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

mplindustries's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Marathon Voter. 5,223 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Taking into account that all metamagics are applied to the base effect and don't feed from one another.

To my knowledge, this is incorrect, and there is no such rule covering it (excepting Empower Spell and Maximize Spell, which specifically call out how they interact with each other).

Metamagic feats "feed off each other" just fine in most cases. For example, an intensified maximized fireball at CL 15 would indisputably deal 90 damage.

I remember during the 3rd edition era either reading something in some obscure book or something on the WotC site saying that Empowered Maximized stuff empowered the roll and then added to the maximum. So, a 10 CL Empowered Maximized Fireball, at least back then to my recollection, would deal .5(10d6) + 60, not 90.

But yeah, there's nothing in Pathfinder about that.


Being somewhat familiar with the AP, the paralysis immunity issue will only come up a tiny handful of times until around book 5, at which point it'll be a constant problem for the rest of the campaign.


Sadly, spells are always better than things that aren't spells. You'll be using natural weapons, I assume, so you won't really need BAB much anyway.

But yeah, if you ever have a question like this in the future, just remember:
Spells > Not Spells


No, only the damage the spell itself as responsible for. A Scorching Ray, for example, would only add 4 THP, not 4 + Sneak attack dice.

Note that Creative Destruction is a tremendously bad waste of a discovery. Discoveries are SO GOOD, you don't want to waste them on this dreck.


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.


I doubt your movement speed will matter much, though, when you take Narrow Frame for your mount ASAP and never get off your horse (or whatever it is).


Damanta wrote:
The amount would be: 3 + charisma modifier from the sorcerer spells/day

Er, what? It would be 3 + 1/4 Charisma mod rounded up, not + Charisma mod. You definitely don't get your full stat to spells per day.

Actually, wait, it would be Int because he's a Sage. So, 5 Magic Missiles at CL 5.

Then, you could get 10 more as a Wizard, at CL 6.

If you're going this far, I'm surprised you didn't go for a Varisian Tattoo for Evocation to get yet another CL. And really, why so many Magic Missiles? What's the point? Is this for some kind of attempt at a 3rd edition Force Missile Mage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's the way Fortitude, Reflex, and Will were calculated in 4e. AC was also the better of Int or Dex, actually. They were all static defenses, though, like AC, not saves. Spells all had attack rolls that had to hit your defenses, rather than you rolling them against the spell's DC.

I prefer that system because I like Charisma and HATE Wisdom as a stat, but it created a lot of weird problems. For example:

-Strong people were only rarely tough because it was wasteful to have both good Con and Strength (though this was less severe than the others, since Hit Points/Health Surges still mattered). But yeah, you'd end up with situations where Rogues, Wizards, and other fragile casters/dps characters would be tougher than the tanks because the tanks needed Strength while the others could dump it for Con.

-The only people that didn't dump Intelligence were people whose class used it, because Dex added to the same number of skills but also did Initiative, so, it was an easy choice if you didn't need one of them. This is less of a problem in Pathfinder where Intelligence gives you extra skill points.

-Agile quick people were always dumb as posts. There were no smart rogues, no smart archers...there were almost no smart people, actually. Again, it was wasteful to focus on both.

-You got to be Perceptive or Social. There was no middle ground. Same reasons as above.

Basically, this system is good to a degree because it stops certain classes from being "stealth MAD," like say the Rogue who seems to only need Dex, but actually still needs Wisdom for Perception and Will, Con for Fort/HP, etc., etc.

However, it also builds in 3 dump stats into every build and sort of teaches you to make characters that are only half functional.


Sephia wrote:
mplindustries wrote:


Using a Large Falcata is still a better deal. 2d6 19-20/x3 is better than 2d8 19-20/x2.
Why is 2d6 19-20/x3 better than 2d8 19-20/x2 ? 2d6 deals up to 12 damage. 2d8 is up to 16 damage. ??????

Because crits happen and they matter to the calculation.

You have a +2 to hit. The average CR 1 creature has an AC of 12, so, that's a 5.5% chance to crit and a 49.5% chance to hit normally.

