Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Tar-Baphon's Ogre

EntrerisShadow's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 536 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 536 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Cheliax

Tom S 820 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:

Okay, here's my challenge to the Pathfinder community:

Using the least amount of new rules possible, what would you change about the existing classes to fix them? Keep in mind, "fixing" could mean nerfing, buffing, or altering a class's focus. Optimally, such modifications would be cut-and-paste features from other classes, if only to reduce the potential for strange interactions with other parts of the game. For example, here's my idea on how to fix rogues.

Ambush: For purposes of sneak attacks, the rogue's base attack bonus from rogue levels is equal to his rogue level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the rogue uses his normal base attack bonus.

Canny Defense: When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a rogue adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per rogue class level as a dodge bonus to his Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a rogue is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied his Dexterity bonus, he also loses this bonus.

There, two little additions that I think would go a long way toward making the rogue class more attractive. Most of the complaints we see have to do with the fact that rogues, while skilled out of combat, are way behind the curve on the battlefield due to their medium base attack bonus and low armor class. So, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, we've simply brought over effective mechanics from the monk and duelist to fill those gaps.

Anyone want to give this a shot for the other classes?

I could see letting ambush work if was only in surprised rounds. As a Rouge Talent. Also I would make be Situational bonus equal to 1/2 you rogue level. This would net you +5 above full BaB PC for one shot per fight at 20th level. IF you can set up the Ambush....Hell still my say no to that one because it would be more likely be used by GM than PC. Since How often do PC get to act in the Surprised round vs GM Minions.

For Canny Defense add if you are not encumber...

You're kidding, right? That would hardly be a rogue fix at all. The problem is he already has to work to be situationally useful. Other classes aside from the Duelist get a version of Canny Defense (like the Kensai, for example) and it doesn't hurt the Duelist at all. And make it a rogue talent? You may as well not change the class at all.

Cheliax

aceDiamond wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Drakainia. If you don't take real life SAN damage after reading "Invert Birth", I don't know what will phase you. Plus, the artwork in the Bestiary 4 is horrifying.

Pretty sure Darakania is the most difficult monster in all of the Bestiaries that isn't a Great Old One, right? And even Great Old Ones don't have Mythic Ranks. (shudder)

For low level, though? Stirges. Just . . . freaking Stirges, man.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:

Here's a quick pass at a Ranger archetype that gives me most of what I want from a shapeshifter class.

** spoiler omitted **

It doesn't quite match the normal archetype format in terms of trading abilities out, but I doubt it's overpowered, at least at higher levels.

In fact, I'd like to add more forms, especially at higher level, but there really isn't a template in PF for such abilities. Form of the Dragon, I guess.

I gave it more uses of the ability because I really want him to have to only pick one combat form for the day even at low levels.

I haven't playtested this, so I've got no idea how it will work out. My suspicion is that it'll be weak in combat, at least at low levels, but will have good flexibility and utility. Flight at level 1 is pretty sweet, but since he won't have any casting or ranged ability while flying, not too broken.

Personally I don't think you'd even need to ditch the Medium armor proficiency to keep that balanced.

This really is how the Hunter should've done the Ranger/Druid hybrid - instead of focusing on the pet, make a shaper. 3/4 BAB, Natural Weapon feat chain that ignores prerequisites, 6th level spellcasting, and instead of a companion a shaping focus that gives them some leveling "always on" abilities (no x rounds-minutes-whatever per day) and eventually allow their wildshaping to surpass the Druid's by giving them templates.

So an 8th Level Shaper gets ALL of the options in Beast Shape III (including Medium Magical Beast), at 10th Level they can add Celestial/Fiendish (neutral would make a permanent choice upon level) template depending on alignment, using their WIS mod to Smite instead of CHA. Instead of Druidic they could learn Celestial, Infernal, or Abyassal.

Cheliax

EntrerisShadow wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Since I don't think anyone's said it so far: EntrerisShadow, sneak attacks works on constructs now. And plants. And undead. Also, Shadow Strike works on both melee and ranged attacks. That does mean the Snipers Eye talent is kind of pointless in comparison, but then that's a pretty standard evaluation of a lot of rogue talents.
Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Missed this before, but . . .

I just realized that Shadow Strike is a combat feat that requires a BAB of +1 and doesn't apply to Total Concealment. Also it's not part of the core rules so no luck if you're playing PFS, or if your GM just says "Core Only". Having taken a closer look, I think that reiterates my point.

The devs are saying to be effective at what should be your schtick as a rogue you have to be 3rd level, with a feat, AND you still can't use it if the target has total concealment.

Sneak Attack is really NOT that powerful of a mechanic, fellas. It really doesn't need to be nerfed into the ground like that.

Cheliax

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Since I don't think anyone's said it so far: EntrerisShadow, sneak attacks works on constructs now. And plants. And undead. Also, Shadow Strike works on both melee and ranged attacks. That does mean the Snipers Eye talent is kind of pointless in comparison, but then that's a pretty standard evaluation of a lot of rogue talents.

Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Cheliax

Odraude wrote:
Meanwhile, This is a thing.

TBH, I skipped ahead after this because OMG I want that so bad now. That might actually convince me to start playing in Golarion.

Cheliax

Lyra Amary wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Last one today, I promise! But the rogue discussion made me remember two classes I'd left out:

Samurai/Ninja
Love: Both improve upon their counterparts in every conceivable way. The Ninja gets better talents and weapon proficiencies, the Samurai gets better order abilities and powerful "Resolve" mechanic. Actually both are really well designed, and from a mechanical standpoint, this is where we should have started.
Hate: Because they're Eastern they're automatically superior. This is why I hate Asian stuff in games - fluff would be fine, but if you don't want to play something Asian, you forfeit the mechanical benefits of rules that appear to be written to appease a bunch of weeaboo fanboys.

I disagree with this. It's easy to simply look at the Samurai and Ninja and assume that all things Asian are better, but that's without context.

The Ninja is better than the Rogue in just about every way possible, yes. But that is because the Rogue is one of the weakest classes in the game. And even if it is better than the Rogue in every way, the Ninja still pales in comparison to other more powerful martials.

The Samurai on the other hand looks better because the Cavalier as a class itself fills a more specific niche while the Samurai takes a more general role that can be applied to a greater amount of situations. Should the Samurai have been the base class and the Cavalier the alternate? Maybe. But the Samurai is in no way better than the Cavalier in every conceivable way. Mounted combat is one of these ways. Team support is another one of these ways.

It seems strange to me that the class name is a deal breaker for quite a few people. Maybe it's just me, but the class name is just a name. Especially in these two cases, it's incredible easy to just use the class mechanics and call it something else, like a Knight or Assassin. You don't even need to change any of its class abilities to make it non-Asian.

While it's true that the Ninja isn't necessarily better than other classes, I'm talking about when we compare apples to apples. The Ninja isn't going to outpace a wizard, but it is strictly better than its western counterpart. Just like wakizashis and katanas are flat-out superior to short swords and long-swords, respectively.

Maybe I'll take another look at the Samurai vs Cavalier, but that was just my experience. Resolve is technically more self-centered than Tactician, but again, it's just too much work to bother giving your teammates that boost. He trades out Cavaliers Charge for Weapon Expertise and then gets Mounted Archery to replace Expert Trainer at 4th level, which again are just flat out better. Tactician doesn't really catch up to Resolve until 9th Level when it becomes a swift action, but even then it still lags. Honorable Stand replaces Mighty Charge, which trades out situational Improved Crit/Keen for a bunch of immunities. It still gets Banner, which is the primary way that the Cavalier supports allies, and it can take any order - like Order of the Lion - that offers further party buffs.

