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

VM mercenario's page

1,236 posts (1,243 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you've read the Dresden Files series, the Knights of the Cross are perfect representations of paladins. Michael specially is what every roleplayer should aspire when playing a paladin.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
666bender wrote:

last night our barbarian died.

he has saves in the statospher, and DR but the huge gian with improve vital strike made some holes in him.
sadly for the barby, he got hit on a vicious critical - and fell to begetive hit points.
the healer healed but the save was 50% worth amount of heal.
than he droppoed and as the rage ended.... he auto died.
is he normally great? yes. does he have weak spot? ofc, especially when we buff.

Any crit that can do that to a raging barbarian would have done worse to a fighter. Remember that the barbarian has more HP than the fighter, something between 4 (1st level) to at least 120 (at 20 th level). A fighter in the same position would've died before the healer could even launch his spell.

The barbarians weakness is that he lasts a round more than the fighter would before dying. I'm okay with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They always said I had an explosive temperament. Toss a bomb
Undead? Well if you can't helium, can't curium, might as well barium
He will try to frighten us, but we must do like noble gases and not react.
If anyone asks "Are you sure" Like a proton, I'm positive.
You think this is hard? To me it's pretty basic.
Acid what you did there.
Don't worry, I can always find a solution.
An alchemist never dies, he justs stops reacting.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Telessar Talimah wrote:

Lazar we did the same BI with 2the rogues at level 15-16. We handed the group of high level demons their heads through teamwork. The main damagers were in order (zen archer, ninja, magus, Scout) the bottom damagers were summoner barbarian and paladin.

The magus was a shadowdancer as was the scout. 2.25 rogues

Cheers

Paladin. Bottom damage dealer. Against demons.

Flagged for trolling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
1) Half his feats are COMBAT ONLY feats. I mean, that SCREAMS "OPTIMIZE ME FOR COMBAT!" Additionally, the fighter's biggest advantage is the ability to get certain feats faster than other classes because he can move through the feat chain faster (due to his obnoxious number of feats). The thing is, if the fighter keeps stopping along the way to take Skill Focus (Basketweaving) or whatever (assuming he is not actully taking SF to get Eldritch Heritage (Abyssal) to get the mad Str Buff.) then he is actually going to be no better than the ranger when it comes to feats. This will make the fighter player quite sad when his guy is barely better (if not worse) than the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian AT THE ONE DAMN THING HE IS SUPPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT.

Uh, Fighters aren't meant to beat Barbarians, Paladins, or Rangers when they are benefiting from their spike damage. Fighters are meant to be the martial that is always good in a fight. Put the Paladin up against a non-smite target, and his biggest damage spike will be taken away (though he's still good). Put a Ranger up against a non-favored enemy and he has the same issue as the Paladin. Barbarians eventually do run out of rage, or may be fatigued.

Fighters, conversely, still get their feats and weapon training against any enemy, all day long. The fighter's only limited use ability is his HP and that's what healers are for.

Granted, yes, Barbarians effectively have limitless Rage because most parties stop pushing forward long before the Barbarian runs out (at least at middle levels and later). Paladins are also arguably the best tanks in the game. But none of that means the Fighter isn't a good fighter. He's not supposed to be the best, he's supposed to be consistent.

If a Fighter gets hit with a Ray of Exhaustion, or Waves of Fatigue, or didn't get enough sleep and is fatigued/exhausted; he fights on.
If the Fighter is up against elementals or hordes of evil enemies, each a valid target for smite; he fights on.
If the Fighter is up...

Except being 'consistent' and 'able to go all day long' is worth crap in a team game. After the casters have spent their spells and the barbarian and bard spend their rounds, and the monk spent their ki, and the pally is out of lay on hands/smites, the fighter and the rogue have three options:

1- Keep going alone and die against any level appropriate encounter.
2- Drag the party with them so they can all die while the fighter uses the enemy distraction to kill the enemies and feel good about his bad carrer choice at the cost of everybody else.
3- Rest with the team.
Well there is a fourth... Go alone and face ridiculously weak opponents and be coddled by the DM so the player can feel special.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheSideKick wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

Not really. A Fighter can hit stuff better more consistently. Other classes can still hit stuff, and often better.

If you take archetypes out of the equation there isn't anything a Fighter can do that another class can't.

one dimensional thinking...

Caedwyr wrote:

What actual goals/effects can the fighter produce/do that other classes can't?

many many things. more then just "i hit harder", things like... wait ive had this same debate 5 times now...

i dont care anymore, i feel like im in a monk thread all over again!! same points over and over, no one willing to see that they are being to harsh and that the fighter has value outside of "i hit things hard.

And it's been five times you failed to show what else the fighter can do. Six now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OgreBattle wrote:
Simple question, what do you see as the Fighter's niche that the Ranger is unable to imitate?

