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

Khrysaor's page

1,766 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,766 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Sslarn wrote:
Even the most cleverly built Fighter was still bringing less to the table. He's also so much more dependent on having that gear and so much less able to create it for himself, that he frequently had fewer handy knick-knacks and useful items to see him out of a tight situation, like a sudden and unexpected fall.

The alluring trait grants daze as a spell like ability. An arcane spell that qualifies you for arcane strike using your character level as your caster level giving you something to do with that swift action AND qualifying you for item creation feats. Creating items is very easy even if you don't have spell prerequisites. If you lack the skills then invest in a headband of intelligence tied to Spellcraft, but you shouldn't be lacking skills in your "most cleverly built Fighter".

Sure it's not fighter specific, but it's a part of a build that is far more clever than the typical optimized DPR fighters you see posted on these boards.

The thing with the fighter is that they don't need anyone to make them better, they do fine on their own. They have a higher to hit than arguably everyone if optimized yet other classes still hit. So maybe don't invest so heavily into abilities and items to hit. High enough defenses except will saves which can be lacking if neglected in builds. So invest a little into this and get items to shore up your weaknesses like every other class does. Every class is dependent on items, so why is the fighters need of items any different?


Jiggy wrote:
If your GM offered you the choice of either playing a fighter or playing a commoner with weapon/armor proficiencies and half XP needed per level, you should choose the commoner over the fighter.

If your GM offers you the opportunity to play ANY class at half xp you should take it. A level 20 adept will outperform a level 10 wizard. What's the point of this? It only proves that you need to unbalance the scales to attempt some contrived evaluation.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'd just like my fighter to be able to do things a commoner can't do, instead of just being better at the things the commoner can do.
I know right! Those guys at the World Cup right now aren't even impressive. I know how to play soccer where they just know how to play soccer better. I wish they could do something I can't do.

You're starting to get it.

Congratulations Khrysaor.

Time to take a step back and reevaluate what you find impressive.


Jiggy wrote:
I'd just like my fighter to be able to do things a commoner can't do, instead of just being better at the things the commoner can do.

I know right! Those guys at the World Cup right now aren't even impressive. I know how to play soccer where they just know how to play soccer better. I wish they could do something I can't do.


Aelrynth wrote:
Unless you're in a situation where there's something to climb and a need to climb it
Kain Darkwind wrote:
We got to climb down an 80 ft. rope.

If you're adventuring in the mana wastes what good is all that magic? I can make arbitrary arguments too.

Aelrynth wrote:
Being able to make scrolls for half price is a class benefit that Rogues don't have. It allows out of combat preparation. The rogue can't climb walls outside of adventuring and announce he's got double speed for his next two climb checks all of a sudden.

Still restricted to your base speed. Spider climb goes no faster than the rogue.

Aelrynth wrote:

At high levels, the casters give everyone Overland Flight and climbing becomes pretty redundant without some extremely contrived circumstances (anti-magic dungeons or something).

How contrived a situation is the fact that overland flight is a personal spell and you can't give it to anyone but yourself?


So all you're asking for is that all classes be the same. Got it.

Fighter Tacticians get 4+INT, Lore Wardens get 2+2+INT

Can your bard out DPR a fighter now too? Do they compete with CMD/CMB? What about that epic AC of a bard? Do bards get some crazy number of hit points? Do tell.

***
None of you will be happy until fighters cast spells. This game is not for you. WoW is calling you.


wraithstrike wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.

I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.

Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.

Because you only have those 5-7 others.

Compare that to a Caster. Wizards can conceivably know every spell on their list (but tend to average about 10-12 spells per spell level in my experience) while Sorcerers/Oracles (who get the short end of the stick) end up learning somewhere between 20 and 30 spells over the course of their carreers and Druids/Clerics have access to ALL spells on their list.

Essentially, if a non-magical feat/talent is limited use and not providing benefits comparable to the best spell available to a caster, or at will and not providing benefits comparable to a spell of 1-2 spell levels lower, then it's horribly underpowered.

Knowing 10-12 spells per level is completely different from having the ability to cast 10-12 spells per level per day.
I said nothing about balance before, and the point here is options, which noncasters have less of.

