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

cnetarian's page

1,101 posts (1,109 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'd recommend trying to make at least one a Charisma based character. There are places where the party will find a character who can do well on a CHR roll more than passingly useful and the party doesn't seem to have a face yet.


There is a magic item called a goblin skull bomb which does 5d6 fire damage to the last person to touch it when it is dropped. At 1lb each you should be able to have 8 of them put into a bandolier. The telekinesis spell allows a caster to make a violent thrust attack with up to 15 bandoliers of goblin skull bombs. note: make sure that an expendable NPC puts the goblin skull bombs into the bandoliers and be very careful when handling the bandoliers to not touch any of the skull bombs.


well the only container that I can recall which gives both a form of weight and a volume is the beltpouch of UE which can carry (100 to) 200 coins or 2 apples. 50 coins is 1 lb, so a belt pouch can contain 4 lbs of weight or 2 apples in volume. being generous I assume the apples are large enough that there would be 100 in a bushel (apples vary in size but the expected range is 80-200 per bushel). As everyone knows a bushel is 8 (dry) gallons and a dry gallon is about 268.8 cubic inches. The math would be 2 (apples) divided by 100 (apples per bushel) divided by 1/8th (bushels per gallon) divided by 1/268.8th (gallons per cubic inch), fairly simple. Assuming large apples are used in the description, 4 lbs of coin weight equals about 43 cubic inches of apple volume.

It would not be unreasonable to assume slightly smaller apples were intended and that 1 lb in weight is equivalent to 10 cubic inches of volume for no other reason than to make the conversion easier.


marble, other stone, clay, salt, metals, rare flowers/plants & animals are the type of products you might expect to be produced from dry desert, although if there is abundant water you can get food easily (California's Central Valley is a desert). As for goods transported through a desert - anything which is worth the effort of shipping, the Silk Road ran through some of the most inhospitable desert on Earth. Any manufactured product is also a good idea, be it the traditional incense and fine steel or more fantasy specific like magic items. Note that cities in and around deserts develop and are limited in development by water supplies, play games with the flow of water and the cities pretty much have to go to war with each other to survive.


3d6 for each stat with 10 points to allocate freely was a system I used for a 2nd campaign and it wasn't awful. It produces an average (12.17) slightly lower than 4d6 drop lowest (12.24) but makes getting an 18 almost certain. Note that stats in 2nd didn't start to give bonuses until they were at 15, so having some high stat was more of a power multiplier than it is in 3.X & PF.


eldritch claws works for magic and silver DR

amulet of mighty fists has an inbuilt scaling ability to overcome DR

feral combat training combines with various style feats or hermatulatsu strike to change damage type from bludgeoning AND allows elemental fist to be used for elemental based resistances.


No need to even go with goats, a cage full of chickens should be good enough. Mind you if you happen to have a foe, preferably intelligent, go to negative HPs in a battle near when the party makes camp for the night then the manacles are a good idea. Being a party of evils you might need to set up a rota so the worshipers of the Midnight Lord or some other deity can perform their obediences, since I doubt that using the same victim would be an acceptable practice.

Hmm, maybe leave it up to the captive. While eating breakfast ask if they are will to become a slave. If the answer is "yes" then the Zon-Kuthon worshipers take out their whips while if the answer is "no" then you can put your dagger to use on them. A perfect win-win situation.


Jeraa wrote:
cnetarian wrote:

"A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature."

This seems to indicate that the essential nature of a polymorphed creature does not change, only the physical body of the creature. Since the transmutation is confined to the body, the soul/spirit/anima remains unaffected. This would be like chopping off the legs of people, it changes the body of the person who's legs you chopped off but does make them into a snail or change their name from Ted to Steve, they remain the same person with an altered body. A human polymorphed into a turtle body shape does not cease to be an intelligent being, nor does a turtle polymorphed into a human body shape becomes an intelligent being. While really creepy, if characters had a taste for human flesh they could polymorph turtles into human and not be performing an automatically evil act.

Baleful Polymorph, which is the spell in question, works differently.

