|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Take Hide from Undead, though you can probably swap it out later. Ghostbane Dirge is another must-have spell for this AP, especially in the early game. Magic Weapon is another must-have until you get Ghostbane Dirge.
In the first part of this AP, you'll be facing almost exclusively undead baddies, and a number of incorporeal undead. You should coordinate with the cleric and find out what spells he plans to prepare on a regular basis. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't know some of those spells anyway, though, since he won't be able to give everyone in the party a magic weapon (and everyone in the party will often need a magic weapon, and there won't be many opportunities to pick one up until you finish the first book).
Can you use your positive energy channel to harm undead? If so, do that in combat whenever the party is up against a group of undead baddies.
Druids with the Wolf domain can be very effective trippers. Get Improved Trip as a bonus feat at first level, and at level 8, you can add your Wisdom modifier to attacks (and therefore CMB checks). Still need to get Combat Expertise to pick up other trip feats, but it no longer has to be your first-level feat. Fury's Fall doesn't require Combat Expertise, so you could be an effective tripping machine right out of the gate, no feat tax required. Later you can pull all the usual Druid tricks to be a better tripper (wild shape into the largest form available to you, then use Powerful Shape to count as 1 size category larger for the purposes CMB and CMD).
Also, Felling Smash looks like a real must-have for tripping builds.
Wolf Shaman Druid? Gain a bite attack (plus trip) for 1 minute/level starting at level 2 with totem transformation. Once you get wild shape, you'll be quite bestial.
If you're willing to change your race (and sex), a Changeling (Ulfen father, of course) might fit, too. Claws all the time, and if you pick an Annis hag mother (which I recommend), get +1 to damage on melee attacks (and that's with a weapon, too, not just your natural claws). The Con penalty would make it difficult to pull off if you decided to go Barbarian, but a Ranger or Druid Changeling would work, and especially Druid.
I've seen a very well-done fireball specialist wizard who picked this school. He's one-shotted enemy and ended fights with one blast (arranged so that party members don't get caught in it). The only hiccup was when we ran into something immune to fire (which, I've been told, is the most common resistance), though buffs like Hates were prepared for those instances.
If you want to blast things with fire, this school is a great way to get it done.
I think there's a way to filer spells so that only water/ice spells would appear, but it's taking me a minute to find it.
Edit: This should work. Sort out spells with the Water descriptor. I think spells with the Cold descriptor are also opposed, but I'm not certain.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
I don't see the how an idiot who committed a social faux pas and then went away when he was told to can be considered a reason to form a new club. Yes we expect better of skeptics and atheists because of thier education and awareness of the "paternalistic" nature of religion. Unfortunately as these people will point out to you are human and make mistakes.
Did you miss the links of the first page stating that it was Jen McCreight who started the Atheism+ movement? Not Rebecca Watson. I take it you also missed the part where I stated that Watson isn't involved in the Atheism+ movement.
Furthermore, it's hardly an "exclusive club". I don't know where you're getting that at all.
Furthermore, I was not citing the South African study in specific response to the Atheism+ movement. That was in response to someone saying that there are thousands of non-rapists for every one rapist, which the study I cited- and the college student study- both clearly disprove. In that context, it's a very relevant study. I also see that no one has bothered to try and find countering studies; instead, people are just "saddened" that women might perceive them as rapists, or a potential rapist. Well, boo hoo. I'm more concerned with not getting raped that hurting someone's feelings. Maybe men should be more concerned with stopping other men from raping than with whether or not a woman things they're a potential rapist, hmm?
I did not "cherry pick" that South African study. I googled "study men who admit to rape" (only I didn't search for that exact phrase, of course), and articles about that study were by far the most common on the first page of hits, and the second result. (The first hit was an article about the other study I cited; I'm unable to find out where that study was conducted).
Andrew R, while some might think that "approach[ing] girl who has had anything to drink you are a rapist", that's clearly not the definition used by the study I cited. I don't know why you keep trying to move the goalpost here when it's perfectly clear what questions were asked in the study.
Rather than attacking my sources and statistics, how about providing some of your own showing that I am wrong in my conclusion that such a high number of men are rapists, hmm?
Also, forgive me, but I wasn't talking about just "Western" society. Furthermore, according to that article, 1 in 4 women admit to having been rapes, a number not much higher than what's reported in the United States, either. Rape is a global problem, and people shouldn't just dismiss that study just because it's Africa.
Andrew R wrote:
]For every rapist there are thousands of people that never would, but scary numbers!!!!
In South Africa, more than one in three men admit to being rapists. Then there's this, 6% of the men surveyed freely admitted to acts of rape; I suspect there are other men who participated in the study who have committed acts of rape, but didn't admit it.
