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. 8,438 posts (10,967 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 18 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,438 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Darche Schneider wrote:
Dread Pirate Westly?

I suppose.


Kudaku wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Flawed wrote:
Slotless muleback cords cost 2000gp or 1500gp to add onto a cloak of resistance and is able to be made as per RAW. Makes carrying capacity a fairly moot point. If anyone has craft wondrous items it's 750gp to throw onto another cloak.

Custom magic item creation is expressly under DM control.

Most DM's will say no.

Combining existing items is perfectly legal provided they both occupy the same slot, and have no special limitations.

Most GMs will say yes.

Interesting, any of you two have the statistic that back up your statements?


Larkspire wrote:


I feel like Conan the barbarian should always hit harder than Zorro.

The point is that With dex to damage Conan the barbarian still hit harder than zorro. Without dex to damge (and ignoring the swahbucler class) the zorro do so little damage that he is pointless.


Propposed houserule: Weapont focus/specialization becomes weapon group focus/specialization.


RaizielDragon wrote:
I would argue that the Barbarian should still be fine, considering that his abilities are treated as Extraordinary, not Spell-Like or Supernatural.

Several rage powers are supernatural.


Darkholme wrote:

*PERHAPS* old style detect alignment spells. You can see if a character is currently planning to make someone suffer or die, or if they are in the middle of channeling power from an evil deity.

I have always liked more the old style in this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.

A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).


Drock11 wrote:

I'm of the opinion that charm spells and similar things don't become de facto cheap domination effects just because a charisma check is made. It's a very badly worded vague portion of the spell and that part of it should never have been added into it if for no other reason than the confusion and arguments it can create.

+1. Specially taking into account charm person is a level 1 spell.


yeti1069 wrote:

Dex-focused gives you 1 stat for AC, Reflex saves, Initiative, ranged attack, melee attack, melee damage (and possibly ranged), and some valuable skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Stealth).

And at least two less feats.


zapbib wrote:


Quote:
Canny tumble is a problem (a small one though) because the feat is just wasted words, I have a hard time imagining somebody will ever use that feat.

Some people like to acrobatic a lot, and at low lvl +2 is nothing to scoff at. Of course there already was a feat that did the exact same thing for less requirement(Disorienting Maneuver) so...

Well, you have just said it. There is a better feat for the same thing. So, yes, the new feat is just wasted words.


The argument reached a silly point. The feat was a mistake,e even the devs recognized that, there is not point in denying it.

For me the problme is not that. Mistakes happens and whatever. The problem is that the issue will not get adressed, AKA fixing the feat. Printing another feat in another book is abad idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I thought blind fight was only from concealment caused by darkness.

No, the feat never put such restriction. A good thing if you ask me.


Canny tumble is a problem (a small one though) because the feat is just wasted words, I have a hard time imagining somebody will ever use that feat.


I would say no cause it could be a lot of thing, I will give more details when I go home. And got it, you really do not like to go to place you know nothing about, will not happen again :P


Well, back to the armor master fighter then. Can I keep (lemmy's) bravery instead of the ability the archetype gives?


LazarX wrote:
None of those abilities address anything beyond ground movement. Not even swimming is covered.

In what part of armor training is this?


JonGarrett wrote:
Honestly, I think that's my biggest gripe - it feels like a lot of decisions made are based on what the dev team like and don't like. Someone is fond of spellcasters, so Paragon Surge stays broken for a good long time. Martials, on the other hand, shouldn't be as powerful - anything that makes them too strong gets zonked straight off.

I feel the same with classes. Obviously the designer of the bard really liked the concept so he give the bard tons of useful class features. The poor bard and (CRB) monk on the other hand seems like nobody cared about them, nobody really wanted to work on them.

I imagine freelancers working in bard archetypes and all the fun they have. Having tons of class features they can replace by other useful features, allowing them to create really diverse new concepts, everyone loves bards. The poor guy that have to work with rogues on the other hand is not so lucky, how many good arcehtype were rejected casue the result would be too good?.


