Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Deadmanwalking's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 8,373 posts (8,567 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 8,373 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:
There's no evidence either way, that I recall, although it would be more 'Lawful Good' if Mengkare at least encouraged (if not necessarily mandated) fidelity and monogamy.

Shelyn doesn't care about such things, and she's indisputably NG and the literal Goddess of Love. So...I'd say the evidence is pretty strong that caring about monogamy per se is basically Lawful rather than Good.

You're right that there's no evidence either way regarding him caring, of course, I'm just arguing interpretation.

Set wrote:
Indeed, it might actually be evidence that he's shifting away from LG, and more concerned about the end-goal, if he's got a more relaxed view on things like marriage and multiple partners (or literally doesn't care at all, so long as children are produced according to the plan, much like the old Biblical tradition of marriage in which it was okay to have multiple wives and 300 concubines, so long as you didn't knock up any of the concubines and mess up lines of succession / inheritance, as King David did), indicating that he's less interested in moral issues or long-term stability / emotional health of relationships.

Well, long-term stability is, again, more of a Lawful goal than a Good one, and being trapped in loveless marriages and forcibly kept away from those you love is pretty harshly non-Good, IMO. While allowing people freedom to find love is pretty much the definition of Good in a lot of ways.

Set wrote:

So I disagree. If you have to marry and have kids with who you're told (and you do in Hermea) then it's borderline Evil to make you also not pursue a relationship that could actually make you happy, and Good to generally allow such things without stigma.

Unlike our world, good and evil are measurable quantifiable things in Golarion, not at all subjective or subject to change as society evolves, and have mechanical effects (such as spell interactions).

This is true, and the fact that Shelyn agrees with my views on relationships mentioned above thus means I'm probably right within Golarion. :)

Set wrote:
It's unlikely, in Golarion, that anyone could be confused as to whether or not what Mengkare is up to is good or evil, since these things are as mechanically set down in Golarion as the laws of gravity or combustion. We can have debates about morality and ethics all the live long day, because they are abstractions, whose definitions change across time and cultural divides, but alignment in Golarion is a descriptor, with mechanical effects, like fire or electricity.

This is, I think, incorrect. Alignment is objective and verifiable, but it actually requires pretty advanced instrumentation (you need a phyalctery of faithfulness and nine cooperative atheists who are each verified to be of a separate alignment to properly and scientifically answer any one question about can then go on to answer lots more, but this is tricky to arrange) to actually make definitive statements about it, and then there's all the magic to conceal alignment, and the fact that it's not most people's primary area of study, and you get widespread ignorance about a lot of the details.

Really, I tend to think of it in the same category as advanced physics is in, in our world. There certainly are people in the world who understand much of the theory, but they're quite rare and their explanations may not make a lot of sense to a layperson. There are a lot more people (like most Paladins) who have a good intuitive understanding of the practical side of things, but without knowledge of the theory, their preconceptions can lead them astray.

So, no, I don't think most people know in-world. Especially since only people in Hermea could have the necessary information to make such a supposition with any hope of the myths surrounding it not getting in the way. There's also the whole motivation component. Something can be a Neutral act and be perpetrated by both Evil and Good characters for very different reasons...I suspect a lot of what most governments do falls under that umbrella, making it even harder to judge without using alignment detection on the Dragon himself, something he could easily have a way or three around.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No. Having sacred prostitutes is something a religion does when they consider sex itself sacred...Gorum doesn't feel that way about it. Battle is sacred, sex is only relevant as a reason for violence and to breed more warriors.

There might well be prostitutes among Gorumite communities, and young people in general might easily be most attracted to the greatest warriors due to Gorumite culture, and both of those might well be morale boosts...but sacred prostitutes imply prostitutes who are part of/financed by the temple/religion, and Gorum doesn't do that sort of thing.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. If anything the PCs should wake up to find their gear elsewhere on the ship, with the finer pieces being used by badguys.

Exactly. I mean...what kind of businessman throws away something valuable?

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, I don't think there's any evidence at all Mengkare gives a damn who you sleep with as long as you have children through approved channels.

Liberty's Edge

Mengkare, as far as we know, doesn't stop people from leaving if they object to his decisions, and appears to be very honest about what life will be like in Hermea.

Both those being it still a cage if you can leave any time? And what if you like living in a cage? Some people do like that sort of thing, after all.

Liberty's Edge

nennafir wrote:

Hmmm... You seem to need a refresher on basic logical skills.

If you have a paid executioner, then they are doing it "for profit" because they are getting paid. So it is TRUE that they are doing it for their own personal gain. It then follows because of how the word "or" works that they are doing it for their own personal gain or for no cause at all.

