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

Nicos's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 8,651 posts (11,301 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 18 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,651 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

master_marshmallow wrote:
The fighter specifically has his niches he can fill, and if you want a fighter that can do those things, the Lore Warden and Tactician grant extra skills, and the Lore Warden crossed with Martial Master essentially fixes the fighter, albeit at the cost of armor.

The slayer covers almost all of the fighter niches. He is non-magical, He hit harder, he have a lot of feats, he can hit hard all day long (AKA not nova class), he can master basically every fighting style in the game (mounted combat, TWF, THF, Archery, Swoard and board, and a lot more after inner sea combat). THe only thing the slayer can not really do is to use heavy armor and that is because rogue talents mostly sucks and the ranger feat are the obvious best option.

And yet the slayer have three times more skill points. In what world can that be balanced?


Perhaps. But I do not see a reason to have a race for every stat combination. I suppose they first design the theme for the race (Dwarves are stout, Elves are agile but frail, etc...) and then designed the stat bonuses/penalties around that.


Zhayne wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
My vote is for intentional. Most likely, the devs realize that the moment they release an Int/Con race, unless it is godawful beyond the stat bonuses, it will become the optimizer's go-to option for most arcane caster builds.
And this is a problem because ... ?

It does not need to be aproblem in order for them to not want it in the book.


I agree that banning it is a pretty good option.


That is only about TWF. The FAQ was only about TWF. You can attack with a great sword and then use your iterative to attack with armor spikes, this was stated by the DEVs in those threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
we need a +Strength/+Dexterity Race with a Charisma Penalty and a +Strength/+Constitution Race with a Charisma penalty so we have decent martial races besides human because the human bonus feat is an advantage no race can compete with.

Eh, the +5 to all saves against spells and SLA for dwarf disagrees with you.


Claxon wrote:
Bacondale wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Bacondale wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Going back to Jason Buhlman's example. If the fighter with Longsword, Shield, and armor spikes was 11th level and had three iterative attacks, he could make an attack with his longsword at full bab, attack with armor spikes at bab-5, and attack with a shield bash at bab-10.

He is not making an off-hand attack with any of them, as "off-hand" ONLY applies when using two weapon fighting feats. Even if you did use TWF feats, per the FAQ, the penalties only apply until the end of your turn, not the beginning of your next turn.

Either way, you can make an AoO with any weapon you are wielding.

Switching between weapons during your turn does not mean you can switch weapons for an AoO. Free actions are allowed during your turn, free actions are not allowed during AoO.
You do not need to switch between weapons to use armor spikes, a shield bash, and a longsword.
I was referring to switching from a two-handed reach weapon to armour spikes. This thread is covering a lot of issues.
You still don't need an action to be wielding a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Armor spikes don't require a physical hand to actively wield.

Exactly. never in this game have you needed with which weapon you will threaten.


voska66 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Slayer, Investigator, Skald and Brawler are great. Special shoutout to the Slayer because Rogue fix.

Hunter, Shaman, Arcanist and Bloodrager are OK.

Warpriest and Swashbuckler are meh.

I thought the Slayer would be Rogue fix but having played on from level 1 to 12 now I'm finding the slayer isn't that roguish. I find I'm more like a spelless ranger with trap finding. A slayer is more of killer than a rogue. I guess it fixes the combat oriented rogue.

This is because the Ranger abilities are just better than the rogue talents you can have with the Slayer, so it is not a surprise the slayer ends being a Spelless ranger ([Rant]but rogue taletns have been always fine, yeah right[/Rant]).

I would have prefered more unique tricks for the salyer.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.

This is a big issue with me, sure I like having more skill points, but what does the brawler really need them for? It's not like his class abilities require it like with the ranger or rogue (and ergo slayer).

I just don't understand this whole "evarY1 neEdz alL da SkilLZ" notion that has come over the forums lately.

We have have this conversation before, we will never reach an agreemnet, I honestly can not imagine how can someone think like you.

So, in order to not talk about that again I rephrase, "You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that restricting Warpriest class abilities to the god favored weapon was a bad idea"


In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.


