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

Serisan's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,861 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,861 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I use the Abellius sheet, which is a modified version of the Neceros form-fill sheet.


Human Eldritch Guardian with a monkey familiar (Mauler archetype)

1: Point Blank Shot
1: Precise Shot
3: Rapid Shot
4: Weapon Prof: Longbow (this lets the monkey have it since your class feature proficiency doesn't count as a feat)
5: Deadly Aim
6: Manyshot

Just build the archer like normal from there. Give the monkey a +1 adaptive longbow as soon as you can afford it. Congrats! Your monkey adds to your already impressive DPR. Just make sure to drop a quiver for him so he can fire medium-sized arrows instead of watching them shrink when he enlarges himself every combat. Make sure you fit in Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization at some point so he gets the static damage bonuses, as well.

Sure, you lose 2 feats. You gained 2 additional shots per round at level 4, though, and 4 at level 6 (the monkey has your BAB).

*

This was honestly one of my major concerns when the blog post came out. I didn't expect someone to come in all troll-style about it, though.


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

Player: "I'd like to use Leadership to get a mount."

GM: "Wait, not as an item factory? Not as a second combatant with nearly as much gear and ability as a player? I'm listening..."

Then you ask for a unicorn or something and advance it with class levels. When Ultimate Combat came out, I heard that a lot of players were picking up levels of Master of Many Styles monk to give their mounts the Crane Style defenses.

Simple fact here is that a mount doesn't significantly impact combat like a cohort cleric.


I'm with Jiggy on this. If you want to follow the theme of Kirito's progression in season 1, you shouldn't be grabbing TWF until level 9 or so anyway. IIRC, he was on floor 72ish when he revealed his ability to dual wield.


Non-PFS, you can always use Leadership.


Actually, according to the FAQ regarding spells from other class lists, Arcane Enlightenment works because it is derived from a class feature rather than a feat, spell, etc. Selecting an archetype that grants a class feature counts as having that class feature from your own class.

FAQ

Quote:

New Spells Known: If I gain the ability to add a spell that is not on my spell list to my list of spells known, without adding it to my spell list, can I cast it?

No. Adding a spell to your list of spells known does not add it to the spell list of that class unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list. The spell slots of a class can only be used to cast spells that appear on the spell list of that class.
Advanced Player's Guide - Core Classes chapter wrote:

Alternate Class Features

Most of the options presented on the following pages include a host of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must choose to use the standard class features found in the Core Rulebook or those listed in one of the archetypes presented here. Each alternate class feature replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the elemental fist class feature of the monk of the four winds replaces the stunning fist class feature of the monk. When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but replacing them with equally powerful options. All of the other class features found in the core class and not mentioned among the alternate class features remain unchanged and are acquired normally when the character reaches the appropriate level (unless noted otherwise). A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.

In the case of the Spirit Guide archetype, your ability to select a wandering spirit hex is a class feature and thus allows you to gain spells known on your spell list temporarily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certainly killed the Gunslinger 1 / Wizard 1 / EK X build I had been tossing around.


The Additional Resources were just updated with the Familiar Folio on Wednesday, so OP might not have seen the update.

In case you don't have the book yet, OP, Synergist is on pg. 9. You can reference the Additional Resources to verify legality based on that.


Would it be possible/feasible to allow site logins using PFS player numbers? My wife is an extremely occasional player and it took me 30+ minutes to figure out which email was associated with her Society account. Finding her player number was easy, but there's no easily-located reverse look-up function.

*

Andrew Christian wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Im a little confused, too.

Lets say a Druid finds a scroll in a game, but it is NOT on the Chronicle sheet. Can they buy it, at value, and then add it to their effective list?

If instead they find a scroll that IS on the Chronicle sheet. Can they later, (games later), purchase it and add it to their list?

Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't on the chronicle, they can't buy it later.

Assuming that your response was aimed at me, that doesn't help at all, or even pertain to what was asked.

:P

I'm pretty sure it pertains exactly to what you asked. I bolded the part I was responding to above.

I think the poster was asking about purchasing said scroll at cost during the scenario to add to the spell list. That said, I would assume the answer is no.

I'm concerned that this might encourage some players to go spellbook hunting in their scenario choices (much like boon hunting, which we know is strongly discouraged). Personally, I don't like this decision and would prefer that scrolls remain scrolls and spells that aren't in the CRB aren't on your spell list, regardless of what the other sources say, but I'm glad that the vast majority of players that I play with won't abuse this ruling.


