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

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,740 posts (6,933 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

LazarX wrote:
But it IS the one you cited, I'm just pointing out that there are things that make Sandpoint quite unrepresentative of a generic town of it's given size. Enough to actually put it on the map in the literal sense.

Sure, you're totally right (though I still say that noting a town as big as Sandpoint could afford one is vaguely relevant)...but that's sorta immaterial to the argument at this point given I have additional references for small towns with schools.

Andoran

Neros wrote:

So there is no difference between a good person worshipping a good god from a good person not worshipping a good god? They both will go to heaven.

But what is the "perks" then for worshipping a god?

In Hell or the Abys, I seem to recal that they are thrown so fare down the orderladder, that they become things that don't even remember their former life. So there is a risk there..

Well, this is sorta one of the core differences between Good and Evil:

Good people help each other out because, y'know, it's the right thing to do. Ditto Good Gods. Evil people help someone out only if there's a personal connection or it's to their benefit. Ditto Evil Gods.

So, Good Gods are nice to Good people of the same Alignment even if they aren't followers of the god in question...while the same cannot be said for Evil Gods.

Neros wrote:
We have discussed that maybe people simply stay in the Boneyard til they have come to terms with the fact: "Thats how the system works.. Deal with it or stay.."

This is actually sorta true, but all you have to accept is the cycle itself, not the worship of any deity whatsoever.

Andoran

Per the article on this in Mummy's Mask...they go to whichever Plane suits their alignment like everyone else not specifically devoted to a God with an alignment different from theirs. Souls that reject the whole idea of the cycle of souls are in trouble, but atheists are treated just like everyone else.

So that's the official word on the subject, I think.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brawler/Ninja (Scout) with Pummeling Style is a surprisingly nasty gestalt, and very appropriate thematically. At level 10, they can have Invisible Blade and be even scarier. Makes a very solid primary damage dealer, with decent skills to boot, and poison if he wants it. Can flurry with shuriken if he needs a ranged attack...or just wants to make, like, five attacks with poisoned shuriken.

Slayer (Vanguard)/Investigator is also pretty nasty (+6 each to to-hit and damage at 8th level, make that +8 each at 10th, starting the second round at the latest), and has some very nice thematic synergy as well. With Infusion, he can also be the group's healer, and with sky-high Int and Teamwork Feats he's their leader and mastermind to boot. Toss on Student of Philosophy (and Empiricist if you're skipping poison) and he's their face, too. You could also use the Mastermind Archetype for flavor, if you wished.

For the third, you could go with almost anything. Lore Warden/Tetori is probably the most brutal non-caster I can think of off the top of my head...but that's likely an insta-kill all by itself, and thus excessive.

If you really want a third guy with poison, an Alchemist (Vivisectionist)/Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager) would both have that, and be vicious as hell. So maybe go with that. The three together wind up pretty frightening on a number of levels, actually...

Andoran

Dug from Up (the talking is clearly an item, it doesn't effect how smart he is). Ditto Kevin.

Flipper, in whatever you see him in.

Sven, from Frozen.

Maximus from Tangled (who's more competent than the protagonists in many ways).

Disney movies in general (and many from Pixar) are a good source for these, actually...

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Also, if your plan is to murder your own companion in order to gain personal power, I hope that your starting alignment involves the word "evil." Killing a friend to beef yourself up is pretty much cut and dry evil, not even a shades of gray area.

Even deliberately engineering situation where your companion could die, or refusing to help it, or sending it into overly deadly situations - basically trying to get it killed - is an evil act. The creature is your friend.

I guess if you played normally and the companion happened to die, it's not evil to not seek out a new one. That's the only situation where I would find this plan morally acceptable.

Uh...you are aware that this plan only works with a Vermin Companion, right? Y'know, the mindless ones who are no more intelligent than the normal sized versions? So...this is precisely morally on par with killing your pet ant in real life. Is that enough to make someone Evil? I'm gonna go with a 'hell no'.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
A blind man who can see is your favorite superhero?

Speaking as a fan of Daredevil. Daredevil isn't cool because of his power, he's cool because he's cool.

Saying he can't be because his power is less than spectacular is like saying Batman sucks because he doesn't have powers...that's just not how it works.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:

RAW this does not work.

FAST HEALER
Benefit: When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1).

The fast healing ability is neither recovery by resting nor magical healing.

Actually...Vermin Focus is Supernatural and thus magical, so this is not as clear cut as all that, though I'm not sure if I'd allow it personally.

Andoran

No, but if you don't your Animal Companion doesn't advance with Druid levels. So...a Hunter 2/Druid 4 who takes the Domain option on Nature Bond has only a 2nd level Animal Companion.

Andoran

Mikaze wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Kaer Maga would certainly be the best fit, considering the inspiration.

But it should be a book set in whatever city that Paizo most wants to do as a "city adventure" locale.

Absalom might "cast the widest net" there. It's totally selfish but I'd love to see such a book hit for Kintargo right before Hell's Rebels, considering how RP heavy that AP is gonna be. :)

I would be happy with any or all of these options. Seriously. Any or all.

Mikaze wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Hmmm, I haven't gotten a postcard from Uncle Xanxost in quite a while. I wonder what he's up to lately.

My favorite piece of Xanxost artwork was captioned: "Planar scholar Xanxost performing field research on planar life"

The image was just this slaad beating a vrock with a rock. :)

God yes, that image and Xanxost in general made the Tanar'ri section of that book for me in many ways.

Man, my Planescape nostalgia is kicking in really hard, now. Indeed, my temptation to run a Planescape Pathfinder game is rising...

