|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Aasimar have access to the Celestial Servant feat that bumps their companion to a magical beast (which has d10 hit dice and fighter BAB progression
If only that were so. This did get FAQ'd that it just changes their type without actually changing their stats. Linky. But I forgot about that feat, Smite and DR is pretty worth it for the cost of 1 feat.
I could also just go the "expendable companion" route and give it the Bodyguard archetype, and try to focus on its defenses as much as possible. Armor proficiency, In Harms Way feat, and Improved natural Armor evolution (if I go that route). Coupled with the DR/Evil (and potentially DR/Mythic as well) could be fairly hardy if nothing else.
Starting to look into builds for an upcoming mythic game (Wrath of the Righteous), and wondering if Animal Companions are even viable?
I'm really interested in playing a hunter, but even with Animal Focus (or the Evolution archetype) doubt it would see much use past Mythic tier 3-4.
So if you think it IS even potentially viable (with or without evolutions from the Eidolon), what would you build and why?
TBH Divine Source really should not be a power gaming tool. You're obviously taking it because your character feels strongly that they want to be worshipped, and has certain ideals you would want your followers to uphold. It's a huge roleplaying opportunity. Which Empyreal Lord do you follow? That's probably a good start for figuring out direction you're going to go.
3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 5) = 14
I'm thinking either a wizard or sorcerer trying to get into the Hellknight Enforcers. Are you incredibly against the new FAQ on SLA's qualifying for PrCs? Wiz1/Ftr1/EK3/HK- would be my likely build if no.
I rebuilt from Cleric to Warpriest at level 3, so just kept it as is.
Most of the feats Mors suggested are mid-late game options.. I need stuff I can take right away (level 3, 5, 6, 7).
Yes, I have read the wonderful Reach Cleric guide, but quite a bit of it does not apply due to limited casting of the Warpriest.
We are currently
The idea is that I'm the anchor in the middle of combat, with the other party members moving around as needed (and me built around AoOs like in the guide).
But I'm at a bit at a loss where to go with my feats, as theres nothing incredibly useful until past level 7 or so. The summoning and metamagic feats aren't worthwhile because of the 6/9 casting. We are playing through Wrath of the Righteous, so I can expect to go all the way to level 20.
Feats I am debating:
Other ideas for a polearm wielder that I might have missed for early-mid levels?
I can't see anywhere yet in this thread where you've talked about your players.. Which is odd, because to me, this is an issue of you being concerned about how powerful your players will be.
ARE they reasonably competent min/maxers? If yes, regardless of how many source books are available to them, they will build something useful/competent/potentially strong.
I know I've had character concepts that could not be fully realized with what was just available in the CRB. All over the boards you can find information on "trouble" classes and archetypes, such as the gunslinger, synthesist (and summoner in general), zen archers, etc. Maybe do something along the lines of "CRB, UM, UC, all allowed explicitly, anything else must be run by me first". That way everybody is satisfied.
Low level 2H character do that, like XMorsX pointed out. They tend to taper off pretty quick as enemies HP begin to rise. Bruisers are the early game stars, but your Sorc (with proper spell selection) will start to shine at level 6.
Because you're new to both Pathfinder and GMing, I would not recommend modifying encounters. You'll likely end up accidentally killing your party.
Focus more on using good tactics. But also try to play to the enemies tactics, too. If you saw a lightly-armored target swinging a sword chopping all your buddies in half, you would likely try to stay away - use ranged or magic on them instead of engaging in melee.
Runelords can be pretty lethal as is. Here are some tips for the catacombs.
The goblin in there can be a melee beast, but dont forget that he has a breath attack that can nauseate targets in a line. It's reflex and fort to save against it, so it's not like your Barb will fail but theres a chance.
Erylium is where your party might struggle. Have her remain flying the entire time - her fast healing and DR will make her pretty tanky unless your party can get her within melee reach. Use Summon Monster before Hold Person. Ray of Enfeeblement will make your STR characters very sad.
Your party will begin to feel the lack of real healing right away. Make sure your druid is only casting as many Cures as they have prepared.
Something to remember as well: know the limitations of magic that your party can cast. Color Spray works out to 15ft with certain HD thresholds. And important to remember is that Charm Person effectively can't be used in combat.
If you're still having trouble past level 3-4 with the party, post in the Runelords section for some advice (or browse it for ideas).
So the oracle/witch is a prepared druid caster? Don't suppose we could find details on that logic somewhere could we?
The spells added make things a little bit easier. Can still pull off a decent battle shaman with the Battle spirit.
Also surprised to see a decent number of arcane spells added in. Fly, overland flight, fear, wail of the banshee.. It'll make a decent casty/blasty class now too.
... Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth...
The type of action that breaks invisibility is "attack", not "offensive". So things like grease, glitterdust, create pit, and other examples listed within the spell itself don't break invisibility. Charm is not an attack, and would not break invisibility.
Spells that directly cause damage, even in an AoE (such as fireball, or cone of colt), are attacks. "Healing" spells, if you mean Cure, don't break invisibility if used to heal. If you use it to hurt undead, it is considered an attack and thus would break invisibility.
