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

1,408 posts (1,411 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,408 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Entropy - stasis.

Imbicatus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
In theory the fighter could just use a bow instead of flying.
Which drastically decreases your effectiveness if you were built for close combat due to the over specialization on a single weapon the Fighter is stuck with. Sure, you can just build for archery which the Fighter really is quite good at, but you'd still be better off with a Ranger.
You's be better off out of combat and in more situations with the ranger, but for pure damage, a fighter will do more than the ranger unless the ranger is under instant enemy.

Sure, but ultimately who cares if you do ten less damage a round than a archer fighter.

I was just thinking about starting a thread to spitball ideas for trap making talents!

I'm not sure what metric your using to determine the efficacy of each talent, but I think the simplest way to approach it would be to divorce rogue traps from the standard trap system as it is both too complex and not really viable due to crafting costs and manufacturing time.

Have you considered a more meta approach, using the character ability modifier like intelligence to determine the number of traps that may be manufactured in the morning? You could then choose from three basic traps like poison or explosive. Dc's could be set at 10+1/2 level plus int.

The curve blade is a good option. I would still put a thirteen in your strength because power attack is worthwhile with a two hander. You could potentially put fourteen in both your strength and dex, and then focus on dex after that due to how studied combat works. That way you end up with more flexibility. With that array, you could attack with either your melee or ranged option relatively well.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Gauss wrote:

DominusMegadeus, you are under the mistaken impression that this is a martials vs casters debate. It is not. I am simply relating the possible mechanical reason why they would have limited this option.

While at level 18 there is no attack penalty this option would have also been doable at earlier levels since it is not level restricted.

Since such a build would vital strike in any case and at full BAB the martial can still probably hit even with penalties you can lower the level that this can happen to earlier levels.

Level 6 (Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -4 penalty. Damage: 24d6 (avg 84)

Level 12 (Imp. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -2 penalty. Damage: 36d6 (avg 126)

Level 18 (Gr. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at no penalty. Damage: 48d6 (avg 168)

Basically, there is no level restriction (other than attack penalty) to this concept and no size restriction. The possible abuse (for a Martial) was significant.

Admittedly, the damage your seeing is after multiple buff spells and with significant feat investment (especially since it means not taking Extra Rage Power three times). And really, since we're talking barbarians, Vital Strike would also have to compete against pouncing via beast totem. Heck, getting a really strong vital strike option would be valuable for making the other totem powers more tempting.

All that said, I don't think anyone would've been too horribly upset if the devs had just decided that gargantuan swords were a bit too much, and limited the archetype to Huge. Unfortunately, Paizo's nerfbat only has two settings: "largely ineffective" and "Turn it into useless garbage."

This person gets it.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I... They errata'd that in? What kind of... This is like being told that using big weapons is badwrongfun by a dev. What a waste of resources.
It was terrible faq, the author has clearly stated that his intent was to break the weapon size limits but due to sloppiness in clearing obscure rules the archetype will never work as intended. The PDT ruling puzzles me up to this day
I believe the original author wanted to break size limits but the devs deemed it overpowered and changed the ability before it was printed.

Overpowered? Someone needs to go and take grade five math again.

An entire class feature that gives you what, eight damage per swing? I guess I'll have to go back to my perfectly balanced hippo druid with vital strike feats... Pfff

Badwrongfun it is then.

I... They errata'd that in? What kind of... This is like being told that using big weapons is badwrongfun by a dev. What a waste of resources.

Man, I really need to stop reading rules forums. So, the short answer is basically; jotungrip is completely useless for anything you actually want to use it for because it includes a clause that says so.

So what is the point of the clause, "as if it was a two handed weapon"?

Gauss wrote:

ElementalXX, not according to the rules section covering appropriately sized weapons.

If you are Medium size and use a Large 1-handed weapon it is counted as a 2-handed weapon for you. It is not appropriately sized for you because it is Large and you are Medium.

Titan Fighter's Giant Weapon Wielder ability allows a Medium creature to use a Large 2-handed weapon (at a -2 attack penalty) and still count it as a 2-handed weapon for you. That does not change the fact that it is not appropriately sized for you. Nowhere in the ability does it state that it changes it's effective size for you.

Jotungrip states that you can only use appropriately sized 2-handed weapons (ie: Medium 2-handed weapons).

If, Titan Fighter's Giant Weapon Wielder ability stated something like: "This allows you to count a Large 2-handed weapon as a Medium 2-handed weapon but with a -2 attack penalty." then, you could use it with Jotungrip.