Andoran

You might as well ask how 6 level casting and no casting somehow combine into 6 level casting. The answer is that Skalds are much closer mechanically to Bards than Barbarians, so they round up on the spells and down on the hit dice. If they were more Martial in nature they'd likely have d10 HD and full BAB, as well as notably less spells, but that's simply not the case.

Andoran

Lemmy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Does Verminous Hunter stack with Feral Hunter?

Because Feral Hunter is the one thing I like about Hunters.

EDIT: It doesn't... Too bad. Oh, well... I guess dipping a single level of Hunter then killing the Animal Companion for continuous Fast Healing and permanent Lesser Fortification is still a good idea...

You can also just go Verminous Hunter + Divine Hunter and murder your Companion then never get another. Having a Domain plus two of the Vermin Focuses constantly on you probably isn't quite as good as some other options, but as an Archer with Worm and later Ant focuses...it's not actually bad.
Hunter 1/ Barbarian X sounds fun. Get a domain, kill a cat, get fast healing.

It's actually a giant spider, not a cat. And sadly, that doesn't work since you don't get the Domain until 3rd. Still, Hunter 1 for Fast Healing and Lead Blades, plus the ability to use Wands of CLW on one's friends is no bad deal...

Andoran

No, it's very consistent:

Alchemy as Alchemists do it is always magical, and it is never spellcasting.

It's a supernatural ability with all that implies. Take a look at it.

Andoran

Ethics and Morals have a much fuzzier distinction than you seem to think. I've heard each referred to as both internal beliefs about right and wrong and externally applied codes of behavior...with which is which depending on the speaker.

So...even if you want to argue one being the objectively correct definition, that means nothing about which the creator of the item was using. Making the item's name meaningless for purposes of determining this.

Andoran

Lemmy wrote:

Does Verminous Hunter stack with Feral Hunter?

Because Feral Hunter is the one thing I like about Hunters.

EDIT: It doesn't... Too bad. Oh, well... I guess dipping a single level of Hunter then killing the Animal Companion for continuous Fast Healing and permanent Lesser Fortification is still a good idea...

You can also just go Verminous Hunter + Divine Hunter and murder your Companion then never get another. Having a Domain plus two of the Vermin Focuses constantly on you probably isn't quite as good as some other options, but as an Archer with Worm and later Ant focuses...it's not actually bad.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get the impression that his money is in common enough usage in the area that it alone wouldn't have been good evidence, it was the fact that the Hobgoblin talked, pointing at him on the money, that was the actually damning part.

Especially since he expected her to die, leaving no one of status to accuse him. Heck, even with the evidence she's got, I suspect she won't be able to prove anything in a court of law. And he seems the type to not even consider the idea that she or her people might go vigilante to get him. I mean...break the law overtly? Unthinkable!

Andoran

Yep. You lose out on actually having the companion, but it certainly works.

Andoran

Orthos wrote:
I can think of many times I'd want to play a Sorc over an Arcanist. The obvious one being wanting to play a more Charisma-focused character. More spells is another option. Fuller access to bloodlines, and not having to pay for them, is a third.

That third isn't really applicable due to the Blood Arcanist Archetype.

The others are potentially legitimate, though.

Andoran

Zaister wrote:

Never actually cared for Planescape and the abrasive tone of those books at all. Also the ugly cartoonish DiTerlizzi artwork. I've hated that product line right from the start. And Sigil itself simply never made any sense at all to me.

So, no, thanks.

Arguing with this isn't really the point of this thread, so much as I disagree entirely, I won't.

However, your point also has pretty much nothing to do with the point of this thread: The suggestion was that Paizo make a thorough and interesting book of NPCs with detailed profiles of said NPCS, not that they imitate Planescape's style...so this post has nothing to do with the thread's topic.

Andoran

That's a really poor stat setup for combat.

Additionally, you have basically no need for Wisdom, since Empiricist replaces it completely for everything but Saves, and you've got a good Will Save anyway.

And, as noted, Int 20 is really excessive for anyone but a Wizard.

Personally, for stats, I'd go with something like this if you really want Weapon Finesse (which isn't strictly necessary):

Str 14 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 18 Wis 11 Cha 16

Then upping Dex at 4th level, obviously.

But I'd probably go with the non-Weapon Finesse (and ever so slightly less sociable) version of:

Str 19 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 18 Wis 11 Cha 14

You could swap Wis and Cha for more Will Save if you use your Feat for Extra Traits and grab Student of Philosophy as one of your Traits (I'd switch to Sacred Tattoo and grab Fate's Favored for the other one, personally).

In either case, you'll do a lot better at combat and several other things than your current setup.

In terms of Talents, it sounds like you've got a good plan, though I'm highly doubtful of Trap Spotter's viability unless you run into a whole lot of traps. I'd also be inclined to spend at least a couple Feats on Extra Investigator Talent (Expanded Inspiration, Underworld Inspiration, and Sickening Offensive are really excellent). The latter is obviously easier if you're going the strength route, since the only Feat you really need then is Power Attack at 3rd, rather than the laundry list you need for a Dex build.

Andoran

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
Yeah...that was mostly for effect. My post and your response took up the entire space so i have start a fresh message.

Cool, sounds reasonable. :)

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
1. Archetypes and feats- There are some that are fine but I dislike those fighter ones. First gives up wep. training for the "I have whatever feat i want" ability i dislike, the second give up my favorite fighter ability for mutagen.

