|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
At first level, you know a number of spirits equal to your Charisma mod. This means roughly 1-5 Spirits.
Huh, I didn' see the "known sprit" limit.
Yes, maybe a level 1 medium is not that much more complex than a level 1 CRB wizard.
How's that all different from having to learn most of a spell list in order to play a full caster efficiently?
When you create a level 1 CRB wizard, you chose something like 8 spells out of a list of ~30 level 1 spells; there is even a list of the level 1 spells with a summary of the effects. Then you have to chose the prepared spells, but it's a list of 3 out of your 8 known spells.
By the time you have to chose some level 2 spells, you have a good knowledge of the level 1 spell. And so on.
Note that the kineticist would be far simpler with a list of power by element and level, like the wizard spell list.
For the medium, at level 1 you immediately have access to all spirit, at any time of the day with the transe... A level 20 medium may be simpler that a level 20 full caster, I don't know, but the whole complexity of the class is frontloaded at level 1; there is no simple entry point for the class.
Oh, and the complexity allows you to easily create some corner cases that aren't covered by the rules, like having contradictory compulsions or using the influence system to bind more spirits than you are allowed to or ignore the sprits compatibility rules...
Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment.
No. Being "the most good and pure hearted as you can get" is a Neutral Good thing, being pure hearted or good has nothing to do with the Law. You can check at the description of the Lawful alignment in the book.
If the paladin was "the most good and pure hearted as you can get", then the alignment restriction should be either "Neutral Good only", either "Any Good".
So I feel like prices will be higher for them off course and randomly fights will stay because they looked at someone wrong but I'm wondering if any of you have good ideas how to punish these people.
The same way you reward a Charisma of 16, but in reverse. If in your game, a 16-Cha character get random help and gift because he looked at someone right, then a 5-Cha character may provoke random fight. If a 16-Cha character get auto-discount at shop, then a 5-Cha character may suffer increased prices. etc.
In a word, you consider every reward you offer to a 16-Cha character, and apply the symetric punishment to the 5-Cha character.
So whatever you do, you're always distracted by what you're doing and you can't take 10 to do it. Why does that rule exist in the first place ?
Why would a bard want to be sneaky during a fight?
He's not a lame rogue, he's totally capable to contribute to the fight. Like a ranger, he shouldn't be hiding, he should be fighting. Where is the mismatch in concept?
The feat allows you to invest a lot of time doing the same thing as the robe, but basically allows a Sorc to grab any arcane spell below his highest level...which means he can pretty much always satisfy any reqs for magic item construction. In short, he memorizes the spell in a higher slot, makes a Page of Spell Knowledge for half price if it's a really cool spell, then starts over.
Not knowing the spell only increases the DC of the spellcraft check by 5. So, actually, nobody cares about the spell you have to know when crafting something: if you want to create an object, you will success the spellcraft check. You simply buff the skill enough and take 10.
Ok, so let's say you're level 3, nobody has a magic weapon, and you encounter a shadow.
Yay! magic missile saved the day!
... Alternatively, you cast magic weapon on the fighter.
Toughness isn't the VERY VERY best feat evar, so it's useless.
It's useless because there are enough better options available not to take it, therefore nobody take it. An option is useful only if some people use it.
Your character has only 2 traits. There are a dozen of powerful traits and a few dozen of useful trait. Hence, you will never come to a situation where a trait marginally useful in some narrow situation, like Hill Figther, is appealing; I'm quite certain you didn't even know that trait existed. Hence, you will never take Hill Figther, and nobody will ever take it: it is just a useless waste of space.
It's the same with magic missile, you have limited slots, and you have almost always something better to do than "I use my action to hit some random mook for 20% of his max HP". Since you don't even know if such a situation will come into play, you don't even prepare it. Therefore the spell is useless for prepared casters (but I admit it may be useful for spontaneous caster, when you know enough useful level 1 spells).
But letting him change the spell every time from the same feat. Nuh-uh. I consider that exactly analogous to popping up a Headband of Int on and off and changing the skill it applies to each time.
