Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Flumph

Umbranus's page

3,188 posts (3,376 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

"I'm going to get a bunch of people to not buy your product instead of talking it over thus causing you to greatly lose revenue and endanger your company."

That is what voting with your wallet does. Only large organizations can survive folks voting with their wallets.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What damage would a warpriest wielding a battle poi deal?
1)Would it increase the fire damage to the sacred weapon damage?
2)Would it deal sacred weapon damage in addition to fire damage?
The idea is to have a goblin warpriest with the burn burn burn feat to deal 1d4 fire damage from battle pois +1d4 fire damage from burn burn burn + whatever.

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?


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


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If we start this we could go back to leveling only in cities with trainers and when no trainer is to be found you can't level up. That's too much hassle for me and just burdens down the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

Wouldn't it make more thematic sense that spell caster would better know how to resist magic?

You can see it two ways:

A) The caster knows what he's doing so he knows how to resist it
B) The caster has to open himself up to magic and by that makes himself more vulnerable to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I think full casters should have 1 good save, partial casters two and non casters all good saves.


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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hell, you could have your ape companion put ranks is Craft:Knitting, and knit you a dang sweater.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
Or the rogue can use other things apart from pure damage to contribute in combat. Dazzling display for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:

Is someone expected to read 10 pages before being allowed to give their opinion? If they came in and said no class can mechanically do better than what the rogue can do! and then refused to read other posts, yes, that would be silly.

If people want to say the rogue doesn't suck with the inference being (for me and my games) and don't want to read 10 pages about DPR then what's wrong with that?

Edit: It really depends on the person's definition of "sucks". If its they have to be the best of the best of the best at one facet, then sure rogue sucks. That's not everyone's definition of what means a class sucks.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Philip Dhollander wrote:
I like rogues 'as is'.
Apparently you only like the rogue in your house-ruled enviroment.
Philip Dhollander wrote:


I haven't read the past 10 pages of comments, but I can't find the problem with rogues.

Sometimes reading other people's opinions helps with finding problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
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.)
With the swashbuckler archetype they get a martial weapon prof and can take combat trick two times.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

-Light weapons are finessable.
-Some abilities only work with certain weapons
-light weapons are easier to conceal
-light weapons are often cheaper to make of special materials
-If you use TWF and want to use the same weapon twice light weapons are better
-You might like the style better


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
I take ferocious beast or ferocious mount so that the mount can rage when I do. And we both get the bonuses of amplified rage.
Because of that I need at least that one teamwork feat. But to get the full benefit of the saddle I would aim to have more than one. Options would be: Escape route (Some will cry foul with this one), lookout, shake it off.
It seems there are three obvious ways to do this:

1) Mounted fury for full rage and a mount at level -4
2) Mad dog barbarian for full mount that can be any AC and rage at level -4
3) Cavalier 4/Barbarian 10 with horsemaster for full mount and rage at level -4. But he will have other nice things to offset the reduced rage.
With the cavalier there are two possible archetypes: Gendarme and emissiary. Both loose tactician but get another feat that I'd want to have instead: Mounted combat. And both get nice things at level 5 which might be reason enough to stay cavalier a level longer.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?
And would the helmet provoke separately or would it be me provoking?
It is an attended object, which would only be attackable with sunder but it would be the object making the ranged attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:
Not always evil, but never good.

I guess the LG god of executions, Dammerich, has a different opinion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We use:
C) You can use a Move action to concentrate on a single target to gain 3 rounds worth of Detect Evil information.
As in you can only use it that way, not like normal detect evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love that there is no monkey grip feat and that the iconic and her archetype work without using large two-handed weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rorek55 wrote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You have a cleric and a sorcerer in your party and the fighter gets all the attention? How's that? What exactly are the sorcerer and cleric doing? At 12th level full casters can already bend the universe to do their bidding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lovecheese45 wrote:
If you find something cheesy, throw some wine at it.

In my experience the w(h)ine comes from the cheesy player if the GM tells him no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if you could get a bonus vs swallow whole attempts by wearing sharkskin clothes. Like +1 or +2 to CMD vs swallow whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DWSage007 wrote:


The second would be Rime Spell. I'd normally shy away from such a thing, but if you get some kind of cold-damage (Might I recommend Frigid Touch?) then the battlefield control of no-save entangling becomes fairly nice. Even Ray of Frost can be handy, at low levels.

A rimed ray of frost entangles for 0 rounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Banner of the ancient kings Is nice for bards. More so combined with the flagbearer feat.

Mnemonic vestments can be useful for both of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Alls I'm sayin is, the feat ain't called Thunder and Thunder (or Really Really Big Thunder, fer that matter).

That's alls I'm sayin...

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.
Belier's bite: Works with unarmed strikes, not with natural weapons. Bite would be a natural weapon.
Broken wing gambit: You can use that feat even if you don't have wings.
Horsemaster: Works for halflings on wolves, too. Not just horses.

