Pixie, the Leng Queen's page

The Dragon wrote:

But still Golarion isn't made for high-level characters, so maybe it's for the best that they take off for the Abyss, or whatever? The only high-level casters sticking around on Golarion are those who're stuck (I.e. big final bosses for at least two APs I know of) or those who want to play around with being a big fish in a small pond.

When Fighters want to retire, they build a castle by the sea and lay on the beach to get some sun. When Wizards want to retire, they skip the castle and beach part and just go straight to the sun.

Funny you should say that...

LazarX wrote:

swoosh wrote:

Full casters tend to get ridiculous abilities, especially endgame.

Martial characters tend to struggle figuring out what they're supposed to do when they can't walk up and punch something.

People keep saying that with some kind of mantra.. Maybe that's true for the bad GMs that gave them that impression... or maybe the player who can't imagine doing anything that's not from an optimizer's mechanic.

But it's not the universal truth they think it is. It's true where GM's give the nod to caster players, and are simply not strict with magic. Or haven't realised that you build your campaign to your players. I've played the gamut from non-casters to 4th, 6th, and 9th. The thing is ... no matter what you play, the key is to make your own fun.

Isn't admitting that you have to change the way the game is played or however you're 'more strict with magic' to make things fair? Also you're calling everyone who has problems with this a bad GM instead of possibly assuming that MAYBE there's a problem with the game.

As for 'building your campaign for your players', a lot of people use APs, and doing that isn't really feasible, so yeah, maybe in the way you run games with players who aren't using the rules the way others are, it's fine for you. But you have this needless air of superiority to how you play the game that's not helpful in conversations like this and painfully antagonistic towards people who play the game differently from you that you seem to bring into all conversations on the subject.

This thread was meant to talk about what the game does best, not to bash others for having problems with a game that most will admit isn't perfect, and I agree that the 6th level casters are a bright spot in design that I myself greatly admire. Keeping new designs around this level would be great, and personally I'd love to eventually see 9th level casters phased out.

LazarX is well known for being... well... unique... and not very mild, even if he is wrong... alot...

I would think most groups would run it like 3.5...

After all, look at all the random places supporters have to point to to try and draw some conclusion. Not many average players I think would go to look at the Counterspelling Section to look at rules for Spellcraft... Heck, I think most people think of the sweeping arms and incantation as the "Hm I wonder what he is casting" signs...

Oh if your a Druid/Hunter/Cleric of certain domains/Ranger/Sorcerer of certain bloodlines/Witch/Oracle of Certain mysteries/Shaman you can always charm/dominate the horse...

Now THAT would be an interesting scenerio. How would you define the status of a horse to its master? Is is necessarily friendly? Maybe the horse is just trained the rider has no real connection to it (its just one of the warhorses or somethin). Cuz that horse suddenly is very friendly to you... and if it dont particulairly care for the guy on top it... its gonna have no qualms about throwing the guy off...

Criminies, man, are you people tough, and rude.

Did you ever, even once, consider just asking the rider to get down from the horse first?

Sheesh, people, man.

Or you can scare him right off his horse... that would be funny...

lulz.

Well with the fighter archetype Eldritch Guardian a dog would be nasty... but it would actually be kinda cool and fitting... Like a Grey Warden and her faithful companion... Dog...

As for the group saying "well the effects are subtle like eyes whiting and such"... that makes Spellcraft REALLY FREAKING DUMB...

I mean, picture if you will... A wizard casts a silent Stilled Dominate Person with Eschew Materials... you say his eyes kinda go a little white or something (his eyes glow a little maybe?). Well, since there is no penalty to spellcraft with Silent+Still+Eschew, the spell is still very readily identifiable...

That means, you are some how saying that an opponent wizard could go "He is casting Dominate Person!!!", the fighter would ask "How the bloody hell can you tell???" and in reply the wizard would say "His eyes slightly glowed a Deep Sea green blue with a touch of magenta. Obviously Dominate. Charm is more a Light Sea blue green with a touch of hot pink"...

I mean... that just SOUNDS stupid... Now the glowing runes things solves the issue entirely (each spell has a unique set of runes) and is in line with Words of Power (as they are essentially more primal magic), but that opens a whole new can of worms. Now Illusion has an even HARDER time now (since glowing pretty runes makes things like invisibiity pointless...) and creates and even weirder time with stealth (if a wizard is behind a low barrier stealthed and casts a silent, still spell, would the glow give him away? Technically there is no listed penalty to stealth for casting a spell).

