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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,818 posts (8,547 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Tels wrote:

Favorite Disney movie?

Favorite animated movie?

Readies shovel...
Does this mean, depending on Ashiel's answer, you may, or may not be killing, and burying, someone?

Ahem... Technically, everyone may or may not do anything...

On a completely unrelated note... Have you ever played a game produced by Yacht Club?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

Favorite Disney movie?

Favorite animated movie?

Readies shovel...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.
A 2-handed attack is not an offhand attack... Or at least it wasn't... Paizo idiotic FAQ for Schronsigger hands made everything needlessly complicated and confusing...
It doesn't say off-hand attack. It says attack with a weapon in your off-hand. A two handed weapon is in both hands. One handed missile weapons that only require two hands to reload may let you use your buckler, but they'd also let you do the hold with light shield to reload with unburdened hand trick so the buckler doesn't really gain you much.

And there was no such thing as an "off-hand" before Paizo's worst FAQ ever (and that's saying something, considering the usual... ahem... "quality" of Paizo FAQs), just off-hand attacks.

Now we have Schrondigger's hands... Because needlessly complicated rules and needless nerfs are the specialty of Paizo FAQs!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.

A 2-handed attack is not an offhand attack... Or at least it wasn't... Paizo idiotic FAQ for Schronsigger hands made everything needlessly complicated and confusing...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is this for PFS? If not... Just ignore those stupid alignment restrictions. They are completely pointless anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The real question is... "How is any class with 6 skill points per level (either from base value or from being Int-focused) not a better Rogue?

Seriously... Unless your creativity is so freaking limited that you need the word "Rogue" on your sheet to roleplay a rogue-like character and the words "Sneak Attack" to fluff your class' bonus damage mechanic (because that's all that Sneak Attack really is: A crappy bonus damage mechanic) as your character being capable to of striking where it hurts... You can make a better Rogue with at least half a dozen different classes.

That's how bad the class is.

Paizo has to either buff Rogues or just forget the class even exists. All Rogues do right now is indirectly hurt other classes because the devs are afraid of obsoleting a class they won't admit has been obsolete from day one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Marrow. Maggot was rather boring IMO, but Marrow was a cool character.

Tacticslion wrote:
I strongly recommend reading Ultimate Spiderman, even if only the earlier installments. Those first issues (when I was reading it) were amazing.

Since we're talking about Ultimate universe, I have to mention that the first volume of The Ultimates was awesome!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Oni-Spawn Tiefling Bruiser 6 - Wound 0; HP 52[64]; AC 22[23] (tch 20[18]; ff 20[21]); CMD 31[31] (+2 vs Grapple); DR 3/-; Fort +8 [+10], Ref +9; Will +9 [+11]; Darkvision, Scent, Perception +12; Sense Motive +17; Initiative +5

Sorry for the disappearance. My weekly schedule has been really weird and today is game day for my live group (as in "people who play PF face to face", not PF LARPing).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!

How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?

Dunno. Never seen it happen.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasm Elemental wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Necro'ing threads is generally a bad thing... But Pathfinder designers really need to read the OP. So.... I support this necro!
Your optimism is adorable!

Notice that I never said I believe they will do it, only that they should.

---

Really... Combat Expertise is so obnoxious it should have its own slogan...

"Combat Expertise! Because learning and casting 2nd level Wizard spells is easier than learning how to properly trip an opponent!"

or

"Combat Expertise! Because Dr. Stephen Hawking obviously qualifies for Improved Trip, but Anderson Silva probably doesn't!"

or maybe just something simple and honest...

"Combat Expertise! Because F%!& you, martials! How dare you try to do anything other than stand still and full attack?! Know your place!"

