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

Weirdo's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,607 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Malag wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

I agree with gnoams, Dave Justus, and Chengar Qordath. This isn't abusive, but guerrilla tactics can be frustrating. Heck, they're designed to be frustrating in order to cause the enemy to make mistakes or give up. Such encounters are best used sparingly or they'll get in the way of the group's fun.

Having two such encounters in the same session was overdoing it.

As for what next, dropped papers are a good way to clue players in to what to expect. Then have a chat with them. I'd explain what you were trying to do, apologize for taking it too far, and indicate that you have faith in their ability to overcome this challenge, especially if they change up their own tactics. Remind the druid and shaman in particular that they have access to their entire spell lists, which include good spells for detecting or setting ambushes. The druid may also want to consider wild shape forms that have benefits other than just raw combat power, and everyone should consider mundane actions such as concealing or fortifying their campsite.

There was but one such strained encounter over long terrain distance. 2nd encounter was resolved normally per PF rules. Perhaps I didn't clarify it enough in my first post. My apologies.

Your suggestion is what I had in mind. I'll suggest several helpful spells and ideas. It's not the first time they will encounter someone ambushing them.

I did misinterpret that, sorry. However, closing to melee in the second fight was apparently not enough for the players to feel they had worked off their initial frustration - the ambush and the two surviving mercenaries' successful withdrawal may have resulted in them feeling that even if they'd won they had been made fools of.

Shadow Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
The problem with the bloodrager is that barbarians have a pungent theme that gets all over anything they're connected to and is really hard to clean up. The urban barbarian and serene barbarian manage to potentially avoid it, but even though the former is Paizo the bloodrager not only avoids such options but manages to be even more mindless berserker idiot than the base barbarian.
My bloodrager has Sense Motive +25, Diplomacy +13, Craft(calligraphy), and a preference for nonlethal damage, thank you very much.
doesn't matter, knowledge nobility isn't a class skill, not classy enough.

There are traits for that.

Shadow Lodge

The fact that the viking's ability is called "berserker" is irrelevant. Per the FAQ, abilities that don't specifically say they stack are used separately. The example given was Channel Energy, regardless of terminology.

Shadow Lodge

I agree with gnoams, Dave Justus, and Chengar Qordath. This isn't abusive, but guerrilla tactics can be frustrating. Heck, they're designed to be frustrating in order to cause the enemy to make mistakes or give up. Such encounters are best used sparingly or they'll get in the way of the group's fun.

Having two such encounters in the same session was overdoing it.

As for what next, dropped papers are a good way to clue players in to what to expect. Then have a chat with them. I'd explain what you were trying to do, apologize for taking it too far, and indicate that you have faith in their ability to overcome this challenge, especially if they change up their own tactics. Remind the druid and shaman in particular that they have access to their entire spell lists, which include good spells for detecting or setting ambushes. The druid may also want to consider wild shape forms that have benefits other than just raw combat power, and everyone should consider mundane actions such as concealing or fortifying their campsite.

Shadow Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
The problem with the bloodrager is that barbarians have a pungent theme that gets all over anything they're connected to and is really hard to clean up. The urban barbarian and serene barbarian manage to potentially avoid it, but even though the former is Paizo the bloodrager not only avoids such options but manages to be even more mindless berserker idiot than the base barbarian.

My bloodrager has Sense Motive +25, Diplomacy +13, Craft(calligraphy), and a preference for nonlethal damage, thank you very much.

Shadow Lodge

That, and the fact that "This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage" including using separate rage abilities for multiclass characters.

I'd let it stack and let urban barbarian cross over because it's less complicated and doesn't look OP, but that would be a houserule.

Shadow Lodge

Features that don't say they stack don't stack. You get two different rage pools.

Source: FAQ:

FAQ wrote:
unless an ability specifically says it stacks with similar abilities (such as an assassin's sneak attack), or adds in some way based on the character's total class levels (such as improved uncanny dodge), the abilities don't stack and you have to use them separately.

Shadow Lodge

Toilcrafter, but you still need to take the Craft Magic Arms & Armour feat, you still need to choose one skill to use the trait with, and being able to craft only +1 items (with no special qualities) becomes useless as soon as you want an upgrade.

EDIT: My current houserule is that anyone with 5 ranks or more in any Craft skill can take crafting feats, treating the ranks in such Craft skills as caster level for the purpose of making appropriate items. For example, a character with 7 ranks in Craft (weapons) and 5 in Craft (armour) can take the Craft Arms & Armour feat and make weapons as if they had caster level 7, and armour as if they had caster level 5, and cannot make magic bows. The penalty for not being a caster is not being able to use a single skill for crafting - and having a harder time meeting spell prerequisites. Seems sufficient.

Shadow Lodge

Kestral is correct, however I think it would be a reasonable house rule to change the fiendish boon to work like a paladin's mount, in which case he would have effective druid level 9 but get extra bonuses like the fiendish template according to his antipaladin level only.

EDIT: just saw your other thread, you should have specified that this was the seal-breaker archetype. The corpse rider ability does grant an animal companion (albeit with type changed to undead). Adjusted answers:

1. It levels up like a druid's companion, but with the changes to save progression and HP given in the archetype.

2. Effective druid level = antipaladin level

3. I think he can just add his cavalier level to antipaladin level for calculating effective druid level - an undead horse is still a horse. It's also the simplest solution. But check with your GM. Moving to other thread to see if there's more discussion on that note.