Read my last few posts. You have 512k gold, 10 feats from levels and 8 feats from the fighter class to add armor, saves, and versatility to your character. You need nothing else for offensive prowess to hit an average CR 20 on ALL attacks, 12 skills with 20 ranks, a +6 wisdom headband on top of whatever other stat you started with, a 24 intelligence.

How much more do you need for versatility?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.

I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.

Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.

Because you only have those 5-7 others.

Compare that to a Caster. Wizards can conceivably know every spell on their list (but tend to average about 10-12 spells per spell level in my experience) while Sorcerers/Oracles (who get the short end of the stick) end up learning somewhere between 20 and 30 spells over the course of their carreers and Druids/Clerics have access to ALL spells on their list.

Essentially, if a non-magical feat/talent is limited use and not providing benefits comparable to the best spell available to a caster, or at will and not providing benefits comparable to a spell of 1-2 spell levels lower, then it's horribly underpowered.

Knowing 10-12 spells per level is completely different from having the ability to cast 10-12 spells per level per day.


Lemmy wrote:

And what are thoe feats that help Fighter out of combat versatility?

Because stuff like Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus really don't matter if you don't have the skill points to back them up.

EDIT:Ninja'd by Anzyr.. ¬¬'

Out of the 739k gold remainder of my above post you spend 137k on a book of clear thought +5. Coupled with your initial 13 strength to qualify for combat expertise should you need it you now have an 18 intelligence. 2 base + 6 int + 1 favored class and you're sitting at 180 skill points. 20 ranks in 9 skills or any variation of. Grab a +6 int headband for 36k or grab a +6 Int/wis one for 90k and you're now up to 12 skills having 20 ranks. Those skill focuses go further now.


I didn't say it gave you any of those things. You said a fighter is only good at overcoming combat. That's strictly because you build fighters only to participate in combat. You get a lot of extra feats to use on combat while having 10 feats to do anything you want.

The other classes are limited in he number of feats they can take. Not so much for the fighter.

Average AC of a CR 20 is 36. A fighter will have +20BAB, +8 or 10 Stat, +4 Weapon Training, +5 Weapon, +2 gloves, +1 Ioun Stone (competence) at a minimum for items. 69k of your 880k WBL and you're sitting at +40/+35/+30/+25 on your attacks. Boots of speed grant extra attacks and increase the chance to hit on your SECOND iterative to a 15% miss chance. Throw in another 24k for a silver spindle to cast divine favor and now it's only your THIRD iterative that has a 25% miss chance. You can bump that to 20% miss with a trait. Two of your bonus feats put you to a 10% miss with a +8 strength mod. All attacks at 5% miss if it's any higher. Power attack only reduces your last attack to a 20% miss chance.

From all of that 141k of 880k and two feats and a trait has given you a 5% miss chance on any of your attacks. You still have 9 feats to diversify combat AND 10 feats to apply to versatility AND 739k to apply even more versatility.

How much more versatility do you want that 19 feats and 739k can't buy?


Anzyr wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

I'd like to see a 5th level wizard do more damage, have an AC equivalent, a CMB/CMD equivalent, saving throws, skills, anything that a 15th level fighter can do and better.

Exaggerating arguments do not make good arguments and don't prove any point other than how much the topic has made people sore.

Someone said a group of level 15 martials wouldn't have fared any better than some low level caster party when it came to climbing down a rope. This is one area that martials do fine and some even get abilities that can compete with the spell. A spell that's restricted to six classes leaving many casters with less of a chance of climbing than a martial. Should clerics now get some ability that let's them climb too?

This was met poorly by tirades of casters being able to do other things as well and how this is some huge investment for a martial class. This is no more an investment as preparing spells. Yes spells can provide more variety, but you are still limited to a number per day. Asking for more versatility in martials is asking for all classes to be the same. You want every class to be able to overcome any challenge.

I think you are confused. People want Classes to be able to overcome multiple challenges, not *all* challenges. However, the only challenge that a Fighter is "good" at overcoming is combat. And even in combat they lack many, many options that give other classes versatility there. And that is a shame when people look at classes like Alchemist and Barbarian who can full attack on a charge and have utility abilities, Ranger who can cheat Prerequisites for their "Bonus Feats", cast utility spells, *AND* have triple the skills. Or Paladins who get a host of immunities, self-healing, utility magic, double the skill points, superior saves, and crazy boosts against Evil enemies. Or maybe Druid who can take a pouncing form, has a pet Fighter, casts spells that bend nature itself to their will, and still has double the skill points.

