StreamOfTheSky's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is the need for a distinction?
It's a roleplaying game. If someone doesn't pull his weight at all in a fight and leaves you all to die running away, you would dump him from the adventuring group. At the same time, a player doing such things with his character is being selfish and annoying, and it reaches a point where you don't want to play with him/her anymore.

On both levels, it's a pretty crappy way to treat the people around you.

Yes, Ashiel.

The most amusing was a psionic character who did nothing but use his powers to buff his own AC to insane levels and avoid the conflict, maybe occasionally flinging some ranged offense but only rarely.

Anytime the tide seemed to be against us, or if he just plain failed to identify the creature attacking, he would immediately teleport the party away to safety.

We were greatly annoyed, but at the same time it was kind of funny and at least he wasn't leaving US to die, so we tolerated it for months before the game ended.

If the game will actually get that high and continue playing past it for a while, it is a fine build. Not losing any more CL than absolutely necessary and getting Imbue Arrows + Anti-magic Field about as early as is possible.

Just don't go past AA 4th level...

And don't think of Imbue Arrow as a good way to "deal damage." All the direct damage area spells already tend to have very good ranges. It's best with AMF, color spray, etc...

It is too bad melee fighters aren't allowed to carry ranged weapons. Why don't they fix that?

Sometimes it seems like other people play games where you only ever fight armed humanoids, and the other 95% of the bestiary doesn't exist...

In any case, if the foes do have ranged weapons and are stopping to shoot, slowing themselves down, the escapees are likely to get away unless said ranged attackers are actually skilled with their bows beyond "I have one, and I'm proficient."

Gorbacz's group: Got eaten by some flumphs while they were too busy roleplaying out an argument their characters were having. :p

3 people marked this as a favorite.

They aren't pathetic and weak. They are better.

A fighter that has a low speed, high armor, and lots of damage is just asking the GM to never, ever have a fight that is too hard because he will always end up dead.

A skirmisher can't fight as high level opponents, but he can try to get away. That is a big deal.

If you are playing a story, the GM will just cater to you and let you win anyway.

If you are in any kind of sandbox, you can walk away from anything you can't kill, unless you made some dumpy speed 20' character with no initiative and no magic. Then you deserve to die. Adventuring isn't like guarding a doorway. You shouldn't use the guarding a doorway build for someone who may have to and who will be allowed to run.

Speaking of falty assumptions...

1. Maybe if the skirmishers fought nearly as well as the "lots of damage" guys, they wouldn't *need* to run.

2. You can do a lot of damage without losing mobility to heavy armor just fine.

3. Not every DM is just going to deus ex machina a win for you, IME most will let a TPK happen just fine.

4. Unless you are in barren, flat, wide open terrain or the enemy out-reaches you, you can actually pretty reliably get away just using the Withdraw action. That lets you double move w/o provoking from the space you leave. The enemy can double move to pursue you, but he can't do that and attack. He can double move and attack by charging, but...unlike withdraw, that has to be unhindered in a straight line. So in most cases, to chase you down AND kill you, the enemy needs to have at least twice your speed.

5. Running away is not the only way to evade an encounter. You could hide. The mage could teleport the party away. You could use diplomacy to negotiate an end to the conflict.

I've played with plenty of people who think like you, that it's more important to be able to escape and live than to fight well. They tend to get other characters killed due to not contributing enough in a fight and being quick to bail out. Those people tend to not be welcome back in the group after such occurrences.

Actualy, some fighter archtypes allow for pretty interesting builds - see the archer from the APG, for example. Being able to disarm or trip opponents from a distance is super solid, and there's also a feat the increase ranged damage with intelligence, allowing anyone to create a fighter with high INT score without feeling guilty about it!

Except in 3E there were just feats for that which anyone could take and often gain them at a lower level than the Archer gets access to his ranged maneuvers to do that stuff. Like I said in my first post...

As for the int to damage feat, that requires a single standard action attack that doesn't even stack w/ Vital Strike or Shot on the Run. Not to mention the whole appeal of archery is always full attacking -- the incentive has to be a lot higher than Int to damage to make any other form of archery anywhere near competitive.

