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

1,473 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,473 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Reebo Kesh wrote:

Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?

I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.

A common example is the "I must wield one type of weapon and commit all my feats to it!" then a nice piece of gear is found and they PCs just sell it.

I'd love a game system where you don't know what you get at the next level, of course this would only work once per player per class.

Maybe a more gestalt approach would work. You build a base character who can fight and as she progresses in levels she seeks out things she'd like to do - become a mage, a rogue, join a church etc


Personally? I'd love to play a character like this. To totally ignore any sort of planning/meta-gaming/etc and just "roll with the punches" when it comes to build decisions.

The problem, is that Pathfinder is HORRIBLE for this kind of play. Absolutely awful.
There are literally thousands of really bad character options in this game, and a small handful of good ones. If you don't pre-plan your character, you're likely going to either spend WAY too much time leveling up, or picking awful options because, at the time, they seemed like a good idea.

I should clarify that I don't think Clerics are a *bad* class (the only bad classes, IMO, are Fighters, Monks, and Rogues).
I just think if you're looking to fill any of the roles they can fill, you'll always have a better option available.

Divine Self-Buffer? Paladin, Inquisitor, and Warpriest are all superior to Cleric.
Party Buffer/Healer? Oracles and Shaman are both superior to Cleric here.
Debuffing? It's a risky strategy for anyone, but Arcane tends to do it more reliably.
Summoner? Arcane just simply does it better, whether it's a Conjurer, a Summoner, an Arcanist, etc.
Necromancy? You're pretty good here, but get to deal with all the roleplay issues. Aaaand Oracle does it better.

And if the default argument in their favor is that, "you can do all those things!" Well, you really can't. It's possible, sure, but being unfocused in your goal tends to increase the odds that you won't have prepared the right tool for the job when you need it. (It's why Wizards automatically have Scribe Scroll, after all.)

I'm clearly in the minority, but I don't agree Clerics are all that great. Let me explain:

•Buffing - In a low/no magic game, Cleric buffs are *amazing.* But most people don't play those games, because the game isn't good at supporting it without a LOT of modification, and most GMs aren't looking to make their hobby into their career. So what you more often find is that you have this huge spell list with tons of options that are majorly bad because most buffs you can throw out will not stack with the magic items that everyone is going after (namely, the "big 6").
Also, cast times are a real pain when your job is buffing. Standard Action spells are fine, but if you have to stack a few to really matter, then half the combat is missed because you were busy prepping for combat. Buffing your party means lots of spells burned and actions used. Buffing yourself requires at least 2 rounds of sitting there chanting instead of actually participating. And, finally, the few spells that are actually really good and always worth casting to buff the party? Not Cleric-exclusive. You could be doing these buffs on a stronger caster.

•Debuffing - Given the Divine spell list, this option is stronger than buffing as a strategy. Clerics have a lot of really nice offensive spells to choose from.
Here's the problems: Your alignment can very easily cut you off from a lot of this offensive goodness. Yes, most people typically "cop out" with a Neutral alignment, but most groups aren't looking for a Negative Energy channeler - they want the Positive Energy for potential healing.
Here's the other problem with being a "Bad Touch" Cleric; most of your good debuffs are SoS/D spells, which means they do nothing when the enemy makes their save. No one likes watching their entire turn wasted because of a fizzled spell, and the game does not support strong ways to increase your save DCs.

•Healing - You *can* do this role, and you can do it pretty well. But as other have said already, "active healing" is a poor tactic, as killing the enemy faster is always the best way to prevent damage done. Healing up after combat with stupid-cheap wands will always be superior to preparing and/or converting spells into Cures.
Also, as others have said already, Life Oracles are much better at emergency heals than Clerics are. Much much better.

•Summoning - This is a pretty solid tactic, but you aren't great at it. It requires going through lots of specific hoops in order to get your Summons down to a Standard Action cast time, and even then, your list of potential summons is butchered by your alignment restrictions. A solid tactic that you are totally capable of doing, but is always done better by another class.

