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

Petty Alchemy's page

1,889 posts (2,006 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,889 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Well, uh, not quite?

The expectation is that at least one player can activate a CLW wand, and the party all chips in for it. Neither is everyone expected to cast spells. Being useful out of combat is expected though. Mundanes try to do that with skills generally, while casters do it with spells (unless they're int-based, in which case they have both).

But ye olde fighter-thief-cleric-wizard, where the fighter is the main guy in the front, with the cleric right behind him? Far from the norm now.

Given how it exists in PF, I think it'd be simpler to make it a Ranger archetype.


I like PF, but it's not the end all system for me. I also liked 4e, before they started doing Essentials. I like the new 5e stuff as well. I could play a sniper rogue and actually be a contributing party member thanks to my class features, not magic items or being babysat by a wizard. That's something 3.x/PF has never supported, and probably never will.
Mostly I play PF out of the convenience of finding a group, and because it's so familiar to 3.5, which I spent years playing.


Nicos wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

[\

My fighters already do what the OP is requesting, without house rules.

Same.

It's amazing what's possible when you don't dump all your assets into killcrushmaim and take a SLIGHTLY more balanced view.

Don't dump Int AND Cha and you should be fine.

Fighters have a bajillion Feats that can be employed to make them pretty well rounded OUT of combat.

It sounds Good, until the Ranger can dump int to 8 and have more skill points than a 14 int fighter, plus virtual skill points, plus the skills from the animal companion, plus magic, plus better saves.

And then, when the fighter is spending his feat to out of combat stuff he is also losing the edge in combat agaisnt the ranger who now have more out of combat and more in combat too. And hope that fighter is not specializing in a feat intensive figthing style.

Fighter are "ok", but they are incomplete, and after the slayer it shoudl be clear the lack of skill points and other stuff was a bad idea.

I think the Fighter is outdated as a concept. The class name isn't descriptive of a unique class. Everyone in the party is expected to fight now.

Perhaps it would be easier to create a vanilla archetype called "Fighter" for the Ranger. Trade out naturey themed stuff for bonus combat (style?) feats. Trade out spells for weapon training or armor training, maybe, or use one of the existing archetypes.
Done, you have good saves, good skill points, and get to ignore bad prereqs.


This helps limit the exponential scaling of casters. A high level wizard in 3.x can end encounters with his highest level spells, or just contribute on the level of everyone else with his low level spells. And as mentioned, cantrips do scale. The Warlock is all about blasting away with Eldritch Blast all day.


Exploding stars, falling meteors, and other astral obstacles perhaps?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure in 5e, maintaining Concentration is no action. You can do whatever you want while having such a spell up, however, you can't have multiple concentration spells running at once, and you have to make a check if you take damage.


Balanced if they can't wear armor.

However, it lacks cultural identity. Races are expected to have fluff stuff, rather than having all the points spent on pure concentrated combat stats. Stuff like +2 to skills, etc.

I would start with the Nagaji race, and make some modifications for a lizardfolk.


I second the Magus suggestion, going Kensai (and maybe Bladebound). You could dip Swashbuckler and get Slashing Grace, and be entirely dex based with the Katana.
That seems more in line with what you want.


Dragon Style is the best after Pummeling.

Unfortunately as a monk you have to pick between good AC and high damage (Dex/Wis vs. Str/Wis), but you can get by if you have a friendly mage that preps Mage Armor (be sure to buy him a Pearl of Power I for his troubles, it only costs 1k).

I suggest going Harrow Warden if you skip Dragon Style, because Idiot Strike works on everything, unlike Stunning Fist.

Trip builds can do a lot of damage because you can stack a lot of follow-ups to a trip. Greater Trip, Vicious Stomp, Ki Diversity (Bone Crusher). All without losing the full attack (or handy when you have to move and attack).


+1 Paladin, don't worry about combat healing. As a Paladin you should be doing enough damage to draw some of the aggression off of the Barbarian.

The sorcerer should be summoning if more melee density is needed to keep enemies away.


I'd say Lucifer would cheat with Mass Charm Monster on the judges, but the bard would have a chance to countersong it (even though it's not a sonic/language-dependent spell).

I'm not familiar with homebrew superbeings such as the one you linked, but you could easily make one with ranks in Perform, as well as an item that offers a hefty competence bonus.


Daymar the Hawklord. He had some funny quirks I'd like to include on a mage sometime, like adding special effects to his spells.


I'll chime in again for Dragaera, sure. I never really thought about it for Pathfinder, but I was planning to recreate Castle Black (with Morrolan, Aliera, and Sethra) in Legend...so it must've made an impact.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

Change the question.

If the character has that good a skill, what other skills have they neglected?

Really, in the case of the Bard why continue putting points into Sing? Aren't there other skills that would be useful?

Precisely, there's diminishing returns for over-optimizing a skill. You could be spending those resources elsewhere.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooh, definitely Tiger-Headed Opium Nightmare for me.


Looks fine, except for Green.

Green is definitely confrontational, the Fight mechanic is in color for it. Green takes the direct approach, the least subtle of all the colors. If there's a problem, smash through it.