Sure...but that's a personal dislike, not a balance issue.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
2. The Arcanist- They don't get less spells, they get the same number as the wizard but a level later. Metamixing cost 1 point (pool 3+lv) to add any 1 metamagic feat to any spell wihtout adjusting it's level. I belive the wizard can do this once a day at 8th lv. Now look at any of the damaging abilities for wizard, cleric and sorcerer, it's fairly constantly 1d6+1/2 lv. The arcanist is 1d6 per 2 lvs + cha mod WITH a secondary effect. I do not see that as being even.

Actually...with School Bonus spells, they do get less spells. Ditto domain for Clerics.

And as for the damaging abilities...those used by the Cleric or Wizard take nothing away from their other capabilities, while the Arcanist's very much does. They're effectively burning what costs a 1st level spell slot to replace on it...and it's really worse than most 1st level spells most of the time.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
3. The Bloodrager- ...oops...How did i miss the HD...Now on the subject of rage powers, I'd agree...IF they didn't have an archetype that could replace CERTAIN bloodline powers with rage powers. Its worded so you can choose when you get bloodline ability and when you get rage powers. It lets you pick and choose, unlike nearly every other archetype.

Sure, but it's also worded so you can't get the Extra Rage Power Feat, and that's a pretty big disadvantage. Plus all the others I listed. There was a thread where I went into this in more detail.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
4. Brawler- Like i said, pending play time. On the subject of scaling dice...i just hate it, i hated it in 3.0, i hate it now, and I'll probably hate it until i quit the game. It jut bugs me to no end, ooh..."2d10 +4 way better that 1d8 +14"

That's fair. Again, though, it's a personal dislike, not a good reason to ban a Class.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
5 Investigator- No the one you listed is not only fine, I really like it. I mean the ones that let you, as long as you have a point, NOT spend it to use inspiration on a skill. Minor nitpick.

Uh...Expanded Inspiration does precisely that.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
6. Shaman- This make me happy.

Me, too. :)

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
7. Skald- It's buffing seems alright...but i'd rather have a regular bard any day better bonus to hit and damage AND no penalty to ac. (Id get more into it but i'm getting tired)

Eh, -1 AC isn't bad, and giving Rage Powers to everyone is fabulous.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
8. Slayer-.

?

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
9. Bucked Swash- It's all over the place. SOME ABSOLUTE GARBAGE and other things that seem to good, but you have to agree that they are getting a formerly 10th lv ability at lv 1. That's the other, thing why are the just getting a crudy version of the paladin's divine grace?

Yeah...it's a bit odd. The Parry thing is admittedly cool, though.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
10 Warpriest- first...let me get this out of the way...MORE SCALING DICE!...Okay...I'm good. Sacred weapon is alright, minus...that. Fervor, at first glace, it's a watered down lay on hands, BUT it's actually a swift action buff like bullstr, haste, heroism, ect. Sacred armor, mostly fine to. Blessings, i could go through and cherry pick the ones that i don't like but that would defecate the purpose. This is one of the things that really bug me.

That doesn't sound like sufficient reason to ban it. Especially given how limited Fervor is.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
-EVERYBODY'S a fighter. Brawler, swashbuckler, warpreist. All three of them are getting fighter feats. Either the fighter is unique and almost nobody should be getting these...or...they're not, so paladin, caviler, and gunslinger should have a similar option. When the figher levels were tied into an archetype, it wasn't so bad. But now figher only feats are limied to figters, magus at 1/2 level, samurai, swashbucklers, warpriests, a lot of monks, and brawlers. I know it was originally just a hold over from 3.5 but...i kinda miss it. *eyes tear*

Eh...again, this seems a vague reason to dislike a particular Class, never mind ban it.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.

Lots of people can buff and attack in one way or another. And the Strength Blessing doesn't stack with weapon enhancement bonuses, limiting it's awesomeness somewhat. Also, it takes a Swift action, too, limiting how many bonuses you can get er round.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
*edit* I didn't realize you were the same person...oops...

No worries. :)

Andoran

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
All but the Arcanist and Bloodrager do deserve a fair bet more scrutiny. For the previously listed, it is exactly what i said.

Generally a good policy.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The acranist's class abilities FAR outstrip any of the wizard/sorcerer's in damage, utility and number of usages. NOT ONLY THAT but they cast at the same rate and list as the sorcerer. What reason does anyone have to play a sorcerer or wizard now other then flavor?

Wizards? Lots. Getting every new level of spells a level sooner and School Powers plus Arcane Discoveries and extra spell slots from Arcane School all provide significant advantages. Arcane Exploits are probably on par with all that, mind you, but not flat out better or anything like that.

Sorcerers? Casting more spells a day...but that's about it, and probably not sufficient reason. On the other hand, there were few reasons to play one rather than a Wizard anyway.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The Bloodrager is also one I refuse to see at a table again. I went and compared it to the normal barbarian SIDE BY SIDE. They lose trap sense and rage powers to gain spell casting off of a very good list of melee support spells and bloodline powers and feats. This IS NOT an even trade.

As I noted previously, they also lose a lot of other stuff that makes Barbarians really good (most obviously but least significantly d12 hit dice).

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
Warpreist is a gut reaction.

Based on what?

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
I feel like the only reason this wasn't a waste of money was so I'll be prepared to tell my players "NO" to half o this book.

Really? That's a rather silly attitude.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
First I was disappointed with how the book was formatted. Several feats and abilities seem overly wordy. I came across many spelling and grammatical errors, but the only one coming to me now is in the 7th level ability for one of the archetypes that cuts off before it tells you what it replaces.

It's 9th level actually. And on this point I agree whole-heartedly. There are some very serious editing issues with this book.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
NEXT, on the subject of archetypes, we only get 1 or 2 for each pre-existing classes. Most are useless. Same problem with feats.

