If failure is your concern, you should've grabbed Accursed Hex long ago.
I already have it and use it from time to time with misfortune. But often enough on non boss fights the target is dead before a second turn misfortune does something and during boss fights I usually rather do something I'm more or less sure does something relevant than gamble with an all or nothing effect.
So in most cases against enemies that are dangerous I'd prefer to entangle them with a rimed frost fall or a rimed ice storm (entangle is automatic to everything without cold resist/immunity) and after that (depending on the kind of enemy) I hit it with an evil eye or a ray of exhaustion for another sure to hit debuff.
an Ennie-award winning 5-star average out of 26 reviews adventure.
I guess only those who liked the AP reviewed it.I played from the beginning through to some of castle caromac and now left the group because, in my opinon, the only horror about this horror themed AP is how bad it is.
No noticable connection between the parts, no meaningful ingame motivation to only name the two top offenders.
And reading some of the threads about it I hardly seem the only one who thinks that way.
But as always YMMV.
Is that 22 unbuffed ? Get a belt of con or bears endurance to add another +2. Also getting rid of is sad :( I love that hex
It's buffed with a belt +2
Did he allow you to try it before he banhammered it?
He had a witch in another game prior who used it. And he didn't banhammer it but politely asked me to take other hexes. A big difference.
So my witch reached 10th level and I get my first major hex.
For spells I tend to learn those, that do something useful even with a successful save. But there doesn't seem to be a hex like that.
Because of that I tend towards major healing right now. But it is generally voted rather low.
So wich major hexes would you recommend and why?
Edit: The witcxh is neutral so hexes from the "good" book don't work.
I'd guess that a barb would fare better than a fighter. He doesn't have to rage all the time and if he doesn't he most likely has a higher touch AC than the man in plate.If his skills help depends on what he spends them in. But even if he learns some useless skills he still hasn't less than the fighter.
There is even one rage power that lets you ignore negative levels and similar afflictions gives you an additional save to "heal" them.
The ranger can be quite good in CC is he chooses the right favored enemies. No matter what terrain he's in. And some archetypes get rid of favored terrain, so if you're not sure about which to choose, just exchange it.
Druids can be cool wherever they are. Just don't specialize too much in special spells that don't work everywhere too much. (I think entangle needs plants or roots for example).
I myself are playing a stonelord paladin and despite the earth servant being nearly useless it's a fun archetype. And the stonestrike he gets instead of smite evil already came in very handy.
There are curse combination that don't need any balancing.For example if you already want to be a deaf oracle, you get no additional (mechanical) drawback by taking the wolfscarred curse as well.
After level 5 you have no drawback anymore from being legalistic in addition to having the wasting curse.
About Oracles in general: We've had one cleric in one of our games for a short time but we see several oracles played. And while I'd like to play a forgemaster cleric some time,it is much more likely that I play an oracle than a base cleric.
Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
If mounted charge and pounce can be used together is a topic better left to its own threads. there are several I think.As long as you are mounted the lance is a onehanded weapon if I remember right. So you could use medium ones.
If you pounce you can do so with two small lances.
And a giant could not even use a tiny glaive, at all. So how could it add to his reach?For a tiny creature it is twohanded
For a small creature it is onehanded
For a medium creature it is light
For anything bigger it is not usable as a weapon.
The feat has several drawbacks:
Why don't other classes take it that often despite the drawbacks?
My problem is more with the master summoner than with the base summoner. And that problem is that it breaks action economy too much. He has not only 1 or 2 full round actions worth of screen time during combat but several.Summoner himself, eidolon, summoned creatures.
If he summons lesser monsters he gets lots of them, I think 1d4+1 or so.
But even without this specific archetype I'm just not compfortable with the machanics how the summoning and the eidolon works. The summon monsters spells where balanced with a duration of 1round/level and a casting time of 1 round in mind. And that's the case even for classes like the druid with his spontaneous summons. So if nothing else the summoner makes the already mediocre druid class ability even weaker (at least in comparison).
If the standard summon monsters spell was a standard action as well and the eidolon had some fixed base forms to select from the base summoner would be ok in my book.
The fighter is about as versatile with his weapons as the ranger is with his enemies (without the ranger using a spell. With the spell the ranger wins.)Everyone saying the ranger can't deal top damage to enemies who are not favored enemies should accept that the fighter can't deal top damage with weapons that are not his favored (trained/focused/specialized) weapons.
And while the fighter can exchange his weapon specialization for another he can't do the same for weapon focus (if he already has weapon specialization) without a houserule.
