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

2,111 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually in both cases you name the leader is not the best combatant in the stories. Both of those leaders had champions who were much better at fighting then they were. Charlemagne had Roland, and Arthur had Lancelot. The question is do you want to be Arthur, or Lancelot?

If you are going for the leader play a human cavalier with at least a 13 INT and put your favored class bonus to skills. This gives you 7 skill points per level which should be more than enough to cover all your social and leadership skills. With this many skill points you can use your feats for combat so you are at least competent in battle. Also realize that you don’t need to max out all skills. You need to have a high enough roll to deal with ordinary people. One or two skills will probably be maxed out but the rest can be spread out. The key to a successful leader is not being the best at everything, but understanding a little of everything and hiring experts to advise you.

You may want to go for a defensive build. A leader’s job in combat is to provide leadership and tactics and survive the battle. Combat Expertise would seem to fit this.


Paladins have proficiency in simple and martial weapons. Since most deities weapons fall into one of those categories they usually are proficient in their deities favored weapon.

Multiclassing usually leads to very weak characters. In 3.5 most of the classes were front loaded so extensive multiclassing usually boosted your power. In Pathfinder the opposite is true. Most classes including paladin continue to gain abilities as they level up, and many of the classes’ abilities are level dependent. Paladins for example add their paladin level when smiting evil, and gain more smites as they level up. You are usually better off sticking with a single class. Prestige classes have also been made less powerful than in 3.5 so there is really no good reason to multiclass.


You are mistaken on how teamwork feats work for the inquisitor. The inquisitor is the only one who gains the benefit (Increased flanking bonus and attack of opportunity) from the feat. The ally’s position and action must still meat the prerequisites of the feat. So as long as your ally is flanking the target your flanking bonus goes up to +4, and whenever they score a critical hit against the flanked target you get an attack of opportunity. Their flanking bonus is unchanged, and if you score a critical hit they gain nothing.


A Paladin/Skald would be a very effective combination. You get all the paladins abilities and a form of rage that you can share. You also can use medium armor and still cast arcane spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are the parties “doctor” then use that to get some petty revenge. I am not talking about letting him die, but just being a little rough. Next time you’re bandaging his wounds make it a little tight. When you are cleaning the wounds make sure you use plenty of rubbing alcohol to sterilize the wound, and of course you need to wipe down the wound really well to make sure it is clean. Be sure that any medicine you give him tastes absolutely foul. Don’t actually do any harm, and make sure whatever you do is actually something that works, just make it painful and uncomfortable.


Instead of laughing you could string together a bunch of made up words, or use random words jumbled up together so they make no sense.


Most GM I know don’t use the age adjustments for starting characters. I let my players be any age they want, but they get no bonus or penalties from it. I also don’t let them start a year short of an age category to try to get the bonus either. Also consider that what is old for an adventurer may not really be that old.

The other thing you could do is to avoid the short lived races for the martial characters. An elf or dwarf martial character is going to still be young when the human venerable. A lot of the part human races had their ages adjusted to that of humans. You could revert back to the old categories for those, or at least adjust them. I could see leaving the adult threshold the same and moving up the other categories.


I have to disagree with the idea that a person of any specific alignment never does anything out of alignment. No one is absolutely pure to their alignment. Even the worst villain will occasionally do a good deed, and even a saint will occasionally do something bad. Not everything is black and white; there are many shades of gray between the extremes. If the extremes of the alignments occasionally stray those that straddle the fence are going to do so a lot more often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For an interesting perspective on War read Wielding a Red Sword. In it the incarnation of war is sees it as a vehicle for change. The character would actually be considered good and recognizes the injustice that war brings, but still views it as something necessary. A chaotic neutral god would take a similar approach. The neutral alignments allow for some actions from both sides of the divide. So a chaotic neutral will do both good and evil acts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW the spell does not change the stat that determines is attack bonus. Many archetypes that grant spells form other lists specifically call out changing the stat, but in this case it does not. This may be an oversight and most GM’s will probably allow it as a house rule.


I have to agree that the double move is a single action. But even if it is not you probably will not get the second attack of opportunity. If the double move is considered two move actions then the second one does not occur until after the first one is complete. By this time your target is probably not in your threatened area so you still cannot get the second attack of opportunity.


What are you looking to get out of the rogue? For the most part you are better off sticking with a single class. Inquisitors have a lot of level dependent abilities that are going to be weakened by multiclassing.