Being super extra boring, having no base flavor, no out of combat utility, not having any important, exciting or really useful class features, being incapable of solving problems without resorting to violence, having to spend all their money and regular feats to ape what other classes get for free.

Am I missing any thing?
Ah yes, doing a little more DPR than an unbuffed, no favored enemy ranger, but not so much more as to really matter.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Before pondering the existence of god, you should ponder the existence of paragraphs and proper capitalization of letters. I can't read what you're trying to say. It's making my eyes bleed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pomkin wrote:

Yikes, this thread got really out of hand, I was just looking for mechanical ways to have the monk and fighter do stuff out of combat. I ended up killing them off and now they're playing a ranger and barbarian respectively, they are having much more fun now.

As a side note, my group never gets into issues with roll play vs role play, they usually role play their stats, but if they say something clever or something similar I'll give them a relevant bonus.

Let's see...

Anzyr wrote:

Hey now! My advice was pretty good. Fighters and Monks are ill-suited to out of combat (Fighters doubly so) and they should probably pick different classes if they want to be less useless out of combat.

Simple. Accurate. Problem-solving.

Apparently, Anzyr won the thread. Right there. [/thread]


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

The designers hate TWF users (or, generalized to martials).

I certainly hope that anyone with the ability to think can easily see why this is an utterly ridiculous claim. This first requires some ulterior motive on the part of the designers, which is just laughable. "I hate TWF so much I'm going to add it to the game, and just SCREW THEM OVER! YEA! THAT'LL TEACH THEM! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

...Hi, you must be new to these forums and/or the PF system! Here's a secret: Monks suck, Rogues are near useless, Fighters can't have nice things. Every time a good change happens to one of these classes it gets nerfhammered so hard it breaks the feat standing next to it.

Cheapy wrote:
At one point a few hundred posts back, they said they weren't comparing to fighter or rogue.

And that is a good thing. You should balance against the barbarian and the paladin, against the bard, the inquisitor and the alchemist. You want to compare to the well designed classes, not with the bottom of the pile.

If Rogue is your measure stick you end up with the same problem the Investigator got in the playtest, and go from 'good class' to 'will never be able to meaningfully contribute in combat'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

And what's the penalty for acting against your alignment? Most people would argue that you shouldn't suffer an alignment change for just a few, or only one, opposing act. But, wouldn't it be the most alarmingly chaotic thing a lawful person could do, to take a single act completely opposed to your entire world view? If you engaged in random, bizarre behavior frequently, it would simply be how you defined your code, your sense of order. Borderline lawful. But, just once...

And how lawful... or how frequently lawful does a chaotic character have to be before he faces the potential of an alignment shift? Can he ever? Isn't he always doing as he pleases... the essence of Chaos? If he can't shift, what is the point of the opposing alignments? Are you only lawful until you "fall"?

Chaos isn't randomness or bizarre behavior, and perfect unvarying order is pathological (see OCPD, not to be confused with OCD).

A character ceases to be lawful when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with flexibility (change) as order. He ceases to be chaotic when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with order (structure) as with flexibility. For example, I am a lawful person but have become less lawful over time due to association with chaotic people (who I cannot force to follow my rigid plans) and consciously training myself to improvise more. Increased lawfulness is a common byproduct of age - people sometimes become set in their ways or slip into familiar routines as they grow older.

Bhaene wrote:
Chaotic people (as others have posted) see these rules as guidelines. Thus chaos can have codes of honor, laws, traditions, etc...

This, to me, reads like Chaos = (Lawful + Options).

For example: Kaoss crosses the street everyday when he leaves his house. He uses the crosswalk every time. He never doesn't use the crosswalk. But, as long as he puts his fingers in his ears and shouts, "I'm only doing this because...

The problem you seem to have is that you think alignment is based on actions. It's not, it's about motives. It's not what you do, but why you do it.

Evil can do good actions if they want, usually as cover so people don't get suspicious, or to cut down an evil rival.
Good can do some evil stuff like killing enemies usually when they hae no other options or the options have much worse consequnces. (paladins are another matter, but theyre supposed to be extreme in their alingnment)
Lawful can break laws that go against their personal code.
Chaotic can follow laws, when they make sense to him or when he elieves he will be punished for breaking them.

Chaotic societies usually have laws like:
The Right of Hospitality: As long as your host is good toyou you have to be a good guest to him. And vice versa. If the other wrongs you, you have the right to call everybody to kick his ass. Cause if we let him be a bad guest to you then he will come o my house and I don't want that.
Weregild: You kill someone, you have to pay the family a sack of money in compensation, if you don't they can come and kill you to settle the score. If you kill hem you're badass and nobody will care enough to keep it going. If both families start a blood feud, noone cares as long as it doesn't spill. If it pills on non-family, the rest ofthe community gathers togheter and kicks both families in the ass.
Stealing: If you're caught stealing you give it back plus some compensation, we willl work the mount at the time. If the guy you stole from wants he can try to kill you. If you kill him, youkeep his stuf, if he kills you, you're dead.

