|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's not that it is either or. And our talking and complaining doesn't seem to have any effect. Not even the polls showing how many are unhappy have any effect. But you are free to just keep talking. And besides: Smaller organisations can survive it, too. By reacting to customer frustration.
What damage would a warpriest wielding a battle poi deal?
3) If I made my battle poi magic, would it then count as magic attack that doesn't get the +1d4 from burn burn burn?
I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to why the class is so universally reviled.
I played alongside a master summoner for some time and it was annoying to have one player get so many actions each turn vs your single one. And some fihghts got trivialized by being swarmed with summons.
Yep. Also Oleg and Svetlana in Kingmaker.
And there Svetlana pays a huge sum as reward for some soup ingredient. High enough that all of us agreed that this soup has to have something special. Perhaps it is an aphrodisiac or some fertility brew. Since, they love each others and still have no children yet.
That's best done with a long-haired AC. It can use its own fur/hair to craft the sweater. Except some GMs would rule that that's impossible because you have to pay for the raw materials.
The rogue can use different ways* to increase damage apart from sneak attack (harder to get than for the fighter but possible) and he can use gang up to get sneaks in without having to move to a real flanking position.
*One such way would be to use quarterstaff master to qualify for weapon specialization. Another would be to play a race with an arcane SLA and arcane strike.
The problem with the post you are referring to is that he not only told us that he didn't read the thread but that he house-ruled all but 2 classes. And in this special enviroment he thinks that the rogue is fine.Not helpful at all.
I really dislike making threads like this, but I've been looking at making a ranged Rogue build and frankly it seems like they... well, basically suck completely. Paizo seems to have sort of dropped the ball on this...
If you only look at combat you might be correct. But out of combat rogues are ok. And all in all I see rogues as stronger than fighters because the can do a relevant bit in combat and are very good out of combat.The fighter is very good in combat but nearly useless out of combat.
Rogues have some interesting archetypes, they can use talents to get combat feats (1 free to choose, one for weapon focus, one for weapon finesse and I think there is one for weapon prof, too.)
Build your rogue with a little cha, to be able to be the party face and you can take flagbearer to buff the party without having to play a bard. There are options and, in my view they are less of a strawman than the options given for why fighters do not suck out of combat.
I only read the first 50 posts and skimmed the second 50. But as far as I've seen several posters pointed at the fact that the ranger can't always use his favoured enemy bonus without using up spells but nobody pointed at the fact that the fighter might not always be able to use his favoured weapon.
Especially at lower levels, if the party finds a powerful magic weapon. The ranger can just pick it up and use it with no penalty (as long as it's simple or martial). The fighter can use it, too. But he only gets the full benefits if it happens to be the weapon he has weapon focus and/or weapon specialization in it.
Only the full magic mart allows the fighter to always have a tailor made magic weapon of the right type. Sure, other fighting styles have the same problem.
I am thinking about building a mounted barbarian. I will be starting at a higher level. Let's assume 14th level.
The idea is to get the Horsemaster's Saddle to have my mount benefit from my teamwork feats, one of which would be amplified rage.
1) Mounted fury for full rage and a mount at level -4
Taking the cavalier route would allow me to be either an armored hulk or an invulnerable rager, which would not be possible with mounted fury or mad dog. But the other options have their own merit, too. More AC options to choose from or having a faster mount, for example.
If I was wearing an animated helmet with a ranged attack, would enemies be able to attack it separately from me or would they need to make a sunder maneuver?
The text for fighting with two weapons includes this:
Combat section wrote:
You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
There you see that the first penalty applies to regular attacks or attacks with the primary hand. That can be read as "all attacks that are not offhand attacks." which would include natural attacks.
casters are overrated on these forums imo. Strong? yes, defiantly. but as strong as people make them seem?.. iii don't think so.
Maybe. But should a level 12 fighter be able to hog the spotlight in a party with two full casters? Not if they are anything but deliberately anti-optimised.
A rimed ray of frost entangles for 0 rounds.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
As has been already said there are several feats whose names are different to what the beenefit is.
Sword and pistol: Can be used with handcrossbow + mace, too.
Should I go on?
The Titan mauler can't even wield one large earth breaker*. So trying to do so yould be outright cheating.Wielding two medium size earth breakers on the other Hand would be something he could do. But until higher Levels he'd get even higher penalties than the T&F user.
*not in the RAW Version, that is. That the archetype's writer intended it to be possible doesn't Change RAW.
