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

1,442 posts (1,445 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

LoneKnave wrote:

Sorcerer is perfectly fine for an Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer build.

The lack of armor is nowhere near as debilitating as you'd think at first glance, especially if you work around it a bit.

You could go with a build like ... Divine Hunter (Paladin) 2/Sorcerer 8, Arcane Archer 10.

With SLAs, you could grab EK 10 in there sooner (so Paladin 2/ Sorc 1/ EK10 /AA4 /finish with 3 levels of sorc) This puts you at 18 BAB, 16th level sorc casting (kinda bleh, but still servicable). You can mix the AA levels in somewhere with EK to get imbue arrow sooner, but it's not really that needed.

The second option will work best, but I would suggest taking the early entry into eldritch knight until you meet the arcane archer requirements and then going back into eldritch knight after level four in the AA prestige to preserve caster levels.

You ought to take magical knack as well.

With this set up you could do some pretty cool stuff, like confusion arrows and other aoe's like cloud spells. Pretty fun sounding to me :)


The correct answer would likely be none of the above given the way the skalds class features function.

Eldritch knight is not a good prestige to progress spellcasters with 2/3 spell progression because their spells are of incidental value. By that I mean that classes like the bard thrive through special abilities almost exclusively. In the above cases of multiclassing, you are trading away their special abilities (the steak in this metaphorical meal) for their spells( the parsley garnish). Does that make any sense? Trying to explain these things can be convoluted.


That's kind of sucky, sorry to see that happen. Sometimes, as a player, it seems like you have to be empathic enough to tell what sort of campaign your DM wants to play and then basically pander to their wants. If you have a smart way of neutralizing an encounter, just don't do it. I know that your alchemist is likely very clever and should probably be able to come up with those kinds of tricks, but it doesn't seem like your DM can keep up so, unfortunately, this is the kind of choice you have to make.


Grokk_Bloodfist wrote:

Man it would be fun to get both the Animal Companion, get the feat to make it a Griffon while also taking Leadership to get a Griffon.

If I was a Hunter, I'd totally do that, max out spells on both like Magic Fang, Animal Growth and have two Griffons ready to annihilate whatever stepped in your path.

At that point I would think you would be better served as a hunter. Just too much teamwork synergy to ignore.


The raw for weapon song doesn't mention rage powers, so it probably shouldn't work with them. However, I think a good rule of thumb when looking at archetypes is that, if the class features don't work via raw reading, especially if the raw reading doesn't work due to omission, then the intent is that the ability should function as the original ability would in that instance.

In this case, its clear that weapon song should probably interact with rage powers as raging song, otherwise the archetype is unplayable.

That said, I don't know how far that will take you in pfs.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Forcy wrote:

I' Know.. but i need 5x knowledge Arcana for going DD so i need some skills!

For the bloodline question, i think that it stack with DD levels just like sorcerer... if not this means that i can choose another bloodline other than draconic...

Skill points can't go lower than 1 per level. So as a paladin you get 2+(int) which is -1 for 1 skill point a level. If you drop int to 7 you get 2+(int) which is -2 for 1 skill point a level. Plus human means you get 2 skills a level with an int of 7. And 5 levels later you have all the arcana skill you need.

^This.


Pretty confident that the best thing to do is progress the animals separately. To make this happen, you would have to take an animal companion off of the druid list that isn't available through the animal ally feat, ensuring that they progress separately.


If your dumping intelligence on a two point skill class you should really just dump it all the way because you will still get one skill point. At that point you can buff your wisdom back up so you don't suffer more severe penalties.


Adept_Woodwright wrote:

I get what you're arguing, and by premise I agree. However, I submit that the wizard with Leadership + infinite level 9 Spells and action economy from simulacra will realistically have significantly less benefit from Leadership than a fighter -- who otherwise has no help in the fight.

I made a point earlier that something akin to 280 simulacra (that have taken no resources from the wizard, other than time and some STR gaining tricks) would raise the CR of an encounter from 20 to 25 -- essentially eliminating the maximum theoretical benefit of having 10 mythic tiers.

