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

1,580 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,580 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvino wrote:
"Tucker's Kobolds".

You're evil and I love you. xD

MeanMutton wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Just have the dungeon collapse on their heads after they cut through a structural load baring wall. Maybe give them a knowledge:engineering check to be sporting about it. Nip it in the bud. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done....
Don't do this.
Or do it. You'll kill off all your players and they wouldn't need to play with a GM that would do this anymore.
Why because then your characters would realize that actions have consequences?
Because "rocks falling on your heads killing everyone because you did something I don't like" is the exact, word-for-word definition of the absolute worst type of GM.

Actually, since this situation is entirely in the "GM Fiat" area of the rules, the worst person at the table is the player who keeps arguing with the GM over a ruling.

Ceiling collapse is entirely justified. +1

Are you suggesting that if you have all 3 "save increasing" feats, that the penalty remains a -1?
That seems to be your argument, but doesn't follow the wording of the mechanics in question.

dragonhunterq wrote:


Bolster jinx only increase the penalty to saving throws. It is a specific increase in specific circumstances. Your jinx value outside of those circumstances is still -1.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, as Jinx normally only affects saving throws.

Sluggish Jinx reads:
Benefit: Your jinx’s penalty on saving throws also applies to the target’s initiative and attack rolls.

So if I have Bolster Jinx, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will, the "Jinx penalty on saving throws" is very clearly a -3; if you have none of those 3 extra feats, it is clearly a -1.
However, if you only have Bolster and one or two of the other three, then it is no longer obviously a -1 or a -3.

Korlos wrote:

Malicious eye says "When a creature fails its save against your evil eye hex, add the effect of your jinx to the effect of the hex."

To me, this reads that you apply the base -1 Jinx penalty to the target's attack and intiative. It doesn't change the value of the jinx penalty, you just apply it in an additional circumstance.

That's exactly how that works, yes.

Bolster Jinx, however, changes the value of your jinx effect, but not entirely across the board (as it depends on which save-bolstering feats you possess). Your "jinx effect" is no longer always a -1, so which value is correct?

Say a Halfling Witch has the following feats:
•Malicious Eye (Evil Eye assumed)
•Sluggish Jinx
•Great Fortitude
•Bolster Jinx

So your Evil Eye target takes an additional penalty on Initiative and Attacks equal to your Jinx penalty to saves, thanks to Sluggish Jinx/Malicious Eye. Except the Jinx penalty is different for different saves because of Bolster Jinx + Great Fort.

Assuming lowest values:
Evil Eye is a -2 penalty, and Jinx is a -1 Penalty.
So with Bolster+GF added in, save penalties are:
Fort -5
Ref -3
Will -3

So what is the penalty that is actually applied to Attack/Init values? Do you go with the -3 because that is an actual Jinx value? Or the -1, which is also an actual Jinx value? (Values -2 because Evil Eye must be applied separately to affect Attack and it doesn't affect Init at all.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Simply put, the fact that Unchained is happening at all is proof that there is plenty of room for "Pathfinder: Revised" or whatever.
It's just also proof that Paizo is fully aware that people are fickle and will be scared away by "branding A" but feel totally safe with the same product using "branding B."

"A new edition? NO THANK YOU! Definitely not interested in change! I've invested too much already!"
"A ton of revisions, but still the same old PFRPG? I'm okay with that, even though there's functionally no difference between this option and the other one that I totally shot down earlier, other than this option will take multiple releases to get to the same point that a single new edition release would offer."

:eyeroll smiley here:

Personally, I don't care which route Paizo thinks is best. All I know is that there is a TON of stuff cluttering up the rules (much of it relics from 3.5, but some of it born from trying to convert from 3.5 and falling short of the mark) that needs to be cleaned up.
Unchained is a great start. But that's all it is - a start.

Gorbacz wrote:
I'd kind of wish that people who don't play PFS would stop using the "bbbbut PFS!" in arguments about what they can do in their home games.

Except rules don't matter at all in home games, so there's no point in discussing what effects errata/faq/whatever has on the game in terms of what you do at your own table.

Milo v3 wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

I'm totally looking forward to playing an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in the next PFS game I can find.

Backwards compatibility for the win!

