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

DrDeth's page

5,012 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure Archetypes of other classes have Trapfinding. Few have Trap Spotter, which depending on your DM, can be an absolute "must have".

But once we're comparing archetypes, to keep it apples to apples, we have rogues who can use a sap with crazy damage, rogues who get sneak attack every time they charge or even just move, rogues with Ki abilities that duplicate spells- but often as a Su rather than a Sp ability, rogues who can sneak attack from across the room, rogues who can pass through walls, walk on air and so forth. (Ninja is a rogue archetype, btw, but a special sort)

No doubt, a archaeologist Bard is a cool option- some people would prefer spells to sneak attack and performing to sneakyness. Others don't. Both now have a CHOICE.

Just because another class can fill a niche does not mean the original niche holder is now obsolete. The Oracle did not make the Cleric obsolete. The Sorcerer did not take the Wizard out. PF is not a game with "niche protection", it is a game with OPTIONS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Pan wrote:
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.

Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.

I think it's just the opposite. "...this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all a Pathfinder fan."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...
......

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

I had a PC in early 3rd ed: Frederick, Viscount Stanley.

Decent CHA, but the rest of the stats were boring, with a lowish wis. Took levels in Aristocrat- only. Based in Greyhawk. His Dad was a filthy rich merchant-Squire who bought his son the Title.

Hella of a fun PC. Now mind you, this was mostly social and puzzle solving but we did visit the Cairn Hills, etc. Since Stanley was filthy rich he could buy the best weapons & armor and help his new friends. His title and connections helped with the Guards, got us into places etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Triphoppenskip wrote:

We use permadeath in my group. You die, you do not pass Go and do not collect 200 dollars. But this was ran by the group before we ever started and we even had a group vote. A GM can do what he wants as it is his game but most good GMs do address the group beforehand and lay out the houserules.

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
As Dungeon Master, I don't make it easy to acquire the diamond component for casting the spell. Resurrection would by difficult to come by in my game.

The Law of Supply and Demand would simply make even tiny amounts of diamond dust do quite nicely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

I am aware Deth, which is why I quoted blahpers and not you. ...

What isn't okay is if a player brings a terrible build to the table and then blames the GM for not specifically catering to the highly limited skill set his character has.

Truth!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we really say "Post ACG" when it's barely been out?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't know what to say to people who elect to sit out of large chunks of the game. Especially when the Slayer, Barbarian, Paladin, etc. can fulfill the "I wanna kill something" need while still contributing in ways other than straight DPR.

I know, I dont get it either, I prefer Ranger & paladin. But PF has 30-40 classes now, so let's just leave the Fighter to those people. There's room for every type. Choices!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree, but they just need to add that to the various Shape spells.

"Beast Shape: you generally can not use somatic gestures in this form. Speech for spellcasting is often impossible"

"Dragon shape: you generally can use somatic gestures in this form. Speech for spellcasting is normal."

I would say Elementals- No. I agree with Treatmonk here.

Giants- yes. Plants- no. Monstrous humanoid = yes. Undead= yes, but maybe a no on speech.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darche Schneider wrote:
What is kinda worse is when you have martial classes who's class features are made up of 1 use per day. (AKA the rogue) Especially on things that everyone else gets unlimited uses per day (Esosentric Scholar?)

This is indeed a significant rogue issue. While I Am a rogue fan, many of the best talents, esp those that can keep a rogue alive, are once a day.

They really need to be at lest 3X a day. Or better. 3X +dex bonus! like the spellcasters all get. Making it dex is the best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


A Fighter at 20th is....

A Fighter at 20th is...playing in very few games. ;-)

We should compare levels 1-10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just want a new edition with all the errata and FAQ included- but pretty much after the FAQ queue is cleared out- they revise Tport and Simulacrum, etc.

Sort of a 1.5.

Not time for any major changes, not for another five years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bacon666 wrote:

Death as a condition.

Curing death is a question of gold... Even at high levels reviving the dead should be a spectacular task involving more than 10 minutes and a bag of diamond dust / gold...