The wizards main advantage is the early level, and that's pretty much it. One level later, the sorc starts showing him up again. At higher levels, with an assortment of cheap goodies "AND A SPELLBOOK", the sorc can do the versatility thing waaaaaay better then a wizard can.
"the ability to know any spell is broken if it comes from paragon surge!...
But it's A-OK if it comes from some ring. For some reason. Because it's a thing that rings are allowed to do but spells aren't, I guess, somehow."
But I'm curious: Is this ability broken if it comes from an amulet instead of a ring? From a rod? From a Ioun stone? If I want to create a feat chain giving this ability, how long should it be? Could this ability be a level 15 bloodline power?
So many questions...
What are you arguing about?
I don't think your question is in the scope of this thread; I will make a detailed thread at some point in the future explaining that a "very taxing adventuring day" shouldn't be "50 fight against 1 opponent, with 15 minutes to heal after each fight".
As long as the CR vs APL rule are being followed its more like 3-5 instead of the usual 1-3. One giant battle type things actually favor the casters even more as the powerful control or aoe spells don't have much waste involved (like using a fireball to fry 2 mooks). The big fight actually encourages the 15 minute adventuring day and makes casters stronger.
If the BBEG got 50 minion under his command, I don't think his optimal strategy is to divide them into 50 group of 1 minion "because otherwise, it will favor the casters". Actually, I don't think his optimal strategy involve "wait while the PCs use wands of cure light wound on the rogue".
It takes 10-20 rounds to kill the whole army of the BBEG?
Then what is the point of being able to sneak attack during 14,400 rounds per day? Or of having more than 20 round of bardic performance?
If you are talking about attrition gorilla warfare tactics
In an attrition war, the casters could use some lame wands instead of actual spells. But the BBEG want to kill the party, not to be some minor inconvenience. So no, I'm not talking about attrition war, but about a big fight: the BBEG takes all his minions, lieutenant, etc with him and they ambush the PCs, in the end of the day only one group survives.
He made a point that wasn't correct.
As well as your assumption that you can use wands "out of combat".
The BBEG isn't stupid, so he doesn't send his minion one after another: every opponent is attacking the party at the same time in some giant gangbang, if the PCs survive they're done for the month. It is how it works in actual game, discussing this is outside the scope of this thread.
It's in this very common situation that the rogue shine the most; after 216 rounds of fight, the bard has no more spell nor representations while the rogue continue to flank for a lot damages.
We're even hesitant to use spells because that limits our combat potential.
Analyzing how you use your spells is outside the scope of this thread, as well as determining a definition of the term "spell".
Conclusion. What I personally believe makes monk, rogue and fighter great is their reliability. They might deliver so little in every ways compare to other class. But they can do it all day long. What'll happen next when caster run out of spells after the epic battle? After the bard finished all his performance? Paladin out of lay on hands and smite evil?
So let's consider a level 10 paladin with 16 Cha. He gets 8 lay of hand, for 5d6 HP each. That's 40d6 HP, ~140 HP.
But what can he do when he's out of lay of hand? It is well-known that any level 10 fighter may fight all day long after he has lost 140 HP; discussing this fact is outside the scope of this thread anyway.
What a wonderful thread.
Anyway, as everybody knows, the rogue is better than the bard in any conceivable way, for some definition of "better"; I have found a beautiful demonstration of this statement, I will write it in some other thread at some point in the future.
I though the fantasy convention were that mortals test the protagonists, while deities just say something cryptic about the future accomplishment of the protagonists and then dismiss them.
Well, maybe Iomedae is Crom.
So then: What questions would you suggest be asked by Iomedae to "test" the PCs?
She has seen what the PCs have accomplished and knows if they are worthy of her blessing.
Why does she need to test them?
If you don't want her to give some stuff just because she can, then it's still better from the story standpoint to have her not test them and not give anything. Simply dining with Iomeadae, and a month latter looting an artefact on some sick goblin, is still a better story than "Hi, I'm a goddess! What's your favorite color? - Blue! - Great! Here are some relics".
