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. 2,621 posts (37,802 including aliases). 3 reviews. 8 lists. 4 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,561 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

At the time, I thought SKR really wanted to have the 3.5 exception, wasn't allowed to, and was sincerely trying his best to do what he could.

It was ascribed to him, simply because it was his post that revealed it to us.

He was sympathetic to the problem of attacking in diagonal corridors (it being totally impossible with a reach weapon, against all reason), I simply believed he was forbidden from re-instating the 3.5 exception even though he wanted to.

As a reminder SKR as a dev was never allowed to make any rules changes on his own. He was a dev but not the lead dev. At best he could make a case but the final call is never his.

And no I am not say "well blame Jason...."

I would say that many of you need to realize that you tables way of playing is not the only valid way so a rule going against your style of play does not entitle you to throw temper tantrums like toddlers.

PS: This is not directed at Malachi. ←In before someone assumes I am personally attacking someone else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rikkan wrote:

What about the invisible stalker from core?

It is a medium air elemental, can you summon it with summon nature's ally 4?

No. They(the spells) mean the Elementals such as the ones I listed, not any elemental that has the subtype.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since the giant was blind there should have been a miss chance roll, but in this case I see no problem with turning a blind eye. (bad pun intended)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulet wrote:
Dafydd wrote:


pick up some mithral and adamantine while you are there.

That's pretty much what I wanted to know, that there is a location somewhere where this is more common.

We play a very low income campaign setting. If a peasant makes 2sp pieces per day, and a full suit of Armour is 1500gp, then a party finding 2000GP - 5000GP per session is simply ridiculous. Every man and his dog would drop their tools and go adventuring for a few months. The party currently only has about 3800GP in the bank, and only earns a few hundred more each session.

The game's economy is not meant to be realistic. It is really there to give players a way to buy things. There are a few threads online on how hard it fails. No matter if you look at it from a the commoner's income or what Paizo expects you to get it fails if you really get into the details.

However since you run a low income game I would suggest that only a metropolis is likely to have a large amount of rare/expensive components such as diamond dust.

Also money is not enough motivation for someone to risk their life and not everyone has adventuring skills.

The average commoner makes about 400 gp a year*, which is actually about 1.1 gp a day or 11s p. If we are going to base economy off of those numbers then none of the higher magic items exist which is fine because nobody is really going to be able to afford to make them. Also since the game bases the prices on its current model and not what commoners make then in actuality the price of the components would match what the economy can produce. Otherwise the math just kills the concept of certain things have the current book pricing. So if your current playstyle is mostly based on math then you will have to reprice a lot of things to be accurate. If you just want a gritty playstyle then carry on. :)

*I have seen this math in several places online. I guess I should check it however.
Bob the farmer
1 rank in profession farming +3 for class skill =4
masterwork tool gives another +2
So we are at a 6. He likely has at least 2 kids so they are aiding another for another 4.
Now we have a 10.
I won't even assume he has a high wisdom. I will say he just has a 10.

So he takes 10 on this and gets a 20

You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work.

Half of 20 is 10.

10 x 4 week =40 per month
40 x 12 months = 480

Not that I did not give wisdom a high score or use skill focus

So now 480/365=1.3 gold per day

Now if you are untrained(no ranks in profession) then you earn 1sp per day, not even 2.

Gets tired of typing and decides to not go into the break down of how bad the game is at representing an actual economy, mostly because it is way off-topic.

Anyway I just wanted to present some information.

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

The summon monster and summon nature's ally spells allow you to summon various elementals. The newer bestiaries have new elemental types such as the Ice and Lightning elementals. It seems that most people are of the opinion that since there is no working saying that only the bestiary 1 elementals are allowed that any new elementals can be summoned also.

So here is the question: Are the bestiary 1 elementals such as the fire, water, earth, and air, elementals the only ones allowed to be summoned with the summon monster and nature's ally spells?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no contradiction. I think it is a silly ruling, but they do not contradict.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:

Sounds like not everybody at your table is mature enough to handle an Evil Game.

Might want to proceed with new, non-Evil characters until everybody has had a chance to grow up a bit.

