such an archetype for the witch class but as far as I know all wizards use intelligence.
The wordcasting system definitely needs work -- there are some rather vital things that you can do with spells that you cannot do with wordcasting as presently written up. Even with that limitation, wordcasting might be usable if we had feats for letting wordcasters dabble in standard spellcasting. (At present, we only have feats for the reverse -- the only full spells that wordcasters get are very specific bonus spells from class features.)
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
20 Wizard/10 Magaambyan Arcanist/10 Riftwarden. Demons go home!
That beats my idea, as you get caster level 37 with that build.
Of course, now that I am looking at Paths of Prestige, I realize that my real holy grail (to get caster level 40th) would be Wizard 20/Magaambyan Arcanist 10/Veiled Illusionist 10.
No, I was specifically referring to dumping dexterity. With heavy armor you can leave it around average, but only an oracle with one of three certain mysteries can get away with a dexterity of 7.
Well, I was kind of going for getting the highest caster level I could, as well as assuming that the GM would come up with worthy challenges for these 40th level characters (including level appropriate spell resistance, which most 40th level builds would have no shot against).
It also occurred to me that I could make this combination less MAD by going oracle/sorcerer instead of cleric/wizard. If I select the Battle mystery and the Skill at Arms revelation, I do not need that fighter level to qualify for Eldritch Knight, but one of the Eldritch Knight's class features does become unusable. If Wealth by Level scales appropriately, I should be able to acquire Pages of Spell Knowledge almost as easily as a wizard learns new spells.
Okay -- how about Fighter 1/Cleric 3/Wizard 16/Eldritch Knight 10/Mystic Theurge 10? You can pretty much ignore spell resistance with your wizard caster level of 35, and you can also cast up to 7th level cleric spells at cleric caster level 13.
I guess you could make that Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Wizard 18/Eldritch Knight 10/Mystic Theurge 10 if you can come up with an early entry method to get 2nd level divine spells from a race with +2 to Int.