Go back to the Den and tell it to Frank, dude.
We already did that.
I mean, every DM has been confronted to this issue: the PCs have a meeting with some badass NPC, but some of them don't show the deference they should, and this discredits the badassery of the NPC. And at some point, the DM makes the NPC shoot the PCs with his laser. It happens, and I don't reproach it to those DM: it's hard to improvise a credible response for the NPC.
It happens, but that is not what I expect from an adventure written by a professional. He could use his wordcount to give us some precious advices about how Iomedae may react if the scene doesn't play as expected, how she can show her badassery without looking like Asmodeus, etc.
Instead, we only get "SHOOT THEM WITH A LASER" as if he were amateur DM improvising the encounter, and it's lame. Sincerely, nobody need such a useless advice: every DM already know that he can shoot the PCs with a laser if he doesn't like what's happening.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that only a bunch of arrogent, foolish, self-entitled, disrespectful, jerks will get punished.
From the description of the encounter, Cayden Cailean would get some punishments. And by that I mean: Cayden Cailean before he was a god would have gotten a punishment. Because he would start by firting with Iomeadae, because that is what Cayden Cailean did as a mortal, and he would take 5d6 damages. At this point of the encounter, some LG friend of Cayden Calean may antagonize Iomedae: summoning someone and punishing him for being what he is is unfair, unwise, childish, etc. Asmodeus does that, but a LG deity shouldn't.
But let's assume nobody oppose Iomeadae: Cayden Cailean would still act as an arrogant and foolish brat, because he is an arrogant and foolish brat and not a model of virtues.
And this character is an archetype the game fully supports. The CRB says "no evil characters", but it presents Cayden Cailean as a CG archetype; a player can even play a cleric of Cayden Cailean!
Put it simply: the arrogant, foolish, disrepectful brat is a Good archetype totally supported by the game (and the AP), and the setting even supports the assumption "you can become a deity by being like this". The PCs are on the verge of becoming gods or semigods, what is the point of punishing them for acting like they should?
Brain in a Jar wrote:
To get the 5d6 sonic they(all PCs) have to fail the question AND not act humble or confident.
Actually, I don't care about the conditions. Like, you know, at all.
Is it possible that Iomedae blast the PCs for 5d6 damages because they fail to do what she want? Did the author use a part of his precious wordcount to describe how Iomedae punish the PCs for some frivolous reasons? If the answer is "yes", then it is totally possible and intended that the PCs are punished for some frivolous reason. Even if you add "but it's hard" after the "yes".
And any player I know would assume that the creature punishing him isn't Iomedae but an evil entity trying to deceive the PCs (and, you know, there are evil deceptive deities in D&D), and would try and defend himself and run away.
* On a second offense of openly mocking her (or on a first offense of trying to attack her), you get automatically reduced to -1 hit points and stabilized (DC 40 Will save to avoid). Furthermore, you are automatically blinded and only a deity can heal your eyes, and that's even /if/ you save.
So if the PCs fail a religion check, she attacks for 5d6 damages. And if the PCs defend themselve with magic missiles (it deals the same amount of damages: it is a legitimate and proportionate answer when a villain attacks your friends), she take offense and perma-blind them.
What a dumb encounter. 5d6 damage can't be "a small spanking" on one hand, and "a severe offense that must be punished with perma-blindness".
What happens if the PCs cast some magic missiles on Iomedae?
After all, 35d6 damages is only "a slap on the wrist to high level mythic characters". By the same logic, Iomedae shouldn't take umbrage from a a 30d6 damages disintegrate or a 150 damages finger of death.
From a RP standpoint, if my LG PC is abducted by some divine creature who beat him to death each time he doesn't say what the creature wants to hear, he'll think "it's Asmodeus trying to deceive me" and not "it's Iomedae acting like Asmodeus", and he will rather die fighting Asmodeus and trying to protect his friends than obey the god of tyranny.
