|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
For future reference, Oladon is a she.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
That's exactly my point. In game atheism has little in common with the logic and skepticism which are the cornerstones of real world atheism. Which is weird.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I've never been a fan of any of the elemental enhancements, really. The extra damage is nice but even five points of elemental resistance more-or-less completely shuts that down.
Nor I. I was just using it as an example... and not a good one since I'd forgotten about adaptive being a +gp enhancement.
+1 seeking, cyclonic, adaptive, shocking, ghost touch longbow and a stack of arrows that are +4 from GMW, then your shot counts as a +4 seeking, cyclonic, shocking, and ghost touch.
You can simply cast it on the bow and have a +4 seeking, cyclonic, adaptive, shocking, ghost touch longbow. Though maybe not because of the +5 thing.
Regardless... there are a lot better ways to spend I don't think you've spent your gold well if you buy a seeking, cyclonic, adaptive, shocking, ghost touch longbow at all. There are much better ways for an archer to spend 73,000 gold.
My suggestion is if you are getting a situational enhancement on your bow (seeking, cyclonic, adaptive, ghost touch, unholy, bane, etc), only get it if you're sure it's something you need in your campaign a lot. If you are playing carrion crown undead bane is going to be vastly more useful than cyclonic or seeking.
The stuff that you use less often figure out other ways around it. I mentioned buying arrows, another possibility is getting a couple back-up bows. If you are in an undead heavy campaign you can have a +1 undead bane bow, a +1 seeking bow, and a +1 cyclonic bow and it costs you about 26,000gp. A +1 adaptive cyclonic bow costs about 19,000 gold.
Incidentally, I don't get the love for adaptive at all. Unless you have some consistent way of getting very high Strength bonuses, it's just plain bad. A +1 corrosive bow averages 3.5 points extra damage most every round. Someone did the math and a straight +2 bow frequently beat even that due to being able to pull off deadly aim and rapid shot more frequently.
Look hard at what your group encounters frequently and build your main bow based on that then work around your weaknesses. In my campaign, if our archer had bought 50 +1 cyclonic arrows and 50 +1 seeking arrows he probably would have never run out of them. If your GM lets you buy arrows in smaller lots, just buy 10 of each.
One of the guys in my group just thrashed undead with a +1 unholy undead bane bow. If you are playing the Giantslayer AP I'd suggest a +1 giant bane bow... and likewise add unholy later on.
GMW is a rockstar, but it really doesn't matter if you put it on the bow or the arrows because it doesn't stack... the difference is if you cast it on arrows you can split it among multiple archers. Though with arrows there is the chance you can run out.
I know a lot of folks think investing in arrows is a bad call, but you might think about getting a collection of bane arrows for critical fights. The nice thing about bane is it's damage bonus stacks with whatever your bow does. Most other arrows are too expensive.
I kind of disagree on seeking, it's a great enhancement but it's situational. Often if you can't see the enemy you don't know what space he's in either. Consider buying 50 seeking arrows and if you go through them all buy the upgrade on your bow.
The bow is one of the few weapons that allows stacking enhancements. Granted it's with arrows which are expendable, but it lets you get situational enhancements can be pretty sweet.
I know the focus is damage output, but I really like the elemental (fire) bloodline because it allows you a lot more versatility in blasting (which is where sorcerers need the most help). Essentially any blasting spell has two modes, the default and the fire version. It also opens up a lot more spells to add your damage bonuses to. One good and slightly weird example is you can make wall of ice (which is generally better than wall of fire) do fire damage and you'd get your orc bonus damage on creatures that pass through it.
Classic Horrors Revisited had a gargoyle variant that looks like a statue of an angel, and only moves when you're not looking at it. I know a few Dr. Who fans who were tickled by that one.
The mythic gargoyle has similar powers and was definitely a nod to Dr. Who.
I don't think that's an "Easter Egg" in the classic sense though, much of Pathfinder and modern fantasy fiction is 'inspired' by other works. Taking inspiration from another work of fiction is a common and accepted practice so long as the original is respected. Paizo has Kaiju and for example.
