|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
MoMS2, Brawler (Snakebite Striker) 2 is a great base. You could even go dex, take one of the styles that let your unarmed attacks count as slashing, take slashing grace and from then on go Swashbuckler (or another class that grants precise strike).
I don't think that the slayer can take the minor/major magic tricks.
Here is the list:
bleeding attack*, camouflage, combat trick, fast stealth, finesse rogue, firearm training, grit, hard to fool, lasting poison, powerful sneak, rogue crawl, slow reactions*, snap shot, sniper's eye, surprise attack, swift poison, terrain mastery, trap spotter, unwitting ally, or weapon training.
The misunderstanding stems from the this line, I believe:
If the rogue talent has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulfill the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent.
This is just a rough sketch for a build that you may hopefully help make bloom. The idea is to bring as many figures onto the battlefield as is realistic and effective.
The general approach is a Master Summoner with a Skill Monkey Eidolon. Add to this a Familiar gained via Eldritch Heritage (3 feat) and an Animal Companion gained via Animal Ally (2 feats, 3 to include boon companion). That's 4 sets of actions right there, plus the summoned monsters. The AC can function as a BBF.
A build could look like this:
That build is seriously short on swift actions.
Is there anything stopping you from just activating both stances when you enter the dungeon and just stay "combat ready" all the while? It does not hinder your movement, after all and as long as you don't insist on doing it even during your off-time, most GMs might be OK with it. It's not that different from keeping your sword drawn.
The only thing I really hated about the infinity engine games was the hectic and chaotic combat system. I've always felt more at war with my characters, trying to get them to do what I want and not commit horribly stupid acts of self-sabotage on the one hand or getting annoyed with having to give orders all the time with a very simple battle where scripting would have worked easily.
The NWN games certainly improved on this, as did dragon age, by allowing you to have different perspectives, chain commands, better feedback and slower combat, but all in all, real time combat just feels hectic and uncontrolled to me.
Divinity: Original Sin worked very well in that regard and so did, using a very different approach Might & Magic Legacy. And ToEE for all its many, many faults did get the feeling of DnD combat right and was the game which was closest to the tabletop rule set. If anything, this is what I would want from a Pathfinder single player game: to stay very true to the rule set. And that would mean turn based combat imho.
But, to be realistic, we will get real time combat. Because BG and NWN and the whole record of Obsidian/Black Isle doing that kind of thing successfully.
It seems very clear to me that this say nothing more than that fighting defensively is a version of the attack action, one which activates to mentioned modifiers.
The entry for fighting defensively as a full-attack is even a sub-heading of the full-attack section.
The attack action and the full-attack action thus come in two flavours each, one simpliciter and one "defensively".
As for the modifiers.
The one remaining problem is that the bonuses provided by fighting defensively are dodge bonuses and those explicitly stack with one another. But it seems to me that we can extend the general implied principle that modifiers from the same source do not stack here too.
Which points to a similar problem: If I am subject to several haste spells, do the dodge bonuses they grant stack? Here the two rulings (dodge bonuses stack & modifiers from the same spell do not stack) are in conflict.
It seems reasonable to me, to assume that even dodge bonuses from the same source do not stack. This not borne out in the letter of the rules anywhere, but seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation, given the difficulties here under scrutiny.
It says explicitly that you make "a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks with a full attack or flurry of blows", so flurry of blows is definitely in. Bralwler's Flurry seems to be out. As for haste, the question is open, how this deals with changing number of attacks.
Reasoning: If I am hasted, the number of attacks I can make with a full-attack is higher than when I am not. Hence, since I am to roll as often as I can attack with a full-attack, I make the higher number of rolls.
Counterclaim: When the ability reference the number of attacks I can make with a full-attack it means something like "can normally make" or "can make, based on class abilities alone".
I find the option "reasoning" more plausible.
There are two actions:
This ability seems to take 1) and make it a swift action. So by my reading the OP is correct. For 1 panache, you get to apply the fighting defensively modifier and make an attack as a swift action. You can then make a full-attack in addition to this. You could fight defensively with this full-attack, too, but doing so would have no result, since modifiers from the same source do not stack.
While I agree that this is an odd and seemingly unprecedented ability (except for caster, who've always have was to turn swift actions into standard actions...), but that is how it's written.
Indeed, by that reasoning, a cupboard would be out...
Also, I disagree that the broken robot needs to be mended first. If the spell can animate a table, which has not moving joints, than it can animate a wrecked, semi-humanoid piece of scrap-metal.
That is not very difficult. There are Monk and Close Group weapons which are light/one-handed and piercing. The temple sword would even open up slashing grace. So go dip a level of monk, grab slashing grace and get dex to damage with flurry and precise strike. Ouch.
Fiendish Sorcery already affects Pit-touched. Wildblooded does not replace the bloodline feature, it's an archetype, not a different bloodline. That is the main reason it does not work with Eldritch Heritage.
Here's how I would stat the martial shape shifter:
Since the bloodrager is not a sorcerer, the bloodline is irrelevant for prereqs and it covers the spontaneous casting prereq. So qualifying is not an issue.
