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

StreamOfTheSky's page

4,477 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It depends on level. Later on, a horde of pouncing and smiting monsters can do pretty crazy high damage. Earlier on, eidolon-focused summoners will do the most damage. DPR isn't something you need to care too much about anyway, summoner has more staying power and survivability (the latter largely b/c he's far the hell away from danger with lots of meat shields) than most classes to drudge through a long hard fight. And plenty of battlefield control spells to pin down enemies, not to mention the eidolon if it has trip, grab, or pull with reach evolution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your houserules are terrible, fumble rules are terrible, yours are even more penalizing than the typical ones. I have nothing nice to say about your ideas, and in fact am exercising quite a bit of restraint to be as cordial as I'm being towards you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, they stack. Pathfinder has rules for stacking multipliers. Basically, for all multipliers after the first one, you subtract 1 from the multiplier and add it to the base one. No matter what order you do it in, it will come out the same, as long as all multipliers are greater than 1, as they should be....

Example: Multipliers of 1.5x, 2x, and 3x all apply to your damage roll.

1.5 +1 (2-1) +2 (3-1) = 4.5x
0.5 (1.5-1) +2 + 2 (3-1) = 4.5x
0.5 (1.5-1) +1 (2-1) + 3 = 4.5x

No matter how you do it, it comes out to 4.5x damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
PF or even D&D is not a PvP game. So, I can't understand why you want to do this in the first place.

Because it's fun once in a while?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They nerfed it. It used to be 10 + Barb level + Cha mod, so it was useful for low cha dippers and horribad for true barbarians.

Now it is 10 + 1/2 barb level + Con mod and thus horrible for everyone.

As for the dip.... NEVER as a caster, that's just dumb. For an archer, maybe. But that's the *only* useful class feature you're getting for those two levels, pretty much. For a melee character...full attacks can be hard to come by. Even if you do have pounce, the penalties to attack and AC don't seem worth it if the foe can fight back. Archers don't have to worry about the foe hitting back as much, but melee does.

So....
For casters: Hell no!
For archers: Maybe; appeal grows stronger the more levels you have to work with.
Melee: Unlikely to be worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It removes the condition. Full stop. Ditto for the Paladin mercy to remove fatigue.

For an example of something that only temporarily suppresses or "cures" fatigue, see the Bard spell Invigorate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk 1 / Synthesist Summoner 19

Or alternatively,

Monk 1 / Druid 19.

Backstory: Johnny really wanted to be a badass martial artist growing up and quit school to enroll in a dojo at age 12. By age 13, even at his still young age he realized how pathetic and worthless monks are in a fight and [was seduced to the dark arts of summoning] / [went to go be a hippy in a druid grove] so that he could actually beat stuff up unarmed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gunsmith Paladin wrote:
Ya know, now that I think about it, why doesn't shaken do anything really to casters? Why not just buff the shaken condition to cause casters to have to make concentration checks to cast spells? It'd help slow them down a bit and it makes sense. Your mental state is impaired, but you're still cool to bend the laws of the universe?

A lot of conditions are like this. I asked the same question about fatigued, exhausted, and slowed recently. I was trying to customize the basilisk's petrifying gaze to happen gradually over 3 rounds so (combined with the smeared blood fixing it) it could be a fun and less instantly deadly encounter. I was going to have it go Slowed-->Slowed+Exhausted-->Petrified.

Then I realized that'd do freaking nothing to the casters in the party, so I changed it to:
"You feel your skin tightening, your muscles resist the urge to move, your lips struggle to articulate words, even your mental faculties seem to be slowing down."
Exposure (failed save): Slowed, 25% cast/manifest failure
2nd round: Slowed, 50% cast/manifest failure, and Exhausted
3rd round: Petrified

Far, FAR too many conditions don't really hurt casters at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I think the fighter needs 4 skills points. Actually I think no class should have a base of 2 skill points.

I'm quite fine with the primary spellcasters who currently have only a base of 2 staying that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Bro you claimed "rogue can't do more damage than a bard plus a martial"

Of course not-- one character not being able to do more damage than TWO characters just makes and of course that's not a fair comparison.