(Incidentally, when I send something in to Paizo that I suspect might be considered an Easter Egg I try to call it out explicitly and let them make the call on whether it crosses their line or not.)
"Needed"? If you use that as your criteria few things would ever improve.
I would love to see the beginner's box exploded into a new version that is fully compatible with the current system, but integrates improvements to the current system like the new versions of the rogue and barbarian. Also, we've learned a lot from the Beginner's Box and it would be great if we took that learning into the core system, making the system easier to learn and clearing up a lot of the confusing rules. While we're at it we can file off some proud nails like Stealth.
Essentially, It would be Pathfinder, but with the stuff we've learned since it was first released.
I would also love to see some big changes to high level play, but it would fully break compatibility which pretty much makes it a no-go.
Admiral Akbar, the universe's ultimate expert on traps suggests the nasty place where bad things happen *IS* the trap.
Akbar says the hallway is most definitely a trap and since rogues with trap finder automatically get a perception check to detect a trap, the rogue would get a perception check before entering the TRAPPED hallway.
Because it makes sense, and because Admiral Akbar says so.
Help me out. Throw your best Unchained Rogues at me. I don't understand the class, need to see builds.
I think what Seranov is saying is this: The fact that strength is so superior to dex in terms of damage numbers is what is keeping it relevant as an ability score. Making Dex almost as good as strength in the "hitting things" department will make strength almost irrelevant.
Pretty much this.
4e D&D allowed easy access to Dex to damage attacks. Some classes/attacks used Dex and some used Str, and you just chose which ones you liked.
How's that any different from Pathfinder where you go with the new rogue or swashbuckler? If anything, it's more flexible because you can either pick one of the class based options or use one of several other ways to get Dex to Damage.
Since 4e doesn't have multi-classing the way Pathfinder does, it makes it hard to compare the two this way.
There is no reason players can't take them. Some might have abilities or powers that assume racial abilities though.
I've always thought of throwers as crossover characters that should be good in melee and at close range which isn't really the archer schtick. If you are close, you stab em, if you are far you throw a knife. If you kill someone you throw a dagger at his cousin. You build around melee and only spend one or two feats on throwing.
Gah! How did I miss stinking cloud, dimension door, and teleport... I must have been dozing off.
The point isn't that magus doesn't have a good spell list, their spell list is fairly narrow and misses key spells. Not sure what you mean by "pull away", but fear and confusion are pretty much mainstay spells. Sleep? Summon Monster?
you're either a martial or a caster--there's no middle ground.
Picking one path or the other is certainly easier.
you're CERTAINLY more powerful on the spell end for EK by way of better spell list, but when you're spending more rounds dropping these amazing end-the-encounter spells (pits, clouds, tentacles, SoDs, etc.), why even carry a sword in the first place?
Again, it's not about optimizing. If it was, just go straight wizard.
Lots of those encounter ending spells don't entirely end encounters. Instead they massively change the odds. Instead of fighting 4 bad-guys you are fighting 1-2 and rather than waste a bunch more spells, the eldritch knight can just wade in and help finish the job. Spells are a limited resource in the game, stabs are not.
Also, being able to cast magic jar and take over a fire giant and smash a bunch of other fire giants is cool. Or being able to transform into a dragon and actually kick butt like a dragon.
i still have to raise my question of how getting great spells later is a point in EK's favor--besides the obvious, naturally. they're supposed to be a combo of might+magic, but in the late game (where they pull ahead of the magus' spell progression) they're going to completely ignore melee anyway due to how much better spells are comparatively.
The way I would sum up your thought here is: "It's a better caster, but it doesn't matter." Which doesn't make any sense to me. If you feel wizards "win the game" because spells always win, you aren't playing either of these classes. When you pick one of these classes, you've already decided that you want to engage in melee and cast spells.
