|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I will say this: The options you choose for your character feel like they carry a LOT of weight. I have a group I'm running right now with two rogues: A thief and an Assassin, and they're vastly different in terms of abilities, both in combat and outside of it, while still retaining the core feel of the rogue. I REALLY like that aspect of D&D next.
I think what you're forgetting, OP, is that any item's price is based off of the materials required to make it. This is reflected if you look at the rules for crafting, as the time required to craft is based on the rarity and value of the materials.
A cold iron Horsechopper, when reduced to its base components, will produce about 10 GP worth of bits, including, but not limited to, Cold Iron.
Well, I've never had a city like this before, but it's certainly not out of the question. First of all, if wizards exist in this world, it would make sense for guards to check for a spellbook or familiar. Barring that, I would imagine that most of the guards in this town might carry an item that allows them to detect magic in a person (a unique variant of the Detect Magic spell), which "pings" someone as a spellcaster, at which point said person could be issued an armband or something with an anti-magic field on it. That's just off the top of my head, though.
If a paladin lies, he falls.
Is lying evil? It doesn't really matter what we think. He falls.
Should a paladin lie? I think not, and not under any circumstances, but I have a very black/white philosophy when it comes to the nature of good and evil, and really that's all that this thread is about.
If you believe lying is evil, you'll probably go with the side that believes that Paladins don't lie, or they fall if they do. If you don't believe lying is evil, you probably are okay with all but the most blatant, obvious lies against the code.
That's really, I think, all it boils down to. >_>
OP, you need to stop scrubbing up when it comes to bard. NOBODY I've EVER met plays a bard like that. Look at the class design: Decent weapon/armor proficiencies, medium BAB, best buffs in the freaking game, good at skills, good at spells, good at EVERYTHING. While the fighter is being torn limb from limb in the front lines, I'm making him better at fighting while chopping a guy in half with my OWN greatsword, then I walk over and disable a trap, stun a group of enemies with a bit of magic THUNDER, turn the party invisible, and then bring the fighter back from the brink of death, all while looking FABULOUS.
On that note, I hate fighters. They have a bit of versatility, but they're mostly just boring to me, and typically have NO utility outside of "I hit it really hard with the pointy end of the stick".
I just got to read my PHB for 5e today, and I have to say that I'm pretty pleased. The classes all feel pretty unique, with Clerics, Bards, and Monks jumping out as having some pretty cool stuff they can do, though everyone feels pretty unique. The rules are REALLY simple, and I like that. I don't have to go online and look up the EXACT rules for how distance factors into perception and stealth checks, how X works in Y circumstance, but not in others. It's all highly simplified and up to DM interpretation, and it's about dang time.
I haven't played yet, but just looking over the book it seems solid, simple, and fun.
I'll try tackling this from a slightly different perspective.
In order for a person to be diagnosed with, or otherwise suffering from, a personality disorder, the disorder must be negatively affecting the person enough to cause extreme difficulty or inability to function in normal society.
For example, I'm considered borderline ADHD. One of the primary factors in my non-diagnosis is the fact that my symptoms do not compromise my ability to function normally. The same would hold true for this imagined character.
Let's say you want to make a "sociopathic" Paladin. IF the condition is strong enough that the symptoms of sociopathy are prevalent to the point of making the Paladin unable to function normally in society, that means he is regularly committing acts which would likely go against the Paladin code, and thus would probably never attain Paladinhood in the first place.
On the other hand, if the character in question has some measure of control of his own actions, and regularly decides against his own thoughts and towards better actions for good, he is overcoming his disability and is acting as a Paladin should, which means that he isn't really a ""sociopath", because it hasn't prevented him from functioning normally. He might have those kinds of thoughts, but so long as he decides to be a Paladin IN SPITE of them, he should be fine.
It doesn't matter what the Paladin thinks is good, or whether or not he's "trying". Good is good. If he isn't, he falls.
One thing that's important to remember is that there isn't really any such thing as a "neutral" action in Pathfinder. The alignment system hinges on a rigid good/evil and lawful/chaotic spectrum, where Neutral characters are characters that regularly exhibit the behaviors of the different alignments. A Neutral character doesn't take predominantly neutral actions; he takes a relatively even split between good and evil actions. He may lie from time to time, but he exhibits kindness towards strangers. He would sacrifice his life for his friends and family at the drop of a hat, but also has a pattern of ruthlessness regarding those that threaten these same people.
