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

Weirdo's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,288 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 5,288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

elcaleeb wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
There's the Stymphalian birds of Hellenic fame - I don't recall whether Pathfinder's integrated them into any of the bestiaries yet, though.
Paizo hasn't, but Frog God Games has.
They are in the back of the second book of Council of Thieves
Dragon78 wrote:
The Stymphalidies appears in Pathfinder Bestiary 3.

Ah, didn't come up in my search because of the slightly different name! Nice to know there's an official version! Oh, and a swarm version! So lots of options, depending on what CR you want.

Shadow Lodge

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
There's the Stymphalian birds of Hellenic fame - I don't recall whether Pathfinder's integrated them into any of the bestiaries yet, though.

Paizo hasn't, but Frog God Games has.

Shadow Lodge

The definition of heresy is simply "belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine." It doesn't necessarily have to be a serious disagreement, though it's usually used that way.

Any given that there were/are a lot of Christian heresies, even a greatly reduced frequency of heresy in a fantasy world would probably still result in the occasional heresy popping up.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Slight tangent: As for the one step alignment shift thing, I much preferred how BECMI (and I believe 2e)did it: each Immortal listed allowed alignments of laity and clergy, which could be 'any'.

I like this idea and am considering implementing it in my current setting. For example, the god of punishment might accept only LN and LE followers, while the LN death goddess would probably be fine with any non-chaotic followers.

Shadow Lodge

Looks like I mis-remembered the wording on the Butchering Axe - thanks!

I was curious about how the entertainingly min-maxed giant axe build compared to the more conservative Two Hand Fighter//Metamorph that avr suggested, so I crunched some numbers.

Going to assume for simplicity everyone buys the belt of strength and a breastplate. DPR vs AC 17, not counting critical hits - again, for simplicity. I'm also going to reference the benchmarks here. In brief, a “blue” rating is optimal, green is a good level for a primary offense, and defenses should be in the orange-green range.

Two-Handed Fighter // Metamorph (Small Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 18 (17+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 16 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (5): EWP, Iron Will, Power Attack, Furious Focus, +1

Attack +10 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size)
--Mutagen +12
Damage d12+14 = d12 + 8 (x2Str) + 6 (PA)
--Mutagen d12+18
--Alter Self (Med) 3d6+16/20

DPR: 14.35 (low) 24.4 (high)

AC: 19 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size)
--Mutagen 21
--Alter Self 18/20
HP 52 (max each level, without FCB)
Saves: Fort +7 Ref +6 Will +4

Special: Two discoveries

This is a pretty good build. Unbuffed attack bonus (+10) and DPR (14.35) are both green, and buffed DPR (24.4) is blue. AC is not great, but with the mutagen it hits the green level (21); HP is also pretty good (52), and at least one of the two discoveries can go towards defenses, so the durability should be fine. Saves are also OK; Will (+4) hits the orange mark, while the others (+7 and +6) approach green ratings. The last feat could go to Dodge, but I'd probably use it for Extra Discovery or something with a bit of utility, like Intimidating Prowess.

Titan Fighter // Titan Mauler (Large Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 9 (11-2)
Feats (4): EWP, Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Furious Focus

Attack +4 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) -8 (oversize) +1 (Big Game) +1 (Weapon Focus)
--Rage +8 (+2 Str +2 Reckless Abandon)
Damage 4d6+12 = + 6 (Str) + 6 (PA)
--Rage 4d6+15

DPR: 10.4 (low) 17.4 (high)

AC: 19 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size)
--Rage 15 (-2 rage, -2 reckless abandon)
HP 56 (max each level, without FCB) +8 temp rage
Saves: Fort +6 (rage +8) Ref +3 Will +2 (+4 rage)

Special: one additional rage power

Despite the impressive 4d6 weapon die and putting a lot of resources into attack bonuses, DPR for this build actually drops pretty significantly, losing about 4 points unbuffed and 7 buffed. Predictably, defenses are also lower, with the raging AC of 15 falling below even the orange rating – higher HP will help, but I don't think 4 HP and 8 temporary HP is going to outweigh a 6-point gap in AC and the loss of two defensive discoveries (and we also have to worry about sudden barbarian death syndrome). Finally, the saves are worse. The Will save is OK when raging (+4), but terrible if surprised (+2). The Ref save (+3) is just bad.

Maybe an intermediate build could do better?

Titan Fighter // Metamorph (Medium Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (4): EWP, Iron Will, Power Attack, Furious Focus

Attack +7 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) -3 (oversize)
--Mutagen +9
Damage 3d6+12 = 3d6 + 6 (Str) + 6 (PA)
--Mutagen 3d6+15
--Alter Self (Med) 4d6+13/16

DPR: 12.4 (low) 19.5 (high)

AC: 19 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size)
--Mutagen 21
--Alter Self 18/20
HP 48 (max each level, without FCB)
Saves: Fort +6 Ref +6 Will +4

Special: Two discoveries

Again, DPR (12.4-19.5) is lower than the Two-Handed Fighter. Defenses are similar, though HP and Fort save are a little lower due to the Str/Con tradeoff. And we're missing that last feat.

Titan Mauler // Metamorph (Medium Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (2): EWP, Power Attack

Attack +4 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) +1 (Big Game) -5 (oversize) -2 (PA)
--Buffed +10 (+2 mutagen +2 rage +2 reckless abandon)
Damage 3d6+12 = 3d6 + 6 (Str) + 6 (PA)
--Buffed 4d6+19 = 4d6 + 13 (Str) +6 (PA)

DPR: 9 (low) 20 (mutagen + rage) 23.1 (high)
No PA: 8.25 (low) 21.6 (high)

AC: 20 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size +1 Big Game)
--Buffed 17 (+2 nutagen, -1 alter self, -2 rage, -2 reckless abandon)
HP 56 (max each level, without FCB) +8 temp rage
Saves: Fort +6 (+8 rage) Ref +6 Will +2 (+4 rage)

Special: Two discoveries, one other rage power

The most buff-dependent build, this fails to hit even orange DPR unbuffed (DPR 9) – though its fully buffed DPR (23.1) is solidly blue and only barely behind the THF//Metamorph. AC drops (17-20), though not as badly as the THF//Mauler, and the Ref save stays high; HP improves (56+8 temp) and we still have defensive discoveries. Fort and Ref saves are good (+6-8) and Will is OK when raging (+4). Overall this is definitely still a weaker build than the THF//Metamorph – though since it's not a huge difference the “fun factor” of carrying an orc-size butchering axe does make it tempting.

