Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Yakmar

Neo2151's page

1,533 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


Are there rules about what happens with a permanent, continuous effect (such as a Leonal's Protective Aura) when the creature involved is asleep, or knocked unconscious?

Do creatures that possess (or are granted) these continuous Su effects have control over them or are they always active no matter what? (ie: Could the Leonal from the above example choose to suppress it's Protective Aura, like you can do with SR, or is it stuck with it always active?)

Tried searching but I can't seem to find any general rules surrounding Continuous effects.


Aiolos sounds good to me. Thanks!


So I'm about to start playing a Leonal as a character and I have no idea what to name him.

Is there any info out there on Agathian (or any Outsider) naming conventions?
Does anyone have any suggestions otherwise?

Thanks!


Milo v3 wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Name three.
Altair, Ezio, Desmond :P

Having a cause does not make you a good person. These three are no more goodly than The Operative from Serenity (he was killing for good too, right? ;P )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.

Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
Period.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.

The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.

Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)

So for example, if you're paid by the village mayor to kill the orcs that have been raiding them, both you and the village are evil?

I'm generally down with the whole "murderhobos are evil" thing, but that's going further than I'd take it.

No, you're being paid to "defend and/or protect the town from the orc raiding parties."

(Unless the request is literally something like, "Hey, adventurers, there is a settlement of orcs up in them there hills that keep raiding our town. Go up there and slaughter the buggers for us? There's money in it for you." Yeah, that'd be evil.)

Killing can be a consequence without making you evil. When killing is the goal, you are evil.


thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand that in real life someone can be an assassin for their government, and kill for reasons other than "just money" but the specific assassin class which is evil, is not the same as an assassin(the profession) even though I don't think many of them will normally be good either.
And in most of those real life cases, government assassins are just as evil as the ones in game.

In real life, yes.

But we're not playing real life, we're playing genre fiction. Good assassins are pretty common in fiction, fantasy or otherwise.

Name three.


Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.
Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
Period.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.

The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.

Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)

:)


wraithstrike wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
What in the RAW prevents it? (Just curious.)
It has already been stated. How about you explain how it is allowed or at least choose some post and tell us by the book how we are wrong.

I'm actually in agreement with you that the intention behind earth glide was very likely not to allow those creatures to ignore earthen projectiles.

However, quoting a bit of flavor text from the ability is hardly stating hard RAW.

Someone said RAW says no. I don't see that to be the case. If it is the case, I was asking where that RAW existed (and what, specifically, it said.) Otherwise, it's entirely GM fiat.

wraithstrike wrote:
Even if nobody had found any rules to use "the book does not say I can't" does not mean you can.

This is true, but it doesn't mean you can't either. If it doesn't exist as a rule, it's up to either a FAQ or your GM to answer individually.


What in the RAW prevents it? (Just curious.)


Byakko, neutrinos are subatomic particles. Earth Elementals, Oreads, etc. are hardly in the same category.
Apples to oranges, at best. ;)

wraithstrike, I have my personal opinion, but I posted this in the rules forum because there are no rules on it. I think there should be. If my interpretation is wrong, that's fine. But it's too "up in the air" based on ability wording to assume one way or the other.
I agree on a FAQ. Why this thread isn't one, idk. I hit the button *shrug*


The thing is, nothing about Earth Glide says you become incorporeal or some other status that would allow you to just ignore matter.
So the arguments that support that idea are, by the flavor and rules texts, are pretty unfounded.

The only difference between Burrow and Earth Glide is that one leaves a tunnel and visibly (key word, visibly) disturbs the ground traveled through, and the other doesn't.


By that logic, however, a creature with a flight speed could not carry someone while flying, because carrying/grappling does not confer a flight speed.
Except they can.


See, this is why I'm asking! lol

If we go with the assumption that you can't take a person with you, for logical reasons, then logic also holds that you can't take your stuff with you either, for identical logical reasons.
And in such a reading, things like Gray Disciple or the Oread Earth Glider feat become practically useless and trap options.

If we go with the assumption that you can take a person and/or stuff with you, then suddenly people will cry foul because of the potential "abuse."


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

What's the ruling on this? Is there even a ruling? I know most people won't allow it because it's obviously strong, but I'm not looking for opinions - I'm looking for rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The second they print pathfinder 2.0 I'm out and Paizo will never get another dime out of me-- and I am sure that represents a pretty big contingent of customers. New editions bring in new customers, and push out old ones.

Man, I'm so tired of this warn-out chest thumping.

Unless you started your gaming experience with Pathfinder, then you know this isn't true. 2nd Edition D&D is still around, but people still bought 3.0. 3.0 is still around and yet people still massively upgraded to 3.5. 3.5 is still everywhere too, yet PF is strong. Etc. And so on. And so fourth.