Shadow Lodge

dragonhunterq wrote:
The feat limits you to using your chosen skill.

Correct.

dragonhunterq wrote:

The feat does not limit you to using the appropriate skill on the item crafting list.

That limitation simply does not exist.

False, that limitation exists in the item crafting list - the general rules.

dragonhunterq wrote:
To be bound by the general rules the feat would need a clause limiting you to a craft skill only and a further restriction to a skill appropriate to the craft feat you want to go on to choose. The feat puts no restrictions on the skill you can choose.

To be bound by the general rules, the feat merely needs to not include a specific exception to those rules.

See the Broad Study Arcana:

Broad Study wrote:
Benefit: The magus selects another one of his spellcasting classes. The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class. This does not allow him to cast arcane spells from that class’s spell list without suffering the normal chances of arcane spell failure, unless the spell lacks somatic components.

This arcana allows you to ignore one of the limitations of spellstrike and spell combat, namely that you can only use these abilities with magus spells.

It does not allow you to ignore the other limitations associated with spellstrike, such as the fact that you can only use spellstrike with a spell with a range of "touch."

It does not allow you to ignore the other limitations associated with spell combat, such as needing a free hand.

It's up to you to select a spellcasting class that would be useful with this ability. The bard for example has only one harmful touch-range spell, touch of gracelessness, plus the cure line if you're fighting undead, so they can't really use spellstrike. Heck, you could also take this as a Paladin 3 / Magus 6 - Paladin is a spellcasting class, even if you don't have enough levels to cast your spells. Paizo is not required to make useless choices impossible.

Shadow Lodge

Gun Dragon wrote:
Ok her stats are Str20, Dex12, Con14, Int14, Wis8, Cha18 with cha headband +2.
Gun Dragon wrote:
Oracle of Sunder wrote:

I would buy her : 16 12 14 12 11 14.

So with bonuses she would be: 18 14 14 12 09 18
Just noticed your stats Is it better than my other stats?

Yes, because Oracle's are correct. Your second array is still 32 points. Pre-racial starting 18s are expensive.

Shadow Lodge

The catfolk does sound like more fun, though aren't the stats high for the point buy? Counting the +2 headband, racial +2 Dex +2 Cha -2 Wis, and assuming level increases in Str, you'd start with 18 (17), 12 (2), 16 (10), 14 (5), 10 (0), 14 (5) = 39 points. Or are these stats assuming raging song (which would mean a starting 14 Str and 12 Con for 5+2+2+5+0+5 points = 24)?

Sansetsukon (three-section staff) is a pretty good weapon for the unchained monk - it's a two-hander so you get the improved strength benefits, has a d10 damage die and 19-20 crit threat range, and also has the blocking and disarm properties.

Do you know what the rest of the party will be like?

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Let's say you want to play an oracle and must select a curse, which one is the least damaging for you, mecanically?

I keep thinking that the Tongues curse doesn't hamper you... at all. By 10th level, you're... pretty much clear. Why? Because if your allies want to warn you, you understand them. You can't answer back unless they understand you, but... let's face it, what's so complicated for the other players to invest 2 skill points to learn your selected language anyway?

That's my opinion though. What's yours?

It doesn't work that way. In combat, the language block operates both ways.

Not at level 10.

Tongues Curse wrote:
At 10th level, you can understand any spoken language, as if under the effects of tongues, even during combat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wikipedia wrote:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.

Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems....

The "unfettered personal freedom" and "resentment towards legitimate authority" described in the Chaos section is pretty libertarian.

And no, that doesn't mean reckless or codeless. We've got a CN alchemist in the party who was specifically described as "Libertarian, if that existed in this setting." He thinks that the government should stay out of peoples' business, is very meticulous, and holds himself to a high standard of excellence as a physician. He is a keen innovator but opposes automation, believing it undermines the individual pursuit of craftsmanship. He is, as a whole, less reckless than the NG oracle who has no interest in government.

The Quakers bit was about demonstrating how you can have an organization or community that functions and is not reckless or codeless, but also lacks a hierarchical government in that every member has equal governing power (not just in a one person one vote sense but in direct decision making). To what extent would you argue that Quakers are lawful?

Adaptability is a separate issue (and part of the problem with the law/chaos description is the way it smushes together ideas like freedom and adaptability which aren't strongly correlated.)

EDIT:

Bandw2 wrote:
as has been argued before she has 3 options, resist the nobles by killing them and leave no witnesses(OP said they would be tracked and killed out of town), assault them and leave witnesses allowing the nobles to track it back to her and the town, or simply give up. When you can't trust the law and take it into your own hands that is a chaotic individual.

There's a difference between not trusting a particular legal system and not trusting "the law" (more properly, order) as a concept.

Bandw2 wrote:
Killing them is the only sustainable way, and thus is neutral as it's self preservation while upholding her ideals, very extreme sure, but not black and white evil.

If she's in a position to anonymously kill them, she's in a position to anonymously humiliate them. OP's description made it pretty clear that she's not killing as a last resort, she wants to kill and is looking for an excuse. And I really doubt that she can kill anonymously - in a standard PF setting there are lots of divinations that could at least lead investigators in the direction of the town once nobles go missing.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Extortion and assault (with non-lethal force) are generally not capital offenses - even in medieval times when punishments were very harsh by our standards you're looking at public humiliation, branding, flogging or perhaps losing a hand or ear.

