Does anyone know which feats were causing the design team to look at the counterspelling exploits again?
Parry Spell was the big one, I think.
So I decided to speed-run through as much of RotRL as I could get through before the playtest ends using two groups of ACG-only characters. I divided the ten classes into two groups, Group A and Group B; Group A was, to a certain extent, the "civilized" classes - arcanist, hunter, investigator, swashbuckler and warpriest - while Group B was the "savage" classes - bloodrager, brawler, shaman, skald and slayer. (I know it's a fuzzy set of categories at best; work with me here.) This thread deals with Group A.
The PCs are all 15 point buy, using core-only races and no special char-gen rules, including the absence of traits. Each PC had the class' average amount of gold to start with, and received PFS-standard hit points at each level. Here's how they looked before the game began:
CN Medium humanoid (elf)
Init +6; Senses low-light; Perception +4
AC 12, touch 12, flat-footed 10
Spd 30 ft.
Str 8 (-1), Dex 15 (+2), Con 12 (+1), Int 17 (+3), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 10 (+0)
Female half-orc hunter 1
LN Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init +1; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +6
AC 16, touch 11, flat-footed 15
Spd 30 ft.
Str 17 (+3), Dex 12 (+1), Con 13 (+1), Int 10 (+0), Wis 14 (+2), Cha 8 (-1)
Mountain Lion (Big Cat) Animal Companion
AC 14, touch 13, flat-footed 11
Spd 40 ft.
Str 13, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 10
LN Medium humanoid (elf, human)
Init +2; Senses low-light vision; Perception +10
AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12
Spd 30 ft.
Str 10 (+0), Dex 14 (+2), Con 13 (+1), Int 17 (+3), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 8 (-1)
CG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception +4
AC 16, touch 13, flat-footed 13
Spd 30 ft.
Str 13 (+1), Dex 17 (+3), Con 12 (+1), Int 10 (+0), Wis 10 (+0), Cha 15 (+2)
CG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Senses Perception +2
AC 16, touch 11, flat-footed 15
Spd 20 ft.
Str 17 (+3), Dex 12 (+1), Con 13 (+1), Int 10 (+0), Wis 14 (+2), Cha 8 (-1)
It's also pretty cool when you get to use swift actions right after using immediate actions. In fact, it's so cool it's completely illegal.
Consume Spells tells us that the blast exploits should be worth roughly the same as a 1st level spell. Frankly, they aren't. Magic missile does more damage, doesn't require an attack roll or allow a save; burning hands (never anyone's top of the list for most-powerful 1st level spells) does more damage at any level above 1st and can hit up to 7 targets without requiring an attack roll; shocking grasp does require a melee touch attack, but does far more damage and doesn't allow a save. And I'm not even getting into snowball.
Requiring a touch attack and a save for so little damage and such weak debuffs (dazzled? really?) just makes them not worth the reservoir cost, let alone the action cost.
2. Sacred Weapon isn't worth the effort to take advantage of it. Just cast buff spells on yourself or allies. It's action investment is too high, for a reward so small, and a duration so short. Just use the weapon you want. I was worried, along with others that I would have to use my Scimitar with this to be effective. The Blessings I picked were actually more important.
I was initially really confused by this, and then I went back and reread your playtest, and now I think I understand. You were spending a standard action on using sacred weapon, weren't you?
It's a swift action. Does that help?
Well, first of all, you can, actually. You have martial weapon proficiency and 10 (11 if you're human) feats, plus bonus feats on top of that that have no requirement about which weapons they apply to. You're perfectly able to do so, even if it wouldn't be an optimal choice.
Secondly, however, you can play something else. You can play a cleric, or a fighter/cleric, or an inquisitor, or even a paladin if your deity allows for it. You are asking that the class be something it is currently not, and that is in fact the exact opposite of the way the dev team has suggested they are planning to head. You're asking why the paladin has to detect evil (what if I want to detect chaos instead?) or why the why the alchemist has to have extracts (that's too limiting! real spellcasting is the only choice!) - it might seem an "annoying" feature to you, but it's actually the core of the class. The warpriest is a specialist with the deity's favored weapon, and the dev team wants to make that more functional, not take it away.