I'm not really sure why you are mentioning PFS in regards to backwards compatibility. PFS is a set of houserules that don't even let you use the Summoner class from APG, it has no connection to backwards compatibility.

Just to point out that "sanctioned play" doesn't allow for any non-Paizo material (at least none that I can find looking through the PFS Guild Guide or the "PFS Additional Resources" link on

Probably because, as most people have figured out, the balance between 3.5 and PF is wildly different. If it were truly a backwards compatible game, that wouldn't be true.

I'm totally looking forward to playing an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in the next PFS game I can find.

Backwards compatibility for the win!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a quick question to all the people using the, "If I can't keep using my PF books, then I'm not interested in a Revamp/2nd Edition/Whatever."

If that's true, why are you playing PF right now instead of 3.5?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Perhaps one should ask Wizards of the Coast about how the switch from 3rd to 4th edition worked for them:-)

At least that's why I found pathfinder :-)

Dumb argument is dumb, and here's why:

1st to 2nd was amazingly successful.
2nd to 3rd was revolutionary. It changed the D&D scene for decades to come.
4th to 5th has been very successful so far as well.

So one bad transition (can't even call it a flop, because 4th Edition has plenty of fans) is a really good track record. By that metric, Paizo can only hope they're as competent as WotC if they ever decide to go for a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

different levels of "fantasy-ness" allowed for different character options,
I mean, there are high fantasy martials, there are non high fantasy ones too. Why does the existence of the non high fantasy ones bother?

Probably because there is no option for "non-high fantasy" casters.

So if you wanna play a more down-to-earth martial, you can, but all his caster friends are going to always be leaps and bounds above him.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
I guess I should amend what I said to state that compared to any other company I have seen, the amount of feedback is astounding.

How does this reputation build itself?

I've been a part of many many different gaming communities over the years, and every. Single. One. seems to have this reputation for being "that one company where the staff actually offers feedback and communicates with the playerbase on the regular, when no other company does."
It's just simply not true. Most companies are quite involved in public discussion and feedback.

DM_Blake wrote:
A bunch of stuff.

Here's the thing about your Barb/Wizard comparison though: When equally built, the Wizard is always superior to the Barb. The "7 abilities" the Barb has don't compare to the "2 abilities" the Wizard has.

You don't have to design each class identically in order to achieve balance (ie: your suggestion about every class being designed, instead, with three abilities, and it's similarity to the failed 4th Edition.)
But what you *do* have to do, is build every class in a way that, when you combine all of the various moving parts of that class, the overall power level you come out with is similar across the board.

Wizards of the Coast failed at that.
Paizo has taken Wizard's failed forumla and run with it, without making enough changes to compensate, so it continues to fail. (Hence how Martial/Caster disparity has been an issue for several decades, and no end to it can be seen in the immediate future. But that's for another topic.)

If the Barb abilities, all "7" of them added up, come to "10" in power, than the Wizard's "2" abilities come to "15."
I don't see what's wrong with suggesting that some of the variables in the Barb equation be raised so that their end number comes closer to the Wizard end number.

Hopefully that made sense. =P

No, really.
1 point at level 7 makes no difference.
5 points at level 20 means you might survive the TPK one round longer than everyone else. Two if you're super-lucky. But it won't swing the fight in your favor.

There's a reason most Barbs go Invulnerable Rager - Because it turns flimsy DR into DR you aren't embarrassed by.

So, that being said... Would it even be all that unbalanced to just change the standard Barb DR scale to work like the Invuln Rager scale, and just award 1 point every other level?

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The idea behind a professional skill is to cover what other skill do not. Since just about any professional skill a barbarian is likely to take is covered by another skill it makes since that they don’t have professional skills as a class skill. Keep in mind the professional skill only gives the ability to make money with the skill. It does not actually give you any other abilities. So professional skill goat herder would not give you the ability to herd goats that would require animal handler which the barbarian does have

Except for "Profession: Sailor."

