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

Xexyz's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. 923 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 923 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:
I spend all my feats on looking stylish. Improved Beard, Greater Beard, Beard Mastery, Beard of Legend, etc.

See here this man truly knows how to play the game the correct way.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:


Are you implying that the Bard, Swashbuckler, and Gunslinger are not the OWNERS of looking cool while you do what you do?

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

When the rogue has an awesomeness pool that replenishes based on how cool he's been that day like the Swashbuckler does, we'll talk. ;)

I... I got nothing.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:

Optimizing the heck out of a rogue can result in a decent character. That amount of optimizing gets you

-Full martials that beat face and take names, while laughing off most attacks
-Divine full casters that do the above but better, while being full casters
-Incredibly flexible and highly competent 2/3 casters that can handle almost any situation
-Schrodinger wizards (or Razmiran half-elf sorcerers with emergency reattunement, but you get the idea)
-Rogues that do about average non-optimized full martial damage when circumstances don't wreck their schtick, while being ok at skills (but not great).

One of these is not like the others.

Sure thing smart guy, but can those other classes look as cool as a rogue when they're doing what they do? Didn't think so.

Looking cool > everything else


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Experiment 626 wrote:

Just say YES.

People come to the boards to complain about things, among other reasons. Other complainers jump on board if they're encountered similar hassles. I've certainly been there.

Some of us have a "Why not?" mindset and often challenge seemingly kneejerk or strangely arbitrary restrictions (I don't want no ninjas in my Western European game!" "You do realize that's just a name plastered atop a bundle of game mechanics, right?"). Some people seem to view things more along the lines of the Archie Bunker style of GMing. Naturally, there's conflict between the two mindsets.

As a GM, I am comfortable with the role of being the Guy Who Occasionally Says No. That often leads to feelings of persecution. I try to review my decisions and reverse or modify them if they seem imbalanced or flat out wrong. That's hard to do, as everyone wants to be Right, and that probably leads to a lot of unnecessary squabbling.

I'd like to think that if dispassionate, logical arguments and math are put forth, both parties can reach an equitable agreement. I've not always found that to be the case, unfortunately.

Scavion wrote:
I disagree. Most folks tend to ask why because they're curious and then offer a reason on why banning the option isn't helpful to the goal the GM stated. Banning Wizards for example could be a flavor of the setting or be because of legitimate balance concerns. House Rules that grant players an extra benefit aren't really questioned because there is nothing to question...the GM is simply amping the power level of their game. Banning say...Slayers because they make better Rogues is a really petty reason and I'd be happy to tell someone so.

To be fair, I think balanced related decisions are fair for discussion. If a GM bans ability X because he thinks it's unbalanced or overpowered or what have you, I think it's reasonable to want to discuss the GM's beliefs and motivations for doing so. It's certainly possible that after further consideration the GM may have erred due to a misunderstanding of rules or whatnot.

What I don't think can be argued are aesthetic or style choices/preferences. And I think this more than the other tends to cause problems because people generally want to think all decisions are based on reason or logic, and get uncomfortable when decisions seem arbitrary - which many aesthetic values are, fundamentally. I personally dislike anthropomorphic races and have determined they don't exist in my homebrew world. Because that's purely my personal aesthetic, trying to logic or reason me into changing my taste is just going to piss me off.

Where I think the anti-GM sentiment on these boards comes in is when you have a situation where the GM says, "I hate X and won't have fun if I'm forced to include it" while at the same time the player is saying, "I can't have fun if I can't play X." Instead of saying that maybe the player and GM just aren't a good fit, most people on this board will try to pressure the GM to giving into the player's wishes. To me that's anti-GM sentiment because people are telling the GM to sacrifice hir fun to accommodate the player.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
People dislike it when GMs ban their favourite things. That's not anti-GM, unless you believe that GMs are beyond all criticism.

It's anti-GM when people tell the GM they're wrong for doing it or demand justifications for making the decision. Especially when those people aren't actually players in that game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:

1. If by anti gm, you mean gms are not treated as unapproachable infallible gods...then yea I guess you are right. The paizo boards are actually fairly balanced in the overall opinion. The thing is, by now MOST experience gamers have been on both sides of the screen. And a great deal of the entitlement on both sides (as a player and a gm) gets mitigated by the universal experience.

