|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ahh yeah. Forgot about the fact you dont get Dex to hit. I really hope they fix that feat. It should provide Dex to Hit and Damage. You could always go Elven Curve Blade and just CALL it a Katana. Kinda crappy I know but who is going to argue with you while you are actively killing them with said weapon.
You actually dont need to take any Swashbuckler to make it work. Just go straight Magus. At first level you gain Weapon prof with one exotic weapon and Weapon Focus with your chosen weapon. With your first level feat take the following.
Slashing Grace (Combat)
Take the following two Arcana from the ACG...
Flamboyant Arcana (Ex) — Gain the derring-do and opportune parry and riposte swashbuckler deeds.
Arcane Deed (Ex)(requires Flamboyant arcana) - Gain a swashbuckler deed. The deed must be able to be used by a swashbuckler of your magus level. You can use that deed by spending points from your arcane pool as the panache points required for that deed.
You can take Extra Arcana as your 3rd level feat for two Arcana at 3rd. that means you can pick up Flamboyant Arcana and Arcane Deed (Precise Strike). With one Arcana and one feat you have Derring-do, opportune parry, riposte, and Precise strike. Swashbuckler in a box. As long as he has one Arcane Point left in reserve you can deal your Magus level in damage. Thats pretty sick.
A. My bonus was in the first post. 23/23/23/18/13. That is after Deadly Aim and Rapid is factored in. So I would need to roll a 1/1/1/6/11 to hit an AC of 24. I'm not sure how you factored your chance of hit. Ive done very little with "DPR" Olympics.
B. I never said that a Ranger is more well rounded than an Inquisitor. Just that I built the ranger as a well rounded character. I didn't build him for max DPS. However that 1d10+21 could easily be 6 arrows at 1d10 + 29 (And another +4 to hit) off the top of my head if I had built him for straight DPS games. And I am probably missing a lot of the tricks to get his damage up. But I would have had to drop Hooded Champion which adds to the whole well rounded vibe I went with. Never said the Inquisitor wasn't well rounded lol.
C. I couldn't get your link to work. However I didn't have Heroism, or Greater Magic Weapon (Both buffs I could get from my party). I didn't select traits, but I will assume there is little damage boost there. And I was well under WBL (45k under to be exact). Thats wands, potions and extra bonuses on my weapon or whatever.
D. See this is what makes me go Hmmm. I wish I could get your link to work. To say that, "Especially against an AC 24", makes me think your bonus to hit is pretty bad. I hit that on less then a 10 on every attack but the last. I hit it on a 1 on my first 4 arrows. Factor in Concealment and your bonus gets worse where mine doesn't. Again I cant see your build so I am assuming.
Divine Power, Weapon of Awe, ect take rounds away from combat. Your buffing while the Ranger is killing things. Most of his buffs are instantaneous. And Teammates can do very little if the enemy is in your grill. You have to hope you can keep taking 5 foot steps and the mobs aren't Large, or have reach. You have to hope the DM doesn't play your enemies smart and use cover/concealment. You have to hope that your Tea mates don't step in front of you and give you penalties due to concealment.
E. Here we agree. I think Rangers and Inquisitors are awesome. I think Inquisitors are all around a better class then Ranger when it comes to the power curve. But that's based on its buffing potential and 6th level casting. Archery is one of those things that require so many feats, that you almost have to have an Archetype or class ability that give you early access or give you class abilities that mimic them. Monk, Fighter, Ranger, ect... they all have an archetype or combat style dedicated to Archery. Inquisitors don't (as far as I know). In fact there best option is to Dip Zen Archer.
I said no contest based off just Archery. Inquisitors are better casters, better at social situations, and have better damage potential. But 3/4 BAB and lack of early access/Bonus feats it really hurts it for Archery. At least imo. I don't think our opinions are too far from each other. We both think both classes are good. We just differ on which we think is a bit better for archery.
Let me explain and clear up a few things.