If you want to get a free intimidate when you attack then Cornugun Smash is a much better way. Since it requires 6 ranks in intimidate you really can’t pick it up until 7th level, but any time you hit and are using power attack you get a free demoralize attempt. Also if you are going for a demoralize build consider going half orc for the favored class bonus. Assuming you max out intimidate this gives you +2 to intimidate per level.

Use your teamwork feats to get more attacks of opportunity. Both Outflank and Paired Opportunists allows for extra ways to gain attacks of opportunity.

Blistering Invective allows you to make an intimidate check against everyone in 30’ radius and does 1d10 points of damage, and possibly catch on fire.

I think you are focusing too much on getting attacks of opportunity especially with the snake style. Even with combat reflexes and a high DEX you still only have so many attacks of opportunity. Unless you invest in an amulet of mighty fists your unarmed strikes are going to have a hard time hitting and bypassing damage reduction. The amulet is way overpriced and not worth the cost.

Also what weapon are you using? You have weapon focus rapier but are taking two weapon fighting. Rapiers are not light weapon so take huge penalties when used with two weapon fighting. You would be better off with short swords.

You also want to pick up signature skill intimidate. At 15th level you should be able to exceed the demoralized threshold by 20 to get the cowering condition on your targets. You may want to use pick up thing to increase your intimidate to like skill focus. This would be a better use of your feat than the snake style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While war is rarely good to say that it is never good is untrue. What it really comes down to is that war is killing and for the most part killing is evil. But in some cases killing is not evil and can actually be good. Again I want to emphasize it is rare but there are some cases were violence is justified and necessary. In the case of fighting undead or evil outsides this would also be the case. If something is irredeemably evil and the only way to stop it is to destroy it, destroying it is a good thing. Even in the real world there are situations where war is not evil. World War II would be a good example; the threat of Nazi Germany was not going to simply go away on its own. Fighting to stop the extermination of whole racial groups was in no way an evil act.

There is a saying that goes “All it requires for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. How can you consider yourself good if you allow someone else to suffer when you could have stopped it? The real problem in the real world is making sure that the other person is actually evil. Too often we perceive that which is different from us as evil, when it is simply different. In the game this is a lot easier to figure out due to things like detect evil.

By declaring war you are not only attacking the opponent, you are also agreeing to abide by some rules. In the real world we have the Geneva Convention that specifies that certain actions are not permitted even in a time of war. There is no reason something similar could not exist in a game world. Even without a legal agreement culture and tradition will often limit what is acceptable in times of war. Declaring war does not mean you are the aggressor, it can be recognizing that a conflict exists and your country is going to abide by the rules.


Since the adventure path you are in is a mythic one you have a unique opportunity. Instead of going the typical STR based monk go for a finesse monk. Priorities your stats in the order of DEX, WIS, CON, INT, STR, CHA with CHA being your dump stat. STR and INT can be left at 10. Take weapon finesse and for your first mythic feat take mythic weapon finesse. This means you only high scores in two stats, and medium in one. Since these stats also give you AC and saving throws your defenses are going to be very good. Mythic weapon finesse is going to allow you to keep a reasonable damage despite having a low STR.

Your first Ki power should be Barkskin. Take Crane style to further increase your AC while minimizing your penalty to hit. By about 9th level your defenses is probably going to make your GM cry.

If you really want to push it to the limit play a Vanara.


Actually as a GM if a player wanted to use the custom magic items to limit it so only he or those like him could use it I would either turn it down or increase the cost. A magic item that cannot be used against you should cost more. This is of course my own house rule not an actual rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead of taking power attack you could take additional traits to get two extra traits. Make sure your character is from Andoran and take Freed Slave for a +1 trait bonus to will saves, and Unscathed to increase your energy resistances to 7 instead of 5.


If you want to play a blaster the elemental bloodline works well. The trick is to take the metamagic feat elemental spell and take all your spells from the other two elements. This means each spell is really 3 spells. Avoid fire as an element as there are more good fire spells than any other element. At higher level pick up intensified spell and you will have quite a variety of spells to use.

As was suggested play a human or other race that can get extra spells known. Half elves, and half orcs for example can take the human favored class bonus so work equally well. Half elf is probably stronger because they can pick up the elven magic to help deal with spell resistance.


