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

Kerobelis's page

128 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalvince wrote:
The wizard only becomes a first level wizard AFTER years of training to master those few basic spells he knows: he's basically done high school and going on to university. A 1st level sorcerer represents someone who just began his career- he dropped out of elementary school.

How do you explain a 5th level fighter all of a sudden multiclassing to become a wizard.

Things like this are best not asked...

Play E6! It really cuts down on a lot of powergaming.

But I think the main thing would be to know the audience although this can back fire if everyone wants something different. Playing with a lot of power gamers isn't too bad. Playing with only one and some new players can be a problem.

In that case it comes down to communication and this can be a lost cause as a lot of "gamers" are poor at communication....

Pomkin wrote:
ImperatorK wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
The tier system also tends to be slanted toward level 20, which isn't where most play occurs.

Again, not really.

@ Pomkin
You do realize that it's the same link I posted?

Sorry I rolled a 1 on my thread reading.

The tier list has almost nothing to do with combat. It's problem solving.

Combat is one problem and for several classes, the only problem they can solve.

Thanks everyone

I have some reading to do. I am leaning towards Kaer maga. The supplement also had great reviews, which was nice to see.

Kaer Maga seems interesting. I am looking it up on the wiki now. Thanks for this suggestion.

Gnoll Coward wrote:
Katapesh would work depending on your definition of "accepting".

Thanks, but I am not as keen on the arabian type of setting, at least that is what I recall Katapesh is.

Does Katapesh have a support book?

Gorbacz wrote:
Shackles sounds like a place for you. Isles of the Shackles is the book you need.

Thanks. That is he pirate place. I can see that area being very interesting.

Is the supplement very good? I have not purchased any Golarian supplements. What is typically in a book like the isle of shackles?

Hi All

I am looking to start a new campaign in Golarion where the PC's can be of pretty much any humanoid race. I am not that familar with Golarian so I am looking for advice. I want it to be in an area that would be:

1) moderatly accepting of almost any humanoid race. I want to let the PC's be orcs, damphir, whatever but I don't want it to be in an area that would require a lot of explanations.

2) in the Inner sea region.

3) is supported by some further book (i.e. region book, not sure what they are called) aside from the Inner sea world guide (I have that book). Please list the supplement so i can look it up.

4) I am not interested in an adventure path as this will be E6 and I like making up my own adventures. I am just looking for some assistance with background (i.e. fluff of area, major sites, towns, etc.).

I do not mind if it is a city type of area or wilderness type. The campaign will be an E6 campaign,so more of a low level area, but I can always change that.

Please help with your suggestions.


NathanE wrote:

Well I have asked my group to try and resolve these, with no one bothering to respond. Even in person, everyone deferred it to email and then nothing after that. It seems they do not want to be bothered to work on a system that seems inherently troublesome and that no-one will ever use again.

In the meantime I will avoid the problematic words and pretend they don't exist. If I could find some kind of errata, or if the messageboard search engine worked (stop equating "words" with "word"! They are not the same search criterion!) then I would care more. But now ... I just don't care what happens with the Words. Too much effort to try and make them work.

(The feel of the lack of polish and workability in this section of UM is what turned me off UC. Never even bothered to look at it.)


There is now errata for UM. No idea if it will answer your questions....

Debbin wrote:
I've been reading the threads here for a bit now and stumbled on the point that most clerics use wands to heal with. While I have been playing RPGs for close to 20yrs, I've never even thought about using wands as a primary means of healing. Granted I usually play clerics that can spontaniously cast healing so I've never memmed healing spells. With all this in mind, was/am I gimping my class by not using wands as a primary source of healing?

Yes, you have playing the game WRONG!!!!!!!!

LOL, it is the internet, where there if often only one way to play. If what you have been doing has been working, I don't think you are playing wrong.

Mathmuse wrote:

Kerobelis asked about the goals of this discussion. I think the goal is to explain why the monk is a solid class archetype. The easiest way to do that is to propose a fix to the monk so that others can see how the monk is supposed to work. As for me, I like to dig down into theory.

That is a pretty hefty statement, how the monk is "Supposed to work".

While it is the flavor of the month due to the FoB controversy, I am not so sure that the monk is broken and not working. And I think the developers see this as well as there has been plenty of time to make fixes. It seems people want more. I think UC and UM did a lot to help the monk while the rogue has further been marginalized (ninja, vivesectionist, etc.).

