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

Trogdar's page

1,537 posts (1,540 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A special ability is not a limitation, its an advantage.

I played with the idea of a feat that allowed you to increase your critical threshold with finesse weapons in lieu of straight damage bonuses. It seemed like a more thematic way to approach dex to damage, but I would have to run numbers to figure out how critting most of the time instead of having straight damage bonuses would play out. If you had a +5-7 modifier in strength at end game, but got a critical threat on every swing that was likely to hit your opponent, it would emulate that sort of savvy combatant that everyone is trying to make.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man feats... Feats are great aren't they? I almost forget I have them there so useful. I mean, who wouldn't trade out nine levels of casting for more feats. Am I right guys! Huh!?

... no?

RJGrady wrote:

So, spending 1 of 21 feats on any one of Lunge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Catch Off-Guard, or Two-Weapon Fighting is a Schroedinger's Fighter? Wow. I guess I was reaching more than I thought.

Okay, so let's just assume going forward that the Fighter is proficient with ten exotic weapons and takes Weapon Focus eleven times. That's a fair comparison, right?

Thats perhaps a touch hyperbolic. I think that the fighter is still pretty much boned with all of the feats you mentioned due to action economy and poor saving throws. The elephant in the room is clearly the arcane and divine full caster that just ruins your day, you get a shot at taking one of them out. Not a fantastic shot, but its there.

yeah, pretty weird, but it says the wielder can call it, but you need to be holding it with the ability to use it to be considered the wielder.... Also, I agree completely Lemmy.

Imbicatus wrote:
ryric wrote:
Kayerloth wrote:


10 Demerits for no one mentioning some 145 posts into the thread the Called ability enhancement which could quite radically change the scenario. Be assured that even if it were not my preferred ultimate weapon of doom my 20 level melee type is almost certainly going to have at least one weapon and one suit of armor with the enhancement stashed away for just such an occurrence. I really truly am a utter meathead if in fact that gear is more than 100 ft away when I'm 'naked' or otherwise not properly geared up.

I thought of that but I'm not sure that exists in Pathfinder.
It exists in Pathfinder.

Pretty sure that special ability is a waste of ink, as you can't wield something that's not in your hands. The designers have stated that wielding requires you to attack with the tool in question to be considered wielding.

LazarX wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Let me rephrase myself. Mithral changes the limitations of the armor.... The applicability of Brawling is a limitation on the enchantment itself, not the armor.
Can you give examples of what you feel the difference is? Because I feel that bards being able to cast in light armor is a limitation on the class itself, and not the armor. So I'm not seeing what you mean and what your difference and distinction is.
The limitations rule when written was clearly framed in terms of how the armor is used. Mithral lightened the armor so the armor got to be counted as "light" in term of usage, how fast you could move with it, the armor check penalty and so on. It was never intended to be used in terms on how enchantments could be applied to it.

This is a great example of someone adding something to a description that isn't their, thanks LazarX. There is nothing in the description that states any of this.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Its pretty awesome how people add interpretation as to what a completely inclusive statement means... /facepalm

4 people marked this as a favorite.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1 Wraith
Your best bet is to make tactical decisions in combat that put the rogue at risk. The GM can't do anything about it short of taking control of your character, and if they do, then its clear that its time to leave.

Wow... thanks for the straw man argument Diego. Anyone could tell that I was pointing to how vital the word charge was to the sentence structure of the feat. I already stated what special referenced in this context... the feats specific rules introduced through dimension door and its ilk.

^Pretty much. If you fail at elementary level math, then there is no helping you(the GM).

Diego... please stop. You have to literally ignore how English works to come to the conclusion you are coming to. A special charge is defined by the feat, but it doesn't matter if its not defined really because you can eliminate the prefix "special" and still have a working sentence. If you take charge out of the sentence, it ceases to be a sentence altogether.

Realism? lol

If you believe that it will take multiple strikes to the throat with a rapier to kill you, then I can understand your argument... but your still wrong on the grounds of realism.

This game is an abstraction. Ability scores have nothing to do with realism!

I think there's a book coming out on tactics soon, should be interesting. I'm looking forward to it at least.

tl;dr If you throw gobs of money and feats at it, dexterity can potentially become more powerful than two handing... after most games are over.

Sounds totally overpowered doesn't it? /sarcasm

To be fair, ability score dumping is an artifact of point buy systems that don't give enough to make an all rounder. There's a strong correlation between the point buy system and the need for these sorts of feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

One thing I've learned as an adult s that almost nobody with a strong opinion is ever swayed by logical discourse. It doesn't matter if you're discussing what classes are OP, whether drugs should be legal, or if Hillary Swank is or is not can formulate a perfect argument, supplemented by all the data supporting your argument and nullifying theirs that you want...people are by nature pigheaded, and 99% will ignore everything you said and just root further into their original belief.