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?

But I have several: Scry and fry, Simulacrum. Blood Money (as is, needs limits, say 1000gps?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.

Captain Renault: I am shocked... SHOCKED that a Paizo message board might have a lot of Paizo fans.

("Your winnings sir." )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

Because one of those things makes the other irrelevant. To see this in action click here.

Fighter: But how would that be using my combat abilities?

Wizard: We wouldn't, the angels would just take care of it.

Fighter: I think the thing is that your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my combat abilities look a bit redundant.

Wizard: Well, but at the end of the day it's all about results.

Figther: But... I'm quite good at combat abilities.

Martial classes can do that too:

Call Celestial Ally (Sp): At 8th level, a sacred servant can call upon her deity for aid, in the form of a powerful servant. This allows the sacred servant to cast lesser planar ally once per week as a spell-like ability without having to pay the material component cost or the servant (for reasonable tasks). At 12th level, this improves to planar ally and at 16th level, this improves to greater planar ally.

Celestial Ally (Sp): At 4th level, an empyreal knight can summon a celestial ally as a full-round action. This functions as summon monster I, except it can only be used to summon celestial creatures, archons, and angels. At 6th level, this improves to summon monster II, increasing by one spell level for every two levels thereafter, to a maximum of summon monster IX at 20th level.

They can fly:
Form of the Dragon: The ranger's skin becomes rough and scaly. While in this form, the ranger gains a +4 natural armor bonus to AC and a fly speed of 30 feet with average maneuverability. Alternately, the ranger can polymorph into the form of a dragon as if the caster of form of the dragon I.

Form of the Eagle: The ranger's skin stretches, his nose becomes hooked, and his eyes enlarge. While in this form, the ranger gains a +10 bonus on Perception checks and a fly speed of 40 feet with good maneuverability. Alternatively, the ranger can polymorph into the form of an eagle or similar raptor as if the caster of beast shape IV.

Divine Bond (Su): At 5th level, an empyreal knight forms a bond with a mount, as the standard paladin ability. Her mount gains the celestial template at 8th level. At 12th level, her mount sprouts wings if it cannot already fly, and gains a fly speed of twice its land speed and good maneuverability. If the mount could already fly, its fly speed and maneuverability improve to at least this level.

Empyreal Champion:..As a standard action and a supernatural ability, she can sprout wings that allow her to fly at twice her land speed with average maneuverability.

Cloud Step, Dragon Totem Wings - and many more

They can go Invisible. They can heal, Buff, remove conditions, raise the dead, travel to other planes. Breathe fire, etc, like a dragon. Walk on walls like a spider, emit a sonic blast, kill with a touch, walk thru walls, see invisible, do Divinations, and more- all without a single spell.

And with Mythic- well, the sky is the limit.

Not to mention, many martials DO have spells- Paladins, Rangers, etc.

I know what you're saying: well, the Fighter can't do much of that. True. ONE single class out of 30 or so is pretty much limited to EX abilities. Why not? Why cant there be just the one, single class which relies on mundane abilities? Some people want that. Let them have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:


EDIT: Here's a proposal for the future of this thread. If all you want to say is "yes, there is a problem with high level casters" simply type "YES THERE IS". If all you want to say is "I've never seen a problem with high level casters" simply type "NO THERE ISN'T". That might make things a bit easier to follow.

But it's not that simple. Even I, who have repeatedly taken the viewpoint that caster/martial disparity is not a huge significant problem in Pathfinder- cheerfully admit that it certainly can be at the highest levels, since I have seen it occur at 17th level+ in 3.5. Doubtless similar issues occur in PF, I agree.

So, I will say "NO THERE ISN'T"-- at the levels where the vast majority of games are played.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
If a person doesn't experience a problem, then by definition there is no problem for that person. If there is no problem then the problem, in fact, does not exist. People who continue to insist that a problem exists when only a subset of people experience a problem should not be in the habit of thinking they speak for everyone.
If a person experiences a problem, then by definition there is a problem for that person. If there is a problem then the problem, in fact, does exist. People who continue to insist that no problem exists when only a subset of people don't experience a problem should not be in the habit of thinking they speak for everyone.

