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

Deadmanwalking's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,629 posts (9,829 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,629 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
So Dr. Garner can control lash for Skye, who he's biologically programmed to kill, but not, you know, his wife?

Actually...he never harmed anyone he knew and liked (except in self-defense, and even then he didn't kill anyone who met those criteria). Including both May and Daisy. He was just seemingly incapable of stopping killing Inhumans he didn't already know and like (regardless of whether they deserved it).

Or to rephrase: His degree of control remained consistent and sharply limited throughout.
.
.
.
On the finale: I liked it, felt my predictions were vindicated, and thought it worked well from both a drama and realism standpoint.

And that last bit did indeed raise a variety of very interesting questions that I look forward to finding the answers to.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ARGH! On sky being the special center of the universe again. This time its not just the characters doing it, its a random mutation.

You're aware that a second after someone claimed that someone else immediately contradicted them with the much more reasonable explanation that Dr. Garner overrode Lash on that one?

Because that was a comment that was made, was the last word on the subject, and made vastly more sense.

Or, to put it another way: Someone in the show said that, but was immediately contradicted.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Shaman wrote:
A theoretical question regarding an unchained fighter - how much better would you make it at combat and what else would it have?

Well, what do you mean by combat? DPR? Saves? Mobility? What?

Because I don't think anyone really cares about raising Fighter DPR. They do fine there. Or AC, they do fine there, too.

But most people would give them a second Good Save (I prefer Will), and some sort of mobility option (I give them 10 foot steps).

Plus maybe some ancillary stuff (I give them the Sohei thing where they always act in the surprise round, and give them an Evasion equivalent for Fortitude Saves), but nothing game changing for the most part. Many people also suggest some shortened Feat chains (something that helps everyone, but helps the Fighter more), though I don't personally do a lot of that. Some abilities to actually be good with more than one weapon would also be sorta nice.

Aside from that, the big change people want is skills and out of cvombat utility. More skills, being better with the skills they get, some additional utility abilities, and there you go.

So, areas people think need improvement:

-Saves
-Mobility
-Utility, both in combat and out of it.
-Skills (a subset of utility, but a relevant one)
-Versatility

Things people are mostly fine with:

-DPR
-AC

Or to put it simply: Fighters are fine at standing around dealing damage and avoiding HP damage from other martial characters. Not the best, maybe, but perfectly serviceable. They need help with everything else.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:

Deadmanwalking;

Magic items: Both have magic items but only one got to pick items. ;)

Ah. Gotcha.

graystone wrote:
Stats: Both where 25 point buys, so that's a wash.

Cool. Just checking.

graystone wrote:
FCB: That's good to know. I was just surprised to note the hp comparison when one character when one tried to boost hp and the other didn't.

Well, it sorta depends on how many resources you have available and how much investment you consider 'a lot'. I'd characterize Con 16, FCB, and Toughness as really high investments into HP, personally. Not because it's necessarily a large amount of your resources, but because it's almost as heavy an investment as you can make.

graystone wrote:
Con belt: Hmmm... it's not THAT unusual for me to have game where buying items is restricted in some way. It's one of the reason I dislike people always bringing up 'get an agile weapon' when talking about dex melee combat. It's not always a given.

Buying items can be restricted, but certain items are assumed by the game. If nobody gets Cloaks of Resistance, the game is gonna screw the PCs over pretty regularly. A Fighter who never gets magic weapons (in fact, even one who never gets the right kind of magic weapon) has serious problems, a Wizard who can't get a Headband of Int is in deep trouble...and in the same way, a Kineticist without access to a Con Belt is screwed in a way the rules do not assume and cannot readily cope with.

Really, in any game where buying items is restricted, the GM should be tailoring items to the PCs or the PCs will wind up deeply imbalanced, since not all items are good for all people, and anything else results in a deeply unbalancing wealth distribution. The Kineticist should certainly get a Belt of Con in such a game. If she doesn't, the GM is doing something wrong.

The Kineticist needs one offensive item to function, a Belt of Con (and Dex, ideally). That's exactly the same as anyone who relies on Save DCs, and is not a high bar to hit.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking: I left magic items out as the setting are much different in terms of magic items. My rogue is much more likely to have a magic belt than the kinetisist.

The game assumes magic item availability. Much like a Fighter in a game without magic weapons, a Kineticist is gonna really suffer in a game where magic belts aren't readily available.

Indeed, large portions of the Class are based on the assumption that you can spend money on such a belt instead of a magic weapon, so playing it in a game with non-standard gear assumptions is inevitably gonna run into problems. As is true with basicaly all Classes in Pathfinder, really.

graystone wrote:

The 16 was for fort saves. I expected more fort and ref saves in an undead rich game. Will saves are buffed by deathtouched and iron will. Hp where really a side effect. I pretty much have every skill trained, 1/2 level in skills adding 1/2 level bonus AND granting skill unlocks, dex to att/dam and a pile of major magic. I'm REALLY liking the new Phantom Thief!

Stats:
St 10
dx 18
cn 16
in 16
ws 10
ch 08

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm much more likely to play a Phantom Thief than Kineticist, but that's because I love skills and really enjoy being good at social skills specifically, not because Kineticist isn't good.

And I'm not saying Con 16 isn't a good choice, just noting it as unusual. I'll also note that as really high point-buy, which might also be a contributing factor to him seeming better than the Kineticist if the Kineticist isn't built on a similar point-buy.

graystone wrote:
On the FCB, 3 extra talents and 2 hp seemed a fair instead of 20 hp. Picking up the +9 hp at first seemed enough to not NEED the FCB. It seems a shame if you can't make a good character unless you ignore the racial special FCB.

You can be good without the FCB. You just won't have quite as large an HP advantage.

graystone wrote:
On the HP's per level list: I'm sure my numbers where off as I did them quickly in my head. I just knew my rogue was ending up with more hp.

If you're not getting a Con belt at all, ever? And effectively have equal Con for HP due to FCB? You're quite correct.

Those are not normal circumstances, though. Not at all.

Liberty's Edge

Shadowkire wrote:


lvl 1-2 +6 (+6 scars)
lvl 3 +3 (+6 scars -3 [1]burn)
lvl 4 +2 (+6 scars -4 [1]burn)
lvl 5 +1 (+6 scars -5 [1]burn)
lvl 6 0 (+6 scars -12 [2]burn +6 overflow[con+2])
lvl 7 -1
lvl 8 -2
lvl 9 -12 (+6 scars -27 [3]burn +9 overflow[con+2])
lvl 10 -14
lvl 11 -5 (+6 scars -33 [3]burn +22 overflow[con+4])
lvl 12 -18 (+6 scars -48 [4]burn +24 overflow[con+4])
lvl 13 -20
lvl 14 -22
lvl 15 -39 (+6 scars -75 [5]burn +30 overflow[con+4])
lvl 16 -26 (+6 scars -80 [5]burn +48 overflow[con+6])
lvl 17 -28
lvl 18 -54 (+6 scars -108 [6]burn +54 overflow[con+6])
lvl 19 -57
lvl 20 -60

You got that slightly wrong, increasing Con without the necessary Burn at several levels.

