|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
How do you want to get a real consensus if only those who liked the AP well enough to play it to the end are allowed to vote?
I for my part was a player in CC and left the group because, for me, the AP sucked. so for me the fun factor was 1/10.
2) until I left in book 3 there was no central theme apparent. First you hunt the whispering way, then you suddenly forget that to help the beast...
4)the hardest part of book 1 was sitting around several fights because of multiple incorporeals and only one magic weapon for the party.
Good to see that fighters can get something akin to pounce, too. But I don't see what this has in common with my statement that there are more different ways to buiold a barbarian than there are to build a fighter.
Is it possible, that you missread my posting? It was not about charging but changing.
To be fair, dropping Beast Totem for Spirit lowers the AC something fierce. Even moar damage though.
I just wanted to show that there are more ways you can go. Ways that are not open to the fighter. No feats let you change your pc that much like some rage powers.
But the one time I tired a spirit totem barbarian we had to fight a special tribe of lizardmen immune to negative energy and healed a little by it.
Build a dwarven inquisitor. You will not get trapfinding but you get lots of skills, good perception, bonuses to perception to notice traps in stone walls or floors as well as good saves vs some sorts of traps.
Ok how about if blinded etc would I just move 10' a round full stop? Is there any ruling for it?
I guess you could do a double move. But I'm not sure how your speed would be calculated in that case. i.e. is it two separate move actions for 10ft twice or is it one move for 25ft?
Insain Dragoon wrote:
And on top of that the barbarian can choose class abilities that let him get more use out of charisma, should you want to play a charismatic leader guy. (the spirit totem line and the rage power that lets you intimidate as move action for example) meaning that the barbarian class is more versatile than the fighter class, too. (If you go by base class without archetypes)
But one thing the fighter has going for him: He can take a trait to up his armor by 1, evening out the armor value in the first comparison. No such trait for the barbarian.
And we still have no ruling on how to treat non item buffs that grant an int bonus for longer than 24h. Like an extended threefold aspect.
If you cast this every other day, you always have one day when it is a temp buff and a second when it is a permanent buff.
Ricardo Pennacchia wrote:
If you use con or con +2xBAB then it is impossible to wound a level 1 char without killing him and it's even close for a level 2 one. The result would be that you can hit a low level pc, bringing him below zero and he's unwounded but the high level pc can be hit that bare nicks his hp but wounds him.Because of that I'd rather take con bonus instead of con but perhaps BABx3 instead of x2
K177Y C47 wrote:
For our games it will, most likely, replace rogue and fighter. But not the ranger.
I don't have my playtest document with me so I'm doing this from memory.
Example for a Dwarf Slayer:
I think PFS uses 20 point buy, right?
1st level Dwarf slayer
Alternate racial trait:
Weapons of choice:
So right now the differences between fighter and slayer are: One less feat, one more good save, two more special abilities, four more skill points, no heavy armor.
At second level we choose ranger combat style weapon and shield to get TWF.
The differences remain the same except that we could ignore the prerequisites for our 2nd level bonus feat and we missed out on bravery. Let's say that evens out track, which most dwarves will rarely use.
At third level we get sneak attack instead of armor training. While sneak attack is not what we are looking for it sometimes helps deal damage and as a dwarf we get little from armor training because we are slow and steady.
At fourth level we get our next slayer talent. Up until now the best fitting might be combat trick to get a bonus combat feat, same as the fighter. We can't choose weapon spec, but instead of getting +2 damage with one weapon we get +1 hit and +1 damage with all weapons just by using favoured target.
At fifth level your favoured target increases to +2 and you can have it active on two targets. We miss out on weapon training.
I left out the standard feats, because every char gets those.
All in all the slayer can be played and fluffed just as a fighter. He can't use heavy armor if he wants to use a ranger combat style (thanks to Imbicatus for pointing out) and you don't get armor training, weapon spec and weapon training. But you (in my opinion) more than make up for the loss through what you get instead.
With the ACG we will see some archetypes so we might even get something that's even better at being a dwarf man at arms.
Edit: Just to note it, until at level 5 he gets his earth elemental, the stone lord paladin can be seen as a rather stereotypical dwarf warrior, too.
Urban ranger, slayer, ninja, urban barbarian
The problem with gorum, while allowing you to take that nice trait, is that he gives a two-handed favoured weapon and as such you'd still not have a good one-handed weapon for sword and board.
On the other hand there ARE some simple one-handed weapons that can be used. The morning star for example.
For stats I'd go str > con = wis > int > dex > cha
Half-Orc Gorumite Inquisitor:
Going half-orc would allow you to use longswords through the city raised alternate race trait, would give you a bite attack through toothy and, if you like it as much as I do, endurance through shaman's apprentice. You are steel, you don't want to take off your armor at night, do you?
Without dumping you could have: STR: 18 DEX: 12 CON: 14 INT: 13 WIS: 14 CHA: 10
Hmmmm... I see an Ulfen Gorumite Brawler with the Shield Champion archetype in my future.
I could see me playing a Gorumite Dwarf Slayer sometime in the future.After some feats/talents I'd rock heavy armor (spiked for fluff), TWF without dex, heavy shield as light weapon, tons of skills. With favoured target and a situational sneak attack to up the damage.
Okay just... take power attack and go to town. You clearly have no intention of actually taking anyone's advice so feel free to derp around with a suboptimal Dwarven fighter. If you want to make "the most powerful Dwarven warrior", your options are Slayer, Ranger, and Barbarian. You will not be using heavy armor with any of these. You shouldn't care.
