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

Skylancer4's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber. 2,993 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,993 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Rules like that aren't all inclusive unless they say they are. A class write up speaks about the class abilities of that class.

If you are casting paladin spells off of the paladin spell list, you cast them as a paladin, not an oracle. There may be traits or feats or some other game mechanic that bypasses that, but such exceptions are stated in the ability/item write up. The part you quoted is under "Oracle - Class Features - Spells" to indicate it is a function of the class, not the character as a whole.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

How would you determine what "double" duration is though?

You don't decide to use it for 3 minutes "doubled" to 6 minutes or anything like that when you use it.

You activate the ability for an indeterminate amount of time, that can be no longer than X minutes and has to be used in minute increments. For it to have a duration you would have to state how many minutes you were using it for at the time of use.

I'd be careful of table variance if you plan on using it for PFS.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I would say yes, just because in the game many things are "as if" or "like" to cut down word count. It is much easier to refer to something existing and save page space than fill it up a book with redundant rules.

A sword that is a short sword but deals damage as a bastard sword, is still technically a short sword for instance. The customization isn't armor, though the closest rule to simulate the effect is saying it lowers your speed like armor, so the Slow and Steady wouldn't kick in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Rhedyn wrote:
Adept_Woodwright wrote:
Esoteric Training, pg 22 ISM.
Do you have a PFSRD link for that?

There isn't one.

Google'd:
http://webpages.charter.net/tedsarah/Pathfinder/srd/additionalRules/MagicSc hools.htm


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Having twice as many spells as the straight caster can come in handy for numerous reasons. Something like a samsaran(?) who can tweak a spell list even more gets a ton of mileage out of it.

Resource management is an "issue" when not doing the 15 min adventuring day, MTs have more resources. You don't play one for god like power, you play one for having a spell for every occasion. The main issue in organized play is they don't go late game, when an MT comes into its own. It is a late bloomer I guess you'd say.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
What's in the box? wrote:

My thought is that these would BE specific classes, not options to add to existing classes. The potential of the class would be maximized if another player took the complementary class to it.

So you could play a Weapon Meister one its own if no one wants to be your weapon, but you would maximize your potential if another played DID want to be the Subaki to your Black Star

That has its own inherent issues. You up and up being sub par because no one wanted to play your "matching" class.

Class balance is a tricky enough, let alone when it interacts with others. Are you supposed to design the class as being underpowered unless you have someone else playing your matching class? What happens when you have 5 people, someone is just to feel useless while the other pairs of players steal the show from each other?

How are you supposed to balance a character to be fine on its own AND still be balanced when it is supposed to be BETTER when operating synergistically with another?

Not saying it is a bad idea. Just want to point out the numerous issues with the idea in a multiplayer game that is as open ended as an RPG. Add in the variance from table to table and the strict nature of organized play... It would be a nightmare to keep updated and balanced every time something new came out. It is the type of thing you might get a 3pp to do, but probably not something that PFRPG would want to get overly involved in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Einhänder wrote:
I have heavily modified Monte Cook's Chaositech stuff into a necro tech. I got a lot of great stuff from his Chaositech book.

Agreed, Chaositech was very good stuff. I believe his base campaign was also more "low magic" after his changes so it would probably not ring too many alarms for those people who worry about balance issues.

Iron Kingdoms was probably one of my favorite precanned campaign settings and I'm really sad they didn't really pursue the d20 books more. Witchfire triology was an amazing set of adventures. I actually bought it twice (once for me and another general set for our group to use).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Also don't forget, the effect is probably meant as more a utility non combat purpose. It just so happens this build can make so much more of it. Many many times, the pricey stuff is due to its impact on combat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Considering the number of classes and that new classes get published... This would be a huge headache as a class ability. You would either have to update them with every other class that came out, or got errata'd/FAQ'd, or restrict them arbitrarily to specific classes. Basically not worth it.

