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

1,490 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

When you say, "that actually works," what are you looking for?

Just a class that can do good damage? Paladin and Ranger/Slayer would be your best bet.

A class that can actually TWF and isn't just an essentially reskinned 2H character? Anything that will let you get more than a single attack even after a move: Mobile Fighter, Two Weapon Warrior, Battle Oracle if you can make it to lvl 20, anything that will get you Pounce such as Barbarian, etc. This way is more fun, but does less damage because of being reliant on a high Dex.

Then what's the point of listing the parent class?

Both playtest releases included rules that you could not multiclass any Advanced Class with it's Parent Class.
Did they remove that rule in the final product?

Optimize it to do/be what?
Need more info, OP.

wraithstrike wrote:
Neo2151 that Rage-Pouncing Barbarian(paladin smiting BBEG into oblivion also) vs the spell has been explained. If you do not agree with the assertations then explain why.

Can you give me a link(s)? I'll get back to you after I've read said explanations.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


8) Taking control of characters away from players.
I feel like this is essentially an argument for, "If I'm not winning, then I'm not having fun," which is a nonsense point of view, IMO. (Applies equally to GM or Players). D&D/Pathfinder is a simulation storytelling game. It's about telling exciting stories and overcoming challenges. Sometimes those challenges involve putting characters into situations where they do what the sheet says they do, instead of what the player says they do. If you don't like that, then there are TONS of video games where you don't have to deal with such consequences.

7) "Required items."
This really isn't an issue unless your GM is being bad. As someone mentioned earlier, "theme" should be a very important part of a game, and your in-game foes are no exception. Sure, you *can* just throw random unrelated encounters at your players, but that's just lazy storytelling.

6) The perception skill.
I disagree that this is a problem. I actually think it was a mistake to combine the old Search/Spot/Listen skills, honestly. Yes, from a power-gamer's pov, it's a godsend, but maybe my character has great eyesight but lost a lot of their hearing from *insert backstory.*
I think there's a lot of flaws in PF Skills (some class lists are bad, no one really has enough points to make a 'real' person, etc.), but, "Perception isn't free" isn't one of them.

5) Stuff you can't fix.
I'm not totally convinced that this is such a problem, but I'll admit I do see the merit of your argument. Probably a much bigger issue for PFS than for home games.

4) Required magic items.
Totally agree. "Required" magic items are stupid, and the Devs are bad for designing encounters with the assumption that you *will* have certain items in favor of others. This is probably the biggest reason I hesitate to play PF these days instead of other games, like DDN.

3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
Much like #5, I'm not sure how much of a problem it really is, but if someone came along and added rules like, "if you make your save you're immune to this creature's whatever for the rest of combat," it wouldn't hurt my feelings any.

2)"Save or suck"/1) Save or die.
This one. Oh man, this one. I will NEVER understand the community and their tears about this one!
So it's totally fair and okay for the Rage-Pouncing Barbarian to one-shot the enemy, but if a Wizard does it with waggly fingers the rules are somehow broken and unfair?
Oh please, such hypocrisy!
Look, we all know that Magic is stronger than Melee, but the fault doesn't lie with magic being too good - it lies with melee having too many senseless restrictions, based on the framework of the game.
"I can move and still cast a spell, but if I move I sacrifice most of my attack potential." That's not magic's fault, it's the fault of faulty combat rules.

Look, no one likes getting one-shot (and I will agree with the idea that SoL are much preferable to SoD), so let's at least be honest about the argument yeah? The problem isn't SoS/D, the problem is one shot mechanics. And in that vein- Pouncing Barbarians, Charging Cavaliers, Smiting Paladins, etc. are all also equally part of the problem.
Either that, or there is no problem, and people should quit griping over magic.

Either 2x Effortless Lace or the idea is a bust at such a low level.

That said, I'd go with rorek55's suggestion, just swapping the Wakizashi feats for Scimitar feats (maybe turning the exotic weap prof into Two weap rend?)

Weirdo wrote:

Some themes are in short supply on the cleric's spell list. They do not get a single first level trickery-themed spell.

Inquisitors don't make fantastic divine tricksters, either. Their spell list is much more focused on finding things out than concealing things. They get Disguise Self, Invisibility, and Nondetection, and that's about it. They notably lack charm/suggestion, Glibness, the entire line of Image spells, and higher level illusions like Mislead and Seeming (or indeed any illusion that can target something other than themselves). Really none of the 5th or 6th level inquisitor spells strike me as suitable for a trickster. Domain spells don't fix this because inquisitors don't get them.

Druids can fill in for some elemental clergy but they come with their own baggage that might not fit the deity in question. For example, a forge-god might appreciate the fire and earth spells on the druid list but not the prohibition against wearing metal armour. Not to mention that Wild Shape, the class's signature ability, doesn't make sense for all deities. The huntress deity in my current campaign is a sworn enemy of shapechangers. A clergy member who used wild shape would be heretical and executed by their own church, but the cleric & inquisitor spell lists lack the nature magic she should grant. Until the Hunter came out she didn't have great options for clergy.