A. I miss calculated. He would do 1d8 + 21 (+2 Bow, +4 Str, +1 Point Blank, +8 Deadly shot, +5 Favored Enemy, +1 Greater Bracers). I also forgot to add in the shot from Many Shot. So with Gravity Bow thats 6D10 + 126 or 156 avg damage without a crit.
B. I went for a more balance build with tons of utility. You will notice my build doesn't have a stat below 10. I could have gone Human for the extra feat, used for Arcane Strike for another +3 damage. I could have skipped Hooded Champion (it adds utility not dmg), Favored Enemy bonus would have been +6, instead of +5, and dumped int and cha for a 20 Dex and a 16 Str (There is another +1 dmg per shot). I could have spent more gold on his Bow (instead of just using a +2 bow). Either way I could have boosted his dps into the 200ish range pretty easy. But I figured 150 dps a round was good enough for any campaign. Better to be well rounded then a dps machine with huge weakness.
C. I would be very interested to see your Level 12 Inquisitor that could pump out 300 dps. I'm not saying you cant do it, but I dont see it being possible without some serious cheese. Your already at one less attack a round then the Ranger at 12th level.
D. Even if you can push it up to 300. Thats assuming you hit every attack. My ranger has pretty good bonus to hit even with his last attack. He has Improved Precise Shot and Point Blank Master. Your Inquisitor doesnt. He provokes, He misses due to concealment. He can never get Point Blank Master, and you cant get Improved Precise untill 15th level. That HURTS.
E. I will give Inquisitor this. Its a much better PURE divine caster. It actually has spells that are good at helping outside of boosting Archery. But other than that... The Inquisitor might be able to present some pretty numbers on paper, but I have a feeling in actual play they would be far less effective(at archery) then a straight Ranger.
I would say Ranger is still a better all around option. Expecially if you go Hooded Champion. Here is a quick build on Hero lab.
Ranger (Hooded Champion) Spells Prepared (CL 9th; concentration +13):
So assuming Instant Enemy, Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, and Haste(Boots of Speed) modifiers added:
23/23/23/18/13 for 110 avg dmg without crits, Gravity Bow, or extra elemental dmg bonuses. Pretty decent damage at level 12. And thats with a quick build an without all his stuff added in. He also has a really nice mount/Pet. The real beauty of a Ranger is that he has Improved Precise Shot, and Point blank Master at such an early level. That with the bonuses he can stack on and the straight BAB means he will be hitting more often an Inquisitor. Its not really a contest imo.
As stated earlier. The required CHA modifier for this to be even slightly reasonable is too high. For it to work you can't lower the Caster Level to 1. You have to use your full Caster Level...
Siphon Spell (Su): When the arcanist uses the greater spell disruption exploit, she can siphon some of the power of the targeted spell to restore her arcane reservoir. If the caster level of the spell is equal to or higher than that of the arcanist, and she exceeds the DC of the dispel check by 5 or more, she adds 1 point to her arcane reservoir. If she exceeds this check by 10 or more, she instead adds 2 points to her arcane reservoir.
2 Exploits... 1st and 7th
You basically give up your 1st and 7th Exploit for the ability to cast summon monster as a standard action (plus the move action to sack the spell) and the 1 minute per caster level. Because it cost 1 point per spell level its too expensive to use your normal pool. You will have to sack the spell slot you could have used to just cast the spell in the first place. So you get for 2 exploits...
1 min/CL summon monster as a standard action when you sack a spell(same as a cleric sacking spells for heals)
While this is strong its at the cost of 1/5 of your exploits. As an arcanist you have less spells to begin with. Also... Because you get a new level of Summon Monster at every odd level but dont gain that level of spell casting till your next even level your having to sack several spells or you loose one of your normal pool each summons. Compare this too a Master Summoner. He has 5 + Cha mod in summons in addition to his normal casting.
9th level casting vs 6th level casting, but if you want to churn out the summoning power of a Summoner your not going to do alot of casting. Not to mention you can only have one at a time while the Master Summoner can flood the field.