Quote:
If the spell succeeds, the subject must also make a Will save. If this second save fails, the creature loses its extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities, loses its ability to cast spells (if it had the ability), and gains the alignment, special abilities, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of its new form in place of its own. It still retains its class and level (or HD), as well as all benefits deriving therefrom (such as base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points). It retains any class features (other than spellcasting) that aren't extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like abilities.
Baleful Polymorph can make you (physically and somewhat mentally) a real ninja turtle. Assuming your class was ninja.

The quoted section isn't from the polymorph spell but from the description of transmutation spells from the magic rules and is the general rules for all polymorph spells. The baleful Polymorph spell also contains the line "a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action" which further indicates that the effect does not change the nature of the subject's soul/spirit/anima. Contra-wise the fact that baleful polymorph changes the alignment of the subject combined with the fact that alignment is intimately linked to the soul/spirit/anima indicates that the spell changes the soul/spirit/anima. But if baleful polymorph's alignment changing effect actually changes the soul/spirit/anima it is open to abuse, be as Evil as possible during your life and when you get old have a friendly sorcerer cast the spell on you then kill you so you spend eternity in the Boneyard instead of the Abyss, likewise one can use baleful polymorph on a paladin to turn them into a worg before killing them to send their soul/spirit to Abbadon instead of Heaven.


"A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature."

This seems to indicate that the essential nature of a polymorphed creature does not change, only the physical body of the creature. Since the transmutation is confined to the body, the soul/spirit/anima remains unaffected. This would be like chopping off the legs of people, it changes the body of the person who's legs you chopped off but does make them into a snail or change their name from Ted to Steve, they remain the same person with an altered body. A human polymorphed into a turtle body shape does not cease to be an intelligent being, nor does a turtle polymorphed into a human body shape becomes an intelligent being. While really creepy, if characters had a taste for human flesh they could polymorph turtles into human and not be performing an automatically evil act.


1st, and aside, but I am getting fed up with confusion of sight for site. Sight is what you see, site is where you are when you see the sight. Site is from the Latin situs (a location) while sight is from the Gemanic seon (to see). Usually I have no problem with typos and grammar in online posts (casual writing) but this confusion has begun to creep into formal writing and I've seen it in printed newspapers which just shouldn't happen.

Silent Saturn wrote:
Archae wrote:
Could legalizing murder actually work? As an idea I like it but it seems as though it wouldn't work.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "work."

From a logistic standpoint, it'd be easy. All the law enforcement has to do is not spend any time or effort tracking down or punishing murderers (unless they're also wanted for an actual crime, like tax evasion).

From a world-building standpoint, it's a little more nuanced than that.

-Tavern brawls tend to go south much more easily, and probably break out more often.

-Lots of two-faced people who'll tell you anything you want just to keep themselves alive.

-Lots of bullies who'll happily walk all over everybody they meet and kill whoever calls them out on it.

-The PCs never have to worry about excessive murderhoboing... or murdering hobos I suppose.

This also plays well into your desire to make kobolds more relevant. They may be physically weak, but they've got no issues with killing, and make excellent assassins. Those that don't become assassins might be a major economic force, as they offer their goods and services to mercenaries in exchange for "protection" that's really more like "here's my hit list, you know what to do". Indeed, once the PCs gain notoriety, a kobold merchant caravan might offer them some choice magic items in exchange for some of this "protection".

I don't see how a society could function without murder being illegal or police ignoring all murder, too many people would just kill their bosses if there were no punishment for it. A solution that has worked IRL is to change the definition of murder - maybe define murder so that it is only murder if someone less useful to society kills someone of more use. A peasant killing a soldier is hunted down an put on a stake while a soldier killing a peasant for looking at her wrong is handed a towel to clean her sword; and a peasant killing a peasant or a soldier killing a soldier is not treated as a murderer but instead given a fine based on the usefulness to the government of the person killed. From a GMing point of view this has some interesting possibilities, when a new party enters the first town even a peasant can kill them without fear because they have no utility status while the players cannot kill the peasant even in self-defense without committing murder, but if the party takes employment with the town council or whatever they get bumped up to soldier status and it can be time to pay a visit to any peasants who hassled them on the way into town.


