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

gnomersy's page

1,622 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,622 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
Personally I see multiclassing as just ways to min/max, has nothing to do with RP or character development. You should be able to build whatever you like with Class, Skills, and Feats.

You know, I was going to do a rather long post pertaining to this... But I just gotta ask....

What?

Seriously. Before I even begin to attempt a reply, I'd like a bit more explanation here. I can't even conceptualize how "Multi-classing has nothing to do with RP or character development"....

I'm going to have to agree with this one, yes my current character could maybe have been done using a single classed character frankly he might have been stronger(mechanically) if I'd done it that way but multiclassing is almost always the most effective way to fulfill a weird RP idea that you have if the game doesn't have a hybrid class that does it for you.

For example until the Magus was released the only way to make a magic swordsman was by taking two classes and then bumping into a prestige class to do it. Even now ideas like a bloodthirsty viking cleric of a war god might be played by mixing Barbarian with Cleric. Powergaming particularly in Pathfinder is usually not benefited by multiclassing and you straight up can't do what you like with feats and skills in a single class a lot of the time. Particularly because for some classes you just don't have skills or feats to spare. I have to just agree with "What?" because that just doesn't make sense.


The main reasons not to multiclass are pretty obvious.

If you're a caster, don't multiclass and lose caster levels.

If you're a specialized martial dependent on a scaling class feature like Barbarians, Monks, any sort of combat maneuver build etc. Multiclassing weakens you in general unless it's done as a dip into just the right class at the right time.

Some people find multiclassing to be an issue because you suddenly acquire skills. And to be frank that's a fair issue to have but the reason it's even an issue is because people are overpacing their campaigns. Not in terms of player time because obviously we don't all want to sit around and role play 6 months of downtime in depth. But the fact is at least at my gaming table we have pretty much no downtime built in. We've leveled 3 or 4 times and we've known each other for about a week and a half. It's up to your DM to manage this properly so that progression feels natural and while it's easier to look at a character go from almost an apprentice to an Archmage in the span of maybe 6 months in game time and just think oh well he was always just casting spells, that's not any more realistic than a Rogue who randomly picks up spellcasting one day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.
There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.
What the hell are you talking about?

The rules for d20s simply say that a d20 has twenty sides.

They do not specify the numbers to be written on the sides, or that the numbers be different. There is no rule to back up what I assume to be your view that I can't write a '20' on every side of an icosahedron and use it as a d20.

Do the rules say anything about your players not beating you unconscious with their hard back rulebooks and finding a DM who isn't a t!+@?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Refusing an RP straight-jacket is not cheating.

Nor, according to the rules as written, is taking an icosahedron, writing a '20' on every side of it, and using it as a 20-sided die.

Nevertheless, we would not be sitting at the same table if you tried that. Nor if you played a character with a 4 Int stat as having average or better intelligence.

To be fair we wouldn't be sitting at the same table once you said "You're just going to have to play with that 4 that you rolled." That is pretty much a cue from a bad DM that I should flip the table toss a grenade over it and run.


Zhayne wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

The entire paragraph following this is purely subjective and uses nothing but comparatives. it is very, very FAR from 'perfectly defined'.

I'll say it again.

Precise benchmarks for what each intelligence score can do that the one below it cannot. Not 'less likely', not 'more difficult', not 'might', but CANNOT. That is what 'perfectly defined' means.

Strength is perfectly defined. See that chart of carrying capacity? Str X cannot carry as much weight as Str X+1. Unless you can provide a chart with cold, hard, statistical data like that for INT, you got nothin'.

Intelligence is inherently subjective look up the theory of multiple intelligence's and read about how imprecise the use of IQ is to measure intelligence. When you find a way to provide a cold hard statistical chart for human intelligence come back, until then, "you got nothin'"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to move without a walker if you're dumping strength in my game.

How much weight you can carry is explicitly defined under RAW.

Low intelligence is not so well defined, which is why people are so eager to dump the stat. When sitting at the table, they are free to ignore their characters intelligence and can continue to come up with complex ideas and plans.

Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

A person with low intelligent has less breadth and depth of training in many skills, he or she is inherently more forgetful and has trouble recalling things that they may have read (takes a penalty to Knowledge skills), is more gullible or easily fooled as to the real value of an object(penalty to Appraise skill), lacks understanding of the craft of spell casting and how it is codified(takes a penalty on spellcraft), has a more difficult time planning and creating things (takes a penalty on craft skills), such a person is less eloquent and has more difficulty learning languages they weren't born into as well as having a harder time deciphering codes or ancient tomes (takes a penalty on linguistics).

Sounds like an awful lot of definition for the consequences of having a low Int score. Now just because you or your gaming group are too lazy to use or allow the use of those skills for anything of relevance doesn't mean they don't exist and don't accurately convey the penalty for having a bad score on their own.

