Grappling may be a fun option. You can use bite attacks while grappling an opponent, and if you go for the claws feat you'll always be wielding no weapons for the purpose of grappling. Good times.
Search Posts
Bear with me here, but I think stealth as an invisibility buff isn't really a bad thing. Mechanically, stealth in the traditional sense has a lot of problems in an online game (as pointed out by Ryan Dancy). Simply being able to turn invisible would make a lot of things easier (and ultimately even more fun) for stealth characters. Think for example about trying to remain traditionally "hidden" in an mmo. Assuming there are fifty people near you making opposed perception checks, several of them will surely pass. Not to mention all the programming needed- what counts as cover? How does the game design team prevent all sorts of irritating cover glitches? I could see stealth as a skill: Maybe a character with enough ranks in stealth can go invisible when no one is within X distance, but move at half speed. Eventually these penalties would be reduced until some characters could eventually hide in plain sight. Make no mistake, there have to be checks and balances for invisibility, such as spells and items that reveal hidden creatures. But overall I think it could work. Thematically, I like the idea of rogues and other stealth oriented characters being magically gifted. To me it makes sense that in a world of magic, rogues type characters could just blink out of sight and go unseen. Casting fireballs and other less subtle magic is decidedly un-rogue-like, but casting invisibility or something like it seems right up their alley to me.
I'm not sure how discussion of resource depletion was covered, but I think that in a sandbox game the mass harvesting of wood should deplete patches of forest. This would have two awesome benefits: 1) The natural depletion of resources will be a realistic and natural source of conflict between nations, cities, etc. Wood fuels nations but the need for wood fuels war. 2) The amount of forest depletion has to be kept in check. If characters like druids, rangers and woodland barbarians have an incentive to preserve their forests, this will create a fascinating new faction: The tree huggers. Whether you love them or just love killing them, nature oriented factions could be awesome if they had a real incentive to fight deforestation. My 2 cents on lumber.
Historically entire dynasties have been balanced on the edge of assassins' blades. Ideas... I have an idea too. Respawn!
I'd love to see dire bats and other suitable flying mounts in the game. Plea over.
I just don't get what this means- I see a lot of creatures who's special abilities simply say "Con Based DC"- Take the giant spider's poison for example. I don't know what this means and I can't see an explanation anywhere. Is the DC something like 10+the animal's con modifier or something?
+1 I especially like the mention of the archaeologist. Singing in battle versus doing something useful will be the difference between my character approving of you or killing you on sight.
PvP isn't the whole game by any means, but it's such a fundamental aspect of online MMO's that I'm surprised it hasn't been covered by the blogs yet. There's a lot that I'd love to see addressed: 1) Will there by attempts to promote "tanking"? In other words, will savy tanks be able to knock opponents down or otherwise prevent enemies from destroying the squishies? Games like WoW have simple "aggro" mechanics which it relies on in PVE situations, but PVP is a chaotic because aggro doesn't effect PC's. I think if PFO executes martial classes well, they'll be able to disrupt other player characters or keep them engaged. 2) How will friendly fire be handled?
Wait... I can put a siege weapon on my beetles' back? How would that work?
:( :(
Could this work? I want to make a gnomish inquisitor who rides a giant beetle companion (animal domain). I was thinking of giving the guy full plate proficiency, a nice beefy shield and a repeating hand crossbow. I know the thinking is that crossbows are worse than bows, but could it work if you were making up for the lack of damage with some sweet AC?
Could this work? I want to make a gnomish inquisitor who rides a giant beetle companion (animal domain). I was thinking of giving the guy full plate proficiency, a nice beefy shield and a repeating hand crossbow. I know the thinking is that crossbows are worse than bows, but could it work if you were making up for the lack of damage with some sweet AC?
That is the most metal thing I've ever heard
I was just wondering, could it be practical? Is it possible to carry a siege weapon around as your main mode of attack?