Highlarious... Parsing rules grammar into oblivion since nineteen seventy two.

Oh, and I think an item just came out that can make weapons lighter.... Some kind of ribbon?

TheTheos wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Titan fighter treats a large weapon as a two hander that is appropriate for your size at the expense of to hit chance. Jotungrip allows you to weild two handers as one handers at the expense of to hit. Seems legal, but you are looking at -6/-6 to hit I think, which would make this combo unviable.
Both archetypes reduce those penalties with higher lvls. So at higher lvls penalty will be insignificant. Also bonuses from rage help a lot.

I guess if you could recoup half of those penalties through class features(excluding rage), then with rage you would be like a paladin without smite for the fairly meager benefit of a larger weapon die.

Titan fighter treats a large weapon as a two hander that is appropriate for your size at the expense of to hit chance. Jotungrip allows you to weild two handers as one handers at the expense of to hit. Seems legal, but you are looking at -6/-6 to hit I think, which would make this combo unviable.

Edit: I think it's actually -8 to hit. I feel like the titan fighter ability should override the clause in the jotungrip write up, but I could see people denying the interaction due to the specific wording. Still, seems like a pretty silly point to get stuck on when the titan fighter treats large weapons as medium weapons at a penalty. Either way, every swing is more or less a hail Mary pass from space.

You would want an AoMF to retain those properties.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fire won't kill you, but the g forces certainly will.

Implacable is a word that may work for you.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Obdurate is an arcane word I hadn't heard of. That's flavor by thesaurus, instead of flavor by connotation. You doing it wrong.

Hah! Read more.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
ZanThrax wrote:
Ssyvan wrote:
How does anyone get a +14 to hit at level 1?
What? Typical CR 1 AC is 12. A +1 total to hit is a 50% chance to hit that.

I think that sometimes people talk past one another here. To me, all of the "Standard" AC by CR seems very low. But my home games (and most PFS games I've played for that matter) involve a good chunk of NPCs, and NPCs tend to have considerably higher AC than the CR standard, especially at low levels.

This makes bonuses to hit considerably more valuable than the DPR calculators would indicate in any game with more NPCs and fewer standard monsters. And make power attack considerably less valuable. (I rarely even bother - it's useful at low levels but becomes worthless by mid levels for all but two-handers.)

This is certainly true at lower levels, but keeping up with bab is tough unless you have no problem with NPC enemies having way above average wealth.

Oracle dip seems like a pretty wicked way to capitalize on those bonuses.

Really makes more sense to use them as energy sources rather than other more complicated stuff like farming. Skelly powered aquaducts and flour mills and so forth. Throw em on a hamster wheel and tell em to walk or run.

I'm not going to do that because your ignoring the point of my previous post. If your going to post numbers, then do it in a way that does not obfuscate the truth. To do what you are doing is disingenuous.

Im not commenting on the math, just the fact that your adding the bonuses together to make the number associated with power attack more alarming and ignoring the fact that each bonus has an associated penalty.

Have you ever considered running for office? Those guys do this sort of thing all the time.

-3 for +6

If your going to count each instance of bonus damage, then you need to include each instance of attack penalty.

Yeah, usually telling people about logical contradictions is a waste of time, largely due to the fact that most don't care whether something like a square circle exists in their games.

Celanian wrote:
Sophismata wrote:
Celanian wrote:
I can also say the line in the CRB was probably just the writer not realizing the implications of letting all toddlers, blind entities, and really stupid entities have 100% literacy. Just your speculation.

Wow, dude. You're taking this kinda personally. The reason that every speaking creature can read and write (unless they take class levels in Barbarian) is because the rules aren't designed to be an accurate model of society. There's no hidden conspiracy and no reason to get mad.

If you think it's dumb, change it for your game. Problem solved.

Wow, where did that comment come from? I'm not taking anything personally and I don't think there is any conspiracy. That comment is just bizarre.

And no, not every speaking creature can speak and write. The fact that blind intelligent races and pre-literate cultures exist in Canon states specifically that this isn't true.

And yet, you still can't point to where it says elementals can't read.

I think Ashiel is pointing at the logical contradiction that comes from something without a mind being evil inherently when evil is a moral position. You can't be evil if you have no intent really. But then, this is kind of an issue that comes from the idea of inherent evil in the first place. You can't really be evil because only an action can be. Its kind of like calling a nuke evil, when its the act of using it that is evil.