That's like saying that because you ignore the weight capacity rules that Str scores aren't accurately covered and so from now on your character rolls DC10 Str checks to not collapse helplessly anytime he engages in physical activity.


Soul wrote:

not that i can think of off the top of my head, although if you're running with a reach weapon i could see some fun times in your future.

i think there was a ruling recently that as long as you started from concealment and ended in concealment any movement you take can benefit from stealth (someone back me up on this...?) and with spring attack and fast stealth that would allow you to get WELL within 15 feet (charge 10 feet, lunge with a spear, sneak attack, then retreat up to what... 50 feet? im probably missing some rule that makes that not work though. that would be awesome, so it must be illegal.

4th ed rules for the start and end in concealment stealth thing iirc.


Ravingdork wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
...making him spend hours going through pdfs, books, faqs, etc to audit your characters might just not be worth the time for him and that's fair imo.
Who would be so cruel as to make him hunt for things you've already found? Bring him the material yourself. No searching needed since you've already done it for him. All he has to do is glance it over and say whether or not it looks acceptable and why. Takes 10 minutes per character tops (and often FAR less).

With a new DM I'd say he'd hunt them down because he doesn't know if you're cheating or just wrong about the rules so he'd want to check them all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Just tell your GM it's not a super death machine. If he's not willing to even audit your character, he's probably not that great a GM to begin with.

To be fair the DM is probably already putting in more time than the player into the game setup and the DM in question probably has a life outside of the game, making him spend hours going through pdfs, books, faqs, etc to audit your characters might just not be worth the time for him and that's fair imo.

Best bet is bribe the DM, give him some pizza or something to compensate him for his time and make him feel less bad about it. Also go through your stuff and note every book and page number which you take something from and when necessary provide him with the books in question if he doesn't have them on hand.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


If you want that done to your friend's (or even your own) body, fine, but many people would see it as a sign of disrespect to the person (or memory of that person), and just as well, the party thinks "Well, nothing happened before when we did this, why would this be any different now?"

@ Kwauss: It's not like Necromancers (or any wizard for that matter) don't delve in Divination magics. It's a common thing for all wizards who are BBEGs to invest in; Scrying, Clairvoyance, etc. is all important for you to make sure your lair is doing exactly what it should be doing.

To adventurers who take spells like Mending or Make Whole or what have you, those tactics would only serve as minor setbacks. To truly get the monkey on your back, you simply try and get him onto another subject's back; in this...

Uhhh and a lot of people wouldn't (cremation) and that's ignoring the fact that it's eminently practical in the universe.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kwauss wrote:
I bet they notice if they don't have to carry the fighter because he/she's walking around. It would be devilish, almost to the point of metagamey, for the necromancer to animate the fighter and tell him to lie still. Very funny if you can justify it, though.
Hardly Metagaming. If the Necromancer is aware of this party, sees they went off to get something and come right back once before, sees them do the same exact thing again, and wants to keep them out, he'd simply do just that; even better, have the Undead rise up and attack his party members when the cleric finishes casting the spell. The best part? He just now most likely pushed blame at the one doing the resurrection, being convicted of blasphemy in the name of magic and all that is holy, perhaps even linked to the stupid Necromancer in the first place, and it will either be killed unjustly, chased out (along with the party), and simply serve as removing the one thing keeping those goobers from actually being alive in there.

If they're paying for true resurrection there is no reason not to destroy the body before hand so why aren't the priests doing that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Domestichauscat wrote:

Dm says: This merchant has every magic item in the game. But he is an ancient golden dragon. I designed him so that if you manage to kill him, you deserve all the stuff he has.

Dm means: Had to make a way so that you couldn't easily steal everything in a magic shop of magicness. If you want to, good freaking luck.

I don't know I'd opt for,

DM says: Are you sure you want to try to steal from this well established magical item shop?

DM means: I'm going to have all your characters get stabbed to death by the roving death squads they hire to keep this king's ransom of magical goods safe if you do this, just try me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

...(unless you're Ravingdork, who makes interesting concepts that are very effective).

I'm in LA for the summer and have friends who game in LA, so I'm hoping to run The Emerald Spire assuming schedules and interest line up. I'm assuming some people may want to play ACG classes, and some may want to play quirky concepts (dire bat riding halfling cavalier comes to mind). Say for example that there might be a shaman or druid, and someone plays an early-entry mystic theurge so the group has cleric spells. Assume wizard 2/cleric 1/mt X. The mystic theurge will be pretty underpowered until level 6 or 7, a high point buy makes it more workable. Or if a player wants to play a prestige class that is primarily an NPC prestige class- those have great flavor but are generally weaker than base classes.

No offense meant to Ravingdork I like a lot of his character concepts but I've definitely seen characters of his which I felt would not survive the climb to the level where they come into their own as well.