That being said, it is exactly what feats are for and is what the teamwork line of feats does. Making it an option versus a built in (and possibly entirely useless) class ability is a better design choice and you don't have to worry about the specific classes, just how the feats interact. Much less problematic, and easier to balance and implement.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Bleh it was the CMB I was thinking of, you are correct. Though I don't think the OP ever claimed it worked on the natural attacks (at least not in the opening post), it looks like it is there for the unarmed snake style strikes. Re reading the posts now.

Edit: Page 3's break down isn't broken down totally to know where the bonuses are coming from so chances are you are correct about the Weapon Finesse being figured in. That being said, it probably doesn't hurt the build too much as fury builds to hit and you could take multiattack to offset penalties on your natural attacks, assuming you can get them post poly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

@Op that always sucks when it happens. But you just need to remember sometimes the dice aren't in your favor and if you didn't have the potential for that kind of loss, it would probably not be as fun of a game.

As for abusing the race building "rules" I guess I'd caution you on that. Are you trying to build a "light" character that you don't mind dying just so you are part of the game, or are you trying to stick one to your GM? If it is the first, don't do it. If it is the second, I'd still say "reconsider" because you could seem like your coming back with an "ultimate" character for disrupting the game due to your lost character. Is it really worth pissing off the GM and possibly other party members?

If your GM is allowing you to make races it sounds like the group is fairly fortunate. Many many groups wouldn't allow that.

Just some food for thought on the subject.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Soup wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the claws are moot in the build no matter how you get them because claws are Bludgeoning and not Piercing and therefore don't get the Weapon Finesse from Swashbuckler.

It is covered by the rule of creatures being a certain size they get to use Dex instead of Str. It was actually in one of the posts in this thread (I believe it was in the one explaining how the build worked, I'm going to guess you skipped through and didn't read all the posts). It is a blanket rule to not overly penalize small creatures and make them completely useless in battle.

That being said, the only issue with this being PFS legal is the claws, which is why people are discussing it. For it to work as intended, the character needs to find a way to "activate" claws on demand via class ability or an item/ability that grants them that wouldn't be overridden by the polymorph effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

If you are just mining for ideas (as it uses new mechanics not part of PFRPG):

Paizo link to Necropunk

Shadowrun and Cyberpunk both had a book that had sections (if not completely about) necromantic material too if I remember correctly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
IUS come up a lot on the boards for various reasons and in past discussions it has come up that there is no ruling limiting unarmed strikes to fists.

More than that. non fists unarmed strikes are explicitly called out for everyone.

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Quote:
Also the rules state creatures that do not make natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, but it doesn't limit it to them either.

I don't disagree, but where does it spell it out?

Was looking for some of older threads on google, a few of them had it quoted. I think maybe the bestiary?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
I have a different discussion related to this topic. The maps are all in 10 foot squares. In roll20 I can increase the map size, and keep the grid on so as to create 5 foot squares, but the quality of the image decreases noticeably. If anyone is running this via VTT did you just accept the lesser quality or pretend the 5 foot squares were 10 foot squares?

In some of the areas things get *REALLY* tight if you pretend to be 5' (talking about the Horn in particular), so I wouldn't suggest that assuming it is standard across the maps in the books. I was playing that book so didn't see the map very often except as a quick look as we drew out the rooms to help the GM on our table mat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
deuxhero wrote:

Do Warlord/Warder/Stalker/Mystic/Harbinger with Sleeping Goddess "in-class" count as a "Psionic class" for psicrystal progression and detect psionics?

There are ways to gain psionic powers and a pool, that aren't related to class, so no unless it states it counts. I think even some of the psionic classes (AEGIS) have power points but don't advance or have a "normal" ML so can't take the feat psicrystal affinity.

As for detect psionics, the default is psi/magic transparency, it is odd that they would have creatures with just a power point pool (ie someone took wild talent to get a psionic feat like deadly throw) register, yet a 20th level mage without any ongoing effects doesn't register. Peculiar to say the least.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

IUS come up a lot on the boards for various reasons and in past discussions it has come up that there is no ruling limiting unarmed strikes to fists. Also the rules state creatures that do not make natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, but it doesn't limit it to them either.