RAW seems to say yes, it counts as a round of rage because you can't turn it off out of turn.In fact I've never seen it played that way. We always assume you can decline to pay the additional round of rage and it turns off automaticly.
I was just reversing a childish answer back on the author and he was the one talking about an evil pc afoot.
I just hate the "I play a jerk pc and if you have a problem with it you're immature" crap as much as I hate the "I'm holyer than you and you have to do what I want."
If you build PCs for a group discuss alignment topics and if you want the gm to give you free money discuss that, too and half the flame-wars here on the boards are unnecessary.
Often times players (and GMs) look at problems like this with a modern day moral, which is just as bad a thing as assuming that characters know everything about hygiene and science that is seen as common knowledge nowadays.
What you can do in such a situation depends on your options and on your status.
- Cast an arcane symbol or brand on his face and tell him that his life is forfeit if he is ever seen doing bad things with this mark on him.
- chain him to a sign post and tell someone to go fetch the guard (it seems to have been in a market place). Then go on your way.
- if your status supports that you could execute him. Like if you are a paladin or inquisitor of dammerich, the god of executions.
- take off his sword hand, heal him up so he doesn't die of it and let him go.
- tell him that you can't let him go. So it's fight on (most likely one on one in that case) or die on his knees.
I once had a similar problem while playing a paladin of the god of law in AD&D. We were about to enter a dungeon full of evil stuff when we were attacked by evil cultists bent on killing us. One of them surrendered. We could not deliver him to the authorities because they were some days walk away and our duty was urgent. We could not take him down into the dungeon and we could not leave chained because he would either be freed or (should something befall us) he would die.
So in the end I decided to hold a field trial, condemned him to death for his deeds and executed him personally. Another party member suggested that he could take that burden but I declined because I was the champion of law and if someone had to do it that was clearly me.
After he was dead I buried him under a pile of stones, spoke a prayer for his soul and awaited my god's reaction.
Our GM thought about it and decided that this action was ok under those circumstances and we went on our way, doing our duty by rooting out the evil in the dungeon.
RL in some countries there has (or at least had) to be a certain time between proclaiming the wish to marry and the actual marriage. During this time the intention must be made public.
For me the fact that dazing spell, rime spell and some others exist and don't have any errata is evidence that we have a disparity.You don't just see things like that when looking at what WAS changed but also by looking at was WAS NOT changed.
You would not be implying that dazing spell might be at least as broken as the original crane wing was, would you?
If so you can't be serious because if that was true it surely would have had an errata long ago.
Add dazing to a spell that deals damage over time and it is very strong even with a low level spell. Because the spell's wording seems to indicate that the target is dazed every time it takes damage from the spell.
All in all this feat is just too strong.
A classic barbarian is always good and doesn't need the fancy stuff.
Or, if you want to dump cha.
If you are playing with them, add traits to taste.
For me it seems "rather" clear:
This is a special of ranged spellstrike that seems to work similar to spellcombat but really is something unique.
In other words: From level 11 on the myrmidarch can do what he promises from the beginning. It's just that you can't add all those archery feats like rapid shot, manyshot and the like because you are not making a full attack but a ranged spellstrike.
Perhaps that's because those same people keep on saying that rogues are as strong as wizards. Which tends to undermine their credibility.
Cairen Weiss wrote:
The feats was ok in its old version because most of the time it was just a reason to attack someone else.
I'm a little disappointed in the pathfinder community... Why so much hate? Yes it's different, but it's not bad. Give it a little time, play with it, but don't judge a book by it's cover.
The reasons have already been given. erratas like this kill diversity, pick on the weak and by that cement the excisting power gap.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
We appreciate what you are trying to do. But from the player point of view it really often looks like you were trying to reduce diversity. Interesting builds that add color to the game are being killed by FAQs or erratas. This one was just one too much for some of us.
When, for example, people tried to find an alternative to using the roxxor weapon composite bow and looked at the halfling warslinger trait it was very disappointing when using it with special slings was shot down because this seemed to have no reason than to kill diversity.
Now people that tried to find a defensive build in a game where all out offence seemed to be the only option (for martials at least) you kill this diversity, too.
This is what upsets some of us.
Quoted from another thread:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Like the crane style feat is very personal, easily foiled by spells and lots of other tactics and mostly used by a class known to pose little threat in combat.
Not every one's GM is a Jerk. And writing lol in such a comment doesn't look very grown up.
If the adventure has something that deals cha damage so be it. But none of the gms I game with would insert such a monster just to punish a single player. We are mature enough that the gm can just tell me if he doesn't like my pc before the game starts.