But yeah I can attest that with a higher point buy I'm more liable to play something that is either more MAD, more thematic, or more quirky. I was considering making a twf build that passes it's own crits to itself to use with a big multiplier weapon that I would never have bothered with if our PB wasn't so high. And I did infact go into Noble Scion which definitely would not have happened if I didn't know that the rest of our party wasn't optimizing and if our DM hadn't given us rather ungodly stats.

I think an array is better for this kind of thing than point buy though because it means that while you might have a crazy high PB equivalent you might force SAD classes to be a little more rounded whether they like it or not and it gives MAD classes more bang for their buck than PB might. But other methods work too.


Kwauss wrote:

It's true that it was a fundamental mistake to use so many weakly protected abilities to create the rogue's niche. But people would still be reliant on rogue levels if content hadn't crept for at least some of them.

The concept of 'rogue levels' should have been given as much importance as 'caster level' for things within their niche. Just as they should have protected the concept of 'fighter levels' as something special, rather than just giving away of their unique gifts to everyone and their brother.

If levels in Rogue were worth taking you'd see people taking them anyways like with fighter levels and all of their primary features having been passed around to other classes.

Note things like Magus, EK, Sohei, I think a Barbarian archetype etc all get access to "fighter levels" or things like Weapon Training and Armor Training.

I don't even think the fighter is that good but it's certainly more worth a dip than the Rogue is.

Frankly the real issue with the Rogue is that their only combat ability is situational and mediocre and conflicts with the lack of accuracy on the rest of their kit, and that Rogue Talents, unlike any other classes Feat equivalents, are pretty much universally worse than just having extra feats.


If you want to use an old EQ 1 example it's worth noting that often you had Wizards, Mages, Necros, Shadow Knights, Monks, Enchanters, and other classes infringing on their role as a scout and often those classes were valued more highly than the Rogue because of party dynamics(needed a tank, needed burst DPS, needed a puller, etc.)

And on top of that, that in EQ 1 Rogues were among the highest DPS classes in the game when they had good weapons on their hands, additionally EQ had an agro system which allowed "Tanks" to actually exist while they don't in Pathfinder and as such each Rogue can get pounded into a fine paste by an angry monster in each fight.

This isn't a solution to the Rogue's problems in Pathfinder, no offense. And they aren't unusually good at doing the other roles you specified, they have the same bonuses everyone does unless they are built to optimize for it in which case they have absolutely no value in combat unlike many other classes who can benefit from specializing towards that both in combat and out of it.


Deylinarr wrote:
Sushewakka wrote:
Lemme guess: Someone's playing an Inquisitor.
Which brings us to the next question......how can an inquisitor get MORE swift actions???

AFAIK he can't. The game doesn't support downgrading moves or standards into swifts so that isn't an option ... I suppose if he could get access to timestop somehow he'd have a couple bonus rounds to use swifts in but overall it's not an option unless I missed something.


A - E ) Yes you can always do your actions in any order you choose and you possess 1 swift one move and one standard per round a 5 ft step is a non action which is exclusive of other movement that round, and a full attack takes one move and one standard action, hence any combination of those is valid.

"You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round." (d20pfsrd.com)

You can also 5 ft step during your full attack should you choose if say you kill the enemy next to you and want to resolve the rest on a nearby enemy.

F) Probably? "A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions."

G) Only one swift or Immediate they are called out in the core rules as being the same thing only the Immediate can be done outside of your turn and takes up your next round's swift action.

H) If they used another swift already or an immediate in the previous round. Or surprise rounds/ other times you lose actions.


I'm going to toss in my 2 cents I suppose.

For what it's worth I don't hate the idea of a healer in MMOs or videogames where a healer converts easily restored mana into HP at a far greater rate than it is dealt as damage and when often times you are controlling more than one character(at least for JRPGs or RPGs like Baldur's Gate etc.)

That being said, in said games a healer does outpace the damage dealt, and more importantly, post healing you generally need only to pop some potions or sit around for a minute to fully recover your spell pool. In this game you need to pull over the entire party for a solid 8 hours to recover your ability to heal and as such spam healing like in those games becomes a much less valuable thing.

In contrast I do really think spot/emergency healing is valuable depending on the circumstances and I think having a refill wand of CLW to top off post battle is important as well. But I am generally highly skeptical of someone who wants to go in right off the bat as a "Healer" or even worse if they say they want to play a "Pacifist" character because if you make the healing your primary role and don't pay attention to the other things a divine caster can do you are just shooting yourself in the foot and making things unnecessarily hard on yourself and your party.

TLDR: Having the ability to heal is great, focusing solely on healing is bad, and when you say you want to play a healer it's important to make sure everyone understands which of those you mean.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

@gnomersy:

All the things you list can do Rogue stuff...but none except Bard (and Ninja, I guess) are actually very good at social stuff specifically. Which was the point of the OP's request.