I would also suggest starting at level 1. Higher level characters tend to have a lot of abilities/options.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dwayne germaine wrote:

I really don't think that GMs dissallowing the tactic of spending 3 rounds to find something invisible has nearly as much impact on the game as GMs who allow detect magic or detect evil to instantly locate a hidden enemy. At least when it comes up and the GM is about to give way too much information, now I can run them through how it is supposed to work.

On one hand I'm glad that this discussion has enlightened me on exactly how to run this when someone tries to use the tactic of detecting magic to find an invisible opponent, but given how ineffective it actually will be, I don't really see a problem with a GM just saying it won't work and getting on with running the game. I realize there are always cases that are exceptions to the rule, but how often is this really going to make or break an encounter?

Now using detect magic to find an invisible object is another story, and deserves to be noted, but I can't think of more than one or two times in all the games that I have played where it would apply.

This case is for PFS and GM's are not allowed to ignore the rules. In a home game I would be much less likely to argue the point even though the GM would be wrong.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:
A mid level scenario. Very dangerous hungry vicious monster. Clearly expected the party to fight it. Group from inside of invisibility conjured cattle (bison?), speak with animals to tell the cattle to run, hasted the cattle so they could keep away for awhile, and slipped past while the creature was chasing it's 'meal'. Nothing in the scenario about whether something like this could work. But it didn't have high mental stats and the scenario did say it was starving. Obviously meant to keep the party from just making friends to get by, but he thought it seemed reasonable that it would chase food animals.

This is the only one where I might be raising my eyebrow if I were in Mike's position. How did they get inside of the conjured cattle, and can bison even be summoned?

Don't answer the question about cattle being summoned. It is really not nearly as important as to how they got inside.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any class is suitable. If you mean something technology based, then you might be better off asking in DSP's forum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YIDM wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

"Should" does not define rules and until they get to be PF devs they don't get to change them. The illusion school is shutdown by spellcraft(a skill) if the spell is cast in front of you, and it has no special protection against detect magic or any other detection spell. I would report them if that was the best answer they gave me.
I'm attempting not be any more jerk-like than I'm already perceived as, being the resident "rules lawyer" of our PFS group in my area.

That is not a bad thing as long as you don't "only try to acknowledge a rule when it benefits you".

If they want to play with house rules they should play at home.<---I don't expect for you to say that because I am sure it will not go over well. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
It's a ring in which, to gain the benefits, it must be worn and then activated. Once activated, it lasts for 3 minutes, you attack, or you take it off.
Why would it stop after three minutes? That's the duration of the spell, but it isn't casting the spell on the wearer, it's just that the wearer can activate it to be invisible.

Because it's a magical item with a caster level created to duplicate the effects of a spell by providing the benefits of that spell to the wearer of the magical item. It follows along with the spell for pretty much every other reason; why not this one, too?

And ultimately, even if you want to keep asking, "But why?" the answer at some point boils down to, "Because the people who are responsible for making the rules of the game said so." They're the people charged with creating the rules, all of which are arbitrary. If you don't like how they arbitrarily decided one aspect because it differs from how you would arbitrarily decide that aspect, feel free to change it for your own games.

And really at the end of the day that is the answer so if someone keeps asking why they are either asking why did they rule that way, or why is the rule not written more clearly.

The answer to the first one boils down to them thinking that is the best way for the item to work in the game. The answer to the second question is they are not technical writers, and not everyone perceives things in the same way, which is likely the main reason this section of the messageboard even exist, to get us all one the same page.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD Glossary wrote:
A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say the flames from produce flames count since the spell does say "as a weapon", and they are ranged attacks that you have current access to, assuming the spells have been cast.

Of course if I am wrong I am sure someone will have some rules text to point out that I missed. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
base cost before intelligence thingies: SL 1 x CL 1 x 2000 = 2000
Don't forget the duration cost multiplier for continuous: x4 for round/level abilities.
so 8000? I could live with that. Thank you kind Sir! (I'm the DM right now, I'll do the intelligence math later and report... I'll make two versions: the lesser and the greater, sauron-like version! :) )

If you're the GM, just house rule the Ring of Invisibility works the way you want it too and costs however much you want.

Hacks around the magic item rules to avoid house ruling things aren't a good idea.