In the end there is an Anti Jerk sentiment. If you are being a jerk, whether a player or gm, you get called out on in these boards. For the most part, gms have the most influence over a game, so they have the most opportunity to be a jerk. Chances are thats why you have your impression. Either that or you think gms are still infallible, unquestionable demigods whose every whim needs to be catered to. Then I've got nothing for you.

2. I can agree here. In the end, everyone plays their own way. And there are so many uncontrolled factors in a given game/group for there to be some kind of universal consensus. It's important to listen to the OP when trying to help them. Because often, our assumptions on what works within a given situation will be altered by the poster's game group.

1. I still think this board tends to skew toward player favoritism. For example, whenever there's a thread where people talk about their house rules, the following will happen: Someone will say they don't allow this feat or that race, or what have you. Inevitably, several people will chime in and either tell the person they're wrong for disallowing that choice or demand justification for their decision so they can argue that the person with the house rule is wrong. However, house rules that give the players an extra benefit, such as high stat arrays or extra abilities, are almost never questioned.

You say that it's just an anti-jerk sentiment, but that doesn't really do anything to dispel anti-GM bias when people are extremely quick to characterize the GM as a jerk for doing anything unfavorable toward PCs.

2. I think we're in agreement on this point, but I just want to add: The thing that annoys me is that I there's a lot of arrogance among many of the posters here. If I say I want advice building a character who is class X and does concept Y, don't jump in and say, "class Z does that better", especially if I've explicitly said I want to play class X. In all likelihood the reason I'm asking for advice in the first place is because I already know that class Z is the Obvious Choice for concept Y, but I want to try to make it work with class X instead.

This is why I think the OP said that he feels posters here infer that people who play rogues are stupid. Perhaps I'm misremembering things, but I've seen threads where people ask for rogue advice, acknowledge up front that they know rogues are a mechanically weak class, yet still get told to play a bard/investigator/slayer instead. If I say I want to play a rogue, knowing full well its limitations, telling me to play something else because "rogue is weak" is in fact calling me stupid.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Couple of things:

1. I will say that I find these boards have a fairly strong anti-GM attitude.

2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
... and I did, I just mentioned it separately for precision's sake. What exactly are you arguing for?

Oh, it just seemed that you were lumping it in with sneak attack damage as being equally situational.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Always? No. But certainly in a vast majority of circumstances. An often theoretical difference, I know, but it can make a difference - for instance, that swift action could make a difference between adding Arcane Strike on top of that or not.

Sure there are corner cases, but I think the slayer will benefit from it often enough to count it in with the calculations.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

Reasonably simple calculation on to-hit damage bonuses:

I am assuming STR30, +5 weapon, and Weapon Focus / Spec. For ease of calculation I'll just calculate for a single one-handed weapon, given that other modifiers will be identical among both classes. I'll skip on things like Gloves of Dueling as well for now, just because I don't think the Slayer has any similar gear, offhand. Otherwise, it's +2 on attack / damage in the fighter's favour.

Fighter
Attack Bonus: BAB20 + 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +4 (Weapon Training) +2 (Greater Weapon Focus) = +41
Damage: 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +4 (Weapon Training) +4 (Greater Weapon Specialisation) = +23

Slayer
Attack Bonus: BAB20 +10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +1 (Weapon Focus) = +36
Damage Bonus: 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) = +15

Now, if the slayer can sneak attack, he adds 6d6, or an average value of +21 damage to each hit, bringing him to a total damage bonus of +36, or 13 more than the fighter.

Now, given the fact that he's at a full -5 attack bonus compared to the fighter, needs to enable Sneak Attack first and is still only +13 average damage ahead...

But, of course, there is Studied Target.If he can apply that bonus, he's on par regarding Attack Bonus, -3 points behind on damage without sneak, and +18 points ahead with sneak.

So, from a strict combat perspective, I'd say he's trading defenses / movement in heavier armour for damage. And even that only if he manages to sneak attack, which will usually require flanking - if not, he's still lagging slightly behind.

Oh, and at 20, the fighter capstone blows the slayer DPR out of the water, still.

Now, I can see one making an argument for the fighter becoming less attractive compared to the slayer in regards to say, skill points, but damage? Circumstantial, and you're giving up full movement in a full plate with a max dex of +5 (+7 if mithral) for it.

