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

concerro's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,623 posts (39,973 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,973 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certain spells from the spell compendium, certain monsters such as the bonedrinker from monster manual 3. I also like the healing belt and the crystals that add to weapons and armor from the magic item compendium.

I also like Tome of Battle. I have a copy of the DSP version, but I have not gotten around to reading it yet.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I pointed that out a while back during one of our "gear(from loot) does/does not" affect CR discussions.

Basically if you advanced a hill giant by HD his loot is would be "standard" for his new updated CR.

If you advance the same hill giant by class levels he would gain NPC wealth as if his entire CR was made of class levels.

Basically the class levels rules are a different way of advancing than other methods.

Does it make sense? Technically those advancing HD should give you a monster who by natural ability alone is equal to the monster advanced by class levels, and npc wealth. Now I know this is not true, but that is the idea.

So it is not so much as the rules not agreeing, but not being perfect.

So what if you advance by HD and class levels? Well it is ad-hoc time. OK, honestly it is adhoc time when using plain old HD also, but you get my point. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see a modification here either. It is more like "Here is one free spell. Choose any spell in your spellbook and cast it".

The sorcerer blood lines don't call out the sorcerer class or sorcerer spells. They say "you". I did not check all of them, but after seeing "you" 4 times in a row I sorta figured the rest of them were written that way.

PS: Some of them might only apply to sorcerer spells, but I am sure they are written in a matter to make it clear.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jason is still a normal human so he would top out at Iron weight or level 4 or 5 in Pathfinder. I wont make a full build, but I would say he is a slayer.

improved unarmed strikes, improved grapple, weapon focus(multiple firearms), profession(soldier)

He probably gets a few more free bonus feats also.

str 15

dex 16 or higher

con 18

int 16

wis 16

cha 14

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Excel sheet 1

Excel sheet2: This is one I modified

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

I am assuming yes means the hard way.


h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

PS: If "yes" meant give you the link then let me know.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did not even notice the NPC was the same level as the party. That is not what Pathfinder counts as a boss fight. With only 3 players I would count their APL as 8, and depending on how good they are a CR 11 or 12 fight is in order, unless it is a miniboss fight to which I say go to CR 10.
If you let us know the flavor of the next fight I will try to PM you with something. H

PS: If you do this, in order to avoid overkill let me know approximately what their stats are. AC, attack bonus saves, perception, DC an enemy needs to save against spells.....

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:

Here's a question since we got on the discussion of THF vs TWF.

Is Power Attack (or Piranha Strike for Dex builds) worth it for a TWF build?

No. I am sure there is a situation where it could work but generally speaking it is a bad idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am sure someone is going to come in here with the equivalent of "nu uh you are wrong", but having been through this before there are monsters with no treasure, standard treasure, and so on having very similar AC's and attack bonuses. And the monsters with no treasure are not any better than than those of an equal CR that do have treasure.

If Paizo intended for you to use treasure then those without treasure or with less treasure would have an innate advantage, but that is not the case.

PS: Before this is taken out of context, that does not mean that some monsters do not benefit more from treasure if it is added than others.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:

Since reading this thread, I have been curious.

Where could I find a decent, relatively intuitive to use DPR calculator? I was interested in playing around with it a bit.

I know of 2 DPR calculaters. Both are excel based. I will give you the link to the easier one one.

DPR Calculator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It should also be noted that many people try to push their attack bonus high enough that they can hit with very low numbers. Even the NPC warrior class can hit(with less than a 10 on the die roll) with power attack against higher CR creatures if it is optimized with power attack going. Most PC classes get self buffs or bonuses and party buffs so it is a lot easier for them.

Of course depending on your GM and your party certain things may not be available to you, but for the purpose of a common baseline the DPR threads have shown the power attack is favorable despite antecedal evidence.

BA you may not have optimized your attack bonus enough to make PA worth it or your GM may have raised the AC enough intentionally to make PA not worth it. There could be other factors.

If the math shows that power attack was bad, then I would say that power attack was bad, but it is "good for me". Many people however, just use their experience as the baseline, but I think being objective is more important when trying to find an answer.