All examples from actual societies. See? General guidelines, instead of rigid systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
Honestly, against the Judeo-Christian God, saying one has unlimited power and actually having it are two very different things. All we see are a few miracles that 20th level Wizard could duplicate (there's even a thread on this).

Well, that's sort of moving the goalposts. What you're saying amounts to "if this deity isn't as strong as he's described as being by those who believe in him, then..." The miracles that are described are pretty clearly not meant to imply any limits in power.

Pathfinder developers' resistance to giving stat blocks to the deities is tantamount to their saying this: no matter how strong your wizard becomes, the only way to win is with the power of plot. What that means, to me, is that there is no way for a wizard of any level to beat Iomedae in a fair fight, no matter what your caster's phenomenal cosmic powers. I get that this might seem unfair, but them's the breaks as I see it.

You're the one moving the golaposts, dude. He explicitly said old school deities referring to the mithological deities, i.e. Zeus, Loki, Shiva, etc. You're the one ho brought Iomedae in to change the goalposts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins of other alignments. Evil Paladins. Chaotic Paladins.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.

So... yeah. "A few".

There was an unofficial poll set up in one of the crane wing threads, 237 people have replied at the moment:

A: 52% thinks pre-nerf Crane Wing was well balanced and did not need a change.
B: 30% thinks Change was needed, but (Crane Wing) is now too weak and needs revision.
C: 17% thinks Change was needed, (Crane Wing) is now balanced and acceptable.

I'd say that when 82% of the respondents, almost 200 unique users, feel that the nerf went too far, it's disingenuous to refer to them as "a few posters".

"A few people" were the words used, actually.

200 unique users, out of hundreds of thousands of players.

Why do you erroneously presume that forum posters are 'worth more' as Pathfinder players?

(There may indeed be more people who "don't agree with the decision", but they're uncountable and untrackable. With the data we have available so far of those who didn't agree - it's miniscule number... hence "a few people". We might be able to go one step further than where we are, though - does anyone know the number of unique forum accounts on Paizo? The % could then be 200 out of that number. I'm going to guess it's still very tiny.)

And why do YOU presume the silent masses are okay with the nerf? They might agree with 'nerf was needed but not that much' or 'it was balanced'. I find it supremely arrogant of any side to just assume that the silent majority is on their side. What, you have some special superpower to know that without need of them saying anything? Are you Professor X?

A small minority, very few people, liked the nerf. The large majority of people willing to share their thoughts on the subject agree, it was way too much of an overnerf.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Broken Zenith wrote:
Is each level of sneak attack worth an extra feat?:

No. As Unearthed Arcana shows, 9d6 sneak attack is worth only three feats. Furthermore, your math is wrong in two ways. Your "Smack Attack" does an average of 1.75 damage where Weapon Specialization does +2 damage all the time. weapon Specialization is straight up better. When you say: "Smack Attack deals an average of .75 more damage than Weapon Specialization." you mean .25 less. Also even if it were a straight equivalent to one feat, The fighter gains 11 bonus feats to the rogues 10 dice of sneak attack. Fighter wins, by eight feats.

Broken Zenith wrote:
Is a point of BAB and 4 health worth 24 skill points?:

Disingeuous question. A more fair question would be: Are 5BAB and 20 HP worth 120 skill points? And you are forgetting to add a couple of things to either side, the rogues better skill list on one side, and the extra iterative attack gained by BAB and the fighter being able to get several good feats earlier than the rogue, those with BAB prerequisites. The answer? The BAB and its attendand extra attack are worth more than the 120 skill points. Take all of the skills usable in combat, and none of them is worth 5 BAB, much less an extra attack. The extra HP and and the early feats are just icing on the cake.

Broken Zenith wrote:
Are the Rogue's miscellaneous features equal to the Fighter's miscellaneous features?:

Your tie is broken by the features you forgot to mention: Master Strike (only works once a day against a single target, has acrappy DC and goes against Fort which is th best save of anyone on melee against the rogue) versus Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery (DR 5/- and autto confirm criticals and higher damage multiplier and immune to disarm) The tie breaks heavily on the fighter side.

