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

Mysterious Stranger's page

2,438 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 2,438 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Not all clerics are built the same some focus more on spells, other more on combat. Healing also includes remove condition. The point is there is no one right way to play any particular class. The combat focused cleric could also be memorizing long lasting buffs or other situational spells. I also never said the cleric was memorizing healing spells.

If the fighter is already hitting 90% of the time and the cleric is hitting 70% of the time giving the more powerful weapon to the cleric will have a larger impact on the combat. If the weapon gives an additional +3 to hit that puts the fighter at 95% accuracy and the cleric at 85% accuracy. The extra 10% chance to hit is wasted on the fighter, but the cleric can make better use of it. The extra damage from the fighter using the weapon is minimal compared to the extra hit from the cleric.

Having to buy two magic weapons also gimps two weapon fighting. The ABP also gives the option to split the bonus instead of taking it all on a single weapon.

Usually the items that are being argued about are the big 6. The best way to eliminate the arguments is to use the auto bonus progression from Pathfinder Unchained. There may still be some competition for items with special abilities but everyone will have the basic items the game assumes.

If you are not using the ABP than most of the time the characters already have items of some sort. One way we have done it is if a player is claiming a item he usually puts back the item he is currently using into the pool . So if the player wants the more powerful weapon he puts his current weapon back in the pool. This allows the other players who want a similar item to at least get something. If no one wants the item that is put back it gets sold and value is split like any other.

If two characters are in competition for the item look at who will get the most benefit from it. Let’s say the item is question is a magic weapon that both the fighter and cleric want. Obviously the fighter will get a lot of use from the weapon, but consider how well he is already handling his role and what role the cleric is playing. If the cleric is staying back and relying on spells instead of wading into combat the fighter is going to get more use. On the other hand if the cleric wades into melee alongside the fighter and uses his spells mainly for healing and utility that is a completely different story. Assuming that the fighter is actually doing his job fairly competently and the cleric is not doing so well the weapon should go to the cleric. The increased chance to hit and damage will bring the cleric up more than the fighter so he actually benefits more from having the weapon. If the cleric is not getting involved in melee, than he gets almost no use from the weapon and should not get it.

Even if this is legal I am not sure what you are really gaining by arcane trickster. You get a slightly higher sneak attack in exchange for giving up progression on all your druid abilities except spell casting. This includes the progression for studied target from nature fang. You do get disable device as a class skill but you still cannot use it to disarm magic traps because you do not have Trapfinding unless you use one of your 2 slayer talents to gain it.

At 17th level the arcane trickster will have an extra 3d6 of sneak attack vs the straight nature fang druid. Your studied target will only give you a+2 bonus to hit and damage as move action vs +4 bonus as a swift action for the nature fang druid. Your BAB is two less which means you lose your third attack, and you have less HP. You also give up 10 levels of favored class bonus. The familiar you get from the crocodile domain also does not progress. You also lose 5 slayer talents and A Thousand Faces.

Your chance to hit with the sneak attack is 4 less than it would be for a straight druid. You have 2 less BAB, and your studied target is 2 less and takes longer. If you use 3 of your 5 extra slayer talents for ranger combat style you can go two weapons fighting for an extra 4 attacks and still have a higher chance to hit than the arcane trickster. Giving all this up for an extra

To me this is not a bad idea, but rather a straight out nerf on the character. Maybe I am missing something but I see no reason to do this.

The disarm/sunder can already be done with the existing rules, but is pretty feat intensive. If a character has both improved disarm, improved sunder and disarming strike. This also requires combat expertise and power attack for a total of 5 feats. You make a sunder attempt and roll a critical hit, if you do not sunder the item you disarm the item if your conformation roll exceeds your opponents CMD. You still get to roll damage for the item so you could destroy the item in addition to disarming it.

The inquisitor could simply use a hammer with the Reliquary property to cast Brand or Greater Brand.

You already have a solution to the two handed fighter signature move.

For the Sorcerer I would simply create a metamagic feat that allows him to reshape spells without changing the total area. Probably take a spell slot of one level higher than the spells actual level.

If something can be done using the existing rules, that is probably the best way to handle it. The more changes you make the more complicated things get and the more difficult it is to maintain balance and control of the game. Once you start giving the character extra abilities it can quickly spiral out of control. For example if you allow a player to get the disarm/sunder than what happens when they take Tripping Strike. You now have a character who can disarm, sunder and trip an opponent with a single attack. Also when you start giving characters special abilities they will ask for more.