So having the heroes attacking the godess is a serious possibility. Does the author explain what happens in such a case?
Therefore, the game is based off fantasy, and in fantasy, the Katana and Wakizashi IS better than a longsword and short sword. This is nothing to do with reality, it's to do with fantasy preconceptions. If we're going with fantasy for things like cross-bows, armor, spells, etc, then it is hypocritical to demand historical accuracy for the katana/wakizashi.
And in fantasy, samurais DON'T wear armor; and even if they do, katanas cut armor as if it was paper. So, why is there an armor section in the book, and why are samurai proficient with full-plates? Why do they follow the FANTASY trope that eastern weapon are better, but not the FANTASY trope that eastern peoples don't wear armors?
Algorithm for creating eastern setting:
And the effect of the crane style feat:
The feat has two effect; the second effect works only when you use the crane style; the first effect doesn't have this requirement.
Therefore, if you have the crane style feat, and you fight defensively while using the boar style, you have -2 to hit (the penalty for fighting defensively with the feat) and +2 AC (the normal bonus from fighting defensively while not using crane style).
You can use a free action at any point point of your turn; but the crane style has no effect if you're not fighting defensively (therefore, you can activate the crane style at the end of your turn, but it does nothing except if you were fighting defensively with an other style).
@Mojorat: it seems that the crane style feat reduce the penalty from fighting defensively even when you're not using crane style.
Back up a minute their padre. So if we are going by RAW and partial charged wands then how about we go with custom made items? Their RAW in every sense of the words. Do you think that would be fair?
No, cf my last post.
In a real game, the fighter will find his favored weapon; because a good DM won't say "you have +5 to hit/damage with falchion, but you find a +5 vorpal greataxe AHA!" (or he will state it at character creation: "look, I use random loot and no magicmart, therefore you shouldn't specialize into one weapon"). And in a real game, you will also find partial wands, and those wands will contain useful spells, because a good DM won't say "you find a wand with 15 charge of Command plant, but I don't use plant creature and it count in your WBL AHA!". The "useful spell" can be CLW, gravity bow/lead blade, instant enemy, entangle, whatever: the important thing is: you don't chose the spell but it is useful.
Anyway, a "fair" rule for me would be:
And some rules like this, that doesn't allow custom item, but allow items that exist per RAW (partial wands exist per RAW: buy a wand, use a charge, you now have a partial wand), and doesn't allow "anything because it's convenient". Likewise, you can chose any weapon, but your build shouldn't be based on a powerful particular weapon (same rule of thumbs: you should write "+3 defending falchion (or any other special property)", and certainly not "my AC is low, but I can activate the defending property if necessary" - except if your weapon is "+3 defending whatever").
Oh. And the rules state that 25% of your WBL should be weapons(/offensive gear), 25% should be armor(/defensive gear, including cloak of protection I guess), 25% should be "other stuff" (eg handy haversack, bag of tricks, winged boots...), 15% should be "consumable" (partial wands are here ;) ), and 10% should be "money". A character without any item crafting feat should follow those guidelines, or lose some of his WBL ("I remove 1000 gp from the consumable category in order to gain 500 gp in the weapon category").
Want to know what's RAW? Want to know exactly what I plan for when I gain levels? A +2 weapon. That's all.
+3 or more random weapon (because the chance of rolling a +3 or more weapon isn't negligible, and at some point you will find some of those weapons; the chance it is a falchion is very small - each time you find a medium or major item, the chance it is a +3 or more falchion is less than 1 over 1000 - , and the chance it is a falchion with the special property you want is abysmall); or +2 specific weapon with some weak special properties (eg flaming).
If we choose to ignore this hidden advantage of other classes over the fighter, then we have to compensate with other magicmart-advantages like partial wands for rangers or paladins.
No wonder you GMs give you whatever you want...
Once and for all: stop making false assertions, because it doesn't make your post look clever. It only makes you look ridiculous. Eg: it is ridiculous to assume that my DM give me whatever I want because my fighter don't find the +3 falchion.