If someone on the boards has a different experience than I do where it leads to success or failure I often try to find out why. If I have an AC of X, and others say they have X+5 at a minimum, then I try to find out why. Does their GM give more loot than normal? Do they spend more money on AC? Does my GM not give enough loot? etc etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SiuoL wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

No no no SiuoL, this thread is for raving about how the SKY IS FALLING RIGHT NOW!

OMG So much bloat! So many Feats! Option paralysis!

All ah need is power attack, Iron Will, and disruptive! Anything else is too much bloat!

Oh, thanks for not saying mean things to me like Kobold Cleaver and actually telling things! I wouldn't know that if you haven't told me. Interesting...

Real comment--->He wasn't serious. Basically this is a joke thread so nothing here should be taken seriously unless it has a disclaimer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I game online, and I find it to be a great thing. I once had to go without gaming for a year because of a lack of players. Those in bigger cities have more options.

I will also add that just because you game online it does not mean you have to buy digital products as a player. You are still free to use your hardcover books. I actually access the info from a hardback faster if I have a general idea of where the info is in the book.

Over 90% of my books are pdfs however. I got tired of carrying all of those books around, and if I print pages out, and If forget a certain page I am out of luck. If I bring my laptop to a friend's house I can just use their computer to print out whatever I forgot. It has only had to happen once, but it would have impacted the game in a bad way.

Now to get on topic.

I hope these FAQ's keep coming out.

Fear: The majority of gamers become so nitpicky that every little detail has to be spelled out for them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Do bloat bonuses stack, like dodge bonuses?

Bloat stacks with everything, even other bloat. It doesn't care about sources or anything. It just stacks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Dude, your username is the poster child of bloat.

What? I don't know spell you are talking about. Oh crap you did not even mention a spell did you? Um well I uh have to go now <backs out of thread>

Off-topic-->Real story: I was in a debate on the wizards 3.5 forums a few years ago, and someone tried to dismiss my arguments by stating that my name was the same as that spell. :)
It wasn't even a debate on something being OP or broken, and I would suggest that none of you ever let this spell into your PF games.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well if that slaying and investigative class were not created we would not need a new rogue. Bloat killed the one true rogue. <cries in the corner>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This FAQ backs up what SKR says.


Paladin: Does smite evil bypass the defenses of the incorporeal special quality?

Smite is not an effect on the weapon, it is an effect on the paladin. The weapon still needs to be magic to harm the incorporeal creature, and even a magic weapon still only deals half damage against it.

So since the effect is on the paladin there is nothing to stop it from harming the WtW.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Power Attack is well worth it. When you go from 100 point to 75 points you are less likely to change your strategy and go into panic mode than when you go from 100 down to 30 or less.

Another way to look at it, other than hit points is how many rounds until you can end an opponent. The longer they stay alive the longer they can kill or hurt you. Killing things with big hits works very well in Pathfinder. You can kill things with two weapon fighting, but it is not nearly as efficient, and even then you need to either push strength or get dex to damage along with other bonuses.

Another thing about big hits is that they are not impacted as much by DR that you cant bypass.

As an example if you do 70 points of damage over 5 hits, and the opponent has DR 10 then you only really did 20 points of damage.

If you do 70 points of damage over 3 hits then you have done 40 points of damage, which is double.

Unless you are fighting someone with really high AC compared to your attack bonus then you should be power attacking assuming you have the right weapon for it, but most full BAB martials can get attack bonuses so high that eventually their 2nd and 3rd attacks can reliably hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smite does not really target someone in the manner that spells do.

It really works more like the ranger's focus ability for the guide archetype.


Ranger's Focus (Ex): At 1st level, once per day, the guide can focus on a single enemy within line of sight as a swift action. That creature remains the ranger's focus until it is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points or surrenders, or until the ranger designates a new focus, whichever occurs first. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the target of his focus. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2.

At 4th level, and every 3 levels thereafter, the ranger can use this ability one additional time per day. This ability replaces favored enemy.

No special effect is being placed on the enemy in either case. What is happening is the enemy has been chosen to get more attention from both classes.

