|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Completely unoptimized fireballs do half damage to structures, the heavy bombard does more than heavily optimized fireballs.
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.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I get that you fail to see how your attitudes indicate an antagonistic relationship with your table.
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.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.
No because my gm isn't Dwight from the office.
The Sideromancer wrote:
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.