|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That's a pretty weak argument, considering a Ring of FoM is a permanent effect (longer than 24 hours) and doesn't require a spell-caster to activate it daily.
Re: Elements, I was going to go with Green for acid to pick up Noxious Bite. (Since NB's DC is based on Breath DC, wouldn't Ability Focus: Breath increase the DC for both?)
For stats, I can lower Dex and Int for more Str. (I was initially worried about skills, but GM is adding 2 to every class, so that's not a thing. For Dex, it was really just about Init and AC, but 1 point won't make/break anything.)
Re: Bloodrager - My problems with bloodrager is that it's spell list is awful and unpolished (compare and contrast lvl 3 and lvl 4 lists) and I'm not sure if the "bloodline" works for the prereq (I guess it'd be a GM call).
I suppose my biggest concern is I don't want to go the minimum on Cha since it sets my breath DC, but I wanna focus primarily on melee and use spellcasting as a fallback.
I was leaning towards Barb2/Sorc3. Barb 3 is kind of a dead level and Barb 4/Sorc1 puts my buffs (other than 1st level) way behind schedule.
I think I'm pretty set on Human Barb and Sorc for my first 5 levels honestly. Paladin would be great but I have no desire to deal with the code on this character, and Anti-paladin is too "off the deep end" IMO. Scout Ranger was a maybe, but in the end I think Rage will just end up being more fun.
I'm also thinking I'll just go straight Sorc and not bother with Crossblooded. Too much controversy and I'm not a fan of the drawbacks.
What I could really use help with is feat choices. I know I wanna pick up Abyssal Heritage for the Str bump and Noxious Bite (going Green), but I'm not really sure where to go other than that. Intimidation requires a pretty heavy investment in order to be any real good. I love the idea of playing with Dimensional Dervish, but I won't even have DD as a spell option until around 13th level, and I doubt the game will last that long anyway. Power Attack always sounds like a good idea, but my BAB isn't going to be very strong. Etc.
Edit: 20pt buy. Considering-
Any advice/tips are always appreciated. :)
Looking for tips on build here. Thinking of a Barbarian/Sorcerer base with either Demon-Blooded Tiefling or Half-Elf for race. Just to give a general idea, I'm looking to be as "half-dragon" as I can - meaning not a caster with stat buffs and not a fighter with a couple spells, but sort of a blending of the two. (GM is cool with the Claw power lasting indefinitely, so was thinking of going the Nat Weapon route.)
Also I'm having a little trouble understanding the relationship between Blood of Dragons and Crossblooded Sorcerer. Can someone help me out with that?
I'm in the, "Fighter, Rogue, core-Monk" camp, and I can honestly say that I've totally given up on Rogue and core-Monk.
But I have a weak spot in my heart for Fighters.
If they'd redesign feats and thresh the wheat from the chaff? I'd give up on Fighters entirely too.
I don't often agree with Aelryinth, but this is pretty spot on (and my bolded edit is really more tongue-in-cheek than actual disagreement). :)
The thing is, if you're targeting your ally in order to Overrun them, then you're not targeting your enemy with a charge.
Me --- Ally --- Enemy
If the above is the situation, and I want to charge the enemy, I can't, because the ally is in the way and counts as an obstacle.
Remember, Charging is a Full-Round Action, which is limiting your choice of "target" to one. This is why you can't switch your target to the enemy after targeting your ally for an Overrun attempt.
[Edit - This is just my clear reading of the rules and not my personal feelings on the issue. I think mounted overrun should just happen to every target along your path towards your intended target. If you don't get outta the way, the horse is gonna trample you.]
Balance could not have been the intent. (And if it was, the person who picked needs to get out of game design, now! lol)
This is a 9th level spell.
So, my question is, how do you handle it? How do you make Foresight worth casting in your game?
So my group is starting a 3.5 game that is Pathfinder compatible (as opposed to a PF game that is 3.5 compatible), and my collection of 3.5 books was sold off long long ago!
Gnome is an awful suggestion, lol.
Unless the game is going to heavily revolve around Giants, Reptilians, and Goblins. Then I suppose they become a reasonable choice. :P
Bah! Yeah, I meant Animal Focus. :(
As to the logic, what it boils down to is the 3/4 BAB class has no inherent way to buff it's to-hit. (Druid List spells are Enhancement, Animal Focus is Enhancement, and Items are Enhancement, so nothing stacks.)