The Slayer can use Studied Target as a swift action at 7th level and there are no target restrictions for the ability, so I think it's fair to say that the slayer will always benefit from the ability. So that brings up the slayer's attack bonus equal to the fighter's, and closes the gap so damage bonus is only -3.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:


Technically it's +4/+4, but at higher levels from a practical perspective it's +6/+6. Every fighter ever picks up Gloves of Dueling.

Well, most fighters. There are a few good archetypes that give up weapon training, so GoD are a no-go.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Tiaximus wrote:

To me as a DM, Slayer has the potential to be the most annoying class ever.

Any class that knows how many hit points my BBEG has at any given time is going to give me a sad face.

"What, you wanted him to be a recurring villain? Well, I know he started the round with 58 hit points and the barbarian just raged his face with a 62 point crit. Too bad, bud. Maybe he has a twin."

This can actually go bad for the GM two ways.

1. "OK, guys, he's got like 30 HP left. Fry him."

2. "Sorry, guys, he's got like 400 HP. Brace for TPK."

Can't bump up the HP to keep a fight long enough not to be an anticlimax, can't let the boss be surprisingly close to death when you miscalculate and he devastated the party and is still going strong.

On the other hand, for PCs it's a terribly useful talent to have some idea if you're doing at all well in the fight and if you are at the point you can grind the enemy down or if you've gotta bust some serious power to drop this guy anytime soon. Since enemies don't give any indication how much health they've got left until they're dead, it can be handy to know that the thing the wizard's about to throw his last fireball at can be dropped with an Acid Splash instead.

I'm with most of this. I almost never fool with HP, but it's nice to have the option - the two times I have done so in Carrion Crown, the players considered them some of the best fights in the campaign. And I started rolling save-or-die saves in front of the players a while back, and that's gone great. :)

As for slayers and enemy HP, I always wanted to team one up with a Power Word-loving wizard, ever since the Player's Handbook II and Races of the Dragon.

That ability as written is definitely a non-starter for me. If a player ever wanted to take that I'd modify it so that the player could learn a general percentage of an enemy's remaining health, "Yeah he looks really beat up, he's probably only at 25% of his normal peak ability" but not actual hit point count. Hit points are just too much of a game mechanic abstraction to try to convey with any logic within an in character context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

I tend to run for optimized gamers so I often replace rogues, and rogue/fighters with slayers.

As for a PC it works for me because I have always wanted a ninja-type non magical guy that does not suck like the assassin PrC does.

Other than that I dont really use the class either. I am really waiting for it get some better talents. I am thinking about rewriting some rogue talents, but the slayer still needs something official so that it does not require the ranger abilities to work work.

Funny you say that. I run for mostly optimized gamers as well, and because of that I never actually used rogues in any encounter I meant to be truly threatening. Though I still use rogues, mainly to represent street hoodlums and other common thugs. To be perfectly honest, I pretty much think of rogues as an NPC class.

But I digress; this is a thread for discussing slayers, not bashing the poor old rogue.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

The fighter cant use all 3 archetypes at once though so in a game the slayer is still ahead.

The mutation warrior is the only one that might be better at a combination of in combat and out of combat utility, and that is still a maybe.

Yeah, I'm not talking about mechanical ability; I don't deny that the slayer is generally mechanically sound. I just haven't yet found a spot for one in my campaign. I haven't yet come up with an NPC that really screams, "slayer!" to me, and the slayer's class abilities aren't interesting enough on their own for me to want to make a character specifically to see them in action.

Maybe I'll make a slayer when I have need for a rogue-type NPC that I want to be a bigger threat than an actual rogue.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?

That right there is more than the slayer has. It just feels like an incomplete class. Every time I look at it as a candidate for a character concept I inevitably find another class that better fits it. I think what it needs is a lot more unique talents in order for it to stand out.

For example, I was in need of a class for an NPC assassin to send against the PCs in my game, and slayer seemed like a strong choice. However when I started actually making the character I found I was leaning so much in a ranger-like direction with the build that I realized I might as well just make it a ranger instead.

I also have need to stat up a couple of officers for an NPC army, but fighters and cavaliers better fit what I want. One of the officers is going to be the leader of a commando-type elite unit, but I have a feeling I'll probably just end up making that character a ranger with the guide archetype.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.

Not to mention fighters have a lot of archetypes that actually make meaningful changes to the class.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
i actually wanted this ability for a theoretical tabletop character just in case i had to fight another Terrasque, Lich, or Vampire or similar self ressurecting character so i could keep them dead.

