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

Ryan Freire's page

1,571 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,571 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

avr wrote:
The courtly hunter loses a bunch of boosts to the animal companion - and then the animal companion gets most of the strengths of a familiar. Intelligence, sharing the hunter's skill ranks (and it still gets its own), and the ability mentioned above to change into a familiar-ish shape. I'm sure you could do something scary with the frilled lizard animal aspect and the intimidate skill unlock.

Build for deadly stroke and have the pet build for dazzling display?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
The Cad isn't bad because 5 years later better options came in for the core fighter. That's not how that should work.

Why not? The current status is the one that matters, who cares what the situation was 3 years ago?


I present to you....the cad. All the negatives of base book fighter specializing in combat maneuvers, none of the positives of AWT or AAT


Dasrak wrote:
swoosh wrote:
On the other hand. The rules for creating adamantine weapons say adamantine ammunition is +60 GP, so 105 gold for an adamantine heavy bombard ball.

That rule is for bullets, bolts, and arrows. These are in a completely different order of magnitude from cannonballs.

With that said, it occurred to me that the cost the materials is not the same cost as the finished product. A crafted item typically sells for three times its material costs, so 45000 gp would be the final price of this cannonball. And yeah, that is ludicrously expensive so ruling for some middle-ground would make a lot of sense.

Costs are given in final costs first off, the price point reductions occur during crafting. Second off firearms(which bombards count as) ammunition costs 1/10th the final cost to craft.


pauljathome wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Dasrak wrote:


A single adamantine bombard shot would cost 15000 gp (bombard shots weigh 50 lbs and adamantine is 300 gp/lbs). So no, that's not an option.
On the other hand. The rules for creating adamantine weapons say adamantine ammunition is +60 GP, so 105 gold for an adamantine heavy bombard ball.

When rules contradict each other the GM gets to decide what to do.

This GM would argue that those rules are for arrows and NOT bombard shots and so the higher cost wins. Or maybe a slightly lesser cost since it could reasonably be argued that the entire bombard doesn't have to be adamantine. Yeah, I'd go with the average cost of 7,500 GP.

Except one is a rule for miscellaneous things made of adamantine and the other is a rule specifically for adamantine ammunition.

I'd probably split the difference and itd be the cost of the 50 bullets/arrowheads whatever. So 3000 gold purchased or 300 if crafted via the firearm ammunition rules


I disagree with the idea of separating them from the classes as a whle. Siege mage and Gun mage both hammer the wizard class, but at the end of the day, those classes still have 9 level casting off the most powerful list in the game.

Meanwhile [url]http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo-monk-arc hetypes/monk-of-the-healing-hand/[/url] Monk of the healing hand exists[/url] which turns your capstone into 50' radius mass resurrection in exchange for complete destruction of your character so thoroughly that gods cant bring them back and they're wiped from history.

Or The needler Where you give up almost all the survivability boosts of a fragile class in exchange for an expensive, slow combat gimmick that targets the highest save value of like 80% of the antagonists out there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike Starfinder, you cannot deny that it has been an invaluable laboratory for potential changes to the Pathfinder system. And while I enjoy Pathfinder, the system cannot be a static thing or it will die out after its popularity runs its course. It needs to evolve or it will disappear.

Pathfinder really isn't that old, and there are examples of systems that HAVE been mostly static things for decades and are still around.


The siege mage then also spends a third level spell slot and goes up to average 40 damage plus the option for adamantite ammo to ignore hardness.

So you did all that and still didn't manage to out damage it.

Also you add hardness after halving damage, its all that work and 26.5 avg damage to a stone wall.

Edit: Seriously though man, your build is almost universally better in every other situation the fact that it cant out siege engine a specifically designed for it and otherwise bad archetype is no big deal.

I'd argue against any archetype of a 9 level caster being the worst though because at the end of the day....still have most of the power of a 9 level caster. There's some archetypes out there that make already mechanically bad classes even worse after all.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Plus, the siege mage is an NPC archetype. The mage doesn't own the Bombard, the King owns the Bombard, they're just letting the mage use it because the King isn't a siege engineer.

