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

gustavo iglesias's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,678 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


1 to 50 of 2,678 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

RDM42 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

That's what people told to Keppler too. It's what often people who isn't good at maths think. Un the end, math trump opinions. The deadly sneak talent is mathemathically weak, regardless of your opinion and your 'feel', just like earth's orbit is elliptic, regardless of the opinion of Keppler's contemporary scientific mates and their feels. Reality doesn't change to make your opinion right

Your stunning fist annecdote is a good example of cognitive bias, actually

You are correct if the math manages to include all relevant variables. It rarely will.

That was my whole point in my giant wall of text about heuristics. We all simplify the math model in our minds to make it easier to take a decision.

The math, however, always is right. We might be unaware of which one is better, because we don't take in account enough variables in our heuristic approach. But one of those two feats IS mathemathically superior.
Same thing that with God's existance: a believer and an unbeliever aren't sure which one is right, they can't prove it. But one of them is wrong. If God exists, the unbeliever is wrong, if God doesn't exist, the believer is wrong.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:
The secret is everyone needs to be working for a common goal something that would benefit all of them to work together, it doesn't take a goody goody party to make that happen.

Way of the Wicked works so well exactly for this.

Related: groups that don't have a common goal or something that links them to the AP, tend to work poorly in my own annecdotal experience, regardless of alignment. Even if they are all lawful good, if everybody makes, say, Lastwall paladins and rangers with favored enemy undeads and whatever, they'll have little incentives to keep studying about thassilonian stuff in Rise of Runelords, or do pirate stuff in Shackles, or go to the other side of the world in Jade's Regent. Yeah, that tian dude wants to be emperor. So what? My character's whole background is about going to the worldwound to fight demons!

If your party is involved in the AP (ie: you are from sandpoint in Rise of Runelords, your character knows Ameiko in Jade's regent, your background involves something about sailors or pirates in Shackles, etc) then it runs smooth. I bet Hell's Vengeance will be the same, just like Way of the Wicked did. Play a cohesive group, involved with the plot, and it'll go perfectly.

WotW had great success, for a 3PP. I'm pretty sure Hell's Vengeance is going to be a home run.

born_of_fire wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

In other words "nuh-uh"

That was a whole lot of typing to explain that your opinion is no more scientifically sound than Weslocke's. All those things that you say are required to measure a feat's value haven't been done by either of you and you are both operating on gut feelings.

That was my point, and I even said so in my post.

The difference is I'm aware, and I at least tried to make a mental simulation if what would be better, outflank por Big Game Hunter. To discover the real effect, I should take notes of every fight and calculate the difference, to be dure which obe is better.

Muy point, though, was that "un the ends, both are opinions, so both are right' is a fallacy. Both are opionons, but INE of those opinions is right, and the other INE is wrong. Feats hace a mathemathical effect, and thus it's empirically demonstrable which one has a greater effect, even if it's hard to do so. It's possible that, un the end, it's me who is wrong. I don't deny that. But 'it's a matter of opinion if it's mechanically better' is not true. Opinions about measurable things can be wrong. The average damage output for outflank con pared to weapon focus or big game hunter por improved critical through a campaign IS measurable. Justo painful to measure.

Weslocke wrote:

Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

That's what people told to Keppler too. It's what often people who isn't good at maths think. Un the end, math trump opinions. The deadly sneak talent is mathemathically weak, regardless of your opinion and your 'feel', just like earth's orbit is elliptic, regardless of the opinion of Keppler's contemporary scientific mates and their feels. Reality doesn't change to make your opinion right

Your stunning fist annecdote is a good example of cognitive bias, actually

Nice build!
I took a different approach with my half-orc goliath druid, more melee oriented. Also have shapshifting hunter, but I took Big Game Hunter (+1 to hit and +2 to damage vs large creature, which include giants, but also several other enemies), and heavy armor (you can get a dragon hide armor for cheap, and it stays with you in wildshaped form, unlike beast form, giving you a good AC to stay in the frontline). I'd get Heavy Armor instead of Power attack at lvl 3. But I'll take a look to your feats, maybe I get favored enemy spellcasting and giant bane. My starting wisdom isn't very high, but with those 2 feats, you can get a really good DC, it's a nice idea that I didn't really thought about (I ussually memorize spells that don't need save, like summon swarm, sleet storm, buffs like barkskin, etc)

Also, Craft woundreous item is wonderful for classes like druid, because it covers also your weapon (amulet of mighty fist). I suggest to take a look at it.

One really good feat for dwarves is Steel Soul, which you can get only at lvl 1, another good feat to think about.

What's your stat line?

I liked some Sorshen conversion someone did, which gave her all the adventages of a vampire, but none of the disadventages (so no undead, or sunlight vulnerability, etc, just inmortality, powers, and stat buffs)

About the first paragraph in your spoiler, in my game:

Nualia was a paladin. She could actually heal with touch (lay on hands), and she fell in disgrace when she became a demon worshipper and traded her Paladin levels for Antipaladin levels

Also, I made a bunch of changes in the story, specially around Tsuto and Nualia.

I removed the varisian rake. Nualia and Tsuto were in love as teenagers. I did this also because a PC in my group, a witch, was in love with Tsuto as part of her background, and that's why she went into witchraft, trying to learn to make love potions from Madam Mvashti (unsuccesfully). She saw Nualia as a "competitor" for Tsuto's love

What's important about Nualia and Tsuto, is that Lonjiku discovered the (innocent, teenager love) flirting between them, and blackmailed Nualia with threats to tell it to Father Tobyas. It's Lonjiku who got laid with Nualia, and make her pregnant, but later forced Nualia to go to Hanna's to provoke an abortion. This is important, because another player in the group, a Tiefling Oni-Spawn Samurai, has a background as a samurai Bodyguard of Kaijistu's family. His father was a samurai of Rokugaru, Ameiko's grandfather, and he'll be now facing with the fact that his official Daimyo, Lonjiku, is a total a@!@!&@.