I dunno about that, many of the archetypes and Feats are quite good indeed (the Fighter archetypes for example, are very nice).

Divine Protection is exceedingly overpowered of course, but it's the exception, not the rule.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
NOW FOR THE REAL PROBLEM. THE NEW CLASSES!

Okay. Noted.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
1. The Arcanist- I was very PRO-arcanist when talking to my friends before it came out. The problem is NOT the prep/spontaneous combo. Arcane exploits are amazingly powerful. The ability to add metamagic to spells w/o adjusting level, damaging abilities better then ANY others and many spells, and recharge by spending unneeded spells.They are now #1 on my "never see play in my games" list. (Originally #1 was gunslinger mostly because i just didn't like it.)

They also have fewer spells than, oh, any other 9-level caster. And worse spell progression than the Wizard. They've got some definite upsides, but there are downsides as well.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
2. The Bloodrager- Let's just build a stronger barbarian. The ONLY thing this monstrosity does NOT get from barbarian is trap sense and rage powers. What would you say if i presented an archetype that gave a barbarian spells instead of trap sense and bloodline feats and powers instead of rage powers. You'd laugh me out of the room, but that is what Paizo printed. This is on my ban list.

Eh. Bloodragers only have d10 HD, also Rage Powers are awesome, and even let you steal some of the Bloodline stuff. Plus Barbarians have the Extra Rage Power Feat, plus the Invulnerable Rager Archetype, plus the Human FCB to Superstition...Barbarians aren't getting overshadowed any time soon.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
3. The Brawler- Let me start by saying, I love brawler's flurry. No problem with that, moving on. Martial versatility= I HAVE ANY FEAT I NEED ANY TIME. Martial Training= FIGHTER LEVELS WITH ABSURD SCALING DICE!? Unarmed strike...I HATE SCALING DICE. Close weapon mastery...I HATE SCALING DICE. Ac bonus is mostly pointless because the right answer is shield and fist. NOW i'm flurrying with 2 weapons that deal 2d8 WITH weapon spec, AND with shield master, no penalty for 2 wep fighting. This is on my ban list for the moment, pending some real play experience.

TWF is mediocre even with those advantages, and the Class lacks anything resembling the Fighter's weapon training or the other bonuses to hit beyond BAB every other full-BAB class gets. And the ability to get any Feat is indeed cool, but not the end of the world or anything.

Also...chill out about the scaling dice, man.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
4. The Hunter- OP animal companion by animal companion standards, but other then that mostly okay. I love the teamwork abilities.

Uh...the Animal Companion being more powerful is sorta the point. That's what the class is for.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
5. The investigator- Again mostly fine. I don't LIKE the ability to NOT spend inspiration to add bonuses from certain talents but it's not to bad.

You mean like Expanded Inspiration? What's wrong with those? The ability to add bonuses to bunches of skills is part of the class's appeal.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
6. The Shaman- In my mind the best class in the book. Not absurdly over powered, but not to weak it can;t stand out. I loved hexes from the beginning but hated the witch. This is what i hoped all the classes would be i this book, blending ideas from 2 classes to make a unique feeling class that neither overshadows or is overshadowed by it's possessors.

Agreed. Shaman is cool.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
7. The Skald- I don't even know...They tried? This thing fails as a barbarian, as a bard and worst of all, it fails as it's own idea. It feels like the cut out the charts for bard and barbarian and just threw them on a page with now rhyme or reason for their blend. Spell kening is an awesome idea for a bard...not this.

Skald is awesome, and pretty coherently put together. It's a buffing Class and not a straight combat match for a Barbarian, but it's a good one.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
8. The Slayer- "Into every generation a slayer is born: one girl in all the world, a chosen one. She alone will wield the strength and skill to fight the vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness; to stop the spread of their evil and the swell of their number. She is the Slayer." Okay, enough joking. This class is pretty good, no major complaints.

Agreed once more.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
9. The Swashbuckler- I can't help but love it. My first character was a dexy, rapier-wielding charming jerk... Now on to legit concerns. Adding level (or 2xLevel) to damage ON TOP OF wep spec and wep training seems like a lot...but that may be because the can't 2-weapon fight and power attack like a fighter could...Parry repose is an amazing and flavorful ability that NORMALY couldn't be obtained until 10th level and requires you to give up one of your attacks for the round but now it's a first level ability...? I can't fairly judge this one...

It's kinda weak, actually. It does solid damage, and Parry is cool (though costing Panache is a factor), but the Saves are terrible, which is a huge weakness in a melee class.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
10. The Warpreist- ...NO! Banned.

Uh...why? They're underpowered if anything.

Andoran

Dragonchess Player wrote:
Duskblade wrote:
Skald-This class really just feels like an archetye to me. I will admit that it does have some unique qualities, but the archetypes all feel very watered down, and it doesn't really different from your standard battle bard. 6/10
One thing to keep in mind with the skald (Inspired Rage): "If an ally has her own rage class ability (such as barbarian's rage, bloodrager's bloodrage, or skald's inspired rage), she may use the Strength, Constitution, and Will saving throw bonuses, as well as the AC penalties, based on her own ability and level instead of those from the skald (still suffering no fatigue afterward)." The character with a rage ability still has to activate their rage to use rage powers, bloodcasting, or bloodrager bloodlines in that round, but this still increases the number of "rage" rounds per day significantly, making a skald one of the best party members to have around for a barbarian or bloodrager (or any archetype that grants a rage feature of some sort).

Totem-stacking, or non Primalist Bloodragers taking advantage of the Skald's Rage powers are also very possible and potentially very effective.

