Svipdag's page

Pathfinder sets its own average for characters which the challenge rating system is set to. This relates to stats, wealth and class choices.

If you have higher stats, you will normally find it easier to defeat an appropriate threat, if you have better gear likewise.

How you like to play is up to you. Some player like heroic, high stat, high wealth games, some like gritty, tough games. It all depends what threats your GM throws at you.

If you have a 40-50 point character, you can probably handle up to CR of APL+4. Drop in extra gear you might make APL+5 CR creatures as your "Epic" encounters, but they might have abilities or powers that you can't handle at that level.

By contrast you are unlikely to feel a threat from an encounter of equal CR and APL if you have high stats and high power gear.

The CR of monsters can easily be broken as has been shown in numerous threads, and min-maxed characters can perform very well against certain kinds of threats, so even with "average" characters you may not have balanced encounters. The game is generally set up to create an appropriate challenge for your characters however, so the more you mess with the average, the harder it can be to set an appropriate threat.

How you like to play the game is up to you and your group, but I would say the "average" power level is a 15 point buy with average wealth by level. Whether thats the way most people play is another thing, even PFS has a 20 point buy build.

I tried precise exps. It annoyed most people when they didn't level at the same time (those who weren't levelling...) Often precise xps lead to players seeking out every encounter for more exps rather than following the story.

Now I use the pathfinder society type system where players level every three sessions. I still have some parties that seek out every combat, just in case they have some hidden loot (I think they played too much Diablo...) But generally it leads to players looking to play through sessions rather than going on an exp hunt.

Fumbles are a nice distraction and something many feel should happen. A comedy interlude, a hint of realism...

I agree with most on this discussion however that in practice they don't really work well. I have fired a bow at a target many times and never impaled someone, had my bow string snap or anything more disastrous than a massive miss or a nasty sting of the wrist.

The 1 mechanic simply doesn't work in my opinion due to the number of attacks players make. Even if you need a confirm, sometimes if you are fighting a creature of equivalent CR your chance of hitting is pretty slim.

Super punishing crits are the same. It will happen to your character eventually. Having played systems with fumbles and deadly crits I can testify, you don't last to mid-levels as a melee character...

Well I don't have anything constructive to offer, but I'm glad you made the thread as it informed of the non-class addition to effective oracle level.

Thanks :)

Game balance wise I think it probably balances out as Jiggy mentioned. Rationally I think it makes perfect sense.

Rules wise I would say it was pretty clear you can't do it.

Two weapon fighting in the combat section states:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

Two weapon fighting feat states:
"You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands."

Both of these state clearly the intent to have a weapon in each hand.

Spiked armour states:
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)"

Nothing here about two weapon fighting, but it does state you can use them as an off hand weapon, but that you can't use them if you already used an off hand weapon. Mechanically there is no reason why you couldn't make an extra attack, in the same way you might with a two handed weapon.

As a result I would imagine that its assumed you can't two weapon fight with a two handed weapon and spiked armour.

When you consider the balance issues raised by monks two weapon fighting/ flurry, this takes things a lot further.

However, as I stated at the beginning, I don't think there is a massive balance issue here. If you have a bite attack you can attack at -5 as a secondary attack and use any weapon combination. This has no effect on your primary attack. Its the odd nature of the unarmed strike that causes the problem. Give characters a small slam attack rather than unarmed strike and the problem goes away...

Hi all,

just a thought I had today while out walking the dog :)

There has been a lot of comment recently on how unarmed strikes interact with other rules. This seems to stem from the fact they fall out of category. That is they are a natural attack that is a weapon attack, but requires specific magic items etc.

For example, there is the thread on two weapon fighting unarmed strike and a two handed weapon. There is the current monk debate.

There is the two weapon fighting with unarmed strike debate.

Just to name a few...

So could Unarmed strike just be a natural attack? A small slam for humans would do 1d3 damage. It would follow all the rules for natural weapons, so it could only be used with weapons as a secondary attack, but would still allow for great cinematic such as booting someone following a weapon attack etc.

Obviously the monk would require a major rework, and this would never make Core Rules in this edition, but what rules problems would this present?

Any thoughts?

I think we have returned to a "what does a 7 mean" thread which has been visited a number of times. RAW its -2 to your roll. Interpretation varies considerably. Ultimately its up to your GM to play it as they see fit, I think posters will never actually agree on this.

I can imagine the frustration if you want your PC's to be balanced, but in my experience it rarely happens without laying down guidelines before generation.

As for NPC arrays, people have pointed out that your "average" NPC will have a score of 8 somewhere. If this is modified by race then you can have a 6. When age modifiers are added this can drop as low as zero, making the person dead or bedridden, which is not uncommon for venerable people. So in a society of typical NPC's you will see stats on simple commoners of level 1 from 18 (13 +2 race +3 age), to 0 (8 -2 race -6 age). Thats without considering heroic or custom builds.