That being said, I do like some of the proposed ideas. There is some great innovation in ways to make unarmed strikes magical and thus putting monks on the same footing magic weapon wise as other classes. I do think the developers are at least open to ideas on this topic due to the discussion in the UE threads that started all the chaos.

Anyway, keep the ideas up.

Do what we did, ban the feats for all crafting aside from consumables (scrolls, potions, and wands).

The feats just cause too many head aches (how does this affect WBL, fighting amongst the party for fees, its no fair that he gets double wealth for one feat, etc.). Trust the DM to balance it out (roughly).

Anyway, this is of now help to the OP, but I think others have already helped him.

I am a bit confused about the goals of this thread. It is in the house rules section but seems to have a goal of getting the developers attention. That should have occured in Beta (no idea if it did as I was not around). This would be of help if PF 2.0 was coming out.

I personally think it is too late and perhaps people are being a bit too harsh. I feel Rogues have more problems than Monks. Monks got love in the UC, UM, and the APG. If they were going to add feats to help the monk, the time is passed. They are a playable class, although more of an advanced class. It isn't the end of the world for them.

I am sure that some sort of equipment may help them out in UE, but I am of the opinion that is also a bit too late. A lot of people don't play with every book and the further the book is in the life of a game, the less it is used. But I guess it will help some.

All this is with the caveat that the flurry of blows retcon never comes to in. I have no idea why they opened that can of worms. If they want FoB to act like TWF they should have done so themselves with thier own products. If should be officially errata'ed back the the 3.5 wording and tackle that issue in PF 2.0.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For some people it is because the game is not fun anymore at those high levels. I am one of those people. Highest our group has even been is 13th level.

I think TPK's and loss of interest in a campaign would be other reasons.

Hmmm, a few response, but mainly to support how this is confusing.

What about 3.5? Is this a better way to go to support this style.

What feats are there for 3.5 trident and feat and what book would they be in?

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hi All

I am looking to help a friend in making a trident and net fighter. It is so confusing. It will be for a PF E6 character that is playing with a greek theme.

Before I even started, we are confused about the net in general. Is the net a one handed or two handed weapon? And where does it say this? I can find nothing aside from a note in UC under the Net and trident feat.

Overall, It seems I would need the following feats:

Exotic Weapon Prof Net (gives me proficient use of net)

Net Adept (lets me use the net as a one handed reach weapon instead of throwing, like a whip)

Two Weapon fighting (need if I want to get Net and trident feat and is core to the theme)

Net and Trident Feat (okay, here is the problem. The trident is and net are both one handed weapons, so TWF would be at -4/-4. Is this correct? If so, this sucks. You would think for this amount of feats and for a niche build it should be -2/-2?

Net Maeuvering and Net Trickery give maneuvering options.

So how does this work? Assume I am 6th level with the feats above and with a bonus to hit of +10 with both the net and trident just to make this simple.

Is it:

+10 / +5 if I choose to attack with one weapon (net or trident)
+6/+6/+1 or +8/+8/+3 if I TWF? The primary weapon should be the trident so I can get my second attack on an entangled opponent (hopefully). Or can I go Net --> Trident --> trident?

Also, once you hit with the net, can you keep attacking with it? I suppose you can't and thus I should not take improved TWF?

What other feats are recommended. I suppose Combat Expertise and some of the improved maneuver feats (trip being the main one)? Also there would be WF and WS for the trident and improved TWF. It is a lot of feats but I am a human fighter and get 8 of them by 6th level (plus 2 traits). I can also gain more feats after 6th level.

I also noted that it is agoing to be a problem getting the stats. What would you reccommend for a 20 pt buy (human)?

ST 16 (+2 human) = 18
IN 13
WS 12
DX 15
CH 7
CN 12

I think I would not go for the 17 DX for ITWF.

Thanks for your help.

hogarth wrote:

Although bows have a few natural advantages, you should be able to make a decent crossbow fighter. The important feats are Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. That's a lot of feats, but that's what fighters are for, right? :-)

I'd stay away from the Crossbowman fighter archetype; with a high Dex, I think you'd be better off with Armor Training than a little bonus damage with readied shots.

Thanks for the reply. I agree about the crossbow archetype, it stinks for the levels we will be playing.

I am leaning towards ranger as it has more versatility but I admit the damage will not be so good. Perhaps a F4 / Ranger 2 would work well as I would get weapon specialization and access to lots of skills. I can have a decent int and be human to get a reasonable amount of skill points.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

E6 means you'll eventually get all the many, many feats you'll need to make crossbow viable. What I suggest will be painful for a long time, bu in the end, will be best: Crossbow Ranger 6, and take Improved Precise Shot, not Crossbow Mastery, at level 6. Since you obviously want Crossbow Mastery for using heavy crossbow and the full benefit requires Rapid Reload (Heavy) and not Rapid Reload (Light)'s gonna hurt. But you can actually qualify for Crossbow Mastery on your own. Ranger 6 is your only chance to ever learn IPS for your crossbow.