Note how I said 'in conversational English' in regards to my assertion. I'm well aware of the rules of formal logic, thanks. I just don't agree that those are the standards that should necessarily apply here.

And, for the record, I'm fine with getting it via the backgrounds as a non-Evil character (that's pretty explicitly rules-allowed), I just abhor intentional misreadings of the clear intent of a bit of text in order to utilize loopholes.

Weirdo wrote:

To rule out other factors, you'd have to word it:

"You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either purely your own personal gain or for no cause at all."

I agree this would make it slightly clearer, but don't feel it should be necessary every time a statement like this is made.

Weirdo wrote:

or less formally

"You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for no reason other than personal gain."

This actually doesn't work, as it changes the meaning of the statement. Killing them for 'no reason at all' would, at least debatably, no longer count with this wording, while it clearly does in the original. This wording would make things less clear, not more.

Liberty's Edge

Wait, hold on a moment here...

They throw all the PCs items overboard? Are they stupid? Why would you do that? Even in 1E, magical gear is rare and valuable as hell. Probably more so than the PCs are as slaves. Throwing it overboard is like saying:

"Oh, we've captured these people to sell as slaves, let's throw their vast quantities of money overboard."

Railroading (which is awful, and shouldn't be done like this) aside, this plot makes no in-world sense either. Unless there's key information I'm missing here.

Liberty's Edge

Needing a 12 (which is what Paladins need in Dex) or a 10 (what Paladins should have as a minimum in Int) is not meaningfully needing a stat. We're talking a minimum of 14 before you're talked about as 'needing' or 'investing' in a stat.

Now even by that metric, Paladins debatably need Con as well as Str and Cha...but that's 3 stats, not 4.

An archer Paladin is the same, only swap Dex and Str.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my game, the Half-Elf CN Daring Champion Cavalier allowed himself to be seduced by her, and is attempting to gradually convert her to the worship of Calistria (his own deity). So far, he's managed to get her to LN, though not away from Zon-Kuthon, and has hopes she'll be N and switch over to Calistria before the game ends. He may even succeed.

Liberty's Edge

Arachnofiend wrote:
Is there any reason not to do it as 18 after racial modifiers? This has the same effect of preventing races with good attribute modifiers from getting up to 20 but also makes unconventional choices a bit more possible (if you REALLY wanted to play a Halfling Barbarian you only have a -1 to your primary stat next to the comparable Half-Orc, and a Dwarf Wizard maxed out for intelligence is going to be just as smart as an Elf).

For me, I was explicitly trying to avoid too much stat dumping as much as restrain casters, and I let people take alternate racial penalties (Wis rather than Str for Gnomes and the like)...but if you're just trying to restrain casters, yeah, that works fine.

Liberty's Edge

I prefer using the same point-buy and simply capping max starting scores. Not allowing point-buy to buy stats over 16 (meaning you max at 18 with racial bonus), while also giving 20 or 25 point-buy does this idea pretty well without requiring different point-buys.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, the lack of a dump stat is more of an issue than the lack of a high one, RP-wise.

Personally, I think this will work fine mechanically. I've done something midway between this and the normal rules for years and it's worked great.

For the record, what I do is use 25 point-buy, but max stats at 16 before racial bonuses, and only allow one stat below 10, and that no lower than 8 (again, before racial penalties). Some of the same effects, but to a lesser degree.

To fix the dump stat problem, I'd allow people to drop one stat to 10 to raise another to 16, but with the condition that it couldn't be taken above that even with racial stuff. That allows the Str 16 Cha 8 Dwarven Fighter, or the Int 10 Human switch hitter with Str and Dex 16, but helps full casters not at all, or the Str 8, Int 16 Gnome Wizard.

This makes race less of a concern in class choice, but I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing.

Liberty's Edge

Jaçinto wrote:
And dude for your first level spell list, what about grease? Isn't that kind of a staple spell? I am also working on cantrips but in an argument with someone about whether or not Ghost Sounds can make the sound of instruments playing a basic song. No lyrics, just instrumentals.

Grease is lovely, and if you were starting at level 1 I'd recommend it. But you're right about Save DCs since you aren't focusing on those. At 10th level, almost nothing is gonna reliably fail a 16, which is the best you can muster on a level 1 spell. It's maybe still worth it for terrain control, but only maybe (it takes a standard action to do, after all).

As for cantrips, yeah, I think Ghost Sound can manage instrumentals.

EDIT: Oh, and you can have Superstition + the Beast Totem line (at 12th, when you can have Greater Beast Totem at all). That seems like a good setup to give people. Witch Hunter and Spell Sunder are shiny, but bonus AC and Pounce are shinier, IMO.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

OK, he does it for justice and he gets paid for it - he is still getting personal benefit in my example. Nowhere in the feat does it say that he has to do it for only personal benefit.


