|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I really like it. For Sorcerers.
And as comparison with burning hands and scorching ray goes:
As an aside, burning hands does d4s not d6s in damage.
If you focus on burning hands, you can easily make it very powerful - doing 5d4+10 on first level, which is, frankly, glorious overkill. Similarly, scorching ray is a great spell to focus on, if you want to build a ray blaster. Magic missile on the other hand doesn't lend itself to be exploited by just the right build. You can do a bit of it with metamagic (toppling, sickening, dazing, e.g.), but nothing truly record setting. But if you do not want to specialize in the spell, magic missile is easily as useful, if not more useful than either burning hands or scorching ray.
Even in large scale battles that is significant. The killing happens rapidly and is concentrated in one area that can thus be severely weakened, possibly leading the whole line of battle to collapse. Add to that the effect on morale and the many other spells a 6th level sorcerer has access to and you have quite the weapon.
One might want to consider that the issue is not whether anyone is offended or not. It is how certain cultural stereotypes are reproduced and how that influences a general, often subtle emotional prejudice towards whatever we identify as belonging to that stereotype in actual life.
Offensiveness has nothing at all to do with the problem. This problem would be there even if no-one ever took offence.
Also, Necromancy is da bomb!
Seth Parsons wrote:
Also, historical tidbit: When the crossbow began to become a decent and widely used weapon of war in Europe, the Catholic church banned it's use amongst it's followers because it was just so effective. Yes, the church banned a weapon because it was too good. <.<
No.Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians.
It might at most have been an attempt to reduce casualties in internal warfare, by requiring close combat, which is harder to get into and easier to get away from, thus less likely to cause a lot of casualties.
In no way was only the crossbow banned, but it was a reaction against killing at a distance in general and, as mentioned, only against christians.
Judging by a lot of the catfolk builds I have seen, the entire race has been adopted by half orcs and breed for larger teeth.
It's a quick and easy way to get a full set of natural attacks. Something like this is a clear indication that a bite attack should probably have been part of the race from the beginning.
I don't see fronts (like Civil War, WWI or WWII) since the attrition rates and supply would be problems, especially inland seeing the lack of railroads.
Very good point. Ancient armies mostly lived off the land, due to supply trails being almost impossible to make sufficiently faster than the armies. Does magic help to solve the problem? Due to weight restrictions on the teleport spells, this is not really feasible. Armies will thus tend to have a lower maximum size compared to modern armies and will not be able to remain on any particular stretch of land for more than a few months as eventually the radius of exploited local resources will beyond transport capabilities.
High level characters and powerful monsters, in particular casters, are the big guns - field artillery with devastating effect. But unlike early modern field artillery they are much more mobile and better able to protect themselves.
In considering how different military traditions on Golarion appear, one should consider:
These three conditions should be quite helpful. Condition a) gives the framework of what is generally possible, while b) and c) are concerned with in how far the generally possible can be realized given the mindset and behavior of commanding elites and their ability to command resources.
Add to that in any given situation particular personal traits of commanders, but those are not part of military tradition, of course.
The Crusader wrote:
It's not much of a difference whethera) a sub-commander commits treason (taking his unit out of the fight, maybe actually into the fight against you)
b) a staff member tries to assassinate you
c) a known magic using member of your army betrays you or
d) an enemy magic user hides among your army as a non-magic user waiting to commit treason.
In effect, I don't see the presence of magic changing matters in regards to loyalty. But it's good to point out that magic users make excellent saboteurs in a world otherwise more or less bereft of high-powered explosives.
One more matter that needs considering (and that again cuts into the usefulness of melee infantry) is the possibility of actual air forces.
Basically every cult behaves like a monotheistic religion, specifically like an abrahamitic religion. They all have salvation schemes, moral codes, holy texts and exclusive club memberships (as in you are supposed to have one patron god). It's like a hundred little Christianities.
Also note that there are no deities associated with specific cities or locales at all. The gods are just antrophomorphized abstracts and you are supposed to choose between e.g. community and beauty. Like you, I would have very much preferred for a world with many, many, actual, provable gods to be much more like actual polytheistic cultures were.
At least for Gollarion, there are statistics from the frequency of caster of all levels and they are not really rare.
Part of my point. It requires some hand waving and fiat to have both DnD/PF type magic and a medieval/renaissance world or military tactics. It may also be an interesting story to have magic introduced into old style warfare, letting players (on the low-magic/mundane side) figure out new strategies in response.
While Fireballs are a rarer resource, they would have a relatively stronger impact than historical cannons had. Because unlike cannons they are 100% accurate and can be fired in rapid succession. Spellcasters are also highly mobile, unlike historical field artillery. Furthermore, from the 17th century onwards infantry more and more employed firearms as the main weapon, reducing the time of deployment by increasing the effective range of engagement.Finally, remember that fireballs (and the like of course) are not new. They've been around for thousands of years. Everyone knows about them and has had time to develop strategies.