•Necromancy - Finally, the one thing you can do well. Very well! But you must channel negative energy instead of positive (already covered that this isn't what most people who want a Cleric in their group are looking for) and it can be very hard to deal with all that undeath following you around in role-play situations if you're not willing to totally hand-wave away the awkwardness it should (rightfully) bring to every situation.
Also, it can be expensive to boot.
Also, Oracles arguably do it better.

How do you feel about this exploit?
On the one hand, it's one of the few reliable ways to recharge Arcane Reservoir without resting.
On the other hand, this seems like a really *expensive* ability to use. Destroying single-use consumables for a single point. Eating up 5 whole charges from a wand? (That's 5 spells for one point! [rarely 2 points]).

Just can't decide if it's really worth it. Thoughts?

I feel like the OP was saying the GM complains when a player has AC higher than 18, or an ability that causes them annoyances (like negating crits).
Because the very next sentence starts with, "But as a DM, my minions..."

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
Slow is an incredibly potent spell, but there is a reason most Wizards leave that one on the shelf and prepare Haste instead; Haste won't be saved against.

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.
Seems like a good idea, right?
Except the good argument against sunder is that it costs quite a bit of character investment to be reliable, and actually sundering a thing requires more than a single hit in most cases. Which means multiple rounds just to give a small penalty. Which means it's generally not worth it.

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!)
No, instead most GMs will turn to the trusty Bestiary which means monsters which tend to come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, sometimes with multiple legs.
It's a VERY uphill battle. Usually not worth the effort. (Yeah, it's nice that Mr. Lore Warden decided to be a tripper, but the gargantuan dragon just doesn't care.)

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?
Yeah, it's another losing strategy for the most part. (Great when it works, just hardly works.)

When it all comes down to it, the most successful strategy for any encounter is going to be, "buff up and beat it repeatedly."
It's a pretty boring and unimaginative playstyle, but that's how Pathfinder rolls. Unfortunately.

FoB is still "free" in the sense that it doesn't cost you a feat. It also allows for more freedom of attack choices than traditional TWF does. (Flurry - Hands are bound? No problem. TWF - Offhand was disarmed/sundered? Too bad, no more TWF for you.)

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.
I'd keep the initial Dex 13 requirement (mostly for flavor) and just forgo the higher Dex requirements.

To the initial question, combining the TWF line into a single, scaling feat is totally fine. Not broken at all. Heck, not even bent.

And if you do, how long do you manage before it gets tiring and campy?

PrinceRaven wrote:
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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't support this idea that the Cleric/Oracle spell list is as amazing as people are saying.
I just recently rolled with a Cleric and had constant issues picking spells to prepare:

•Most buff spells are overridden by magic item bonuses.
•Most buff spells come at such a slow progression that you're getting a VERY minor use out of them (ie: this spell grants a +3, which doesn't stack with his/her +2, so this 4th level spell only amounts to a +1... why did I bother again?)
•The powerful restorative and/or planar spells usually come with a hefty monetary cost.
•Most people never make it to the Miracle levels.

Granted, this is from the perspective of a good-aligned Cleric.
But even Bad Touch Clerics have their issues.
•Most spells are SoS/D which are awful when they fail.
•Spells that maintain an effect even on a failed save require an attack roll, usually melee, which you aren't awful at, but aren't great at either.

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.
[Edit - Forgot to mention you get some good Divination stuff, but you still can't hold a candle to Wiz/Sor Divination options.]

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.

PrinceRaven wrote:
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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
As should Power Attack.
As should Combat Expertise.
And so on and so fourth...

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.]

HP, as it stands right now, is not flavorful at all. I agree.
But it's one of those areas that could have been flavorful if they put more creative thought into it when designing. But that one's not really on Paizo, it's on the original creators.

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.
•Most feats are bad.
•Most spells are bad (yes, *some* spells are so good they break the game, but most of them don't.)
•HP is bad. (It's functional enough for all-out-combat, but anything else and it stops making sense.)
•The utter lack of a social mechanic system is bad.
•The utter reliance on magic items is bad.

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. :)

I don't believe Native Outsiders get the profs.

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.
Paizo is a *publishing company.* There is literally no excuse not to get clear and correct grammar in their products.