I disagree. Those with the magic item crafting feats need consistency of costing application throughout various magic items. Not random unexplained doubling of prices because "they said so"

The magic item creation section directly says that not all magic items power will conform to the price so a GM should feel free to ad-hoc the price. It is really more of an art, than a science.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guest wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Again, why look at the rules when you are aiming for a certain fluff?
I wish I knew. I have had discussions with this guy in my group about stuff like this all the time. His answer is, "I just don't think Pathfinder is a 'refluff it' kind of game." WTF does that mean?

What it means is that, the way it is set up, Pathfinder does your imagining for you. Given enough time, they will have a base case for most concepts, eliminating the need for the player to imagine anything, and just pick off the menu of feats and skills.

So you say pathfinder kills roleplaying? Because that's what it sounds like.

For some it does. It depends on the level of holiness(thou shall not modify) applied to Paizo's flavor text, and how much everyone agrees on it. As I said before some posters/gamers will call you a powergamer or munchkin if you use a different class to perform whose flavor is written up in a different class. Some GM's will ban the ninja class strictly based on the name, and won't allow you to change the flavor around it.

33 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a spinoff from the thread concerning CL affecting magic item effect duration comes a new question.

Do magical effects with a specified duration, activated from command word magic items terminate before the duration is up if the magic item 1) leaves the possession of the activator for non-slotted items or 2) is removed from the worn slot for slotted items.

1) would be like the previously proposed orb that bestows a 1 hour mage armor 5/day
2) would be like the 3 minute invisibility from the ring of invisibility, or the 1 hour temporary hit points from the vampiric gloves

For the purpose of this question we are not counting staves, or wands since they actually cast spells.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You do not need to cast "remove fear" to get away. If you have enough coherence to cast that spell then you would know that doing so would take you back into the fight since you would no longer be afraid. However you are afraid at the moment, and you do NOT want to go that way, so even if you have any coherent thought it should be "do not cast this spell".

You are reaching. That spell is not going to possible by the rules. Remove fear is not an "escape ability". Haste, expeditious retreat, teleport, dimension door, are all "escape abilities".

And this reply applies to Bronnwynn too:

So your PC has enough wits-and-concentration to cast Haste but not enough to want to be able to get away by accurately navigating a maze facilitated by swigging a potion to 'calm his nerves'?

I might make some allowences for the "level" of Fear effect but again, I think people on this thread are confounding Fear with Confusion.

No, you're confusing basic terms of the English language with what you wish worked.

So explain this then (nobody's touched it so far, especially those who seem to be in disagreement with me):

"A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can’t take any other actions. In addition, the creature takes a –2 penalty on all saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers and does not attack, typically using the total defense action in combat. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape."

Those portions I bolded are in direct conflict with each other.

Actually you need to bold the entire relevant section which is A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee

Now that we have bolded "to flee" we know the intent is that you can not take any other actions besides fleeing except to cast a spell that allows it to escape.

Removing the fear is not going to allow you to escape.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You do not need to cast "remove fear" to get away. If you have enough coherence to cast that spell then you would know that doing so would take you back into the fight since you would no longer be afraid. However you are afraid at the moment, and you do NOT want to go that way, so even if you have any coherent thought it should be "do not cast this spell".

You are reaching. That spell is not going to possible by the rules. Remove fear is not an "escape ability". Haste, expeditious retreat, teleport, dimension door, are all "escape abilities".

And this reply applies to Bronnwynn too:

So your PC has enough wits-and-concentration to cast Haste but not enough to want to be able to get away by accurately navigating a maze facilitated by swigging a potion to 'calm his nerves'?

I might make some allowences for the "level" of Fear effect but again, I think people on this thread are confounding Fear with Confusion.

The book specifically says you can do X. That is why. If you want to argue the "level of coherency" then you can argue that he can cast fireball and other offensive spells to just kill whatever caused the fear condition. The reason they allow you to use "escape spells" is because your only goal is getting away. Your goal is not to remove the fear affect. It is not about being confused, but not being able to think clearly. An example is someone so afraid they can't move. They are not confused, but their mind is still not working properly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Why, oh why, would you need to buy something "official", ever?