---

Stupid feat tax... My first house rule as a PF GM was to remove it from the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Much like Assassins, tower shields are indeed not completely useless... Just really freaking awful and strictly inferior to similar options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Oni-Spawn Tiefling Bruiser 6 - Wound 0; HP 52[64]; AC 22[23] (tch 20[18]; ff 20[21]); CMD 31[31] (+2 vs Grapple); DR 3/-; Fort +8 [+10], Ref +9; Will +9 [+11]; Darkvision, Scent, Perception +12; Sense Motive +17; Initiative +5
Rynjin wrote:
No, all there is is scones.

What a barbaric world...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was fun to see Crixus... err... Slade again. He was a very entertaining villain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a fan of Grave of the Fireflies... Way too depressing and a tad too preachy for me. I can see why it's considered a good movie... But I didn't care much for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
It pains me to see GM being willfully ignorant of RAW and RAI just to force their players to go through needless loops.
Quintain acknowledges that he's not being ignorant -- he understands the rules. He is simply trying to force players into unnecessary failures.

That's... even worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tsc... Who knew Fish could get even more tiresome. -.-

Her scenes are boring and annoying to watch... I have no idea why they insist on keeping this character around.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

In defense of the market, the paladins might be selling at 50 gp, but the merchants are all buying them out, hauling them out to small towns where only clerics are, and selling them at 300 gp and making a sweet profit while doing so. Guaranteed money!

Or, the paladins might be selling at 300 gp and keeping the money to do good deeds instead of those TN bastard merchants.

Charging what the market will bear is the market. Nothing to do with reproductive organs at all.

==Aelryinth

I'd like to see a rules citation that says Paladins should charge more for the potions they brew just because it's on someone else's spell list.

I'd like to see the rule that says paladins have to sell for less when everyone else makes 6x the money for the same product.

I can totally see clerics of other faiths buying all their potions and wands of lesser restorations from paladins. They can buy at full markup, and sell them at their own cost to make the wands and potions, and make money.

Of course, I don't see the paladins doing that, when they could just sell the potions at 150 gp themselves, and not fund the church of Calistria.

==Aelryinth

Funny how you defend something is not possible because of the rules (even though the rules don't forbid it in any way)... Then ignore the rules when they don't support your argument.

"You can buy partially-charged wands because the CRB doesn't specifically say it's possible!"
"The rules say potions crafted by Paladins cost 50gp. But the rules don't mean anything. They cost 350 because reasons."

Those arguments are inconsistent at best and dishonest at worst.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

In defense of the market, the paladins might be selling at 50 gp, but the merchants are all buying them out, hauling them out to small towns where only clerics are, and selling them at 300 gp and making a sweet profit while doing so. Guaranteed money!

Or, the paladins might be selling at 300 gp and keeping the money to do good deeds instead of those TN bastard merchants.

Charging what the market will bear is the market. Nothing to do with reproductive organs at all.

==Aelryinth

I'd like to see a rules citation that says Paladins should charge more for the potions they brew just because it's on someone else's spell list.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Lesser Restoration is on multiple class lists. Bless weapon is not. I don't see why Paladins wouldn't sell at the market price. Just because they can make them cheap doesn't mean they have to sell them that way.

So... Those holy bastions of good would overcharge for their work just because the customers have no choice but pay?

Truly the most paladinesque of behaviors!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I mostly agree with DM_Blake, I gotta say... If a character is so overspecialized that he becomes useless the moment his main schtick isn't available or effective for whatever reason (seems to be the case with the Charm-specialist Bard), then that player deserves his character's uselessness.

Both as a player and as a GM (specially as a GM), I always advise other players to never overspecialize. That they should do their best to be great at whatever it is that they want to eb great at, but never to the point of crippling overspecialization. No matter how good your main schtick is, sometimes it simply won't suffice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Rock salt, bag of salt poured out on surface, bag of salt that breaks on impact, if surrounded by leaches then pour salt around you while you're in water, summon salt using presdidigitation, summon salt with a food cantrips, summon a saltwater water elemental.

