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

1,655 posts (1,658 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,655 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always thought magic arrows were for people who used bows infrequently, but still needed to hit things.

Yeah, that definitely works the way you would expect over a broader range of levels. I think the EK probably edges magus out at higher levels, but for most games its academic.

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.

Ultimately, this is all pretty subjective. I've been called a power/munchkin whatever while playing a character who used the first feat on skill focus. Sometimes people just have cognitive biases that they can't see.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your first mistake was choosing to make a melee character. All martials are archers, they just don't realize it.

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.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Because dealing more damage is a stupid feat on its face? Feats should allow you to do new things, not the same thing five percent more.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like the illusion of choice is the problem.

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.

MendedWall12 wrote:
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.

I don't think you should conflate character optimization and playing with only winning in mind, its kind of insulting to people who enjoy the meta game. Some just envision a character who is an honest to goodness badass, and have problems with verisimilitude when it is obviously not true.

Imbicatus wrote:

For those saying energy damage is not weapon damage, see the Warpriest sacred weapon ability.

Warpriest wrote:
Sacred Weapon (Su): At 1st level, weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity, the warpriest can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them. Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is given on the table above; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this decision must be declared before the attack roll is made. (If the weapon's base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged.) This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon, and doesn't apply to alchemical items, bombs, or other weapons that deal only energy damage.
Since Sacred Weapon specifically calls out that it does not apply to weapons that deal only energy damage, that means that without that kind of disclaimer, then any other weapon feat or ability would apply to a weapon that did energy damage unless it also had that disclaimer.

Nice catch. Always impressed when people find rules support in strange places

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.

It's okay. But in part that's because it's a pretty soft system - not a lot of crunch. The different skills etc are all used pretty much the same way - so they get a lot of their balance through symmetry.

But even then - the balance is far from perfect. As an easy example - many of the disadvantages are only that if your GM wants to punish you for taking them. Removable for an indestructible power saves a bunch of points - and basically the only has a disadvantage by GM fiat. (much less than a Pathfinder wizard's spellbook - and we've all been told that that's a non-issue unless the GM is a jerk)

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.

Jiggy wrote:

Kaisoku wrote:

In most media that involved swarms, it was either treated as an area effect (you waded through it, taking a bit of damage, and moved on... the whole swarm didn't follow you to attack as one), or the swarm was warded off in some way (waving a torch to clear a path).

Typically, people don't "kill swarms" in most media... they scare them off, endure it, or just avoid them.

If swarms were relegated to trap/hazard status, instead of "hitpoint attrition combat entities", I'd be ok with that.

That's actually a really good point. I mean, I haven't seen tons of swarms in media, but there were the scarabs in The Mummy, and people either died or ran from those. (Then in the second movie, they came prepared with flamethrowers.)

Swarms as hazards rather than combatants is an idea worth pursuing, I think.

+1 swarms as hazards is a good idea.

Headfirst wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
I think I've made my point.
Dude, calm down. It's just one person's opinion on another person's house rule. It can't hurt you.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.

So, if we are going off the cr equivalency, something that makes a fighters main shtick a non starter should probably be mythic.

Otherwhere wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I think there's a good opportunity for innovative design regarding a LA carte class mechanics and linear class tracks. At least, I believe that there is potential for a middle ground which would be satisfying for both parties.
My take as well. Existing Classes and Archetypes can serve as models, but character gen doesn't need to be restricted to only those that Paizo has designed - and even some of those aren't sanctioned for PFS, so even they go overboard sometimes. And many archetypes just aren't worth taking except in certain genre of campaign.

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.

What would be analogous with swarms for wizards? Is there a golem or something that's completely invulnerable to magic in all its forms?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there's a good opportunity for innovative design regarding a LA carte class mechanics and linear class tracks. At least, I believe that there is potential for a middle ground which would be satisfying for both parties.

One punch man is basically using the cdg rules every time he throws a punch. I don't know how you would go about doing that in the game though.

RedDingo wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

If you have to break the fundamental rules concerning character levels in order to balance your class, that should be a sign you wrote a poorly designed class.

