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

kyrt-ryder's page

11,996 posts (12,073 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 11,996 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The real trouble with grasping the two together is that martial adventurers defy the very concept of natural selection.

They survive the same way many parasites do, by latching onto something that can keep them alive.


BigDTBone wrote:
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.
Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.

Heck there are plenty of people who deny evolution that comprehend the Martial Caster Disparity.


Zoolimar wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
You need flight as a form of terrain movement (or jump good/swim good) as well. Just being able to fight fliers is a stop gap measure, but which requires melees to either a) change to a less-favored weapon or b) go animish with having windblades and stuff.
Less-favored is okay.

Respectfully disagree.

A martial character has one of three approaches here [without extending into weird supernatural stuff.]

A: Generalist who is equally awesome with all weapons and has no favored weapons.

B: Ranged Specialist

C: Melee Specialist with some reasonable means of reaching flying opponents [a flying mount, sky dancing, Jump Good, whatever.]

C2: Going into the supernatural stuff, something that can force a flier to come to you is a good alternative for a Melee Specialist

EDIT For Clarity: less-favored weapon is a fine alternative for a Melee Specialist at low levels, but by level 9 that's no longer appropriate In My Opinion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not joining your Party, Donner.

Nor will I accompany you to dinner.


Devilkiller wrote:
@Glord - Why should CR10 monsters be "easy fodder" for level 9 PCs? I mean, CR10 would be APL+1, which is supposed to be "Challenging"

You're both wrong [Devilkiller on a technicality]

APL+1 is supposed to be "moderately challenging." Pretty easy but with a slight chance things might go wrong.


Entryhazard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:

Defeats the whole point of Divine magic, that are BESTOWED powers.

They should all be arcane and psychic casters at this point.

To each his own I suppose, Entryhazard.

For me I LIKE the idea of Faith Magic being distinct, being something powered not by one's inner magic [sorcerers] nor one's scientific study of arcane forces [wizards and magi] nor the guidance of a patron [witch.]

Faith Magic is Faith. It's the power of one's belief in something made manifest as miracles.

if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move.

And all.

That doesn't really counter my point, as this is exactly how the Psychic with the Faith Discipline works

Who said I was countering your point? I was just highlighting that this is my way for my games.

You don't like it you don't have to play that way. Doesn't stop me from running my own games my own way.

Incidentally I get kind of sick of people assuming that just because a new class comes out that overlaps with a theme an old class filled suddenly that old class is no longer allowed to fill that theme.


For what it's worth as an observer...

I can't imagine a pirate crew that WOULDN'T welcome such... companionship... for those long journeys at sea :P


thunderbeard wrote:
david barker wrote:
a lawful good pirate for example would only target evil ships and follow the pirate code to the letter. lawful neutral would enforce the code and a lawful evil would follow the code but find ways to use it for his selfish goals
It's pretty hard to "target evil ships," though; often by the time you can tell who's sailing the thing, you're already when you're in a fight.

yeah, I'm of the opinion that a lawful good pirate is... wait for it... still a pirate. He never kills anyone that legitimately surrenders [and never personally attacks a non-combatant.] And in general his primary objective is other pirate ships, though if he's not the captain all he can do is plead his case and do his best as part of the crew.

Quote:
What's the point buy/roll, etc., for this campaign?
David said 20 point buy upthread.Could I play an aasimar?

David says he's open minded, post your character and he'll give it an open minded look [his words paraphrased.]

Quote:
In any case, my plan would be a charisma-over-wis-focused hangover cleric of Besmara (so good face skills, etc). If we have a higher starting level or an expected accelerated start, I'll go with the Evangelist archetype, otherwise waiting until level 3 to channel is brutal.

This would be competing with the Cleric of Calista face that's been proposed, but competition always happens in these recruitment threads anyway.

Best of luck.

EDIT: also, David has stated that there shall be no levels skipped. You guys are starting at level 1.


Elannaris Darantholar wrote:
What you guys think about we define what roles wound be desired?

This is strongly advised IMO

Quote:

IMO, we could work with something like this:

1 - The Face/Support - focused in interaction/support casting - middle line
2 - The Guide - focused in survival/hazards detection - middle line
3 - The Heavy Hitter - focused on heavy melee damage - front line
4 - The Ranged Support - focused in ranged damage - back line
5 - The Sage - focused in knowledge - back line
6 - The Tank - focused in taking the blows - front line

Looks like a good starting point, I imagine others may have ideas for tweaking it.