Philo Pharynx wrote:

You could argue with your GM that animal companions should have skill points based on wisdom. After all, most animals would starve if they had to rely on their survival skill.

This won't give you any more max ranks, but it will let you put points into other things as well.

This is completely untrue. Survival is a WIS based skill and the DC to survive in the wilderness is 10. A wolf has a +1 bonus to survive so by taking 10 it can survive in the wilderness. Unless the animal has a WIS penalty, which I have not seen on a single animal, they will be able to survive.

This may sound harsh but you don’t. Your character is focused pretty heavily on stealth and because of this your bonus is extremely high for something without magic. If you could easily get your animal companions stealth to match yours it would lessen your characters specialty. If a large animal companion can get stealth as high as yours other things can do the same. This kind of diminishes your character. Expecting your mount to be able to match you at your specialty is not a reasonable expectation.

The only way to get your mounts stealth to near your level would be to use magic. If it is going to be wearing armor consider going with the shadow line of enchantments. The basic shadow enchantment only costs 3,750 gp for a +5 bonus. Improved shadow is a bit more pricy at 15,000 gp for a +10 bonus.

First thing you should do is to figure out if the signature move is more flavor or game mechanics. If you can refluff a standard game mechanic to fit the players signature move than just do that. In the case of the sunder/disarm I am not even sure why you would want to combine them. Sunder can destroy an item so what would be the point of disarming and sundering at the same time? You usually use disarm to take an item away form a person without damaging it. I would have no problem allowing a player who destroys an item to knock the fragments of the item from the person’s hand.

The second thing you should do is to see if there is an existing feat or other game mechanic that does something similar. Disarming Strike and Sundering Strike both trigger their respective maneuvers on a critical hit with a melee attack. Considering both of the maneuvers are melee attacks you should be able to trigger one from the other. While the feats specify that only one can be active at a time it does not say that you cannot use a regular disarm and trigger a Sundering Strike if you critical on the disarm.

If neither of these work than I would create a custom feat for the player. More than likely there should be some prerequisites to the feat. By making the character spend the feat you have justification for not allowing other to do the maneuver. In all fairness if you give a character an ability for free others, should also be able to do it as well.

Templates by their nature are usually straight upgrades. Trying to balance it does not really make a lot of sense. Keep in mind that Templates were never designed to be used for PC’s. They were designed to allow the GM to create unique advisories for the PC’s. You should only use templates if everyone gets one or there will be huge imbalances in the game.

I noticed in your post you state you are playing the character. If this is a GM PC I would strongly advise against it. Using a GM PC is dangerous enough, but making it stronger than the PC is a very bad idea. There is simply no way to balance a templated character vs one who does not have a similar template. I have seen multiple campaigns ruined because of this type of situation.

The feat is from Paths of the Righteous so was meant for a mythic character. For a character using mythic vital strike this is actually a decent feat. In a standard campaign it is not worth it.

Another thing to consider is that not every encounter needs to be a challenge. A few easy encounters will often put the players of guard for the tougher encounters. They can also be used to build suspense and drama. Having a few easy encounters before the real encounter helps build up the importance of the characters and allows them to feel powerful. This provides a nice contrast for when you pull out the stops and have a really big encounter.

When every encounter is challenging it can really limit you and makes the game very predictable. The players no longer have to use any judgement as to when to hold back. Use the easy encounters to drain away resources and weaken the party. By including easy encounter you make it so the players have to actually think before they act. If every encounter is a true challenge the player know that when you call for initiative that they need to go all out. By mixing it your players now have to stop and think before they act. There is nothing worse than a paladin who blew his smite evil on a goblin in the morning and does not have any when facing the BBEG at the end of the day.

Getting into arguments about alignment conflict is a lot different than having a discussion. When a player is playing a class that has alignment restrictions on it both the player and the GM should agree beforehand how that alignment will be handled in the game. That is the best way to avoid conflicts about alignment.

I have no problem with a lawful character having their own code of conduct they follow that may differ from others. But I cannot think of a lawful neutral code that would allow for a person to threaten a person with violence unless they give them a discount. I could possibly see a lawful evil code allowing this. But in any case that does not look to be what happened. What looks like did happen is the character went into a shop and threatened to beat the shop keeper up if he was not given a discount.