Therefore, finding a 12-th level wizard with the feat and willing to create the falchion isn't DM fiat, but finding a partial wand is? How many 12-th Wizards are there in a kingdom, how many of them have the feat, and how many of them are willing to craft such a falchion for some unknown PCs?
That make no sense at all. Stop whining because you want to use your houserules and instead of Ashiel's houserules.
The rules state the price of partial wands, and the price of a +3 falchion. The rules state that you can't buy a partial wand, and you can't buy a +3 falchion (barring from a very lucky roll). Either you accept both, either you accept none. I don't care if you accept both or none, but your request for a double standard doesn't make sense in a challenge.
Don't forget the rules about purchasing item for your fighter either: a +3 falchion is cheese.
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. [...]
The fighter is good because he does not rely on a LIMITED amount of spells or spell-like abilities to remain effective.
Do we agree that the OP is wrong?
I guess I'm one of those glass half full types. I see it as gaining skill points. (vs a single class mage)
The AT has 4 SP; the single class wizard has 2 SP, + the favoured class bonus. The gain isn't that great (is 1 SP/level worth 2 or 3 CL?)
Matthew Downie wrote:
(like you need a high charisma, while the fighter can dump it)
The paladin can replace Con with Cha: for him, Cha is just more efficient than Con, be it for HP or for Fort save. It's hardly a disadvantage to "pump Cha instead of Con and gain more benefit".
A true paladin who finds a horde of magic items in a bandit camp should try to return them to their rightful owners or their heirs. A fighter would just keep them.
A fighter can also be LG, you know. And the DM can decide that there's no way to know who are the former owners of the items. Or the paly can decide that he will do a better usage of the items than the legitimate owners ("oh, this one belongs to the Witch-king of Angmar. I guess i'll keep it.").
And anyway... "OMG, the paly may have to investigate about the owners of some items, and then look for them! He can have some adventures! That's such a great drawback for a D&D character!"
Did you even read the rules about purchasing magic weapons?
In the greatest cities, you can find almost any minor item; a minor weapon is at most +2, and can have some minor properties like flaming (no holy, no burst, no speed...). Then, you have 4d4 medium items and 3d4 major item; 10% of those items are weapons; that's 1.75 +3 or more weapons per metropolis. Then you have to roll the type of weapon, and then the properties.
The paladin can buy a +2 flaming sword, and then he can add the speed, holy and keen properties, and use GMW to have a +5 enhancement bonus. Or he can find a +5 holy speed sickle, and use it since he doesn't care about the weapon type.
A fighter with WF (greatsword), GWF (greatsword), WS (greatsword), GWS (greatword) and WT (blade, heavy) has to find a greatsword to use his class abilities; either he uses a +2 flaming greatsword, either he's very lucky with the loots/purchases, either he uses some +5 [random properties] heavy sword that's not a greatsword and lose +2 to-hit/+4 damages, either he uses some other weapon and lose +6 to-hit/+8 damages, either he forces the wizard to get the weapon creation feat, either he uses two feats to create magic weapons by himself.
Or he uses DM's fiat and get his +5 [random properties] greatsword.
Or finally, he commit suicide and create a new fighter, since the purchasing rules punish characters who try to improve their gear, but do not punish new characters.
And now the fighter has his +5 [whatever] greatsword, he has to find a composite longbow. Again, the paladin pick a random longbow, add some properties, and use GMW.
And actually, there's a reason why Paladins fight mostly Evil opponents. Because they are, you know, Paladins. "No, I decline your mission: I'm here to fight Evil, not to help some random group to gain influence", "hey guys, we don't have to fight, we're not some kind of savages who kill each other when they disagree", etc: a Paladin tries to avoid the fights if there's no Evil implied. He sometime has to fight such opponents, but that's not what he usually does.
What is true is the fact that fighters don't have to rely on certain types of creatures like the paladin and the ranger do.
Yeah, they instead rely on a certain type of weapon. While paladins can pick any pointy stick, cast GMW on it, then add the speed property, and then bless it.
