King of Vrock's page

primemover003 wrote:

I'll already be maximizing his hit points (as my Barbarian's Leap Attacking Critical is 12d6+392!!!)
--Vrock star!

I am curious to see the build of this Barby (wrt. this damage output), I can't seem to work out which weapon/size factor produces a 4d6 x3 or a 3d6 x4 two hander.

(Presuming x4)
PA20 + LA = 60 x4 = 240
which leave 152 points to be dealt by weapon, strength bonus, magic items and buffs.

Can anyone enlighten me as to which feats/class skills are used to build this out?

Goliath Barbarian with the mountain rage racial substitution level wielding a large sized impact goliath greathammer. His strength was raging hovering somewhere in the high 40's (50 with Malcanthet's queens kiss).

--Vrocknrolla!

Blech... superman ice cream is teh suck. Blue Moon rules! I always loved the play of colors when eating blue moon from the purple cow at the local Meijer (it's in-store ice cream shop).

--Vrocky Road!

Excellent... thanks Jason. That's all I wanted to know, the justification for the change to the rules so I could explain it to my players (esp. my rules lawyers!).

--Keep on Vrocking in the Free World!

Because it's a ranged attack. Making a ranged attack while threatened provokes attacks of opporunity. It's that simple.

Also, it's different from a targeted spell or an area effect spell in that you have to make an actual attack roll.

And actually, that rule is unchanged from 3.5.

Actually you're wrong in 3.5 casting a spell with a touch or ranged touch component did NOT provoke.

From the 3.5 srd
Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

You provoked from the Cast a Spell action, not an Attack (Ranged) action. Casting defensively mitigated the AoO if successful. Therefore this is a specific change to the rule.

As for "aiming," I might have to aim a fireball to squeeze it into a tight space like an arrow slit... would that provoke too?

--On the chopping Vrock

By Smurf I've been smurfed!!!

Karu I'm not completely opposed to the change I would just like the mechanical reasoning for it.

--Vrocking the Blues...

Yes if you make a sucessful Stealth check in round 9 of combat you can get your sneak attack in against a foe. The foe would lose their Dex to AC against your next attack. I'd even go so far as to give you the attack bonus from being invisible... but that's just me.

--Vrock and Awe!

King of Vrock wrote:

Why on earth is casting a spell with a ranged touch attack any different to do while threatened than casting a targeted spell while threatened?

In 3.5 you provoked for making a Standard or Full round "Ranged Attack," meaning an attack with a missile or thrown weapon. You also provoked for "Casting a Spell," but could avoid that through defensive casting. How is it any different to cast Hold Person than Scorching Ray??? The Ranged Touch Attack was part of the Casting a Spell action, not a seperate action of its own.

Really I want to know the reasoning behind the change? Is it because touch spells were too good? If that's the case then perhaps it's a reasonable change. Enquiring Minds Want to know!!!

--Vrock Market Crash!

Um, I think it was probably because it didn't make sense to be able to fire a magical arrow in melee range to avoid an AoO, but using an actual arrow did.

Again how is casting a spell with that requires a ranged touch attack any different than one that's an area effect or targeted??? They all have the same V, S, M, or Focus/Divine Focus Components. The act of casting a spell provokes in and of itself and to mitigate that you have casting defensively, which I think is much better now than it was in 3.5.

I mean at least the Designers could spell out the WHY of it. That's all I want.

--Vrocks Car Willy!

Why on earth is casting a spell with a ranged touch attack any different to do while threatened than casting a targeted spell while threatened?

In 3.5 you provoked for making a Standard or Full round "Ranged Attack," meaning an attack with a missile or thrown weapon. You also provoked for "Casting a Spell," but could avoid that through defensive casting. How is it any different to cast Hold Person than Scorching Ray??? The Ranged Touch Attack was part of the Casting a Spell action, not a seperate action of its own.

Really I want to know the reasoning behind the change? Is it because touch spells were too good? If that's the case then perhaps it's a reasonable change. Enquiring Minds Want to know!!!

--Vrock Market Crash!