Sacred Fist Warpriest as mentioned, or Sap Master Ninja (Scout).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Let's note that the 3/4 BAB characters could have some fun with this too. A Bard or Rogue swinging through the window -- Crash! -- would be situational as hell. But when it comes together? The stuff of gaming memories.
This is better then a whole prestige class.

Hey now, he'd only taken his first level in that PrC, and it looks like he got other features as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's an amazing feat. As has been mentioned, not necessarily practical, it requires the appropriate setting, and some setup in your build, and then the DC isn't very high. But...it's worth it nonetheless.


Check out this build.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think he's going for threat anyway. On account of picking a turtle.


He probably wants it to be one of them bloody immortal skeletons.


Really depends on the martial side. Cleric as mentioned, Bard is another contender, especially if you go Arcane Duelist as they'll get the ability to cast in heavier armors.


I love the rogue! But I typically play it in other systems.


If the GM makes sure you're healed up for each combat, why do you need someone who can heal?

In-combat healing is weak unless you heavily optimize for it (or reach high enough level to cast Heal), neither seem likely in your scenario.


I love it, though I haven't used it yet.

Stunning Fist is good against humanoids that wield weapons/have low fort saves, like casters. That's a minority of monsters. Most of them have excellent fort saves, use natural weapons, and many are straight up immune to stuns.

Nothing is immune to Idiot Strike, and most creatures that fight in melee have weak will saves. It also helps to set up your casters for their big SoBS spells.


Taking a bonus and turning it into a penalty is not just reversing the RP cost. One could easily add penalties that are inconsequential.

-2 to Diplomacy doesn't matter when you aren't the party face, you'll never be rolling Diplomacy anyway. +2 Diplomacy matters more because it gives you something to build around (and even then, it's cheap).

Nerdtothe3rd wrote:

So your saying you only take races if they fit your class design build. Not everyone does that ya know?

So your saying if it had a -4 to every stat -10 to attack and damage it still too strong because " he has four arms"

No one is saying that. We're saying that you're stacking a lot of physical prowess (far beyond what current races have), and not counteracting it with meaningful penalties. Powerful Build alone is amazing. Multiple arms alone are amazing. A bonus feat alone is amazing. +2/+4/-2 stats alone are amazing. And these are all amazing in the same direction.


The two custom traits you create to bring them just under the monstrous category do not merit -3 and -4 IMO. I'd say -2 and -1 would be more accurate. Slow is worse than either of those two, and it's only -1.

Another thing to consider: Have you just made the ultimate warrior race? Is there any mechanical reason to pick another race for a martial?


I could swear I saw a WoG tweet that Sharpshooter applies to thrown weapons, but I can't seem to find it now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
The Cape of Feinting is the most broken item I know. A 7th-level Swashbuckler can keep an any level anything in a dazelock, forever. (Or, at least as long as the swashbuckler can stay awake.)

*Deploys Android Swashbuckler army*


It's something you can do, but it would be ineffective/require a heavy investment.
If you play other systems, I'd recommend saving this concept for 5e, in which you will need a feat to TWF with rapiers, but dex to hit/damage with rapiers is free.


Re: Mooks
I don't agree with the equivalency you see between crafting magic items and taking mooks into battle with you.
I'm not a fan of the Master Summoner because he adds clutter to combats, and I wouldn't welcome a Fighter taking his students on a field trip with the party for the same reason. And yet if I want to be a leader fighter, it sounds like it's a weak option unless you do have these mooks. I'd prefer to be an effective catalyst for the party, turning a group of ragtag heroes into a well-oiled fighting unit. The idea that the party won't want to take combat guidance from the Fighter seems silly to me, it's like rejecting magical aid from the Wizard or booing the Bard.

Re: Bonus to mooks in War
I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense for the Fighter, I'm saying it's not clear what that means. These bonuses matter for small scale combats, but large scale combats aren't fought by those rules.

Re: Armor Training
Right, that's a good point that Dex Fighters can take good advantage of Armor Training. It's just that when I play a Dex Fighter, I don't want to wear heavy armor for stylistic reasons, even if the character can move in it as if it's light armor. I can see I wasn't clear on that.

It seems like you're remaking too much stuff to comment on without seeing the end product though, so I'm gonna stop here. I don't like the design behind feats as a major class feature, I don't think it's a meaningful niche. But that is what the Fighter is to a lot of people, so I'm sure a lot of people will like it.


If the Fighter grants combat bonuses to mooks you don't actually expect him to bring on the adventure, what's the point?

If this bonus is meant to apply to an army at war, what does it actually mean? Wars aren't resolved by having each soldier roll to hit and damage (or rather, that would be a very tedious and lengthy method of resolution).

I don't understand your issue with Fighter archetypes, but that's your prerogative. Keeping a feature I don't need (ex. Armor Training on a Dex Fighter) then needing to spend feats on what I could've traded it out for in the first place? That's a nerf. If you call your special feats Techniques and make an Extra Technique, I think that would be good enough to keep it Fighter only.

I like the idea of Expertise modifying things but extra features are more appealing than additional scaling. I've never run out of AoOs when I had combat reflexes, getting 3 more isn't doing anything for me. But granting combat reflexes to my allies to allow them to strike the target while flat-footed due to my drilling? That's pretty cool.


