Kitsune YMG's page
13 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.
|
Faelyn wrote: Issac Daneil wrote: A Mauler is always assumesd for this build. It's contributing ability, Battle Form, comes online at lvl 3, and since the feats thing only came in at lvl 2, you essentially have to deal with being a lvl 1 fighter from lvl 1 to 2.
Which....has always been easy. Your a Figher. even without feats, hit the Kobold/Zombie/Wolf with your Greatsword and your 18 str. Hey look; enemy dead.
As you level up, your familiar (I found Fox to be the best w/o improved) gets higher Str then you. I then used the feats Evolved Familiar to give it Claws. (3 Natural Attacks with 22 Str; and it has your BAB so it's MORE accurate then you.) I also took Spirit Gift to give it either DR 5/ Adamantine, or Fast Healing 1. You can change Spirit Gift's benefit each day, so feel free to experiment.
Hell; if you were light weight enough, you could take Undersized mount, and ride your familiar into battle.
On a side note, I like to take a level of Tattooed Sorceror with this, so that I can get Tattoo form for my familiar, and some social skill. You could become a decent Spy, keeping your secret weapon; your familiar, hidden until you need him.
Done right, it makes the fighter probably one if, if not the best Paired Fighting class. Isaac, out of curiosity, at which level are you looking at the 22 Strength for the fox? By my figuring... Fox won't hit 22 Strength until 15th level. Base of 9 + 2 Battle From + 4 Size Increase = 15... you then need another +7 bonus gained from Increased Strength which you won't reach until 15th level. Just in case no one pointed this out for you...
The fox gets +4 str, -2 Dex, +0 Con for tiny to small transition, and then +4 str, -2 dex, +2 con for small to medium transition. Add in that +2 strength they get for free and the +1 at 3rd and every odd level thereafter, and it's 20 at 3rd. At 4, it has 4 HD and gets a +1 to any stat (I think?) and at 5th it gets another +1 strength. So 22 at level 5. (If they don't get the +1/4 HD, then it takes until 7th level, but since they have HD equal to yours, it seems weird that they would ignore this advancement rule.)
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Divine Protection's prerequisite line reads:
"Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains, or mystery class feature."
It needs to read:
"Cha 13; Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks; ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains, or mystery class feature."
One must use semicolons in place of ALL commas when one of the items of a comma separated list contains commas.
I'm sure no one actually cares, but I so seldom get to *use* that kind of semicolon.
Adam Moorhouse 759 wrote: I S'pose you're right. Free out-of-combat healing for the whole party isn't gonna break very many adventures. Then why'd they bother nerfing Cure Minor Wounds? Because free out of combat healing dos break many adventures. In short, you no longer care about HP attrition and the only combats that matter are CR = Level+2 ones.
'Rixx wrote: A "sorcerous magus" would be a good option, as well - replace int-based prepared casting with cha-based spontaneous casting, give them the Bard/Inquisitor/Summoner spells known table, and any abilities that key off prepared spell casting are similarly replaced. I think it has a reasonable reason to exist - someone who has a sorcerous bloodline might also choose to split their studies between the martial and magical. Mad Beetle wrote:
+1 for the sorceror arche-type option, as i remember many calling for the magus to be spontaneous.
They're called Bards =/. Besides sorcerer pairs more thematically with barbarian than fighter. Fighter and wizard are both high-discipline paths: You power is a direct result of intense study and training. Sorcerer and barbarian are both intuitive/passonate paths: you power is an emergent result of who you are and your personality. And Rage-Mage already exists.
I hope to never see another Sorcerer-style spontaneous caster ever again. If they're going to waste time making casters that are limited in what they can do, they could at least get psionics or some other point based system into play. (Or just adopt Psionics Unleashed as official.) Then we'd have actual flexible casting that gives you a decent bonus to counter the fact that there are just situations you can't do jack about without someone else making a magic item for you.
Midnightoker wrote: I would also say that making a magus with different fighting styles would be nice, but its tough not to prance around the fighting style scenarios to stamping on fighters and such. A ranged magus could easily make the Arcane Archer obsolete.
Doesn't the normal magus make the EK as 'obsolete' as a ranged magus would make the arcane archer? I, for one, welco^H see no problem with a ranged variant of the magus. AA would still be a viable PrC for such a character due to the Magus' lousy staying power at 9+. They could have different focus':
A ranged magus would cast ranged touch/touch spells with arrows. He doesn't get the AA's fireball arrows.