But let's insert a Belt of Con +2 at 5th, +4 at 11th, and +6 at 17th. And level up points in Con at, say, 4th and 8th since that's another logical thing to do.

Because that's what a Kineticist also has that the Rogue doesn't:

lvl 1-2 +6 (+6 scars)
lvl 3 +3 (+6 scars -3 [1]burn)
lvl 4 +2 (+6 scars -4 [1]burn)
lvl 5 +6 (+6 scars, +5 Con Belt -5 [1]burn)
lvl 6 +6 (+6 scars +6 Con Belt -12 [2]burn +6 overflow[con+2])
lvl 7 +6
lvl 8 +14 (+6 scars +8 Con Belt +8 Con -16 [2]burn +8 overflow[con+2])
lvl 9 +6 (+6 scars +9 Con Belt +9 Con -27 [3]burn +9 overflow[con+2])
lvl 10 +6
lvl 11 +17 (+6 scars +22 Con Belt +11 Con -33 [3]burn +11 overflow[con+2])
lvl 12 +6 (+6 scars +24 Con Belt +12 Con -60 [5]burn +24 overflow[con+4])
lvl 13 +6
lvl 14 +6
lvl 15 +6 (+6 scars +30 Con Belt +15 Con -75 [5]burn +30 overflow[con+4])
lvl 16 +22 (+6 scars +48 Con Belt +16 Con -80 [5]burn +32 overflow[con+4])
lvl 17 +23
lvl 18 +6 (+6 scars +54 Con Belt +18 Con -126 [7]burn +54 overflow[con+6])
lvl 19 +6
lvl 20 +6

And that's the highest Con I've ever seen on a Rogue combined with not taking FCB on HP as a Kineticist (something I've never seen). Make it Con 14 on the rogue and FCB to HP on the Kineticist and we're adding 2 x Level to all of the above.

And, of course, if you've got a good defensive Wild Talent, that gets much better.

A 12th level Geokineticist has DR 11/Adamantine. A 12th level Telekineticist has 42 extra HP. A 12th level Aquakineticist has +6 AC or more and presumably some other ongoing stuff. A 12th level Aerokineticist has a 55% miss chance.

A Pyrokineticist admittedly lacks such an option, but still.

Liberty's Edge

miscdebris wrote:
My one and only complaint with the UC Summoner: I was planning on a kobold synthesis that built out as a dragon. He channeled the power of his ancestors or something like that. It's pretty hard to build a dragon eidolon now.

No it isn't. You can do it pretty easily with an Elemental. You don't get a breath weapon, but breath weapons were never great, and you can get just about everything else.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With a Paladin already in the party, I would not go that route.

I'd probably suggest someone with healing (specifically condition removal), though, since you lack that.

A Druid/Monk, Shaman/Monk or (better for healing) Cleric/Monk is definitely one possibility. That'd give you some solid healing and melee power (or ranged power with Zen Archer).

Another possibility, if wanting to avoid Divine characters, is a Witch/Investigator or Witch/Unchained Rogue (Snoop or Phantom Thief) (for skills) or Witch/Magus (for physical combat), grabbing the Healing patron and maybe one of the more healing focused Archetypes on Witch.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To quote Mark Seifter (who helped write the book in question, remember):

Mark Seifter wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
Well honestly depends on how you read some of them. After all even without two weapon fighting you can two weapon fight and take the penalties. Most of these seem either feats specific to verbal dueling, much like the gladiatorial feats, or allow you to be better at something that you would out of the box.
This is a good insight. For example, normally you would need to beat a creature's Bluff score if it's trying to hide it's relationship from you via Bluff, but Sense Relationship makes it a static (and pretty easy) DC. Knowing whether a fib is going to be outrageous to someone because of something obviously out of place or incorrect is one thing (like you'd know before you tried that if you said "I'm Aroden reborn, thus I'm the rightful king of Cheliax" that it's going to be a hard sell to those Dottari), but if it's based on information you don't have (like you say the commander sent you and you don't know that the guard unit is a democracy with no commander), you normally would have no way to know that's a bad move until after you say it and get busted. Similarly, the rumormonger rogue talent isn't the only way to spread rumors (heck, Intrigue has several more), but it's sure a powerful and efficient way to do it compared to the normal amount of legwork.

Bolding mine.

So it's an entirely reasonable interpretation (and the intended one in all likelihood) that you can normally figure out people's relationships with Sense Motive under at least some circumstances...the Feat just makes you better at it.

The Feat is also clearly intended to be broader than seeing people making out and leaping to the conclusion they're together. Anyone can do that, and it doesn't even require a roll (though a Sense Motive roll for a hunch might give you an idea as to their relationship under those circumstances, ie: lovers, spouses, friends with benefits). And, of course, if they're lying about their relationship by making out, you can oppose their Bluff with your Sense Motive.

But let's say two people are talking. They aren't doing anything to indicate the nature of their relationship, and they aren't trying to obviously fake it either. That's the situation where the Feat comes in, letting you figure out what they are to each other even with almost no evidence, and with only a minute of observation. At a flat (and fairly easy) DC. Plus, you can use the flat DC even if they're actively pretending a different relationship.

The Feat makes you the best person ever at spotting the couple who are secretly together but enemies in public. Even if both are expert liars.

Really, I'd probably allow almost anyone to make a check to see what people's relationship is...but not after a minute of interaction. That's absurdly fast barring really blatant stuff (like the making out example above).

Liberty's Edge

Gisher wrote:
Previous discussion regarding Call Truce.

Yeah, I posted there too.

Included in my link is the actual text from the book where you can call truces without the Feat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Read the UI section on interaction skills. It explicitly allows the use of Diplomacy to ask for a truce under certain circumstances (ie: it has to be advantageous for your opponent to some degree)...which, as people note, is more than the rules actually allowed pre-UI.

Call Truce lets you bypass some of those requirements and in many cases (ie: if they're anything worse than unfriendly toward you) lowers the DC to call a truce. It makes you better at it. But it's in no way required to do it at all.

Liberty's Edge

plaidwandering wrote:
dual resists are not uncommon, and ya before 13th you only have two

Really? Name some for Acid/Electricity. Other than Demons.

plaidwandering wrote:
plus with that nice short range, you're always in crunchy range

Grab Weapon Finesse and suddenly all that not doing ranged costs you is one attack. You still want to do ranged if possible, but not doing so isn't the end of the world. And you get great defensive spells available. Mirror Image + Shield on top of standard Dex-based lightly armored AC is nothing to sneeze at.

plaidwandering wrote:
it was the combo of the two limitations that bummed me out on warlock

I think you're really overstating how much of an issue they are.