Its only really a problem to me because the main tactic proposed to counter the fighter has been:
-pre-populate the field (arena in the other thread, but Country/Plane in this argument) with as many simulacra as needed to ensure that they manage to strip the protections away with minimal chance of failure or possibly missing.
-recognize that an undetectable fighter is in an area (through meta-game or similar action -- were not sure yet because the main strategy to counter this particular thing is not being shared by the person who assures us there is a way)

After the simulacrums have all expended their Disjunction/Greater Dispel, they no longer enter the argument at all as far as I have been concerned.

Do you see why I don't think another cohort for the wizard matters? Whereas, the fighter's main class feature is the shear number of feats available (even if the bonus feats are only Combat Feats, that means many feats otherwise needed for the class are free for non-combat feats. Would it be more palatable if I took Leadership through a Mythic ability? Because that exists too.

At the end of the day, its up to you guys what you do. I only offer this position because I feel that your concerns about Simulacrums and the like are specifically why wizards are so potent.

To be clear, I don't think that the tactics that anzyr suggests are fun or even something you should ever do in a game, but they are valid tactics from a rules based perspective. The wizard class can do these things through class features and that's why they represent the real power of the wizard.

Leadership represents literally nothing of the power of the fighter class or the mythic tier system. In addition, leadership will make adjudication of this little contest even more difficult( good luck to the poor sucker who gets sucked into that).


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

...now people are trying to misinterpret legendary item.

You don't have to spend the points, you can save up.

Fighters get feats. Feats that the wizard can get too. So banning leadership is just like banning power attack under the idea that people should only be using class specific features. If we are banning leadership for brokeness then most of the wizard's tricks would also be banned.

People are just being biased.

Actually, fighters get combat feats. Fighters never get general feats from class progression, I don't think anyone does. I don't think this a biased position. Everything I've stated is true.


@ Adept - Regarding the comments in the other thread related to leadership.

From my perspective, the idea of this contest is to look at mythic ranks as a means of making a full bab *class* of comparable power to that of a wizard. To that end, I propose that leadership be banned because it neither originates from the mythic subsystem, nor the class features of any class. Please note the difference between class features and character levels here.

The second issue is simply that if one character has access to leadership, then there is no logical reason not to take it on the other as there are no stronger feats than leadership. Finally, the wizard, having access to simulacrum and blood money( totally valid in my opinion because these spells are taken with class features) will undoubtedly have a more potent cohort with all sorts of bonuses the fighter would be hard pressed to emulate.


Adept_Woodwright wrote:
To be fair, and not to try to start an argument in this thread which is ongoing in the other... the wizard is sort of self-obviating his own need for Leadership by making ~ as many simulacrums of creatures with 9th Level Spells as spell like abilities as he wants -- and not counting against WBL via blood money.

Sure, but if leadership is a valid option, then there is no reason for the wizard not to take it as it is obviously the best in slot feat. All of the wizards other minions will come directly from class features, which prevents them from muddying the waters.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
We're comparing one class against another class. It's only logical.

Only logical to ban broken options that the fighter has access too.

But we need to let the wizard keep all of his toys.

Leadership is not a martial-only tool, and the martial participant winning the combat by bringing along a wizard cohort doesn't prove anything.

Mythics are not martial only either, neither are feats in general.

So I guess this whole contest proves nothing.

Look at it this way. If you bring leadership, then the wizard will counter with leadership, effectively negating the benefit.

In other words, leadership is a zero sum for the purposes of this contest.


LazarX wrote:
Byakko wrote:
While an elegant solution, which I wouldn't personally be opposed to using, that's a house rule, and this is the rules forum.
Then if you're going that way, the rules say one item per slot and that's that. It's up to you to find a rule that says you can have more than one in a slot. It's incumbent upon GM's to make a ruling based on their knowledge and not have players bully them into making a look up for every stinking cheese maneuver they want to pull off.

So much vitriol.


@ the op: prepare to do what your told a lot?


Trimalchio wrote:

I'll give a quick write up for an arena:

The Cage

A greater demiplane rumored to be divinely created.

Mildly neutral aligned, gravity normal, always daylight, time normal. The Cage is a rectangular prism 800 feet by 800 feet with a 30 foot ceiling. The floor is trodden dirt, the walls and ceiling appear to be chain link mesh of metal. Walls of force provide a layer between the Cage and the astral plane.