Sure, a high level vanilla mage is better in a siege situation than a same level siege mage, but an army can field probably 20 or more level 3 siege mages for the cost of one level 10 wizard, and that's going to be a lot more helpful in a siege situation. You're probably going to go through a bunch of siege weapon teams in a siege situation (since "the thing that can knock down your walls" is what you want to disable most) so being able to have functional siege team captains who are low-level characters is handy. If some of these captains survive miraculously and become fairly high level, they won't be as good at this as a vanilla wizard would be, but the vanilla wizard isn't very good as a siege engineer below level 5 and that matters a lot when it comes to an army that is mostly low-level people.

Whatever higher level wizards you have you'd prefer to keep away from any big obvious targets like catapults, and you'd have them doing more important things than "damage."

I mean rest assured if i were to play one in a campaign he'd be craft wondrous iteming himself a flying wagon pulled by phantom steeds with a light ballista or catapult mounted on it. Which would then also be enchanted and i would rain firey death via indirect fire.


Dasrak wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Completely unoptimized fireballs do half damage to structures, the heavy bombard does more than heavily optimized fireballs.
Throw a crossblooded sorcerer dip on it, and yes your fireballs will deal more to objects than the bombard does. You might argue that the crossblooded dip is a bit cheesy, but for a 10th level NPC to use a bombard you need to completely ignore wealth guidelines for NPC's. And again, I'm not even taking reload time into account here. The idea of a siege mage is really cool, but the archetype just doesn't make you particularly good with them.

How much gold and exp are you sacrificing to do more damage in this niche situation? What level of spell are you tossing or how many thousands of gold in metamagic rods are you using to achieve parity with a bad archetype?


Dasrak wrote:
ryric wrote:
Could a siege mage wander around with a siege engine on a floating disc and use summoned monsters as his siege crew? At least the visual would be kind of cool in that case.

A Floating Disk is 3 feet across, so no. You might be able to swing summoned monsters by utilizing the Alter Summoned Monster spell to get an unusually long duration, but that's a lot of spell slots and by the time you can afford to do it a regular wizard could just take the feats and have caught up to the siege mage.

The siege mage just isn't even very good even at what it's supposed to do. The bonus feat is the only significant class feature before 10th level (and has stopped being special after 5th), and by the time you get that 10th level ability to fire a siege engine without a crew it's already too late. The most powerful siege weapon in the game is a heavy bombard (9d6 damage) which is outclassed by even a completely unoptimized fireball by the time you're 10th level, never mind the reload time or the fact that it costs 16k gp.

Bottom line, even an NPC that's supposed to be a siege engineer wizard is better off just being a regular unarchetyped wizard and taking feats.

Completely unoptimized fireballs do half damage to structures, the heavy bombard does more than heavily optimized fireballs.


If you're more concerned about sticking to theme than power level, you go swashbuckler 5 into shadowdancer.


Cavall wrote:
A seige mage would do well enough in a skull and shackles game. Past that, it is clearly a focused archtype in an area more suited to opponent than party member

I've run in some mercenary group campaigns where a siege mage cohort would have been friggin great.


Alchemist focused on mutagens and a reach weapon?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Antagonistic table relationships. If you're out to "get" the gm, or the players or playing like its some competition where someone wins at pathfinder its just depressing to me to be at that table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, bad gms who think their job is to kafkatrap a class into uselessness often view challenging their antagonistic behavior as disruptive.

I wonder what kind of stockholm syndrome your players have to be at a table with a gm that has such a paranoia about "being walked all over" that he edits core classes out of his table rather than working cooperatively with the player and extending benefit of the doubt.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
It doesn't occur to you at all that when you set up an antagonistic relationship with your table you're going to notice a lot more attempts to "walk all over you" from your own perspective?
I fail to see how disabling a class for the overall health of the table is creating an "antagonistic relationship," when allowing it isn't really a much better option.