1 Point Blank Shot
2 Precise Shot [Ranger]
3 Rapid Reload (Heavy Crossbow)
5 Rapid Shot
6 IPS [Ranger]
1st E6 bonus feat: Crossbow Mastery (Heavy)
2nd+ E6 feats: Clustered Shots, Deadly Aim, Boon Companion (if getting an animal), Weapon Focus, Vital Strike

I suppose you could take Rapid Reload (Light), move up Rapid Shot to earlier, and have a more enjoyable low level experience, since Crossbow Mastery reduces reload time to a free action for any crossbow. But not provoking on the reload is a nice bonus, it'd suck to give that up. I guess since it's E6, you could take RR (Light), then Mastery as your first E6 feat, then RR (Heavy) and effectively turn the RR (Light) into a wasted feat since, hey, it's E6.

Consider Guide archetype. You'll never get Instant Enemy spell, so being able to "choose your favored enemy" 2x per day to use on boss fights might be better than only having 2 types, unless you expect to face certain enemies a lot.

Some great ideas. I forgot to mention that we allow retraining of feats for all classes at certain points of our adventuring lives. I could take rapid reload with a light crossbow and swap it out later.

I do like the guide archetype as well. I generally perfer rangers over fighters due to thier versatility.

Thanks for listing some feats, I didn't think of a few of them. Sadly we don't allow Boon companion as it isn't for one of the core sources.

Hi All

I am looking for some advice on how to build some sort of crossbow using character for an upcoming E6 Pathfinder game. I know crossbows are not the best and I accept that.

We use Core, Ultimate combat, Ultimate Magic, and the APG only. Core races only aside from elves (banned for campaign reasons).

My stats are (rolled):


I am open to any core race (aside from elf) and class (and multiclassing) but the crossbow should be the primary focus. I am open to any type of cross bow. Archetypes are allowed as well.

An E6 campaign has the characters maxing at 6th level. After that we gain 1 feat for every 10k XP. We will also be starting from first level and using the slow progression.

We will have 6 people in the party. We already have a Cleric, an Oracle, a sword and shield figther, a barbarian (two handed) and a Sorcerer. Filling the gap is a secondary concern but I see that a rogue or ranger could work. BUt I was thinking a fighter for the feats. Perhaps a Fighter 4 / Ranger 2 or Fighter 5 / rogue 1?

I ask all this as I have not made any real ranged class before and I know that there is a lot of hate for the crossbow, but I want to make it work.

I tried to provide a lot of info. I love to hear what people think.

Grandmikus wrote:

To help the younger players I suggested taking for most of them equipment from the pregens presented in the modules. They are now at 8th but Ive seen a barbarian having a weapon +4 on 7th..

The problem why the paladin has so mcuh gold is that at 4th level I nearly TPKed the whole party with an Ettin and the paladin was the only character left. No he didnt spend the gold to ressurect his companions.

Doesn't sound very much like a paladin to me....

Does he have double the wealth of all the other players?

Grandmikus wrote:

Oh The certainly have magical gear.

The paladin eg.
Elven Curved Blade +2
Mithril Full Plate +3
Tiara of Alluring Charisma +4
Belt of Giants Strenght +4

That is a lot of treasure for a 7th level character!! He is almost 2 - 3 times the target value amount (23.5K for 7th, 33K for 8th). He has ~ 60K.

Perhaps this is the problem or does everyone have this much?

CommandoDude wrote:
Give all the classes more skill points, push the base up to 4. This is especially bad for Fighter and Cleric with their measly 2 skill points a level.

You don't need skills when you have magic....

I do feel for the fighter though.

A ring of minor spell storing. 18K. Allows 3 uses. Of course, it is a standard action to activate and you have to find a wizard to recharge it.

Regular spell storing costs 50K and allows one quicked true strike or 5 regular true strikes.

For only 200K you get a ring of major true strike with 2 uses of quickened true strike!

Fromper wrote:

And again, Raging Vitality is pretty much mandatory. It sucks that all barbarians are required to waste a feat on one thing, but there it is.

In the mean time, those extra HP keep the barbarian in the fight doing damage for longer. That's the advantage.