I pay the money so I don't have to do certain things, and while I did decide some things for myself, I had more to decide than I actually wanted to have to decide.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
So is your issue mainly the price of the ring compared to what it does or is your issue that the words in the book are not specific enough for you?
Honestly, that's a false dichotomy and comes across as quite antagonistic and an attempt to "trap" Malachi. Like you told me above, It adds nothing to the conversation.

No it is not a trap at all. It is a legitimate question.

If his problem is that the rules are not clear then he can petition to get them fixed.

If the problem is that he does not like the way the ring works, then he can try to get the forums on his side and see if it results in errata.

I really don't see how "trying to find the problem" is not adding to the conversation.

I could just keep assuming, but I just figure it is better to ask.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it comes from a wand then you are not casting it, so you are good. However your deity still may not be happy about it.

non rules comment:

Some spells such as the protection from ____ spells really should not have alignment descriptors

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think an AP centered mostly around Kaer Maga would be great. I just wish it was a bigger city. It reminds me of Sharn from Eberron.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think it depends on your playstyle.

On these boards, there is a great number that pay no attention to the fluff (why the heck they think it's even written is beyond me...apparently it's so they can ignore it as they obviously don't feel it's part of the rules).

I think it is because they think that restricting yourself to the book's flavor is not needed. If you want to be someone who taps into his anger or "lose yourself in combat" in order to fighter better then go barbarian since it does not have to mean you are some guy from the wilderness. The book's flavor is just a suggestion* most of the time, unless it is directly attached to the mechanics, such as with the paladin.

*I think they are aware that the flavor in the book is the base assumption, but the idea is that you should not "have" to choose class X to portray a concept, if you can do it better with class Y.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Multiply sneak attack damage on a crit is not the answer. It is easier to just give the rogue more consistent damage if you give it something like the inquisitor or ranger has which is bonuses to attacks and damage under certain situation if you care about the damage. You also don't have to depend on crit builds. As a more specific example maybe they get extra "to hit" bonuses when flanking. That would allow them to hit more often, and if they got a bonus to their AC, maybe an insight bonus, it can keep them in light armor and give than an AC that matters.

However it has been my experience that most people who play a rogue don't do it primarily for damage so I would not give it a big boost to damage. I would find a way to make them better at using skills, and no I don't mean just give them bigger modifiers. They should be able to do things that other classes can't.

Example:Maybe they can use diplomacy as a suggestion or charm person spell X/day, but it won't be magical. Instead of having a bonus to perception that only works against traps. The bonus should apply to all perception checks like the archaeologist bard does.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
On a side note, the Ring doesn't say it casts the spell; it says it provides the same benefits as the spell. Magic items, unless specified otherwise, don't provide their benefit when not worn unless it explicitly states so. The support for the pass-around argument is specious at best and generally appears to be reactionary (hyperliteralism out of frustration and all that).

Oh, so you agree that this ring isn't one of those items which cast a spell on you, it's the other kind that gives you the same benefits you would have if the spell was affecting you!

This means that it isn't subject to the stat block of the spell, including duration.

So you stay invisible until you take it off, de-activate it, or attack.

The benefit is for you to be treated as if the spell was cast on you as long as you wear the item. So basically you benefit from the spell until the duration runs out, you remove the item, or you turn it off. I am sure that much is clear. If you don't like it then put out another thread in the rule section so we get an FAQ or errata to clarify it. Arguing that the RAW does not perfectly match RAI when you know the intent is pointless.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It depends on what they are trying to do for example number 1, and how much they are ok with just reflavoring instead of actually "doing".

For example number 2 it is a personal choice. I look at classes as a bag of features. Paizo's ninja as an example does not match my vision of "ninja" so I am more likely to play a trapper ranger combined with some other archetype, or to use a slayer.

However in recent conversations on the boards if you don't play by the flavor given to you from Paizo then you are a munchkin(not everyone took it to this extreme, but some do feel this way), and you should not go take the class that fits the concept better mechanically. You should go by the book description when picking a class.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Losobal wrote:

I don't know if its rogue hate as much as "Sneak attack can be kinda cheese" but thats an issue that crosses decades. Then people see some of the ridonkulous examples of cheese that can be built and attribute that to the class.

