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

Del_Taco_Eater's page

198 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Extra channel isn't a bad feat on a warpriest, though.


Chess Pwn wrote:
"Tank" doesn't really work as a role in pathfinder. Because there aren't really ways to force agro, or block paths. The best path blocking is combat reflexes and stand still.

While I agree that tanks have a very hard time both keeping themselves alive and drawing agro, I see nothing wrong with builds that are tanky for the hell of it. Some classes are capable of sacrificing very little of their offensive power to become tanky. (Monk, for example)

However, within the context of this tread, I don't think a tank warpriest would work very well. The class is just too good at murdering things! For this reason, I agree with your Arsenal Chaplain suggestion.

Due to the ability to cast cures spontaneously, a warpriest "tank" is often one that focuses heavily on offense and relies on damage mitigation (killing enemies) and healing to survive.


Where is the decision that warpriests do not qualify for the feat stated? It does not seem to be in the additional resources.


1. Definitely.

2. Official ruling (I believe) hasn't come yet, but most message board posters and I agree that it does qualify you for the feat, not the free 9th level feature.


It is my understanding that a tiny creature can use step up to follow an opponent whose square they previously occupied, once again existing within their square.

For those who see differently, think hypothetically for a second.

Does this provoke an AoO?


I'm building a skill monkey for PFS, and am currently disturbed by my lack of combat options. I'm looking for suggestions to improve the build in general, and how to add combat viability.

Race: wayang

Traits: undecided, but adopted + helpful halflings is appealing, also clever wordplay (disguise), but I sadly cannot take both.

Str: 8
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 20
Wis: 10
Cha: 7

Vigilante 1: skill focus linguistics, social trait: orator, specialization: stalker
Vigilante 2: vigilante talent: canny observer
Emp. Investigator1: feat: Can't remember the name, a feat that makes it dc25 linguistics to communicate with anyone
Emp. Investogator 2: nothing
Emp. Investogator 3: trap spotter, extra talent: expanded inspiration or effortless aid (depending on traits)
Vigilante 3: social talent: subjective truth (I'm grasping at straws here)
Vigilante 4: vigilante talent: sure footed, great fortitude
vigilante 5: social grace adds disable device, social talent: many guises
Emp Investogator 4: Extra investigator talent: infusion

Beyond this I have no plans. I made many selections that I would be willing to part with (including stat buy, my first 20). As mentioned in the build, I am considering the aid another route, perhaps with a reach weapon. I'm also on the fence regarding the cabalist archetype, but the reduced skill points and lack of vigilante specialization (no canny observer) make me cautious.

Thanks for any advice.


@Torbyne: Usually, adding bashing to a shield with spikes still increases the damage by one size. That's not stacking, it's just adding a better benefit. The faq says they don't stack, but it doesn't say what the base die without spikes is. It could be 1d3 or 1d4, and both violate at least one printed statement.

Base 1d3 means shield spike rules are ignored.

Base 1d4 means "it functions as a light shield" is ignored.


Melkiador wrote:
There's a post where the design team said that the bashing enchant doesn't stack, at all, with a klar.

Any idea where? No worries if it's hard to find.

I ask because that would make the klar hot garbage for pretty much all builds.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
As I understand it, using the klar's weapon profile is its shield bash equivalent.

The thing about the klar that remains confusing to me is that a spiked light shield only does 1d4 damage, yet a klar is listed as 1d6.

Edit: when reading the linked FAQ, the attackt that 1d6 damage is implied to be a shield bash by the sentence "you lose the shield bonus to AC when attacking with the klar unless you have Improved Shield Bash."

I've never seen an explanation by paizo for how much damage bashing would add to a klar, because exactly how much damage the spikes add is unclear.


Seconding the paladin suggestions from a stats point of view, not that I personally enjoy them. Swapping str and dex would make a good melee, while swapping str and int or cha and dex wpuld make a good archer.

swapping cha and wis would make a decent warpriest. For maximum bow explosion, swapping con and wis would make a terrifying archer with the champion of the faith archetype.

swapping str and cha would make an offensive powerhouse of a bloodrager, albeit with a poor will save. Barb might be better for that reason.

Swapping cha and wis would make a good monk/druid build.


If you have the weapon master's handbook, take the arsenal chaplain archetype. Straight up bonuses and access to advanced weapon training are much better that what it trades out.