The fighter not only wins, he trounces the rogue like a noob and then teabags the corpse. All you've managed to prove is that the rogue deserves a tier 5 to be created just for him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cure Light Wounds. With instant and repeatable cure miracles I would become a saint. Get the church to give me a confortable life style and just heal people like six hours a day. Make some trips around the world, meet world leaders, shame them into doing whatever I guess is the right thing to do. Doesn't cure diseases, sadly, but at will 1d8+1 is enough to full heal any injury.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a couple of ideas for feats:
Something like Bodybound Mind, for Ki and for Grit/Panache. Extra Ki points for the first and increased maximun Grit pool for the other.
A feat that allows you to tie essence to a maneuver or maybe a style, to increase damage rolls of maneuvers in that style. Make some synergy between this project and Path of War.
Daevic Flurry: invest essence to increase damage when two weapon fighting, using Flurry of blows or Whirlwind Attack and a bonus on something else.
Essence of Speed: gain +5 feet of speed per invested point and bonus damage on Spring Attack, Vital Strike and ... is there another move and single attack ability besides Charge?
Imbued Reflexes: Add to the number of AoOs you can make and to your damage or attack with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was a murderhobo once but then I took an arrow to the knee.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snow_Tiger wrote:

Don't think of it like having to make speeches

Instead:
-develop a personality (add something to am barbarian hulk smash)
-take actions based on personality (this doesn't not have to be in combat or making dierolls , but it can be)
-have ur character be better friends w/ on character in the party, but not another maybe if fits personality
-make friends w/ npcs
-maybe barbarian wants to go hunting for deer just because, takes some npcs with him go hunting. Nothing mechanical, maybe u make "friends" with some npcs or something

It's more like investing your character in the story, rather than just rolling dice. Again, get over the "I have to make a speech" conundrum

And this here? Telling someone else how they should roleplay their own characters is just as bad as the guy that tells people to always use the same build because it has the best DPR or that you should change your build so it's more min-maxed.

Thespians can suck the fun out of a game just as much as munchkins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, down with the thespian tyranny!
I think being a thespian is just as bad as being a munchkin.
1 - It's time consuming. A thespian will usually want to do long speeches, talk with every NPC, describe every action. Dude, we only have a day a week, less than six hours to play, I don't want to spend half of it hearing you talk about the shopkeepers grandkids. At least talk with NPCs in a way that will further the plot instead of derailing it. You don't have to describe every swing of your sword and every spell, save it for when you crit or do something really cool. It's not my fault if I zone out when this guy keeps taking ten minutes every turn.
2 - It's egotistical. One thing you will notice in a thespian is that their concept is the only one in the group that matters and everyone else shoul sacrifice theirs to cater to him. They're the guy who thinks playing a suboptimal rogue or monk build helps roleplaying, but doesn't allow the other players to act in character and dump his ass in the nearest town to hire someone actually qualified to be an adventrer, just because they have PC stamped on their forehead. They're the ones that want to play a paladin in a party full of evil characters or an evil necromancer in a good aligned party that already has a paladin, and then blame the rest of the group for acting in character and turning against his caracter. They're the guy who chooses to play a jerk character that steals from the party and antagonizes friendly NPCs and then claims "I'm just playing in character" but doesn't accept that the other characters would not want to hang out with him much less get into danger to save him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Sarcasmancer wrote:

FUN FACT: Derogatory sneering at people who enjoy a combat-oriented game "roll-play" game as opposed to a "deeper", more "mature" "role-play" game dates back to at least 1980, at least according to Wikipedia.

Nothing wrong with a combat oriented “roll-play” game. They are quite fun, even if I prefer more role-playing. What I object to is games where the PC’s run around killing everything they see, including peasants, ect, acting out weird rape fantasies, looting everything and everyone, burning villages and what not. I made it clear the a dungeon crawl game is not what is normally defined as “murderhobo”=""Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain". "Hack & Slash" is NOT "murderhobo".

So yeah, killing evil nasty orcs and looting their bodies? Part of the game. Killing innocent peasants and looting their bodies? Childish and immature.

As a self confessed murderhobo, let me tell you, your definition is wrong. Murderhoboing is going around city to city, dungeon to dungeon, murdering monsters and taking loot. Nothing more, nothing less. The barbarian does it to test himself against monster, the paladin because his god tld him to, the wizard in the advance of magic, the rogue n search of riches, the bard to become famous. Sometimes you're in a quest to save the world, sometimes you do it because killing monsters is fun.

What you describe is a roleplayers first attempt at being an evil party, before someone keys them in on the fact that you can do evil masterminds or sympathetic villains.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I have a question; If the new classes invalidate some classes that are often considered weak or inflexible is that a bad thing?

There are already like five classes/archetypes that invalidate the rogue, two more are just nails on the coffin. And the monk never got validated on the first place, so it can't even be invalidated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arishat wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
I often have players wanting to play something that'd traditionally be an NPC role, like the merchant who needs escorting or the aging wizard who shuffles along and is likely to die if someone sneezes on them.
The aging wizard is one thing; that's a perfectly pratical character type that won't be any problem. The merchant who needs escorting; that's very different question, and it's very easy for it to be a problem. When you have a character who isn't an "adventurer" along, but they're travelling because they want/need to do X, what happens when another character wants to do Y? Does the person who isn't an adventurer turn into one long enough for that to be done? Do they go off to do their own thing for a while, which is pretty awkward for a GM to handle? Or is it a matter of other PCs not having any real say in what the group does, because this one PC is only along for a particular sort of event and anything not related to that means they aren't able to participate properly?