X or Y are the better ones to start out on from Gen 6. The games are not at all like Monster Hunter, IMO.

Think of it as extreme tag-team wrestling, RPG-style. You have up to 6 pokemon at a time in your party, only 1 fighting at a time (barring special fights). The matches primarily break down by types (Rock type critters are good against Flying, but are bad against Water, etc.), but also have individual differences. Some pokemon might be better at longer strategies, while others are good at offense of a specific kind (physical or special).

I've played through X at least 7 or 8 times with various self-imposed challenges, which was largely because X was so well-designed that I could do it without hating myself.


The sneak attack would follow the weapon damage in this case.

*

Hock wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

Proud moments?

There were 6 humans, no other races, at the table I played at on Saturday.

Does that count?

** spoiler omitted **

Ran the same scenario with Ezren, Seoni, Lini, and a dwarf cleric for Core Campaign. They played it backwards and Ezren killed both of the major encounters with Hand of the Apprentice. They then mopped up the remainder of the encounters.

Ezren was being played by a 12 year old. It was his first game of Pathfinder.

Details:
Grulk was 30' out the window and the cane was the only way to get him before he was out of range. Skizzertz was running out of the tower, being chased by Ezren and Seoni (also played by a 12 year old), when Ezren thwapped him. I was as amazed as the cleric, who had played the module before, that the boys insisted on going up the stairs to Grulk as the first encounter.

*

Wardstone Patrol:
The party gets to the demon-affected pollen and half the party starts getting angry and accusatory. My bloodrager, borne of poor INT, saved and assumed it had to do with the change of grass. In summing it up...

"Ah, dickweed."

*

Ditto, Ellen, albeit my reporting is for Core. Because it won't even save, I can't get it to report for credit and I'm 1 table from a star. >.<

*

A couple additional thoughts as Andrew covered this quite nicely:

-Is this outside force predictable or unpredictable? There's a significant difference between "I'm a doctor/plumber/etc. that's on-call" and "I have a commitment at the same time every week." As such, how you handle it varies significantly.

-Is the nature of these outside forces such that it's effectively a time limit or a deadline? If the latter, is it possible to have a table start earlier to accommodate them?

*

N N 959 wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Thus, we can question whether it is meaningfully impactful.
Your attempt to to turn this into a value based discussion is exactly the problem with all these talks about "balance." You're making a value judgment that's specific to you. Then you're shifting goal posts when the counter argument threatens to strike at the issue. If I like having Y at my disposal and I haven't built my wizard to take A, B, C, and D, then yes, it may be extremely meaningful.

Intrinsically, the balance debate has to go to some sort of value discussion. There are no characters with precisely 2 options to choose from, but we acknowledge implicitly that, barring very specific circumstances, you're not going to be using Bull Rush maneuvers as a Wizard. You've opted to create a straw man by assuming that A, B, C, and D are discrete choices when I specifically meant them as variables.

Quote:
But let's go back and expose why we can't talk about "balance" in the way you want to. How many time a scenario does a Rogue have to be able to sneak attack before we says sneak attack is meaningful or meaningless?

There are a lot of variables here. Are we talking mechanically unable (oozes, for instance), party composition issues (no other threatening melee), scenario restriction issues (YOU'RE ALWAYS SURPRISED LOL!)? Moreover, to what are you comparing Sneak Attack? What is the alternative action? You can't make a determination of value without a comparison.

Quote:
How many times does a Barbarian need to get value from his extra two skill points per level before we say it's meaningful? A +1 ring of protection only protects you from 1 hit in 20. Is that meaningful?

Ring of Protection can be solved with math. There are no value decisions to be made here that aren't done with math. Also, I can assure you that a discrete 5% is not the actual value of a Ring of Protection. As for skill points, what are you comparing it to? Again, you cannot make a determination of value without a comparison.

Quote:
Your attempt to change this from an empirical evaluation to a value based evaluation underscores that we have no language or system for doing that. We have on way to assign value to different class abilities, and neither do the devs. What is the value of having low-light vision? Impossible to know or determine.

