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

1,434 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,434 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

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.)
So maybe:
I've got an empty trait so I can just fix the Wis penalty to Will with that.

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).
[Ideally Bloodrager would be my first choice, but they just really dropped the ball on it's spell lists. :( ]

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.

Wasum wrote:
Between a lot of good stuff there is some really bad advice in here and it hurts that - right now - I dont have the time to explain why:(

You're killin' me, smalls! lol

How would you GM a Dragon attacking your party?

That's essentially the playstyle I'm shooting for (if possible). :)
So, initial reliance on Nat Weapons and Breath Attack, reinforced by spells (buffs mainly, but also some DD and utility - avoiding debuffs and SoS/SoD).

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-
Strength feels a bit low, but I figure I'll put all level points into it and, between that and the buffs I'm in line for, it'll be fine. Cha gets to start nice and high for Spell/Breath/Noxious Bite DC.

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?


James Risner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Could you two-weapon fight with a two-hander by having your "off-hand" be an unarmed strike?
You can't TWF with a 2 hander and an offhand because that is three hands.

I didn't realize my character's foot was also a hand! I thought I made an Elf, not an ape. ;)

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.
Not because they're good; they're not.
Not because I particularly enjoy what the class does; I don't.
But simply because this game is SUPER-loaded with a ton of feats that are absolute trash, but required to get to the feats I do want, and Fighter is simply the easiest way to perfectly build the "feat build" that I want to play.

If they'd redesign feats and thresh the wheat from the chaff? I'd give up on Fighters entirely too.

Aelryinth wrote:

Dexterity in PF has nothing to do with SPEED.

Let me repeat that. Dexterity in PF has nothing to do with SPEED.

A high Dex does not make you move faster.
A high Dex does not grant you additional attacks. (But it is a requirement for the feats that do grant them.)
A high Dex does not let you actually gain more attacks with your off hand more easily.
Hardcoded into the rule, using Dex as a basis for fighting is not natural and is born out by real world fighters.

The ability to move quickly is an effect of POWER, which is guided by a strength to weight ratio, and by BAB, which is almost as much about ingrained movement.

High Dex means you move precisely and smoothly. It does not mean you move FAST. Your reaction time is excellent, but that doesn't make your fist move faster.

Speed of attack is purely a function of fast you move your weapon repeatedly and capitalize on opportunities is a result of practice and skill. Someone with a high BAB will look marvelously coordinated and graceful simply because they fight and practice those moves so much even if they don't have natural stats to back them up.

Strength is used for To-Hit because it accurately reflects POWER, i.e. movement over time. Someone who is strong can move something faster then someone who is weak. It's a fact of life. And if you can move something faster in combat, you can hit something more easily. Your weapon moves more quickly to the openings you pick up.

Finesse fighting is all about pinpoint precision and coordination. It is DIFFICULT TO DO. You can't take a parry head on like a str fighter. Small fractions of an inch or a few degrees off, and your techniques fail. High Dex people use it because they are the only ones who have the coordination to use that level of precision when fighting.

And no, you aren't 'striking at weak points.' EVERYONE strikes at the weak points! That's what fighters DO. However, you don't have the strength or power to get through the hard points like most fighters do, so you actually have a MORE LIMITED NUMBER OF TARGETS IN MELEE. Which means...

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). :)

Nothing. And everything!

I know what your position is, and frankly, I agree with your interpretation.

I'm just saying that's not what the rules say.

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.
If I want to charge my ally, I can, because nothing is preventing me from doing so. And if I want to attempt to overrun my ally, I can as well. And if my ally wants to avoid my overrun, they can. But my target has to be my ally to do so, which means my target is never my enemy for that turn.
So after the overrun attempt on my ally, my turn is over, and there is no attack on the enemy (all you can do at this point is either end your movement, or finish your movement).

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.]

TriOmegaZero wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Things that completely shut down charging builds.

-Difficult Terrain
-Allied Players (particularly bad if you're on Horse, since your maneuvering is pigish)

Not so much.

Feat tax is never a good answer. ;)

Take a couple of "must have" divination spells, and go full-on Conjuration and Transmutation and you can literally ignore all of the other schools, and be an all-power God Wizard.

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.
It has to be better than just, "+2 to AC and Ref, and cannot be caught by surprise or flat-footed."
That clause about, "In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself" just has to have some sort of benefit beyond the listed amount.
Otherwise, how is this even a 4th level spell?

So, my question is, how do you handle it? How do you make Foresight worth casting in your game?

Heck, for that matter, why aren't they both Evocation? (Creating something out of nothing.)

Can someone help me understand why Mage Armor is a Conj spell, but Shield is an Abj spell, even though they are practically identical in effect? (ie: both are protective barriers that are created [not summoned] around the caster.)