Two-Hand Fighter // Titan Mauler (Medium Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (5): EWP, Iron Will, Power Attack, Furious Focus, +1

Attack +6 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) +1 (Big Game) -5 (oversize)
--Rage +10 (+2 rage +2 reckless abandon)
Damage 3d6+14 = 3d6 + 8 (x2 Str) + 6 (PA)
--Rage 3d6+18 = 3d6 + 12 (Str) +6 (PA)

DPR: 12.25 (low) 19.95 (high)

AC: 20 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size +1 Big Game)
--Rage 16 (-2 rage, -2 reckless abandon)
HP 56 (max each level, without FCB) +8 temp rage
Saves: Fort +6 (+8 rage) Ref +3 Will +2 (+4 rage)

Special: one other rage power

DPR (12.25-19.95) still can't beat the THF//Metamorph, and again we're looking at a hit to AC and saves.

So it looks like, at least for a level 4 goblin, the penalties imposed by wielding oversized weapons outweigh the extra damage from weapon dice and the opportunity cost of abilities like Mutagen or Overhand Chop. The Titan Mauler//Metamorph comes close, thanks to being able to obtain a Str up to 29 with rage, mutagen, and shapechanging - and it might be worth making a less optimal pregen for the entertainment value. I will see how it stacks up to the other pregens and make a decision.

Shadow Lodge

I don't think there's a rules answer.

I'd let you try, but you'd need to make some kind of check - probably Sleight of Hand - to place the item in such a way that the shifting of the elemental material as the familiar moves doesn't reveal the item. Might also apply some penalty to the familiar since having a large foreign object inside you has to be distracting at best. Shaken or sickened sounds about right.

Shadow Lodge

Catharsis wrote:
Is there a competitively strong Focus power in the other schools?

Not for a dip.

Though if you do take the second level in occultist, consider Haunt Collector. If I'm reading it correctly, getting the seance boon doesn't actually require you to invest focus in the implement (though the spirit bonus does). With a Champion spirit, that's basically a +2 to damage - and if you do put 2 focus in the implement, you can twice per day as a swift action add +1 to attack rolls, damage rolls, Strength checks, Strength-based skill checks, and Fortitude saves for 1 round.

Most of the focus powers don't appear to scale that well - Abjuration I think is really only worth it for the spell list. Your best bet at 1st level is probably Sudden Speed. Though if you feel like a 3rd level you might consider Unseen. In that case you'll want focus in Illusion; 7 points (3 level + 2 Int + 2 feat) should give you enough to work with. And that would also make it a good implement to Haunt since the focus for Unseen is also giving you your spirit bonus.

If you take Silksworn, Necromantic Servant gives you a flank buddy whose BAB and attack bonus are based on your character's rather than occultist level. The resonant and base powers are pretty lame, though, and the spell list's not as useful as abjuration or illusion for a dip. Conjuration's also got a useful spell list if you're looking for a 4th school.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my current setting, the main political power has a "state pantheon," with the main lawful deities within the pantheon responsible for providing specific civic services. The three that are most politically involved (valour, knowledge, and punishment) are also entitled to vote in the Senate.

For example, the church of the god of valour and the sun (think Iomedae crossed with Pelor) is closely tied to the military and provides the vast majority of the empire's combat medics. They also sponsor a prominent Paladin order that specializes in demon hunting. In fact it is the only church to specifically train paladins - other churches just include them in mixed-class martial factions.

The church of the goddess of knowledge runs the school system, which includes a public grammar school. Higher levels of education come with increasing fees attached, but bright students can obtain scholarships from the church through some form of "work-study." The church also funds R&D, with scholars on their payroll whose magical, alchemical, and technological discoveries then become property of the church. Some of these discoveries are put to use for the public good - others are used to fund the church.

The church of the death goddess Alida (vaguely similar to Pharasma) is responsible for running the world's hospitals and funerals. If you're closely associated with a different church you can get help there, and some rural areas are too small for an Alidan presence. But the average citizen of any settlement at least the size of a small town goes to the Alidan church for care.

The god of punishment and ambition runs courts and jails.

I wouldn't say I have heretics - at least not yet. But there are definitely factions and fringe groups. For example, there's also a "black powder" movement within the church of the goddess of knowledge that is trying to replace the crossbow with the firearm as her favoured weapon. As a pro-innovation deity, she's theoretically on board with this - but it's a question of whether the technology is mature enough to be widely adopted. Often these groups end up being represented by a demi-deity or patron saint. For example, the church of Alida recognizes a patron saint of undead-hunters whose followers are not involved in the mainstream hospital administration and have their own training and leaders, but who ultimately report to the High Priestess of Alida, and can count on help from the main church.

Shadow Lodge

Sissyl wrote:
So make them look it. For some reason, dumping charisma isn't so much fun anymore then.

I'm currently playing a Cha 9 monk who I describe as being somewhat unattractive, with oversized features. I also try to play the character as a bit blunt and stand-offish, though not intentionally rude.

Another party member is a tiefling samurai who I think has dumped Cha - between fiendish features and extensive scarring he's got an extremely unsettling presence, but is quite affable.

And a couple games back a friend of mine played a low-Cha half-elf ranger as a cute wallflower with self-esteem issues.

Sometimes you need to dump charisma. As long as people are making some effort to roleplay and not bothering the rest of the table, it's all good.

ChaiGuy wrote:
There's also ways to get social skills (at least in part) to be based on other ability scores. The traits clever wordplay and student of philosophy can do this with intelligence. The inquisitor's conversion inquisition lets wisdom be used in place of charisma for several social skills. It would be an interesting role playing challenge to play a character with one of these options (especially if you dump charisma), like a dwarf inquisitor with a 5 charisma, that is actually good at social skills.

