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. 9,494 posts (13,114 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 21 aliases.


1 to 50 of 9,494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Your minions will miss you.

Dazing black tentacles anyone?

It depends on what beast are we going to hunt.

Edymnion wrote:

Sure, you can get magic armor, but the bonuses you can get to armor are matched by the bonuses you can get on your weapons. +1 armor against a +1 weapon is break even.

It is not. Armor bonus cost half of the other.

A couple of months ago I designed a CR 16 (or so) encoutner for a party of 4 13th level characters.

While the enemies have respectable offense, the whole point of their tactic was to defend the boss using multiple tactics (specially teleporting minions).

The players hated that encounter.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Enemy logic can get supremely complex (overall, not usually for a single enemy). To simplify all enemy logic down to "any intelligent enemy would.." is a disrespect to DM tactics everywhere.

Very true.

It is a shame that the game does not have some sort of counterattack shield style feat chain.

Kill baby goblins is so evil, yo instead

126: Enslave them in one of your factories in Tian Xia.

Scavinon will join, apparently he never knew about his campaign before. He probably will play an arcane caster.

I don't see how the existence of a terrible feat makes another terrible feat less bad.

thejeff wrote:
Nicos wrote:
On a sidenote, this is one of the reasons I don't allow magic item creation feats when I GM. Either no one can craft so you have to adventure for your items, or everyone can craft but they still have to adventure for the components to craft their items.
I prefer more interesting reasons to adventure than "getting stuff". But I also generally make enough stuff available that Crafting isn't a need.

That's fine in my book, everyting is better than wasting time the endless arguments about crafting stuff (just for example)

On a sidenote, this is one of the reasons I don't allow magic item creation feats when I GM. Either no one can craft so you have to adventure for your items, or everyone can craft but they still have to adventure for the components to craft their items.

kamenhero25 wrote:
Yes, because the only point of Pathfinder is to optimize. Clearly a Role-Playing Game should not have any actual roleplaying.

If it is for roleplaying and having a having a more rounded character, then I prefer to not waste a skill in craft and use it for something more character defining like bluff or sense motive.

Inlaa wrote:

By the way, as a first level character, this bard's spells would be Sleep and Cure Light Wounds. Round 1, cast Sleep and move as necessary. Round 2, draw sword and start song. Round 3, beat the crap out of things.

Sleep is a 1-round spell.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

The action economy against multiple lower cr enemies is better for the 2H as well. More likely to bring them down in a hit or two as well.

Not sure about that. THe DPR of the SnB will be lower but perhaps enough to kill lower CR enemies in the same amount of time, the higher DPR of the THF could be a waste.

Something to be considered is that high AC work better agaisnt multiple not that strong hits.

Sure, a CR +4 melee focused baeast with two primary natural attacks will probably hit the shield user the same way than the non shield user. But agaisnt multiple lower CR the difference in AC can signify a huge difference in the damage received.

Comparisons at level 20 are so pointless for multiple reasons. Seecially in this case, and specially in 1 vs 1, it is just magic item vs magic item.

FOr example the THF can have a +1 brilliant greatsword as a back up weapon (since he is not spending his money in a shield) so goodbye to the godlike AC of the SnB.

Comparisions around 5th to 13th levels are more meaningful.

Lemmy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.
A 2-handed attack is not an offhand attack... Or at least it wasn't... Paizo idiotic FAQ for Schronsigger hands made everything needlessly complicated and confusing...

Atarlost is right. The only way to benefit from a buckler and THF is the thuderstriker fighter archetype.

It is probably because when SM IX was written there was no appropriated neutral evil monster available.

And fo the last question, the best choice is whatever choice that make the fight at hand easier to win. Most NE would not worry about that.

Dustyboy wrote:
Whip+slashing grace+ hamatulutsu strike, the rest is flavor

I don't see how could you do it with a whip?, with a whip you would need whip mastery.

By the way, hamatula doesn't require the weapon to be used in melee. Trhow a chained harpoon. Your DM will probably say no however.

Wednesday is a good day

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like 12 years ago we were kicked out of a house because one of the players was stealing some starfruit/carambola from a tree of the house next to the one we were playing.

It is funny when remembered, but at the time the host had problem with his mom and the neighbors.

Guys, the dreaded day when I finally have to start practicing my conversational skills have come, someone have free time one of these days?

Coming back to CE, the situation is obnoxious but it would be something if at least no other feat is ever released with CE as prerequisite (unless said feat have actually something to do with fighting defensively).

And they probably wanted to save some bloodlines to publish them in later books.

There is no meaningful way to show what is the standard way to generate stats in PF.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
EDIT: And if Dazing monsters for 1 round shuts down an entire encounter, the Wizard isn't doing it alone.

You probably want to reread some rules before continuing.

In general, I think it would be nice if the books do not present not balanced options as reasonably equals. If an options is supposed to be bad or good just under a very restricted set of circumstances then the books should say it, IMHO.

A good portion of system mastery is to avoid the bad options, wich for a new player (or someone that just do not want to read that much) can be a pain.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:
Charisma is great. It just sadly doesn't work well for melee characters. Cha to AC, saves, initiative, yada yada is all great when you have an offensive ability to grow off of it. I don't know of a consistent way to get Charisma to hit/damage in Pathfinder. Smite gets you part of the way there.