It's too common I criticize someone's class as having too strong of a 1st level, and their response involves a rant that throws the entire multiclassing system under the bus in order to defend their design. This isn't how a game designer should think.

Your criticism is rooted in a potential for dip abuse. Several people have pointed out that a lot of vanilla classes have given a lot more at 1st level than what a vanilla fighter does.


Distilling the entirety of a person or persons down to one word is like the defining quality of objectification. I wasn't necessarily calling you out specifically, just pointing out that the debates on this subject often miss the biggest issue with these terms.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe people take 'strong umbrage' with the objectification of others for no good reason. If you want to call someone names, whoever they may be, just stop.

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.

Just noting that restricting item access because balance and give the fighter crazy items because balance are logically contradictory positions that you probably shouldn't hold at the same time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, the argument of the other.

Here's a secret; there is no them, only us.

It is pretty funny how some people start balance based conversation at limiting books and items, and then in the next breath, talk about shoring up martial weakness with a mess of super items and artifact swords or something. Cognitive dissonance much?

Well, given the forums, there are at least a few people who claim this sort of thing is impossible because roleplay or some such.

It's hilarious to me that two of three SAD martials are actually heavy on casting if not a ninth level caster. Sad indeed.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Stats are a really poor way to inform roleplaying. A thirteen in wisdom could mean any number of things to different people. Not to mention the fact that people equivocate frequently when they talk about ability scores.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A good rule to play by is thus; If a rules element makes a class feature non functional, then the rules element is being applied improperly.

That would really hurt hybrids. Having four required ability scores is hard enough, needing all six would be the end with the standard point buy paradigm.

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.

Bard-Sader wrote:

I think Trogdar is just bring facetious, but the rest of us are on topic.

So basically, Isonarod you are saying that just because the judge of souls sees something as an abomination does not necessarily mean it is evil? Are you saying Pharasma doesn't see it as evil or that her own value judgement has no bearing on where souls get sent?

*Goes and looks up the definition*

That basically describes me, yeah.

Bard-Sader wrote:

Ok, so here is the logic.

1) Pharasma, the goddess of death, births, Fate, and arbiter of souls, says that Abortion is evil (an abomination). It is written in the sinner Sea Gods book.

2). Pharasma gets to judge every soul at her great Boneyard, deciding the ultimate fate and location of the soul's eternal reward.

3). As Pharasma is the judge, the rule, regardless of whether you follow her tenets or not.

4). Golarion has objective Good and Evil, not subjective. Pharasma knows objectively what is Good and what is Evil, so she is right.

5). Therefore, on moral judgements, we tenets are absolutely true, upheld and BACKED by the metaphysical forces of the universe.

Now, if you want to say that Pharasmsa is NOT infallible in judging souls, then you are also saying that there may be a lot of souls that got send to the wrong afterlife.

So, is this paizo's intended statement? That in Golarion, abortion is evil? Do Paladins need to treat abortion providers as murderers? Am I missing something in my logic?

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
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.

Edit: ninja'd

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In other words, intelligent animal friend is a hard no sell in pathfinder.

Basically, as soon as someone calls you a munchkin, you know that an opinion has already been formed and all of your actions will be looked at with that subjective bias. It sucks, but thems the breaks. Don't expect this dm to rule in your favor in a rules dispute again.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a bandaid solution to a problem that never existed.

Dev:"Hey! You can make intelligent animal companions!"

Other Dev:"Well now, we can't have that! Best to arbitrarily add a specific exception. Don't want people to be able to have a smart companion... For balance!"


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..

Hahaha... Sigh,

Steve Austin as a high level martial. Whew, thanks for the laughs. Can you imagine how hard he would crap himself when confronted by almost any cr appropriate foe? Good times.

These are arguments are both amusing and incredibly sad. You have to be a first class door knob to prevent someone from manifesting a shield with this ability. That position requires too much mental gymnastics.

A weapon is a weapon. A shield is a weapon. A is A

1 to 50 of 1,655 << 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.