Character Level: 2
We are playing through Wrath of the Righteous.
The only real comments I can make on this so far is that healing is tough to do on this character (much like it would be on a druid, and to a lesser extent, witch). Healing Spirit feels incredibly broken as a first level ability - but it was also the only reason we were able to survive our combats during the session.
Having switched from being a cleric, I feel like Healing Spirit outpowers Channel Energy pretty well at this level. Getting to automatically restore 12HP at this level to an ally for up to (3+cha)/day is nice.
Right now it feels silly that Battle shaman is a better healer at low levels than a Life shaman is.
@Druid Spell List
I'm not sure I like the idea of the druid spell list, mainly for some of the big reasons pointed out above: it's mostly focused on animals, and it's far more offensively powered. For such a MAD class, having more defensive spells (from the oracle/cleric list) is nice.
I feel like giving it the druid spell list would negate most of its melee potential as a caster.
But I do support the idea of an archetype that got the witch or druid spell list instead.
Robert Jordan wrote:
By strict RAW, you can take Extra Hex, even for your Wandering Spirits. Any ability/bonus that lasts longer than 24 hours allows you to qualify for feats, etc (iirc).
But I'm also almost entirely certain they don't want you to gain access to extra Shaman Hexes. I feel like you acquire them at a quick enough rate (interspersed with Spirit Abilities).
Finally, the use of a Charisma is fully intentional for this class, so it mimics the cleric's requirement for Charisma to power channel energy.
I actually came into the playtest fully expecting both the Arcanist and Shaman to use dual-casting stats, being a blend a two different casters. This is from some of the later 3.5 casters and other powerful full casters like SGGs Magister. Arcanist however only uses Int for its casting and abilities (superseding the bloodline Cha usage even), Blood Focus usage being based on level.
However, I also expected the Shaman to have 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, and be wearing light or no armor (making it far less melee-viable). I also didn't expect it to use the cleric/oracle spell list (rather, the witch or druid lists).
I feel like modelling the Shaman off of the cleric is a mistake, as that is not one of its base classes. I can understand justifying SOME of the abilities to be based off charisma, but not as many as currently are. If we continue to model the shaman after the cleric, domain ability usage is tied directly to either a clerics level or wisdom (pretty sure there aren't any that use Cha). When a cleric chooses to ignore Cha, it's only Channel Energy she loses out on. If a shaman chooses to ignore Cha for whatever reason (low point buy, battle caster build, crappy rolls), she loses out on a whole slough of abilities, not just healing (but including it as well).
Including a Battle Spirit, as well as the armour, HD, and BAB the class has, is a clear indicator that the class should be melee viable. The case I made earlier about this, in comparing it to the cleric, is that it requires the extra ability to maintain its class abilities beyond what a cleric requires. The oracle gets away with needing less ability scores. Heck even the *witch* requires less ability scores to get into melee (hair, using Int).
If it came down to:
I would choose A in a heartbeat. Interested to hear what others would choose, though.
Disagree on quite a bit of this sadly. I feel like the shaman already has a lot of versatility (especially compared to the oracle, cleric, and witch) and doesn't need any more. I'm pretty certain already this will get tweaked back in power before final release, and that they won't be adding further class abilities (but maybe more Spirits).
The entire point of the new classes is that it's a hybrid of two core/base classes. It's been mentioned several times that they are intended to feel familiar. It's probably worth mentioning in the actual class thread for each class you feel this for.
Bloodrager, for me, is a perfect blend of barbarian and sorcerer. It's all about rage and bloodlines. Better yet, it uses the magus spell list, which is pretty combat focused. While it doesn't have anything overly new to add to the mix (the bloodlines have been retooled though) it doesn't really need much.
The Witch Ward Hex has a duration of 'until expended', but can only have one up at a time, and can't use it on themselves. So some clarity will hopefully be nice
@Oracle vs Witch flavour:
The thing I wasn't too fond of in the Warpriest was that it feels a bit like they're forced to use their deities favored weapon. So if you want to play a mounted knight to Iomedae, an archer devoted to any deity other than Erastil... The limiting nature of the class is a bit of an immediate turn off for me. At the very least I'd like to see an archetype that allows you to choose your own weapon.
That being said, I do like the class. It took me a minute to realize that armor and weapon training were hidden within the warpriest.
Can the Shaman learn Witch Hexes, or only the hexes mentioned in their spirit?
Their Hex ability reads: ...At 2nd level, a shaman learns one hex, chosen from those available from her spirit...
So, pretty clear just the ones given to them by their Spirit, and then the Wandering Hex can obviously be chosen from between their Spirit or Wandering Spirit.
I will be rebuilding my Cleric (Seperatist) of Sarenrae as a Shaman for our WotR campaign.
Some initial observations on the class:
Some initial thoughts while rebuilding my character (currently a level 2 human):
I can see this being an incredibly deadly, versatile spellcaster with the Lore Spirit, getting access to the wizard/sorc list. But I'm super excited to see what I can do with it, throwing it right into melee.