One idea might be trading the tank for a support/healer type, one who specializes in magic that allows him to mitigate incoming damage, take some of it on himself, all that sort of stuff.


David Barker wrote:
it is only clerics with archetypes, feats and domains clerics can be diverse

And in reference to a discussion earlier...

Cuàn wrote:
As for setting ships on fire, clerics with the fire domain or it's subdomains are quite ok at that as well.

There's also burning arrows/crossbows/catapults with pitch. Not 100% sure where the gamerules for it are, but people in the real world did plenty of burning enemy ships without magic.

Also Greek Fire [Alchemist Fire?] is kind of a big thing in the mythology of ship battles.


And Traits! Traits can notably alter things.

Heck in my wizard experiment one of my characters took Extra Traits ontop of the default traits for that very reason.


I am of the same mind Archlich, though since I'm not actually participating and basically spectating, I don't really have a say anymore.

I do hope David keeps it pure cleric, but that's up to him and you guys.

Edit: thus this post is also serving as a headsup to David that I won't be playing. Having one additional player beyond the normal slots [Sam] is throwing enough of a monkey wrench into it, having two extra would pretty significantly alter the experiment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heck even I agree this scenario is silly and pointless, and I agree with his basic premise.


Can you elaborate on why a wolf doesn't fit the setting? Giant wolf riding pirates sounds awesome to me personally.


thunderbeard wrote:
Arcane: Gnome/Wayang Cleric of Shelyn, Veiled Illusionist PrC. By level 10 you're memorizing nothing but Shadow Spells, and their DC is INSANE, letting you fireball/web at will.

If one of you guys wants to do this go for it. I'm just posting on this to highlight the lack of need for it so nobody feels required to pursue it.

I just want to point out that an Arcane caster isn't exactly necessary. Sure there are things arcane magic does better/easier than Divine magic, but a party where everybody has divine magic isn't one that MUST have arcane magic.


The Archlich wrote:
I think our worst issues will be with trapfinding and skills... Not sure if any archetypes cover this.

Assuming David permits it, there's a trait for Trapfinding and disabling magical traps.

Your trapmonkey should at least have Perception and Disable Device at least, anything else is gravy.

On the skills note, a cleric party won't have anybody with a huge number of them so specializing on skills is really important for the low levels. You've got a survivalist tracker type, either a dedicated face [A human spending his favored class bonus on skills has 4+int or even 3 if Int was dumped to 7 because stat penalties don't impact Race and Favored Class granted skill points] or good cop bad cop [one takes Diplomacy, one takes Intimidate and one of the two takes bluff] and a trap monkey [If he squeezes 3 skill points per level trap monkey could BE the survivalist as well, opening up an extra slot]

One thing that helps stretch skill points is remembering not everyone needs perception at level one. It helps that this is a cleric party so everyone is going to have a positive wisdom modifier and at least half [perhaps more] are likely to have a very good one.


The ability to cast a spell results in a caster level.

The dev who wrote that discovery already explicitly noted it was made in part to enable an Alchemist to take Item crafting feats.


Just for clarity David, when you say Average plus one each additional level, do you mean....

Rotating low-high average plus one [so d8 results in 5 at level 2, 6 at level 3, 5 at level 4 and so on]

Rotating high-low average plus one [so d8 results in 6 at level 2, 5 at level 3, 6 at level 4 and so on]

Average round down plus one [so d8 results in 5 at all levels]

Average round up plus one [so d8 results in 6 at all levels]

I already gave my word to play in Sam's game so I won't be participating here, but since I sort of initiated this movement I figured I'd watch it and go ahead and ask for this clarification early.


HWalsh wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
nemophles wrote:
I'm not suggesting combat isn't a big part of the game. The question being asked and the rhetoric being used is about characters "staying competitive in combat". Are you going to deny that GMs plan encounters with the PCs combat capacities in mind?

Yes!

It's far too much work for me to bother referencing the party beyond their level and number of members when planning encounters.

I'm just going to say GM'ing is an art form.

We're 100% in agreement on this point.