Hopefully, Paizo will read the writing on the wall and get rid of this annoying class feature before the playtest ends.
Best of luck with that - but I would be prepared to be disappointed.
I think it might be more helpful if we approached the class from the standpoint that the warpriest is a specialized combatant specifically designed/trained to use the deity's favored weapon in combat, rather than thinking of it as a generic "fighter for a god" who is being "forced" to use that favored weapon.
I'm suggesting this because it seems unlikely that the dev team is going to set aside their basic concept for the class, so we might as well try to make the best version of that concept out there.
A Dex/Cha-based swashbuckler can make far better use of parry/riposte options to improve DPR in ways that DPR calculations can't easily handle. I'm not sure you should write off the "classic" build just yet. I'm planning to try that direction with my build when I playtest next week.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I don't think you're allowed to make up new rules in a discussion about RAW.
Android gunslinger. "COMMENT: Weapons technology lacking numerous key developments. I have crafted a rudimentary slugthrower to serve until adequate replacements can be acquired or constructed."
Rather than banning weapon cords, wouldn't it be better to change what they do? That way we can address the action economy problem without negating the fundamental concept of "tying your weapon to your wrist so it's harder to lose" that, frankly, makes a lot of sense and should exist in the world.
I'd suggest switching it to "you may recover the weapon with a move action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity" (keeping the "won't go more than 5 ft away when dropped" part as well). That way it still has value, by preventing AoOs when recovering disarmed weapons, but doesn't break the action economy at all and the value is more in line with the cost. Poof! Problem gone, but verisimilitude maintained.
So, basically with Mythic rules you can tank like in an MMO? ^^
I'm just saying these abilities might better be judged in context than entirely on the basis of what's in a blog post.
The black raven wrote:
You're right. I mean, it might be different if there were other path abilities that allowed you to redirect any ranged attack directed at an ally within 30 feet to you instead of the ally, that increased your threatened range by 5 feet for the purposes of AoOs, that added your tier to the DC of any trip, bull rush, drag, or reposition maneuver made against you (and let you spend a use of mythic power as an immediate action to cause any such successful attempt to automatically fail anyway), and that caused any movement within your threatened area to provoke an AoO even if that movement would not ordinarily do so... but yeah. Totally a waste of space.
So, lemme get this straight: prominent NPCs in this module include both a half-orc born to a loving human/orc couple, a married lesbian couple, a half-orc paladin, and a trans character with actual gender dysphoria (now cured, thanks to magic)?
Did Mikaze, I dunno, win the lottery and buy Paizo or something?
Additionally I've found restriction breeds creativity.
Nuns fret not at their convent's narrow room;And hermits are contented with their cells;
And students with their pensive citadels;
Maids at the wheel, the weaver at his loom,
Sit blithe and happy; bees that soar for bloom,
High as the highest Peak of Furness-fells,
Will murmur by the hour in foxglove bells:
In truth the prison, unto which we doom
Ourselves, no prison is: and hence for me,
In sundry moods, 'twas pastime to be bound
Within the Sonnet's scanty plot of ground;
Pleased if some Souls (for such there needs must be)
Who have felt the weight of too much liberty,
Should find brief solace there, as I have found.
- No support for non-good characters in the player's guide limits roleplaying variety. I don't say that the player's guide needs to encourage evil characters, but it should help with integration of non-standard roleplaying concepts for the AP, especially some of the more popular corner cases ( LN Asmodeans, for example ). This player's guide actively discourages any non-good characters, which, IMO, is not helpful.