It feels powerful in comparison to the cleric. But it's a wonderful class.
4d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 3, 4) = 15
4d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 1, 1) = 14
4d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 4, 2) = 14
4d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 1, 2) = 8
4d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 6, 6) = 17
4d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 4, 1) = 16
12 13 12 7 15 15
4d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 4, 5) = 18
1d6 ⇒ 2
Mike Tuholski wrote:
See I'd actually be far more interested in some kind of caster hybrid that was the exact opposite. A class that had to find a balance of healing + harm to live to its true potential.
I know I've seen it implemented well before, but can't recall where (video game, card game, board game, idk).
Name Violation wrote:
According to an interview Erik Mona did, they're all going to be alternative classes.
"Erik Mona wrote:
...So there is [going to be] something familiar and something new about all the classes. They are going to playtest shortly, but the current plan is that they're going to be considered alternate classes. So if it's a class that's made up of a Fighter and a Wizard, you wouldn't be able to take levels of Wizard or Fighter as well.
My group consists of a bunch of university students and shift workers. We have our scheduled game Thursday nights, and it always seems that one person would cancel at least every other week. So, we picked up a fifth player- this means we can play even if one person cancels (and the group understands that a single cancel won't affect the session). Two cancels or more, we decide if we still want to play, or just get together and hang out (to help people keep the Thursday sched).
I also have put my foot down, and tell everybody who joins my game that they will be expected to make 4/5 games. I understand people have lives, but everybody else is committing to this so you should too.
Make a schedule and stick to it.
As for having less active players... I also have a "no electronics" rule at the table. People get distracted too easily with a cell phone or computer. It's helped keep immersion up. If they prove they can have a device and not fiddle around on it then let them use it.
Yes I'm a bit of a nazi GM, but all these little things help to keep everybody showing up, and staying focused while playing.
I hear ya. Our GM said he wouldn't be ready to run the next campaign until February. Here I am thinking we'd have the playtest, Inner Sea Gods, and my Deep Magic (Kobold Press) books. But nope, he wants to start this week (tomorrow!), so may have to rebuild a character after the first session or two haha.
My group is starting Wrath of the Righteous next week, and I've decided to play a cleric tactician..
I play with a group of fairly new people, and I'm by the the most rules-savy and tactical-minded of the lot. So instead of trying to dumb down, I just embraced the role into my character concept instead.
Things I want in the build / Restrictions:
I'm completely lost as to what kind of feats would benefit this build.
Are there some PrCs (with at least 7/10 casting) that would help this?
Any other suggestions to help pull this off?
Don't forget they are adding new mechanics to each of the classes to help blend them together. Magus could be achieved with Fighter/Wizard, but it added the mechanics SpellCombat/Spellstrike to help blend the two.
I would be really surprised if they released a spontaneous witch as a divine class. But I suppose it is within the realm of possibilities considering all the new classes and the spell lists they may or may not draw from.
And if the playtest has no info out today, I assume we will be waiting at least another week!
One thing to mention, too, is that all your 'vet' players have picked some powerful options.
Summoner, especially in a party larger than 4, is just downright ridiculous. Having a skilled wizard (regardless of specialization) can trivialize a lot of encounters. And paladins are pretty big damage dealers at boss time.
Also to echo one of the above sentiments to have it hit home, with 6 players they should be 1-2 levels BEHIND where the book says, because of power level + action economy.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Would it be accurate to say that this book is then devoted to Inquisitors, Paladins, and Rangers primarily?
Inquisitors god yes. They seem to have gotten most of the love in the recent products (archetypes, inquisitions).
Mechanic-wise, this book doesn't have that much compared to other Players Guides (at least in my perusal).
Fluff and know-how, though, is aplenty. Lots and lots and lots of info about demon: how to kill, trap, summon, and more.
There are some neat ranger traps in the book.
But nothing actually dedicated to paladins. Some feats and equipment and spells that are shared, but nothing just for them.
Even barbarians got some dedicated love. How peculiar :P
And usually groups who have players in similar roles will be amiable to creating that bond (same deity/empyreal lord).
But honestly, I dont understand why a party of 4-6 would WANT to double up on Mythic paths when they can all be their own unique snowflake.
Here's some important quotes and thoughts from the guide to point out how silly some of the complaints are.
Alignment: ... Good-aligned characters make the most sense for this Adventure Path ... It‘s also a good idea, as in any campaign, to make your choice in a way that won’t be disruptive to the party. The disruption caused by bringing different alignments into the party will vary from group to group, so the best way to make sure that your choice works is to talk with your group about what you’re planning."
Redemption: ... Redemption might also be a personal mission for your character. Perhaps your character decided to fight for the crusades as a way to purge a tainted past.
Who says a character has to know they're on the path to redemption? Go ahead and play your CN rogue, your LE cleric of Asmodeus (see Alignment above,t hough). They can slowly move up to put a G in there as story progresses.