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

Neo2151's page

1,557 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,557 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

A Fighter's Unarmed Strike will damage a stone wall the same way a Wizard's Fireball will.
That's to say, it won't. Sorry.

RDM42 wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

If it is a wizard and we assume he has his class features even if he doesn't have his spells memorized he still has either his familiar (as has been stated) or his bonded item (we said naked but we said he has his class features so specific beats general) meaning he has one spell he can cast that is written in his book (it doesn't say he has to have the book on his person). A 10th or 20th level wizard should have a spell without material components that will kill the kobold or bring the wizard to safety.

Plus school powers.

Nope. If a fighter doesn't get his weapons or armor, then the wizard doesn't get his familiar.

Weapons and/or armor are not guaranteed to the Fighter. The Bonded Item is guaranteed to the Wizard. Your argument is weak.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Oh amd scrolls

And wands

And beads...

And bonded items....

And enchanted Staffs...

Bonded item is once per day.

All the other items here represent use of wealth by level, not class features. Martials can also use wealth by level to "get nice things"

And even then, having the right spell for the right situation is no sure thing, especially if the magic item creation rules are obeyed and any reasonable amount of care is taken in treating the acquisition of new spells via copying as a challenging activity.

Scribe Scroll is handed to the Wizard at level one.

Wizards get bonus Metamagic/Item Creation feats every 5 levels, so it's super-easy to pick up Craft Wand.

Between these two options, you can be prepared for anything, and for half the cost of just buying it from a shop.

As for copying spells, most of your truly useful niche spells are low-mid level, and if you "properly" follow the rules, are going to be available in most cities (based on % rolls).
Also, every caster worth their salt is going to be maxing out Spellcraft, so making the rolls really shouldn't be an issue either.

And, finally, in the rare cases where all of the above doesn't work, you can always just Summon Monster Y and have them cast a spell for you.

Secret Wizard wrote:

I back that guy up though. You are acting like my character is useless when I posted a full build which has respectable saves, AC, tons of skills and amazing damage. Don't know what more are you looking for.

If you only play builds with pounce, 9 level casting and full BAB, plus all good saves... I uh hope you enjoy your uber gestalt game?

The criticism is not with your build. The criticism is with the required effort needed to achieve your build.

Some tactics still have it too easy (ie: 2H). Some still have it too hard (ie: Sneak Attack reliance). Some classes still need defensive tweaks.
Rogues are in a much better place than they used to be, but they need a baked-in way to improve at least one of the two "important" saves.

Overlord is a fun word, considering all the effort gone through to still not out-damage any full bab class with PA and a 2h weapon. ;)

Also, still suffering low Fort/Will. Until that changes, even the Unchained Rogue will be subpar (even though it's a lot better than core Rogue!)


DM_Blake wrote:

My take:

Summoning EVIL creatures causes the spell to have the [evil] descriptor, but there are ZERO rules that say using [evil] spells makes you turn evil.

That said...

Anyone who is GOOD wouldn't want to do this in the first place; he would find it morally reprehensible, especially since he could use the SAME spell to summon GOOD creatures for the same purpose. Anyone who voluntarily uses [evil] spells is probably already evil, or at least super close to it. Your bard is claiming to be NEUTRAL but, deep down, it sounds like he's already got at least one foot, maybe both feet, on the EVIL side of that line - if he didn't, he would not be so eager to use demons in the first place.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first half - repeatedly casting [Good] spells isn't going to magically make you Good, and I've never seen the argument that it does or should, so casting [Evil] spells shouldn't magically make you Evil.

As to the second part, there are plenty of ways to RP this, considering this is a Summoning, not a Conjuring.
Perhaps when he calls out for outsider aid (ie: casts Summon Monster), Demons are the only thing that answer him, and while the player is making the choice, the character has no say in it. Perhaps it's related to the Demon that's haunting his dreams.

Sounds like a really solid way to get totally and utterly overwhelmed by options. ;)
(Maybe not a bad problem to have, but even a good problem is still a problem!)

Well let's remember that some of these "amazing" spells don't just hamper sight.

