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, 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,343 posts (12,610 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 18 aliases.


1 to 50 of 9,343 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Perhaps extend spell if you plan to use buff spells.

12 12 11 8 10 3

Summoning based lunar oracle, you can put the 3 in dex since you probably will not need it at all, AC, reflex, initiative, they all get covered.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:

The water balloons comment seems kind of interesting in terms of firearms:

“I want my PC with a bow to bypass armor and do tons of damage like a guy with a gun.” (Guns are so awesome that the conquistadors had them. They had armor too, and that would have been very advantageous since the guys they were fighting didn't have guns. Killing people and taking their stuff wasn't always just something to do in games.)

Crossbow were more acuarate than early guns, but that does not get reflected in game because reasons.

Also, now that someone mention conquistadors (if that means what I think it menas) in a sling thread, apparently the weapon the feared the most form the indigenous people was the sling, capable of breaking ribs and kill even on armored men.

I alredy played a thematically very cool spirit totem character. It find it fun at 1-3 levels or so, but the spirit attack becomes worthless fast since nothing can enhance it.

What would be (if it exist) the closest thing to the highlanders?

you are bored of seeing superstition/beast totem over and over?

Several rage powers seems so lackluster like Spirit totem or hurling. Others that seems interesting have superstitous as prerequisite or can not be taken in the levels I would play the barbarian (4 to 8). The ones that give natural attacks seems strong enough, but does not really go witht he fluff of the PC.

The only one I'm finding interesting is lesser celestial totem, but I Hve no idea If tehre will be a healer int he party

Kudaku wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Not many people think of blunt arrows, and thrown clubs don't have the range. I guess the arrows would work, but using a sling is just so halfling, you know? As a rogue he'd only have access to a shortbow, which has comparable range to a sling. As he's moving he's only going to shoot once anyway so rate of fire doesn't matter, and he gets strength added to damage (such as it is) without extra expenditure, and it doesn't require specialist amunition.

I get that the sling makes sense for halfling, and I think it's cool that's the character he wanted to play. :)

Granted, he'd have to pay anywhere between 100 and 1000 gp for a composite bow fitted to his strength score. However if he went with the shortbow with blunt arrows he'd have +10 feet range, +1 average damage, a x3 multiplier instead of x2 on critical hits, excellent feats and spell options that's not available for slings like Multishot and Gravity Bow, and he could keep Sure-Footed or pick a different race trait like Fleet of Foot.

But the crit multiplier does not do much since he relies on sneak attack. The itteratives also do little since he is moving to use the scout trick.

On the other hand, using a sling let him use a shield, wich is a good idea since rogues have so bad defenses.

Personally I pretty much dislike the sapt adept, it seems so silly fluffwise to me, but mechanically It is an interesting Idea dabbler, You should post your build here -Ass

I do not do PFS, But I'm surprised they didn't go Core+APG.

Mark Hoover wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
Why are they so bad? Because they will always do less damage than the crossbow and the bow. Period.

Honestly I don't think that is by itself the main reason. Because if slings where like 1d4 longbows, they'll have far less issues than now and be plenty used.

So it's not so much that they do _less_ damage, but that you have to jump through plenty of hoops just to get them to do the very basest of _required_ damage.

I could have a 10th level slinger that does acceptable damage for their level when full attacking with a sling. But instead, I could have an archer that do equal damage with the bow, but that also has a decent will save, and can also handle themselves in melee.

So what you're saying is that they do less damage initially, so you have to spend more feats to enhance that damage to compete with the bow, so that you end up with less defense or special effects in other areas?

That all started with does_less_damage.

Actually, you spend more feat to do less damage, probably lot less damage (no manyshots, 1d3 vs 1d8, x2 crit vs x3 crit, bracers of falcom aim).

Dabbler wrote:

"Why are slings so bad?"

I have a halfling rogue in my party who regularly dishes out 12d6+24 temporary damage with one shot from a sling. He's killed foes with one shot just from temporary damage. It's enough to make me shudder.

Uhm, not bad (I'm assuming sap adept feats). It coud be the only good combo I've seen for slings.l

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Once you need to enchant then (or even MW them) the diference becomes minimal.

What I'm seeing is "slings are good if you can not afford a bow", wich me, IMHO, that slings are not good.

Mark Hoover wrote:

The point is that, when all is said and done if, in your game the primary method of conflict resolution is dealing enough damage to render your conflict unconscious or dead, then the sling is inferior to other options long term. If however you have a game that places emphasis on other forms of conflict resolution and damage is not a priority, the sling is an excellent choice.