Also, I reccomend half-orc for your race. The trait "fate's favored" already has synergy with warpriest buff spells (divine favor) and half-orcs with the trait can get a +2 on all saving throws.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
@Darksol: If iron will and indomitable faith are already part of the build, why not just go half orc? -1 will for +2 fort and ref, plus stuff like darkvision and other useful racial features. Maybe if he wants to take intimidating prowess being a half orc would help compensate for the 7 cha.

Fortitude and Reflex Saves aren't really that important for a Fighter, since they already get good Fortitude Saves. Reflex isn't that big of a disabler, and usually is only used to mitigate damage.

He could just switch out Reactionary, and pick up Improved Initiative at a later date to compensate for the Initiative loss; he has the feats to spend, so why not?

Half Orc would trade out the +2 Intimidate for the bonus on saves that you're talking about, so you can't both have your cake and eat it too. Intimidating Prowess would help, but you're still dealing with the Charisma penalty. Sure, Cornugon Smash + Hurtful are good for a beatstick, but it's unreliable if not optimized towards it, which most beatsticks usually aren't (due to conflicting requirements of high Strength at the cost of Charisma and Intelligence). If he could use Wisdom in place of Charisma for Intimidate through a trait, he'd definitely be in business.

Darkvision can be acquired on Humans through substituting the skill point per level trait for it, so there isn't a real loss there, since he will only be losing the extra skill point that he could throw wherever he wanted.

Darkvision is obviously great to have on a martial, and I usually don't consider traits that add RP to be on the table. Of course, all that matters is what is allowed in the OP's game.

If OP's friend ends up using the righter build, consider asking the GM about switching to half orc. Your will save will lower by one, but the other upsides depend on what is allowed.


Angel Hunter D wrote:

Thanks for the help guys, the "rose by another name" thing doesn't jive with this person, very hung up on the name. good thing she's pretty.

Anyhow, I think we might have the bones of something viable here - Splintering Weapon sounded cool so I might toss that in with something.

I'm reaching here, but what about a hybrid class that involves fighter? Would that sales pitch get you anywhere?


@Darksol: If iron will and indomitable faith are already part of the build, why not just go half orc? -1 will for +2 fort and ref, plus stuff like darkvision and other useful racial features. Maybe if he wants to take intimidating prowess being a half orc would help compensate for the 7 cha.


Because domain class feature and mystery class feature are similar to one another and dissimilar to the ability to cast divine spells, I believe that option A is correct.


I agree with your numbers for the FoB full attack. Except, wouldn't the unarmed strike be 1d2? (Not that it really matters) In most cases it will be +16/+16/+16/+11 due to fighting defensively.

The AC is the real strength of the build. A respectable full attack backed up by an AC of around 43 is incredible.

(10 base + 10 dex + 4 size + 4 natural + 4 mage armor + 2 deflection + 4 wisdom + 5 dodge) which includes barkskin and mage armor.


x_Gabriel_x wrote:

Would that even work? Unarmed attacks for FoB but wild shaped is natural attacks?

You'd have to take Feral Combat Training to use FoB with your natural attacks, just went searching lol

Not flurrying the natural attacks, just flurrying. With unarmed strikes. You only lose abilities that depend on form when you polymorph, which FoB doesn't. You get itteratives as well that way.


x_Gabriel_x wrote:
I've thought of doing something like this, but what are some wild shape options? Anything I can find that's diminutive has 1 attack, and unless you can take the Spire Monkey for tiny(3 attacks) then its something like an Owl or Hawk for 2 attacks... but you lose out on 2dex..

You use flurry of blows, probably as a bat. Fly speed, blindsense, and other goodies.


Check out the build I posted here

Even with only one level of mouser, the intention of the character is to, as you said, spend all his time in his opponent's sauare. Comes online a little late though. Instead of taking a lvl of rogue at 4th level, you could take a level of mouser.


Papa bles


It's a very different fighting style, but I prefer frontline druids that get smaller, not bigger. There is definitely a tradeoff, namely shrinking your threatened area from 30-50 feet down to 0-5 feet. I believe the increased armor class, saving throws, initiative, and stealth are worth that sacrifice.