Bandw2 wrote:
1)the nobles are using their noble noble nobleness and exploiting that, the dragon guard or what ever still does their thing but the nobles on their off time as nobles are doing the crazy stuff.

I don't follow.

I believe the character is generalizing her experience with the Dragon Guard neglecting their very specific individual duties to the belief that nobles are neglecting their less well-defined duties. Does that address your point?

Bandw2 wrote:
2) you're confusing chaotic with chaotic stupid. a chaotic person can understand that governing bodies lead to good safe areas, they just specifically need to use that power to serve the people.

No, I'm talking about chaotic ideals. A chaotic person can accept that in some circumstances governing bodies may be an unfortunate necessity, but government is contrary to the chaotic ideal, meaning any government you find necessary should have minimum power and if you can make do without a governing body you should not have one. And where you must have government, a chaotic person would prefer a direct democracy where every individual has equal and immediate power in decision-making, rather than even a republic where you invest your power in another person. (Though respect for expertise is compatible with a chaotic ideal and community experts may have a good deal of soft power in advising others.)

As an example, look at the difference between the Catholic church and the Society of Friends (Quakers).

The Catholic Church has a very well-defined hierarchy involving priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope, with well-defined rules for advancement up the hierarchy, and the hierarchy is based on the idea that priests and in particular the pope have a special relationship with God and are invested with the power to mediate between God and laypersons. It's a lawful religion - the hierarchy is considered an important part of worship.

Friends don't have priests. They may have congregational leaders, but those leaders don't have extra power, they're just the people willing to coordinate things or file the paperwork necessary to officiate weddings. Major decisions are made through consensus - the community gets together and talks over things until everyone agrees. All members of the community are considered equal, and anyone is equally permitted to speak at a worship service (there is no sermon). It's a chaotic religion - it rejects the idea of hierarchy.

In the middle we have many other Protestant Christian denominations, which generally have ministers with a formal leadership role and power within the congregation, but these ministers aren't the only path to salvation, they're just helpers.

Of course individuals exist on a continuum, so not all chaotic persons reject all government.

Shadow Lodge

dragonhunterq is referring to a minority interpretation that Master Craftsman (Armour) allows you to use Craft (Armour) to make non-armour magic items, based on the following text:

"You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item."

It is not generally accepted that this text overrides the usual restrictions on the skills that can be used to make specific items.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which makes her chaotic why?

EDIT:

1) Being evil may not delegitimize you but ignoring your lawful obligations does. If the feudal system states that the baron receives labour from his vassals in exchange for protecting them from bandits, and the baron does nothing to protect his vassals from bandits, he us illegitimate based on failing to uphold his side of the social contract. This is true even if he is the legitimate heir of the last baron - feudalism involves continued obligations up and down the hierarchy.

2) The idea that those in power must use that power responsibly is a LG idea. A chaotic person would reject the idea that there should be people in power at all.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP, I'd suggest you make your decision based on the standards you want to set for your game.

Evil is EVIL: Earning an evil alignment requires a person to perform repeated and significant evil acts, and very little good. Morally ambiguous characters are neutral instead. This means that a good party might find themselves opposed to creatures who aren't evil - but that when they do run into an evil entity they can be confident that it needs to be stopped.

Evil is Easy: It takes relatively few missteps to fall into evil, even if you're trying to do the right thing. Knowing that someone is evil doesn't tell you that they're on the wrong side. The party may encounter and side with well-intentioned extremists of evil alignment. However because it's so easy to become evil a good party can be confident that most of their enemies will be evil, making effects that target evil foes more reliable.

I don't think either take is better than the other, but it's important to be consistent - the party should know how serious an evil alignment is and what the chances are that Holy Smite will work on those bandits that are killing innocent people to feed their own families.

Bandw2 wrote:
in essence because she favors her charges over the lawful order or caste system she believes in chaos due to seeing the wrongness that the nobles impose from their order.

Disliking a particular ordered system doesn't mean you believe in chaos. Iomedae opposes diabolism not because she dislikes its order, but she dislikes the kind of order that encourages the strong to exploit the weak.

Bandw2 wrote:
Lawful - A desire to see order and stability, to see things go unchanged. supporting the parties in power is lawful but so can supporting other legitimate parties or even yourself if you can be considered legitimate. Leaders want strict laws and for them to be followed, in general a nation will have a strong central governing body, with ideals of stability.

The character's stance appears to be that the party in power is not legitimate due to its abdication of its lawful responsibilities to treat the lower classes fairly - and her position is supported by the fact that the current system had her unjustly stripped of rank as a result of her attempt to restore legitimacy to the system.

Tacticslion wrote:
EDIT: adding clarity, necessary due to ninja gobbos!

Gobbo ninjas are sneakiest ninjas.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
she obviously at this point prioritizes freedom and hates the inability to change the Dragon order. sure she has a code but the code has largely chaotic ideals(equality, respecting your charges) that.

Respecting your charges is perfectly compatible with a lawful ethic. See for example noblesse obligee, the idea that because you have social rank and privilege you have a responsibility to those of the lower class. The character hates bullying but that's not the same thing as demanding actual equality - and I don't see a value for freedom anywhere.

Bandw2 wrote:
seeing how ethically/morally opposed they are I find it hard pressed to think she could share evil or lawful with them.