Average damage for 2d6 is 7. Average damage for 2d8 is 9. The average damage per swing, then, is:

Bastard Sword:
13 * .495 + 26 * .055 = 7.865

Falcata:
11 * .495 + 33 * .055 = 7.26

So, right now, at level 1, your bastard sword is better (that won't always be the case--eventually, when you have a bigger bonus to your damage and/or can get Improved Critical, Falcatas are the strongest weapons in the game). However, you'd be even better if you just used a normal sized Greatsword with Power Attack instead of Exotic Weapon Proficiency because you'd crit 6% of the time and hit normally 54% of the time:

14 * .54 + 28 * .06 = 9.24

In other words, Accuracy and static damage boosts are more important than damage dice.


My best advice then, is to learn how to make a character yourself instead of using Hero Lab ;)


LazarX wrote:

Check the damage dice for the bastard sword. She's doing what she does because like the Iconic Amiri, she's using a Large Bastard Sword and needs the feat in order to use it at all. That blade can not be one handed by a medium creature.

That's also why she's using a bastard sword, and not a falcatta.

Using a Large Falcata is still a better deal. 2d6 19-20/x3 is better than 2d8 19-20/x2.

LazarX wrote:
The real question is why is there a longsword and shield in the inventory when she's doing the BFS route?

I understand why there's a one-handed weapon and shield, for sure. She might feel, at some point, that 2 extra AC is more valuable than some extra damage. The real question, though, is why would she use a longsword and shield, rather than a regular sized Bastard Sword and shield (or Falcata, which is still better).

And yeah, you should have at least one weapon capable of dealing each damage type. Since your core weapon is a Slashing weapon, the laziest option is a Morningstar, which covers both other types.


Devilkiller wrote:
Anyhow, way back in the 2e days when Charisma did next to nothing a tough and gritty DM decided Charisma needed to play a bigger role, and he gave us the Luck Check, which is basically just a d20 roll adjusted by your Charisma modifier.

Charisma in the old days was actually really powerful as written, it's just that nobody actually ran it the right because it's kind of stupid and arbitrary. It determined both how many henchmen you could hire and how people reacted to you when they first met you. Random orcs and stuff could randomly love you at first sight with enough charisma. It was weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
If it's not an action (5-foot step, delay), you can do it.

...is this a joke? You actually believe that's the right way to run things? You're not just being pedantic and trying to prove some point about what happens when you don't use legal-precise rules language?


At level 9, you can get +2 uses of Lay on Hands with your Sacred Bond when yo call upon it the first time. If you call it a second time, you get no additional Lay on Hands beyond the extra ones you already got earlier.

In other words, let's say you normally have 9 uses of LoH per day at 9th (because you have 20 Cha). You've used all 9. You can't use anymore because you've used 9 today and your maximum is 9. You gain two additional uses via your Sacred Bond and use them both. You've now used 11. Sacred Bond wears off and you have used 11 of your possible 9 for the day. You definitely can't use anymore, then. When you use your Sacred Bond again, you get +2 LoH, giving you a maximum of 11 per day. You've used 11, so, well, you're still out.


I actually asked my GM recently what kind of action it would take to take my Mnemonic Vestment off and put my backup Mnemonic Vestment on (in case I need two unusual casts in a single combat for whatever reason). I thought, since it's a robe, it should take the same actions to don/remove as an Armored Coat. He ruled that in the unlikely event I need to do this, a full round action would be sufficient to swap them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I FAQ'd this, but it makes me sad that people would feel like they need an official answer to a ridiculous question like this. I miss the days when common sense and table variation was assumed and considered good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're talking about "stealth" offensive spells, Aboleth's Lung shouldn't be on the table. It's save is not designated as Harmless. It's definitely offensive.

No, you want to talk about Marid's Mastery. It's a level 1 Harmless spell that, unless you and your foe are in water (or flying, I guess), gives the guy you cast it on a cripplingly brutal -4 to hit and damage! As a level one spell? Yes, please. That's like half of what Bestow Curse is for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bodzilla wrote:

I've been DMing Adventure Paths for a while now and I've always been interested in running my own campaign. I come up with crazy fun ideas but putting it to the test with the math usually discourages me.