The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat,
So for using weapon specialization with a new kind of weapon you first have to learn weapon focus a second time. You can, after 4 more levels, change the first weapon focus because it is not a prerequesite anymore.
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Here is what I think about it:- The fighter is ok at fighting. Sometimes he does it better than the other martials, sometimes he's worse.
- The fighter is less versatile about which weapon he can use because of weapon training and weapon specialization. He can ignore those but then he's worse than the other martials.
- No other class totally lacks out of combat capabilities. He can use feats to get them but so can everyone else. So if a fighter wants to be able to do something out of combat, he has to permanently sacrifice ressources he needs to stay on par with the other martials which already perform well out of combat in addition to their in combat power.
Why I think the fighter is worse than the rogue:
If you apply points for usefulness from 1-10 seperately for both the fighter (no special build but the class overall) and the rogue I think the rogue comes out ahead.
Rogue: Out of combat 7; in combat 5
Fighter: Out of combat 2; in combat 7
Rangers need Dex less than fighters.They only need it for ranged combat. As do fighters. On top fighers need id for stuff like TWF.
Rangers just can cope with low int better. If rangers only got 2 skill points/level the'd need to take a higher int, too.
In the end fighters are more MAD than rangers because they need str+dex+con+int while rangers only need str+con+ a little wis
Except when they use their class ability of weapon training or even their special class feat of weapon specialization.
Fighters are the least versatile martial class when it comes to using loot as found.
In a game I GM only one of the casters has both detect magic and spellcraft. So only one can try to identify stuff.
As far as I know disrupt undead should work fine because it is positive energy. At least that was our consensus when we started CC.I think the same is true for holy water. The only issue is that you can't throw it at an incorporeal but instead you have to pour it over it. Or you can throw it at the incorporeal's square but then you only deal splash damage.*
* This would be an option for an alchemist with his high splash damage but seems irrelevant for your game.
I would recommend the following classes:
Why not more other melees?:
That's easy but a spoiler as well: The Party can find one ghostbane weapon rather early in the AP. So one guy will be fine. If you got more melees who need magic weapons to hit incorporeals one will stand around doing nothing in those fights.
(pro tip: Avoid needing multiple attributes to power your features).
The normal Cleric needs Cha as much as the forgemaster needs Int. So if you call the forgemaster terrible you should do the same with the core cleric and nearly every other cleric archetype.
I like the idea of the forgemaster. It's either good straight or as a dip. Even at a single level some of your spells are quite nice because they last as if cast with a higher CL.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Paizo went out of their way to nerf casters so they couldn't make the martials second class citizens
They did? When and with which Errata did they? If you're talking about the core book as printed the statement is just plain wrong.The true, non caster martials are very much second class to the casters.
And nothing in the magus makes him stronger than a full caster except at levels 1 and two. And then not even all of them. Depending on the bloodline/school powers chosen even a level 1 caster can be as strong as the magus.
I fear your thoughts are right in this.They do both change the same ability and thus RAW they don't stack. So for FPS you are out of luck.
In a home game I guess I'd allow it as a houserule. But that's another thing alltogether.
For lowlevel swarms snapdragon fireworks is nice to reduce collateral damage. It targets a single square, deals damage to everything in that square and can be used for several turns in a row with one casting.For higher levels the low damage which doesn't increase is just too weak.
Before I forget it: It's nice vs trolls and the like, too. If the melees pound it for good 1 point of fire damage per round is all you need to keep it down.
Shadows are, in some way unknown to even the most learned of sages, linked to the magic present in the world.
That leads to the fact that each trained magician and each crafted magic item increases the overall strength of the shadows in a given world.
But as the combined magic force is a fixed number (more or less) a shadow apocalypse is an unlikely thing.
If shadows ever tried to overrun the any world they would in the process create lots of new shadows making every single one of them less dangerous. This process would be increased when those turned into shadows are magicians, because this lowers the collective strength of those shadows.
In the end they would be so weak that even the light of father moon could kill them.
On the other hand this same phenomenon prevents all those adventurers from rooting out the shadows, because the remaining ones get stronger and thus have a higher likelyhood of winning fights and again creating new shadows.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
My 3.5 favorite spell was Servant Horde. Basically 3rd level wiz spell to summon 2d6+ CL unseen servants. Max of +10 I think. I would SO want that IRL. It'd take about 10 minutes to clean my house.
That's true. But IRL most people would choose other spells than as an adventuring pc, I guess.
Witch's Knight wrote:
I'd just go with a fixed fraction of the normal damage. Especially because basing it on str. would be bad for dex based guys.Perhaps start with a quarter of the normal damage and add a feat to up it to half.