Captain K. wrote:
All of these options (as well as the bard) come with a particular specialisation and their own problems.The Arcane Trickster is basically a touch spell sniper, which suffers from it's low BAB. I don't know what a Beguiler or a Spellthief is (if not the 3.5 classes) and an Illusionist is just a wizard. Yes, I can force a mage/rogue hybrid using traits to accquire class skills, trap finding, focussing on INT and so on, but having a class that focusses on that, with options to specialise on manipulation, traps, sneak combat would enrich the game.
Not strictly. You certainly lose BAB and gain spell casting one way or another. You will also have to deal with the dead weight of the original classes, such as the animal companion. It would be better to have an option that does not come with all that baggage.
Is that an endorsement? ;)
To be honest, many of the ACG classes just seem redundant to me.
I really do like the Investigator, it does fill a niche. The Bloodrager seems a bit overpowered by the playtest document, but a nice idea. The Slayer is a long awaited full BAB - sneak attack class. The Shaman is cool, but I don't see what the hexes add to it. But then again, I really find the great power disparity between hexes (smell children vs. slumber e.g.) kind of annoying anyway.
Jamie Charlan wrote:
Having played AD&D 2nd Edt. psionicist I have to say that there were some really powerful powers and a lot of very weak to basically just fluff powers. The really broken stuff came in the Dark Sun supplement The Will & The Way, which apart from some such excesses was a really cool book.The real kicker, though, was that it could be combined with a melee class much better than e.g. a wizard and as we all know ;), dual classing was where the soup had its pepper. Or some such saying.
You had access to "casting" in armor and a lot of the buffs where that much better when added to a fighter's frame. By themselves, psionicists were rather tame and couldn't do much that a wizard of similar level couldn't do better.
General caveat: It's been a long time and this is drawn from memory.
That is easy to fix, reset the spells to their original levels.
This goes for anyone with an animal companion or a familiar.
Nothing to be done. It's the central mechanic of the class.
This goes for almost anything in Pathfinder. If you know what feats or spells are powerful, which animal companions or familiars are strong, you can pick those. If the summoner's eidolon mechanic is to be singled out, it must be because of some specific option it gets. And the one culprit I can think of is the high number of attacks combined with pounce. Even the strongest animal companion does not go beyond 3 attacks with pounce. If it's really that, there is a simple solution: Never allow more than 3 attacks. If you do this, though, better allow players to buy back the default evolutions of their eidolons, so they can have some options regarding what attacks to use.
Bottom line: the summoner causes far more problems at the table than just about any other class. It's far easier to just say "no summoners" than to try to fix the class.
In addition to those two rulings, I would probably kick the summon monster ability for a slow scaling bonus to hit and damage when near the eidolon, +1/+1 at 5th, 11th and 18th maybe. Something to entice summoner meele and not too powerful for a 3/4 BAB class.
Slavery as such might well be neutral on the good-evil axis of Golarionian moral metaphysics, being instead associated with law on the law-chaos axis.
And let us look at Sarenraes portfolio. She is a goddess of healing, honesty, redemption and the sun. Nowhere does it say "freedom" or "liberty". Healing, whether of the body or the soul, while itself a good act, ceteris paribus, does not suggest an anti-slavery stance. At most one of caring, but healing is not kindness, though it may be a kindness. Honesty is merely the practice and commitment not to lie. At most it might imply a forthright openness that might well be considered inconsiderate and unkind. Redemption is an odd concept that requires further context to make sense of. Just be the meaning of the term, in a world of concrete and equal moral powers, one might well be redeemed of good deeds, back into the fold of evil. At best, redemption resonates with healing and represents a reintegration into community, a healing of the social bonds or a healing of the soul, if one is willing to accept that evil represents a wound of the soul, which the aforementioned Golarionian moral metaphysics make unlikely. Finally the sun, while often a beneficent force, is also a harsh fire that burns crops in droughts and men in the desert.
It might well be that, while Sarenrae is possessed of a kind nature, her portfolio is not one of kindness. And what ultimately connects to Golarion qua her being a goddess is her portfolio. For Golarionians, she is first and foremost a sungoddess, a goddess of healing, honesty and redemption.
I'm aware that pure druid would be more powerful, due to spell casting if nothing else, but I purposefully don't want full casting. Neither do I want an animal companion, but I do want full wildshape.
Regarding Feats: I will need Power Attack, Natural Spell and Shaping Focus. Power Attack can wait a bit, but the available slots, not counting bonus slots, are 3rd and then 9th, if I don't take it at first. In my experience, it is not something I will use before level 5 or 6, but 9 seems rather late.
Extra Rage at least once also seems mandatory if going Barbarian.
1st: Extra Rage
Classes: Barb 1, Druid 1-4, Barb 2, Ran 1-2, Dru 5-x
I'm looking to build a wildshape focused, mainly martial character. The obvious way to go is Druid & the Shaping Focus feat, taking up to 4 levels of non-druid, probably full bab classes to lose some spell casting and gain some martiality ;).