Really, the only area in which the Cavalier is a better "team player" than a samurai is with bonus teamwork feats through Tactician, and most of the core teamwork feats suck. You'll take Outflank and Paired Opportunist and then the rest are just too situational to matter. They require a lot of coordination and effort for very little payoff, which is why, again, I hate Teamwork Feats as class features.

I understand that you can just rename whatever you want, much like you can play anything and make it a 'rogue', and that's usually what I do. (Ki pool becomes luck, etc.) but I still roll my eyes every time some new Asian-themed anything comes out because I know it's going to be presented as superior, and given superior mechanics, despite that being utterly asinine and often historically inaccurate.

Of course, some of my bias does come from high school. Running with a more geeky crowd than most there was never a shortage of otakus who couldn't shut up about the superiority of katanas and kung fu to anything that could even be tangentially related.

Cheliax

Last one today, I promise! But the rogue discussion made me remember two classes I'd left out:

Samurai/Ninja
Love: Both improve upon their counterparts in every conceivable way. The Ninja gets better talents and weapon proficiencies, the Samurai gets better order abilities and powerful "Resolve" mechanic. Actually both are really well designed, and from a mechanical standpoint, this is where we should have started.
Hate: Because they're Eastern they're automatically superior. This is why I hate Asian stuff in games - fluff would be fine, but if you don't want to play something Asian, you forfeit the mechanical benefits of rules that appear to be written to appease a bunch of weeaboo fanboys.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Seranov wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Martial Shapeshifter. No or minimal casting, but designed to both fight and deal with other challenges in other forms from level one.
Totally want this. One of the roles I've wanted to play most is shapeshifting brawler, but there's so much potential in Druid that I can never bring myself to make one that's based entirely around Wildshape, especially since it can't even keep it up all the time until like level 8 (and the campaigns I play in almost always start at level 1 and VERY RARELY go beyond level 3! :/ )

I keep thinking about ways to hack it out as a Ranger archetype or alternate, but the things I want to trade out for it don't match up level-wise.

Though I'm tempted to trade out martial weapons and/or armor proficiency.

The Shapeshifting really needs to start at first level and it needs to last long enough to be the primary combat and still be usable out of combat.

I think the Beastmorph alchemist sort of fits that bill.

That's probably the chassis I would build onto. A 3/4 BAB class that gets a 'shifting' ability that functions like a mutagen. Perhaps they eventually get a Ranger-style FE or Inquisitor-style Judgment.

Except the Beastmorph doesn't actually change into things. He just gets bestial and picks up abilities.

Plus it comes with all the elixirs and bombs and other alchemist baggage.

A person who can turn into animals and run (or sneak) around and kick tail. Is that really so powerful that you can't get it with full BAB? And then it comes with full casting most of the time, so power really isn't the question.

I guess that's true.

So then maybe a Druid chassis that trades out the 9th-level spellcasting for d10 hit die, full-BAB, special attack bonuses/immunities and maybe some free monstrous bonus feats? The issue with spells isn't so much power as flavor - 4th level spellcasting could probably still work with it, ala Rangers and Paladins.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:
Seranov wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Martial Shapeshifter. No or minimal casting, but designed to both fight and deal with other challenges in other forms from level one.
Totally want this. One of the roles I've wanted to play most is shapeshifting brawler, but there's so much potential in Druid that I can never bring myself to make one that's based entirely around Wildshape, especially since it can't even keep it up all the time until like level 8 (and the campaigns I play in almost always start at level 1 and VERY RARELY go beyond level 3! :/ )

I keep thinking about ways to hack it out as a Ranger archetype or alternate, but the things I want to trade out for it don't match up level-wise.

Though I'm tempted to trade out martial weapons and/or armor proficiency.

The Shapeshifting really needs to start at first level and it needs to last long enough to be the primary combat and still be usable out of combat.

I think the Beastmorph alchemist sort of fits that bill.

That's probably the chassis I would build onto. A 3/4 BAB class that gets a 'shifting' ability that functions like a mutagen. Perhaps they eventually get a Ranger-style FE or Inquisitor-style Judgment.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of doing a flat "I this class because" and "I love this class because", I'll mix it up with a Love/Hate for each:

Alchemist
Love: Love the mutagen feature. Throw anything, brew potion early makes a potent but not overpowered class.
Hate: Most extracts are pointless, odd that it has a low Will save?

Barbarian
Love: Cool rage powers allow almost any style - mounted, ranged, barehanded. Non-spellcasting class that gets a decent will save. Decent amount of skill points.
Hate: Hmm... hard to say. I really love Bar-bars.

Bard
Love: Ye gads, where to start? This is my favorite class - can do anything, be anything, and feels like the only class built with a party style of play in mind. Great spell lists with Bard-only spells that are thematically sounds. CHA synergizes well with spells and most class abilities.
Hate: Gets whip proficiency but is too feat starved to do anything cool with it.

Cavalier
Love: Gets mount at first level, Order edicts are what Paladin's code should have been,
Hate: Most order abilities are pretty 'meh'. Weak will save. Tactician is a terrible feature that is functionally useless until 17th level.

Cleric
Love: Great spell list, again flexible thanks to the sheer number of domains available. Will save that synergizes well with primary casting stat.
Hate: Channel Energy is a waste of print. Warpriest's "Fervor" is such a better mechanic it should replace it entirely.

Druid
Love: Wildshape is powerful without being too powerful (now). Great will save that synergizes with primary casting stat. Animal companion/domain are great trade-off. Spontaneous SNA is great.
Hate: The single most pointless alignment restriction in the game. I understand the Neutral is a holdover from D&D, and they've relaxed from the olden days, but seriously? STUPID.

Fighter
Love: Ease of play, flexibility. Armor training is one of the best combat features for a martial class.
Hate: Weak will save (again). 2+ skill points makes no friggin' sense whatsoever. Weapon Training is incredibly weak (I house rule it to apply to all weapons) which is pathetic considering the fighter's schtick.

Gunslinger
Love: Grit mechanic. I wish more classes had options that rewarded players for attempting to do cool things - which 'Hero Points' kind of do, but I love the class-specific flavor that grit provides.
Hate: Firearm rules are wonky and I HATE guns in high fantasy.

Inquisitor:
Love: Flavor - feels very Van Helsing. Bane is an example of how to make a 3/4 BAB class combat viable without stepping on traditional martials' toes.
Hate: I hate any class ability that makes you take Teamwork feats, although at least the Inquisitor doesn't make you jump through hoops to make your party gain the benefits. Just make them bonus feats.

Magus:
Love: 3/4 BAB with spellcasting abilities makes Gish viable.
Hate: Encourages 15 minute workday even more than traditional wizard, also one build is so optimized it discourages variation.

Monk
Love: Scaling unarmed damage. Bar-none, has some of the BEST archetypes in the game.(Zen Archer rules your face) All good saves!
Hate: Opposite of the Druid: Nothing synergizes well. Also, some abilities feel like they were plucked out of thin-air. Tongue of the Sun and Moon? Dubya tee eff is that? Also has the SECOND most pointless alignment restriction in the game.

Oracle
Love: Perhaps more than any other class, the flavor of this appeals to me more than any mechanical benefits. A reluctant scion thrust into fates beyond his ken due to higher powers is rich soil to mine for role-playing.
Hate: Not all curses are created equal - some are so painfully hindering as to be a joke, and some are so ridiculously banal you may as well not be cursed in the first place.