I get that you fail to see how your attitudes indicate an antagonistic relationship with your table.


Dasrak wrote:


It should be noted that any ability that works like weapon training satisfies for the purpose of qualifying for the advanced weapon training class feature.

Eh, any ability that requires you to choose a specific weapon group for your weapon training. Most of the other abilities are functionally identical to weapon training for a specific group but because they're renamed don't count.

A mass errata/reprint to make them weapon training groups would be a big step up for the fighter class.


Yeah actually i was looking at that iron juggernaut or whatever antipaladin w bulette style as an antagonist


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't occur to you at all that when you set up an antagonistic relationship with your table you're going to notice a lot more attempts to "walk all over you" from your own perspective?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

I'll be sure to let my GM know that my Caiden Caylen Cleric is cleared to assemble his halfling slave ring because the crb and splats never explicitly say that's a gross violation of his ethos. If for some bizarre reason my GM argues otherwise, I'll be sure to take offense to his oppressive house rules.

/s

Seriously dude, the pure RAW computer code parsing is an untennable position. Unless of course we want to go completely down that rabbit hole in which case I'm grabbing Diehard since per RAW the Dead condition doesn't prevent me from taking further actions.

Sounds like something a problem player would do. Also, I never said that I agreed with it, just stated the rules as they stand.

If you're not a capable enough gm to run a game with a core class most people have no real problem with, you probably don't have the standing to label players "problem players". The issue is likely with your own ability.


I guarantee it'll help explain a number of gamer types you've encountered in your life as well.


Like...best overall?

Occultist arcanist or master summoner summoner.


Its true but also one of those things that i think makes for "win more" Once you're reaching for more than most things move action gets them i'm not really convinced more reach is the best use of a swift action.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Paladin actually doesn't require a deity in Golarion. JJ has mentioned that several times in his Ask thread. You're thinking of the PFS specific restriction.

I wouldn't know, they're NPC only :P


Yeah warpriest isn't tied to a deity any more than cleric is. Dependent on your cosmology. Its required in golarion, but so's cleric and paladin and AFAIK every divine caster save oracle and the nature classes (hunter/ranger/druid)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?
Note "playing" not GMing. because you have twisted the GMs arm to let you do what you want.

No because my gm isn't Dwight from the office.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?
And that's fine, but not everybody plays where they can just houserule that the Druid can wear whatever armour it wants.

Your GMS often in the habit of tricking druids into wearing metal armor, or putting them in a position where its wear metal armor or lose druid powers another way?

Because thats the bone of contention, antagonistic "gotcha" gming.


Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?


Paradozen wrote:
Verdant bloodline bloodrager from UW gets to increase reach by 5' as a swift action for your turn at 8th

Abyssal gets enlarge all the time during bloodrage and aberrant gets 5'reach for no action at level 4


Rhedyn wrote:

It's not the only interpretation.

You just have no right to complain when it is the interpretation.

That's whining/immature/bad playing that is terrible to have at any table.

People are welcome to bad interpretations of the rules thats true. They probably shouldn't get defensive when those bad interpretations are translated as "bad gming" because thats also true.

When there are multiple ways of interpreting a rule, and you choose the one that renders a long time core class unplayable, thats on you, not the rules. Good gms look at that and go "man, this just makes it not work, especially if i go into it looking for reasons to make the players character useless, maybe i'll use the other interpretation so as to not disingenuously pretend the game i bought has something as integral as a base book class that simply doesn't work in play"


This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. One might think calling kafkatrapping the class and warning free falls being ascribed to a bad gm touched a nerve.


Rhedyn wrote:
I would really hope I never play with such a bad player that they whine and call the GM bad for following the rules.

I think its been pretty well established that You and I have wildly different views on what makes a GM bad. The difference is I have the ability to play in campaigns that use the entire core class lineup, continue for years and end at or near 20th level without issue, whereas the philosophy of so many others that they're certain is right has them on forums decrying how badly broken X or Y is and how unplayable a core class is despite the weight of public experience claiming otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disagree all you want, you're the one whose philosophy on the game disqualifies an entire core class from your table. No one else here seems to have that trouble outside of Lady J's table where the act of killing causes an instant fall.