I really like what Abjurant Champion offers, but unfortunately it would require giving up Iot7FV levels, which is a no-no. ;)

Bump. :)

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!
Ergo, I have no recollection of what feats were available and/or good for said style of Wizard! So I'm looking for tips/suggestions on feats for an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil that is 10th level. Abjuration specialist, Enchantment and Necromancy are prohibited.


I think the better question to ask is, "How do I use Obscuring Mist/Fog Cloud in a way that doesn't also screw over the rest of my party."

In my experience, most fights don't happen in wide open areas where your allies can just totally ignore your 20' radius bubbles of messy vision.

Gnome is an awful suggestion, lol.
Halfling is the way to go. Higher saves. Higher initiative. Higher AC. Can opt into a 30ft move speed instead of being stuck with a 20ft speed.
And as a spell-caster, your Con is pretty inconsequential.

Unless the game is going to heavily revolve around Giants, Reptilians, and Goblins. Then I suppose they become a reasonable choice. :P

Diminutive Titan wrote:
Also, only standard races... forgot to mention that.

That sucks. Oh well - Go Halfling then.

Tels wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Umm what? Ranger animal companion is way stronger. Boon companion+favored enemy.
Can't a hunter share Animal Focus with their companion? Those bonuses might not be as strong as Favored Enemy, but they're more reliable.

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.
You mean Animal Focus? I believe the design team specifically made Animal Focus an enhancement bonus so that the Hunter couldn't get major bonuses on himself or his companion making it far more powerful than normal.

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.)
If that particular situation is what kills Rogues' effectiveness, then how does it not also kill Hunter's?

Ross Byers wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Umm what? Ranger animal companion is way stronger. Boon companion+favored enemy.
Can't a hunter share Animal Focus with their companion? Those bonuses might not be as strong as Favored Enemy, but they're more reliable.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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!"
Be the party face, be the talker, be the manipulator. You have a great opportunity here to "break away" from the cookie-cutter nonsense that 90% of the posters here will tell you. :)
Focus on a small amount of powerful Enchantment spells, and use the rest of your Spells Known on more defensive utility that will affect more than just yourself (Create Pit, Magic Circles, Black Tentacles, etc.)
Avoid "flashy" spells. Fireball? That's not really your style.

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:
If you fail your crafting check, you lose all the time and materials spent. So if you fail the check one time, you essentially lose your discount. If you fail a second time, you're now paying *above* market costs for a third attempt.
Also, if you're (for example) trying to bump a +3 weapon to a +4 weapon, and you fail... Well, that +3 weapon counts as lost material... Oops!

(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? :) )

When it's good for the player? Pick the bad option.
When it's good for the monster? Pick the good option.


James Risner wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

And you want me to believe my enemy isn't distracted enough for me to get SA damage?

I can Shenanigans if you did get that Sneak Attack dice.

Based on what? Sacred Cows? No thanks. :)

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.
And you want me to believe my enemy isn't distracted enough for me to get SA damage?

(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:
Remy Balster wrote:

Please tell me specifically which of these steps is wrong, and why? This is how I parse the rules, and it seems straightforward. Please be specific, I want to understand why it is being said this doesn't work.

Two of your buddies threaten an Ogre. You have Gang Up. You have Sneak Attack and are within 30ft, and about to shoot the Ogre.

The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.

Are you flanking? Yes. Why? Because two of your allies threaten the Ogre. That is the listed requirement to count as flanking, and the requirement is met. (And while flanking, any melee attack you make gets a handy +2 bonus to hit the target)

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Can your ranged attack count as a sneak attack? Well, so long as you flank your target it gets the listed extra damage. Are you flanking? Yes.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

Are you in range? Yes.

Then your attack gets sneak attack damage.

Except, according to the FAQ, flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.

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.

Arcane sorcerer
Craft Wand
Wish Spell Known
Shenanigans to get more wealth than you should really have

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.
If 3.X material is available, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil all the way!

Poisons are a total trap option in PF.
Their DCs never raise past crap. They almost all allow more than a single save. Their cost is anywhere between, "really?" and, "WTF, I'd rather buy a magic item!"

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.
Negative Energy also has a natural tendency to raise undead.

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.
It's absolutely great, in theory. I just doubt it comes up much in practice.

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?
1d4+1 per enemy, or 5d4 to all enemies, even if it's Fire and they get a save.

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.)

I already took back "useless." Jeez, read more. ;)

But, I mean, c'mon. It's useful in much the same way that Ray of Frost is useful.

Is your suggestion, perhaps: "I got stabbed? Alright, I drop prone, roll around in 'agony,' and forfeit my turn, because it hurts."

1 to 50 of 1,434 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.