Per the Advanced Race Guide::
Low-Light Vision (1 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race can see twice as far as a race with normal vision in conditions of dim light.
Quote:
Asking whether the classes are balanced is asking the wrong question. We don't know, we can't know. Do they seem fair? Do they serve a purpose in any given party? Do players enjoy the mechanics involved? Does X class obviate the usefulness of Y class in all cases? Those are meaningful questions in class design. "Balance" is a red herring.

Balance is a term used to describe the sum total responses to the questions you've asked (plus a few others, typically). If a class (let's use Rogues) seems fair and appears to serve a purpose, but has frustrating mechanics and is obviated in the majority of circumstances by another class (let's say Wizard), then the Rogue is not balanced against the Wizard. If you repeat the matching process and compare it to all other classes, you can determine the composite relative balance of the class.

*

N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful?

Yes it has. Under the theory that Y is usable when X is not, then making Y more powerful makes the class more robust. What makes casters so powerful on paper is that there is spell for every occasion. Improving the performance of any of those spells improves the theoretical performance of the class.

If the class only contained X and Y, that would be true. The reality, though, is that Y continues to be overshadowed by A, B, C, D...etc. In the specific example, 2d6+8 is effectively a zero performance option for a level 8 character. If the damage increase started at level 1, you could convincingly argue that it has gotten more powerful for a limited subset of levels where resources A, B, C, D, etc. are less plentiful or not available. I can almost guarantee that caps out around 4th level. Thus, we can question whether it is meaningfully impactful.

*

Jiggy, thank you for your more articulate explanation of what I'd been trying to say upthread.


ZenithTN wrote:

Two notes on the subject:

Hex Vulnerability has the [curse] descriptor, so is also available to Hexcrafter Magi.

If you are playing PFS, you cannot acquire a wand or scroll of Hex Vulnerability higher than caster level one. Thus, hex vulnerability must be one of your spells prepared for the day to be of any use for healing. In which case I recommend pearl(s) of power. These are not deal-breakers; rather just things you might want to know.

Or you take 2 rounds to deliver the cure via the Familiar method described above. Depending on the out-of-combat needs, this could be fine or terrible.

*

G-Zeus wrote:

A bit off topic. The core classes I play and play with are the most powerful around that I see.

Straight core classes or core classes with archetypes?

One local player has George the Kitsune Mystic Theurge, who has 1 level of Exploiter Wizard, 1 level of Blood Arcanist, 1 level of Cleric, and enchantment DCs in the 20s. Is that really the fault of the CRB? Not really. It's bandaids on top of bandaids on top of mechanical additions, FAQs, and errata.

That's just how things sort of go. Too many moving pieces.

*

Jessex wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My second post expanded on this, but the short version is this:

1. The CRB classes are extremely old...

It seems I can't actually quote the part of your post I wish to reply to but I think I can get the point across:

First, a fantasy RPG that does not provide the ability to play the iconic four characters ( that is a fighter, a thief, a wizard and a cleric in very recognizable forms) is not one I'm interested in playing and not one that will last long in the marketplace.

I'm not going to dive into edition wars here, but there are mechanically modern RPGs in fantasy settings that do not follow that logic and are doing quite well. Not only that, but they're doing very well.

Quote:
Second, your specific complaints about the wizard. You already hit the nail on the head. Wizards are supposed to be the ultimate arcane "technologists" in the world so anytime some other class develops some new approach to arcane magic some group of wizards tries it out as well.

What you have just told me is that your in-world justification trumps the lazy design of the Exploiter Wizard. First, I don't accept that logic. Second, the real problem with that archetype is that it arguably does the Arcanist's schtick better than the Arcanist because of the odd-level spell access. Frankly, if a group of wizards learned Exploits, they should be Arcanists.

____________________________________________________________________

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Several points, the name you give to a class and the attached class features - are not the same thing.

This gets blurred substantially when old classes start poaching every new mechanic as soon as they come out.

Quote:
And when people complain about bad CRB design, they talk about things like favored enemy ( this calls feature might be relevant in an archetype or for a set campaign), but as written it is either too good or irrelevant.

100% agreement here, but in an expanded form, this applies to entire classes. The more bandaids are applied in the form of archetypes, the more likely that the class is doing things that a different class should be doing instead. That's why, for instance, we have archetypes like the Crusader, which is then roughly supplanted by the War Priest.

Quote:
Or the Monk class that gets burdened with class features of questionable validity. Just take a look at the archetypes that allow players to change the class a fair bit (sohei allows the use of light armor and removes the tiresome necessity for mage armor; the quigong archetype would be added whole cloth to the CRB class description).