Paladin
Love: Alignment restriction. Yeah, I know, I'm in the minority, but I think - thematically speaking - it works very well for the Paladin. Divine Grace. (I can't stand weak saves - especially Will) Divine Bond, especially with the alternate mount or weapon option. Immunity to mind-affecting magic.
Hate: This is kind of Love/Hate, but as much as I enjoy Smite Evil, it's just so OP. Especially once you can give it to your party. Gee, I just gave everybody the ability to overcome the Balor's DR AT LEVEL 10.

Ranger
Love: Combat style is how fighter's bonus feats SHOULD work. Fsvored Enemy is great situational bonus for games that are heavy on a certain type of creature. Hunter's bond with an AC makes you damn powerful, even without "Boon Companion" and with BC you're a force to be reckoned with.
Hate: 'Hunter's Bond' alternative option is perhaps the worst trade off I could imagine. Most other classes you give alternatives - this is barely a step up from just nixing the animal companion altogether. Favored Enemy spell makes a good class feature extra cheesy.

Rogue
Love: Havin' a whole mess of skill points. I like skills, I like being good at skills.
Hate: Crappy saves, crappy BAB, pointlessly gimped in its major class feature, outclassed by LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CLASS at doing what it's supposed to do best. Makes a decent dip if you're playing a skill starved class otherwise, but other than that, there's very little I can say for it.

Sorcer
Love: Bloodline powers are sweet. Good will save progression - which I always want - and CHA based, which is another thing I enjoy. Less paperwork makes for a great intermediate class when you're ready to try out a caster but not quite ready for a Wizard.
Hate: 2+skill points works for Wizards because they're INT based casters. Sorcerers are pained by it. Also the diminished spellcasting is unnecessary and unfair.

Summoner
Hate: My one and only flat-out 'hate'. Take the busted 3.5 Druid and magnify every problem by, then add an overly complicated Eidolon (Side note: How is that pronounced? AYE-duh-LAHN or AYE-DOE-LUN? I've heard both.) that I guarantee you will be built improperly. Its spell list is more powerful than either the Druid or Cleric, 3/4 BAB classes that get 9th level spell-casting. Flavor doesn't fit anything else printed. Just screw this class. Even the good Will save puts me off as it once again got the best possible option among those available when it REALLY didn't need it. The only scenario I could imagine wanting to play a Summoner is as a thought experiment to see how utterly I could wreck a campaign.

Witch
Love: Hexes are, for the most part, great. Love that it's an Arcane class with healing capabilities - kind of a 'white mage' for Pathfinder. Say it with me - great will save!
Hate: Some of the things that spell list is missing feels wrong - like not having 'Invisibility' for instance. Whole "Patron" thing feels like it was copied and pasted from the Sorcerer section. Fluff REALLY makes it sound like it should be a CHA based caster.

Wizard
Love: Iconic. Again, Will save makes me happy. 'Familiar' is one of the coolest class features, surpassing even the Druid's animal companion in its sheer usefulness without being stupidly OP (Did I mention I hate Summoners?)
Hate: Dull in the low levels. Specialist school abilities feel like a little too much icing on the cake, especially when it already gets too many goodies over the poor sorcerer.

Can't speak on the ACG since I've not really played any of them yet.

Cheliax

Bill Dunn wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Tomos wrote:

Socrates.

Gandhi.
Gandhi was a lawyer before he lead his people, Socrates was a great teacher. Definitely not commoners. Experts at least.
And probably a little warrior for Socrates as well since he was supposedly a Peloponnesian War veteran.

Both of these men would more likely be experts. Socrates Warrior 1/Expert 4 and Gandhi probably Expert 5.

Cheliax

Avh wrote:
Captain K. wrote:

"Jon Everyman

Level 20 Commoner
HP: 140 (20d6 + 80)
AC: 12 T: 12 FF: 10
Melee: Unarmed Strike +12/+7 (1d3 + 2)
or
Club +12/+7 (1d4 + 3)
Ranged: Sling +11/+6 (1d4 + 2)
FORT: +15 REF: +12 WILL: +11

Feats: (10 + 1(Human)) Toughness, Endurance, Diehard, Improved Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus (Profession), Great Fortitude, Alertness, Fleet, Deft Hands/Deceitful/anything that gives a flat +2 bonus to some skills, Survivor, Catch Off Guard."

You forgot her Magic items.

She has either 123000 (NPC non-heroic), 159000 (NPC heroic) or 880000 (PC).

It changes pretty much everything.

Actually, it's my build, and I did make a note about that. I gave him one item of great worth (representing an inheritance, heirloom, boon, or something of the like) but all other NPC wealth went into land, hirelings, etc.

Remember this is NOT an adventuring class. When you're an adventurer, owning an Amulet of Natural Armor, +2 Weapon, and Fortified armor makes a lot of sense. If you're a farmer or laborer who doesn't expect to go toe-to-toe with Pit Fiends, that's a waste of money.

This is how I would expect to see an actual thought-out 20th level commoner. We could optimize him, for sure, and make him nearly indistinguishable from a rogue without sneak attack or a good reflex save, but I was under the impression that's not the point.

Cheliax

Cr500cricket wrote:
Speaking of FCB the vanilla Aasimar is made to be a cleric.

True, but still, two mental boosts isn't doing the Cleric as much as good as a buff to WIS and STR/CON/DEX. And certainly not as much as a Paladin getting a boost to STR and CHA. It's nice for the extra channel energy, but channel energy - while actually pretty good overall - is still fairly 'meh' among all of the Cleric's abilities.

But I do see how they could function differently. A Tiefling Paladin would definitely be a better tank - and I'm sure the party would love you for it - though, due to the way point buy works, the Aasimar would be a better damage dealer.

Cheliax

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Cavalier's challenge and smite evil both add the same amount of damage.

Challenge pros: work on anything
Challenge cons: no bonus to attack

Smite Evil pros: Cha to attack and AC
Smite Evil cons: only works on evil things

Well, on the surface, yes, BUT the Smite Evil also overcomes any(!!) DR the creature might possess and doubles on undead, evil outsiders, and chromatic dragons.

I get that it's sort of balanced by the fact it can only work on evil creatures, but come on. That's not that huge of a drawback, considering the bulk of things you fight - especially in APs - are going to be evil.

Zhayne wrote:
Not getting hosed by your GM seems like a good reason to go cavalier.

Ha, best argument yet!

Greylurker wrote:
I'm playing a Huntsman Cavalier at the moment with a Holy Light Paladin in our group as well. It's been an interesting comparison.

I know there are a couple of archetypes that are considered pretty good - Beast Rider, Huntmaster - though I wonder how the Huntmaster will stack up with the new ACG Hunter? And it sort of replaces the Cavalier's mounted niche, which was the specific role I was comparing. Huntmaster actually seems pretty cool, but if I want a mounted combatant, is there truly any reason to go Cavalier unless I know for a fact we're not playing to Lvl 5?

Cheliax

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.

Actually, that seemed pretty ironclad, but then I realized that the Orc never said leave and don't come back.

Step 1: Leave.

Step 2: Find some Rogues (Lawful, of course!), Rangers, or whatever other sneaky-stealthy types float your boat. Heck, if this is a small settlement in the middle of the woods then a Druid would work with its trackless step. Maybe a Wizard for added Invisibility goodness.