Another tarrasque, lich or vampire? The tarrasque is its own thing, but liches and vampires have their own weaknesses that can be exploited - in fact vampires aren't overly that difficult to destroy at all. As for the lich, if you can find its phylactery you can kill it for good.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

so again, martial characters are proven to be hated by paizo because there isn't a means for martial characters to actually kill immortal beings and keep them dead, like the terrasque or a lich.

i think mystic eyes of death perception would really fit the slayer.

So, were you actually honestly wondering if something like that existed, or did you just start this thread to create a platform to complain about martial/caster disparity?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
any way to get this ability or something just like it? because i like the idea of a mortal slayer being able to murder fully powered gods by planting a knife into them.

Ummm... Gonna have to go with no.

In my homebrew game I created a +4 weapon enchant that inflicted wounds that couldn't be regenerated or healed by magic (natural and fast healing still worked), but I can think of no existing ability that comes anywhere near what you're asking.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't care for the slayer. As others have said, it's kind of bland. My biggest issue with the class is that aside from the ranger combat styles none of the other talents are very interesting. Its archetypes are also dull. I'm hoping it eventually gets more interesting talents and better archetypes.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Even if I agree with you, you cannot deny that it's much harder to beat up the PCs if they can recover from any injury completely for free by sucking their thumb for 5 or 10 minutes.

If they do that, their buffs will wear off or they'll get attacked by a second group of enemies before they're healed.

The hit-points attrition paradigm has never really described Pathfinder as I've played it. In Carrion Crown we burned through wands casually and often fought eight or nine encounters a day. In Kingmaker we rarely fought more than one battle a day. Other times there'd be an arcane caster who'd burn through all their best spells quicker than the cleric would run out of channels.

And there usually wasn't any real time pressure. If you wanted to rest and get your spells back after a battle or two, there were rarely any negative consequences.

This, this right here. Unless the campaign is being run in a videogame-like fashion where the party must defeat X number of encounters before they can reach the save point and rest up, the amount of encounters the party faces per day is irrelevant (unless they're under some sort of external time constraint).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
2) You argue that if the above point is true, then a GM only needs to add another encounter each day. (Padding the day out with another encounter is actually a big deal, but that's beside my point)...

I'm only quoting this part because I think it's the most important source of our disagreement. Specifically, by saying:

Quote:
then a GM only needs to add another encounter each day.

You imply that's how the campaign is designed around the concept of a certain number of encounters per day. Maybe that's how APs are designed, but since I run homebrew, I certainly don't design my encounters that way. I don't design a dungeon and then neatly parcel it up into 4-encounter multiples. I place encounters - monsters, to be more accurate, because the actions of the PCs can impact how many of them they may fight at once - based on what I think makes the most sense. That's why this...

Quote:
Padding the day out with another encounter is actually a big deal

...makes absolutely no sense to me. How exactly does a GM "pad" the day with extra encounters when the PCs for the most part determine the amount of encounters they have per day by their own actions? I'm certainly not going to conjure a forced encounter out of thin air if the PCs didn't expend enough resources - as determined by some arbitrary formula - on an arbitrary amount of encounters.

So please, tell me. You've said repeatedly fast healing alters the game in some sort of profound and fundamental way, but have alluded to that in only the vaguest sense. So I disagree with your assertion because from my perspective as a GM, fast healing would change very little - if anything - on how I construct and run my game.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Just curious about how other people handle their temporary/permanent bonuses and if it ever matters. I suppose if you want to keep your permanent bonuses, you have to bathe, sleep, have coitus all the while never taking off your belts or headband.

In my game the characters can take their stat boosters off and still benefit from them as long as they're within 10 ft.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Xexyz, his point is that you don't care if you lose 3/4ths of your HP compared to 1/4th, because within ten minutes both are completely recovered. Not that its in-combat use is somehow worth noting.

My point is that it's an irrelevant concern. Combat - challenging combat, that is - is not so predictable that PCs can just casually say, "yeah I'll let that monster beat on me an extra few rounds instead of smiting it because I'll just be able to heal to full after combat anyway."

Furthermore, step back and look at the big picture. Even if fast healing did have the effect Cyrad is claiming, it's still irrelevant. The current design paradigm intends for a CR = APL encounter to consume 25% of the party's resources. Suppose fast healing had the impact of making a CR = APL encounter only consume 20% of the party's resources, allowing for an extra encounter per day. So what? Since four CR = APL encounters per day is an arbitrary amount to begin with, going from 4 to 5 makes no meaningful impact on the way encounters need to be designed.