The level 5 feat will be Shaping Focus, level 7 almost unavoidably natural spell and around 13th I'd want powerful shape.
The obvious question is, which classes and when to take them?
1-2 levels of Barbarian seem like a good choice. Taking Barbarian as my first level will also give me a strong melee character right when that kind of character is king.
3 levels of the Savage Barbarian archetype will give +1 to all saves and +1 dodge bonus to AC while not wearing armor, e.g. while wildshaped.
4 levels of barbarian brings a second rage power and makes some rage powers a little better. Not very attractive, given that rage powers tend to rely a lot of class level.
2 levels of lore warden fighter give 3 bonus feats, and minimizes skill point loss
3 levels of Lore Warden Fighter gives +2 to combat maneuvers and combat maneuvers are nice for wildshapers.
1 level of unarmed fighter gives Improved Unarmed Strike and a style feat (Dragon Style, most likely). This opens up Dragon Ferocity, but to use this I'd need Weapon Focus and Feral Combat Training and even it works for only one type of natural attack. That's 5 feats on a feat starved build. Not a good option.
1 level of Ranger opens up the Shapeshifting Hunter Feat, which is nice and all, but only fully effective with 4 levels of ranger in the build and that seems excessive. Favored enemy is also highly campaign dependent and I don't like the guesswork
2 levels of Ranger gives a combat style feat, most likely power attack or rending claws.
1-2 levels of Monk, apart from being great for my saves, would give me 1-2 bonus feats, including improved grapple, which I'd like anyway. Make it Tetori Monk and I also get +1 CMB to grapple, though Stunning Pin is not a feat I want, so I'd be only one level of monk then. Also costs me a point of BAB, which is not that bad once Wildshape is my standard combat strategy. Will finally give me WIS to AC when unarmored.
What else is there? What am I missing? Do you agree or disagree with my assessments?
The original question is solved by reference to generally agreed upon norms of reading. Those can be challenged, departed from or disagreed with. However, the fact that they are generally agreed upon is hard to deny. Similarly, that the rules text should be read as generally agreed upon, wherever such a general norm is present, is already implied by it being a norm.
Hence to deny the general principle is to reject a generally agreed upon norm, which simply put is to reject participation in the game for which the rule in question is a rule.
As for my personal addendum, that is concerned with an entirely different issue, namely the explicitly mentioned "unwillingness to consider multiclassing" and the identical names for different abilities.
Your original question is answered in its entirety by reference to the norm of reading class description that I have explicated. This should also answer dragonhunterq's worries.
I am sorry for digressing. Both issues are different and the reason I brought it up is that one might misconstrue the OP's issue with this issue, which I think really is an issue - as opposed to the OP's insisting on not accepting a basic norm of reading rules text.
What everyone is trying to say, is this:
Level of course is CLASS LEVEL.
Hence, once a character of any character level acquires the 6th level of Sohei Monk, she can use flurry of blows with any weapon she is has weapon training in. Assuming that different abilities with the same name, count as the same ability as long as their are sufficiently similar as to allow a functional interpretation, if she is a Weapon Master 3/Sohei 6, she could chose a weapon for her Weapon Master weapon training that is not part of the weapon group chosen for the Sohei weapon training and then could flurry with all of those weapons.
If anything is at fault here it is the designers' general unwillingness to consider multiclassing and the tendency to use the same name for different abilities.
Both problems can be solved philosophically if one just assumes that what class gives a certain ability is part of its identity conditions. Hence, Sohei weapon training is a numerically different ability from Fighter weapon training and any mention of an ability in a class description refers only to that classes version of the ability. This still allows the Sohei's weapon training to count for weapon training simpliciter for the effects of feats or items
Since there is a version of this here earth, with russians, more particularly a russian orthodox christiahn monk called Rasputin, exist in the golarion universe, I would suppose that there are russian orthodox christians, hence christians in the golarion universe. Yet, the whole, gratuitously elaborate system of morality, outer spheres, gods and demons seems very much incompatible with any kind of monotheism. Also note, that Rasputin is an Oracle with the Occult Mystery, not a Cleric.
If there is a deity corresponding to the "god almighty" of the russian orthodox golario-russians, it is a deity in the sense that i.e. Aroden was, not the way real world (maybe golarion earth) theology supposed. Maybe that deity sealed the world off against other gods' influence and that is the reason why he grants no magic on golarion earth, there's no one else there to claim any souls.
You can also just ignore all this and have that Paladin worship jesus if the player feels very uncomfortable with "pagan gods". How to square this with the Golarion material as presented can be your sisyphos labor, if such you'd like to shoulder.
The Witch archetype does, the Magus one doesn't. But the Witch's cards deal no damage if used to deliver touch spells, though resolving as touch attacks. If you're after damage, Magus is better, if you really just want to reach your touch spells, Witch is.
A good point, thanks for pointing it out.
It's supposed to be either-or. As noted above, I think it's best to add this to the ki pool energy damage effect.
The point that mattered to me was the interaction with object hardness. But your points are taken. Thanks.