It is also best to handle any conflicts between the player and GM when the first happen. The worst thing you can do is to let it slide until it becomes a problem. If you let the situation build up it often becomes a lot worse than if it were handled right away. This way the player has not invested a lot of time and effort into something that is going to have to be changed. It is a lot harder to change an established character than a new one. I have had situations were a GM has made a ruling on a character that pretty much made it so it was no longer what I wanted to play. If he had told me at the start of the campaign I could have easily changed that aspect of the character. Changing it at 10th level was just too much so I brought in a new character instead of trying to use the original character.

This character is not a paladin so violating his alignment will not cause him to lose any class abilities. I am not even saying that his alignment should shift, but rather saying the player should be warned that if he keeps this up his alignment will shift. And if his alignment shifts to something that is not lawful he will not be able to gain anymore level s in monk.

What the GM needs to do is to have a serious discussion on alignments with the player. This does not have to be a bad thing and the player may not even realize what he is doing is not what his character should be doing. Since the player is new to table top gaming give him the benefit of the doubt and don’t punish him anymore for what he has done. But having a serious discussion about this type of behavior is something that has to happen or it will continue. This is not picking on the player but helping to understand what the game is about and to grow as a player. The way I look at it is that experienced players have a responsibility to newer player s to help them learn.

I agree with Claxon that if this was an experienced player a much tougher approach would be warranted.

This is not the behavior of a lawful neutral character. This is the equivalent of a person in the real world going into a liquor store and pulling a gun to get his booze at half off. If I had a character in my game who did this the merchant would be going to the authorities reporting a robbery.

Also using intimidate to change a person’s attitude takes a full minute. During this time their attitude has not changed so they can act any way they want. Unless the target of the intimidate is for some reason unable, or unwilling to act they can still do so. So when he tries to intimidate the sheriff, the sheriff cans still deicide to attack the character. This would also fall under the modern charges of threatening an officer of the law and resisting arrest.

While a lawful character does not have to obey all local laws they do have to follow a code. What code is the monk following? I doubt he is following a code that allows him to rob people and completely ignore local law enforcement. I also doubt that the sheriff would be considered an enemy which is a common out for a lawful character to disregard local authorities.

I disagree with what Tableflip McRaguit says about ignoring alignment issues. I think what you need to do is to have a talk with your player about what is and is not lawful behavior. Monks have an alignment restriction so unless you are house ruling that away he should be adhering to it.

First of all is this for a PC or an NPC?

If it is an NPC I would simply give him a higher point buy to allow for raw talent and then impose the normal age penalties. A character who survived to 10th level probably did so because of both raw talent (Stats) and experience (level). A human with a 25pt buy and age restrictions can still easily end up with a 16 STR, 11 DEX, 14 CON, and 12 in all the other stats. If he dumped 2 mental stats he could end up with 16 STR, 12 DEX, 14 CON, one mental stats at 14 and the other two mental stats at 10. Yes he will not be as powerful as a younger character but is still viable.

If it is for a PC is this for a newly created character or an existing character? If it is a new character I do not allow PC to use age adjustment for starting characters so the old PC not take any penalties, but will not get any bonuses. If it I is for an existing PC than you could use a wish or similar magic to restore prevent the penalties. The Sun orchid elixir would work perfectly for this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering how many early civilizations were theocracies I don’t think removing clerics from the world fits an early world theme. During that time period many religions were local, but no less organized than modern religions. Often each city had its own deity that was only worshiped in that city, or those conquered by the original city.

What I would do for a setting like this is to keep the cleric class, but have each city or at most small group of nearby cities have their own deity. The domains the deity grants would be chosen individually without factoring in the domains of other deities. This may lead to situations where some domains are fairly common or even almost universal, where others may not show up at all. I would also have each deities chosen weapon be completely random and more based on the culture of the individual city.

This also has the benefit of allowing the GM to create deities as needed. Simply create a couple of deities for prominent cities or small group of cities, and then add more as needed.

Considering that most higher level version of a spell can do everything a lower one can what would be the point? It will not use a lower level slot so you gain absolutely nothing from this.

I am not a lawyer as long as you are not publishing something or otherwise profiting from the material you should be fine. So if I run a campaign based on LOTR or any other novel for my friends I am not going to get into trouble. If I charge people to play in the campaign or sell my work so other can run it I can get into trouble. The fact that the campaign is run online should not make a difference as long as people are not being charged for it.

I can get together with other people and talk about any book we want without worrying about IP law. But if I form a club to talk about the book and charge a membership fee I can get into trouble. Playing a game based on the book is not really any different than talking about the book. Writing and publishing a game, or gaming material is a whole different story.