Since a sorcerer is born not trained I am not sure why your GM is requiring and explanation on why you can cast spells. If you wanted to be a wizard I could understand, but a sorcerer is just something you are. If he is asking why you did not manifest earlier that is a little more understandable. In your case your talent for sorcery was something that you simply never taped into before. You always had the power just never used it. Maybe it needed some sort of catalyst to trigger. Failing the saving throw vs the type of energy of your bloodline and surviving it could be a trigger.


A rogue gains more by having a wizard cohort than a wizard does. A wizard would be better off by choosing a cohort of another class. A paladin to act as a bodyguard would be more useful than a weaker wizard. A cleric or druid for access to spells the wizard does not have.

As to the chain leadership I think that would defiantly fall under the heading of cheese. If not it would end up like the Roger Zelazny novel Creatures of light and Darkness. In it two characters had the ability to move in time. When they confronted each other it quickly escalated to the point of each character moving to block the other, only to be blocked by still more of the other character. Which is the main reason I think it falls under the heading of cheese, and as such disallowed by rule 3 of the original poster.

And sometimes the only counter to magic is magic. So while many people may not like the solution it is still a valid solution.


One thing that has mentioned is the leadership feat. Now I know this feat is banned in a lot of games and probably rightfully so, but it does meet the requirements. Your cohort could be an 17th level crafting focused wizard that would even out the wealth advantage of a wizard crafting his own items. This would also allow for the creation of simulacrum versions of the rogue to counter those of the wizard. This would also give you a bunch of low level minions to assist in your plans. One thing they can do is to stage fake attacks to get the wizard to waste his resources.

Some people may consider this to be cheese but allowing the wizard to automatically be aware of the rogue’s plans against him are also equally cheesy. I would mainly use this to counter the wizards trying to use clones and simulacrum type spells to effectively try the old that wasn’t really me you defeated ploy.


Play an unchained rouge and the skill unlocks will give you a chance. Max out bluff, escape artist, intimidate, perception, sense motive and stealth. Us a rogue talent for cutting edge to get two extra skill unlocks.

For feats you will want Skill Focus Stealth, Skill focus Intimidate, Hellcat Stealth, Enforcer, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Greater Two Weapon Fighting. Use two merciful short swords.

Use every trick in the book to boost your stealth and intimidation. Walk up to the wizard and use Hellcat stealth vanish and then attack him 6 times or more for 12d6 each attack, and each time you hit roll to demoralize him. If you roll more than 20pt more than you need to demoralize him on any roll it is over.

This is not a guaranteed strategy but it is probably your best shot.


Lord Monty wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken Aasimar and Tieflings both can count as humanoid(human) too with trait swaps. So they can use human caster fcb. Both have dark vision and although I don't claim to be a pfs expert I believe they're playable.

You are mistaken they are outsiders (Native), not humanoid. Aasimar can take Scion of Humanity to count as human instead.


For elves there is this.

Arcane Focus: Some elven families have such long traditions of producing wizards (and other arcane spellcasters) that they raise their children with the assumption each is destined to be a powerful magic-user, with little need for mundane concerns such as skill with weapons. Elves with this racial trait gain a +2 racial bonus on concentration checks made to cast arcane spells defensively. This racial trait replaces weapon familiarity.

An elven wizard with that alternative racial trait would not be proficient in any of the racial weapons.


Not everything has to have a prestige class or an archetype dedicated to it. Giants are a pretty broad group that other than being larger than normal doesn’t really have a lot in common. Undead, dragons, and outsiders tend to have similar abilities that often need to be overcome to handle them. Other than rock throwing giants really don’t have any common abilities other than size.

There are plenty of ways to build a character focused on fighting giants in the game already. Many of the things that will work against giants will also work against a lot of other creatures, but that makes them no less effective against giants. Most martial classes don’t really need much more than power attack and a two handed weapon. Also mounted combat works extremely well vs. giants. Since giants are already large creatures anywhere you find them will also probably accommodate a large mount.

Since giants have no common attack form, or defense there really is not a great need for a prestige class to deal with them. A ranger with maxed out favored enemy with a mount is going to be about the strongest class against a giant, anything they could possibly create would actually be less effective. When a core class with no archetype is the best choice for dealing with a creature creating a prestige class is pretty silly. They could create archetypes for other classes, but really about the only thing they could do would be to give the rangers favored class bonus. While they have created archetypes that rendered the rogue useless, I don’t think they want to do the same with the ranger.


Smallfoot wrote:

Easy way for the GM to wiggle out of this, if she needs to: Comprehend Languages "does not decipher codes or reveal messages concealed in otherwise normal text." So the OP could easily have deciphered the words without having a real clue to the meaning. Come to think of it, that in and of itself could be a neat plot hook.