This is what neutrality is. Desecrating a corpse is evil, but a person's alignment is determined by more than one action. This is also why most adventurers tend to fall towards neutral: They regularly kill other humanoids, but also tend to protect the innocent and help the needy. Hence the neutrality. You don't look at an alignment and say that all the actions performed by a subset of these creatures must, therefore, be of that alignment: You look at an alignment and say that the actions, good and evil both, performed by the creatures are the cause of the alignment.
I forgot to mention the fact that the single level in Cleric also gets you access to some 1st level spells and domain abilities, which could potentially be great. Shield of faith is an awesome first level spell for giving yourself more staying power, and you can pre-cast it so it will definitely last an encounter. Protection from Evil or Chaos would likewise be an excellent choice, and there are a whole slew of situational spells (Marid's Mastery, Murderous Command, Forbid Action, Sanctuary, Weapons Against Evil) that could be potential beneficial throughout multiple levels of gaming, some even through the mid levels.
Well, with rolls like that, you could build basically ANYTHING and succeed. It really depends on what you want to do, and the order you select.
If you wanted to be an all-out offensive beast, you could go with a single two-handed weapon, pick the Order of the Cockatrice, 18 Strength, 18 Constitution, other stats wherever, and just wreck things.
Alternatively, you could take a slightly different route and go for a single big turn, dual-wielding strategy. 18 Strength, 18 Charisma, 15 Dexterity, two-weapon fighting, Order of the Lion. Challenge grants bonus damage, and the Order of the Lion abilities are AWESOME if you have high Charisma.
Even MORE alternatively, if you're feeling particularly creative, you could take two levels in Paladin or one level in Cleric, put the 18s in Strength and Charisma again, and take the Order of the Star to get continual progression in Lay on Hands or Channel Positive Energy. It's not the best offensive option, but with those stats you'll still hit like a truck, and you'll have a little bit of party support. If you can deal with the Paladin code, you also get to Smite Evil 1/day (which is AWESOME), super-boost your saving throws, and can even heal yourself as a swift action, all while still being primarily a Samurai.
I recommend taking the Sword Saint archetype for all of these options, btw. Mounts can be tricky to use, and if you're a new player you may want to minimize the complexity of your character. Sword Saint gets rid of all that mount stuff in favor of better early damage, so the trade-off is pretty obvious.
The idea of roles is precisely why tabletop RPG's are better than video games RPG's in every way: WE DON'T NEED THEM.
The most successful games I've ever seen have defied role constraints, mostly because the players built their characters to be good at things, not to fill niche roles. You can build the tankiest fighter there is, but that doesn't make it a strong character: a strong character contributes to the party on a number of fronts, not just one. This is why you see classes like Cleric, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Wizard, etc. succeed so frequently at the hands of a skilled player: they have versatility built into them that allows the to succeed in a variety of circumstances.
Filling a single role in a 4-man party is silly. Being the absolute best possible person in your role means you suck at everything else, which means you're just going to drag your group down when it comes to other tasks. Don't be a "tank": be the frontline expert with tactical military knowledge and a bit of a scout's eye. Don't be a "divine spellcaster/healer": be a party face, combat support, field medic all rolled into one. The second you start putting people in roles, you get 4e syndrome, where you start reducing character options to fit iconic standards.
Bard is absolutely OP. I'm just surprised more people don't see it. Decent proficiencies in armor/weapons, medium BAB, best party buffing in the game (save maybe an Evangelist Cleric... maybe), excellent selection of skills which can be made even broader, a solid spell list which includes a mixture of support, utility, and even damage and crowd control spells.
If the name of the game is to be good at things, then the bard is the best, because while he may not be the best at one thing, he's good at everything.
Also, regarding the Weird Words thing: If it didn't require a standard action, it would almost be acceptable written that way, it's APPALLING.
The #1 problem with healing is that healing is primarily reactionary. Reactionary actions will never be as safe as proactive actions (i.e., defeating your opponents before they can defeat you). Now, that doesn't mean that healing is "bad", it just means that preventing damage in the first place is more effective and important.