The difference- it seems- is I view my responsibility as a GM is to roleplay the world. My job is to be the player who handles the world and what it does [both Active progress towards the myriad of things of meaning going on in the world with or without the party, and Reactions to the party], not to spend hours customizing the nature of the encounters characters come into contact with.


Rynjin wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
No high horse - it's just that not everyone sees things as 'mandatory' as you do. You can play characters without a single combat related feat if you choose to, and you can still have fun doing so. The only time a feat you may not want would be mandatory is if it is a prerequisite to a feat you DO want. The key word here is want.

Roll with an entire party where nobody takea any combat related Feats or options. Run them through a Paizo AP.

See how long they survive.

A Caster party could manage :P [Though in this particular case at least two somewhat martially oriented casters who don't need to spend feats to patch their ability to mix it up will be required at low levels. In particular I recommend a druid. Heck 'Natural Spell' isn't even a Combat Feat.]


nemophles wrote:
I'm not suggesting combat isn't a big part of the game. The question being asked and the rhetoric being used is about characters "staying competitive in combat". Are you going to deny that GMs plan encounters with the PCs combat capacities in mind?

Yes!

It's far too much work for me to bother referencing the party beyond their level and number of members when planning encounters.

Barring a special campaign requested and agreed on in advance- my parties receive 70% roleplay and 30% combat without regard for their individual capabilities.

While the RP/Combat ratio might differ for other GMs I surmise many GMs take the same 'you're level X with Y people so I'm running a campaign for Y people at level X' outlook.

As far as this arms race you speak of? In my own games the only time it ever happens is if the Players explicitly request a greater challenge. I could care less if you wipe the floor with most of my enemies in 4-6 rounds while taking minimal damage and healing much of it off.

My own perspective on this? Build the character you want for the experience you want!

If you want a character who has it easy, build optimized badasses who only struggle a little against the most difficult encounters.

If you want a character who struggles against the odds and risks death at every turn, then deliberately build something underpowered and lacking synergy.


memorax wrote:
Retraining it's one of the few things I dislike in the system. I don't see why I need to spend money to retrain something that is not working for my character. Not only that it guarantees myself at least to use online guides to build a character. To avoid taking something that one may have to retrain at later levels. It

Indeed, the price is there for the players who deliberately build with retraining in mind, taking something that's better now and retraining it for something that's better later or is a prerequisite for a feat they can only take later or something like that.

The retraining rules should have included a note to GMs that if a player made a mistake with a character choice they should be able to retrain for free [and that the GM should make sure to provide sufficient downtime without penalizing the party via plot.]


If you're looking to me for a build I've been swamped with IRL issues the past day or two but I am pecking away at it.

As a note to anybody else in this thread with experience with Wizards, by all means please feel free to participate as well.


DoubleBubble wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

And those who spent time to come up with such style would be either fighter or warrior because they spend the time to engineer the techniques through actual combat. Also game design-wise, it's to stop it from combining flurry of blows. If you really want a monk to have so many attacks, perhaps ask your GM to house rule it. But then again, not sure if he would be happy about it.

Usually I am the GM, and I'd be totally fine with something like this. Perhaps adding an additional -1 penalty to all attack rolls for having the third weapon.

EDIT: also I take issue with the thematic claim that Monk schools are founded by Fighters. Fighters and Monks are so far divorced thematically [somewhat less so with certain archetypes] that this is freaking ridiculous.

A monk is a warrior philosopher seeking enlightenment and the mastery of his body and soul. This does not preclude experimentation and development of new arts.


Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.


That strikes me as more normal [as in, what anybody should be able to do with martial weapon proficiency in a shield] than coolness.

The Throwing Shield is just so much more interesting when it gives a bonus attack [and until the Blinkback belt comes online-IF it comes online, many builds won't go for it- that's only a single attack per combat whatsoever.]

The dynamic of 'should I throw my shield or keep it' is one I enjoy, made a bit more interesting by the fact that I'm playing a level 1 wizard who wears one right now. Said Wizard definitely appreciates the extra 2 points of AC and is built to mix it up in melee a bit, but who would suffer ASF if he cast while wearing it.


Nah, normal one-handers should be allowed as well. This whole theme is frequently used with Katanas for example.


Pretty lame if they clarify it like that. The whole coolness of the Throwing Shield is that it's a free action throw.

