|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Here's the problem with using tactics in Pathfinder: It's almost always the worse choice.
Debuffing? Why would you bother? There are some good, reliable debuffs in the game, but the large majority of them are going to be either terribly unreliable (poisons, for example) or spells that are SoL/D, and those have a tendency to just... fizzle.
The typical argument against sunder is bad. Things aren't just destroyed when they're sundered - they're broken. Broken things are still valuable, but they don't work as well while they're broken.
Tripping is very powerful, but most GMs are not going to spend their week stating out a bunch of humanoid NPC enemies for the party to fight (kudos to those GMs who are so dedicated!)
Grappling tends to have all the same problems that tripping does. If you play the class JUST RIGHT to be a grappler, you can pull it off. If you're just using it as a tactic, it's more than likely going to fail you most of the time.
Disarming only works when the enemy has things to disarm. Remember how most GMs pull from monsters? Monsters that tend to use natural attacks/spell-like abilities/etc instead of manufactured weapons?
When it all comes down to it, the most successful strategy for any encounter is going to be, "buff up and beat it repeatedly."
Why keep the Dex requirements? The style itself has enough built-in negatives that it's never really going to compete with 2H style, even with the additional feats like TWR.
To the initial question, combining the TWF line into a single, scaling feat is totally fine. Not broken at all. Heck, not even bent.
We have been infiltrated by that most dreaded of monster, the D&D 5th ed. player! Beware, for this encounter has a high Challenge Rating and strange abilities... In all seriousness, being able to just pick up a Rapier with a high DEX character and use it without having to spend valuable resources to become competent at doing so is one of my favourite things about 5th edition, along with full caster Bards.
To be fair, I've felt this way long before 5th Edition was even announced.But yes, I've been enjoying the heck out of it in 5th. ;D
I can't support this idea that the Cleric/Oracle spell list is as amazing as people are saying.
•Most buff spells are overridden by magic item bonuses.
Granted, this is from the perspective of a good-aligned Cleric.
Which takes me into Battle Clerics, which really shouldn't exist anymore thanks to Warpriests getting rid of their traditional hurdle: buffing time.
It seems like the only really good Cleric options are Minion Necromancy (VERY niche and doesn't work well in many groups) or a Channel Specialist, which requires heavy feat investment, something you are weak on as a Cleric.
tl;dr - I think Cleric would be WAY more fun if you play it in a game with very few/no magic items. But doing that on the Pathfinder chassis is SO problematic that it's largely not worth it.
Huh, didn't realise that was FAQ'd. I find it odd, as a reach weapon + Armour Spikes with TWF has been a build for quite a long time.
The rule was based on the idea that your "offhand" isn't literally your off-hand. It's an abstract construction to denote potential additional attack effects (ie: when you swing that 2h weapon, it eats up your main hand option, and your offhand option, even if you have other weapon styles available).
It's one of those rules that doesn't make any logical sense, but exists to limit the metagame.
Here's the real problem/issue: Most of these things shouldn't even be feats to begin with!
Weapon Finesse and any Improved variety where you get to add damage too should just be baked into the system.
The very LAST thing I want in a game that already has hundreds (thousands?) of feat options is more feats.
[Edit - Before the masses come-a-ragin' about how that would make Dex too good, no, it wouldn't. Reflex is the weakest save. AC is limited by armor type. Strength with Power Attack will still be doing more damage. The world wouldn't end. Str characters would live on.]
Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm not considering a bunch of things:
•Most classes do not have enough skill points. On a related note, most classes have skill lists that they should be ashamed of.
That's all that's coming to mind right now, since most of the above is responsible for why certain classes/archetypes are bad. But it's by no means an exhaustive list. :)
Does Swashbuckler Finesse work with non-piercing light weapons?
If the answer is no, then what is your evidence of this? Because the wording of the ability can absolutely be read and understood in a way that the above question is allowed. If you disagree, pick up an english book and find out how wrong you are.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it's a huge leap in logic to suggest that grammatically correct phrasing in a rule book will turn it into unreadable legal jargon.
As to the general argument of, "It is always up to the GM and players to decide how the rules work," well of course that's true. But educated decisions on homebrew rules can't be made without the correct interpretation of the original, printed rule. (ie: How do I know if I want to change a rule if I can't be sure how the rule actually works?)
No matter which interpretation you have decided is the right one, the OP is absolutely correct that the grammar is not clear.
This is a pretty sweeping problem that exists across the board for RPGs too. It'd be nice if someone (*cough* Paizo *cough*) might step up to the plate and start setting a standard that is above the already-low average.
Errata not needed in this case, minor grammatical issues like this are the whole reason we play with a GM who can discuss with the group and make the decision.
Not picking on this poster, but this is never a good argument. Sometimes, it's the GM asking the rules question. Why do we always assume it's a player?
Re: Skald and Shaman
Indulge me a moment?
My question - who cares?
Unless you need a summon for a utility feature (flying, burrowing, etc.) then the summons available to you are trash by the time you can actually summon them.
The entire point of an archetype defeated simply because it's focus came too late in the leveling career. Really?
This extends far beyond Greenrager too.
And the argument extends to all classes saddled with stunted spell lists:
Case in point: There is a reason Paladins aren't stuck with a stunted Cleric list.
For a low/no-magic game I'm a big fan of the Tetori Monk archetype, personally.
James Jacobs wrote:
But asking questions here, of me, the creative director, will not get answers for your home game or your campaign setting. I'm not the expert there.