And if you don't want the risk, then simply back out of combat as soon as your damage taken gets close to your non-raging HP.

My Barbarian didn't take raging vitality, and he has made it to 13th level so far (started at first). It is a risk I have accepted. It is a nice feat, but not a mandatory feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HappyDaze wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:

I would like to see Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic rewritten into one book like the APG.

All the experimental rules would be removed (i.e. Words of Power, called shots), the broken stuff fixed, errata and clairification where needed, perhaps a little bit of nerfing, player traps removed (i.e. trap ranger), and paring down the spell lists as casters have enough already.

That is my wish.

So you want them to add a product that removes options currently available...


I am not sure what exactly you are refering to. The removing of broken things like antagonize and Terrible remorse? The further margalization of rogues with the vivestionist archtype? Or the optional rules? I can go on.

I will explain my thoughts in a different way. I was very happy with the APG. For the most part, a great book. Ultimate Combat and Magic were not even close in terms of quality and content.

"I feel" that optional rules system should be in thier own book, like unearthed arcana. Then people who would like that kind of stuff can get it. And the optional / alternative rules that were given, were generally poorly done.

Overall, I think they can easily cut enough out of the two books to merge into one great book, like the APG.

That is "my" wish.

I would like to see Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic rewritten into one book like the APG.

All the experimental rules would be removed (i.e. Words of Power, called shots), the broken stuff fixed, errata and clairification where needed, perhaps a little bit of nerfing, player traps removed (i.e. trap ranger), and paring down the spell lists as casters have enough already.

That is my wish.

David knott 242 wrote:

One point to keep in mind is that the balancing factors on the class don't kick in until 4th level or so, when your eidolon finally fails to gain a hit die. Until that point, your eidolon matches the party fighter in everything but AC.

A master summoner is superior to an ordinary summoner at 1st level, but as he gains levels his eidolon falls behind in usefulness. Since I have never played that archetype, I am not sure when that point occurs.

The summoner himself becomes less personally useful in combat as you gain levels as well. While that level 0 Acid Splash can matter a lot at 1st level, by 5th level it is hardly worth bothering with. By that point you can almost think of your eidolon as being your player character with his own pet buffing spellcaster.

The master summoner is about the summons, not the eidolon. It seems to be considered one of the top 3+ powered characters in the game.

The normal summoner is more than a buffer. His spell list rocks and you can build him to fight if you so desire. He doesn't need a high CHA.

In summary, Summoners rock (except the one that gets a lot of eidolons, he kinda sucks).

BYC wrote:

I'm not as worried about realism since there's plenty of things that are not realistic.

I just think there should be a 2nd option in ranged. As it is, composite bows are by far the strongest option with almost no way for crossbows to get close. It's a combination of factors that make crossbows not even up to par. Other melee weapons have various options that are useful. Crossbows don't really have that option.

I beleive guns are a serious competetor to bows. But:

1) you pretty much need to be a gunslinger (I think this may be debated)

2) lots of cash (no problem at higher levels)

3) clairification on double pistols (do you really get two shots or not)

4) You have to not hate the gun rules (many do).

Perhaps it is then Bows > guns >> crossbows

Anyway, I don't see it as a big thing. It is something you either live with or make house rules for. PF has much larger problems than crossbows vs. bows.

Black_Lantern wrote:
SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
Only class that has never appeared in my game is summoner, probably because I banned it

Why would you ban one of the most flavorful classes in the game? Oh yeah some people can't properly prep summoners or properly interpret the rules on them.

Perhaps that is a design problem?

leo1925 wrote:
Hyla wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Natural weapons are so much better, it's ridiculous. And everyone is focusing so hard on lances, that they are completely forgetting the power of natural attacks. It almost betrays a lack of understanding of the rules, tbh.
Wait, what?
Same here, what? Cheapy can you please expand on that?

I beleive he is saying natural attacks do not suffer from the iterative penalty. And you can have 3, 4 or possiblely 5 (I can't remember) of them as a barbarian. Thus with a high BAB class, you will almost always hit with all your attacks.

meatrace wrote:
Thus, if it is ruled that pounce only works with natural weapons, Beast Totem rage powers go from being the best Barbarian build to something of a curiosity. And the Barbarian goes back to being the red-headed stepchild of warrior classes.

I think a barbarian would still be awesome without pounce, but this isn't helping the OP.

What about 3.5 edition? Was this concern ever clairified in the 3.5 FAQ? I recall it being allowed....

wraithstrike wrote:

The mummy's abilities affect the other two(bad guys), but with that aside I have no issues making players make all those saves. I don't throw various monster types together just for the sake of it though. They have to have a reason to be together.