Later, Nualia found the catacombs of Wrath (Lonjiku used the smuggler's corridor to have their sexual intercourses), found the shard of wrath inside (I'm mixing Shattered Star and Rise of Runelords), became wrath-infused, and a demon worshipper, burned the church, with his father inside, and started the whole process for Burnt offerings

My PCs are now at the begining of The Glassworks, and are discovering the whole mess. I'm still debating myself about making Nualia pregnant again. This could be a strong moral dilema for some PCs, as killing her implies killing the baby. I'm still assessing if that would be too much for one of our characters (the players themselves wouldn't have a problem, we are used to mature content like this, but that character might have a real problem facing that decision)

wraithstrike wrote:

During actual gameplay higher level characters not backed by magic can fall from incredible heights and walk away and survive in fire for a ridiculously long time by normal person standards.

On the other hand even a high level character in a novel would likely die from falling from a very high place or falling in lava.

The mistake in this reasoning, in my opinion, is that those characters in the novels that die from falls, aren't really high level.

Beowulf wouldn't die falling from a cliff, neither would Achilles or Cu'Chulain. Aragorn would, but that's because, in Pathfinder terms, Aragorn is low level, and the whole Lord Of The Ring Story is low level. Going through the films:

They face undeads with fancy names, called Nazghuls, and they run for their lives (Wraiths are CR5, incorporeal, can't be really damaged without magic items, and drain your life when they touch you, so they do the right thing fleeing, because they are low levels)
They face a swarm of crows, called the Crebain and they hide themselves because they can't kill swarms without AOE.

Then they kill a bunch of goblins and orcs, and face a baby rock troll, which almost TPK them. They kill some more orcs (the ones riding worgs give them a run for their money, almost killing Aragorn), then part of the group almost die against a elephant sized spider called Shelob

So yes, it's normal than Aragorn and his friends die if they fall 200', because they are lvl 5 characters facing CR5 encounters. I'd like to note that the only real high level guy, the GMPC wizard, fought a Balor and fell from a mountain, and didn't die.

Cuchulain, Beowulf, Gilgamesh, etc, wouldn't die if they fall from a cliff. Only low level characters do

Dafydd wrote:

I will note, for Souldrinker, you must worship one of the 4 horsemen. This may or may not be a deal breaker with an inquisitor as that will have an affect on domains and weapons.

Also, you do not need to go the 2wf route. Even 1 negative level a round is nasty and debilitating.

this is a big spoiler, so read it at your own discretion:
There's a part of the AP that involve a servant of one of the 4 horsemen, and it can become an antagonist. I'll ask to your GM before worshipping one of them

TL:DR spoiler free: the AP works much better if evil-worshippers limit themselves to Asmodeus

Weslocke wrote:
Yes, they did, although I must admit that particular feat was taken at high level (about 16th if I remember correctly) in preparation for a fight with a certain Nymph Sorceress 6th/ Mystic Theurge 10th from an AP with an AC of 51.

How did they knew the AC in advance? We didn't when we played it. We also killed her with teamwork, but not with teamwork feats. Our Bard casted Irresistible Dance on her, someone else dispelled a few spells, (I think she got stun and lost the DEX to AC but I can't remember how) and I chopped her into pieces in a single full round of falchion smashing, doing like 380+ hp damage in one round. Teamwork, without teamwork feats

I'd say that use of enfilading fire is a gimmick encounter at best. For gimminck games, yes, they work well. If someone plays a campaign based on a cavalry unit, then yes, cavalry formation might be good (even then, probably has lower priority than mounted combat/ride-by-attack/sprited charge/power attack at the very least). If someone is playing a campaign of a group of infiltrator/special ops group, Stealth Sinergy is great, yes. If someone knows in advance the huge AC of a BBEG, then things like Enfilading Fire might help. If you are playing a campaing of raging half-orcs, then sure, the rage-thing feat is incredible.

But in a regular game, a group of individuals facing together a rising challenge (ie: your average AP), it's not that easy to fit them without forcing other players to change their PC concepts or take feat taxes (like paying for enfilading fire). That's why they aren't popular (which is the question of the OP), and that's why they are seen, mostly, with classes that cheat them (a archer hunter with his pet, an archer inquisitor, etc, will take advantage from Enfilading Fire)


So...all you who do not like teamwork feats can certainly say that in your opinion teamwork feats are not worth it.

In mine and my players opinions they are.

So lets just agree to disagree.

Well, some people take the deadly sneak rogue talent (however is called the one that let you reroll 1s in sneak dice), because in their opinion, it's worth it. That's their opinion, but it's a wrong one. Feats have mechanical effects that are measurable in statistics. Often, people think that certain things are better or worse than they are, because they don't grasp the math behind it (deadly sneak is a good example), and by the way our brain works, we use heuristic thoughts to solve problems (such as "is this rogue talent worth it?") without needing to stop and do the math behind it (which show it sucks), forming a cognitive bias to shortcut our innumeracy

In short:
Let's say your characters took Outflank, to take one of the best teamwork feats (the best one, in my opinion) and the more generally applicable one. Your characters get, now, +2 extra attack when flanking, and an extra AOO when someone crits while flanking if the creature isn't dead after the crit, and they still have their AOO available because they haven't used it. Is that valuable? Certainly (in fact, it's one of the teamwork feats that is really good and easy to use, but let's keep the example)

Instead of Outflank, they could take, say, Big Game Hunter, which gives you +1 to hit and +2 to damage against large or bigger creatures. Is that valuable? Certainly! Is it more or less valuable than Outflank?