The other issue is Enchantment. Enchantment is also a school that is hosed enough (There is a reason why most people ditch enchantment with no worries...). Now a lot of its spells are rather pointless or lose all thematic value (how are you supposed to be a charming succubus using magic to charm your opponents without them even knowing when you glow eldritch runes eveywhere???)

So yes, the FAQratta is stupid and create ALL SORTS OF OTHER ISSUES....

Yeah... I'm not sure why y'all would think magic has no outward appearance when all media I can think of has magic have some outward appearance. It takes a spellcraft roll with no special vision like detect magic to identify a spell.

Even if it is subtle, pupil-less eyes or a magical rune appearing or just a visual distortion like a mirage all would be subtle magical effects. If you have Spellsong, then the feat specifically overwrites the general rule of outward appearance - just like Tricky Spell or combining Still and Silent.

Hiding a spell requires roleplay and guile, and magic is strong enough without saying casting Charm Person isn't an obvious casting.

Except how come only bards can hide their spell? Are you suggesting only bards can suppress the sparkles? and they can only do it while performing? If you interpret spell song as they are hiding the COMPONENTS within their performance (as in hiding the words in a song or message and the somatic components within regular movements involves[i.e. sweeping arm movements for a speech, moving your bow of your violin, dramatic movememnts for acting, ect]) then Spellsong makes sense (especially since Bards cannot take Silence spell).

Also remember, they said it is an obvious effect that even a lay person can tell is magical. Which means something like sparkles, Avatar:the last airbender kung fu movements, glowies, floating runes, ect. Things you cannot confuse for glare in your glasses or a mirage. The fact they call out their artwork further shows they are thinking along these lines...

Also, most media tends to have the obvious signs of spell casting (outside stuff like fireballs) as the WORDS and the movements to cast (Swish then flick). Of the other ones, a lot of time it has visual effects so that the audience knows SOMETHING is happening. It is put in to enhance drama.

Well the thing is that, it seems he doesn't quite understand how the game evolves at higher levels. At those levels, the game is VERY different.

Pathfinder is not like a video game where the game is pretty similiar from level 1 to level 20, just bigger numbers and explosions. In PF, level 20 you are doing things that most people would peg GOD LEVEL. Even at level 12, if you look at my prior post, you are literally as epic as JESUS. I mean, at this point, you have to shift your expectations, otherwise you end up frustrated like this where you need to create horridly contrived scenerios to railroad your players or to just ignore the rules all together.

Add in the fact that WIND WALK is giving him problems.... WIND WALK... that is a pretty negligible spell on the whole...what happens when he runs into Simulacrum? Clone? Wish? Miracle? What happens when a player gets the bright idea to bind an outsider? Or Create Demi-plane? It will only get MUCH worse. If he is having an issue with a minor spell like that, the best advice is to play something like E-6 or E-8.

EDIT:Forgot to mention... wait until one of his players discover the Kineticist....

lulz. I actually like that xD.

Honestly, I feel like the Proteans need more love... Having more Chaos vs Lawful stuff would be awesome lol. Having Asmodeus and that one LG paladin god (I am completely spacing her name...) pairing up would be HILARIOUS.

Or of course you can do the opposite quite well. Chaos working together to stop the horde of uniformity and conformity (think Shivering Isles from Elder Scrolls Oblivion).

And another inexperienced GM is painfully discovering the reality of the Martial-Caster Disparity and how higher level casters can shut down mundane things (like travel) with ease...

Consider this Barry....

A level 12 Cleric is literally more epic than Jesus...

Create Water from thin air? Check

Bless Water? Check

Turn Water to wine?Check

Cure Blindness? Check

Cure the Sick? check

Walk on Water? Check

Can tell falsehoods?Check

Speak such that all understand? Check[url]

Atone a person for their sins? [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/atonement]Check

Break enchantments and such? Yup

Raise the dead? Yup

I mean... just think of that. A 12th level cleric is literally as epic (or more so) than Jesus. AND he can still open a can of Whoop ass in combat...

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Ugh.... that is so stupid...

So how are they going to explain Spellsong? If magic creates very obviously magical effects, how can you possibly hide it in a simple violin song? or a speech? How can you possibly HIDE THE MAGIC?

This is dumb....