Some people can't overcome what they see as a class's fluff. If for him the slayer is the sneaky backstabber, the barbarian the raging madman and the ranger the robin hood/strider guy, let him be.
But there is one point in which I disagree with you, Arachnofiend: I would be using heavy armor as a dwarven slayer. It's just a feat and I'm slow and steady.
I will not add names because it makes reading this threat even harder for those who try to contribute to this community without being named/appreciated.
If YOU are one of those, feel my thanks. (even if Ipslore pulled the ninja on this).
But I can't stay away from stating: Again without name calling, I have been shocked by some names I had to read around here, while others were not written down.
Deadly Juggernaut wrote:
With every enemy life you take, you become increasingly dangerous and difficult to stop. During the duration of the spell, you gain a cumulative +1 luck bonus on melee attack rolls, melee weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks as well as DR 2/— each time you reduce a qualifying opponent to 0 or few hit points (maximum +5 bonus and DR 10/—) with a melee attack. A qualifying opponent has a number of Hit Dice equal to or greater than your Hit Dice –4.
I read the wording of the bolded part in a way that only the bonuses are luck bonuses and that the DR is in addition to the luck bonuses but not one itself. And as the DR doesn't seem to be cumulative as per the wording.And the increase from fate's favoured is only applied once.
I'd say it should be able to replace the tunic, shirt or robe but not a full outfit. As the silken ceremonial armor is eastern I'd suggest just adding a monk's outfit (2 lbs) and asking your GM if he's willing to drop some of the weight for not wearing the loose shirt. I MIGHT allow you to reduce it by 0.5 lbs while still being (more or less) properly dressed.
RAW a kilt for 1 lbs might be enough but it would look strange because a kilt and silk armor doesn't mix well.
stuart haffenden wrote:
Normally creatures with the grab ability gain a +4 bonus to grapple checks. Is that true for the white haired witch, too?
universal monster rules wrote:
Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
If you had any way to get beast shape II (like wildshape at level 6)you could shape into a large animal to get grab (with the +4 to grapple) and a +4 size bonus to strength but a -1 size bonus to hit. This would net you +5 and the option to grapple after dealing damage.
I think you can only add weapon enhancements to those CMs that specifically call out being usable with weapons.
What would apply would be size bonuses to attack. So if you were small but had an ability letting you be treated as medium for CMs you'd get your +1 size bonus on attack.
And I think there is some weapon enchantment that gives a bonus to CMs.
Edit: Found it. It's one of the two enchantments called duelling but it doesn't work with grapple.
If you want to go fighter, so be it. You should have stated that. In your opening post you only wrote that you wanted to be a warrior and I assumed that you did not mean the NPC class. And as you wanted something powerful fighter was not what came to mind.
How about a slayer? You can get two weapon fighting via the slayer talents and go axe and board. With a dwarven waraxe in one hand and a shield in the other. You get full BAB, lots of skills, lots of feats (as you can turn some talents into feats).
Instead of axe and shield you could use the thunder and fang build. It fits Dwarves very good. And again, you can get TWF without dex requirement.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
This is something I can wholehartedly agree with.
They can with gang up or if they are ratfolk with the swarming trait.
Matthew Downie wrote:
if we bring in wands the caster will not run out of spells
A lot of people have a strange sense of smell.Sometimes I think every time someone builds a pc that is capable in combat without mainly relying on magic that's a bad thing.
Recent threads: My inquisitor archer is breaking my game, two ratfolk PCs using teamwork feats and their swarming trait are OP, etc, antagonize is too strong (I'm not talking about hating it for "common sense" reasons).
It very much depends.
Apart from that I like tactical combats. Or Iat least I think I would. The problem is that I have yet to find a group that uses tactics worthy of the name.
As long as items are only broken, not destroyed a simple mending (or multiple simple mendings) do the trick as well. No cost involved.
This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points. All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities.
As the one doing the sunder can choose whether he wants to destroy the object or not that's usually enough to not loose treasure. You sunder enemy weapons to give them the broken condition. That's often enough.Careful with armor or heavy two-handed weapons. They might exceed mending's weight limit.
Sure spalls are a finite resource. But a cha based full caster can well fill in with intimidate. A witch can fill in with hexes, wizards have their (still limited) school powers in addition to spells, clerics have their domain powers and at least the divine casters can be competent melee or ranged combatants, too.The myth that wizards without spells are useless might have been true in AD&D, but it is no longer.
That is very much wrong. I will not imply you did it on purpose but the longer quote definitely clears up that casting IS an option and the feat is totally ok.
On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you.
So casting flare or daze would be totally enough to follow the feat.
I would say oratory would not affect animals without a speak with animals spell, for the same reason I'm not going to let you pick a lock with no tools whatsoever, even at +10 DC.
There is a goblin feat that specifically states that, while using this feat, allies who don't understand goblin are unaffected. I read that in a way that specific trumps general and general would be that you'd be affected when not understanding the language.
Battle singer wrote:
When using bardic performance to inspire courage in allies, you can choose to sing in Goblin—allies who do not speak Goblin gain no benefits from this performance.
That is a good question that is brought up from time to time. Most of the time about half the posters tell you that martials suck and the other half tells you that asking this question makes you a power gamer.
I like swinging swords and such. But I hate standing around more or less useless and on mop up duty so I try to build PCs who have more tricks than hit it with something sharp/pointy/blunt.
My kobold slayer can make enemies nauseated, effectively taking them out of the fight for some time. My Inquisitor can cast spell as well as fight with his axe. The scarred witch doctor eschewed melee completely to keep up with the summoner. The magus speaks for itself. That's only a part of my recent PF PCs but I think you get the gist.