Here comes the problem. To know if it is more or less valuable, you'll need a statistical survey. For example, take a group of players, make them play a whole AP, with the rogue and fighter having Outflank, while the Wizard and Cleric are less melee oriented. Now you have to count the number of times you outflank someone, and how much extra average damage you get from it (measured both by the % to hit from +2 extra, and the extra attack you get from crit chance if the creature doesn't die with the crit. Then you have to compare it with the extra damage you'll get, through the course of the campaign, from big game hunter Sometimes you are outflanking a Large NPC, but having Big Game Hunter is still better (because for some characters, +1 to hit and +2 to damage is better than +2 to hit). Sometimes, you are against a large creature that you aren't flanking, and you get much more from Big Game Hunter, as you can't use outflank in that situation. Sometimes, you'll be flanking a medium or small creature, which means you'll get more from outflank than you'll get from Big Game Hunter, because BGH wouldn't catch.

Once you have a calculation of how much extra damage you'll get in the course of an adventure from Outflank (which is, once again, the best teamwork feat, and one of the few I'll consider to take besides hunters, inquisitors and other team-cheaters), and how much from some other feat, like Big Game Hunter, you'll have your answer. BUt that's a lenghty, slow, painful work. We don't want to do it. We could substitute that with a mathematical model (modeling how many times per combat you can flank, and how many creatures per adventure are large, to find a mathematical model that represent it). But that's also lengthy and slow.

So our brains take a shortcut. It completelly ignores reality, and makes us to think either Big Game Hunter or Outflank is better, without really knowing the answer It goes heuristic and says "yo, dude, take Outflank". Or "yo, dude, take BGH". And we form that as our "opinion". It doesn't mean, though, that our brain can't be wrong. It certainly can, because it has NOT made the necessary process to really see which one is more useful. (this goes for whoever takes Outflank and/or whoever takes Big Game Hunter, as none of them probably went through the whole mathematical model process or the statistical analysis of every attack made in a whole AP)

I'm currently playing in Giantslayer AP. I have a druid, with pet. For a while, I thought I could use Outflank and Precise Strike, in combination with my pet. We also had an Inquisitor in the group, which made things easier. Sadly, the inquisitor left the game. In the end, I had to choose between Big Game Hunter or Outflank for me (and my pet). Both fit perfectly with the character concept (A half-orc goliath druid, with a background of having really troll blood in his ancestors, who is a guide and hunter and have received dwarf training to fight giants and other big nasty creatures like dragons, and go to hunt with his dinosaur, that he saved from some Wyverns time ago and is now his friend). Without a proper math model, I went to think that:
a) there's going to be a greater number of "Large" creatures in the game than the average chance to flank
b) being Large in giant form, and my pet being large, with most enemies being large, there's a big chance that flanking isn't as easy to begin with, as 3-4 large creatures per side often clutter the space.
c) even when flanking, if the flanked creature is a Large One, +1 to hit and +2 to damage is going to be better for me and my multiple natural attacks (+2 to hit would be better than +1/+2 with other builds, like some Vital Strike based builds with a really big nasty attack). +1 extra to hit gives you an extra damage based in the average damage per hit, which needs to be bigger than a certain treshold to surpass the flat +2 to damage

So, in the end, I took Big Game Hunter. I still flank with my pet whenever possible, my game concept is the same (I'd be a hunter of big preys that fight alonside his dinosaur, whatever the feats I take). But, although my thought process wasn't backed with a full-fledged statistical model, I think my option was better than outflank.

And that's with a PC who can, somewhat, "cheat" the requirements making his pet pay for the feat as well, and talking about the best teamwork feat.

Weslocke wrote:

Enfilading Fire

Someone paid a feat tax to make someone else have +2 to hit in some situations?

Kalindlara wrote:
If your Social trait is open, there's always Adopted. ^_^

Asuming you want to play a character raised/adopted by undines, yes. ;)

Asuming you are going to play an Undine, yes.

Gwen Smith wrote:
TL,DR: If you have never actually tried playing teamwork feat builds, then maybe you should temper your assertions until you give the mechanic a chance.

I don't know why you think those who advocate against it haven't given the mechanic a chance. I have, I even gave a teamwork for free to every character sometimes (for example, in Way of the Wicked AP the whole group gets one).

It's just that ... you know... they still suck. There's no way I can be convinced that Combat medic isn't a sucky feat, no matter how many times me and my whole group waste a feat on it and no matter how many times in a campaign I finally manage to roll to stabilize someone with the healing skill and not being AOOed is relevant because I'm a Combat Medic type of character but I don't have a Wand of Cure Light Wounds with me, which automatically stabilize people and doesn't provoke anyway (?)

Those who advocate for teamworks feats always talk about basically 3-4 feats. Outflank, Precise strike, maybe lookout, maybe stealth sinergy... etc. Which are the ones that work better, because they are also the ones that need less requirements to work and have a broad appeal to many classes (any class want to flank, and many classes fight in melee. But not many classes can rage and not every character that can rage is a half orc, and staying adjacent is harder to do and less desirable than trying to flank, so outflank is much more useful than amplified rage, even if Amplified rage is much more abusable in the proper setup, like the aforementioneed half-orc hunter/barbarian)

Have you tried, say.... Brutal Grappler? Compelling Harmonies? Coordinated Maneuvers? Covering fire? Feint PArtner? Harder they Fall? Overwhelm? Tandem trip? Volley fire? A great example is Enfilading fire. Have you ever used that one, not counting Inquisitors who "cheat" it?