And while your clergy don't have to be divine casters it doesn't make sense for a deity not to invest their chosen servants with some form of divine power.

This person gets it.

The question is how to make the spells match the Domain/Mystery, not how to make the character match the theme.
I'm just using character examples to illustrate the point, not to say, "I don't know how to make a devote follower of X god."

I think the point is being missed.

Consider you are a cleric of the god of Thieves. Maybe you read the Erevis Cale series and really want to emulate the character? Who knows.

So midnight arrives and it's time to prepare your spells. What do you prepare?
Bless? Protection from X? Summon Monster #? Divine Power? Righteous Might?
Cleric spells can be very good, but your list of options is in zero ways thematic with a shadowy character who is a devoted Cleric of the god of thieves, so what do you do?
Do you go "Bad Touch" and pretend that it makes sense?

Clerics of Healing/Protection are easy to prepare spells for.
Clerics of Destruction are as well.
Cleric Necromancers too.
Cleric Summoners even.
But if your god is Umberlee? Silvanus? Thor? How do you make your daily spell picks fit, or do you just ignore every domain that doesn't already fit with Cleric list options?

I fully understand it's all just a mess of terminology (hand vs "hand"). I'm just curious to see, officially, how deep the hole they've dug because of it goes.

Gisher wrote:

I don't think that is his intent, BadBird. If I understand his question, the scenario is something like this.

"I have a scimitar in one hand and my other is empty. I also have armored spikes. If I attack with both my scimitar and armor spikes, I can't use the Dervish Dance feat, because wielding the spikes counts as using a second hand (even though my actual hand is still empty).

But if I only attack with my scimitar, not using the spikes at all, then can I use the Dervish Dance feat? That is, do the armor spikes fill my 'hand' even if I am not actively using them?"

But I could be misinterpreting him.

Nope, that's exactly what I'm asking. :)

Because your armor spikes/boot blade/whatever are always "prepared" to be used in the offhand, there is a really good argument to be made that you're "carrying/holding" them in your off hand.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Many abilities come with the phrase, "may not be used when holding/carrying a weapon or shield in the off hand," or something similar that implies carrying and does not mention wielding.

One example is the Dervish Dance feat:

When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

Bolded for emphasis.

So the question is, if you are carrying a weapon that doesn't require a hand to use (such as a boot blade or armor spikes), then are you always considered to be "carrying a weapon in your off hand" even when not wielding that weapon?
If not, then how does it work, considering the RAW on "off hands" doesn't actually have anything to do with using the body part "hand?"

Any FAQ hits are appreciated. :)

So the Whirling Dervish idea absolutely don't work unless you ignore RAW in your home game.


Dervish Finesse (Ex)

A whirling dervish can treat a scimitar as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for the purposes of the swashbuckler's finesse and all feats and class abilities that refer to such a weapon. She must not be carrying a weapon or shield in her off hand to gain this benefit.

This ability alters swashbuckler finesse.

If you try to actually use that Boot Blade, it counts as your "off hand" and denies you the ability to use Dervish Finesse, which throws the whole idea out of whack.

If you DO ignore RAW, then go for it and have a blast! The RAW surrounding anything dex-to-damage is stupid anyway. ;)

This question applies to Oracles and Mysteries as well.

For example, the Trickery domain is wonderful and fun and the god(s) of thieves, assassins, etc. do all have their clergy, but the generic divine spell list is AWFUL for a stealthy, murderous assassin/thief type character.

Or Fire/Sun Cleric having only a tiny handful of fire based options.
Or a Water Cleric having even less than a tiny handful of water/ice based spells.

The Domain/Mystery bonus spells can only go so far. How do you reconcile the "few-trick pony" divine list with the various supported archetypes that don't fall in line?


Kneejerk assumption was Ninja/Oracle of Waves, but I can't get over just how awful the divine list is for an offensive character.

The bonus skills, spells, revelations, are all great, but the Cleric/Oracle spell list has so very few offensive and/or Ice/Water spells to complement the character.

Would a Sorcerer be a better fit maybe? I'm not sure.

Any advice is appreciated!

Based on your limitations, you've only really got two options:

•Urban Ranger + Skirmisher (Possibly +Guide as well)
Personally, I'd go the Ranger route.

-Rogues/Ninjas are going to be awful at TWF, regardless of what the fans of the class will tell you. (Mid-level BAB and no class to-hit bonuses? You'll be missing A LOT.)
-Bards/Investigators/Alchemists are also going to be bad at TWF and are likely too magical to boot (especially Bard.)
-Urban Barbarian could be fun, but probably won't be "rogueish" enough for the concept due to a serious lack of skill points.
-Swashbucklers are ~another~ class that just won't do the TWF for you, and are also skill point light.

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?

1 to 50 of 1,490 << 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.