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?)
And with such arguments, you must be careful. It's easy to go far enough down this particular rabbit hole to get to, "Well then why even buy the rules at all if it's up to me to figure it all out anyway?" That way madness lies. ;)

Ascalaphus wrote:

...with ((light) or (one-handed piercing) melee weapons)

...with ((light or one-handed) piercing melee weapons)

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure which one is correct. Normally Weapon Finesse applies to all light weapons, so why not now? On the other hand, the swashbuckler class has this obsession with piercing weapons.

If we look at Slashing Grace (risqué, I know), it turns a one-handed slashing weapon into a one-handed piercing weapon. Why not a light slashing weapon? If we use the first derivation, because it isn't needed. If we use the second one, because the feat is broken.

I like to think my English is pretty good, but I'm not a native speaker. And I can't figure out if one of those derivations is truly more correct than the other. My English (and possibly that of many others) was not learnt through systematic mastery of grammar, but by reading and listening. And those don't equip you to decide things this subtle. So I think the text could use some polishing, if only for the international audience.


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?

Rynjin wrote:
and a bunch of pages on a class/archetype design philosophy Paizo rarely follows

A troubling trend I have also noticed. :/

Re: Skald and Shaman
I could have sworn these were not getting their full lists, but it seems I remembered wrong. :/

Re: Magus
I've never personally played one, but I noticed they get their own spell list and figured it was broken down for them much like the Summoner's is. If that's not the case and it's still mostly just a copy/paste of the Sor/Wis list at the same spell levels, then yeah, that one's a problem too.

Re Bloodrager
If half the spell list is useless, then something has gone wrong, either with the class, or with the spells. Personally, I think it's both.

I'm willing to concede the point on the Hunter list. (There's plenty of other things that make the class horrible, after all. ;) )

However, the other classes still apply. :)

Indulge me a moment?
Let's take a look at the Greenrager archetype for the Bloodrager class.
The whole point of this archetype is to turn the Bloodrager into a mini-summoner. You gain Summon Nature's Ally 1-4, and the things you summon gain bonuses depending on your level.

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.
A Greenrager is level 13 before he can cast SNA4. From what I can see, Tiger is the best option on the list.
A CR4 animal.
Even with the bonuses you give it, how does it not get one or two-shot by the enemies you are going to be facing at level 13+? Answer: It always does. If you are lucky, it gets it a single attack routine. If you are even more lucky, it manages to land a few attacks. And then it's dead.

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.
Look at the Fire Shield spell. It's a pretty weak option for a spell even when you can cast it as at Wizard-levels (level 7, in case you were wondering). So in what world is it a good option to take when you have to wait until character level 13 to cast it as a Bloodrager, when it wasn't even a very solid option 5 levels prior?

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.
There is a reason why Rangers aren't stuck with a stunted Druid list.
There is a reason why Bards aren't stuck with a stunted Sorcerer list.
There is a reason why Magi aren't stuck with a stunted Wizard list.
There is a reason why Summoner isn't stuck with a stunted Sorcerer list.
There is a reason why Inquisitor isn't stuck with a stunted Cleric list.
Why don't the new classes get the same consideration?

For a low/no-magic game I'm a big fan of the Tetori Monk archetype, personally.
It's even better if you take it as an Oread and devote enough race feats to get Oread Earth Glider (wanna get to that spellcaster? Just burrow past all the melee/difficult terrain/etc, pop up, and grapple him out of the fight!).

So, essentially, "It's evil cuz we said so."


Oh well, that's the only answer this question has ever gotten, so I guess it's the only answer it's ever going to get.
Thanks for the time!

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:

The fact that they're evil is explained by the overwhelmingly evil magic that creates them.

There are, in other words, variants that do what folks want. You just can't create those variants via necromancy.

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:
Lemmy wrote:
4- How do you roleplay alignment for mindless creatures without making them... Uh... Not mindless.
4) Like zombies in any zombie movie you see.

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:
deuxhero wrote:
Pharasma hates undead: Is this only a restriction on her clergy, or does it effect her soul judging stuff as well?
Undead prevent a soul from being judged. As long as you're undead, your soul is trapped. That's why pretty much all undead are evil. Being undead throws a monkey wrench into the cycle of souls and life, and that's why Pharasma hates them.