Many of those would be useful, in gimmick groups or GM encounters. Volley fire is great for a batallion of archers, and Cavalry Formation is great for a batallion of lancers But how often do you see more than 1 archer in a group or more than one mounted character? And even then... Would you take those feats before rapid shot, precise shot, manyshots, deadly aim, or mounted combat/ride-by-attack/spirited charge/power attack?

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.

unless your talk about GM cheat (look! The kobold crits you! Again!), then no, by no means that's true. Your can play tactically sound with your orcs and flank and focus fire and whatever, but an orc with a club and skill focus is not goibg to be as dangerous as an orc with a great axe and power attackattack that is equally tactically sound

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
This sounds like an excellent meat-grinder of a group, for dealing with singular large foes. Butterfly Sting with dual-wielded kukris (or some other high-threat option), paired with someone with a high-damage weapon, like a scythe or pick, can be brutal fun when the dice go your way

Butterfly Sting is a good example of what teamwork feats *should* be. It only asks one player to have it. That player could also flank with other guys besides the pick wielding dude (like giving the butterfly sting critical to a recently summoned celestial T-Rex or whatever). Those 2 PC work better when paired, but the feat works just fine with other members of the group

RDM42 wrote:
Quite a few individual feats are situational too, yet get taken all the time.

Yes, but those mean 1 wasted slot in the group until the situation arise. Situational teamwork feats mean 1 wasted slot *per player in the group* until the situaiton arise, and often makes the situation harder to happen, as it adds extra layers of requirement (for example, it requires not only a surprise round, but a surprise round and you being adjacent to an specific player)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

tl;dr: We can use the vast majority of these options without feeling like failures. They won't be the "best build", but who here only plays "best builds"? There can't be that many of those. Sounds boring as s+&$.

I disagree. I don't build "the best builds", and I always try to think about a character concept and then picks things that fit that concept (like when I once took Skill Focus: Profesion Sailor with a pirate). However, there are a BIG bunch of feats out there that PLAINLY SUCK. They are big failures, and taking them just make you waste a feat.

For example: if you want to roleplay some kind of combat medic, you'll be much better served taking ANYTHING ELSE than the teamwork Combat Medic feat (and then asking everybody in the game to do the same). You could, for example, take skill focus HEal, and it'll be better (Without being even remotely close to a "best build"). You could get "Combat Casting" and some healing spells (Because, seriously... who the f*+$ plays a healer without magical healing in Pathfinder?) and cast on the defensive to heal them. Combat healing is already not well regarded in the optimization discussions, so even this isn't "the best build", while being better than running around with a healing pack trying to stabilize dudes with the healing skill and forcing them to take the feat so you can do it without provoking, because for some reason you didn't want to cast Stabilize orison casting on the defensive. You probably could build much better Combat Medics if you focus on Channeling as move actions and such, but you *could* take other options without being a complete failure. Combat medic, however, sucks.

Roughly half the feats plainly suck. They are nothing more than a waste of space, built under the "Ivory tower concept", that are there for flavor and such (as in: somebody, somwhere, is a non-magical combat medic. Let's build a feat for that NPC, who will never ever be played in a table). The other half is divided between mechanically powerful feats that become a staple and are often taken (such as Power Attack or Empower Spell), feats that work well for some builds but not for others (like improved trip or Rime Spell), Specific feats for specific builds (like Shapeshifing Hunter for druid/rangers) and feats that give flavor, but are mechanically sound (like Skill focus)

Froth Maw wrote:
Everybody wants to be the baddest dude around, or the comic relief, or the party weirdo, rather than just wanting to be successful. I like horde charge and amplified rage. Your build will SEEM vulnerable until you and your fellow barbarian charge a guy from opposite sides and you get an extra +5 to damage and an extra +6 to hit on a guy that already took a falchion to the head. Pair that with the fact that your builds force you to stay together if you want to survive and you've got an unstoppable tidal wave of anger.

How many times you and your fellow barbarain can charge someone from opposite sides? I don't know, we could try and check the encounters from book 1 of Rise of Runelords, to take a written, neutral example.

rise of runelords book 1 encounters:
How are you going to charge from both sides the skeletons in the crypt? Tsuto and his multiple goblins in front of him? The goblin in the closet? Flying invisible quasit? The druid that pass through the thorn walls in thistletop? The shadows that appear from nowhere? Nualia in that corridor? Malfeshnekor in his room?

That's the problem. THey look fine, in theorycrafting. They aren't that much, in real gaming, because the theory isn't always easy to apply. And that's when you are even ABLE to take the feats, as you need a couple of half orcs, both melee, one of them with rage. How many parties you have played recently that were like that? I'm right now playing in Giantslayer. We have a bunch of half-orcs, because of the way the campaign is. And yet, we don't have 2 of them that go to melee (one is a ranger archer). Unless you *build* the entire group to make this work, it won't work. And I'd never advocate to force the players to build characters with an specific feat in mind: if you *want* to play a drunken dwarf monk, go play a drunken dwarf monk. You shouldn't have to play a drunken half-orc monk only to let someother player's concept work or be able to use a certain teamwork feat.