Andoran

Mattastrophic wrote:

At the risk of sounding nitpicky, deadman, I would remove land from your example. Land can often be worked, and crops can be grown from it. A landowner can also charge rent for living on his or her land. Land can create an income. A cube of force, not so much.

-Matt

Actually...I disagree. Most magic items adventurers possess are a large part (at least cumulatively) of why they can take on the foes they do and thus make more money. So...they, too, can and are used to make money.

Andoran

Okay! Additional solution time. Here's a Feat for enhanced mobility:

Mobile Combatant (Combat, Panache)
You have mastered the art of moving during combat and can dance between opponents while attacking them as easily as if you and they were both standing still.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +10, and the Amateur Swashbuckler Feat or the panache class feature.

Benefit: As long as you have at least one Panache you can move up to your speed and make a full attack action without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attacks, but not between them, and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed.

If you spend one point of panache, you may move between the attacks you make, though you may still not exceed your movement speed.

Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack, nor can you move and make a full attack action.

So...that looks pretty good to me. It's better than Pounce, but it also has more prerequisites than the things that give Pounce (especially for non-Swashbucklers), and doesn't give either the bonuses or penalties of a charge.

How does that look to everyone?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dear lord yes, Uncaged was a beautiful thing, and I'm pretty sure has informed my entire style of game prep for every game since. Paizo doing an equivalent book would be wondeful and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:

Actually they often are pretty rich, especially in the later levels. Often they'll be carrying around a good chunk of gold (or trade goods like gems) while saving up for the next big purchase. Or gems for spell components.

And after every adventure there's a usually a big pile of loot, either as cash or to sold for cash. Which, regardless of the theoretical difficulties of selling magic items, is rarely more difficult than a quick trip to the nearest large city. Let the merchant worry about how to connect with the real buyers.

This is true. The analogy stands, though. We're talking about people with real wealth, but whose access to cash varies wildly, and who usually invest the cash they do have in more non-liquid investments as soon as they can arrange to get access to the non-liquid investment they want. People who invest all their money in real estate (or other assets it's hard to turn into cash) seem a valid comparison.

Andoran

Mattastrophic wrote:
What this means is that PCs are actually as wealthy as the coins in their pockets, of which, in the case of your witch, there aren't many. Once the assumption of magic items being equivalent to cash is dispelled, your average player character, turns out, is not wealthy at all.

This is sorta true, but only sorta. Their situation is a bit different from truly being poor since they do possess items of value, just not ones that are easily converted to cash. It's more like, oh, owning land. Adventurers are the guy whose money is all tied up in a piece of property or three, including a nice house and car...but who has very little cash on hand. They're theoretically rich, and people who see them know this and likely treat them as such, without necessarily having cash to spend on things.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

References to:

"The Gun is good! The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill!"

Are also entirely appropriate if one wishes to convey exactly how weird Zardoz gets almost immediately. I think referencing that quote has allowed me to convince more people to watch that movie than anything else I've done.

I may be a bad person for convincing people to watch that movie...

Andoran

Abraham spalding wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

If you want a sensible economy you can't just tweak and mend around the edges, you'd have to throw the whole thing out and start again from scratch.

One shallow example, a Wizard crafting magic items can use 500gp of components to make 1,000gp of magic items every day. Work 5 days a week 40 weeks a year and you're pulling down 100,000gp a year. At level 3.

Everyone with an Int of 11+ should be training to become a wizard. Magic items should be churned out in massive quantities. Wages of wizards should plummet.

Uh...this assumes an unlimited number of customers to buy your magic items as soon as you make them. Also, a fair amount of money to start with. Neither is a given, most especially the first.
Well technically that's the same as the real world. Plenty of businesses churn out millions of products with no guarantee of sale, just the thought that someone will come in and buy their product at some point.

True...but to do that you need serious start-up capital. I mean, if you're only getting the money you make from this and only start with 500 gp (or whatever other small number) you can't make much new stuff until you sell what you've already made.

Now, with tens of thousands of GP in start up capital, yeah, you can do this in theory (though even then, as thejeff notes, not everyone who does so will succeed)...but that doesn't quite match up with the statement "Everyone with Int 11+ should become a Wizard and make lots of money." Because that's not how that works.

Now someone could certainly employ a couple of low level Wizards cranking out the easy to build magic items and make precisely double their money if all their products are bought, but while doubling your money is very cool indeed, there's market saturation issues involved that mean very few people are gonna be able to do this, and pretty much all of them are gonna be rich to start with. Plus it's a luxury good, meaning that market saturation is gonna come pretty quick all things considered (your market is the small number of people who both want and can afford the item in question). In short, this isn't a viable business model unless you start rich, and thus is pretty much just gonna make some rich people who do it richer, rather than vastly mess up the way the economy works.

Andoran

Lemmy wrote:
It's pretty awful, actually... It's too dependent on a resource that is too scarce. It can even use its most iconic class feature without spending it.

This is mostly true. But...it's not as scarce a resource as all that, especially at higher levels. It does pretty thoroughly restrict them from the other uses of Arcane Pool except in emergencies...but that's not the end of the world, just a different way to do things.

Lemmy wrote:
At low levels, an Eldritch Scion will most likely be unable to use Spell Combat 4-6 rounds a day.

I'd expect more like 8 or so, at least with decent stats. That's not too many...but that's at 2nd level, when they're only gonna have a handful of 1st level spells anyway. It screws up the Spell Combat/Arcane Mark trick, but that just makes Maguses even burstier than they already were...which is maybe not ideal, but not the end of the world.