On the other hand, the fighter will ALWAYS fit your martial concept (A lot of feat intensive builds are only possible with a fighter, too.)
What feats can I use to fit my Jedi knight concept?
Rasmus Wagner wrote:
You missed the point of the OP.
The fighter is good because he does not rely on a LIMITED amount of spells or spell-like abilities to remain effective.
Indeed, he does rely on a LIMITED amount of HP instead.
True story: in an AP, we decided to play the "standard 4-men band" with Kyra, Valeros, Merisiel and Seoni; I played Kyra. I never asked for rest.
But Valeros and Merisiel didn't rely on LIMITED amount of spells and spell-like abilities, and that's great, I guess.
Spell combat specifically doesn't allow the use of an off-hand weapon.
Spellstrike is specifically allowed in conjunction with spell combat.
Ergo: spellstrike use the only weapon you're allowed to wield. The one used to make a full attack. Or spellstrike wouldn't specifically state it's usable with spell combat, since it wouldn't be usable with spell combat.
From what I understand this tactic is mostly relevant at lower levels. I did a short analysis assuming +6 hit (18 dex/str, +1 masterwork, +1 arcane pool), +4 concentration (16 int, level 1) and a rapier(dex) or scimitar(str). Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.
You should add combat Casting into the mix, it's almost a feat tax for magus (a human magus should have it at level 1). Or at least, a +2 Concentration trait.
Bobson: The other interpretation is that you just use the sword in place of whatever touch attack you would normally get, and that spell combat needs an actual off hand weapon (the touch spell) to get in another attack. That casting the spell is still a standard action and you can't take a full round action to use spellstrike with that standard action.
BTW, you don't need to know the precise statistics of the monster you are facing to get a fairly good idea of how difficult it is to hit, or how good it is at hitting you, in the first couple of rounds of combat.
Yes, you do.
Especially to know how difficult it is to hit you.
I remember a game, PCs were level 5, and they were fighting CR 1/2 monsters. I rolled almost only 19s and 20s for the attacks of the monsters (and more 20s than 19s: CE wouldn't even have divided their DPR by 2). Had I used a screen, the PCs would have thought "oh, those monsters are very good at hitting us!" (or "you're cheating, aren't you?"). You need far more than 10 attacks to have an idea of the hit probability, because that's how probabilities work.
Anyway, I don't justify my choice for not taking CE by "CE sucks, [blah]", but by "I take the XXX feat" (eg XXX = Dodge). Even if I used some "CE sucks" argument, it's not really "metagaming" to see that CE gives the same penalty to the character and his opponent - ie the character pays a feat to gain no advantage when he uses it.
I played my level 1 magus for the first time a couple of days ago and I didn't use the AM trick as my hit and concentration were too low to validate (I roughly calculated).
i also did rough calculation for my Magus, and it appears that I gain some damages; not an incredible amount of damages, but still, it's a bit better than "wielding my weapon with two hand and using PA".
But my magus isn't the best test-case: we rolled abilities, and I rolled very high (to the point that the DM changed the creation method; the initial rule was "roll abilities, if your rolls are poor you can use a 20-point build", and after I rolled my character, the rule was "roll abilities, if your rolls are poor you can use a 35-point build").
Donovan Lynch wrote:
I would prefer a demonstration of how it is a tactically preferable choice in a general (not specific) situation, based on math.
...and you won't have this demonstration, you will instead have responses like "CE is not about numbers, it's about roleplay".
And maybe one or two responses implying some metagaming before you use the feat ("if your opponent has +X to hit and Y AC, and you somehow know it, then...").
If I use the NPC 3-point build:
A jack-of-all-trade combining study and intuition ; not very perceptive, clumsy, and no strength. Better charisma than average (but no rank in Diplomacy, only in Perform skills), high intelligence.
And until a few posts later, the conversation was about how Monks are not as good as a Full BAB.
Maybe because, if you're not very good at eliminating casters, then you should at least be able to eliminate full BAB opponents?