Also a similar topic came up before.

Drachasor wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Can anyone here actually give me any evidence that ANYWHERE in the books Smite Evil is treated as a buff -- something that affects only the Paladin?
Smite says you get a bonus to attack and damage against the target(focus) of your smite. If smite was on the target it would have to apply a penalty to their AC and not a buff to your attack rolls. It would also say the target receives extra damage, but instead it says the paladin does extra damage. The paladin also gets a bonus to AC. All of these things are making the paladin better. They are not directly placed on the enemy.

Here is a link to the thread with SKR basically saying smite is a paladin buff, not an effect on the enemy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Are the player's complaining?

If not, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I think the GM is not having fun because his encounters(the ones he intends to not be roll overs) are getting trounced.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:

Agree that it's undervalued; positioning is important, and more speed means you're more likely to be better positioned. Admit it, everyone hates a 20ft speed compared to a 30ft speed when they're a small race or in med/heavy armor.

At best, it helps when you need to run away, or if you have a rogue in the party, or if you need prep flanks in general, or it can set you up for a full attack in the next round if you're great in combat, and more.

At worst - it is a bit situational. Sometimes a 20ft speed and a 25ft speed make no difference, and maybe taking another feat would've had some other effect - but even Power Attack can be situational in the wrong circumstances.

This feat does not work for medium armor and heavy armor, and another 5 feet is not likely going to matter that much with positioning in most combats. Normally the room is small enough that you can at least charge to get to the enemy. Even if it is better to move tactically it is likely to take 2 rounds to get into position no matter if you have 20 or 30 feet of movement.

If you have 30 feet of movement and you are in light or no armor then the extra 5 feet is not worth a feat, maybe a trait. If you are small and wearing light armor then you are likely an using a class that either does not need to be in melee combat too much or needs extra time setting up anyway.

This is more useful for medium to heavy armor types, and they can't even use the feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
What is E6? You kids and your new slang.

E6 has been around for a long time. Basically you do not level up anymore after level 6, but you continue to get feats.

Some people play other E's such as E8.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Most enemies are mobile enough that 5 more feet is not going to save you, if the GM really decides to have them chase you.
Well, it might save you in the sense of "I don't need outrun the big angry Dire Bear, I just need to outrun the rest of my party!"

Maybe so. Ok, well most of the time...... :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

And that's what I think is wrong with the current way people optimize. People can't see the trees for the forest and they forget that every "once a campaign" combat tends to involve life or death. If a fight gets to where running away is an attractive strategy, you're gonna want to be able to run. If the scout is caught in a melee seventy feet ahead, you're gonna want to be able to charge. Fleet and Run aren't must-haves, but they have real benefits that are too often ignored because they don't add to often-used numbers.

The whole campaign ain't worth a damn if you get shot down in the fifth encounter. ;P

Most enemies are mobile enough that 5 more feet is not going to save you, if the GM really decides to have them chase you. If he does not really want to chase you that 5 feet still did not matter, and many times that other feat you could have had instead of fleet can make it so that you are not in a life or death encounter.

Most animals and similar creatures such as magical beast can outrun you. Bigger humanoid(shape not creature type) types such as giants will be faster.

If they are actually medium sized things such as gnolls, and your GM is not giving them ranged weapons then he is giving you a way out whether he knows it or not. If they have ranged weapons they can attack you from a decent distance if you run, even if they have to take penalties. They can move and shoot instead of taking full attacks also, well depending on the bow.

You also have flying enemies you can't outrun. If the monster has teleport he can just be waiting for you, and set an ambush<---This happened to me after getting my butt kicked by a bone devil.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is not so much that movement is undervalued, which is how you are probably looking at it Kobold Cleaver. It is more that 5 feet of movement is over-valued by charging a feat for it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

See, there is the rub. One person says this is RAW (Rules As Written) and demands that the GM allows it. The GM knows it is a lax reading of the written words that make up that rule, and knows that the Fluff doesn't support the liberal reading of it.

So why completely ignore the fluff when looking at the rules.

let's look at another example.

Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Slap.

