I hope they keep the full CL for the bloodrager.
I would like them to add cantrips, one for each of the first 3 levels. That way you would be a spellcaster from level 1 but with only one cantrip. At level 4 you gain level 1 spells instead of a cantrip giving you 3 cantrips. That would not be too strong, justify the full CL and give you even more out of combat utility.
I could even see the cantrips be fixed for each bloodline.
For example arcane getting arcane mark at level 1, mage hand at level 2 and detect magic at level 3.
@craft cheese: You have some points but I don't think it's as bad as you make it.
I play an arcane bloodrager in our playtest game (only one session yet) and here is what I think:
-Spells: Sure, most combat spells aren't the best for you but even on the magus list there are some good spells for you. I've chosen swift girding (good even with medium armor, better if you gat heavy armor wearers around), keep watch and vanish. I could already use two of those to good effect.
-Bloodline feats: I didn't look at all feat selections but I will be taking disruptive at 6th and am quite happy about it. There are others I was too feat starved until now. Improved initiative for example.
-bloodline powers: they are very different. Perhaps you just took the wrong bloodline. I could see myself playing at least 2 more bloodragers with powers I like. The reason I took arcane is that I always wanted to play a pc using moonlight stalker and when taking blur for my 4th level power I can.
The bloodrager may be a little behind the barb in combat but he has spells in addition, which allow you to do stuff the barbarian can't. Even if most are only good out of combat or in special situations.
As I understoof it the brawler will, most likely, become proficient in all weapons in the close weapon group.
Fighter close weapon group wrote:
Close: bayonet, brass knuckles, cestus, dan bong, emei piercer, fighting fan, gauntlet, heavy shield, iron brush, katar, light shield, madu, mere club, punching dagger, rope gauntlet, sap, scizore, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, tekko-kagi, tonfa, unarmed strike, wooden stake, and wushu dart.
and there is the spiked armor. Which, I guess, means armor with armor spikes on it.
Edit: Just to be sure: This is meant as a serious answer, too. I sometimes seem to "sound" offensive without wanting to. non-native language problem I guess.
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
The fighter/cleric concept is nice but right now I cnt see anyone take a warpriest over a pure cleric. In my opinion the WP is just bad and if it can't go away it needs to change. Much.
The cleric already can fight well after wasting rounds for buffing. Someone specialized in it should be able to without wasting time.
And all those gods with crappy favored weapons will never see warpriests.
To sum it up: I would prefer the warpriest over a priest but what we see now is no functional warpriest.
I'd rather play with a fun player running a sub-optimal or even downright horrid character over a bleeding-edge optimizer any day of the week.
This depends very much on the personality.I have some times played with a guy who always made very sub-par PCs and called every one who didn't powergamer (not in those words). All of his PCs were in some way antagonistic and tried to cause trouble.
For example in CC he played an unoptimized dwarf fighter rogue who bullied the townspeople in the starting town. He got drunk, went to some shop to buy something and after he had what he wanted he told the shopkeeper he has no money and left without the stuff the shopkeeper had fetched for him.
So it is not always the case that players with sub-optimal builds are better to have around than min-maxers.
Your stonelord stone strike will not work with ranged attacks but if you need to overcome high hardness you can still go melee.
In fact this sounds like a very fun build. Thanks for inspiring me to this. :)
They are stronger than most core races but not so much one should call them over powered.
Ask your GM is you could find a compromise with them getting a trait less (or is you play without traits give everyone 1 trait).
Just use something akin to a spell component pouch.
As long as the archer has his arrow component pouch with him he is assumed to have enough arrows with him.
If something is good for the casters it should be good for the weaker martials, too.
What works well with the Viking is the thunder and fang feat.
Combine that with the trait that increases your shield bash damage by 1 and you should have a nice setup.
If done as a human you can have T&F up and running as fast as no other class. You are already somewhat MAD because of the TWF prerequisite of Dex.
+1 to both!
Crane style is good the way it is.
Druids are not the only class that can do weird stuff.
Any kind of necromancer could, for example kill a camel, use trade (taxidermist) or craft (stuffed animals) on it to keep it from rotting. After that he casts animate dead/create undead or whatever on it and you have a normal looking camel that is in fact undead.
Or a beastbonded witch could posses a camel after having her body killed.
Or a synth summoner could shape his eidolon as a camel.
Not all of those options could cast fireballs but they could result in other weird crap.