This is about the only explanation I have seen posted that I can accept. It is a simple explanation that fits without having to change the fundamental rules of the universe. I see magic as a fundamental force of the universe. Like gravity and time its existence is not dependent on anyone understanding it. While our understanding of it may change and its presence may vary it underlining rules do not change.

Another explanation I could accept would be that the concepts of the writing may be something that is beyond the characters understanding. Think of someone from Golarion reading a manual for setting up a computer network. Even if he can understand the words they don’t really make sense. They would probably think that Ethernet is a net designed to capture ghosts. This would mean that this particular writing may not be translatable but others from the same language may be.

I think that either the GM is being lazy and not thinking things through, or he is not explaining himself very well.


The main thing to consider when allowing the players to purchase spells, is do you want the player to have the spell. If this is s a spell that is going to be useful in advancing the story than more than likely they should be able to find the spell. If the spell is going allow them to do something I don’t want than finding the spell is going to be unlikely.

Most NPC casters in my games tend not to be combat specialist so combat spells are harder to find. Spells like Alarm, Mount, and Unseen Servant are a lot more common than Burning Hands, Magic Missile, or Shocking Grasp. Defensive spells are more common than offensive spells. Information gather spells are probably the most common

So while every wizard will probably have a few combat spells the majority of the spells for purchase will be utility spells. If the spell is one that either makes the casters life easier, or ordinary people will want to pay to have cast than its availability is higher.

I can see a noble requesting a wizard cast silent image for entertainment, but I don’t see the same noble requesting magic missile be cast. The noble may request the wizard take kill a monster, but he doesn’t care what spell is used. If the wizard used shocking grasp, or burning hands instead of magic missile the noble could care less.


When I run I use the cost of a scroll as the base for wizards purchasing spells. The option to copy from another casters book is mainly for three things. One is if there are multiple characters in the party with spell books and they want to swap spells. The second is when using spells as rewards or payment for services rendered. The last thing it is used for is when the party defeats the wizard and claims his gear including spell books.

It is also used for creating new spell books. Having a backup library of your spells safely stored is something that any smart wizard is going to want to do. It allows you to combine spell books into fewer volumes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do you need a template for this? It sounds more like a background story something that needs to be covered by a game mechanic. This sounds like a body thief more than a lich. Simply give him a custom spell, or magic item to transfer his mind to a new body. An 8th level version of magic jar could have a permanent duration.

This could also be the way he reversed his undead status. He could still in fact be a lich with a phylactery that simply transfers his mind into a living host. This would allow you to set up multiple fights with him in different bodies before they figure out what is going on. When they finial figure it out they would need to fight him twice. The first time in his living body, and then after they defeat him he comes back a lich.


Inquisitors don’t have animate dead on their spell list, and UMD is not a class skill and worse yet is a CHA based skill. This means that you are going to have someone else animate the corpse. It will also mean that the undead is not scaling as you level up. Pretty much by the time you can afford it, it will too frail to be of any use.

If you modified it so that instead of following you around it were hidden away somewhere to “keep your friend safe” it could work better. Think of Norman Bates mother in Psycho. It does not even have to be undead to work It could be a corpse that you keep hidden away, but think is still alive. Latter when you get money you could have it animated.

You could even use it as your link to your deity. You go to it for advice and to get instructions from your deity as to what you are supposed to be doing. In your mind your friend is still alive but in reality it is a lifeless corpse, that you latter have animated. Even though you have it animated you will never admit that you did. As far as you are concerned it is alive. This means you are basically insane, but can cover it up so no one knows.


I don’t think that this really fits in with the idea of an infiltrator inquisitor. The whole idea behind an infiltrator is that they can successfully pretend to be another alignment. The only way I can see this working is by completely changing your class. As Young Nasty Man suggested the undead lord would probably work best.

I am also not sure how this fits into roleplaying a character with a low CHA with good social skills. I see this type of character as the person who has no real interest in people and who is normally very antisocial. But when they want something form someone know exactly how to manipulate them to get what they want. They are not naturally charming and likeable, rather they are normally rude boorish and completely uninterested in other people’s feelings. It takes conscious effort for them to manipulate people, but they are extremely good at it.

Since your ability with social skills is also part of your inquisitor class abilities they also divinely inspired. When you speak you channel your deity into your words and become the voice of God. It does not matter that you are a sniveling little bastard who people normally ignore and avoid. When you speak people listen and believe. This only goes to prove that you really are special and increases your arrogance (another reason for the low CHA).