Innocent Blood wrote:
You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no cause at all

That's an either/or statement. You must kill them for your personal benefit or for no reason. If you are killing them for reasons outside that set, they don't count. Period. There is not another way to interpret that sentence in conversational English.

Saying they count even if there are other reasons in play is complete b@~$$~@$ on a profound level that sometimes results in RPG books being written incredibly awkwardly rather than conversationally just so people won't do this.

Please stop.

Liberty's Edge

Why would you sell your gear? You can live perfectly well without doing anything of the sort.

Liberty's Edge

You do not have Power Attack. This is a mistake on almost any melee character with sufficient Str for it. Arcane Strike isn't bad, but it's not nearly as good as Power Attack. This is particularly true if wielding a two-handed weapon, which you probably should (though weapon and shield isn't terrible or anything, just not as good). I mean, your AC will be pretty solid just due to Beast Totem and you've got Mirror Image as well.

Lingering Performance isn't all that useful to you, I wouldn't recommend taking it, personally. I mean, there's Saving Finale, but that's something you reactivate your Song next round because of, not take a whole Feat, IMO (especially since Skald's Vigor won't apply while it's lingering).

For mental stats, I'd drop Wis to 8 (you can afford it due to high Will Save, Raging song's bonus, and Versatile Performance) and get Cha to 16. -1 Will Save and Perception (which is basically all Wis gives you) aren't worth as much as +1 round of rage and +1 to all Cha skills (and getting to put yet more level-up[ points into Str).

Unless planning on using blasting spells (and your whole build seems to indicate you aren' Skalds being bad blasters anyway), you should take the Fated Champion Archetype. If not using blasts, it just causes you to lose Well Versed for +1/2 level on Initiative, and Dirge of Doom for the ability to make yourself immune to fear (and give your allies a +5 against it) whenever you have Raging Song going. It's basically a straight upgrade, and pretty cool thematically too.

For skills, I'd put a rank in Stealth at some point, not that that'll make you great, but with, say, Invisibility Sphere it'll keep you from being the weak link. Depending on party makeup, maxing a Knowledge skill might also be more valuable than Spellcraft (it depends on if they have any Int casters and how many casters with maxed Spellcraft there are...and how many Knowlege skills are well covered).

As for spells, primarily go buffs and utility, not attack spells. Then buff and whack people with a weapon. Think of yourself as a warrior who spends a turn at the start of combat buffing more than a combat caster. It's pretty simple. Some recommendations:

1st: Alarm, Comprehend Languages, Cure Light Wounds, Feather Fall, Feather Step, Moment of Greatness, Saving Finale, Share Language (trust me, this and spells like it are a super good idea in this campaign), Undetectable Alignment (if you want),

2nd: Acute Senses, Bladed Dash, Glitterdust (reveals invisible foes even if they make the save), Heroism (worse than and redundant with Good Hope, but lasts longer), Invisibility, Mirror Image (TAKE THIS), Communal Share Language, Silence, Tongues, Whispering Wind,

3rd: Blink, Dispel Magic, Glibness (not as good since you lack Bluff, still might be handy), Flexible Fury (TAKE can use it for Pounce, if you want), Mass Feather Step, Good Hope (TAKE THIS), Haste (TAKE THIS), Invisibility Sphere, Remove Curse, Communal Tongues,

4th: Break Enchantment, Dance of 100 Cuts, Dimension Door, Echolocation, Greater Invisibility, Neutralize Poison,

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, play her yourself, but on their side. And being crazily cheerful, because that's a thing.

As for her taking the spotlight, she can just swap out her spell selection for a more support-oriented set and buff everyone for a round or two before attacking. That makes sense tactically and works well mechanically, it's probably not her favorite fun-time activity, but she can suggest things for the PCs to do to make it up to her.

Liberty's Edge

The Mortonator wrote:
So, Weapon Master's Handbook was written for Warpriests right? I can't imagine another class getting that much benefit out of the book. :p

Well, there's Fighter...

And I believe the author of them has admitted that Ricochet Shot and the Startoss Style Feats were added to make their Flying Blade Swashbuckler more viable. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Hama wrote:
It doesn't seem to me that Sousa is settling.

It's hard to tell how he feels given the information presented.

Caineach wrote:
Perhaps its just the fact that I have a ton of poly friends, but I expect more emotional maturity out of college freshmen.

Really? I'm nearing 30 and I'm still not sure all my friends (including the poly ones) have that degree of emotional maturity. Most do, but all? Nah. 10 years ago a lot fewer of 'em did.

