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

Merkatz's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 341 posts (430 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hey Jason, just curious to see what you think would be the best way to handle WBL for Mythic Tiers.

EG If we were playing something written for 15th level characters, would you recommend everyone starting with 15th level average wealth?

Or would the character that is 10/5M start with just average wealth for a 10th level character? Then the character at 13/2M have 13th level wealth and the normal 15th level character be the only one with 15th level wealth.

Or what if it was just everyone at 10/5M. Should they go against challenges build for APL 15 with 10th or 15th level wealth?

Or are you hoping for all different kinds of mixes?

I'm seeing this in a couple of places, but here is one example:

Iron Will (Mythic)
Your will is incorruptible.
Prerequisite: Iron Will, 3rd mythic tier.
Benefit: Whenever you roll a Will saving throw against a spell, spell-like ability, or special ability from a nonmythic source, you may roll twice and take the best result.

Does anything with a Mythic Tier or Mythic Rank count as a mythic source? EG if a Mythic Wizard casts a normal Dominate Person, would Iron Will (Mythic) apply?

Or would this just apply to those specific Mythic Spells or regular spells that have been modified in some way with Mythic Power?

I am curious, because if everything a Mythic character does counts as Mythic, how do some of these feats/abilities work in higher Myth/Level games? If I am playing as a 15 level character with 7 Myth Tiers, how many things am I fighting with absolutely no Myth levels? If the answer to that question is "almost none" then would things like Iron Will (Mythic) become completely useless?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so a little bit of hyperbole, but there seems to be a heck of a lot of abilities using Swift (or Immediate) Actions in this playtest.

That's great for a classes like Fighter who really don't have any use for swift actions, but it seems like Bard and Inquistor who already struggle with their number of swift action abilities are getting the shaft.

I played an Arcane Duelist that already needed swift actions for Performance, Arcane Strike, and quite a few spells (the finale and inspiration line of spells for instance). The obvious path for bard is Marshal, yet every single Marshal's Order requires a swift action, Mythic Power requires a swift action, and a lot of the path abilities require swift actions.

Would it be that terribly overpower to change at least some of these to 1/round free actions?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 8 people marked this as a favorite.

When traits were first introduced in the APG, I was pretty excited about them. They seemed like nifty little customizations that could could give you a small boost in power while giving some nice flavor at the same time.

However, as more and more traits have been coming out, I have become more and more disappointed, until the point that I've actually really began to hate them. Although, Campaign Traits have been somewhat better.

The biggest problem with traits are the artificial requirements and restrictions put on them.

Only Humans can be Aspiring Bards.
Only people from the River Kingdom could have been Bandits.
Only worshipers of Cayden can be Good Natured.

It's completely asinine. Seriously, it's like one department comes up with a good trait, and then another department randomly picks 1-3 requirements from out of a hat. And it really frustrates me that like 10 new traits are added every month, but I never even consider using 9 of those. So when I slog through a few hundred traits, trying to find anything that fits my concept and actually does something remotely useful, I usually end up disappointed. So I wind up falling back on the handful of most useful and most open traits (eg Resilient and Reactionary) once again, and wonder why I bothered.
___________________________________________________________________________ _____________________

I honestly wish Paizo had done something like this instead:

Skilled Background: Pick 1 skill. Get a +1 trait bonus on that skill and always treat it as a class skill.

Resilient Background: Get a +1 trait bonus on one of Fortitude, Reflex, or Willpower saving throws.

Native Weapon: You gain proficiency in one weapon, depending on your homeland. *Big list of locations/weapons (eg Brevoy- Aldori Dueling Sword; Tian Xia- Katana; Qadira- Scimitar, etc...)

Hometown: Pick 1 city where you grew up. You get a +2 trait bonus on Kn. Local and Kn. History checks about this city, as well as a +2 trait bonus on Diplomacy checks made to Gather Information while within the city. You can make such checks untrained.

Do a few more big sweeping general traits like these, then you can have the rest of the traits introduced be unique, flavorful, and actually have sensible requirements.

For example, Aasimar's could have traits that give them DR 1 or 2/Evil, the ability to bypass 5 points of /Good DR, or how about the ability to intensify their Daylight SLA (say it can be Widened, but only works 1 min/level instead of 10)?

How about a Favored Lineage trait where Half-X's can use the Favored Class Bonuses of one of their parents?

The possibilities are endless, but they just need the fluff requirements to match the actual mechanics (and the mechanics can't be worthless, either). Am I the only one who really feels this way about traits?

Shapeshifting Hunter wrote:

You blend your knowledge of foes and your shapeshifting abilities together.