Ah, right. Well, I started out before that change, though. :)

I did at least gift myself back the 1000 gp, though I could have used it a LOT more back then.

I have a goblin dex-based Viv. Beastmorph alchemist, using claws and bite (via feral mutagen; I use a gauntlet covered hand for unarmed when not in mutagen, and now I can use Undead Anatomy for backup claws/bite). It works well now, it would have sucked at level 1 (I got to come in at level 4, iirc, and DM let me blow half my wealth on the amulet). But it is quite possible if you aren't at low levels for too long.

Well yes, that's the issue. The pouncers, archers, etc.. are strong, viable builds, albeit boring as hell. But the problem isn't them being too strong. It's "walk and strike" - the skirmisher type builds -- being incredibly pathetic and weak.

That's why the tumble nerf, lack of Tome of Battle or other source of powerful single attack options, etc... is the heart of the issue. Nearly every martial combat change in PF has been to the detriment of the skirmisher guy. And any buffs to the martials have almost all been in the form of bigger #'s to hit and damage with.

This has been pointed out for many years now, right from the start. But instead of addressing it, paizo and its defenders just shouted back and turtled up like they were besieged.

Tome of Battle was great for that. Gave a ton of standard action strike maneuvers to skirmish with that had potent effects for their levels.

Of course, PF also instituted the "full attack stand still-fest" by making tumble suicidally hard. Perhaps if it was still flat DC 15, people would move around more.

Or perhaps if Spring Attack stacked with....freaking anything else.

EDIT: Wow, you ninja'd my reply to your own post!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The name should come with any success. On top of that (since it's a quite useless bit of info on its own), success and then each increment of 5 you win by should give you useful, combat relevant information.

What creature type and subtype it is. What special attacks it has. What resistances or immunities it has. Any vulnerabilities it may have. What saves might be its strongest and weakest. Its movement modes if not visually obvious.

Stuff like that. Knowing its ecology and favorite foods is cool and all (and you can include that stuff as well if you want), but when you're in a fight with it, the party members do not give a s*** about that stuff. Of course, if such fluff information is useful to a party member (say... a Horizon Walker who'd like to know if the monster is already from one of his dominant terrains so he doesn't need to use his wand of Instant Enemy on it), then for that group it is combat-relevant information.

What tidbits come at which increments is up to you, but as a general guideline, beating the check by 20 should basically be, "here's the monster's statblock," and you should try and roughly evenly divide the info up among DC, DC +5, DC +10, DC +15, and DC +20. This guidance for winning by 20 = you know all about the monster came from the latter half of D&D 3.5, where they'd actually print info gained on a monster for a given knowledge check result on a little table for each monster. It was super helpful, shame PF didn't keep up that innovation.

And if you're using claws and bite, you can get it on an Amulet of Mighty Fists for "only" 5000 gp, since the amulet does not require a +1 first like a normal weapon does (so a weapon would cost 8000 for +1 Agile, 300 for masterwork, and xx price of the weapon). Should mean you can nab it at least one level earlier than you could have an agile sword.

The problem isn't martial damage so much as PF's complete and utter nerfing of any martial option that isn't damage. Grapple is super hard-nerfed, trip can't be used on nearly as many things, maneuvers succeed less often than in 3E due to CMD accrual rate of monsters, it takes more feats and higher level to get identical benefits to the 3E "Improved [maneuver]" feats... Stand Still was turned from the keystone of any reach tripper build that nearly always worked into a worthless adjacent-squares-only feat that runs against the exact same broken CMD score.
Other badass options like Staggering Strike or Imperious Command to inflict hefty status effects have either been wholly absent, are very specific for race or class, tend to have high requirements, and/or are extremely situationally dependent.

And a cleric can take Restoration domain to heal a bunch of status effects and also empower all their healing spells.

No, because it's not a trait. It's a variant racial feature.

Question wrote:

Can someone explain how the oracle is supposed to match up to the cleric?

Oracles have a large number of class features, all of which let you choose, giving a wide variety, clerics almost don't have any. They both have access to the same spells, and the only big difference beyond that is that one is prepared and the other is spontaneous.