Hence my just listing Bard.

Fair I was actually just pointing out people who can do Rogue stuff and are superior at combat while being roughly equivalent at social stuff because they have the same amount of focus on Cha(roughly none). I'll admit I tend to focus on combat effectiveness since my DM is relatively unlikely to call for rolls on skills(he prefers us just acting it out) but the OP did ask for someone who could hold his own in combat as well.

So yeah Bard is choice number one I agree but I think the ones I listed are half steps towards the character intended if the OP doesn't like Bard for whatever reason.


If the rest of your party is playing anything of moderate levels of optimization or higher the Rogue is a bad choice if they aren't your DM can rebalance encounters down to make up for it.

Bard would be a superior choice almost always. Other options that I'd consider are Ninja(just a better Rogue if you don't need trapfinding and depending on your GMs policy on campaign traits you could trade one of those for it). I hear alchemists can do a Rogues job pretty well with the right archtype.

Trapper and Urban Rangers both can do what you want pretty well. Urban is stronger imo but Trapper is a better 1 level dip if you want a different class afterwards.

If you don't need trapfinding at all you could probably get there with a Lorewarden Fighter which also is one of the best choices to pull off combat maneuvers and if you're human you get a decent number of skill points to do what you want. If needed you could take the one level dip in Rogue or Trapper Ranger before swapping to this to round out your skills a bit but it's not really a great investment of a level compared to just speeding up progression as a Lorewarden.


Bandw2 wrote:
gnomersy wrote:

Sure you can, of course now the air is your foe, and as such you cannot move through it's square. And since there is no listed CMD for Air due to GM prerogative it now has a CMD of 99.

And since you can't occupy the same square as an enemy the air moves out of your square on it's turn, and you suffocate to death without being able to move. Congratulations on that Great Cleave though. Worth?

air has a CMD of 10 at best, it has no strength or dexterity... or anything, it's not even got hp so no matter how easily it is to hit it i can't kill it either...

edit: actually what if your had a burrow speed?

Show me where it says that in the rules? If you can't find it then the air has whatever CMD the DM decides it has. Likewise with burrow you would never be able to surface and therefore suffocate to death.


Sure you can, of course now the air is your foe, and as such you cannot move through it's square. And since there is no listed CMD for Air due to GM prerogative it now has a CMD of 99.

And since you can't occupy the same square as an enemy the air moves out of your square on it's turn, and you suffocate to death without being able to move. Congratulations on that Great Cleave though. Worth?


Krodjin wrote:

I did the math. You're better off going with daggers and the River Rat Trait over kukri's. Only at level 12 when making a full attack w/power attack (or Piranha Strike) does the Kukri pull ahead in DPR. At that point it does a whopping 1.65 more damage on average per full-attack.

The dagger has the added versatility of being able to be thrown. Which, if you followed Kazaan's very solid build advice above, would mean you could take a few extra 'ranged feats'. A feat like Point Blank Shot for example would up the DPR fairly significantly as a +1 to hit is almost always worth more than a flat +1 to damage. PBS gives you both within 30'.

If you play a Shoanti it's perfect as your village could happen to be on the banks of the Yondakari, the Kazaron, or one of the other rivers that cuts through Varisia.

Over the course of your career the flat +1 damage granted by River Rat is going to benefit you more than the expanded threat range of the Kukri; until your static bonus on damage gets well into double digits.

Or until you get Butterfly Sting and pass off those crits to the x4 Scythe weilding 2handed meathead who slices their torsos in half.

As far as to hit vs damage +1 to hit is a 5% increase in average damage so anytime 5% of your damage per hit is greater than 1 it's a win assuming you never hit the bounds of the equation. For a 1d4 weapon that point would be at roughly +17 damage per hit. Not impossible but quite high for a twf of course this ignores the possibility of critting which skews the numbers a bit since you do double damage 25% of the time(assuming improved crit) so average damage is up to 125% which would drop that break point number to 13.6 which is not hard to get to with a +5 from strength and the odd buff. Still that definitely is going to be advantageous only later in the game not in the first few levels.

As far as daggers being more versatile ... eh. Yes they give you more damage types and can be thrown but thrown weapons suck so I don't really think that's super valuable.

Edit: Damn I've been ninja'd


kyrt-ryder wrote:


'blocking out options' isn't really a topic for debate when 95% of Barbarians take it. That's less of an option more a Barbarian Class Feature at this point.
Quote:
and is gated by a level

Woe is me, I'll just take Combat Talent: Dodge until level 6, then take Duck and Weave while Retraining Combat Talent into something else.

Quote:
and a pretty bad pre requisite power?

Point taken.

Quote:
Edit: Also Natural Armor doesn't stack unlike dodge.
What exactly is the Natural Armor in Beast Totem competing with? Racial Natural Armor?