Not sure any of those would work... But even if they did... You're still taking 1d3 Str and Con damage every round while you deal 1d6 damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Likewise, I find you guys' stance on this to be very verisimilitude shattering.
i feel the same for the poor tonws filled with 50,000+ gp.

They already are, though... Even if we consider that for some reason, it's impossible to sell anything but fully charged wands...

You go and look for a (fully charged) wand of CLW. 75% chance to find it.
Then you look for a (fully charged) wand of Protection From Evil. 75% chance.
Then you look for a (fully charged) wand of Sleep. 75% chance.
Then you look for a (fully charged) wand of Magic Missile. 75% chance.
Then you look for a (fully charged) wand of Grease. 75% chance.
Then you look for a (fully charged) wand of Silent Image. 75% chance.
Then you look for a (fully charged) wand of... Well... You get my point.

And so on.

How many 0~4th level spells there are? Because each of those makes a different item.

(And let's not forget the different types of +1 weapons and +1 armors there are).

RAW is bonkers.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
economics and stuff...

Do you really think Pathfinder has anything to do with real economics? Seriously? This is the game where everything is sold at 100% profit.

It's not that it's a bad simulation of economics... The game doesn't even bother to try and simulate real life economics. It creates simple formulas that are easy for people to use and calculate how much their stuff costs.

Your degree in economics is as useful to understanding the in-game economics as biology is to understand how the bodies of mythical creatures work. And that would be... Not useful at all. Because it simply doesn't follow real world rules. It doesn't even bother to try.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Thus, the 300 gp is probably the better price, since there will be very, very few paladin brewer-casters

I'd like a rules citation saying how few Paladin brewer-casters there are.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
If you can Roll % for all posible wands with all thier posbile charges, then even a small and poor town have several dozen of thousans of GP in the form of wands.

Are you saying that RAW is silly sometimes? Who knew?!

Now, excuse me while my ice elemental dies of exposure to cold....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
@Lemmy, salt kills leaches. If you're going swamping or water exploring, buy a bag of salt and throw it into that swarm. As DM i'd give it the same impact as a alchemist fire. But then I'm not your DM..

Yeah... I don't see any of my GMs letting me get away with that. Nor would I let my players do it. How much salt do you need in order to successfully to deal damage to creatures that are submersed on water? I know it's supposed to work, but... How do you throw salt at creatures underwater?

But even if it did work... Every round you're dealing 1d6 "salt damage", the swarm is causing 1d3 points of Str and Con damage to everyone in the area... Yikes.

If the swarm is on dry land... Well, then the point is moot. You can just walk around it, have a picnic, paint a fence, do some house gardening and then leave before it catches up to you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nearyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
because the NPCs use their treasure! Ooooh, scary. :s

Oooooh shiiiiieet~~!!! Monsters who use items, rather than rupture into shinies upon defeat?! Forget about vital-striking Witchfires, no this -THIS- is the terror of the deep-darks of the world!! What possible chance could any adventurer have against monsters who are not comically swollen piƱatas?!!?

Ashiel wrote:
I kind of want to run Wrath of the Righteous with some heavy editing by yours truly (basically killing the mythic taint with sacred fire).

Sounds cool. I -would- ask what your thought is on Mythic, having not really read through it myself, but I'm guessing "killing the mythic taint with sacred fire" is not code for "giving the mythic writers a backrub".

-Nearyn

Why are we still debating monster wealth? I already told you all how it works!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tsc... I really gotta do something about my -4 penalty to Will saves vs talking about fighting games...

Ashiel wrote:
Yeah. I suck with Jean-Pheonix either way (I'm just not very good with her :P). I can usually take down most of my friends with Morrigan without tagging out (except my brother, we tag out and team-attack frequently when fighting each other), but my brother haaaates me playing Ryu. I usually drop Ryu if I'm getting the stuffing beat out of me by Virgil or Dante and pound the snot out of him. :P

Virgil is an a%@%!$~ because not only he's fast as f#&~ and incredibly damaging (although, to be fair, most characters in UMvC3 have one-touch death combos), but also his attacks have great range and priority. Also, they are completely safe. Even when they aren't, he can call those spinning blades of his and not only make them safe, but also get the momentum back. That white-haired a!!@*~&...