You keep saying how much more damage the bard is causing to happen without ever showing how or how much-- you're the one who keeps claiming that the numbers are on your side, so yes, asking you to show those numbers is logical, fair, and necessary to have a discussion in good faith.

You have posited a theory "bard does more damage" and a second theory "bard+martial does more damage" it is YOUR responsibility to show the evidence if you want to "prove" how bad rogue is.

But you won't provide any support other than repeating that you are right.

It isn't that bard + martial does more damage. It's that bard + the extra damage bard buffs the martial to do (which includes higher damage from hitting more often) does more damage than rogue. Haste, Inspire Courage, Discordant Voice, etc... add up fast.

In any case, damage output is probably the area bard obsoletes rogue in the least. With Versatile Performance, bard flat out has more skill points, and spells provide far more utility beyond what rogue is capable of (including huge skill buffs / supplements like Charm Person, Sift, and Glibness). Good Will and defensive spells mean bard has better defenses, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you've detected or found the trap and it attacks you (say...you fail badly to disarm it, or you opt to have the party meat shield just take one for the team so everyone else can get past), not flatfooted.

If you have no idea the trap is there and it attacks you, flatfooted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many save DCs for supernatural or extraordinary attacks have the exact same save DC formula:

10 + 1/2 creature's hit dice + relevant ability modifier. (rounding the half HD down, as typical for rounding fractions in Pathfinder)

So if something says that it is charisma based, then it would have a DC of 10 + 1/2 HD + cha modifier. If the creature has 6 HD and a charisma of 8 for example, that would be a DC of 12 (10 +6/2 +(-1)). If the creature had 11 HD and a charisma of 26, the DC would be 23 (10 +11/2 +8).
Sometimes, the creature will have Ability Focus feat or some racial bonus to the save DC, though both instances should be noted in the stat block if so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Dude! Don't attract too much attention to Bards! Paizo may decide to Crane Wing the class!
I don't think the corebook classes are changing, for better or for worse, any time soon.
Tell that to the Monk.
Okay, I admit Monks get the shaft...but none of the problems you mention involve actually changing the corebook's wording of the Monk class, which is what I meant wasn't going to change (I admit, this may've been less than clear). And as long as the corebook's wording doesn't actively change, I'm not sure how the Bard could really get screwed too badly. Some other clases could, but the Bard doesn't really have a lot of questionable rules areas for such issues to crop up in.

I don't think most saw what was "questionable" about monk's unarmed strike being a natural weapon (it says so right in the class's entry!) or flurry of blows with "a single weapon", either.

Don't be so complacent. Designers can and WILL find something "questionable" about any rules item if they don't like it, or will outright invent a "problem" with it if they can't find a legitimate gripe.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Dude! Don't attract too much attention to Bards! Paizo may decide to Crane Wing the class!
I don't think the corebook classes are changing, for better or for worse, any time soon.

Tell that to the Monk.

And I'm not even talking about their non-core toys that got severely nerfed / rendered useless like Crane Wing, Cloud Step (originally infinite speed at level 20), or brass knucks (originally -- and FINALLY -- a fair way to enhance unarmed strikes at the same price as a weapon).

I'm talking about stuff like monk's unarmed counting as a natural weapon (and thus you can take Imp. Natural Attack with it, as in 3E) or the whole "what are you guys on about, flurry of blows was TOTALLY meant to be used with two different weapons (sucks that "unarmed" is one weapon, huh?) all along, ignore all the evidence to the contrary, these are not the droids you are looking for..." (that thankfully got toppled by sheer massive player outrage) that were nerfed after the fact and came right from core.

So yeah, the correct answer is, "Bards are primary casters." Or possibly, "Bard class doesn't have anyone on the main paizo design team that actively hates them."

Paizo has absolutely NO problem nerfing or significantly changing core stuff, if it's from a class on their hit list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
It would be nice if the 3e/PF paradigm wasn't 'let's make this stuff overpowered then give it a silver bullet'.

Agreed.

Except, archery really isn't overpowered, which makes it even more frustrating.
And the things with "silver bullets" seem to always be martial stuff.
And the "silver bullets" themselves are almost always spells (and if there is a martial "silver bullet," it is often relatively easy to neuter)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The spell is bs, and shouldn't exist.