As for the magus being a comparable spellcaster at lower levels... maybe you should review their respective spell lists again. Casting charm person, sleep, create pit, fear, stinking cloud, confusion, dominate person, are very often vastly better options than fireball or shocking grasp. Guess who can't cast any of those? A magus can be invisible but can't see invisibility, nor can he teleport, dimension door, or stone shape; summoning even a minor ally is similarly outside his abilities. Tons of great combat spells are outside the magus's list and almost all the great utility spells are missing. There are a few levels where the magus comes close, but in general their spells are limited to evocation.
Saying one of these classes is better than the other is misleading, they are much more different than they appear at first. A magus is always going to be better at DPR, but the eldritch knight has options the magus lacks. Don't under-estimage the advantage that spell-list offers.
what is the point of having a sword if your spells will do literally everything better for you?
Being an arcane spellcaster with the option to stab is never going to be the 'optimized' route. There are going to be martial characters who can out-stab you and straight spellcasters will have more powerful spells. If there is an advantage to the Eldritch Knight it is that he is more versatile. When you've run out of spells or when magic doesn't work, you still have interesting things you can do without burning your resources.
As for magus, I don't really see them as spellcasters. The majority of spellcasting they do is to enhance their melee combat. On whole the magus is much nicer in the lower middle levels... 4-8th level, where the knight is in it's awkward transition phase. Starting around 9-10th level, the knight's casting really starts to pull ahead of the magus and never looks back. The eldritch knight is unlikely to ever match the magus in melee due to spell combat, but he can wield a great sword or falchion which the magus can't. More important, the eldritch knight gains access to spells like dragon form and earlier access and more frequent castings of things like beast shape. Plus... tons of 7-9th level spells which the magus never sees.
Edit: IMO if you never reach 10th level, you are almost certainly better off playing magus due to the bumpy transition between wizard/ fighter and eldritch knight. I really wish it were laid out where the two missed caster levels were spread apart a lot more. Or perhaps drop the requirement for all martial weapon proficiency and have them lose 1st and 5th level casting.
This is exactly the way I look at it. I don't care if the number crunching seems to indicate one class is more or less powerful than another. For me it's about fun and flavor. Play a rogue? Sure! Play an arcanist? You bet! I don't care how under powered some people believe the rogue to be, or how over powered some people think the arcanist to be. I don't give a fig about the math; I play for fun.
To be honest, my frustrations with the rogue/ monk are more about the fact that they are very tricky to master. They call this newest book the "Advanced Class Guide", but it's much easier to make a slayer or swashbuckler who is able to fill the rogue's role in combat than it is to build a good combat rogue friendly rogue.
When I see a newer player looking at the rogue or the monk, it bugs me not because I'm pretty certain they are going to struggle to get what they want out of them.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I've never understood this sort of mentality. I honestly could care less if my character is the most powerful guy at the table. The only question I care about "Is it fun to play?"
I can understand the frustrations with the rogue and the monk because they can easily be outclassed by others doing what they are supposed to be great at and can seem like the 5th wheel in a party... the sorcerer? Maybe if you are completely horrible at picking spells. Of course if that's the case, wizard isn't going to be better.
I've never had trouble making sorcerers that are fun and effective and this isn't going to change that. Bloodlines, racial favored class bonuses, and new items have made playing sorcerers far less painful then they were when the class was just a few known spells you could spam over and over.
For me, the arcanist will likely replace any future wizard characters I might make. I've always hated the spell prepared/ burned mechanic; the mechanic the arcanist uses is just much more natural to me.
Seems to me this post is more about a disconnect between your expectations of the game and treatment of monstrous creatures and that of your GM and fellow players.
It's very hard to play a redemption focused character when everyone else in the group is focused on killing everything you encounter. It's particularly difficult when the GM is running goblins and many enemies as irrevocably evil. I've run much of Rise of the Runelords and while playing the paladin redeemer type could make for a very fun adventure, this particular AP is only going to get more and more confounding to you unless you iron this out.
I'm not trying to criticize your character choice here, but without some kind of buy-in from the GM and from the other players in your group, this is going to be a frustrating, uphill battle for you.
To be clear here:
Redeemer type characters are a blast, nothing wrong with them.