Liberty's Edge

Secret Wizard wrote:
I agree with arachno.

As do I.

Fighter, even with just the corebook, does nothing to hold a new player's hand, and since they are so many choices, you're very likely to screw up and have an awful time.

It's at least as bad to create as a Sorcerer or other spontaneous caster, if usually a little simpler to play.

Paladin, Ranger, and Slayer are all much better for a new player. Heck, a Gendarme Cavalier is better, too. So are lots of things.

Liberty's Edge

Imbicatus wrote:
Half Orcs should be blue. Sacred Tattoo gives a +1 luck bonus to saves, which is boosted by Fate's Favored, which is a top tier choice for warpriests because of the reliance on Divine Favor. Added to that the fact that they can take the Human FCB makes them one of the top choices for the core races.

I've gotta agree. Divine Favor + Sacred Tattoo + Fate's Favored is amazing.

Liberty's Edge

The Mortonator wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
And mentioned in the entry, as well as upgraded to green since this trick doesn't require a second character. You'll be taking quicken blessing no matter what, so I consider this a standard tactic.
Well, it actually kinda does. Unless you inflict staggered in another way the duration of 1 round (Except against Undead) means you don't have the actions left for a full-round which the Coup de Grace is.

It still knocks 'em out (and thus prone, dropping their weapon, etc.) for a round. But yeah, to kill them you need some sort of help.

That said, all it requires is a melee character other than you in the party...or a caster willing to carry a scythe around. It's not super difficult to arrange.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a trick I heard about:

The Quicken Blessing Feat is pretty cool in its own right, but also enables the Repose Blessing to take out any opponent for one round via two touch attacks with no Save. Do this to people someone else is adjacent to (and you don't have to be to start with, since this takes your standard and swift, but not your move action), and they can coup de grace, and you have one of the best insta-kill powers in Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

Brawler's your way to go here. They get all the benefits of TWF with one weapon. In fact, here's what you do:

For your first level, take Brawler (Snakebite Striker), for your second, take Rogue (Knife Master). You now have 2d8 Sneak Attack with your dagger.

You can take one more level of Rogue at some point for Evasion, or even 3 more if you go Scout for Sneak Attack on a charge (and Debilitating Injury if going Unchained Rogue, which you should), but that's as much Rogue as you want, probably, and I'd be reluctant to take more than the one level to be honest. The rest of the build is just more Brawler, and stabbing people with your dagger + getting Sneak Attack as many times as you can arrange.

That's pretty much the build. I mean, I could go through Feats, but they're fairly obvious (you probably want Power Attack for when Sneak Attack isn't operating or when their AC is low, you eventually want Accomplished Sneak Attacker, Iron will might not be a bad call, etc.)

Liberty's Edge

I throw whatever I feel like at them (or, more accurately, whatever seems appropriate for the kind of game I'm doing).

The only things I absolutely don't do are metagame (ie: if the NPC doesn't have a way to know about it, they can't plan with countering it in mind), and I don't fudge die rolls.

I might take into account the party's weaknesses when designing an encounter, making it a little weaker if it seemed particularly likely to mess them up to the tune of giving it an effective +1 CR or something like that. So, for example, counting an Erinyes as CR 9 vs. a party with minimal flight options and no dedicated ranged characters.

And I almost never design characters to target the PCs specifically. I mean, an NPC Ranger will have whatever Favored Enemies seem appropriate, not necessarily the race all the PCs happen to be, and the enemy spellcasters have lists designed to deal with a wide variety of problems (or a narrow variety they're specialized in) rather than one designed to take down the PCs specifically (well, okay, prepared casters who know the PCs are coming tailor their spells, but that's in-world and limited to spells they have access to), people don't have Feats specifically designed to counter the PCs weird and rare abilities, and so on.

That's as far as I go in terms of 'stuff I won't do'.

Now, I'm actually a super nice GM in most other ways...but encounter design? Nope. Bad stuff happens in fights.

Liberty's Edge

The Dragon's Demand sorta splits the difference. It's a Module, but it takes you from 1st to 7th level or so all on its own. And ends in a fight vs. a dragon, making it pretty iconic in some ways.

I'd do that, personally.

Liberty's Edge

Aberzombie wrote:

I though the bits at the end with Sousa and his fiancé were a bit much. I mean, come on. Peggy was a friend and co-worker, someone he’s partially responsible for (being chief and all), so of course he’s going to be worried. That she (correctly) theorized Peggy was the reason he came to California should have at least been partially mitigated by the fact that he just asked her to marry him not long before. Granted, I might be missing something, as my DVR got its recording schedule messed up and stopped a little early, so I didn’t see the ultimate end to that scene.