Maybe the problem isn't...

Stop building fighters that are only optimized for DPR.


15th level character comes with more wealth. Can buy flight, alter self.

Fireball is just damage. The 15th level fighter does it better. Suggestion is out of reach for your 5th level wizard.

The fighter will have a base 30 skills from class alone. The wizard has 10 or 30 with an 18 intelligence. Fighter could have intelligence too. Even a 12 puts him 15 skill points ahead. A fighter having more ranks in a skill will do that skill better. That's how it works. But you just finished saying it's not about who can do something better so that can't be your point.

Again. The level 15 fighter has better saves, skills, CMB/CMD, AC, a higher damage output, and "has a vast array of other options to boot".

Exaggerating an argument is a bad argument.


@Kobold Cleaver

All of the things you mention here and in your other thread work because they are splash weapons and RAW says splash weapons deal 50% more vs swarms. The Keros Oil is not an AoE as it requires an attack roll and is not a splash weapon as it doesn't state it as such. You spit fire at a single target targeting their touch AC just like you would a disintegrate spell. The text also calls out multi target spells which would mean scorching ray, magic missile, polar ray, or "any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures".

Rule of cool:
Let it happen. It'll deal 4 damage tops per round which is less than the alchemist fire, but more uses of it per vial. Keros oil is also four times cheaper and deals more damage than alchemist fire after all of its uses.

RAW:

PRD: Swarms wrote:


A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)


I'd like to see a 5th level wizard do more damage, have an AC equivalent, a CMB/CMD equivalent, saving throws, skills, anything that a 15th level fighter can do and better.

Exaggerating arguments do not make good arguments and don't prove any point other than how much the topic has made people sore.

Someone said a group of level 15 martials wouldn't have fared any better than some low level caster party when it came to climbing down a rope. This is one area that martials do fine and some even get abilities that can compete with the spell. A spell that's restricted to six classes leaving many casters with less of a chance of climbing than a martial. Should clerics now get some ability that let's them climb too?

This was met poorly by tirades of casters being able to do other things as well and how this is some huge investment for a martial class. This is no more an investment as preparing spells. Yes spells can provide more variety, but you are still limited to a number per day. Asking for more versatility in martials is asking for all classes to be the same. You want every class to be able to overcome any challenge.


@Wraithstrike

I've never said casters don't have an advantage. This all started because someone mentioned climbing. Martials climb fine and some can climb just as well as a 2nd level spell. They climb even better than full casters that don't have access to said spell. This was then met with the shifting goal posts to where it is now.

I'm not missing the point either. I know what casters can do and I know what martials can do. Why must every class perform the same tasks at the same level as all others for there to be balance?

Not every monster has dispel at high levels just like not every caster has every available spell option. That's what no one has given credit too. Mostly just that casters can do what they want when they want which is false.

@Petty Alchemy

Any class can take crafting feats. A single trait can give you a caster level. Only items that are spell trigger and spell completion are restricted to casters who can make them.


PRD: Swarms wrote:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)


Kullen wrote:
"This adventure can only be completed if someone climbs this rope for 24 hours straight, while someone else stands and full attacks all day, and no one uses any spells to bypass these sorts of insanely contrived scenarios. Rogues and fighters are awesome!"

Maybe try practicing a few builds so your characters aren't so one dimensional.

Or just stop with exaggerated arguments that don't prove anything.


Prince of Knives wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.

I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.

Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.

There are several items that grant specific feats.

It's about replacability. Follow me here: you don't get your rogue talents back. But I can learn new spells, and memorize new spells, very easily. I can take spells I don't cast a lot and turn them into potions or scrolls. Don't wanna spend feats? I can BUY potions, scrolls, and/or wands instead. Spells are cheap, and you always get more of them, and that number only ever goes up. Talents, though? Talents are forever, and you only get so many. Each one has to be useful for your WHOLE CAREER.
So casters get to buy potions, scrolls, wands, items to replicate spells, but martials don't. Got it.

