|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
Traits: undecided, but adopted + helpful halflings is appealing, also clever wordplay (disguise), but I sadly cannot take both.
Vigilante 1: skill focus linguistics, social trait: orator, specialization: stalker
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.
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:
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:
I'm reaching here, but what about a hybrid class that involves fighter? Would that sales pitch get you anywhere?
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.
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.
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.
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:
Traits: defensive strategist, magical knack (druid)
UMonk 1: (bonus) dodge, crane style
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
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.
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:
Hopefully your halfling can come back with, "Well at least I'm not a fighter."
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:
Yup, that's it. Also, depending on the spell (and quite a few are ranged) you don't have to deal with any cover.
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.
What trait? Sounds op.
Frosty Ace wrote:
What is focused weapon?
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:
Did you read the post I was responding to?
Iron potion vials are pfs legal. Any reason why I can't buy one?
I plan on just dropping the potion and quick drawing a weapon.
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.