Fast healing does have an impact, but it's mostly an economic one, as other people have already mentioned. I certainly wouldn't have to make encounters harder because of it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Bran Towerfall wrote:
we discovered that some of the paladin order are missing prior to this big speech. we have rumors that some have been magically masking their evil alignment.

Ah, so you believe that some of the "paladins" are impostors then.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
Players use those resources to make fights end more quickly. Weighing the choice between using a daily ability or conserving it at the cost of a longer battle functions as a cornerstone of the gameplay. But with fast healing, there's less consequence if a battle lasts a few more rounds unless it's above CR = APL or an enemy has a long lasting status effect. Deny it all you want, but fast healing does significantly influence how combat plays, how players spend their class resources, and how the game functions as a whole.

I'm sorry but you're just flat wrong. With fast healing there's less of a consequence if the battle lasts a few more rounds? The amount of damage inflicted in any given round of combat far outstrips the few meager hit points fast healing recovers. Unless you're running extremely easy encounters, no group is ever going to delay ending the fight as quickly as possible, because the consequence of a "few more rounds" is very likely to be the death of one or more of the PCs.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:

Empowered Frostbite does (1d6+20)X1,5 with no effort at all at level 20 and cost only one arcane point to recall. And the extra attack you get at level 15 is a big deal if you attack touch AC and that have been a option since level 9. with the coming of ACG magi got level to dam from level 3 in most cases(7 for blackblades).

I also think it is ok that you dont out damage the barbarian when you dont use Spellstrike. But with weapon spec, arcane pool and(pehaps precise strike if you use ACG) you should be quite good. Also if you use Frostbite you wont need to do a lot of attacking outside spellstrike.

Not measuring a high level magus against a barbarian or any other class; I'm measuring it against a lower level magus, which is why I made the thread. When I compared the 18th level magus to the other magi I made and against the player magus, it didn't seem that the 18th level magus did a whole lot more damage. At least not compared to the difference between a 9th level barbarian vs. an 18th level barbarian, for example.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:

Shocking grasp loosing power after level 10 is a good argument in the old frostbite vs. Shocking grasp. In my not terrible extensive experience with high level Magi they can take what ever the game throws at them at least as good as other martials.

Yes, you cannot nessesarely keep doing, what you have been doing since level one, in every encounter, but that is a feature not a bug.

I agree, it's just that there's nothing that comes along on the magus's spell list that's especially better than those spells. At level 7 you get vampiric touch, which is a great spell, but doesn't do any more damage than an intensified shocking grasp. 4th level doesn't have any spells worth spellstriking with. Once you get to 13th level and 5th level spells you finally get corrosive consumption, but that's not that much of an upgrade - 105 damage over 3 rounds, and the target can negate a lot of it if it really wants to. And once the magus gets 6th level spells she discovers there aren't any spells of that level on her list that she can use with spellstrike at all.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Bran Towerfall wrote:

party of 6 pc at level 5

paladin---rogue---wizard-----cleric--- zen archer monk/inquistor---monk/lore warden.
Bran Towerfall wrote:


we don't trust most of the npc involved..(guards, priests, paladins)

This seems weird to me. If your group has a paladin, it implies that your group is good, or at least not evil. So if the NPCs with whom you're interacting include paladins, why does your group not trust them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:

It greatly changes the way the game is played. As I mentioned in my previous post, D&D/PF's gameplay centers around playing smart to mitigate the healing cost of an encounter. In many ways, roleplaying works this way, too--it's often better to talk your way out of a conflict than resort to violence that harms your party members. Even wands of CLW still require investing money, preparing ahead of time, and assuming your GM will make magic markets available. Giving all PCs a constant fast healing breaks this system. There's much less incentive to play cautiously. As long as you don't die, taking damage has no cost to it. This also changes the way GM designs and runs encounters. He has to make the encounters harder to cause any attrition, limiting the types of encounters he can run.

Again, this is a game design matter. I could go on for days. When you change a fundamental assumption in the game, it will have major consequences. Some of them not expected or desired.

I disagree with this. Resources are resources, and the party will generally stop and rest when they feel they don't have enough resources to defeat the next encounter, regardless of what the specific resources are. Fast healing just means it's less likely the resource constraint will be healing; the party will still stop when they run out of spells, smites, rounds of rage, and what have you.