Should I go on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MiniGM wrote:

It is lame. If you want to use two large earth breakers be a Titan mauler/ranger or something like that.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


If I Rage, hit the bad guy and leave the Rage going since I didn't kill him, then someone else finished him off and ends combat before my next turn, does that count as 2 rounds of rage, since I can't turn it off until the start of my next action in the next round.

I'd always assumed that as long as I stopped raging at the start of my turn before taking any actions, that round didn't count. That makes Rage Cycling easier, but not treating it that way is painful at low levels.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to incorporate the abilities into the name you could call it divine wrath or rockbiter. But personally I prefer to wait how the weapon distinguishes itself in combat before naming it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drachasor wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
The Beard wrote:
People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.
You could say it is quite indicative of immaturity to play an evil pc with an evil plot in a party with a paladin.
So far there's no solid reason to think the OP's character is evil. Seems neutral at the moment.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:
People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.

You could say it is quite indicative of immaturity to play an evil pc with an evil plot in a party with a paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
You could:

- 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.

Similar Situation:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
The reason for that is (or was) that others who knew of a reason against this marriage had the time to make those reasons known.

Banns of marriage


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:


The goal here is to find out, using actual evidence instead of just "trust me" comments, if there has actually been a disproportionate amount of adjusting, in favor of casters.
Because, unfortunately, the reality is what you see happening in the Crane Wing thread - lots of people with a, "this is the straw that broke the camels back" attitude when it comes to design direction.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Snark:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A classic barbarian is always good and doesn't need the fancy stuff.
So I'd go half-orc barbarian with power-attack as his first level feat.
Start with a geataxe (it's cheap) but try to get a falchion or greatsword as soon as possible. Wear a scale mail and you are almost ready.

Stats:

Str:18
Dex:13
Con:14
Int:12
Wis:10
Cha:10

Or, if you want to dump cha.

Str:18
Dex:12
Con:16
Int:12
Wis:10
Cha:7

If you are playing with them, add traits to taste.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me it seems "rather" clear:
When you get ranged spellstrike you can make a ranged weapon attack instead of a ranged touch attack from the spell (similar to spellstrike but at range).
From Level 11 on you can make multiple ranged weapon attacks to deliver multiple rays from the spell.
Example: You cast a scorching ray. At Level 11 it has 3 rays thus you can shoot three arrows, one for each ray. And each arrow that hits deals normal damage + scorching ray damage.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
OgreBattle wrote:


It's interesting to see that the Pathfinder DESIGNERS, RPG superstar top contestants, and highly experienced society GM's all come into agreement about Crane Wing, yet people without this intimate familiarity with Pathfinder design are the ones who disagree with the errata.

Perhaps that's because those same people keep on saying that rogues are as strong as wizards. Which tends to undermine their credibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cairen Weiss wrote:

The Purple Worm is also, apparently, utterly stupid to keep attacking something that isn't attacking him back while others are doing more damage.

That's one of the problems people have with this feat. In order to Riposte, it requires for the enemy to be stupid and attack a non-attacking foe, instead of someone who is attacking.

If you enter Total Defense, you are removing yourself as a threat for that round of Combat.

This.

The feats was ok in its old version because most of the time it was just a reason to attack someone else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Much of what we do is to maintain the ongoing game, while still providing new and interesting options for your table.
[...]

So, I am sorry that you feel we are taking the game in the wrong direction. We are just trying to take care of the problems as we see them and as time allows. We are not always going to get it right, but we are trying.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Now, thanks to this errata, for the first since I started playing Pathfinder, I'm sad to say I considered the idea of stop playing the game.
I think this is a point that people can misinterpret. It's not that people just LOVED and NEEDED crane wing to make the game fun, it's that changes like this show the Paizo dev team is taking the concept of martial in the opposite direction that people actually want.

Well said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Your comment just highlights how silly it is to be nerfing martials

It seems to me that it is PLAYING martials that is silly nowadays.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quoted from another thread:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


No specifically, but mirror image is a known quantity for us. It is range personal, easily foiled by some relatively common spells, brought down on a miss, and generally limited to a pair of character classes that are not exactly known for rushing into combat.

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps we should start voting with our wallets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Somehow the quality of paizos books seems to be much higher than the quality of their FAQs/Erratas. That's sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OgreBattle wrote:
Umbranus wrote:


But when I build a dwarf/duerga with a class that doesn't need cha I sometimes think: So I could play this guy with a cha of 6 or I could go all the way and give him cha 3. Doesn't matter much anyways.

That's when your DM declares your foe is actually a psychic and he Ego Whips your dwarf to 0 CHA, lol.

That's the only thing I can remember that does CHA damage though.

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.

1 to 50 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.