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 assume the logic for Golarion is that judgement happens at or near the moment of death. So, to skip that moment by becoming undead instead of just dying (such as with the creation of a Lich, for example) perfectly follows your logic. But are you suggesting that the 100 year old battlefield littered with buried dead haven't been judged yet? After all, their corpses can be raised, and if raising undead prevents their soul from being properly judged and sent on to it's personal afterlife, then why were all these souls stuck in 100 years of limbo?
What about the 15,000 year old T-Rex skeleton that a necromancer finds? Why couldn't the dino get a soul judgement in all that time?

[I promise, I'm not being snarky! I really am curious about these! :) ]

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I totally agree with Juda de Kerioth. Consider this:

Fighter A and Fighter B.
Fighter A has a magical sword enchanted with the "Flaming" enchantment.
Fighter B has a magical wand of Lightning Bolt.

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 A speaks the word, and lo! Magical flames dance to life along the edges.

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."
Fighter B speaks the word, and nothing happens. Nothing at all.

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?)

blahpers wrote:
I dunno. I'm a good swimmer and a passable climber, but I can't jump worth a damn.

I have really good hearing but my vision is awful. Should we go back to Search/Listen/Spot?

You do the best you can for simulation rules.

wraithstrike wrote:
Barathos wrote:


Cool, the ranger and rogue (the most scout-like classes) already have it on their class skills list already anyway. Why should a fighter (the front line soldier) be as good at perception as the ranger (the scout)?


Excellent point, but they still observe more than a common "do as you're told" soldier.

Fighters are not just front line hit point bags. They also serve as the military, police, bodyguards, guards in general, and other things that need to be able to protect/guard people and things. Keeping those sneaky thieves/assassins/etc out is why they should have it.

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.
You know who the guard is? The guy with ranks in Profession: Guard. Maybe he's a fighter. Maybe he's a commoner. Maybe he's a wizard. Etc.

Say your party successfully defeats an extremely powerful lich. Huzzah!
Say then that your caster uses the Soul Bind spell on the defeated lich.
What happens? Does the lich's soul return to it's phylactery or does it get stored in the soul bind gem?

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!).
•Components list doesn't clarify if lots of onyx adding up to the required amount works, or if you need a single piece of the stuff per undead animated/created. This also ties into the above point - if trying to create a 18HD undead (a common number, as that's a T-Rex which make for great undead), that's 900gp worth of Onyx, and that's a LOT of onyx, *especially* if it has to be a single piece!

Bringing a Juju (pre-errata) Oracle into my current game and I'm just looking for good ideas on spells to take. Spells are largely pulled from 3.5 but I can argue for PF versions as well.
Any advice is appreciated as always.

The staff of wish isn't the neat part. It's the Arcane Sorcerer capstone combined with the staff that's the neat part.
Of course everyone's gonna have one, duh!
But you'll be the only one who doesn't have to bother with using charges. ;)

Rynjin wrote:
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

What are the ways I can go about doing this?
Case in point: I'm thinking of rolling up a Necromancer as a Cleric and doing the full "undead hordes" thing, but I still want to have access to the more fun necro spells, like Magic Jar.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Well, even there, you've out-optimized the OP, who had a cloak of resistance +2 at 13th level. With the 21,000 gp he didn't spend on that item alone, he can buy 420 vials of antitoxin.

On a broader note, you've basically built yourself a glass cannon there. While the "Big 6" are important, you don't necessarily need them that high at 13th level, and if you're complaining that spending that much money on the Big 6 reduces your character's flexibility, drop your cloak to +4, save 9000 gp, and tell the cleric to prepare guidance.

As far as the consumables are concerned, the published adventures assume that you're going to be blowing some of your money on consumables. If you play through an AP and don't ever use any consumables, you'll actually be over the WBL guidelines for that reason. (Well, until you need a status-removal spell.) But, of course, more to the point, status prevention is cheap compared to status removal. Antitoxin costs 50; a raise dead spell costs 5000.