My question is, has anyone built their own campaign from start to about 15th level and had fun? How did you make those XP decisions in regard to "filling up" that 10,000 point budget for your five level-1 PC's? What were the percentages spent on monsters, traps, and story awards?

Just, what do I do?

I completely ignore CR and XP and all that noise. I build npcs the way that makes sense, then, they interact with the PCs that make sense. If the scene would have 5 Ogres in it, there are 5 Ogres and it doesn't matter that the PCs are level 15 or 2 or anything in between. If they're 2, I sure hope they run or try and talk.

I pretty much just run sandboxes, so, fidelity to the setting is more important than getting the "correct" level of challenge.


It doesn't matter if people can or can't talk (I always took the concentration check to represent mumbling the verbals without opening your mouth), because it's hours per level. Unless the guy you cast it on can make the spellcraft check to identify what you did, they'll just slowly suffocate regardless. Nobody's first reaction is, "Oh, hey, I can't breathe--better submerge my head in water to see if I can breath that now!"


This would create a psychological effect whereby most players will feel inadequate if they are not rolling at the cap. It will create MORE bonus hunting, not less.

It's also lopsided against the active participant. You can add only X above your BAB, but you can add any number to you AC. You can add only X above your saves, but you can add any anount to your DCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically, it would discharge into your weapon. It is only the Spellstrike Magus ability that lets you hold a charge with your hand full.

But, I do not think many GMs would really run it that way. I certainly wouldn't.


So, let's say you are a level 7 kobold cleric with the Artifice (Traps) and Runes (Language) subdomains. You are leading a group of kobolds that are mostly snare setter and underground chemist rogues with a few construct guardians to boot. Your lair is a series of tunnels underneath an old keep built by humans that your people drove out from below maybe 75 years ago. It is heavily trapped with more mundane options like pits and poison and deadfalls and what have you, but you want to add a little more.

You have access to glyph of warding. The blast rune has obvious uses. What are the best options for the spell rune version? Is there anything better than bestow curse? That's really nasty, but also feels kind of boring. I liked the idea, briefly, of murderous command, but the short duration means it's probably just an annoyance at best. Any other ideas for protecting your hellish (to invade) kobold lair?


Ok, with full context (the pcs want the wealthy tomb path), the only possible truth teller is the lance because if the shield is true, the sword can't be lying about the lance lying, and if the sword is true, the lance can't be lying about the shield lying.

That means the lance guards the path the pcs want, the shield guards the safe path, and the sword guards doom.

But the three different paths and your assumption that the pcs want the tomb rather than safety is problematic.


"Demoralizing" someone is the act of successfully rolling Intimidate vs. (10 + their HD + their Wis + anti-fear mods), not the act of making them shaken as a result of that roll.


Don't worry about people holding their breath, you can still instantly take down people with Aboleth's Lung if you're a warpriest with the void blessing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
DinosaursOnIce wrote:
Non-magical darkness is barely an issue with their existence.

The same can be said of 1cp torches...

NERF ALL THE THINGS!

** spoiler omitted **...

So, I've never played Pathfinder at 1st level before (1st level sucks for everyone--I don't think we've done that since AD&D), but every time I've played at level 2+, everyone in the party without darkvision had ioun torches. There's just no other light solution worth talking about.

Yes, we use Dancing Lights or Light on a thrown stone/fired arrow to light up the distance, but everyone that needs light is surrounded by a floating, handless, darkness destroying glow. In fact, once we have the money to pay for it, or we happen to have a prepared caster with Heighten, I always recommend to the group that we get a Heightened Continual Flame, to further cancel darkness spells.

Darkness is not tense or fun for anyone. It's tedious to deal with, even for the GM. Every GM I know would prefer to just gloss over light levels and vision anyway, and Ioun Torches let them do just that.


Not having Precise Shot early on totally sucks, but by mid game, it won't matter at all. Touch AC actually tends to go down on average as you level, even though your attack bonuses are going up. See, early on, you tend to fight smaller enemies (goblins, for example), which are smaller and more "dexy," so, the have better touch ACs. If memory serves me correctly, a level 1 Goblin has a Touch AC in the 14-15 range (not much different from their regular AC), while an ancient red dragon, I believe, has a Touch AC of 8 or so.