I was thinking prestige classes would be a big part of it, but I'm glad there's a plan in the works for them. Pathfinder has a ton of cool classes but I'm sure there are others that would be fun: -A class that focuses on shapeshifting but isn't a tree hugger. Maybe he chooses a form (Undead, Magical Creature, etc.) and customizes that second form in a similar way to how the summoner customizes his eidelon. He spits magic in his natural form and can change out to get stronger, sneakier, faster, grow wings, whatever. -A ray specialist spellcaster. Anyone remember the warlock from 3.5? -A straight up necromancer -A non prestige archer/caster class. -A siege weapon specialist could be fun as hell. He could stay relevant outside of large battles by carrying around small ballistas and similar equipment. If small siege or siege like weaponry could be carried around by one man with great skill with them, we'd have a unique type of class. -A take on the "jack of all trades" idea but um... not the bard.
kitsune? You got a furry in your game, get rid of that player and everything will go much smoother for you.
The Bestiary III came out fairly recently and now I'm waiting for the advanced raced guide. Ultimate Equipment should be fun and so should the Bestiary IV. But what next? I feel like an Ultimate Class Guide would be in order. This is something I'd be really interested in buying if it ever came out, and I feel like there's a world of stuff to be added.
Historically, I don't know if full plate wearers ever fought off horse back. That's why recently the thought of a warrior waddling around all turtles up in his armor has been making less and less sense to me. Is anyone else bothered by the lack of "realism" in walking around covered in full plate?
You're missing the point. This isn't about balance at all, it's about aesthetics.
We've all seen it in WoW and similar games: Players and NPC's don't truly take up space, so you can actually run through them. Not only does this look half assed and ugly, it can also screw with the tactics of large battles (which we know we'll see in PFO). Are players going to be able to walk through each other when the game comes out?
In pathfinder, enlarge person is one of the most beloved buffs among players. Large size does confer certain advantages, so it's constantly being casted. The problem: A sufficiently useful buff will become ubiquitous. If being large is generally an improvement, people will run around casting it and/or having others cast it on them. The problem is that now you have a game of magically educed giants, and it just looks terrible. I've seen some of this enlarge person abuse in some neverwinter two servers and it got very ugly very fast. Just imagine watching The Lord of The Rings, but in this version of the movie Gandalf turns himself and all his friends into giants every time they go to battle. It would be a pretty obnoxious movie. What I'm asking for is an aesthetic approach to game design. If something has the potential to throw a bucket of cornysauce onto the whole world, please don't implement it.
THANK YOU! This is especially evident in world of warcraft. When I imagine a rogue I often imagine someone totally unasuming and well, sneaky. End game gear for rogues in WoW is overt and in your face. Really nothing that says "sneaky". I do admit that sometimes I like ostentatious gear- but not all gear (and especially not all good gear) should look elaborate.
anyone else?
I've always wanted to roll a ranger with a high craft trap skill. By RAW there seem to be a ton of options. Poison tipped weapons traps, etc. etc. I also realize there's a bit of paperwork involved, which is why I've never seen them in action. Are traps effective? Does anyone have experience with them? Are they a waste of time?
Early Undead Anatomy spells still look pretty sweet. A medium undead still gets a +1 to natural armor and a +2 to strength, and you get any abilities listed by the spell if the assumed form has them.
Ah! I forgot about that, lol. Magus only gets up to UA3
I realize that druids are usually considered to be the best shapeshifting class, what with natural spell and all. But recently I've been thinking about the potential for a polymorphing magus. 1) In terms of BaB, the magus can go toe to to with a druid. The same goes for hit dice. 2) The magus can eventually wear heavy armor, which can contribute to being even tougher than the druid. 3) The magus has access to all the undead anatomy spells. To me this is key to his shapeshifting glory, because the forms allowed in transformation can usually handle the verbal and somatic components involved in casting. Thus, like the druid, the magus can cast while morphed. 4) The math: With Undead Anatomy IV, taking the form of a large undead will really help you out. you take a -1 to your ac from being large and a -1 to ac from the spell taking away 2 dex, but gain +6 natural armor, resulting in a net bonus of +4 AC. The +6 strength and +2 con don't hurt either. So do you think the magus can out-morph the druid?