Change is hard. Did anyone else get that resistant feeling to the change on Cleave? And at first I couldn't figure out what made it different from Whirlwind Attack but it's a matter of adjacent foes only (great cleave) vs. foes within reach (whirlwind).

It's fairly useless against flankers though... blah!

--Caught between a Vrock and hard place!

The change was made in the Beta. This is nothing specific to the final version.

No other type of attacking had the ability to make multiple attacks as a standard action in 3.5, with or without a huge penalty. Why should archery be any different? (Cue the gamist vs. simulationist arguments.)

What about Bounding assault and Rapid Blitz???

--Vrocktoberfest!

It seems casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack now provokes an AoO... I don't get that? What's the difference between a ray and a targeted spell when you're threatened???

In 3.5 you provoked for the standard or full round "ranged attack" action and you provoked for the "cast a spell" action. However if you Cast Defensively and succeeded your spell went off without a hitch, whether that was an area effect like Fireball, a targeted spell like Inflict Light Wounds, or a effect spell that required a ranged touch attack like Ray of Enfeeblement.

--Vrocket Launcher Tag!

What's the reasoning on this change? I though the whole point of Manyshot was to be able to deliver more than one ranged attack as a Standard action at a significant penalty?

--Vrocking Burst Bow!

But most people here, unlike you, are not dealing with "sets" of attacks or anthing that subtle. Indeed, some are going so far as to claim that all attacks made with both heads of a double weapon should gain all of the benefits of a two-handed weapon, and also all of the benefits of two-weapon fighting... a situation so loopy I won't even run the numbers for it.

That's not what was originally proposed... I don't know how it got there?

When I crunched it with a character with +6/+1 BAB, a double weapon only (in this case a quarterstaff), and the backswing, twf, and double slice feats would go like this:

+4 (1d6+ Str x2) 2H w/ backswing
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF primary hand
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF off-hand w/ double slice

So in all cases the character takes a -2 penalty to all attacks in a full attack, gets x2 str damage on his initial attack only and gets x1 str damage on his off hand attack.

The only requisites are you take a full attack for backswing and you fight TWF for double slice. You could only really do that consistantly with a double weapon, which might get more players to use them.

--Vrock, Paper, Scissors

Staff sling is like they were reading my mind... I was planning on having a bunch of goblins using staff slings to heave terra cotta pots of alchmists fire! Woot!

--Lava Vrock

David Fryer wrote:

Persoally I was hoping to see Shadar-Kai on the list. I'm currently working on creating a Pathfinder version of them that are planetouched worshippers of Zon-Kuthon.

The Shadar-kai were created by Jesse Decker.

Yeah I'm just replacing them with the fetchling but otherwise they're very similar...

--Vrock Market Crash!

I'm usually against anyone that uses "the rules don't say you can't either" arguement. However this may be academic as it seems certain of the feats we're talking about didn't make the final cut...

Anyway if a character invests in as many feats as are required to pull this off it's not really gamebreaking to let them do it. I've always been a By the Book DM, a real LN stickler but we're here to have fun and letting people use their feats is fun.

--Vrock-et Science

Awful idea. Half the benefit of getting extra attacks is a reduced chance of wasting your entire turn on a single bad roll. Besides, in my experience comparing 3 rolls to an AC isn't terribly time consuming. Far more often are problems on the DM's end arbitrating monsters that he isn't as familiar with as he should be. Seriously - I've seen DM's take five minutes to run one monsters turn.

In defense of High Level DM's, you've run your character for months at least, we get to look at our monsters for a week or so... just saying.

Speeding up combat is really a matter of knowing what you can do and at higher levels monsters are enormously complex. After finishing the STAP I am fully willing to recruit help to run monsters on my side. Co-DM'ing is a great way to balance the work load.

--Chip off the old Vrock!

King of Vrock wrote:

So you take your first attack (with the -2 penalty for TWF) and get X2 or X3 str, then with the off hand attack you get x1 str. This might well be covered in the Final rules, but they're not mutually exclusive.