Stalin and Hitler hated each other. I think most people would consider both of them LE.

kestral287 wrote:
Personally, I hold that she's neutral because she's effectively acting as LG for fifty-odd weeks of the year. It's the other two weeks, when a Guard or noble comes into town, that she shifts to acting LE. Hence, LN.

That raises an interesting question - to what extent can good acts compensate for evil ones? Are there any acts evil enough that they can't be compensated for? Atonement of course is a different beast, since it indicates that you regret an act and intend to avoid committing it again in the future - the character in question does not regret her actions but thinks that she can justify them by doing enough good elsewhere.

If a vampire kills two people a year, and saves fifty lives a year, what alignment are they?

Shadow Lodge

I see the OP's point.

It's not just that the changes don't step on each others' toes. Because of the line in eldritch pool saying that abilities that modify arcane pool modify eldritch pool, the spelldancer archetype would modify eldritch pool, not arcane pool, and there's no incompatibility - they wouldn't modify the same ability.

Similarly, the unchained rogue and barbarian Danger Sense ability says that it is treated as Trap Sense - though that ability specifically calls out counting as Trap Sense for purposes of archetypes.

I believe the intent is for Eldritch Pool to work with arcana that rely on your arcane pool, the extra arcane pool feat, and similar abilities, and that it does not contain specific enough language to override the archetype restriction. However I would allow it in a home game.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The descriptions of law and chaos are hopelessly muddled so I don't think it's possible to reach a firm agreement, but my take:

The character kills nobles because she believes they have abandoned their traditional duties and social responsibilities and become corrupt. She spares those who honour their sworn duties. A chaotic character can have a code, but they will not have a code that is centered around duty, tradition, and social obligation. I could believe neutral on that axis if she's largely paying lip service to tradition or is chaotic in other ways, but this character doesn't look like an anarchist, she looks like a frustrated reformer.

Bandw2 wrote:

what is the difference between a CE extremist and a CN extremist ?

what is the difference between a NE extremist and a CE extremist?

The CN extremist avoids hurting people if there's other options. The CE person likes hurting others - it makes them feel powerful.

The NE extremist feels more comfortable with rules and hierarchies, can use them to their advantage, and is not motivated to challenge them for no gain. The CE extremist finds such structures uncomfortable and limiting and considers dismantling them to be an end in itself - though they don't have to do so mindlessly.

Bandw2 wrote:
likewise, the OP's character seems justified in that most of her retaliations are against nobles abusing power, it might be an extreme punishment, but the character feels justified in their counter.

Feeling justified and being justified are not the same thing. If you're playing with relative alignment that's peachy, but most of us aren't.

Gaberlunzie wrote:
Basically, if it wouldnt be evil to kill an orc for it it shouldnt be evil to kill a noble for it. If anything, the orc is more liely to act out of necessity and not arrogance than the noble.

That's where table variation comes in. At some tables, killing an orc for verbally threatening a peasant would be perfectly OK. At others killing a captured bandit is evil, even if the bandit has killed innocents and just tried to kill you. Determining the exact circumstances in which killing is justified is a very complex debate. The alignment of this character should suit the table's general position on this issue.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would believe either LN or LE, depending on how flimsy an excuse she needs to kill nobles (neglecting to tip the waiter?) and how much she's willing to risk to protect the townsfolk. It would also somewhat depend on the campaign standards - there's quite a bit of variation in how much killing a table will accept in a good/non-evil character.

In general killing someone over disrespect is evil. It doesn't matter on the good-evil scale that she waited for them to cross her - if the retribution is disproportionate to the offense it's not morally justified.

I could easily see this character as a sympathetic villain.

EDIT @avr: might matter if someone uses Detect Evil, or a paladin tries to smite her, or someone hits her with a Holy weapon or Holy Smite. How likely these things are depends on the game - wouldn't come up in the one I'm currently running, but I've played with paladins before and it's rather important who counts as evil.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:
Funding 260 gp worth of gear to each individual Kobold makes no sense from an Ecology point of view. Frankly, I don't even know why the Bestiary entry for Kobold says 'NPC gear' because their gear adds up to approximately 2gp.

Spear (2gp), sling, leather armor (10gp), other treasure. The GM is expected to fill in the other treasure.

voideternal wrote:

Had the Bestiary entry for Kobold been completely decked with full gear composed of 260 gp, the busy GM doesn't have as much freedom to decide on the kind of wealth the PCs obtain. This is because each Kobold that the PCs fights would define 260 gp worth of gear that the PCs obtain.

If the GM has an abundance of time to individually customize each Kobold, this is not a problem, because the GM can spend his own time to customize each Kobold to use whatever wealth he wants. In fact, nothing in this thread is relevant for such a GM. It's the GMs that DON'T have time that must rely on the Bestiary entry for the Kobold. And for those GMs, the Bestiary Kobold should not predefine wealth.

We're not suggesting that the Bestiary define the full 260gp of wealth. We're suggesting it define 25-60gp of it instead of 12gp of it, such that the kobolds get slightly more useful weapons.

Orcs get falchions and those cost 75gp. Add the studded leather and javelins and that's over 100gp of predefined treasure.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:

My point is that the base CR 1/4 Kobold in the Bestiary should not eat up the GM's wealth pool.