Well, the thing is, she didn't immediately break up with him or anything. She just asked him a point-blank question "Are you in love with her?" with a strongly implied "Just say you're not, and we're good."

He didn't say a word.

That seems like it'd be a problem in a lot of relationships.

Caineach wrote:
The end with Sousa was just dumb piled on dumb. Will Hollywood ever write a realistic romance plot?

Eh. I can see it. I've had some friends go through far more ridiculous romantic shenanigans than that.

Liberty's Edge

Neo2151 wrote:

Getting more spells per level and a bit earlier is easily made up for for the SERIOUSLY superior casting style of the Arcanist.

Always having the right tool for the job is better than having twice as many of the wrong tool.

Eh. With the Fast Study Discovery and a few slots left open, you're doing just as well on that front 90% of the time or more. I mean, Arcanists can do it better (as a full round action rather than a minute), but that only matters in combat, and given the actions it takes (move to retrieve spellbook, full to swap spells) it's usually a bad decision in combat. And if you have a bonded object, you can do the same (only better) once a day.

Really, it's just not as big an advantage as all that.

Neo2151 wrote:
That said, Staff-like Wand is amazeballs and it single-handedly convinced me to roll Wiz instead of Arc. ;)

Staff-Like Wand is nice.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, from an actual practical optimization perspective, the builds referred to in the OP aren't optimized unless the game is starting at 20th level (or perilously close, like 19th or something).

TarkXT wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Investigator's a great example of dip-phobic class design. A lot of their vital class features get bumped back way too far, lest the class look too good for dipping.

That said. Toughing it out with an INT based build is terrifyingly effective as I suspected and recently confirmed.

Loads of synergy when you have a very large pool of inspiration, skill points, and ways to extend/enhance potions.

Just for the record, Str-based (and by that I mean Str at 16+, regardless of Int score) melee Investigators are fine from level 1. They don't really start to sing at combat until level 3-4, but they do fine (ie: as well as anybody but Barbarians and Bloodragers...nobody else has huge combat bonuses at levels 1-2).

Dex-based Investigators definitely have some issues early on barring dipping or the like, though. And Archery Investigators are hurting for a bit there (not actually at super low levels, if human...levels 3-6 are the basic problem).

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

None of which actually matters when the entire party can reliably splatter anything without at least 150 HP in a round or two, without using up any significant resources. Each.

Which is why IMO an entire party of min-maxers is actually detrimental. It reduces what options the GM has to actually challenge the party. I've seen one party that due to everyone being a power gamer, by level 15 they had a decent chance at taking on a tarrask... and winning. If the only thing that can challenge the party as an apocalyptic event, maybe the characters need to be retired.

And no, it wasn't a monty haul campaign.

Eh. My group are debatably at this level of optimization [there's a TWF guy with kukris and Butterfly Sting, all melee characters have Outflank and mostly x3 crit weapons or more (there's a Magus with a light pick), and the TWF guy has a Menacing gets ugly, and that doesn't get into the Arcanist or the Archer Bard]. They're currently level 14 and tend to wreck a lot of stuff, especially anything that fights in melee. There's also 5 of them, plus 4 cohorts at the moment (two of which are former PCs...we've lost some players to real life).

I almost killed them all last session. In an AP. With almost no changes to, well, anything (okay, it was CotCT so I updated it to Pathfinder)...they just alerted people to their presence and wound up fighting 3 (actually 5 due to their inherent summoning) Barbed Devils (who all used Order's Hammer on them), and then not getting to rest/heal before fighting an Evoker.

And that's an encounter I barely changed from the published one. My personally designed encounters are much scarier.

Challenging optimized characters is only a problem if you, the GM, are worse at optimizing and/or tactics than your players are.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'd go Arcanist Counterspell master for Envy.

For Gluttony, go Oracle of Bones or Juju. It has a very different vibe from Wizard, but should be fun and cool.

For Greed, Alchemist seems singularly thematic, I'd go with that.

For Lust, Bard seems a solid call. Or Sorcerer, I suppose.

For Pride, yeah, I'd go straight Wizard.

Sloth being Summoner works.

For Wrath, Evocation specialist Wizard would definitely work, but Bloodrager seems a singularly thematic alternative if you like].

Liberty's Edge

Thundercaller and Sound Striker (with FAQ/Errata) are both solid ways to make a basically full caster Bard. Those plus Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment) make you a pretty solid offensive 'caster' mixing damage and mind control spells.

You're not as good a party buffer if going this route, but Good Hope and Haste are still available, so you're not bad.

Liberty's Edge

TarkXT wrote:

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

Or Slayer, but yeah, not Fighter.