Clerics get two domains, many of which have fairly good powers. An Oracle can get either a larger quantity of decent revelations or a few that are better than what a cleric can get, maybe. Does that make up for all the benefits of being a cleric instead of an oracle, though?

Like I said, if you can find a unique trick like Heavens mystery with color spray, or paragon surge with Eldritch Heritage (Arcane), oracle can stand out. I just don't see it otherwise, though...

Misfortune is nice for using on allies. For using on enemies, cleric can eventually do that just fine. That's because the Divine Interference feat exists. Just buy a ton of cheap 1st level pearls of power to keep using it on every enemy you encounter once each.

iirc, this was one of those "strict RAW is stupid" moments where SA does not become nonlethal because you're not using a "nonlethal weapon." MPL pointed that out to me recently. It's really silly.

In any home game, this shouldn't be an issue.

Why are people saying #3? You cannot reincarnate those creatures, for good reason -- they can't be raised from the dead normally and the elementals and outsiders don't actually "die" in many circumstances due to being summoned.

But killing is not a part of the reincarnation spell, that is an entirely separate effect the hex inflicts. It's the same hex, but it has a sequential order. Target is killed, *then* immediately reincarnated. So why would the 2nd effect of the hex being ineligible affect the first part?

If you're multiclassing, you're probably not going for sap master/adept (I'd suggest not...you won't have much sneak attack to enhance with it), so you don't need specifically bludgeoning damage. Grab the Blade of Mercy trait and you can just do nonlethal with slashing weapons.

It is rough with the cognatogen at early levels. Eventually you'll have enough 2nd level slots that you can use lesser restoration and still have slots for alchemical allocation.

A wand of lesser restoration made by a paladin is only 750 gp. Would be worth trying to acquire such a wand if you plan to use cognatogen.

You can't do it. This is a good thing.

D&D 3E had a targeted disintegrate feat you could use to take out arms and stuff. That was a horrible idea, too. But I think even that didn't let you take out equipment.

Well, the cleric is already too powerful, so I doubt it would.

I'd still never EVER allow it without extremely harsh concessions from the cleric's spellcasting ability and spell list.

That was...wow....

I have nothing nice to say, so I shall say nothing at all.

Alchemists should be included, they can lose their formula book just as easily as a caster can lose their spell books.

Pre-req should be anyone whose class requires use of a spell book, formula book, or similar item.

For the haunted curse a familiar can once again be helpful as a wand and rod caddy. Of course it is kind of a big feat investment, but it can have other benefits.

Yes, fine. I don't mind Haunted curse itself. What I took issue with is choosing it as the non-advancing one for dual-cursed.

If you do so, you introduce all of those headaches...just to add mage hand and ghost sound to your known orisons.

There is no sane reason to ever do that. Hell, you could use two-world magic trait to get one of them on your list anyway.

Alternatively, you could go with Samsaran race to add a bunch of undead-effective spells like Command Undead to your arsenal via Mystic Past Life.

Your build is missing Point Blank Master. Also, take Clustered Shots before Snap Shot. Snap Shot is pretty bad until you get Improved Snap Shot. Likewise, Combat Reflexes does nothing for you until you have those feats. I'd use level 8 to grab Combat Reflexes and swap out an old fighter feat for Snap Shot, then get Imp. Snap Shot at 9.

Zen Archer also works, I agree with Ark, I'd go Zen Archer 6, then Weapon Master Fighter 3 for weapon training to use gloves of dueling, back to Zen Archer for 2 more levels, then...either fighter 4 or something else entirely for your final PFS level at 12th.

EDIT: Imp. Precise Shot is an amazing feat, you definitely want it ASAP. But for a fighter, ASAP is level 11, not 10.

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I was wondering how this hex works against Undead, Constructs, Elementals, and Outsiders.

Forced Reincarnation (Su): The witch causes a creature within 30 feet to die and be immediately reincarnated into a new body. A Will save negates this effect. Those that fail are slain and immediately brought back to life with the spell reincarnate. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.

A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be returned to life by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be reincarnated.