Amplified rage is another good example of why the whole teamwork concept sucks greatly. It's a totally overpowered feat, if you can *cheat* your way into it (hunter-barbarian riding a pet) and totally useless if you aren't cheating into it (heck, most parties wouldn't even qualify for it)

Same goes for Cavalry Formation. It's a terrific effect, IF your party consist in a big number of lancers. Which isn't going to happen unless you are playing some specific campaign (like "let's play with knights of the roun table!"), or you are a GM building a Gimmick encounter with a bunch of guys who took cavalry formation as a feat at lvl 1, when they didn't even know themselves yet, just to be able to do a frightening charge in this specific encounter 15 years later.

They are narrow, they are circumstantial, they have a lot of prerequisites, their effect is minor compared to some other feat, and they only work in the theorycrafted situation they were built for. Many of them are a waste for one of the players (like Lookout for the PC that rarely gets surprised and works as an "anchor" for those who do), they reward silly behaviour (like being adjacent to your teammates all the time or overreaching for a flanking bonus with a certain teammate when other flankers are easier), and on top of that, they become strongly abusable in certain builds for characters that cheat the "team" aspect of "teamwork feat", like Inquisitors or hunters. +4STR and CON for a feat when you rage mounting your pet is pretty OP, and it involves exactly zero "teamwork", which is what the ardent defenders of Teamwork feats say it's the biggest draw of those feats.

chaoseffect wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

That's gang up

Which also require combat expertise and INT 13, so it's another good example of extremely niche, incredibly situational, never used teamwork feat that sucks greatly and is basically a waste of space, except for GM's minions.
You are mistaken about Gang Up as it is NOT a Teamwork feat, so the person taking it can benefit even if his allies do not have it. I would say that makes it a lot more useful and potentially worthwhile depending on party composition. For instance it was a strong contender for a goblin Rogue build I was considering (but ultimately rejected because I had better methods for acquiring Sneak Attack alone) as another ally was a Cavalier; could have mounted up with him and between me, him, and his horse I would have always been flanking.

I stand corrected, then

He doesn't have engineering. I'll solve this with "it takes 1 month, and a DC 30 Knowledge: engineering roll". He doesn't have the skill, so he has to retreat.
Being able to *work* in a civil engineering project is not the same than being able to *design* one

He can also get Aditional Traits feat, and get Natural born leader as one of his traits, which also helps

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That's just the impression I got. This paladin promotes partying, and seems to personally regard "partying" as including drugs.

Which is fine, as long as he's a Paladin in Colorado or Amsterdam

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

Dragonlance was created 30 years ago, different times my friend :-)

Try again tho :-)

Fine, I'm not going to judge Dragonlance as non-inclusive or non-LGBT friendly because it was made 30 years ago in a different context. However, claiming that it was MORE inclusive than Golarion, based on "read-between-the-lines" arguments of a kender being gay because he wasn't married (which may, or may not, be a real metaphor of a gay character) is weird, when you have several gay characters in different APs, from villains like Queen Illeosa, to helpful NPCs like the ones in Sandpoint or Trunau from Giantslayer.

The rest of the argument is similar: Dragonlance had characters from other ethnic groups, like Silvermoon, but there are also shoanti characters in Golarions, and some of the icons are non-white (like the paladin). There were women in positions of power in Dragonlance, like Kitiara, but there are also in golarion, from the Queen of Cheliax to Queen Illeaosa, to Baba Yaga and her daughters, not to mention several icons.

So while it's possible to argue that Dragonlance pioneered some inclusiveness in a much difficult era for it, I find that arguing it's more inclusive than current Golarion using those arguments is... playing Devil's Advocate ;)

That said, Erik Mona himself has said in this very thread that Paizo hasn't been as diligent as they could, and more inclusiveness is needed. I'm ok with asking for it, or criticisize them if needed. Just disagree with Dragonlance being more inclusive because someone reads between lines that Tanis is a secret metaphor of bisexuality or whatever.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

I say read-between-the-lines because these are arguments and discussions I've heard from others, rather than something I'm trying to prove.

As far as I know the only reference to Christianity, and please note this is just one of multiple things I pointed out as lacking in PF, is an obscure reference in Artifacts and Legends. Oddly enough, its extremely vague and literally read-between-the-lines. :P

If you are going to read between lines and say that Dragonlance has a gay character that has never been portrayed as gay because he never got married, you can go and read between the lines and say that Golarion has gay characters never portrayed as gays too. Or, you know, you could go and say that Golarion has gay characters because it actually has characters that are gay, both openly or as a secret.

Bandw2 wrote:

doesn't outflank require like 3 or so people to be attacking the same guy to even work?

That's gang up

Which also require combat expertise and INT 13, so it's another good example of extremely niche, incredibly situational, never used teamwork feat that sucks greatly and is basically a waste of space, except for GM's minions.

We lost a PC the other day in Giantslayer, against a bunch of rogues that had gang up and overwhelmed a caster. Other than that (a gimmick encounter tailored to use it), it's almost impossible to find a party that have THREE players that are melee, have INT 13, want to spend a feat in Combat Expertise, and have an extra feat to waste in a sucky teamwork feat that isn't even that good because it force you to gank a single enemy with 3 party members, and only kicks in if the first two guys attacking that enemy didn't kill him before the third guy actually came and benefit from it.

So, mostly, teamwork feats suck, badly. A few of them would be ok, if it wasn't for the requisite of adjacent, or attacking the same dude, but for the most part, I wouldn't take most of them even if they didn't force my party members to take them as well. I wouldn't take Combat Medic or Gang Up even if they weren't teamwork feats and I could use them without requiring a party member to have them as well.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:

The positioning requirements are what ruin them for me.