But how common is the problem? Do you have it? Who here says that the problem actually exists commonly in the games they run/play in?

We don't have the problem. I have seen it occur several times when spellcasters get 9th level spells, I must admit. But that is so rarefied and uncommon that we have to ask is it really a such a significant issue that the whole game has to be re-written?

Do Fighters need to have Fly and Teleport and Create Demiplane? Do we need to delete those spells? Or can the TEAM get along just fine with one member being able to do those things instead of everyone? With, say the fighter being the guy who loves dealing massive damage in combat but isn't interested so much otherwise? With the guy who plays the face loving those roleplaying encounters? Etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
pming wrote:
I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm old here... Are there any other players/GM's that have been playing D&D for, oh, lets set the bar lowish at 20 years that see the "spellcasters = win" thing?

Playing 35 years here. And, yes, I definitely see it. There are a couple things I should point out, that might influence opinions/discussion:

1. Most of my 1e games ended at or just after "name" level, at which point the casters are just starting to pull ahead. Remember, 10th-14th used to be very high level, reserved for stuff like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Tomb of Horrors; you were taking on demiliches and demon queens at that level. The few times we tried playing to 18th level, casters dominated play even back then. If we quit all PF games at 10th level, the problem would be a lot less pronounced.

For 40 years here. Yes, it occurred but only at the highest, rarely played levels. Still, no matter what the Tank was a necessary part of the team- unless minions could handle it (and solo games with one PC and a army of minions were a "thing" in OD&D). Someone had to run interference for the Wizard. What with saves being so good, you often had to have a warrior do any actual killing.

Wizard could definitely "win" but what they couldn't do as much is take over a niche. Fiendish Gygaxian traps were everywhere and you needed a Thief. There were few spells that would turn a Wizard into a better warrior than the fighter.

Spells had to be hoarded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:


That it does, my friend. That it does. Take me, for example. (To the loony bin.)

Short trip, my friend, short trip. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treantmonk wrote:

Druid is a strong choice. With a 15 point buy I might go with something like:

Str 14+2 (5 pt)
Dex 14 (5 pt)
Con 12 (2 pt)
Int 10 (0 pt)
Wis 14 (5 pt)
Cha 8 (-2 pt)

The low equipment buy won't be a problem.

I agree. Druid is SAD, needs the least gear, casts divine spells and comes with a powerful pet.

If you don;t like Druids, maybe a Nature oracle or Lunar oracle. In fact, I think the Lunar oracle, with it's semi-were abilities may suit the campaign flavor very well.

You get Darkvision, Natural weapons, a animal companion, good healing, a decent ray atk, and you use CHA for DEX.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.

No, it hasn't. Nothing of the sort "has been proven". Build comparos, esp when the builders are trying to prove a point, aren't worth much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we all agree that Cleric is one of the most powerful classes in the game?

Yet we have thread after thread here where DM's complain that no-one wants to run a cleric. But they always have plenty of folks lined up to play the Fighter.

Maybe, just maybe, since D&D is a Game, and the object of a Game is to have Fun- people wanna play what *THEY* have most Fun playing, rather than the class that some theorycrafter has said they should play?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I understand some of the issues- it has very poor skills, thus can;t do much out of combat- sure. Again- to many fighter players- this is a Good thing, this is a feature, not a bug.
I don't want fighters to have grit-like powers - half the point of the fighter class is to keep it simple. But I've never heard of a fighter player saying, "I'm glad I don't have more skill points. I'd hate to be good at acrobatics and perception."

I have never heard of ANY player saying "I'm glad I don't have more skill points." EVERY class would benefit by more skill points. Cleric is one of those, and that's a top tier class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lakobie wrote:
...Is fighter really that bad I have a lot more fun playing it than most other classes (especially casters) and usually outdo my who party in combat with rare exception (g&*+%$n incorporeal enemies)

It's not. Its a fun class that is really popular and can contribute to a party. In our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member in the party.