Six people...half dozen. Thumb back through this thread and others and you'll see its the same crew over and over and over again and the common thread is that the community as a whole looks at their interpretations as oddly beyond the norm.

Also yeah, everything about this game is meant to be fun, if you aren't having fun it isn't worth your irreplaceable leisure time. Its not a competition, there are no points, you will not ascend to a better afterlife because you took a hardline gotcha position on paladin codes, and it wont get you a raise at your job.


Eh, i have 3 different gms. The first one made sense, child character being forced to go to school. He ended up with like 150 dots in skills and was probably the most powerful character in the coterie with no disciplines or skills over 4, and only 3 at 4 by the end of it.

The alignment thing also made sense, we were exposed to primal chaos gods and spent time insane when they were relased.

the operator sucked, not gonna lie, but it was mostly because building rifts characters takes forgoddamn ever.

The mentor...eh I wasn't happy about it but the whole "you must control your temper child" aspect added a lot to the game and let me play up a 2 point intolerance with a lot more intensity than i otherwise would have.

Either way, its not some combat with the gm for me and its not entitled to want core classes to be playable in a campaign or at the least made apparent that they aren't allowed from the outset rather than waiting to hamstring them out of the blue.


Bearserk wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The GM's only job is to make a fun game Rhedyn. If their interpretation invalidates an entire core class that countless others have no problem running for or with, its their interpretation that's skewed not the class.

Fun for ALL people on the table and not only the Paladin!

And problem childs like Kender or Malcavians are core in other games too so thats not realy an argument.
A mistake by tradition is still a mistake imho.

Whats fun about one player at the table becoming functionally a Warrior npc class and having to derail the campaign on a personal quest for redemption because the GM decided to kafkatrap them into falling, or spring a gotcha at them with no warning?

And just to step back to a bit where i was called an entitled player.
Things GMS have done to my characters that i've let slide for the sake of a campaign.

1. In a Vampire dark ages game he spent 25 points of experience as he saw fit because the child character was being tutored

2. Force shifted alignment from NG to CN due to exposure to primal chaos

3. Let me create an operator in a high powered rifts game who then died in the first session by being caught in the backblast of an attack on another character whom it barely damaged.

4. had a 4 point mentor background refuse to teach the forces sphere to a mage because he had a 2 point intolerance flaw for people cracking bruce lee jokes at him.

The list goes on. I'm profoundly flexible for GM fiat for the sake of a campaign point. Antagonistic behavior toward your players and taking glee in rendering their characters completely powerless is a separate issue and a line even someone willing to let a gm spend a months experience on his own choice in skills isn't comfortable putting up with.


The whirlwind attack chain is probably best used as a fighter base due to this feat Defended Movement.

If you have armor training (ftr4) you can ignore the shield focus requirement for the feat and it saves you 1 feat in the chain to whirlwind attack. Combo it with Shield Brace and you can do spear/polearm shield with reach and whirlwind attack without TOO much investment.

A fourth thing to do with huge reach is Trip focus. This generally works best in a campaign where you aren't facing primarily flying/huge/multilegged things. Humanoid heavy campaigns it works well.

As people provoke for moving through your huge reach, you trip them, step back 5 feet and use AOO's coupled with full attacks at long range to put them down. Its REALLY powerful against things you can reasonably expect to trip, and all but useless against the antagonists who are too large or multilegged. So...depends on what your campaign is like. Works great for my campaigns cause the gm likes antagonist adventurer parties and levelled NPC's more than monsters from the bestiary.


There's a shield mastery feat that replaces dodge and mobility. its a feat break if you have armor training and dont have to take shield focus .

For ease of build I'd honestly go aberrant or abyssal bloodrager. The aberrant gets 5 feet of bonus reach and abyssal goes enlarge person during each rage eventually. From there longarm, lunge and a reach weapon and you're threatening like a 45 foot radius. At that point i kind of think MORE is just diminishing returns on investment.