Its a toss up really. A strong Archetype but it doesn't really replace the appeal of a Summoner imo.
The real win evolutions are Pounce, Improved Damage, Reach, Pull/Push and Bite.
Problem: The summoned creature must conform to any limitations of the evolution. This means a lot of your best High level Devils/Demons/Angels cant benefit from some of these. Pounce needs a Quadruped for instance.
No T-Rex with Pounce and Claws... Limbs are a 2 point evolution which you cant get.
So I tried to place all the feats as I would probably take them. Here are a few things I noticed...
1. You really dont start rolling until Level 5 when you get Dex to Damage and Crossbow Mastery. I went Light Crossbow with Two weapon Fighting.
H: Rapid Reload (Light Crossbow)
1d8 + Dex on a 19-20/X3 is pretty sick. At 20th with a 20 Starting Dex, you could potentially max it out at a 36 dex or so. With +5 Keen Crossbows thats...
+38 to hit
26/26/26/21/21/16/16/11 (Touch AC within 80ft )
Its the only "Archer" type with Dex to damage... well other than an actual Gunslinger of course. I think it makes it super competitive with the other big ranged classes (Zen Monk, Fighter Archer, Ranger, ect).
The Hooded Champion Archetype is also very interesting... I am knocking around a few ideas on ways to tweak it.
I fixed it. It seems someone decided to troll my guide. I do plan to update it with all the new traits and suggestions. I have just been out of town the past 6 months or so. Now that I'm back I should be getting it updated before long. Thanks again for all the suggestions and comments. I will post a new thread when I get it updated.
So, how does it change if you get 1 point in 5 attributes of your choice each 4 levels? You can switch which attribute doesn't get a point each time if you like.
It doesn't. Caster's aren't powerful because they are SAD. Attributes have very little to do with it. Its the casting that makes them what they are.
Messing with the way attributes are gained doesn't change that.
This really looks amazing. It makes me want to try out a custom campaign with no prepared casters. It would cut down on arcane power by making casters more specialized. Something like...
No Wizard or Sorcerer. Possibly even change the Druid/Cleric/Oracle to be more specialized spontaneous casters as well. It would limit the power of the classes some. They would at the very least drop to low Tier 2 classes if not Tier 3. And it would add a ton of depth if given as much love as your beguiler has gotten. Each could be rivals of different "Schools" of magic.
Anyone else think this would be a cool campaign world?
Im sorry... at what point did I say that investing in social skills and Cha would do nothing for that person? At what point did I say that all social situations should be hand waved and up to the person's actual ability to communicate?
The OP said the fighter and Monk didnt feel they could CONTRIBUTE to out of combat situations. Not take them over or be the face... but actually make a difference. My respose was simply this... Anyone with well developed backstory and a DM who wants to get everyone envolved will be fine. Will they be making all the social roles? No. But can they contribute to the story and the conversation... sure. Can they gather information by actually talking to people... yes. Will they get as much info as the guy with a maxed out GatherInfo skill. No... but they can still figure stuff out and add to the group. Can the DM incorporate the backstory of any character into the plot and make that player fill invested. Absolutely.
My favorite character was a low INT Barbarian(3.5 before the buffs). He didnt have a ton of social skills, but I RP'ed his low INT and had a blast with him. I never felt like I couldn't contribute even though I lacked a huge pool of skills or earth altering spells and abilities. I played him from 1st to 26th level. He along with 2 other long lasting characters became the focal point of the story... A Barbarian, a Fighter and a Monk actually now that I think about it.
I have also seen Rogues/Bards/Wizards with a crap ton of skills/spells that could contribute outside of combat, but they sat in the corner playing words with friends until the combat started. I never said that Fighters/Monks had the same advatages that other classes have when it comes to social situations... and honestly if they wanted to be a face or the social guru... then they should look at another class. But if all the want is to be a part of the story when not in combat... that is easly solved by a little creative thinking.