I note that while I'd expect such a hex to be a fort save (which would make undead and constructs immune by default), it is actually a will save. Also, due to the text quoted for reincarnation, apparently the death caused by this hex is not a death effect, lest the hex would never work at all.

So, how does this work?

1. Specific trumps general, with the Hex you *can* reincarnate those creature types.
2. Those creatures are killed as per the hex, but then they get hit w/ Reincarnate, the spell says, "uh...this isn't in my job description, sorry," and does nothing, and they just die.
3. Since they can't be both killed and reincarnated, the hex does nothing.
4. Something else.

I think by RAW, #2 is how it works, though #1 might also be the case. I don't see why #3 could possibly be correct.
The hex does mention killing the target, so perhaps undead and constructs are immune for not being alive. But at least for undead, there are spells to "kill" them or make them "dead," such as undeath to death.

If it's undead-heavy, you really want to be a Gravewalker, your spell list is poorly suited for handling undead. Bard should also look into Dirge Bard.

Yeah, tongues is bad for a casting-focused oracle, too many good language-dependent spells. Less of an issue for a melee buffer type oracle.

Deaf doesn't have to kill roleplaying, I don't think... Getting someone in the group with telepathy (my current character's improved familiar has it, for example), using sign language, getting ghost sound as an orison via two-world magic (if your DM tries to make your own speech hard to understand due to the curse, though I don't think that happens by RAW), all help.

Haunted is painful because yes, you will occasionally want to pull out a wand, a rod, a scroll, or whatever. Also, while probably intended to be fine, I notice the FAQ says nothing about drawing any focus a spell might require. Could cause problems with a strict DM or PFS. Then again, you just need to touch foci, so you could probably have them all out at all times on a necklace or something.

Also not seeing it. Your baleful polymorph is slightly stronger. Yippie?

I don't care enough to actually check all the spells the two classes share. If there are a lot of good ones, maybe it's a decent ability.

...Why in gods' name would anyone ever take Haunted as the curse that doesn't advance?!!!

The penalty it gives can be utterly crippling. The payoff is that you keep getting great non-cleric spells as you level up.

You want a low-pain curse for the non-advancing one of dual cursed. The benefits don't matter so much since you only get 1st level benefits anyway.

I like the Time mystery.

True Seeing is usually costly to cast, and you only need it some of the time, so this is a great ability to call forth. The later options are not as good, but I don't think you're forced to use them instead.

Very tactically useful. It's Su, so you can use it grappled, it doesn't provoke AoOs, and you can take others with you if needed.

Every caster likes to go first.

Not the greatest thing, but still helpful. At late levels, might be worth getting Quicken SLA feat for it.

Great for identifying enemies.

This is useful to get someone out of harm's way or get rid of a dmonated PC and the like, along with using it on enemies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jessie:
This thread is about extracts, not bombs. I think bombs are kind of underpowered myself, but if you want to nerf them, that can be a separate topic. I should note gunslingers use dex for to hit *and* damage with their own touch attacks and can use Deadly Aim with them, unlike the alchemist with his bombs.
The 1 minute per extract was just using the existing rule; I don't care about extending it to 15 like wizards if it bothers you so much. But Wizards do have an arcane discovery to reduce the time to 1 minute anyway.
What is this nonsense about "splash"? Extracts don't have a splash. I was trying to maintain at least some of the fluff, I don't find it any more absurd than the current extract rules saying that the extract goes inert immediately upon leaving your possession. Not even hands, but possession, so it can tell the difference between being in your backpack on your back and when you take the backpack off.
For cantrips, vials are re-useable, you know. You mix ingredients, sure, but casters burn material components and yet never seem to run out. It's no different.
And yes, they'd still only be able to learn spells/extracts on their own list, unless the DM lets you research a new one as per the existing rules. I was just removing the spellbook / formula book barrier.

Majuba wrote:

Alchemists don't need any more help breaking games. They have advantages (standard action for every spell), and disadvantages.

If alchemist are breaking your games... I just don't know what to tell you. Its not been the norm for me. Far from it really, most alchemist I've seen are actually a little on the weak side. Even Vivisectionist isn't exactly tearing people in half unless the person rolls really well. YMMV I suppose.