Step 3: Tell them about somebody who needs saving, say that on your honor you cannot divulge all the details - suffice it to say, it'll be dangerous, but it is ultimately for a good cause and you will reward them to the best of your ability. I imagine if there's a good aligned Ranger or Wizard around, they would trust the word of a Paladin.

Step 4: Sneak back in, spirit away a few of the hostages. (They are held illegally so there's no violation of law by taking them.) Bring those hostages to the nearest large city settlement and let them tell the city guard about what's happening.

Heck, even if he did say never come back you could rig a fairly airtight plan without accompanying your associates.

Except you would have lied because you told people about the humans, which he told you not to do. You told someone there were people up there in need of saving. That's breaking your oath not to tell anyone about the encampment of orcs and humans. So you fall, for breaking your promise and telling someone.

I realize I'm getting pedantic here, but the orc specifically stated do not tell anyone of this encampment, then clarifies he means the encampment consisting of these orcs and their human subjects. The encampment is the object of that sentence to be acted upon. I only said somebody needs saving at a certain location - I did not say anything about an encampment.

Cheliax

So, I've been going over and over the Cavalier entries in the APG and UC books. For a moment I was actually kind of intrigued by it, but the more I consider it, the more I have to wonder: aside from taking a different alignment, would there ever be any reason to take a Cavalier over a Paladin for a mounted combatant? I mean, let's compare the two:

MOUNT:

Cavalier: Gets mount at level 1. Gets some pretty nice bonus feats and also can charge without penalty. (Mount gives up the Share Spells ability, which seems unnecessary.)
Paladin: Gets mount at level 5. Mount eventually acquires the Celestial template with all of the goodies that provides.

Cavalier seems like the clear winner in this scenario, BUT level 5 is still pretty low (When is the last time your game didn't get to at least Level 5?) and the Pally pretty much gets Boon Companion for free. If you were going to focus on mounted combat, you'll probably take the best mounted feats anyway.

Ultimately, with just a minor bit of digging, it suddenly seems like the Paladin has it all over the Cavalier.

DAMAGE:

Cavalier: Challenge x/day depending on level.
Paladin: Smite Evil x/day depending on level.

The Cavalier's challenge works on everything, so that's great and all I guess. But most of what you're going to fight is evil, anyway. And the Challenge damage is pathetic, and can only get slight situational bonuses depending on the order s/he takes. Even if you take, say, Order of the Cockatrice, the Paladin's smite will still be twice as effective. (And good luck getting a boost to attack AND damage)

This is the closest I'd say to being a draw, but only if you fight a lot of animals and other mindless creatures in your game.

PARTY SUPPORT:

Cavalier: Gets a Tactician ability that functions x/uses per day. Has a banner ability that functions x/uses per day.
Paladin: Several passive buffs that remain active all the time. Can share smite ability at higher levels.

This one is no contest. Tactician is HORRIBLE. I remember reading a Cavalier guide that ranked the Gendarme as "red" for trading out Teamwork bonus feats for regular ol' Bonus Feats. Except those bonus feats are ALWAYS ON and also, am I the only one who thinks all of the Teamwork feats suck ogre droppings? Like, for something that either A) requires multiple members of the party to take it, B) Only works in specific situations, and C) They've designated important enough to limit to an x/uses per day ability, I expect some major bang for my buck. But Teamwork feats are, to a one, not nearly as good as regular feats. (With the exception, perhaps, of Outflank and Butterfly's Sting - but one of those isn't even core.)

I don't want it to sound like a foregone conclusion - what I'm wondering is there perhaps something I'm missing about Cavaliers that makes them better than I can see? My first impressions of Inquisitors weren't really that good either, but after seeing some Inquisitor builds in play I am now definitely a true believer. I'd like to think the Cavalier is something more than a crappy Paladin-wannabe, but if they're the ultimate mounted class, I'm just struggling to find what makes them so . . . well, ultimate.

Cheliax

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.

Actually, that seemed pretty ironclad, but then I realized that the Orc never said leave and don't come back.

Step 1: Leave.

Step 2: Find some Rogues (Lawful, of course!), Rangers, or whatever other sneaky-stealthy types float your boat. Heck, if this is a small settlement in the middle of the woods then a Druid would work with its trackless step. Maybe a Wizard for added Invisibility goodness.

Step 3: Tell them about somebody who needs saving, say that on your honor you cannot divulge all the details - suffice it to say, it'll be dangerous, but it is ultimately for a good cause and you will reward them to the best of your ability. I imagine if there's a good aligned Ranger or Wizard around, they would trust the word of a Paladin.

Step 4: Sneak back in, spirit away a few of the hostages. (They are held illegally so there's no violation of law by taking them.) Bring those hostages to the nearest large city settlement and let them tell the city guard about what's happening.

Heck, even if he did say never come back you could rig a fairly airtight plan without accompanying your associates.

Cheliax

Captain K. wrote:

"Jon Everyman

Level 20 Commoner
HP: 140 (20d6 + 80)
AC: 12 T: 12 FF: 10
Melee: Unarmed Strike +12/+7 (1d3 + 2)
or
Club +12/+7 (1d4 + 3)
Ranged: Sling +11/+6 (1d4 + 2)
FORT: +15 REF: +12 WILL: +11

Feats: (10 + 1(Human)) Toughness, Endurance, Diehard, Improved Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus (Profession), Great Fortitude, Alertness, Fleet, Deft Hands/Deceitful/anything that gives a flat +2 bonus to some skills, Survivor, Catch Off Guard."

Accurate, but he's awful. A 5th level PC could solo him (I only say 5th level as he takes a lot of HP to wear down, especially with Diehard). But he can't do anything. What's the earliest a caster can reliably beat that Will Save?

We have to include more items for the poor sod. He can't Fly or detect Invisibility.

Anyone want to do some mathematics on earliest level to solo? I'm guessing 5th for a Barbarian or an Enchanter Wizard with Fly.

But that's kind of exactly my point. Even a BASIC adventurer should be able to destroy an epic Commoner. However, how many adventurers REALLY exist in the world? Most of the people with class levels on Golarion are powerful rulers or knights fighting at the Worldwound or some other major designation. Jon Everyman is just the most powerful among the kinfolk.

Sure, to an adventurer he's pathetic. That's part and parcel of the commoner. But in his neck of the woods, where 90% of the population are other commoners, the only other classes he's likely to encounter would be Aristocrats and Experts? He's probably a god to them.

Cheliax

Cr500cricket wrote:
Yes I've been looking at that, 2nd I would only change one thing. I'd go Angelkin Aasimar to not take the Int penalty

Aasimar is always the superior choice due to no penalties.

Seriously, aside from flavor, is there any reason to really take a Tiefling over an Aasimar? I mean with the vanilla Aasimar getting two mental stat boosts it sort of balanced it out but if you get to trade that for a physical stat boost with NO penalty - seems kind of unfair.

Cheliax

Getting past the mechanic arguments over the Summoner, which have been discussed at length (and honestly, how can one not see a MORE POWERFUL Druid and not say, "Wow, that's at least a little broken"?) my biggest problem with the Summoner is more flavor than anything.

We know WHAT the Summoner is - what I don't understand is WHO it is? The Eidolon language is intentionally vague, and it doesn't seem to coincide with any of their other abilities. Their spell list is a jumble, their mechanics do not relate well to any other class in the game. Even the Monk, which many people balked at for its Eastern-Flavor-in-an-Otherwise-Western-Core-Book back in 3.0 days, made sense according to the presented mechanics in the given book.