As much as German politicians fail in their job I have high hopes that, some day in the future, people here in Bavaria realize that they are better off without the rest of Germany and we become a free sovereign country.
One day the Free State of Bavaria will be free again.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Perhaps you could offer some more ideas on what you think your glory seekers does and looks like. For example, a fully armored fighter could be a glory seeker but so could a nimble, light weapon rogue. A famous bard could fit the description, but so could a wizard who studies to find ultimate arcane power. Where on the spectrum does your glory-seeker fall?
My idea was a melee guy with some tricks up his sleeve. Someone who can fulfill the knight in shining armor image, who wears comfort armor just because it doesn't get dirty.He should be someone who gets his hands "dirty" and looks good doing so.
And I see him more as the one others sing songs about, not the one who does so himself. We would not have someone accuse him of self-praise, would we?
Perhaps a high charisma armored hulk could fill the role. I have to think about that.
Justin Rocket wrote:
No, we suggest (or at least I do) to behave like grown ups and aim for every one to have fun when we juggle around gaming, family, work, household chores, sports acitvities, health issues and the like.
If a buddy can't show up because his wife and little daughter are ill or because he has to work late to save his business or the like I will not tell him that he will be a level lower from then on.
Back in school xp have never been a problem. But back then we didn't have other problems, too. Except learning and marks and evil teachers, that is. You know: real problems.
This is the reason why I prefer the scarred rager rage cycling over the immune to fatigue rage cycling.
This archetype halves fatigue duration from effects that have no save.
This makes him fatigued for 1 round if he rages 1 round. 1 round duration effects end just before the beginning of the next turn.
That means a scarred rager can rage during his turn, end rage at the end of his turn, is fatigued when it is not his turn and can rage again when his next turn starts because the fatigue ended just before his turn began.
With this kind of rage cycling you can roleplay it in the following way:
The drawback to this is that it only works with one archetype and that you do not benefit from your rage out of turn. This makes some rage powers unusable.
In most cases alignment based inner party problems arise when good aligned PCs freak out about different aligned PCs, not because evil guys do evil deads.
If the inquisitor now freaks out he is the one causing the problem, not the follower of rovagug.
Good, good. Next question: WHEN is it okay for the DM to limit race choices
I think he has the right when he disallows specific races for specific reasons instead of outright banning everything not core.
But sometimes you feel the flames for doing just this around here.
I, for my part, hate one specific race and do not want to play alongside it or, god forbis GM for one. So I disallow it. But the group composition in my recent game was: Aasimar, two tieflings, a catfolk, a suli and an ifrit. Why not? The one who employed them put them together into one freak team instead of having one on each of his teams.
But because I confessed to hate this one race I got flamed and insulted on these boards here. I got called a bad GM who doesn't want the players to have fun because I disallowed a race no one had any interest in playing.
People round here are strange and belligerent at times.
If you limit races that way why not classes?Even if you only include PC classes I am sure the distribution of PC classes in golarion is very different from the usual party composition.
And it's even worde in other games. For example shadowrun: There are about 2% magic users in the population. When applying this to players that would mean no one may play a Spellcaster ever because you never have enough mundane PCs in your game to even it out. You'd need a party size of 50 to allow one of them to be a mage. Is that really what we want?
To those saying that martials do ~90% of the out-of-combat stuff:
Just by using my cantrips I can contribute more than 10% out of combat. Without using up spells per day.
And even if we use a long work day my witch always has some utility spells prepared, using pearls of power to get additional uses of often needed combat spells. Comprehend languages and diagnose disease remain prepared most of the time, among others. After all, I can always use hexes to contribute after using some strong spells each combat.
To those saying that we always asume enemies to fail saves: There are enough spells that are save AND suck, working well no matter what the enemy rolls. I often use rimed frost falls to entangle foes. Same with rimed ice storm. Or vs some monsters with low touch AC ray of exhaustion. The foe is at least fatigued. At higher levels there are things like suffocation. In the least the enemy is staggered for three rounds.
+1 Most of the time that's what it does mean.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
I would not only pass up a chance to do a RPG session with Gygax, I would pass up a chance to play basketball with Air Jordan, a game of snooker with Ronnie O'Sullivan, a fishing trip with Jeremy Wade and lots of other chances.I'd pass up a chance to meet with any president/King/Queen in the world, too. I just don't care much about famous people.
That Gygax had a gaming style with which I don't agree doesn't help.