Move on, don't waste your time, and spend your energy on something that matters.

"I disagree," should be sufficient.

Coincidentally, this is probably the first post you've posted that I fully agree with.:P

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you think going up a die step or so is broken, then you need to go reread the spell section of core.

Imbicatus wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
a rogue has a better BAB at four levels.

I must warn you. A rogue has better BAB than a wizard at 18 levels!


This argument hurts my brain. Wizards do a lot of melee in your games eh? I guess fighters throw a lot of magic around too.

The point of a EK is to do fighting and magic. They do magic okay, but they suck at fighting, and they gave up being very good at magic for the privilege to do so.

An EK isn't that much better at fighting than a single class wizard with racial proficiency in a martial weapon, and gave up multiple caster levels, school abilities, and bonus magic feats to get a +2 to effective bab over a transmuter wizard.

No one is saying that an EK cant cast and fight. They just are not that great at it.

I'm aware, I was just pointing out how rediculous that statement was.

As an aside, this is a tremendous feat investment, so if you shut a player who is doing this down don't do it too often because, if you do, they may as well not have feats.

Qualify the statement that they can do this every round until they run out of available teleports and it becomes somewhat less so.

Rhedyn wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
a rogue has a better BAB at four levels.

I must warn you. A rogue has better BAB than a wizard at 18 levels!


This argument hurts my brain. Wizards do a lot of melee in your games eh? I guess fighters throw a lot of magic around too.

Look, I'm trying to point out that if your looking for a rational set of objective reasons for something within the context of gods and religion, your going to be disappointed... Period.

I would guess the same arbitrary reasons that Jesus is more legitimate than Thor, because.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
@Stabbity - The point is still well made and totally valid. Martial caster hybrids are always pushed into narrow spell lists which heavily limits the sort of characters you can make with any one of them. If, for example, the bard chassis allowed you to choose spells from the wizard list and additionally allowed you to specialize in one school so that you could cast those spells at one level lower, it wouldn't break anything and would make a thousand different characters viable. Not only that, but you wouldn't need to create a tonne of different spell lists.

I don't know if you've seen but a bard can totally do that except its from any Arcane class.


Only thing missing is a school of magic.

That's interesting but kind of not the point I was trying to make, which is that creating new classes with narrow spell lists actually makes for fewer characters and worse game balance over time.

You know what? I just realized you were pointing out a discrepancy with the iconic, not that you disagreed with his premise.

Kind of a derp there, sorry.

chkflip wrote:
Pretty sure he ditent.

bah dum ching!!!

Cap. Darling wrote:

Very often a failed Will save will be a encounter you ditent get to be part of.

If iron Will is worth it depends on the frequency of Will saves in Your GMs campaign. I went to level 11 and only rolled 3 Will saves in one game. I ditent Pick it up there.

Since ditent is latin, I imagine you meant didn't.

@Stabbity - The point is still well made and totally valid. Martial caster hybrids are always pushed into narrow spell lists which heavily limits the sort of characters you can make with any one of them. If, for example, the bard chassis allowed you to choose spells from the wizard list and additionally allowed you to specialize in one school so that you could cast those spells at one level lower, it wouldn't break anything and would make a thousand different characters viable. Not only that, but you wouldn't need to create a tonne of different spell lists.

Tie the rod to your staff so that you just have to slide your hand down slightly.

What does not believing the performance mechanic mean?

I would suggest turning the spell failure to five percent at first and give more for every two levels thereafter. It frees up design space and its really not that important later on.

Also, if your going to give them shield access, just give it to them up front because you can't really build for something you don't have access to until really late. In essence, if you give them proficiency that late you may as well not offer it in the first place.

I guess you could just pick up leadership and make his cohort his wife. :)

Fair point, though I found myself laughing a lot at the entourage he developed over the seasons. Bordered on magical man ;)

Yeah that's true... Hmm, he still gets like every girl he parties with to fall in love with him though. Not sure how to represent that.

Its true that kirito seemed to be pretty conscious of optimization, he was also a lady killer. Point buys being what they are though, you may want to look at traits to see if you can pick up diplomacy through a different stat or something.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Wouldn't Hexcrafter Magus built to focus on polymorphing spells work for this?

I guess if I wanted budget shifting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah calling it a special kind of charge and intending it to not benefit from any of the things that affect charges sounds pretty derpy to me.

A shifter class that has hex like curses when they attack.

Yeah, contingent transformation when you cast a polymorph spell on yourself.