Now I totally agree this bonus attack should be restricted to once per round, any other attacks would have to come off a normal attack routine.


It's not exactly crippling but it is a huge deviation from standard practices that has a meaningful impact on the character's power.

Particularly because this is a Wizard, and Wizards often do best investing a great deal of wealth into tiny parts in the form of scrolls for contingency options.

You did say there was 1,000 gold worth of 'other stuff' available to each character? That would cover the expenses of learning a few additional spells per spell level available, scribing a few scrolls and perhaps purchasing one or two 3rd level scrolls 'just in case.'


Paulicus wrote:
You want ridiculous? :P

He's a Hunter bonded to an Octopus-Chimera who somehow acquired 8 tentacle attacks and traded them in for the ability to swing 8 swords in a natural attack routine.

SlimGauge wrote:
Don't ask the wizard to cast Mad Monkeys because they might come from here.

Like So


Entryhazard wrote:

Defeats the whole point of Divine magic, that are BESTOWED powers.

They should all be arcane and psychic casters at this point.

To each his own I suppose, Entryhazard.

For me I LIKE the idea of Faith Magic being distinct, being something powered not by one's inner magic [sorcerers] nor one's scientific study of arcane forces [wizards and magi] nor the guidance of a patron [witch.]

Faith Magic is Faith. It's the power of one's belief in something made manifest as miracles.

if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move.

And all.


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If you have divine miracles present on your world, it's really hard to maintain doubt that divine powers exist. Raising someone from the dead, or bringing health to the terminally ill by touch doesn't leave much room for doubt.

There is plenty of doubt in my own worlds, where 'divine powers' are basically a different style of magic. Where there are no clear indicators of whether it's a cleric or wizard or druid or anything else you can come up with.

The gods are up there, but they could care less about the behaviors and choices of mortals. They explicitly do not grant divine spellcasting either, that's granted by the faith of the divine caster. That faith is the power channeled into miracles aka divine spells.

In such a setting Razmir would have no problems "proving" he's a god. He'd have the same fully functional clerics as everyone else. It makes clerics nothing more than wizards powered by faith.

That's how I like it.

Also they aren't JUST powered by their faith, they're defined by it. A Cleric's faith is a massive influence on the character's identity as a whole.


First, I'd like to highlight that there's no guarantee the Wizard will outshine. Often the most powerful wizard tactics redirect shine onto their minion aka partymates who do the cleanup. There are even times the Wizard fails to 'shine' at all despite providing heavy victory-determining support.

Second, could you please provide specific information on the party?

Quote:
Your companions are a human elemental Bloodrager, a half-orc fighter, a half-orc druid, and a human cleric.

Race and class is a start, but I'd like to know how these people typically behave in an adventure and in combat. Particularly their fighting styles and how much combat vs casting is normal for the druid and cleric.


LazarX wrote:
If you have divine miracles present on your world, it's really hard to maintain doubt that divine powers exist. Raising someone from the dead, or bringing health to the terminally ill by touch doesn't leave much room for doubt.

There is plenty of doubt in my own worlds, where 'divine powers' are basically a different style of magic. Where there are no clear indicators of whether it's a cleric or wizard or druid or anything else you can come up with.

The gods are up there, but they could care less about the behaviors and choices of mortals. They explicitly do not grant divine spellcasting either, that's granted by the faith of the divine caster. That faith is the power channeled into miracles aka divine spells.


Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
Super Genius Games gotta be one of my least favorites 3pp, they always make crazy stuff, just saying.

Crazy awesome you mean.

SGG [RGG now I believe, might be mistaken] is my second favorite 3PP bar none, just behind Dreamscarred Press and just above Rite Publishing.

They all rank above Paizo :P


'A full 500' is not '500 beyond 1'


Anzyr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Of course it isn't Anzyr.

You pay one point plus a further point of damage for every full 500 gp

500 is a full 500. You already paid one point and now you pay one further for each full 500 gold.

Explain how 3 Total STR is 1,000-,1500 then?

Typographical error. It's supposed to read 1,000-1,499, the next full 500 is 1500 and actually costs 4 total STR


Of course it isn't Anzyr.

You pay one point plus a further point of damage for every full 500 gp

500 is a full 500. You already paid one point and now you pay one further for each full 500 gold.


Read the spell text more carefully Anzyr.