Sorry, I didn't mean an encounter with those three combined. I was just giving examples of creatures that each cause a save.

Say the PC's invaded a troglodyte lair, it would be tedious to make them save for all 30+ troglodytes.

As a PC, we had an encounter with 3 mummies and it was nasty as we all had to make saves, and the odds are good you will fail one. Luckliy create pit kept them from getting to the paralyzed party members.

Anyway, it seems like I am reading it right, each creature causes a save. I do like the idea of one save per encounter, perhaps at a higher DC. Or only make a new save if there is some sort of leader type with a stronger aura.

If I understand this correctly, a PC will have to save for each:

Mummy paralysis
Harpy song
Troglodyte stench

So how do you handle such situations, especially if you want to design encounters with multiples of these types of creatures. Making 4+ saves really does make life difficult. I don't want a party kill because I used 4 harpies.

I was thinking of one save, perhaps with +2 DC?

Or do you just design the encounter with only one of such creatures.

Or am I wrong in the way this all works?

Merck wrote:
nategar05 wrote:

Clerics with Sacred Summons can summon creatures that match their alignment as a standard action.
Wow, thats a VERY nice feat Nategar. I know the arcane casters are screwed but is there a way to get an aura with an oracle or druid?

I think it is a bit more complicated than that. The monster has the have the alignment subtype, not just match the alignment..

Still, pretty good.


They are so awesome. Every spell is a summoning spell, so you don't have to worry about memorizing spells. You have a bit of healing, a few decent attack spells and good travel stuff if the adventures involve that sort of stuff.

Wildshape is just so versatile. The ability to be able to scout, fly, swim, etc. beats out the better healing of a cleric.

If you want to summon as a standard action, you can go with one of the animal druid archetypes, but you lose a lot of versatility.

Really, they are all pretty good, so it depends on what flavor you like.

Noir le Lotus wrote:

How often does your party need to travel 1000+ miles in a module in one day ?

How does traveling so fast (or returning to your base) make your party stronger ?

Dim Door already does an excellent job for short distance jumps (to avoid some dangers or reach an area difficult to access, to escape an incoming danger or to go into melee directly with the BBEG by bypassing his minions). Teleport is nice but less necessary.

Teleport back to city to sell the loot! So nice to do mid adventure. Also for a safe place to rest.

Teleport is awesome. But you only need one person with it.

Thalin wrote:
Nope, while it should happen soon, Summon Nature's ally got the dog errata and summon monster has not. Summoning riding dogs is still insane through level 7, where you start flooding with lantern archons.

It was done on the most recent errata, from last week.

At least my latest copy (V5) of the core rules has dogs for both summon monster and summon natures ally.

Another comparison

How is this much different from a Druid focusing on wild shape? He gets pounce at 6th level and does even more damage. He can buff just as well and can summon some friends!

And he is a full caster.

And he has an animal companion.

Pathfinder is just like 3.5 edition, especially with all the splats out there. This is an interesting build, but no more broken then a half dozen other builds out there.

Isn't the bite at -5 (just when you do not have you mutagen on).

Huge, sharp tusks bulge from your mouth, and you receive a bite attack (1d4 damage for Medium characters). If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at your full base attack bonus –5.


I missed the part about always having claws. I do not know much about changelings.

So couldn't this be the same then if you just went pure Barbarian as a changeling? You could still get the pounce at 10th level and you have all that wonderful rage + superstitous + invulnerable rager, etc.

You wouldn't get sneak attack, but there is other benefits.

I guess what I am asking is this build based around multiattacking with claws and bite / pounce / High STR?

My main point about allowing such a class is that he starts at first level and he has to survice. A lot of his uber abilities do not occur until 10+ level. And at these levels, casters are already near gods, so why shouldn't he be?

He also is fairly weak at the lower levels, before feral mutagen. This also gives a GM time to adapt to such a character and design apporpriate challenges.

To clairfy some of my other comments.

In regards to buffing, there are situations like overland travel, night attacks, etc. In cases like these, he will only have time to drink his mutagen. Alot of these cases being stated are when he is prepped to go into the dungeon. I do agree that the mutagen is of a sufficent duration for these cases (most of the time).

For full BAB, I find the first three attacks have a good chance to hit. The first attack is usually a guarentee! And boots of haste help the figter more than AMY.

Sneak attack is also often very sitational, as the many rogue threads point out.