I think low wisdom ("wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition") might work better than low intelligence ("intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons") - a high intelligence&low wisdom character would be very good at reasoning to wrong conclusions. If that works then a swashbuckler (maybe inspired blade archetype) going into duelist is far from suboptimal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
Any paladin who puts on his X-Ray vision will see a very evil girl with surprisingly high aura strength.

Grant her the ability to mask alignment through 2 levels of the spy PrC, or giver her an 8,000gp ring of mind shielding. I favor mask alignment though since it can make her appear to be LG and worthy of help.


I need more detail to avoid contradicting myself or leaving out essential information but start similar to you. Come up with the campaign outline, often just an outline or flowchart. See where the major points are and try to figure out what knowledge the party needs to have at that point and what level of challenge they should be encountering. I usually try to write 3 generic 'side plots' at this time to use if the players need essential information or more money or more levels or something to advance to the next level, no stat blocks but a general theme to the side plot opponents and usually a map. Then before each game session comes the detail work, fill in what actual encounters are going to be and tactics for the encounters as well as information reveals and treasure for the next 3 sessions (note that usually the first two are pretty well set, although have to checked to be sure there is the right degree of challenge) and stat out the encounters for this session and a few encounters after in case the game goes fast. Actually stating of encounters isn't done until right before the players encounter them because the challenge has to be right, too tough and the players don't have a chance while too easy and the players get bored.

side plot example:
My last campaign was an UnderEarth campaign, and early on the players came across mention of Van Doon, a gnomish explorer who centuries before had delved deep into the UnderEarth. This was maintained and occasionally the party would discover his mark and cryptic notations in various locations as they explored the UnderEarth. The side plot was that someone would mention the explorer's tomb, which should drive the players to search out his tomb. There is a map to the tomb (8 chambers), which was in the city the party was based in, notes on some traps (corridor of arrows, 'lake of water' which ignited if exposed to flame and descending ceiling in sarcophagus room) and note that the population was not undead but constructs. In play the players missed that they were passing through the undead layer of the UnderEarth and were soon to enter the Drow level, and while they were well geared and had the right spells for undead, the Drow would have made mince meat of them. So I wrote up some constructs and stated a weak clay golem boss (they were level 6), put a spell book with some spells which would work on Drow in the tomb, and most importantly Van Doon's notes on the populations of the UnderEarth which noted that the vampire infested regions bordered on the realm of the dark elves. There may also have been some magic items, but I cannot find my notes on the final form of the tomb.


Kudaku wrote:
Wouldn't a Hold Person scroll have a save DC of 13?

13 antipaladin, bard, cleric, oracle, inquisitor or witch, 14 wizard or sorcerer. If that's too low for your low will save character there is the higher powered hold person, mass scroll with a save DC of 20, but at 2,275gp each they usually wait for level 12+ to become part of the basic kit.


Kill the dominated/confused fighter? Don't most of the characters have an emergency hold person scroll (it is on most spell lists) for just such an occasion? If it is easy for an opponent to sideline a low will save character then it is also easy the party to so and hold person can easily take them out for the rounds necessary to finish the battle. There are other solutions too (one fun thing is to cast dominate person on the dominated character) but starting around level 7 hold person scrolls should be part of the basic kit.


101. As PC X is walking through the streets an urchin runs up to him/her and asks if his/her name is X. Without waiting for a reply the urchin hands him/her a sealed letter with an address and a time on it and runs off, disappearing into the crowd. The same happens to all of the PCs and the address is the same but the times are in 5 minute intervals.

This can be an amusing problem for the illiterate. It is best not to have anyone at the address to explain the letters, but the players have to be right type to do that.


superstitious rage pounce barbarians do well against wizards, and if they survive the first round to teleport away just pounce on them again. Usually the superstitious barbarian can count on saves to ward off magic but in a magic heavy environment then magic resistant dwarf is a good race, although it does cut down on the charge range.


Undone wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
If you are dead then you are contributing nothing to the battle.

This is simply not true at least not once you've reached higher levels.

At high levels death is literally less of a problem than a dominated party member.