I have a unique solution. Now I'm not exactly a power-gamer so I'm open to being corrected if my build is weak sauce. Start with a half orc ranger. There is an alternate racial trait for half orcs that gives you a natural bite attack (There's a half orc feat that does the same thing- it's called razortusk- although I think the trait gives you a primary attack and the feat a secondary). When you select your ranger combat style, get natural weapons. You'll be able to get a combat style feat that gives you claw attacks. The problem with all these natural attacks is that you don't get more attacks as you level- you'll pretty much have three attacks from early on (claw, claw, bite) till the end of the game. The upside? You're using your hands AS weapons, meaning you always have two free hands. With these free hands you can be a grapple master. And while you're using your hands to grapple people, you can bite them! There's one problem with this style of tanking, and it's that you can only grapple one individual at a time. Again, the ranger class comes to the rescue because you'll have an animal companion to help you deal with additional threats, or at least tie them up. There is one caveat here: Since rangers only get access to medium armor and you probably won't be using a shield grappling people, you won't be as durable as other tanks who have more HP and/or AC. Still, I think it could work.
poor little me. All alone.
I recently had an idea for a Pathfinder PvP arena. I thought it would be fun for the both of us to build teams of 2-3 players to go head to head. Has anyone done something similar? Also, assuming a 15 point buy, what would be a solid 2-3 man team?
Niceeeeee. I'm considering two things: 1) A human sorcerer with the undead bloodline 2) An elf ranger with a spider companion (if it's possible!) Either way I want to work around like minded adventurers who wish to spread necromancy throughout Galorion.
Man, I so want to zerg rush an enemy kingdom with skeletons and giant spiders and the like. T'is my dream.
Is there anyone in the PFO community who is man enough to join my ignoble cause?!
I really liked the half-orc ranger. I had one as a DMPC in a campaign of mine. He took the natural weapons style (I know, sub optimal!) and the feat that gives orcs bite attacks. He was running around with two claw attacks and a bite attack early in the game. Oh, also the character himself was fun as hell. He was a freed slave named Grug- Purchased by one of the PC's so they could free him. He was not a smart man, very beast like but unflinchingly loyal and very, very strong.
In the neverwinter games, characters could only carry one summoned entity around at a time. If you had an animal companion, then technically two. This was a major nerf and character immersion killer for summoning oriented mages. Sure, it made games run a little faster, but it was a big sacrifice in my opinion. I hope there will be no major limits to how many summoned creatures you may have at a time. This way, necromancers can really move around with squads of corpses (true to animate dead) and conjurers can summon many beasties onto the battlefield.
Ah. I was thinking the alternate racial trait for humans which gives an animal companion +2 to any stat would be EXTREMELY useful for druids/rangers with vermin companions. You can use the boost to give them 2 intelligence right out the box.
Interesting. What class were you?
Has anyone here had experience with a vermin companion? If so, how do they compare to animals? I'm considering making a beastmaster ranger with a giant beetle or spider but I don't know if this is gonna be weaksauce.
For combat oriented players in PFO it seems like we will have access to all 11 core classes. I think it would be so awesome if PFO threw us a brand new class!!! Not something from the APG, UC or UM but a brand new class. I sound pretty greedy right now (sorry). But I just think it would be such an awesome surprise.
I beg
I was just kind of wondering about this. When settlements start coming to life, will there be NPC warriors involved in combat? It's logical to say that among the NPC residents of settlements and kingdoms some of those locals would be trained for warfare. I say warrior NPC's might be a good thing, and here's why: 1) The players won't be on 24/7. Games have peak hours and off peak hours, so a devoted horde of players could probably strike at 4am on a tuesday morning and take out a whole city if they were organized and they wanted to. 2) Large groups of players rarely act in an organized way in battle. I've seen some large scale WoW battles and it seemed like a swarm of people were jumping over each others heads and flinging spells every which way. If NPC armies march at the king/ruler's orders, they will form an organized nucleus around which actual characters can organize coherent tactics. I'm hardly confident in my opinions, but I'd love to see some discussion.
*bump* :(
Since they arrived in Ultimate Magic I've really wanted to make a ranger (or animal domain cleric) with a vermin companion: Especially the Giant Spider or Giant Beetle. Has anyone had experience with vermin companions? Yea or Nay?