Not sure what many other things the sling do besides doing damage to kill enemies in combat.

strayshift wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
strayshift wrote:

Also you built the crossbowman with fifteen strength, my point was that you don't need a high strength and can pump dexterity thus having a better chance to hit (thus improving DPR slightly). This is significant at low levels where you will miss a lot firing into combat and for the initial levels of your iterative attacks. You are building a very different archer here.

How do you expect to wear full plate and carry it? I started with 13, 15 is from the belt.

Crit feats do NOT make up 30 dpr, not even close


You don't wear plate mail.

Anyhow this disagreement belongs on another thread.

The answer is that you make the crossbowman so make him as you want. You are right that that discussions belong to another thread...there was a thread like that last year, but I can not find it at the moment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:

Yes you will be a feat behind the comp bow archer and they will get their strength bonus to damage HOWEVER a Crossbow Archer is more S.A.D. (so higher dex = hit more often especially at low levels) and the crossbow has a higher crit range so a viable critical focused archer can be built - perhaps slightly less DPR but with crit feats to throw into the equation. Completely viable.

Not counting the ace bolt, crossbow are horrible. It is not slightly less DPR. but a lot less. A specialized crossbowman do less damage than switch hitter archer.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Agincourt suggests you are wrong.

I think you missed what he's saying, because you're arguing with physics.

If the arrow comes DOWN with X amount of energy, that means that it went UP with X amount of energy (+ a bit from wind resistance) If it didn't have that much energy it couldn't get up there.

Actually the speed in the falling part of the trajectory is lower (so less energy) due to air resistance. The rotational movement of the arrow would also decrease for the same reason.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Agincourt suggests you are wrong.

Far from history expert, but I had the impression that angicourt was won more by the luck of having and very favorable terrain than the expertise of English archers or the power of longbows.

A recomendation is not taking deadly stroke (since it does not work with this build), do not use double xbow (the -4 hurts and you really want to attack every turn) and multiclass into vivisecsionist for mutagen (extra dex), sneak attack (since they do not have dex to ac), sinergy with high int and the always handy extracts. Not that great dmage, but well, you are using a crossbow.

cheesedoodler wrote:

To hit is -4Xbow +12BAB +7Dex +1Magic +1PBS +1WF +1GWF +2Xbow Expert -4 Deadly Aim for +17 total against Flat Footed AC.

This is bad. You only have one shot, and if you miss it no damage at all.

cheesedoodler wrote:
Ok, I know that crossbows are strictly better than bows...

The what?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Core superstitions is very lackluster. Without the DR and the AC boost, the Touch AC boost, no way to be healed with a (SU), and harder rage ciclyng superstitons is more like a trap.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Druids and barbarians become the uber powered classes, at least at low to mid levels.

Within core barbarian are far from uber-powered, In fact I would say they ar the class more reliant on stuffs utside core. Invulnerable rager, FCB to superstition, all the totem rage powers and more.

the text doe snot mention anything about maintaining a grapple

"If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds."

So death rolls get that +5.

Devilkiller wrote:

It is technically true that Death Roll doesn't Trip. You won't get to add bonuses from various Trip feats you probably won't have to your CMB check.

But you have the bonus from grapple feats, a +5 because you are already grappling plus half your druid level.

I don't see it as a bad ability, although If I want to make a grappling druid I would multiclass, perhaps tetori.

Imbicatus wrote:
How is a rogue skillful? Again, while they gain multiple skill points per level, they have no inherent bonus to using those skills, which is something the investigator, bard, and inquisitor all have.

But not only that. Rogues can do very few special things with their skills. There is a rogue talent to use sleight of hand to disarm, for example, besides that skill based rogue talents sucks hard.

The angelskin special material could help too.

The guy is pretty good, but as Aelryinth pointed out his shoots lack punch, something that would get handwaved away in PF where what matter the most is how much arrows/bolts/stones/bullets can you put in the air.

215. Wish us luck.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is not the first time nor the last time that an archetype give you something that you can already do.

Tarpeius wrote:
Windquake wrote:
You won't find anything in RAW about this, but I would assume that Pathfinder assumes that Held=Wield.
I don't think it does assume that. A character can hold a shield, gaining its AC bonus, without wielding it and suffering the dual-wield penalty. Likewise with wielding a weapon in one hand and holding a torch in the other as source of light and not a weapon.

You can totally be wielding the shield without suffering the TWF penalty.

That penalty only comes if you make the off-hand attack.

So, you can use attack with a long sword, use the other hand to wield a shield for the AC bonus and if you do not TWF there is no penalty associated to it. Furthermore, if you get disarmed you can start shieldbashing right away.

Not sure what is the OP intention.