Darkholme wrote:
Start with Magus
Monk Proficiencies
Monk Unarmed Damage
Monk AC Bonus/CMD Bonus (Int Based)
Monk Flurry BAB
Monk Unarmed Strike
Saves: Ref, Will
(IIRC: Flurry was replaced with Spell Combat. It wasn't clear if spell combat got the +1BaB or not. I think that might be too powerful. Monk AC Int based is too powerful (for an arcane class? Hell EVERY wizard would dip to get this).)
As I said in that thread, I <3 this idea and hope it is published in UM with the magus and not in X months when they get around to another book. This idea is, IMHO, far more fun sounding than any other I've heard in a while.
I'd like to see archetypes for the following:
Bow/Crossbow, Thrown Weapons, Two Handed weapons, QStaff/Staff, TWF(twin light weapons only; aka Daggerspell Magus), Mounted*
*I think every martial class needs a mounted archetype. In campaigns where being mounted is a viable option, it's nice to have class support for it instead of blowing feats. On that subject, I'd really like to see a 'Cavalier' archetype w/o a mount and don't know why it wasn't a core choice in the class (See: Animal Companion vs Domain|Ranger's Link; mount v holy spirit; familiar v arcane bond). The witch's familiar doesn't bother me as much as it's not as big of an impact in combat/movement as a mount feature is. Still, I think all classes w/fuzzy buddies and all martial classes need mounted and unmounted options. I went off on a tangent there huh?
Darkholme wrote: I'm going to agree with Kitsune here.
I seriously think that the % reduction is the way to go.
In my own games I've already changed the Magus to have armored casting like this instead.
DH's Game wrote:
Armored Casting 1: At level 1, Arcane Spell Failure chance is reduced by 15%.
Armored Casting 2: At level 7, this increases to 25%
Armored Casting 3: At level 13, this increases to 35%.
These stack with feats that reduce ASF, but not with Armored Casting from other classes.
Armored Casting applies to all spellcasting subject to ASF.
And while I think that's a better way to approach it, I don't see paizo doing it that way for the simple reason that it's inconsistent with the treatment they gave the bard and summoner (Whom I also changed to a % ASF reduction, and gave them Armored Casting 1.)
Since they are already presenting alternative magic rules (Words of Power) in UM, I'd like to see a small section converting Ignore %Failure(type) into flat percentages*. I'd be nice simple from a choice perspective. I think a bard w/ftr1 (or a feat etc) should be able to cast in full plate at level one with a better chance (low failure) than a wizard. It seems a solid house rule.
* Something like
Ignore %Failure in light armor: -> %20
Medium: %30
Heavy: %40
Shields: %5
I'd throw in a bit about needing proficiency with armor to gain he reduction as well. This means a brd1 w/medium armor proficiency could cast w/o failure in medium armor (Hide is identical to chain shirt in AC and %fail, but slows speed and -3 A.C. -- also costs less) but at the cost of blowing a feat. At brd2 should be able to afford a chain shirt so it's not too big of an advantage. Under this system (by blowing a feat) the bard could have an AC of +6 (v +4 chain shirt) with a %fail of %5 (Breast Plate). Is the extra 2 AC worth blowing a feat, 100 g.p. and Still having a 1 in 20 chance of having all somantic spells fizzel? My hunch is, from an optimizers POV, no. But sometimes in RPGs people pick sub-optimal choices because they are fond of them, thinks it builds character, and/or it's fun. That's what I'm trying to preserve.
Kryzbyn wrote: Archetype time!
Ascetic Magus:
Replace weapon and armor prof's with monk, add unarmed damage, add wis to AC. NO FOB...spell combat becomes your FOB.
Instead of fighter training, add monk CMD bonus.
Replace ability to cast in armor with ki pool as per monk, but uses current arcane pool to fuel ki pool abilities.
EDIT: HA DO KEN!!!!
+1 THIS.
I hope the Staff is reads this and includes it in UM, not in a book coming out later. I don't care if it ends up < monk in pure math, I love this idea.
I intensely dislike the flavor of ignoring arcane spell failure by armer type. I think it should be reduce spell failure by X%. This allows for armor from 3.5 books to be imported and allows for new armors/materials/enhancement's to be added to pathfinder w/o worry about whether the % spell failure is correct wrt armor type. It also means that a magus could wear heavier armor and take a smaller penalty.
e.g. a chain shirt is %20 IIRC. Full Plate is %50. A magus who can wear a chain shirt and have a %0 should not have a %50, he should have a %30.
I don't propose giving them medium/heavy proficiency earlier, or even at all; this is what feats are for. I just think a 1st level magus should be able to blow a feat on medium armor and suffer a reduced penalty instead of nothing or everything.