In a game like that, in my experience, the players knowing beforehand allows them to reach an agreement. The merchant player optimizes for party face, allowing the rest of the group to more freely optimize for combat. Any attempt of the DM to punish me for my 7 cha and 7 int was directed back to the merchant. "Why you talking to me, man? I be the bodyguard, you be wanting tha talk with de bossman." Also, merchants can be very inspiring "come on guys kill them quick and you get bonus pay" (bard using oratory for his performances), alternatively the merchant may know a thing or three about locks and traps, either because of a shady past, or because he needs to use them on his own shop (rogue built for trapfinding and skill monkeying).

A bulid optimized for skills is still an optimized build.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Well, nobody ever put me in a focus group. I guess I am not fundamentalist enough, stupid enough or prudish enough to fit their bill.

FIFY :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also I've found the feat tree is good as is. If you want a maneuvering palading you take the archetype. These feats aren't something you make a build around, they're more like for when you have a build with an open feat at third level or when you finish your build and don't really have any feats you need. Instead of getting Weapon Focus or Cleave or someting just to fill the blank, getting Martial Training, even if only the first one, adds a whole bunch of options. One of the best things for a feat to IMO.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

.

Most of them can keep a steady schedule and produce a good book every year or two.

Not 6 years for a book that was mostly just filler.

Most of them really can't.

Bull.

J K Rowling wrote seven books in ten years. One book a year except for a three year hiatus.
Brandon Sanderson did his initial Mistborn trilogy in three years.
Jim Butcher, one of my favorite authors, writes at least one book a year for Dresden Files and had enough time to write the Codex Alera, also with one book a year, That is two books a year for six years and he aims to do it again when he starts his steampunk series.
Robert A Heinlein, one of the grandfathers of science fiction, wpublished, according to Wikipedia, 20 novels between 1947 and 1973. 20 novels in 26 years. And 5 more between 1980 and 1987.
Terry Pratchet, since he started Discworld in 1983, has written 40 Discworld books, two trilogies, 4 stand alone novels and more background material for Discworld than I care to count. He was diagnozed with Alzheimers in 2007 and he still publishes more material every year than GRRM bothers to write.

I could bring in more examples if you want.
Most of the great writers nowadays that don't launch a book every other year are the ones that are also writing for movies, comics, TV and or radio, like Neil Gaiman.

The point is that taking more than two or three years between books in a series is NOT the norm. The only ones I can think that do that and havent faded into obscurity are GRRM and Patrick Rothfuss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good Eris, save me. An enlarged barbarian is OP.
...
I'm not sure if it's funny or sad. I'm out of this.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Optimizing is when I do it.
When someone is being annoying, it's powergaming.
If it's someone I don't like, he's a damn munchkin.

That is the forum definition, just check every other thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frerezar wrote:


Str 20
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 10

HIT DICE. 9d12+36(favored class bonus applied)
HIT POINTS. 99 (first edge over a warlord)
AC: 19 (7 armor, 2 dex) (17 while raging)
INIT. +2
SPEED. 30ft (second edge over a warlord)

SAVES
fort 6
ref 3
will 3

FEATS
Lvl1 Power Attack
Humn Furious Focus
Lvl3 Toughness
Lvl5 Extra rage Power
Lvl7 Extra Rage Power
Lvl9 Improved Critical

rage Powers:
Lvl2 Powerful Blow (+3dmg)
Lvl4 Superstitious
Lvl5 Guarded Stance (+2)
Lvl6 Increased Damage Reduction
Lvl7 Reckless Abandon
Lvl8 Roused Anger

You don't know how to uild a barbarian. "NOT optimized for damage because I also added some survivability". BS, you did neither.

Let me show you how it is done:

Str 20
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 10

HIT DICE. 9d12+27(favored class bonus applied)
HIT POINTS. 91 (first edge over a warlord) (your mistake, your barbarian should have 100 HP)
AC: 20 (7 armor, 2 dex, 1 dodge) (21 in rage, -2 while raging, +3 natural)
INIT. +2
SPEED. 30ft (second edge over a warlord)
BAB +16/+11 2d6+8
in rage +18/+13 2d6+11+1d6

SAVES
fort 6
ref 3
will 3

FEATS
Lvl1 Power Attack
Humn Furious Focus
Lvl3 Weapon Focus
Lvl5 Extra rage Power
Lvl7 Extra Rage Power
Lvl9 Dodge (noone wants to mess with crit math, it's a headache)

rage Powers:
Lvl2 Lesser Beast Totem
Lvl4 Superstitious
Lvl5 Witch Hunter (3+ dmg)
Lvl6 Beast Totem (+3 AC)
Lvl7 Lesser Elemental Rage (+1d6 energy damage)
Lvl8 Elemental Rage (+1d6 energy damage)