So, it's a tough answer. It's better in the long run, it seems, to be Wayang, but getting there is going to be rough if you're not human.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kineticist, from Occult Adventures.


Xunal wrote:
I kind of like the idea of the focused blasting that Just a Mort suggested in my other tread. An Orc/Red-Draconic mix to really ramp up the fire spell damage. That would make up for a shortage of spells known.

Fire blasting is one of the few kinds of blasting divine classes can do. A Blackened Flame Oracle basically gets all the useful fire spells, plus, you can wear armor (or just stick to Mage Armor if you like). Shaman is an option, too. The Flame spirit, especially their Fire Vulnerability Hex is awesome, but you'll need the fluid magic hex from the Water spirit eventually, since Burning Hands is on your spell list, but Fireball is not :/


While the RAW is clear, I think most GMs are willing to use the not hideously crippling (but still rough) implied "minimum 1."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think most GMs are willing to treat it as "-1 spell known per level (minimum 1)."

You also tend to get better mileage out of Crossblooded Sorcerer if you only take a single level of sorcerer and otherwise jump to another casting class for the other 19 levels.

But yeah, I've only seen really two builds go for it:

1a) Focused Blasting, using Draconic + Orc or Draconic + Primal (if your GM bends the rules)
1b) General Blasting, using Elemental + Orc

2) Using Impossible, Plague, Verdant, Serpentine, Undead, etc., to let your mind affecting spells land on as many different enemy types as possible. Bonus points if you also dip two levels of Dirge Bard (to get undead) and then the rest of the way with Heavens Oracle for horrendous Color Spray brutality.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the difference between all point buy values is number of dumps and class selection. You get a lot more boring characters (mechanically) with lower point buy and the actual power level is basically the same, since people dump stats into the dirt to get their 16-18s anyway.

Low point buy also helps casters and hurts martials, which is the last thing that needs to be done. Martials require at least two stats (str or dex and con) plus probably a mental if they want to contribute outside of combat. Casters like dex/con, but can easily do with only their casting stat.

With low point buy, casters still get their 18s and high dcs, but nobody can afford to shore up three saves to defend against those same casters. With stats all around, saves are higher and magic loses power.


Killua the Bard wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Killua the Bard wrote:

Have to reopen it because the first time i asked my Fighter only got the Arrow Catching Enchantment.

Now he tries to get the Animated on the same shield.

i calculated a price of 5000 GP for that:

+1 Enchantment so he gets +2 for 1000GP

Animated which equals +2 for 4000GP

Am i correct?

No, you sum all the values together and then find the price on the table. So if you had just a +1 animated shield that's equal to a +3, which on the table costs 9000.

Now with his current +1 arrow catching shield he should have paid 4000 for it, now adding 2 more with animated would make it a total of a +4 shield, which costs 16000, so he'd need to pay 12000gp to upgrade it.

which means that he has to pay the standard Cost of an enchantment if he wants another +1 Level enchantment?

1000gold for a +1 enchantment for example?

No, you pay for the total cost of the shield minus what you've already paid.

A +4 shield costs 16000 for the enchantments. A +2 shield costs 4000 for the enchantments. Since he wants to make his +2 shield (+1 arrow catching = +2) into a +4 shield (+1 animated arrow catching = +4) he has to pay 16000 - 4000 = 12000 gp.

If he wanted, instead, to make it a +2 arrow catching shield, it would cost 9000 (cost of a +3 shield) - 4000 = 5000gp.

The cost is going to get higher and higher the more you put on a single item. It will never go back down to 1000 unless you start over with a new shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I like Charisma. The stat I hate and think is pointless is Wisdom.

Literally no other RPG I've seen has a Wisdom stat (ok, well, one--Artesia--but it's different and they have like 15 attributes).