Depending on the exact skills and stats involved, I tend to see these as cases of "I don't like you, but you make a compelling argument, so I'll do what you want for now."

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think all the PF GMs I know run their own campaigns. There are four of us who run consistently, plus a guy who tried it once.

One of them runs in Golarion. Can't remember if he's made changes to the setting.

The other three of us use our own settings.

Shadow Lodge

Lady-J: Sorry, I should have specified: I'm looking for a big melee weapon, to be wielded two-handed. There is already a gunslinger//alchemist pre-gen - though I don't think that it has a feat to spare for Goblin Gunslinger.

Ierox: That's a really neat build! It might be a bit more min-maxed than I was aiming for, with a -4 AC penalty, no Iron Will, and most of the wealth invested in the strength belt. The character would need to use a masterwork weapon instead of a +1, and would have just 1635gp left for defensive and utility items.

I'm also not confident in the RAI on a Large Butchering Axe. Given that the small axe requires Str 17 and the medium Str 19, I expect a large Butchering Axe should require Str 21, even if this is not stated (due to the assumption that PCs are small or medium).

Shadow Lodge

Unfortunately there aren't a lot of spell-free options with good will saves. There are some archetypes of paladin and antipaladin, the vigilante, and the sleuth investigator. The first three come with RP strings that I'm hesitant to attach to a pre-gen. The sleuth could work - at low levels the deeds are not a terrible trade for extracts, and the skills are nice. But it's a lot of resource juggling, and uses both Int and Cha in a build that otherwise calls to dump one or both of those stats.

Taking Iron Will on top of Power Attack and EWP (Butchering Axe) would mean taking either fighter, slayer, or non-Wild Stalker Ranger in order to get at least one bonus feat.

Given that, Two-Hand Fighter//Metamorph does seem like a pretty good combo. I'd end up with three part-alchemist gestalts out of eleven, but they're pretty different in character (one's a Grenadier, and the other is a vivisectionist poison specialist). Plus, Alchemist is a pretty thematic class for goblins.

Shadow Lodge

If the outsider is actually present on the Material Plane, as opposed to summoned using a summoning spell, then it actually dies.

Rules citation that Katapesh Fried Chicken alluded to:

Conjuration Subschools wrote:

Calling: a calling spell transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on. The spell grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin, although the spell may limit the circumstances under which this is possible. Creatures who are called actually die when they are killed; they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell (see below). The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can’t be dispelled.

Summoning: a summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

Shadow Lodge

...which was released in ‎March 2016, three and a half years after this thread was started & resolved.

I think Fredrik made a pretty good homebrew version, though.

Shadow Lodge

I'm making some pregens for a gestalt one-shot and could use some help implementing a concept: a goblin using the biggest weapon he can get his hands on.

Other constraints:

  • Level 4, 25 point buy, 6,000gp.
  • No swords (several of the other pregens have them)
  • No casting (this is one of two spell-free options)
  • Shouldn't be too complicated to play

The Titan Fighter will let gobbo use a medium-size two-handed weapon with a -1 penalty.

Alternatively, the small Orc Butchering Axe is essentially a medium-size greataxe. I can squeeze in the required 17 Strength with an 18 minus 2 racial, plus 1 for 4th level - or buy a 17 -2 racial +1 advancement +2 belt = 18. After that all it costs is Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

Classes I'm looking at:

  • Fighter (if not Titan Fighter, then Two-Handed? Mutation Warrior?)
  • Barbarian (probably not Titan Mauler - I want to two-hand this thing)
  • Alchemist (Metamorph) - lotsa strength, defensive discoveries, a bit of utility
  • Slayer, for utility
  • Ranger (Wild Stalker?)

Multiclassing OK though I'd prefer a simple two-class gestalt.

Shadow Lodge

Swashbuckler Finesse doesn't work with the fire blast since it's not a piercing weapon.

Shadow Lodge

Resistance isn't the only issue with that comparison.

It is definitely an issue. Getting your second element at level 7 helps, but there's still a lot of creatures that have resistances to multiple elements. Most evil outsiders resist all but one element, and demons resist all of them. DR takes a smaller chunk of the fighter's damage, and there are more options built into the game to deal with it (a +3 weapon and an oil of Bless Weapon takes care of most of the DR you'll run into). YMMV on what you actually encounter a given campaign, but one campaign I'm currently in runs into a lot of outsiders.

Second issue though, using only 1 out of 6 feats seriously handicaps the fighter. Adding just Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (using half the fighter's feats) puts the fighter's routine at +11 (2d6+16) for a DPR of 16.1.

Third, warlock is super dependent on full attacking. That's a bit easier when you work at range but still, better hope you don't get staggered or need to take a move action.

Finally, comparing at level 5 favours the warlock. It's just gotten its main feats and its ability to make all of its attacks against touch AC, and damage increases from Mythic Bolt and Arcane Strike at levels 4 and 5. At 6th level, the warlock's routine is +6/+6/+6 (d6+4) for a minor increase in DPR to 16.8. But the fighter has gained an extra attack: +12/+7 (2d6+16). Against a new AC of 19, that's a DPR of 24.5.

Shadow Lodge

Aw, shucks. :)

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
suprised to see the bard is so high up there.

I'm not surprised to see that it's one of the better liked classes in that category - but I'm surprised that it's 50% ahead of the next runner up, and that Alchemist and Investigator didn't get more attention. I've seen a lot of love for both alchemical classes on the boards. Alchemist did at least get two mentions, but one of them was a 3-way tie and the other was a 4-way tie, so not a lot of weight there.

It's possible this is an unrepresentative sample.

Shadow Lodge

Zwordsman wrote:

That FAQ references Arcane strike ... but doesn't the warlock get an arcane weapon like talent meant to improve his bolts?

Or does that talent have some extra special wording? Does that mean the normal straight up feat won't work?