In Pathfinder games I've played, I have not experienced martials being "terrible," nor have I experienced casters being "overpowered."
I have seen and felt it so often I don't even bother to count it anymore. All those monsters with 20ft reach where the martial don't even get into melee range before the enemy is half dead. And all those incorporeal or high DR mobs often at low levels.
With martials I have had TONS of fights in which I had to watch the casters win the fight because I was useless.
Yesterday we fought some constructs. First I entangled them with a spell then I buffed the party.
If you like to be consistently useful and don't mind having few crowning moments of glory, play a martial.
If that was anywhere near possible I would not complain. But being consistently useful is what casters can, not martials. In my experience.
GM Arkwright wrote:
As augury is on the witch spell list, too would it not count as arcane?I understood it that SLAs only count as devine if they are on no arcane spell list.
Yes a hobby should be fun. Asgetrion states that he would let a player build a pc and then ruin his fun by constantly mocking and belittering him.So if someone is out to ruin others fun as a gm he is a bad gm in my book.
I don't think you can normally use leadership to improve an familiar. That's more if you wanted a cohort in addition to your familiar.
BTW: A familiar is not meant to be as strong in combat as an animal companion. It's something else altogether. The familiar can do other stuff.
But how about the rule:
Specific trumps general. There are other exceptions to that rule.As someone else pointed out a splash weapon is a weapon, too. And the alchemical breagon breath is fired from a weapon, too. But both would work. The rules for scatter weapons follow the same rule. Even if it is a weapon it dreates an effect that, according to the rules, works on swarms.
Normal weapons would not work even without the rule you quoted, because with each attack they damage a specific number of creatures.
Also +1 for using the ghost touch arrows as daggers.
I'm pretty sure my GM would not have allowed that. And on top for even trying I'd received a snarky remark about powergaming from one of the other players.As long as firing arrows breaks them and uses up their magic (stated somewhere about durable arrows) the same will happen when used in melee.
disclaimer: I know that arrows don't break 100% of the time when fired. And you should know what I meant. But to be on the save side...
I would say it can be cool with the right build. But as lots of archetypes its wording is unclear. And much of its usability depends on how you read it.
Divine Smith wrote:
Whenever a forgemaster casts a spell that targets a weapon, shield, or armor, the spell takes effect at +1 caster level. If the spell has one or more metamagic feats applied, she reduces the total level adjustment to the spell by 1 (minimum 0).
Does this work only on spells that have "weapon" or "shield" or "Armor" in its target line? Or does it work on spells that have "object" in its target line but are used to target one of the above?For example the grease spell targtes an object or square. Or the burning disarm spell targtes a held metal item. Both would be spells the ability should work with but RAW it's not clear if it does.
The Runeforger ability doesn't seem very strong as it is rather short lived per use and extending the duration by expending several uses is rather ressource heavy. Most runes are very situational but some can be very handy if the right situation comes up.
What would be nice to know is if things like siege weapons count as weapons for spells and abilities targeting them.
If I ever play a cleric in PF the forgemaster is one of the concepts I'll think about. At least as a 1 level dip (the divine smith ability makes CL 1 spell much better by doubling or with extend spell quadroupling the duration).
It depends on what your player wnats to do with those arrows.
There is a fire dealing arrow in the rules (slow burn arrow I think) that is very expencive but deals a significant amount of fire damage (1d6 if I remember right).
A normal arrow will not deal much fire damage. As starting point look at the rules for using torches as weapons. Those count as improvised weapons (-4 to hit) and deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage +1 point of fire damage.
So I would rule that a home made fire arrow (Arrow + piece of cloth + flamable oil) would count as improvised, deal damage as an arrow 1 size smaller (1d6 for a medium sized longbow arrow) +1 point fire damage.
There are some level 1 spell that can be useful when cast at CL 1.
You can see them hereA lot of alchemical substances can be used as power components to boost spells.
Some addon about damage cantrips:
There are several options to handle that as a gm.
Like if you had someone multiclassing monk with unarmed fighter to get improved unarmed strike twice?
I, as a GM, would decide once and use the same ruling for every pc. Because it is very unpleasant for a player if he gets the feelings that not all players are treated the same.
DM Jeff wrote:
That depends.If you are in a cave/tomb/dungeon I think it is better to have one type of monster as the "standard denizens" even if that means multiple similar encounters than having 10 different monsters living side by side.
