|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Human Eldritch Guardian with a monkey familiar (Mauler archetype)
1: Point Blank Shot
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).
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.
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.
Advanced Player's Guide - Core Classes chapter wrote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Party: "Can you see if there's evidence of Evil around here?"You: "Not that kind of paladin."
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
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.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
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.
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.
Blood of Fiends wrote:
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:
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.
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.
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'!"
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.
maybe house hufflep...erm. Grand lodge is for you.
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
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."
Michael Brock wrote:
That was my fear, right there. Thanks for chiming in on the discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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.