" Because mystic bolts are impermanent, a spell that targets a single weapon (like magic weapon) can’t affect it, nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities. Abilities that affect all weapon attacks the warlock makes, such as the arcane striker warlock talent, function with mystic bolts." Hmm.. the second half says abilities and does not mention spells.. Otherwise I would say that the fact that the spell allows all weapon attacks would fall under that one.. Too bad.

Arcane Strike doesn't reference manufactured weapons. Sense Vitals does. Mystic bolts count as weapons for the purpose of Arcane Strike. They don't count as manufactured weapons for the purpose of Sense Vitals.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I really like Alchemists its just unfortunate that they find themselves occupying what is generally considered pathfinders sweet spot of class design and have to compete with most of the most popular classes.

Particularly, Investigators, Inquisitors, Occultists and Bards are all very powerful and interesting classes which occupy the same chassis as Alchemists and are all popular.

I think this is partly correct. I like alchemists better than pretty much any option in the other categories that didn't make my favourites list, and it even competes pretty well with my favourites in some of the other categories (for example, I like the alchemist about as much as either the slayer or the wizard). But the 6-level casters are just so good that the alchemist just barely makes my top five in the category (behind inquisitor and occultist and around the same as bard and hunter).

On the other hand, I am a little surprised by the lack of variation in that category. I went and tallied up responses and found that the bard won handily with 6.5 votes, Inquisitor second at 4 and occultist third at 2.5.

Other observations:

  • 1/1 no casting: While most agree that the barbarian is the strongest, followed by the gunslinger, the fighter easily wins for most liked.
  • 1/1 4th casting: Bloodrager and paladin neck and neck for strongest and most liked. Ranger, despite several fans, is overall considered weakest and most disliked.
  • 3/4 no casting: Kineticist wins hands down. Interestingly, despite rogue being the most disliked and weakest, unchained rogue gets second place for most liked.
  • 3/4 6th level casting: As mentioned, bard has a strong lead. Summoner gets both strongest and most disliked.
  • 3/4 9th level casting: Oracle wins handily, followed by druid. Cleric and shaman overall disliked; the cleric is more polarizing.
  • 1/2 9th level casting: Witch is the clear leader for most liked. Runner-up is Arcanist, despite also being generally considered weakest. While the wizard is universally considered strongest, it's also polarizing, with as many people disliking it as liking it.

Shadow Lodge

Claxon, you've got it the wrong way around. leviathanapsu is "a player in the game in question," not the warlock player the OP is having difficulty with.

The "power gaming" group is a second group (not OP's and leviathanapsu's) that has apparently ruled that the warlock gets +d6 damage every 4 levels instead of +1. This has led the warlock player to believe that the ability actually works that way, and to expect that it will work that way in OP's and leviathanapsu's group.

This is unfortunate. It may be possible to show the warlock player this thread in order to at least convince them of how the rule is intended, but if they're used to playing the warlock with a damage buff they probably won't want to play one as written. Would they be interested in a different class?

Re: warlock balance

I think PossibleCabbage has correctly identified the reasons that many are disappointed with the warlock.

I think the real question is how the warlock stacks up against the other 6-level casters that have a lot of intrigue-related features - like the bard.

Bards get 6+Int skills, but aren't Int-based, which means they should be about on par with the 4+Int Warlock until higher levels when the Warlock has put some effort into boosting Int. The bard can also use Versatile Performance and Pageant of the Peacock to stretch out their skill ranks. Bards get better class skills, with all Knowledge skills and Perception while the Warlock gets only Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, and Nobility plus Ride and Swim. Bardic Knowledge and Lore Master also make bards very good at knowledge skills despite not being Int-based, and as a Cha-based class they have a leg up on Cha skills. The Warlock can compensate using Social Grace or the Intimidate bonus on Renown, but that makes them more specialized than the bard.

The warlock also gets some other neat talents like Mockingbird, Many Guises, or Tattoo Chamber - but the bard also gets Inspire Competence, Countersong, Distraction, Fascinate, Suggestion, and Mass Suggestion. Getting access to the variety of spells on the wizard's list is definitely a boon for the warlock. On the other hand, the bard gets early access to some nice spells like Heroism or Overwhelming Presence, and also gets exclusive access to things like Gallant Inspiration or Glibness. As a core class, the bard also gets a lot more support, with tons of archetypes for customization.

And of course the bard does just fine in combat, with Inspire Courage boosting the whole party's damage output.

It seems to me that the warlock could stand to have slightly better damage potential, which would bring it more in line with the very versatile and well balanced bard.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The wording isn't confusing.

You're not going to get an official FAQ, because it's not confusing.

You probably won't get a developer comment either, because they don't generally respond to rules questions, especially when you've had several forum members chip in with the same answer.

The only person misreading it is the player who wants this disappointing ability to be better.

If the player is not willing to accept a GM ruling on this one, they're being a bad player.

Of course, you're also free to houserule and tell the player that while they're reading it wrong you think that the damage should increase by d6 every 4 levels. Though I'm not entirely confident that wouldn't be over-adjusting... you might want to run a DPR calculation on the full attack.

Shadow Lodge

My concern is that while druids use domains, the domains they have access to are determined by their class, not their deity.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, descriptive text has been known to change in different printings, probably for space reasons.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to second/third/whatever talking one on one with the players of the groped characters about it, just in case they are actually bothered about it but reluctant to say so.

Lady-J wrote:
its called fondling if its consensual

Usually but not necessarily. As CrystalSeas says it's more of a connotation than a denotation. While in most cases the word implies nonconsensual touching, it's also sometimes used to convey clumsiness (eg two teenagers groping each other) or even just roughness (in contrast to fondling, which tends to refer to gentler forms of touching).

See Definitions:

verb (used with object), groped, groping.

4. to touch or handle (someone) for sexual pleasure.
6. Slang. an act or instance of sexually fondling another person.
4. If one person gropes another, they touch or take hold of them in a rough, sexual way.
informal to touch someone's body in order to get sexual pleasure, usually when the person does not like it
Wikipedia wrote:
When used in a sexual context, groping is touching or fondling another person in an unwelcome sexual way using the hands. The term generally has a negative connotation in many societies, and may be considered sexual assault, and terms such as frotteurism (or toucherism) may describe the practice of a person rubbing up against another person, typically using their sexual parts. Touching a consenting person's body during sexual activity, massage, or medical examination is not usually considered groping, though the term is sometimes used to include clumsy, selfish, or inappropriate sexual touching.