Face the facts - you'll upgrade to whatever game is doing well, because if you don't, you lose out on people to game with. End of story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there are any over-powered spells.
I think that it just looks that way because there are a MASSIVE TON of really unimpressive and under-powered spells.


So the answer to, "there are too many trap options," isn't removing trap options - it's nerfing the one class that managed to escape that problem?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RogueMortal wrote:

All of the discussion in this thread just makes me glad my group agreed to swap over to Spheres of Power.

The whole summoner argument has always confused me. Synthesist was called OP when it was the weakest option via loss of action economy. Early access spells were broken because the class that had reasons to buff the summons more than a wizard "made no sense" and because some DMs didn't say No when calculating items. Then again I never had much issue there either. Heck, the spells that allow saves suck to get early because lower DC. And it made perfect sense for them to get summon SLAs up to 9th and Gate because that was their theme.

This.

Eidolons weren't broken - classes that couldn't get pounce are.
Early access spells aren't a problem - a GM feeling like they're not allowed to say "no, you can't find that particular version of that magic item" is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh no, how unfortunate that the Summoner only gets a class feature instead of an entire other character now.

Sorry, but this is just a bad comparison.

It speaks MUCH more to the weakness of the Fighter than it does to the strengths of the Eidolon.
I mean, no one says that the Eidolon is better than a Barb/Pally/Ranger. Only better than the Fighter.


The obvious ways are, "be mounted" which comes with potential logistical problems (thos mount issues, tho...), or "get Pounce" which has the drawback of requiring a charge.

What are other ways to build a melee type that doesn't get totally shut down by movement?


A response to Lars Andersen's video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4


Anzyr wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

What I find interesting though is that the spells you list for the Divine casters really aren't all that impressive.

Antilife Shell is a pretty impressive defense (when it works), but it does nothing to help you actually defeat your foe. And since hit-and-run tactics are incredibly expensive (feat-intensive) and not very good for the cost, most people won't take them, which makes dashing in, hitting someone on the other side of the shield, and retreating a non-option in most games.

Planar Ally is always touted as a great spell. And it is a great spell. But no one ever mentions the totally unreliable, up-to-the-GM, cost. Yes, maybe that outsider COULD help in this situation, but maybe you can't afford them.

Harm is, basically, the only really good offensive spell on the entire Divine list, and it definitely has it's drawbacks: It cannot kill your target and it must be used in melee.
It's basically the Divine version of Disintegrate, except nowhere near as good.

Greater Dispel Magic is an amazing spell, but is not Divine only (which is relevant to this particular discussion).

Spellcrash is an awful spell. It's like you counterspelled (which is an awful strategy in this ruleset), except you're guaranteed to remove only your foe's weakest spell option, because the spell lost is chosen by the target, not picked at random.

Read a guide on all the good divine spells there are then come back. Harm is the only good offense? I think you aren't looking hard enough.

I've read several guides on divine spells. Offense is just not that spell list's forte. Granted, when I was describing Harm, I was talking in terms of direct-damage. (I mean, what else do they have? Flame Strike? Weak sauce!)

Yes, Divine can be good at debuffing, but almost all the good offensive debuffs are touch range, and being in melee combat isn't where I want my spellcaster to be.


Look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a grid intersection. It covers 12 squares total.

Now look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a square (treated as reach because how else would you measure it?). It covers 21 squares.

Almost. Freaking. Double.

This question NEEDS an answer. The fact that it's been 4 years since it was asked and it has gone totally ignored is obscene.


What I find interesting though is that the spells you list for the Divine casters really aren't all that impressive.

Antilife Shell is a pretty impressive defense (when it works), but it does nothing to help you actually defeat your foe. And since hit-and-run tactics are incredibly expensive (feat-intensive) and not very good for the cost, most people won't take them, which makes dashing in, hitting someone on the other side of the shield, and retreating a non-option in most games.

Planar Ally is always touted as a great spell. And it is a great spell. But no one ever mentions the totally unreliable, up-to-the-GM, cost. Yes, maybe that outsider COULD help in this situation, but maybe you can't afford them.

Harm is, basically, the only really good offensive spell on the entire Divine list, and it definitely has it's drawbacks: It cannot kill your target and it must be used in melee.
It's basically the Divine version of Disintegrate, except nowhere near as good.

Greater Dispel Magic is an amazing spell, but is not Divine only (which is relevant to this particular discussion).

Spellcrash is an awful spell. You're using your action, and a spell slot, in order to stop their spell. It's just like you counterspelled (which is an awful strategy in this ruleset), except you're guaranteed to remove only your foe's weakest spell option, because the spell lost is chosen by the target, not picked at random.