The Summoner is like introducing a Psionics system without a book - it's all contained in the text of the singular class that uses it. I have yet to see one in an AP and I've never included them in my Homebrew games because I just cannot visualize exactly how these monstrosities fit into the society at large.

Cheliax

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

I have to admit the following classes recieve house-rules in my games:

Fighters
Rogues
Monks
Paladins

Mine, too, although the houserules are all to beef them up - with the exception of Paladins.

Fighters get 4+Int skills and Weapon Training is a flat bonus to all attack and damage rolls.

Rogues get a "Luck" pool that functions as the Ninja's ki-pool, based off either INT or CHA (player's choice) and get Improved Evasion for free.

Monks I used to houserule to such a degree that they would barely be recognizable as a class. Now I never see a monk that's not a Martial Artist dip or a Zen Archer so it's largely irrelevant.

Paladins must have a god. I know a lot of people will balk at that, but each god comes with a set of 5 edicts the Paladin must obey as her 'code'. In fairness, most GM's we've had (and I'd like to think myself included) didn't just look for reasons to make a Paladin fall. But I wanted my players to at least have a guideline.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally imagine Hodor from ASOIAF, but a bit more intelligent. No particularly useful skills, not really 'trained' in anything and no magical ability to speak of . . .

But simply a powerhouse. Seems nigh-unto invincible to the other common folk, but easily defeated by somebody with a bit of know-how, training, or mystical ability. (So, your typical level 8+ adventurer)

I mean, let's break it down with a typical stat array and capability:

STR: 14 (+1 Level)
DEX: 12 (+1 Level)
CON: 14 (12 +2)
INT: 10 (+1 Level)
WIS: 11 (+1 Level)
CHA: 10 (+1 Level)

Since most Commoners are peasants, laborers, farmers, etc. the most likely candidate for the stat boost would probably be CON. By either luck or inheritance, he would have come into a couple of magical items to represent a high NPC wealth. The actual 'value' part of his wealth would mostly go to hiring underlings, purchasing land, and paying for equipment. For giggles, let's give him a Cloak of Resistance +5 and his stat boosts would most likely be evenly divided as most of us - rather than focusing on improving one aspect - typically grow a little in all of them. To survive this long without any special skills, he's probably pretty beefy, so any feats not related to his profession are probably going to be those that represent a natural conditioning or predisposition to being hard to kill. I've also kept them to (predominately) General Feats to avoid too many prerequisites.

So how does this look ultimately?

Jon Everyman
Level 20 Commoner
HP: 140 (20d6 + 80)
AC: 12 T: 12 FF: 10
Melee: Unarmed Strike +12/+7 (1d3 + 2)
or
Club +12/+7 (1d4 + 3)
Ranged: Sling +11/+6 (1d4 + 2)
FORT: +15 REF: +12 WILL: +11

Feats: (10 + 1(Human)) Toughness, Endurance, Diehard, Improved Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus (Profession), Great Fortitude, Alertness, Fleet, Deft Hands/Deceitful/anything that gives a flat +2 bonus to some skills, Survivor, Catch Off Guard.

The last feat is a toss up, but I chose Catch Off Guard to represent his resourcefulness, despite not being formally trained in any actual 'weapons'. If you want to make him more of a brute, put the bonus in STR and give him Power Attack. (So 1d3 + 9. Absolutely brutal to a 1st Level anything) If you want to make him less of a combatant, take out the IUS, Catch Off Guard, and replace with Knowledge feats. His saves are godlike to an inexperienced would-be poisoner, but pretty weak for a typical level 20 adventurer. He is easy to hit, but good luck taking him down permanently.

Cheliax

aceDiamond wrote:
My friends don't mind bringing up sexual themes too much, mostly for joke effects. I think the home rule is that the... masculinity of a character is equal to half his CHA score in inches, but that's never brought up outside poking fun at the sorcerers/bards/paladins/etc.

That seems kind of unfortunate for female Oracles. (Also it opens up a hilarious new interpretation to the "Lame" curse.)

Actually, I could envision a city based around that. Their entire economy would depend on black market CHA-boosting headbands and belts that are at best, worthless, and at worst, cursed. They would spread word of their wares through terribly misspelled scrolls and testimonies from a famous, unscrupulous NE bard who was naturally ... er, 'charismatic'.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

I'd love to introduce you to my Paladin of Wee Jass. :)

I agree with Ashiel here, we once had a party of all paladins for a one off, and they were very different.

Some varieties of Paladin I've seen at my table:

A grizzled veteran longbowman looking for his son that was the embodiment of "Good is Not Nice".

A simple-minded country boy who would burst into bouts of righteous fury.

A gambling, hard-drinking light-armor skirmisher who managed to never out himself as a Paladin AND never tell a lie. (Full disclosure: This one had two Bard levels.)

A Gnome with a Don Quixote complex and a large wolf mount he named 'Doggy' that he would routinely try to have accompany him in the tavern.

Be 'Lawful' and 'Good' are broad enough edicts that I would say that it is quite possible to make a variety of character types within those parameters.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I recently started DMing for a bunch of early 20 somethings. Sadly, and this includes my own son, they are a pretty misogynistic bunch. I had to put the hammer down on the use of the "b" word when referring to women, both in and out of games. Next will come the hammer on the "n" word they use when talking to each other.

If it is any consolation, I was like that in my late teens and early twenties as well. That mentality is sadly fostered by an Internet generation that is trained to see others not as individuals with real feelings but objects for amusement - women get this treatment particularly hard.

I am ashamed how long it took me to mature beyond it, but I know that my mother's influence was what won the battle for my mind in the end. Take heart that for most it's mercifully just a phase.

Cheliax

I'm currently playing a witch in a friend's homebrew campaign - even with the dreaded slumber hex - and enjoying it immensely. I haven't tried it in an AP yet, but his world is teeming with outsiders (gods fell to earth sorta setting) and so there are excellent saves galore.

For me, when I use the slumber hex I usually do it for role-play purposes or I wait until we're fighting a number of enemies or use it to save the rogue's bacon. I think it's been used in role-play far more than actual combat, but in fairness that could be because we do RP heavy campaigns with some combat thrown in for flavor.

Slumber Hex probably is overpowered if I'm speaking truthfully, but it can be quite fun and flavorful as long as you use it judiciously.

Cheliax

Arnwolf wrote:
Why do Brawlers get the ability to bypass damage reduction. Makes no sense, they are not magical or mystical driven characters or have some mystical bloodline. Don't like the class.

Same reason fighters do - since they pretty much can only do damage, the least that can be done is to make them good at it.

Cheliax

My take, based on the PDF and our current group's experience:

Arcanist - Probably OP and will need some nerfing to function.

Bloodrager - High Tier 3 or low Tier 2, normally. Depending on the bloodline it can just get stupidly powerful.

Brawler - The initial version of this SUCKED. 3/4 BAB and a crappy Will save? Ugh. Seems greatly improved, and I would probably take it over a Monk any day . . . but that's not saying a lot.

Hunter - So you give up 9th level casting, nerf Wild Shape, and in exchange you get . . . 3/4 BAB and the same Animal Companion you had as a Druid? So what exactly do they get from the "Ranger" side? No full BAB, no Favored Enemy, no Favored Terrain? They get the Ref save!... but give up the Druid's far-superior Will save for it. Just . . . WTF is this? This whole class seems like patchwork houserules a petty GM would make to spite Druid players or make you pay attention to Teamwork feats. The only conceivable way you could justify playing this class is if your GM bans Druids for being too powerful.