Mid to high level characters should not really have much of a problem with mundane threats. Pathfinder operates under the assumption that the vast majority of people are 5th level or lower. So your characters are already at the top of the normal human scale as far as power. It also looks like your players are actually thinking thing out and making good choices. They have reached a point where as long as they don’t do stupid things most normal threats are not going to be too difficult for them to deal with.

This does not mean the only thing to challenge them with is high CR monsters, but normal threats are going to need to be modified. Instead of increasing the difficulty the best bet is to put conditions on the tasks. Time and social constraints are one of the best ways to do this. A challenge that they did not have a chance to prepare for and needs to be accomplished quickly will be a lot harder than that they had advanced warning and plenty of time to accomplish. A fight breaking out at a party where the characters do not have their full gear is a lot different than one where they are armed and armored.

Hero Labs follows the rules not logic. For some reason Paizo decided not to give the torture domain to Zon-Kuthon. You can actually choose the domain it just shows it as being illegal. If it is not showing up on your list of choices just make sure to change the drop down box to show everything. It will still give you all the abilities including domain spells and abilities.

As long as this is not a PFS character just get your GM’s permission and ignore the warning. Most of the time you can add an adjustment in Hero Labs to change something to a legal choice, but that does not work for domains. You could also chose other/philosophy and use the adjustments to give you your deities favored weapon.

Getting rid of the dragon’s penalty to AC for size makes no sense. What you should be doing is giving them a natural AC bonus. This is what is usually done for large creatures. This means that their AC vs weapons are high but their touch AC is pretty low. It should be easier to touch a creature the size of a house than a man sized creature. If you want to boost their touch AC then give them a deflection or dodge bonus.

If you are looking to keep true to the books you are not going to be able to balance the dragons. In the end the power level of the dragon riders grew way too high. The first book was very good and so was the second, but after that I think it went downhill.

Sacred weapon only matters when the damage is greater than the weapons normal damage. It gives more bang for the buck on poor weapons than good weapons. With a Warhammer it makes no difference until you get to 10th level where its damage goes up to 1d10. The Warhammer will match the Earthbreaker at 15th level.

How high is this campaign going to go? If it is not getting to high levels than you will never see any advantage from sacred weapon. Also are you more interested in long term advantage or short term? The big advantage of the Warhammer is that you can use it with a shield. The extra damage is probably going to be more important at lower levels when you don’t have as many static bonuses and the opponents HP are lower. But at the same time the extra AC is also more important at that level. What it really comes down to is do you want a character focused more on offense or do you want more options. You can always drop the shield and use the Warhammer two handed for nearly the same amount of damage.

I would go for an inquisitor not just because of the stats, but also because it would do well in a rogue based campaign. Inquisitors have a lot of skill points and the important rogue skills are class skills so you would not be the weak link of the group when engaging in shady activities. With the right inquisition or archetype you could even be the face of the party even with a low CHA. Your sense motive will be extremely high making it difficult to get anything past you. Spells like invisibility and knock will allow also be extremely useful. Having cure spells and other healing spells will allow you to use wands and scrolls to fulfill the role of healer.

As far as combat goes inquisitors have the ability to go nova that is second only to a shocking grasp magus. A spell or two combined with judgements and bane will allow you to equal or exceed the damage of a martial class.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually reincarnation could be a reason you have the bloodline in the first place. I am not talking about the spell reincarnate, but rather the concept that when you die you are reborn in a different body. Considering this is a belief that is held by many in the real world it probably also exists in the game.

This could lead to some interesting ideas. Maybe there are a set number of sorcerers in the world, but they are constantly being reborn. It would explain why a sorcerer is born into a family with no history of having sorcerers. It would also explain why the children of sorcerers are not always sorcerers themselves.

Short spears are about 3’ in length. Look at any artwork from the classic period and most show sperars that are much longer than 3’. The short spear is closer to the spear used by the Zulu instead of those used by the Greek and Romans.

You should be able to have a first level warrior use spear and shield, but unless you use the Doru Spear you cannot do this.

You lose the bonus for diplomacy, but any feats that apply to performance boost your diplomacy. You best bet is to retrain persuasive to skill focus perform oratory. This will give you a bonus of +3 instead of +2, which will increase to +6 when you get 10 skill ranks in perform oratory.