If you want to be good at piloting a ship, you definitely need Prof: Sailor. *nods*

James Jacobs wrote:

Remember that in Pathfinder, the difference between a class skill and a non-class skill is not much more than a +3 bonus. If you want a barbarian goat herder, give him ranks in Profession (goat herder). A 10th level barbarian goat herder with a Wisdom 10 would have a +10 Goatherding check, while a 10th level rogue goat herder with a Wisdom 10 would have a +13. Really not that big of a deal. And if you really wanted your barbarian goat herder to gain that +3 bonus, there's plenty of ways to get it. Such as simply multiclassing 1 level into a class that has Profession as a class skill. Or taking Skill Focus (Profession [goat herder]).

The reason we didn't give barbarians the Profession skill comes down to the simple fact that you need to be in a civilization to have a Profession. If you're a barbarian, you don't need a job. You get what you want by making Survival checks and attack rolls.

I know this is a really old quote, but two things tickle my brain about it:

1- Rangers and (especially) Druids spend most of their time divorced from civilization. Rangers may be half in/half out, but Druids are wholly apart... Yet they still get a Profession Class skill. Lol.


2- The first part of this argument, essentially saying "eh, it's just a +3 bonus, so what does it really matter?" is actually a VERY strong argument for just abolishing Class Skill bonuses entirely.
After all, it's just a +3 - hardly worth getting worked up over.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Wrath wrote:


Mate, thank you very much for linking that chat. It was really good.

I must say, it is very hard to argue from my current stance (no issue in power disparity), when even one of the main designers of the game disagrees.

<sigh> I shall take this opportunity to eat humble pie and leave you to your thread.

What does he disagree with? I don't have the opportunity to watch the link because work reasons.

tl;dr - "Duh, casters are way more powerful than non-casters. And we knew it, and it didn't even take long to figure out." (paraphrased)

bookrat wrote:
That would give the brick a hardness of 5. So you only have to do three more points of damage to overcome the hardness of a stone than you would brick before you start damaging it. Easily doable by a 20th level fighter, as our only fighter example this thread can do 27-30 points of damage per unarmed strike. So really, he's punching/kicking/head butting through an inch of stone per hit, or with a full attack 4 inches of stone a round (every six seconds). It'll take him only 30 rounds to completely punch through that 10' column.

Except that damage potential isn't the only consideration when it comes to breaking objects.

If you can do 1000 damage with a feather, it still won't break the wall.

Concrete and bricks are not stone. They're a creation designed to be similar to stone, but more easy to shape, which makes them more brittle and easy to break by nature than unworked stone.

Also, in EVERY SINGLE BRICK-BREAKING EVENT EVER, the bricks are stacked with spacers. Do you know why? Because without that space between each brick, the competitor would definitely not be able to break them. (And even for those foolish enough to attempt breaking without spacers, there is ~always~ [guaranteed] to be an open space beneath the bricks. There is a reason for this.)

A wall is not designed to be broken - it is designed to withstand.
There is a world of difference between the two, and to argue otherwise is, simply put, silly.

[Edit - Not to mention, being able to even break a single brick requires significant conditioning. You can't just "do it, just cuz." You never see novice martial arts breaking bricks - only the advanced do that. There's a reason for this.]

alexd1976 wrote:

Naked Fighter is designed to smash things.

If I swapped ONE feat out, the build I posted would do 1D3+26 with a bare-knuckled punch.

He permanently deafens AND blinds people on criticals (which are auto-confirmed, threaten on a 19+ and do x3 damage), DC 30 FORT save (for each effect).

A critical hit from this guy will do at LEAST 81 points of damage, with his bare hands, NAKED. In addition to probably blinding and deafening you.

Tell me this man can't break stone, I dare you.

Stop trying to crap on martials and at least let them do what the rules let them do!

Said "Naked Fighter" is more likely to break his hand than the wall, and any GM that rules so would be well within their rights.

As to "let them do what the rules let them do," we are! The rules specifically state that some weapons simply do not damage some objects if they are not designed to. Human appendages are not designed to tunnel through stone, therefore your damage potential is irrelevant as Naked Fighter's fist do none.
According to the rules.

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

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.
What are you basing that opinion on?

The part of the rules, already linked above, that states some weapons just don't damage some objects.

There is no reason to treat spells special in this case, and a blast of fire will do nothing to stone (especially considering Fireball lacks concussive force).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 of 1,580 << 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.