According to the rules, Kobolds don't have tails. (it is a part of the description if the race) A human/half-orc/elf can take the feat and instantly grow a tail to use the feat with, well, at least that is how it was argued.

Here, there was a willful ignoring of the basic facts to try and use a feat. Kobolds usually have tails. The fluff of the feat has them strengthening their tail to attack with it. When a Human takes that feat, he would need to acquire a tail to be able to use it. (Monkey Belt was suggested)

The developer that finally commented on this suggested that common sense be used when interpreting the rules and what you can do with them. You can't tail slap with no tail.

In an actual game I would not allow it(two earth breakers) because that is not the intent, but I still think the rule needs to be rewritten because some people at a table will try to use the wording, even if they know it is not the intent.

As to why people ignore fluff-->Flavor/fluff is not the rule, but it can give a hint as to what the mechanics intent. At the same time they can also not match the mechanics with regard as to how it works in the game, but it will be closer to how the feats looks if you were watching a movie or reading a book.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:


They. Are. Still. Two Handed weapons. Feat does not change that. The rules for weapon sizes does not change, it is not a sliding scale.

This is a done argument anyway, as one of the main Paizo people actually said (to a poster on the other thread at a convention) that the feat doesn't allow for the Dual Wielding of them, or the wielding of one that is oversized.

Wield one in one hand, bracing the shaft on your arm instead of the Klar, fine, go for it. Wield a one/light handed weapon in the other, not another Two Handed Weapon.

My point about Two Handed Weapons is that the EB doesn't lose the fact that it is still a Two Handed Weapon. The feat uses a Klar, one considered a "light" weapon for the purpose of TWF when used with this feat.

I would suggest to Paizo when the next printing comes out for this, to make the period a comma instead.

rules 101: When a feat says you treat something "as if..." you treat it as if it had that property. As an example half-orcs are treated as humans and orc with regard to certain effects.

If feat says a one-handed weapon is treated as a light weapon for you then you can use weapon finesse with it, even thought it is not really a light weapon.

We get that the weapon is a two handed weapon but for all intents and purposes for "you" it is a one-handed weapon.

There are many examples of "as ..." and "like" in the book. This is rules 101, not something really complicated. I really don't see why its so hard to grasp.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most GM's have a certain way they GM. If you have smart players they have likely adapted to your style of GM'ing. At the same time you may also need to adapt to your players.
You also need to be ready for "game/combat enders".
As an example invisibility and flight are two ways to own an encounter if the opposition has no counter. I understand not wanting to have every enemy being able to counter it, but for important fights the bad guys should be able to avoid auto-shutdowns. Going over your player's character sheets occasionally helps a GM from getting caught off-guard. I consider it fair game because you are only one person, and they are 3 people or more, so they have access to more ideas than the GM does.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
This again?

I am sure it wont be the last time. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now there is a feat that allows you to ride a mount the same size as you. Large mounts were what made mounted combat more difficult before.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The assassin PrC sucks at its job, even if the slayer and rogue do not exist. There are a few threads that go into detail on that topic.

It's like Tacticslion said; it's only usable as an NPC as an actual assassin, and not as an adventurer. (And like you said, still worse at it than other classes.)

The funny thing is that if I were to actually make an NPC with the Assassin PrC and wanted to maximize its effectiveness I'd use wizard as an entry class. Maxed Int for Death Attack and wizard, with spells to provide great assistance for carrying out assassinations.

I agree with Tacticslion. I always felt certain PrC's and feats were for GM's in 3.x/PF.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


Endure Elements (starting at FIRST LEVEL any plots having to do with enduring the elements, ala Dark Sun style stuff or whatever, gone. Even for non-casters. 50 gp for 24 hours of nope in potion form.)

I had overlooked this spell. 24 hours of "F**@ you desert" is not going to allow me to run this Dark Sun campaign like I want to. I might have to nix this spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

See Invisibility or Glitterdust. I might not take both but I always get one of them
Greater Teleport
dispel magic
Greater Dispel Magic
Blessing of Fervor
read magic
detect magic
lesser restoration

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The assassin PrC sucks at its job, even if the slayer and rogue do not exist. There are a few threads that go into detail on that topic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Poster 1: X works because A, B and C (quoted from the rulebook).