CountofUndolpho wrote:


@Nicos Not if you have used a 2HW for all your attacks in a round. Then you are using that weapon and can't AoO with a different one.

Rules quote?


CountofUndolpho wrote:

@Nicos AoO rules state you have to able to make an attack into the square to threaten it - that is my point.

Wich you can totally do, since you can attack with a longspear and hten attack with armor spikes if you are not TWF.


Bo Atlas wrote:
Nicos - stack that in with some pressure points, dispelling strike, and a pair of Monk levels - its fun for the whole family.

I Maybe would take Lore warden 3 and perhaps then maneuver master so I can dirty trick and the power attack + cornugon smash with the next attack. Blind+shaken/frightened+sickened in one movement seems pretty good, perhaps even trip or disarm.


Lemmy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
everything a Rogue can do other classes can do as well without having its mechanical problems.
This is wrong. What other class can use the Intimidate skill to impart the Frightened condition?
That is great I guess. Thug 1/ whatever else 19 then.

Hey, let's be fair... It might be Thug 3/whatever else 17. Maybe even Thug 4/whatever else 16 if you don't want to hurt your BAB...

Still, you're probably better off playing an Undead-bloodline Bloodrager.

IN all fairness yes, I do like the 3rd level thug ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
everything a Rogue can do other classes can do as well without having its mechanical problems.
This is wrong. What other class can use the Intimidate skill to impart the Frightened condition?

That is great I guess. Thug 1/ whatever else 19 then.


That is the nature of PbP. Tehre will always be bad days/Weeks. For me, I didn't post yesterday in Blaskest scale because for the first time in months I had to wake up before 5 am today.


Your build is hard to read. I recommend you use one of the format you an find here http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Swords-and-Kickin -Ass


Kazumetsa_Raijin wrote:

That's fine! I'm just comparing is all. I'm more focused on the Str vs Dex outcome.

"Monks" can be built differently for the same thing. No worries.

I'm sure I have a couple of 15th level fighter somewhere, what do you want to compare and how that is related to the dex vs str issue?


Kyle '88 wrote:
Have you considered the Slayer archetype Sniper? It would give you all the good stuff a Slayer gets and fits your idea.

VAnilla slayer are better for this, weird but true.


Ravingdork wrote:

I have a player in my group who has Dazing Spell. In nearly every battle enemies are almost always completely unable to respond to their attackers. Why?

Because in every battle A DIFFERENT CASTER in the party casts STINKING CLOUD.

Dazing spell is perfectly fine when compared to existing effects.

Way more things are immune to stiking clouds than to daze effect. And big monster have better Fort save than ref save.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Rogues are commonly regarded as an underpowered class. If not the most underpowered class. Ninjas are by all measurements the better class.

No, they are not. You can say you regard them so, but please dont speak for other players.

yes, they are . You can say you don't regard them so, but please dont speak for other players.


RumpinRufus wrote:

Thug is also a strong and extremely-dippable archetype.

The Frightened condition is very strong, and it's easy to achieve as a free or swift action while still doing damage (Enforcer, Cornugon Smash, Intimidating Glare, Menacing Strike.)

It is. Even you can not frigthne them stacking shaken and sickened with just one attack is pretty good.


El_Jefe wrote:
Dhjika wrote:
The issue here is not the metamagic - which requires +3 spell level adjustment, but the metamagic rod that allows anyone to apply it
The metamagic is also a problem, or more accurately the metamagic cost reduction traits are a problem.

Perhaps, but I concur that the rods are way more problematic. I would prefer the trait for selective metamagic.


DrDeth wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.
Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.

Well honestly Paladins tend to be a bit... obvious xD.

Not really. Heavy armor, weapon, holy symbol- which needs a KS Religion roll, and even so, many Fighters worship a deity, and pretty much all rangers do. Rangers cast divine spells too.

Pfff, why is people not eating AoO to attack the paladin?, the guy in heavy armor wielding a longsword could be a cleric of Iomedae, a full caster that have to be attacked first, obviously.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
Why Ninja or anything else when you can Slayer?
In this case, I suppose, because magic tricks.
Stygian Slayer?