Its also more about making things easier and less complicated as far as I can tell.

You answered that perfectly for me. Also, with these rules chances, all extracts would cast the same as the spell version does for casting time. Sorry if that was unclear.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

- The thing that was the last straw was seeing the creator of the class, James Jacobs, state that an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots. That's insane. No other caster can be so quickly, easily, and permanently screwed over. Not even a wizard w/ his spellbook, which he can make multiple copies of, take Spell Mastery feat, and use divination scrolls to find a stolen book. And wizard is a much stronger class than Alchemist...

You are taking that out of context. He said that if you GIVE one to someone it is out of play until he drinks it. He didn’t say anything at all about stealing, nor about smashing = not being “used”. As for that last Eric Meepo is correct. Smashed = used.

And you know, if a DM makes a point of stealing a wizards spellbook, that wizard is well and truly hosed.

I don't think it's so clear that smashed = used. Even if it is, JJ did not say infusions you GIVE remain until used. He said infusions remain until used, and then said the obvious bit about not helping enemies. Even if smashing doesn't work, stealing still does. So, instead of smashing them, say the person hides them really well. Shoves them in a bag of holding and destroys the bag or the like, maybe (iirc, that means the extra dimensional space remains, but no one can reach it). It's still crazy.

As for a wizard, like I said... he at least can have countermeasures. Multiple spell book copies. Spell Mastery feat w/ spells to locate and teleport to the book. Wards and sigils to keep others from reading/using the book. He at least potentially has ways of saving himself if he is paranoid enough. And again...wizard is way more powerful a class than Alchemist. I don't think having such a huge glaring possibly irrevocable weakness as a "counter-balance" is good game design in general, but at least in the wizard's case, it's a concern for the strongest class in the game. Alchemists are fairly balanced, they don't need such dire threats to keep them in line.

James, since you are here now, I would like your input:

- What do you think of adapting extracts to work like spells for those who are frustrated with all the problems having a separate system brings?

- Can you expand upon what you meant by infusions not being able to be refilled until "used"? Obviously an Alchemist is not going to hand them out to enemies, but that's far from the only way an enemy could get them from him. It's a rather crippling and permanent handicap if the alchemist can NEVER use those slots again / choose to have the infusion go inert.

- Why is the alchemist the only 6- or 9- level "caster" without 0-level spells/extracts? It's not like he'd get spammable offensive cantrips (based on the types of spells he does get) to use at will, so what was the great harm or impossible suspension of disbelief?

Time is one of the better mysteries, IMO.

Oracles are primary casters with a good spell list (not so much at 1st level, though), so they certainly aren't worthless. I do think, outside specific tricks and exploits unique to them (like Paragon Surge abuse), they're plainly inferior to Clerics, though. Being less good than one of the top 3 classes in the entire game isn't something to be ashamed of, though.

Item crafting. Since they technically "don't have a caster level" they can't actually make any magical items without a wizard over their backs. Which makes no sense for an alchemist.

Yup, there's also this. I never realized the odd designation of elixers being "wondrous items" could be so infuriating until I played an Alchemist.

Especially when numerous extracts and discoveries function on potions and elixers, so the class is clearly tied to their use quite a bit. -_-

What!? That's not really a thing is it? Permanently destroyed spell slot just sounds wrong to me.

Bottom of this post.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ummm...what exactly was going on with your Alchemists to need to do anything like this?

o.O?

Well, I've had a growing list of annoyances about how Alchemist's fluff meant gimping them on things or not including them on other stuff. Like...

- Can't make a concentration check to "drink defensively"
- Can't use metamagic feats or rods on your extracts. They're a "buffing" based caster, yet have literally NO WAY to extend their extracts (they do have 2 ways to extend potions).
- Need my own special "pearls of power" instead of just using the normal ones that a party wiz and cleric can use interchangeably with each other as needed
- Have to pay a tax just to buff other people like all other casters can already, and EVEN THEN can't actually use multi-target spells on...multiple targets
- No cantrips for some reason
- Because extracts are liquids stored in vials, they are physical objects existing on your person before you even "cast" them on yourself, opening up all sorts of headaches with sundering and the like
- The thing that was the last straw was seeing the creator of the class, James Jacobs, state that an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots. That's insane. No other caster can be so quickly, easily, and permanently screwed over. Not even a wizard w/ his spellbook, which he can make multiple copies of, take Spell Mastery feat, and use divination scrolls to find a stolen book. And wizard is a much stronger class than Alchemist...

