|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
Let one player roll stats and have everyone use those stats. By that you get non-optimised stats while still having the same kind of fairness as point buy.
Or have every player roll a set and everyone gets to choose which set to use.
But I have to say that the PCs I build tend to have rather different stats. So I am a little surprised that your players had such similar stats over several games.
A) It's action economy sucks.: Depends on the kind of healing used. There is healing that has a good action economy. For example shared judgement with the healing judgement. Same with quick channel.
B) Healing does not scale effectively with damage.:It doesn't have to. That's the same as saying DR doesn't scale with damage so it is bad. Giving someone fast healing 5 may be similar to DR3/- in a lot of fights. And that is something few people would decline.
C) It generally doesn't solve any problems.:It may solve problems caused by dead PCs. Like wealth loss.
D) Healing also typically requires you to hump the leg of the person you're trying to heal.:This, again, depends on the healing used. Channel, reach spells or the combination of shield other with self healing doesn't require this.
[I]E) Healing is reactionary./I] Most forms are, right. The life oracle has an ability to convert over-heal to temp hp. Apart from that every pc should have more than one thing he can do. If no one is dealt damage, don't heal. Buff, debuff, deal damage.
2+3 do not work. It is extradimensional space so no connection to other real world places. You can even use it on a ship without any problem.
- Hide from flying enemies making fly-by attacks
Not all of the above will kill the trapped enemy but sometimes taunting them is just worth it.
Or just to take part of your enemies out of the fight for some time while you kill the ones not trapped in the pit. When they climb out or the spell ends kill them too. Simple divide and conquer.
Edit: Ninjad about the extradimensional space stuff
I do not know if that works in PFS (don't know what's legal and it ignores one sentence of the fluff)
Buy a combat scabbard (not a sharpened one). That way, at the start of combat you can attack mooks with your sheathed sword and still use Iaijutsu Strike on the main foe once you reach him.
Fluff to be ignored:.
Sword saints hail from lands where samurai are prevalent, and are often ronin who wander the world seeking new challenges to perfect their intricate style of swordplay called iaijutsu. The following benefits apply only when a sword saint is using a sword and carrying nothing in his other hand.
It looks like a rule but is written in italic that normally indicates fluff. But that only applies to the second part. Attacking with the sheathed sword until you want to do the Iaijutsu Strike should definitely work.
I'm more than a little put off by the Bloodrager getting his own spell list. I have a lot of third party material that has spells for existing spell lists making applying them to Bloodrager trickier. My only hope is that it has all the magus spells with additions so that I easily house rule that all 1-4 level third party magus spells are also Bloodrager spells.
I don't care about 3pp stuff. I was just put off by how bad the bloodrager list was when compared to the magus list. Every single spell I used during the first playtest was gone.I hope they fixed the list a little.
I tend to see it as a problem to look at a fantasy setting that is not a modern scientific world with our contemporary morality.
So in terms of morality I give PCs (those I gm for and those I play) more leeway than our modern world-view would allow.
Orc barbarian 5 with the mighty template.
Give him a flaming weapon and you are good to go.
The result is a straight in the face build with a lot of HP, some DR and good passive self heal.
[spoiler=math for self heal]
Perhaps not the mightiest pc you can build with those rules but a simple one.
That's where it was at the second playtest. It was better than the rogue, did not quite match the ranger and provided a far better platform to build most Rogue or Fighter based concepts than those classes.
Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Sue you could say it is the GMs fault. It sure as hell is (at least partly the APs fault) but if you don't know the AP you are going to play or the GM that is mastering it, this is a strong incentive to build a self reliant PC that can deal with a maximum of situations. Both of which are things the rogue, fighter and monk are ill equipped for. Especially at low levels.
14 sided die wrote:
Being in a RP heavy group, yes. No class fills the story of a character who grew up on the streets quite like the rogue, all the classes have a number of stories they tell best
Does it? Every character who grew up on the streets is half an assassin who knows how to backstab? I REALLY think the urban ranger fits it much better. Just because the name, rogue, hints at this doesn't mean the mechanics back that up.
Looking at it this way the archaeologist bard fits as well as the rogue. Luck helps a lot on the streets and the spells are no more odd than sneak attack.
You can also use XP to reward creativity and cool ideas. For example, if a player decides to try to look around a corner using a mirror, you might award them with a little XP. If the player does something in-character that seems awesome but doing so denies the player a more tangible reward, tossing them some extra XP can be nice
I do not like extra xp given because most often that rewards the loudest players, not the most creative ones.Those who grab the spotilght more often will have more opportunities to shine and get bonus xp. That makes them level faster, enabling them to shine even brighter.
If you then only need one stat to get good attack (ranged and melee), good damage, good AC (touch AC), good ref saves and all those dex skills it is not a large investment.
The only way I could see myself to accept such a feat would be if there is one that gives strength to AC to balance it out.
Even if this is meta gaming what I'd do is: Have the players decide who of them is the "treasurer". After the fight the treasurer gets told what loot can be found and has to manage the distribution. If something does not get distributed he keeps record of it as group treasure.
The "I steal from the party because RP reasons" is among the worst kind of behaviour that can be found unless the party explicitly agrees on PVP beforehand. With PVP allowed I can at least punish the pc who steals from mine should my pc find out.
