|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Qakisst Vishtani wrote:
As someone who is borderline ADHD, and has worked with lots of people with ADHD, there's a difference between being ADHD and being a dick.
I've had a player like this before, and I've played with a few players like this. My advice? LET HIM. He wants to break in and get stuff stolen? Sure. All he's going to do is hinder the party and, probably, get himself killed. Nothing teaches humility and teamwork like getting your !@# handed to you because you were "just playing your character".
I had a character concept going through my head and I wanted to see what the community thought of it.
Essentially, I really like the idea of playing a Rogue, and I wanted to capitalize the idea of the Skirmisher. Combine that with my love of the one-hit-wonder, and I wanted to see what I could do with a single strike... or rather, a single shot.
While there several ways to go about it, I wanted to emphasize precision damage, hence the rogue. Then I looked at Kirin Strike, and wondered how I could work it in in a way that brought up my early damage a fair bit, which SCREAMS MoMS monk.
Then we grab Focused shot, which is just a standard action attack that adds Int to damage with a ranged attack. With Rogue levels, I figure I can get 1d8+Int Mod+2d6 Sneak Attack+2x Int Mod at 5th level (Monk 2/Rogue 3). I would only have a +3 BAB, but that's what I'd have anyways at this level as a single class. All of this investment will REQUIRE Point Blank shot and Precise shot at 1st & 3rd to qualify for Focused Shot at 4th if I spend my rogue Talent on it. That plus Deadly Aim should make me okay.
The big benefit is the massive number of skill points with that high Intelligence modifier, plus the other style feat benefits. Any thoughts? Does this seem like too much work for too little payoff?
You should definitely go with Arcane Archer and/or Eldritch Knight. 1-2 levels of Wizard will feel MEANINGLESS at high levels. I also advise against the rogue levels. That extra little hint of sneak attack won't make up for an ADDITIONAL attack penalty.
If you want a bit of Fighter/Rogue, maybe you should consider the Slayer class. It's got full BAB plus sneak attack, and would work fine with an archer. Pick up a few levels of that, then hit Arcane Archer or EK.
"Hi, I'm the GM. I sink hours of preparation time and planning, including running dozens of NPCs and monsters per game, keeping track of combat and in-world consequences of PC action, and organizing a grand storyline that will carry the players across continents and levels."
"Hi, I'm a player. !@#$ you."
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Players are the narcissistic scum of the earth.
Save for a few outlying cases, monk unarmed strikes have always worked like weapons regarding iterative attacks. This is proof enough, for me, that unarmed strikes are not treated as natural attacks for ANY purposes other than enhancement via magic or some kind of strange NA only buff, which means they need to follow the normal rules for how attacks with weapons work. Since an unarmed strike is "one-handed"-ish, they use those rules.
Really, all this NA stuff is making it way more complicated than it needs to be.
Sure... but we're not playing 2E anymore. And thank goodness, if that was one of the rules. EXP is already subject to DM ruling. Forcing you to gain double exp, or lose all of it, because you and your DM disagree about the nature of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, is just abysmal.
I never understood why people get so uppity about alignment. There are SO many complaints I see about alignment changing, but WHO CARES?!
I had a DM "threaten" me with an alignment shift from Neutral Good to Neutral... and I just said "okay", because it doesn't change anything about the way we play our characters.
Don't go Eldritch Knight. You'll regret it with those stats. I will say, however, that with a Constitution score that high, if you have a familiar with decent stats (or decide to pick up Improved Familiar), the extra BAB from Eldritch Knight mean that your familiar might actually make a decent combatant. Think about it:
Beast Form, Enlarge Person, Monstrous Physique, et al, all on a tiny companion that gets boosted up to a strength score greater than yours when it polymorphs. :P Then you can just sit back and stick to whatever wizardy things you like to do. Plus, your companion will have decent HP thanks to your 16 Con.
I like companions, mostly because you can use them to dual-focus your character.
Wanna play support while your companion deals damage? You can focus on social skills and spells while your damage focused companion brings the pain. Wanna be a damage dealer but still have a way to scout and help your allies? Pick a small companion and have him do aid other and other cool things.
Judgment is useful, but two "characters" are always better than one.
You're spending too much time designing encounters. :P
I specifically decided that I needed to lighten my encounter prep time when I had precisely this kind of thing happen to me. You learn to not be so attached when you only spent 15-ish minutes preparing (or an hour of prep for several months worth of encounters like I do...).
I don't think it's a matter of sex, but rather a matter of work. I don't think I've ever met female player with the drive to not only enjoy the game, but to achieve the level of system comprehension and put in the extensive work required to DM, at least without a lot of assistance.