Lemmy wrote:
The archetype is a good idea idea, but the execution was horrible.

It's mediocre, but IMO horrible seems a stretch.

Lemmy wrote:
Worst of all... Because of this abomination, now we'll never have a good spontaneous magus archetype. :/

Eh, it could happen.

Andoran

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

If you want a sensible economy you can't just tweak and mend around the edges, you'd have to throw the whole thing out and start again from scratch.

One shallow example, a Wizard crafting magic items can use 500gp of components to make 1,000gp of magic items every day. Work 5 days a week 40 weeks a year and you're pulling down 100,000gp a year. At level 3.

Everyone with an Int of 11+ should be training to become a wizard. Magic items should be churned out in massive quantities. Wages of wizards should plummet.

Uh...this assumes an unlimited number of customers to buy your magic items as soon as you make them. Also, a fair amount of money to start with. Neither is a given, most especially the first.

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
One deeper example. Capital doesn't matter and all professions pay the same. Profession poet? Needs no capital and pays X. Profession mill owner? Needs massive capital investment and also pays X.

Actually...as of the downtime rules, especially those involving buildings, this is no longer a problem. Capital investments directly provide additional money for those who own them. So...a miller's Profession check only provides the same money as a poet's, but that assumes he's laboring in another guy's mill. If he owns the mill, he gets quite a bit more.

Andoran

Eh, much as Eldritch Scion might not be the best thing ever, I think people are seriously undervaluing it here. Gaining a full Bloodrager Bloodline with all that implies is really cool, and allows you to do some really nice stuff. It's not perfect, and perhaps not as generic as the Archetype people were hoping for, but it looks pretty darn good for some stuff. I can see all kinds of ridiculousness with a Destined Bloodline one, for example.

It is notably better if you allow Extra Arcane Pool to apply and be used with Eldritch Pool, of course...something almost certainly not technically legal. But still, very workable if you use it properly, especially at high levels.

Andoran

RJGrady wrote:
Right. I'm just saying that's four dice on every roll. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just give him a bonus of half his level to Sense Motive checks.

Eh...that's a problem with empathy (and I guess at high levels tenacious inspiration a little), not the Investigator. Those are the only two abilities the class has that involve rolling twice, and empathy is deeply unessential to the Class and can easily be done without if you dislike its mechanics. And tenacious inspiration doesn't come up to 13th level and isn't precisely essential.

In short, you'll inevitably wind up rolling 1d20+1d6 (or 1d8) on everything, and maybe 2d6 or 2d8 picking the best if you really want to, but that's hardly amazingly complicated or awkward.

Andoran

leo1925 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not everywhere, certainly...but Sandpoint has a public school, and that's not exactly a metropolis, which indicates they're probably pretty common.
Not really, in a lot of ways, including their tolerance of outsiders, it's very clear that Sandpoint is anything BUT typical for a settlement of it's size. It stands out by how much it does NOT represent the norms.

I agree.

In addition Sandpoint is Magnimar founded and funded and people in Magnimar are very anti-Korvasa (which means Cheliax) so they might go out of their way to do something that they (korvosans) don't do.
Also, iirc, in Sandpoint the public school is also an orphanage and also it happens to work well because a retired adventurer wizard happened to be there for the position.

As noted above, I've found other supporting evidence (a significantly smaller town in Taldor also having a school...run by a 4th level Expert). So...Sandpoint is not the only data point here.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Of course they fear death, but we're talking degrees of fear here. No one wants to die... until a caster is done with you. Then you're begging for it. Beyond all the horrible things a PC caster can do if they feel sadistic enough, most people have heard rumors and legends about casters in-universe. Horrible experiments, anything involving dominate/charm spells, polymorphing or fleshwarping, these people bind demons for god's sake! They could literally show you Hell itself in fact, and the devils certainly won't mercy-kill you.

If you're powerful enough that you're fighting 13th level spellcasters, odds are you can take most Devils...which means you can probably make them mercy kill you...or recruit them to your side, of course. Polymorph is a bit more of a problem...but in most ways being turned into a toad isn't that much scarier than death. Fleshwarping is...but that's if they take you alive, which is always tricky.

And besides, people in a fight usually aren't worried about what the artillery can do to them enough to ignore the guy currently trying to kill them with a sword...and even in real life, artillery has always had some serious potential to leave you begging for death in a few different ways. The probably also won't ignore protecting their own back-line of ranged or caster types from the huge guy with a sword in front of them.

Now, the enemy's artillery and other ranged options are indeed very likely to target any casters first and foremost...but the front-line, who'd need to eat attacks of opportunity and leave their own back-line undefended? Nah.

Now, if the enemy don't have a back-line, some could charge the mage in the back of the PCs, eating attacks of opportunity...but really, tactically, focusing fire is the way to go and focusing it on the guy in the front makes sense. Four Orcs are gonna be pretty sure they can take down a guy or two in one round, leaving the spellcaster only a very little time to act before they get to him. Better that than ignoring the melee guy and all going for him...some might well not even survive to get there, and even if they do and kill him, that still leaves them getting charged from behind by the guy who's probably already wounded them, plus any help he has. Being surrounded is not a great strategy.

Also...people don't always make tactically optimal choices. I've had a host off very smart players ignore the Bard buffing their enemies for several rounds while they took out the more obvious threats, despite that not being the best option tactically.

Andoran

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Mostly, your arguments come down to personal preference. But there are a couple that are actually incorrect. I doubt they'll change anything for you, but they seem worth noting.