Because fast healing - unless you have some obscene amount - has a negligible effect on combat, the danger of combat is unchanged. The GM doesn't need to make combats more difficult to compensate for out of combat healing because the PCs will still expend offensive resources to defeat encounters.

What you're describing makes more sense in the context of MMO healing, not healing in Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm excited for WotR because I really think the design team has gotten enough experience with the two sets so far that it now really understands how to make challenging but enjoyable scenarios. I was really pleased with S&S deck 6 and if the quality of that deck is going to be a sign of things to come I'm anticipating that WotR will be the best set yet.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, Kaouse, why do you prefer picking up Reflection first? Bane struck me as the automatic take at 15 once I realized just how awesome Bane was, so I'm curious. Reflection always looked iffy to me just based on the huge costs involved.

Yeah I don't care for Reflection either. Since it states in the power it works like spell turning, it really cuts down on the number of spells you can use it on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dorian "Grey" wrote:
Is precise strike a feat? Class ability?

Attained via new arcana. Flamboyant Arcana, then Arcane Deed to get a swashbuckler deed of your choice.

(Which means I'm going to need to revisit the characters I created, since they were all made before ACG came out.)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So in my campaign I've created a sidestory for one of my players involving the personal goals of his blackblade. Long story short that goal consists (among other things) of collecting four other specific blackblades wielded by other magi. Since it's intended to be something that he completes over the course of the campaign, I created the four other magi at various levels - 9th, two 11th, and 18th. The thing that sticks out to me is that the 18th level magus doesn't really do all that more damage than the other magi.

From what I can see part of the issue is that spellstrike + shocking grasp tops out at 10th level, and there really aren't any more damaging spells to spellstrike with. But the other thing is that it seems that outside of spellstriking the magus just doesn't do a whole lot of damage. Perhaps it's just the way I've built the characters, since two of them are dervish dancing dex builds, but even a str-based magus is only going to get so much out of power attacking as a 3/4th BAB class.

If anyone's played a high level magus (15+), I'd love to hear your thoughts on how they're most effective at those levels.

(If I can figure out a way to efficiently upload the 18th level magus without typing out the entire character, I will)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aemesh wrote:

some types of undead, anyone with fortified enchants, spells to do the same, golems of varied sorts. there are a few.

edit: honestly, been playin varied rpgs since 1st ed, and so have several of the folks I play with. There are just so many rules and revisions, there are some things I just take for granted. Could be they phased out the immunities of a lot of the usual suspects, and that's the second time I've seen mentioned the whole oozes and elementals thing. Anyone else? Can ah get a sekkin opinion?

I know what you mean; my group often forgets changes made to Pathfinder from 3.5. But to my knowledge the only undead that are immune to crits/precision are non-corporeal, which is a function of their non-corporeal nature not them being undead. Also, golems (at least the common ones; I haven't looked at every golem) can also be crit or sneak-attacked now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Ok, so in a (probably ineffective) attempt to push this thread back on topic, I have a question for consideration, given the discussion around martial mastery fighers: Which fighter archetypes would stand a better chance of survival [than the core fighter]?

If we consider what feats a given archetype is likely to take, you can make I think a more reasonable case for what options the fighter would likely to have. Here's what I think:

Martial Master - as other people have already said, the martial master would be able to pick up to 13 feats to use for the situation, giving him options.

Mobile Fighter - He can full attack as a standard action, effectively giving him pounce. He trades bravery for agility, giving him +5 against SoS spells that the assassins might throw at him, such as Hold Person. If he took Dazing Assault, he can use his Rapid Attack ability to potentially daze three of his four assailants.

Mutation Fighter - Might very likely have a set of natural attacks - negating his dependence on a weapon - the ability to fly, and buffed stats.

Viking - Can rage and have rage powers.

Lore Warden - Will almost certainly have combat maneuvers.

Unbreakable - Immune to mind-affecting effects, so SoD & SoS spells are likely ineffective.

Unarmed Fighter - Doesn't need a weapon, has a bunch of maneuver tricks he can do.

I think most of the other archetypes are very focused around a weapon, so they're in the same boat as the core fighter.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kaouse wrote:
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

My 18th level fey bloodline sorcerer most certainly does, often while in the company of a beautiful lady. In fact one of his girlfriends is a neried, which kind of makes bathing a key activity in the relationship.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aemesh wrote:
yeah the other reason people paint funny mustachios on rogues is that there are just too many enemies you'll bump into that have immunity to sneak attacks/precision damage.