Liberty's Edge

PK the Dragon wrote:
Well, I may not be TC, but I was doubting the archetype too, and I'm pretty sold on the warlock's viability now. Excellent posts, DMW.

Thanks. :)

PK the Dragon wrote:
It definitely seems to require a specific playstyle that is kind of counterintuitive (I wouldn't have thought of mixing Rapid Shot and TWF) and seems extremely reliant on full round actions (I mean, everyone is after a certain point, but here more-so), but it definitely works.

If you're trapped without a full round action available, you can always cast a spell. You are a 6 level caster from the Wizard list, after all.

plaidwandering wrote:

*some numbers about looking ok at lvl 8/10/12/14 etc*

DMW and then you meet the 90% of the bestiary at those levels have more and more resists, 1d6+6 suddenly turns into 0-2

90% of the Bestiary is resistant to acid, electricity, and (at 13th+) cold? Because I'm pretty sure a very small number of creatures are actually resistant to both acid and electricity. I mean, aside from demons, what is there?

And if you do run up against such foes, well, that's another situation in which spells can be used.

Liberty's Edge

mechaPoet wrote:
I'd argue that there is a significant gendered component of active versus passive/support roles in the genre. A lot of the discussion around this that I see is based on not feeling directly useful or "badass" enough. There's often a clear evaluation that puts masculine strength and direct violence ahead of the more feminine associated supporting roles.

That's true to some degree, and certainly one reason people might prefer a more active class, but it's mechanical role is not the primary objection people who have issues with Bards tend to make. Many are fine with playing a support character and simply have issues with certain thematic elements of Bard specifically. And it's not standing in the back and having others do the fighting for the most part, most are fine with support clerics and the like, it's the music, and the feeling that music is 'frivolous' or 'silly'. Which is definitely an unfortunate attitude, but not precisely a gendered one per se.

mechaPoet wrote:
I'm not saying everyone's going around saying that bards are too feminine for their tastes (although there are people who make that explicit complaint). I am saying that there are a lot of players who feel the need to re-flavor various class features in ways that portray them in traditionally masculine ways. And I mean, I want people to feel comfortable about their character's gender expression, but a lot of it seems to be based on insecurities about masculinity. And I feel like it's kind of a chicken and egg situation, where the underlying cultural misogyny both creates the repulsion to femininity that creates this problem and is maintained by the language of these discussions.

Some people certainly do that, and I wouldn't dream of disputing that fact. But my point is that it's not the main reason people complain about Bards specifically, nor what provokes Bard reflavoring suggestions in the vast majority of circumstances.

mechaPoet wrote:
I don't think it's the Be-All-End-All root of all the problems people have in re-flavor discussions, but I think it appears as a component because of the pervasive nature of gendered valuing.

Well, that I certainly agree with. The appearance of gendered language tropes and language definitely show up due to the pervasiveness of such ideas in our society. It's how tightly they're related (and how causal they are) to the particular issue in question that I disagree with.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Raylol wrote:
The warlock has a power spike at level 5 and at level 15/16. But every other level is pretty bad. Look at the damage output at level 1/3/8/10/12/14 too. You get +1 damage and an additional attack at every other level, but otherwise its pretty bleak.

1 and 3 they are indeed a bit behind.

At 8th, assuming Retraining of a single Feat, they're attacking at +10/+10/+10/+5/+5 vs. touch ac for 1d6+5. That's a total of 5d6+25, and not actually bad at all. It's not super stellar, but not bad either. Toss on Heroism and all those attacks get +2.

At 10th, that's +12/+12/+12/+7/+7 for 1d6+6 and a total of 5d6+30 if all hit. Which, again, isn't bad at all given they're touch attacks and that's without spell buffs of any sort.

At 12th, it becomes +15/+15/+15/+10/+10 for 2d6+7 each, or a total of 10d6+35.

At 14th, it's pretty much the same as 12th, but with +1 more to hit.

I think 8th level looks fine, and 10th is getting a little low for level, but 12th brings it well back into the realm of 'solid damage'.

And, once again, all that is utterly without spells. Which they have plenty of. And I'm probably forgetting a thing or three to add to the to-hit numbers to boot.

And even as-is, all those numbers are Green by this guide which is a good measure of viability.

Liberty's Edge

Raylol wrote:
But an elditch scoundrel also gets 6th level wizzard casting 3/4th bab and great out of combat utility. And dex-to-damage and sneak attack are better than mystic bolt.

I'm not sure this is accurate at all.

At 5th, when the Warlock starts to get going, you wind up with, assuming Dex 18, +4/+4/+4 to hit for 1d6+4 damage each. 3d6+12 damage with decent odds to hit (vs. touch AC) is not bad damage for 5th level. At all.

That necessitates Rapid Shot, TWF, and Arcane Striker, but that's all super doable by that point. And it scales quite a lot, actually.

By 17th, we're talking 3d6+10 per attack and an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10. That's over 140 damage a turn average, and if not optimal, sure pretty darn good.

And again, all that's on top of 6-level casting from the Wizard list. Eldritch Scoundrel has some definite advantages, but Warlock is really quite solid and workable. The Eldritch Scoundrel is better at low levels, when Touch Attacks are less of a big deal (and particularly before the Warlock even has them), but the Warlock, I think, pulls ahead at high levels when the fact that their attacks basically auto-hit becomes super relevant.

The Warlock also has large social advantages and a Good Will Save, which are not small advantages.

Liberty's Edge

Kurald Galain wrote:
Ok, so when you say the kinny is more versatile than "non-casters", you mean he's better than only a handful of classes in the book. That's probably true but it isn't saying much.

Uh...what I said was better than non-casters and on par with 4 level casters.

They're not the highest utility class in the game by any means, but they're pretty decent. Which was my whole point.

Kurald Galain wrote:
It's certainly decent, but "really good" is stretching it. It is well behind, for example, a standard TWF rogue or a raging barbarian.

At 3rd-7th, they do pretty close for the most part. And can have rider effects on their attacks to boot.

Kurald Galain wrote:

Utility better than non-casters, yes. It still has nothing on a bard, hunter, or mesmerist.

But hey, at least it's very flavorful.

Sure. I don't disagree. But nobody was claiming they were better at utility than, say, a Bard. That'd be silly. And a bit odd. They were saying they had better utility than the classes people kept bringing up as having better DPR. Which they do. And was rather the point.

Kineticist isn't really a class for someone who'd otherwise be playing a caster. It's for someone who'd otherwise be playing a martial character (which, for the record, is more than 1/3 of the classes in the game counting 4-level casters other than the Medium). And them they have a bit less damage and a bit more utility than.