Zolanoteph wrote:
I can't get behind the idea that a character who sings or plays the drums/lute in battle. There's not much of an argument to be made here, this is just my gut reaction. Weather it's beating the drum, singing, playing the lute, you name it. When the ogre comes crashing through the gate, you better be swinging at axe, chucking a fireball or doing something practical/cool.

That last bit? Bards do that. Nothing prevents you from stabbing people with a sword or casting spells while you Perform, and indeed Bards are expected to do so mechanically. So...they are in fact doing something awesome while singing rather than singing instead of doing it.

Zolanoteph wrote:
-Dancing: If I was angry that the bard was making me super powerful by singing, I'm furious that little Billy Elliot is tap dancing so beautifully that I become a titan in battle. I prefer not to play with musical bards, but I would outright refuse to play with a dancer.

Have you ever seen a sword-dance, or someone using Capoeira? That's more like what a combat dance looks like from a Bard, just imagine them working their foes into the pattern of their dance. I personally don't think that's silly or uninspiring at all.

There's also Comedy, where you can basically just be Spider-Man and make fun of your enemies while kicking their asses. That one's really easy to justify.

Andoran

Daring Champion is flat-out better mechanically. But really, you should go with whatever sounds like the most fun.

Andoran

RainyDayNinja wrote:
At low levels before I get my headband, I doubt I'll need more than two rounds to put an enemy down. And if I do need more time, I can just spend an inspiration to do it again.

Inspiration doesn't grow on trees...but I can see your point here, I suppose.

RainyDayNinja wrote:
Actually, I'm thinking now I might skip the mutagen, as part of avoiding the big dumb half-orc stereotype, and focus instead on talents.

That's a valid way to go. I'd definitely put more focus on Int in that case, though.

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Maybe something like this:

Half-Orc Investigator (Empiricist)
Traits: Fate's Favored, Student of Philosophy
Alternate Racial Traits: Skilled, Sacred Tattoo, Shaman's Apprentice
17/14/14/14/12/7
Gear: Greataxe, Elven Chain
1: Extra Inspiration
2:
3: Power Attack, IT: Expanded Inspiration
4: +1 Str
5: EIT: Sapping Offensive, Quick Study
6:
7: Amazing Inspiration, EIT: Sickening Offensive

I'd still skip Extra Inspiration for something else personally (Diehard and Great Fortitude for really absurd Saves leap to mind), and much more importantly, I'd go Con 12, Int 16, Wis 10.

With Empiricist, this not only gives you an extra round for Studied Combat, but +1 on a total of 17 skills, plus all the Bluff checks you care about, and makes you better at resisting illusions to boot. In exchange for a -1 each to Fort and Will Saves (and no other price paid whatsoever)...and both of those are actually gonna be solid anyway due to Sacred Tattoo.

Andoran

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kobolds have the Xenophobic language trait. Don't expect me to understand everything that goes on around here.

That's fair. I guess I should've prepped tongues today...

More seriously, that was more a pedantic note than anything else. :)

Andoran

richard develyn wrote:

Sorcery is bloodline related though, is it not?

I would have thought, entirely through my own imaginative extrapolation, that two sorcerers of the same bloodline would be more likely to create a sorcerer baby of that bloodline than say a sorcerer and a non-sorcerer. Certainly two humans (say) who do not have any of a particular bloodline in their genes cannot produce a sorcerer of that bloodline.

Richard

Eh...exposure to magic can also do it. Or just being destined to be one. Or a host of other possibilities. Being a Sorcerer, while partially genetic, has more in common with superhero origin stories (especially being an X-Men style mutant) than it does with how real-world genetics work.

LazarX wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not everywhere, certainly...but Sandpoint has a public school, and that's not exactly a metropolis, which indicates they're probably pretty common.
Not really, in a lot of ways, including their tolerance of outsiders, it's very clear that Sandpoint is anything BUT typical for a settlement of it's size. It stands out by how much it does NOT represent the norms.

That's true, but the fact that Sandpoint can afford to do it with a relatively small population implies that other medium-small towns can do it too.

EDIT: Ah, better proof! Belhaim, the town from The Dragon's Demand, is both more typical, and smaller at 388 people, and still has a listed schoolhouse. And that's in Taldor, which is more feudal (making such a thing more unlikely) so that's probably pretty typical.

Honestly, I think the Wild West (at least as portrayed in media) is a good comparison for how schools in small towns would work in Golarion. The people get together and hire a teacher, and the kids go to school and learn at least the basics like literacy, though often not a lot more. Churches of various sorts might also get involved, depending.

Andoran

Zark wrote:
The_Hanged_Man wrote:

I wonder about this. Is anyone keeping count relative to other books? I wonder if error on the cover (which admittedly is embarrassing) is biasing things.

According to Deadmanwalking the numbers of errors in this book is extraordinary high and he is usally right, especially when it comes to hard facts.

In fairness, I haven't actually counted the errors in the first printing of Ultimate Magic...but I have read and used the first printing of Ultimate Magic, and even if the number of errors in the ACG is technically not greater (and I suspect it is, for the record), their severity and relevance sure as hell are.

I used Ultimate Magic without any real confusion about much of anything...a fact that cannot be stated about the ACG. Now, I didn't use every spell in UM, so some of those might've been deeply screwed up, and didn't even try to use Words of Power, but almost none of the archetypes have anywhere close to the problems of those in the ACG, just for example, nor does the Magus Class.

So even if the absolute number of errors in the ACG is no greater, their location is more generally relevant.

Andoran

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I made a relevant post about the topic of crossbows vs. bows vs. Earth "realism" today.
It's a good post. But bows *ARE* martial and CB *ARE* simple, and thus there should be some one feat tax to use a CB just as fast as a longbow.
That said, this is actually a good point. What if we "bastardized" crossbows? As in, made them work like bastard swords. You can use them as simple weapons without penalty, but those with Martial Weapon Proficiency can use them way more effectively.