Comparing: he still has more HP, his armor is almost as good while in rage, he has DR 1 and he has +4 in saves against almost everything. Barbarian wins defense hands down.
Damage, Round 1
The barbarian rages, activates PA and chooses the energy type for his extra damage, whatever the opponent is vulnerable against or electric if nothing else then actvates lesser elemental damage with an energy the enemy isn't resistant to, acid probably. He then charges hitting at +20 for 34 damage (7 weapon 10 str 1 enhancement 9 PA 3,5 one energy+ 3,5 the other), 37 if the target has any magic, like a dragon, an outsider, some undead, etc. A little more if the target is weak, say to cold, like red dragons and fire giants.
Round 2, 3 and so forth the barbarian is hitting at +18/+10 for 30,5 damage a pop, 33,5 if the enemy has magic, doing around 61 or 67 damage if he hits the second attack. More if the enemy has any energy vulnerability.
Better equipment will help the barbarian much more than the warlord, since anything that improves his to hit also increases the chances of his second attack hitting and making his damage bigger than the warlords.

And if you really want, I can up this build to level 12, show what a real damage dealer can do. Hint: he kills the enemy on their own turns.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, christ on a cracker, that is a lot of overreaction.
"Hey guys, we´re going to announce something awesome, involving all these awesome people, stay tuned for more information"
"YOU GUYS ARE MOSNTESRS RAGHBLAGHAG YOU CANT TOY WITH ME LIKE THESE!!1111!! THIS IS BAD MARKETING AND I WILL NOT BUY IT AND I HATES YU FOREVER!1!1!!1!!!1"
Yeesh. I wonder if you guys realize you complaining about the marketing just helps to keep it relevant and makes the marketing idea more sucessfull...
Well, I for one am glad it managed to keep this thread on the front page so I could see it. Well done, good marketing.
If the kickstart holds until 5th of next month I will definetly have money to pitch in. Just one question:
You mentioned this book will also have poisons? Because I need more cool/useful/not so expensive poisons. Like, desperately. I want to play a poisoner so bad it hurts.
On the name, may I suggest Ultimate Monsters? It would look really neat between Ultimate Campaign and Ultimate Psionics.
Edit: Epic Meepo is also Epic Ninja.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
GreenDragon1133 wrote:
I'd rather they eliminate the current, and replace him with the original.

If they can get rid of the Civil-War-era Reed Richards and Tony Stark who went about fifty times past anything Cyclops has done, that would be cool, too.

And Civil War Captain America and One More Day Spiderman...

Can we just reboot the whole universe back to before Avengers Dissassemble?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The solution to all problems with the bone. Buy a 360. Genius.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When you do the guide to more apeiron staves, you need to include a staff that summons a construct chimp, with the possibility to spend charges to summon construct gorillas instead. Maybe augment them with cold iron skin. It's cosmic law, you must do this pun, it's to good to let it go to waste.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Odraude wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Also, I thought it was the AP sales that were the bulk of Paizo's profits?

I guess that's another addition to my list of "Reasons I hate PFS".

You should be glad for PFS, even if you don't play it... because without it, Paizo would be just another backwater third party player.

You want artificers so bad for your home game, there's at least three people who've done Pathfinder compatible knockoffs of the Eberron class you want so much, but Paizo can't touch because of IP concerns. You don't need to wait for a Paizo blessed version.

I'm still pretty certain that it's their APs that drive the majority of their sales, not PFS.

And of course, you're assuming people want just a copy-paste of the Artificer. Which, I'm looking for something similar, but with some different and expanded mechanics.

Remember that these scenarios aren't being put out for free. They're sold and paid for, just like the AP's, only a good deal cheaper.

What they almost all want, is someone who cranks out magic items like a factory. All of the artificers I've seen have been variants on this basic trope. That simply is not going to fly in PFS.

[Looks through Cheapys list of tinker and artificer classes] Someone who cranks out magic itens? LOLNOPE. Someone who can temporaly enhance itens? Sure. Someone with special abilities when dealing with buildings, constructs, traps, certain materials, or something engineery like that? Would be good. Someone who can deploy turrets, drones or even robots? Yes. Someone capable of making one use inventions that mimic magic but aren't exctly magic, somewhat like the alchemist extracts? Definetly. Someone that can make a clockwork/staempunk suit of ironman armor? Hell yeah. But just crafting itens? Boring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

571. This giant head in a glass tube and his little golem brought us together and gave us nifty magic itens and told us to save the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:

I was surprised to see Intimidation based on Charisma in the first place; obviously it should be a Strength-based skill, with perhaps an option to factor in some Charisma on the side. Talk is cheap; it takes muscle to be threatening.