The reason most animals or the like wouldn't make unarmed strikes is due to the fact that they have more effective ways to attack when capable of natural attacks. It is a sub par attack.

Why would it provoke with an unarmed strike, when a natural attack doesn't provoke, does as much or more damage as the unarmed strike would and is lethal damage?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:

They mentioned in the faq allowing entry to prestige classes that it was intended.

Maybe you are forgetting that?

If that is to me, the FAQ said they were trying it out. If it had been intended all along, why would they "try it out" ?

Prior to the FAQ, you needed to have so many levels of an actual class to take these PrCs. That was absolutely, no questions asked how it was intended to work. That is how it now works, correct? The FAQ was an attempt to try something different than what the rules said. For whatever reason, that experiment in divergence from the intent from the original rules (where you needed class levels to qualify instead of SLAs), was not to their liking and they are now saying, go back to the original intent where you are unable to use racial abilities to enter PrCs early.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I think you may be confused on how the OPs build works. The character build doesn't have flurry, which is part of why it can use unarmed strikes and natural attacks in a full attack routine. It is using unarmed strikes for its BAB routine and then "tacking on" the natural attacks as secondary natural attacks with the -5 to hit. As long as the unarmed strike isn't using the "limb" of the natural attack every available natural attack is available for use.

The bird can go in and wing slam/head butt/knee/elbow/whatever it decides to do (aka unarmed strike) as many times as its BAB allows and then do its claw/claw/etc. at -5 to hit as long as the natural attacks associated "limb" wasn't used. As a monk, who has special wording indicating that they can use other body parts besides fists, the bird has options.

The only thing that prevents the use of a natural attack when making a full attack via BAB, is using the limb to make an attack with a (normally manufactured) weapon. Example: If you have 2 claws on your arms with a natural attack routine of claw/claw, a BAB of 13 and a longsword... You can either claw/claw at full BAB or if you wanted to use a longsword you could swing the longsword 3 times because of your BAB and use one of the claws (the one not using the sword) at -5 as a secondary natural attack. The rules say, the limb using the sword makes using the natural attack associated with that limb "unavailable".

The only wrinkle that might occur, as others have said, is the feat for the claws. If they are part of the base characters form and not something that is "grown" or activated after changing shape, the polymorph school would indeed "overwrite" them. I haven't read the feat in awhile so I'd have to read it again to be sure.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Design principles they stated way back in the play test of PFRPG, that they further stated in the FAQ when they said we're letting this slide to see how it goes, it wasn't what we intended?

We have a reversal, that takes us back to what was intended originally no?

The classes got played, maybe just not by those who normally run optimized builds or write guides or the vocal majority on the boards. Or do you have Society play data that shows they weren't ever played? Ive never seen anything like that on the boards, but I honestly haven't ever gone looking either. Sure they got played more after, but that doesn't really surprise anyone after numerous large threads were created on how to best take advantage of said ruling does it?

They haven't stated why they went back to their original intended stance on the subject. They might never because the boards tend to get hostile as of late, so I really wouldn't blame them for not doing so until this has basically blown over if ever. All we do know is they decided to go back to the way it was initially stated to be intended to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I have it as well, we don't use it because I also have the crit/fumble cards from Paizo which are easier/simpler to use. Bring two decks, toss on the table, no searching through the book/PDF looking for what happens etc.

The books are definitely more involved than the decks mind you, it is just a matter of mid combat keeping the pausing to a minimum.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

When I said "you" in the middle paragraph it wasn't intended to be you personally, it was a general "you".

As for the go F yourself, I guess if you want to be crude about it, yeah. And to be fair, given the few posts I've seen from you lately on the boards with @sshat and F*# yourself, it would seem you are rather crude and ignorant. But hey, maybe you are a GREAT person who just likes throwing out inflammatory terms. Who knows? I dont care one way or another, just trying to have a polite conversation.