Thing is, that can be applied to pretty much any class. Build them a certain way and tada cheesetastic. So its not a rogue-specific thing.

That is not the case at all. The rogue would actually do more consistent damage with bonuses to attack and damage similar to what other classes get than with sneak attack, which is far from cheese.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arbane are you not able to do 11 points of damage at level 1?

Level one, sure. It's the levels AFTER that where I don't see where all the extra damage is supposed to be coming from.

My group's currently level 6 going on 7, and the GM insists on giving all the enemies bonus HP because he thinks we're 'too strong'. :-P

DPR tends to jump when you get additional attacks or other abilities come on line and/or improve. Other than that it won't increase too much.

If your party uses buff spells those should be considered also.

Meeting 1-round DPR is not always easy, but 2 rounding an opponent is not that difficult for most build focused on damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheBlackPlague wrote:

But my actual advice is this: Play something you're gonna have fun with.

This is the best answer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Well, I think the reason the Stormwind Fallacy doesnt' always hold up is that many optimizers ARE bad at roleplaying. Optimizers as I'm putting it are DIFFERENT than your normal roleplayer, as I'll put down later.

I would argue that many so called "roleplayers" are not good roleplayers either.

Edit: many aren't going to read this, as it's TLDR. The reason the angst against optimizers exists, isn't because the Stormwind fallacy exists. Stormwind fallacy is valid, but affected by what I'll call, the GWL Fallacy (as explained below). It exists because there's a trend that has arisen from what people have observed from optimizers. So while they may be good roleplayers too, the trend that many have observed among those called optimizers, shows something that they believe makes optimizers poor roleplayers. [end edit]


The reason is optimization is NORMALLY based around COMBAT...not roleplaying.

Actually since the goal of many optimizers is to not fail, as is anyone else I find this to be false. If they really know what they are doing they will prepare for more than just combat so we might need a new term for someone focused strictly on combat. The term "optimizer" is definitely not it.


Hence, they easily fall into rpg traps/tricks due to bad abilities to utilize diplomacy, bad ways to avoid things like poisoning in intrigue, and many other items.

More bad information but carry on.


In fact, the bane of most optimizers is the trap dungeon.

Since getting jumped in a surprise round is bad for combat, and not losing in combat according to you, is the goal why not boost perception which also detects traps, even magical ones? <---rhetorical question.


But when the creatures aren't supposed to be fought at all...and if you do, they'll kill you (think that ancient Red dragon sleeping there, or the CR 30 critter), the one that optimizes for combat normally can be at a loss. They WANT to use this optimization, that's what their character is built for. It isn't built to avoid that challenge...they are built for conflict.

You do know that not losing involves not fighting things you can not defeat, so it kinda makes sense to have more options than "I stab it in the face". But like I said keep going.

You know what. I am going to stop right here since there are way to many false statement in this post you made.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:

Hi again. Good this thread got some support. While im seeing all have quite some different lists, I specially like BigDTBone and Cheapy's work, I think its important to stablish a benchmark. The points or questions which I think would be necessary to organize them would be:

1. How many rounds should an X level PC take to kill an CR X monster? (by damage of course)

2. How much damage could be considerated too much?

3. Which is the acceptable* monster with the highest HP, which one has the lowest?
(Lets leave monster contruction and templates aside)
*(some monsters may be excluded if their CR is way to high to realistically include on a game, like chuthulu for example )

1 and 2. Assuming only full attacks the monster at the longest should take 2 rounds to put down. One rounding something that is APL+2 higher than you might annoy some GM's so that would be beyond the norm. ←←just a guess on my part

Yes I am aware that not full attacks are not always available if you are not an archer.
@ everyone
I dont consider certain builds "vanilla" just because they are well known on this site however we can make that judgement as builds are presented.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
I like playing characters that are odd and effective rather than pure optimized, such as my katana wielding druid.
I guess you mean power-gaming. Everyone optimizes.

Which is what this entire thread has been about, except when someone's derailing it with the "everyone optimizes, so we're obviously talking about building completely useless characters" nonsense. It's funny that in every other context on these boards everyone knows exactly what is meant when some one talks about optimization, but when there's any doubt about whether it's always a good thing, suddenly the 7 STR, 7 Con greatsword fighter comes up.