HAHA, no. If you just have the muscle but don't have the charisma or the skill, people just laugh at your wanna-be thug attittude.

A good example of charisma as intimidation is the Joker. In most incarnations he is a skinny guy. Even in the movies he isn't skinny but he isn't in shape either, but he is still one of the scariest guys in the planet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the ridiculously themed category: Tha utimate dragon wanna be:
Sorcerer Draconic Bloodline into Dragon Disciple on one side and Dragon Shaman multiclssed with Dragonfire Adept on the other.
All of the Dragon emulating classes I could find/remember.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sell you on ninja? Well ffinding a buyer shouldn't be hard, I know a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy. The harder part will be stuffing you inside the ninja. Maybe if I just put you on top of the ninja it counts? He would have to carry you arund, but ninjas are strong. Now to find a ninja...
Sorry, grammar joke, I will stop now.

MrSin wrote:
Ninja Trick can be taken multiple times. There also isn't an "extra trick" sort of feat to my knowledge. I wouldn't want most rogue talents myself. Some aren't even a bonus.

Ninjas can get rogue talents too, if they really want it. There is one or two that might be good.

Ninjas get an often overlooked trick: Pressure points. One point of str or dex damage with each sneak attack. Every full attack a ninja does gives a -1 to attacks and damage or to ac. Given enough attacks, and TWF is immensely better when you have at will invisibility, the ninja may nerf someone into a weak clumsy baby, to be killed at leisure. That is Kenshiro levels of acupunture there.

RJGrady wrote:
Invisible blade is a master trick. By that point, a rogue can just use a greater invisibility scroll. 28 rounds, minimum, with no swift action required.

Yeah, it only requires a move and a standard plus 700g for 7rounds. Much better.

Remember that unless your wizard is making scrolls for you the scroll spell's caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll. And Greater Invisibility is rounds per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EldonG wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

@EldonG

Just flag the post and move on. Instead of contributing to the conversation he used ad-hominem and attack your credibility.

Which even if he was right that doesn't make you wrong. It's a huge cluster-F of a a post that serves little more than a personal attack on you.

Yeah...I'm used to posting over at a political forum, where that would be so minimal...and I never go to the mods there (we don't have a 'flag', per se.) at any rate.

It stuns me when people understand that their argument is so weak that they think their only recourse is personal attacks...that aren't even meaningful, so they have to twist words...and even lie, to give them some gravitas.

The point is, in-game experiences are meaningless in the context of a forum. They can be misremembered, misinterpreted, too different from the normal game because of houserules and optional rues noone else uses and worst of all, they cannont be proven. One could say fighters suck because they've seen a commoner do more damage in a round with a spoon than a fighter did with his +5 sword, and it would have as much weight or proofability as any in-game experience yanyone else has to offer.

Also just because you pissed me off and I wound up venting my bile it doesn't mean I don't have an argument. Only that your inability to listen to others arguments has passed my tolerance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EldonG wrote:

Oh, man. I almost can't remember what this thread is about, anymore, after all those posts...oh...yeah. Fighters really don't suck. By themselves.

Fighters don't do the burst stuff, but they're always ready...and they can do just fine...some will even be the heavy hitters at the end of the campaign, outdoing casters. That's rare, but I've seen it happen...not friggin' theorycrafted...you know...in one of those silly, meaningless situations where it can't be 'tested'...an actual...game.

Dude, last time you brought one of your "actual game experiences", you wound up revealing your fighter was "awesome", because he killed 12, or maybe it was 8, or 10, or 6, commoner kobolds, who you got by surprise and just stood there trying to fight you in melee, or maybe run, past a trap, except there were no traps, except maybe, you don't really remember, and they were probably unarmed and had int0. But you don't really remember, it might have happened in one of the half dozen ways you told, or been a fever dream. You managed to amass such credibility there. Now tell us about how the fish that escaped was thiiiiiis big.

And even if any of it is true, it only shows your benchmark for awesome is set pretty low. Killing a dozen kobolds in melee is a chore not a combat, even at first level. Unless you're a caster with 1/2BAB.
And I bet you were outdamaging the casters alright, thats easy when the casters probably are doing battlefield control or buffing or any of the dozen other things they can do that totally ignore HP. A fighter that can outdamage a caster is in the same ballpark as being able to outdamage a non smiting paladin. That is the one thing he is supposed to do, you can do it by accident if the group is not good at optimizing r you're the only martial in the group. Do you also feel awesome for making a bard that can sing or a cleric that prays to a god?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:

I'm really weirded out by the OP. Retreat is a gamist thing? Whut? You mean narrativists never play characters with the wis or the int to know when they're losing, or only play characters that would die rather than retreat? Seriously, whut?