Grailknight wrote:
Steadfast Personality lets you get Charisma to Will saves.

Steadfast Personality works best with a 10 WIS. If you dump WIS you still take the penalty to WIS in addition to the bonus from CHA. But if you have a WIS bonus you don’t get to add that.


Claxon wrote:

Ultimately the problem is this.

A rogue is in the middle of a featureless plain, vegetation no more than an couple inches tall. A wizard appears and casts fireball. The rogue is level 2 and saves successfully, and so takes no damage. Fireball "fills" a 20ft radius around the rogue? How did he avoid taking damage?

Honestly, the answer is in my opinion that evasion really should have been listed as a supernatural ability that isn't shut down by anything that normally shuts off magic. Because if it's magic you really don't need an explanation. Beyond such an answer you end up with original question of how does he do it? Because it honestly doesn't make sense.

He covers himself with his cape or other item, why are they not destroyed or damaged? So forth and so on.

Ultimately describe it however you like, but to me there isn't a "satisfactory" answer. It just works.

One perfectly flat featureless planes with vegetation no more than an inch tall doesn’t occur naturally. Even flatland has some contours to them, and unless you are constantly mowing the field’s vegetation grows higher than a few inches, and then there are rocks and other thing to break up the plane. The other thing the rogue can hide behind is other party members. Wizards aren’t the only one who can use the BSF for their own benefit. And finally there are the items the rogue has with him. Maybe he uses his cloak to setup a draft that deflects the flame, or maybe he has a quarter staff spinning faster enough to act create a breeze just strong enough to deflect the flame. The rogue could also use some of his mundane gear to stop the attack. Does it really matter if your ordinary tunic gains the broken condition?

The only way I see it being a problem is if you are all alone, completely naked, carrying absolutely nothing, in a room with absolutely nothing. If that is the case why does anyone even get a save for half? This brings up my next point. Why do people not have a hard time with the idea that someone can save for half damage, but have problems with evasion? If there is no way to evade the flames why is anyone getting a save?


I think the problem is that people have the idea that just because you don’t take any damage means you are completely unaffected by it to the point it does not even mess up your hair. They are also ignoring anything that is around the character that made the save. Most of the time there is always something around the player. If the player is in a dungeon he could easily duck behind a tapestry on the wall, or flip over the table and duck behind it at exactly the right time. If he is out door he could duck behind a bush. In any even he is covered in soot and may be coughing up a lungful of smoke for dramatic effect.

If there is absolutely nothing around you, you should have known better than to adventure in nogaurd.


Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

My take on this:

General question: No, that's not strictly outside the bounds of Lawful Good, as an isolated incident and/or a moment of poor judgment on the character's part. I'd frown on a LG character regularly handling things in such a fashion. Threatening innocents should be very much a last resort, and the first course of action should ideally have been something else. Mass enchantments, Diplomacy over Intimidate, trying to scare them WITHOUT the threat of death, etc. The character's actions were not LG, but not so severe (alone) as to merit an alignment change.

Specific instance: I don't think your GM was in the wrong to change your alignment, because I get the impression it was NOT an isolated incident, and as you indicated, the character was already acting more LN.

Lawful alignments are quite willing to impose their views on others even if they are not willing. So saying the lawful good character cannot use intimidation before exhausting literally every other option is kind of silly. Lawful alignments are also not that interested in freedom that is a chaotic hang up. Lawful societies have rules and punishments for breaking those rules. How is this any different than making a law that says if you steal you will be put in prison, and if you resist any force necessary to take you will be used to apprehend you?

You are also advocating the use of magic to impose your actions on another person as being less evil that threatening a person. I would say that using magic to force someone to do something is a lot worse than using intimidate. Many people think that using magic to control someone’s mind is actually very evil.

Also note that the original poster did in fact try all other options.


The innocents were already in danger due the fact they had disease infected flowers in their possession. I think that allowing a person to contract a possibly fatal disease when you can prevent it is the evil act. Letting Timmy run around with a flower that is not only going to kill him, but also kill multiple other people is not a good act. If Timmy does not want to give up the flower you take it from him and dispose of it. If he tries to run away you chase after him and forcibly take the flower from him. Using excessive force would be an evil act, but using enough force to get the job done is fine.