Urgh retraining. For what it's worth at my table we have never and will probably never use that rule because it's a damn mess.

And yes Racial Natural Armor as well as Template based ones since anything you put in the game in general is available to the DM as well and some spells give you NA (no not Barkskin I know that's an enhancement).


kyrt-ryder wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent
Take a look at Beast Totem

Sooooo you want to balance the Rogue's combat ability with the best line of Barbarian rage powers which incidentally blocks out about a dozen other options when you take it and is gated by a level and a pretty bad pre requisite power?

Edit: Also Natural Armor doesn't stack unlike dodge.


Shadowdweller wrote:

Actually I do. The fact of the matter is, the non-magic limitations are NOT what is keeping rogue talent power level down. Developer imagination and balance misconceptions are. Some combat-focused rogue talents I think might be a good idea:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

2) "Sucker Punch": The rogue learns to be adept at causing debilitating pain when they get the jump on their enemies. Living opponents who are not otherwise immune to pain effects suffer the sickened condition (no save) for 1 round after a successful sneak attack.

3) Streetfighter's tricks: X times per day, a rogue may attempt a Dirty Trick combat maneuver upon an enemy within 10 feet as a swift action (without provoking attacks of opportunity). The character uses their Rogue levels in place of their attack bonus (adding any attack bonus gained from other classes or racial HD normally) and may use their dexterity or intelligence bonus in place of strength. This might ease the difficulty of getting sneak attack up a bit. Or at least be another option/alternative to feint, etc.

4) Slip away: As a move action, the rogue may move up to their base speed without provoking attacks of opportunity (without requiring any sort of acrobatics or other check). Usable once per day plus one more time for every six rogue levels.

YMMV, of course.

1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent?

2) Is okay I think balance on it might be better if it was switched to 1 round per 1d6 sneak attack dice you have but including a fort. save with DC 10+1/2 rogue levels+(Str or Dex whichever is higher).

3)Is okay depends on what the X ends up being but it's certainly not bad.

4) Ugh just no. Still bad. Making it a 1/day ability blows and is absolutely not worth a feat imo. Make it 1 plus one per 6 levels +(Int or Cha) at the absolute minimum or make it a freebie that gets added in at level 6 or something.

Also I'd add:
5) Crafty Combatant - Gain either Improved Feint or Improved Dirty Trick feat, you may treat your Rogue levels as your BAB for qualifying for further feats enhancing this maneuver and may ignore any other(non BAB) prerequisites for selecting said feats.

6) Sharpened Eyesight - Gain Darkvision - 60ft


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


Allowing the rogue to target touch AC would actually free them up to focus more on defense.

Not really. The reason Rogues don't focus on defense isn't because they need to focus on offense but because they need to focus on just getting sneak attacks this doesn't alleviate that issue which means all it does is make the Rogue more inconsistent between when he's sneak attacking and when he's not.

In general I find inconsistency in my character to be annoying at best and intolerable at worst but not everyone agrees with me.

To cap it all off the ability doesn't really make sense in context either since thick hide and being literally made of steel apparently make it no more difficult for the Rogue to find a good place to stick you but only when he sneaks.


The touch AC while sneak attacking wouldn't help much the Rogues issue is one of consistency and getting killed when trying to take advantage of sneak attack more than the damage when they have the ability to sneak attack. I'd opt for either Full BAB or offer them significantly more durability maybe both.

Personally I think the Rogue could do with Full BAB a d10 hit die and a strong will save(strong willed and shifty minded makes more sense to me than hearty constitutions) will he get it? No. But Paizo would never give them the touch attack thing either so we're already talking houserules at this point.


Dance of Blades is solid and bumps you up to average human speed even in heavy armor. Armor mastery is okay early if you put points into dex or later after you pick up stat bonus belts maybe. I like Iron Skin and Iron Constitution is a better version of Great Fortitude after it caps out at 14.

I'd dump either Wis or Int to pay for extra Str, Cha, or Con.

I also don't really see the point in going for Combat Reflexes on such a character, you'll be spread too thin and I find the feat to not be that good unless you're going full on with it and trying to pull off something special like say a Trip+Reach build but YMMV.

As far as feats I like Furious Focus + Power Attack and Weapon Focus on a combat oriented Oracle for the first 4 levels PA+FF is pretty much a straight +3 and for the next 3 levels it's +6 to damage for 2 feats which isn't bad. After that it's value drops a bit because of secondary attacks but even then it's like having Vital Strike in that you're a bit more effective when moving than otherwise.

If you are going for a maneuver build with reach those feats would be necessary as would Combat Reflexes and the Steel Scarf Revelation ends up pretty neat.

Other decent feat options include Eldritch Heritage feats to get Orc or Abyssal I think which have Str bonuses built in and in theory your Cha is going to have to keep up at around that level if you intend to cast higher level spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the DM doesn't want you to have money you're not going to have money it doesn't matter what you do.