Of course, the base spell, wind wall, is also bs.

Both should just give a 30% chance of blowing away any projectiles instead of completely shutting down certain ones. Fickle Winds is just especially bs because the cop out "just go around it!" doesn't even work anymore.

But, if your DM "goes by RAW" and is unyielding to requests to nerf or ban the spell... Keep a sling as a back up weapon, or shuriken or other thrown weapons. Since by strict RAW, wind wall and fickle winds only auto-shut down bolts and arrows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
prototype00 wrote:
I like to apply the simple "What if it happened to me" metric to gauge this.

Bow archer: If a dragon's touch AC went up? I guess I'd just keep shooting till it died.

Crossbow archer: If a dragon's touch AC went up? I guess I'd just keep shooting till it died.

Dagger thrower: If a dragon's touch AC went up? I guess I'd just keep throwing till it died.

You mean like that? The ideal solution would be fixing the gun rules themselves, but the OP's idea is better than nothing. I do feel bad for the Alchemists of the world, who can't full attack touch AC till mid levels, don't get to Deadly Aim it, and only get so many bombs per day. Oh well...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Rage cycling is clearly not intended.

Having one martial character do all the damage is no fun for anyone.

"All the damage"? What 1/rage powers are being exploited to do a lot more damage? The best ones to rage cycle are Spell Sunder (no added damage), Strength Surge (boosts CMB, not damage), Eater of Magic (defensive ability) and possibly Flesh Wound (defensive ability). Please, tell me what rage powers the barbarian is cycling to "do all the damage."

Nathanael Love wrote:

Using multiple free actions in a round is stretching action economy thereby cheesy.

Free action to use rage power, full attack, free action to turn off rage, free action to turn rage back on. . .

Well, turning off the rage really shouldn't even BE a free action anyway, it should be a non-action. That is the rule that's dumb. It is literally impossible to use a single round of rage unless you either a) have no more rounds left that day or b) end it at the end of your turn you activated it...in which case it wasn't actually a "round" of rage -- a round would mean it lasts until your initiative count comes up again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only 3E classes not already in PF that would be overpowered in PF are Archivist and Artificer - just as they're OP in 3E.

There are plenty that would suck royally in PF, though. To expand on what Drejk said, not only are many of the noncaster splat classes severely lacking in a 3E game as it is and would likewise suffer in a PF game...the big problem for noncasters of all stripes in PF is that often what cripples them is not the words within the class description, but the general combat/skill/etc... rules of PF as a whole.

Think how the maneuver feats got split up and bonuses halved and now need BAB +6. Think of the horrific nerfs to tumbling. Think of how "class skill" means almost nothing now. Think of how grapple went from "replaces individual attacks/AoOs and can't autofail" to "standard action, can auto-fail, and have to give up full attack to maintain (which can also auto-fail)". Think of how splash weapons are no longer considered "weapons" (such as with Quickdraw). Think of how you can no longer sneak attack with those splash weapons. Nor can Blinking grant you ranged sneak attack. Think of how PF decided Imp. Natural Attack doesn't appl to unarmed strike anymore. Just seriously...the entire rules chassis. This is why "take some stuff from 3E and port it to PF!" never works that well.

The rot in PF isn't in the modular pieces like classes (generally speaking...they did a pretty good hit job on the Monk and Rogue both IN-class *and* outside the classes)...it's the underlying rules themselves. It's much more effective to take classes you like in PF and port them to 3E, and causes far less problems.
If you try to take a perfectly fine 3E non-caster like the Swordsage into PF, you often will have problems. In the SS's case, he's a squishy "melee specialist" who relies upon skirmishing with single strikes to survive and contribute in combat. Works in 3E. In PF, the tumble nerf means that style of play is impossible/suicidal. The Scout, another 3E splat class widely praised as being decent, is annihilated by this even WORSE.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Do people REALLY hate martials that much...

...Are you unaware of the recent changes to Crane Wing?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not OP.

It does not need to be nerfed.

Blaster caster is the weakest sort of caster you can build (other than really specific case examples, like "enchanter in an all-undead game").