Special: any scrying spell can target any area in The Cage and never fails.
~

Rules, contestants are allowed practically any amount of time to prepare, but are never told who their follow contestant will be; assume divine intervention prevents any meaningful information to be gathered before the battle begins. Both contestants must planeshift into the area on the same round(this round is announced to both contestants 3 minutes before hand) appearing in a random square (x,y,z). Initiative is rolled and surprise round begins, however neither contestant is considered flat-footed. Contestants unable or unwilling to planeshift will be provided a couatl, but must lower their SR if any and fail the will save, the couatl does not planeshift with the contestant.

Leaving The Cage is automatic forfeiture.
~~

Anymore rules needed? I personally would suggest limits to simulacrum and planar binding but that's just me.

these special rules favor the martial don't you think? Thirty foot ceilings, divination auto success so mind blank and invisibility doesn't work. True seeing will shut down most defense... Just give it to the fighter.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I am not saying that though. I am saying that if you stack a piece of paper on top of another, that does not grant complete cover as each side (edge) of the paper of the paper is still exposed. If you have one person lay on top of another person, that will likewise not grant full cover. Thus Greater Dispel Magic's Area version will affect each object (paper).

I wasn't talking about that though.

You still never found a good way for your minion to survive long enough to cast greater dispel magic.

I think having more than one would be pretty feasible, not to mention that the fighter now has to make a choice between killing the monsters or attacking the wizard. Its a dilemma.


I kind of assumed a mundane sachel charge style myself.


Kthulhu wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
How does a mythic fighter actually kill a wizard? Wouldn't you have contingency to protect you? Not to mention that wizards have more than one body after a certain level. I feel like this would lead to a stalemate.
The refusal of the "wizurds always win!!!" crowd to provide stats means that their contingency is undefined. As wizurds only get a sole contingency, having it be undefined is equivalent to not having one at all. Likewise, unless clones are defined in the non-existent build, they don't exist. In fact, since none of the wizurd's prepared spells are defined, he has no spells prepared. This is unsurprising, since a refusal to nail down even the comtents of a spellbook mean that the wizard doesn't actually have any spells that can be prepared.

I realize your being funny... I guess, but how do you go about determining how many spells he should have in his spell book? No wizard is going to sit on the spells they are allotted from levels and not learn more.

Giving you a list prepared doesn't help you because wizards can just change that if they can remove themselves from the immediate threat.

In short, there are issues with the assumptions your making.


Artanthos wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
You've listed a lot of mythic powers, how many do you get in total again?

Like the wizards in this thread, I don't need to define what I actually have until I use it.

Or is that listed in RAW somewhere as a wizard only ability.

I can except that to a certain degree, but I feel as though there's a false equivalency being made between class abilities, mythic powers and spells on a prepared caster. At the very least, I would grant the wizard the likely spells that they are going to use in every situation like escape contingencies. Once a caster escapes you may run into them again and be fully prepared. That's the problem with these different systems.


Artanthos wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
It also did not matter who won initiative. I was in teleport range at the start not bow range.
Teleport wrote:
This spell instantly transports you to a designated destination, which may be as distant as 100 miles per caster level.
Limitless Range (Ex) wrote:


Multiply the range increment on all of your ranged and thrown weapons by 5 feet, and these weapons no longer have a maximum range increment for you. You can throw any melee weapon as if it had a range increment of 20 feet—this increment isn't multiplied by 5, but the weapon doesn't have a maximum range increment.

Bow range > Teleport range.

I imagine you still have to see what your shooting at. You've listed a lot of mythic powers, how many do you get in total again?


How does a mythic fighter actually kill a wizard? Wouldn't you have contingency to protect you? Not to mention that wizards have more than one body after a certain level. I feel like this would lead to a stalemate.


Shadowkire wrote:

Oh I agree Trogdar, my mission in this thread is to show how silly most Caster vs. Anything threads get. Because the caster rarely gets stated and has metaknowledge vs a stated opponent.

The method by which I do this is to argue as if running a character with no defined stats, capable of anything and everything within the rules(i.e. a god).

To be fair, full casters are actually capable of accessing meta knowledge, which is one of the reasons they are so powerful.