Scavion wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I will be ok with a couple of more skills and a minor boost to saves.

To be completely honest. I don't think 4 skill points per level is fair to the Fighter. I think they should get 6 per level as well as the Cavalier. The Ranger gets 6 + an Animal Companion, Spellcasting and 5 bonus feats.

But only if everyones cool with that. As for saves, Lemmy's Bravery houserule is fine by me.

So, 6 skills per level?


master_marshmallow wrote:
So, about that Fencing Grace feat....

It was bad and it is even worst that they just just not errata it but instead they release another feat in a softcover...what more is there to talk about it?


Scavion wrote:


But only if everyones cool with that. As for saves, Lemmy's Bravery houserule is fine by me.

What houserule is that?


Whisperknives wrote:

So the effect of more feats than a fighter, less restrictions than a monk, better hit die than a monk, more skills than a fighter, and then some other bonuses thrown in on the side.

(Assuming all is true)

So?


I will be ok with a couple of more skills and a minor boost to saves.


Lemmy wrote:
Oh, yeah... Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer are great!

Not sure. Everyttime I see the salyer I think that I coudl have houseruled a spell-less ranger and have basically the same class. The lack of new mechanics and the "let mix everything with everything" philosophy of the book makes me be rather "meh" about it.


Nicos wrote:
I can see myself playing an inquisitor.

But certainly not a single classed one. What were the houserule for fighters?


I can see myself playing an inquisitor.


I would not take superstitious myself. Without hte non core rage powers and feats (raging vitality for example) that patch the barbarian other defenses superstitious is more like a trap.


Zark wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?
No, I don't, and sadly I think the quality is deteriorating, at least when it comes to rule books. I also see deteriorating in trust as an issue...

This was a reasonable and well constructed post.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I think the feat chains are neat, and a fair way to get to more powerful feats.

I could understand everythign else in your post but not this. I have played and DMed in games when the rogue is useful, when low level wizard struggles to survive and etc

I suppose it depends on what you call feat chains. It is a real chain then fine, but it is a chain filled with silly prerequisites then no, because I have never seen someone say something like "damn man, having to take combat expertise a feat I never ever plan to use in order to later take improved trip is makign the game much more fun for me!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:


The problem is average results on dice is that not only does no one actually roll average all the time...dice don't roll average all the time unless you spend lots of money to get precision dice made.

Forget average then. What about the bard having more skill points than the rogue? or all the buff spells the bard can cast that requires no roll from his part?


Thormind wrote:
Nicos wrote:

To the Op.

To do fair comparisions you have to post your rogue in here. All te numbers, Hps, Ac, CMD, to hit and damage and very importantly his saves.

After that people in here can answer you with numbers.

So far, I have only see one rogue buidl that is superior, the other are mediocre at best.

At lvl 13 with same gear and base stats:

Rogue:
AC: 29
CMD: 30
HP: 103
To hit (with haste): 20/20/18/15/13
Dmg: 1d6+5 (+5d6 sneak) per attack

Slayer (same gear):
AC: 29
CMD: 37
HP: 128
*To hit (with haste): 27/27/25/22/20/14
*Dmg: 1d6+10 (+4d6+12 sneak) per attack
*studied target bonus included

It's not just a small difference... If the rogue was already affective the slayer is ... overkill (any rock fan? :-)

Well, i'm not sure how those numbers will make the rogue outdamaging any full BAB.

Lets use a fighter for comparision. Without takign the weapon focus/specialization feats we have

+13 (BAB) + 3 (weapon) + 5 (WT + gloves of dueling) +8 str -4 PA +1 haste +1 cracked pale green prism =

with damage: +12 (str)+ 12(PA) + 5 WT +3 weapon

for a total of (asuming furious focus)

+31/+26/+21/+16 (2d4+32 15-20/x2)

Wich, I would say is more than the damage output than the rogue. And the fighter also bypass DR much easier and suffer way less for moving more than 4 ft.

