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

Mighty Squash's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 251 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Put the witch in a wheelbarrow (or a cart hitched behind a donkey, donkey's are pretty cheap) and it can cackle all day long without slowing the party down...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
On the one hand, we have racial FCB that are strictly worse than a skill point. To cite a couple, there is the Half-Elf Monk FCB that, with two levels investment, grants a circumstantial +1 bonus to two pre-set skills; a bigger offender is the Dhampir Inquisitor FCB that takes two levels to give a circumstantial+1 bonus to Intimidate. Both are clearly, inarguably worse than taking the skill rank bonus across two levels.

If you are making a build that is trying to maximise a single skill, then these can be useful as it gives a half level bonus above the maxed-out skill ranks you have in it. So for some builds these types of bonuses can be effective.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Healing is a valid approach if you have a little versatility to go with it.
I played a life oracle through a campaign that ran all of last year, and it was a lot of fun, though I also spammed a bit of blindness/deafness and silence so as to help reduce how much damage my team took in the first place (and the occasional Spiritual Weapon - which was the only damage dealer I had).
The character was fun to play and appreciated by the rest of the party (even if occasionally getting referred to as HealBot rather than by name).

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dwarf Fortress teaches us that carrying your baby in to battle increases the chances you come out alive, as the baby can take the fatal hits for you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I figure a small note in the Oracle class could work.

I was thinking the same thing. Right after the sentence "An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists.", they could add something along the lines of "Any spell that references a cleric's wisdom score uses the oracle's charisma score instead."

Of course, other spellcasting classes would need similar language, along the lines of "Any spell that references a casting attribute other than intelligence will use the witch's intelligence score instead."

But all in all, it's a pretty small fix that would cover every spell.

This would solve the problem entirely within the classes, and not affect the core book. It seems elegant enough.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dear OP,
I have a lot of friends who play Exalted. I like to think that Mythic is the sort of thing that would attract them in to playing Pathfinder.
Different people have different expectations of the game, and mythic opens up the options for that without requiring the broken maths of extreme high levels.
If your group doesn't want to play Mythic that is all good. I suspect my group will likely never use these rules, but I still approve of their existing (and will, even, almost certainly buy the book).
A larger range of stories is a good thing, and if GM don't want to use mythic stories (and I'm assuming they usually will not) then they don't use them. If they do, then players get to play with some fun new features and experience a different kind of Pathfinder.
Variety = good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has there ever been a definitive answer of what happens to items equipped on the eidolon when it is dismissed? As that may complicate things further.

Anyway, having played a summoner for quite a while now (a weekly game since late last year), I've had no problem with the no-shared-slots rule. Though that may be to do with the fact I've not had the money to have much in the way of extra magic about. My eidolon, without gear, still fights almost as well as the fighter while I through around a pretty impress set of underleveled buff spells.
The summoner spell list is too good for what it is. It's not bard casting, it is just dressed up as bard casting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find race and character concept often go hand in hand.
Sometimes the appeal is playing a character whose race and class aren't an obvious combo. In 3.5 Eberron I played a Warforged Soulknife purely for the appeal of having a Soulknife who may not have had a soul.

So far in Pathfinder I've mostly played gnomes and halflings, as they have worked for the character concepts. Next character up will likely be either human or kitsune, depending on the concept I settle on.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I very much prefer the ARG style to the catfolk, the B3 art was more humanoid whereas the ARG art again brings up the question as to why the monstrous humanoid type exists if things that animalistic still count as humanoid.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was surprised by how much I like ARG Sylph. I was entirely not taken by them as a bestiary race, but the ARG has won me over to their playability. The other three I-can't-believe-they-aren't-genasi also fared well in this book and are doing a much better job of standing on their own feet as races now, and leaving the unflattering genasi comparisons behind them.

The ARG also increased my like for Ratfolk, while cementing my dislike of Catfolk and Nagaji (as both seem a little mechanically good - the Nagaji, mostly, because of their archetype).

Kitsune have been my favourite since the Dragon Empires books came out, and still are - even if I've yet to be in a game where I've been allowed to play one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What insanity drove me to read all of this thread.... It's left me wanting to smash people's heads together.

Though it has also left me further in the DM should have control camp than I was before hand - which is a mild surprise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Well, we could, but it wouldn't accomplish much.

I don't think 'could' was the word you were after. I believe in this place 'will continually and bittery' is always the correct modifier on complain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
How do you propose they stay in business?

Adventure Paths, so many, many adventure paths.

And setting specific stuff.

Adding extra setting neutral (and thus core) stuff seems to invite problems.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Wizard can get beast shape I at fifth level - only one level after the Druid gets wild shape. Sure it might not last as long, but it does the exact same thing without requiring familiarity, just to have swung past a market and bought a component pouch.
I don't see how being mentally harsh about your definition of 'familiar' does anything except spoil the fun for anyone wanting to play a Druid.

Unless there is some reason you feel that Wizards need to be better at using beast shape than Druids are?

Also, beast shape doesn't allow anything particularly game breaking. Druids now are not the power houses that they were in 3.5, particularly with point buy as they are a little bit MAD. Is there a reason you feel they should be weakened further?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
I'd also love to see Necromancy mug it and take the Healing spells...


©2002–2015 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.