The game does have RULES, why do people have to be so ignorant about following them and take it so personal when they can't do what they want in the game knowing there are rules? Part of the fun is figuring out how to get the builds I want to work WITHIN the rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Glutton wrote:
2. 2 Non-lethal Damage. I see it as (1d2-2) + (1d2-2). Minimum 1 twice.

I'd actually argue that. It may be two dice rolls but the whole roll isn't considered to be separate attacks to be added together.

Roll the dice, then add the modifiers like normal. If the entire attack does less than one point, adjust to the minimum of one point.

There isn't anything that says to do what you suggest (other than trying to be nice to tiny creatures or the like, aka good will) in the rules as far as I ever seen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Komoda wrote:
1d2-2 does 0 damage. 1d2-2*2 also does 0 damage. That character is in a bad position.

Doesn't a successful hit always do at least one point of damage before consideration of DR and the like that might reduce it to nothing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
FatR wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


The caster debate is old, stop beating a dead horse. PoW makes playing a martial class interesting not just a list of feats and essentially a hack and slash dice rolling machine.

Please enlighten me in what PoW ways maneuvers make a character more than a hack and slash machine.

I'll start with one: there are maneuvers that provide you with mobility that can be useful on adventure when combat music is not playing.

Anything else?

Doing damage, and imposing conditions and possibly letting you fly is well within the realm of what the druid's (and now also the oracle's and the sorcerer's...) pet can do. No, of course, the Path of War classes make you a way more interesting hack and slash machine. Your combat routine with them is more diverse than "I attack". Probably more diverse than the combat routine of your average original ToB character, where the difference between your best maneuvers and the rest was such that you generaly wanted to recharge after going through 1-2 strikes, unless you were a crusader - and you weren't because few people liked to be toyed with by random chance. But they still hack, and they still slash, and nothing else. If you are in this thread not just to hype Path of War you might have notices that I've tried to insert some non-combat utility stuff in every discipline precisely because of that (although not nearly enough of such stuff yet, coming up with ways of making swording useful outside of the usual contect is pretty hard).

My point of contention has been, why ask people to convince you to use PoW when you obviously aren't interested in it and it isn't what YOU want from the concept, so why ask people to do what can't be done? It has a lot more to do with pointing other people who might be interested in the material (that you continue to bash) because yours is apparently superior, because you made it, and it does everything you think it should do. When in reality it is a pretty good product.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, intended racial disparity is fine, but unintended racial disparity is not?

"This PrC is for elves, because it expands on the core thematics of the race and extends the racial abilities in certain ways."

"But I want to be a human and take it!?!"

"...."

My point being if you want an entirely open ended game system where you can make anything everything... Go play another game. This isn't that. If a prestige class is intended to be taken by a certain race, play the race for goodness sakes.

If you don't like it house rule it. If you are playing organized play, get over it already and realize it isn't all about you and what you want and how you want it, it isn't your sandbox at that point. The game has rules, you follow them and enjoy the game, easy enough right?

Sometimes rules are or seem arbitrary. Welcome to opposing points of view and interaction with other people. So I guess yes, in my games intended racial disparity is okay. It hasn't kept me or made me not enjoy PFRPG ever. I guess because I view it as options, it is nice to have additional options opened up by my normally rather unimportant race choice. I can play any race with any class I want in this game, it is nice for the race to play a more important role than it does normally. I don't look at race only options as restrictions or "the man trying to keep me down", like other posters tend to make it sound like. I guess I'm fortunate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
FatR wrote:
Stark_ wrote:


The complexity of the Path of War classes are pretty much par for the course for Pathfinder.

And that makes it good how?

Particularly when you still can play ye olde full casters (with the wizard easily snatching just about everythihg that is good about the arcanist for himself) and not only enjoy maximum power, but power coming in considerably simpler ways. Sure, you still have extra abilities to track, like hexes or whatever you snatch through the bloodline/mystery/school/whatever. But these generally are a static bonus or either/or proposition, replacing your normal actions.