Ask for help optimizing, look for a optimization guide, talk about how APs are too easy for optimized characters - no one thinks your talking about being sure to take a fairly high strength as a fighter or making sure your casting stat is high enough to actually cast spells.

What are you ranting about, and no it is not obvious since I see a difference between power gaming and optimizing so I was making that point clear to the other poster. I think you somehow assumed I was saying something more than that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

As for dexterous part, even that has its limits. You are likely to stab yourself in the leg even with a dex of over 30 IMO especially while moving.
Isnt 10 standard human? I think you understimate what dex 30 means, or what talented humans (18 dex?) can accomplish. Google "People are awesome". Bizzare Precision, inhuman almost..yet they are.

I have seen people do amazing things, and I stand by my statement. You are not running and quick sheathing in real life. Well you might get lucky once, but the majority of the time I expect for the person to fail. I also dont see it happening in mid-combat even if you are not running.

If you have a video of someone quick-sheathing a sword I would like to see it. Other acts of dexterity are impressive but they are not sheathing a sword.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quick sheathing requires a level of precision that is not really plausible especially when moving. It might also interact with the gunslinger in ways that won't go well.

Yeah I know someone will come in with the "dragons and fireball" statement, but that does not mean that people don't have limitations on what they can do with regard to dexterity(not the game term).

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

Most traits that give a bonus specifically call them out as a trait bonus. Some give bonuses with no type. Is it intended for all traits to only give trait bonuses, or was it intentional for some traits to give untyped bonuses?


Ease of Faith: Your mentor, the person who invested your faith in you from an early age, took steps to ensure that you understood that what powers your divine magic is no different than that which powers the magic of other religions. This philosophy makes it easier for you to interact with others who may not share your views. You gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks, and Diplomacy is always a class skill for you.

This trait gives an untyped bonus as written.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BTW: This thread is about the rogue, and how nobody wants to take it in order to find and disable traps, just like some people never wanted to take a cleric just to heal the party.

Yeah, "trap finding" is not in the title, but it is in the opening statement.

When the OP gets into the main point of his statement he says -->"I've noticed the same thing happening in my recent games, except switch out 'healer' for 'trapfinder.' Many think that trapfinding is a useless or superfluous ability."

This is followed up with --> "With the rogue's abysmal reputation (deserved or not, that's a conversation for another thread) it seems like no one is EVER willing to play a trapfinder,"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:
Finally, just to be clear: archers and gunslingers are well and truly overpowered, and this fact is widely known.

You are highly mistaken. I don't know any posters that understand the game that agree with this.

It is better than melee, but that does not make it OP.

Nobody has ever proven that ranged characters are OP, and even among those that think so there is no consistent thought about why it is OP.

Just to be clear OP to me is too good for most groups, not "too good for my group", which is a problem some people have. If it does not fit their style of play then it is "wrong".

If something is going to be objectively true instead of subjectively true, then it must be proven to do so.

How much damage should a level 11 character be able to do on average?

As far as your "OP" statement that is a moving line since more things means that the average power increases, and maybe some of the things on the lower end are just not good enough. The things I say are "ok" are normally ok in most games. Some thing's like the summoner are problematic, for reasons that make them broken to some, but not really OP. Being OP and broken are not always the same thing.

PS: I don't take your statement personally. Everyone is welcome to their own ideas of what is a good power(optimization) view of the game.

edit: I don't mega-optimize. I have the ability to do so, but I don't. I also said not to use the best builds as a point of comparison for this conversation so I don't know how that statement of " compare everything against the best possible thing in order to determine whether the thing in question is "OP."" applies to me at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I finally made a gunslinger(musketeer archetype)