Of course. :)I only ask in relation to Golarion. I'm the type of person who very much wants to know the *whys* behind creative decisions, so if I come off as "pesky" about a topic (especially a sensitive one like undead) I apologize! [Rule developers tend to drop the, "because that's just the way it is" non-answer. I like picking at creative director brains because you guys and gals tend to give more interesting, and more workable, answers than that. :) ]
That said, I just have one follow up line-of-thought question:
James Jacobs wrote:
So what, specifically in Golarion, is the evil here?Is all necromancy [Evil], and therefore all necromancy spells should be tagged as such?
Is it only negative energy that is [Evil] and all negative energy spells should be tagged as such?
Simply put, specific to Golarion, why is Animate Dead an evil spell but Harm is not? (Or if this isn't the case, then what IS the case?)
*Edited to put the correct spell*
James Jacobs wrote:
I've never seen any zombie movie where the zombies had any sort of morality or displayed any sense of alignment as we understand it via Pathfinder rules.They only ever display hunger, which is not evil.
Are non-undead things that share the same sort of "unnatural hunger" also considered [Evil]? Things like parasites, insects, diseases, etc.?
James Jacobs wrote:
Bringing up an oldie, but a goodie.Does this mean that Wizards who have discovered Immortality (via the arcane discovery) are also inherently evil, because they too are disrupting the natural order of the judgement of (their) soul?
Also, how does this logic apply to corpses who are long dead but only recently raised?
[I promise, I'm not being snarky! I really am curious about these! :) ]
I totally agree with Juda de Kerioth. Consider this:
Fighter A and Fighter B.
Fighter A is told, "If you speak the activation word etched into the pommel of the sword, magical flames will dance upon it's edges to harm your foes."
Fighter B is told, "If you aim the wand and speak the activation word etched into the grip, you will release a portion of the power stored inside the wand."
The rules behind these two styles of magic item are totally different, and therefore work differently. However, the description of their use is freakin identical. There is zero sensible reason for a Fighter to be able to active a magic weapon but not a magic wand. (Spell completion logic? Then why doesn't "completing the spell" dump out all 50 charges at once?)
Little late to the party, I know, but what exactly is it about the Fighter class that says, "I'm good at defending people,"?Or, "I'm good at spotting unusual things,"?
Or anything at all other than, "I'm good at killing,"?
Because I'm not seeing it.
Also, the idea that Class = Profession is just all sorts of wrong.
I'm curious how GMs and Players alike deal with the necromancer's favorite material component, considering fun facts like:
•Onyx isn't a very valuable rock, so 25g/50g chunks are going to be particularly huge (probably not fitting into any eye sockets!).
MAD is fine, within reason. I have 25 PB, and 4 MILLION gold to play with, so every stat gets a +11 right off the bat between belts/headbands and Inherent bonuses for sure.
4 Million gold, you say?You're in the unique position of being able to easily afford the required materials for a Staff of Wish!
If you don't take Arcane Sorcerer as half of your gestalt, and build this staff, then you bring shame on us all! :O
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Interesting. I was holding back a lil - Some of those +3s can be +4s without going over WBL guidelines. ;)
But mostly, what you're describing is using the Cleric as a buff-bot. It's kinda like the bad old days of using the Cleric as a heal-bot, except with buffs instead of heals.
And moreso, most Cleric buffs that you'd expect to replace enhancements are both boring and awfully inefficient until high levels anyway. For example:
Divine casters should be dropping Protection spells, Summoning extraplanar allies, using *good* buffs like Heroism, Prayer, or Divine Power, etc.
Here's what I'm getting at, coming from the other side of the wealth issue:
•Ring of Prot +3: 18,000
All of the above are assumed by design. If you don't have them, the CL numbers will be off. (Bonus amounts varying by character level, of course.)
That leaves 25,000 GP if you don't have to enchant a shield, and even less if you do.
So while the provided lists of consumables I see above do, in fact, cover lots of contingencies, I can't help but notice that it's a whole lot of "one-ofs."
(The "big 6" is really the problem here, but it doesn't help the topic to ignore that it is, in fact, a problem.)
Crafting antitoxins? *At least* one day per antitoxin. 4-6 person group means an entire week or more just sitting in town making these.
Cloak of Res? Unless the GM is handing these out like candy, there's no guarantee you'll be getting exactly what you need. Maybe you found a different magical cloak. Maybe the d% roll showed that +2 was the highest that Ye Olde Magick Shoppe had to offer. Maybe there was no Ye Olde Magick Shoppe.
Lots of contingencies to consider here before trashing on OP.
Seriously: Someone above said 70/30 is a good balance. That's totally true. But unless your GM loves and provides, the game doesn't really give you 70/30; It tends to give you 50/10.
(The opposite being true for spellcasters - Monsters have elevated saves that make spell DCs a joke half the time. No fun to watch things fizzle, and not everyone wants to play a God Wizard.)
That's a pretty weak argument, considering a Ring of FoM is a permanent effect (longer than 24 hours) and doesn't require a spell-caster to activate it daily.
Re: Elements, I was going to go with Green for acid to pick up Noxious Bite. (Since NB's DC is based on Breath DC, wouldn't Ability Focus: Breath increase the DC for both?)
For stats, I can lower Dex and Int for more Str. (I was initially worried about skills, but GM is adding 2 to every class, so that's not a thing. For Dex, it was really just about Init and AC, but 1 point won't make/break anything.)
Re: Bloodrager - My problems with bloodrager is that it's spell list is awful and unpolished (compare and contrast lvl 3 and lvl 4 lists) and I'm not sure if the "bloodline" works for the prereq (I guess it'd be a GM call).
I suppose my biggest concern is I don't want to go the minimum on Cha since it sets my breath DC, but I wanna focus primarily on melee and use spellcasting as a fallback.
I was leaning towards Barb2/Sorc3. Barb 3 is kind of a dead level and Barb 4/Sorc1 puts my buffs (other than 1st level) way behind schedule.