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

1,249 posts (1,252 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

inquisitor might work. There's pretty good stat synergy, and having access to a spell list and some of the swift action buffing seems like it would work out. I would probably take the twenty levels of inquisitor first though, just because of the benefits of having full casting for utility.

Why is a whip thematic for a captain? Sounds more like a slaver to me...

Yeah, should do. Usually when you get a bonus to something like that it treats someone without Dr or the like as having a base value of zero, to which you add the bonus.

There are very few force spells in the game unfortunately. You could potentially use spell research to create a spell like this, just use flame blade as a template.

Our play styles obviously differ.

So all the dex fighter needs is the twf feat tree, three feats for dex to damage, and three ranged feats... This doesn't seem like a lot of feats to anyone else? I mean, this is completely nonviable on anything other than a fighter unless you want to have it play out at super high level when, incidentally, the martial classes become more and more marginalized by the games changing nature.

Use the daring champion if your going to dip if for no other reason than the better save.

Just make finesse a property and change the feat into improved finesse. One feat and you are off to the races.

You'll do tonnes of damage for sure, until you need to make a save... then you, and your party by proxy will be totally screwed.

@TheJayde - there already is one true build in the game, the strength build. You can't make a decent thrower in the game because you can't apply damage properly due to the constraints of the statistics. Basically, if you need to split your focus between stats like a thrower or something similar, than you can be pretty certain that after a certain point your character will be unable to push through DR.

At this moment, if you take a character without dexterity to damage and build him to fight using dexterity, you will not be able to deal enough damage to contribute. That is one of the issues with the agile enchantment because you have to trade away dr penetration for it.

Honestly, if we can have a discussion this long about the pros and cons of each build in a vacuum, then I think that one or the others superiority is debatable. If that is true, then I would suggest that the effect of dexterity as a damaging statistic is within the balance paradigm of the game. If a cleric can exist inside the same game as fighters, then perhaps dexterity to damage is not so large a thing.

Just looks like a more well rounded character... I'm not sure where it becomes broken in your eyes. This build is pretty heavily optimized for damage as all your money is focused on damage aside from a ring of protection, so I can't say im surprised that you are putting out a lot of damage... two vicious wakizashi? How much damage are you doing to yourself each round?


yeah... just the enhancement bonus would be better.

I would like to see a feat that allows strength based characters to add their strength modifier to acrobatics in addition to dexterity. This would also make acrobatics function better against large monsters.

Ghostwasp wrote:
I have a question for everyone who believes that using Dex for damage is the way they like to do things. Would you allow feats in your game that allowed you (lets say 2 or 3 in total) to add Str to initiative, all ranged attacks, ac, and reflex saves? Even if you added that you only gain the benefits when using a weapon one handed (so no 1.5x str damage), and had to deal with Armor check penalties, and the like-this would seem over-powered to many people, myself included.

I think I would point out that those feats, while not being exactly the same, already exist. Improved initiative grants a bonus as if you had an eighteen dexterity, effectively eliminating that as a concern. Lightning reflexes grants +2 to reflex saves, which is equivalent to having another 4 dexterity. That is just two feats... A strength based martial will have comparable armor throughout the game, so I don't think that is worth as much as some claim.

So basically you already get this in the standard game, and the benefits cost about the same in terms of feat expenditure.


Great minds and all that ;)

If fighters were SAD... wouldn't they just be the equivalent of every caster ever?

Their is no them, only us.

Im not sure you can make an investigator that doesn't do a fair amount of damage. +10/10 is a pretty awesome buff even if the player doesn't pursue other damage options.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people tend to overvalue acrobatics to be honest. Its very hard to maintain a competitive edge when you use acrobatics in combat due to the way CMD works, and every other use of acrobatics requires far less focus and investment. If you fully focus on dexterity and take skill focus acrobatics, your character still can't just run around the battlefield.

I was also under the impression that you could not invest in flight without some means of actually flying, which makes the flight skill really more about tracking the flight spell most of the time. There are instances where this isn't true, but I feel as though that is a corner case at best.

The thing is that if a strength build really wants to, they can spend a couple of feats(which, incidentally, is exactly how many are required for dex builds) to shore up their poor reflex save and initiative if they choose.


4e fallacy is just another kind of false dilemma. Balance does not lead to homogenized systems inherently. It has nothing to do with the financial success of said gaming system.

I think I will wait and see how unchained looks before coming to any concrete decision one way or another.

If unchained can modify the core game mechanics enough to bring the linear scale of the martial classes closer to those of the quadratic casters, then I will be fairly satisfied. If not, then we may have to have this discussion again.

Since skirmish tricks are attack riders, I would probably just state that only one could reasonably be applied to each attack.

It would still be cool to set up combo moves with your pets attacks. "Attack pattern gamma Kittykins!"

... I don't think you've run the numbers when you looked at TWF. It is pretty much never better unless you are getting massive bonuses to hit and damage from a class feature like the dawnflower bard archetype.

More like the fighter gets power attack and is better at it than anyone else, as opposed to free retraining of the feat itself.