Gunslinger 11
Male human (taldan) gunslinger (musket master) 11 (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat 9, 50)
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +14; Senses Perception +21
AC 25, touch 16, flat-footed 21 (+7 armor, +2 deflection, +1 Dex, +3 dodge, +2 natural)
hp 103 (11d10+33)
Fort +12, Ref +16, Will +11
Defensive Abilities nimble +3
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee mwk rapier +12/+7/+2 (1d6/18-20)
Ranged +1 lucky reliable musket +18 (1d12+8/×4) or
. . mwk musket +18 (1d12+7/×4)
Special Attacks deeds (bleeding wound, dead shot, deadeye, expert loading, fast musket, gunslinger initiative,

lightning reload, pistol-whip, quick clear, startling shot, steady aim, targeting), grit (2)
Str 10, Dex 22, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10
Base Atk +11; CMB +11; CMD 32
Feats Deadly Aim, Gunsmithing[UC], Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload,

Rapid Reload, Rapid Shot
Traits indomitable faith, reactionary
Skills Acrobatics +5 (+1 to jump), Bluff +14, Climb -1, Craft (alchemy) +4, Handle Animal +5, Heal +6, Intimidate

+14, Knowledge (engineering) +4, Knowledge (local) +4, Perception +21, Sleight of Hand +4, Survival +12, Swim +1
Languages Common
SQ dare (), gunsmith, musket training
Other Gear +3 mithral shirt, +1 lucky reliable musket, alchemical cartridge (paper) (100), mwk musket,

mwk rapier, amulet of natural armor +2, belt of incredible dexterity +2, cloak of resistance +3,

eyes of the eagle, handy haversack, ring of protection +2, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, flint and steel,

gunsmith's kit, hemp rope (50 ft.), mess kit, pot, powder horn, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 15,854 gp
Special Abilities
Deadly Aim -3/+6 Trade a penalty to ranged attacks for a bonus to ranged damage.
Grit (Ex) Gain a pool of points that are spent to fuel deeds, regained on firearm crit/killing blow.
Gunsmithing You can use a gunsmithing kit to craft/repair firearms and ammo.
Musket Training (+7, misfire value -2) (Ex) Starting at 5th level, a musket master increases her skill with two-

handed firearms. She gains a bonus on damage rolls equal to her Dexterity modifier, and when she misfires with a two-handed

firearm, the misfire value increases by 2 instead of 4. Ev
Point-Blank Shot +1 to attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at up to 30 feet.
Precise Shot You don't get -4 to hit when shooting or throwing into melee.
Rapid Reload (Musket) You can reload fast with one type of Crossbow or Firearm.
Rapid Reload (Musket) You can reload fast with one type of Crossbow or Firearm.
Rapid Shot You get an extra attack with ranged weapons. Each attack is at -2.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.

Since this is only for DPR I still have about 15000 GP left over

I took rapid reload and the alchemical cartridges so I can reload as a free action.
I took reliable and lucky as enhancements to cut down on misfire being a factor.

Touch AC tends to suck at every part of the game so barring certain creatures it wont really be high.

I will be using touch AC of 9 to 13 as the average range, and I will find a few higher touch AC monsters that the gunslinger.

In the end I did not even go past touch AC 10. You will see why at the end.

I will also provide DPR for when the gunslinger can not bypass DR.

Now since I have a pretty good understanding of the rules, but this is my first build I think I am a fair candidate.

All of the below will assume point blank shot and a crit range of 19-20

Touch AC 9 57.43 <---not impressive.
Touch AC 9 with rapid shot 76.57<----A lot better
Touch AC 9 with rapid shot and deadly aim 102.2 <---Good numbers, but not broken at level 11 128.57(hasted)
vs DR 5 with rapid shot and deadly aim 78.29
vs DR 10 with rapid shot and deadly aim 54.57
vs DR 15 not many CR 11 monsters have this, but it might be in a boss fight 30.84

Since this is the best AC for the gunslinger I may or may not continue the analysis of DR.

Lets see what AC 10 does.
This time I won't even bother with not using rapid shot
Touch AC 10 with rapid shot 73.55
Touch AC 10 with rapid shot and deadly aim 102.02

I am not even going to use an elder air elemental. I will used a CR 11 barbed devil which has DR/good 10 and touch AC of 16.
First I will assume the gunslinger has a way to bypass DR good. Then I will run the numbers without a way to bypass DR.
We will assume that rapid shot and deadly aim are in play here.

DPR (bypassing DR) 93.63

DPR(not bypassing DR) 50.08

My conclusion is that the gunslinger has good damage, but not OMG damage.

