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

KutuluKultist's page

174 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

"Not the best spell for its level" =/= "useless"


19 people marked this as a favorite.

P.s.
It's the only spell you can use to attack the darkness.


I really like it. For Sorcerers.
1st level spells are very soon a plentiful resource. And it's almost always useful. Not tremendously useful, but then, it uses a common resource. It gives you something to do when you want to preserve spells. It gives you something to do when you come up against something that your main tricks don't work against. It gives you a way to contribute once you've cast your buffs and summons.
It's never going to solve encounters on its own, but for what it can do, it is fine, easy and cheap.

And as comparison with burning hands and scorching ray goes:
Burning hands requires you to get close to the enemy, scorching ray requires an attack roll which probably has, at the time you get it, a 30%+ rate of failure. So the real comparison at level 4 is a guaranteed 2d4+2 for a level one slot, or a 30%+ chance to do 4d6 for a level two slot. 7 DPR vs. 9.8 DPR. But with scorching ray, you could have wasted your action. At level 5, MM does 10 DPR, so comes out ahead. Also, while touch AC doesn't scale rapidly, in particular in the lower levels, where enemies are smaller, it is often at least a bit higher than ten, tilting things even more in the direction of MM.
A similar calculation, using saving throws, can be applied to burning hands, which does retain the advantage of doing AoE with all that that entails, yet has a distinct disadvantage regarding range.

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.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sure, he'd wreak a lot of havoc. He might eliminate what, 300-400 soldiers per day?

On small scale skirmishes (or extended sieges) that can certainly turn the tide.

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.


revaar wrote:
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.


HarbinNick wrote:
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.

Quote:


-I see powerful characters functioning as near armies by themselves, a lv. 12 wizard could kill an entire cavalry division by himself.

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:
a) What options and abilities are available to the commanding elite. Are there magic users, monsters, cavalry, guns,...? What is the infrastructure like? How mobile and how difficult to support are military resources?
b) What the social order of the society in question is. Highly centralized states fight differently from loose feudal federations. Can the commanding elites get people to follow orders? How easily can central command mobilize local resources? How loyal are the troops and how is loyalty enforced?
c) What is the established and accepted mindset among commanding elites? What prejudices and traditions remain from the past, that may no longer be appropriate to the current battlefields? Are there traditions of honor, if so which and how influential are they?

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:

Don't count on an army carrying too many casters. As effective as they may be against your opponents, they can be even more devastating against you. The first time an adversary bribes one or two of your wizards to commit treason, you will learn that lesson very quickly.

I would imagine casters would be few, highly specialized, and of known, certain loyalty.

It's not much of a difference whether

a) 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.


"So, what was your internship with the Great Golem Master like? Did you learn much?"

"I spent hours, literally hours on end casting electric splash on a golem they kept having beaten up by enemies. Tanking, they called it, annoying is what it was. Not going back."


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.


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:


I suppose this ultimately comes down to a GM choice with regards to how common casters are in a given army and such.

At least for Gollarion, there are statistics from the frequency of caster of all levels and they are not really rare.

Quote:

I fully admit: I limit them so that I can have military engagements look like normal late medieval/renaissance ones with magic on one side mostly canceled out by magic on the other side.

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.


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:

Don't undersell infantry. The Fireball doesn't do much more than the heavy canon, and well into The Civil War, vast scale infantry tactics were used. And spellcasters are an even more scarse resource economy than canons, since they can only lob so many fireballs in so many places per day.

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.


In general:
- The presence of the fireball spell should put a damper on the kinds of closely packed formations that dominated historic battlefields. A group of low level combatants, and those make up the largest part of armies - is perfect fireball fodder.

- 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.
- The Agile enchantment will only become an option in the mid levels, Dervish Dance will serve you from level 2 on.
- You will not be able to compete damage wise with a strength focussed melee build. Find something else to do, e.g. combat maneuvers, scouting or be a rogue replacement via the trapfinder trait (or by taking the trapper Ranger archetype)


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.
Take Arcane Training ART.
Count as a wizard, level one.
Use wands with guaranteed success.
A wand of mage armor costs only 750 GP.
It will last you through half your career.
Use your Skill Focus for a Knowledge Skill.
Get a Familiar. Don't skip on UMD.
The path is Eldritch Heritage and then Improved Familiar.
Now the familiar can buff you, while you shoot.
A familiar has many other advantages, too.
All of this is also good advice for a melee focused monk.
He needs the AC more and can get a quick +4
from his familiar imp, at combats dawn.
A familiar is like a family, no one
is complete without one.


The binding on those things is pretty horrid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Fighter 5, Monk 2, Duelist from then on is probably the optimal set up. It maximizes saves & feats at the cost of 1 BAB and delaying duelist by 1 level.


CWheezy wrote:
Wycen wrote:


The GM might have caught this before if he comprehended the quad and pounce rules versus the biped form that my summoner uses.
You didn't get pounce as well? It is only 1 point and available at all levels

Pounce requires a quadruped base form.


I would advice against nerfing intimidate. It's costly to make it effective and in most cases, it will only cause shaken for a short time, against which most things are immune.


Do people know their alignment?


Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetal Gooooooooooooods!

dathunk dathunk


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
KutuluKultist wrote:
Why should whether or not someone actually takes offence at misrepresentation not be the arbiter of its moral value?
I look at the Jyllands-Posten affair a few years back and immediately see very strong reasons why an offended party is the least reliable of all possible arbiters.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I guess it's the hubris of starting with the assumption of one's own moral infallability that bugs me here.

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?
Two main reasons:
a) Social factors - group pressure, cultural taken-for-grantedness, fear or repression, ... - can influence the behaviour of a person, even without that person realizing it.
b) Minimizing misconception and false beliefs is itself good and valuable, making behaviour that engenders or reinforces false beliefs and misconceptions morally reprehensible, even if that behaviour only immediately affects the persons behaving in that way.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:


But is that a problem?
If no-one in the group is from that 'exotic' culture, who is being offended?

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.


GreenMandar wrote:
If that interpretation is actually correct, Poison Bomb is pretty nasty. Auto death for anything 6th level or lower, without poison immunity, caught in it.

How much is there that is level 6 or lower and has SR?


Ashiel wrote:


Let's look at this. The antipaladin can freely commit good acts as long as it's because of his own interests (IE - if the paladin is motivated by selfishness, he has a blank check). Meanwhile, the code he follows specifically notes that formost he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.

Again, a blank check. His code is - appropriately - a mockery of the Paladin's code in that it literally says he must do X unless he just doesn't want to. Chaos man. Chaos and Selfishness incarnate.

An antipaladin could be the greatest false-hero ever. Saving people for the praise, respect, and status it brought him, and never because the people are just simply in need. He could build an orphanage if he did it because it'd get him a tax break. He can be a nasty-stinky-pants and piss in some kid's icecream bucket, or...just not, because he doesn't feel like it today.

"I have one rule. There are no rules, except when they benefit me."

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.


In general: if option A is available without investment and option B costs a feat, shouldn't option B be superior to option A?


seebs wrote:
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.


Arssanguinus wrote:
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.


It has always been my impression that almost everyone on Golarion has some contemporary USAmerican mindset, dressed up in various cultural superficialities.


I'll just throw it in:
Vital Strike should a) work with Spring Attack and b) just add 2d6 damage per feat.


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.
If all that effort is made, the alchemist can count on ca. 4 targets being confused in one round. If the enemy group is larger, a wizard or sorcerer can often affect more than that number.

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.


Crane Style.
Racial Heritage: Halfling & Cautious Fighter, Dodge.
2 levels of Master of Many Styles & Monk of the Sacred Mountain, or 4 levels of MOMS & Qui-Gong to get Barkskin.

Can be combined with Aldori Swordlord PRC or Dervish Dance for a dex based build (better AC, worse DPR) or strength based (vice versa).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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!"
Pally knew that she couldn't make it to Murgu'ul in time, he was clearly out of charging range and even if she could have made it, she couldn't have taken him out in one blow. But she also wouldn't lie. To play the twisted games of minds malicious and criminal was a slippery slope. It was admitting, in actions if not in words, that they were right. That the world was just as horrible as the wanted it to be, in order to justify their own wickedness. But how could she refuse and risk the live of an innocent and lovely young man?
She remembered a lesson her mentor Sir Stickarse had taught her - If in doubt, go on the offensive! Truth be told it was more like "If in doubt, detect evil and proceed to smite!" but she believed that there was a just a little more to it than that.
"Let her go," she shouted across the battle field, strewn with the corpses of many an evil henchmen, "and I will lay down my sword and hand myself over to you. I swear it by my honor as a paladin!"
Morgu'ul's malefactorial face twisted as he considered this. If the paladin was unarmed and in his power he could sacrifice her to the Mz'zzglzzkltrrpklptz the Elevenheaded Eater of the Shackled and Father of Foulness. A much more worthy sacrifice than one meager peasant virgin. And if the paladin broke her oath, he could easily overcome her with a spell, for then the divine grace of Lawfullian the Good, her despicable god would protect her no longer. Fickle and arbitrary where those gods of good, ever willing to let their servants fall like a hot potato at the first sign of dishonorable behavior.
So Mogu'ul let go of the young man, who stumbled away in a very virginal way.
"By your oath, you are bound, you stupid paladin! Drop your sword and surrender yourself to me!" He shouted, his voice raw with excitement.
Pally dropped her sword of righteous reckoning and, raising her hands high, she walked slowly towards the evil wizard. As she reached him, she said: "I am now in your hands."
"Yes," Morgu'uls voice rose several octaves "you are in my hands at last!" He laughed nefariously.
But Pally said calmly. "In that case, I hereby smite thee, evil one!" and punched him in the face repeatedly.


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.


magnuskn wrote:


In my opinion, the Gunslinger is an overpowered POS class...

POS?


It's like a mirror image & and a fire shield spell. Are those overpowered?

Arguably, mirror image is more powerful, because it can negate more than one attack per turn and being able to temporarily focus effects is in general better than being able to have endurance.


Mojorat wrote:
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.


An 8th level Aasimar Oracle would indeed have

5 (character level -3) + 8 (oracle level) + 4 (favored class bonus) = 17


Buff focused early entry MT might be quite the option to use with this feat.


Bit of math:

Be a figher. Get Animal Ally at lvl 5. Become a Cavalier. Gain 5 levels.

Now your effective druid level for Animal Ally should be:
7 (character level -3) + 5 (cavalier level)....

That feat deserves to be errata'ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 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.