Trying to play such a character when the rest of your group and GM are determined to run a classic hack & slash game is a huge challenge.
Some Other Guy wrote:
I think we're all on the same page here, just phrasing it slightly differently. I also think most people of us feel an FAQ would be good to help clear this up.
As an aside, there is another roadblock to pearls working with consume spell. Pearls of power explicitly restore spells "prepared and then cast". Even if you assume the pearls work with the arcanists normal casting, consumed spells are never cast.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
If people are saying that the Arcanist is just barely under the Wizard, and that the class has a "eh... some will take em, some won't" feel to it, then I think Paizo nailed things perfectly.
This is more or less my impression also. It has some neat non-casty abilities and it's casting is super versatile, but that's offset by lower spells/ day and slower spell progression.
Well... from Pearl of Power:
Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast.
For an arcanist, preparing a spell only puts it into her memory so she can cast it from the book, there are two pieces here: "While studying, the arcanist decides what spells to prepare and refreshes her available spell slots for the day." The memorizing and spell slots are separate.
Sounds to me like the slots per day are independent of preparing spells and the pearl of power would not work. (But things like rhinestones of power would)
Guy St-Amant wrote:
I don't follow your thinking here. There are tons of sources of stat blocks for good aligned creatures and NPCs. NPC Codex, Giants Revisited, Dragons Revisited, the Rival Guide, every single bestiary, the bestiaries in the APs, and many times the APs and modules have good aligned creatures or NPCs as allies.
Evil guys outnumber good for the reasons I stated above, but if you are looking for allies there are plenty of sources and given Paizo's history, I'm certain there will be more in the future.
If you are looking for opponents for evil aligned NPCs to face, you have an even bigger pool to choose from. Bad guys are just as likely to steal from each other as they are to steal from good guys. Rivalries and betrayals between evil groups can easily turn into entire adventures. I can easily see an evil group trying to steal an artifact from a liche king or the middle of necropolis. Baba Yaga is just as concerned about her daughters as she is about good aligned adventurers. Orc or goblin raiders don't care if the neighboring kingdom is run by a benevolent dictator or an evil despot. Evil groups operate in a target rich environment.
It's almost as if someone were thinking about moving into Eldritch Knight when they wrote it....
It's best to wait and to take Extra Exploit (eldritch blade) as your 9th level feat. The blade's effective level lags behind the magus by 2 levels. That's mitigated a lot by the more flexible nature of the arcane reservoir.
Sorry, I meant to say "My favorite thing about Goodreader is the..."
In Goodreader, you just tap the display and pick the crop button and it is pretty obvious. Not sure if you can with the Dropbox reader (which is also pretty good and free).
Will Goodreader unzip them as well? If so, it might be worth downloading just so I don't have to use 2 different apps.
Yes,Good Reader can deal with zipped PDFs also. Generally when I'm using my iPad to download direct from PDF it prompts me to open in Goodreader and it just takes care of everything.
Goodreader 4 is on sale right now for $.99. You can transfer over wifi, send PDFs downloaded from the web to it, or use DropBox or other services. Easily worth a buck.
My favorite thing about dropbox is the fact that I can set a crop level and it applies it across the entire book so I can get rid of thick borders and just view the text.
I would love for a way for the current rules to "evolve". No huge changes, but a simplification of presentation and clarification of many of the currently confusing rules. Essentially taking much of what was learned in the Beginners Box and expanding it to the entire core book. Perhaps folding some of the better (better as in more interesting/ balanced not as in stronger) play options from later in the game into the core book (for example: get rid of seldom used rage talents and fold some of the better ones back into core).
Is that a new version? I don't think it needs to be, but I suspect many would argue it is.
I pretty much buy all my books from Amazon. Even with the delayed release for not buying directly from Paizo, it's quicker (and vastly cheaper) to get books from Amazon.ca
The copy of the ACG sitting on my shelf begs to differ with 'quicker'. As for cheaper, the link I posted from Miniature Market is $4 less than the Amazon price. Depending on shipping/ Prime membership, etc you may well be able to get it from Miniature Market both quicker and cheaper.