Ok,then magic tricks not doable with Stygian Slayer (or at least not easily doable), like for example invisibility as swift action.


Zhangar wrote:

All it takes to ruin a ninja's day is an alarm spell. She'll either set it off, or have to go slinking back to the party and bring back a spell caster to chuck dispels at it until it sticks.

Trapfinding trait.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Nicos wrote:
DO you have any rule that support your view?
No I have a post from a developer do you have a rule to support your view?

Yes, the AoO rules in the CRB. Do note that your Quote is old and was never made into a rule, they already have answered several FAQs (changes actually) on the issue but the rule suggested in that post was never made into the rules even after several threads with 1000+ post with heavy involvements of the devs.

In the same vein SKR one said that they were planning to change the way spellcasting while grappled work, but they have never done it so the rule is still the old rule.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Yes, but this is not an official change so people can pretty much ignore that bad ruling.
So that's not an official change to not an official usage. But there are no developers opinion's or rules for that usage so it's not actually a change per se.

DO you have any rule that support your view?


CountofUndolpho wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry Ciretose I think crash00 was right I'd already quoted the answer I was basically working towards in a previous thread.

Mark Maitland (Developer) on exactly this subject:

Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

Emphasis mine.

Yes, but this is not an official change so people can pretty much ignore that bad ruling.


graystone wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
That is complete house rule territory.

Polite translation "I disagree with your interpretation of the rules" that's ok many people agree, many people disagree there are numerous threads that go through the bickering discussion.

Please feel free to play what rules you like at your table
No, it's totally 100% a house-rule. You are mixing up your two weapon fighting rules with non-two weapon rules. There is NOTHING stopping someone with a BAB +6 from making a reach attack with a pole arm and then making a second attack with their spiked armor. The pretend, imaginary hands unwritten rule FAQ only effects two weapon fighting.

This is true. But do note that there was the intention to change it so you can't, for example, use a reach weapon and still threated with he armor spikes. Thanks to Shelyn that was not covered int he FAQ:


I really have no idea what to think about PF unchained. So many years of "Rogue talents are fine", "2 skill s point per level for the fighter is ok", "there is no martial/caster imbalance" and etc that I can not see how they will address the things I find bad designed with PF.

EDIT: Although, to be fair, the did addressed a lot of thing for the monk.


DrDeth wrote:
Elf Sorc. Fits all requirements. Just help her on choosing spells.

I agree here. It is the easiest choice.


Axelthegreat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If you want to use a crossbow, the Bolt Ace (Gunslinger archetype from the Advanced Class Guide) is the only real option.
I hadn't even considered gunslinger, current group is in a setting without firearms, but I think that could work out decently, still unsure about a build, however.

Bolt ace are gunslinger with crossbows instead of guns.


Sorry to be that guy. But this is just a bad idea. Ignoring the fact that you are choosing to be a rogue, you are also choosing the crossbow wich is really inferior weapon, and to make things worse Heavy corssbows are horrible more times than not. The diference between 1d10 vs 1d8 is unimportant.

As a general rule (there are exceptions) the more arrows/bolts you can fire the better.

Third. The combination Rogues and raged combat is just one of the weakest things in the game, seriously.

I heavily recommed to be a slayer instead. You will have the skills, the feats, the rogue talents, the sneak damage and even if yu still want to use heavy crossbows (wich I advice agaisnt) Salyers are just better for that too.


Come on ... :(


No. because those are spell-like abilities.


Degoon Squad wrote:
Well this thing called role playing. Believe it or not some of us dont try to make the biggest baddest killing machine, we Instead we come up with a concept that we think is going to be fun to role play and then build on that concept. And maybe a fighter fits that concept better, and maybe some might even see his or her fighter as a handsome champion of good and even (gasp) spend a few points on charisma.

There ar every few concepts that can not be done without the fighter class. I can replicate almost everyone with the slayer class, and perhaps better (because skill points do matter for class concepts). The only one slayer can not do well is the guy in full plate, because you can not use the ranger feat with it and the rogue talents are inferior.