You sure about that? In Pathfinder the only creature types that are default immune to crits/precision damage are oozes and elementals.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aemesh wrote:

Depends on the build - lets say you were an inquisitor, for example - and you have the ability to slap Bane on a weapon. You wouldn't want to enchant it with bane, because your class bonus and the enchant don't stack. If you're playing a myrmidarch magus, you could slap on varied other enchants, but then your arcane pool would max out the base enchant to 5, so you'd benefit from buying a +1 bow with various abilities, then slapping your arcane pool atop it (assuming i'm correct about that... anyway) You get the point.

Generally though, this is the route most zen archers go toward:

+5 adaptive impervious seeking, holy, merciful, guided bow:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pc83?Weapon-Enchantment-Bow

I like the merciful part, as then you have the option as a DM to *not* kill one of your players with an accidental crit. Also, Guided is third party, and was originally intended to be used for melee only. Gm's call ultimately, and that's you. Anyway, holy so that it blows through dr, and seeking because cover is annoying for an archer, and with a decent perception skill, you'll be able to hear a moving invis person, then target the square and blast the baddie. Impervious 'cause, hey bows are super easy to sunder :) Adaptive so that you don't have to have a specific str made for the pull of the bow - if someone buffs you, you can increase your dmg accordingly instead of being stuck with your 14str composite bow bonus. And that's why it always goes first on the list of enchants. Nothing more irritating to an archer with a composite bow than getting slapped with a level 1 ray of enfeeblement, and suddenly being unable to use their primary weapon.

Hmm, never thought about merciful before; I'll have to give that one some thought. I'm almost certain to put seeking on it since that's just a useful enchant all-around. Guided is melee-only so that's a no-go. Adaptive and Impervious of course. I'm waffling on Holy but we'll see.

Thanks for the suggestions!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Soul wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
As long as we're on the topic of dream weapons, what would be the best general-purpose bow for a zen archer if money were no object?
best all purpose bow eh? hmm... mind posting your feats/stat array?

Well, a couple of my players frequent the Paizo boards so I kind don't really want to spoil anything.

How much would the character's (who's an NPC) feats/stat array affect the choice of bow enchants?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

As long as we're on the topic of dream weapons, what would be the best general-purpose bow for a zen archer if money were no object?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Because that would be stupid.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Malag wrote:
To be honest, I would be worried a bit also. The Arcane Scent makes your job a bit harder as a GM to ever put a villain in front of the party. I am not even sure how is it even extraordinary ability. It should be Supernatural. It's not completely uncounterable but it does seem quite powerful for non-combat usage. Overall, I would probably enable player to take it and see how it goes.

I also think that it should be supernatural, especially considering that it costs an arcane point to activate.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Coriat wrote:
Wait, hold on, we're in danger of discovering that on the more substantial topic, we mostly agree with each other!

Technically the topic is about whether or not a naked fighter can survive an ambush by a party of 10th level characters. I only contributed to the derailment argument of the level of screwedness of the fighter compared to other classes.

I'm totally innocent and bear no responsibility for the direction of this thread.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
What Fighter class features give him access to those magical protections, again? Which ones remain in effect and/or can be used effectivelly without any piece of gear? Is the Fighter buy and using multiple scrolls every day?

In a previous post I listed several permanent protections a fighter could buy with his money. Even if he spent 80% of his wealth on big-six type gear like Rynjin suggested, that still leaves him with 176,000 with which to use for other purposes. It's always assumed that wizards spend some of their wealth on permanent magical protections, so I see no reason why I fighter wouldn't spend his money on the same things. Sure, he'll have less of them because it's more expensive for him to get them and he's spent more of his wealth on his important gear, but he can still have some.

Lemmy wrote:


This is one situation where most Fighters get hosed. Just like being ambushed during the night/in the morning hoses most Wizards. Can we simply accept the fact that Fighters are one of the most gear-dependent classes in the game and are particularly dependent on gear that is not easily replaced?