Ross Byers wrote:
It's important to remind that Boon Companion is an Enhancement bonus (unless they change this after the playtest ended) and will not stack with any buffs from items.So the Hunter has Boon Companion, and the Ranger has Favored Enemy and any buffs from items.
Ignore all these low-con haters. ;)
Kitsune Sorcerer, Fey (not Sylvan) bloodline. Always take the alternate favored class feature to buff your Enchantment DCs.
Play up the Enchanter trope. "You're generally a bit sickly and can't take a hit... Which is why you make others take the hit for you!"
8 Con means you shouldn't be a melee combatant. It doesn't mean the character is destined to fail.
Arcanist: Sorcerers will be a tough sell unless someone is really interested in a particular Bloodline. (Wizards remain viable because of standard, non-delayed, spell-casting progression.)
Bloodrager: Unique enough that it steps on no one's toes (but it's spell list is a joke).
Brawler/Slayer: Fighters, Rogues, and core-Monks will all but disappear.*
Hunter: Is bad and steps on no one's toes. (Seriously, nothing about this class is better, or even different, than a Druid or Ranger.)
Investigator: If Slayer is the 'combat-rogue' replacement, then this is the 'skill-monkey-rogue' replacement. Again, no more Rogues.*
Shaman: Unique enough that it steps on no one's toes.
Skald: Kills some archetypes, but otherwise unique enough that it steps on no one's toes. (Not convinced that the concept works, as presented, however.)
Swashbuckler: Kills a PrC dead, but that seems to be the overall goal with this one.
Warpriest: Clerics will start becoming much more spell focused and less combat focused (even if the class can't really support itself that way due to a rather uninspiring spell list for a pure caster).
* - Should be noted that I, in no way, consider the loss of the Core Monk, Rogue, or Fighter to be bad things. They are stale classes that have done an abysmal job of "keeping up" with other classes as new material has presented itself over the years.
Something everyone fails to consider when making the, "Crafting is totally OP" arguments:
(Just to note - I do agree that crafting can, in fact, be totally OP. I just want to see a little more honesty in the arguments. For example, I wonder how many crafting rolls C.I.N.B.A.A. failed? :) )
I think what's really important here is that the rules are giving a giant middle finger to common sense.
So you're telling me that enemy over there is flanked by my two buddies, and I have this here shortbow and a bunch of Sneak Attack dice and the Gang Up feat.
(Hell, it shouldn't even take a feat! You should just get SA damage against a flanked enemy [melee or ranged, doesn't matter], whether you're partaking in the flanking or not.)
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Why bother quoting if you're going to ignore the very thing you quote?
No one is questioning whether you get a flanking bonus to your ranged attack with Gang Up - You don't. But whether you can get Sneak Attack is a different matter that the FAQ you keep quoting doesn't address.
More seriously though, my personal favorite has always been an Abjurer. Focus on Abjuration and Evocation spells and just go to town. You may not, "win the fight" for the group like a Conjurer/Summoner would, but it's very rewarding to be the "protector" with access to the Wiz/Sor spell list.
Poisons are a total trap option in PF.
But then, what did you expect? This is a game where "one-hit-kills" are basically a no-no, and that's basically what poison is/was used for.
This idea that "undead are not natural" has no backing at all in Pathfinder.
Negative Energy is a natural part of the world/cosmos/whatever, just as much as Positive Energy is.
Anyone that tells you, "Druids are always absolutely against undead!" are just giving you their own personal bias, or are forcing older edition rules onto you.
Yes, in a perfect world where everything goes just how you want it to...
For what it's worth, I don't see many games where combat takes place over 50ft. 100ft+10ft/CL doesn't ever seem to mean much.
Edit - I also disagree with the idea that a party Wizard is holding action just to screw with the enemy caster. Early combat you're either blasting or battlefield controlling, and late battle the melee has already closed distance so you "counter-spelling" really doesn't make a ton of difference.
Why is the obvious benefit of Burning Hands always getting ignored in these comparisons?
3 enemies in front of you, and you're 5th level. BH or MM?
Yes, vs a single target, MM is better than BH. When's the last time a single target was worth throwing any spell at all? (ie: Either you've already won the fight and it's "cleanup" round, or your GM is a masochist who likes to watch the party insta-destroy his encounter.)
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"
It's actually more like, "comparable to a low-damage melee weapon wielded by a character who devoted almost nothing to melee damage."
And with the way D&D/PF does "health?" Yes, that does, in fact, tickle. ;)