I always felt that the weapon group system was the opposite of what I wanted in a fighter. The fighter class has no versatility out of combat, and I think that it makes sense that the class can basically pick up a sharp stick off the ground and ruin your day. If I were to change the fighter class, it would be to remove weapon training and add class features that modify feats in a way that no other class could emulate.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beopere wrote:

One issue with Crane wing was a low level character could deflect a level 20 Barbarian T-rex with rocket boosters 100% of the time. A swashbuckler will not be able to deflect that.

Perhaps not a big deal in actual play for the majority of the time, but an unsettling thought to many players including myself.

While technically true(as long as the t-Rex doesn't use attacks from bab gained through barb levels), this seems like a very niche concern at best.

Just seems like a typo. I would grant those additional feat options when the normal swashbuckler feats become available.

Edit: ninja'd by the Op of all people :)

I 100% agree Aelryinth, but it does take up space on the table, which I think at least has an effect on the perception of the classes balance.

Okay, so looking through the first level spells for inspiration, I came across swallow your fear which, while not granting the exact bonuses I would apply, gives insight as to how powerful a class feature of this level should be.

With that in mind, here is my offering.

Bravery(Ex): Starting at the 2nd level, a fighter becomes a bulwark against which fear falters. When the fighter is subject to hit point damage or must make a save against a fear or compulsion effect, he gains a +1 morale bonus to will saves and a bonus to healing effects equal to his class level for rounds equal to half his class level. This morale bonus stacks to a maximum of +5, and each stacking effect refreshes the number of rounds the effect lasts.

So basically this gives the class a kind of momentum as rounds of combat play out, making the fighter stronger in more protracted battles. The second benefit is that bravery is now something that takes up a second level class feature and that is it, which really opens up the design space.

sure, i can come up with something, but balance is subjective.

give me a few minutes.

It would be an infrequent boon at the best of times. At least the current iteration is always on. If you want to improve the bravery class feature, it should actually get better...

I wasn't stating that it should be based off of damage, just that basing it off your team taking critical hits would make it worse than the original bravery.

If its based on your party suffering damage, then it should function whenever they take damage. Unless you want bravery to be worse than it is in the core.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what would make DPR calculations more accurate? Have the PC in question make a level appropriate save every other round. That would give you a better ballpark for the actual damage output of a "combat" class.

Its troubling to me that three feats are required to get you a +1 weapon property. I really feel like that is the design bias that is crippling any combat class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that if we are being honest about the opportunity cost associated with feats versus spells, we can say that feats should have a relative effect similar to one line of spells. What I mean is that a feat should accomplish one thing, and that thing should improve as your character does. Its the only way to make a class with ten class features compete with a class that has 60 or so.

An example might be something like blindfight working as it does now up to BAB 6 and then granting blindsense and then tremorsense at BAB 11 and then finally something akin to blindsight at bab 16.

All that said, I think effects like blindsight should grant large bonuses to spotting stealthed characters as apposed to hard countering the ability altogether. Regardless, I think you get the idea.

Investigator is the clear choice for the detective without peer. That said, if you want to play up the ninja side of the batman mythos, then ninja works well. Just make sure that if you go that route, take all the necessary traits and feats to make UMD easy for you (to simulate his gadgets).

Its worth noting though. Even humans could make a planet given time and technology. Could we make a new dimension with laws that we set though?

Harpoon with a rope attached would be epic actually.

phantom1592 wrote:

This actually happens to me all the time... stupid tidbits from weird parts of the brain.

No, I just think that it should grant some sort of bonus to int based skills... maybe the circumstance bonus or something, and that it should grant real benefits to those skills because, again, that is the point.

If you want to balance casters, then restrict their access to spells of wildly different sorts. If a wizard has to choose a field to specialize in, and has three barred schools, then I think you would find their power becomes much more reasonable.*

Still cosmic in their area of specialization, but not the omni-tool they currently are.

*example off the top of my head

Because if you want to play a spellcaster, then you have to accept that progression in your class choice will occur infrequently as compared to the other players.

In essence, the whole reason they got rid of these sort of balancing mechanics is because of the dynamic it creates in the real world, not the consequences within the game itself.

Okay, so basically you have a whole series of complex house rules to prevent bluff from working.

I would then have to suggest that no one lie, its a waste of time.

JoeJ wrote:

This may not be popular, but I think it might be good to look at going back to different xp levels to advance in different classes. What I would suggest is set the xp requirement at 6 xp for Rogue, 12 xp for Druid, all the other classes somewhere in between. Then instead of giving xp for monsters killed, give 1-3 xp per adventure. (1 point for successful completion, +1 if it was especially long or tough, +1 for good roleplaying.) Whenever a PC accumulates enough xp they can buy a level in whatever class they want.

Martial characters will gain levels faster than magical ones with this system, which will restore some of the balance.

While it may rebalance the game some, this is probably the most un-fun way of doing it possible.

Low level access to haste and inspire courage are not weak. The bard is the best force multiplier in the game.

1 to 50 of 1,249 << 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.