Liberty's Edge

Being a melee monster is sorta what the Metamorph is good at. What exactly are you looking for here?

I mean, yeah, VMC is workable. And Fighter's solid, especially since there are now several Feats that make Bravery good...but beyond that I'm not sure quite what you're going for here.

Liberty's Edge

Kurald Galain wrote:
I seriously doubt they can match an u-rogue or an investigator in utility. They're clearly far behind any 6-level caster, too. You can possibly compare them to a bloodrager or paladin, and yes they do beat the poor fighter in terms of utility. Then again, so does everything else.

I count the Investigator (and Alchemist) as a spellcaster when discussing utility. And most other times. Because, y'know, it is in every way except the most technical.

And I'd say that they actually compare fairly well with the Unchained Rogue in utility. One Skill Unlock isn't a huge utility increase, and by the time they have two they're 10th level and the Kineticist has all sorts of stuff.

Kurald Galain wrote:
Well, yes. The vast majority of campaigns are at low level, including but not limited to PFS, and this has always been the case in level-based RPGs. It's easy to forget that sometimes as forums tend to focus on level-20 builds a lot. And yes, that means that a trick that comes online at level 11 is a trick that's effectively unavailable in most campaigns.

Well, the other factor is that at relatively low levels, Kineticist damage is really good. So...damage being better at low levels and utility better at higher ones works.

And IME, 10th is not where games end. It's past the mid-point, but you got to 12th even in PFS, and higher upon occasion. And APs end at 17th or so as a rule.

N. Jolly wrote:
That -4 effective level junk is a hard hit to take though, I don't think it was necessary at all for either the feat or the secondary element. The utility of the class would be so much higher (not T3 high, but higher) if it didn't have that -4 junk.

It would be more convenient, I'll not deny. You can make some stuff work, though. Especially since the two reductions don't actually stack.

N. Jolly wrote:
EDIT: Also I'd say Kineticist could match U-Rogue, but obviously not an investigator, which is clearly a T3 class. Kineticist should be judged against other T4 classes, where it has comparable utility.

Yeah...Investigator is a 6-level prepared spellcaster with a solid list on top of winning at all the skills forever. Ihas better utility than anything short of 9-level casters.

Liberty's Edge

Kurald Galain wrote:
Indeed. The kinny is not quite a one-trick pony but it comes close.

No more than most characters. Way more than a prepared caster, sure, but those aren't super common.

Kurald Galain wrote:
Note how most utility talents are the equivalent of spells of lower level? Basically what a kinny can do at level eight, a bard or inquisitor can do at level four. That's problematic.

Example? I'm not thinking of anything.

Kurald Galain wrote:
And, many elements don't have a lot of choices, and your second element is four levels behind. There's a pretty good chance that your favorite talents (whatever they are) cannot be combined on a single character.

I dunno. You can get two elements by level 7. That grants a pretty big cross-section of the good talents if that's what you're aiming for.

Kurald Galain wrote:
The damage was never the problem with the kinny. It's not the best damage dealer, but it doesn't have to be. The kinny's many restrictions on everything else are the problem.

Eh. They do fine. Not super amazing as compared to characters really focused on utility, but fine. Certainly better than any non-caster in many ways.

Liberty's Edge

HeHateMe wrote:
I would also respectfully disagree that the kineticist has lots of utility. Maybe compared to a Fighter, but not many other classes. You're locked into taking certain powers at certain levels (Infusion at odd lvls, Utility at even) and there really aren't many choices. I would hazard a guess that nearly every kineticist of the same element looks pretty much the same.

There aren't a huge array of choices, but they certainly add up to more utility than any non-spellcaster, and probably as much as most individual 6 or 4 level spontaneous casters. The fact that multiple characters of the same element get more or less the same utility is pretty much irrelevant in actual play, since basically no party will ever have two Kineticists focusing on the same element.

HeHateMe wrote:
Also, all the decent utility powers (like Earth Glide, or flight for every element besides air) become available so late in the game, most campaigns are over by that point.

Most campaigns are over by 10th level now?

Liberty's Edge

NewXToa wrote:
What are the rules involved with upgrading a Lesser Belt of Hurling to +4, and calculating the costs involved?

The general rules on magic item creation for items with multiple effects are that the most expensive cost's normally, and the less expensive costs 1.5 times as much. Given the price of 14k, that has to be 6k for the +2 Str (1.5 times normal), and 8k for the other effect. Upgrading it to +4 switches which is higher around, making it 16k for +4 Str, and then 12k for the other effect (1.5 x 8k).

So...28k.

NewXToa wrote:
I like the idea of dropping my armor down to +2 - that opens up a lot of money for smaller items.

It helps, yeah.

NewXToa wrote:
The wand of Bless and Aspect of the Falcon are intended for use before combat (cast them before charging into a room where I expect problems), so the action economy shouldn't be a problem. However, AotF gives a competence bonus to ATK, so it doesn't stack with the Cracked Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone - I'll get rid of that wand.

Seems like a good call.

NewXToa wrote:
Turns out that Ioun stone I was using for a bonus to attack was the Dusty Rose Prism Ioun stone - somewhere along the line the +1 AC turned into a +1 ATK. I will fix that, and probably purchase the Cracked Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone as well.

That makes sense.

NewXToa wrote:
My saves are F13/R14/W9, so I would rather not drop the Cloak of Resistance down to +3.

Then you shouldn't. And, as noted, I'd grab Iron Will if I were you.

NewXToa wrote:
I also recognize the wisdom of knowing my character abilities by heart.

Very valid.

Liberty's Edge

mechaPoet wrote:

On a completely different note, have y'all noticed how some people on the forums will go to great lengths of re-skinning and reimagining to avoid playing a class with any hint of femininity? For example, the occasional discussion about bards pops up that contains this exchange:

Poster 1: I don't like bards! Why would I want to play some sissy lute player?
Poster 2: Poster 1, bards are great and mechanically strong! You can totally play them as badass war leaders with Perform (Oratory) shouting orders, in order to put a masculine dressing over what you imagined as feminine as therefore weak and without value!

I may be paraphrasing. In any case, I don't have anything clever to say about it, just that I saw something similar and rolled my eyes because sometimes this board is comically misogynistic.

I'm not gonna disagree that people sometimes get really weirdly concerned with avoiding feminine things in their characters (the number of times I've seen 'What do we call male Witches?' boggles my mind occasionally...we call them Witches, folks), but, speaking as someone who's been poster #2 (the one advocating re-imagining Bards) of discussions on Bards, I don't think that particular issue is at the heart of most people's problems with the Bard.