The origins of Wisdom bug the hell out of me. Way back, in development, there were 5 stats. Intelligence covered all magic. Then someone decided they wanted it to be possible to create the (completely modern) trope of a dumb guy with strong faith, so, you wouldn't necessary be super smart to be super pious. Ignoring thousands of years of human history where priests were universally the smartest people on the planet, or that without clergy there would basically be no modern scholarship, they added a sixth stat, which was basically just Piety. However, that's too narrow in focus. All the other stats did something in a general sense, not just for specific mechanics, so, they kind of came up with Wisdom as the common-sense-street-smarts version of intelligence. I find that utterly ridiculous--I feel like common sense should just be the player's anyway.

This is getting ranty, so, the point is this:
Don't get rid of Charisma. Get rid of Wisdom. Give the willpower stuff to Charisma. Give the perception stuff to Intelligence. Problem solved. This is how 90% of other games handle it already.

Savage Worlds, for example, has Strength, Agility, Vigor, Smarts, and Spirit. The first three are basically directly Str, Dex, and Con. Smarts is Intelligence and covers perception. Spirit is the social and willpower stat.

World of Darkness has 9 stats, and Perception is a function of Wits+Composure while willpower is Composure+Resolve, both of which are kind of like part of Int + part of Cha.

Even in SKR's upcoming game, Five Moons, he drops the stats to 5: Str, Dex, Con, Int, and Psyche, which covers social+willpower, and I only assume Int gets the perception stuff (his blogs haven't covered that yet).

So, basically everyone but D&D itself understands that Wisdom is dumb and should go away.


First, all your answers are correct.

And, no, the ring works like Beastform IV, not II. It's just that the Raven is a tiny animal and doesn't have any abilities not covered by Beastform II. So, uh, it's kind of unnecessary. I guess it helps against Dispel effects or whatever else is dependent on spell level?


Warrior 1:
Power Attack, (Human Bonus) Improved Drag
Maneuver Master Monk 1:
Improved Trip
Warrior 2:
Riptide Attack
Warrior 3:
Gets nothing

Use a Flail and shield, attack normally, and then use your flurry of maneuvers to trip them and drag them where ever you want.

I have no idea why, but I am totally in love with Riptide Attack even though it's kind of far from optimized. I don't know, I just find it really interesting.


Yeah, I concur: totems and curses are the best paths. If your GM allows Unchained rage powers, though, holy crap, Accurate or Powerful Stance with the upgrades are amazing--they make Inspired Rage almost flat out better than Inspire Courage.

I can also really vouch for our Lesser Celestial Totem + Path of Glory. My party's Barbarian is the main muscle and has totally given up AC in favor of accuracy, damage, and HP. At level 11, has 200 HP raging, but he gets hit by absolutely everything my Bard's Blur doesn't cancel. I finally got him to take Lesser Celestial Totem, and now, I can heal him for 132 HP with a second level spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My first piece of advice would be to play a class that gets the inflict spells faster, like Oracle or Cleric.


Yeah, I still don't get it. Surely, at some point, someone in your group "accidentally" made the (completely intuitive) choice to have 18 Strength with a two-handed weapon and Power Attack, right? I mean, at level 2 with a masterwork weapon, that's a +6 to hit for 2d6+9 damage. You are one-shotting at that point, and low level AC is just about always under 20. I don't know, are you guys all playing sword and board heavy armor with Con > Str or something? It doesn't add up to me, unless there's some kind of really defensively biased stuff going on here.


PapaZorro wrote:
...my group's combats tend to last 10-17 rounds...

Others covered the actual question, so, uh, WHAT?! 10-17 rounds?! How is that even possible? What sorts of enemies do you guys face? How...how could both you and the enemy survive a full minute in pitched combat? I want to know more--this seems impossible. I usually consider a combat long if it lasts 5 rounds, never mind 3 times that!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
High level play is boring and swingy.
Meh. Only if you spend all your time in combat. (Which if you get into combat, it will take up all your time.) If you instead spend your time exploring exotic locales that require your new powers to reach and traverse, and dealing with planes spanning plots and politics, where your attack bonuses don't matter as much as what you can do for your allies and enemies, it can be pretty fun.

Combat was only a small part of my post. I think everything gets boring because you can solve most noncombat problems in a single spell as well (or that spell is useless because the correct countermeasure is in place).