You find it weak because the Divine spell list is very unexciting, and because even though everyone and their mother is on the, "It gets 9th level spells!" bandwagon, everyone and their mother is also ignoring that a HUGE majority of PF players will never reach levels capable of 8th or 9th level casting.

You're not entirely right, OP, but you're not wrong either.


Kolokotroni wrote:
But really if you think about it, without investment, how many combat maneuvers are actually better then this? Trip can be resolved with a move action (getting up), so can reposition or drag. Bullrush is only of greater consequence if there is something bad to bullrush the enemy into or off of. Disarm can potentially have greater consequences, but the default, disarmed weapon falling near them, again is resolved with a move action to pick it up (or draw a new weapon). Really only grapple has a greater potential consequence then dirty trick. And most people shy away from it because of how complicated it can be and how much it can slow things down.

All of them are inherently better, actually.

Trip - Standing provokes.
Disarm - Retrieving provokes.
Bull Rush - Only happens when there's a reason, like you said.
Grappling is just flat out superior of a combat maneuver.
But the recovery from a Dirty Trick doesn't mention anything about provoking, so the default assumption is clearly that it doesn't. :/

Edit to add: I am at least seeing usefulness in specific builds now though, so thanks all for that. :)


•Takes a Standard action, and can be undone with a move-action.
•Requires feat investment to avoid AoO.
•Penalties choices are all pretty minor and wear off quickly.

Yet I see people suggest it all the time. Am I alone in thinking this?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

It's also worth noting that by the wording of the spell, any attack, regardless of whether the attack roll is a success or not, strips away a layer of stoneskin.

So basically the solution to an enemy wizard that has cast stoneskin on himself it to throw a bunch of rocks in his general direction.

I've heard people say that you could throw a handful of sand and take 30 thousand layers off the spell. B*!#!%!+. As if you'd have to make 30 thousand attack rolls!

Now I didn't play D&D until 3.0, but Malachi's got a pretty hard-to-ignore point right here.

"I can only assume the enemy arcanist has a stoneskin spell in effect, so as I move in to attack her, I'm going to kick a bunch of debris, a chunk of grass, a pebble or two, and some hard dirt right at her, stripping her of at least 3 or 4 layers, right? And Then I'll attack as if she never cast the stoneskin in the first place."

No way the spell should be that pathetically weak. That's dumb. D-U-Double M, dumb!

(Also, where are you fighting? Pebble Beach? "I lean down and grab a handful of rocks." "Uh, you come up with a handful of dirt - this isn't very rocky terrain. Do you want to spend a few actions looking for enough pebbles to make a handful?" "Ugh, no.")


Black Tentacles is a great spell, but it's hardly an insta-win.
Ditto for haste.

I really still fail to see the problem here. Yes, with a handful of good spells you have an edge. You pay for that edge by having a very strict spell list.

More classes should be designed this way, honestly.

Because let's be real - When the Bard has early access to a thing, no one cares. Because Illusion and Enchantment are weak schools.
So really, if people have a problem, it's a problem with Conj being too good, not the Summoner being too good.


Lava Child wrote:

I believe the summoner spell list is out of balance, after having played a summoner, and after having GMed PFS for quite a while. Haste is arguably the best spell in the game, and black tentacles has been known as 'win the fight'.

Getting this many spells early is pretty powerful. More so, because the eidolon class feature can receive them and then become even more deadly. The summoner spell list my seem bad but not broken, until you look at the other class features.

Also, by limited wish having access to summoner spells, some powerful and broken effects become available to high level wizards as well, to great detriment.

All in all, the summoner's list has been widely looked at as a design mistake.

They get haste at level 4 instead of level 5. Not a huge deal.

THey get Black Tentacles at level 7, the same level a Wizard would be getting it. I fail to see how early access has helped here at all (cheaper wand? you aren't buying level 3 wands at this level anyway).

This is the perfect example of why I feel like people overreact over this spell list.


thejeff wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Getting early class access to spells is fine because, with the rare exception such as Haste, you're still getting them at the same character level - and as far as I know, spell strength is designed with character level in mind.
Except for the part where these spells can then be counted as lower level spells for magic item purposes.

But that breaks the game how exactly? Yes, you can afford some stuff slightly earlier than normal. Yes, a few things that otherwise wouldn't be a wand option become a wand option. It's still easy to control the market on these things, considering most caster's can't make them - So either said Summoner needs to be taking crafting feats (because you can *easily* justify saying, "Sorry, the wand merchant has heard rumors of said wands, but she's never actually seen one.") or you just won't see them.


The argument about Bards spells was a bad one. Let me just apologize for pushing that one. (It really just stemmed from the, "Summoners get Haste as a 2, Bards get it as a 3," and I didn't think before posting. >_<).