Liberty's Edge

Kineticist is, in many ways, the 'martial class' of the bunch. They blast things. It's what they do. They have some interesting utility powers (varying by element), and at range they wind up using their Move Actions for Gather Power to jack up their one big attack rather than making full attack actions (or they get Kinetic Blade, go melee, and full attack like everyone else), but they're real straightforward in their basic role.

Medium is...a little weird. The best way to play them is have Champion as your go-to spirit (and take the Feat that boosts it) and in that case on most 'adventuring' days they play like a slightly-fragile martial character with 4-level casting that's a bit better than usual (they get both Haste and Mirror Image as 2nd level spells, for example). But if they have days off, they can start doing amazing things with skills, or have basically any spell necessary that a 6-level caster (either Arcane or Divine) of their level could possibly have...but will be stuck in skill or caster mode for the whole day.

Mesmerist is sorta an inverted Bard. Bards do party-buffing with a side of mind control. Mesmerists do mind control, with a side of party buffing. They play like dedicated offensive casters focusing on enchantment spells in combat, though they can set up some neat buffs between combats, too, and remove status effects. Just Stare at people and mess with their heads and you have the basics down.

Occultist can actually play a few different ways based on their Schools. Going Transmutation they can do the Inquisitor thing and give their weapon Bane, plus jacking up their stats, and manage to be scary combatants personally. Going Conjuration they can be pretty decent summoners. Going Evocation they can manage as a pretty fair blaster. And so on. They can mix and match these a little, but they'll likely only be particularly good at one or two.

Psychic is an Int-based Sorcerer with a somewhat different spell list. The Disciplines are a littlemore powerful than Bloodlines, and Phrenic Amplifications add a few wrinkles, but really? Int-based Sorcerer off a different list.

Spiritualists are a lot like the Unchained Summoner who can't summon anything but their eidolon, though their pets tend to be less direct damage and more scouting and debuffing heavy than most eidolons. The details are way different (they're Wis based, for example) but the broad strokes are very similar.

Liberty's Edge

Faelyn wrote:
Whoops! Thank you for reminding me about Precise Companion, deadmanwalking!

You're very welcome, I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)

Liberty's Edge

MuertoXSky wrote:

Fighter has feats going for him now.

Am i the only one who wants 4+INT Ranks and would be happy?.

I'd certainly be pretty close to it.

Liberty's Edge

Paladins can manage pretty well sans Con. Lay On Hands, particularly with, say, the Tiefling Favored Class Bonus and Fey Foundling, makes them super durable almost no matter what their Con is, and dropping Con for Cha actually nets you more HP per day, at least potentially, and the D10 HD, good Fortitude, and adding Cha to Fort Saves really make up for quite a bit.

It's still not a super good idea, mind you, but it's more workable than many characters.

Liberty's Edge

So, I use House rules quite a bit (somewhat obsolete set found here). A while back, while coming up with a Fighter fix (which might be getting some changes soon due to enhanced Weapon and Armor Training, for the record), I came up with an interesting mechanic for giving fighters added mobility:

Mobile Warrior (Ex): At 8th level, a Fighter gains a +10 foot bonus to movement speed, and may make 10 foot steps instead of 5 foot steps whenever a 5 foot step would ordinarily be allowed. He may also make 5 foot (though not 10 foot) steps in difficult terrain.

I like this, and think it makes Fighters much more mobile in a way that other classes don't really duplicate. I later expanded it to Brawlers and Swashbucklers (the hybrid Classes that get things from Fighter and don't get spells).

I've been thinking, and I want to add a similarly useful, but mechanically distinct option to Rogues and Slayers. With that and use of the Unchained Monk, every non spellcasting class will have one, which seems like a good design to me. Barbarians, for the record, have several movement options already and seem fine to me.

Space-wise, I'm slotting it in at 7th level, since Rogue and Slayer can both manage that (I considered making it 8th for the Slayer...I still might).

My issue is that I'm a little stuck on what ability should be. It should enable full attacks in some way, I think, without increasing base movement necessarily...Fighters being quicker runners than Rogues on open ground actually makes sense to me.

So...I'm looking for a unique movement option for Rogues with those criteria. Anyone have any suggestions?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

My Rogue's entire investment into stealth was invalidated at the last game session because I discovered that there isn't a perception DC for an alarm spell. If I was playing a skillmonkey with casting, like a Psychic Detective Investigator, then I would have detect magic and would have been able to avoid the trap. That experience soured the entire session for me because I couldn't believe 8 levels of maxing out stealth had been entirely invalidated by a level 1 spell.

So yeah, this absolutely does come up in-game.

Yeah, there's a reason my House Rules specify that all pre-set spells count as traps for Trapfinding.