That is a totally horrible idea that nerfs melees so much I would not play in such a game if I'd get money for doing it.
About combat maneuvers in general:
Once I tried a maneuver based monk but when I realized that I can't reposition as an AoO I ditched the concept. So for a couple of sessions I played a flowing monk with a reach weapon.
My suggestions to increase maneuver usage: Change all maneuvers to be made as an attack (as AoO or part of a full attack) and (as was already said) remove the prerequesites.
One of my favorite spells is one I didn't choose myself but learned from a scroll found in some ruins:
Call the void:
This spell surrounds you with an aura of nothingness that channels the mysterious energies of the Dark Tapestry.
Creatures adjacent to you when this spell is cast and at the start of your turn take 2d6 points of damage. In addition, creatures affected by your aura are fatigued, cannot breathe, and cannot speak or cast spells with somatic components. Creatures adjacent to you are allowed a Reflex save to halve the damage and negate the fatigue effect, but cannot breathe or speak regardless of whether their save is successful as long as they are adjacent to you.
Last night we had to fight a lich and my witchdoctor used this spell and after that persued the lich using the flight hex to keep him from using his ugliest spells.
but a 20th level Wizard is only as efficient as a 1st level Wizard without feats;
You seem to be ignoring that the spell damage increases drastically with casterlevel in most spells.Sure many are capped but still a level 1 caster deals much less damage than the level 20 caster when using the same spell. And they get better spells without spending feats. The fighter doesn't get better attack forms without feats.
Just skimmed over some parts so someone could have said it:
This could be done with an inner layer of metal and hollow "boobs" or by filling them with something lightweight like cork.
I think it depends upon which religions your kingdome will favor.
We used location A in our game because of the ruins we could use and because being on some kind of waterway is always good for a city.
Transylvanian Tadpole wrote:
If you'd be playing a dwarf, would you ask your gm to ignore the reduced base speed?
Why do dhampir players alsways think it is ok to make their GMs ignore the races' drawback? If you don't like it, don't play it.
I don't like to play a pc with such limited options as a single class fighter. So I'd most likely multiclass or dip. But until now I didn't get around to playing an archer at all.
One archer I did build (but not play) was a 10th level pc who was cavalier 4/weapon master 5/mammoth rider 1 riding into battle on his huge tiger mount. But even with him I did mourn the total lack of spells or similar versatile abilities.
I think 5% autofail is just too much.
For example you can rule that a natural 20 is enough for tasks with double the DC of what you can max manage to roll. Or 1.5 times.
I personally would not have agreed to any rolling of ability scores, period. But that's just me, I firmly believe that some numbers in the game should not be randomized, ability scores and hit points being chief among them. I CERTAINLY wouldn't agree to rolling different score sets for different people either, because that leads to some people getting awesome ones and others getting awful ones, etc.
The Dan Bong is a terrible weapon because RAW it makes you worse at grappling.
And in addition, as the dan bong's damage is so low you'll never want to use it as an actual weapon.
So in the end you pay a feat for a weapon you will not use that makes you worse at grappling.
I (as a player) never felt as if it would have been an option to include her into our party or otherwise take her with us.
I'd love if that was the case but up to now, for me comparing CC to CoC is like comparing the dungeons and dragons movie to the lord of the rings movies.
In CoC, as I know it you try to solve mysteries and save someone or something (sometimes the world)while evading every possible encounter because each one has a high chance of killing you or making you insane. In CC you got dungeon crawl with undead and monsters and slaughter everything that looks suspicious. Sometimes just because you can.
It's something that very much depends on both the gm and the players.
As a player I once had a situation that convinced me to never play a certain RPG with that GM wich resulted from a different world view in regards to the setting.
Shadowrun intimidate skill use story:
Our team of runners had captured some tough mercenary who was working against us. We wanted intel from him and decided to interrogate him.
Now to the differences in world view:
My GM on the other hand did seem to see the world as similar to our own in that regard.
So after all previous social skill applications had just been rolled this time the gm asked me how I want to interrogate the man. I hadn't anticipated that and followed a gut reaction and threatened to force feed him dirty, toxic rain water collected from the garbage filles street in the slums.
My gm started laughing about my, mocked me (me the player, not the pc) and still, sometimes tells someone the story how ridculous that idea was, back then. While I myself as myself how stupid he can be to laugh about his own wrong judgement and lack of knowledge about the gameworld.
So while this is a roleplaying game and as such should include roleplaying it is more than everything else a game and should be fun. And I'd rather sacrifice the roleplaying before I accept that it reduses the fun someone has.