Prerequisitites: Favored enemy class feature, wild shape class feature.
Benefit: Your levels of druid stack with your ranger levels for determining when you select your next favored enemy. Also, your ranger levels stack with your druid levels in determining the number of times per day you can use your wild shape class feature, up to a maximum of eight times per day.

1 Ranger level + 1 Feat grants a Druid a full Favored Enemy progression? Combine that with a 15k Wand of Instant Enemy at higher levels, and the Druid becomes more of monster than it ever was before...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm about to run a new S&S game, but I am having trouble figuring out why there so many lightly guarded cargo ships going through the Shackles, and so many poorly defended settlements near their coasts.

Before this AP, it was my understanding that the Shackles Pirates did most of their work north of the Eye, and only used the Shackles as a safe haven where they could relax and spend their spoils.

However, from what I can tell most of the PC's piracy is expected to happen in the Shackles or south along the Sargava and Mwangi coasts. And apparently a lot of the ships going through these regions are really poorly defended.

I mean, just look at the Truewind (example prey in Raiders of the Fever Sea) crew for instance. No guards and 2 officers with just expert/aristocrat class levels. The other example ships really aren't much better. Neither are all the small villages that are apparently in abundance along the Sargava and Mwangi coastlines.

So my question is what kind of trade routes go through the Shackles region, and how/why do these ships travel through the Pirate Nation without any defenses?

Is it really the case that the spell Command Undead can wrest away control of an undead creature from another Necromancer without any save or even opposed Charisma checks?

Command Undead wrote:


Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a shred of raw meat and a splinter of bone)

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one undead creature
Duration 1 day/level
Saving Throw Will negates; see text; Spell Resistance yes

This spell allows you a degree of control over an undead creature. If the subject is intelligent, it perceives your words and actions favorably (treat its attitude as friendly). It will not attack you while the spell lasts. You can give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. Retries are not allowed. An intelligent commanded undead never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

A nonintelligent undead creature gets no saving throw against this spell. When you control a mindless being, you can communicate only basic commands, such as "come here," "go there," "fight," "stand still," and so on. Nonintelligent undead won't resist suicidal or obviously harmful orders.

Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the commanded undead (regardless of its Intelligence) breaks the spell.

Your commands are not telepathic. The undead creature must be able to hear you.

This really seems to imply that the third level wizard can use Command Undead to take over that unintelligent Fast Zombie Dragon that is one of the pets of a 20th level Necromancer without even trying. Sure, the Necromancer can get it back, but the point remains that it is ridiculous that this is even possible in the first place.

Seriously, is there anyway for the Necromancer to protect his pets from this?

I'm playing a nature oracle, and while looking for feats for my bonded mount (6 Int), I stumbled across this teamwork feat:

prd wrote:

Escape Route (Teamwork)
You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Prerequisite: none

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Now as written, it appears that if I have this feat, and my mount has this feat, then together we will never provoke AoO from movement whilst I am riding him. But that seems pretty cheesy to me.

So what is your opinion on the feat, and your interpretation of how it interacts with mounts?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only one tired of looking at archetypes that look really interesting and flavorful on the surface, but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?

Here are a few examples that have stood out to me recently:


First Worlder Summoner:
The Concept: Summon Nature Ally instead of Summon Monster.
Where it All Went Wrong: In exchange for a few extra options to summon at some levels they completely nerfed the Eidolon's combat ability. Seriously, +7 BAB at 20th level? D6 HD? No Darkvision? And some of the summon options are garbage as well (I can now summon Satyrs at SNA V instead of at SNA IV! wait... what?)
How it Could Have Been: Instead of completely nerfing the Eidolon, swap out other abilities. Since a First Worlder can't really use his Eidolon in combat, Shield Ally and Greater Shield Ally are all but worthless to them. I think just giving up these two abilities for the handful of summon options would have been a much fairer trade.

Holy Gun Paladin:
The Concept:You are a Paladin, but now with a Gun.
Where it All Went Wrong: Holy Guns can only Smite on a single attack as a standard action at the cost of 1 Grit. Let me repeat that in case you didn't understand. A Holy Gun Paladin's smite only applies to a single attack made as a standard action. Oh and Paladins only have 1 Grit till 11th level, and they don't get the smite AC bonus.
How it Could Have Been: Smite is left alone. Honestly, Smite + Ranged Touch attacks is extremely powerful. However, a 1 lvl dip into Mysterious Stranger and 19 levels of Paladin already gives you just that and makes for a much better Holy Gun than the Holy Gun does.