Just scratch off the gold section of your character sheet and pretend there's no such thing when anyone asks you about gold or pay, start spouting communist propaganda at the table. I'd say 50/50 odds the DM gets sick of it and asks you to stop, then explain that communism is perfectly reasonable when there are no reasonable rewards for exceptional work already, and if such rewards were available your character might care more. If he continues his obstinate behavior begin killing and redistributing wealth in the populace to bring down the Bourgeoisie.

This may or may not get you booted from the group though so there is that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How much do they sleep with? Completely up to them.

How much can they sleep with? Pretty much everything.

How much would I have my character sleep in? Well given that the game doesn't have a discomfort mechanic outside of armor I'd say all of it.

If we were being realistic though probably rings are on and maybe amulets, possibly a body/chest slot depending on the item would be worn as a nightshirt of sorts, headbands are probably on, belts would probably be a no although because of the rules I would never remove it so I'd say that's a yes, boots are off probably, gloves are probably off but that's a maybe, bracers are probably off, eyes are almost certainly off. Light armor might be on depending on how militant/wary the character is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taube wrote:

I think there´re two different things at work here:
1) Too much Meta-Thinking w/o context. Talking about stuff like Tiers doesn´t take into account what actually happens at the game table.
2) Lack of respect for ones co-players. If someone wants to have fun with a class, the gm should provide the appropiate challenges and the other players should respect the niche of that class.

To be honest, when a wizard player would start using a wand of knock, I´d politelly ask him to refrain from the if the rogue player is present, at the second infringement on the rogues niche I´d kick tha wizard player out.

Therefore: There can never be a "weakest" class.

There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.


Pandamonium1987 wrote:

Maybe it's unfair, but it's just.

Sorry mate but I think you need to recheck the definition for just.

"based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
"a just and democratic society"
synonyms: fair"

I think a more accurate statement would be "It's not fair, but it makes the game more fun for the other players." or "It's not fair, but it enhances game balance for the players who put in less effort in character creation."

But most certainly it is neither just nor fair. It is in fact punishing a player for putting effort into the game/knowing the rules.


Marthkus wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Then please kindly stop using the Rogue's ability to use UMD to get X when defending the class. UMD is something any class can do and while yes Rogues get Skill Mastery (in 3.5 I'd rule it works since Warlock uses the same language as Rogues, in PF I would probably not because UMD has its own reason for not being able to take 10 on it that Skill mastery doesn't cover), since that doesn't even occur until level 10 they are not especially good even at UMD.

Psst: The wording for UMD is not different from 3.5. At least not in the parts you are referring too.

And no, I won't ignore unique things the rogue can do (taking 10 on UMD) when comparing it to other classes. That would be a dishonest comparison.

Eh I'm inclined to disagree not on 3.5 vs PF because I don't care to try to look up the 3.5 rules.

But Skill mastery explicitly calls out stress and distress as the things it negates and UMD flat out states it cannot be taken 10 on. A generous reading of the rules might allow you to do it but it's definitely a gray area.


pocsaclypse wrote:
graystone wrote:
pocsaclypse wrote:
Wouldn't a sorcerer wearing a haramaki and a kilt be wearing medium armor?
Yep. The only thing that it does is slow you down though. There is still no spell fail or armor pent.
I see, because neither the haramaki nor the kilt have acp or spell fail, those zeroes are just added together to stay zero even though the armor is medium. But a character only proficient in medium armor would have to deal with the non proficiency application of acp if he added a kilt to medium armor, right?

Yep. Still neat for people with heavy armor proficiency who don't want to wear full plate for some reason like say too much dex or trying to keep your acp low.


K177Y C47 wrote:

Except that is not quite the case. The problem many people are having is that they are comparing Wizard vs Wizard+Fighter. Or, in the case of the rogue, try to force the wizard to fill both his own role and the rogue of the party when the correct thing would be to have a whole seperate caster filling only the rogue slot.

A party of casters would actually end up significantly more powerful than otherwise. For instance:

Replace FULL BAB MARTIAL DUDE with:
Synthesist Summoner
Master Summoner
Druid Wildshaper
Cleric
Oracle of Battle/Metal
Bard
Inquisitor
Warpriest
Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist
if you are playing with Mythic Tiers, Ravingdork has a Pure Wizard Transmuter that can put martials to shame.

I mean all of these guys can do everything a FULL BAB guy does, but also have a HUGE assortment of spells at their disposal...

Lets ignore the Rogue for the moment because he's a big old bundle of s&~&e and we'll ignore mythic because mythic has never been intended to be balanced, does that seem reasonable?