...
The Bestiary cannot make assumptions about houserules. The Bestiary cannot make assumptions about how much time the GM has to alter said Bestiary. If all encounters were as well-equipped as the OP's kobolds, about 1/2 of the PC's wealth will come from the monster's pre-defined loot.

Kobolds are listed as having NPC gear, which means that as a 1st level NPC class they would have 260gp. That's a lot for the CR, but you're supposed to balance that out with monsters that give out less treasure, like the aforementioned traps:

Encounter Design wrote:
Encounters against NPCs typically award three times the treasure a monster-based encounter awards, due to NPC gear. To compensate, make sure the PCs face off against a pair of additional encounters that award little in the way of treasure. Animals, plants, constructs, mindless undead, oozes, and traps are great “low treasure” encounters.

In other words, the bestiary assumes that humanoid enemies (and other rich things like dragons) will eat up the GM's wealth pool. And the OP's suggestion to upgrade their gear with this wealth was made with this in mind.

Now, if you want to throw a lot of kobolds at the party it makes sense to reduce their budget. But you don't have to spend much to get improved weapons. Bows and crossbows are pricey, yes, but the difference between a spear and a longspear is 3gp, and it adds tactical interest. A buckler and light weapon like a handaxe adds about 10gp.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

Of course, we should also consider ease of carry and what the kobold expects to face in their daily life.

When it was allowed, civilians often just carried a sword and buckler, perhaps, as self defense weapons...

I would expect the average kobold of the warrior class to expect to face somewhat more violence than the average human civilian.

voideternal wrote:

Suppose, as in the OP, you gave each kobold a shortbow and a lucerne hammer. This effectively increases each kobold's loot by about 45 gold.

...
To get to level 2 by Medium Progression, you need 2,000 xp. In other words, you need to kill 20 kobolds. That's 900 gold worth of kobolds.
A level 2 PC is expected to have 1,000 gold worth of gear.
...
Personally, as a player, I don't want half of my gold income to be small-sized shortbows and lucerne hammers. I'd rather have the Kobolds get dirt-cheap gear so the GM can give me loot in other forms.

First, what does it matter when that income is promptly converted to gold and used to buy whatever you want (assuming the GM is indeed reasonable and counting stuff you can't use at sale value).

Second, if I as a GM were going to bring a PC to level 2 solely through killing kobolds, they wouldn't all have the same gear. I might have 8 pikers with longspears, slings, and hide shirts (20gp each, 160 total), 6 skirmishers with handaxes, bucklers, slings, and hide shirts (21 each, 166 total), 4 snipers with light crossbows, daggers, and leather (47gp each, 188 total), and 2 adepts with at most a longspear each (5 each, 10 total). That's 524gp of gear, or 262gp of actual wealth after sale, leaving me 738gp. About 200gp of that might go towards scrolls and a partly-depleted wand for the adepts, 200gp towards consumables for the warriors (alchemist's fire, special crossbow bolts, a potion of CLW), and 300-400gp in wealth the kobolds wouldn't be able to immediately use (coins, small gems, maybe a medium-size masterwork shield or armour). Probably I would overshoot on the assumption that a handful of consumables would be used in the fight.

Third, I would probably not spend an entire level fighting just kobolds - maybe half of the XP budget would be spend on kobolds, with the other half filled in with traps, guard animals, oozes, or other hazards around the kobolds' lair.

Shadow Lodge

Beast Shape III wrote:
This spell functions as beast shape II, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Diminutive or Huge creature of the animal type.

"Also allows you to assume the form" means "In addition to the previous forms" so you can use Beast Shape III to turn into a large creature.

Beast Shape III wrote:
If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability

This is not dependent on the size of what you turn into.

Beast Shape III wrote:
Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a -4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus.

This only applies if the form is a large animal.

If you use Beast Shape III to turn into a Large creature, you get the special abilities appropriate to the higher-level spell, but not the ability or natural armour adjustments appropriate to the Huge size.

So you can use Beast Shape III to turn into a Dire Tiger with rake, gaining +4 to Strength instead of +6.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GMs should be challenging, not brutal.

Charm Person should not negate Sense Motive and should definitely not negate Perception - even if you think the NPC is your beloved mother you might notice she seems distracted or distant (perhaps suspecting that she's the mind-controlled one), and you'd definitely be able to spot archers.

That entire scenario looks like a save-or-die to me so I don't know why the GM was surprised by the outcome.

If the GM wants to kill characters, the GM can kill characters. That's not the point of the game.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a lot of ground between optimal weapon choices and the terrible weapons these creatures are given.

Even the longspear lemeres suggested is a big improvement on the simple spear thanks to sneaking in an extra attack with reach.

Machetes and handaxes can be used with weapon finesse for +2 to hit. These should not be difficult weapons to make. Kobolds have a 6 point racial difference in favour of dex over str, and they're using weapons that are particularly favourable for strong over dextrous creatures (two-handed weapons and slings).

Or try a pickaxe for the x4 crit. Or a heavy or light pick (the latter with weapon finesse) with a buckler or light shield for +1 AC - the kobold can continue to benefit from the shield while using a sling. Picks should be available to miners and it makes perfect sense to make slightly higher-quality war picks. Heck, you can even use mining picks as weapons without penalty with a trait.

And while light crossbows aren't generally optimal enough to become boring, they're fantastic for kobolds and I would really expect to see at least a handful in a tribe that lives around halflings or gnomes - say, enough crossbows to equip the 1 in 20 kobolds who is a 3rd level sergeant.