This is really silly. I think that, while the fighter may(emphasis on may) win this fight, the fact that you have to have literal immortality and ten mythic ranks says loads about why this is pointless to debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssyvan wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I think DPR is kind of like the last check you make before completing a build to determine if your potential to deal damage is within the ballpark you want for the character you want to play. I wouldn't use it and expect any sort of exact expression of all combats, but I would expect to know that, if I'm engaging something within those expected guidelines, I will be successful more often than not.

See this is what confuses me, what exactly are you hoping to glean from calculating DPR in this case?

When faced with two DPR values that are different, what does that tell you?

What actionable information does it give you, if any?

It tells me whether the damage contribution of a character is reasonable for a given role. I check the DPR value against the CR appropriate hit point value and make a judgment call. If I'm making a support character that mixes it up in combat, but isn't focused in that area, then maybe 30% hit point attrition on a full attack is fine. If the character is, instead, a melee focused blender, then 30% on a full attack tells me to go back and look at where I went wrong (because, to me, a full attack from a barb or a fighter should do more than that).

What's reasonable will be subjective to some degree, but the game math will help inform your decision.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think DPR is kind of like the last check you make before completing a build to determine if your potential to deal damage is within the ballpark you want for the character you want to play. I wouldn't use it and expect any sort of exact expression of all combats, but I would expect to know that, if I'm engaging something within those expected guidelines, I will be successful more often than not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point I'm trying to move toward is that the damage die doesn't have anything to do with being sneaky, its just extra damage. If you want to make a thematically appropriate gray warden, make sure he can land his attacks, the damage will naturally follow.


Don't dip for sneak attack die(unless its for prestige entry requirements or something), that way lies madness. I'm not sure theme even makes sense regarding extra damage either because most classes grant extra damage.

The long and the short of it is, basically, that a rogue dip is almost always a bad call and some of the classes up thread already have ways to access those same features.

Edit: I just realized the best way to express why this isn't a good idea. You are proposing that one sneak attack die and one rogue talent is worth multiclassing two 3/4 bab classes which reduces both your chance to hit and your caster level. That's pretty much the definition of a bad trade.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think, despite his obvious exasperation, Gaberlunzie has the right idea. I don't see how ammunition would work unless it was material at the point of initial action and then became energy after leaving the vehicle used to accelerate them. Arrows simply don't work if the head is the only thing that's energy, which infers heavily that the whole thing must be.

Greenwood doesn't work because its living. Brilliant energy would not reference a material that existed in the future. The list of things it can bypass is not necessarily exhaustive... the list goes on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your list basically eliminates every non 3/4 caster. Not sure if that was intentional or not.


Arnwyn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Why not just outright ban teleport, since obviously you're going pretty far out of your way to make sure it doesn't work.

?? A strange comment. Why ban it? It would still allow one to teleport to any location one has been to, for example.

(I'm not advocating a position re: scry info, etc., here. I'm just pointing out the silly baby-with-bathwater comment that sometimes infests the Paizo boards.)

I think the comment was aimed at Diego's statements regarding discern location. I can see the point there because, as a player, if I drop an eighth level spell to know a location I damn well better benefit from it. Otherwise your just going to feel like your being railroaded.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I read it as "you know the name of the location, with all the details needed to make it useful" but not "you know distance and direction from your position plus description of the location".

The "clear idea of the location" requirement of Teleport doesn't specify whether it requires a distance in miles and a direction, or whether written address is sufficient. But it certainly doesn't specify a relative location.

Suppose the caster was lost and wanted to teleport home. He knows where his home is, but not where he is. He doesn't know the current direction or distance, but he knows where he's headed - isn't that enough?

And if anything should reliably satisfy a 'location' requirement, an 8th level spell called Discern Location should be it.

Certainly seems like it, doesn't it.


Poor poor non casters... Unless there aren't any, in which case way to go players :)


Tels wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Yup. But not the "Do devs know more about the game than players do?" subject. ;)
you just are discussing about not discussing.
We should probably stop before we start discussing about discussing about not discussing.
Can we start a discussion about whether or not we should stop discussing on the off chance we start a discussion about discussing about not discussing?

That's disgusting... :)


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.

1 to 50 of 1,442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.