Investigator - Haven't played it, but it seems like the perfect fit if you want a more low-magic flavor Bard.

Shaman - I'm actually very excited to try this out. Oracles for the Cursed-Averse. Looks like it has a lot of potential power but is kept in check by limiting the hexes to themes.

Skald - I love combat Bards. I love this. Oddly, even though it's more combat oriented, some things actually make it even better out-of-combat than a vanilla Bard (Scribe Scroll for free, for instance) and I think somebody mentioned they'll be getting the Versatile Performance class ability - which benefits a 4+Int skills class even more than the Bard's 6+.

Slayer - The second nail in the Rogue's coffin. You want a skills rogue? Play an Investigator? You want a deadly rogue? Play a Slayer. You want a panache fighter Rogue? Play a -

Swashbuckler - see above. I'm sort of back and forth on the Fort save myself (if both parent classes have it, why wouldn't it be inherited?), but it would've been nice (since the class is a cross of Gunslinger/Fighter) if they could have found a way to include mechanics for a viable Sword-and-Pistol user. Or Sword-and-Hand-Crossbow if you prefer.

Warpriest - I understand they've made some minor changes to the class aside from what I'm familiar with. No more full-BAB with their Focus Weapons, but they also dropped any CHA requirements. If any class could've used a nerf (aside from Arcanist) it was probably this one - full BAB with even 6 levels of the Cleric's combat-focused spell list makes for some short fights.

Cheliax

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that keeps coming up is how you can make a good rogue or fighter, it's just a little trickier. I hate that argument. This is actually what irks me most about underpowered classes and why I simply don't play them on principle.

Most people here have a fairly hardy grasp of system mastery. I'm not nearly in the same league as some people here (That Carnivorous Crystal Wild-Shaping Druid is something that would not have occurred to me in a billion years) but I know it well enough to make pieces fit where I need them to be.

Like I said - it's not about comparing to what everyone else brought to the table, it's about the fact they don't do the concept I like as well as something else would. Name any typical Rogue/Fighter role, and I could probably role up a class that will do it better. At best, the Fighter is a dip for feat trees.

But what about the new players? What about new players who are introduced through APs?

My first introduction to serious role-playing was the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. After a week of studying the CRB and Player's Guide, I brought a Tiefling (Faultspawn for the DEX and WIS boost with an INT penalty because, thanks to the CRB description, I figured DEX would be more important) Monk to the table.

I spent several frustrating sessions doing no damage, having nothing to contribute outside of combat, and unfortunately not dying. I was bored way too much of the time. I very nearly lost interest in gaming before I began because I was saddled with something not fun at all that was not just being outperformed, but rarely - if ever - contributing meaningfully in any scenario.

Eventually I was put to a merciful death and got to reroll a Half-Elf Bard. I finally had something to do. There were options at my feet. As a new player, with all of those different skills and abilities I got the confidence to try different things. Even before I really understood how to effectively use all of the bard's tricks, I had a fairly useful character.

Good for you if you can optimize a Rogue to outperform a poorly-built Wizard. Yes, the strongest players will make the best characters at the table, period. They'll spec a Fighter that makes GM's cry tears of frustration. They'll squeeze every list little known feat out of every splat book until their Rogue can hit on anything but a natural 1.

But those who don't know any better, those who get caught up in their idea of what the rogue 'can' do, only to find out FREAKING DARKNESS shuts down a sneak attack? That's who really gets shortchanged. All of the 'simple' classes are pitifully weak and those who are learning by trial and error are the ones who really suffer for it. They don't know anything about tiers or Quadratic Wizards or crazy feat combinations to make possibly gamebreaking juggernauts. All they know is they wanted to play a sneaky thief and now they're stuck with a character whose pathetic at everything their chosen class was supposed to excel at. They're sidelined unless there is some very specific hand-holding by the GM, and good luck with that because (from personal experience) it is damn near impossible to make a situations particularly suited to the rogue that someone else isn't already able to do just as well.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Goldenfrog wrote:

I think a lot of issues assume a high level of jerkatude in the game,who else would make a character just to make another character useless?

That's just it. You don't have to intentionally do so. Some classes are so pathetic, it just HAPPENS.

Kind of ninja'd me on this one, but yeah . . .

For instance, in a recent game I ran we had a Half-Elf Barbarian, an Orc Fighter, and a Halfling Rogue. Nobody knew what anybody else was making and everybody based their concept around role-play instead of optimization. The Barbarian took ranks in Diplomacy for chrissakes!

Even so, in combat the Barbarian ALWAYS outpaces the fighter unless he gets very lucky. Outside of combat, most of the rogue's time is spent healing herself from the brink of death, and when she fails at some RP-heavy aspect, the Barbarian can reliably step in for an assist. The fighter? Well . . . he got a couple of craft ranks so he can make armor. Whoopee.

Cheliax

Not usually, but the biggest reason for that is not only that they're 'underpowered' but that they're underpowered in such a way that other classes do what they do better.

I'll play a Cavalier despite it being 'underpowered', because it's the best way to make a mounted combatant from 1st level. Maybe that's not the best style and can occasionally make you very ineffective, but if it's what I want to play, that's positively the best way to do it.

But why play a Rogue? I can be a Bard and get everything I want and a whole lot more. Or a.... grrr... Ninja if I can swallow my hatred of weeaboo BS long enough.

Why play a fighter? If I want to smash things real hard, Barbarians cover that. If I want to tank, the Cavalier actually has a mechanic to make a chosen enemy attack you - like a tank should! If I want a switch-hitting warrior with the feats to cover multiple combat styles, I can be a Ranger.

The only exception to this is Monk. It's hard to make anything else do exactly what a monk does, but everything good about the monk can be imitated. The stuff that can't is crap, anyway. (Ooooh no flurry of blows for my nimble hit-and-run skirmisher? Boo hoo.) So I still never play a non-archetyped monk.

Cheliax

Matt2VK wrote:

How is your GM for character re-builds?

The Warpriest was one of the characters allowed in the Free RPG game day. From looking at Oloch (Warpriest) stats, it's looking like the Fervor ability is going to be based off Wisdom and not CHA from the playtest.

Spells
Divine Favor is your friend. You should have multiple of them and use your Fervor to cast them for your fights.
Stat Buff spells. It's a swift action with a use of Fervor to buff your stats.

Feats
Channel Vigor (not sure what this does): Warpriest channeling ability is kind of sad and goes through your Fervor - Fast. You'll want that Fervor to cast spells on yourself as a swift action or use it to heal yourself or someone else (Like a paladins LoH).
If your GM allows, I'd grab the scribe scroll feat and make up a bunch of scrolls.

Gear
If your GM allows, pick up a wand of CLW or see if he'll allow you to make a bunch of scrolls.
Pearls of Power will also help you with your spell management.

Luckily I haven't brought the character to the table yet. But if it is going to be based off WIS instead of CHA, that's good to know. That'll be great for my CON.

Cheliax

(See what I did there?)

ANYWAY . . .

Something I've wanted to try for a while is a maneuver-focused martial that eschews direct damage dealing for non-violent resolution. (But with violent capability should it come down to it) Problem is I've always envisioned this character as a finesse style whip combatant, which offered a great flavor but also seemed almost impossible to build.

