I love the alchemist, inquisitor, and oracle. Frankly the first 2 chapters of the APG are fabulous and only the ARG rivals it for my favorite book.
As for the Summoner, I think its is wonderful class. BUT in my game its never used because of we do not allow anyone to use books in the game, as it slows down the game. So when someone summons a creature, they better have the stats in front of them. Also the only other problem I see is the overall enjoyment of the group. IF a person is looking at books to determine which creature to summon, plus they have to then roll for their 7 eagles and, and and, I feel the other players are getting bored. Sure I could get them to roll for the eagles, but they did not come to play an eagle, they wanted to play their character. If I trusted a player to alleviate these two concerns, then I am happy to have them run around with the other characters.
In the long run this character is ruined. If by breaking the system he means having a character that will not live past 3rd level, then he has succeeded.
I am more concerned about comments about him pouting over pathfinder and wanting to play 4E. You can live with a poor characters, but poor players is another thing.
If other members of the group are also interested in 4E, you might want to alternate between the two with the agreement that he plays PF with as much zeal as 4E.
Compromise sometimes works better than a big stick (less blood and screaming).
This isn't a Kitsune /racial problem. Its a player problem that can /will occur regardless of which race he is.
We are getting ready to have a power gamer campaign where we start at lvl 15 and are making characters that are as tough as possible.
I usually play Oracles and Clerics normally as the idea of being to cosmic power always appealed to me.
But in this game I am thinking of breaking away from my norm. I need to know how Monks, and/or Magus can hang with Wizards,Sorcerers and an Oracle at 20+ lvl?
If they would be the weak link, what would you suggest?
How about 1 lvl monk to get WIS to AC
combined with Bracers of defense, Ring of Protection, etc will give an effective AC and still be able to attack.
If you DM allows it, a blade on the boot, or using the Monk hand to hand damage (in kicking)will allow you to use 2 weapons and still have a hand free.
As written above he has -2 str for the race, and he would get another -2 for being small, so a -4 penalty is huge. He needs to have some strength to carry the alchemy set. If the -2 to strength is for the size, then its a bit unbalanced. In either case i would suggest reducing the INT bonus to +2 and have the strength capped at only a -2 and remove the CHA bonus.
BUT if he really wants it this way, you and the group are fine with it, then (shrug)go for it. Your there to have fun.
I used the synthesist with a Samsaran. The bonus spells were all blasting as the summoner lacks them.
The only problem I ran into was keeping it interesting. I had more hit points then anyone. The AC was incredible. Versatility was amazing. I could sit back, flying and shooting. I could stroll into hand to hand with confidence no one could damage me. And if there was an enemy age, I was on top of it with flight and evolution points in speed.
The ZAM is better IMO than the any non Ranger or Fighter as those three can shoot while in base contact with an enemy and not provoke AoO.
The ZAM (assuming you don't mind struggling at 1st and 2nd level) really only need 1 stat to be effective. (wisdom)
As for feats, the thing that impressed me is that the feats are given as a part of the leel progression, or as bonus feats. This means the 10 feats you get from 1st to 20th can be spent on anything else you want. It can be combat feats (e.g Snake Combat Style) or something strictly for fluff. Only the fighter can get enough feats to be able to throw some away like this, and they suffer from poor saves, few class skills and no cool special abilities. Its this flexility to make a well rounded character that makes the ZAM the best archer "Character", In the game. IMO.
It would really help to see the build.
As for comparing them to wizards and sorcerers, well frankly blasters have always been disappointing in Pathfinder. Their blasts don't scale well at all. So I for one am glad Alchemists are better at that than an inferior form Wizards.
Sword born, I disagree on its bearing. the other schools maximize a theme of spells, but Divination huge advantage is the initiative. They are supposed to always go first. So spending a feat and a trait isn't OMHO going overboard. You could also sub out the feat and use the familiar for the bonus initiative. Either way, this allows their battle field control, enchantments, buffs/de-buffs or blasting spells to be maximized in their effectiveness.
In terms of RP'ing, yes you can play it like a "Big Brother is Watching You", Or you can see it as a paranoid blaster (or summoner, or ...) whose afraid that something will jump out of the shadows at him. It all depends how you look at it.