You could argue that you should try and talk the people into giving up the flowers before resorting to other means. But everyone seems to be ignoring that the original poster stated that he did in fact try to use diplomacy and failed. He then tried to intimidate them into doing the right thing and also failed. Only at that time did the party resort to actual force. So what was the player supposed to do? Let Timmy keep the infected flower? Also note that it was the hunter not the inquisition who actually resorted to violence. It seems to me that what people are saying is that failing a diplomacy roll, and then trying to still act is evil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Threatening someone with great bodily harm is not the same as doing great bodily harm to them. Saying a lawful good character cannot use intimidate to prevent untold death and destruction is ludicrous. Good societies use threats and intimidation all the time. The whole concept of heaven and hell is basically a threat of eternal pain and suffering if you don’t’ act in the prescribed manner. So telling a small child that he is going to burn in hell for all eternity if he does a particular action is fine. But telling him to drop a disease infected flower, or you will beat the crap out of him is evil. Considering he is a child his fortitude save is probably low so the flower is more than likely going to kill him anyways. It will not only kill the child, but it will also kill multiple other people.

Inquisitors are allowed great freedom in how they act as long as they are acting in the interest of their deity. I don’t really think that letting a child spread a disease is in the interest of Torag. In fact the entire crowd should have been contained until after they had been checked for the disease. Allowing infected people to spread a dangerous disease is neither a good, nor lawful act. Preventing the spread of said disease on the other hand qualifies as both lawful (in the interest of the community) and good (helping people).

Also note that bluff is an inquisitor skill which means they are pretty good at telling lies.


You could always go for a warpriest and take the champion of the faith archetype.


In a magical world a spy will need a way to deal with magic. That means they probably need to have magic of their own. Bards, Inquisitors and Investigators would all make very good spies. The archeologist or the detective archetype would probably make the best spies. Many of the other archetypes would probably not work as well. The Inquisitor is pretty much a divine agent so is pretty much going to be your default divine spy. Almost any investigator is going to do quite well as a spy. The infiltrator and mastermind archetypes are extremely well suited for a spy.


The traditional role of the cleric is healing and support.

Healing is mainly restoring HP and condition removal. Most of this can now be handled with magic items instead of spells. But keep in mind for this to work you need someone who can actually use the wands and scrolls. So you either need someone with those spells on their spell list, or you need someone with a good enough UMD that they can use the magic items with little or no chance of failure. It also includes bringing a person back from being dead.

Support generally is about three things increasing the abilities of your allies, protecting your allies from harm and utility and gathering information. Clerics have some of the best buff spells in the game, about the only one who can compare to them are bards. They also have probably the best selection of defensive spells in the game. Utility and information is not exclusive to the cleric but they do have some unique spells like augury and commune. They tend to be a little more reliable than arcane divination, but are often more narrowly focused.

The last thing clerics traditionally excel at is dealing with undead and outsiders. Typically an arcane caster does a better job at blasting except for when it comes to undead and outsiders. Show me a 2nd level arcane spell that caps out at 10d6 points of damage. Spear of purity and its variants normally do 1d8 points of damage per 2 caster levels and max out at 5d8 at 10th level, but when dealing with an outsider of the appropriate alignment it changes to 1d6 per level maxing out at 10d6. Planar ally is a lot safer than using planar binding. The cleric simply bargains with the outsider for services rendered, where the wizard has to force the outsider to and may end up getting attacked by the outsider he is summoning.


Any class can work if it fits your needs. If the question is does it give up too much is a whole different question. Even that question is also subject to personal preference.

The mystic theurge is going to be weaker than a single class caster because of three reasons one is that you don’t get your highest level spells. Second is like you mentioned it does not advance class features other than spell casting. The last reason is that you do in fact lose caster levels. To qualify you need to take at least 3 levels of each class so that puts you three levels behind on caster level. Magic knack can offset some of the issue, but it only applies to the level based variables of the spell, not in gaining spells. You are using a oracle/sorcerer instead so the problem is even worse you now have to give u 4 caster levels on each class instead of three. Your classes are also spontaneous casters so have a limited number of spells known.

You could use the wildblooded archetype and chose Empyreal for your bloodline. This changes the casting stat to WIS instead of CHA. This would allow you to use cleric instead of an oracle. This way you would qualify with only 3 levels of cleric and 4 levels of sorcerer. As prepared divine caster clerics automatically know all spells of a level they are able to cast. This is actually a huge benefit for the mystic theurge.