This AP has always been presented as "the Good Guy AP," and every time the topic has come up, the developers have said, "Non-good characters are going to have trouble in this one." This is not the first time the PG has taken this tack, as well - remember all the, "But I want to play a paladin in Skull and Shackles!" threads? Paizo handled those pretty much the same way: "This isn't an AP for characters like that, so it's gonna be up to you and your GM to figure out how it's going to work, because the adventures will not be written with characters like that in mind." You may be disappointed that they didn't listen when you asked for advice, but I can't see how you should be surprised.
This part is true...
and extensive backstories, which limits free character background creation significantly.
...but this part isn't. The traits all add a single detail to your character's history. That's it. Since I first started reading the complaints about the traits I have been trying to come up with character ideas I couldn't make work with the traits, and I have utterly failed. Hell, I've actually taken the one idea I've been most interested in playing - developed well before the PG came out - and worked all six into the character's history without changing any of the essential concepts, just to see if I could. I'd suggest trying to broaden your perspective somewhat, because the limitations are ones you're applying, not ones that the traits require.
b.) A VERY railroady way of forcing characters with similar focuses to share that extensivy backstory, also limiting freedom in character backgrounds. My group will have five melee characters, now all of them will have to share the same very specific background event? Where is the freedom in that?
Setting aside the issue of whether you're actually forced to have them share that event, so what if they are? Is there a meaningful difference between "you all met while being tortured in a cultist ritual" and "you all met because you happened to walk into the same pub at the same time?" Honestly, it might be a fun prologue to run for the PCs; it's at least more interesting than, "The barkeep hands you your ale, and then a fistfight breaks out..."
c.) Premature fixation of mechanical character development. Forcing a trait onto players which already fixes their mythic path for them is bad. Most players don't know mythic rules at all now, even I as a GM have only a vague idea of how they will work. This forced choice will cause many problems later down the line, because people will make mistakes. And this is not even to mention the many players I know who don't plan their characters beyond one or two levels into the future.
And here's the other reason why I'm having trouble with the whole "forced to share a trait" thing: nothing in the trait actually fixes their mythic path for them. The traits are associated with the paths, and each path enhances the trait associated with it, but that's it. Nothing in the traits or the rules presented in the guide prevents a leadership-oriented paladin who is deeply devoted to Iomedae from taking Touched by Divinity and still choosing the Marshal path when the time comes. As far as we know, all that would "cost" the character is the trait upgrade they would get for Touched by Divinity, and while I admit that I have no idea what that upgrade might be, I gotta say I'm having trouble seeing how it's likely to break the character mechanically.
And all of this is setting aside the reason why the trait events are so specific: because they give the PCs a background element that will then tie directly into the events of the AP. Frankly, I think a Riftwarden Orphan would be far more invested in the inevitable encounter where you get to find out who killed your real parents and deliver unto them a righteous and just beatdown than just, "oh, hey, it's a Blackfire Adept, ho-hum," killing it and moving on. I think the traits are perhaps the most exciting, just because I think those moments will be really fun to play through.
"The snake does not understand good or evil. It is not good or evil," Asha replies. "And yet, you assume it deserves death for its mere existence, ignoring the good it might do you. You do understand good and evil both, and yes, I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do rats and snakes." She glares again at Poog. "He tried to kill you, it's true - but he failed, and so completely that he had no chance to succeed, now or later. You say those who sent him should think twice, but you denied him the chance to do that very thing. He might have repented, changed his course, perhaps even aided us somehow in finding his masters. Now he will do none of these things, whatever potential goodness he had in him lost for all eternity."
She shakes her head, looks away. "You didn't just kill him, Poog. You killed his hope."
Still avoiding the gaze of her friends, Asha heads for the door. "Finish your meals, then," she tells the others. "I need some fresh air, and I find I am suddenly not hungry."
Volume 44 of the Pathfinder Chronicles, from the Pathfinder Society Primer: "Published in 4707 AR, this volume is notable for the detailed account by Koriah Azmeren of her exploration of the Darklands. Her confirmation that the legendary drow were in fact real drove the elves of Kyonin — who had maintained the secret of the drow’s existence for millennia — to attempt to bribe the Decemvirate into recalling and altering the book. The Society didn’t relent, however, making the existence of dark elves a widely accepted fact within only a few years’ time."