I do agree that an alchemist is a terror if given time to buff. Practically every extract is a buff.

Call me crazy, but I am not actually convinced that this is broken, assuming the character starts from 1st level. Note that I am not saying it is weak either. It is a very interesting build although I am confused a bit as there are so many iterations.

There are a lot of assumptions that don't actually occur in game play. Things such as:

Buff time (I always find this to be a problem for gish types). Some battles end before your buffing is done or you are ambushed.

Down time to make a new mutagen may not always be possible

The greater fang +5 potion may not be available by a lot of DM's.

Melee types get better and better at higher levels due to more attacks while this character is always at 3 (I think).

pure BAB types get access to some awesome feats before this guy will (i.e. dazzing strike, crit feats, etc.) which is helpful to them.

His AC is really low at high levels.

As a DM, I would only be against it if I was starting the campaign at 10+ level. I would allow the PC to play it at level one. Is this any crazier than some of the summoner builds?

On a somewhat seperate topic, the vivisectionist was a bad design idea. This archetype and this example further marganalizes rogues!

EDIT: I also want to say, great thread. It has been enjoyable reading.

Cheapy wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Just a note, a barebones base build is up here. It's not complete and I'm not sure if it's as optimized as it can be. There is an alternative build with no multiclassing, but it doesn't actually "work" until level 13.

Perhaps the build should be posted in the DPR olympic thread for comparisons...

It would be nice to see a L10 build.

Doesn't really come together until level 13 with the version in the Google docs. The one in the first post doesn't come together until level 12.

But just a plain old Beastmorph / Vivisectionist without dragon style will still work fine.

The DPR thread provides resonable restictions to make comparisons worthwhile (a sort of baseline). Hence you can then make your comparisons vs. Archer fighters, etc. All I am seeing is a bunch of data that makes it hard to compare.

Cheapy wrote:
Just a note, a barebones base build is up here. It's not complete and I'm not sure if it's as optimized as it can be. There is an alternative build with no multiclassing, but it doesn't actually "work" until level 13.

Perhaps the build should be posted in the DPR olympic thread for comparisons...

It would be nice to see a L10 build.

Magus or Inquisitor.

I really want to play a melee caster and these are two good options I have yet to try. I would have to look closely at both to decide which.

It looks like the Barbarian's honor has been defended! I too agree they are far from the weakest class.

All this is interesting, how would people rate the full BAB classes only, using only the Core, APG, UC, and UM. I think I would put them as:

1) Barbarian
2) Paladin*
3) Ranger
4) Fighter
5) Cavalier

Barbarians are awesome as this thread further proves.

* the paladin has the LG clause which makes him not suitable for my gaming group. Not a big fan of this. I wish he was some sort of holy warrior and could chose from a range of alignments.

I love the rangers versatility. A great class.

Fighters were good with Core only, but I think the other full BAB classes have surpassed them since.

Cavaliers. Not a mount fan. Or teamwork feat fan either.

Tilnar wrote:

I'm pretty sure that hasn't changed since the first printing of the APG -- I think it matches what I have in my paper copy.

It was "clairified" in the eratta released on 12/01/10

• Page 27—in the Alchemy class feature, in the
seventh paragraph, add following sentence before
the last sentence:

An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard

Abraham spalding wrote:
Like I said -- it's not a full round action and is a standard action. So why you quoting me?

I just wanted to clairify a further difference between potions and extracts. Generally you have to draw a potion and then drink it, which is two actions. You do not have to do so with an extract. This is a common mistake.

It was you that brought up potions in the first place. I am not sure why as they are different.

PepticBurrito wrote:

Enlarge Person +2 Strength Mod, -2 Dex Mod, -1 to attack. Not a big deal. Last for one minute.

You forget, it also increases the damage dice. He is now 1d8 / 1d8 / 1d12. And he has reach! Basically he get more damage + reach + size (can be good or bad) vs. -2 AC (one of size, one for dx) and -1 reflex.

Enlarge is awesome for melee characters. So I see how this can be a concern to a new DM.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Except a potion (or extract) only takes a standard action to drink -- so it's not a full round action, 1 round action or any such action to use: It's a standard action for the alchemist.

Alchemist wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.
Activating potions wrote:

Activation: Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil. The following rules govern potion and oil use.

Drinking a potion or using an oil is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity. An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character. A successful attack of this sort can destroy the container, preventing the character from drinking the potion


Extracts are even better than potions as you do not have to use an action to get the potion from your backpack or whereever you store them.

"An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a
standard action."

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.