Maybe because Spellsong is a feat. You know, those things that represent spending extra time training to do something special that other people don't know how to do. Like when a fighter takes Power Attack to learn how to hit things harder - nobody else can do that unless they also spend the time to learn this feat.

That's what feats are for - specifically, to allow your character to do something that otherwise breaks general rules. You know, like taking a penalty to attack gives you bonus damage on your attack rolls - totally breaking the general rules of attack and damage, but that's what the Power Attack feat lets you do, break the general rule.

So take the feat and learn how to do something special. Something that other people cannot do. Learn how to break the general rule about visible spellcasting.

(Side note: doesn't the fact that there IS spellsong feat PROVE that you, and everyone else, CANNOT hide their spellcasting through other means - and that it was even true before the fact?)

(Second side note: can we now take this back to the actual open and ongoing thread where people are discussing this simple clarification and how it ruins Pathfinder?)

Except that the feat simply says you can weave your spell into your performance. This I saw before as hiding the verbal in the lyrics or sounds and the somatics in movement. Now, if you got sparkles or things that are VERY OBVIOUSLY MAGICAL makes it much harder to figure out how to hide it. I mean, how do you hide sparkles? I mean, if all magic makes special effects that even a lay person can tell is magic, how can you possibly hide it? Unless you are suggesting that all bardic performances come with pyrotechnic shows....

And if they ARE having a way to hide it, why can't anyone else? Unless, of course, they are going to force a new meta magic feat to suppress this non existant sparkle in the new book...

Oh and this makes playing any sort of stealth mage damn near impossible until said feat is created...

Ugh.... that is so stupid...

So how are they going to explain Spellsong? If magic creates very obviously magical effects, how can you possibly hide it in a simple violin song? or a speech? How can you possibly HIDE THE MAGIC?

This is dumb....

alexd1976 wrote:

I lean more towards your viewpoint, personally, but some people say they are WILDLY overpowered... which to me seems odd...

Expensive, sure, unreliable, absolutely...

Overpowered? Tell that to the guy flying around and dropping fireballs from the sky.

I don't consider them overpowered. So much as the mechanic they use to hit touch AC is way too easy to bypass. At the very least I would have uses flat footed AC. If a campaign has many large sized creatures in it. The Gunslinger is never going to miss. I know I ran Rise of the runelords and the player was one shotting giants with his musket. Mind you part of it was my fault for allowing a weapon that does x 4 on a crit. As well as the player being a optimizer. I had to double and triple the HP because he was almost never missing.

Compared to what a optimized Wizard run by a player who knows what he is doing. Not even close even with Advanced Firearms. Greater invisibility plus fireballs or summon monster means the Gunslinger is at a disadvantage. That's why it's hard to take some in the hobby seriously when it comes to them saying stuff is overpowered. The gunslinger is broken and/or overpowered. But the wizard surely not it's magic the wizard is supposed to be broken and overpowered.

There is a reason for Touch vs Flat Footed...

Since the rounds are sub sonic and actually kinda slow (for a bullet), they are in fact dodge-able. But due to their mass (muskets would go all the way to 70 or 80 caliber... which is rediculous....) they have alot of KE so they punch through armor (well that is the thought process. It kind of depends on angle of attack as well since they are prone to Ricochet due to their lower velocity). Also you can throw off the aim of a firearm by being a moving target. Hitting a moving target is fairly difficult for a firearm (even with modern firearms, people sometimes have difficultly hitting moving targets with accuracy without lots of training and practice). Now hitting a BIG target much easier. After all, the joke is "not able to hit the broadside of a barn." If you miss something bigger than a barn.... well... you suck...

Hm.. Grapple can be useful though...

My Huge sized Snake Animal Companion agrees (Hunter9/Mammoth Rider1 (my GM ruled that a Large Snake is a suitable mount for a Gnome)). Getting the Grapple feats and the Contricting feat chain together with a crit fishing Gnome with Butterfly Sting gets really funny...

@Pixie - Did you extend your mercy to undead creatures?

Nope. Against undead, we destroyed them since they are truly unnatural in our world. But that was the only exception.

Technically you can argue it is reducing HP. It is reducing your HP by a negative value, therefor causing it to go up. Mathmatically, you can just see Positive Energy as a negative numerical value. Essentially your equation would be

HP= C-E[D1+D2]

Where HP= Final HP
C= Maximum HP
E[D1+D2}= Sum of all damage Sustained (not sure how to do a sigma on a keyboard -.-)

If Positive Energy is simply a Negative Value you would have something like this (lets assume you took 10 damage from a longsword prior):

so lets start with

40= 50-[10+0]

Now lets say you get hit with a CLW

48= 50-[10+(-8)]

And we know that current HP is tracked as total HP subtracted by total damage sustained (this was cleared up with all the confusion with non lethal damage that is tracked up, not down).