And all but like 3 (Eater of Magic; Spell Sunder + Strength Surge; maybe Flesh Wound....) rage powers that are 1/rage really aren't even that good even when made 1/round via rage cycling. At least half of them are *still* not even worth considering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Markon wrote:

I'm curious, do other people get the feeling that a solid portion of people on the messages boards lack any common sense? I've been reading a lot of threads recently, and sometimes the ideas I see just blow my mind.

Why do so many Pathfinder players have such a low real world wisdom score...... :/

It's not a coincidence. I'm surprised you expected differently.

It takes a special kind of person to not just tolerate, but also love the changes PF made to 3E, especially the martial nerfs like to combat maneuvers and their feats. Anyone who refers to them as "improved" or "streamlined" without sarcasm has to be pretty oblivious to reality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People list multiple different options of "win spells" not because the wizard needs to know ALL of them at any given point. It's because he just needs to know ANY of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
No. What's evil is bratty little players attempting to memorize stat blocks and gain an advantage they shouldn't have. Those types richly deserve a nasty little surprise ... and if it gets their characters killed, well ... maybe they'll learn something.

The irony that you call the players bratty as you crow over killing them to teach them a lesson is utterly staggering.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gherrick wrote:

There cannot exist any level of parity why these to game rules exist:

* arcane casters that can learn unlimited number of spells

* divine casters that have instant access to all spells available for their level

* non-casters that must allocate limited character resources (feats) to gain new abilities.

Since I do not expect the above to ever change, I conclude parity is and will always be unobtainable.

Right. It's impossible to ever have total parity between the two camps. So if I were to make a feat letting wizards quicken all their spells as for free and another one that doubles their caster level for all spell parameters....

Who cares, amirite? I mean, so long as it isn't perfectly balanced, why should we care about balance at all? It's not like we're going to completely fix the problem no matter what we do, so f*** it. It wasn't balanced before, and wasn't balanced after. And all decisions on balance are clearly Boolean true/false.

Spoiler:
The mechanical design direction of pathfinder makes so much more sense now!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Renegadeshepherd wrote:

A thought...

You cannot, no matter how hard u try, nerf casters and martials equally. Martials are largely based on a succession of feat chains or a handful of top tier feats mixed with good quality class features. Casters on the other hand tend to have spells and be built on those spells. Even if someone says nerfs a spell or a lot of spells, there are so many blue rates spells among the guides that its impossible to nerf the caster.

Furthermore, the feats based on casting tend to support virtually any spell in ur entire list as long as u meet prerequisites, which is usually minimal when compared to combat feats. Also, consider that if glitter dust was just abolished, great I still have invisibility and how many other spells to cast half a dozen times?

I feel that feats are already less than most spells and when any feat or feat chain gets dumbed down it makes a controversial situation more problematic. And as I said we have too many spells for a caster to truly b dumbed down. U could make the arguement that if every caster lost every class feature he would still be as good as a martial character.

Casters and martials don't have to be equal. I don't think anyone playing 3E or PF expects that to ever happen. All we want is to close the gap a bit, and for martials to actually be better than casters in some situations (other than the "days you have like a dozen encounters but infinite healing" scenarios that almost never happen). At the very least, since PF is a modified version of 3E, we should at least expect the gap to not expand even larger, like it DID. That's seriousl not asking for much.

And it does not have to be that way. Caster feats can be nerfed. Noncaster feats can be buffed. The paradigm of martials having to burn a bunch of feats they don't even want just to get to the end of the chain for the one they want CAN die in a fire like it should have long ago. If a feat requires Dodge, Mobility, and BAB +4...what is the harm in just making it require BAB +4? You're not getting it any earlier than you could have before. But now you actually have those other 2 feats to spend on whatever you want.
These are pretty basic, simple requests. That for some reason fall on deaf ears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Well thanks for pointing that out! Now I know, and knowledge is power!

Well, the game is better if you ignore that horrible rule anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Things to nerf for casters:

Make Concentration a skill again. Force them to spend skill points on it.

Re-impose Wizard's specialty penalty of not being able to cast / use items of prohibited schools *at all*.