Now, the above-mentioned Stalker abilities are largely dynamic and interlocked (though it as a lot of static bonuses too, most of them piddly).

I think you missed the point that was being made, not that complexity makes it better, but that the amount of complexity isn't really as much as you are making it out to be. PoW classes tend to be seen as powerful not because they are overpowered, but because they don't require the system mastery that several of the PFrpg classes NEED to be effective.

The caster debate is old, stop beating a dead horse. PoW makes playing a martial class interesting not just a list of feats and essentially a hack and slash dice rolling machine. That is enough to make people want to play one, which is the important part. Yes, casters are always on the top of the list, but the PoW classes let you do more in more interesting ways than the vast amount of PFrpg martial classes. That is what makes it "good".


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
FatR wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
The point of the classes not having specific pre intended roles is so that you as a player can make that decision and build into your concept.

Did you, like, look at the Path of War clasess at all? These classes do have specific pre-intended roles. In fact, they have bloody MMO roles taken straight from 4E. Take a look at PFSRD, it is right there in their writeups. So the rest of your post is an argument against them.

On the other hand broad archetypes like, again, "holy warrior", "kung-fu monk" or "intelligent warrior" do not have such roles. Because they are well, broad. Unless their mechanical writeup sucks, of course.

Yes, I own it, I preordered it and have been paying attention since it was said it was stated to be in a work in progress. It is being worked on by people who made numerous popular homebrew disciplines for the original Bo9S and knew the original systems ins and outs, strengths and weaknesses, who also were very forward about their lack of experience with pfrpg and were very happy to work input into the final product. It was tested rather extensively by quite a few people and went through quite a few revisions, which they openly explained when asked about said changes. They did a good job with it. Better than some official Paizo products from the sounds of things on the boards as of late with the names and tones of threads about certain products.

Each of the classes have abilities, yes. But the entire feel of the class can be "played" with by swapping out the schools. Of course there is going to be a certain direction with each class, or else it ends up being stats thrown on a sheet of paper. The point I am trying to get through to you, is that "feel" of the base class can be changed. A good base class has just enough direction to not make it useless but enough flexibility to not make it the exact same thing every time it is used in a character build. You aren't pidgeon holed into the same thing every time you play it, multiple concepts are available using the same class as a skeleton.

But again, obviously this is something you aren't seeing or have no desire to. Which is fine, but goes back to me asking why should someone else try to convince you to use PoW when you obviously think your choices are better for whatever reason. There is no point.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The point of the classes not having specific pre intended roles is so that you as a player can make that decision and build into your concept. Instead of being pinned into something via built in class concept and having to go through hurdles to change that.

There are archetypes and ways to change your disciplines in PoW, so you can customize each class to your hearts content basically. By making their classes neutral, the player has more options if they want to make a certain concept.

Your looking at it in a fundamentally different point of view. You want the predefined concept from the sounds of it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Because a class that makes a race or two the only valid options out of all the possible ones you could play, goes against the design principles they outlined when writing PFRPG, would be my guess.

But hey if you don't like it means it is "trash" maybe you could write a better game, get it published, widely accepted and played in organized play and make everyone happy who plays it?

You mean, like racial archetypes?

Which were obviously intended to be that way. Making aasimar the go to race for a PrC like MT that had no racial bias and was completely race "neutral" before the FAQ... Is a completely different story, which I'm sure you realize.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
...how could anyone seriously hold the opinion that gauntlets aren't weapons? They're on the weapon list.
The short version: they're on the weapon list under the "unarmed attacks" heading, which would logically make them unarmed attacks-- a subset of weapon, certainly, but not "weapon" in that it functions like a sword. Instead, they'd function like, well, the section they're under: an unarmed attack.

Which taken further would mean you provoke unless you have the feat to prevent it, which would be why there is contention.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
JJ Jordan wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
But it is "official" and gives us the price point that Paizo thinks it is worth for comparison.

Paizo messed up. It's a 4,000 gp value effect at a cost of 18,000 gp (at least).