Again: they aren't doing that anymore. The cat's out of the bag. It's over. Done.
You mistake my point entirely. I'm not going for ad absurdum; I was noting that there is a distinction between having access to one specific game element of a certain class and having access to all game elements of that class. That's where the unacceptable logic leap comes from, for those who don't accept the idea that a single SLA qualifies you for a PrC that says "can cast spells of X level." A single, predetermined SLA of X level is not automatically equivalent to "can cast spells of X level," any more than "proficient with quarterstaff" is logically equivalent to "proficient with simple weapons."
And yes, I am aware that PrCs involving weapon proficiencies specify "all" or a specific number. That's why we don't have arguments about weapon proficiencies for PrCs. The rules for what "being able to cast a spell" means, though, are far less coherent, and thus, we get these kind of disputes.
If "spells" is read to meant "multiple spells per day" Jiggy's example of wiz 5 / fighter 1 with 14 int. can't become an eldritch knight. If it is meant knowledge of multiple spells then a fighter 1 / sorcerer 6 doesn't qualify.
Sure - but as written, that's actually a completely valid interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it's as logically supported as the idea that being able to cast one spell is equivalent to being able to cast spells plural.
The problem there, though, is that Vic's right - we've already had a Paizo book with "Bastards" in the title, and no one seemed to flinch then. For that matter, as you yourself just pointed out, we've already got "bastard swords" in the game, and strangely no one seems bothered by those...
The flip side of that, though, is that by taking levels in Knowledge (local), you're making a point of saying, "I'm one of those people who actually goes looking for information on places like Berlin." All of the reasons you've just postulated are why you can't make the check untrained beyond DC 10 - but by putting skill ranks in, you're stipulating that your character goes beyond the hearsay level to actually gain access to resources with that kind of information. Much like taking ranks in Knowledge (arcana) means you spend time keeping up on new discoveries in magic or Knowledge (religion) means you've probably read the major holy books for your world's big faiths, Knowledge (local) means you go hunt out good sources in the community, read travelogues and the like when they show up at the local bookseller, and generally study your subject in a meaningful way.
Andrew Christian wrote:
They are not mutually exclusive, because Jiggy and others in this thread have made it clear that they do not consider auto-success on a roll equates to not being a challenge. As one previous poster wrote, "The challenge was met before the scenario began." Just because you cannot fail a roll at a given moment doesn't mean it's not challenging you - you have, in fact, spent a substantial portion of your adventuring career preparing yourself to meet that challenge, and there aren't many people other than you who could do so.
Jason Nelson wrote:
Dwarf Clans: Hey! Mountains are exceptionally comfy city sites!
Lord Snow wrote:
I can't see why ninja is not a archetype or prestige class, and cavalier barely had a reason to exist in the first place, making me really confused about the Samurai, given that it's basically a cavalier.
This has come up several times in this thread, and it keeps making me facepalm. So let me get this off my chest:
The ninja is, in fact, an archetype for rogues.
The samurai is, in fact, an archetype for cavaliers.
Please, everybody, stop saying "they should have been an archetype." They are.
Wind Chime wrote:
The Monk has higher saves, higher skills and similar AB.
He also has about 3 points less AC, about 11 fewer hit points and either does 3 points less damage per shot or is at -2 to hit, depending on whether he's using Deadly Aim or not - and you're using a Zen archer to do it, generally agreed to be one of the strongest overall archetypes out there. You are doing a spectacularly bad job of demonstrating a loss of "combat prowess" here.
Wind Chime wrote:
The point is that whilst Fighters can be good outside of combat they will almost always be inferior to an equally invested non-fighter and they give up quite a bit of combat prowess ( at least in the early levels) to be so.