Poster 2: No it doesn't. You claimed Y worked in thread Z, and you were wrong then.

LOL. I have been lucky enough to miss that one. That would really be annoying.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey it's Wraithstrike again with another meme.

Poster 1: X does not work because <insert rules related reasons)

Poster 2: Why are you so against it? It is not broken or anything.

Whether or not something is broken or OP is not the issue. It does not work because the rules do not support your view on it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Annoying meme: If you not a dev then you can not know what the intent of the rules are.

I guess some people think you need to be a mind reader to be able to understand words. Some of us just "get it" because we have good comprehension skills, and have an deeper understanding for how the game works.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This feat was not intended to work with arrows. No, they did not specifically call out ranged weapons, but not every little detail should have to be spelled out. Changing how you hold a bow is not going to change the point at the end of the arrow.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Question: is there a monk ability that lets my character do a hadoken?

That reminds me they had something like this in 3.5 in PHB 2. I forgot the name of the feat. It will be nice to see how Pathfinder does it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Komoda wrote:
While I may not be able to prepare a proper debate in the middle of combat, I assure you that I can communicate important tactical terms and strategy in the middle of one.
But can you pull off a perfectly timed action while doing so?

A readied action does not require perfect timing. You just have to recognize a specific action and act accordingly. It is not different than me waiting for a blue car to show up while talking to a friend, and making sure it does not enter my driveway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.
It should also be noted that that comment was from 2012 so some time has passed since then.

But there has been no rule change, and he said he was speaking for the PDT from what I understood. Even if he was speaking only as SKR I would like to assume he understood the rules of a meeting he was a part of.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DocShock wrote:

I think it would be obnoxious for anyone at my table to reskin for a power boost, regardless of total power level. I'm not trying to give you my whole life story here, so I'll just say that the example I gave was about half of the optimization changes the guy wanted to make, and his character was way outside the bounds of our group's optimization level, in part due to the reskins.

In your other post it seemed like the reskins, and not a power boost due to reskins, was the issue. The OP of this thread would also likely be against reskinning to gain power, and I don't think anyone here is supporting that. To me that is another topic entirely since the OP was speaking of reskinning in good faith from what I read.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
What negatives exactly? Are you suggesting that the game mechanics are balanced by fluff drawbacks?

I'd go past suggesting and outright say that there are positives and negatives to the fluff. A dinosaur tends to draw different or more attention than a wolf/dog. An elf versus a half-orc. A great sword versus a dagger.

The game, at least for me, isn't Stat Block X with Item Y and Perk Z drawn from anywhere and bludgeoned together to sort of fit the game. The fluff is there for a reason. It helps drive the story and if you can just get around all that by reskinning every element, what's the point?

If the GM runs the game as if people trust druids(or anyone with an animal companion) to control their animal companions then this is a non-issue, but if druids(etc) with certain animal companions would still draw unwanted attention then I agree the flavor then becomes a mechanical affect. However I would think that if the person came up with the example had that as an issue they would have mentioned it.

The flavor when set in stone just because "that is what the freelancer or designer wrote" can hinder a story more than it can drive a story. What matters is the flavor at the table, because that is what the story will contain. The flavor in the book is just a pre-written option.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Where on earth do you get the assumption that we all play in Golarion from?

Golarion is the default assumption of Pathfinder RPG. For many people, Pathfinder is Golarion and not just the 3.75 ruleset.

Every class bit fluff, every deity, every caviler order, every iconic character is presented as part of Golarion.

If you are not playing in Golarion fine, but at that point you are significantly changing the game as written.

Pathfinder is the core game, but it is not Golarion so they would be wrong. I do understand using Golarion as a default baseline for many things however since it is the default setting. The default setting of D&D based systems is not the game. Paizo even knows this. That is why they have the "Setting" line of books, and the core rule line. You can play without any setting books at all, and still be playing Pathfinder as written.