Get rid of nearly all the +mental stats of races, and only ones who come with a -2 Con can have one. In 3E, there were about half a dozen +Int races w/o level adjustment despite all of the splat books, a couple +Cha ones, and...+Wis was almost unheard of. And many of them featured a Con penalty.

Get rid of the flight skill. It serves as an impediment to martial flight (via winged boots, fly spell from allied wizard, etc...) due to needing the ability to fly to take ranks in it.

Make Mirror Image work like it did in 3E. Where the images only had AC of 10 + your dex. And you explicitly had to wait until your next turn to "re-shuffle" them (if a foe hit "the real you," all his buddies could then pinpoint your ass till your next turn). And Cleave cut down multiple images. As did Whirlwind Attack. As did Magic Missile.

Now for some things that were entirely new, and not just bad houserules of 3E...

Remove Dazing Spell from the game.
Remove Spell Perfection from the game.
Remove Bouncing Spell from the game.
Remove Persistent Spell from the game.
Remove Blood Money from the game.
Remove Paragon Surge from the game.
Remove Divine Interference from the game.
Remove the spell that gives Oracles Paladin class features (forgot the name) from the game.
Remove Teleport Conjuror from the game.
Remove Opposition Research from the game.

(I say "remove from the game" for simplicity, but nerfing it into the ground to the point of uselessness - like they did to Crane Wing - works as well).

Just some things off the top of my head...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What Snig said. If you have a listed speed for that movement type, you can 5 ft step with it. "Step" really is a misleading thing to call it, even the normal ground-pound version is seldom a single step.

I will say that you should not be able to do a flying 5 ft step "up" (straight nor diagonally so) unless you are able to fly up without halving movement. In D&D 3E, those with perfect maneuverability could do so, anyone else had their movement halved when trying to do so due to gravity and such (thus, trying to do a "5 ft step" would consume 10 ft and be impossible, much like trying in difficult terrain). I...have no clue how movement in 3 dimensions works in PF, their flight rules are a hot mess. Can't even find anywhere that says flying upwards takes more movement than other directions.

Also, I could understand a DM not allowing a burrow 5 ft step. RAW it should work, but...that's just weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ninjas are rogues.

Ninjas *also* suck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I guess I should have clarified. Early on, trap DCs are bs hard. Like, pretty much always 20+, which is supposed to be very unlikely to succeed for a low level character.

At high levels, the situation flips and traps are a joke. I don't mind that, though... Skills shouldn't just keep getting harder for the sake of getting harder. If you heavily invest in one, there should come a point where you can feel free to move on to other skills with your points. If you want to make even heavier investment worthwhile, rather than make the skill harder, you can offer options that boost the DC. Most commonly, "perform this skill faster / as a lesser action."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In memorial to the once-great Rogue class. Let's have a moment of silence, please.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is "Synthesist Summoner who voluntarily gives up all of his 5th and 6th level spell slots for absolutely nothing in return" a valid choice?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wrote it, thanks. Maybe someday I'll even update it...

It's not already on the guide the guides list? I posted with it and some other guides' links like over 2 years ago.

EDIT: And I swear, I've had to replace that first picture at least 3 times now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 3.5 hydra did NOT get more than one attack per AoO. That was a sadly common and utterly outrageous reading of the text, sure to auto-kill anyone who provoked if they were about the hydra's CR in level.

Quote:
A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity.

Hydras only have Dex 12 (so they need it as a bonus feat they don't even qualify for it otherwise!); that text is just saying "instead of 1 + Dex bonus AoOs per round, the Hydra gets as many AoOs as it has heads." I wish it were written better, but that's pretty clearly the intent.

I still can't believe there's people who think a CR 4 creature was supposed to get five attacks of +6 to hit d10+3 damage (on top of the 5 it gets on its own turn) if the level 4 Fighter (~4d10+8 hp vs. up to 5d10+15 damage....yeah) dared to move within its 10 ft reach or sunder one of its heads without having paid the feat tax on Imp. Sunder.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A confirm roll just makes the random event happen less often. It's still bs. It still screws over martials more than casters. And it still means that as your # of attacks goes up and you get higher level, your chances of fumbling actually *increase*. And, as a side note to that, it screws over those who rely on making a lot of weaker attacks (like TWF and monks) more than a 2H build that does more damage per swing, and those types of builds are already weaker, so as if punishing martials over casters wasn't bad enough, you're also especially punishing the weakest of the martials.