True, it's not very adaptable and does just one thing very well. It's also not very complex.

But these are features not bugs to many players who just love a simple plain vanilla deadly melee monster.

I understand some of the issues- it has very poor skills, thus can;t do much out of combat- sure. Again- to many fighter players- this is a Good thing, this is a feature, not a bug.

Don;t get me wrong- I'd be in there clamoring for a "Fighter Fix" too if the Fighter was the only martial class. I like lots of skills, so I often play a Ranger. And there's the Paladin, the Cavalier, the Barbarian, the Magus, the Inquisitor and so forth, for those who want other Good Stuff in their particular favorite warrior form.

Which is exactly why the Fight doesnt need a "fix". If you want other variations on a warrior, Paizo has given us many many choices. Nothing is forcing you to play a Fighter. But for those who really truly LIKE the bare-bone warrior who is the Fighter- let them have what they want.

I know, I get it. I really like more skills and a few spells, etc myself. I mush prefer the Ranger. But just because I prefer the ranger and think it's the better class doesn't mean that means I want to take the option of playing the Fighter away from those who prefer it.

When it stops being one of *THE* most popular classes played- then maybe it'll need a "fix".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a bad idea, realism or no. It also can engender bad feelings among the players. Don't do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Come on then, let us all in on the secret that makes healing in combat worth it that we have all been missing.

His trick has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not healing us good in combat. Your table's play style is the most critical part of how important it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raglum wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:
But I NEVER EVER heal during combat.

"What never?" "No, Never"

What Never? Well hardly ever!

Yes, never, never,never, no really never.....

"CAPTAIN: Though related to a peer,

I can hand, reef, and steer,
And ship a selvagee;
I am never known to quail
At the furry of a gale,
And I'm never, never sick at sea!
CREW: What, never?
CAPT: No, never!
CREW: What, never?
CAPT: Hardly ever!
CREW: He's hardly ever sick at sea!
Then give three cheers, and one cheer more,
For the hardy Captain of the Pinafore!"


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Cleric, Magic User, Fighting-man, Thief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raglum wrote:
But I NEVER EVER heal during combat.

"What never?" "No, Never"

What Never? Well hardly ever!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

Is 'many' the same as all?

No, but it also doesn't accurately describe the situation.

In fact, having just played a melee cleric through to 11th level, I can't think of ANY buffs that I typically applied to just myself that could have instead gone to the fighter.

It was generally the Personal-only stuff (like divine favor, and others) or whole-party stuff (like bless or blessing of fervor or my Aura of Heroism domain power).

What you call "many" is in practice very nearly "none".

I pretty much agree, but I think that Bless is by far a better choice than Divine favor. Everyone gets the +1 to hit, it lasts longer, and it's even possible that +1 vs fear effects could come in handy.

There are some nice buffs that a cleric might well apply to the fighter instead of self, such as Greater Magic Weapon.

But in general, laying down a party-wide buff is the best choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Scavion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?
Hmm. Fate's Favored, Divine Favor, 18 STR, masterwork weapon.

...

If you threw out a bless that's another +1 to attack.

If you're an evangelist you can get another +1 to attack and damage from Inspire Courage.

...

Damage is actually pretty easy for clerics to get.

With both bless and divine favor, you've spent two rounds buffing.

The typical fight is over in three.

I think he was just listing all the different reasons that DrDeth's skepticism of a melee-capable cleric was misplaced. We already saw that only one buff, not two, was needed for a moderate melee cleric to reach the attack/damage specified.

Not really. BAB is +1. I have grave doubts for a str of 18, since the std guides on the class suggest a 16 after racial, with a 15 pt build.

But let's go with it. That's +4. Total +5, with a MW makes it +6 and +4 to damage.

Not gonna be a combat cleric and evangelist, since you lose a domain, and are limited to light armor and no shield.