Stinking Cloud is rated blue in every spellcaster guide that has it on it's list, and for good reason as nauseated is a disgusting effect...
But most fights aren't on open ground with a clearly separated line between your party and your enemies.

I'm talking about ALL the aoe battlefield control stuff when I ask here. :)

It's kinda like you "summoned" the grease, and it made them slip all on it's own, just like any other summoned monster. ;)

Er, nevermind! Found the relevant rule in the CRB:

CRB Magic Chapter, pg 208 wrote:

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All

offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving
throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or
hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters
or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves
don’t harm anyone.

I don't get what you're saying.

Yes, they're area of effect spells, but you don't get to see through your own effect (usually), and neither does your party.
So if you're screwing the party up as much as you're screwing the enemies up, how is this a good thing?

Is it anything that requires an attack roll?
Is it one of those, "just use common sense cuz the rules aren't going to get that specific for you?"
Is it something else?

I'm curious why spells such as Obscuring Mist or Darkness are always touted as such amazing control spells.

Yes, they make it very hard for the enemy to effectively target you!
They also make it very hard for you to target the enemy...

How do you work around this so it's not just a total wash?

Silver Surfer wrote:
Castilonium wrote:
Shaman. Their evil eye hex isn't mind-affecting, they have better bab than witches for landing touch attacks, and they can steal spells from the wizard spell list.
Yes but lets stick to classes that arent poorly designed, completely unwarranted and just generally OP

How is the Shaman OP?

How does the Shaman spell list stand up to a debuffing role?

JamZilla wrote:
If you're willing to commit the feats to it, a halfling jinx witch can be a very scary debuffer

What is this?


Also, what would be particularly good Domains if going the Bad Touch route?
(Chaos seems like fun if the spell list wasn't bleh. Darkness looks solid, and Undead seems to make for good Neg. Channeling and access to appropriate-level Enervation - Thoughts?)

Can you elaborate on Witch and Cleric? lol

Bad Touch Cleric, Witch, Wizard, Arcanist... Who does it best?
Right now I'm stuck between BTCleric and Witch, but I can be sold on another option.

Thanks :)

pipedreamsam wrote:
Æthernaut wrote:
What domains did you have your eye on instead of undead or loss?

Well, Loss bumps it up to a 5th level spell, which sucks.

Undead would be fine, but I'm not trying to be a Necromancer, just a Bad Toucher.

Other than the Loss or Undead Sub-domains, is there any way for a Cleric to get the Enervation spell? It's basically the only thing missing from the "Bad Touch" toolbox, IMO.

So here's the real skinny between the two classes:
Wizards rely on item crafting to truly shine. Sorcerers benefit slightly more from metamagic feats because of their ability to apply what's necessary to just the right spell on the fly.

So, if you're playing PFS, I'd never ever ever take a Wizard over a Sorcerer. Never ever. Losing that Scribe Scroll is literally a class-killer, and never having access to Craft Wand is the final nail in the coffin.
If you're not playing PFS (ie: crafting is allowed), then there is almost never a good reason to take Sorcerer over Wizard, save for flavor or personal preference. From a basic power standpoint, Wizard simply wins.
Until you add Arcanist into the mix, which takes the strongest part of being a Wizard, and gives it to the superior casting style of the Sorcerer, and makes both classes obsolete save for flavor alone. ;P

Ravingdork wrote:

That's not too bad really, but if the sorcerer has Extend Spell (and an option that lets her apply it to a 9th-level spell), then she can change into anything she wants, each round, 24 hours a day.

Wizard can't do that.

I don't understand where you're coming from with this argument.

You're just handing things to the Sorcerer without even bothering to explain how they got them, and not giving the same consideration to the Wizard? Well then of COURSE the Sorcerer is coming out on top! :P

But I imagine, if your goal is 24hr duration Shapechange, then a Greater Extend Metamagic Rod is in your inventory, and both classes get equal use out of said rod.

There is zero reason for a Sorcerer to be ahead here.

Arcanists are a thing. How has this not been mentioned yet?

Another casualty of a poorly thought out spell level system.
What is essentially free if you pick the right race suddenly costs huge in spell slot consumption. <_<

What about spell lists? I know they're both pretty similar via Hexes and such.