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:
Magic Weapon is an awful spell, save for low/no magic games. It only lasts one combat, only affects one weapon of one party member, and is very quickly made obsolete once people start getting loot.
The greater version is only slightly better with a reasonable duration, but you're still using a 4th level slot to give one weapon of one party member a paltry bonus (that doesn't even count for overcoming DR). [If you're doubting how bad GMW is, just consider that an arcane caster can do it with a lower spell slot, and they almost never do because there are so many better options to fill that 3rd level slot with.]
Ditto the armor variant. Ditto save buff spells. Etc.

Divine casters should be dropping Protection spells, Summoning extraplanar allies, using *good* buffs like Heroism, Prayer, or Divine Power, etc.
However, if you're using your casters to make up for your lack of personal investment, well, let's just say I don't know many people who enjoy playing that caster. ;)

Here's what I'm getting at, coming from the other side of the wealth issue:

•Ring of Prot +3: 18,000
•Cloak of Res +5: 25,000
•Amulet of Nat +3: 18,000
•Magic Armor +4, no extra enhancements: 16,000
(Possibly a shield for another 9-16k)
•Magic Weapon +3, no extra enhancements: 18,000
•Belt of Giant Str, or Equiv +4: 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.
25k is supposed to cover any and all:
•Other magic items or enhancements (likely more fun ones at that - Handy Haversacks, Bags of Holding, Boots of Speed, Any other Ring, etc.).
•Consumables, magic or otherwise (Potions, Oils, Wands, etc.)
•Quality-of-life expenses (Raise Deads, Expensive Material Components, RP expenses, etc).

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."
So when you blow your stash, you may have survived *that* fight. But you don't have any money to replace it. And if you do spend your loot replacing it, you won't have the money to save to upgrade your "necessary" magic items.

(The "big 6" is really the problem here, but it doesn't help the topic to ignore that it is, in fact, a problem.)

Can someone build me a quick item list for a level 13 character who is, "prepared for everything" the way people seem to insist players at that level must be?

Follow WBL please. (I'm not holding my breath, fyi. :P )

Crafting antitoxins? *At least* one day per antitoxin. 4-6 person group means an entire week or more just sitting in town making these.
Most people play adventure paths - other than Kingmaker, which one gives you this much free time?

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.
Magic items are not guaranteed.

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.
Like it or not, OP has a valid concern.

(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.)

Well, I mean, it's pretty much guaranteed that whoever originally applied that vulnerability was thinking, "We burn wood as fuel, right? So Fire vuln makes sense, yeah?"

So I'm just taking that "real-world logic" and steering it back onto a correct path. ;)

Why are Treants vulnerable to fire? Wouldn't electric make more sense?
I mean, there's a reason we use fire for burning - it takes a long time to burn! Hence, it's more resistant than, say, the flesh and fat of a human, which burns and boils sooo easily. :)


Which makes it a pretty awful spell list too, unfortunately. (Cleric list is balanced around a 9th level caster, not a 6th level caster.)
It's a shame Paizo refuses to ever acknowledge that. :P

Claxon wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
And you were the one who originally said it was still "useful", but now are saying that it's "not great."

Useful doesn't mean it's great, or optimal. It means it has uses, and it does.

Think of it this's a ring of freedom of movement (normally costs 40000 gp) which can for an additional 16000 gp has the option to be and do other things if you want or need it to.

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.

I'd strongly consider replacing Necromancy as an opposition school with either Conjuration or Evocation.
Necromancy has some key fun spells that are always a pain to get rid of, but as an Illusionist, you can replace "lost" Evo or Conj spells with the Shadow variants.

I disagree on the "no full casters." Consider the Wizzrobes, Agahnim, Twinrova, Ganondorf, etc.

However, I'd limit them so that players can't choose full casting classes and that they appear very infrequently as enemies.

I wouldn't hold my breath on a better spell list (definitely one that doesn't list Haste, Slow, etc as both a 3rd and 4th though, lol). The current iteration is what we get after doing a bunch of complaining already (first iteration was just Sor/Wiz list).

Besides, game starts Friday anyway. :)

KutuluKultist wrote:
What is an issue is whether or not the bloodrager draconic bloodline counts as draconic bloodline for the dragon disciple class abilities.

Er, yeah, that's what I meant. /posting late

1 to 50 of 1,473 << 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.