I do still think spell lists are screwy (mostly from school assignments) and I do still support the idea that the Summoner is fine, power-wise.
Yes, it's a class that essentially weeds out most of the bad options for you, and that makes it seem incredibly strong - but it's not the class's fault that most of the options the game offers are generally weak and not worth taking, feats and spells being the worst offenders here.

And, generally speaking, the OP is on the right page.
Getting early class access to spells is fine because, with the rare exception such as Haste, you're still getting them at the same character level - and as far as I know, spell strength is designed with character level in mind.
Just look how awful the Bloodrager spell list is. You could throw 80%+ of it right out the window considering how late you have to wait to get otherwise weak spells. That, IMO, is more damaging to the game than anything you'll find in the Summoner list.


Ashiel wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
NerfPlz wrote:

Throwing this out there, because it infuriates me specifically...

Haste is a 2nd level summoner spell.
Haste is a 3rd level bard spell.

Things like this are so backwards that it makes me want to slap whoever designed that class. There's many instances of Summoners getting crazy good spells far above the casting curve, with many of them having no real thematic justification. Of course, keep in mind this is in ADDITION to gaining a pet which will invalidate any tier 5 class without much effort. The class is a mess, and even the developers are aware.

The class is fine. It's the Core material that's screwed up (weak classes due to backwards compatibility, screwy spell lists, etc).

Just imagine if they redesigned the Core rules with the same ingenuity they used with the Advanced Players rules.

I really don't think Bards, Clerics, and Wizards are weak due to backwards compatibility and screwy spell lists.

EDIT: Further, I think all but the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue work very well from the core rulebook. Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards all look pretty good in a mixed party with a few different options for how you want to play your role.

I won't disagree that most classes do, in fact, work fine. But you don't see another Fighter/Monk/Rogue in Adv Players Guide, do you?

Also, compare Ranger (a perfectly fine class) and Inquisitor (a spin on the same playstyle); Inquisitor is arguably the better designed class.

As for "screwy spell lists," what I mean is that classes like Bard share spells from other classes' spell lists, they should have the same sort of early access that Summoners do but for the most part they don't because they didn't in 3.5.
Or that Sorcerers are still stuck with halted progression for, what is apparently, no reason.


NerfPlz wrote:

Throwing this out there, because it infuriates me specifically...

Haste is a 2nd level summoner spell.
Haste is a 3rd level bard spell.

Things like this are so backwards that it makes me want to slap whoever designed that class. There's many instances of Summoners getting crazy good spells far above the casting curve, with many of them having no real thematic justification. Of course, keep in mind this is in ADDITION to gaining a pet which will invalidate any tier 5 class without much effort. The class is a mess, and even the developers are aware.

The class is fine. It's the Core material that's screwed up (weak classes due to backwards compatibility, screwy spell lists, etc).

Just imagine if they redesigned the Core rules with the same ingenuity they used with the Advanced Players rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello!
So I just stumbled upon this thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1lz?Clerics-of-Razmir-Why-Not
and all the included links taught me why Clerics worship only one god always in Golarion.

Right on.

But, I do have a question! Imagine this hypothetical if you would:
•Party is about to take a voyage across (ie: not costal) the Inner Sea and said party includes a Cleric of, oh let's say Torag. Obviously, the party wants a blessing for safe travels across the treacherous waters, and as always, they turn to their holy man (cleric) for such a thing.
Does the cleric:
1) Pray to Gozreh, God/ess of the sea, because this is his/her domain and they don't want to incur his/her fickle wrath, potentially putting Torag in a foul mood with his devoted servant?
2) Pray to Torag, his chosen diety, even though Torag has nothing at all to do with the sea, potentially inviting Gozreh's fickle wrath for daring to shun him/her in his/her very domain?

(Or, tl;dr - If you live in a world where the existence of multiple gods is simply a fact of life, how do you totally devote yourself to just a single one without constantly stepping on the toes of the others? How does a Cleric cope with this?)


Sorry, should clarify that by "converting" I mean 3.5 stuff is out and only PF stuff is in. So the class itself needs to go, but I have no clue how to emulate it with PF options - unless I'm missing something.
:)


Near-epic 3.5 game is converting to PF and I really have no idea how to even approach this, lol.
Any tips or suggestions are highly appreciated!

IotSFV = Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, for those who don't know.


Goddity wrote:
Do you mean roleplaying ideas and builds or stats for a build?

Either or. Preferably the former. :)


It's only banned in Society play, and this GM tends to run more 3.5 than PF, so "power-issues" aren't really issues at all.
Go wild! ;)


Just looking for unique and interesting ideas on how others would build their Eidolon for a Synthesist Summoner.


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.

Hmm...

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?)

1 to 50 of 1,533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.