Liberty's Edge

The above build forgets that the Hunter gets Precise Shot as a bonus Feat at 2nd.

So, it'd look more like this:

1st - Point-Blank Shot
2nd - Precise Shot (from Precise Companion)
3rd - Rapid Shot
3rd (Bonus Teamwork Feat) - Friendly Fire Maneuvers
5th - Deadly Aim
6th (Bonus Teamwork Feat) - Coordinated Shot
7th - Broken Wing Gambit
9th (Bonus Teamwork Feat)- Wounded Paw Gambit
9th - Manyshot
11th - Clustered Shots
12th - (Bonus Teamwork Feat) - Enfilading Fire

Liberty's Edge

hiiamtom wrote:
This isn't a "the fighter can now fight" conversation. This is a "the fighter could fight before, has different sub systems to fight now, but still can't do much else" which is and has always been the conversation. Everything is viable besides the comical trap options like Vow of Poverty or Ragechemist which just end up with dead players.

That's not correct. It has significantly more non-combat options than it did previously.

hiiamtom wrote:
AWF is better to terrible feats that doesn't mean they are great abilities. Just because it's better than Dodge doesn't mean it's some magnificent improvement over a feat, you don't get to pick the skills, the will save thing is better than the static bonus feat but is still not good compared to similar abilities, and reflex is honestly a non-issue that you are picking because it's level 17 and why not.

Iron Will isn't usually considered terrible. Nor is Toughness. Nor Dodge, for that matter. They aren't great, but doubling or tripling their effectiveness sure makes them so.

hiiamtom wrote:
5th level is not a dip, and you'll be hard pressed to find a class in the game that isn't trucking by level 5. At this point the throwing weapons fighter starts his throwing weapon career (with the right magic items of course).

You were the one talking dips, not me. My point was (and is) that the Class is now valid for more than a dip. It's not the best Class ever, but it does okay.

hiiamtom wrote:
Fighter has been tier 4 for a long time is all; it's just more ways for it to be tier 4. I'd still say Fighter is lagging behind in a tier with a lot of more interesting options...

Eh. They have as many interesting options as a Barbarian or even Slayer in most ways. Slayer's a much better skill character, but not really one with more options.

hiiamtom wrote:
and they still can't get first party Dex to damage in a meaningful way.

Uh...Fencing Grace is a thing. And easy enough for a Fighter to get.

Liberty's Edge

HyperMissingno wrote:
Someone remind me, how does AWT interact with archetypes that ditch normal weapon training? I know it's really weird at least.

If they replace weapon training, they don't get it. Sucks for them. That's pretty much it.

If they get Weapon Training with only a specific group, like a Dragoon with spears, they obviously can't get it by trading in other groups at 9th, 13th, or 17th level, but could still buy it as a Feat at 5th and every five levels thereafter.

EDIT: Ninja'd, ah well.

Liberty's Edge

hiiamtom wrote:
AWT is worse than most class features and equivalent to feats.

No it isn't. It's very solidly better than Feats at the things it does. +2-4 AC for one, two skills per level for another, eventually +4 to Will Save, possibly +6 to Reflex Save and so on.

hiiamtom wrote:
You get it so late that fighters are still best for dipping for a few feats.

You get it at 5th if you want. That's the same time you get Weapon training at all and perfectly valid.

hiiamtom wrote:
It enables different combat styles, but too late to be useful.

Uh...not really, no.

hiiamtom wrote:

AWT is only more combat ability and not utility, except for a couple skills which is not a huge boost - especially when they are dictated to you.

Fighter was tier 4 already, I guess it pushes a core fighter that high. And yes, it's a tier comment. It's still a good measure of out of combat utility.

Eh. The skills are no more pre-decided than a Bard's Versatile Performance. Bluff and Intimidate are also always available.

It's still Tier 4, I don't disagree, but it used to be Tier 5, so that's a net gain, and lots of Tier 4 Classes are fun and playable (Barbarian and Paladin leap to mind).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Enchanting the Kings guards is a spectacularly bad idea and in many cases the wizard (because Druids and clerics don't get these spells) won't have one of those memorised.

Depends. Is the king gonna be assassinated in 5 minutes? If so, he'll probably forgive you if you save him.

But it almost doesn't matter that it's a bad idea, it's an ability a Fighter doesn't even have.

And you're right, the Wizard might not have it prepped (though a Bonded Object would let him do it anyway), and a Cleric or Druid wouldn't. The Cleric or Druid, of course, would have other options. The Druid, for example, could turn into a mouse and sneak in.

But all that aside, the wizard might not have it prepared, y'know who doesn't have it prepared? The Fighter.