Shadow Lodge

The Dandy Lion wrote:
3/4 BAB, no or 4th casting: I have both a Kineticist and Medium in upcoming campaigns, not sure which excites me more. The latter feels more reliant on finding the right game and GM, though.

Yeah, I find the Medium interesting and would like to try one, but it seems like you'd need a game where (1) you can predict which spirit is going to be most useful for the day and (2) you can reliably access your choice of spirit, or at minimum your second choice.

Shadow Lodge

Like some other folks I'm going to bow out of the "power" discussion and just talk about what I like - and don't like.

Least Favorite

Full BAB, no spells: Fighter or Gunslinger. I have a hard time getting over the Fighter's relative lack of skill points. That said, with new support the combat options are more fun, and I'm not all that interested in the Gunslinger's pew pew pew shtick.
Full BAB, 4th spells: Ranger. Which is funny because it used to be my favourite, but I've come to dislike having to select favoured enemy and favoured terrain. There's archetypes for that, but it's definitely soured me on the class a little.
3/4 BAB, no or 4th casting: Rogue. Not that I think it's terrible, but now that we've got the objectively better Unchained Rogue, it's just pointless. Dishonourable mention to the stalker vigilante - strikes me as a little too invested in ambush tactics for a game where your party members might not play along.
3/4 BAB, 6th casting: Mesmerist. Just does not seem to work as well as a bard.
3/4 BAB, 9th casting: Cleric. No skills, and bland compared to the other options.
1/2 BAB, 9th casting: Psychic. Maybe I'm just not into mind control.


Full BAB, no spells: Three way tie between Barbarian, Slayer, and Unchained Monk. Barbarian for the beat-downs, slayer for the best balance between combat and utility, and monk for mobility and style.
Full BAB, 4th spells: Paladin or Bloodrager. I know this is half the category, but I can't pick. You've got a righteous smite/tank/heal on the one hand and a magical rage machine on the other.
3/4 BAB, no or 4th casting: Kineticist. Gotta get me some elemental theming. Runner-ups Monk (some of the archetypes do neat stuff that Unchained can't) and Unchained Rogue (it works, and it fills a niche that I appreciate).
3/4 BAB, 6th casting: Inquisitor or Occultist. This is a hard category since I like most of them, but these are the only two classes in it that I've wanted to play repeatedly.
3/4 BAB, 9th casting: Druid. Such wild shape. Very flavour. Wow.
1/2 BAB, 9th casting: Wizard, though that might change if I get more experience with the Arcanist. It's the Int-based casting (skills!) combined with dat spell list.

Shadow Lodge

I understand why you're reading it that way. As pointed out in the OP, I don't think that's the only way to read it.

While the wording does seem to suggest that the effective spell level and CL are both either fixed or variable (and spell level is clearly supposed to be fixed, per the example in the FAQ) I don't think that's necessarily intended.

For me, the best argument in favour of a variable CL is that CL generally increases with class level (or character level or HD for abilities not tied to a class). It seems really weird that the devs would carve out this little exception almost as an afterthought - a rule added to the CRB as an errata in response to an FAQ, where the CL part of the rule wasn't even addressed in the FAQ.

It's also weird that an occultist's Purge Corruption focus power would have a different caster level from their Flesh Mend power just because the former references Neutralize Poison and Remove Disease and the latter doesn't reference the Cure line of spells.

Shadow Lodge

toastedamphibian wrote:
I don't know that any other glue exists in golarion

Alchemical Glue is a thing. Published in Ultimate Equipment.

Shadow Lodge


I guess I'm going to have to play another half-orc druid.

Shadow Lodge

That said, based on the stats and a glance at the d20pfsrd for the 3PP classes' BAB and saves:

I will second bard and vigilante (probably avenger) for Kazé-oá. Swashbuckler might work depending on whether the combat style involves a light or one-handed piercing weapon, with nothing but a buckler in the off-hand.

Bard's actually pretty strong for Lorana, too, though I'm not sure how it fits her personality. Arcane Duelist might be a neat archetype. If you're looking for something more combat oriented, you might consider paladin if you think she is interested in roleplaying the ethical aspects - it would make good use of high Cha and adds durability and healing. There's also an archetype with a drake companion, the Silver Champion - or if you're willing to fudge a bit you could go with Chosen One and a Pseudodragon familiar (instead of an outsider) sent by a goodly dragon deity. And again, depending on combat style she might be able to make use of Swashbuckler.

And while someone's mentioned Monk of the Lotus for Lucine, you should also check out the Sensei, which gives her magical advice, and the Invested Regent, which trades some feats for extra magical abilities based on her high Cha. Both are compatible with Monk of the Lotus if you want to double up archetypes.

If you do VMC, Grumbaki's suggestions are good, except maybe Perra since her poor BAB and reflex save mean she won't get much use out of sneak attack or evasion - but I'm not seeing a much better solution. Maybe wizard? Transmutation (Enhancement), or Conjuration (Creation) might suit? Ioun Wyrd familiar?

Shadow Lodge

I've had quite a lot of fun with a reach bloodrager. Compares favourably to the party paladin in tankiness, with a more consistent damage output (though of course you can't beat the pally when smiting a demon).

However if you're looking at this specific party, druid. In my experience the damage is not as good as the ragers or paladin, but it's very tanky and provides more magical versatility with defensive buffs (like Barkskin and Resist Energy) and control spells (like Obscuring Mist, Entangle, and Wall of Thorns). Can also help the oracle with condition removal.

Shadow Lodge

I'm not sure you're going to get any better advice than this, as your issue is very specific. It is possible a 3PP subforum would have more people familiar enough with the material to weigh in.

Lazaryus wrote:
How about granting gestalt if they complete the tasks between 3rd-5th level, dropping the CR range in Aridia to APL - APL+6 and granting free VMC between 6th-10th, and dropping the CR range to normal and they gain some XP for completing the tasks after 10th. Once they complete the tasks, they can't do it again. They are completely unaware of the existence of Aridia before 3rd level.