Potions sure. Scrolls and wands take a skill point investment - more resources you're not getting back - and then come with a failure chance. Or you could be a caster in the first place, save the skill points, and use them with no chance for failure.

Things are cheaper for spellcasters. "I can do this all day" is a meaningless metric because whatever 'this' is, it's not happening all day. A royal ball, a climbing obstacle, a combat, a locked door, they're problems that last for maybe up to a few hours. At most. "I can climb all day" is functionally identical to "I can climb on demand", so if on-demand is cheaper, then it's better.

A 1 isn't a failure with skills so with enough investment there's nothing to worry about. Why would I want these resources back? This gives the ability to use more items than you normally could. The items in turn grant you a benefit.

What are these things that are cheaper for casters? Being able to do something all day every day usually means it's free after the initial investment if there was investment needed. A rogue spends a talent and receives the ability to climb on demand.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
And now you're out a feat.
Check out wizards at 1st level. It's not like Scribe Scroll is a bonus feat or anything.

Doesn't help you with potions, wands, or items that replicate spells. Doesn't help sorcerers, oracles, clerics, Druids, archetypes of wizards, any other caster.

So because one class can make scrolls all casters can make potions, scrolls, wands, and items that replicate spells?

Maybe that's why you have so much disparity.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
For what it's worth, I've never played a 15th level wizard who didn't have feather fall prepared in one of his 1st level slots, mostly because I'll always have overland flight up and don't want to be screwed if it gets dispelled. So, either way, I'm really not worried about having to climb a rope all day.

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would be arguing about spider climb for high level casters who can cast some form of fly. Although overland flight wouldn't help you ascend a cliff any faster than the rogue climbing it. Especially if the rogue decides to use accelerated climbing.


You've never had an encounter with more than one monster? Never did I mention one monster when I said monsters. Take care to notice and understand the punctuation.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Oh what's that? The wizard got hit with a dispel magic and fell only to cast feather fall and got hit with another dispel? It's a good thing that rogue had no problems or else we'd be sending the cleric up next.

You have repeating strobe lights of dispel magic that work even when it's not their turn, just to screw the casters?

No wonder you don't see a disparity.

Just smart high level monsters that can cast it at will and ready actions to counter a secondary spell.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
So casters get to buy potions, scrolls, wands, items to replicate spells, but martials don't. Got it.
Casters can make them for half price. And don't need to drop fortunes on swords and armor and stuff, so they tend to have a lot more cash left over. Unless "gets 3x his share of the loot" is a fighter class feature?

And now you're out a feat. But it was just established by Rynjin that a feat is a hefty investment? Lines in sand.


Kullen wrote:
"This adventure can only be completed if someone climbs this rope for 24 hours straight, while someone else stands and full attacks all day, and no one uses any spells to bypass these sorts of insanely contrived scenarios. Rogues and fighters are awesome!"

Oh what's that? The wizard got hit with a dispel magic and fell only to cast feather fall and got hit with another dispel? It's a good thing that rogue had no problems or else we'd be sending the cleric up next.

Guess we gotta waste resources on a raise dead now.


Prince of Knives wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.

I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.

Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.

There are several items that grant specific feats.

It's about replacability. Follow me here: you don't get your rogue talents back. But I can learn new spells, and memorize new spells, very easily. I can take spells I don't cast a lot and turn them into potions or scrolls. Don't wanna spend feats? I can BUY potions, scrolls, and/or wands instead. Spells are cheap, and you always get more of them, and that number only ever goes up. Talents, though? Talents are forever, and you only get so many. Each one has to be useful for your WHOLE CAREER.

So casters get to buy potions, scrolls, wands, items to replicate spells, but martials don't. Got it.


Rynjin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

There's rules for swapping feats beyond what a Fighter can do as well. I'm sure the same could apply to other selectable class abilities. Scrolls are another investment. Where in the sand do we draw the line?

Rogues can also grab a Ki pool if they're not already a ninja and take forgotten trick letting them use any ninja trick they want with some Ki use.

Retraining takes 5 days minimum.

A caster can re-prepare a spell given a round with a Pearl of Power, learn new spells from spellbooks and whatnot, and generally be much more modular than a martial.

This had nothing to do with re-preparing a spell. Why bring this up?