LoneKnave wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

Here's a compromise that brings dex guys to the table without dex to damage. This should only work if there is no way to get dex to damage.

agile combatant: prerequisites: weapon finesse, dex 19

Agile combatants are gifted at exploiting their enemies weaknesses by leveraging their agility. While using a light or finesse weapon, the critical threshold is increased by one for every two points of your dexterity modifier. This feat overlaps with the improved critical feat.

I don't want to be too hard on you, so I'm just going to say that's a bad idea because: rogues and swashbucklers have damage bonuses that don't get multiplied by the crit, and Magus exists.

I'm not sure that its a bad idea for the reasons you state, it may be for others though. Precision damage doesn't multiply upon crit, but base numbers will. I think the magus would benefit more from this feat than dervish dance though for sure. It does interact with two weapon fighting which would make your standard rogue build much more impressive.

Just leverage your stats and switch hit. If enemies are harassing at range, then put some arrows in them. If they close to mêlée, quick draw that curve blade and slice and dice. Your character is just less focused than your dwarf friend, not particularly weaker. I mean, you are only a few points of DPR away from one of the best face smashers around, that's not bad. I bet you can put up better defenses as well with the high dexterity score.

Here's a compromise that brings dex guys to the table without dex to damage. This should only work if there is no way to get dex to damage.

agile combatant: prerequisites: weapon finesse, dex 19

Agile combatants are gifted at exploiting their enemies weaknesses by leveraging their agility. While using a light or finesse weapon, the critical threshold is increased by one for every two points of your dexterity modifier. This feat overlaps with the improved critical feat.

Saigo Takamori wrote:
ryric wrote:

Edit: So I guess I'm saying Str to AC should be a feat because Realism(TM).

Iron muscle:

Your muscle are as tick as hide and provide you with more protection.

Prerequisites: Strengh: 20, toughness

Effect: you may add your strengh modifier to your Natural armor.

Is it good? Sure. But with that the ''Conan the barbarian with no armor'' or the ''Zaraki Kenpachi-try-to-hit-me'' idea could be pretty awsome.

This would be fine if dexterity to armour wasn't restricted by max dex.

Mighty hurling in feat form would be cool, yes.

Four to initiative and two to reflex is akin to getting a plus eight and a plus four to your dexterity for those purposes respectively. That's likely to actually put you ahead of your dexterity counterpart because you won't be dumping your dexterity as a martial to begin with. Likewise, a dexterity based character needs a thirteen in their strength score to acquire power attack. In neither case is a stat dumped, the strength user is ahead on initiative for the first few levels and likely at par on reflex. Never mind that the strength based martial isn't as dependent upon his dexterity to keep his armor class which means he really doesn't need to take improved initiative unless he really wants to and can take power attack instead.

In the end, the strength user will do more damage consistently while the dexterity user will benefit from better saves in the long run and a better skill bonus in general. Where, in this scenario, is the overpowered statement making sense?

You think your making the game more balanced, but what would really happen is that casters would just change tactics. They would have fewer spells and similar dc's, or they would focus on things like conjuration to wreck your day. The only real change in the game that would arise out of this is that agile characters would be non viable after level twelve or so.

Edit: in other words, is it more realistic that an agile master swordsman like the dude from the princess bride can't actually fight well after a while? Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

If you mean its more strategic because every melee character has the same stat loadout and casters still don't give a hot damn because they still carry the chumps anyway, then yes I guess the game becomes more strategic.

Your propagating a double standard. Martial characters need to be Gilgamesh to keep up with the party wizard, not the same as us. I really cant fathom this disassociation. How does making one group work within the confines of the real world work at all when the other group, making up two thirds of the classes, does not?

Yay! Class number one is like a totally good warrior who can fight like a tonne of town guards without breaking a sweat.

Meanwhile, the other guy is basically Zues....

If you say so. The spirit is pretty budget as far as I can see.

None of the things you suggest make the game more fun or balanced. This is not a simulation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So basically classes that have class features that suit high dexterity benefit more from high dexterity.

Pretty much, my philosophy professor would say,
"Valid, but trivial".

Aelryinth wrote:

a rapier fits the bill for both feats, as do one handed weapons used with an appropriate class ability.


First, piranha strike only works with light weapons, which the rapier is not. Second, piranha strike explicitly states that it doesn't work with power attack.

Edit: Finally, if you have to pull a whole load of multiclassing and shenanigans to prove your point, then your point wasn't very good to begin with.