I remember in the first Guild Wars video game one of the most popular builds for Monk (the game's healer class) was the Protection Monk, which focused on constantly buffing allies with spells that directly prevented and reduced incoming damage. It was liked because some nukes hit so hard they could almost one-shot people, which meant that someone missing any amount of health could go down almost instantly. With protection abilities, you could cut the nuke in half or more, where you would have had to hope that a party member didn't drop before.
This principle is why combat healing is generally rejected. It's not a BAD thing, but the name of the game is "outnumber your enemies" and "have more HP than they do", and the easiest way to have more HP is to never lose it in the first place.
This is why protection spells are generally the best form of "healing". Shield of Faith, Command, Sanctuary, Protection from Energy, and the like are all the safest, most consistent ways of preventing damage, and some (like Command) can directly counter the damage an enemy could have inflicted in the first place.
Healing has its place, but damage prevention is better than reactionary action 100% of the time.
I think it's important to realize that warm temperatures are very dependent on where you've spent most of your life. I've walked for hours in 100+ degree weather with regular water and been fine. On the other hand, France had one of its worst heat waves in decades relatively recently, getting up to the upper 80s, and they had hundreds of DEATHS caused by it.
Typical temperature can influence things, and unless most adventurers spend regular time in these environments, it actually makes a bit of sense.
Personally I do think that instruments do have their place, situationally. For performances like Inspire Courage where people just need to hear the performance, traditional "instruments of war" like drums, flute, bagpipes, and the like can carry across much larger distances than even a well trained voice. There really aren't rules for it in-game, but personally if I were GMing I'd take it into consideration whenever distance is a concern. I can hear bagpipes from about a mile away. Singing, not so much.
As a professional vocalist, I found this post intriguing. It's not exactly a COMMON occurance, but: Farthest Distance Traveled by the Human Voice
I could see magically infused singing working like that, even if it is a whistle language.
PFSRD Strength Bonus wrote:
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
Lay on Hands is not a melee or thrown weapon, therefore you do not add your Strength Modifier.
Well, you're right about players being big stinky cheaterfaces, but you have to remember that your job, first and foremost as a GM, is to make sure the game is fun. If the players are having fun, and you're having fun, then all is good.
We all want to be the cool GM, but when a player comes up and insists that Spellstrike hits touch AC, or that their 200+ damage character at level 10 is totally reasonable, you have to put your foot down for the group.
Two-hander is definitely the way to go. I've played a Greatsword-wielding scout, and the amount of damage you can put out in a single hit is just ROCKING. I never got high enough for it, but I was eventually planning on grabbing the Vital Strike line when I could, because MOAR D6'S.
Sure, later on your damage isn't AS impressive, but if you can manage to move/charge into a flank, you're basically guaranteed your hit, even with Power Attack, especially once you get the Menacing enchantment on your weapon. You might not do as much damage as the dedicated combat characters in your group, but rogues never have. However, in situations where Full Attacks are difficult to set up, you'll be able to toss out consistently high damage.
I have had SO many players dis Bards and Cavaliers.
One of the reasons I want to actually get to play is to prove these people wrong. Bards and Cavaliers are AWESOME, so long as you play to their strengths: for bards, that's buffing your buddies while being awesome at everything, and for Cavalier's, it's being awesome frontliners/buffers who also happen to have some mounted abilities.
Both of these are solid party faces/combatants that have abilities which scale off of the primary face stat: Charisma.
That's all good and well, guys, but comparing literal interpretation of the Paladin Code to Judaic Law is really, REALLY wrong on multiple levels, mostly because the Paladin code is designed with a different goal in mind:
The Paladin code exists not as a path to righteousness, salvation, or atonement, but rather as a strict set of rules which reward the paladin with supernatural, awesome power. This isn't some form of making the Paladin a better person (though, to be fair, following the code would set some of the habits of good people), it's a trade of sacrificing certain behaviors and practices and receiving power for your sacrifice. The Paladin code isn't a moral code, it's a code signifying when he does and does not receive his power, and the cost for it.
You'd never guess from my posts, but that's exactly why I think that Paladins make terrible paladins. Their power, that is their ability to defend the righteous and absolve the wicked, is dependent entirely upon their adherence to an incredibly strict code that, if broken, causes them to lose so much of their ability to be a paladin that they're useless.
That's why Fighters and Rogues (and Martial Artist monks)are the best paladins. 100% effective, 100% of the time, and if they make a mistake or slip up they don't get crippled.