I appreciate your comment on not dumping con DrDeth. As another poster pointed out, its hard to make it through in Pathfinder with a low physical stat, its a physically biased system. Even the races with a con penalty normally compensate by filling the stat with at least a 12 (such as Drow). I have justified my dumps in charisma and intelligence with "dodgy" roleplay reasons, but they have made more interesting characters in the long run. Normally I don't play with 25pt buys however. The extra 5 points only translate in to 2 or 3 points higher up the scale, 14 to 16 in dex for example, the point of initiative, AC, to hit, stealth, acrobatics, ride etc. will be more beneficial than getting rid of a -2 penalty to bluff, diplomacy, handle animal, intimidate, perform and UMD.

Unfortunately the point buy system encourages dipping to 7 for the extra 4 points so unless you specifically rule it out it is likely to be used. In the case of fighters, clerics and sorcerers, the extra -1 int penalty if dumped has a pretty negligable effect as a 7, 8 or 9 will still result in 1 skill point per level. As the village idiot in the Gamemastery guide has an int of 4 you are still a good way of idiotic, impaired or otherwise disabled.

Hi all,

I was just over on a Magus discussion and though I would bring my own experience of the new classes from the APG and UM. I'm interested in how others have found the classes "in game". I know on paper they are supposed to balance, but what have your experiences been like? They have been around a good while now, so I'm interested in what you have experienced, not what you think they should be.

Alchemist: The player was not optimised, but they seemed at the "top end" of power. The core equivalent, the bard, is rarely played, but the alchemist was very popular. The bombs did a lot of damage, expecially if the "Explosive bomb" discovery was used, causing ongoing damage. The class has a lot of utility. There were always enough bombs to go round. They get more every level and the damage increases, so I imagine by higher levels they rarely run out.

Cavalier: Nobody will play one. They figure they are better off playing a fighter or paladin.

Inquisitor: I have only played this class at very low levels. It seems to have a lot going for it. Its resource dependent Judgements are encounter based, so were quite limited at low levels. I would imagine once you can roll these out 2/3 times per day things become a lot easier.

Oracle: I have played a stone oracle to mid-levels. It was certainly not overly powerful. I built it around the "throw rock" revelation as I never assumed the game would last beyond 4th level. As a result it began to lose out, being a pure caster it would have been better to focus on the spell casting, but thats life, and the character is in for the long haul. The large number of spells per day compaired to the cleric seemed to balance out with the lack of channels. I would imagine an oracle of life may be a gm's nightmare in terms of available healing, particularly as selective channel feat is charisma based.

Summoner: Nobody has played one, although after the success of the druid in the group with his animal companion, I think it is only a matter of time. The complexity of the eidolon rules put people off and the fact most of the time you are "playing" your summoned creature.

Witch: We have just had a witch player join the group so very limited experience so far. The hexes seem to be a good power boost on other arcane casters. Its too soon to say how they work out.

Magus: Just reached level 5 in our group and is very powerful. Has good utility, good blast and is ok in combat without that. The arcane pool allows weapon enhancement above that of the paladins divine bond. It has as many combat feats as a ranger of the same level. It is the class most likely to cause an "argument phase", with the wording of class abilities. It is probably the most powerful of the new classes in experienced play in our group.

Let me know, I'm interested in your experiences. I expect there will be positive and negative for each class.

This has been discussed a great deal on the boards. In the end it seems its up to you and your GM to work out your own interpretation. As mentioned above, appearance is part of charisma, but you have a mass of "ugly" creatures with high charisma's.

If you have a low charisma and your GM say's your character isn't attractive, put more into charisma. At the end of the day, nobody will argue you are unattractive if you have a high charisma...

I always think of dwarves having a strong link to the earth. Thus Dwarves require less air and ties in with the lack of ventilation mentioned above. Their halls may be relatively tight and uncomfortable to others due to the lack of air, light and space.
On the flip side dwarves would eat a lot, feasting being of great importance. Their food would perhaps be focussed upon meat and other "heavy" foods, and might include exotic meats and eggs such as those of underground vermin.

Also I think texture would be of greater importance, colour less, so they may be equipped with dull fabrics with intricate textured patterns. This tactile nature would make dwarves give hearty hugs and be prone to getting into other space.

I think the idea of dwarven women being scarce is perhaps fitting and balance the dwarves long life, limiting the population expansion potential. This would create a more matriarchal society. Bloodline would be traced through the mother, and male dwarves would marry into clans. There might be competition for strong warriors or great crafters to marry into a clan, meaning a dwarf might have to seek fame and favour to win membership in the most prestigious clans.
This would mean female dwarves would have multiple husbands, perhaps with one main partner. Society would dictate they didn't travel far, but they would have great power within the clan.
This would create a number of different often strongly binding male friendships between dwarves, such as those forged between men in the "Wild West" where women could also be scarce. It may also lead to male dwarves wandering away for periods of time after a dispute within their particular bonding group. Dwarves would thus be respectful to other females and while initially suspicious, form strong loyal friendships with their adventuring companions.