Therefore you can very easily say "healing" is just negative damage. The only reason it is not written as "negative damage" is that it would confuse the crap out of newer players. Heck, this is actually how most video games track HP and damage (which is why you CAN crit with heals in things like WoW).

I can say that NON LETHAL parties are quite do able.

I was in a party with a Monk of the White Lotus (me), a Hedge Witch (she loved her sleep hex...), A Cavalier of the Blue Rose, a Tranquil Paladin, and a Life Oracle. Everything we did was non lethal and we took prisoners and returned them to the "proper authority" or we try to help teach them the path of good.

How is positive energy not damage?

When you hit an undead is it not Positive Energy DAMAGE. The difference with living and non living is that one does "negative damage" and one does "positive damage." With living creatures, its like throwing a fireball at a Iron Golem, they GAIN power from it. Visa Versa for undead.

I remember in 3.5 it WAS negative damage. Essentially, they treated it like how many Video Games treat healing in game, its damage, just damage with a negative value (Subtract a negative value from your HP creates a positive addition, for those who are bad at math). They just didn't write it that way since it would look REALLY messy.

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

You want a rediculously under CR-ed CR 7 creature?

Let me introduce you to the 3 eyes, many tentacled, swimming slimy people eater

THIS is what under values looks like...

I ran an encounter with 4 of these vs 6 level 10 PCs.... and they almost died...

They failed to perceive the aboleths in a pool they were walking across (the pool was DEEP). A few of the party members got dominated and well... it got ugly... it would have been a TPK if I didnt realize how under CRd they were and surfaced them so the party had a chance and didnt get TPKd at the very start of the campaign...

I believe it was explained several times (including by me) that there were several GMing mistakes that raises the difficulty of that encounter.

Even still, I doubt the encounter would go all the way up to a CR 12 or 13 encounter. And this party was with 6 (not 4) members and had full gear (I gave them solid gear since they started in a prison). It was mainly the combination of their Dominate, Projected Image, and being underwater. It also didn't help that the party Scarred Witch Doctor (pre-errata) and rogue (ninja) failed their saves initially...

You want a rediculously under CR-ed CR 7 creature?

Let me introduce you to the 3 eyes, many tentacled, swimming slimy people eater

THIS is what under values looks like...

I ran an encounter with 4 of these vs 6 level 10 PCs.... and they almost died...

They failed to perceive the aboleths in a pool they were walking across (the pool was DEEP). A few of the party members got dominated and well... it got ugly... it would have been a TPK if I didnt realize how under CRd they were and surfaced them so the party had a chance and didnt get TPKd at the very start of the campaign...

This druid thing is stupid....

I would like to point out that druids get perception as a class skill... AND have high wis....

oh and we cannot forget their animal companion...

CRB wrote:

Ex-Clerics

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

There is a similar mechanic for Clerics in PF to what paladins have to endure. I just don't think most GMs or players really follow it for some reason.

That is the problem.

A paladin makes 1 mistake and he is done.

A cleric has to GROSSLY violate their code. Also, clerics do not have defined codes like paladins. They don't have codified things that are "fall or not fall"

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

For reference...

Scythia wrote:

That must be why they've done so much to address the C/M disparity, after years of complaints.

Address it how exactly? By making spells worse than swinging a pointy stick around?

They released all kinds of tools to make martials better and casters worse, it's your job to use them if you feel the problem is so pronounced.

Really? You sure could have fooled my shaman, with the addition of MORE spells and all after that last errata....

Oh tell me again how that errata to Reposte is doing for everyone who is not a Swashbuckler... the last few erratas hurt martials more than it hurt casters...

Oh and lets not forget about how "terrifyingly broken" Crane Wing was...

I cared about a pet that made many of the other classes at my table look like a joke. Sure, I'm sure they could have done something better, been optimized better, etc... but the summoner player didn't even have to try.

The fluff stuff is things I can fix on my own, but honestly it's easier when you can point to rules and then make exceptions, than point to rules and make restrictive rules over them. People tend to whine about that.