And If I was in a game that resolved all social situations with a skill role I think I would fall asleep. Those skills are all well and good but if Your DM (or you) require a skill role to get anything done in a social situation then you are missing out on half the fun of a Pen and Paper RPG. Are there mechanical issues with Fighter or Rogue or Monk... Possibly, but thats not what the OP asked about. They dont need help in the one thing not tracked by Pathfinder... the ability to come up with an interesting character and then roleplay said character.
My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.
I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
I dont see the issue. To the original poster: The issue isn't the classes. Its the players playing the classes. They seem to have prepared for combat, but failed to create interesting concepts to RP when they aren't swinging a sword or kicking someone. I have had entire games revolve around the fighter(The focal point for the "out of combat" portion of the game).
Here is an Idea: Have them write a backstory. Where do they come from. Where are their families. Why did they decide to adventure. What are their goals. Do they have any enemies. What do they fear the most. Likes/Dislikes/Quirks/Issues/ect. Then incorperate that stuff into the plot. That should keep them from feeling "useless".
I think the sweet spot is around level 22 to 26... Which doesn't really require you to have an Epic level handbook. Six levels past 20 gives you plenty of time to enjoy your capstone and to flesh out your character by giving him additional levels from another class.
I have only reached epic level twice and have been playing pen and paper games for over a decade... that doesn't stike me as a huge hole that needs filled. There are rules in place for 20+ gameplay even if they aren't fleshed out. Add in Mythic play and you have everything you really need.
Now a Divine book on the other hand, would be great. A book of all the Deities stated out... if for no other reason then to give my groups something to debate("God A could totally take out God B in a fight!").
I meant more that if you put the party against roughly appropriate encounters, a somewhat high level summoner would never meet something to add to his lists, simply because the summon lists lag in CRs. The SMIX list includes nothing above 14, IIRC.
Well that depends on whether the check to add the creature upon meeting it or if he could add it later when he can cast an appropriatly high enough level of summons. So lets say he fights a Dretch at 3rd level. If he can make the check once he hits 5th level (SM III) then its all good. If he has to make the check as the encounter unfolds then yes... it screws him up pretty bad. As long as the requirement is only "ecountered it AT ANY TIME in the past" then it should be fine.
It sounds interesting... sort of like Pokemon lol. I would suggest having a way for the summoner to research a summons similiar to how you would research creating a new spell. Have it take time + gold. This allows the summoner to go for a specific creature he might want to use but has yet to meet. Several appropriate knowledge rolls plus access to a library of some sort should be required as well. This gives him something to do during downtime also.
Just an Idea. I would be interested to hear how it turns out and see any nailed down ruleset you use. Good luck.
Anyone got thoughts on artifact creation? Asking mainly from a DM / NPC perspective not a player one.
Good lord people. He is asking for a RP reason for why its hard to create Major/Minor Artifacts and yet still explains why certain NPC's can create them.
I would say you have several options.
1) Divine/Abysal/Infernal help - Divine blessing or a pact with the underworld could give you the temporary power to create an artifact. Baba Yaga for instance has the ability to travel between different realms. She could have made a pact with an other-worldly creature gaining the insite/power to create artifacts.
2) Spontanious - I know in 3.5 there was always the small %chance that an item would be created as a cursed item or as an artifact. Call it a fluke or a rare alignment of different circumstances that created said item. This can explain how a single item was created. It doesn't help so much with NPC's that have created several though... thats a little too unlikely.
3) Forgotten rites - As you already stated. It could be a lost art that could be re-discovered.
I personally rule that there has to be a soul involved. This usually means you have to have help from either a divine source or a Other-Worldly scource. A Deity can send the soul of a follower who wishes to return to the material plane in order to do good... even if it is as a weapon. A demon/devil can invest a soul he has taken in return for your soul upon death... or any other number of demonic deals you can think up. An abomination from a plane of chaos might forge a soul from the chaos and embue it into the item... but warping the purpose in the process to seed its agenda. Or you could find an old rite that requires you to sacrifice a person upon creation of the item. (Stabing the victim through the midsection when tempering the blade sorta stuff).