Then why would anyone ever use it as suggested in the rules (i.e. as a 1-handed and an off-hand weapon)? That's strictly worse than what you're suggesting (use it as a 2-handed and an off-hand weapon).

If you're a 6th level fighter and you have 2 iterative attacks and you have both Backswing, TWF, and Double Slice you take you highest attack as a 2H attack, then sp[read your hands out using the lowest as your primary TWF and then your off hand TWF with you full Str bonus.

If you don't have those feats you'd have to use it as normal.

--Vrock Lobster

In a 6-second long round, the rules do not allow for a 'grip change' in-between (it would need a feat which currently -AFAIK- doesn't exist for that, and a feat which allows such a quick change would need a swift action I would add). If you wield the quarterstaff two-handed for the first attack, you have to stick with it two-handed for the rest of the round; if you wield the quarterstaff as two weapons, the same is true.

Let's put it in another way: would you allow a character wielding a Longsword two-handed to make his first attack two-handed, then use Quick Draw to draw a Shortsword and continue with a two-weapon combo ?
Or wield a Longsword and a Shortsword, make the first attacks with both of them, and then drop the Shortsword and make a final attack with the Longsword two-handed? Because these examples are the same as a 'grip change' with a double weapon.
The rules have made no such examples since the creation of 3.0 edition, so it's easy to understand that it's not possible by rules (again, we are speaking of 6-second long rounds, where you can make up to 7 attacks with incredible precision and damage - in a 1-minute long round, sure, it would be even understandable).

Just my 2c.

I would absolutely allow your first example because the character has Quick Draw. Remember you still have to apply the -2 attack penalty to every attack. The 2nd example is no different. You have to take the penalty to every attack and it's a free action to drop the short sword (and you could lose that)! Bringing your hand to grip a non-reach weapon would take as little time as it would to drop a weapon and far less than it would be to actually make an attack with the off hand weapon.

--Vrocknrolla!

"d20srd wrote:

Quarterstaff

A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Since it says you can TW with it as if it was a one-handed weapon and a light-weapon, I do not think you can use it as a two-handed weapon while two-weapon fighting.

And why is this incompatible with 2H fighting? As long as you take the -2 penalty on the first iterative attack what's the problem?

--Tick-Vrock you don't stop!

With a versitile weapon like the quaterstaff or even the Urgrosh I don't see why you couldn't use both feats. You can only use both feats in a full attack, but each isn't an action unto itself (like manyshot and shot on the run used to be in 3.5).

So you take your first attack (with the -2 penalty for TWF) and get X2 or X3 str, then with the off hand attack you get x1 str. This might well be covered in the Final rules, but they're not mutually exclusive.

Switching the grip on a weapon really isn;'t that difficult. I'd allow you to do it once a round at the very least (ex: Short Haft). Heck this combo might even encourage the use of double weapons (which I haven't seen often IMX)!

--On the Chopping Vrock!

Well if you have multiple attacks I could see you taking a big swing with it as a 2-H weapon on your fist attack, then shifting your grip and using both ends to gain an extra attack. However you would suffer the -2 penalty on that initial 2-H attack.

It's not really that much different than a TWF who has 2 poisoned weapons. Round one, move to enemy A and attack with primary weapon (poison dose A used). Round two, move action to enemy B but you still wanna poison them so you use the off hand weapon as your primary attack but can only do 1/2 str damage (using poison dose B).

--System Vrock Save!

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Alright folks. Putting together the iconics has been fun, but I have spent the entire time staying true to the art and as true as possible to their 3.5 stat blocks. That means that in some cases, the samples do not have the best possible combination of feats, gear, and class abilities. That is OK. Most organically built characters end up that way, and these posts are not designed to show you the best way to make a character.

They are designed to show off some aspects of the rules. In this case, the eldritch knight prestige class and some of the high level, fighter only feats that I did not get to show off in the first preview. Lets keep it on this topic. Save the CharOp discussions for another day.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

So Jason are you irritated yet that you have to explain this after every iconic so far? I don't get why people seem to think that these previews need to be the most broken examples of a PC.

Geez.