To reiterate: This is what I did.

Andoran

wraithstrike wrote:

Yes. A weapon could have martial and simple expertise. Those who are barely trained like a commoner or wizard take one move action to fire the crossbow, but someone with martial expertise get to use the weapon as if they already had rapid reload.

PS: This might be the best 30 second idea I have ever had. I might even try the martial vs simple expertise in a home game.

This is actually what I do with crossbows, more or less, though I don't have a fancy name for it. :)

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I've always liked the "Weapon Groups" idea, personally, but...well, it seems like in practice, a lot of those sorts of house rules don't end up getting used. Kinda like how I rarely hear about Golarion-based games where the GM actually does declare spaceships non-canon.

EDIT: Note that this isn't a criticism or whatever. This whole thread was initially made to brainstorm solutions to the perceived paradox, after all—I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and say house rules are futile. I'm just reflecting on my own experience: You get all these cool ideas and realize it's just gonna confuse and scare off players.

Then again, I barely get to play "live-action" Pathfinder at all, so maybe that's my problem. :P

I think it depends on the nature of the House Rules whether they're likely to scare players off. My 8-page House Rule document hasn't scared off anyone yet, for example...but those are mostly what I like to think of as 'low-impact' house rules. They're a Feat added here and there, or changed slightly, or a particular rule or class or class ability changed in a very specific way (I let people use their choice of Charisma or Wisdom to will Saves, for example, and give Sorcerers and Fighters 4+Int mod skills per level)...not big changes to the basic way the game functions.

Basically, a person reading the character sheets from my PC group unfamiliar with my House Rules would likely think their Will Saves were off, think the Sorcerer had too many skills, and maybe think they'd missed a Feat or two...but they wouldn't actually be confused by much of anything. That's low-impact House Rules.

High-Impact House Rules, like the weapon group thing, are, I think, much more likely to drive people off...which would be one reason I usually avoid them.

On the other hand, I also run a number of different games in different systems for more or less the same group of people...so I might be getting some confirmation bias there. Still, even the guy who knew Pathfinder and joined the group specifically because he was looking for a Pathfinder game never expressed any problems with my style of House Rules, and their low-impact nature allows for discussions of my game on these forums with only occasional mention of them, which is also quite handy.

Andoran

the secret fire wrote:

I guess now would probably be a good time to note that I have serious mechanical issues with Bards which are completely separate from flavor issues I have with the class. Simply put: the D&D/PF social skills system is badly broken, and the Bard is the worst offender in exploiting the weaknesses in that system. I don't guess I should have to come up with examples for some of the ridiculous Diplomacy or Bluff bonuses a well-build Bard can come up with - bonuses which, if not controlled by Rule 0 (always the sign of a poor design decision), simply break the game by making the whole universe love, worship, and implicitly trust the Bard.

Also troubling to me is the idea of players building a Bard and then deciding "I'm going to be the party face". Social interaction is a good 50% of my games, sometimes more, and I can't abide by any one PC hugely overshadowing the rest in that field. I find that Bard PCs tend to do just that, often to the point that it saps the fun out of social situations for the other players.

Okay, see, I feel like that's pretty reasonable. I haven't actually had either problem personally, but I can see where they could easily be distinct issues in some games with some players.

For the first problem, I'd probably suggest overhauling how social skills work rather than singling out the Bard, but then the Orc Barbarian in my current game has maxed out Diplomacy, so I suspect my group's not typical in regards to how they interact with social skills.

Andoran

Simon Legrande wrote:
As you're keen on saying, not precisely. You're reading something into it that wasn't said, probably because you have a different opinion of the bard class.

Eh. Maybe so, but if it wasn't intended, that's still the way it came across to me and several others. A "that's not what I meant at all" post would be sufficient to dispel that, but until then, I have to go with responding to what was actually said.

Simon Legrande wrote:
In the interest of not getting this locked by a certain moderator who comes after me often, I'll let the original guy stick up for himself from here on out.

Uh...noted, I guess.

Andoran

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Popping in to say A+

Thanks!

Always glad to hear people like my solutions. :)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Funny, I saw someone say that he didn't like the bard class for reasons. I didn't see him say that anyone who likes bards is silly and playing wrong.

Not precisely, but there's certainly an implication in saying Bards are inherently silly, which was said.

Simon Legrande wrote:
Once it was posted that he thinks bards are silly, a number of bard fans jumped in to tell him that he's playing/viewing bards wrong.

Not precisely. My post at least was more "That's a very narrow view of Bards, much like saying a Slayer could never be a sneak-thief, only an assassin. Or any other Class only fill very specific roles." Followed by examples of Bards that broke with that stereotype.

It's not about one way of playing it being wrong, it's about advocating allowing players to play however they'd like without being trapped by the GM's definition of a Class's flavor.

Simon Legrande wrote:
I personally don't care one way or the other. When I GM I let people make whatever they want to make. But, I'm not going to tell people that if they view a class in a way that I don't they're doing it wrong.

Except that that's exactly what people are doing who ban a class because it's 'silly'. They're saying that serious interpretations of the class aren't valid.

Andoran

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Does it work for Inquisitors like that, though? The ability specifically calls out "slayer class features," not just "class features." And there's no rule that changes your inquisitor class features into slayer class features.

Indeed. Adding to Inquisitor Save DCs is not something Studied Target does, either RAW or IMO RAI.

1 to 50 of 6,740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.