Suffice to say... Its not an easy task. Most are evil or risky. And unless the DM (You) are into it then the task can be all but impossible for even the most powerful of casters and crafters. Thats how I do it anyways.
I would have to agree with the opinion that the rules (both RAW and RAI)support the ability to Scry and Fry. I dont like it and can see why others want to infer some hidden ruling because they dont like it... but the description is pretty clear. It would take a re-wording of teleport... not a clarification.
I personally have never had to deal with this DM'ing any of my groups. Im guessing my casters are just to nice to pull such stunts. If it did come up I would house rule that you had to have actually been to a location before you could teleport there. But thats all it would be. A House rule.
I dont use Save or Die spells. I avoid using Save or Suck spells that keep a player from playing (Hold person is an example) unless its a quick combat (2-3 rounds).
Other than that I just make sure I dont use spells that would keep others from having fun. Its a kind of a broad answer but there it is. I am there to make sure the group is having fun. Throwing AOE and CC over and over would probably keep the group from having fun.
Its a delicate balance between "Challenging" and "Frustrating"
And while you find the Current Wildshape weak, look at all the crying and nashing of teeth over the Sythesist Summoner (who in reality is weaker then a straight summoner or Master Summoner).
It has a more 3.5 flavor shifting mechanic and people scream to the high heavens... and its still a static form that cant change like 3.5 Wildshape, Syth Summoners only get 6th level casting and no animal companion. Yet you see more nerf theads over them than any other class. Can you imagine the threads if Druid still had 3.5 wildshape.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The fact that druids are the weakest they have ever been now and have been given the short end of the stick on Archetypes (Paizo's replacement for PrCs that's supposed to let you play any concept) is sad-- instead of "Bear Druud" and "Dinosaur Druud" that basically get weakened versions of the core abilities why can't Druid have Archetypes like Summoner and Alchemist have gotten?
This has been an issue for Druids since 3.0. There where very few (good) prc's for Druid then either. I think it has alot to do with the fact they are good at everything. Its hard to balance a good archetype/PrC for Druid. It is either weak (Bear Shaman) or insanely good (Planar Shepard). It was the same in 3.5. There where very few PrC's released at all... and most of those where terrible.
I do miss Planar Shepard though! Such a beautifully broken PrC lol. The ability to wildshape into any Angle or Demon/Devil. Absolutly brilliant fun. My one Planar Shepard had to be retired once he was able to wildshape into one of the Archons (cant remember the exact one... Trumpet maybe?). Either way. One of the things Planar shepard added was they got all Extrodinary and SUPERNATURAL abilities. You got the spellcasting of whatever you changed into. So broken. Druid HOLY WORD for the win lol!
LOL... exactly. Nathanael you realize that alot of the crazy stuff from 3.5 has been taken out on purpose right? CODzilla, Batman, ect. World shattering builds are out there but are not promoted here like say... briliantgamolagist forums do.
Druid in its current form is balanced. And you miss the point of Wildshape and SNA if all you use it for is a stat boost and unicorns.
Such a rediculous premise. Did Druids get the nerf... Yes. Wildshape was changed to conform with the new Polymorph rules in PF (It nerfed arcane casters too). They also nerfed several of the buffs and SNA.
Its still one of the best friggin classes in the game.
9`th level spell casting (Automaticly makes it better then most)
And on top of all that...
Wildshape - even nerfed its one of the most versitile abilities in the game. The fact you can gain almost any movement type or vision is insanely good. Add in all the other abilities you can get not to mention the great sneaking and scouting... Its still awsome.
As far as their spell list. Its a great one. They get Offensive spells that a cleric lacks, they have have the heals a wiz/sorc lack, and they still get some great utility and CC spells. If I had to rank spell list I would do so as follows... Wiz/Sorc > Witch > Druid > Cleric > Everything else.