Divine Hunter Paladin:
The Concept: A Paladin who uses ranged weapons.
Where it All Went Wrong: Other than the Precise Shot bonus feat at first level, there is nothing in this archetype that really makes you better at being a ranged Paladin. Instead he gives up DR and his immunity to fear, charm, and compulsion to grant allies some bonuses that they don't need or already have.
How it Could Have Been: Ranged attackers are feat hungry. Although Precise Shot was nice, a couple more bonus feats would have been much better than random useless bonuses.

Musketeer Cavalier:
The Concept: A Cavalier without the mount (wait, what?)
Where it All Went Wrong: Ever since the Cavalier has come out, people have been clamoring for a mountless Cavalier option (Hound Master anyone?). Well, when UC came out, we finally got one. The problem was that it replaced one thing that a lot of people didn't want (a mount) with just another thing that a lot of people didn't want (a gun).
How it Could Have Been: Hound Master. Or maybe a Tactician that could share feats better instead of having a mount.

Dragon Shaman Druid:
The Concept: A Druid with connections to Dragons!
Where it All Went Wrong: This isn't a Dragon Shaman. It's a Lizard Shaman. What's worse, the Saurian Shaman is pretty much the same thing, except it's abilities affect dinosaurs and all reptiles, whereas the Dragon Shaman's abilities just work with lizards.
How it Could Have Been: Drop the whole lizard theme. Give them access to the Form of Dragon line of spells at the minimum. Something like a Fairy Dragon companion would be amazing, but would need to be handled well.

Is anyone else tired of this kind of stuff? Or do you have any more examples of good class archetype ideas that were executed rather horribly?

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
UC wrote:
At 4th level, a Medium beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium, aurochs, bison, brachiosaurus, elephant, glyptodon, hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, snapping turtle (giant), tiger, triceratops, or tyrannosaurus as his mount.

So at 4th level, it says all of these choices are available as my mount. However, for many (most?) of these, the creature will still be medium size for the normal animal companion progression.

For example, I wanted to have a lion mount at 4th level. But a lion (large cat) is still medium sized, and doesn't become large until 7th level.

So what does that mean exactly? Does a Beast Rider get a mount he can't ride? Does the mount automatically get the advancement to a larger size 3 levels early? Or is it a typo, and I can't select any mount unless it can be at least large sized?

So I am playing a PFS Summoner. I'm a vanilla Summoner masquerading as a Master Summoner (started before UM came out). Now since I am a normal Summoner, I have full Eidolon progression- and that means lots of evolutions, skills and feats to spend on non-combat situations.

At the moment, my Summoner is putting all his skill ranks into different knowledge skills (and perception), and then is taking the Skilled evolution for all of them. You never know when there is going to be a society mission that requires a DC 20 check in Knowledge History... So I thought having my Eidolon be kickass in all Knowledge Skills would be extremely helpful.

However, I am struggling on coming up with good feats for my Eidolon to take.

-Dilettante (+2 to all Knowledge skills with ranks 1-5, and make untrained Knowledge checks)
-Additional Traits (Give my Eidolon some more Knowledge class skills, and trait bonuses to a bunch of skills)

However, after those two I am stuck. Skill Focus is not an option (doesn't stack with Dilettante, and is inefficient). So do you guys know any PFS legal feats that give boosts to Knowledge skills?

Cosmopolitan would be a great feat (2 additional class skills), but has affinity restrictions. And Breadth of Experience would be fricking amazing (+2 to all Knowledge skills), but it has silly race requirements. Are there any good ones out there without race/affinity/ridiculous requirements? Also, are there any really, really good traits out there I could use for Additional Traits (other than +1 bonus to 2 Knowledge skills and make 1 a class skill). Or do you guys have any other feat suggestions that are in a completely different field?

Thanks in advance.

Society Guidebook wrote:
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by wizards, clerics, or druids in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the wizard, cleric, or druid spell list.

This rule has lead me to lots of headache and frustration.

Here's a simple hypothetical situation: A Bard (an arcane caster) wants to purchase a scroll of Cure Light Wounds. However, as per PFS rules, the scroll must be scribed by a wizard, cleric, or druid if able. Wizards cannot scribe such a spell, but clerics and druids can. So any PFS scroll of Cure Light Wounds is either crafted by a cleric or druid (in other words it is divine). Now by RAW, a spellcaster can only use a scroll of the appropriate type.

PFSRD wrote:
The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)

What does this mean? It means any Bard wanting to use a scroll of Cure Light Wounds in PFS must use UMD in order to do so. This is wrong.