It's probably a reaction to trying to balance out all the crazy ranged damage builds, forcing them to spend a turn casting abundant ammunition at higher levels or, alternatively, trading out the increased chance to hit or other special weapon abilities to not worry about arrow accounting.

Or your perception of the matter at hand is skewed and you are undervaluing it. Both are possibilities and the "truth" probably lays somewhere in between.

The custom magic item write ups, are GUIDELINES, not hard fast rules. You can't say with any amount of certainty that it is in fact "a 4000 gp value effect" because guidelines don't cover all the effects possible realistically. But then again you'd probably argue that the Ring of Truestrike is supposed to a ridiculously low price due to the guidelines as well using your current logic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Because a class that makes a race or two the only valid options out of all the possible ones you could play, goes against the design principles they outlined when writing PFRPG, would be my guess.

But hey if you don't like it means it is "trash" maybe you could write a better game, get it published, widely accepted and played in organized play and make everyone happy who plays it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Skylancer you seem to be missing the point, the attack it gets passed on to is always the next applicable attack. If you count as your ally and hit with another attack you must take the crit. There is n o choosing to take the crit. Ruling that this is how this feat works is ruling that it's always how it works, and that brakes the feat.

Apparently you misunderstood the mechanics of the feat, as pointed out you are incorrect on your belief you have no choice about passing it on to a different ally. You are capable of "rolling" your own crits.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
NikolaiJuno wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "Does it make sense?" test for the FAQ was intended to mean "is this physically possible?" In other words, it's purely a sanity check, not something that's supposed to require RAI on the rule in question.
Skylancer4 wrote:
You aren't actually gaining anything you wouldn't normally have access to, which is why it isn't a "problem" to me.
So you don't think that the fact that it near completely breaks the original purpose of the feat and replaces it with something different is a problem?

The purpose, mechanically, was to pass a possible crit to a later point. You being your "ally" doesn't change this mechanic and in fact makes it worse than passing it on to another ally. You are choosing to put the crit onto a single handed weapon (assuming you are trying to make the most of the situation) when you could be putting it onto a 2h weapon and getting more damage output. You are also decreasing your chances of hitting as if you are TWF you are taking a penalty OR if you are just using BAB routine, you are taking a -5 to hit on the next attack.

It is a sub par choice to pass it to yourself. End of story. If you want to reduce your possible damage output, go for it. I'm fine with that.

Passing to crit to the power attacking, raging, 2h'ing barbarian with the x4 weapon is the mechanically superior choice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
arcanine wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
At the point you get to +6 "normally" you can afford a magic bow with the adaptive property. On the off chance you are worried about dispels or antimagic, there isn't any real limit on the STR adjustment besides the gold you want to spend on it.
Oh I can't believe I missed that. So just get adaptive and be happy. Thanks.

There are definite reasons that you might want to build it up normally, but as a general rule of thumb for my characters, as long as it was within one or two steps below what I could use at best effect I wouldn't worry to much about it. The loss of damage if dispelled is negligible (1 or 2 points per attack). If my str mod was 7, I'd be fine with 5 mundane comp bow and adaptive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

At the point you get to +6 "normally" you can afford a magic bow with the adaptive property. On the off chance you are worried about dispels or antimagic, there isn't any real limit on the STR adjustment besides the gold you want to spend on it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

For PoW, if the reasons are "I didn't like what they did", " It isn't how I would do it" and "It isn't what I wanted from the concept". No one will be able to change your mind.

That being said, they did a good job and are expanding into a second book as we talk with more classes and schools/disciplines. So obviously it actually made an impact and sold well, which would indicate quite a number of people who were fans of ToB or new people who didn't know about it think it was worth their money. It was something that DSP took a chance on as it had a following pre PFRPG (similar to psionics) and was something PFRPG was never going to do ever essentially. It seems to have paid off for them, which makes me happy as they are a solid company who publish well thought out and tested material.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

But it is "official" and gives us the price point that Paizo thinks it is worth for comparison.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I always liked the crusader, but that being said, random maneuvers did sometimes bite you in the rear. Which was their major complaint IIRC.