Example, the tomb: Having 3 encounters with small groups of normal skeletons and one encounter with a mix of normal skeletons and fancier stuff (burning skeletons or beheaded or whatever) is better in my opinion than having: 1 skeleton fight, 1 zombi fight, 1 rat swarm, 1 slime and finally some ghouls. It might even better than just 1 small skeleton encounter and then nothing till the boss appears. But that depends on the gaming style.
I personally have always played a fighter. They do have many advantages over other classes. I have browsed through some of this thread and have yet to see anyone mention one of the finer points...they can use virtually any weapon they get their hands on w/o penalty!
Perhaps nobody did mention it because it is just plain wrong?At level 6 the fighter has weapon training and most fighters have weapon focus and weapon specialization, too. So while he can use many weapons (same as most martial PCs) he has the penalty of losing his weapon training, weapon focus and weapon specialization. Thats +2 to hit and +3 to damage which you lose. I'd call that a penalty.
Lets look at the paladin: They can use the same weapons and while they can take feats that only work with som weapons they will not lose any class abilities for chosing the "wrong" weapon.
You just made a point for the paladin being better than the fighter.
Someone asked why here on this board are no discussions about why you ban/allow something. I already said it before but I say it again, more detailed, perhaps.
Even if a gm has more reasons to ban the synth there is a high propability for him to be flamed for it by someone.
Face it, often the discussions around here are very rude/ lacking netiquette.
@AD: it's not only about wanting to be better at SOMETHING but about getting nice things. And having something that sets you apart.
The fighter gets a feat at every level. That's cool. But it is not "wow! I've been waiting for that for X levels." And if there is a feat like that everyone and their brother can take the exact same feat, too.
There are those "fighter only" feats which only fighters and several archetypes can take. And what do they do? Are they cool? No, they add a little more to your big numbers.
What the fighters really needs is something else that feats every few levels. Like delete every second fighter bonus feat (level 2, 8, 12)and give him something else instead. A list of special abilities similar to rogue talents or discoveries and the like that only the fighter can get and that is cool (it doesn't have to be OP but it needs to be something nice)
Ideas for Fighter Powers:
-Arcane tricks: gets a CL equal to half his fighter level that lets him qualify for crafting feats and arcane strike
-Shrug it off: As a free action the fighter gets fast healing 1 for one minute. He can use that for a number of times equal to half his fighter level. If he is brought below 0 hp while still having a use left it automaticaly activates.
-Kill what you fear: When you fail a will save against a fear effect you react as if you had been sucessfully targeted by antagonize instead, attacking the source of this fear effect for as long as it lasts.
- Weapon expert: You can use feats that require a special weapon size (light, onehanded or twohanded) wich weapons one size larger or smaller. This applies to shield of swings, weapon finesse and the like.
- Combat training: Take a fighter bonus feat instead
Those are just what came in mind and are not in any way tested for balance. Again: they are meant to help the fighter have something that makes him feel special.
What if we just eat cows & pigs (aka the ugly animals), but not horses & dogs (the cute & lovable animals)? Does that make it better now? It somehow seems to. Unless you live in an area where your main choice is dog.
Horse meat is rather tasty but expensive and hard to get where I live. The reason I have not and will not try dog is that I think they are ugly animals, eating feces and all. I've already eaten lots of different animals.
But the thought of eating a human? That freaks me out so much I don't even enter katholic churches anymore because of all this "christs blood and body consuming" stuff. Which for me is cannibalism.
As far as I know you don't even have to enter the square your opponent is in to bullrush him. Meaning the pc in this example didn't even have to go near the drop. So without knowing if there are special circumstances mentioned in this part of the AP for me it sounds as if this pc died due to ill-advised houseruling, not ill-advised tactical decisions by the player.
@ the spider encounter: When we met this spider we had some potions of lesser restoration with us to keep everyone up. After we killed the spider those who could used first aid on those who were still poisoned to help with the DC and a combination of potions and spells of lesser restoration did the rest. But it was close for some PCs.
If you give up your seat because your society expects you to do it it's not good but lawful.
Some people want spell casters to be mechanically superior to non casters
I guess most game designers fall into this group because I don't know many systems in which this is not the case.In nearly every system in which there is some kind of magic or psi chars who can use it are stronger than the mundanes.
I haven't played enough mers/rolemaster to judge but I don't know a single rpg system where mages are clearly weaker than mundanes.