So, no, it's not "thousands" of non-rapists out there for every rapist; it's not "hundreds" of non-rapists for every rapist. In fact, it's not even "dozens" of non-rapists for every rapist. A man who is also a rapist is, sadly, quite common.
It has been my experience that if someone wants me to go back to his room at 4am, he's looking for sex (or something sexual in nature). Likewise, if I'm going to ask someone to go back to my room at 4am, it's because I'm looking for sex. It's not unreasonable to assume that was the case, here, and I think that most reasonable, sexual beings would assume that sex was the goal. It would have been very, very easy to make it not about sex. For starters, if the request was made at 4pm instead of 4am, or if he had suggested they go somewhere other than a hotel room for the conversation and the coffee, or if he had emphasized the fact that he wanted to talk, or flat out said that he wasn't looking for sex.
Or, you know, he could have had the conversation he wanted to have with Watson when she was at the bar, which would have been all too easy if he was genuinely interested in just a conversation.
If it looks like a proposition, and it smells like a proposition, it's probably a proposition. It's possible that it wasn't, but if that was the case, the guy could have and should have done more to make that clear.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
My understanding of the Atheism+ movement is that it arose in part because women feel sexualized within the mainstream atheist movement. Women who present at conferences in particular have every right to be upset when they're being propositioned, seeing as that's their job. Those conferences are their workplaces. A woman should be able to make her living without getting hit on.
Considering the subject of Watson's talk, I think she has every right to feel upset at being sexualized. I mean, the fact that she was propositioned suggests that the guy wasn't paying attention. This- the fact that he propositioned Watson in spite of the subject of the talk she was at the conference to give- does, IMO, make it this guy's fault that she'd feel sexualized by his actions. I mean, how is a person supposed to feel after spending a good deal of time talking about how much she hates getting hit on... only to get hit on the moment she's alone?
Women don't always feel welcome within the mainstream atheist movement, and the treatment of Rebecca Watson (who, I might add, didn't start the Atheism+ movement, nor is she even involved with it, last I heard) is just one example of why. It's not just about getting hit on at conferences; it's also about receiving threats of violence (including threats of sexual violence) just for speaking out against the misogyny found within mainstream atheism. I, for one, have only been marginally interested in participating in the atheist movement until now, because as a woman and a feminist, I didn't feel welcome, and I know that there are some respected people within that movement who might even be hostile towards me. Atheism+, on the other hand, is a movement I would like to get involved with, since it has all the good things the atheism movement has to offer, without the misogyny.
I'd also like to point out, to all the men who hate how men are expected to behave, or how they're portrayed in the media... women and/or feminists are not the enemy. Feminists in particular are concerned with how the patriarchy (the real enemy here) portrays and treats men, and how hyper-masculinity is bad, and so on. Feminists are your allies, here.
A frontline combatant that focuses on combat maneuvers might be something to look at. This lets the fighter continue to shine with regards to killing and other things fighters are awesome at, but you're still a very effective combatant (and making the fighter's job a lot easier). I think druids do this well, since being able to wild shape will get around pesky size limitations. I'm playing a druid at the moment with the Wolf domain, and a fairly effective tripper. Let someone else do the killing; I'll just knock things on their a**es.
Healing everyone up to full health after each fight isn't a very efficient use of resources. Wands will be more affordable at higher levels, yes, but there will also be a lot more HP to heal, and they'll run out of charges a lot faster.If your cleric insists on topping everyone back up to full after each fight, your group will go broke quickly.
You could throw the occasional 15-minute adventuring day at them to emphasize this. Give them one or two stronger encounters in a day, let the cleric blow all the wand charges, then no more fights fot the rest of the day. On a day like this, using the wand to heal everyone back up to full isn't efficient, since the cleric can use his renewable resources (spells and channels) to top the party up just enough that they're back at full after a night's rest; the wand was essentially wasted. Once a few wands have been wasted and the group is counting coppers to get enough for a new one, they might realize they should be a bit more conservative with consumable resources.
1) Why do you need a wizard?
2) Why does that wizard have to be you, someone who has already invested levels into fighter?
Wizard, I think, would be a bad choice for you if you dislike the idea of choosing spells to prepare every day. Play a Sorcerer, instead. Actually, play an Oracle, because with a divine caster, you can use your spells while wearing armour.
I love playing casters. I think they can be great, but only if you've been planning to go that route form the beginning, or have some in-character reason to do it. They can be quite powerful when done well... and a caster who got his start with a few levels of fighter rather than Magic School (and who picked his stats accordingly) probably is going to struggle to be effective.