The Sword wrote:
What I'm saying is in the grand scheme of all choices a fighter can make outside of combat, the average wizard has 10% more. That is not a precise percentage.

That's a percentage that's an order of magnitude off. At least when it comes to effective decisions. Deciding to walk to another country when you have one day to get there and it's a week long journey is technically a decision, but I wouldn't count it since it can't succeed.

The Sword wrote:

For example... You have just finished the fight with the dragon and are badly wounded you can.

A - carry on
A1 - scout ahead to get an idea of what immediate challenges you face
B - head back to town (2 day journey)
C - rest for a short time
D - rest overnight
D1 - erect a barrier to fortify the room you are in and try and make the enemy come to you.
E - drink a healing potion
F - apply the heal skill
G - get out your sword and shield to make yourself harder to hit
H - drink a protection potion to make yourself harder to hit
I - use a wand to heal (UMD)
j - have the cleric use channelling or cast a spell
K - have the cleric / wizard cast a spell to protect you
L - have the wizard teleport you back to town

All these choices are available to a well rounded party of the appropriate level. A to I are usable by Martials with the right skills and equipment. J, K & L can only be done by specific casters (note wizards can do J and clerics can't do L) However JKL can still be achieved just not as efficiently.

Edit: added a few more options

Sure, if you count 'cast a spell' as one option while you count 'rest overnight' and 'rest for a short time' as different options. Casting Rope Trick and casting Invisibility Sphere and casting a buff spell like Good Hope are at least as different as the mundane options you list. And that's three spells out of dozens.

Liberty's Edge

Advanced Weapon Training is available at 5th level, actually. Admittedly, it costs a Feat then, but it's available and usually worth it.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
The whole claim that agency is based on character abilities is a straw man.

Uh...not if you actually follow the rules.

The Sword wrote:
What way does the mage have to persuade the guard that the fighter doesn't have? The fighter has a tongue and a brain .

Dominate Person. Or Charm Person. Or Suggestion. All of which work even after a failed Diplomacy roll.

The Sword wrote:
The world doesn't exist outside of what the DM says exists. The DMs responsibility is to set challenges appropriate for the party so everyone has a good time. Appropriate challenges mean challenges that have a chance of being overcome - in a game world the DM does give players agency. Agency is the power to affect the world around you in a meaningful way.

Yes, the GM needs to give the players a chance, sure. But in a group with a Fighter and a Wizard, unless the GM is specifically denying the Wizard's ability to do what the rules say he can (ie: use spells) the Fighter has a much smaller set of things he can do, or even attempt to do. And being able to do things is agency in a very real sense.

Liberty's Edge

Davor wrote:
You don't need Medium Armor Proficiency. Elven Chainmail counts as light for the purposes of proficiency. Also, you can take finesse training with Heavy Shields (since you're proficient with them).

Heavy shields are one-handed non-finesseable weapons.

Light shields, on the other hand are light weapons. TWF with light spiked shields is a very viable plan, if you want.

Both, however, are martial weapons Rogues lack proficiency in, so there's that hurdle to overcome.

Liberty's Edge

Arachnofiend wrote:
Not just outright giving Swashbucklers Divine Grace (Stylish Grace?) ranks towards the top of Paizo's bad design decisions... the fact that a 7 charisma swashbuckler is something you can even consider is criminal.

Yep, basically. My version's a little different than that, but it's very much along the same lines. You can even keep calling it Charmed Life.

Liberty's Edge

Agreed. Mostly anyway.

I'm still using House Rules on Fighters in my games, but several are admittedly (and not precisely by design, since the House Rules predate Advance Weapon Training) 'Here, have a few Advanced Weapon Training options for free' more than they are fundamental changes.

Liberty's Edge

Arachnofiend wrote:
That's true but I generally don't consider 4+INT skill points to be a skillful character unless you have means of artificially boosting your number of ranks or you're a class that casts off INT like an Alchemist. I mean, nobody would consider the Barbarian a skill class.

True, but it's better than Fighter until at least 5th level, and possibly much later.

Of course, I agree that Swashbucklers are kinda screwed and use House Rules to help them a lot, and incidentally give them a significantly greater Charisma focus (making them a solid choice for party face), but even RAW, they're better off than the Fighter is at low levels.

Liberty's Edge

BretI wrote:

As others said, although not optimal a dwarven rogue can be fun and more survivable. The stonecunning can help with traps.

If you really want two weapon fighting, mix the Rogue with at least one level of a character class that gives martial weapons. That allows you to use the dwarven urgrosh for two weapon fighting. I think many dwarven rogues would mix in a bit of a more martial class anyways.

You could also just TWF with short swords or daggers like most Rogues, if you like.

1 to 50 of 8,373 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.