Lets say you're running a party of 5 characters, with 20 point buy, and lets assume commonly banned content is banned aka the Summoner. Let's also assume the DM rather than providing content he intends for you to steamroll is pushing the envelope of your ability to kill things by providing high AC high DR and high Saves on the mobs. Now which of these classes can maintain an equivalent to hit score as a Full BAB class when said full BAB class is buffed by a Bard(5th man), a Cleric, and perhaps the odd spell from a wizard and equipped properly.

I think the real issue is many of these classes can't stack spells, clerics, oracles, and inquisitors all share buff spells. Bards, Alchemists, and Summoners, mostly share spell lists with Wizards although with a few exceptional ones they keep to themselves/get early access to. So at a certain point unless the personal spells alone make up the difference you're not really getting value out of adding extra casters in a combat enhancement sense.


CWheezy wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
You know what's more powerful than a group of caster? What is more powerful than a group of martials? The answer is a group of casters and martials working synergetically together.
Actually caster + caster still better than caster + martial

Eh I don't really agree with this one unless you're talking about a party of 3 or fewer people.

There are a finite number of good spells for any situation and generally you can cover them with 3 or so casters, so then it devolves to who is better at dealing the HP damage to cause the being dead condition after that.

Admittedly we also run concentration rules differently than most groups so casters get a hefty nerf in combat for us.

But even so Martials are more effective damage dealers than spell casters in most situations over the long run particularly if the enemy is incapacitated or the allies buffed due to friendly spellcasters.


Chengar Qordath wrote:


Have to agree with this. While Pathfinder's class balance is far from perfect, in my experience the power gap between players is usually a lot bigger than the power gap between classes. A well made and played fighter, monk, or rogue can tear apart a poorly optimized and poorly run wizard.

As to the OP, I've run and seen both casters and martial and just about every table I've ever played at. I've seen a lot of players who just don't like playing casters, regardless of mechanical power. The Paladin and Ranger archetypes that trade away spellcasting for things that are, objectively speaking, far weaker than spells still tend to be fairly popular in my table experience.

While I agree that player disparity can make a huge difference in overall power for a character and can easily bridge the gap, the fact remains that if both were optimized and played to the max a caster has more options and is more effective than a fighter.

That being said I have opted to play a Caster in 2 out of our last 5 or 6 games with one game where I had a caster cohort because a player fell ill and had to quit and we needed somebody to fill that role, and I would say that it is true that I min max my characters fairly well and a Full caster that is 2 levels behind can still be quite effective in a party whereas it's hard for a martial to do the same.

I have also very much opted for support casters rather than showy casters because I think it's more fun for everyone that way.

That being said in our current campaign everyone is a 6 level or 9 level caster excluding me.


Sir Thugsalot wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

I would go monk before rogue as they are more suvivable and you can't inflict damage if you're dead...or anything else for that matter.

Also ninjas are close to a rogue but better.

"Q. What's the name of that ninja who dissed the 'blockbuster' wizard?

A. Dunwell!

(Ninjas forfeit Evasion. Monks are nice, but they don't do traps; and you can't use one to make a warslinger sap-master...speaking of guys who could take a wizard in one.)

What's the name of the ninja who dissed the 'blockbuster' wizard?

A. Nobody knows because he was invisible and stabbed the wizard repeatedly in the head and killed him while he had invisible blade. Just saying Evasion is way less than it's cracked up to be and is available as a master trick at 10+.


CWheezy wrote:


Quote:
An NPC has taken control of a PC but left a loophole in the wording.
It is not a loophole, it literally causes the ability to immediately fail. An example of a loophole would be a command like "Taste their blood!" which implies killing, but of course you could just taste the blood from a pinprick and complete the order

Except everyone in this universe has theoretically been doing things for umpteen years a dwarf rogue for example could has spent 100 years disarming traps magical and mundane but if I say have him walk over a horrible deadly trap without mentioning that I'm searching for traps and it kills me I'm not allowed to retcon it because my character totally would have done this! I don't think letting the DM do that makes any damn sense either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

There are a lot of people in this thread that think dominate is more like suggestion lol.

A couple things:

1. Vampires are pretty smart, and know how their own ability works. The gm might not know exactly, causing this error. To me that seems like a lame kind of "gotcha", like "Ha ha you didn't know the rules so your vampire acted like he hasn't been a vampire for many years and has no idea how his magic powers work at all! I'm free!". Just retcon it to "Play in the dirt" and no problem there.

2. There is no "not dominated" time, where you get to act normally. You are dominated at all times, which is why you act weird.

3. The range is unlimited, and the vampire only needs to concentrate for 6 seconds a day in order to maintain control.

Welcome to dominate person! Yes, vampires are huge a#&@*&!s and this spell is really, really brutal. Getting it as a standard action is pretty insane when used properly, lol. You are pretty much screwed unless you have some high level magic available. Protection from evil only suppresses it for the duration if you make another save, it doesn't dispel it.