Spells? Bogus. You can cast 2-4 spells total as a 2nd level cleric, so using Bless and Divine Favor, means you have blown your spells for the day in one combat out of 4. But let's give you Fate's Favor & Divine Favor for one buff spell. That does get you to +8 to hit, but only +6 to damage.

This means you get that for 1/4 of your encounters and have no pluses in DEX, Con, INT or CHA, your stats are 18,10,10, 10, 14, 10. Really? Still doesnt get you to +8 to damage.

But I asked how *HE* got to +8 to hit and damage. Maybe Raglum can respond?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Finishing off adjacent unconscious PCs? It's not unreasonable for an enemy to kill a helpless PC because (a) they're a pitiless undead creature, (b) they're an assassin, here to make sure the PCs die, (c) they have a spare action, (d) they're aware that in-combat healing is a thing and want to make sure their enemy doesn't start attacking them again.

It's hard to say how regular it really is - the objective as I see it is to avoid getting into a situation where you have to rely on the GM being kind enough not to kill you when they easily could.

Right or (e)- they are attacking out of more or less mindless anger or hunger.

Why would a hungry animal or a swarm or a black pudding or a undead thirsting for life energy stop?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
"I don't understand why she was so worried. I mean, healing her wasn't going to end the fight any sooner, especially when I could be shooting the bad guys. Besides, even if she did go down, we'd just patch her up after the fight. If she wouldn't last that long, I could just stabilize her from across the room and then heal her later. I mean, being at negatives isn't really THAT dangerous, so why was she so upset that she was down half?"
If you go into negatives, in my experience, you're usually dead next round. Either no-one heals you, and you get attacked again next round and die, or someone heals you, you stand up, take an AoO, and go down again and then die. That's why I value non-emergency healing.

And being at negatives means you aren't playing. D&D is a Game, the object of a Game is to have Fun. Lying there bleeding out for a couple rounds while the other members of the party have fun killing the monsters is generally not "Fun".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

Cast Explosive Runes several times on a piece of paper.

Use Wand of Erase with CL 1 to attempt to dispel Explosive Runes. Roll 1d20+1 vs DC 15. If you fail, they all detonate.

Anyway, so the Party runs in, and the Goblins charge with their Rune Shields. The party moves up and I say, "Perception check" and they notice that there is something on the shiel*BOOOM*

1. No where in the spell does it say you can cast it more than once on the same object.

2. You auto dispel your own spells.

3. It's not SEEING, it's READING.

The party moves up and I say, "Perception check" and they notice that there is something on the shield..."Do you read what's on the shield"? if no, then the runes do nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owly wrote:
OP wrote:
Capable of doing...

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of "tiers" and the gnashing of teeth that goes along with the idea. To me, we play these games to bring fantasy worlds to life. ...

BUT...I've softened to the idea as there is value in open discussion as to the combat capabilities of the classes. It helps the game system evolve (sometimes). This idea of "is capable of doing" is very...misleading, unless we're talking about a 30x30 room with a monster in it.

Feats and numbers...feats and numbers...have fun talking feats and numbers, but don't forget it's a roleplaying game.

Tiers are a tool, just like theorycrafting. It's a useful TOOL, but one should not mistake it for the game itself or IRL gaming. It's quite possible to have a party where the Fighter is the most useful and dangerous member of the party and the wizard be useless. But it does show theoretical potential.

For example, if I had a table with three really experienced players all doing T1, and a newer guy wanted to play a T5, then I'd have have a talk with him and the other players, make sure he doesn't get marginalized.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EvilPaladin wrote:
Simply cast it on a thousand sheets of paper, and then use Craft[Bookbinding] to form them into a book. Then make sure to target the Dispel AoE so it hits the book along the side opposite the spine, technically hitting all of the pages in the book.

It's either one item or many items. There's nothing that sez it can be cast multiple times on one item.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

Paladins are still only tier 4, their limited spell casting puts them in tier 4, and is not comparable to the battlecasters.