No, the point, as has been repeated several times, is not to compare the fighter to other classes, it's to point out that fighters can be built quite easily to do things out of combat while maintaining combat effectiveness. Comparisons to other classes are completely irrelevant.
Except that any such build, you could replace Fighter with Commoner, and it would achieve those same ends with the same effectiveness.
Really? You can make a strong fighter with out of combat usefulness with a commoner? I'd like to see that build, honestly.
And he's going to need it, because he's going to get hit. A lot. With a Dex penalty and no shield? Maybe if we were comparing builds of a less suicidal nature?
Spending less on it? Really? I don't recall paladins getting a class-based Charisma boost; assuming we're talking point buy, you're using the same set of resources that the fighter is, and he can get the same set of stats your paladin has too. And his non-class-based feats? Can do pretty much all the same things you're talking about. Iron Will, Alertness, Skill Focus: UMD - he's got the feats to spare, why not? Everything he needs to do his job, everything he needs to be a fighter, is already covered by the class stuff, so there's nothing stopping him.
I think you're looking at it backwards, though. The point is not that the fighter gets class abilities to do stuff out of combat. The point is that the fighter gets all the resources they need to do stuff in combat from their class - so they have all their other resources free to do whatever they want with them.
Barbarians and bards have to dedicate some of their feats - you know, the things "everybody gets," including commoners - to their in-combat job. Fighters don't. You can make an extremely effective combatant with only the bonus feats a fighter gets and weapon training. So all the other stuff? That's resources they can put wherever they want.
Galt and Rahadoum both seem like they could be showing signs of that kind of Illuminati-style manipulation. Rahadoum in particular strikes me as an intriguing possibility, as the aboleths likely would prefer humanity spend their worship on something less complicating than the gods...
So I've decided that I can manage one more PbP, I think, and I wanted to try something higher level (since APs take seemingly forever to get into the midlevels, let alone anything higher). As a result, I'm opening up recruitment for a PbP of Cult of the Ebon Destroyers. I'm looking for 5 players, no more, and will be choosing on the basis of player enthusiasm, party balance, interesting roleplaying and character background (that list's pretty much in order). Submissions should include race, class(es) and levels (including archetypes or prestige classes), alignment and general character concept, but need not be full builds.
Your characters cannot be native to Jalmeray (they can be from pretty much anywhere else, however), but should have some reason to be sailing on the Fare Winds, a merchant vessel sailing to Niswan, the capital of Jalmeray, from Absalom (and before it, Katapesh) and scheduled to put into port just in time for Niswan's famous Festival of Colors.
Here are my usual chargen rules for PbPs, modified for this particular game:
* 20 pt buy (with level advancements as usual, of course)
I am not automatically opposed to non-standard races, but I tend to lean a little harder on them than most other rules options. Consider them by-approval-only, but please feel free to ask. Of course, as noted above, archetypes from the Advanced Race Guide are fair game for any race I choose to allow in the game. Ultimate Equipment is also open for use essentially without restriction.
Anybody have questions or comments, shout 'em out!
When I consider how my light is spentEre half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait."
Pretty sure his ego has a mount of its own, too. Maybe a packhorse as well to carry all its extra weight.
Given how often two particular components have been mentioned in this thread, I'd like to point out that every few days, hundreds of imps and pseudodragons get together and beat the snot out of each other in the skies over Korvosa.
How hard do you suppose it is to get dragon's scales or devil's blood under those circumstances?
(In other words, just because you think something should be rare doesn't actually mean it is.)
Actually, I would probably allow it - in ways that would make it a nonoptimal choice. Like, cure light is a 2nd level spell when researched by a wizard, cure moderate is 3rd, cure serious is 5th and cure critical is 6th. So, yeah, you can get it if you want to... but you now understand why no one ever bothers.
I will buy Distant Worlds and two Remarkable Races of your choice for the first three posters that want them.