On top of all that, the limit of wizard, cleric, and druid crafted items is actually a big nerf to UMD. Here's what I mean: Unless I want to make a second, more difficult UMD check to activate a scroll, I need to have the requisite ability score needed to cast such a spell in the first place. For example: if I want to use a 3rd level cleric scroll, I need at least a 13 Wisdom if I don't want to make that second UMD check. As a UMD user, it is usually the case that their Charisma is higher than either their Willpower or Intelligence. So in order to make best use of that Charisma, I would choose Charisma based classes (sorcerer, oracle, bard, paladin, or even summoner) to construct my scrolls, even if I have to pay a slight premium. Otherwise, my chances of successfully using a scroll drop dramatically. However, I don't get this option in PFS. So by default, my chance at UMDing a scroll drops dramatically.

I really don't like this ruling...

Magical Knack increases a characters CL in a class so long as CL isn't greater than HD.

A Paladin or Ranger has no caster level until level 4, at which point they get a CL of LVL-3.

So the question becomes, does Magical Knack work on a single classed Paladin or Ranger, effectively making their CL = LVL-1?

I would think that it does, but I'd like to hear your guys opinions on the matter.

Okay, here's my conundrum. I'm planning on building a Inquisitor who primarily wields a repeating crossbow. I know that crossbows are inferior weapons, and even though Inquisitors are the class most proficient with crossbows in the game, they don't get any benefit to using them.

For example, it really agitates me that the Inquisitor can't learn Point Blank Master. PBM is a cool feat, and I think it fits in perfectly with a class that has proficiency primarily with ranged weapons, but usually stays in the thick of things in order to get the most benefit out of Solo Tactics and all of his teamwork feats, and quite probably to make good use of his domain abilities.

So while looking for ways to get some more use out of my crossbow (eg, getting feats like Point Blank Master), I thought about taking a dip into Zen Archer Monk for 3 levels.

Yes that's right, my repeating crossbow Inquisitor is contemplating taking a dip into Zen Archery, while still using his crossbow. It seems cheesy as hell- but I think Inquisitors should already have access to Point Blank Master, and this is the quickest, and possibly most effect way to get it.

The Zen Archer is front loaded with a ton of abilities, but the question is, what works with crossbows? Obviously the two extra bonus feats work, and so would Point Blank Master at 3rd. But what about something like Zen Archery? It lets a monk use Wis in place of Dex for ranged attack rolls made with a bow. Does that work with a crossbow?

I hope it does work. Like I said, this is cheesy as hell, but I already have to multiclass to get Point Blank Master (which blows), and this would be the best way I think.

So what it it? Are crossbows considered bows? Or am I forced to do something less optimal (like take Fighter 4) to get something Inquisitors should already have access to?

Just working on some random goofy builds, and this question popped up. On a mounted charge, lances do double damage. Does this apply to precision damage as well? I know that it isn't multiplied on criticals, or in specific cases where it is explicitly stated (eg., vital strike)- but nothing is said about other cases. I ask because I know precision damage isn't precisely defined anywhere, and I thought I remembered some restrictions for it in the past.

If I can multiply precision damage with a lance on a mounted charge, I think I'm going to have fun trying to build a mounted Rogue (Scout) with all the fun charging/mounted feats. So is this a workable concept, or no?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So I'm reading the info for Timely Inspiration, and I'm loving what it does. However, on a close read part of it jumps out at me. As written, it doesn't seem like Timely Inspiration does anything at all at first level- or the first four levels, for that matter.

A word of arcane-empowered inspiration can snatch victory from seeming defeat. Cast this spell when a creature fails an attack roll or skill check. The target gains a +1 competence bonus per five caster levels (maximum +3 bonus) on the attack roll or skill check retroactively. If the bonus is enough to make the failure a success, the roll succeeds.

There's no initial bonus given, so this spell doesn't seem to do anything until you have at least 5 caster levels... which is odd to say the least for a level 1 spell.

So when someone is running, they lose there Dex bonus to AC (unless they have the Run feat). Fair enough. It's much harder to change direction and move out of the way of things when you are putting everything into going as fast as you can. But this only makes sense in melee. When we bring ranged attacks into the picture, it falls apart. Seriously, Shooting 101 tells you that hitting a moving target is always much harder than hitting a stationary one.

But try as I might, I can find no modifiers or penalties for ranged attacks shooting at runners. Is this really the case? Is it actually harder for an archer to hit someone standing (relatively) still than it is to hit someone sprinting as hard as they can?

Let's say that I'm wielding a two handed weapon, such as a spear. If I wanted to make a thrown range attack with a dagger for instance, I would need to free up a hand. Now drawing the dagger would count as my move action, and throwing it would count as a standard action, but what action would letting go of the spear with one hand be considered?

Would you call it a sheath action (another move action) or a drop action (a free action) or something else entirely?

Then after the dagger has been thrown, what type of action would be required to wield the spear completely again (such that I would be ready to make opportunity attacks, for instance)?

Any thoughts?

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.