A fighter would have the feats, but I have a serious problem playing any class with a low Will save. Usually this is no problem since most of the builds I'm interested in don't need the number of feats a fighter provides, so I can go with a Paladin or Barbarian or battle Cleric and get roughly the same effect.

The Warpriest seems to offer the goodies I need and possibly make this workable, but I can't seem to get the finesse part down. Should I give it up or is there a way to do this?

Where I'm at so far. I'm coming in at level 7. I don't think it's terrible per se, but it's definitely not optimized:

Spoiler:

Tavien Windcaller
Level 7 CG Aasimar (Plumekin) Warpriest of [God from my friend's homebrew campaign. A NG God of Travelers, Wanderers, and Emigrants. Typically his favored weapon is a Quarterstaff, but I've been given some leeway to pick any weapon with a nonlethal quality.)
Blessings: Protection (+2 to AC or Saves), Travel (Ignore difficult terrain as a free action)

Stats: (Rolled, but used a 25 point buy to simulate 4d6 drop 1s and 2s)

STR: 12
DEX: 20 (+2 racial, 4th level bump, +2 belt)
CON: 14 (8th level bump)
INT: 13 (for Combat Expertise - can I reiterate how frustrating that is?)
WIS: 16 (+2 racial)
CHA: 14

HP: 49 (7d8 + 21)
FORT: +9 REF: +9 WILL: +10
AC: 23 FF: 18 T: 17 (+6 Armor, +5 DEX, +2 Deflection)
Melee: +1 Agile Whip +14/+9 (1d8 + 5) or
Ranged: +1 Composite Longbow +13/+8 (1d8 + 1)
CMB: +10 (+12 w/ Whip, +14 on Trip or Disarm), CMD: 16, BAB +5 (+7/+2 w/ whip)
Special: Fervor 5/day (2d6), Channel Energy, Orisons, Sacred Weapon

FEATS:

WP 1: Weapon Finesse
WP 1B: Weapon Focus (Whip)
WP 3: Whip Mastery
WP 3B: Combat Expertise
WP 5: Improved Trip
WP 6B: Agile Maneuvers
WP 7: Weapon Focus (Longbow)

Gear: +2 Cloak of Resistance, Mithral Breastplate, +1 Agile Whip, Composite Longbow +1, +2 Ring of Protection, +2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity, assorted gear

Spells Prepared:
Orisons: Create Water, Detect Magic, Read Magic, Light, Resistance
Level 1: Divine Favor, Protection from Evil x 2, Liberating Command, Bless Water
Level 2: Protection from Evil, Communal, Restoration x 2
Level 3: Channel Vigor

Essentially, he would be a panache fighter who begins trying to trip or disarm his opponents. If the opponent is irredeemably evil or something that cannot be reasoned with (say, an animal) he switches to lethal damage with his Sacred Weapon bond. For flying opponents, he switches it up to archery - he's not the greatest at it, but we've already got an archer and I don't mind letting him shine.

A couple of questions: If I'm using a Weapon with Trip or Disarm features and the Agile enchantment, do I need Agile Maneuvers to get the DEX to replace the STR bonus to CMB? It would be nice if I could skip that and replace it with a different feat. Also, with the Sacred Weapon I know you have full BAB for qualifying for feats, but does that also apply to iterative attacks or do you have to wait until his actual BAB qualifies?

As always, I suppose I'm not married to the Warpriest, but it seems like no other class will offer the Feats, a good Will save, and proficiency.

Cheliax

12 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

I'd call that a matter of taste. I hate the grizzled anti-hero. You want to talk about overdone? Wolverine, The Punisher, Lobo, V, Rorschach, The Question, Elric, Hellsing, Batman (granted this is largely dependent upon the writer, but the most well known Batman - Frank Miller's - definitely qualifies), pretty much every video game character ever that's not a Croft or an Italian plumber.

Just . . . ugh. We get it. These characters are like cigarettes - cool and dangerous but ultimately not worth the money and bad for the health of the culture.

Cynicism is easy. I've fallen to it many more times in my life than I care to admit. It's easy and boring and vulgar (in the Shakespearean sense) and I hate, hate, hate, hate it. Even the perennial Boy Scouts like Green Arrow and Superman are getting gritty anti-hero reboots.

Finding another way, being better than the world and not capitulating to it, showing those who have all but given up that there is hope left - that is far from boring. That is the coolest thing imaginable.

The preceding, of course, is all my own opinion and I'm sure there plenty of people who feel the opposite.

Cheliax

Wow I have been using this spell all wrong. I've only ever used for AoOs.

Although I did one shot our first major boss encounter by sending the 2 level higher Merc through our Fighter, Paladin, and Monk on his way to our wildshaped Druid.

Cheliax

My fighter fix:

4+int skill points.
Weapon training becomes a flat bonus to all weapons.
All of the combat feats scale automatically. (So a fighter who takes TWF at 1st level gets ITWF for free once he meets the minimum requirements.)
Bravery becomes a flat bonus to Will saves.

I've found it to be pretty well balanced against a Barbarian. Still no idea what to do about the Rogue . . . but there are a dozen other threads for that.

Cheliax

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I was being facetious.

In that case, cheerfully withdrawn!

Except for that bit about how much I hate the assumed superiority of Eastern weapons. I will never miss an opportunity to harp on that.

Cheliax

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I think after twelve pages we can come to the conclusion that nobody hates gunslingers.

Ahem... *raises hand*.

OK, mechanically they're whatever. And I try not to ban anything from my games unless it's outright broken or I'm not confident in my understanding of the rules. (Summoners foot that bill.)

But I hate guns in fantasy. If I wanted a Steampunk or Wild West or modern campaign, I wouldn't be playing Pathfinder - there are way better systems for that.

I don't get the summoner, and I hate Eastern gimmicks (not due to any dislike of Eastern culture, but rather the frustration that Eastern weapons/items are ALWAYS superior to their Western counterparts even if that makes no sense, apparently because WEEABOO!!!), but nothing breaks the circle for me quite like a gun-wielder in the middle of battle between knights and wizards.

Cheliax

The most obvious choice is Paladin - I am surprised more people are not suggesting it. I know there is a Paladin already, but s/he's trading CHA for WIS so I would say it's a safe bet the player is not looking to face.

Paladins get such a bad rap, which is truly a shame considering it will do everything you want it to do. Just pick a different combat style - if that Paladin is archery, go Two Handed. If they grab a weapon for Divine Bond, pick a mount. Heck, a mounted archer Paladin could be downright terrifying in combat.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think somebody already said this, but it deserves to be reiterated: Condensing the feats chains to scaling feats would benefit the other martials, but it would benefit the Fighter in that it would make the Fighter what it should be.

Since the Fighter is still getting feats every level, he could be the pinnacle performer in every single fighting style there is. Whereas a Paladin/Barbarian/Cavalier/whatever would become more powerful in their chosen style, the Fighter could outperform them in ALL styles. He could specialize in Archery, TWF, BFS, Sword & Board, and Mounted Combat. Sure, the Cavalier atop his mount might outperform the fighter slightly still, but if those ponies bite the dust, or they're entering a cramped dungeon, the fighter will whip out his Greatsword or Longbow and embarrass the Cavalier easily.

Cheliax

I try very hard to include different races, women, LGBTQ people etc. in the games I run. Whether that makes me more or less enlightened than someone who never thinks about it, I don't know. But I do know it's never really thrown a 'monkey-wrench' into my games.