If you are going to house rule things why not simply house rule that spears (Not long spears) use the rules for Doru Spear? That means would mean that someone with proficiency in martial weapons can use the spear as a one handed weapon, but the critical modifier drops to x2 when doing so.

Fighting with a spear and shield should be a lot simpler. Requiring multiple feats and an obscure book is a little too much. This should be a base part of the rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While shield brace does allow for spear and shield fighting I don’t think it should require you to be a fighter and spend two feats. As Firewarrior44 says this should be a basic tactic that any martial character can do, not a super specialized style that only a few can perform.

Keep in mind that unless the headband is worn for at least 24 hours the bonus is considered a temporary bonus. This means you get the bonus for skill rolls and the DC of the saving throws of your spells, but not the other things.

I would say that you can use the item but unless you have it on for 24 hours you will not get the full benefits from it.

I think part of the problem with spears in Pathfinder is that other than the short spear they are two handed weapons. Everyone is talking about the Greek and Roman spearmen, but are ignoring they used shields and spears together. The only spear that you can use this way in the game is the sort spear. Look at any artwork from the classic times and most of the spears are considerably longer than 3 feet.

UnArcaneElection brought up the Doru spear. I think this would solve the problem of spear s being considered a poor weapon. Before he posted this I was about to suggest if you had proficiency on martial weapons you should be able to treat a spear as a one handed weapon. If the Doru spear is allowed it would solve a lot of problem with spears being considered poor weapons. It does the same damage as a long sword, but also can be thrown and has the brace quality. It is actually a better weapon than a long sword.

In Pathfinder Humanoid is a specific game term describing a game mechanic. While it is also a word in the English language when used in the context of the game its meaning is a little different.

Consider that a character uses a uses a polymorph spell still keeps his Humanoid type. So I shape change into an octopus but I am still considered a humanoid(human).

Good and evil are rarely absolute. In most cases every action has good, evil and neutral aspects to it. I doubt that any action can be pure good. So saying that the good person does always does the right thing means he does nothing. If he never does an evil act then he cannot act, and thereby allows evil to triumph and is not good.

The only thing a good person can do is to do their best in whatever circumstances they find themselves in. If they end up accidently doing something evil then they try to make up for it as much as they can. No one is perfect and as long as you are doing more good than harm you are still good.

If knowledge is a big part of your deity and character than knowledge or one of its subdomains would be the logical choice.

Brawler’s flurry is not two weapon fighting it is its own ability. It just happens to have the same game mechanics.

Keep in mind that most prestige classes are less powerful than normal classes. In 3.0 prestige classes gave your character a real boost in power, in Pathfinder the opposite is true. Multiclassing of any kind generally weakens your character especially classes with lots of level based abilities. Multiclassing an inquisitor is probably the worst thing you can do. Warpriests may be a little better but still lose more than they gain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with everyone who says to keep the levels the same. When on character is less powerful than the rest of the group it makes it less likely they will show up because they are frustrated with their character. When I started reading the post I figured it would be about the inquisitor being overpowered instead of underpowered. The inquisitor is a very powerful class but does not come into his own until 5th level. They can be complex to play but not as bad as it seems.

Inquisitors are spontaneous casters so he does not need to know his entire spell list just the spells he knows. The thing is that a poor choice of spells can really weaken the character. With a prepared caster you simply memorize different spells tomorrow. Good spells for him will be divine favor, and true strike for fist level spells. Blistering Invective and Invisibility make good second level spells. If you use traits go for fate favored to boost up divine favor and latter divine power.

The character seems to be very poorly designed and should be allowed to be rewritten. With a gunslinger you don’t really need another character focused on ranged combat. The nice thing about the inquisitor is that none of his abilities are tied to any particular combat style. They get simple weapons most ranged weapons and their deities favored weapon. Make sure his deity has a good melee weapon and have carry both it and a long bow. Make sure to change his race. A Dwarf or a human will work well with inquisitor. A human gives him an extra feat and flexible stat bonus. A dwarf gives him some decent weapons and a lot of other abilities.

For his teamwork feat take precise strike and he can take advantage of flanking with the ninja. Combining precise strike with bane will give him +3d6 to damage, which is what the ninja is getting.

First thing to do when playing a paladin is to make sure the rest of your group is ok with it. If there are any outright evil characters in the group then don’t play a paladin. Morally ambiguous characters are also a problem a lot of times so be careful with those as well. If any of the other players are already playing characters who will cause problems with the group than you should skip it. The way I look at it, is that the established character kind of has the right of way. If on the other hand you are the established character you should be able to object to a new character who is going to cause you problems.