Take Outflank for example. It seems like one of the better ones. But in order to get that flank bonus I have to be flanking with someone else who has the feat. The problem is that you almost never start the combat with 2 people who both have outflank actually flanking someone. You rarely even start out adjacent to a foe at all. So now you have to burn actions getting into position to use the feat at all. If you had both taken Weapon Focus instead you would still get +3 instead of +4 while flanking and a +1 all of the time, a much better deal that doesn't make flanking bad, just not necessary to get any benefit at all.

Or in the case you provided, if we can flank with regularity then a rogue would be ideal. And based on how much hate the rogue gets I'd say flanking is somewhat difficult to attain.

Even then, it could create perverse incentives. For example, if only the party's rogue and fighter have outflank, the rogue might try harder tumble checks and put himself in worse tactical positions to flank with the fighter, while he maybe could have an easier flanking buddy with the ranger's pet, the wizzard's summon monster, or the party's druid, none of whom have outflank.

If outflank would give something when not pairing with another teamwork PC, that wouldn't happen. Say, Outflank gives you +3 when flanking, +4 if flanking with another outflanker. Then the rougue could flank happily with the archer's ranger pet, with the wildshaping druid, or with the wizard's summoned celestial lion, and get an extra bonus if (and when) he flanks with the party's fighter, who also have outflank

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Kindly note that 'two feats for one benefit to one person' is erroneous.

It's 'two feats for a benefit to two people.' i.e. teamwork feats benefit both people involved, not just one of them.

Not really, there are a lot of them that don't work like that.

For example, enfilading fire
Others work for both, technically, but only for one in practice (for example, Lookout. It works for the guy who missed the perception roll, if someone else didn't, so it's good for guys with bad perception skill, but a feat tax that guys with high perception skill pay so their teammates can act in surprise rounds)
Some others like combat medic benefit one of the PC activelly, and the other only passively (as in: people will have more incentives to heal you in combat, if for whatever reason that's ever needed, but the feat itself does nothing to you, is the healer the one who ignore AOO)

Many other plainly suck.

Combat Medic implicitly means you can do the same back to the guy healing you, so its win-win.

Enfilading Fire, however...absolutely right, and its obviously a suckage feat that is only going to be used in squad combat by DM's, or people who can pop up feats on demand.


You can do the same, assuming he also falls unconscious or needs healing caltrops, which is not always happening.

The point is that the feats are situational, and when the situation arise, ONE guy can use it (the guy who is rolling heal and/or doesn't want to provoke an AOO), but TWO guys have to pay for it. That's a huge difference to a feat that could be named, for example "Underwhelming but not totally Sucking Combat Medic", requires Heal 5, and allows you to take 10 to stabilize or treat wounds and not provoke, but it's a general feat, not a teamwork feat. It would be an underwhelming feat that probably nobody would take anyways, but at least it cost ONE feat for an underwhelming effect, not TWO feats for an underwhelming effect.

Aelryinth wrote:

Kindly note that 'two feats for one benefit to one person' is erroneous.

It's 'two feats for a benefit to two people.' i.e. teamwork feats benefit both people involved, not just one of them.

Not really, there are a lot of them that don't work like that.

For example, enfilading fire
Others work for both, technically, but only for one in practice (for example, Lookout. It works for the guy who missed the perception roll, if someone else didn't, so it's good for guys with bad perception skill, but a feat tax that guys with high perception skill pay so their teammates can act in surprise rounds)
Some others like combat medic benefit one of the PC activelly, and the other only passively (as in: people will have more incentives to heal you in combat, if for whatever reason that's ever needed, but the feat itself does nothing to you, is the healer the one who ignore AOO)

Many other plainly suck.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Gilfalas wrote:
In the end it comes down to CR. Something had to be crappy. Something had to be CR 1/4. It just happens that it is kobolds.

But being armed with a spear has nothing to do with them being CR 1/4-- having 1 level in an NPC class and taking massive stat penalties do.

A 1st level warrior Kobold with a two handed sword is still CR 1/4

A kobold with a great axe, four mirror armor, and a potion of enlarge is also technically CR1/4. It's not the same level of threat, though.

That's why CR are a guideline. A group of first lvl kobold sorcereres with Spell Specialist Magic Missile doing focus fire against your lvl 1 party witch hace the same CR than first lvl sorcererers with skill focus (craft: basketweaving) and ibdentify and comprehend languages as their first lvl spells.

Kobolds hace crap gear because they are cannon fodder.

Just a Guess wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:

atm it is up to table variation; andreww's reasoning provides a route to a more concrete answer.

Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
Emphasis mine. The Spell can only impact once per casting, so regardless of how many individual missiles there are, the spell is only dealing damage once per target (the amount of which is divided up between the missiles). It's still a little fuzzy, but this is definitely a better RAW reading than my previous post since it brings the spell in line with the general consensus.

The problem with this is: It gives no incentive to aim all the missiles on one target.

Why should a caster with a toppling magic missile aim all missiles on the BBEG when a lone missile has the same chance of toppling him as a full spread. Spreading the missiles is already often better because you get to see if one target has a shield or the anti-magic missile necklace active.

More damage.

I think a good way to see it is: would you ask five will saves vs a dazing magic missile? Would you allow 5 rounds of entanglement vs a rime elemental (cold) mágic missile?

Kalindlara wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
caribet wrote:

I hit this recently too - triggered by the Bestiary entry for "Horse".

Horse as listed is explained as being a "Light Horse", and the Bestiary explicitly states that you can stat a Heavy Horse by adding the Advanced Simple Template.

If Heavy Horses all had Int 6, I think the world would have noticed by now! re-cr-1

Int beliw 2 doesnt advance

Not a rules source, unfortunately. ^_^

The Bestiary 4 doesn't have that text.