I'm confused about how this works.

You're planning on changing the difficulty of the campaign based on when the players complete a subquest?

Is Aridia just the place where they do this subquest, or do you expect them to stay there?

Shadow Lodge

Ask the GM if they'll waive the alignment restriction, given that the classes available are already fairly restricted and the healing options are limited?

Shadow Lodge

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Given that the RP system is intended as a guide for GMs, my question would be "why do you need to know?"
Many homebrew GMs set an RP limit for character creation.

Did you read the rest of the post?

Weirdo wrote:

Given that the RP system is intended as a guide for GMs, my question would be "why do you need to know?"

If you're a GM trying to figure out whether it's balanced, the fact that you're allowed to swap darkvision and slapping tail for for evasive maneuevers suggests that it's more or less balanced - you don't need to know an RP value.

If you're a player who's been told they can play any race up to a certain RP value, and are wondering whether you can use alternate traits to lower the RP value of a race...

Shadow Lodge

I'm not familiar with the 3PP you're using, but the Occultist and Scavenger Investigator are object-themed classes if you're looking for more options for Perra and could convert the magic progression.

Azten wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
You could allow your players to simply choose the other side of the gestalt after they complete the trials. I mean, if a GM told me that I HAVE to gestalt with a specific class, it would kinda suck, IMHO. Especially if I had a much better build in mind for my character.
What possible Gestalt would possibly invalidate a build you'd started? Barring alignments restrictions, Gestalt only adds to a character.

I would expect most players to feel pressure to use the features of the second class even if they don't really fit the concept or build. If you don't use the gestalt features, then it's disappointing - not much of a reward. And if your fellow players make better use of their gestalts than you do, you'll feel you're not pulling your weight.

Shadow Lodge

Given that I seem to be the main person reading it both ways, here we go.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've got an FAQ covering the effective spell level of SLAs not based on spells:

FAQ wrote:

Cleric domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, and certain other class features give spell-like abilities that aren't based on spells. What's the effective spell level for these abilities?

The effective spell level for these spell-like abilities is equal to the highest-level spell that a character of that class could normally cast at the level the ability is gained.

For example, a 1st-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental ray as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 1's highest-level spell available is 1st, that spell-like ability counts as a 1st-level spell. A 9th-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental blast as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 9's highest-level spell available is 4th, that spell-like ability counts as a 4th-level spell.

...and similar text made it into the CRB:

CRB wrote:
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted.

However, based on debate in at least two threads (here and here), there appear to be two different readings of the CRB text.

(1) "is cast at the class level at which the ability is granted"
(2) "is cast at the class level from which the ability is granted"

The first case indicates that the caster level does not increase as the character gains levels in the class that granted the ability, while the second indicates that it does always equal the character's class level in the relevant class. So:

1) For SLAs not based on spells, should the caster level remain fixed, or increase as the character advances in the class granting the SLA?

Also, a second related question due to the proliferation of selectable class powers:

2) If a SLA can be selected at different levels, should we base the effective spell level (and possibly caster level) on the level the ability was gained, or the level the ability was first available? For example, if an occultist takes the Evocation implement school at level 6, gaining access to Energy Ray (Sp), is the effective spell level 1 (because the Energy Ray power can be gained as early as level 1) or 2 (because a 6th level occultist can cast 2nd level spells)?

Shadow Lodge

Given that the RP system is intended as a guide for GMs, my question would be "why do you need to know?"

If you're a GM trying to figure out whether it's balanced, the fact that you're allowed to swap darkvision and slapping tail for for evasive maneuevers suggests that it's more or less balanced - you don't need to know an RP value.

If you're a player who's been told they can play any race up to a certain RP value, and are wondering whether you can use alternate traits to lower the RP value of a race... I'd say technically unknown (C) and closer to 17 than 14 because in theory it's a balanced trade (or at least one that some players will find worthwhile). You may be able to work with your GM to make a slightly toned-down version of a race that is just above the GM's cutoff, but it will probably involve dropping racial traits rather than just swapping them out. Or at minimum, making trades that are clearly not optimal for your character. For example, for a Drow without the ability to summon Demons, the "Blasphemous Covenant" alternate trait gives them merely a +2 to Diplomacy with these specific creatures in exchange for +2 Perception and poison use, which is an underpowered trade for that character.

Shadow Lodge

Agreed, this is not actually a [Style] feat. It wasn't designed with the same limitations in mind, and Paizo hasn't taken the opportunity to re-write it in any way to make it more of a [Style] feat (which among other things would probably involve turning it into a feat chain).

Shadow Lodge

I vote adds, because otherwise the ability is not worth taking.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Hooray, barbarians can overkill harder, so what?

Sometimes it's overkill. Sometimes it's just enough kill.

When I'm plugging up an entire 25-foot hallway and practically auto-killing up to 5 mooks a round that are trying to get past me to my squishy party members? And the paladin gets to smack at best one of them, and isn't guaranteed to kill the one he takes a swing at even if he hits?

Tell me I'm not supporting my party to my very pointy face.

Ryan Freire wrote:

Out of combat I've got the party's highest Sense Motive (+26 at level 12) and am the only trained tracker, and our most durable scout (with 40 ft movement, acrobatics, decent stealth and perception) - which is valuable when we don't want to send the squishier investigator ahead alone. I've got a comparable Diplomacy to the paladin since he didn't have a lot of ranks to invest. And I can Craft Magic Arms & Armour during downtime.


Ryan Freire wrote:
and having spell sunder doesn't even touch the utility of all the mercies a paladin has available

Debatable. Hostile spells can seriously hinder a party.

Ryan Freire wrote:
plus access to raise dead without gold cost.

"Access to" = spending two feats in a relatively feat-starved class, and also meeting a non-trivial Charisma requirement. And since it burns 10 Lay on Hands it'll severely reduce your ability to self-heal or use other Mercies. Ultimate Mercy is cool but it costs.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Except the paladin does more to buff up your party than your bloodrager/monk by simple virtue of class abilities.