Also talk to the group about how they feel about having a paladin in the group. If someone really dislikes the idea it would be best to forgo playing a paladin even if their character is one that should not cause a problem. Many people dislike paladins and go out of their way to screw them over. This kind of sucks but there is not much you can do about it. They can cause you a lot more trouble than you can cause them. It is hard to roleplay a paladin when you are pissed off at the actions of another player. If another player want to cause your paladin to fall it is not that hard to do.

It may sound like I am trying to persuade you not to play a paladin, but that is not the case. Many gamers like playing heroes and welcome a paladin. Most of the groups I play with favor good characters and paladins are usually welcome additions to the party. It really depends on the group.

One of the most important things to do when playing a paladin is to make sure you and the GM are on the same page as far as the paladin’s code. Have a talk with the GM as to how he interprets the code. This will prevent a lot of grief and drama in the game so make sure you do this.

Also keep in mind that you are the one who has to follow the code not the rest of the party. If the party wants to do something that is against the code your paladin will not help them. As long as it is not an evil act he does not need to stop it, he just can’t be part of it. He can advise against it and try and talk them out of it, but he does not have to stop it. If what the party is planning on doing is an evil act that is an entirely different story. This is why I suggested talking over playing a paladin with the group beforehand.

This should not be a spell at all. It does not fit with the idea of the paladin at all and makes absolutely no sense.

I would say that any paladin who cast this spell falls instantly. By beginning to cast this spell the paladin has broken his code and therefore instantly falls. Since he is not under the effect of the spell until after it is cast he does not get the protection for it for casting the spell.

This is an incredibly bad idea.

It seems like you want a formula that will do your work for you. This is actually a really poor design method. There is no formula that is going to do your work for you; you need to use some trial and error. If this is for commercial use then use the standards that Paizo uses and build some sample characters to compare to your encounter. Run through the combat a couple of times with each character and see how they do. If the encounter is to tough adjust it to be easier, if it is too easy make it harder. Put in place all the restrictions you are designing the encounter for on the characters. So if the characters are not allowed to use magic that factor that out of your sample builds.

This is basic good design that any GM should know. If you are looking to publish this is something you need to do. Do you really think that Paizo publishes adventure paths without play testing them? If you are looking to do this professionally you need to do the same.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Keep in mind that the CR system is a rough guideline. A good GM will look at the character when he is designing an encounter not just go off the CR. What may be a good challenge for one character may be either a cakewalk, or totally overpowered for another character.

It also depends on the nature of the duel. Many cultures may consider the use of magic in a duel to be cheating in which case a wizard is pretty much toast. Other cultures may have something like arcane duels where a non-caster is helpless. Some cultures give the choice of weapon to the defender so this could also throw things off.

Also some classes and archetypes do better vs certain opponents or in certain situations. A paladin facing an evil opponent is going to have a lot easier time than if he is facing a neutral or good opponent. A cavalier whit the right feats who is able to get a lance charge is going to do a lot better than a rogue with a short sword.

Prepared spell caster who know in advance what they will be dealing with have a huge advantage over just about anything else, especially if they have a chance to prepare. A fully buffed cleric can actually match if not exceed most martials in combat. A wizard who can tailor his spells to his opponent is an incredibly tough opponent. This of course assumes that the use of magic is legal.

When I design encounters I look at what the party can do and compare it to what the opponent can do. The CR is a starting point not written in stone. Sometimes you have to adjust from that. I was writing up one encounter with a vampire and had originally thought to use an anti-paladin, but that proved to be way too tough for the party to deal with. The synergy of the ant-paladin and vampire was too good. It was way tougher than its CR indicated. I ended up changing out the anti-paladin to another class or it would have been a TPK.

Xhamen-Dor would work. It has both plant and undead as domains.

Anytime someone uses the word anytime is an alignment discussion they are usually wrong. There are exceptions to almost any rule. In most cases killing a helpless person would be considered evil, but there are a lot of exceptions to that rule

I would consider ending a person’s life to prevent them from suffer as a good deed. If there is no hope of survival and the person is in great pain ending their life can be considered merciful. Letting a person needlessly suffer is often cruel. Sometimes it may not be actively killing them, but rather withholding treatment that could keep them alive longer. Deciding when this is appropriate is the hardest thing that a human will ever have to do.