The existing Monk is on my chop list in favor of whatever the Unchained version is or the Brawler.

Quote:
And lets be frank, even if the classes got a little update in the CRB, things like Fighers and their paltry number of skill points - and thus lack of out of combat options - is a pretty old complaint.

With the existence of the Slayer, I think that the Fighter has more than a few problems to fix. The PF Fighter was a great improvement over 3.5, but it was relatively uninspired. The archetypes didn't do much to fix that.

Quote:

I drive a car from 1994 and while I think it is a pretty decent car, I am aware that newer cars have pretty nice features and are in some cases far safer. It is not a complaint against the people who have designed my car, especially since the very same people claim responsibility for the new ones.

And fresh designer talent like Mark Seifter (really liked how he handled the recent playtest, the pregens and some other issues) is likely to make new stuff even better.

Agreed. It's not a matter of the originals being bad, but they're so focused on backwards compatibility that they didn't take advantage of the developers' creativity as much as later material. Once the developers established themselves and brought on additional talent (Mark is awesome, for example), they moved to more reactive and creative mechanics. That has, unfortunately, left some development holes in the rear view mirror.

Quote:

This is hardly a new concept, some players like to play niche concepts, and it usually takes some time and published products until a RPG can support those with adequate mechanics.

Oh and some of the core classes have some assumptions baked into them, like the presence of traps. Rogues other classes perform significantly worse in an environment that lacks those encounters.

Absolutely fair, but a revision release like Unchained is important to adequately address the issues of dated material as they relate to the play meta.

*

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.

I disagree with this 100%.
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.

I disagree that the CRB classes are poorly designed "compared to the more modern classes". I disagree that they should be discarded, "Toss 'em right in the trash". And if you think that six years is "ancient" then I just don't know what to say about that.

The ACG classes are bright, shiny, and new but that doesn't make them better designed. I am personally not a fan of certain classes (I would much rather play a rogue than a ninja or slayer, for example).

I'm also not sure what "glaring imbalances" you are talking about. Imbalances between the different CRB classes, or imbalances between the CRB and ACG classes?

I look forward to seeing how the CRB classes are revitalized in Pathfinder Unchained, but IMO they should be updated, not discarded. I can't imagine a version of Pathfinder/D&D where I wouldn't want to play a fighter (CRB fighter rocks IMO) or cleric. There is almost no CRB class that I wouldn't, and haven't, played (though ranger and druid are perhaps my least favorite for no really rational reason).

Insofar as the CRB classes are modified versions of the 3.5 classes, which weren't that far removed from the 3.0 equivalents, that puts these classes at 12-15 years in age. Sans archetypes, these classes generally fail to meet the expectations of most players, which is a reflection of the game's evolving meta.

I think the CRB classes are great in Core, with the assumptions that are made in Core content. I don't think they fit, make, or break the mold of the current meta, though, and that's the basis of my complaint. If the game is a reflection of the people who play it, particularly in organized play, then the CRB classes have worn out their welcome. The content is not designed around them.

I think there's a fair debate to be had about this topic and I'm sure that Mike, John, and co. have hashed it out at some point. I think the existence of the Core Campaign is clear evidence for this - not just a back to basics campaign, but a conservative one, as well. Honestly, I think that is great. It's an admission that there are varied playstyles and a desire to accommodate that within the structure of organized play. I've even got a Core character because I don't think it would hack it in the standard campaign. There are things you can do there that you can't effectively do in a more open meta.

What I think you're going to find, though, is that the willingness of the contributors and developers to break and remake the mold over the years is going to bear out on the way that Core plays out, which is a direct reflection of the outmoded design concepts utilized in the CRB classes. As it relates to the ACG classes and the original topic, I found them to be bold re-imaginings. Again, I think that's great. It's good for the game to shake out the cobwebs from time to time.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
p-sto wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.

I disagree with this 100%.
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.

I know you weren't addressing me but I have to ask what you find difficult about his position? Even if the Arcanist edges them out Wizards and Sorcerers remain among the most powerful classes in the game. While Shamans are interesting the difference in spell lists means that they play completely differently from Witches as you aren't completely focused on hexes. Druids remain one of the best options for a versatile melee/caster even if Hunters do get better animal companions. As I stated before through archetypes and alternate classes it really seems impossible for Paizo to improve upon Bards, the best they can do is offer something different but equally good. Barbarians are still a great option for a martial character with no magic and while the role of Rangers may be somewhat diminished they're still a great class to play. Clerics are still one of the best options for combat healers and they still have options open to them to be interesting in other ways. And really nothing in the ACG seems all that comparable to Paladins.