You said:

Rynjin wrote:

Spells can be traded out, re-learned, or put in scroll form.

Feats/Talents cannot.

I told you feats CAN be traded out or re-learned. Fighters do this naturally. Others can use the built in rules from ultimate campaign.

Pearls of power are another resource used when you said a single talent was a "heftier investment". Now you're up to a 2nd level spell slot and a 4000 GP item to cast a spell twice. The rogue is still doing it all day, every day and your caster is out a 2nd level spell slot and a pearl of power that, again, could have been used for a better spell.

And I told you it takes 5 days minimum. Look up the Retraining rules.

When I said "re-learned" re-prepared was what I meant.

A Wizard can do it in a matter of seconds or minutes, potentially, either through a cheap magic item or leaving slots open.

You can't leave Feat slots open. You can't pick up some on the fly (unless you're a Brawler, which is the main reason they aren't bad).

The fact that the Rogue can do it "all day, every day" is only relevant if you're climbing all day every day. Which you won't be. Ever.

I don't need to look them up. I've read them before.

If you're talking about re-preparing spells then what does it matter to a feat that works all the time. And while your caster is spending 15 minutes preparing spider climb the rogue has climbed up, thrown down a rope, the rest of the party is up and waiting on you to study your books. Almost as bad as waiting in town for someone to craft.

Why would you build a character without a build? People play concepts. You pick feats, skills, classes, races to match your concept.

It doesn't matter how often it happens in a day the rogue never struggles with this. A caster is required to prepare it ahead of time or waste the parties time so he can study some more.


Trogdar wrote:

I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.

I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.

Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.

There are several items that grant specific feats.


Rynjin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

There's rules for swapping feats beyond what a Fighter can do as well. I'm sure the same could apply to other selectable class abilities. Scrolls are another investment. Where in the sand do we draw the line?

Rogues can also grab a Ki pool if they're not already a ninja and take forgotten trick letting them use any ninja trick they want with some Ki use.

Retraining takes 5 days minimum.

A caster can re-prepare a spell given a round with a Pearl of Power, learn new spells from spellbooks and whatnot, and generally be much more modular than a martial.

This had nothing to do with re-preparing a spell. Why bring this up?

You said:

Rynjin wrote:

Spells can be traded out, re-learned, or put in scroll form.

Feats/Talents cannot.

I told you feats CAN be traded out or re-learned. Fighters do this naturally. Others can use the built in rules from ultimate campaign.

Pearls of power are another resource used when you said a single talent was a "heftier investment". Now you're up to a 2nd level spell slot and a 4000 GP item to cast a spell twice. The rogue is still doing it all day, every day and your caster is out a 2nd level spell slot and a pearl of power that, again, could have been used for a better spell.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

Using magic items or spells vs martial abilities or skills is sort of the point. It doesn't really matter that it was four spellcasters climbing down a rope anymore than it would if it was a high level fighter with a permanent spider climb effect on himself or flying carpet.

The real issue is that a low level spell lets you move at full speed and the absolute best skills can let you do is move at half speed, no matter if you are the Michael Phelps of climbing or not.

Barbarians move just as fast as a wizard with spider climb. All day. Every day. Costs skill points.

Rogues with wall climber move just as fast as a wizard with spider climb. All day. Every day. Costs a talent and less skills.

Anyone with boots of springing and striding move just as fast as a wizard with spider climb. All day. Every day. Costs skill points and 5000gp. Also grants a bonus to your base movement on land and a bonus to jumping as high as +9.

Anyone with slippers of spider climb moves just as fast as a wizard with spider climb. All day. Every day. Costs 4800gp.

A wizard gains a climb speed of 20 at the cost of a spell slot that can't be used for scorching ray, mirror image, blur, glitter dust, any far more useful 2nd level spell and he can only do it for 10 minutes per level and is limited to the number of times they can cast it a day. Again limiting what other spells they can cast.


thejeff wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Casting feather fall still takes 2 rounds (round and a half at best) and is a limited resource.

It's a limited resource, but at high levels, not a very limited one.

And feather fall would only take one round. It's an immediate action to cast and has to be cast on an already falling creature. So, stop off the edge and cast. Time it so you're withing 60' of the bottom.