I hate DMs like you just fyi.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Leeuwen wrote:
So a char got killed at level 18+ most encounter can and probably will kill party members, there are spells te repair and prevent that, if they dont use those than it is the party's own doing they get snuffed

So a DM incorrectly used the rules and killed off a party member what a bunch of babies for feeling like that's a s$#@ty thing to do ...


Summoner is best. Synthesist is an unholy abomination that works. Alternatively a bard archer could work with these stats get a race with dex and cha as racial mods and the rest is manageable. You won't be great but you can still buff people to the gills.


Ascalaphus wrote:

I've actually gone a bit further, and collapsed many many feat chains.

LINK

This very obviously strengthens all martial characters, but especially the rogue and fighter, considered weak by many people on the forum.

In response to Mike's concerns: there are still limits, and they're not arbitrary. There's a method to the madness. The comments in the document codify my design decisions quite thoroughly.

It does shift the balance quite a bit, but in a direction I want it to; it empowers martial characters. It makes it easier to use maneuvers, reduces feat taxes on the rogue and allows a fighter to actually be versatile, because you can access many different feat paths. Meanwhile, other martials now get to enjoy a whole feat chain's goodies without sacrificing every other feat to get them.

Seems neat I like what I saw I always felt like all of the prereqs/investment kind of killed a lot of the feat chains for me. might show it to my DM as a possible change to our house rules for our next campaign.


3 levels in Weapon Master archetype Fighter would be well worth it to get you weapon training with scimitars(and access to gloves of dueling) and heavier armor proficiency although you'll probably never pick up anything heavier than celestial armor or a mithral BP if you're going dex focused.

It would also net you a few feats and a stronger fortitude save. As far as the feats if you're worried about dying too easily consider taking Toughness and maybe Iron Will yeah they're kind of boring but it can do the job in a pinch.

Now admittedly most of these are longish term fixes the first level of fighter at best with a mithral BP(if you had 5-6kgp sitting around) nets you +2 AC which isn't stellar the same hp unless you've been using your favored class bonus on skills 6 less skill points and a bonus feat that gets you maybe 8hp.

Frankly it might be easier to go into bard but you'll always be behind the 8ball with the Rogue levels slowing down your access to the good spells and the scaling on inspire. Check to see if your DM would let you change your class levels in Rogue for Bard straight across?


Duboris wrote:

Good god I need to apologize to him D: He did have Displacement, as well as a plethora of buffs, but the roll didn't go his way. I did give him the DD feat, however, though I didn't realize rage made him incapable of classing.

This is why I ask.

I resolved the cleave against the fighter as well and it landed, however.

Regardless of the lack of Arcane strike, however, the damage still would have ultimately been enough as a result of Vampiric touch to kill the wizard so that's good at least. The wizard's player wasn't so much upset about dieing first round, rather, he didn't understand why a completely intelligent wizard of the BBEG's caliber would place himself in such an area, and my answer was that he had 2 clerics waiting to fully heal him upon going back.

He also didn't comprehend how the EK had so much health.

The EK also didn't have a belt of strength, and made it a point to cast Bull's strength just before the fight began.

I also only use the term "Butthurt" because he threw quite a hissy fit as soon as he got 1 shot. He only had displacement as a result of a scroll, as Illusion "Is a useless school of magic"

It's not that you resolve the attack against the fighter it is completely independent you don't land a free crit based on your first attack just because the hit on the wizard crit.

Additionally since you couldn't have rage or heroism on your damage nor arcane strike you would subtract (5+2+2)x4 or 36 hit points worth of damage from your attack reducing it well below your previously claimed 20 hitpoints worth of overkill.

Edit: Also temp hit points do not stack.


Lots of stacking errors/possibilities in here too.

Bull's Strength wouldn't stack with any other enhancement bonuses he might have had like a belt of strength.

Arcane Strike is a swift action and can't be used with Quickened spells at all.

Cleave doesn't resolve simultaneously it's a separate roll so you shouldn't have taken 3/5ths of the fighters health.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

"After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn" Quote is from the spell entry from dimension door.

You literally couldn't attack the wizard without cheating. So I'm voting dickish move.

Edit: Unless you took the dimensional agility feat. But you didn't say that unless I missed it.


Gambit wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing one. Something like an increase to full BAB with added emphasis on performance/support abilities. Although this may be my latent desire to see a Pathfinder version of Marshal/Warlord coming through.

Freebooter Ranger sort of does this albeit not fantastically.


I'll multiclass sometimes if I'm a martial, I pretty much never will as a spell caster unless I want to go into a prestige class like EK and even then it's a dip not a full multiclass.

My last few characters have been Full Sorc., Fighter/Rogue(even split), Full Oracle, Monk/Fighter(Fighter was a 3 level dip for feats and weapon training), and my new character is going for 1 level dip Trapper Ranger/9 Lorewarden/10 Noble Scion.

1 to 50 of 1,622 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.