The AC with a reasonable investment would be something like: + 13 (armor) +2 dex + 1 def +1 nat +1 luc k +1 the other ioun stone whose name I do not remember = 29

Now, take into account that the fighter's (and barbarians, paladins and others) numbers can be higher.


Chaotic Fighter wrote:
Thormind wrote:
Nicos wrote:

To the Op.

To do fair comparisions you have to post your rogue in here. All te numbers, Hps, Ac, CMD, to hit and damage and very importantly his saves.

After that people in here can answer you with numbers.

So far, I have only see one rogue buidl that is superior, the other are mediocre at best.

At lvl 13 with same gear and base stats:

Rogue:
AC: 29
CMD: 30
HP: 103
To hit (with haste): 20/20/18/15/13
Dmg: 1d6+5 (+5d6 sneak) per attack

Slayer (same gear):
AC: 29
CMD: 37
HP: 128
*To hit (with haste): 27/27/25/22/20/14
*Dmg: 1d6+10 (+4d6+12 sneak) per attack
*studied target bonus included

It's not just a small difference... If the rogue was already affective the slayer is ... overkill (any rock fan? :-)

Gear? Feats? Where are the modifiers coming from?

I ask the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the Op.

To do fair comparisions you have to post your rogue in here. All te numbers, Hps, Ac, CMD, to hit and damage and very importantly his saves.

After that people in here can answer you with numbers.

So far, I have only see one rogue buidl that is superior, the other are mediocre at best.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beating A Dead Horse wrote:
New classes, same old arguement

Same old rogue corpse rotting in the middle of the game.


Gauntlet

Benefit: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.


Rynjin wrote:
Do they still count as an Unarmed Strike?

I...sppose what book and FAQ are you reading.


Rynjin wrote:

Because it only works while you're punching.

Adamantine gauntlets.


Barathos wrote:
In my games, Dervish Dance gives dex to damage for any one-handed finesse weapon. It works pretty well. There's less people exclusively using scimitars, which is good.

Same experience here.

A really easy and effective houserule.


Squiggit wrote:

Regardless of whether you think it's better, as good, or not as good.. I think it's easy to agree that the class is kinda way too similar to the base Barbarian.

I do agree.

I feel the same with the slayer too. THe same old class features over again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you (generic you) do not want des to damage + TWF then you disallow dex to damage + TWF as with dervish dance. Not sure how much more complicated it can be.


Aparently with a primalist you can end with the same number of rage powers as a standard barbarian plus spellcasting. Do Primalist make the barbarian obsolete?


Primalist can not take extra rage power right?


Imbicatus wrote:
The fear is allowing dex to damage with two weapon fighting, clearly.

Is that is the fear why the solution have noting to do with it?


D3my wrote:
(which doesn't say that it stacks with the deadly range talent, so RAW is it doesn't)

I'm sorry but that is totally against the definition of RAW. Is the rule is not written then it is not RAW.


NOt sure how the girl can look peacefull without her jaw :P


The rage pwoer stuff was a bad idea though, I do not liek how the ACG start giving every class teh stuff from the other classes.


I doubt it. But, feel free to prove me wrong n your build thread :)


I'm not sure. The sheer amount of rage powers is point for barbarians. Besides the barbarian are considerably less MAD, and that matters for things like raging vitality, and you need raging vitality. I have been buliding bloodrages and I do not think they are superior.


Yes, Spellcraft.


With a +2 from flanking


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

THe Ecclesitheurge situation is particularlly bad. We have an entire page of the book that is, to say the less, of really low value.

As with other things in the book (like dex to damage with rapiers), I think the right thing to do is to release pdf with the missing/correct information to fix this problems, at least until there is 2nd printing.

1 to 50 of 8,438 << 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.