All of this bs for a few special "advantages" I don't care about, like using personal spells on other people (shame the alchemist list is so limited and poor you can hardly even use that, and when you can use it well, people flip out and want to ban it [see touch injection + skinsend for an example]) or "not having to waste your actions to buff other people" (protip: I'd rather have one PC waste one spell slot to give everyone haste than having to have each character burn one of my spell slots and their action to give themselves haste), and so forth.

So yeah. I'm sick of it. I just want the extracts to function like spells. I made some rules to attempt to retain the flavor of extracts as best I could, like them all having somatic and not having verbal components. But I don't even really care about all of that if someone found that "unbalanced," I'd be just as fine ditching the extract concept entirely and just making them full-fledged spellcasters if it were a problem.

I never got why Alchemists didn't get cantrips. Infinite use extracts is too unbelievable, but all the other stuff is ok to handwave?

The cantrip list could probably be improved, I just threw it together quick.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You should generally avoid monsters and casters that can make you lose with a single failed save, like the basilisk. Even if it is "much lower CR" than her character, natural 1's happen, it's basically just a random % chance of auto-dying. Such enemies are not nearly as much of a hassle when you have a full party to take down the monster should you fall and to fix you up afterwards.

Well, I was just being snarky. I can't tell if you are sincerely asking that or being snarky yourself, but if the latter... well played, sir.

Probably because paizo will never give an actual rules answer on the issue.

You need to get rid of the Int 13 requirement all together, too.

It's too penalizing, especially to monks, who you'd think would be good at tripping.

If D&D darkness worked like real life darkness, I could be in the center of a 60 ft radius of darkness and see a lit up room 100 ft away.

By that reasoning if I peaked out of an arrow slot at any point during my turn I would lose all the benefits of cover. That is neither logical nor RAW. Just because at some point in the round you could see my eyes clearly does not mean my entire body becomes a clear target.

Except that's pure hyperbole and my reasoning does not lead there at all because they're completely different things. Also, the arrow slit is giving you cover due to leaving a very small, narrow opening in the wall with which you could be attacked through, while for the archer inside right against the wall, he can target a wide angle field.

If he were instead in darkness, he'd have just as much trouble seeing through it as the other guy.

The stat boosters in the core book are HEAVILY favored towards casters, who only need their one mental stat high as fast as possible. It punishes noncasters, who will basically always want 2 if not all 3 physical stats boosted, but thanks to the belt have to pay 1.5x the cost on the 2nd stat and aren't allowed to "stagger" the upgrades (ie, at a given level have +4 str, but only +2 con) at all to make them affordable earlier. Instead you have to save up, wait another level or 2, and buy it all en masse. That you could do so in 3E is what makes it especially heinous and insulting. Only allowing the core PF stat boosters is a straight up nerf to noncasters.

But, we wouldn't want to "unbalance" things by letting them do what they could in 3E, would we? The major complaint of 3E was that fighters and monks were overpowered, after all.

You should take Improved Precise Shot. It's 5 whole levels early! And you can just pick up manyshot at level 7 anyway. Why you lack point blank and rapid shot I don't know, those are pretty much a lock for an archer to take anyway.

I've had several PF DMs -- *not PFS* -- tell me belt is the only slot for physical boosts and if I want to put dex +2 elsewhere, for example, I need to pay more.

So I do in fact think it needs to be said. Because those DMs were convinced that was the RAW, and weren't just doing it to screw me over, so a designer point blank saying you can get them at normal price in any slot would be very helpful.

EDIT: And now that I think about it... I don't recall a single PF DM I've yet had that thought what you say is "RAW." All the ones that allowed physical stats in other slots did so as a "houserule," they thought they were altering the rules by doing so.