Undead are one of those things the paladin smite gets SUPER BONUS DAMAGE against. It ooesn't even specify evil undead in the smite description the way it does evil outsiders and dragons. Smite that lich


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I stand by my statement. Ridiculous antagonistic Gotchaism is bad GMing and leads to sore feelings. Its not the paladins code that screws that up, its playing the antagonist to your friends at a gaming table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The GM's only job is to make a fun game Rhedyn. If their interpretation invalidates an entire core class that countless others have no problem running for or with, its their interpretation that's skewed not the class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The same half dozen players keep making "paladin falls" threads and dragging them up in other threads and i'm supposed to buy that it makes it a huge problem.

Never mind that it always turns into those half dozen against basically everyone else on the board.

I'm sorry so many of you have bad gms with an antagonistic relationship with their table, but their lack of ability isn't an issue with a class most of the posters here haven't seemed to have a problem with.


The difference is I'm not claiming there's a structural problem with a long term class that renders it just unplayable.

Extreme claims require extreme evidence and thus far the only evidence offered is that bad gms who exist as antagonists to their players exist.


Don't think so dwight. The evidence is anecdotal and its that its the same group of MAYBE half a dozen posters constantly complaining about the issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying.

Not really. It backs up the fact that Paladins have a history of problematic interactions, regardless of whether it's the GM who is causing the problem, or even the Paladin himself who is running the table amok because if a GM cries fowl he's considered a badwrongfun GM for trying to enforce the Paladin's Code on the player.

The fact of the matter is that problematic gameplay and promotion of toxic player/GM behavior, two things that Paladins as players end up creating, is not something healthy for my table. I'd rather maintain my table's happiness than adhere to rules that will only serve to ruin said table. And if you disagree with that sentiment, you wouldn't have fun at my table no matter what class you decided to play, and I wouldn't want a player at my table who doesn't view that ideal as a priority.

THIS DOESN'T EXIST FOR EVEN THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS. Thats what you don't seem to get. This is an abnormal situation, people play with paladins constantly all over the country/world and have for decades without the problems or kafkatrapping the handful of internet misanthropes complaining about them on the boards have apparently constantly experienced.

At some point y'all are going to have to acknowledge that the common thread is your own attitudes toward the class and not some systemic problem with its design.

The very fact that people constantly DO make it work make your claims that it doesn't work come into question.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like contextually "grossly violate" and "violate" are more or less synonymous. After all, you wouldn't use "violate" for a minor breach or infraction. If you're reaching for "violate" you're talking about something that is unfixable without extreme measures.

It helps when you aren't playing with dwight from "the office" too


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying. Looks like we have a series of people who aren't capable of GMing for a base book class that's been around for decades.

Like i said...bad gming.

Bad gming is letting a player play a Paladin without re-writing that tosh code.

Claiming it's bad GMing to find the Paladin's code unworkable is a failure in literacy.

And yet countless gms manage to make this unworkable code work in their game without completely rewriting it simply by not being antagonists to the players at their table and working to ensure everyone has fun as opposed to setting out to hamstring a class they don't personally like yet presents no real power issues compared to any 9 level caster.

If you cant make paladins work in your games you're overestimating how good a gm you are. Full. Stop.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying. Looks like we have a series of people who aren't capable of GMing for a base book class that's been around for decades.

Like i said...bad gming.

Bad gming is letting a player play a Paladin without re-writing that tosh code.

Claiming it's bad GMing to find the Paladin's code unworkable is a failure in literacy.

And yet countless GMs have managed to do so. This is a forumgoer problem, not a problem with the average pathfinder player.

You don't get to claim you're a good gm if you can't make a decades old core book class work in your campaigns. People do it every day, you just cant be an antagonist gm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying. Looks like we have a series of people who aren't capable of GMing for a base book class that's been around for decades.

Like i said...bad gming.

1 to 50 of 1,571 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.