One other way to limit magical artillery: cover and concealment.
- The crossbow, easy to use and in formations of low level combatants as effective as it's bow counterpart, should see a lot of use.
- Ranged combat in general would be preferred, supported by fast moving cavalry. Ranged units lose very little by not being densely packed formations.
- Melee tactics will probably tend to focus on movement and mobility, trying to find ways to apply superior numbers and pincer encirclements on a small scale.
- Heavy cavalry tactics should still focus on the massed charge, but should also have ways to come together as late as possible, again to not present and easy target for a possilbe AOE spelll.
- 2 lvls of Ranger give you Power Attack without the strength prerequisite.
James Jacobs wrote:
More to the point... if they have 4 arms and have ALWAYS had four arms... wouldn't it make sense that their society has, over the course of its existence, invented FOUR ARMED weapons instead of just limiting themselves to two armed weapons?
I'd say probably not. The advantage of using two hands to wield a weapon is that you can control longer weapons that way, due to the lever effect. But this depends on the distance between both hands on the grip and there is a maximum to that distance where you can still move well enough to fight. Having an extra pair of arms would not help in this regard. So at most, four armed weapons could be a little bit heavier, but not really larger.
What I'd rather expect is a two-handed weapon plus two shields style.
Be a half-elf.
I would advise to see the sex change as something similar to a high level healing spell. Anevia was suffering from the mismatch between her inner self - soul if you will - and her physical body. To alleviate this suffering is an act of healing and healing the ones you love is not a selfish act. It may be less altruistic than healing strangers, but the alternative - not helping your loved ones when you could - would not be morally sound.
The issue might have been different if the sword was really a holy sword or holy avenger even or if Irabeth had actually sold it knowingly to cultists, but neither is the case.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
While the absence of offence does not make something acceptable or good, the presence of offence does at least constitute some kind of evil. Though, I would argue, that if the offence is not justified, it constitutes a very minor evil and if it is justified than the real problem is not the offence but what was taken offence at. The offence then mostly signals the presence of a more substantial evil. And furthermore, one might argue that if taking offence is justified, than it is also mandatory. That is: If I was right to take offence at what you did, everyone who didn't take offence at it, should have.
But of course, the parties taking offence are as entitled as everyone to participate in moral discourse. At best one might say that strong feelings of being offended might cloud the judgement.
But my point was not about who should decide, it was about what should count as reasons and evidence for a moral judgement.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Making and stating a moral judgement is not an implicit assumption of infallibility. Any such judgement should always be open to argument.
Here's own in support of my stated position:
Why should whether or not someone actually takes offence at misrepresentation not be the arbiter of its moral value?
Both of these reason can of course be subject of argument themselves.
Along similar lines: Denying subjectivism (necessary for reasons of practical consistency) does not equal the assertion of one's own moral infallibility, it is merely denying subjectivism.
Whether or not someone is offended is immaterial to the issue. The reinforcement of the faulty stereotype is a problem for the holders of the stereotype as well as for its target. A homophobic culture is not any better, if there is no homosexual behaviour. If it were, the perfect answer to homophobia would be to get rid of all homosexuals.To put it simply and bluntly: the problem resides with the perpetrators, not with the victims.
Yes, anything can be interpreted as motivated by selfishness.I save the innocent kid because:
I expected a monetary reward.
I want to turn him into an evil henchman.
I liked him.
I liked his mother.
I wanted to go to bed with his mother.
Even: I wanted to feel good about myself.
But, the code also specifies that the Antipaladin's action must not only serve his own ends, but that those ends must also be dark. Now, what precisely counts are dark ends is up for grabs, but of all the examples, I think the only one that easily qualifies is number 2.
I've re-read it a few times, and I am pretty sure that, RAW, there is no save here. The interesting question, to me, would be whether this also bypasses SR. Basically, I see nothing saying that there are qualifiers past the ranged touch for determining whether you are affected.
Bombs are (Su), so spell resistance does not apply to them.
I do find amusing that in a post about cultural assumptions, generalizing and offensive stereotypes there are talks about 'the west' as some sort of cultural monolith. Perhaps a lesson there?
Due to the prevalence of consumer capitalism working to structure not only production in the same way (the lives of labourers and capitalist and their relations are very similar, no matter where they live) but also consumption (Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood, consumer electronics,...), there is at least some sense to be made from talking about a "western culture".But: Culture is never monolithic. Not in one town or family. It is the nature of culture (one might conjecture: its very evolutionary function) to change. And change in culture is always also change in particular behaviours of particular humans.
That said, there is a great drive towards cultural homogenization in the geographical territory of said western culture. If you want to think of it in Marxist terms: once a region has adopted capitalist production, it must adapt its old stories and modes of interpretation and structuring behaviour to this reality or adopt to some degree or another, cultural elements that already fit a society under that mode of production. Elements, which are often provided by enactment of capitalist consumption itself.