The argument I hear about Bards almost never makes references to anything 'sissy' or 'feminine'. The word most often used in that argument is 'silly', often in the context of the following or something like it:

'I feel silly sitting in the back and playing a lute while people are bleeding and dying, shouldn't I be being helpful in a more direct fashion?'

Which is where the war-leader using Oratory thing comes in. Or a swordsman hurling cutting words at her foes as she uses a rapier. Or several other examples that often come up.

Which, really, isn't a stereotypical masculine/feminine distinction. It's a genre distinction about whether standing in back and playing music should be a valid thing to do in combat. It's debatably a denigrating attitude towards music and art...but not really towards stereotypical femininity for the most part.

The language might get thrown in occasionally, but I think that's basically in the context of using 'sissy' or 'feminine' to insult things a person already dislike for other reasons (which is terrible, but a whole different issue), with the core problem remaining that the stereotypical Bard breaks verisimilitude for the people in question.

Liberty's Edge

I'd look at this, which is a good general guide to viability.

According to that, you're gonna need a minimum of 26 AC and +10 in all Saves, but are more likely to want AC 30+ and +14 in at least some Saves. You also need at least +20 to hit and to do an average of 40 damage a round, but as long as you have Power Attack you're pretty much definitionally there, given that shield and Shield Mastery.

Now, since you just gave gear, not the build, I'm not sure exactly how close to those benchmarks you are, though I'm betting Iron Will would be a solid call (you technically don't need it if you have Wis 14 or something else increasing Will Save...but it's still a good idea).

That said, you're missing some of the fundamental AC enhancers (the awesome shield makes this less of an issue, but it's still a bit silly not to have them). You can drop your Chain Shirt to +2 and get a Jingasa of the Fortunate soldier, keeping your AC the same and allowing you to negate one crit a day. You can then use the remaining 4k for a Ring of Protection +1 and an Amulet of Natural Armor +1, for another +2 AC super cheap. I'd do that (unless you want an Amulet of Mighty Fists, see below).

Also...why in the world do you have a Greater Belt of Hurling? It's absurdly expensive and it's improvements over the Lesser Belt are entirely redundant with your Class Abilities. A Lesser Belt of Mighty Hurling with it's Str bonus raised to +4 would cost 28k, and thus save you 14k. I mean, I guess if your GM doesn't let you do that there's some logic...but even then, I'd just drop to the Lesser Belt. 28k is way too much to pay for +2 Str.

With the money saved you can increase your defenses, give yourself a mobility option or two, or do all kinds of other neat things. One option would be to get Brawling on your Chain Shirt and grab a +1 Amulet of Mighty Fists instead of an Amulet of Natural Armor. That gives you decent unarmed combat stuff to use if you wind up shieldless at some point, and is pretty cheap all things considered.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, it's a solid combo. Though, really, Precise Strike is superfluous, and not nearly as good as the others.

Liberty's Edge

Speaking logically, this is indeed a purely social contract issue. Which means it'll vary wildly what's appropriate depending on the group in question.

That said, in my experience, there are two basic types of games:

Type #1: The metagame-relevant game. This is a game where PCs will never be kicked out of the party simply because they are PCs. Where they are trusted without question to exactly the same degree as their players. Where a betrayal by one PC is seen as a betrayal by the player.

I've never played in a Type #1 game for any length of time, but I've seen them. Bringing a highly flawed character to a Type #1 game is a bad idea, and kinda a dick move. It's forcing the other players to deal with your crap whether they want to or not or they're the ones in the wrong.

Type #2:The IC is IC, OOC is OOC game. This is a game where people envision a world and then do what their characters would do. Regardless of whether that hurts other PCs indirectly. A game where it's not appropriate to trust or bring someone along simply because they're a PC rather than an NPC.

I play almost exclusively Type #2 games. Bringing a flawed character to a Type #2 game is both common and expected. That said, if the characters are an adventuring party in Pathfinder, or Shadowrunners, or some other group of professionals at violence, there are likely to be in-world consequences if those flaws meaningfully interfere with whatever mission you're attempting to accomplish. The same things that mean you can make a flawed character, mean that the other PCs won't put up with said flaw if it puts their lives in danger more than once or twice. Now, many games, the PCs aren't such a group, but even there, certain flaws probably won't be tolerated.

So...in practice, the very nature of adventuring means that, absent some very specific situations, people with something like a phobia of dragons that causes running in the face of combat with them (leaving their friends to die) don't tend to be an issue. Either you shouldn't be doing that in a Type #1 game, or you'll be either forced to get over it or drummed from the party as a liability in a Type #2 game.

Now, that's for adventurers specifically, mind you. A game where the PCs are less likely to look for trouble or lack the authority to remove people from their group is a somewhat different matter. But rafrely one that's super relevant to Pathfinder specifically.

Liberty's Edge

Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What is "armed bravery", I can't seem to find it on the prd.

It's one of the Advanced Weapon Training options (which aren't on the PRD, but are on D20PFSRD and Archive of Nethys), and adds Bravery to all Will Saves.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Standard skill checks are for randomly making friends with people and asking them favors. Also for asking favors of those who are already kindly disposed towards you. Basic, straightforward, kinda stuff.

Influence is a bit more in depth. It's intended for social interactions that are a bit more in depth and important than those governed by a standard skill check...but not necessarily those that are long-term.

Contacts are used to establish a long-term business relationship with someone. Friendship may well be involved, but isn't necessarily, and the currency used in the mechanics is risk and trust. This is for building a working relationship. Networking, like you said.

Relationships are about building emotional ties with someone. This is an affair of the heart, for good or ill, not one with a business element as a primary concern.

Verbal Duels are a spectator sport. Like a trial or a political debate, they aren't about convincing your opponent, but instead focused solely on those watching.

So...I pretty much agree with you on most of those, though I think the distinction between standard skill checks and Influence is more based on the importance of the social interaction than how many people are involved.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Why do you disallow Armed Bravery? If that is one of your issues with the class that is one of the fixes to the issue. So, you are saying, they do get access to a good will save progression, you just don't like how it is done.

Well, I'm giving them better than Armed Bravery for free, and they'd get better Will Saves than anyone if you allowed Armed Bravery on top of that...which seems a tad excessive. I also prefer the Ultimate Intrigue Bravery-enhancing Feats, since they can let you give Bravery bonuses to your friends and similar fun stuff.

HWalsh wrote:
This I actually do agree with. I don't think any non-Int caster should have 2+Int Mod. Paladins, Fighters, and Clerics unduly suffer from a terminal lack of skills.

Paladins and Clerics at least have better skill lists and spells...Fighters not so much. But yeah.

HWalsh wrote:

This is possible as it is, granted it is an AWT that I can never see almost anyone taking. None of my builds have or will. I'd see this less as a "Fighter Thing" and more of a "Feat" but this is already a Human Racial Feat.

