|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
If you want to go archery, I suggest two to four levels in the arcane Archer prestige mixed into your eldritch knight build so that you can cast spells through an arrow. Two levels is the minimum for imbue arrow.
That said, it may be tough to get all the feats in a timely manor if you variant multiclass battle oracle.
It's a bit of a tall order, but it can be done.
I think the reason some people are suggesting eldritch knight(myself included) rather than other options is due to the spell list requirements. You could make a budget spell list with the magus and cherry pick a few important spells with arcana, but you just are not going to have the utility that you want really. Wizard list plus martial seems to be largely taboo outside of the eldritch knight.
That said, the EK will end up with cleric base attack bonuses and full wizard casting more or less. The wizard list will give you buffs that will cover the difference easily. Giant form with contingency transformation will make a fighter look like a baby.
There is an arcanist archetype that has great synergy with the eldritch knight prestige class. It gives you a weapon that becomes more powerful over time, which is nice, and the exploits are generally pretty interesting class features. I think that you can use variant multiclassing to pick up battle oracle powers which makes it so you don't have to dip into fighter either.
Edit: forgot to mention that, if you take the magical knack trait, you can keep your caster level at maximum as well as keeping all but two levels of your spellcasting.
I think swinging harder should be a combat option open to everyone. Why is power attack a feat at all? Do you need special training to throw a haymaker instead of a more measured attack? If your concept involves doing a lot of damage, you choose a martial character, feats should not be required for a martial character to be good at damage, thats rediculous. Its like requiring casters to buy spell slots with skill points, otherwise they just cant cast.
Im not sure how you got symmetry/standardization from feat concentration. If anything, I would think that players would have a far more diverse array of tools to employ individually instead of having one asset that gets all their resources. If I want to play a warrior who fights well with two weapons, why must it occupy so much of my character growth? this makes for very poor versatility and does nothing for the relative balance because the two weapon fighting ceiling(power neutral) is the same as it was before.
I dont think that asymetrical design naturally leads to more customization. Look at the incredible number of feats that add nothing but percentile advantages to help assure certain results rather than offering a new approach altogether. This game is very asymetrical, but I would say customization is on the lower end of the scale.
I think it would be easier to develop for the median if you could reduce the number of interacting rules elements to some degree. If, for example, you were to compress feats such that one feat covered a theme in its entirety instead of half a dozen accomplishing the same, then you would be better able to anticipate the consequences of further development by having the rules your developing around being all in one spot.
The above was just an example of reducing rules interaction, not necessarily the only way to go about it.
Don't get me wrong, when I build a character, even if it is just an NPC, I want it to be as mechanically well built as I know how. I also, though, want all my characters to have a genuinely interesting back story and realistic characterization. I know that there are people who want maximized character power, and who also love immersive story play. I've just never met any.
Well, if the above quoted text is true, then I'm sure you have. Every time you look in the mirror.
I think it's really just an issue of some people looking at rules questions like this from different perspectives. If I, for example, look at the interaction between these two rules elements and decide there is no real game consequence to channeling piercing damage, then fine.
Someone other than myself might think, "You can't channel piercing damage! That doesn't make sense!" Who is right? To some degree, I think both are. There's no real danger in channeling piercing damage, in fact it may cause Dr problems for you, but it is hard to figure out how energy is generating kinetic damage.
I guess it's just up to you whether that is worth whipping out the ban hammer.
Nice catch. Always impressed when people find rules support in strange places
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I won't even dispute this, though I think I could. The ultimate reality is that, if you're super good at finding ways to make powers efficient, then you end up with more powers as opposed to a power that sits outside the power curve. In that sense, the game is impossible to break the way you could pathfinder.
+1 swarms as hazards is a good idea.
I don't think anyone is actually upset, just pointing out a certain level of false equivalency. If a warrior type is made to be unable to do what they are there for at first level, then why is an equivalent hard counter for wizards only available in mythic late game?
That's kind of problematic.
Yeah. I think classes need to get split off into a couple different tracks. If you have a social track, its easier to balance when all you have to look at is equivalent social advancement instead of trying to measure everything together. Also, it makes certain tropes available to classes that may not get an archetype in the current system.
I could certainly imagine bab as some sort of variable gate that automatically grants access to stunts of some sort. You can do anything you meet the bab prerequisite for, but your capabilities are limited by action economy.
I don't really think niche protection is the way to go. If anything, I would like to add a social level track to all classes that was interchangeable, further blending classes into modular combat and social pools.
Sure, but those base mechanics are also part of a classes features. If I make all saves scale off the medium track and add a plus two for good saves, it retroactively improves the save class feature for classes with poor saves. Or making all iterative hit penalties a flat -5, then the full bab class feature is better than it was, and so are all the classes with full bab as a consequence.
Balancing fundamental qualities of the dnd math is important, no doubt, but the class features still have to have relative parity at the end of the day. Otherwise your just choosing one kind of disparity over another.
Perhaps, but from my position, it doesn't make sense to both limit a thing and throw limits to the wind on the same thing, it just screams unintended consequences to me. Items are too variable to engineer balance around. It makes far more sense to have classes achieve relative parity through class features. Also, class features can't easily be dumb DM'd(tm) out of existence.
What about making something like a Warcraft skill that ties a lot of situational martial abilities together? Full bab classes could get ranks equal to their class level to avoid a skill tax, and at certain rank thresholds you would be able to do crazier stuff. I totally haven't thought it through in detail, but the concept of being able to consolidate certain basics into one skill might make martials more variable characters.
I think you would have to gate ranks by bab or something to make it more desirable and effective for full martials. You could also give fighters virtual ranks akin to bardic knowledge which would be cool.
*Goes and looks up the definition*
That basically describes me, yeah.
I would assume that all women in this universe would be judged harshly, as the number of fetuses that don't make it to term are numerous.
May I make an observation? If you are called a munchkin and don't like it, all making the most broken thing you can dredge up will do is confirm to everyone that the GM was right. If you want to change opinions stop selecting powerful options and just build a normal character for a change.
Whats powerful? Whats normal? These kinds of assertions are entirely subjective, thus the problem. The only thing you can do to stop this sort of issue is avoid complex rules interactions. It leads to pretty cookie cutter builds, but thats what people who throw around words like munchkin want. Dont hurt the poor GM's brain with novelty, go with boring.
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
After close to 1500 posts, has anyone come up with some workable solutions to factor into their games? I have seen a great deal of brainstorming over this and I'm curious as to whether some of you have gotten together and hammered anything out.
The answer is to make feats relevant for combat and skills. If you have ten feats to reach parity with at least four times as many spells then one feat needs to stay as powerful as a spell in its field.
Basically, on demand strength is not really weaker in the late game than always on strength, and the game is balanced around that false premise.
You just got into a heated argument and were personally attacked by your GM. I think its normal to be angry for the insult, but the argument is largely unimportant. I would recommend walking away and examining whether or not you want to continue playing with someone who has divergent expectations about how the game should work. Finally, just try to keep your characters specific mechanical qualities a little more generic so as not to flirt with difficult rules areas if you do continue to play with this particular gm..