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
The Ninja in my Runelords game wanted a Katana over a Wakizashi to finesse for flavor reasons. The extra 1 or 2 damage didn't break the game.
if it was for flavor reasons, why not use the wakizashi and call it katana?best ceese test there is. Some one wants flavor with mechanical benefits, give him the flavor without the benefits and see what happens. Often the flavor is suddenly forgotten.
Everything they did was well within the law, at no point did they pretend to be something they were not. They used no weapons to hold him or otherwise even bend the law. Don't know if that could have happened that way somewhere else.
This.I recently played a level 1 wizard at 25 PB and already at this level I dominated the game. And the best part: He was build for flavour. Sure, this early it wasn't by using spells but by using his school ability and the advantages of high point buy.
If anyone is interested some things on his build:
What was he like: He looked and behaved like a peasant wandering about with his little pig friend and his Flail at his side.
Combat: The acid cloud school power is rather strong at low levels. Coupled with some spells and the ability to hit hard in melee (good strength and +1hit and dmg to opponents standing on the ground) he had an answer to everything the GM threw at us.
IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".
I can't agree to that because the rules tell us what abilities a pc has, not what all the abilities are that you do not have. If what you say was true fighters could cast spells because, apparently you can everything that the rules don't disallow.So in reality the rules ARE telling you what you CAN do. Except for some basics like breathing, eating, loving and so on that normally every (demi-)human being is considered capable of. Anything further than those kind of basics you only can do what the rules tell you.
They could. IF they wanted it to not apply to bullets and other small ranged weapons that are piercing and something else.
On the other hand, if they wanted it to apply vs bullets, how should they have worded it better without increasing the word count by much?
The fact that there would have been a better way to write it for case A but not for case B could mean that case B is the one they wanted.
How would you go about building a strength based staff wielder?
Instead of taking quarterstaff master as a feat I could see me dipping Staff-Magus for it. That costs some hp (2 if 1st level, 1 later on)and a point of BAB but gives me some versatility by having spellcasting.
Additional feats: Power attack, weapon focus (quarterstaff), weapon specialization (quarterstaff).
An alternative way would be to go monk. It IS a monk weapon after all. TWF is not needed because of flurry, but this build seems much more MAD.
This is a hypothetical build because, most of the time, the quarterstaff is seen as a weak weapon choice. I, sadly, have no game to play it in at the moment.
How would you do this?
The thread has already been derailed long enough. So I'll only add an answer to TheNine with a single example:
Not a movie:
I'm not speaking about movies. Except if you want to call the footage recorded by a helicopter gun cam shooting down civilians as movie. Or the second strafing run in which they shot down those trying to pick up the wounded and dead with a van? A van in which there were children.
Or the testimony that the soldier who, later, declined to bring the rescued children to a medical hospital. His reasoning: They were civilians and only because they had been hurt by military personnel didn't lead to them deserving treatment in a military hospital.
Edit: It was military command who had the children sent to the public hospital.
The original footage, uncut, unchanged, was open for everyone to see on wikileaks.
Very similar things happened in nearly every war the US military was involved in, over the last years. So your point is?
Playing persons that are different from yourself is what roleplaying is about. If someone only (or mostly) plays sociopaths, that's when you should start to worry. But if it's only once its called roleplaying.
I have more of a problem with CN characters. As almost all CN pcs I have seen played were CN because evil was not allowed.
A chaotic person could well see the need for rules for the greater good. Just that you do not like something doesn't mean you can't do it or further it.
I don't like eating healthy stuff. But if I had children I could well do it despite disliking it because it is better for my children.
Not exactly. I would not side with them because a) I don't trust monsters and b) because siding with evil is the path to evil.And that has nothing to do with playing a paladin or not. It is how I as a player like to see my game world.
Paladins just support that view.
There have been a multitude of threads on this or similar topics with arguments in both directions. But sadly, despite many FAQ requests, no official answer.
A big problem is the need for a generally humanoid form to be able to use weapons vs the earth elemental's description of being roughly humanoid. Is roughly humanoid enough to apply the generally humanoid clause? RAW is silent on this.
Ask your GM about it. As is the stone servant is much too weak to be of real use. It starts out with something around 13hp if I remember right. Not nearly enough to survive any combat at 5th (let alone 7th) level.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I tell him to feel free to make his own moves to stop the ultimate evil but to not cross my path doing so, or else...
Matthew Downie wrote:
I thought that way for some time. Then I noticed that the same seems true about the ranger and the barbarian. At that point the realization of the reality dawned on my: The fighter IS inferior.
The problem with paladins is the same as with all parties, just more obvious: You have to clearly agree on what kind of game you want to play, as a gaming group and stick to it.
One of our games was a good example: I played an undead hunting/hating dirge bard with pharasma as his deity. After some time another player rerolled and came up with an undead(sanguine) bloodline sorcerer. For me that killed my pc but the other player insisted on playing that pc. Now I felt forced to reroll, too. After talking about it and being told several times that the new pc will be no "real" necromancer despite specializing in necromancy spells I decided to play a stonelord paladin.
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.
You could take the coherent rage trait and choose handle animal. Problem fixed.
Your determination allows you to hold onto a shred of your rational mind at all times.
Benefit: Select one of the following skills: Bluff, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, or Stealth.
You may use this skill normally while raging.