So really what's so wrong with the CRB classes that you'd want to eliminate them completely.

My second post expanded on this, but the short version is this:

1. The CRB classes are extremely old and significant advances have been made in "RPG technology" (SKR's term, which I think is a good descriptor) that have shown that...

2. The CRB classes are very patchy, requiring additional bandaids with each release that steal features from new classes to stay relevant.
__________________________________________________________________

When we look at the Arcanist, the first and most relevant complaint was that their ENTIRE CORE CLASS MECHANIC was lifted by the Exploiter Wizard archetype. Yes, they cast differently, but what distinguishes the Arcanist from the Wizard or Sorceror was the inclusion of the Arcane Exploits. Think about that from a design perspective and ask yourself honestly what that means. It's one of two things:

Either (A) the Wizard is intended to be the premier Arcane caster, bar none, and Sorcerors/Arcanists are always meant to be second fiddle, even with the Arcanist being introduced in the same book or (B) the Wizard class has significant problems remaining relevant as a stand-alone class whenever new mechanics enter the field.

(A) is a design choice to specifically make obsolete all further designs in the same field (sacred cow problem). (B) is a terminal mechanical issue. Neither is healthy for the game. (A) is more likely.

__________________________________________________________________

I'm not saying that the CRB classes are badwrongfun. What I'm saying here is that they've run their course. It's actually better for the game to move on to different ideas. Yes, the Cleric and Druid are great basic classes, the Barbarian does its role well, etc. There's a reason, though, that a number of classes are being completely rewritten with Pathfinder Unchained. I think that the admission of the problem was kind of an understatement, though.

The ACG offers a relatively fresh start with classes that are more balanced to the current meta of the system.

*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
melferburque wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
melferburque wrote:
this discussion inspired me to roll up a new paladin of razmir. I call him tomas kroos. because I'm a terrible person.

Home game...great.

PFS...Paladins must worship a LN, LG, or NG deity.

well sure, if you're ACTUALLY a paladin. nothing stopping you from being a zealot in full plate claiming to be a paladin with a crazy high bluff skill tho.

Party: "Can you see if there's evidence of Evil around here?"

You: "Not that kind of paladin."

*

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.

I disagree with this 100%.

Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.

*

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.

Considering that the base versions of those CRB classes are at this point over 12 years old, I think it is hardly a stretch to come to the conclusion, that game design has advanced in that time frame - and that game designers have gotten better at giving their customers what they desire.

12 years old, going on 30 for some. It wouldn't be so painful if there wasn't a paper-over archetype to keep the CRB classes relevant in every book, especially the wizard. I'm still not sure why the wizard gets everyone's toys, but it seems to be more and more blatant with every release. If Occult Adventures comes out and there's a wizard archetype that gives them psychic magic in place of arcane or gives them an iconic ability from one of the new classes, then my fears will be confirmed again.

I understand the appeal of the Core campaign in this light: it strips away all of the stuff that's built up around the "old school" and allows for relatively simple play and GM experiences. I'm all for simple play and GM experiences, but I have no such attachment to the "old school" part. This is why I want the old classes gone and replaced with something more modern and current to "RPG technology." The ACG classes just scratched a particular itch for me in that regard.


Hallit and Skald are the primary languages of Irrisen, per the Inner Sea World Guide.

*

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM has every right to simply get a notecard with all of the player's knowledge skill modifiers and ask for the die result, then determine the result himself. It sounds like the GM is picking the worst of all possible solutions.

*

My joyous discovery last week: with the AR entry on Inner Sea Gods, the Goblin Hero-Gods are all PFS legal.

Cleric of Venkelvore? Totally legit now.

/derail


Re: Dragon Disciple, would you be going slightly more casty or melee? I tend towards the 1 Sorc / 4 Barbarian / X Dragon Disciple build, myself. I like it for the rage powers and extra HP, but you don't get 2nd level spells for a LONG time (character level 9). You can, of course, wand/scroll your way to glory without UMD, so there's that to consider, but that's expensive.