Reflex saves do damage. It costs 750g for 50d8+50 healing.

Fort saves have minor easily removed effects "Oh permablind, guess I'll fill in the slot I left open and cast remove blindness" negative levels (annoying but not terrible in this system) and death effects. While bad to fail it's definitely better to be dead than confused or dominated at higher levels.

Breathe of life is a nice sounding spell which is too often situationally useless. A cleric who for some reason has memorized the spell, or who has the quick draw feat and the scroll in a wrist sheath or who happens to be standing within a 5' step of the dead person can use the spell, otherwise it takes move action draw a scroll and a move action to get to where the cleric can touch the dead person and a standard action to cast the spell. When I first saw the spell I was excited, after a few campaigns of buying a scroll of breath of life as soon as possible and only once being where it could be used, the spell is relegated to the pile of good ideas which don't work out. Since there is no shortage of good 5th level cleric spells, and Breathe of Life is not a cure spell, the only times Breathe of Life is likely going to see action is when the party is packed into a close group which is often a very poor idea.


If you are dead then you are contributing nothing to the battle. If you fail reflex saves and survive with few hitpoints then you are vulnerable to any attack and usually can contribute little to the battle. If you such a low will save that dominate or charm are actual risks then when you are dominated then an emergency hold person scroll easily keeps you from damaging your party and even though you can contribute little to the battle you are a much bigger part of the party for further battles than if you were dead.

Yes, the first few times the wizard had to sleep the confused fighter while fighting hulks of a color which cannot be named it was upsetting, but after a while players just factor it into the game and are ready for it and handle it with little fuss. Can it cause problems with a tight battle, yep, but so can the wizard failing his fort save and dying.


Eh, the spread between a low and high will save doesn't really become significant until level 10+. At level 10, assuming similar gear and wisdom, the spread between fighter and wizard will saves grows to a massive 4 points, which certainly isn't game breaking. The difference between high and low will saves is nothing compared to the difference between non-wisdom based classes and wisdom based classes or classes with paladin type save bonuses.


avr wrote:
There are characters who don't need to plan. Any full prepared spellcaster, especially wizards, can throw 100% of their skill points and feats away and still be effective. Banning planning just makes life relatively harder for the fighting types.

Dunno, some spellcasters can make good use of some of the feats (i.e. a dwarven sorcerer with elemental spell and the dwarf FCB). I suppose they are still effective, just not as effective as they would be if they followed a plan.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the best argument I've heard for allowing retraining and if retraining is allowed then there is even less downside to planning out the character in advance. feats have to be planned out in advance because they are too rare to waste and the best feats have prerequisite feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
126. They insist that their blind, lame spellcaster is an oracle in spite of having no divination abilities.

Hey, the blind, lame guy managed to find the one group of people who would let him tag along and get rich in the process just because he mumbles nonsense words occasionally. Everyone else would toss him to the curb or put him in a hospital, so he must have some pretty good divination abilities.


The gazebo has rose vines coiling along the walls, hidden among the roses are violet fungi which attack the party when they are in the gazebo.


ShroudedInLight wrote:

If poisons could stack, be used multiple times, or simply be readily applied without wasting action economy then I think it will be ok.

For example a 1d2 Con damage poison that could stack every turn for 3 turns or so and be applied by some glove device would be awesome.

1d2 damage the first round, 2d2 the second, and 3d2 the third.

Minimum 6 Con damage over 3 turns. Maximum 12. Average Con Damage 7.5

For a one shot I ran a Vishkanya using poisoned Vishkanya spit on shiruken from a pouch with cast abundant ammo on it. It was mildly useful, but nowhere near awesome.

----edit:----
note it was a one shot at level 8 so while my build got around the cost and action economy problems, it wasn't enough experience to be conclusive. Just enough experience to convince me it wasn't worth the effort to try something similar for a full campaign.


LoneKnave wrote:
Having 100 weapons with only about 5 getting used is the exact opposite of streamlined.

the humor tag seems to not be supported by this site.


TarkXT wrote:
The trouble is that its not particularly well streamlined.