The other thing that makes this viable is the fact that full casters are so much more powerful than other classes. If your party does not include a lot of full casters than it actually works out pretty well. If the party does not include a full caster it would probably be a better choice anyways. Not only do you cover all the casting you are also reducing your power closer to the rest of the group.


The reason it has ninja in it is that it is actually a ninja talent; rogues get it as a class ability and don’t need a use a talent to gain it. It also states in the slayer that the slayer is able to pick certain rogue and ninja talents in place of a slayer talent. The rogue and ninja came out long before the slayer so of course their descriptions will not include mention of the slayer. When you take a talent from another class you take the whole thing not just parts of it. Any restrictions on the original talent are still in effect.

There are many reasons a ninja might be wearing more than light armor. While ninja are only proficient with light armor there is nothing to prevent them from multiclassing with a class that is proficient with heavier armor. Also if the ninja is trying to disguise himself as someone who would normally wear heavier armor he will probably need to don it. There is also nothing that says a ninja has to be a DEX based character. Unlike the unchained rogue they don’t actually gain any class ability that requires a high DEX. You could just as easily build a STR based ninja as a DEX based one. Considering how difficult it is to get DEX to damage a STR based ninja may be more efficient.


I think the confusion is that you are talking about flurry of blows not actual two weapon fighting. It pretty much is two weapon fighting with some additional benefits. One it can be used with any combination of unarmed attacks, or monk weapons. Second is that you get your full STR bonus on all attacks. You also get additional attacks as you gain levels in the class that grants flurry. If you take levels in another class this does not increase your extra attacks from flurry.

So at first level you can gain an extra attack, but all your attacks take a -2 penalty. When your BAB from any, and all classes reaches +6 BAB you gain an additional attack at +1. If you flurry at this point you are +4/+4/-1. You keep gaining additional attacks as your BAB rises. When you reach 8th level in the class that grants you flurry you gain a second attack at the same BAB as your second normal attack. So a 8th level brawler has a BAB of +8. This gives him two attacks when not using flurry at +8/+3. If he uses flurry he gets 4 attacks +6/+6/+1/+1. If he took 4 levels of fighter instead of going up in brawler he would still have a BAB of +8 and would have the same number of attacks when not flurrying (+8/+3). When he uses flurry he only gets a single extra attack which would be +6/+6/+1. When you gain a 15 level in the class that grants flurry he gets a third extra attack at the same BAB as his third normal attack. So the 15th level brawler has +15/+10/+5 when not using flurry. If he uses flurry he is +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3. If he took 4 levels of brawler and the rest as fighter he would have the same number of attacks when not flurrying and gain a single extra attack when flurrying. This would work out to +13/+13/+8/+3. Any bonuses to hit from STR, feats, or anything else do not affect your number of attacks in any way.

BAB stand for Base Attack Bonus. This is not your final total, but rather your starting point.


I am making a couple of assumptions and could be wrong. First as a sorcerer your CHA is you highest stat. You also put points into DEX and CON for survivability. STR is your low stat. That leaves INT and WIS. Sorcerers get good will saves and horrible skill so any remaining points went into INT, but probably not a whole lot. The way you described your character also seems to fit.

Also you never mentioned if the Chronomancer was in any way responsible for, or could have prevented your mother’s death. If the answer is yes that you would definitely go after him with everything you can. If not then it is more a matter of you being forced to do something you did not want to do. If he is responsible for your mother’s death you are probably going to do everything you can to take him out no matter the consequences. If you see a chance to kill him you will probably take it. If on the other hand he could not have saved her your response should be more restrained. You will take more time to plan your revenge so that you can succeed.


When Pathfinder first came out and it was limited to core rule book only there was a much more defined line between divine and arcane magic. This was even more defined in early games like 1st edition AD&D. In the core rule book bards are the only arcane caster who gets any healing at all, and even they lack most of the condition removal spells that a healer needs. Now with the alchemist, investigator, witch and archetypes for other classes that is no longer the case. Many gamers, especially those who have been gaming for a long time, still have it in their mind you need a divine caster. Also when they talk about divine caster they are more often than not talking about a cleric.

With classes like alchemist and witch this is no longer the case. Also many of the archetypes also give spells and abilities that were once only available to divine casters. Many of the newer divine casters have a similar feel to the cleric so people lump them together and feel comfortable with them replacing the cleric. This is often true with the oracle due to his limited number of spell. Yes he gets all the cure spells for free, but does not have the condition removal spells. More than likely he is not going to waste any of his spell slots on conditional spells unless they are granted by his mystery.