Fun fact: in the entirety of the Core Classes section of the NPC Codex (I didn't bother searching the other chapters, though I'd encourage someone else to do so if they want to take the time), there is precisely one instance of an NPC explicitly using Spring Attack and Vital Strike - technically it's Improved Vital Strike - together. There are two other places where the phrasing is ambiguous (the text says they use Vital Strike and Spring Attack, but doesn't necessarily state they are using them at the same time). That's it.
Keep working that molehill, it'll be a mountain someday, I'm sure.
There's also little things like what happens when the party cleric decides to drop a holy word on the demons you're fighting...
Can you please explain to me why Pyromaniac Mage have also ~13 starting Int?
Well, the first and biggest thing you're missing is that he didn't have Int 13 to start with. He had Int 17. (Int 15 + 2 points from racial + 1 point from advancement + 4 from headband = 22, which is what he has.) Instead, he appears to have raised his Wisdom from 8 to 9 and either his Con or his Dex from 13 to 14 during his level advancement.
However, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong, because Int 13 is not what you get when you start with a 13 and then add a +2 from racial modifiers. You get Int 15. You see, there is a school of thought that says every bonus needs to go to your main ability score for maximum effectiveness - but there is another school of thought that says "a floating +2 bonus means I can have fewer dump stats, giving a broader range of talents!" None of the NPCs you've cited would have begun their careers at 1st level with less than a 15 in their casting stat; several, however, were made to have 15s or even 16s elsewhere, as part of their concept. This is not a flaw. Particularly given the CR guidelines mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it might well have made for sense for the writers to step away from mono-focused stat advancement, to make sure the NPC was better rounded mechanically and not overstep their CR levels too far on one particular measurement, particularly if it resulted in them going too far below it in another.
That doesn't say you can buy them, though, man. Just how much they're worth if you find them in a treasure.
Yes it's logical, and yes you can probably do it in most games, but partially-charged wands being available for sale is just as much houseruling as commissioning items is. (That is, the rules don't explicitly cover it, but they tell you how much it would cost if they did cover it, it's logical it would be available, so you can do it = perfectly valid and supportable houserule.)
The description of the character used he throughout, despite him having already put on the girdle of opposite gender.
Yeah, as cool as that character is, I'm not sure he quite qualifies for the term "transgender" as it is usually meant, because there's no evidence he was suffering from gender dysphoria before he put the girdle on. This is another spot where fantasy games open up gender spaces that the real world has no need for - we have no means by which one could easily change sexes, nor any means by which the transition could be readily reversed, so we don't have a way to really discuss a gender space where "I'm totally cool with the sex I was born with but I find I enjoy life more as the other one" applies. It's certainly cool that he gives us some means to put TG issues out there, but we should be aware of the distinctions as well as the similarities.
Tybus' second strike is much, much more effective than his first, as he quite simply slits the throat of the goblin in front of him, who topples lifeless to the ground. Lamsfel's strikes against the wolf are almost as effective - although not quite mortal, it is clear the animal has no fight left in it as the elf's blades stab deep into its hide. Gan tears into the wolf in front of Tybus with his teeth and claws, displaying shocking ferocity for a man of his age and general demeanor - the wolf dies with speed, and the Tian mystic steps forward to deliver one final slash with a claw to the only goblin still fighting.
Callomeleth still to go. Currently, Tristan, Gan and Tybus all threaten the last surviving goblin, whose mount is at 0 hp and staggered.
N N 959 wrote:
1. There is no requirement to have a caster level.
If you have no caster level, you are not a caster. That is, in fact, what having a caster level means. Having a "caster level" is equivalent to having levels in a spellcasting class. A paladin with 1-3 levels has no levels in a casting class, and thus cannot cast spells any more than a fighter can. In fact, the PRD specifically says "This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin."
N N 959 wrote:
2. The lack of a caster level means something is not present. It does not mean it is undefined. If an amount of something is not present, mathematically, it is zero when factored into an equation.
Do you actually know what happens when you put an undefined variable into an equation? I'll give you a hint: it's not treated as a zero.