Even with the "reshuffle" sometimes you just have bad luck and don't have what you want/need for a situation. Maybe you should implement a theme or "signature moves" that you can choose every few levels (one each of strike, boost, counter) that you always have initially and then randomly get more. That way you can always expect to have that one move you know you'll want and fate can't deal you a completely crappy hand 3 times in a row and make you spend 3 rounds resetting to get something useful.

Some "randomness" is fun and makes it feel more dynamic. Completely random class abilities are generally a very bad idea. If something bad can happen, it will at some point and probably when it will most negatively impact the player. If you can take the possibility of the player being completely screwed over out of the equation, it will only make the class more enjoyable and less obnoxious.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:

Wee proposed feat

Psychomachy [Psionic]
You are adept at assaulting the minds of your victims.
Prerequisites: One or more metapsionic feats
Benefit: If a power you manifest deals damage to a mental ability score (such as ego whip's damage to Charisma), you may expend your psionic focus as part of manifesting that power. If you do, it instead deals damage to the mental ability score of your choice.

Honestly may be too powerful. Ego whip tends to scare some GMs as CHA tends to not be a very high stat in most NPCs. Being able to intentionally target mental stats... You are basically allowing the ability to "cherry pick" your damage type.

Not to mention the bookkeeping nightmare this could open up. Having to constantly adjust mental stats means re-figuring saves, spells available to cast, power point pools, etc. The first time it happens in a group, the GM might just ban it for the effort it saves them.

That being said, as a player, I like the idea ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Not to downplay your feelings on the subject (because writing a guide does require quite a bit of work and personal investment) but to play devil's advocate... Building a guide factoring heavily on a FAQ that stated it was a deviation from what the rules intended and that it would be monitored, you can't be toooooo upset. It's not like they completely reversed their stance, they said we're going to let it slide and see how it goes, this isn't what we intended.

That being said, your guide is far from invalidated. The information is good information. It helps those looking at the PrC and educates them on the subject. Exactly what a guide should do. At worst it invalidates a tiny portion of it and has been mentioned, adding a little forewarning at the start indicating some of the information was outdated/no longer valid due to a change of the FAQ that was in review at the time is all that is required.

It sucks because you were excited about it and it doesn't work that way officially. That I can wholly understand. But don't let it keep you from writing more if you enjoy the subject matter. Basically, don't let it get you down, is the short of it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:

One thing Skylancer4 (and if I've misunderstood your post and you know this, then my apologies)is that you can choose to attack with any weapons in hand at any point in your attack routine without penalty as long as you don't take the extra attack for TWF. There is no requirement to declare all your attacks up front, or to roll all your attacks together (although many do to save time).

So a lvl12 fighter +12/+7/+2 with a kukri in one hand and a pick in the other is perfectly entitled to keep attacking with the Kukri until he threatens then switch to the pick.
e.g.
Kukri (no crit), Kukri (crit) Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (miss), Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (hit), Kukri (fishing for the next crit)

are all valid attack routines with no penalty to attack.

Not that that is why I have a problem with it, it just doesn't make sense to me. The only one who should benefit from soloing teamwork feats is the inquisitor. They are teamwork for a reason. I'll apply that FAQ where it makes sense, but not universally.

Was covered by point 3. If you are attacking with one weapon to crit (crit range), you still need to be wielding the other weapon (crit multiplier) in order to attack with it. Barring shenanigans, you will be using weapons 1 handed so wouldn't be getting str & half from 2 handing a weapon on the crit multiplier weapon.

You aren't actually gaining anything you wouldn't normally have access to, which is why it isn't a "problem" to me. No double dipping on str or anything like that. And you still have the capacity to "lose" the crit on your crit multiplier attack by missing (1's happen).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I was thinking about it, and it doesn't really break anything if you run it as you being your ally.

You delay the crit, do normal damage and on your next attack crit. You're just pushing back the crit (which means you may lose it on your own attack and have to push it to another ally if you miss on attack/s after the crit) in most all normal instances.