When you are adding cha to so many thing you can happily allow yourself to buy a big strength.

Lamontius wrote:


the hidden gem

It actually is. No other stat can add to so many things at once.

That is meaningless. You are defending taking a feat that only change some stats around.

Personally, I think the whole treatment paizo gave to dex to damage was bad. It seems like they didn't wanted to release it so they just release whatever thing to fill space.

Just allowing dervish dance to work with any finneseable weapon would have been easier and better.

Magda Luckbender wrote:

b]What I can't countenance is dumping Strength down to 7 and claiming to be an effective melee combatant[/b], unless you're a bunny. Doing so violates my personal suspension of disbelief more than the existence of fire breathing dragons and magic: it feels too much like an exploit.

Houserule that you still take into account any penalty to damage from low str, reduce the number of feats to have dex to damage to weapon finesse and some sort of improved weapon finesse problem solved

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:


Carry Capacity
Melee attacks rolls
Melee damage
Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB)
Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD)

Dexterity (with a dex to damage build):
Melee attack rolls
Melee damage
Initiative modifier
Ranged attack rolls
Armor Class
Reflex save
Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD)
Disable Device
Escape Artist
Sleight of Hand
-2 feats

Tcho Tcho wrote:
After looking at this thread a couple of months ago I decided to make CE obsolete in my games. The next one to GM agreed and now it seems to be gone forever. I really can't see a reason to 1 require a feet that penalizes my trip action to take improved trip, 2 discourage tactical fighting and 3 nerf the martials. It works really good for all of us. Thanks guys !

So this thread actually helped someone? good to know.

Zolanoteph wrote:

Sure, you could just pump int without the need for combat expertise, but combat expertise allows for a certain type of character flavor to be viable mechanically and therefore your INT fighter is more than just a mechanically useless roleplaying character.

I donn't see this at all. Frankly, while CE is not the worse thing ever it is also true that in most cases using it is not particularly smart either.

Cheapy wrote:

OK. Consider this:

You feel abject hatred toward 103 words in a book whose point is to support an imaginary fantasy land utilized by a group of friends with the goal of having fun and drink beer.

Seems silly to have such strong emotions about it now, huh?

Since having fun is the goal and combat expertise can be such a fun, probably not hate but extreme dislakement don't seem inappropriate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is an horrible feat that somehow just get worse and worse with every new book (since it becomes the feat tax for more and more unrelated feats)

No more combat expertse! - (I can dream)


As a cheap armor enchantment I suppose the spell storing is not that unusual, it would be nice to have a clarification.

As you have to pay for them separately I suppose it was meant to be two diferent swift actions, but it is hard to tell.

Symar wrote:
Other than a whole pile of bonus Summon Monster uses how is this any worse than a Wizard doing the same thing?

There is the standard - vs 1 round casting.

Melkiador wrote:
Yeah, Master Summoner is just OP. Worse than being OP is that it can very easily bog down a game by flooding the field with monsters. You may want to consider retroactively banning the Master Summoner and letting the player rebuild as a regular summoner.

Agreed, things just will grow worse and worse with the levels.

Serisan wrote:
Non-PFS, you can always use Leadership.

Eh, "Non-PFS, you can always try to convince your GM to let you use Leadership."

Kazaan wrote:
The rules of the game, as written, say that all that is required to get a flanking bonus is that an ally threatens the target from the opposite side.

Weird...I remember the word "melee attacks" are written in the rules.

ccs wrote:
I wouldn't give the new people anything extra. I'd simply expect them to understand that the existing players are being rewarded for something that was already in motion

I agree.

Imbicatus wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Sensei use wisdom to attack and damage and AC. There is a witch archetype hat use con as spellcasting stats.
Sensei is wisdom to attack, but not damage...

That is true...weird ability.

Sensei use wisdom to attack and damage and AC. There is a witch archetype hat use con as spellcasting stats.

Craked pale green prism Ioun stone.

bookrat wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
I believe Lemmy was the one who pointed out that for the most part a fighter's progression is mostly getting greater numbers while the wizard's progression is primarily getting greater options. You can see this in a number of classes, but those two display the gap most clearly.
I would argue that that is not entirely accurate. Wizard numbers also grow immensely.

Would it be more accurate to say that fighters have their numbers grow while wizards have their numbers grow AND gain more options as they level?

Thinking about this further, it seems to me as if wizards (and casters in general) are more powerful because they can change out their powerful options by the day. In this line, is a sorcerer more in line with a fighter because they can't quickly change out their high powered options? Once their spells are chosen, they're more or less fixed, like a fighters. Is the martial-caster disparity reduced with casters that have their options fixed once chosen?

There is a point where sorcerer have enough spells to cover most of things.

But, I do agree that caster should be way more restricted. Prohibited schools should be a thing. Conjuration should not give so many variate options and etc.

Also, high level skills and non magical options should be awesome, I'm not fan of cutting mountains into half or jumping so high your reach the moon, but high level skills and non magical options are way to mundane as they are.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Koshimo wrote:

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

The rules are crystal clear it doesn't matter if that make sense to you or not.

1 to 50 of 9,494 << 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.