Druids with ACs are very powerful. It's better, IMO, than being primary caster.


FAQ'd. I've been wondering this for a while.


Well, first and foremost, you can't drop the level 1 Bloodline Power with the Primalist archetype. It specifies 4th and beyond only. On the plus side, the level 1 Bloodline Power is actually good for Arcane.

Secondly...

Blood of Fiends wrote:

16 You have oversized limbs, allowing you to use

Large weapons without penalty.

That's not going to allow you to use a large greatsword. Just because you can use an off-size weapon without penalty does not mean you can ignore the handedness. You could use a large Longsword, for instance, but that's not really better than a greatsword. Also, note that the Demon-Spawn gets Shatter instead of Darkness. You may just want the SLA instead of anything off the chart.

I would consider swapping a 14 into the Dex slot, dropping Weapon Focus (Greatsword), and getting your prereqs out of the way. Additionally, consider an archetype that drops Uncanny Dodge from the Bloodrager levels, such as Blood Conduit or Steelblood, to maximize your available abilities.

If you plan on utilizing the Combat Reflexes requirement (I certainly would!), you can consider using a reach weapon instead of the greatsword. Generally, the best ones are the horsechopper and lucerne hammer. This nudges you towards the Blood Conduit, which would allow you to get Improved Unarmed Strike for free at level 1 and puts you at a full 10' threatened area.

*

Andreas Forster wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Alex McGuire wrote:
Sounds like an odd follower of Lamashtu; is the cleric a Separatist?
The character is for Core campaign, so it's a straight cleric with no archetypes. The oddness is to be Good enough for PFS, bringing him to the acceptable CN alignment.

It actually makes him too good for a follower of Lamashtu IMO...

Serisan wrote:
Tamec wrote:
I believe that the Silver Crusade cares about the well being of children, not making them plump enough to be fed to Lamashtu, or her minions.
Nobody said anything about feeding to Lamashtu or her minions. Ozrik genuinely wants the children to grow up to at least child-bearing age. "Remember, a full womb is pleasing to the Mother, so get crackin'!"

Yes, a womb filled with some mutated monstrosity, not a perfectly healthy human.

While the concept of a children-loving character does fit the Silver Crusade, I think it doesn't fit a cleric of Lamashtu. I suppose you made this choice for the madness domain?

What I think would fit a bit more into Lamashtu worship is teaching the children to "be tolerant" towards other races and not be ashamed of one's body or sexuality, to the point where, as young adults, these children see nothing wrong in happily having sex with any kind of species. That might even lead to offspring (the kind Lamashtu likes), because Lamashtu is indeed capable of that kind of divine intervention.

You might want to look at Dark archives then because those guys experiment with strange and possibly dangerous artifacts, which is both quite insane and might lead to finding stuff that is able to manipulate the growth of an unborn child.

Tolerance and interspeciality is definitely on the books for this character's teachings. The nice thing about caring for children is that it makes for easier indoctrination. Don't worry, there's enough Evil to balance out to Neutral.

Re: Madness domain - Yes, I've wanted to play with the Madness domain and I've seriously toyed with it in the standard campaign with different deities. I felt that Core presented a good opportunity to actually play a Cleric, so I was rather confined in my available choices. The concept was just funny, though, so I ran with it.


Generally, magic items that require attunement will be worn in such a way as to not need to be removed. The stat drop is immediate and the re-attunement starts up when the item is equipped again.

Note on Int: the headbands specifically have a skill associated with them, so the player doesn't need to remove individual ranks of skills.

CRB wrote:
A headband of vast intelligence has one skill associated with it per +2 bonus it grants. After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice.

*

Alex McGuire wrote:
Sounds like an odd follower of Lamashtu; is the cleric a Separatist?

The character is for Core campaign, so it's a straight cleric with no archetypes. The oddness is to be Good enough for PFS, bringing him to the acceptable CN alignment.

Tamec wrote:
I believe that the Silver Crusade cares about the well being of children, not making them plump enough to be fed to Lamashtu, or her minions.

Nobody said anything about feeding to Lamashtu or her minions. Ozrik genuinely wants the children to grow up to at least child-bearing age. "Remember, a full womb is pleasing to the Mother, so get crackin'!"

Hrothdane wrote:
I say go Silver Crusade. The potential conflict is good RP fodder, and it fits the best.