Shadow Lodge

I'm the GM trying to design encounters so that the natural weapons guy doesn't shred things but the other martials aren't unduly frustrated.

When the enemies have DR 5 the natural weapons guy is about on par with the sword & board. DR 10 makes all the martials sad, especially the ninja who can't deal 10 damage in a hit without sneak attack.

Flight severely limits both the natural weapons and the sword and board guy. The ninja is the only martial with a decent ranged attack (and even then only when using Vanishing Trick to get sneak attack, otherwise it's a flat d6 damage). Flight is also no harder for natural weapons builds to get than manufactured weapon builds, and for some classes it's easier (the alchemist comes to mind).

Pounce tends to be easier to get in natural weapons builds. Druid, beastmorph alchemist, beast totem barbarian (gets claws even if you don't have to use them), claw pounce... not to mention quadrupedal eidolons.

Just a Guess wrote:
Natural attack builds can be strong when combining it with manufactured weapons or with polymorph spells/effects.

Polymorph just gets crazy. Monstrous Physique I is a 3rd level spell that can grant a gargoyle's 4 natural attacks, flight, +2 Str and +2 Natural armour - when a TWF build is still stuck on 2 attacks. The alchemist gets it at 7th level (+5 BAB) and thanks to Mutagen and potentially sneak attack is a more capable melee combatant than a sorc/wiz. The alchemist can also take infusion to hand it out to other party members (like my UAS bloodrager, who would love 4 extra attacks even at -5 each and 1/2 str).

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, Dimensional Anchor is better to prevent teleportation.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Desna was inspired by Mothra.

Shadow Lodge

Just to throw a bit of a wrench in things... are you sure you want to stop him? It's possible that it would be a more interesting story if PC 1 does kill that NPC despite PC 2's wishes, or at least if PC 1 gets a good swing in before PC 2 is able to intervene (causing a more dramatic confrontation and potential complications).

Of course, this could get out of hand if PC 1 is constantly killing things when the rest of the party wants to use diplomacy or if the player is intentionally trying to mess with the plot. But you don't always have to stop another PC from doing something just because your PC wouldn't like it.

A PC in my current group made a very ill-advised (but in-character) deal with a LE entity, and while the rest of the party chewed him out over it none of us stopped him. It's moved the story in an interesting direction, and though we expect it'll lead to some unpleasant consequences I trust the GM not to punish the players for it.

The biggest mistake I ever made at a gaming table was worrying too much about another PC doing something my PC didn't like, and not trusting the GM to turn it into a good story.

Check out this article for more.

Gwen Smith wrote:
(There should be an "Improved Smack Upside the Head" combat maneuver...)

Sounds like a good old fashioned unarmed strike.

Shadow Lodge

Calth wrote:
To each their own, but since you brought up eldritch scrapper, it is worth noting that there is an oracle version that trades 4 revelations (which can be made up with feats) for a superior (compared to scrapper) version of the brawler ability (Earlier progression and better action advancement by a full step).

That's a good idea, especially if you don't like all your mystery's revelations. Lore for example strikes me as a little lacklustre after Sidestep Secret, especially for a bloodrager gestalt (though it would be a lot better for a bard or even investigator gestalt - the latter gets a lot of mileage out of the Mental Acuity revelation).

Shadow Lodge

Just a Guess wrote:

As is pure natural attack builds are strong at low levels and weak at high levels. Nerfing them at low levels would mean they are never strong. So the only way they would be used would be in addition to two-handed attacks. And that is the point at which they are already good, because they just add dpr at no or little cost.

As not all kinds of natural attacks CAN be combined with two-handed weapons it would make those who can't near useless. Like claws and some kinds of slams.

First, I'm not a fan of linear-quadratic balance. If something's strong at low levels and weak at high levels, or vice-versa, that's two separate bugs. I'd rather come up with a second fix to boost natural attacks at high levels than leave them as-is.

Second, my current party is at level 8 and natural weapons guy is still at least holding his own against sword and board guy, depending on whether the enemy has DR and haste is active. When are natural attacks supposed to fall behind? Like many, we usually end campaigns in the level 10-15 range.

Shadow Lodge

Bloodrager//Sorc has some challenges, and is probably not as good overall as oracle, but it also has some very strong benefits. I would still consider it a worthwhile gestalt.

The sorcerer/wizard spell list is the most diverse in the game, and the bloodrager gets a fairly limited selection from that list, so the overlap will not be significant in terms of the actual increase in the versatility of your spells. You get earlier access to spells like Enlarge Person, Fly, or Black Tentacles, and completely new access to things like Grease, Dominate Person, Contingency, or Teleportation.

Archetypes give you a lot of flexibility when it comes to trading out overlapping or just plain bad bloodline abilities. Primalist works on the bloodrager side and lets you give up exactly the powers you don't want. Eldritch scrapper is a good place to start on the sorcerer side, since it works well with the bloodrager's martial abilities. You can also give up a 1st level power from either class for a bloodline familiar.

Losing armour is annoying, but it's not a dealbreaker. You have mage armour, shield, and non-AC defenses (mirror image, blur, displacement, greater invisibility, DR). In the very early levels before you can rely on these, you can do just fine wearing armour and avoiding casting in combat. The armoured coat is handy here because you can slip it on and off quickly to cast utility spells and pre-buffs, and you can wear a haramaki under it in case you get caught with the coat off. If you're planning on doing a lot of casting then just act like a sorcerer and stay a little farther back (possibly with a reach weapon).