But the bloodrager//monk is better at controlling the battlefield due to improved reach and combat reflexes, plus spells such as Wind Wall. She's also more mobile, deals more consistent damage, and has better skills.

Daw wrote:
As to game balance, it is involved. Paladins have demonstrable advantages in a game where they are relevant at all. It is not any any individual ability, it is the synergistic way the work together.

Paladins do have demonstrable advantages - but so do other martial classes. Unchained Monks and Beast Totem barbarians have superior mobility due to a combination of fast movement and flying kick or pounce. Slayers have excellent utility between skill points, talents, and studied target bonuses. All three of those classes perform better during long adventuring days and combats with lots of mooks.

I'm not saying that these classes are equivalent, but that the paladin is not clearly superior.

Daw wrote:
As to game balance, it is involved. Paladins have demonstrable advantages in a game where they are relevant at all. It is not any any individual ability, it is the synergistic way the work together. If they weren't demonstrably advantaged, then these threads wouldn't exist because no one would feel cheated by not being able play them as a thug.

No, people feel that their character design options are being unnecessarily limited due to the specific alignment restriction and/or specific content of the code.

Even if it is partly a question of mechanics, that doesn't mean the paladin's mechanics are better. If sorcerers were required to be CN-only for some reason, then you would have disappointed people wanting to play heroic charisma-based spontaneous arcane casters. It wouldn't mean that sorcerers are mechanically better than wizards.

Daw wrote:

The point is, does just anyone have the purity of spirit to be able to possess the abilities.

Or another way, are they deserving of these gifts.

Which is a thematic argument based largely on your interpretation of what is "deserving." Many people do not believe that LG is intended to be somehow more deserving than other Good alignments. Certainly the game at least pays lip service to the idea that there is no single "best Good."

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Law-Chaos axis is terribly muddled, which is part of why having mechanical restrictions based on that axis bugs me.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Though no one seems to have actually made am argument for why the mechanics are not appropriate for different alignments.
Because LG is the most restrictive alignment and being able to be a paladin is representative of that fact.

Even if you are correct that LG is the most restrictive alignment (and I do not agree that this is the case), what about the paladin's mechanics require them to be restricted?

  • Smite Evil - makes you good at fighting evil. Not restrictive, makes sense for any good character.
  • Aura of Good, Detect Evil - ditto, any good.
  • Cha to Saves - Antipaladins get this, so clearly not LG-only.
  • Divine Health - you could maybe argue that this is about purity and that purity is restrictive?
  • Immunity to fear, charm, compulsion - really this is more about being freed from restrictions than being restricted.
  • Lay on Hands/Mercy - healing is loosely thematically good, but not restrictive: see Sarenrae, NG deity of healing and mercy.
  • Channel positive energy - available to any non-evil cleric with a non-evil deity.
  • Divine Bond - lots of classes get weapon enhancements, though there's some argument for slightly different sets of weapon properties based on alignment (most obviously the aligned properties). The celestial mount is clearly good-aligned but not "restrictive."
  • Share Smite Evil, Good aligned attacks, DR/evil, banish evil outsiders - like Smite Evil, this is just about fighting evil, not about being restricted in how you do it.

So the only mechanic that's even vaguely connected to the idea of restriction is Divine Health, and then only if you interpret physical purity as also indicating moral restriction.

Again, it's not game balance that's requiring this restriction. Paladins not only aren't the most powerful class, they're not even clearly the most powerful martials - I'm playing a Bloodrager/Monk co-frontlining with a Paladin and we're pretty balanced both in and out of combat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathlessOne wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
because not all gms will make the change themselves to allow non LG paladins
That's table variation for you. If the DM/GM says no, it isn't going to happen. You can't force people to accept your idea and give it approval.

Problem is that there's a good chunk of people who, in absence of a strong opinion one way or another, will stick with the default - which means that currently there are a good chunk of people who will turn down alternate alignments even though they don't really care about the issue. If the alignment restriction were removed, then Lady-J's character concept would only be rejected if someone actually cared enough to say "LG only."

Seems to me that it's not a good idea to effectively ban a character concept just because someone didn't care enough to change the default option.

DeathlessOne wrote:
However, accepting that we will not call your idea of a "holy warrior" with similar abilities to a Paladin but has a different alignment, a Paladin, and meeting us halfway with a simple and harmless change in the name of the class, that goes a long way to fostering goodwill and an atmosphere of acceptance. Both parties end up getting what they want, if not exactly how they wanted it.

I'd be content with that result - having the mechanics shared for all alignments but keeping the "Paladin" title exclusive to LG. In fact, that's how it works in my current campaign. I call the class "Champion" and a specific, exclusively LG order comprises the "Paladins."

Unfortunately, some people are not happy with that. Just in this thread:

I feel like "champions of other alignments" are a great idea, but the ones that aren't LG shouldn't be defined by things like grace, lay on hands, mercy, etc. They should instead be defined by things that are more appropriate for those alignments.
Everything seems to keep coming back to wanting the class abilities without the restrictions that come with them.

Though no one seems to have actually made am argument for why the mechanics are not appropriate for different alignments.

And the closest we've gotten to an official change is the Grey Paladin, which (1) is mechanically inferior (2) cannot be CG (3) even if NG, cannot worship a CG deity.

Shadow Lodge

Anguish wrote:

Another way of saying what Dastis (and others) have said...

He owns/has:
BELT #1 belt of Strength +4 16,000gp
BELT #2 belt of Strength +2 & Constitution +2 10,000gp

He wishes to own:
belt of Strength +4 & Constitution +2 22,000gp

Turning BELT #1 into what he wants costs 6,000gp. He can sell BELT #2 for 5,000gp which means he only needs to come up with 1,000gp.

This is the correct math, looking at the market price.

If you have a party crafter upgrade new BELT #1, it only costs 3,000gp, which actually nets the PC a 2,000gp profit from selling old BELT #2.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I can reference medieval demographics, according to this source, you have one "clergyman" for about every 40 people, but only one priest for about every 25-30 clergy (or about 1,000 people).