My wife has DM'd solo games for me a few times, and we had a lot of fun, but when I'm the one who knows all the rules, it ends up with me as the GM, but I'm running characters and she's playing the encounters.
Now, that's not to point out women I've met as being poor players, but rather that there are fewer women I've met that want to devote the time and effort to the system than there are men I've met. But then, players of both sexes tend to be a bunch of lazy scum anyways. :P
Why not try Cavalier? Sure, you're stacking full-BAB classes, but several cavalier orders get bonuses for having high Charisma, such as Order of the Lion granting HUGE attack/damage bonuses based on Charisma, you can smite/challenge a single enemy for double your level in bonus damage, you get two mounts (or just an uber mount depending on how you think the abilities work together), and you could EVEN consider Order of the Star, because it states that 1/2 your Cavalier levels also apply as Paladin levels for the Purposes of Lay on Hands... which is NICE.
Order of the Blue Rose also helps with maintaining your Paladinhood and ideology by improving your subdual damage output. The two classes stack a bit much, but they can DEFINITELY share some love with each other.
Or just go Rogue, because a Sneak Smite is just a blast.
Freebooter ranger archetype might be worth considering, too, given the nature of the group.
There is something to the notion that you should just play what you want and have fun.
In my Pathfinder game I DM for, my wife wanted to play a dual-wielding channel-energy focused cleric. It was cool and thematic... and she hated it. She didn't do much damage per hit, had fairly low accuracy, and even with buff spells she felt useless. I let her remake her character as a Warpriest focused on a single two-handed weapon, and she's having a blast; some of the most fun she's ever had playing. Same character conceptually, but mechanically it's much more satisfying.
It's important to remember that roleplay and mechanics are both sides of the same coin. On the one hand, you should play what you want. On the other hand, if you repeatedly fail mechanically, you won't have fun when you can't keep up.
Heck, I'm in a game right now where I'm playing as a Wizard going into EK. It was fun at first, but I had to miss a few games due to a vacation, and my DM won't let me catch up with the rest of the group level-wise. Playing with a bunch of 2s and 3s when you're level 1 sucks. I love the character, but mechanically I just can't do anything. I can't image purposefully doing that just to make a character you like.
You're playing a game. Play the game, and play it well. Then you can roleplay whatever you darn well please and enjoy every facet of it.
Yes... except that a lower dexterity opens up armor options for stronger armor. And yes, at lower levels you do more damage, but you're also more Accurate at higher levels, and benefit more from extra attacks granted by allies, as via Haste, etc.
True, if you have plenty of static bonuses from allies, Two-Weapon Fighting is an easy choice to make. Put Bard and a Freebooter Ranger in the party and it's a no-brainer. But a Two-Hander is way less feat intensive, and remains useful for solid damage when flanking and sneak attack aren't an option. The less Feat intensive part is the one I'm focusing on, because if the OP really wants some diversity, then feats will do that for him, and two-weapon fighters just need too many feats to be diverse.
If you're going to devote resources to two-weapon fighting, you NEED to commit. It's a very feat intensive fighting style, and can go HORRIBLY wrong if you don't fully commit to it, even for non-rogues.
I know it's not as fun, but if you want a less intensive combat style, pick up the Scout archetype and go for a two-handed weapon. It isn't very feat intensive (high strength and Power Attack, plus maybe Furious Focus, are all you need). With only two awesome feats, you can spend those others on different things, like shoring up your saving throws, or investing in teamwork feats with your friends if they're up for it. This isn't really a matter of damage or accuracy; it's what you want to accomplish. If you don't take the time and effort to invest in two-weapon fighting to make it useful, you won't feel useful, and if you really want to be a more diverse party member, then you'll need those feats for more useful things, which means that the simplest effective fighting style is probably going to be the most fun.
If you pick a half-elf as your race, you can take the alternate racial trait that gives you exotic weapon proficiency. Pick up Sawtooth Sabre.
Then, if you pick the Swashbuckler archetype, you can get proficiency in Longbows, as well as the option to take the Combat Trick talent twice, which will help with meeting feat prerequisites and getting the ones you need.
You lose trapfinding, but can get it back with a trait. Can't remember the name atm.
You'll want to find a way to increase your accuracy, so whenever you can, make sure either you or your flanking buddy gets some Menacing weapons.
Well, brawler's furry is a weird one, mostly because its wording is easier to understand than Flurry of Blows. For all intents and purposes, brawler's flurry is two-weapon fighting, but allows you to do special things with it, like attack with either weapon, and add your full strength mod. to any attack. This means that brawler's flurry is a modification of a normal full attack, not its own special action. It is, however, still a class feature, and allows the brawler to qualify for things that have the class feature as a prerequisite.