I dunno, 6 years ago 80% of melee characters used the kurki or the greatsword. Last year 90% of melee weapons were either the nodachi or the scimitar. Not having digested the ACG I am not sure what the weapons being used are this year, but it seems pretty streamlined to me.


leo1925 wrote:
cnetarian wrote:


2) is questionable - firearms have a base 20 crit chance so cannot be counted on. Gunslingers don't always get that many chances to kill people (something about being at the top of the initiative order and there not being wounded to finish off) unless the GM and party are cooperating by having multiple weak foes to kill and/or leaving weakened foes for the gunslinger to finish off.

I have a gunslinger in my Iron Gods game and there a lot the times that he yells "it's mine" or "leave him for me" or "no killsteal", most of the times the rest of the party does what he asks, sometimes it costs them to do so.

Gaming with people who have gamed for decades for whom finishing off the cripples is as natural as breathing, it is not easy to get them to ignore their instincts. Worse, however, is the DM who likes encounters of one big opponent, sometimes with one or two powerful henchmen, against the party. If the encounters are the right ones and the party can handle those encounters the right way then grit isn't an issue, but that returns to the point about gunslingers being unreliable because there is so much can go wrong for them.


Rynjin wrote:

Grit is good for 2 reasons.

1.) Many of the best abilities function simply if you have at least 1 Grit remaining.

2.) It s REALLY easy to get back. Kill a guy, or crit.

It's pretty much the same as our Zen Archer using Ki Leech to have functionally unlimited Ki.

1) is true

2) is questionable - firearms have a base 20 crit chance so cannot be counted on. Gunslingers don't always get that many chances to kill people (something about being at the top of the initiative order and there not being wounded to finish off) unless the GM and party are cooperating by having multiple weak foes to kill and/or leaving weakened foes for the gunslinger to finish off.


From a GM point of view my worry with gunslingers is not that they do too much damage but that their damage is so unreliable. An encounter that is a trivial challenge to a party with gunslinger on a hot streak is going to be a major challenge to the same party if the gunslinger's dice go cold. A few badly timed misfires are all that stand between the gunslinger who is a cornerstone of party damage output and the gunslinger that is as big a dud as her bullets. If you actually monitor a gunslinger's damage output it is in line with a vanilla fighter's*, but it can be very streaky.

*without double barreled firearms hi jinx, never used them but number crunching shows them on a level with well built barbarians.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a PF style fantasy world the most powerful people on the battlefield are armor lacking magic users. This means all the logic that rapiers were the result of armor wearers no longer controlling the battlefield would have applied earlier in the evolution of weaponry in a fantasy world, resulting in rapiers developing in tandem with greatswords instead of sequentially.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't overlook the divine types, they can also summon as well. If it fits your acceptable character concept, the bones mystery oracle can do pretty well as "a person who sits back shoots Magic Missiles while his super buffed monsters tank/deal all the damage" as can the undead lord cleric archetype. The construct subdomain effectively gives clerics the animate objects spell at level 8 can be pretty nifty.

Summoners are better if you want to go the arcane route. The summoner spell list is more limited and light on blaster type spells, but since you don't need to use spell slots to summon and your summonings are more powerful (monster summoning 2 at level 3 versus level 5 for wizards & clerics or level 6 for a sorcerer) it makes the summoner a better choice if summoned creatures are your primary contribution to the party.


You could just take a bard with the amateur gunslinger feat, although it might take a while to afford a firearm.


Either a charge using dimensional assault is

1) a special charge which doesn't have the movement restriction of a charge from the combat rules and the 'movement' comes only from the dimension door/abundant step cast, in which case the +2 hit/-2 AC/double lance damage doesn't apply

2) a normal charge (must move at least 10', cannot 5'step and so on) with a dimension door cast in addition to the normal movement, in which case the +2 attack / -2 AC / double lance damage should apply

I'm glad it hasn't come up for me, so I've never had to decide which is right. If pressed I would say both can be right, and if you charge with the only change of location being from dimension door or abundant steps then no double lance damage, if you charge and meet the movement requirements of charge then double damage with the lance.