Another situation where killing an innocent person can be a good deed is to save the lives of others. If for example you had a situation where a helpless person even a child had an air born lethal disease and was in a situation where they were going to contaminate others and the only way to stop would be to kill the child. This disease is spreads so rapidly and is so deadly it can wipe out all life of the planet. The child does not know or realize they are infected and they are about to come in contact with rest of the world. Let say they are escaping from a room that is filling up with water and you can stop them by closing the door. If you close the door the child will die. If you do not close the door all life on the planet will die including the child because then there will be no one to take care of the child and it will starve to death. In this case closing the door would be a good act.

What really makes the difference in whether an act can be considered good or evil is the persons motivation and their reactions afterwards. In booth of the above cases a good person would be profoundly disturbed by his actions and feel genuine remorse

This is not a simple answer because not enough information was provided. Without knowing the circumstances and the nature of the guards it is impossible to determine if this is a good or evil act.

Is the dictator actually evil? You could easily have a lawful neutral dictator still oppresses people without being evil. Rahadoum is a perfect example of this. They ruthlessly impose their views on everyone and will tolerate any kind of divine ability. You could even have a lawful good dictator who imposes his own version of good on everyone even if they don’t want it.

Even if the dictator is evil that does not mean the guards are evil. Even in societies ruled by evil most people including guards tend to be neutral. It makes a big difference if the guards are simply doing their jobs, or if they are murderous killer and child molesters. Was the fight because the guards were in the middle of doing an evil act, or were they attacked simply because they were guards?

What is the consequence of leaving the guards alive? Was the fight part of a mission to save people or stop evil? If the fight was part of a mission against evil what will happen if the guards are left alive? If the only way to complete your mission is to kill the guards then it may not be an evil act. If on the other hand you don’t need to kill the guards than killing them may be an evil act. A lot of it will depend on the nature of the guards.

If the guards are murderous villains who were caught in the attempt of murdering and raping innocent people than it would probably be a good deed. If on the other hand the guards were on guarding the treasure room of a lawful

Blasting is considered to be a sub-par strategy for wizards, and clerics are worse at it than wizards. The only exception is when dealing with undead and outsiders.

Don’t count on your domain spells for damage. Unless your domain spells are normal cleric spells you can only memorize them in domain slots. Since you only get one domain slot per spell level this means you get on domain spell per spell level. Most of the offensive domain abilities are not really that strong especially at higher level. At first level having a ranged touch attack that deals 1d6 points of damage is not bad, but at 10th level it is only 1d6+5 points of damage.

Channeling negative energy can be useful, but only if you are going to devote resources to it. You only get 3 + CHA modifier channels per day and there is no minimum. This means that with a -3 penalty you have 0 uses per day. Since you still have the class feature you could use the feat extra channel to bring it up to a positive number thereby allowing you to actually use it. Don’t bother with this because the saving throw is still based on CHA which you take the penalty on the saving throws DC.

Channeling negative energy also means that you spontaneously convert spells to inflict instead of cure. Inflict spells belong to the school of necromancy with also includes curses and other decent offensive spells. This is probably your best bet if you want to focus on casting offensive spells.

Since many necromancy spells are all or nothing you are going to want to boost up your saving throw. Take spell focus necromancy and latter greater spell focus necromancy. Since inflect spells belong to the school of necromancy this boost them as well. Make sure you have a decent CHA and consider taking command undead. Death is a good domain your first domain power gives you a continuing attack and at 8th level you can heal yourself with negative energy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Michael Carpenter from the Dresden files is probably the best example of paladin. He is the epitome of lawful good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too many people are confusing law with good. What the character did was unlawful without doubt, but not evil.

Part of the problem is most people want consider themselves good. Many people who are neutral on the good vs evil axis probably think of themselves as good. If you consider yourself good then logically things you oppose are evil. To the lawful neutral person the chaotic neutral person is evil. After all they are engaging in the “evil” act of breaking the law.

The lawful neutral person will actually agree with and support lawful evil over good. Zelgadas Greyward post is probably the most striking example of this. Anyone who considers Asmodeous as one of the good guys does not understand what good really is.

A chaotic good character does not give a rat’s ass about breaking the law. They will not steal food from a starving person, or from someone who needs the money. They will steal from someone who they think has too much, or is hurting other people. A wealthy cleric of a lawful evil deity is a fair target for a chaotic good character. The character actually went out of his way to verify the priest was actually evil, not just a lawful neutral worshiper of a lawful evil deity

Just because a soul has not moved on does not mean that the person is still living. Death is when the connection between your body and soul is severed. This is often referred to as the silver cord. The most common way to achieve this is to damage the body so that it is no longer functional. Once the cord has been cut healing the body is not enough to bring the person back. Breath of life heals both the body and the silver cord.