Who does it better? I'm getting a backup character ready in case my current one bites the dust, and I've decided on going the debuffer route, but can't really decide between these two.

Are there rules about what happens with a permanent, continuous effect (such as a Leonal's Protective Aura) when the creature involved is asleep, or knocked unconscious?

Do creatures that possess (or are granted) these continuous Su effects have control over them or are they always active no matter what? (ie: Could the Leonal from the above example choose to suppress it's Protective Aura, like you can do with SR, or is it stuck with it always active?)

Tried searching but I can't seem to find any general rules surrounding Continuous effects.

Aiolos sounds good to me. Thanks!

So I'm about to start playing a Leonal as a character and I have no idea what to name him.

Is there any info out there on Agathian (or any Outsider) naming conventions?
Does anyone have any suggestions otherwise?


Milo v3 wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Name three.
Altair, Ezio, Desmond :P

Having a cause does not make you a good person. These three are no more goodly than The Operative from Serenity (he was killing for good too, right? ;P )

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.

Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.

The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.

Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)

So for example, if you're paid by the village mayor to kill the orcs that have been raiding them, both you and the village are evil?

I'm generally down with the whole "murderhobos are evil" thing, but that's going further than I'd take it.

No, you're being paid to "defend and/or protect the town from the orc raiding parties."

(Unless the request is literally something like, "Hey, adventurers, there is a settlement of orcs up in them there hills that keep raiding our town. Go up there and slaughter the buggers for us? There's money in it for you." Yeah, that'd be evil.)

Killing can be a consequence without making you evil. When killing is the goal, you are evil.

thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand that in real life someone can be an assassin for their government, and kill for reasons other than "just money" but the specific assassin class which is evil, is not the same as an assassin(the profession) even though I don't think many of them will normally be good either.
And in most of those real life cases, government assassins are just as evil as the ones in game.

In real life, yes.

But we're not playing real life, we're playing genre fiction. Good assassins are pretty common in fiction, fantasy or otherwise.

Name three.

Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.
Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.

The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.

Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)


wraithstrike wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
What in the RAW prevents it? (Just curious.)
It has already been stated. How about you explain how it is allowed or at least choose some post and tell us by the book how we are wrong.

I'm actually in agreement with you that the intention behind earth glide was very likely not to allow those creatures to ignore earthen projectiles.

However, quoting a bit of flavor text from the ability is hardly stating hard RAW.

Someone said RAW says no. I don't see that to be the case. If it is the case, I was asking where that RAW existed (and what, specifically, it said.) Otherwise, it's entirely GM fiat.

wraithstrike wrote:
Even if nobody had found any rules to use "the book does not say I can't" does not mean you can.

This is true, but it doesn't mean you can't either. If it doesn't exist as a rule, it's up to either a FAQ or your GM to answer individually.

What in the RAW prevents it? (Just curious.)

Byakko, neutrinos are subatomic particles. Earth Elementals, Oreads, etc. are hardly in the same category.
Apples to oranges, at best. ;)

wraithstrike, I have my personal opinion, but I posted this in the rules forum because there are no rules on it. I think there should be. If my interpretation is wrong, that's fine. But it's too "up in the air" based on ability wording to assume one way or the other.
I agree on a FAQ. Why this thread isn't one, idk. I hit the button *shrug*

The thing is, nothing about Earth Glide says you become incorporeal or some other status that would allow you to just ignore matter.
So the arguments that support that idea are, by the flavor and rules texts, are pretty unfounded.

The only difference between Burrow and Earth Glide is that one leaves a tunnel and visibly (key word, visibly) disturbs the ground traveled through, and the other doesn't.

By that logic, however, a creature with a flight speed could not carry someone while flying, because carrying/grappling does not confer a flight speed.
Except they can.

See, this is why I'm asking! lol

If we go with the assumption that you can't take a person with you, for logical reasons, then logic also holds that you can't take your stuff with you either, for identical logical reasons.
And in such a reading, things like Gray Disciple or the Oread Earth Glider feat become practically useless and trap options.

If we go with the assumption that you can take a person and/or stuff with you, then suddenly people will cry foul because of the potential "abuse."