There's one area where I feel the bestiary 3 failed horribly. I mean AWFULLY- and that is playable races. I'm usually not into exotic races because they're hard to design without looking lame. But these things? Give me a break. The half geenie thing: Okay in a game where genies exist and are relevant, but not exactly an origional idea. It's just half human and half geenie. The cat people: *facepalm* I had always hoped pathfinder would never pander to furries. rat people: +1 Monkey people: +2 Reptile-ish people: +3 Changeling: Not terribly bad, but im still angry. I want the bestiary 4 to have more player race content, and I want to see something new- No furries, no half human half (insert obscure creature here). Sorry for the harsh rant, I really did like a lot of what I saw in the bestiary three but in this one particular respect I was definitely angry.
What concerns me is that pathfinder's art, while frankly awesome, is a little anime for my tastes. I REALLY hope this doesn't look like an anime RPG. WoW has a very cartoony look, but the world looks beautiful in places and characters look pretty cool within that cartooniness. Skyrim is beautiful beyond words, and looks much more realistic. What these two games have in common is a western-centric aesthetic. While pathfinder does have quintessentially Eastern options sprinkled here and there (I'm looking at you, monk) it really is another take on the whole alternate medieval Europe idea. An anime/eastern looking game wouldn't make a shred of sense to me.
By looking at the RAW, the animate dead spell looks like an absolute beast. Apparently you can raise anything with a body, and can have up to four times your HD of summoned HD. In other words, a level 5 cleric can summon 20 HD. You can turn that into three undead dire crocs, 4 cyclopses, etc. It seems you can raise multiple creatures of a CR at or greater than your level. Is this inherently broken? I've played a lot of necros, but never about level 4 so I could never get to use this spell. I'd imagine it as severely overpowered: Am I wrong? Also, what's a better tactic? A few big bad zombies or a horde of smaller ones?
The goal with be to settle an area, fortify it, and establish a city state. The state's goal will be to provide a refuge for necromancers, demon oriented summoners, other users of dark magic (and later on) alchemists, trying to establish a good economy based on crafting and masonry while ensuring members' protection. We will be highly PVP oriented. Threats to our cause, including undead hating paladins, druids and the like will not be allowed entrance to our city, and if they try to enter they will be killed on sight, but only for reasons of self defense. If PvP is as dynamic and varied as I hope it will be, our soldiers will be devided into a tactical tier system: I: Swarmlings- Our swarmlings consist of a backbone of necromancers and demon summoners, reinforced by infantry of all kinds. The goal of the swarmling horde is to summon and gather as many bodies as possible for overwhelming shock assaults. Unmounted fighters/barbarians/rangers, etc. Most of our warriors will find their place in the swarm, alongside hordes of summoned skeletons, demons and vermin. II:Exalted Cavalry- These are our finest mounted martial heroes and antiheroes on horseback. Focus will be on sheer speed and fully armored melee combat brutality. III: Arial Cavalry- This will consist of men on bat-back, or something similar. Arial cavalrymen will focus on crippling spells and ranged weapon damage, making it an eclectic mix of rangers, spell-casters, and lightly armored bowmen of all sorts. IV: Infiltrators- The most fiercely devoted stealth characters will work for this group. Infiltrators exist for dual purposes of intelligence/espionage and flanking enemy lines in large battles. That was mostly a discussion of battle, but economics will be important as well. Crafters and masons of all kinds will be allowed to live in the city, and protected fiercely.
Leadership is a feat that really can't be balanced. For example, you may want an animal companion without playing a ranger, druid, etc. Problem solved! Here's a druid companion! And he comes with an animal companion! Dodge is a feat. Leadership is just a joke. In fact, by rules as written, anyone who doesn't take the leadership feat is at a profound disadvantage. To make the most powerful party by RAW, everyone should have a cohort, and huge meat shields of 100+ peasants can't hurt either. This is why many DM's rightfully ban leadership. Sure, if your character in game secures his place as a king, wise man or other man with followers, it would make sense to give him followers in game. But to say that such a status should exist as a result of one feat? Give me a break.
BUMP!*sharpens axe with a grin* Laugh at me! You bully me now but when I have a skeleton/vermin infested battle horde hitting you from the front and a bat riding airforce flanking you from behind, you'll be sorry. Your avitar will fall to the floor and weep. |