It sort of does and doesn't fit best at the same time. This is my constant quandary with the factions.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
maybe house hufflep...erm. Grand lodge is for you.

But I don't want to be a Hufflepuff!

*

Just curious what people think here. Are we talkin' in-depth, multi-person interviews + scrying? Paper application? Donations? "Donations"? Favors? Targeted recruitment?

This comes on the heels of attempting to determine an appropriate faction for a character of the following proclivities:

-CN cleric of Lamashtu
-Loves children, volunteers at orphanages regularly (day job will be Prof: Childcare)
-Mindbogglingly pleasant and unquestionably insane
-Not motivated by personal power (Dark Archive), knowledge (Scarab Sages), or money (The Exchange)
-Indifferent towards the Society generally, but sees them as a useful means of bringing him to places where he can help more children (Grand Lodge)
-Dislikes conflict for how frequently it harms children (Liberty's Edge)
-HATES aristocracy for its pureblood obsession (Sovereign Court)

Thus, the motivations of the character lead him towards the Silver Crusade (the only faction who cares about the safety of children as much as this character) and, therefore, this uncomfortable conversation:

Me: "Yes, Lady Ollysta, I'd like to join the Silver Crusade for the sake of the children."
Ollysta Zadrian: *Detect Evil* "NOPE!"

*

Michael Brock wrote:

Interesting read thus far.

Back in late 2011, I formed an exploratory committee of VCs to discuss the creation of a second campaign, "The Consortium." I still have the summation report on my desktop. I've always wanted to do something that would allow the player base to see the story from both sides. I thought that would be a really cool idea.

I have played in a two year long succesful evil campaign, in the Planescape universe. I also have a conversion to run Carrion Crown as an evil campaign one day. I do have some ideas how it could and would work. I have the ground rules already written up. An "evil campaign" could work if done correctly.

Unfortunately, to do it right, it takes a tremendous amount of resources. It takes so much resources dedicated to doing it the right way, that it just isn't feasabile, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.

That was my fear, right there. Thanks for chiming in on the discussion.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the single biggest thing that would need to happen is for the campaign to have a more clearly defined exit for characters that no longer fit into the Pathfinder Society. "Irrevocably Evil" no longer applies when Evil alignments are allowed, but characters that "do not exemplify the values of the Pathfinder Society" are somewhat difficult to define currently. I would like legal Evil alignments, but I also don't want tables to devolve into "that's what my character would do" slaughterfests or a constant refrain of "campaign death" exits for those types of characters.

That said, what may make more sense is for a separate campaign to evolve, but I can't expect campaign management to want that headache. Frankly, we do have a couple in-world organizations that would fit the bill (Shadow Lodge, Aspis Consortium, etc.). The problem is creating content relative to these organizations without reducing the content for PFS itself. It's hard to do that without hiring additional staff and that is hard to justify for this endeavor.

TLDR: What replaces "irrevocably Evil"? Is it smarter to just have a separate campaign? If so, who manages that?


Saving Finale comes to mind. I actually like that one, save for the fact that I have to spend a standard action afterwards to restart the song.

I'm playing my Skald as a support character that focuses on giving rerolls to the party. My greatest DPS increases have been from Spirit Totem, Lesser, which gives everybody a spare slam attack that they don't spend an action to make. I'm still waiting to play with that alongside a summoner-type character. I may start picking up summons myself to support it.

*

Are we talkin' Neutral wishy-washy, Neutral lazy, Neutral a-hole, or Neutral metaphysical-balance? Similarly, are we talkin' Chaotic FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!, Chaotic lunatic, Chaotic justice-over-law, Chaotic metaphysical, or Chaotic a-hole?

If you're talking about Chaotic a-hole Neutral a-hole, we can surmise that the character and player are both a-holes because there's 2 a-holes there.


I don't think it's possible. Technically, Alertness is not a feat that the familiar possesses, but it grants it to the master under certain conditions. You would need to burn a feat to give proficiency, which is actually slightly painful in this case since you lose 2 levels worth of fighter bonus feats.

That said, the look on the GM's face when the 6th level fighter + monkey fire off 8 arrows per round before Haste? Priceless.


Be-Holder wrote:

what about elemental, should i prefer Primal or straight one?

About words of power, i've always been attracted 'bout, but never studied 'em :S i don't know how those work.