I agree with you, the fighter's in worse shape than most any other class. I'm just so g$&@+&n sick of every wizard always being Schrödinger's Wizard in these discussions. Especially when people emphasize the wizard's Schrödingerness by moving the goalposts every time someone tries to make a case against them. Example: The fact that in this thread it's been repeatedly emphasized that the fighter isn't allowed anything aside from his innate class features; too bad he spent a bunch of feats on making his greatsword attacks stronger, he doesn't have his greatsword right now. However, the wizard gets to have whatever resources he needs (money, gems) in order to be able to cast whatever spells he wants. It's like it's not enough that the wizard is powerful enough as is, everyone else has to be made worse than what their own class dictates just to make the wizard seem that much better.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Game Master wrote:

Warn your player ahead of time that you're the type of GM who doesn't allow players to counter your tactics, and that your schemes are more important than his plans. You are trying to beat him. Clearly, he knows you use hidden spellcasters, otherwise he wouldn't take such an ordinarily useless arcana. In a game against hidden mages, of course he's going to want to take the arcana that lets him sniff them out. And... you're going to just neuter his intelligent tactic by piling on buffs and items that all your secret wizards are suddenly going to have.

If you're going to invalidate his choice of arcana before he even takes it, make sure he knows you don't ever intend for him to succeed. If you want your secret wizards to always be secret, let him know he'll never be given the right to detect them.

...and you seem to be the type of player who's goal is to win the game by beating the GM.

Anyway, slow your roll there, buddy. I was only really annoyed about the concept of the arcana when I thought there was no way to counter it. Deuxhero gave me solutions, so it doesn't bother me as much anymore. The spellcasters who are sufficiently powerful and really intent on hiding their spellcasting ability will have taken the necessary steps to make sure this arcana doesn't give them away. Lesser spellcasters will not be prepared because they likely will not have even heard that such an ability exists, unless they're magi themselves. And even then, they might not care enough or be paranoid enough to spend the effort to counter it.

At this point I'm leaning toward letting the player take it, although I'm still unsure if I like the whole idea of wind affecting a mystical/magical property.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

If the spellbook did get damaged by being soaked in water, why wouldn't a mending spell fix it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
The role the GM plays in the game is arbiter of the rules, not owner of the game. He is the referee; that is his job in the game. It is a co-op experience; not GM vs Players. Technically, the GM and Players are on the same side. So never, ever think of this as "just my game" because it isn't; that's against the rules of the game.

Two things:

1. It may not be my game, but it's my homebrew world, my NPCs, and my campaign. For example, a player can't just decide that an NPC acts a particular way because he thinks that's how the NPC should act. He can tell me, the GM, that he thinks the NPC would act this way or that way, but I've got the final word.

2. The GM may just be another player, but like it or not the GM is the most important player. If a player can't make a session or has to bow out, the campaign goes on. If the GM doesn't show up or stops GM, the campaign stops dead in its tracks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
... so, your wizard is using Contact Other Plane every day, hoping to get both true answers and to avoid getting hit by a stat decrease that effectively neuters you for weeks? And you ask that specific question? What others, if I may ask?

Yup. In addition, he's also casting moment of prescience before contact other plane to ensure he passes the Int check to avoid having his stats reduced.

And don't forget our wizard has also memorized a quickened cloudkill and quickened teleport, as has been mentioned. And spellbane and shapechange, if it's Ryjin's wizard. Oh, and foresight.

So, if you're keeping track, our wizard has devoted 5 of his likely 7 9th level spell slots, 2 of his 8th level spell slots, and a smattering of other spell slots just for situations like this. And you can't argue it, because he does this every day because he's 'cautious', so therefore would never get caught without those spells memorized.

Meanwhile, our poor fighter isn't allowed to have taken his own magical precautions, because of course he's just a big dumb fighter who only hits things with a piece of metal.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
You must REALLY hate Blindsight, Blindsense, and Tremorsense. Which he can get with his ability to pull Wizard spells for Echolocation.

Actually none of those things bother me. The difference is that the things you mentioned reveal a creature's presence, while Arcane Scent reveals a creature's nature. I often use NPCs who conceal the fact they're spellcasters.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
By pre-buffing with Aroden's Spellbane.

Well, I just learned that this is a spell. Curious, which four spells do you select when casting spellbane every morning?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Helikon wrote:

ow do you beat the antimagic field?

A level 6 scroll worth 1650 gp and a level 10 sorcerer or wizard should be able to cast. Yes the buffs are gone afterward but for the time being... it works.

That's not fair to the wizard so you're not allowed to use it.

1 to 50 of 923 << 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.