The creatures that paizo has advanced un their adventure path follow that rule:

hammerhead shark

caribet wrote:

I hit this recently too - triggered by the Bestiary entry for "Horse".

Horse as listed is explained as being a "Light Horse", and the Bestiary explicitly states that you can stat a Heavy Horse by adding the Advanced Simple Template.

If Heavy Horses all had Int 6, I think the world would have noticed by now!

advanced simple tenplate

Int beliw 2 doesnt advance

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Many builds have huge feat requirements and feat taxes (like boon companion for dome classes, the whole Shatter Defenses trece, etc) that means that while some claasses or builds have a few early feats to spare, others don't. You could like to take Outflank, but maybe your fellow samurai trying to build a deadly stroke build can't afford it. Or your fellow druid needs/wants more natural spell, wildspeech, augmented summons and craft eoundreous items, and so on. Your compare it yo Weapon focus: I often can't spare a feat in weapon focus.

Teamwork feats should give something when used alone. For example outflabk could be +1 when you flank, +2 ehen your flank with other outflanker

I'm not dure what your mean with eldircth fighter 1/gubslinger 11/crossbowman fighter x again. Your can't be fighter twice with different archtypes. You could be a fighter with 2 archtypes if they are compatible, but that's different. A Fighter XY lvl 8 is not the same tgan a fightr X lvl 3/fighter Y lvl 5

ranmyaku262 wrote:
kinda pointless to keep the off hand free

Or you could use the katana as ir is intended to and take it two handed :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with what some people has said:
This behaivour wouldn't fit under "a christian knight of the round table searching for the Holy Grail" concept. But that's far from the only kind of paladin in a world where christianity doesn't exist, there are multiple gods, and different cultures have diferent icons.

In real world, Thor was an icon for vikings. He would laugh, and then hit with Mjolnir, any dude brave enough to tell him he shouldn't drink because he must set an example.

Secret Wizard wrote:

I wish there were private messages in this board...

Anyway, the issue with Crane Style is you are taking several feats to take an attack penalty and some bonus to AC, when you could spend the same amount of feats for similar other bonuses to AC without hurting your attack.

Also, I don't know about you but AC is the least of my concerns.

-1 to hit is a small negative compared to the bonus you can get with the style. Normally you get +1 AC per feat (dodge, shield focus), or +2 with some rare instances (tieflings with armor of the pit). With Crane Wing, you get +5 (4 from defensive combat, 1 for dodge, which is a prereq) for 2 feats, and +7 vs 1 target (ussually more than enough) for 3 feats (dodge, crane wing, crane style), although that came with a -2 to hit. However, the last feat, Crane riposte, actually increase your damage output: you get -1 to attack instead of -2, and you get one extra attack when your enemy miss you (and he'll miss you), so I wouldn't count it as a defensive feat. A halfling could add another +2 with cautious fighter would mean +7 AC, +9 vs 1 target, for 4 defensive feats (dodge, crane style, crane wing, cautious fighter).

Also, AC is not important, unless you have a lot, then it's really important. It's easy to build characters that can only be hit with 20s for monsters of CR = character's level, and then AC is really good.

The problem with crane style is not the -1 to hit, is that you need to keep 1 hand free, so you cant TWF or 2H. That's why it really works only for classes that already fight with one hand free, like wildshaping druids (flurrying Kungfu T-rexes, tetori Judo Anacondas, and their friends), scimitar magus, flurrying monks, and swashbucklers, as their classes have to fight with one hand free anyway and they have class features that make their one-hand (or one claw) damage on par with TWF and 2H.

To the OP, i'll use cornugon smash (or enforcer+blade of mercy), shatter defenses, and deadly stroke, with either a braced nodachi, or a braced naginata (specially at lvl 15 ronin and auto 20 in one roll), and try to make a char that can kill in one hit. Maybe with 1 lvl of bloodrager to get the feat that ends a rage and makes max damage

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I just finished running for a Fire domain Druid who used practically nothing but fireball and snowball for her offense. It was a rare case when she was unable to do something useful.

How? He gets just 1 fireball (from his domain spell), doesn't he?

to be worthwhile it should be either no negative modifier to attack, or trade every 1 in the sneak die for a 6. That would mean (6+2+3+4+5+6)/6, or 26/6=4.3 per die, which means 0.8 per die, or 0.4 per level (as rogues get +1d6 sneak each 2 levels, aprox)

As written, it's a trap

Neither do I. But Shaping Focus keeps your wildshape at your lvl. You can get Shaping Focus and then retrain it once your don't need it anymore

Yes, that and raging grappler (which allows doing damage again with the grapple un the first turn is mostly one hit KO eith Strong Jaw and T-Rex form (or a trample/powerful charge form and Lockjaw)

However after talking with the rest of the party (currently an archer Ranger Beastmaster and a paladin -also mounted-) we decided I dhould keep the cster lvls. We have a lot of frontline, and really lack spells. Originally we were going to hace also a wizard, and the paladin was an oracle until he died, so my char was going to be the mrlee, but things hace changed, fortunately druids are versatile

Ok, the character is lvl 5, soon lvl 6.
I'm going to take ranger 1 at 7th lvl, to get Shapeshifting hunter, which gives me Favored enemy (giants) at +4, which fits perfectly with the char background and the campaign (giantslayer).

Nos what?
I could go with ranger 1/druid (gokiath) 11, or maybe Ranger 2/barbarian (armored hulk) 2/druid 8. Much worse caster, bit keep wildshape and pet up to lvl (boom and shaping focus) and gain a bump un REF, some class skills, and rage (fiend tótem, raging grappler). But losing CL hurts.