The better thing is to put caps on # of natural attacks, not this stupid mess.

If the only problem was massive multi limbed pounce monsters, putting a cap on natural attacks and increasing the cost of pounce would have been simple enough. There, no 100 tentacle pounce monsters.

What we got was a horrid mess.

As for the flavor thing, then I guess fighters are boring to you too right? After all, they got no real flavor built into the class. Or how about wizards? They are "guys who cast" . What other flavor do they got? Oh wait! thats right! you create it when you make your character! If a your complaint is that your player is making a bland summon, that issue is with the PLAYER. They would make a bland ANYTHING if it doesnt have pre-built flavor.

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Personally.... i hate the class... it lost a lot, gained nothing, amd has forced RP tied to it (has Paizo not learned that Alignment restrictions are NEVER popular?).

If you don't like what you mistakenly call "forced RP," then you don't really like the D&D class system - it's integral to the game (as are alignment restrictions where appropriate). All these classes are based on archetypes from myth and legend, and the mechanics are just a secondary vehicle for bringing them to life. This is and always has been the bedrock way of thinking in D&D, which is why I hate the "cruch/fluff" belief system so much. You're talking about a completely different game when you think like that. That's fine if that's what you want to play, but it's not D&D. If you want to play D&D/Pathfinder, you have to understand that, since it is a game of the mind, there is indeed a right way and a wrong way to think about it or else you're not playing the same game as the rest of us.

My opinion of the Unchained Summoner, for what it's worth: I specifically like the fact that you're now consorting with a specific actual outsider rather than some kind of nonsensical Frankenmonster, but I don't like how they hobbled the spell list. Bards get higher-level spells early to compensate partially for their stunted spellcasting, it only stands to reason that Summoners should.

Except you can easily reflavor stuff normally. Ninajs are not all guys in pajamas. Not all wizards wear point hats, ect.

WHen I say forced RP I mean things like say... a Paladin. A Paladin is more of a Prestige Class than a Base class. It is forced into certain tropes ad has little wiggle room. The Unsummoner forces certain RP tropes with required alignments and such. You can't do things like the Evil Guy who bound an angel or something, or the Crazy gnome who rides around in a machine. Or a celestial mount? PFFFF, but you can for sure ride around on a bipedal devil..... Alignment restrictions are generally pretty dumb...

CWheezy wrote:

Did they not understand that when a barbarian dies from rage loss hp, they would have been dead anyway if they were not raging?

Its a pretty simple concept.

I imagine it's still traumatic for a fairly new player to hear "oh, you got knocked out...well, you die...sorry".

That doesn't change the fact that the barbarian has relatively few issues compared to something like the fighter and thus probably shouldn't have been unchained, but the sudden death thing was still an issue.

Personally I kinda like the sudden death thing. Made much more thematic sense than temp HP. I mean, they are not magic. Rage is literally an adrenaline rush. Sudden death after rage is like... you have had a tough fight, your on your last leg. The only thing keeping you going is your white hot blinding anger. You finally killed your opponent. Your anger spent, your smile, then breathe ypur last. I mean, its like an awesome version of the samurai capstone. Thematically it just awesome. The temp HP thing seems kinda meta gamey and weird. Not nearly as cool.

CWheezy wrote:

HFTyrone wrote:

I feel like Unchained was a mixed bag, but the Unchained Rogue and Monk more than made up for it in my opinion. The unchained monk especially keeps me hopeful for further improvements to otherwise "underpowered" (read: absolutely abysmal) classes.

Unchained monk is only better than like, a core + apg(non zen archer) monk.

It is way worse than archetyped monks

The only archetype I can think of that was actually good for a "punch things" monk is Qinggong Monk thanks to its increased versatility, and the Unchained Monk can basically be a Qinggong Monk with full BAB and D10 hit die.

And worse Ki issues.

Also the Monk.of the Seven winds is pretty good for mobile combat.

Well if your party has a Knight of the Sepulchre Anti Pally or a Dhampir it could be fitting...

Remember, Dirge Bards also get Song of Doom still, so you can play up the Nihilism and Fatalism and be a harbinger of death.

... You'd rather something that has very little, if any customization, then deal with... a nerfed summoner?

I just like the flavor for the Spiritualist and the cool incorporalness.

And I love Dragon Age it it makes for some cool Demons ala DA. That anf I like the psychic magic. Psy is nifty to me

Looking ore at it... I am glad they made the Spiritualist... so I dont have to deal qith the Unchained Summoner.