That's assuming the caster doesn't already have some form of Overland Flight up.

Limited resources don't stop being limited if you can use them twice a day. Tying up slots reduces versatility in another area.

So can we also assume all the martials have rings of feather fall, or some other means of flight too since we're making assumptions? 2200gp isn't much for a high level character. Swap out a ring and jump. Put your main ring back on when you get to the bottom.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
If you can find a citation about weapons not being effects, that would be great.

The clause I already posted that said piercing and slashing weapons do half damage. Under your interpretation melee weapons don't work either when the RAW says they do.

This is specific to slashing and piercing with no mention of bludgeoning so you could assume bludgeoning still does full damage.


There's rules for swapping feats beyond what a Fighter can do as well. I'm sure the same could apply to other selectable class abilities. Scrolls are another investment. Where in the sand do we draw the line?

Rogues can also grab a Ki pool if they're not already a ninja and take forgotten trick letting them use any ninja trick they want with some Ki use.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ranged Attacks wrote:
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight.
Ranged attacks are effects that target a specific number of creatures.

Pretty sure weapons aren't considered effects when they're called out as weapon damage.

Still only does half damage vs tiny swarms only.


How is it heftier? At level 2 the wizard doesn't have access to the spell and the rogue is better. Level three the wizard gains one spell slot for it. Would be better used on any number of spells.

The problem with these conversations is the assumption that a caster will have any of the spells prepared or known. Sure a caster can provide versatility through spells. Unfortunately they can't have all of them known or prepared.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Okay, so swarms can only be attacked with melee weapons, and then only tiny swarms can take damage from them. And a swarmbane clasp does not get around the inability to target them with ranged attacks.

Good to know. I'm sure all my archers will be crying about that.

Arrows are piercing weapons. They deal half damage to tiny swarms. It's all written quite clearly. No need to cry.

This wasn't about weapons. It was about Keros oil. No need to confuse things.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So swarms are unable to be targeted by melee and ranged attacks?
PRD: Swarms wrote:
A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.

Only tiny swarms take half damage from weapons. Smaller swarms take 0. The oil isn't classified under piercing or slashing. It is an effect that targets a specific number of creatures and you make a touch attack to target it. By RAW it doesn't work.

If there was any language that made it an AoE or splash it would do 1 point of fire damage, but there is none.


TOZ wrote:
stuart haffenden wrote:
Keros Oil needs a target - you can't target swarms.
I can shoot it with an arrow, but I can't spit fire at it?

You can shoot it with an arrow?

PRD: Keros Oil wrote:
If you use it to attack, the attack is a ranged touch attack
PRD: Attacks wrote:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent
PRD: Swarms wrote:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures

By RAW Keros Oil doesn't work.


Aid another's most frequent use would be for skills and is usable for almost all skills including making knowledge checks since anyone can make a knowledge check untrained up to DC 10 which is all you need to provide aid. Your party should effectively have a +6 to +8 on skills in an average 4-5 person game.

One of the best uses of aid another is to give the +2 for another character to perform a combat maneuver. There's a few methods to increase the bonus and paired with someone built for maneuvers like grapple you are capable of pinning creatures quickly.


The level 15s would have no problem using accelerated climbing rules if they invested ranks in climb effectively halving the time. This results in two rounds of climbing to get 60 feet down, followed by a free action to drop the last 20, and a DC 15 acrobatics check to avoid all but 1d6 non lethal damage. Non lethal heals 1 point per hour. A barbarian could do the full 80 feet in 2 rounds due to it's built in speed boost. A rogue could take a talent and avoid all damage from the drop. Casting feather fall still takes 2 rounds (round and a half at best) and is a limited resource.

A first level barbarian with 1 rank in climb and a strength of 7 could drop down or climb up that 80 feet in 2 rounds if it was a knotted rope or a regular rope with a wall to brace against. No chance of failure. All day. Every day.

A second level rogue with the wall climber trick, 2 ranks, and 10 strength can scale any DC 23 vertical surface that isn't perfectly smooth. 80 feet in a single round using accelerated climbing, but down to a DC 18. Those are impossible DCs for a caster of equal level. Another level and the caster can use spider climb and gets the advantage of climbing on ceilings too. Rogue is all day, every day. Caster is limited.