But you wield a weapon when you can attack with it. So you can hold a greatsword with one hand but you are not wielding it.

mplindustries wrote:
Nicos wrote:
BAckstab was hard to do. The enemy had to be unaware of you, it was only once per fight, you have to attack him from the back, you had to be able to reach a vital spot (like flying to back stab a giant), you can only do it with a dagger, no flat-footed, no flanking.

That is not my memory of it at all. I need to dig out my 2e books now, to see if I"m just internalizing houserules or what. By my recollection, Backstabbing was unlimited (not once per fight) as long as you were behind the bad guy (they did not have to be unaware just facing away, though being unaware helped). I also do not remember it being required to be done with only a dagger. I definitely remember playing a Ranger with a Skills and Powers option to get Backstab who used a Quarterstaff.


Splatbaooks could change a lot, so that could be the thing.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.

Yes but we all played an elf or half-elf rogue/something just to get the 2 XP per gold piece acquired (rogues were 5 levels above everyone due to that amazing class feature... perhaps if we bring this class feature back it would singlehandedly solve all of the rogue's problems?)


It was not a class feature. It was an optional rule in the dungeon master guide.

mplindustries wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.
Backstab multiplied your damage, eventually by x4 or x5 and it was significantly easier to do because facing existed. Further, normal weapon damage was pretty limited--there was no power attack or anything, just 1d8 + a mediocre str derived bonus. And multiple attacks were fewer and came pretty late. Damage was lower overall, so Thief damage was relatively high. But again, casters were the best damage dealers by far.

BAckstab was hard to do. The enemy had to be unaware of you, it was only once per fight, you have to attack him from the back, you had to be able to reach a vital spot (like flying to back stab a giant), you can only do it with a dagger, no flat-footed, no flanking.

The multiplier was not that great. with strength 17 you only had +1 to damage.

Besides Rogue AC, saves(I think) and hit points were low.

Rogue were bad warriors.

Not sure what are you talking about. In 2ed the thief were horrible damage dealers.

Eh, you worry too to much to make PCs Lemmy.

And for the spellcaster thing, I somewhat like that the system encourage buying cool class features now instead of 8th-9th spellcasting later. Jo will be unable to buy 9th level spells and I'm considering giving up the 8th level spellcasting too.


If you don't want to be an spellcaster but have magic utility just take witch hexes, oracle mysteries, cleric domains and that kind of stuff.

Unless PFS, the first thing to do is ask if your GM would allow a decent feat for dex to damage or something.

If your GM dont allow that and the ACG sutff then Rainyninja advice is a very good one. Lore warden is particularly good since the bnus to CMD is great to not get grappled.

It is there a wizard/sorcerer spell list?

I mean, you can put togheter all the spells taht wizards and sorcerer can cast and call it the list, but that make those spells wizard/sorcerer spells?

If a wizard and a cleric can cast it, it is a wizard spell or a cleric spell?

Reading the spell I say that plane shift is in the cleric spell list and limited wish allow to cast it...wich I would hoserule out because all the shenanigans.

Greater hat of disguise is so useless for...disguising. The 3 minutes duration kills it.

According to the table here

Speaking give a -20 penalty to the perception. Moving the full spelld give a -10. But add +1 to the DC for every feet that searates the bard from the rogue.

As a side note, note that summon mosnter is 1 round action but he could two consecutive standad for it if he wants to keep moving.

I would like to see any good use for any of the rogue talents of combat of the inner sea.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

153. They think that if they piss the king, the king can only send CR appropriated enemies to kill them..

Not sure if Lemmy will join, or if we have to llok for a third player, or if you are fine playing just the two of you.

They are bad because bad selective realism to reinforce "my fantasy is better than your fantasay" coupled with water balloons stuff, there is no much more to say.

I'm having some problem with my internet connection...I hoped to find some movement in from ruin rebuilt :(

ok. I can prepare two of those.

Last fight I overlaped to spider swarm over a PC, I was not that the way to do it though.

An oficcial answer would be nice.

can you share a rule quote or your train of thought for that conclusion?

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Furious Focus a strong feat for
Or anything that doesn't full attack.

Furious focus worksj ust fine in a full attack.

BigDTBone wrote:
There is absolutely no balance issue, there is only one fighting style WORSE than THW/TWF and that is TWF with mixed weapons where one of them isn't two-handed.

Back in the off-hand" FAQ thread, numbers were rolled and the conclusion was that the Falchion/armor spikes was better or at least on par with Kukri/Kukri. Not saying that it was a conclusive proof, but still.

It seems that several posted missed the "Core only" Requirement.

IMHO, the character will not be great but unless the other are optimizing there should not be a problem.

1 to 50 of 9,343 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.