WoP has the best blasting in the game with some bizarre utility mixed in. Example utility: Lock Ward allows you to effectively do Brew Potion without a feat, without significant cost, and with effect words up to 8th level. Just buy a bunch of cheap lockets that you can open with a button press. Use 4th level slots to hand out Enhance Form, 5th level for Perfect Form, or 8th level for Perfect Form + Boost Monstrous Form for the melee in your life. This also covers your Explosive Runes needs, but with the aforementioned Intensified Selected Lengthy Corrosive Bolt coming out and hitting just the target. Just cast it on a sealed envelope. You can opt to have Selected Lock Ward Simple Command leaflets, as well, with a mere 3rd level slot that can ensure panic in a crowd.

If you're ok with casting spells with the Evil descriptor, a 9th level slot gives you the single highest damage spell in the game: Selected Horror Slay, which deals a flat 350 damage at 20th level or 330 at 18th, when you can first cast it. While it targets Fort normally, you can certainly use Mind Warp to make it a Will save instead.

You save on words known by utilizing the meta word Boost frequently. Fly turns into Mass Fly without having to learn an additional word - you just cast Boost Soar.

Short version: check with your GM to see if it's a legal option, then take a little time to learn and consider it. I consider WoP to be the best blasting out there, so I highly recommend taking a shot at playing it.


See if Words of Power is a viable option for this campaign. It's in UM, so it's part of the books ruled OK. While a straight blaster sorc is terrible, a WoP blaster sorc is actually quite good because you don't need many Words devoted to blasting. If you're not able to select crossblood/wildblood, then running straight Draconic - Black is your best option. Otherwise, Primal Earth / Draconic - Black.

Intensified Selected Lengthy Corrosive Bolt is your bread and butter. 3rd level slot, up to 10d4 base damage per round at CL 10 with no save and no SR for 4 rounds. Crossblooded adds 20/rd, standard is 10/rd. Either way, you're looking at 80-120 damage minimum on that target. If you pick up both Varisian Tattoo and Spell Specialization (conjuration), this baby is going off at 7th level.


I'm very entertained by the idea of an Eldritch Guardian archer with a Mauler monkey familiar. Just drop a spare bow and quiver on the ground and the monkey can be doing just as much Rapid Shot/Multishot nonsense as you!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RedDogMT wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Light/one-handed/two-handed apply only to melee weapons (one-handed firearm and two-handed firearm are considered to be a completely different set of designations despite sharing the "one-handed" and "two-handed" phrase, like Race traits and racial Traits). While a Dagger is a light melee weapon that can be thrown as a ranged weapon, a Chakram is a ranged weapon first which just so happens to be able to be used as a melee weapon with specific guidelines (an exception to normal rules regarding ranged weapons). So a Chakram isn't a light nor a one-handed weapon because those categories only apply to weapons that base melee weapons. Therefore, I'd say no, a Chakram can't be made of obsidian because it is neither a spear tip, nor an arrowhead, nor a light or one-handed weapon. For that matter, since it isn't a one-handed weapon, you can't wield it in two hands to get 1.5x Str and Power Attack and since it isn't a light weapon either, you can't use it as a light off-hand with reduced penalties for TWF. Furthermore, this makes rational sense given the nature of the material and impracticality of making such a weapon out of fragile volcanic glass.
Seriously? "you can't use a chakram in the off-hand" because it isn't defined as a light or one-handed weapon in some table? That is a short-sighted interpretation of the rules. I hope that you are not a GM.

That's not what he said. What he did say is that you can't count it as a light weapon when TWFing, meaning you can't get the reduced penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My impression is the that the OP is having the same thoughts I had when I looked through UE: building a thrown weapon character that takes advantage of the fragile weapon feats for bleeding and auto-confirming crits. That's pretty much where those feats make the most sense.

Sadly, RAW restricts you to the Starknife as the "ideal" thrown obsidian weapon. The fact that the author of the weapon did not specify it as a light or one-handed weapon when used as melee restricts it out of the obsidian material. GM fiat can certainly allow it, if that is an option for you, but this would not be PFS legal.


Can you provide the full text of the spell in question? Without knowing what the trigger is, it's hard to decide since I don't have the source. My knee-jerk reaction is to replace the word "swift" with "immediate" and use all applicable rules for immediate actions.

If multiple spells trigger for automatic use, the player must choose which ones consume the action type.

1 to 50 of 1,861 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.