Possible build for a halfling frontliner:

Str: 11
Dex: 19
Con: 14
Int: 7
Wis: 15
Cha: 9

Traits: defensive strategist, magical knack (druid)

UMonk 1: (bonus) dodge, crane style
URogue 1: (bonus) weapon finesse
Druid 1: Boon Companion (if taking an animal, otherwise pirahna strike)
URogue 2: (bonus) pirahna strike
Druid 2: risky striker (almost everything will be two sizes larger by 8th level)
Druid 3
Druid 4: shaping focus
Mouser swashbuckler 1
URogue 3: Boon Companion (if taking an animal)

And so on. By lvl 8 (when the build really comes together) you can slip into creatures' squares and pummel them with 2x power attack progression and your mid 40's armor class.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Ultimately, combat maneuvers are mostly defensive (make it harder for the opponent to attack) instead of offensive (kill it faster) in nature. Which may seem counter-intuitive for a "main combatant" to focus on.

Grappling is definitely an exception. A dedicated grappler with greater grapple shouldn't talke longer than 1-2 rounds to squeeze the life out of anything.


Kileanna wrote:

I think specialization is good, but overspecialization is not.

Even if you have a main strategy or fighting style, you need to have a getaway to be able to do something when your main strategy is not working, because there isn't a single strategy that is effective against everything.
Investing on a couple of feats/spells/whatever to allow you to do something else is always good.

It depends on your setting, somewhat. In PFS, overspecialization is dangerous because you may do nothing for an entire scenario. In a home game everyone can coordinate so that all skill sets are covered. That way, one person's counter is another person's ideal enemy.


My two cents:

Any character whose cmb to grapple (for example) gets outscaled by monsters' cmd isn't building for grapple. Example builds that have been posted have shown cmb's appraching required levels with no optimization or specialization. (it was a vanilla fighter, for pete's sake) Proper class, magic item, and feat selection should result in success vs anything you can get close to.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's basically Legacy Weapon on a Fighter, except the Occultist can do it at level 1 and can do it more often. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Well, it's better when you compare it to *one* of your other options, which is just a plain +1 bonus.

In fact it's a lot better, which is why I asked.


Just checking if you can use warrior spirit to add whatever bane you need to your weapon. It seems way too good, considering that it only costs a +1 bonus.


A few suggestions.

1. The firebug trait from Quests and Campaigns is extremely strong for an alchemist. Extra traits is competative for your feat slots, possibly to pick up firebug and (pragmatic activator/dilettante artist/student of philosophy/bruising intellect)

2. I will go out on a limb and reccomend that you do not take infusion, unless an archetype gives you precise bombs for free. IMO, precist bombs, frost bombs, wings, fast bombs, force boms, etc. all take priority.

3. Which leads me to point three, which is that wings is an amazing discovery which all bomber alchemists should take. 60ft speed, good maneuverability, ability to rain fire from the sky, escape plan, attack plan, etc. Perfect for invisible scouting, as well.

4. Take fast bombs at 8th level, if that wasn't already obvious.

5. If it's not too late to change, dump strength for con. Ant haul can make up for the only relevant strength based stat (other than cmd, but rarely a problem while flying) which is carrying capacity.

6. As for skills, I reccomend picking up a trait to boost diplomacy and becoming the party face. Super high int means language barriers won't come up often, and there is no reason to let this strength go to waste. Otherwise, good skills are craft (alch), knowledge, linguistics, perception, bluff


I've gone back and read many on the old threads on the topic, and I have to wonder why the Bloodrager/DD FAQ was only one sentence long and ignored half the problem. As chess has mentioned in the past, the question I posted in the OP is as old as the playtest version of the bloodrager.

It's a bummer that many FAQ entries only address a small portion of what is being asked, then move on.


Chris Ballard wrote:
Remember the DD prestige class created before there was a bloodrager. There is errata for the DD entry requirements that takes the bloodrager into account. A bloodrager does have to have the draconic bloodline.

What was the eratta? I'd love to put this to rest.


First off, I am familiar with the FAQ that states DD advances bloodrager bloodline powers.

I'm mostly concerned about the vague wording in the blood of dragons class feature, which says: "If the dragon disciple does not have levels of sorcerer, he instead gains bloodline powers of the draconic bloodline, using his dragon disciple level as his sorcerer level to determine the bonuses gained."

This ability does not clearly state whether this counts as having the draconic bloodline, or merely grants the powers at the associated levels. This is relevant because bloodrager states: "If the bloodrager takes levels in another class that grants a bloodline, the bloodlines must be the same type."

A bloodrager without the draconic bloodline still qualifies for the prestige class, and all of the rules for non draconic classes are laid out in a way that doesn't break anything.

Thoughts?


Also, the quote by SKR which has already been linked by The Other supports this.