Of course, we mostly play homebrew settings, which allows quite a bit of flexibility. Race never really plays much of a role beyond existing, since as so many other people have pointed out, when you're breeding across species lines (or at least races far different from the standard differences between humans now) it would seem rather city than anyone would hang upon how light or dark a fellow human is.

Cheliax

Curses! Nor again! You shall rue this day!....

Well, go on then. Start rueing it.

Cheliax

I think it has quite a bit to do with the legend of St. George and the Dragon, which certainly informed a lot of the traditional mythos of the Shining Knight archetype.

Cheliax

I've been kicking around an idea for a while for a Gentleman Assassin-type who fought with a dirk-and-dagger style. Style-wise, he would be like V from "V for Vendetta".

I always knew Rogue would be a terrible idea, and Ranger would come with too much baggage to fit my theme. I could've made it workable with an Inquisitor or Bard, but I really wanted to avoid a magical class.

It seems like the ACG had answered my prayers with the Slayer, but I am not sure if it is possible to make a good 2WF slayer. I'm about to enter a low-magic midlevel game and would really like to take this guy for a test run, so I'd be grateful for any notes or assistance.

Spoilered for Brevity

Spoiler:

We rolled stats and I did pretty well: 16, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10

Slayer Stabbyface
LN Human Slayer 7
AC: 20 FF: 19 T: 13 (+7 Armor, +1 Dex, +2 Deflection)
HP: 56 (7d10 + 21)
MELEE: +1 Kukri/+1 Kukri +11/+11/+6/+6 (1d4+9 or 1d4+11 vs FT)
or
RANGED: +4 Composite Longbow +8/+3 (1d8 + 4)
SPECIAL: Favored Target 1 (+2 Attack & Damage), Sneak Attack +3d6 + 3
Traits: Blade of the Society (+1 to Sneak Attack dice), Clever Wordplay: Diplomacy (Class skill; use INT instead of CHA)

STR: 18 (16+2)
DEX: 12
CON: 14
INT: 16
WIS: 12 (Bump at 4th level)
CHA: 10

L1: 1st Favored Target, Track,
F1: Weapon Focus (Kukri), BONUS: Power Attack
L2: Slayer Talent (Ranger Style: Two Weapon Fighting)
L3: Sneak Attack +1d6
F2: ???
L4: Slayer Talent (Ranger Style: Double Slice)
L5: Sneak Attack +2d6, 2nd Favored Target
F3: ???
L6: Slayer Talent (Ranger Style: Improved Two Weapon Fighting)
L7: FT as Swift Action, Sneak attack +3d6
F4: ???

So, best case scenario we're looking at 4 hits or 1d4+11+3d6+3 damage each, for an average damage of 100. At level 8, I was going to take the Improved Critical Feat by way of Slayer Talent: Combat Trick, which I figure is cheaper than putting the Keen enchantment on 2 kukris. Level 10 I'll pick up Two-Weapon Rend for an additional 1d10+8 (I'm hoping to get a Belt of Physical Perfection by then for + to DEX and STR.)

Since CHA is not a huge boon to a Slayer build, I took the trait to make Diplomacy based on INT and hoped to represent most of his 'charm' on judicious use of the more-than-enough skill points I'll have. (10/level with human 'Skilled' trait.)

I'm trying to figure out the best course of action to take to maximize my damage without turning him into a simple brute. The damage output right now is . . . well, 'respectable', I suppose, but I'm wondering if there's a better way.

I'd considered taking the Combat Expertise line so I can grab Butterfly's Sting and use my Crit Fishing Kukris to pass on to our party's pick wielding fighter. But ultimately, am I chasing after a fool's errand? Or is there a better way to build this guy?

Thanks for the help!

Cheliax

I really wouldn't say hermaphrodite is offensive as in the context of a magical world like Golarion since it would be the appropriate definition, as opposed to the real world where no actual human hermaphrodites exist. I would assume part of a magical hermaphroditic race is that they have true primary sexual characteristics of both genders instead of being genetically one gender or the other with differently developed genitalia.

Cheliax

137ben wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Salmu Zethyrakh wrote:
as could any number of old 3.5 spells (mindrape comes to mind).

Nitpick: Mindrape is from 3.0, and was never updated to 3.5.

Complete Arcane does have "Programmed Amnesia" which does almost the same thing as mindrape but lacks the [Evil] descriptor for some reason.

I am guessing the thought being you could use it on an evil character to make them good. Arguably, robbing someone of free will is evil no matter who they are, but the nature of D&D/Pathfinder spells is that anything that can relate to a good alignment cannot have an "Evil" descriptor.

Cheliax

Scythia wrote:

For those who support the "lawful good only" concept of a Paladin, saying that a Paladin may not lie whatsoever makes sense. Presented in this way, a Paladin should behave in accordance with Deontological principles, which are focused on doing what is right, not what produces the best outcome. For a Paladin, the ends should never justify the means.

A good concept to consider for Paladin behaviour is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant himself specifically used it to demonstrate why one should never lie (from a deontological standpoint). Although Kant was around before the "hiding Jews in your basement from Nazis" question became possible, he did consider "if one was hiding a friend who was falsely accused of murder and the officials came to ask, could one lie?". His answer was still no, although one could draw a weapon to prevent the officials from seizing said friend.

Of course, all that goes out the window if you're not trying to adhere to the beacons of purity only lawful good type Paladin. A chaotic good outlook would be much more teleological (considering of an act is good based upon it's outcomes).

This is why I prefer Virtue Ethics. Deontology and consequentialism fail to account for the most important component of any ethical action - the character of the person committing the action. Telling the truth to destroy another person is not good. Lying to save somebody's life is not evil.

You mentioned Kant's categorical imperative, by which I assume you meant "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it would become universal law" as the foundation of deontological ethics.

While that was a good start, Kant even somewhat clarified with a second part to the maxim that required "we treat others as ends, and never merely as means to an end". If you sacrifice someone (the Anne Frank hypothetical) to preserve your personal honor code, then you are using them as means and not ends, violating the categorical imperative.

I still think a Paladin should exhaust every other option before violating their code, but if there is no clear path to save another without doing so, they should absolutely without question violate the law/their personal code/the edicts of the church/whatever.

Cheliax

David knott 242 wrote:

There are archetypes that have some bard-like abilities. One interesting option is the Deadly Courtesan rogue archetype. You have to be a Vishkanya to qualify for it, though.

The Vishkanya never appealed to me as a player so I sort of skipped over them in the ARG, but now that I get a chance to read it I am struggling to find a reason-aside from racial restrictions-you wouldn't take Deadly Courtesan over a vanilla rogue every time.

Cheliax

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I've dated a wide variety of women, and honestly as a man of modest means, height, and genitalia, I'm not interested in limiting my choices too much.

But if there is one thing that will absolutely put a woman on my "No Fly" list it is entitlement.

And this is a tricky one, because I am aware of the baggage that comes with calling a woman, or any underprivileged class really, 'entitled'. It's like saying you can't handle a woman who's 'bossy' - what you're saying may be saying a lot more about you than her. So, if I may broaden the subject a bit, this would apply to any person of any gender no matter what level of relationship I am considering.

No matter who you're talking about, there is nothing more irritating than a person who believes they are owed something by the world and treat the rest of humanity as mere pissants to witness their greatness. And I feel like so many of the most common 'deal breakers' - rude to waitstaff, doesn't show gratitude, complains, can't have fun, "Nice Guy" misogynists, even racism/sexism/homophobia - can all be described as some form of personal entitlement.

1 to 50 of 536 << 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.