"What's this?! The opponent blocked and consequently my last attack will leave me open to retaliation? Can't have none of that!"
*uses Spiral Swords*
"Where were we again?"
*continues brutal offensive*

Ashiel wrote:
But then, like I said, I probably actually suck at the game because try as I might I'm really not good at using Astral Vision to even a fraction of its potential. :(

To be fair, doing that ChrisG s#!@ is pretty difficult... But just spamming Hidden Missiles with Dr.Doom while you abuse Astral Vision goes a long way to increase Morrigan's effectiveness. :P

If we ever meet in person, we should play a few rounds. You'll probably kick my ass, but it'll be fun. Oddly enough, UMvC3 is one of the most fun fighting games around and one of the most infuriating as well. ><'

My main team is... Well... Wesker +2. I can't help but play a bunch of those characters... Wesker on point 90% of the time, though. That RE1 alternate outfit is just too cool! And his combos and hypers are too awesome!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Well, if you can find me where it states that wands are priced by the charge and sold that way, I'll go along with you.

Otherwise, it's a variant item, which means custom, which means under standard rules it's not available.

Whatever... I'm not having this discussion again. I'm sure someone will do it in my stead.

Aelryinth wrote:
Can you buy a partially charged wand in PFS? I'm pretty sure that's a no. Ignoring prestige rules and stuff, of course.

And...? You can't craft items in PFS either, even though that's perfectly possible (and rather easy) to do using core rules (in fact, Wizards get a magic item craft feat at 1st level). PFS has its own set of house rules.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

And the correct response of the DM to this is "There is a 75% chance that the wand you are seeking is available. There's an x chance it is fully charged, and a Y chance that it randomly has from 1-49 charges."

The GM can use those rules back against you, too, you know. He just has to set x at 100%, and there's no partially charged wands around. Treating each 1 charge as a totally separate magic item request is in no way required of the GM...that's a PC thing to cut costs. His job is to see if a Magic Item is available, not a magic items with x charges and other infinitely customizable features. I don't see trying to buy a wand with 1, 2 or 5 charges to be any better then trying to buy a Sword +1, orcbane, but only in the hands of an elf with FE: Orcs.

Since the magic item purchase rules don't say "roll for random charges" any more then they say "adjust uses/day", asking for x charges is asking for a customized magic item.

==Aelryinth

1- There is no "correct" response. There is no "correct" way of playing the game. But even if there were one, as someone already mentioned, the response you propose is closer to "passive-aggressive" than to "correct".

2- The GM can use any and every rule against you. That's not an argument.

3- RAW, "custom" items aren't harder to find than typical items. IIRC, rarity of gear is decided by its price, not by its effects or by whether or not they appear in the CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Okay, fair point. I usually play Morrigan so I guess he just doesn't feel OP 'cause I too am OP? :P

Virgil struggles against Morrigan (although, overall, he's still more powerful), but without the Dr.Doom assist, she isn't too bad. It's really the Hidden Missles that amp her brokeness to eleven.

Ashiel wrote:
Sidenote: I usually play Morrigan, Trish, and Virgil or Ryu (I really like Ryu) while my brother runs Dante, Virgil, and Wesker. Most of the time I've more trouble fighting Wesker than I do with Virgil because I find Virgil easier to defend against (there is a fair chance that both of us just suck at this game though :P).

Huh... I always found Wesker to be an easier fight. He is more straightforward, easier to predict. Virgil has greater range and can keep locking you down and dominating neutral with those f%*+ing spiraling swords... And they make everything he does safe too!