26) a powerful NPC recruits the adventuring party ala There and Back Again (when in doubt steal a classic)

27) the PCs meet as caravan guards/passengers

28) the most holy type PC (cleric, oracle what have you) has a dream telling him to gather together the PCs into a party and start the adventure

29) the most applicable organizational type PC is directed by a superior to gather the other PCs and start the adventure due to a prophesy

30) the party meets as they wait in line to be mustered out of the armed forces due to a RIF

all I can recall right now.


44.Dunwitie's Folly a long time ago in a campaign far, far away a rather lacking in faith cleric of a minor good deity (this was before law and chaos were discovered) had a divine revelation that if he could only inspire his followers to dig a deeply enough in a certain spot that they would obtain great wealth. The cleric, by the name of Dunwitie, preached with a newly inspired vigor and soon had hundreds and eventually thousands of followers digging an enormous hole in the ground and for 7 years they labored until Dunwitie had another divine revelation telling him to tell his followers that they had discovered the great treasure of faith, a force so strong that it could move mountains, and they should direct this faith towards the gods instead of towards riches. Many of his followers took this with good grace and went away chagrined at their foolishness, but most of them took this new revelation poorly and Dunwitie was bound and buried up to his neck at the bottom of the hole, where he survived for 7 months eating the rotten food they pelted his head with, until they bored of this and wandered off leaving him to die. It may be that his ghost still haunts the excavation, and to this day those who venture into Dunwitie's Folly often report hearing voices telling them to dig deeper and they will find great riches.


fighter should be king of AoOs, ready to strike when a foe's attention is distracted for the briefest moment; monk should be king of running around a battlefield dodging attacks to land careful a placed punch which stuns just the right opponent; rogue should, when a foe raises her sword to attack, be standing behind her to place a dirk right where she just exposed her heart. Actual practice is not this at all, but from the description the fighter should be king of AoOs


also point blank master allows one to fire without provoking (reloading still provokes) - but is tough for gunslinger to get as it requires weapon specialization which is a fighter feat.


Amakawa Yuuto wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
That said I suppose the rogue could be climbing on clothing instead of flesh.

Given that Touch-AC ignores armor, including shields, that shouldn't make a difference. A touch is a touch, and clothing counts as part of the target for this purpose.

That being said - RAW it doesn't matter, you can climb and someone while missing with the touch spell.

An incorporeal touch attack goes through armor and presumably clothing as well. A regular touch attack disregards armor (not AC), which only means that chain shirt provides the same amount of protection as a cotton shirt. Since the base AC of 10 remains for touch attack AC (and deflection & dodge effects), and AC "represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow" there is more required of a touch attack than just a touch. Of course, a ruling that touch attacks have to touch exposed flesh would result in characters adventuring in mummy costumes but a touch attack has to represent more than just a touch.


trapfinder (inferior trait version) is a campaign trait and home GMs should feel free to prohibit it if not playing Mummy's Mask while PFS does not allow the trait.

That said I suppose the rogue could be climbing on clothing instead of flesh. Given the low touch AC of Giants I think most touch attack rolls would be auto-hits anyway.


Kefler wrote:


what do you guys think of Whirlwind Attack , would that be worth the feat investment?

It depends on the GM's flavor, if the GM likes to throw swarms of opponents at you it can pay off but if the GM likes to use 1-3 it certainly isn't. In addition to the likely number of foes has to be considered how it is better to take one opponent out before starting on another, whirlwind attack results in not eliminating several opponents instead of a full attack which takes out one opponent.

The dwarven cleave line is more useful because it replaces a standard attack action instead of a full attack action A dwarven cleaver can do a pocket whirlwind then move to a safe location, or move to the best spot and then unleash a cleave where it does the most damage -either of which makes it tactically preferable. But dwarven cleave with all the feats is still subject to being as effective as the GM's style supports.


Kefler wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:

I run one of those.

You can be duel-blooded and go for any combination of 2 reach boosting bloodlines for natural 20 ft of reach. Then you can use a Reach Weapon to hit 25, and a spell like Long Arm to hit 30...which you can cast for free later into the game when you rage.