Quote:
Even valuable components worth more than 1 gp can be created, but creating such material components requires an additional cost of 1 point of Strength damage

We're in agreement thus far. Now read the next part.

Quote:
plus a further point of damage for every full 500 gp of the component's value (so a component worth 500–999 gp costs a total of 2 points

The error you're making here Anzyr, is that the first point is for GP cost between 1 and 499.

plus a further point of damage for every full 500 gp of the component's value

GP up to 499 costs 1

500 up to 999 costs 2

1000 up to 1499 costs 3

etc


One place to find clarity on the natural armor thing is in the rules for the Barkskin Spell and Amulet of Natural Armor.

These grant an Enhancement Bonus to Natural Armor and note that even those without a natural Natural Armor Bonus still have one, it's just at a value of 0.


Valantrix1 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
One of them is certainly an error, you can't have 500-999 cost one value and 1000-1500 cost the next, it should either be 501-1000 and 1001 to 1500 OR 500-999 and 1000-1499
I'm pretty certain after reading the text over and over again to make sure I wasn't missing anything, the second one is the wrong one. I could be wrong though.

Yeah, the key clause is 'plus a further point of damage for every full 500 gp of the component's value.'

I concur.

@ Anzyr: read the spell very carefully. It charges you 1 point of strength just for the privilege of casting it, then every full 500 GP thereafter increases the cost by 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Low level spells aren't intended to compete with high level spells on any front. If low level spells had scaling DC that matched high level spells, casters would have even more 'go-power' than they do now.

As is basically your top two levels of spells are fairly reliable/worth casting offensively in critical moments. Everything else is support [including a bit of blasting to finish off a nearly downed foe if there's nothing better to do] or cleanup [or no-save control]


It's really bad when an off-handed answer as to why X martial class isn't overpowered gets dragged into Martial/Caster >_<


One of them is certainly an error, you can't have 500-999 cost one value and 1000-1500 cost the next, it should either be 501-1000 and 1001 to 1500 OR 500-999 and 1000-1499


LazarX wrote:
Shadowlord wrote:


Which makes sense, as the Deity is completely unnecessary.

PRD/Cleric wrote:

Domains

Clerics may select any two of the domains granted by their deity. Clerics without a deity may select any two domains (choice are subject to GM approval).

If that's how your game setting and GM roll. Golarion and PFS make the diety VERY neccessary if you're a cleric. And if a certain director had had his way the whole concept of godless clerics would have been shoved into the trash pile it should have been buried in.

That's a pretty rough way to talk about people's playstyles LazarX.

I for one prefer to run my games in such a way that nobody even knows 100% for certain that the gods exist... until the PC's start approaching that realm and start getting involved in the mess that is the cosmology.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andostre wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I've played in two different short-tern all dwarf parties. Dwarves are one of the easier races to RP so everyone could take part. In the second game we were all divine casters and worshipped the same deity. That was a blast.
All dwarf AND all of the same faith? You've just raised the bar, my friend. What were some of the adventures that they had? Who were their antagonists?

I should mention my all-wizard party is all the same faith as well.

Admittedly it was more to take Advantage of Stabilize+Faithful Feedback than anything else.


Anzyr, he's right on the requisite strength.

Blood Money consumes 1 point of strength in addition to the strength-per-gold-equivalence.


Mineral Water wrote:
Also, please explain to me how are you activating magic item (Blood Reservoir of Physical Prowess) in the form of a Huge dragon
Quote:
Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form. While in such a form - link

Obviously it's a Human's Ankle Ring designed to be also be able to be worn by a huge dragon as a claw ring. Take ring off before Dragonform, put back on afterwards.


alexd1976 wrote:
SunshineSmiles wrote:
So I've chosen a gold dragon. Because shiny, GENERALLY good, and adorable. Now I'm stuck on feats. Any advice, paizo fans?

Go melee.

Improved natural attack (bite first, then claws)
Fighter as class. Weapon focus and Weapon spec with natural weapons...

Improved Natural Armor-Stack this.
Dodge.

Totally ignore casting. You can make a hell of a melee monster.

Why? Why would you use Fighter for a natural weapon user.

The answer is right in front of you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe his point was that this ability is pretty crappy for a full caster capstone.

It's closer in power to something Paizo might give a monk.

1 to 50 of 11,996 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.