Mike Franke wrote:

People often seem to forget that what a fighter does he can do all the time every round every day. He doesn't require grit or panache to occasionally nova. That is the main strength of the fighter.

Slayers. They can also do what they do all they long. Plus they do more damage, have Comparable number of feats, acces to the most diverse combat styles (THF, TWF without dex, shield and board with shield master at level 6, archery with improved precise whot at level 6, moutned combat with mounted skirmisher at level 10, and tons more since Inner sea combat) have better saves and waaaaay more skill points, plus other ranger stuffs.

Seriously, Since the salyer it shoudl be clear that "I can hit stuff all day long" should not be tied to "I suck at skills" and "my saves sucks". It was bad desing then, and it is bad design now.


yes.


Auron do not kill that daemon


K177Y C47 wrote:

[

Except that closing yoru eyes will almost always be harder. No matter what.

Not when the fantay warrior have specifically trained for that.


That is weird.


so, can you see the map? I put the link in the disccusion thread.


https://app.roll20.net/join/489083/14CfDQ, I think that is the correct link.


Ashiel wrote:

If we're talking about NPCs who are grossly outclassed by the PCs, then the NPCs should probably still attack the caster whenever possible but do so while avoiding the martials. This is a more passive-aggressive style of combat but one that serves groups of NPCs well, and usually involves things like ranged attacks, superior movement, traps (both real and figurative), and misdirection.

At the end of the day it comes down to this.

1. The meat-tank is going to come to you and kill you while his VIP helps.
2. You are going to try to kill his VIP and the meat-tank is going to come to you and kill you.

The smartest option is to not fight the PCs at all, unless you have a really solid set of group-tactics that are more complex than simply being able to out-maneuver someone on the battlefield.

Well, if the caster will be using the strongests tactics avaliable (like the broken dazing spells) then the martial have to be asumed to with the same system mastery. And in a full attack + AoO an optimized martials can have very reasonably chances of killing equal CR monster.

And yes, there are sitautiosn where running and eating an AoO will be a good idea but, generally speaking, the enemy group will need more complex tactics, and if you are facing a sitaution like that your group will need more complex tactics. That is the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Thehigher cause wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Personally I can't honestly recommend buying the physical copy, not until a second printing with all the Erratas.
I agree 100%
Ironically, every person who takes that stance actually delays the publication of the second printing... and if enough people were to do that, there would *be* no second printing.

That is a real shame, still If for some whatever reason somebody ask me, I would recommend the PDF over the hardcover.


chaoseffect wrote:
Nicos wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
In a life or death situation where you can't assume what spells the guy has memorized and no spellcraft ranks to even begin to find out you have to assume the worse.
IN a life or death situation I do not see how ignoring the guys who are stabbing you is an inteligent movement.
I have to try to bypass the two guys with knives because the guy behind them is about to call in an orbital bombardment on me and all my friends. That's what it's like.

If one of those guys can reasonably well full attack/one shot you to death then the situation is not so clear cut. Specially because then your allies are open to the other guy that can also Full attack/one shot them.


We could like a mini prologue, please :)


BTW, you can ot take angelic wings before level 10.


Ashiel wrote:
...

I'm not sure what are you talking about. If your party is facing a group of enemies that have a big dangerous squishy caster-like enmy protected by several not so strong martial-like bodyguards that can not hurt you much, then ignoring the bodyguard is the natural good idea. It have been stated several times by me and others in this thread that if you can go (with resonably impunity) for the caster-like enemy then go for it.

But this thread is not about that. Is about mosnter attacking the party. A party build with more or less the same system mastery for every member. You can not compare a martial-like monster that can not do much against a PC vs a Pc that can reasonably kill CR equivalent opponents in one full attack (specially if those enemies are already wounded by on or several AoOs).

If in your example going for the enemy caster-like monster woudl mean you will full attacked to death nex round the things would be diferent.

1 to 50 of 8,651 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.