That means the class is not broken and the problem is with the guns(double barreled) and abilities that allow you to use reload them as free actions, if there is a problem at all.

I do see how doing a large(one rounding CR+1 opponents) amount of damage is something many GM's will not like, but in that case certain barbarian and paladin builds would cause problems also.

As for the broken claim, well I don't know if the boards have a consensus on how much damage is too much damage. I guess it all depends on whether or not you think one-rounding APL=CR opponents should be a thing.

If you think that is a problem then the benchmark is in a table in the bestiary.

If you think it is not a problem then maybe your bar is at CR+2. I have played with both types of tables, and I still think "broken" is defined at the table you are playing at.

I will continue to hold that stance until we as a whole come to a consensus about how much is too much.

edit: Since I have played archers at around 30 feet and not been charged to my death, then I think the musket having a range of 40 make me safe enough to not worry about being too close for comfort.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think any class can get a 0.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The monsters tend to have done something to provoke the attack. While they may not be expecting visitors many of them such as ogres have a "might makes right" attitude, so I doubt they disagree philosophically. They just dont like being on the wrong end of that idea.

The goblins in a certain adventure path probably have a fairly good idea of why you are in their "home".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

you can b%+#& and complain all you want there buddy, i made my point.

if you want to continue start another thread, but i'm done here:-)

The only point you made is that you don't know the setting, and you can't remember what you actually said. Either that or you like to "misrepresent" the truth.

I really don't care if you reply or not. I am just pointing out your inconsistencies. If you are done then don't mention it again. It seems simple enough to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

People like to act if as if "playing forever" makes them better at reading the rules, but I have first hand experience that it doesn't especially if they can't separate editions or they let "how they think it should be" interfere with what the book says.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem is that so far at best you have shown a very specific build to be a problem instead of the class as a whole, while the thread is about the class, not any one build.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do like that Eberron left some things open on purpose, but I still wish they had filled in more things so I do agree with Fabius to an extent. As an example I really do wish they had stated how the world came to be instead of having it as a "possible myth", and their deities may not even really exist. Another thing is that the creation of the mournlands was never solved, and there is one more, but my mind just drew a blank.

Overall I do like the setting. I do wish I had time to make it bigger so it could have more nations, but my map skills suck, and I really don't have time to create campaign worlds.

PS: I can play with it as is by modifying things for AP's. In the end I might just bring some of that stuff over to Golarion and make monster less stereotypically good or evil.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RD, as the others have said, you were correct.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I actually hated it. Now take that with a grain of salt. I never really read much of the campaign setting, I was turned off by the idea of "magic punk" when I heard of it. The entire...noir...feeling of fantasy...isn't the thing I'm interested in.

I'd rather play steampunk with magic instead if I was going for anything like that. Or, a 1940's Cthulu type game with mysticism and magic instead. Magic Punk...really just doesn't capture my imagination of fun.

Of ALL the settings EVER made (yes, seriously), that would have to be the last pick of the type of setting I wanted to do a fantasy game in...soooooo...

Magic Punk probably would be at the bottom of any RPG type game I would choose.

I'd choose World of Warcraft as the D&D RPG before I'd choose it.

I'd choose Ring around the Rosie as an RPG before that type of setting.

So...if you could tell, from what I had heard of Eberron...absolutely NOT my cup of tea.

From what I had heard...I didn't want to play in it. Ironically I do have the campaign setting book for 3e...but I've never actually ever read it.

You should probably check for yourself. Many times other people's descriptions of things are incorrect. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The answer to this question is "It depends on how your group wants to play the game".

Personally as I have stated before some spells should not even be tagged as evil, but if someone wants to enforce those spells because "protection from good" is somehow evil, that is their choice.

If you(general statement) as a GM wish to be strict with players and keeping them withing their alignment then don't' assume everyone does or should, view the alignments like you do. Give them a heads up and some type of examples so they know how many evil points they get for certain acts. Yes, I am aware there are no such thing as "evil points", so I don't needs any stupid comments/replies telling me they don't exist. It is just there to make a point, which I hope was understood.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can only charge as a standard action when you are limited to a standard action. When I say limited I mean "external forces". You choosing to take a standard action is not what is meant.

1 to 50 of 1,561 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.