One certainly cannot speak of "the orient" in that way. From a western imperial perspective, the west is the centre, everything else is the periphery (if it appears on the map at all). Furthermore, historical imperial processes most often were not to any great extent cultural. Most commonly imperialism meant an exchange of ruling elites, with the vast majority of the population more or less unaffected by it. Even such a cultural giant as old China presented only a cultural colonialism of the elites.
The swordlord prestige class suffers from two problems: a) it requires a lot of feat investment that distracts from getting AC and DPR up and b) it only brings dex to damage online at a time when you could also afford an agile weapon. So unless you really want to make use of dazzling display and disarm, it is not a good choice. If you do, however, be sure to include two levels of order of the cockatrice cavalier.
Having played a bomb focused alchemist with confusion bombs for some time, I must say that in my experience the discovery is well balanced. It is in fact decidedly weaker than stink bomb in many situations. If it would allow a save, I would not take it. Confusion is not a devastating enough single target debuff that it would justify a chance of it not working, given that there are other options available.
This is in part due to the fact that the optimal situation for a confusion effect consists in several targets in close proximity affected at the same time. A situation that is hard to impossible for an alchemist to generate, since they are limited by the number of attacks they have. This can be optimized, but doing so is costly. By level 8, when confusion bombs become available, an alchemist can have 2-4 attacks, plus haste. 4 attacks require a 17 dex (certainly doable) and 2 feats. Haste is not a very good buff for Alchemists in general, because they can only target themselves with it, further increasing the cost to optimize.
Granted, the alchemist can repeat this feat next round (remember though, that spending 5 bombs per round will very quickly eat through your resources), but then, so can a sorcerer or a wizard if they want to.
The only issue I see with this is when it is used against player characters, since it effectively robs a player of control of their character without allowing even a save.
Can be combined with Aldori Swordlord PRC or Dervish Dance for a dex based build (better AC, worse DPR) or strength based (vice versa).
"I will now ask you a question" Morgu'ul the Malefactorial Manipulator shouted, the serrated blade of his sacrificial dagger poised at the young man's throat. "And you will answer with a lie. If you do not, I will cut this fool's pretty throat!"
Since taking a hand off a weapon and putting it back is a free action, there's nothing stopping your from using a 1-handed weapon, attacking with it in two hands during your turn and switching to 1-handed after your attack.
Also, if you go with MoMS, do take tiger style & tiger pounce, shifting PA penalty to AC is just too good, in particular with crane wing taking over some defensive duty from AC.
On a final note, the Agathion blooded Aasimar can take the Enlightened Warrior trait, which allows for a non-lawful monk, if you want to avoid an alignment shift. The rest of the race isn't half bad, though you'd have to do without a bonus to STR.
I do think that the game does a terrible job at controlling damage, in particular how it develops over the levels. The span of possible damage per round is just too wide between different builds. If an optimized character does 2-3 times the damage an unoptimized character of the same general type does, that just makes scaling almost impossible.
You know it doesn't say anywhere that you can get an effective druid level above your character level. Tho for the single class oracle this would make the ability kind of useless.
It doesn't say anywhere that you cannot and the math gives results where effective druid level > character level, so it seems pretty obvious that it's possible.
He would not need to chose a horse.
"being entitled to an animal companion" is not "being entitled to the same type of animal companion". As long as you are entitled to an object that falls under the category of animal companion, the levels stack.
Thus, a druid who multiclasses as a cavalier would stack their cavalier level with their druid levels to determine the effective level for their animal companion even if the particular companion is not available to cavaliers.
The first thing you have to realize is that what matters is not the structure of the adventure, but the experience of the players. Something is a railroad only if perceived as such. Even if there is really only one path to take, as long as that path is accepted by the players as the logical and appropriate path, there will be no experience of railroading.
But as soon as players feel that they are supposed to do this or that and feel that they have no reasons for it, or do not identify with that choice or find it inappropriate for their characters, the experience of being railroaded can appear.
Therefore an adventure needs to provide a context for player choices to make them meaningful and if the context is right for your group of players and their characters, no amount of "structural railroading" will be a problem. By structural railroading, I mean to what degree the adventure text itself does not allow for deviations from a particular sequence of events, something which, btw. is highly encouraged by the level/CR subsystem.
Similarly, if the players have no indications for theirs choices, they can feel left out of the scenario. That is a pitfall for sandbox games: you still need to provide a context for player choices, to make them meaningful. A good sandbox game is basically a railroad of forking paths: You still need to provide a meaningful context for player choices so as to allow them to make those choices their own, even if they are moving within a preset of options.
Pretty obviously, "weapon damage dice" refers to the dice roll listed under "damage" in the weapon listing. That set of dice is multiplied by the vital strike feat chain. The mythic vital strike feat tells to apply the multiplier granted by the vital strike feat chain (x2,x3,x4) also to a specific subset of damage bonuses, as listed in the description.