Quote from SKR: "if an ability implies that you're making a full attack (whether or not you're specifically using the full attack action), then haste should work with that ability"


Derklord wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
Perhaps it is charging as its action and then making a full attack for free. This would not be a case that allows fighting defensively.
Than explain how Haste works with Pounce, please.

If the PFSRD is correct, then there has been an FAQ stating that haste works with pounce.


When a creature pounces, what would you consider that it is doing with its full round action? Perhaps it is charging as its action and then making a full attack for free. This would not be a case that allows fighting defensively.

For me it boils down to what is actually being assigned to the "full round action" portion of a character's turn. There is a RAW (not just flavor) side to this argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.

15 feet. For everyone running the game which is not an automaton that must follow parsed lines of code in algorithms without applying common sense, logic and context.

Then such a person, while being wise enough to do what clearly makes sense, would be going against the CRB.

That's the reason why some people want a change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with what komoda is saying. The wording in the crb is poor, and doesn't say what they were intending.

(And of course, the faq overrules the poorly worded statement.)


Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

All of you're inputs has been mostly helpful. My words come from the heart, as i love playing small races. (which is ironic considering i'm very tall in real life) I also don't want races to be equal in terms of power. what i would like is for a halfling fighter to be able to say to a half-orc fighters something like ''You may be stronger than me, but i'm _________ than you!'' and have that empty spot be something very useful.

But i have not played pathfinder for a long time yet. maybe Small races are more than capable to be powerful in melee, i just have not been observant enough. That is entirely possible.

Hopefully your halfling can come back with, "Well at least I'm not a fighter."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mention that the -2 to str offsets the +1 bonus to hit, implying that you might be missing the strengths of small characters. (pun) There's no need to beat medium characters at their own game, i.e. smashing stuff with a large metal pole.

Small characters are dexterous, and in my opinion the best thing to do is to build around that. Once you have dex to hit and damage, your size is doing very little to actually hinder you (only one step smaller dice) and is a net positive if you include the to hit and ac boost.

If you want to know a true martial terror, I have never built a stronger martial than my halfling monk/druid/Urogue/mouser swashbuckler. He can wild shape all the down to diminutive, getting his dex up to 30. Also, the halfling feat risky striker is power attack vs bigger creatures. As a diminutive animal, anything small or larger counts! Combine this with pirahna strike and your cute little fists will be dealing astounding damage.

CMB isn't all that bad either, considering that diminutive creatures automatically get dex instead of str to cmb.

Anyway, just wated to make the point that comparing str based small characters to str based med characters is missing out on what small characters do best: being super small, hard to hit, and packing a huge punch.


Chess Pwn wrote:

I think the issue they are discussing is when you stop by the wall like this

__ __
-X

instead of this
__ __
--X
Which you are talking about.
The first I can now see you and attack from cover while the second I see you and have no cover but you don't have cover either. The second will provoke if someone is there at the entryway.

Yup, that's it. Also, depending on the spell (and quite a few are ranged) you don't have to deal with any cover.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if you're less than a move action away, that isn't a concern.

I suppose I think its OP and you don't. That's fine.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
If you're talking about stopping at the corner to avoid the AoO, that is something you can do regardless of the swift action.

But you can't move after unless the swift comes in the middle of movement.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
If you're continuing to move after making your swift action attack, then you're provoking. The corner is no longer protecting you. And if you're stopping at the corner, you can already do that, no problem.

"When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall"

"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you."

I disagree with your statement.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And provoking an AoO.

Against someone with a melee weapon? Not around a corner. They're using a diffent set of rules.


I'm quite concerned by the idea of being able to take a swift action the middle of another action. Some abilities let you attack as a swift action, and would thus act as poor man's spring attack.

Imagine spring attacking around a corner with quicked spell.


Nefreet wrote:

Don't go with firearms. You're not a Gunslinger, so the feat investment is too impeding.

Other than that, I've had a couple switch hitter builds. They're primarily useful when sitting down to a table with 5 other melee types, or 5 other face types.

Then you can go "Well I guess I know what role I'm playing today!"

EDIT: also, if you worship Erastil, and go with Longbow, there's a Religion Trait that's almost as good as Improved Precise Shot.

What trait? Sounds op.


Frosty Ace wrote:

Empty Quiver Style has you threaten in melee, and with with Focused weapon, you basically smack with your bow as offensively as you shoot an arrow. It's not as loopy as snap shot chain with combat patrol, but every round you'll be able to dish out good damage.