Wesker is more fun to play, though... He's my main character. Well... He was. I haven't really played UMvC3 in the last 6 months or so.

Ashiel wrote:
And yes, I was talking about X-Men Phoenix, not Lawyer Phoenix. :P

Yeah, well... Jean Grey is a c%+!.

She is no longer the broken piece of uber brokeness she was in vanilla, but she's still annoying as hell. >:(


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

It's a hard game. Nobody starts good at it. Pathfinder makes it a lot easier than 3.x did. Still, yeah, the majority of players are beer and pretzel folks who think that wizards are helpless wussies and fighters are teh roxxors, rogues are the masters of skillmonkery, and that a lone sasquatch in the middle of a 20 ft. room is a real encounter.

Then they learn.

Sorry, Ash... I gotta agree with andreww here. That's pretty high-horsey of you. Low system mastery is not "sucking at Pathfinder". Not knowing the mechanics is not the same as being bad at the game.

Those people might not have extensive knowledge of rules and mechanics, but they can still be playing very well. Those players and GMs might not know advanced tactics, but those tactics are not really necessary to play the game.

And this is coming from a guy who highly values mechanics, and tries to use creative and effective tactics both as a player and as a GM, as well as encouraging players to do the same (and I still see "rocket tag" happening quite often... Although to be fair, my last two sessions had encounters that lasted 4~6h of real time and gods know how many rounds!).

The things I'd qualify as "suck at this game" is far more often than not, unrelated to the actual rules. It's stuff like GMs removing player agency, people who cause unnecessary player conflict and/or are unwilling to even consider a compromise, etc...

Also, anyone who plays a Rogue.

I'm kidding, people! It was too obvious a joke! I just couldn't miss the opportunity! Chill!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.

This is how well designed the class is...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Why are so many people insisting that a simple weapon should equal or trounce a martial one?

That's not what anyone her said...

And by that logic, why are longbows superior to exotic weapons as well? Those are even more difficult to learn how to use decently.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
It's not a victim statement. It's a critique of the idea represented.

What idea? That flavorful choices shouldn't have awful mechanics just because they are flavorful?

Kryzbyn wrote:
You basically said Paizo publishes things you consider crappy feats on purpose. Other players may or may not consider them crappy feats, for flavor reasons.

They do publish crappy feats. And archetypes. And spells. Most of those crappy options are not flavorful. And the ones that are flavorful shouldn't be crappy. In fact, none of them should be crappy.

And it is on purpose too. The text didn't magically type itself and then flew into the printer.

Kryzbyn wrote:
The way the game is set us, if you specialize (for mechanical or flavor reasons) you take a hit in other areas to make up for it. This is no different.

Ah... And what area are you specializing? Flavor? Because I didn't mention any particular area. Again, why should flavor be punished with bad mechanics?

If I want Water Skinned because I like its flavor, why can't it be a good feat as well? It doesn't have to be Leadership or Craft Wondrous Items. It doesn't even have to be Power Attack... But it could be, you know, something that's actually useful in ways other than "Now i can pretend this feat is not completely useless and that the game is not punishing me for taking a flavorful option".


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

One man's trap feat is another's obvious choice for flavor reasons.

BADWRONGFUN.

You know... People shout "Stop saying I'm having badwrong fun!" waaaaaaaaay more often than anyone accuses other of having it.

Nowadays it sounds like people trying to be seen as poor oppressed victims, rather than just posters with differing opinions.

In any case...

Most of those trap feats are not flavorful at all. And even if they are... Why should flavorful choices be underpowered? Shouldn't the game encourage players to take flavorful options, rather than punish them for doing so? Why should anyone have to choose between flavor and functionality?

Flavor is not an excuse for bad mechanics.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with Paizo publishing new rules.

However, I do have a problem with them publishing poorly-designed rules and false choices (which is what I call "bloat") in order to artificially inflate page count.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

*sigh*

Can't they just kill Fish already? What an annoying character... All I want to see is Penguin killing her or something... She just takes up time from the more interesting character.