Assuming 15 ranks is indeed the most, I suppose it's possible, but you'd be a dedicated skill monkey and that's about it. The only way I can think of to pull this off at level 1 is to play a rogue (8 skill points), human (1 skill point), put your favoured class bonus into another skill point (10 total so far), then somehow manage to get a 20 Int for the extra 5. If you're using a point buy, you'll need to dump something else hard (maybe more than one something else) in order to get the physical scores needed to be effective in combat. If you roll stats, better hope for an 18 (which is no guarantee). In fact, better hope the dice are kind to you, as you'll need good rolls to pull this off playing a rogue with such a heavy Int investment.
Blasts I think are covered in my group, but I still like to keep a few prepared, just in case. Plus, it's somewhat satisfying to roll all those dice. Then again, our last fight (a huuuuuuge fight on a hill against a ton of trolls), I also found annoying the trolls with battlefield control rather satisfying. You wanna go that way? No, I think I'll throw up a wall over there. Charging? I don't want you to charge, so here's some soft earth and stone in your way so you can't do that. And so on.
I didn't think of the communal spells at all, that's a good idea.
I usually keep Wind Wall prepared, which I find is more effective than any fog or mist against enemy archers. It's also handy for controlling swarms. Plus, my party members can see through a wind wall. I've used Obscuring Mist a couple of times with a previous character, and it just hasn't worked out well. I do keep Fog Cloud prepared in case fog is needed (and this spell allows me to place it somewhere where it will do what I need it to do, and not get in someone's way), but I just haven't seen many instances where obscuring mist is the awesome spell people say it is in the campaign so far. Maybe I'm missing something?
No problem! I do have to agree, though, Reincarnated Druid does look awesome to play. I was tempted to make one myself just recently! (Ended up going for Menhir Savant instead, though.) I love the Storm Druid archetype, too. People seem to go on about how awesome summons are, but I've never really used them much.
The thing with goodberry and entangle and other plant spells is that there aren't always berries or plants or whatever around. The campaign is a homebrew adventure set in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, and it seems that more often than not, it's mostly rock around. I probably could still use entangle so long as there's even a bit of grass, but there have been days where I've prepped goodberry, but haven't been able to find berries.
I can't use Owl's Wisdom to boost my Wisdom anymore, since I'm getting +4 from a headband already. Many (if not all) of the people in the group also have stat-boosting items, making these spells slightly less useful. I can use Aspect of the Wolf on myself (as a 3rd-level spell through my domain, which is awesome), which beats any one of those stat-boosting spells, and they don't stack.
I've been looking at hydraulic push, but haven't had a chance to use it, yet.
There are archetypes that grant this ability. The Storm Druid and Tempest Druids both would allow you to pick the Weather/Storms domain, and spont cast domain spells instead of summoning. Storm Druid even lets you pick up a second domain at 9th level. They both have a shorter list of domains to choose from: either the Air or Weather domain, or one of the subdomains associated with those domains.
The feat doesn't say that you're treated as a druid of up to 4 levels higher for the purposes of wildshaping, which can give you earlier access to wildshaping abilities. It says that if you're multiclassed, that you can be treated as a druid up to four levels higher for the purposes of wildshaping, which would negate the wildshaping delay caused by a dip; this does not imply the interpretation you're suggesting. The intent seems pretty clear to me.
Do you have any rules basis for your call, since it seems that you're reading more into the feat than what's actually written.
Edit: And you can't surpass your character level, either. This means that you gain Giant Shape at level 12 under any interpretation, since that's the earliest level that's available, period.
Well, maybe roll up your stats and start from there? If you're worried about being too MAD, knowing what stats you have to work will will either confirm or deny this.
Personally, I think chnagelings are an awesome race for druids. Bonuses to stats you need, and the penalty isn't the end of the world.
Wisdom is my highest stat by a long shot (24), but I've got decent physical stats as well (Str and Con both at 16, tons of hitpoints to compensate for a low-ish AC), and I've invested a couple of feats into combat maneuverability (tripping, in particular) for when I'm wildshaped. With the Wolf domain, I can get +19 to my trip attempts if I'm flanking, and that's in my boring ol' human form. I also have Combat Casting so I can make concentration checks if I'm in melee and need to cast something.
Party is large. We have an orc Barbarian who might pick up some Battle Oracle at our next level-up, for RP reasons; an archery-focused Ranger; a Magus; dwarven Paladin of Torag who has a tough time staying in his god's good graces; an Inquisitor of Gorum; an Order of the Dragon Cavalier; an Arcane Trickster; and a Sorcerer who just recently joined the group, so I haven't really seen what he does, yet, but he says he focuses on buffs.