Ohhhhh yes!!!! Possible intrigue focused Psychics or mesmerists???? Hell yes!!!

Oh and congrats, ypu got both Mark and James to answer pretty quickly lol

So I was lookin at the spiritualist and I was thinkin... huh?

It literally seems like ANOTHER pseudo unchained summoner. Like an alternate class of the summoner.

Is the spiritualist really different enough to warrent a newbclass or should it have been an.alternate class?

Pretty much.

They should have left the Eidolon alone. The real problem came from SM and their spell list.

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

What if your a blaster wizard? Your level 3 slots are gonna be kinda tight with fireballs.

Or what of your a battle cleric? Ypu built him to be a delf buffing melee machine (you know, like the typical warpriest trope). You built him so YOU can be in combat,not so Mr. Fighter can be useful at it while you stand back and watch.

Or say your a self buffing druid. Sure you can expend a spell slot to cast SNA to give your fighter a flanking buddy, but your supposed to be a wildshaping melee bot. Why waste a turn to summon when you prefer to go in and duke it out ypurself.

Or the oh so popular bard. When you take an archetype that DOESNT focus on "spam Inspire Greatness" and your fighter gets annoyed since you are not buffing him (say you took Thundercaller instead for awesomeness).

1st. A simple calculation, is your 1 round of fireball equal to or greater than an entire party under haste for 5+ rounds? If the answer is no, yes you should cast haste.

2nd. Does the buff on you do more for the over all party than on the martial? If no, then cast that buff on the other person.

3rd. That's just a silly question. If you could just flank the thing, go flank it yourself.

4th. Once again, is your thunder call equal to or greater than the entire party receiving bard buffs for 1 round? In this case, the thunder call is probably more effective.

Why is teamwork such a bad thing. This is honestly a two way street as well. The fighter/martial/whatever receiving a benefit from you should either pull their weight with the gift you gave them, or cede the buff/action to you.

But then your forcing people to not play their character.

MAYBE their fireball does less, BUT THEIR CHARACTER IS BUILT TO CHUCK FIREBALLS .They want to chuck fireballs, not play vending machine for someone else.

Maybe the cleric wants to have fun going in at hitting things. Why should he have to give up his wanted playstyle for a class that cant self buff? Regardless of what is more effective, its also about what the PLAYER wants to do. He wants to go up and things! Unless your suggesting clerics should never be self buff bots and instead be vending machines bacause "teamwork."

Maybe the bard doesnt want to be the spoony bard going around as a cheerleader. Maybe he wants to call down thunder and be a badass. Sure, the normal bard is much stronger, but thundercaller is just rule.of cool. Or maybe they are a Chelish Diva or Spund striker. Heck I made a SoundStriker Bard once with a dip into oracle for the Legalistic curse (and lore mystery... cuz may as well...) and Profession (Lawyer) so that I could flavor my spundstrike as legalese LITERALLY CAUSING YOU PHYSICAL PAIN. Sure, if I wanted to be "teamplayer" i would be a normal bard and focus on buffs... but I wanted to he a.lawyer damn it lol.

Oh no, not the dreaded teamwork! How dare someone expect teamwork...

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say someone is obligated to make a cookie cutter build, but they are obligated to try and work best with their team withing their character parameters.

Are you a wizard capable of casting haste? You should be casting it in the first round rather than chucking a magic missile cause you have some witty catch phrase you want to spout off.

Does the buff your casting benefit someone else significantly more than you? Don't be selfish.

Should you have to take infusion or a particular feat that is grossly outside your character's purview because it helps the party? Probably not.

Long story short, if you are reasonably capable of doing so within your build, than yes, you should feel obligated to work as a team.

What if your a blaster wizard? Your level 3 slots are gonna be kinda tight with fireballs.

Or what of your a battle cleric? Ypu built him to be a delf buffing melee machine (you know, like the typical warpriest trope). You built him so YOU can be in combat,not so Mr. Fighter can be useful at it while you stand back and watch.

Or say your a self buffing druid. Sure you can expend a spell slot to cast SNA to give your fighter a flanking buddy, but your supposed to be a wildshaping melee bot. Why waste a turn to summon when you prefer to go in and duke it out ypurself.

Or the oh so popular bard. When you take an archetype that DOESNT focus on "spam Inspire Greatness" and your fighter gets annoyed since you are not buffing him (say you took Thundercaller instead for awesomeness).