I dont like the Wildshape change. But I certainly understand WHY they made the change. It was insane before. Now its just REALLY good. Add in the Pet, 9th Level spells, armored casting, and D8 HP and you really have no reason to complain. It has no weakness. Its good at everything.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Depends on your Patron. For instance Cold (I think its cold) get some very nice spells to mix with Spellslinger.
Edit: Its Winter. They get Cone of Cold and Polar Ray.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Exactly this. Improved Familiar should be renamed "Improved Action-Economy". UDM and Wands give you two actions a round... Action Economy is King. Loosing Initiative sucks (If Action Economy is King then Initiative is his Queen) but getting the extra actions is worth it.
I AM BAT... errr INQUISITMAN!
Seriously though. Inquisitor seems like a good choice. I like them more as a Van Helsing type character in Carrion Crown... but the Bat Man route as a "Dark Knight" works. :)
Theory craft answer - No. They don’t have access to some of the most game breaking spells in the game like Wizards or Clerics (Wish/Miracle).
Actual Game Play Answer - Maybe. They are a 3/4 BAB, Full Caster, with a Super Pet and Wildshape. They have it all.
Personally I don’t think they are overpowered. They are Versatile. They can fill almost any role... but not every role at once. They have to specialize. Which means they take up a role just like any other class... they just have more options as to what that role will be.
Its obvious that he lacks the system mastery to pull off a Syth Summoner without you having to audit his character every level. Its not his fault. Its a complicated class. If you aren't comfortable doing so then I would suggest asking him to roll a different class.
You could also suggest just using a normal Summoner. They dont meld with their Eidolon and are much easier to learn... and this will allow you both to become more familiar witht the class before you jump into Synth Summoner.
Warmage 1/Divine Disiple 10/Divine Savant 1/Prestige Paladin 4/ Archmage 4
You know ever spell (divine and arcane), Cast like a Sorc, and can full attack and cast a spell in the same round.
Druid 10/Planar Shepard 10
You are immortal and you can wildshape into all Angles/Devils.
So would it be overpowered to allow a Slayer to get SA damage without flanking or flat-footing a Favored Target? Maybe change it to something other than "Sneak Attack" and only give the damage when a target is a Favored Target. Those who are immune to precision damage or have concealment cant be affected the same as SA. That would allow for a viable "Sneak Attack" Archer build, which would be the only real concept that would appeal to me with a class like this.
Craft Cheese wrote:
This is my thought too. Being able to BUILD a counterspell specialist is very interesting. It should take a bit of more investment however just as Craft suggest. An exploit chain combined with the feat investment for Spell Parry I think makes it very balanced. After all. You are talking a big investment for taking care of ONE type of enemy.
3 exploits (as an example)
With the same investment I could max out an obsene DC on Save or Suck spells and it works on every enemy type. In fact it does so better. Unlike countering spells... your are knocking that spellcaster out of the fight completely. Or the Barbarian. Or the Genie. Or whatever else. A counterspelling specialist that bounces spells back at the caster would simply be a fun and extreamly specialized caster that would be very effective against one enemy type.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. A or C. They are both equaly easy to use. B is a hot mess.2. C would be the most balanced.
3. A would be the most fun. It allows for more customization.
Option A: Yes the optimizers are going to use heavy crit weapons. So what. I fail to see how that's any different then any other option in Pathfinder. Optimizers will always pick the optimal choice. The only way you stop them is to give no choices... thats boring and effectivly what C does. With option C it doesn't really matter what you use as a weapon because they are all the same. You might as well use a butter knife or a broom. Come to think of it that might be quite humerous.
What about possibly adding a greater version that did what the original did. If I recall you could use Dispel Magic if you had it memorized and it gave you a bonus on the check. I was very interested myself in creating a couterspell specialist. I hope this exploit gets looked at.