Not playing in Golarion is not changing the game as written at all. An example is that in Golarion you must have a deity as cleric or paladin, so you are actually changing the game as written if you do play in Golarion.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
I find both examples of reskinning to be fine. In fact, I find the 2nd one to be a particularly GOOD example of not letting rollplay and roleplay step on each other's toes. He wants to play a powerful...

See, now here I would disagree.

The primary purpose of reflavoring from a player perspective, to me personally, is to allow a player to realize a concept that may not be possible or playable with the available content. There are other times when reflavoring is a good idea, of course, but allowing a player to optimize their build isn't one of them, unless the build was unplayable without the changes. And this was a druid with a pet--the player was going to be fine. I do not disassociate fluff from crunch whenever it is inconvenient.

What's more, this is a scenario where some homebrewing must be done. Half-orcs don't have the elf subtype. They count as humans and orcs for the purposes of effects. Allosaurs ares dinosaurs, while wolves are canines. The way the character interacts with a myriad number of conditionals and effects has been changed.

I would have allowed the change for Fate's Favored, because one invisible hand of fortune is the same as any other, and if the player talked a good game I might have relented on one of the other two points. But when they all come together it represents a playstyle and behavior I'd rather not see at my games--one where the character groans under any kind of limitations, no matter how light. It may be a prejudice, but I wouldn't expect the player to fit in well with my gaming group, and experiences from my first attempts at DMing when I was younger provide additional, if anecdotal, confirmation.

If a player wants a powerful character, but he does not like the flavor, I still see it as legit to reflavor it. Otherwise it is like saying only weaker characters should be allowed to have their flavor changed.

It is not like it would be any less powerful if he chose the original options, and just kept the original flavor.

I also don't see an issue with wanting powerful characters as long as you stay within the group's optimization limits.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:

It's not just a matter of what you do, but to how you do it Wraithstrike. Both barbarian and slayer are good at dealing damage, but are you really going to argue that they have the same shtick?

Druid are master of trasforming into giant tirannosaurus and eating you while barbarian charge you with a big axe, and that's good enaugh of a difference for each having his own fans. The problem with the summoner is that he is going to rend you with claws AND charge you with a big axe at the same time. While casting of couse, let's not forget that.

If we are being that specific then the summoner is not really stepping on everyone's toes then. He is doing his thing in a different way than the other classes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really don't think the summoner is good at everyone's else's shtick, any more than a druid is. The druid can put out damage, has battlefield control, it can scout better than most classes. With traits it can probably be passable face also.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ngc7293 wrote:

In our games, if you can't sufficiently explain how you got those weapons (Tian Xia being a long way off and hard to get a hold of), then you are out of luck. But the Samurai doesn't need to be reskined. All the player has to do is promise not to use a katana, naginata, and wakizashi. After that I think the class is just fine.

Of coarse at that point you are just playing another Cavalier...

Some people just dont have good imaginations. Why can't the GM or another player help him come up with an idea as to how he would have certain weapons?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Some GM's dont even allow you to reflavor anything.
How horrid! I can't even imagine playing under such a limiting GM.

This has happened a LOT to me. You have storytellers who are so focused on what their image of a fantasy game is supposed to be that they pigeonhole their players by arbitrarily declaring X, Y, and Z out of bounds. When you try to make a case, or to explain that you could just look at it a different way, they don't want to hear it.

It's extremely frustrating.

And then you have players who absolutely refuse to make a character that fits into a setting, but insist they want to play, and then go off crying to messageboards about their "Inflexible DM".

Feeling entitled much?

Listen up... No matter what BS you spout about "cooperative" gaming. It's still the DM who's doing the donkey work on setting the stage and supporting cast for you to be star actors on. You don't like the production he or she is creating... You're better off finding another DM to cater to your prima donna demands.

At what point did he say he expects a GM to change the setting, or that he would not make a character that would fit into a setting? People on these boards really need to stop reading too far into things and remember that they are not mindreaders.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
If I remember, those extra skill points were for craft, perform, profession, and a new skill called lore.

So my earlier guess was correct, except for lore. I did not know about that.

1 to 50 of 1,973 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.