The point of death occurs when the body has taken enough damage to kill it, not a round later. The best proof of this is ferocity.

Ferocity (Ex) A creature with ferocity remains conscious and can continue fighting even if its hit point total is below 0. The creature is still staggered and loses 1 hit point each round. A creature with ferocity still dies when its hit point total reaches a negative amount equal to its Constitution score.

If the creature does not die for a round than an orc will still be able to fight for an extra round no matter how many HP it had taken. This is obviously not the case.

What level will you be when you gain your first tier? Crafting Mastery does allow to create items early, but if you don’t have the wealth to create them it does you no good. At low levels it will not make a lot of difference, but once you gain enough cash it will become more valuable. Unless have enough wealth to take advantage of it I would delay Crafting Mastery till later.

Harmonious Mage is decent but how much do you value the spells from your opposition school? If only one school is important to you I would skip it all together and simply take Opposition Research. Even if you take it I would probably not take it at low levels. At low level you don’t have enough spells to make it worthwhile.

That brings us to Perfect Preparation. Removing the need for a spell book is a huge advantage to a wizard. The easiest way to totally shut down a wizard is to prevent him from memorizing his spells. If you are in the middle of an adventure and lose access to your spell books you are effectively a commoner with a good will save and a few tricks. Unlike the other two abilities Perfect Preparation is useful from day one. The fact your GM is giving you extra benefits from it makes it an even better choice.

I would also look at abilities that scale up as you gain tiers. When you first look at them they don’t really seem to be all that impressive, but at higher tiers they really make the difference. Enduring Armor seems to be kind of weak in the beginning, but at tier 10 you are getting +13 AC.

If you are going by personal preference does that mean it changes how well cooked things are and the temperature? If so whose preferences are used? Personally I think beef that is cooked beyond medium rare is ruined, but my sister won’t touch it if there is the slightest trace of pink. I also prefer my food hot, but my in-laws generally serve food I consider cold.

I think the spell simply makes the food and drink safe to heat. It does not reheat coffee, or change stale bread. It does not change well done meat to medium rare, or warm up vegetables. It does not make bad cooking taste better unless the food was actually truly inedible.

Empowered spell is a waste of time for a low level character. Meta magic spells usually increase the level of the spell they are applied to. In the case of empowered spell it increases it by 2 levels. That means to empower a 1st level spell you have to have use a 3rd level slot. A first level cleric does not have any third levels slots available and does not until at least 5th level. Even at 5th level the cleric does not really have good enough blast spells to make it worthwhile.

Also keep in mind that as a prepared divine caster you can totally change the nature of your character simply by changing the spells you memorize. Blasting is usually not a very effective tactic especially for a cleric. The exception to this is if you are facing undead or outsiders. Many cleric spells are designed to do extra damage vs these types of foes. Searing light for example normally does 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels, vs undead this goes up to 1d6 per caster level., and vs undead that are vulnerable to bright light it does 1d8 points of damage per caster level. It is also a ranged touch attack that has no saving throw.

If you go with the first build and find a situation where you are going up against undead or outsiders all you need to do is to change your spell selection. Also talk to the GM and see how common undead will be. If they are going to be common change your fire domain for sun. A cleric with the glory and sun domains is incredibly powerful vs undead. The only thing more powerful is an Aasimar cleric with the glory and sun domains.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you cannot make the perception roll to wake up when someone is shouting at you, you should not be an adventurer. I would say that hearing someone shouting at you at the top of their lungs is about the same as hearing the sounds of battle. That means the DC is -10, after taking the penalty for being asleep that means the DC to hear someone shouting is 0. This means unless you have a penalty beyond being asleep it is impossible to fail the perception roll.

The perception roll to notice the details of a conversation is 0. This is not the DC to notice the conversation but rather to hear and understand what they are saying. So if they are not shouting but talking in a normal voice the DC to wake up is around a -5. Factoring in being asleep this means you have a DC of 5. The character in question is a dwarf cleric. That means at least a 16 WIS and a good chance of an 18. This gives him a +3 or +4 based strictly on his WIS. That means that he need to roll a 2 or higher if he has a 16 WIS, and cannot fail if he has a 18.

1 to 50 of 2,438 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.