So I have seen in my few years many a person demand or get annoyed at not getting stuff from another player. Examples include:

Cleric/Oracle buffing self and not martial

Alchemist not getting infusion asap

BSF/Glass cannon not spending turn/AoO to move into flanking.

Wizard not preparing haste for the fighter

Ect.

So qhat do yu guys think? Are you obligated to break from your theme or build or whatever to give someone else something?

Technically Ur priests were ANTI theist instead of Atheist. They believed in them, they just hate them and steal from them.

What are you talking about, Pixie? Caster/Martial Disparity is just a myth perpetrated by people with an agenda.

Or maybe....

The people who are denying it are actually part of a Paizo Conspiracy to cover up the truth! I will not be quieted! I am not afraid of your KGB! I stand for proletariat martial masses to contest this disparity of power! Lulz xD. We shall end the control of the Bourgeoisie casters and provide equal power to all!

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

KahnyaGnorc wrote:

Gold dragons are typically the epitome of Paladin . . . they are like a race full of paladins.

No, that was the Silver.

The Gold was the wizened old dragon who was full of knowledge and wisdom through the years. They tend to be patient and considerate. By some others, they are TOO patient.

This might have changed in pathfinder, but I've always read golds as going off on their own missions for good; their own crusades, as it were. Silvers were always the friendly and helpful type.

I remember it being the other way around. But most of my lore tends to follow forgotten realms (i have a library of over 100 books from forgotten realms :p). In particulair the series about the dragons raging. The silvers were the captains of the guards and the knights, but they tended to be a bit hasty and judgemental and led them to he prone to the rage.

Gold dragons are typically the epitome of Paladin . . . they are like a race full of paladins.

No, that was the Silver.

The Gold was the wizened old dragon who was full of knowledge and wisdom through the years. They tend to be patient and considerate. By some others, they are TOO patient.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Bronze.

They can make people LAUGH TO DEATH.

Or groan to death, depending on how bad the joke is.

I think you mean Copper.

Probably.

If memory serves, Bronze were the ones to use sleep breath then bury them to their necks to.force them to listen to its stories and to talk to it....

It BORED people to death

Improved Unarmed strike.

If you dont get it for free, you pretty much need it to unarmed strike... at all..

I think a good strategy for playing any class is setting aside in the range of 20-30 percent of character development resources to enhance team play. Playing a rogue with a high crit range weapon? Take something like the outflank feat. Playing a Druid, pick a few good team buffs in your spell list and summon flank buddies for melee types. Playing a fighter, don't hesitate to run to the front and be a meat shield for your buddies. Character classes with more potential for OP and more net resources need to devote more for party support. That's a good internal balancing method.

The problem is that you may run into scenerios where a fighter gets all hurt because the cleric decided to cast buffs on himself instead of the fighter. Say the cleric was built to be a war cleric type. He is fully justified in buffing himself for combat (after all, that is how clerics fight).

That or you pigeonhole people into certain roles. What if the party ninja wants to play a shuriken build? That will pretty much eat all his feats and a good nber of his ninja tricks.

I have seen all too many martials get butt hurt because someone didnt force their character to play around himself (like beinga. N cleric with inflict or alchemist that does not grab infusion immediately)

The hunter can actually make a rather viscous beat stick...

The big OP thing of the summoner was the SM SLA. Which is why yhe Master Summoner was one of the most OP archetypes. Between slowing down the game amd breaking action economy, the SM SLA was dumb.

The best comparison to the Summoner would be the hunter. And the hunter is very solid. NOw granted, the summoner was stronger, but that is more due to SM and his poorly built spell list. Without his rediculous summon monster ability and utilizimg the unchained spell list, the APG summoner is not that much betyer than the Hunter, if at all.

Otherwhere wrote:

In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.

Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.

Garrottes perform a blood strangulation, not a normal airway strangulation

That or you can VMC into oracle to get the AC and have it stack with Hunter.

Or VMC into druid.

Not that hard getting Huge sized Eidolon as well... 1 level dip into Mammoth Rider gets you huge size.

Oh and by 20th level an AC gets a +12 Nat armor buff... this not including things from spells and.items and such.

They also get a +6 str and con before accounting level boosts and size and stuff...

Hunters show that ACs can get pretty broken pretty fast... oh and you can easily get your AC evem higher level than yourself,,,

Play a druid.

See how he complains about wildshaping lol