It seems reasonable to me that most of the basic clergy would be adepts, while most of the priests would be clerics. That would give you an estimate of about one adept per 40 people, and one cleric per 1,000.

Incidentally, you also need about 1,500 people to support a blacksmith, which means that this:

Edward the Necromancer wrote:

Some people are guards, some farmers, some blacksmiths, some spell casters. The usefulness of each occupation is directly related to how much you aid your community. The smallest of communities is probably going to have a single smithy, a single general goods store, and a single church. Just as a smithy has a master blacksmith and a few apprentices, the local church is going to have one head priest and a few acolytes. Since they live in that community AND want to spread their faith they are going to use their services to aid the community how ever they can.

That means casting "Create Water" to fill the town irrigation, purify food/drink to clean the town well water, mending to fix broken tools, stabilize on a person who hurt themselves, things like that.

...would describe a town of about 1,000-1,500 people. And while one cleric and a couple dozen adepts can do quite a lot of good for a town, I don't think they would be able to fill all the community's needs for water, medicine, or mending.

First, it is my understanding that adepts don't have unlimited orisons:

Adepts and Orisons:
Quintain wrote:
Note: correction on my statement above. Adepts can memorize no more than 3 cantrips. There doesn't seem to be a declared limitation on number of castings a day.

As far as I'm aware, every class that gets unlimited 0-level spells gets either the "orisons," "cantrips," or "knacks" class feature. For example, clerics have: "Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Cleric under “Spells per day.” These spells are treated like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again." To me this suggests that 0-level spells are not actually unlimited by default, which means that adepts, lacking the orisons feature, can only cast a limited number of them.

Looking at water alone, this source estimates the global average water consumption per person at 1243 cubic metres per year, or 328,365.9 gallons per person, or 328,365,900 gallons for a town of 1,000. At 1,200 gallons per hour for Create Water, you're looking at 273,638 hours worth of work a year, or 750 hours a day. If the magical irrigators are casting 8 hours a day, you'll need 94 of them to single-handedly supply the town.

But can we use the water consumption of a modern person to estimate the water consumption of a pseudo-medieval person?

Well, potatoes are one of the most water-efficient crops at 287 litres of water (75.8 gallons) and 770 calories to the kilogram, which means that to feed a person 2000 calories worth of potatoes you need about 197 gallons of water a day, or just under 197,000 gallons a day for a town of 1,000. That's 165 hours worth of work per day, which takes 21 magical irrigators casting Create Water for 8 hours a day – or about 1/50th the population of the town. For a diet of potatoes.

And remember that if I'm correct that adepts cannot crank out Create Water for 8 hours a day, this work needs to be done by clerics or other PC-classed spellcasters. This would make widespread irrigation by manual casting massively impractical.

However, it would be relatively easy for clerics to supply drinking water to a castle under siege or a sailing ship, and they'd probably be able to blunt a drought or possibly even supplement irrigation long-term in an area that otherwise gets just a little less than it needs to support farming.

And you could get some very interesting things going with Decanters of Endless Water. I've got a city in my setting that is primarily magically irrigated, and I estimated that it would need about one decanter per 20 people - or a 450gp investment each. That's equivalent to 12-13 years of wages for an unskilled worker or about a year's wages for an artisan - which, given that it's a permanent investment, is not out of the question for an elven city.

Shadow Lodge

Should we make a separate, more general thread to discuss the meaning of the FAQ?

I feel like the question in the original post (are some Focus Powers spell-like, and what does that mean) has generally been resolved. And the previous FAQ seems to pretty clearly indicate that the effective spell level is fixed. However, we have two remaining questions about SLAs not based on spells:

1) Should the caster level remain fixed, or increase as the character advances in the class granting the SLA?

2) If a SLA can be selected at different levels, should we base the effective spell level (and possibly caster level) on the level the ability was gained, or the level the ability was available? For example, if an occultist takes the Evocation implement school at level 6, gaining access to Energy Ray (Sp), is the effective spell level 1 (because the Energy Ray power can be gained as early as level 1) or 2 (because a 6th level occultist can cast 2nd level spells)?

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder has been known to use redundant reminder text - and in this case, as Chess Pwn suggests, it would be beneficial to ensure that people don't try to use character level or total HD as their caster level. My guess is that the FAQ didn't address caster level because it wasn't causing confusion at the time. Then someone took the FAQ when writing the errata and while adapting the text realized that it would be good to specify how caster level works. However they were trying to cram than information into a small space, mangling the syntax. The confusing wording even parallels the wording of the FAQ in a way that I could see resulting from a copy-paste operation and some hasty editing.

"The effective spell level for these spell-like abilities is equal to the highest-level spell that a character of that class could normally cast at the level the ability is gained."

"If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted."

Shadow Lodge

Isonaroc wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Lancelot is the ur-Paladin (and the first example of the fallen Paladin, depending on the source). Galahad is the prototypical Paladin, the example from which essentially every "white knight in shining armor" character is derived from, and was imbued with super human abilities due to his purity, piety, and honor.
And brave sir robin is your Order of the cockatrice cavalier! at least his minstrels are tasty.
That actually works pretty well... Now I want to know what Monty Python's Lancelot would be, what with the killing everyone in sight.

Wild Rager?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
The worst is trying to play a Rogue or Inquisitor with a Paladin in the group insisting that we fight fair and don't do anything dishonest, like sneaking around to scout for enemies, sneak attack the bad guys, or disguise yourself as someone else to infiltrate the bad guys.

"Fair"? ...that word does not appear in the CRB paladin text. (It does not appear anywhere in the Additional Rules section on alignments either.)

A paladin fights evil with "every means within my power". He does not get down on all-fours and try to bite a wolf with his teeth because that's "fair". No, he kills the thing with his "unfair" weapon.

-- My last paladin was multiclassed rogue and wore a Hat of Disguise while sneak-Smiting bad guys.

"Fair" isn't' in the CRB code, but "honour" is.

YMMV (or your deity's mileage may vary) on what is considered honourable.

1 to 50 of 5,288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.