I understand they want to have a strong female character... But does it really have to be one as annoying as her? She is supposed to be badass, but she's too unlikable, it's a pain to watch her.

Overall, last night's episode was kinda dull IMO...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because no one is allowed to challenge the longbow master race!

(also, something about water balloons...)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I suspect you don't hammer your core and essential ability scores for every single character.

Nope. But I sure would like to have the option.

But again, I say:

These rules are either meaningless or pointlessly restrictive... And they more often than not encourage the most obvious choice of attribute selection.

How does that encourage creativity and roleplay again? Because the way I see it, all it does is push more cookie-cutter builds and punish players who dare to try and think out of the box.

Many of the proposed ability scores make no sense. Why does a Sorcerer need Int 13? Why does a Witch need Cha 11? Why are the prerequisites for these classes steeper than the ones for Wizards, which is a more powerful class?

What if I want a dumb brute, thug-like Rogue?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Furthermore, would your barbarian really not have at least 13 str and 11 con?

Would your druid not have wis 15?

Would your paladin not have cha 15 and your magus have both rubbish str AND dex?

So these rules are either meaningless or pointlessly restrictive... And they more often than not encourage the most obvious choice of attribute selection.

How does that encourage creativity and roleplay again? Because the way I see it, all it does is push more cookie-cutter builds and punish players who dare to try and think out of the box.

And, since you asked...

Barbarian with Str 10.

Paladin with Cha 6.

Both built at multiple levels. Neither increased the required attributes at any point.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

"I want to promote creativity, so I remove options from the game!"

Yeah... That makes sense...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Leech Swarms... CR 4 my ass!

Pretty much every aquatic creature can be freaking terrifying in their natural environment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Eidolons' (and summoners') saves are pretty bad without gear, though. Even with Greater Heroism. That's basically the only reason the shared item slots are a pain in the ass.
I've done this math. The Bidped Eidolon still has better saves than the fighter with some summoner buffs.
Well... "Better than a Fighter" is not exactly impressive... And by being biped, they lose access to pounce.
IMHO: Pounce is a bad ability. You either devolve your game into rocket tag or the GM throws encounters at you where you can't pounce/full-attack. At best you unbalance the game. At worst you are effectively weaker.

The fact that the GM can invalidate an ability doesn't mean it's weak. Otherwise, literally every single ability in the game is weak. There is not a single ability that the GM can't nullify with a little creativity and a mean disposition.

It's no more rocket tag than any other full attack. The only difference is that the Eidolon is doing the opening full attack, instead of taking it after making a single attack.

Never understood the problem with Pounce, really... Why does the GM have a problem with the character moving and full attacking but not with the player losing most of his damage after moving 10ft and simultaneously being forced to eat a full attack from the opponent?

Besides, Eidolons have access to flight, which makes it really easy to find a charge lane. And even if they can't pounce, all they lost is 1 evolution point. Difficult terrain is really easy to bypass, and affects enemies just as badly as it does the Eidolon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Eidolons' (and summoners') saves are pretty bad without gear, though. Even with Greater Heroism. That's basically the only reason the shared item slots are a pain in the ass.
I've done this math. The Bidped Eidolon still has better saves than the fighter with some summoner buffs.

Well... "Better than a Fighter" is not exactly impressive... And by being biped, they lose access to pounce.

Ashiel wrote:
The funny thing is, despite how grossly overpowered the summoner is I don't actually mind them. Their spell list bugs me more than anything else.

Yeah... I really, really hate their spell list. A revised spell list and revised point-cost for their evolutions (Pounce is 1 point, but Weapon training costs 2? See in the Darkness costs 3? WTF?) would most likely be enough for me.

Well... Evolution costs and the Race Builder do consistently show that Paizo is really freaking bad at calculating point-based build systems...

1 to 50 of 1,366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.