Fumbling is like the ultimate Reverse Robin Hood.

Then there's the fact that increased randomness always hurts the PCs and helps the NPCs (NPCs are more expendable individually than a PC is, and a specific NPC will roll a tiny fraction of the d20's a PC ever will, and so is less likely to get hit with the fumble in the first place).

And then there's the fact that the results are often non-sensical (like, I've had DMs say I hit myself with a reach polearm, despite that being IMBOSSIBLE; another told me my archer's bow string breaks every time I roll a 1!), and that actual real life people don't fumble nearly as often as fumble rules would imply.
"But sometimes you just screw up your attack by sheer dumb luck or sneezing, etc..."
"Yes. That's what auto-missing on a 1 already represents."

Fumble is just a terrible houserule, one of the worst a DM could possibly conceive of. It manages to ruin the game in such an incredible amount of ways while adding absolutely nothing to it.

It is jolly good fun for DMs that love to lord their power over the players and get a chuckle every time the fighter crotch-shots himself.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Buri wrote:
He runs PFS as a venture lieutenant and that's how paladins are ran there. He uses the same ruling in his home games. Like I said, for a paladin I wouldn't make it an issue. For any other class where such things are purely roleplay I frankly don't care about that rule.

Running with PFS restrictions is high on my list of red lights personally.

Not much that I'll just ignore, but there are plenty of things that strike me as "get out now!" moments. Sort of hard to just ignore something without it coming back to bite you.

Yeah, that's true. In PFS itself, I understand they have to use them, so whatever. I don't play in PFS.

But a DM outside of PFS that uses them because he "thinks they're a good idea" or whatever?

That's a double red flag. Back away calmly, don't make direct eye contact. :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of hard to "ignore" a rule from the DM. You can argue about it, maybe get him to change his mind. Ultimately, all you can do if he insists on a rule you hate is to leave the game.

There isn't much that'll make me leave a game, at least in terms of rulings... I've done it over critical fumble rules - I avoid joining games with them, so I've only walked when it was a "surprise!" moment and DM refused to give them up - not much else. Only other times I remember leaving a game was because of a jerk player being extremely antagonistic towards me and the DM not doing anything about it. Which has sadly happened more than once...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The class skill rules change burns them just as bad as it did to Rogues.

The horrific tumble nerf makes the class, based entirely upon moving around all the time completely unplayable in combat.

If you let them 10 ft step, I guess Scout archers could be viable, but melee scout would still be worthless. I'd suggest just letting them auto-succeed on tumble as a class feature. There's seriously a dozen+ ways for spellcasters to do it via class features or spells, why not the class literally devoted to being mobile?

I tried to make a PF Scout here, but it still feels underpowered. At least it's a little better than the PF Rogue...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In addition to what Pupsocket said (I'd actually enter as a multiclassed Ranger/Rogue, Ranger offers some useful stuff and Rogue means the ability to take Extra Rogue Talent over and over to really pump up those favored terrain bonuses), you might want to keep the favored enemy and spellcasting. Even if the FE seems like a complete overlap and waste with Terrain Dominance, and you don't actually have enough Ranger levels to cast spells.

Having Ranger spellcasting means you don't need Use Magic Device to use Ranger spell wands. So, you can eventually buy a wand of Instant Enemy.

Having a Favored Enemy means you can actually benefit from the spell. The spell treats the target as one of your favored enemies for all purposes. Like, say...its native terrain type. You following? The terrain type you've been racking up a +20 or so bonus in, and have terrain dominance tied to (which lets you use that massive terrain bonus as a FE bonus against creatures from that terrain type)...you can declare whatever creature you use the wand on to count as being from there.

And then, curb stomping commences.

Of course, a charge from a level 3 spell wand is very expensive, so you'd want to save this for important/boss enemies. But it's a nice way to ENSURE you get your terrain dominance working when you really need it to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Point buy is better. Rolling is unfair and leads to massive power disparity between characters.