I don't know if I like Archaelogist for this character. The loss of inspire negates the flag bearer feat.
As for you Arizhel, the other parties members all took classes that suit gnomes, and Rangers and Rogues are not optimal (if you care about that).
Either way you should have a blast.
p.s. if you want to break the mold, think about a goblin alchemist. LOL
Most Clerics take selective channel so its not that big of a deal.or he can get out of range
or have the cleric apologize and unleash the channel any ways.
I don't see this being any different than a cleric that takes negative channel. I have played one, and my party just knew to not get too close at lower levels when channelling was viable, and at higher levels spells and domain powers were the best options, so it wasn't an issue anymore.
Oracle. Has everything I would ever want in terms of flexibility. I can be one of the most effective blasters, or a combat machine. I can have a animal companion, or or be the ultimate band aid. With Samsaran, Elf, or Spell Surge, I also have wicked spell flexibility.
We are starting a new AP with a 25 point build. We currently have a wizard, Oracle (heavens), Fighter, and Rogue.
I am thinking of trying a Monk, either a Maneuver Master or a Tetori. Has anyone tried these, and are they effective at higher levels?
We are short front line fighters with staying power, so something else is always an option. I have always played Bards, so I rather try something new. The only criteria is that I prefer having some magic or supernatural ability.
The first problem I saw with the idea of str affecting AC is what happens to the big baddies who also would want this feat. The Ancient red dragon goes from an AC of 38 to 52.
I enjoyed playing my negative energy, madness/repose domain cleric. I used touch attacks with the madness/repose and de-buffed the enemy easily. He was well loved by the party, the mages got the save or sucks off better, or the fighter only had 1 attacks to worry about.
But that is the only type of cleric i like. Healbots are hideous IMO. And i hate the idea of casting 1-4 spells prior to getting into combat, so melee clerics don't appeal to me. If it wasn't for the de-buffer, i would not touch the cleric with a 10' pole.
The other problem the cleric has is a lack of zest when gaining a level. Paladins (as an example)get mercies, grace, enchanted weapons, etc everytime they gain a level. This gives you something to look forward to. Clerics get an extra spell, and upgrades to abilities they got at 1st level. that isn't very exciting.
The best (in terms of fun) paladin I ever played was a snob, sex fiend, who was a racist (hated every non-human there is). He would defend a non-human vs evil, but he would also be cussing them out and insulting them while he saved them. He always stated his edicts demanded he aid them, not like them.
I am thinking of making a bond-type character.
I had a Gm give us a wish at 6th level. We all knew he likes to screw with people on wishes, so my Gnomish Bard wished to be 5'5" as he was tired of always having people look down on him. It was so odd, the GM gave it to me with no catches.
My point is spend the money on stuff that adds fluff, and role playing opportunities rather than magic items to destroy everything. E.g buy a mansion and staff to take care of orphans. Donate to the local king to get into their good graces. Open a bar. Buy a shipping company. Its so odd that your GM might not take a copper piece from you.
I am making a creepy cleric that focuses on de-buffing. Ideally the image I want is one with tentacles with the draining/de-buffing coming form them. But what would be the best way to get the tentacles. I could use Eldritch Heritage and Abberant Sorcerer but that is very feat intensive, and I will have to wait until 11th level. Prehensile hair is an option, but I rather not multiclass for no other reason than to get 1 hex. Any other ideas?
We will be starting Kingmaker within the month, and I am stuck between 2 classes, and wanted advice from the people who play them.
We currently have a rogue and a samurai.
I want to play either an Alchemist Bomber (Grenadier archetype) or an Inquisitor (Conversion domain and Infiltrator archetype).
Will the bomber get stale after awhile?
The title basically says it all. Between Arcane, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Witch, Summoner, Inquisitor, and Alchemist (I know its not quite spells but humor me), how would you rank them and why in that order? I am mostly curious about higher levels (after 10th level).
As I am a fan of battle control I would rank them as Arcane, Bard, Druid, Witch, Summoner, Alchemist, Cleric and Inquisitor.
For the last few years I have never cared about the class, and have filled what ever role the party needed most.
I am thinking of playing a Ninja, a Tetori, or a Aberrant Sorceror specializing in touch (Necromancy) spells (with a pinch of control spells of course). What are your opinions on these?