Martial Versatility

Personally, I don't see why this is a human thing. The biggest issue with it is that, especially for TWF users they are encouraged to use the same weapon in each hand. Builds like Longsword and Short Sword, Rapier and Dagger, etc are discouraged because it is almost always better to use two of the same weapon.

I'm aware of the Feat. But given their focus on weapon groups it just seemed fundamentally like a trick all Fighters should have. Also, see my discussion on why there being Feats do so much of this doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

HWalsh wrote:
Doesn't Bravery already somewhat do this by making it less likely for Fear Effects to stick?

Yep, but this adds to it (it reduces Frightened to Shaken or Panicked to Frightened and ignores Shaken, all for anything except stacking purposes). It seemed to me that Fighters should be pretty hard to scare, even by things that don't allow a Save.

HWalsh wrote:

You can already get this.

Outslug Sprint

Though I grant, that it requires Combat Expertise, Int 13, and Outslug Style to acquire.

You can absolutely get many of these features as Feats, usually with strict prerequisites and limitations (Outslug Style isn't usable with whatever weapon you want, and is a 3 Feat tree, for example).

But the point is that you shouldn't have to.

Rangers, for example, get a bonus Feat at 2nd and every 4 levels thereafter. They also get two Good Saves, 6 skill points per level, spell casting, and a host of other Class Features. Fighters get 6 more Feats and Heavy Armor. The Ranger's Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain are about on par with Weapon Training and Armor Training (okay, Favored Enemy is a little worse than Weapon Training...it plus spells are way better though), and a good Reflex Save is better than Bravery. So we get all their other Class Features on top of the stuff that makes them on par with Fighters (Even 2 extra skill points more than make up for Heavy Armor, Favored Enemy + Spells make up for Weapon Training + extra Feats, Good Reflex more than makes up for Bravery, Favored Terrain is about on par with Armor Training, and so on).

So...where are the other Features for Fighters? Ones they don't need to spend Feats on and are on par with Evasion, Improved Evasion, Woodland Stride, Hide In Plain Sight, an Animal Companion, and the like? They don't exist.

But they should. Which is rather the point. Now, you could give them such features in a number of ways, even just giving them yet more extra Feats and allowing more purchases of Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training more times...but something certainly needs to be done to make up that disparity if Fighter is to be a good Class.

HWalsh wrote:
Granted, this would be neat.

I thought so. :)

HWalsh wrote:
I thought there was already a way to do this, but if there isn't I don't think that this would be game breaking.

That was my opinion. And there are a few ways to do it, but they're all Class Features, not Feats or anything a single-classed Fighter can get (I don't believe).

HWalsh wrote:
I'm not sure about the Acrobatics thing, but I was certain that there is a thing to do the cover one already in the rules.

There is, but see above regarding the fact that Fighters should have abilities they don't have to spend Feats on.

HWalsh wrote:
This would be fine. I could see this being part of a knowledge: tactics check.

If it's part of a check anyone can make, the Fighter would need a different ability, or a bonus from such a check nobody else got. Either is a possibility if adding entirely new skills, though. I'd be cool with that, I just haven't as of yet.

HWalsh wrote:
That I think is unfair. Giving the Fighter another class's ability earlier than even they get it isn't really cool, especially since you are already granting them the ability to act in a surprise round.

Kensai is an Archetype, not a Class, and Archetypes often either steal from or have their abilities stolen by actual Classes.

And they already get spellcasting, crit-enhancement (on a Magus), and several other neat tricks. Heck, they add their Int and Dex to Initiative starting at 7th, get to pick Fighter-only Feats, and even get Weapon Mastery at 20th. The Archetype already takes so much from the Fighter (while remaining a 6-level caster) that I have no problem with it taking this from the Fighter too in my games.

And the Kensai can use Greater Bladed Dash + a Full Attack when he wins Initiative, attacking aqlmost everyone once and unloading a full attack on one guy. The Fighter...can maybe make a full attack, if he's either lucky or an archer. So the Magus gets much better use of the ability.

Also, 18th level and higher abilities almost never come up, though that isn't the main reason I'm fine with this.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

HWalsh:

Many Fighter fixes give them almost nothing in the way of enhanced damage output. Or AC.

For one example, one of the most common Fighter fixes I've seen is giving them 4+Int Mod skills per level (and maybe a handful of Class skills), and a Good Will Save.

Or my personal Fighter fix gives the following (in quick summary version):

Spoiler:
-A Good Will Save progression (but I don't allow Armed Bravery, though I do allow other Bravery enhancers).

-Better skills and bonuses to them (Note: 4 + Int Mod, so you need Advanced Weapon Training to equal a Slayer, for example).

-At 4th, the ability to apply Feats like Weapon Focus to an entire weapon group. This is mostly fluff, given the cost of enhancing multiple weapons.

-At 6th the ability to reduce the severity of fear effects.

-At 8th the ability to take 10 foot steps instead of 5 foot steps.

-At 10th Evasion, but for Fortitude Saves (Note: This never comes up).

-At 12th, the sohei thing where they can always act in the surprise round.

-At 14th, they actually get some unique combat stuff (people can't Acrobatics through their threatened squares and allies no longer provide enemies cover).

-At 16th they can tell the BAB and HP of anyone they see (Note: Slayers have a Talent to do the HP part as early as 2nd level).

-At 18th, they get the Kensai 19th level ability where you're never unaware or flat-footed and always roll a 20 on initiative.

Now...not a single one of those gives a bonus to attack, damage, or AC.

Some of the higher level ones in my fix, specifically improve the Fighter's combat abilities indirectly (winning initiative, 10 foot steps, people not being able to avoid your AoO), but not an more than some Paladin spells do.

None of the other fix I mention effects combat prowess much at all (except Will Saves).

Lots of Fighter fixes are like those, adding cool stuff, but not necessarily anything that directly helps the stuff Fighters already do well, just stuff that adds to other areas that they're lacking in.

In short: The point of most Fighter Fixes is to make their weaknesses less glaring, not to add to areas where they are already strong.

Liberty's Edge

andreww wrote:
They get all of the key social skills as class skills so don't need to waste traits gaining them and can just make use of student of philosophy. The best Psychic disciplines are wisdom based which also makes them decent at sense motive. They cover knowledges easily enough and as full casters can cover any missing bases with spells.

Ah. Yeah, Psychic works fine if willing to do casting rather than physical combat.

Liberty's Edge

The Mortonator wrote:
Good point, but I guess I just kinda figured they are so SAD you might as well pick up Cha. It's not like you really need anything besides Dex (Which doesn't nearly everyone?) and Con.

To be good, they need a lot of both Dex and Con (generally 16+ in both), though, and they have mediocre skill points and bad Will Saves, meaning they can't dump Int or Wis...which leaves Str and Str alone to dump for Cha...and maybe a Cha of 12. And they have no social skills as Class skills at all.