"Capable of doing one thing quite well, ..." Can Pally Smite Evil quite well? Darn tootin.

"while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate," can still tank, can still heal, still buff and can still remove conditions via Mercy. Are those things useful? Yep.

Thus, ipso facto, Paladins are T3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jamie Charlan wrote:

1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, ... Sorc and Oracle when they have Paragon Surge (oracle especially),

2: Regular Sorcerer, , regular Oracle. Standard Summoner, but unsure if Master Summoner is here or makes it to Tier 1.

3: Alchemists, Bards, ... Magus, ... Inquisitors, ...

4: Barbarians, Rangers, Adepts, paladins are probably at the top of 4, ... Unsure if Ninja here or in 5, they're fairly versatile and better than the Rogue, but are they good enough?

5: Fighters, The Better Monk Archetypes, Gunslingers,... Samurai... Cavalier probably still fits here but below samurai.

6: The "common NPC classes", the rest of the monk archetypes,....

Human Sorcs and oracles are likely Tier 1, due to the many extra spells they know. Paragon surge just adds icing. Witch is T1, but a weak T1.

Master Summoner is 2+. It fits in 2nd tier by definition, but it's very powerful.

Paladin should make T3, since it can do a lot of things fairly well, and Smite VERY well. "Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate,". Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors & Paladins are extremely well balanced. Indeed a party of those 4 classes would be awesome. All can heal a little, all can Buff, 3 can tank, 3 have good skills, and you even have ranged blasting.

Qinggong monks are T4."capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining." I think its even possible that they could edge into T3 with the right campaign.

Gunslingers are clearly T4."Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise." Even a well built Fighter with archetypes can slide in here. Same with a Zen Archer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Uri Meca wrote:
I`m curious: Why do those of you DMs in this thread who recommend forbidding or extremely limiting low stats, do so? No weaklings/butter-fingers/chronically ill/simpletons/fools/socially inept concepts allowed? Or is it to prevent "unmanageably" high stats for the trade-off? Or some other reason? I'm not attacking your suggestion, I merely don't understand it.

Too many players build one trick ponies, glass cannons, etc. by Min/maxing. Yes, they can do well in one type of encounter, but they are a big FAIL in everything else.*

This limits the DM. Either you then build all your encounters so that they do well, or you just play them as they go. In the first, you get frustrated DMs, in the second you get frustrated players.

I think the "get points back for dumping" is one of Pathfinders worst features and a big mistake. Sure, it's a hold-over from 3.5 but in 3.5 rolling was the usual and point buy was more rare. Now point buy is the default. This makes the decision to allow players to dump a bad one, with unintended consequences.

*Too often, they read about these monstrosities here, where theortycrafters tout them as so great. But IRL they are often not fun to play. I remember thread where they suggested a newb dump WIS for his Paladin. He followed their advice and had a terrible first few games- being more or less shut out of Perception checks, failing a critical Sense motive and being left to twiddle his thumbs by failing a Will save. And all he got back was a +1 to STR.

We have threads here today to build the more damage dealing spellcaster possible. Great idea in theory and theorycrafting is an important mental exercise to test the limits. But say you play one of these and find you need more utility spells, or the DM's game focuses more on puzzle solving or the foes are resistant to fire and that's all you got?

Is it really Fun to be able to blow thru some encounters easily and be useless in the rest? Not to me.

Now- if that's Fun to you, great. Different strokes for different folks, and the idea is to have Fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know folks, when the OP asks for a Rogue build, maybe he wants a rogue build?

Nothing wrong with other ideas, but why not give him the advice he wants first, then alternate solutions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:

There are people on the boards that will tell you how healing in combat is bad, a wasted action, and scales horribly with the damage being dished out at the levels in question....I am not one of them. I have seen healing in combat be the difference in keeping a Barbarian doing his excellent melee damage. I have seen healing in combat be the difference where I could see that if one guy fell the rest of the party would topple soon after.