Why waste a spell slot on these spells if someone else can do it first and drop a rope for everyone else to get up with ease?


Vermin repellent is 5gp and forces a DC 15 fort save to enter your square. Could just ignore them if applied to you. Use it to strategically maneuver them or let them chase you to a corridor that you apply it to the ground and walk away.


You mean people have noticed less disparity when running APs? Others have noticed less disparity when running non optimized characters? Weird.

@Kirth

Khrysaor wrote:

Rise of the Runelords first adventure path was released in August of 2007. In 2007 Paizo branched off from D&D and began creating their own system. The CRB wasn't published until 2009.

Khrysaor wrote:
At the time of releasing the first AP, Paizo's contract with wizards of the coast was one month from ending and shortly after announced their own game system along with releasing the rest of the AP supporting 3.5 and eventually their own creation.

Don't think I'm having any issues following the Paizo timeline. It's actually documented. Maybe spend more time following the thread instead of jumping on people and taking comments out of context.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Rise of the Runelords first adventure path was released in August of 2007.
Paizo's Shackled City debuted in March 2003. Then came Age of Worms (2005-2006), followed by Savage Tide (2006-2007). RotRL was written for 3.5 edition, not Pathfinder; the first AP for the new edition was Council of Thieves (2009).

That must be why it's listed everywhere as a pathfinder AP, is sold through the Paizo store as their first AP, and isn't associated with the D&D products like your other mentions. It all makes sense.

At the time of releasing the first AP, Paizo's contract with wizards of the coast was one month from ending and shortly after announced their own game system along with releasing the rest of the AP supporting 3.5 and eventually their own creation. I'm sure this AP went through some play testing of their game hence why it's listed as their first AP.

This has gone far off topic. What's the point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game was also designed around no system mastery and being able to read a book and create a character. Optimization causes problems and greater disparity. They won't cater to optimizers if it will affect entry level players. You reduce the player base by demanding a high level of understanding.

In an average stat, average player game, there is less disparity again.

Edit: Thejeff is an optimized ninja.


It means YMMV if you choose to do home brew. Your home games may not be balanced if you are not using their set of rules, game design, and intent.


Rise of the Runelords first adventure path was released in August of 2007. In 2007 Paizo branched off from D&D and began creating their own system. The CRB wasn't published until 2009. There was an AP that existed while the rules were being created.

The game is based around the APs.


137ben wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
How often do good spell casters try to dominate your PCs?

First, the Wayfinder-Ioun combo only works against Evil. In my experience 40-60% of what the party faces is neutral, with about 10% being Good.

Those are some interesting numbers to say the least. Can't say that I've fought good creatures in any AP I've run through.
I don't do AP's. Too rigid for my tastes. When I GM I favor spontaneity, when I'm a player I tend to rock the boat too much for AP style play.
The game is designed around the APs. What's the point in arguing around home brew?
The game was designed before APs existed.

And yet here we are where people running APs don't see the problems that those running home brew have. Wonder why that is.

It was also designed to be backwards compatible with 3.5 where there were plenty of APs.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
How often do good spell casters try to dominate your PCs?

First, the Wayfinder-Ioun combo only works against Evil. In my experience 40-60% of what the party faces is neutral, with about 10% being Good.

Those are some interesting numbers to say the least. Can't say that I've fought good creatures in any AP I've run through.
I don't do AP's. Too rigid for my tastes. When I GM I favor spontaneity, when I'm a player I tend to rock the boat too much for AP style play.

The game is designed around the APs. What's the point in arguing around home brew?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
How often do good spell casters try to dominate your PCs?

First, the Wayfinder-Ioun combo only works against Evil. In my experience 40-60% of what the party faces is neutral, with about 10% being Good.

Those are some interesting numbers to say the least. Can't say that I've fought good creatures in any AP I've run through.


Or have 4500 invested into a clear spindle and a way finder.


Lemmy wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Justin Sane:

The Balor has greater teleport, can fly, dominate monster at will, greater dispel at will to counter spell. Good luck with that.

You speak as if a Rogue would fare any better... He wouldn't.

Nor did I say he would. Thanks for comin out.

1 to 50 of 1,766 << 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.