I've honestly never seen that argument.
Nor me, to be honest. Besides, what about the gamist narratavists? It's like the power-gamer vs role-player fallacy: I've seen some pretty weak power gamers and some appalling role-players when that was what they set out to do. I just took it to mean some players don't know when to retreat, and left it at that.

Yeah, I just couldn't get past that arbitrary division.

Onto the real question: Retreat is a viable strategy. If the enemy is capable of running down the party, that is when a tank shines, staying behind to cover the retreat of the rest of the party.
From a narrativist/roleplayer point it's awesome and very heroic. From a gamist rollplayer point is only logical that the guy with more chance of surviving stays behind to buy time while the ohers finish the mission or ready a counterattack.
I've done it myself, when I was playing a barbarian. Our group was almost out of resources after a couple of tough fights so we decided to camp for the night, but we were attacked by a vampire samurai in the middle of the night. Our fault really, for staying inside the ghost town. The vampire had minions and managed to dominate the fighter before our sorcerer started throwing Protection from Evil on everybody. Had to grapple the fighter while he got his does of Protection. We managed to take down the minions but the vampire was still at full power. So we decided to run and come back in the morning to burn his coffin with him inside. But of course the vampire wouldn't just let us go, so I stayed there to hold him off while the party ran for the hills, the sorcerer gave me used his last fly scroll on me so when everybody else was far enough away I culd take to the sky. The vampire still flew ater me in mist form until the spell ended. Luckily it was finally almost dawn and the vampire had to retreat before the sunrise. To this day, one of the most awesome moments for that barbarian. And that barbarian had lots of awesome moments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


That is invalid. Rogues are good at skills. Skills just dont do too much as a whole so it does not matter much, that they are good at skills.

Unless your campaign is a combat-lite game focusing on roleplaying & skills...

In which case the bard runs rings around the rogue and makes him cry, the ranger takes the group to a wilderness sidequest so he can take his turn shaming the rogue and the alchemist decides to be a sneaky vivisectionist assassin and shows the rogue what a real alpha strke is like and how to make poisons awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

352-They keep following me! I went into all kinds of dungeons, dragon lairs and even the abyss and I can't shake them! HELP ME!!!
353-I'm not with these guys. They're with me. There is a difference.
354-I can't let someone else kill those idiots before I do.
355-They're my emergency rations, but don't tell them that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally love the Hat of disguise. At will, practically permanent, disguise self? Yes, please. Barbarians disguised as civilians are always fun.
The pyro is a spy! And the spy is actually a barbarian!
Agh! The princess punched out my teeth. Also, the princess is a barbarian. I don't think that's the one we were supposed to kidnap...
Attack the wizard, he is weak. Oh, gods the wizard turned into the Hulk. Run for you lifes!
Good, time, good stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because, much like bowties, giant weapons are just cool.
It's a desire to play a character that not only has enough strenght to lift that sword, but also has the skill to use it as effectively as a lesser man would use a normal sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think we need LESS NPC classes. Just the commoner, warrior and expert. Aristocrats don't need a separate NPC class, and adepts just cheapen the feel of magic.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Tell your players they're doing it wrong. Too much work. It's easier to just throw some lamp oil and torch the bodies to ashes. It also prevents most ressurection magic, and the character can claim it's a sacred death ritual in his culture if the authorities ask.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IMHO the guy who comes in and says "you just haven't actually played a rogue/ you just don't know how to play it right", when people have given both anecdotal evidence and numerical proof, is the dick here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fall. So hard it leaves a crater.
You don't kill something that isn't even trying to fight back. That is murder, murder is evil. Morality 101.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:

When you are mounted and making a charge action is pretty clear actually, to use spirited charge you have to be mounted and use a charge action if you cannot use a charge action on a horse you cannot gain the benefits of a spirited charge.

If the rules had said when you are mounted and your horse is making a charge then you ruling would be sane and logical.

Except that we know from the mounted combat section that's been linked in half a hundred times that you gain the benefits of your mounts charge. Which is why the whole thing works.
Exactly. That section is the reason ragelancepounce works. You gain the benefits of charging when the horse charges + pounce lets you full attack when charging = you can full attack when the horse charges.
Once again, 'you' are the one that has to be charging, not the horse. When they say you in the pounce description, they are talking about you - not your horse, not your mother, not your best friends neighbor Bobby with the wandering eye but you. Like I have already said before, when you are mounted the rules change. Stop trying to read what you want to read.

If you're going to be pedantic about that 'you', that all the mounted combat feats also have, then no mounted combat feat works. Nor lances for that matter. So you're breaking the whole mounted combat, just to stop a single possible build that, while working in RAW, nobody would actually allow or use.

We're not aguing that you should allow this build, we're arguing you shouldn't break a section of the rules just to stop a build noone has asked to play.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.