The only way rolling prevents "dump stats" is if none of the rolls come out low. If they do, it can easily and often lead to MORE dumping of stats, as they can go below 7 and the player almost certainly didn't get an array he's that happy with, so any low scores definitely will get put into charisma or whatever.

Fun Fact: In D&D 3E, there was an explicit rule right at the start of the book that said if your rolls came out too low (if the sum of your modifiers was less than +1, or if you had no score above a 13) you can immediately reroll the entire set. Since this was a guideline for character creation, it wasn't included in the OGL (you need to actually crack open a Player's Handbook to find it), and thus...it seems PF did not carry over this extremely vital rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It really can't be over-stated how much it sucks having 4 build-critical things (strength, dexterity, blinkback, and hurling) all in the same body slot, though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't stand playing low int characters, so I seldom do that.

However, more than half of my characters do have Cha 8 or lower. Beyond the obvious mechanical reason of "more stat points," there are a few reasons for this:

1. It's FUN for me to play a snickety old coot, an acerbic sharp-witted insult machine, a horrific looking freak of nature, or however else I end up implementing the low charisma into my character. After spending all day holding my tongue when I think of smart ass remarks, it's utterly, gloriously liberating to get to role play someone who has no filter between brain and mouth.

2. I am not charismatic in real life. And while RPing things very different from you is great and noble and all...I've found in practice it just doesn't work out so well. Charisma, sadly, is the one stat -- to a FAAAAAAAR greater extent than any other stat -- that you're expected to supplement with player knowledge/ability. You want to break down a door, the DM doesn't make you bench press 200 pounds. But if you dare to want to gather information from some townsfolk, or talk someone down from violence...you'd best start saying something eloquent. It's really not fair. I don't mind if the DM requires you to say *something*, but it should have absolutely zero bearing on your skill check. But in nearly every case, the DM's I've had have not let me influence NPCs without saying something convincing.

It actually does kind of suck; several of the characters I'd like to and have tried to play are high charisma. But I always end up regretting trying it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
ciretose wrote:

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.

Well, they (the devs) do hate us for our freedom (actions)...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:
Wow. Look everybody! Someone who disagrees with me spoke to me like a human being.

And there you go again.

Weslocke wrote:
About the flame war: I was not even here when the insults started flying. It takes TWO sides to have a flame war. Both sides must share equal responsibility. I did not have a single post deleted last weekend and never argued with anyone except BBT about the definition of the word "clarification" and to tell him that "DM FIAT!" and "Houserule! Houserule!" more inflammatory than what I was posting. I was trying to calm people down! Not that they listened. If people had been reflecting my attitude they would have been deconstructing the FAQ from a rational standpoint instead of a reactive one (which still appears to be prevalent). The flamewar last weekend is solely the responsibility of those who participated. No more, no less.

In as much as the way that someone who pops a few rounds of machine gun fire into a crowded room then promptly runs away isn't "one of the ones that caused all the chaos" that ensued. Like this:

Weslocke wrote:

I have maintained the entire time that the FAQ appeared to be to stop free action abuse. Not to limit "cheesy" builds. Free action abuse can occur with any build whatsoever, it just hits its heights with certain builds designed to exploit it.

Now, I do think that many posters are outraged because their favorite loophole just got closed. But I also posted upthread that there are multiple styles of play and I have not condemned any of them.

But I guess because you said you're not condemning anyone (even though you just did, the sentence beforehand), you really did not.

Weslocke wrote:
Now, as always on Sundays mornings, I must prep for my Campaign.

And I'm getting sick of this subtle, passive-aggressive dig at the rest of us. None of us announce, "well, I'm off to play my weekly game now." You do it to insinuate that while you actually play the game, we just sit around and argue about it on the internet. Of course, last time you announced you had to go prep for your game, you were back 20 minutes later favoriting posts that agreed with you...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You seem to have bought into the belief that traits are just interesting little flavor details to flesh out a character.