Any advice?

Exactly that.
The vicious enchantment itself does you half the danage it does to the enemy, regardless of number of attacks. Bit if you do a lot of small hits, a higher % of your damage come from it, and thus a higher % of your oponent health is reflected to you.

As an example, exagerated to make it more obvious, imagine some build that does 20 attacks that do only 1 damage per hit. Vicious would do 140 damage to the enemy (+20 from normal damage), but 70 damage to you. That's more damage than a single attack doing 107 and 3.5 to you, but it's not really desirable . To kill a 300hp dragón, you would kill yourself as well (not even counting the damage the dragón itself does). Doing 10 attacks at 8 damage each would mean roughly same damage to the enemy, but 35 to you.

mplindustries wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
But if you make a lot of attacks, like, say, 4 attacks, or 6, you take 4d6 or 6d6 damage per round.. 1d6 per turn for your vicious Lance in a cavalier is susteinable (especially with fast healing or similar options). I'd rather do 100 damage in one hit, and take 1d6, than do 25 damage per hit 4 times, and take 4d6 damage.

Except Vicious scales perfectly with the number of attacks you make. You'd be dealing 107 (with vicious) and taking 3.5 yourself in one hit, or, you'd be dealing 32 four times (128 damage) and 14 yourself in four hits.

The damage is proportional. More attacks means you take more damage, but also that you deal more damage.

But 3.5 in 107 is roughly 3% damage back, while 14 in 128 is roughly 11% damage back. You deal more, but you take back proportionally much more

_Ozy_ wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Choon wrote:
The only method I've heard is through DR. Invulnerable barbarians do a good job with that.

It's disruptive negative energy. DR doesn't help against energy damage. Being inmune to negative energy (like a undead) would help, though.

This feat could help: necromantic affinity, depending on your GM read on it (and/or his read on vicious weapon negative damage)

Hmm, doesn't explicitly say 'negative energy' in the description as far as I can tell. If it were, then presumably Death Ward would make you immune to the damage.

You are right, I re-read it and it says "disruptive energy", untyped. So it's not easy to gain inmunity to that

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gustavo wrote:
I don't see how having perception rolls at the begin of combat (or in round 6, after 5 succesful snipings from the goblin) precludes to have perception rolls before combat begins.
That would be determining which characters are aware of their opponents and then rolling initiative.

No, that would be being coherent with how the game itself works out of combat (ie: you roll perception to find things, even when you aren't fighting them. I gave a few examples, that you haven't quoted so far, for unkown reasons). You can roll for perception to find the goblin who is trying to hide and flee, or your son who is playing hide-and-seek with you, so you can roll for perception against the goblin who is ambushing you (both if the goblin is aware of you, or if he isn't yet)

THEN when combat starts, you determine who is aware of who. That's made with different methods, that include (but is not reduced to) a perception roll in that moment. Sometimes you haven't rolled for perception until the combat begins, or nobody is trying to hide, and awarness is determined by other means (like line of sight).


I'm in the forest, hiding myself, and hunting goblins. There are goblins hiding out there, trying to flee. There's also a bugbear, who is stalking me, but haven't find me yet. There's also a couple of dread wraiths behind a wall, in the area of effect of a silence spell, and an ogre who is standing in the middle of the road, sleeping. There's no combat yet. I roll hide and perception, and so do the goblins and the bugbear. I roll high enough stealth that the bugbear can't see me. I can see the goblins, but not the bugbear, and the goblins can't see me. I choose not to attack the goblins, because I want to follow them to their lair. There's no combat yet. When I'm getting closer to the goblins, an Alarm spell goes off, awakening the dread wraiths. The alarm spell also teleports there a wizard, that has some kind of contingency spell keyed to that alarm. He teleports to a random point near the middle of the map.

The GM calls for a combat round, and initiative is rolled.
I'm already aware of the goblins, so I don't need to roll for them. I have line of sight to the ogre, so no perception roll is needed to be aware of him. The Ogre, who was sleeping until now, makes a perception roll to notice me (because I'm stealthy, unlike him). The GM allows for a second perception roll to the bugbear, because the alarm spell might give him a clue about where I am, but I don't get a roll against him yet, as the conditions haven't changed for me. The dread wraiths sense me without rolling, because they have lifesense 60', and I can't roll perception against them, as Silence spell precludes me to hear them, and the wall blocks LoS. he Wizard, who suddenly appeared at the begining of the round, has to check perception against me, the goblins, the bugbear, and maybe the wraiths, if the wall doesn't block LoS from his appearing point. He'll see the Ogre

There you go, "determining awareness" have happened, after rolling initiative. Some of that awareness involved perception rolls, some of it didn't. And it didn't preclude to play the game before the combat started

Choon wrote:
The only method I've heard is through DR. Invulnerable barbarians do a good job with that.

It's disruptive negative energy. DR doesn't help against energy damage. Being inmune to negative energy (like a undead) would help, though.

This feat could help: necromantic affinity, depending on your GM read on it (and/or his read on vicious weapon negative damage)

BigNorseWolf wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
But there's nothing precluding you to find goblins that aren't trying to attack you (or aren't trying to attack you yet, because haven't seen or heared you yet). And that's done before the initiative roll.

1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.

2. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information.

That's the perception check. That happens after initiative.

If you find that silly, this is a system where a 12 ounce bat can judo flip a 12 ton dragon. (and if 20 of them try one of them is almost guaranteed to succeed...)

I don't see how having perception rolls at the begin of combat (or in round 6, after 5 succesful snipings from the goblin) precludes to have perception rolls before combat begins.

1 to 50 of 2,678 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.