The trick is not wasting too many resources and getting shoe-horned into a totally heal-bot role.

Don't listen to them and do what you think is best in your game.

Right, but it's absolutely true that until healing is NEEDED then Buffing, battlefield control etc is a better use of your actions.

So, heal when needed, do the 'top off healing" only after combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know WotC sucked me back in when they released those cool new 3.5 PHB, etc. with all the errata and stuff edited in. Yay!

But then they released the later ones with no errata and nothing other than a higher price tag. Boo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zathyr wrote:


Alternately, put the 4 into Con and when the character dies hope you roll better. ;)

Do it. Everyone will be expecting you to wimp out and put it in a stat that means little or nothing. Dump Con. Too bad you can't play a Elf, be Elric.

Play a Gunslinger modeled after Doc Holiday. "I'm your huckleberry." .

Tacticslion has some great ideas.

PS, in the one game where we still roll stats we have two alternate choices:

either roll one extra stat (roll 7 numbers) and dump one.

Or a 1 becomes a 2. I had a generous DM make ones become re-rolls.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Hawktitan wrote:
There needs to be a Drizzt in Golarion.

Sarenrae, no!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, it depends. A single drow not hurting anyone? Then it's best to detain and question.

A drow warparty? Attack on sight before they attack you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dynas wrote:

Then later he rolled a natural one on a grapple check and I added the disease again. ( i normally dont do this b/c of the stack effect) However i added it this time b/c we have a house rule that "bad" stuff happens on a natural one. you drop your weapon, your bow string breaks, etc... seeing as he had no weapon this is what i thought of.

This is your problem right there. Critical fumble rules are a abomination, and this is a great example.

I can't blame the guy for dumping since they were rolled. (PS, we have a rule that if you do roll, 1's are 2's.).

Just ask him- would he rather bring in a new PC, or just have him saved by DM fiat? "Shillelu wanders by: Oh, I see you have Goblin Dog rot, here', I have a herb that can fix it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

Meh. Traps are two dice rolls and some damage that only 1 player can participate in besides setting off the trap through magic or other means.

I think they're a poor game mechanic at best.

Ah then my friend, you haven't run in the classic days with dungeon chock full or deadly and fun Gygaxian traps, such as Tomb of Horrors. Ah those were the days. You guys have been spoiled by Pathfinder APs, where indeed traps are mostly "weak sauce". "Just take the hit" doesn't work if "the hit" teleports the PC nude into a pit full of nasties.

I am a proponent of the Rogue class*, but with those tanks (who need boosting) and no arcane caster, then yes, go for the Archaeologist bard.

While it true that things like summoned critters can find a few traps (and are even the best way to disarm a few) and diabolical DM worth his salt can easily design traps that will foil that idea.

For example, a chest full of scrolls soaked in oil with a explosive runes spell.

* of course!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


That could go on for a while, but long story short, if skills had the kind of quadratic growth that we've seen in a lot of fantasy culture and that spells have by default, a lot of the discrepancies would be resolved.

Right. While I don't buy into the whole martial/caster disparity issue (at least at commonly played levels) I 100% agree I'd like to see skills scale better. The Skill tricks from 3.5 would be nice as well as stuff like the Lorecall spells (but make them feats).

I want to see something very special kick in at 10 ranks. Hmm, to make them mix with PF as written how about when you get 10 ranks in a skill you get a Ki point and free access to a related Ki talent? Gliding Steps* with Acrobatics.

Spider Step with Climb.

* the qinggong monk Ki ability here, which yes, grants the feat if you burn a Ki point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chyrone wrote:


Carnival of tears, my fighter crits a brownie and got the privilege to describe in detail what it looked like.

I crited a brownie just a while ago, it was served with vanilla ice cream and delicious. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
Could be Polish or Czech too.

But not Hawaiian. ;-)

You know, we should get the Welsh and Hawaiians together!

It's so sad seeing Welsh children sing "Old MacDonald" and get to the E-I-E-I-O part....

1 to 50 of 730 << 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.