Rather than the wildly imbalanced mechanical mess they are, where one trait can be literally useless and another can be better than a feat. Some traits are so unique and strong that entire builds HINGE upon them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For archetypes, I'd suggest either 2H Fighter or Lore Warden (which is just good for any fighter build).

I would drop the entire Dazzling Display line, including Shatter Defenses -- flatfooted does little for you.

I would drop cleave at level 4 when fighter lets you swap a feat. Never take it again nor get the later feats in the tree.

Vital Strike is a trap. I guess it's ok if you have nothing better to choose, but it would be very low on my totem pole. Get rid of Deadly Stroke.

I'm not a fan of the Critical feats; at least hold off on committing to them until BAB +14 or even +17, when you can get the real winners -- Stunning Critical and Tiring Critical.

I would take Lunge right at level 6 or close to it -- It's very useful.

Other feats to consider (and min. level you can get it):

Step Up (1): This messes up archers and reach weapon users pretty hardcore. It mildly inconveniences spellcasters.

Cornugon Smash (6): You should always be power attacking, so this gives you a free demoralize debuff if they survive.

Dreadful Carnage (11): THIS is what area demoralize should look like! Consider swapping Cornugon Smash out at 12 for this. Sadly, requires Furious Focus, which is a mediocre feat.

Pin Down (11): Awesome fighter-only feat to deny the safety of 5 ft steps.

Dazing Assault (12): Words cannot describe how awesome this one is. GET IT. Works best on an AoO build, but still good in general.

Stunning Assault (16): Honestly, I think this is redundant w/ Dazing Assault, but if you have the space for it...why not? I'd keep Dazing over this if picking one; daze is less severe than stunned but unlike stunned, practically nothing is immune to dazing, plus there's no such thing as "Dazing Critical."

Teleport Tactician (10): This feat itself is awesome. You get to disrupt teleporting in/out of your threatened area! But it requires two EXTREMELY terrible feats to acquire and the benefit, while great, is situational. Probably not worth it, but I felt I should mention it.

Whirlwind Attack (supposedly 4; good luck w/ that): This feat has a giant list of absolutely horrid pre-reqs and generally isn't worth it. However, at higher levels when combined with Lunge and Dazing Assault, this can be a pretty nice area debuff. Works better with a reach weapon, though.
EDIT: Wait, why does being half-ogre make you not want to take WWA?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure I like how it's divided up, but maybe that is best.

Some suggestions...

Pragmatic Activator: Use Int instead of Cha for Use Magic Device. [Magic, Stat Switch]

Student of Philosophy: Use Int instead of Cha on Diplomacy (except for gathering info) and Bluff checks to lie. [Social, Stat Switch/Bluff/Diplomacy]

Defensive Strategist: It's basically Uncanny Dodge, as a trait! [Religion, "Anyone"?]

Armor Master / Sarvagan Guard: It's identical to Armor Expert, but in a different category. [Regional, Armor Wearers]

Second Chance / Lessons of Chaldira: Reroll any save 1/day. [Religion, Anyone]

Blade of Mercy: Do nonlethal with slashing as you please, and get +1 damage when doing so. Only comparable feat is Bludgeoner, which is a different damage type and still inferior to this. [Religion, Warrior]

Defender of the Society: Flat +1 to AC, arguably for touch and flatfooted. Either it's as good as a feat, or better than a feat (Dodge / Imp. Natural Armor). [Combat, Warriors]

Wayang Spell Hunter / Metamagic Master: As Magical Lineage, but 3rd level or lower spells only. "Stacks" w/ ML. [Regional, Casters]

Two-World Magic: Add a 0-level spell from any list to your own spell list. Great for many; my favorite use is for Druid to get Ghost Sound to communicate in Wild Shape. [Magic, Casters]

Bred for War: +1 on all CMB checks makes this potentially better than a feat, and it boosts intimidate, too. [Race: Human, Combat Maneuvers]

Fate's Favored: +1 to all luck bonuses. Amazing with Archaeologists, Halflings, tattooed Half-Orcs, or anyone wearing a Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier and/or using a stone of good luck. [Faith, Anyone]

Savant: For a Bard w/ Versatile Performance, this is a +2 to 3 skills. [Social, ???]

1 to 50 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.