The only situations I can see someone possibly getting "extra" out of it:
1) a flurry (where you can pick a different weapon for following attacks)
2) natural attack routine (where you can choose an attack from the routine)
3) a high BAB full attack who is wielding 2 weapons, and uses the crit on the "other" weapon (again the option to choose another weapon but not TWF to get additional attacks, but losing 2h damage for keeping the weapon option open)
4) a TWF who happens to crit on the last attack of their primary weapon and uses the crit on a high crit multiplier weapon on their off hand (as you have to finish the routine with the primary weapon before moving on to the off hand weapon)

None of these seem to really get anything "extra" that sets off the lights and sirens warning against "broken mechanics" to me.

I firmly believe RAI is, ally doesn't mean you, but I also don't see it breaking anything given the circumstances it takes to get something out of it. Losing 2h damage on crits would be offset by the "offhand" damage being added on a high multiplier weapon. And you are kinda taking a gamble on getting the crit in the first place, making your damage more "spikey" in that respect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

RAW no:

You cannot use this skill to take an object from another creature during combat if the creature is aware of your presence.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It might seem like splitting hairs but no. A class ability that allows you to pick feats or grants access to feats doesn't make the feat a class ability. It is still a feat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Two levels of paladin is often well worth a dip for the saves alone (especially with a race that buffs CHA) for anything besides a caster. You are getting decent base saves, full BAB, full weapon/armor prof (minus tower), smite with a decent bonus to hit (CHA) and extra damage is never bad, as well as an AC bump (CHA). A few emergency heals (based off CHA) as a swift action on yourself with no need to lower SR...

Wait how exactly is any of that not synergistic with a melee type? How does the majority of that tarnish over a characters career? Oh wait, it doesn't.

Saying there is a lack of synergy is like admitting you don't understand basic optimization.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Its why I'm glad they redesigned it in the ARG. If your GM is competent enough to "handle" the power differences between PCs by using the bestiary version, great. If they balk at it, you have the ARG version to be able to play a noble drow. They didn't remove the option of playing one, they gave the players more options to do the same thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

So... I GM'ed a drow paladin through all of RotRL, and she started as a regular drow, then paid the appropriate feats as she leveled up to "evolve" into a drow noble.

So why not take that tactic and avoid the drama?

Because if they use the drow noble from the bestiary they get everything for free... Stats, sla's, SR all for nothing besides race choice. Not even level adjustment.

It is the whole "why should I pay more, when I can get it for less" mentality.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Magnolial wrote:

In a game I play in I've asked the GM if we could use psionics for characters, and he has adamantly refused. He says he's seen psionic characters wreck and ruin other games he's been in by making all the other party members useless. In search of the source of this problem, I found sources saying that psionics were balanced around an assumption that characters would encounter 4 at-CR encounters, or 2 CR+2 encounters, in each day of action. The games that the GM runs, and the ones in which he experienced psionics being overpowered, are usually far more roleplay driven, and have few combat encounters, with typically a single at-CR or CR+2 encounter in a day where any action even happens at all. This let the psionic character in his previous game unleash a volley of nothing but highest-level and max-augmented powers in every encounter, and resolved all combat nearly instantaneously, making all the other players feel useless.

In games where one is far less likely to have a large number of encounters in any one day, could one slow down the progression of power points/day that a psionic character gets, so that power points still have to be considered and conserved even with one or rarely two encounters? How would you go about doing this?

Sounds like your GM may know the type of game he wants to play, but doesn't understand the fundamental basics and mechanics of the game he has chosen to run. A core caster can make just as much of a mess of his game as is, as a psionic character could. It doesn't mean they are a "bad" GM, just they don't grasp that the core rules are balanced on the exact same basis as psionics are. Core casters are balanced around the same encounter model, this isn't anything new or special. It is even in the CRB if I remember correctly (probably under the GM'ing and designing encounters/world creation section)

1 to 50 of 2,993 << 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.