The Dragon Disciple gestalt is for when you want the combat side to be more important than the casting - and that's fine. It's hard to do both well, even in gestalt. The bite is pretty awesome for a bloodrager with a natural weapons build since it adds 1.5 Strength to damage, and (like the claws) has energy damage attached.

Shadow Lodge

chbgraphicarts wrote:

When you take Natural Weapons, you take 'em for one of two reasons:

1) to increase the number of total Attacks you can make in a round beyond the ones allowed via BAB, thus increasing your DPR, even if only through 1-2 additional Natural Attacks per round.

2) to be your primary mode of Attacking, which basically means that you HAVE to take multiple Primary Natural Weapons, so that you're attacking at your full BAB and thus hitting, and so you're not doing only .5x Str per each Attack.

If you limit Natural Weapons so that they can't add more than your total number of Attacks per round (basically doing exactly what Flurry does for a Monk and Brawler), then you're almost completely destroying any reason for players to ever use Reason 1, and you're seriously nerfing Reason 2, since Natural Weapons will pretty much ALWAYS do less basic damage than a Two-Handed Weapon, ESPECIALLY since you can make multiple Attacks with a THW and deal 1.5x Str with each Attack, while you can only make a single Attack with each Natural Weapon, and the moment you use TWO Natural Weapons you're only dealing 1x Str with each AT MOST.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about limiting you to the attacks that BAB would grant, just adding a limit based on BAB.

For example, the limit might be making twice as many attacks as allowed by BAB alone (equivalent to the number of attacks you can make with TWF).

That would allow a character with a sword and board or two-hander style to get at minimum one extra attack from a natural weapon, and 2 or more extra attacks at higher levels. However a character with BAB+6 and Improved TWF could not make a sword +4/sword+4/sword-1/sword-1/bite+1 routine - though they could make a sword/sword/off-hand/bite routine if the bite is better than the second off-hand.

It would also mean that a character using just natural weapons wouldn't be able to claw/claw/bite until level 6 at least. That's definitely a nerf, but the two natural weapons builds I've seen in play so far have been extremely powerful at low levels thanks to the large number of attacks, so I'm not sure it would ruin them to slow them down a bit.

Shadow Lodge

If you dip cavalier, the mount won't advance in power. I'd take Sacred Huntmaster, and consider coordinating teamwork feats with the hunter (solo tactics covers you, but your companion still needs an ally and the hunter will probably appreciate being able to use you as a feat ally in addition to his/her animal companion).

Shadow Lodge

That would work, though as a sorcerer class feature it would only partially scale.

Shadow Lodge

Familiar BAB, HP, skills, and saves are based on character level, not class level, so they actually scale OK. Not great, but OK.

Familiar bond works, though the familiar lacks quite a few abilities.

Shadow Lodge

That's a Pathfinder Society module. Is this for PFS Organized Play?

Shadow Lodge

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Actually, Unarmed Strikes are the things that're weird...

They're both weird. If natural attacks worked like manufactured weapons then there wouldn't be a problem. Though I agree UAS are double weird for sitting halfway between manufactured and natural attacks.

Your solution might work. I'm also tempted to try a cap on number of attacks in a full-attack, based on BAB, but I'm not sure how that would affect natural attack builds.

Shadow Lodge

So that's my initial "don't change the same abilities" take (which could also be described as treating the unchained versions as archetypes of their own classes). Stricter but doesn't create potential problems - appropriate for PFS. Home GMs might allow some archetypes that replace or alter rage or eidolons depending on whether the result is sensible.

Unchained is, after all, the houserules book.

Shadow Lodge

In general:

FAQ wrote:

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

Shadow Lodge

Qaianna wrote:
As far as class? I wouldn't call either Captain America or Twilight Sparkle a bard.

The shield champion brawler is pretty obviously designed with Cap's fighting style in mind, though unfortunately it isn't compatible with Exemplar, which best represents his leadership ability. I think others have suggested variants of paladin or fighter.

Twilight's almost certainly a wizard or arcanist, with a pseudodragon familiar.

Bard's a good class for The Hero but any class can fill the role.

Shadow Lodge

Lord Foul II wrote:
Paladin wouldn't work well as a full bab class you aren't getting your monie's worth

It's not quite that simple. Full BAB classes often work better when gestalted with part-BAB classes that offer more diverse abilities, but some full-BAB//full-BAB gestalts offer synergistic combinations of combat abilities that can work very nicely.

Paladin//Bloodrager for example can use a Mercy to remove fatigue and gets massive defenses (Lay on Hands, DR, uncanny dodge, divine grace, paladin immunities, some bloodline abilities). Raging smite is terrifying. Lesser Celestial Totem (through primalist) is notable in that it lets you add your level to Lay on Hands, and is a good alternative to the Beast Totem line, especially if you like your high-level bloodline powers and don't want to trade too many away for rage powers.

Full BAB//Full caster has the problem that you can't easily fight and cast in the same turn - compare with martial abilities which can often be used to improve the same attacks.

That said, Oracle, Bard, and Sorcerer are also very good choices depending on what you want, and are more versatile. You can improve your action economy by focusing on spells to cast between combats (utility and long-term buffs) or by using a reach weapon to get in extra attacks of opportunity on rounds you cast (see the reach cleric build).