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote: I'd like Ultimate Magic to add a line of arcane spells that allows sorcerers and wizards to deliver reliable significant single target damage across the four most common energy types (I've skipped sonic up to this point). I know alot of people really dislike the 'Orb' spells, so I've taken a stab at what I'm thinking of below:
Energy Missile spell line:
Energy Missile is Evocation, not Conjuration like the Orb spells. Energy Missile checks SR, which I know was a major sticking point for alot of people with the Orb spells. Energy Missile doesn't have a secondary effect, which the Orb spells did. Energy Missile doesn't have a to-hit roll, thus critical hits are not possible, unlike the Orb spells. Energy Missile allows a reflex saving throw for half damage, meaning that opponents with evasion (and thus presumably a high reflex save) stand a good chance of not being affected. However, Energy Missile has one significant benefit over the Orb spells: versatility. The energy type is chosen at the time of casting, not at the time of memorization.
Good gaming to all,
I like some of what you've done, but some are still over/under powered. The 1st level spell needs to be 1d6/2 levels. 3rd is great, 5th needs a fort: negate effect (Fire Stunned 1 round, Cold fatigued, Electricity entangled 1 round, acid shaken 1 round), 7th need fort: partial (failed save 1 round => 2d4/exhausted: success as failed for 5th level)
Normally high level energy blasts suck because of immunities, but the ability to pick from 4 types with one spell makes up for that. Heck, add sonic back in there using d4's instead of d6's and it'll be fairly balanced.
Fnipernackle wrote:
I think I'm missing something. I can understand being against the lesser orbs (good enough that no one would take any of the other 1st lvl combat spells), but what's wrong with the regular and greater versions? (I'm just asking. Not wantingbto start an argument.) What if the orb spells didn't straight damage or their type with no added effect? Or maybe only an added effect if they crit?
graywulfe wrote:
I rather like the orb spells.
The orb spells are plain better than other spells of the same level. They do not allow saves (for damage) and have no SR. They are conj spells not evoc spells. To top it off, they have additional effects besides damage. Compare a fireball to an Orb of Fire.
@7th level
Fireball: 7d6; refl[1] for 1/2: 20' burst
Pros: Multiple Targets
Cons: Save for Half plus SR
Orb of Fire: 7d6; fort or dazed; single target
Pros: No save v damage, dazed is a great condition, no SR, 15d6 max
Cons: Single target, touch* attack, 4th level
This is the best comparison you can hope for. Comparing orb of Cold to Cone of Cold or (snicker) Ice Storm
@9th level
Ice Strom: 5d6 in cylinder
Pros: Long range, Theoretical multiple opponents, no save
Cons: Non-scaling damage, crappy area, SR
Cone of Cold: 9d6; refl[1] for 1/2: Cone
Pros: Multiple targets, max 15d6
Cons: Save for Half, SR, Cone means short range, 5th level
Orb of Cold: 9d6; fort or blinded; single target
Pros: No save v damage, blinded is a good condition, no SR, max 15d6
Cons: Single target, touch* attack
There is no reason to ever use Cone of Cold or Ice Storm as Ord of Cold is flat out better than both.
To fix the orb spells:
Damage dice to d4. School to evoc. Remove force and sonic orb. Perhaps acid as well. These energy types are A) Less common for resistance and B) Have ramifications for things with hardness (IIRC: May not be in PF)
[1] Evasion can start coming into play by 5th level. By 10th, improved evasion becomes a problem as well. Plus, at higher levels, targets are more likely to save for half, which makes fireball 10d6/2 ~ 10d3
*A touch attack is very easy to pull off. Especially since the bigger a critter is, the lower it's touch AC. Goblins @ 1st level require higher rolls to hit than many 10th level beasties
The lesser orb spells (and to a smaller extent all of them) are horrendously broken. They also pretty much kill any desire to ever learn a single evocation spell.
Reduce all of the damage dies to d4 and it would be acceptable balanced.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
First and most importantly, This thread is to help bump the retard thread from screwing up all the pages.
Secondly,
WTF Paizo? Did you use a time-warp to hire a 12 y/o from 1995 to do your website? I figure, since I use FF and greasemonkey, I'll just pop on into the site's HTML and blast the offending box from existence. But that is going to be significantly more trouble than it should; Paizo is using NESTED TABLES to lay their site out. UN-Id'ed nested tables. There is no way, short of table>tr>table>tr+tr+tr etc to select the offending page element to nuke it.
I'm a veteran 3.X (and older) player looking to get into pathfinder. I'm pretty much relegated to doing pbp or chat due to time constraints on my part.
I'm up for pretty much any class/race (core or apb). I'd like to start low level, but am flexible and somewhat familiar with 3.X at all (non-epic) levels.
|