Right, but just touching someone is a free action. We don't have rules for touching someone that doesn't want to be touched. Spells have a specific requirement that says that touch spells make touch attacks.
I think I need an adult.
Now I agree COMPLETELY that the idea is that the spell is automatically discharged on the attacking enemy, without an attack roll, and that's probably how I'd rule it in a home game. I just don't think that's what the RAW says, even if it is RAI.
The Holy Vindicator prestige class has the stigmata ability, which causes him to begin taking bleed damage, but lets him get all sorts of cool bonuses, depending on your situation and what you decide, as well as some cool Channel Energy benefits and extra bonuses to Channel Smite, variations on the shape of Channel Energy, etc.
All in all, it's one of my favorite prestige classes, and definitely fits the "gets stronger by taking damage" thing.
RAW, the armor casts the spell. That means if it's a touch spell, the armor needs to make an attack roll using its attributes.
It's silly, but that's what it says. All it would need to say is that the wearer can cast the spell as an immediate action upon being hit with a melee attack or melee touch attack, and it'd be fixed. But it doesn't say that.
That's how I'd houserule it, though. RAI.
First off, you seem to be doing very well for a beginner DM. A few things to keep in mind:
First, CR is not the end-all/be-all of encounter building. I've found that CR actually means very little in determining how well a party can do. I've had times where an equal CR monster was deadly, and a PL+3 CR was walk in the park.
Generally speaking, avoid monsters with Hardness/DR unless it aids the story. People HATE playing against them, and they just pad out the fight. Learn roughly what your group can handle, then tailor your encounters based on that. Most of all, don't always expect to predict what your group can do. I've had fights that I tailored up or down for the group before hand, and then reverted changes or made them mid-fight because I was wrong, and they were fine with the task at hand.
Basically, if you can stay on your toes and keep things interesting, then you're doing well.
Actually, there's some debate as to whether or not the Aid Allies ability of Order of the Dragon actually changes the base ability, mostly because it doesn't actually say that it substitutes the +2 with a +3, but that the ally simply gains the listed bonus. I've searched far and wide for a conclusive answer, but have never found it, so to my knowledge, RAW, it adds an additional +3 to Aid Other, rather than substituting the bonus.
I do believe every character should be viable, but not that everything should be balanced.
Imbalance is what makes the game interesting: The idea that each individual character has their own strengths and weaknesses. What isn't good is when a character feels useless in EVERY capacity. That's where viability comes in, and why it's far more important than balance.
I'm actually going to agree with the Universalist Wizard idea put forth. Normally I'm against the idea because of the fewer spells, but the school ability is actually VERY useful for someone with a way to make its power scale (via sneak attack). It also rewards you for having high Intelligence, which is nice.
Then don't finesse. Finding shield proficiency is a little bit tricky to come by, but a 1 level dip in a martial class would be fine. It sets back your Magus abilities by a level, but otherwise works quite well, granting you higher HP, better BAB, and possibly some nifty abilities (the Freebooter ranger level 1 ability comes to mind). You get everything 1 level late, but you get plenty to make up for it, I think.
Huh. Interesting. Thanks for the info.
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
Actually, I'm going to disagree with that just a bit. The game indicates that a majority of persons, PCs or otherwise, are neutral in alignment, and alignment is, itself, a representation of the overall attitudes of an individual. A person might kill an evil creature, but he also helps the needed and oppressed. A person who regularly kills creatures, but also helps those in need, would be neutral.
Basically, you don't become evil-aligned just by performing evil acts. You become evil-aligned when the majority of the actions you perform can be classified as evil.
I don't know how pertinent this info may seem, but I've been playing a bit of D&D Next lately, a system where certain weapons have the option to be use Dexterity for Attack and Damage rolls as a baseline. The system ALSO eliminates the 1.5x Str. damage bonus for two-handing a weapon.
What we're left with is that Strength really only contributes to strength checks, a few skills, and damage with weapons that really only add 1-2 points of extra damage.
I'm finding more and more that it's difficult to choose a strength-based character. The armor options end up making AC about even across the board for many classes at early levels, and bounded accuracy means that a high-dexterity literally has NO downsides, save for the above mentioned things.
I think that's basically what would happen if Dex could be applied to hit and damage liberally and easily. True, you'd lose out on some damage, but the added survivability you get from the extra AC and reflex saves far outweighs the minor damage loss.
Imagine a monk that could add dexterity to attacks and damage. It'd be crazy at low levels, and he'd have high AC AND decent attack and damage bonuses. Two-weapon fighting would be way more effective, as would archery (oh gosh.... archery), and all of these characters would have great defenses to boot.
It works... alright in D&D 5th, but I can't see it working in Pathfinder.