Jason has DR 15/constructive critism meaning nonsense bounces off him like rays from the tarrasques back.

--Vrocktoberfest

Or Eldritch Knights mayhaps?

Oh and it's kinda cool that the bad boy of the iconics just happens to fall as preview #13. Dun-duh-dun!

--Vrock around the Clock

I think I hate this review. Not because the Eldrtich Knight is a bad class, I like it. But because of the use of the term "gish" by posters....

I like the class, like it alot. Seems strong but has issues as it should. Think it's an odd build but that can be said of many iconics. I can see this as a 4 person groups main caster, he's got plenty of spell power, he also isn't helpless in melee. I wouldn't take him toe to toe with any melee class but then again he will do some funky burst damage from time to time that could really do some interesting things.

Yeah "Gish" should be left back on the WotC boards as Githyanki are IP. If you aren't a githyanki fighter/spellcaster you're not Gish.

--Vrocket Launcher Tag

Note I love the Githyanki and the culture built up around them over the editions but every tom, dick, and harry who can swing a sword and sling a spell will never be a gish in my book.

My guess? Several reasons:

1. People who had problems with major elements of 3.5 probably won't be happy with a game with a stated purpose of preserving backwards compatibility.

2. Others who liked 3.5 probably don't see the point, or even worse, see Pathfinder as a D&D knock-off.

3. Many people driven away from Paizo's boards by the 4E hate went to those places (I did for quite a while), and some of them now have an axe to grind.

4. Tearing something down is easy.

...and those probably just scratch the surface.

In my Book Pathfinder IS D&D now...

--Coup d'Vrock!

Hey all, if you're interested in all manner of 8 bit/overclocked remixes of songs from radio, tv, movies, and video games you should really check out the Jump Button @ WHFR.FM on Thursdays at 6pm EST.

Check out this months feature the Themesong Throwdown (sitcom edition). You can also friend The Jump Button and awesome host Robbwith2bees on either Myspace or Facebook.

--Spacely Vrockets

OMG Tron was my favorite, favorite, FAVORITE movie of the 80's... every single .wav on my laptop and work PC has been replaced with lines from the original! This is gonna freaking rule!!!

--Vrocket Man!

Abraham spalding wrote:

AND you've forgot your buddy concealment. ANY miss chance and all that sneak attack damage goes out the window. Plus the rogue in question has to be able to reach the vitals... haven't seen a monster yet that this is really a problem for... (maybe hydra) but that doesn't mean we won't see some in the future from Piazo.

I´ll respond later tomorrow to the whole lot of Sneak Attack stuff which has come out ( many thanks, all, especially Jason who just confirmed what I had been hoping for ), but the concealment thing is something which just bugs me.

How is it that a simple level one spell ( Obscuring Mist ) can completely deny maybe *the* most important combat class feature of a class which already is more handicapped ( by necessary positioning and the need to have a flanking partner ) than any other class?

Maybe I´ve gotten hit with too many fog encounters in a campaign where I was playing a rogue, but this still seems fundamentally unfair. No other melee class has their bonus to damage completely negated by a measly 20% concealment. :-/

What's worse is a Rogue sitting in a dark alley waiting to mug someone but not being able to do it because the lighting is too low...

Perhaps there will be some fix in the final we haven't seen to go along with the new Light and Darkness conditions. I mean the Vision and Light section of adventuring were never clear enough.

--Vrock Turtle Soup

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Considering you only get a single standard action and a free action it's pretty limited what a rogue can do in the surprise round in any case.

That's true. I just don't like that the target of the sneak attack keeps getting less and less chance to resist or negate it. I have a feeling that PF is going to nerf Fortification, which doesn't leave many options. As oppossed to spells which have saves, to hit, s.r., resistance, and sometimes outright immunity.

Yeah Fort will probably be 25/50/75% because total immunity is no fun. As for negating Sneak Attack, it's called concealment. ANY amount will do. Smoke stick, blur, obscuring mist, fancy cloak dance feats...

--Vrockto-mom!