So basically unless you are playing with only the core rule book you no longer need any particular class. You do however need a character to fill the role that class traditionally played.


Divine casters have several advantages. First and most obvious is that they are full casters. Secondly they also have decent combat ability. Being able to wear armor and having a ¾ BAB allows them to deal with combat a lot better than most arcane casters. Most of them also have good fortitude and will save. Since will saves are based on WIS which is usually their casting stat they have the best will saves in the game. They also usually get d8 for HP giving them more HP than full arcane casters. Combined this gives them very good survivability.

For prepared divine caster getting access to their entire spell list instead of knowing a limited number is a huge advantage. Clerics especially have a lot of situational spells, but when the situation comes up those spells are usually incredibly important. Condition removal spells are a perfect example. If you have not taken any temporary ability damage lesser restoration is almost completely useless, but if you have taken the damage it is incredibly useful. Druids also have a very versatile spell list and get a little bit of everything including a surprising number of blast spells.

All of them also get a decent number of special abilities. Clerics get 2 domains and channel energy. Druids get a lot of special abilities like wild shape, animal companions, Oracles get revelations. All of them also have at least some spontaneous magic. Clerics can swap out any spell for a cure, druids do the same thing with summon natures ally. Oracles are spontaneous casters, and actually get more spells than a sorcerer of the same level due to knowing either the cure, or inflict spells.

So in conclusion divine casters get better combat ability and survivability than an arcane caster. The get access to more spells. , they all have significant other abilities and can usually match or exceed the number of spells an arcane caster gets. That is a pretty decent package.


Since rangers get weaker animal companions than a druid it makes sense that the rangers wild shape should also follow the same progression. Also since rangers have a limited scope of animal companions it makes sense a ranger wild shape would be similarly limited.

This also allows you to use your skills and other abilities in animal form so would be more useful. If you gain the physical stats of the animal you should gain the mental stats as well. That means that your INT drops to 2 and are no longer sentient. This creates a huge problem with being able to change back or even wanting to. If you don’t keep your class abilities how are you changing back?


The parts I bolded show that the triggering condition is the same. All of them are triggered off the same melee attack The reason my argument is simplistic is that it is not a complicated situation. I walk up to you and stab you with a sword. That is a single attack, which means that it will trigger at most one attack of opportunity. Also all those abilities specifically call out being triggered by a melee attack even though there are other things that can trigger an attack of opportunity. You cannot use them when someone cast a spell or makes a ranged attack. If the spell requires a touch attack then the touch attack qualifies.


All of these are being triggered by the exact same melee attack, so you cannot use them together.

Disrupting Counter:
At 3rd level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against her, she can spend 1 panache point to make an attack of opportunity against the attacking foe. This attack of opportunity can be made with either a dagger or a starknife. If the attack hits, the opponent takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls until the end of its turn.

Stylish Riposte:
When your AC exceeds the result of a foe's melee attack against you by 5 or more, that foe provokes an attack of opportunity from you. Once you make such an attack of opportunity against a foe, you can't again use this trick against the foe that day. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made.

Opportune Parry and Riposte:
At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll.

Technically the attack of opportunity from the opportune parry and riposte is being triggered by your parry, but the parry itself is being triggered by the original melee attack. You would need three separate attacks for this to work.

Stylish rogue does not trigger off of your AC it triggers off the melee attack. The AC requirement is an additional limitation on the trick.


First of all you only get a single attack of opportunity per round, unless you have combat reflexes. Even with combat reflexes you can only take a single attack of opportunity per action that provokes it. Since the thing that is provoking the attacks of opportunity is a single attack that means that you can only get a single attack of opportunity off of it.

Also the penalty to hit form Disrupting Counter would not apply to the original attack anyways because it is made before the Disrupting Counter took place. You cannot retroactively apply penalties on things that have already happened. If this were true that would mean that all the attacks that the opponent had made in the past take a -4 to hit making some of them now miss and changing history.

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity bonus to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Sorry but this simply does not work. About the only thing you have right is that with a Fortuitous weapon you can get a second attack of opportunity against a foe assuming you hit, but it is at a -5 penalty.


The rules are clear that you cannot assign your favored class ability to something you don’t have. But what about the retraining rules? Could those be used to retrain your favored class ability once you gain the ability? That would mean that effectively you can assign a favored class bonus to a higher level class ability.

1 to 50 of 2,111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.