The Oracle has good buff options, both for itself and others. The Lame curse grants blanket fatigue immunity, you can take a revelation and divine protection to get very strong benefits from your Cha (especially if your stats aren't great and you want to sacrifice Dex). Many mysteries grant combat revelations, and Lunar is worth noting in particular for a natural weapons build (claws from a bloodline, gore from Gift of Claw and Horn, bite from race or rage power) and also grants Cha to AC and Reflex, which the Battle mystery doesn't.

Bard is the best choice for skills, and can also get combat buffs from bardic performance (either sharing them or buffing itself even more with the dervish) and from spells like heroism. Base saves are all good. Arcane Duelist is the best for combat abilities, at the cost of some skill tricks.

Sorcerer messes with your armour but it's also got neat tricks, some of which are more offensively minded than the oracle. For example, you get better access to polymorph spells than the bloodrager, so you can cast something like Monstrous Physique and then tear stuff up with your full BAB and Rage. Note that Rageshaper abilities will work on spells you cast as a sorcerer (though furious transformation requires the spell to be also on the bloodrager list and that you have Mad Magic). You could also rack up a really massive strength with the Abyssal bloodlines (and use sorc abilities to mitigate the Abyssal bloodrager's AC problem).

I would not go with Skald because raging song doesn't work with bloodrage.

Shadow Lodge

Actually, that's a subtle difference from being able to take archetypes as long as the unchained class hasn't altered the replaced features.

That would mean that you could take an urban unchained barbarian, and get back the ability to increase ability scores directly, but still get the new danger sense and rage powers (some of which are very nice and thematically appropriate for an urban barbarian).

On the other hand, I can see some archetypes that would be problematic if used in this way. The First Worlder for example summons a fey eidolon, but there's no fey base form for the unchained eidolon. Similarly the Wild Caller's plant eidolon doesn't fit with the unchained eidolon. You could maybe overlay it with the base forms to get some kind of fey-agathion or plant-demon but it would be weird.

Shadow Lodge

You want to talk about what makes sense?

A creature with BAB +0 cannot attack with two daggers and kick in the same full-attack action.

They can attack with two claws and kick in the same full-attack.

On the other hand, if UAS was blanket prevented from working with natural attacks, then you would be able to Claw/Claw/Gore, but wouldn't be able to Claw/Claw/Headbutt.

Natural attacks are weird. Hence the problem.

Shadow Lodge

Rogue, barbarian, and summoner can take archetypes that don't change the same features modified in the unchained class. For example, invulnerable rager is OK but urban barbarian is not because rage has been changed. Remember danger sense still counts as trap sense.

The unchained monk has been changed too much to apply archetypes using this rule, but it's actually not hard to adjust archetypes in a home game such that archetype powers replace ki powers at the appropriate levels, or even turning archetype abilities into ki powers so you can mix and match.

Shadow Lodge

I don't think it takes a lot of investment compared to the payoff, when compared to using UAS alone.

It's really easy to get bite and claw attacks. A tengu can get both from racial traits, half-orcs can get a bite, catfolk get claws, tieflings can have a bite or claws. Alchemists get both from one discovery. Barbarians get a bite from one rage power and claws from another (the very-good beast totem line). A ranger or slayer can get claws from the natural weapons combat style. At least two bloodrager bloodlines grant claws. Gore is a bit trickier but you can get one for 8500gp. You can also cast Monstrous Physique I to turn into a gargoyle for the full claw/claw/bite/gore routine. Multiattack is one feat.

I'm currently playing a Suli Monk (Master of Many Styles) 2 / Bloodrager 7. My unarmed strike routine is +13/+8 or +17/+12 while raging (with a furious amulet of mighty fists), dealing d6+14 damage or d6+18 raging. I often cast Frostbite to add d6+7 nonlethal cold damage.

As a bloodrager I get claws (which I don't currently use). If I switched my race to tiefling (demon-spawn), my stats wouldn't change, I'd switch my skill bonuses, lose acid resistance and elemental assault, and gain a prehensile tail and a bite (d6). I'd swap Dragon Style for Multiattack.

I now have Claw/Claw/Bite +9 (d6+6) or +13 (d6+9) when raging. Assuming I hit half the time, I add 14 DPR when not raging and 19 DPR when raging. If I have Frostbite active add an extra 15 points.

Dragon Style adds no more than 2 DPR and Elemental Assault adds maybe 5 points in the one fight a day I can use it. So I've gained 7-17 points of damage per round (before Frostbite) and the ability to retrieve items as a swift action in exchange for acid resistance 5 and the ability to charge through difficult terrain. That looks like a clear win to me.

And that's trying to make as few changes as possible to my existing character - not to optimize the UAS+natural weapons style. I bet you could make a pretty terrifying slayer like this, thanks to the class's studied target and sneak attack significantly boosting damage on the natural attacks.

Just a Guess wrote:
And whatever they do, they are still only a martial.

If martials aren't strong enough, then martials should as a group be made stronger. Boosting certain martial combat styles relative to other combat styles doesn't solve the overall problem, it merely encourages people to flock towards the handful of styles that are seen as relatively strong.

Also note that UAS+Claw isn't just good for martials. A druid could take IUAS and add an iterative attack line to their wild shape natural weapons routine.

Shadow Lodge

Sounds like a good fix.

1 to 50 of 3,607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.