They're not really MAD, but they aren't SAD either.

Liberty's Edge

Grey Lensman wrote:
I've seen too many of what might be called social encounters that don't involve the cha based skills - once the NPC is on the group's side, those skills aren't as important anymore.

Actually...you still need Diplomacy to request favors of even the friendliest people.

Grey Lensman wrote:
Plus I have GM's who rule that shared interests often trump sheet numbers. Two people who share a love for ancient civilizations (or sailing, or anything else in common, really) might hit it off better than one of them and the diplomancer no matter what diplomacy numbers say.

The thing about this is that it's entirely GM fiat. Anyone can do anything with GM fiat, so talking about it in the context of 'I want to be capable of doing X' isn't very useful.

After all, the Diplomacy guy might be the one with a shared love for ancient civilizations just as easily as the one without. If it's the guy without, both get to participate (since Diplomacy is useful as is the connection), but if the guy with Diplomacy is also the one with the connection the other guy can't manage much of anything.

andreww wrote:
The Psychic gets them as well.

Gets what? There are partially Charisma based Psychics, it's true, who might do as well as a Lore Shaman.

Grey Lensman wrote:

Plus any hybrid caster with the right spells can fake the skills.

<waves hand> I am your beeesssst friend.....

<blank stare> You are my beeesssst friend....

Not in practice. Spell-casting is obvious and anyone who saves knows that someone tried to mind control them making this an extraordinarily risky tactic when dealing with level-appropriate opposition.

There are some ways around these issues to some degree, but they're expensive and generally require maxing out Bluff anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Seannoss wrote:

For my next campaign I am considering limiting the full caster classes ( anything with 9 spell levels). The draconic method is by completely eliminating them but more realistically I will convert them all to six level progression.

Per the title, what effects will this have on the world and the game that aren't obvious?

I wouldn't try and convert them. There are already Classes with 6-level casting from whatever 9-level list you want, and they get other features as well. So unless you're tossing on a lot of extra Class Features to the new version of Wizard, I'd strongly advise just banning the 9-level casters.

It's also a lot less work.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mortonator wrote:
Personally, I kinda view Kineticist as having "6th level casting." I mean, obviously you don't. In some ways you have 9th level spells and in other ways you are far weaker. But I feel like they are closest to 6th level casters, just a question of if the "list" is good for an all rounder.

Oh, I'd agree that Kineticists meet that portion of the qualifications (or come close enough for government work). It's point #4 they fail on completely and profoundly.

Unless going Overwhelming Soul, of course, in which case the limitations they operate under make them effectively fail #3 (and not be a very effective character at all).

Liberty's Edge

I'm betting on a named character dying, but probably not Daisy, Coulson, Fitz, Simmons, or May (the original team).

Liberty's Edge

Endency wrote:
Is sneak attack a rider effect? Or do I get to add my sneak attack damage when trying to overcome Dr?

It's not a rider. It adds directly and can help overcome DR.

Endency wrote:
Does bleed counter fast healing? Bleed says it needs magical healing or a heal check to stop and fast healing is described at accelerated natural healing.

RAW is slightly unclear on this point (see here).

That said, James Jacobs (who, while not a rules source, is a pretty experienced GM) strongly advises that it should work for reasons of simplicity. I'd agree with that.

Liberty's Edge

Grey Lensman wrote:
Let me add and addendum to point 4 (call it 4a) - being an Int based class, especially if your class covers the other bases already. You might lose out on social skills, but you should make up for it in other skill checks.

I disagree. In order to be an 'all-rounder'you really need to be able to participate effectively in social stuff.

Now, Int characters can do that with Student of Philosophy in theory, but lacking any social Class Skills tends to make it tricky (except for Investigator, as I mentioned previously, plus see below).

David knott 242 wrote:
Surprisingly, the Medium also meets these criteria. He appears to be only a 4-level caster, but on days that he channels the Archmage or the Hierophant, he becomes a 6-level caster and gets to choose his spells (very limited in number) for the day. The basic class chassis easily meets the other three criteria.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about the Occult Classes at all there. Mesmerist, Medium, Occultist (with Student of Philosophy or an Enchantment Implement), and Spiritualist (with the Fractured Mind Archetype) all qualify as good all-rounders by my criteria.

Liberty's Edge

GypsyMischief wrote:
The way the Magus functions still makes me head spin a little bit, If I read the class I understand how it works, but I can never retain it to memory.

It's pretty simple. Magi get to do two really unique things:

1. They can effectively TWF with a weapon and a spell (taking -2 to hit on all attacks, but getting to cast a spell on top of all normal attacks).
2. Whenever they use a Touch spell, they can make a weapon attack instead and do both the effect of the spell and the normal weapon damage to them.

These can be combined.

They have a few other tricks (weapon enhancement, mostly), but those aren't super complex.

GypsyMischief wrote:
Also, I'm at a loss for how shape-shifting works, wildshape, form of the dragon, all of that. I'm not sure what stats change, what stays the same, it's weird to me.

The only stats that change are the ones that the spell says change. Nothing else.

You replace Natural Armor bonus, lose vision stuff, and gain special abilities from the list in the spell, plus the stat mods. You technically also lose a few other things sometimes, but generally not much and not anything too important.

EDIT: The above lined document says it better.

Liberty's Edge

Many Classes can be a good all-rounder. The basic components are as follows:

1. Being either a 3/4 BAB Class
2: Having at least 4+Int Skill Points per level (or being Int based).
3: Having at least 6-level casting
4: Either being Cha-based or having a way to use the stat you are based on for social stuff.

So, the following Classes meet those criteria:

Bard, Skald, Oracle, Inquisitor (w/Conversion), Investigator (w/Student of Philosophy and ideally Empiricist), Vigilante (several Archetypes). Shamans who dabble in Lore also have a good incentive to up Charisma and can work.

If willing to skip out on the casting, several other Classes also become very viable, but those are the basic list. If willing to skimp on skills a little and go offensive casting in combat rather than physical stuff, Sorcerer is also a viable option.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Curtin wrote:

Lol. I actually love GMing. In previous times (and still now) I have warned all my players that I suck at the rules, and they are entirely in their rights to call me out if I blow a call. Plus, for most of my gaming history I have played 1-2nd edition D&D where the rules framework was simpler and players expected a certain level of DM fiat.

While I simply adore the nigh-infinite choices Pathfinder brings to the gaming table, it also brings with it a lot of rules structure. I can wing it (I have eight-year-old PbPs on this site still going that began when 3.5 was the current rules), but I really want to get proficient with the system. Maybe I won't get to Turin the Mad, or Set level, but that's the benchmark I aspire to.