I realize it was a hypothetical. I just find hypotheticals to be silly things. :P
Really, what matters is whether or not tranquilizers are considered "poison". The game makes no differentiation between various substances which can harm the body, either by making one unconscious, draining attributes, or causing various status afflictions (i.e., sickened), so it's difficult to say. In the real world, something like an anaesthetic would be different from a venom or toxin, and whether or not something like that would be considered a poison in Pathfinder is kind of strange. It would likely end up being ruled as working like a poison, but that gets into weirdness where the rules don't reflect reality very well in regards to lumping things together.
Paladin Code of Conduct wrote:
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)...
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Well, it's not really good to be a dick to people, so a Paladin couldn't do that either. I'm not really sure how you got that from what I said. >_>
A paladin doesn't lie. If he does, he's not a paladin. Does that mean that sometimes things become unnecessarily difficult around him? Absolutely. Does this mean that he's going to encounter situations that end up going worse than expected because of him? Yup.
Nobody ever said that being good was easy. Just that it was right.
But why did he hunt them down? If they were prey, why didn't he eat them? What about them made them prey, if he slept beneath the ocean for seemingly millions of years? Their radioactive nature? We know he was around in the 50s, and was apparently alive and kicking, and he was probably around before that.
I'm not arguing with what the movie SAYS happens, but they don't back it up well enough.
As a huge Godzilla fan, this movie was bad. It was so... so bad. I mean, yeah, Godzilla was awesome, but he was barely onscreen, had no motivation, and he gets touted as the savior of humanity when, for all ANYONE knew, he was another monster that just wrecked the place.
The parts with Godzilla in them were awesome, but they kept getting cut over and OVER again to cut back to a bunch of bland people we didn't care about. The first 30 minutes of the movie were great, and the first reveal of Godzilla is fantastic, but the rest is so boring that the "payout" at the end does little more than whet your appetite. This movie is one giant tease that leaves you feeling unfulfilled.
I already tried explaining it that way. Got ignored... twice. Hopefully you're more apparent than I was :P
Spell Combat wrote:
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2
Melee Weapon is singular, implying that the ability only works when using a single weapon. Also, you can only two weapon fight with a full attack. Two weapon fighting isn't an "effect". It's an option. As this is a special action that exists outside of full attacking, there are no rules to say that you CAN use two weapon fighting with the ability.
All those go for Flurry of Blows as well.
Without builds, we can't really see the whole picture. There could be some serious errors in adding bonuses for all we know, and they should only be doing about half as much damage. No way to tell unless we see the math behind it.
That having been said, at that level I'm not surprised at that damage for the most part.
Also, you heard it here, guys. Fighters = broken.
Alright, I had a rules issue with a player this evening concerning Spellstrike. He said that he, and several past DM's, had ruled that the attack roll made with the magus Spellstrike class feature was made against Touch AC, whereas I ruled that it was a normal weapon attack.
I'm pretty sure I've got it right and that he (and his past DM's) were crazy, but I wanted to double check and make sure that the attack roll is treated as a normal attack roll and not a touch attack.
It's a neat idea, but the problem is that Mystic Theurge just doesn't go above level 10. We can INFER what it might be like when we go above it by looking at the class entry as listed, but as it stands the class ends at 10th level. The ability says that her level is added to the other class' level to determine which features she gains, but the Mystic Theurge doesn't gain any features after 10th level.
The thing to understand about Arcane Trickster is that you're a spellcaster. You get sneak attack progression, true, but with your low BAB and the full spellcasting progression the Prestige Class gains, don't trick yourself into thinking you're a combat-oriented class.
You can do some pretty nifty things by combining touch spells with your sneak attack, and that's fine and all, but you are, first and foremost, a wizard class that has some skills and nifty tricks with which to use them. Make sure you take the usual variety of spells wizards take, and trust that the few blasty spells you DO prep are used to their fullest by capitalizing on sneak attack as much as possible.
Buffs are great, and summons make great flanking partners for you AND your allies. Aid Other from a horde of weak summoned creatures can ensure that your attacks/spells hit, as well as those of your allies. Feats won't matter much, but you definitely wanna get a mithril buckler to enchant pretty soon, as it doesn't have arcane spell failure.