Just as well, in a melee heavy party, Ranged Trip and Ace Trip will work wonders. Why be the only one hitting a flying enemy when you can knock them out of the sky for everyone to pummel?

What is focused weapon?


Link2000 wrote:

What I believe Chess pwn is trying to say is that in this game, bonuses are cumulative. So they add together (race's speed +10 +10 = race's speed +20).

The question still remains as to whether or not the wording in the beginning of these abilities is the literal meaning or the figurative meaning.

I agree the wording is ambiguous, but I would argue it throws a lot more meat to one side (stacking) while the other only gets the first sentence.

I also believe that the only reason the first sentence is worded the way it is is because the ability comes at first level, not because the writers wanted it to work differently than other abilities that do the same thing.


Chess Pwn wrote:
I lean now that they stack. The line, "This bonus stacks with any other bonuses to the bloodrager's land speed." says, "THIS BONUS". Meaning it can't be setting the base, because a new base isn't a bonus. So since 2/3 of the sentences say "this bonus" then the first must be granting a bonus.

I was just about to make this argument when I saw that chess had already realized that wording.

+1 to them stacking because it's a bonus and stacks with other bonuses.


Jason Wu wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

I try very hard not to be a "hah-hah! Gotcha!" GM, so I'm not going to say "it shatters on impact" or come up with other ways to destroy the potion vial. If you happen to be holding a (freshly drawn) potion and decide to drop it as a free action it will be probably be fine.

However, dropping an opened vial without stoppering it is almost certainly going to cause the liquid to spill out. If you are putting it away normally as a move action I'm not going to force you to spend another action to stopper it. But dropping is free. You need some kind of action to put the stopper back.

Generally I will agree with this. However, I will not just say, "its fine." I'll warn the player of potential repercussions.

There are mechanics for dropping items in the falling rules, and rules for how many hit points and hardness glass has in the damaging items rules.

At some point, even in PFS, a GM needs to be able to extrapolate the rules to create a common sense ruling when something is done that isn't really covered in the rules. Glass breaks when it is dropped onto something hard. Drop it on spongy grassy meadow? Fine. On a cobblestone street? Not so much.

Secondly, while I have allowed it before, in PFS, items that are purchased are assumed to be the standard, cheapest option. In this case, glass vials are cheaper than metal ones, and so you can't just choose to have all your potions in metal vials.

Iron potion vials are pfs legal. Any reason why I can't buy one?

Do iron potion vials automatically stopper themselves?

There are tons of things that are normally fine but become overpowered if you try to game and abuse the system to get extreme corner cases. How is this any different?

-j

Did you read the post I was responding to?


Tallow wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

I try very hard not to be a "hah-hah! Gotcha!" GM, so I'm not going to say "it shatters on impact" or come up with other ways to destroy the potion vial. If you happen to be holding a (freshly drawn) potion and decide to drop it as a free action it will be probably be fine.

However, dropping an opened vial without stoppering it is almost certainly going to cause the liquid to spill out. If you are putting it away normally as a move action I'm not going to force you to spend another action to stopper it. But dropping is free. You need some kind of action to put the stopper back.

Generally I will agree with this. However, I will not just say, "its fine." I'll warn the player of potential repercussions.

There are mechanics for dropping items in the falling rules, and rules for how many hit points and hardness glass has in the damaging items rules.

At some point, even in PFS, a GM needs to be able to extrapolate the rules to create a common sense ruling when something is done that isn't really covered in the rules. Glass breaks when it is dropped onto something hard. Drop it on spongy grassy meadow? Fine. On a cobblestone street? Not so much.

Secondly, while I have allowed it before, in PFS, items that are purchased are assumed to be the standard, cheapest option. In this case, glass vials are cheaper than metal ones, and so you can't just choose to have all your potions in metal vials.

Iron potion vials are pfs legal. Any reason why I can't buy one?


MisterSlanky wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
Possibly, and no need to debate that, but all I have to do is drink on my next round. I have spend a total of one swift action to activate the buff.
As a significant fan of AA, I'll explain the other limitation beyond the fact that there's no way to remove the 1-round delay on drinking a potion. It sucks having to keep that potion in your hand after you've drank it. No use of bows, no use of two-handed weapons, no use of the claw/claw/bite attack. Sure you can drop bombs, but not all Alchemists do that.

I plan on just dropping the potion and quick drawing a weapon.

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.