I'm playing a druid for the first time (Menhir Savant, picked the Wolf domain), and at 9th level, I have a very large list full of some really powerful and useful spells... but I'm new at this, and struggling to figure out which spells are awesome ones I absolutely must memorize, and which ones are misleading in their utility. I found a couple of spells that are going to make an appearance on my spell list every day- greater magic fang, barkskin, and wall of thorns, for example- but I'm wondering if people have any insight on other druid spells to help me out. If you have some creative uses for spells, that would be nice to know, too.
I've read over the druid guides people have put together, but they don't rate all the available druid spells.
My understanding of the thread you linked to suggests that the penalty does apply to flat-footed AC. I looked through the Bestiary as well to check ACs of beasties with dex penalties (not very many of them), and they seem to also have their dex penalty applied to flat-footed AC.
I asked a rules question about it, so we can move on until that gets answered.
It's still not adding up on my end. I'm seeing a different formula in that cell as well, I think:
=ROUNDDOWN(IF(H3="Diminuitive";5+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17;IF(H3="Tiny";3 +(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17;IF(OR(H3="Small";H3="Small Magical Beast");2+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17;IF(H3="Medium";(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H1 5+H17;IF(H3="Large";1+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17;IF(OR(H3="Huge";H3="Mediu m Magical Beast");4+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17))))));0)
Here's my version, with values filled in.
It works just fine in my version of OpenOffice.
Couple of things I noticed. First, it doesn't look like with wildshaped AC calculations are taking armour with Wild properties into account, even though the option to enter that information is given. Also, under Initial Stats, saves aren't accounting for stat modifiers, by the looks of things. Under the Modified Stats section, I think Base Attack Bonus should instead just say Attack Bonus, to prevent confusion.
As for Powerful Shape, saying that it's a flat 2 to CMB/CMD isn't entirely correct. It's true if you take a Huge form, but not if you wildshape into something smaller to start with. I don't know how to better implement this feat/information into the sheet short of adding the size table , but I thought I'd mention it, anyway.
Right out of the gate, witches can struggle against undead. Hexes are a witch's bread and butter, and most of them won't work on undead because they're mind-affecting. If you decide to go with a witch, keep that in mind when choosing your patron and any archetypes. The gravewalker archetype is the witch's idea of spitting on undead and their immunities, though your party might not want an evil companion. Undead become less of a problem for witches at higher levels, since you can take metamagic feats that will allow you to use many of your spells against undead when you otherwise couldn't, and there are some potent major hexes that undead won't be immune to. Early on it's a potential pain, though.
If you decide to go druid, take a look at the menhir savant archetype. It gives you the ability to detect undead (among other things) at first level, which can be quite handy. If you're going to be hanging out in the desert for a good part of the campaign, the Walk the Lines ability might not get a lot of use, but it's still a very potent archetype.
I can't see why it might be worth the extra effort. How much extra information would players glean from being able to select their specific form? Stuff like land/fly/climb/swim speeds would be available, but I can't think of much else. It sounds like it might be a lot more useful than it will actually be.
Of course, if you feel like adding in all the forms, shine on you crazy diamond. You're the one doing the work, you can call the shots.
I only just now saw that you drew my cleric Storm Caller and wow, it looks awesome! I love it, and just wanted to thank you for the artwork. Would have posted sooner, but the other thread died shortly after I posted my request, and since I don't wander down here too often, I didn't see that you had taken on my request.
Again, thank you!
So, with the second option, and having options for all possible forms, are you talking about going through the Bestiary and including stats for every possible form a druid could take? Because while I can see the usefulness of that, it sounds like a huge undertaking. Plus, in addition to printer bane, something so big might limit utility at the table if it's taking longer to find the form you're looking for on the spreadsheet that it would take to just apply the stat changes by hand int he first place.
Of course, I could be understanding what you mean with the second option, in which case forget what I said.
You would totally be my new hero if you did manage to put something together. I also agree that something in Excel would be better. People can check the math that way, customize for feat and house rules, and so on. It's not just laziness; something like this can also speed up gameplay since your party druid isn't flipping through pages in the rulebooks or the SRD every time the DM asks for their AC or something.
Also, while Con doesn't change for Beast Shape, if a druid wildshapes into an elemental or plant form, Con adjustments will apply. Elder Earth Elemental looks like a tank.
I did find this after a whole lot of googling, but I can't see how it's all being calculated so I can check for errors. (For example, I think it's neglecting to apply a dex penalty to flat-footed AC.) No place to apply feats like Powerful Shape, either. Obviously I could just do that by hand, but the whole point of trying to find (or make) such a resource is so that I don have to do this all by hand, which means I don't need to worry about forgetting something, or slowing down combat because I need to look up stuff (which is what I experienced my first game with this character).
I suppose a wild shape spreadsheet would be a useful resource for the community as a while, not just forgetful math-challenged people like me who are playing a druid for the first time.