Kalindlara wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
A utility gish. None of the touch attack focus or action economy cheating or quirky spell list of the extant gishes. An actual EK substitute that can carry the noncombat load of a wizard for a group where nobody actually likes playing straight wizards, possibly through 25% or 33% early entry self only, save (harmless), and willing target only spells on a wizard list using 6 level medium BAB chassis with something like weapon training. Or maybe the ability to reduce the level of a spell by up to 33% at the expense of raising the casting time.
This feels a lot like a bard. Is there something you had in mind that a bard wouldn't work for here?

Your straight jacketed into being an enchanter.

At first blush, I would say it needs a good fort save to stick to chassis convention. It seems more appropriate than reflex to me when I read the preamble.

Knowing how these threads normally work I would think good counter arguments will be ignored in favour of constructing straw men.

Early entry was a way to make the concept in your head actually play out more evenly instead of having a character who is basically a wizard with a permanent negative level for the first 6 levels.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

hell, just making them have more synergy with their Arcane armor feat would be great. Level one, arcane armor is a free action, bam.

BigDTBone wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
If race shouldn't play a part in entering Prestige Classes, then what about humans for every PrC that requires feats? Don't they get an unfair leg up over other races?

Can you think of a PrC that you can meet all the requirements for at 6th level except for the sheer number of required feats means you must put it off to 7th? ... unless you're human of course.

I can't.

Maybe Loremaster, if you're not a Wizard. Or a Half-Elf. Or a Sorcerer who's taken Skill Focus as one of his Bloodline Feats. Or an Arcanist who's taken Metamagic as one of his Exploits.

And the earliest you can take Loremaster is level 8 anyway, so... yeah, no.

Human isn't "required" for a damn one - everything besides Loremaster has 3 or fewer required feats, plus Skill Ranks and/or BAB and/or minimum spell level that makes it impossible to enter before lv5.

So, it's fair to say then that race isn't playing any part in entry to those PrC's?

I suppose it depends on how necessary other feats are to your build. In a lot of cases prerequisite feats are kind of taxes which impact upon the efficacy of your whole build.

So, perhaps not required for entry, but definitely important.

ThePowerOfWar wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
ThePowerOfWar wrote:

So i do think that the wolf is a bit toned down as compared to its previous incarnations but how would a LV 1 fight do against 3 CR 1/3 orcs. its the same CR as the wolf but there would be No way the fighter could win even if he were to go first.

You might want to simulate this out before you start making statements like that.

A common orc has a single attack at +1, 5 hit points, and an armor class of 13. A not-particularly-optimized first-level fighter has two attacks at +3/+2, 16 hit points, and an armor class of 17. And better initiative if it comes to that.

Each orc has a 25% chance of hitting per round, which equates to roughly 58% of getting hit at all for Valeros. Barring criticals, it will take two hits to kill Valeros. In the other direction, Valeros will average 1.05 hits per round and can easily kill an orc in a single hit.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for the fighter to gain initiative and kill one orc at the end of the charge, be missed by both of the survivors, and then kill a second orc at the end of the second round. At this point a smart orc in survival mode would run away. While that scenario's not guaranteed, I think it's certainly plausible enough to make "No way the fighter could win" wrong.

Even if the (clearly overmatched) single orc doesn't win, he's still at a huge disadvantage against Valeros. A CR 1 fighter against three CR 1/3 orcs isn't supposed to be a cakewalk, and it's not -- a set of poor die rolls could easily kill Valeros. But it doesn't take exceptionally good die rolls to kill all 3 orcs.

OK, so that fighter is not and average fighter as far as the "Standard" fighter goes his stats are more of The "epic" build with max gold rather than the "Standard...

Holy molly, did you just say that Valeros is the epic fighter build?

I think I just slipped a disk when I hit the floor....

I think Nicos was pointing towards the fact that caster contributions in combat are more potent for longer(number of levels) IN ADDITION to being the better class out of combat.

I think that kinda out of whack and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.

Rhedyn wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.

An EK that focuses on utility spells is just a wizard holding a sword. The attraction of EK was combining sword and sorcery into one art, something which magus does much better.

That is all I want out of EK. Magus was created for those that wanted a true gish. An EK is not combining sword and sorcery into one art, it is just a wizard holding a sword.

The magus has a lot of cool spells removed from their list to compensate for the amazing class features. As an EK, you are expected to make use of cool spells like magic jar and the like (which EKs possessing random mooks in armor are still fairly deadly).

Of course if pre-9 is more than half your game, don't do prestige classes.

The Magus loses three levels of spellcasting omnipotence for its class abilities. The paired down spell list is to emphasize the evoker theme. Its the same with the bard and other partial casters. If you want to do something a little different in the spell department? Well too bad I guess. -_-

1 to 50 of 1,537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.