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

What's the ruling on this? Is there even a ruling? I know most people won't allow it because it's obviously strong, but I'm not looking for opinions - I'm looking for rules.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The second they print pathfinder 2.0 I'm out and Paizo will never get another dime out of me-- and I am sure that represents a pretty big contingent of customers. New editions bring in new customers, and push out old ones.

Man, I'm so tired of this warn-out chest thumping.

Unless you started your gaming experience with Pathfinder, then you know this isn't true. 2nd Edition D&D is still around, but people still bought 3.0. 3.0 is still around and yet people still massively upgraded to 3.5. 3.5 is still everywhere too, yet PF is strong. Etc. And so on. And so fourth.

Face the facts - you'll upgrade to whatever game is doing well, because if you don't, you lose out on people to game with. End of story.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there are any over-powered spells.
I think that it just looks that way because there are a MASSIVE TON of really unimpressive and under-powered spells.

So the answer to, "there are too many trap options," isn't removing trap options - it's nerfing the one class that managed to escape that problem?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
RogueMortal wrote:

All of the discussion in this thread just makes me glad my group agreed to swap over to Spheres of Power.

The whole summoner argument has always confused me. Synthesist was called OP when it was the weakest option via loss of action economy. Early access spells were broken because the class that had reasons to buff the summons more than a wizard "made no sense" and because some DMs didn't say No when calculating items. Then again I never had much issue there either. Heck, the spells that allow saves suck to get early because lower DC. And it made perfect sense for them to get summon SLAs up to 9th and Gate because that was their theme.


Eidolons weren't broken - classes that couldn't get pounce are.
Early access spells aren't a problem - a GM feeling like they're not allowed to say "no, you can't find that particular version of that magic item" is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh no, how unfortunate that the Summoner only gets a class feature instead of an entire other character now.

Sorry, but this is just a bad comparison.

It speaks MUCH more to the weakness of the Fighter than it does to the strengths of the Eidolon.
I mean, no one says that the Eidolon is better than a Barb/Pally/Ranger. Only better than the Fighter.

The obvious ways are, "be mounted" which comes with potential logistical problems (thos mount issues, tho...), or "get Pounce" which has the drawback of requiring a charge.

What are other ways to build a melee type that doesn't get totally shut down by movement?

A response to Lars Andersen's video:

Anzyr wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

What I find interesting though is that the spells you list for the Divine casters really aren't all that impressive.

Antilife Shell is a pretty impressive defense (when it works), but it does nothing to help you actually defeat your foe. And since hit-and-run tactics are incredibly expensive (feat-intensive) and not very good for the cost, most people won't take them, which makes dashing in, hitting someone on the other side of the shield, and retreating a non-option in most games.

Planar Ally is always touted as a great spell. And it is a great spell. But no one ever mentions the totally unreliable, up-to-the-GM, cost. Yes, maybe that outsider COULD help in this situation, but maybe you can't afford them.

Harm is, basically, the only really good offensive spell on the entire Divine list, and it definitely has it's drawbacks: It cannot kill your target and it must be used in melee.
It's basically the Divine version of Disintegrate, except nowhere near as good.

Greater Dispel Magic is an amazing spell, but is not Divine only (which is relevant to this particular discussion).

Spellcrash is an awful spell. It's like you counterspelled (which is an awful strategy in this ruleset), except you're guaranteed to remove only your foe's weakest spell option, because the spell lost is chosen by the target, not picked at random.

Read a guide on all the good divine spells there are then come back. Harm is the only good offense? I think you aren't looking hard enough.

I've read several guides on divine spells. Offense is just not that spell list's forte. Granted, when I was describing Harm, I was talking in terms of direct-damage. (I mean, what else do they have? Flame Strike? Weak sauce!)

Yes, Divine can be good at debuffing, but almost all the good offensive debuffs are touch range, and being in melee combat isn't where I want my spellcaster to be.

Look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a grid intersection. It covers 12 squares total.

Now look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a square (treated as reach because how else would you measure it?). It covers 21 squares.

Almost. Freaking. Double.

This question NEEDS an answer. The fact that it's been 4 years since it was asked and it has gone totally ignored is obscene.

1 to 50 of 1,557 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.