Perhaps we have different expectations. I expect feats to be fixed for everyone, but I'm okay with Fighters getting something extra, ex. sharing Combat Reflexes with all nearby allies. Actually, I'm fond of the idea of the Fighter sharing some basic feats.

Alternatively, you could write new features for the fighter to choose from ala talents, and have one talent just grant you a feat, with no limit on the amount of times you can take it. So either dip into a pool of unique stuff like barbarians/magus/ninja do, or get the classic fighter stuff.

Side note: I don't keep Bravery/Armor Training because most archetypes trade it out, I'm sure the same will occur for others. That's why it may make sense to do Fighter Talents as a more effective way to make sure it's exclusive to the class.

Not a fan of making the Fighter bring a lot of mooks with him. Many tables ban leadership, and buffing NPCs better than PCs doesn't sound fun for anyone at the table. I don't think you have to worry about the Fighter stepping on the Bard's toes unless he starts casting Haste.


Generally, three different inspirations might strike.

Mechanics: I notice some cool rules and I want to use them.
Concept: I get a character concept stuck in my head, or the setting inspires me.
Art: I see some rad art/or hear a rad song, and I just have to make a character to use it.


I think if you want to fix feats, they should be fixed for everyone. It seems wasteful to do it for just one class. Fighters can get more of them and ignore prereqs like rangers do though, I'm fine with that.

I'd like to see military genius/leader played up as the new set of class features. Making the Fighter mesh with Warlord/Marshal archetypes. Granting actions, temporary hit points, etc. Or alternatively to being a secondary buffer, the Fighter could be a secondary debuffer, imposing penalties on enemies just for being in his battlezone. Or perhaps, both.

The ranger and barbarian are typically cast as lone wolves, but the Fighter should be an excellent squad mate/leader.


Just a hand of poker. Played with the Deck of Many Things.


I'd say Str/Cha are the stats of agency, the ability to push on others and the world around you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:


I decided that if that's what the club members thought was good RP, it wasn't where I wanted to be.

Um, yeah, I'd tend to agree. Our group's don't go in for a) splitting the party and b) killing NPCs unless they attack us first

Why would you abandon the fight to "eat your kill"? Was he evil or neutral or something? I've never heard of a PC Druid doing anything so.. stupid.

Everyone knows predatory instincts demand you eat your kill on the spot, heedless of other threats.


And what do they say about you?

My favorite stats have always been Dex and Wisdom.

I usually prefer avoiding trouble, either by evading notice or not being in the place where trouble expects me to be. I likewise value self-awareness, recognizing competence where one has it, and incompetence where one needs to improve.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Once I thought it would be good to meet more nerds like me IRL, as opposed to online. I went to my university's game club on new member's night, and joined a one-shot game.

There were three new people (including myself), and three current members (including the DM). We get off to a standard start, getting a job in a tavern. 4 of us take the hook, but one of the members (who is playing the fighter) decides to stay back and seduce the barkeeper's wife. Okay. 4/5 of us are going on the adventure.

Combat begins, and the other current member is playing a druid. He wildshapes into a big cat, and once he slays his first opponent (out of a large group of enemies), he spends the rest of his turns eating his kill. So we're down to 3 contributing members. Meanwhile the Fighter is found out by the barkeeper, so he kills the tavern owner.

I decided that if that's what the club members thought was good RP, it wasn't where I wanted to be.


Looks like a basic tripping build? Check out Ki Diversity as well. Also what they said about Brawling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Super Weight is a good measure of power.


If you want to ride your animal companion though, the shortbow is still your go-to.


Definitely a magus in a normal game, though generally their ability in magic and martial combat would call for a gestalt game.


I'm saying that the commoner will be both a lawyer and a doctor. Like Dr. McNinja, only Dr. McLawyer.


More silly is that an average Int 10 commoner can be a lawyer and a doctor.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Wildblooded is an archetype. Even if you allowed it, the Sylvan bloodline should be excluded as it replaces the bloodline power and the arcana. Eldritch Heritage only gives you the bloodline power.

That's similar to my take. I consider wildblooded variants legal choices, but Sylvan gives a bigger slice of pie than Eldritch Heritage is meant to provide, since it also replaces the arcana.


I love what they've done for the Rogue. I'm playing one at lvl5 right now, and was planning to take an opening shot with my bow, then close with the rapier. But I've been able to use Cunning Action to shoot, move, and hide all in the same turn, so long as the terrain allows it.

I like a lot of stuff, Advantage/Disadvantage, Concentration to prevent people from getting too crazy prepared for a fight with buffs, and so on. But I feel most of it works for 5e and would be very difficult to put into PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are, and Intimidate to cause Shaken is one of the most basic ways.

Void Wizards are great at this, as is anyone with the Madness Domain. Alternatively, making them roll twice and take the worse result with something like Misfortune (Witch hex), Ill Omen (lvl 1 spell, best if cast by a familiar with a wand), or Idiot Strike (Harrow Warden archetype monk)

1 to 50 of 1,889 << 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.