I personally like Abyssal mixed with something because that gives you an Auto-Enlarge person and free claws. And those claws will hit anything the hammer cannot.

Unless your GM rules that a reach weapon simply doubles your range and lets you use reach boosts to make that range larger. In which case it is as simple as just taking one of the reach boosting bloodlines and casting Long Arm/Enlarge Person.

Why not add the lunge feat for an extra 5'?

lunge on;y works until the end of your turn :(

thinking in terms of AoOs and area control it isn't that useful, but in terms of standing in the back of the party and attacking alongside the front line (or a dwarf cleaving) it is an extra 5' which doesn't hurt.


I don't see enough upside to avoiding pack flanking if you intend to stay mounted in combat, yes it requires raising int to 13 and the combat expertise feat but the sneak attack damage needs the flanking.


ShroudedInLight wrote:

I run one of those.

You can be duel-blooded and go for any combination of 2 reach boosting bloodlines for natural 20 ft of reach. Then you can use a Reach Weapon to hit 25, and a spell like Long Arm to hit 30...which you can cast for free later into the game when you rage.

I personally like Abyssal mixed with something because that gives you an Auto-Enlarge person and free claws. And those claws will hit anything the hammer cannot.

Unless your GM rules that a reach weapon simply doubles your range and lets you use reach boosts to make that range larger. In which case it is as simple as just taking one of the reach boosting bloodlines and casting Long Arm/Enlarge Person.

Why not add the lunge feat for an extra 5'?


Rodinia wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
although it is cookie cutter, I'd consider going the scimitar/dervish dancer route and lowering the strength to 13 while increasing dexterity to 16.

Why? That combat approach will contribute little in this case, at the cost of a precious feat.

With just 14 STR and no Dervish Dance, two handing a longsword attacks at +2 for 1d8+3 HP, average 7.5 HP.

With reduced strength, DEX 16, and a feat spent on Dervish Dance, you attack with a scimitar at +3 for 1d6+3 = 6.5 HP. So +1 to hit for -1 damage, at the cost of a feat. You'd do better with the weak Weapon Focus feat, which at least gives a straight up +1 to hit. You do free up a hand for a shield, but at the cost of never using Power Attack.

If you instead just took the Power Attack feat, keep STR at 14, and keep two-handing that longsword, you attack at +1 for 1d8+6 = 10.5 HP average. Power Attack gives -1 to hit for +3 damage, which is usually a good trade.

sotto voce: you would also get +1 AC and +1 to the weakest save for inquisitors. however shield is not an option with dervish dance.

The problem with PA for this build starts with the inquisitor being a 3/4th BAB class. 3/4th BAB classes have to watch hit chance closely to be able to land hits at all before worrying about the damage done. When the damage bonuses from bane and sneak attack (flanking) are added in, a character like this will likely see a drop in damage done (DPR) when using PA because of the loss of hit chance, even with the flanking & other ally bonuses to hit. This isn't necessarily true but is worth crunching the numbers on (consider it, crunch the numbers and see what the result is), and weapon finesse alone might be enough to increase hit chance - but the more bonuses to damage a build has the more important it is to make sure as many attacks as possible hit.


I think with a campaign the patsy idea works well - have the players try to uncover who the person behind multiple crimes is. Absent divine intervention a clever mastermind can even use magic to cover his track, none of the patsys was even in the presence of the master-mind so when caught they cannot give information about him/her/it.


Half-an-hour before the party showed up, the NPC took his daily dose of troll oil which was recommended by a physicker to help with the anemia caused by not getting enough sunshine.

----edit-----

troll oil


right anyone with the deadly dealer feat can use the enchanted deck, not just the enchanter. not used to thinking of two people with the feat existing in the world.


although it is cookie cutter, I'd consider going the scimitar/dervish dancer route and lowering the strength to 13 while increasing dexterity to 16.


same as enchanting ammunition through the magic item creation rules except that instead of 50 pieces of ammunition the spell caster enchants the 54 cards of the deck, only the enchanter can can use the enchantment and, the enchantment is only effective when using arcane strike with the deck.

1 to 50 of 1,101 << 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.