A very worthy goal. Feel free to ask whatever questions you desire. All joking aside, I at least would be happy to help. As, I suspect, would others.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the Sorcerer could use some minor retooling (4+Int skills per level, getting Bloodline spells one level earlier...basically some minor stuff to make them a closer equivalent to Oracles), but nothing too big.

Fighter, meanwhile could do with some serious and profound re-writing on a major level, way too much to go into in a sentence or two, but just starting with some actual skill options and at least 4+Int er level, as well as some additional Class Features.

For my House Rules on both (and my full version of the Fighter), see my House Rule Document and attendant Discussion Thread.

Liberty's Edge

Raylol wrote:

Using deadly aim instead of rouch attack is even worse, because you dont hit *anything*.

@Chess: Usually, you include the hit chance in damage calculations. At level 6, you hit a bit more than 2 times per round on average. A fighter will hit less, but deal much more damage per attack.

The average damage of 2d6+8 (what happens if he hits twice) is around 15.

The average damage of a 5th level Fighter with a Greatsword is 2d6+16, but only hits 2/3 of the time himself, making his average damage around 16.

Now, the fighter probably criticals more, but still, that's pretty competitive damage and scales pretty decently.

An archer Fighter might do a bit more (I'd need to pull out math), but it's not an order of magnitude better or anything. Touch Attacks are good, and get notably better as levels go up.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Kindly note that the Beast Totem archetype stacks with Unhindering Shield in all forms, and has no bearing on this talk. It's also a conduit to Pounce. It also only comes into play while raging. It's main effect is to buy off the AC penalty while raging.

It has everything to do with it, being a single thing that costs a Feat that gives equivalent AC and hasn't broken the game yet.

And it does way more than compensate for the Rage penalty.

Aelryinth wrote:
Rage Powers are also known to be directly superior to combat feats in all ways.

Sure. And it's one Rage Power and no GP to get +6 AC, whereas it takes a Feat and a lot of GP to get the same with a Feat.

Aelryinth wrote:
And yes, you can take Expanded Arcana to gain a 9th level spell, if you are a spellcaster. That feat DOES exist, and it's a favorite of very high level sorcs/oracles.

I've never seen it taken. And sure, it gives an extra spell known, but you already have 9th level spells, so it's not quite the same thing as a Feat that gives ou the ability to cast 9th level spells (which is the equivalent to what was suggested).

Aelryinth wrote:
Just so you know, that means a human FC bonus where the fighter gets a skill point or hit point, the high level sorc gets an 8th level spell. So, 8th level spell Known = 1 hit point or skill point.

Comparing FCB gets weird and doesn't really belong in a comparison of Feats.

Aelryinth wrote:
Yeah, feats are balanced, right?

Not remotely. Never said they were. I said this Feat doesn't seem to be brokenly better.

Aelryinth wrote:
The main reason we are irritated about the feat is because it makes Sword and Board useless, and totally destroys the play style. Unhindered Buckler means SAB has the same AC and does less damage or has a lower AC then EVERY other combat style. It becomes a totally idiotic style to have.

SAB should be using TWF or it was already terrible. If using TWF, it does comparatively to other TWF, which is on par with two-handing a weapon in many cases, at least on full attacks.

Aelryinth wrote:
Like I said, if you're okay that you make people who actually want to use shields irrelevant, and think that everyone who wants it should get shield AC...go ahead. It's a blatant power-up.

As noted there were several ways for a character to get a shield bonus while two-handing a weapon already. This one's a bit easier and better, but not to a broken degree.

Liberty's Edge

FedoraFerret wrote:
I hadn't seen this errata, so I'll be sure to update when I get the chance.

Cool. :)

FedoraFerret wrote:
All that being said, you're probably right. I'm of the opinion that while the summoner's spell list needed to be nerfed, that it was overnerfed, and that likely informed my decision. On my next update I'll change it to an orange rating.

Cool. :)

FedoraFerret wrote:
And here's where I can't agree with you, for one simple reason: everything you gain from Ursine Wildsoul, you can get exponentially faster with a two level dip into alchemist and the Feral Mutagen. Functionally, the only things lost are one social talent, two levels of your vigilante level scaling, one natural armor from level 18 to level 20, and access to vengeance strike (which, as a rule, I never use "you won't get your capstone" as a reason not to multiclass). In exchange, you get three more talents than Ursine does, a better bite, better claws, and a +4 strength bonus, and more natural armor for most of the career, not to mention you get that all at level 2 rather than having to wait for most of your adventuring career to slowly unlock. So no, I can't in good conscience rate an archetype that gives you a set of bonuses over 18 levels that a different class can give you all of in only 2 higher than a red.

The issue with that plan is that Mutagen lasts for 20 minutes at 2nd and takes an hour to brew. That's...enough to be a boost in one or two fights, but not nearly sufficient for a full day's usage. The Natural Attacks from Ursine Wildsoul are available at-will forever, and thus sufficient to actually make a build around them.

I'm not saying it's a great archetype. It isn't, it's only okay, but it's not readily duplicatable in the way you're saying.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
And actually, the Viking Archetype allows exactly what you describe (Beast Totem + Fighter). For reference.
So as I thought another comparison of class features with feats. Viking archetype, loses weapon training, armor training, and gains rage. Basically it's cross-breed between barbarian and fighter, and this is distinctive ARCHETYPE, not some feat that every fighter can have.

Given that my other two points actually address the complaint you made, and this one was more of an amusing aside, I'm very interested in the fact that you only responded to this one.

Indeed, given that cherry picking what to respond to seems to be a pattern with you (which is why I'm responding after all this time) I don't think debate with you is gonna be productive, and will not be engaging in it any more. I advise others to do the same.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Those are both Class Abilities that can be purchased as Feats.
Can you please specify a feat that grants Rage Power of 6th level barbarian for a fighter? Probably I've missed a really powerful feat over there.

That would be why I followed up with the Weapon Specialization reference. To make it clear they were still Class specific.

Though, as stated, Defensive Weapon Training is a Fighter thing...

And actually, the Viking Archetype allows exactly what you describe (Beast Totem + Fighter). For reference.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Ok, now we started to compare feats with class abilities. What's next? Feats with 9th level spells?

Those are both Class Abilities that can be purchased as Feats. They're as valid an example as Weapon Specialization.

What Feat gets you 9th level spells, again?

Liberty's Edge

There are no official stats, as he's not an official iconic.

You'll just need to make some up.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I would say a degree is around a +10 bonus. You can take 10 to get most hard topics, and roll to try and get the hardest. Research at a library improves that chance.

Knowledge wrote:
Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

For a Professor who's actually good at their job, I'd agree with a +10. For the guy who just squeaked by with a PHD? Maybe a bit less. For some random guy who Majored in it? More like the aforementioned +5.

1 to 50 of 9,629 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.