Dang! Gninja'd by Abe

KaeYoss wrote:

Beyond this, there are a few possibilities to sneak attack someone who has IUD (beyond the "be powerful enough to flank him"), as there are situations where you lose your dex to AC without being considered flat-footed, and these are being feinted, and being immobilised.

Although rare, I believe being in tight spaces would also deny you a dex bonus to AC. "Squeezing" in Beta p.144.

As does Climbing, using Acrobatics to balance, and Running.

--Vrocktoberfest!

Shadowdancers are perfect reoccurring villains or mysterious rivals. In an Urban campaign a lone Shadowdancer could make a great foil for PC's involved in any adventure where recovering stolen items (or stealing the items themselves) is a common adventure. Think Oceans 12 and the Nightfox. As a Mastermind the Shadowdancers defense and mobility are perfect for escaping and letting mooks and minions fight. An Enchanter or Illusionist Shadowdancer could make a frustrating foe.

As I'll be starting a campaign shortly set in the Plane of Shadows my PC's will regularly be facing off against or even taking levels of Shadowdancer so my mind is rife with ideas for them...

--Vrock a bye Baby...

Just a note... in 3.5 if you escaped the tentacles you could move at half speed through the area but were otherwise free from being grappled for the duration of the spell unless you left and re-entered.

It seems this has changed in the PF version. Any reason why? I think the spell is far more powerful than say Solid Fog (same level spell) in that it could continuously do damage for as long as you remain in the area.

Black Tentacles does a bit of damage (until you escape)and slows you to 1/2 speed.

Solid Fog does no damage, but slows your speed to 5 feet.

Like many others I was a LONG time subscriber to Dungeon and Dragon, 13 years to be exact! When Paizo took over the magazines I saw what I can say were the best issues done to date by a very talented company. As the Editions Wars started I was balls out furious with WotC and decided I couldn't afford to keep my blood pressure so consistently high on their boards. So I came here and found a community that was really close-knit and friendly. Better still the staff actually interacted with us!

Once Lisa and Erik announced they were going to persue updating 3.5 I let my Dunegeon & Dragon subscription transfer over and got the RotRL AP. I loved the quality adventures and I loved that someone was continuing to support the version of D&D I spent the last 2.5 decades playing.

The PFRPG beta playtest was the most awesome, most inclusive move I'd seen a company do with it's customers FOR it's customers. So in summary: Quality, Communication, & Caring.

I too had to cut off my paizo subscriptions last year because of the dismal economy (and cable, netflix, higher cell phone functions, etc). It's a hard pill to swallow I know. I'd been a loyal dungeon/dragon subscriber for 13 years and got halfway through CoCT before cutting myself off.

King of Vrock wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Nightfall wrote:

Dunno about the rest of you, but to me, the Balor actually LOOKS like a Balor. Not just some guy with a whip and fiery sword.

As it works out... I believe the artist we got to do our Balor, Ben Wootten, is the same guy who designed the look for the Balrog in Peter Jackson's movie. :-)

Um, wasn't that John Howe???

Yes John did the intial sketch, I resolved the final sculpt, under PJs direction and close dicussion with John.

Well it certainly was a helluva job you did there Ben... The Nameless Terror of Moria was bad as all get out!

Nightfall wrote:

Dunno about the rest of you, but to me, the Balor actually LOOKS like a Balor. Not just some guy with a whip and fiery sword.

As it works out... I believe the artist we got to do our Balor, Ben Wootten, is the same guy who designed the look for the Balrog in Peter Jackson's movie. :-)

Um, wasn't that John Howe???

Monks don't suffer two weapon fighting penalties as long as they fight unarmed or with monk weapons.

Actually they don't suffer twf penalties when using flurry of blows with or without weapons. However a monk could use flurry and twf to gain yet another attack but would most certainly suffer the penalties (and the off hand str difference) in 3.5.

The only thing is if you're converting to Pathfinder your Hit Dice would change to d6 (as the wizard) and your skills might be different. Concentration is no longer a skill, thus if you have psionic feats you might have to tinker with the mechanic to gain psionic focus.