So this hypothetical slayer is going to use a weapon that is simultaneously light and not light? Come on man, stop muddying the water with this silliness.

The thing is, it doesn't really matter. The only thing dex to damage ever does is make you competent at dealing damage. If you add a bunch more feats to twf, then you get more damage. At the end of the day though you spend resources to do that at the expense of other things. Should spending feats to be effective at fighting in melee not actually make you competent in melee?

Your bard scenario involves, with the improved weapon finesse feat, at least five feats to two weapon fight for good offence (not great, just good) at the expense of difficulty casting in combat without further investment in quick draw.... So, this hypothetical character doesn't do what the player wants until level twelve. That's a long time playing something in a way that doesn't fit the image of your character and this includes a feat that doesn't even exist.

Does that seem really powerful?

Okay, I want to clarify that I am talking about the game as it exists, not some other game that you wish it was. If you want everyone to be more mad, then give it a shot, but be prepared to change just about every metric the system works under. I prefer to facilitate fun when I play games. If someone wants to be a super agile ninja type that cavitates the atmosphere with his blade? Sounds cool, let's do it. Realism and frustration are inextricably linked in pathfinder.

@Oly The charisma based initiative and armor stuff comes from the Oracle class. An Oracle can have his armor, initiative, spells and saves coming from charisma pretty early(like immediately, or near enough) but then its magic so realism can go away.

You'd end up with a barb with spirit totem and eldritch heritage. That doesn't sound bad.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Actually - I've heard in many of the 5th ed reviews that one negative is that they have to come up with fluff reasons to actually use strength instead of dexterity.

And if you don't care about realism - why do you even want dex to damage? Just pretend that strength is dex.

Because dexterity, as in your dexterity score, is not actually your dexterity so much as it is a meta game construct that has certain effects. The whole point of stat consolidation is to take the meta games bias towards single stat dependency and help those classes that have too many conflicting ability score needs and bringing them closer to the standard game expectations.

I don't care about realism because the game doesn't care either. The game is designed with monsters and stat blocks to challenge a big beefy dude with a two handed weapon. If you ignore that, then you end up with your dashing han solo type who can't actually do any of the things he's supposed to be able to do. That's why these arguments are so annoying to me because it really just comes down to a small group of players not getting to have fun because realism.

As an aside, charisma can be used for every save, armor class and initiative at this point if you were unaware.

Oly wrote:

As has been pointed out, the Fighter, due to heavy armor usage, is the class that benefits least from Dex-to-Damage. Classes limited to light armor really, really get insane boosts from it (not needing Str to move in heavy armor, but needing Dex for AC and then...they get to use it for everything else, too!) And even in Medium armor the benefits are pretty large.

Nevertheless, someone posted a viable Dex-to-Damage halfling Fighter with 5 Str. Sorry, but 5 Str should not be viable on the front lines of a battle. I'm not just saying it shouldn't be optimal. I mean it should be as useless as a 5 Int Wizard.

I would agree with this if two things were true.

1) if the wizard needed more than his intelligence to be effective.
2) if I thought realism was important to enforce upon game mechanics.

Since neither are true....

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PrinceRaven wrote:

That doesn't appear to be the case in 5th edition, despite the preaching in this thread of how important it is to keep dex-to-damage out of people's hands so those poor 2 handed strength fighters don't end up being replaced by the clearly massively advantageous sword&board and TWF builds.

Because if there's one thing we know about Pathfinder, it's that those 3 fighting styles are in a delicate balance, with no single one being massively more powerful than the other two.

Heh, no sarcasm tags necessary. :)

Aetherkintetics would obviously have to go phoenix force for a few rounds, that would be one way to end the party with a bang.

Zwordsman wrote:
Raphael Valen wrote:


Random thought on the topic of removing burn and that limit break I like.
Perhaps allow you to "vent your burn".
This turns your non lethal into lethal and...

That... would actually be pretty cool. Not sold on the specifics, but the one off burn out style attack based on how burned you are is neat.

I think you may be overstating the Magus classes weakness. You may have to focus on Defense for the first few levels. Spell combat plus defensive spells equals higher than average protection. Either way you go though, the Magus is kind of a slow starter.

Matrix Dragon wrote:

Since the kineticist is so centered around burn, it totally needs a Burninator archetype ;)

** spoiler omitted **

Hey! I resemble that remark! Also, I approve.

1 to 50 of 1,408 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.