Nothing about exploring exotic locales and dealing with planes spanning plots and politics restricts such things to high level play except that those things arbitrarily require specific spells which are arbitrarily high level. You could run a plane hopping game with level 6 characters if you just included a freestanding portal or something, and some access to "you don't die immediately upon entering this plane" abilities. It's all artificial.

And again, it fits my theme. You can use these new powers to go to that new plane, but that means the game only works because of your power, but it also does nothing but facility the game's plot. It's all circular and tedious.


Yes to all of them. The feats are not dependent on your base form. As long as you meet the pre-reqs in your current form, they work.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

High level play is boring and swingy. Instead of the early and even mid game where things are incremental (you beat on the bad guy over time until he dies, you debuff him and he fights more poorly, you travel here over X days, you need to do research for Y time, or talk to Z people), it becomes a swingy, all or nothing, start and stop game built around having exactly the right ability for the situation and your opposition having exactly the right countermeasure to stop that ability.

You don't debuff the guy and he just fights worse, the guy is totally out of the fight with your spell. Or, he's got spell resistance, immunity, a high save, etc., and you did nothing with your turn. You blast the guy into oblivion on round one with your pouncing charge, or he has the right DR or a shut down ability and too much AC and you do nothing. You instantly teleport to the place you need to go, or you can't get there because the proper countermeasures are in place. You ask a deity and find out every bit of information you need or every enemy is mindblanked, etc.

People say "Scry and Fry" ruins things. Other people point out that "Scry and Fry" is blocked by Mindblanks and Teleport Traps (i.e. exactly the right countermeasures). Either way, doesn't that suck? You get this crazy powerful abilities and either they work and trivialize everything, or they do absolutely nothing and you might as well not have them. It's not fun.

It sucks. Without the countermeasures, the game is too easy. With them, you're just playing low level again with inflated numbers.


Ross Byers wrote:
But 0-3 are more than damage. 'The bad guy is attacking me and not you' is a contribution.

Right, but they rely on the idea that the bad guy is afraid of damage. Most bad guys should be afraid of damage (except when they're not, like constructs or undead), but you're relying on the GM to know that.

When I GM, ok, no problem. When someone I know and trust well is GMing, also usually ok. When anyone else is GMing? A stranger, or a friend of a friend, or a guy that just doesn't agree that the bad guys should react that way to damage, or even just a relatively new GM, well, not so much.

The 4e "marking" concept filled that gap in--it abstracted the decision that GM's make in Pathfinder as to whether or not the NPC is threatened by the damage, and said, "Yes, this NPC is threatened and this is what that means." No Marks were mind control, either--all of them involved a choice.

There appears to be no problem with using AoOs to try and corral NPCs. Even feats like Stand Still or Pin Down seem fine to the majority. You are allowed to punish a bad guy for moving away from you, but why can't you punish a bad guy for hitting your friend instead of you? Hell, there's a way to let your friends punish a bad guy for hitting you (Wounded Paw Gambit), and a way to punish enemies for hitting you yourself (Come and Get Me/Taunting Stance). But no way to punish a bad guy for hitting your friend unless your friend was inviting the attack (via Wounded Paw Gambit).


Ross Byers wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

How do you pull aggro?

Play 4e instead.

It's a shame there's no middle ground available between the people that find "mmo tanking" to be ridiculous and immersion breaking, and those that wish they didn't have to be a spellcaster in order to contribute something to the party other than damage.

I laid out several ways for a martial character to get in the enemies' collective face and force them to attack him (or at least have penalties for not doing so), but don't let the existence of an actual middle ground distract you from your rant.

I wasn't trying to be rude or ranty, but looking at your list, I specifically said, "...contribute something to the party other than damage" and #0-3 on your list are just different ways to deal damage.

#4 is the one that's not damage, but, it's also only really applicable for the beginning levels because CMD scales too high too quickly for most PCs to keep up with, and of the maneuvers that can be used in place of an AoO, only really trip would really "control" the enemy, and something as simple as flying (which is very common in the double digits) completely invalidates it.


Ok, let's get the full text of the spell, first:

"With a touch, this spell causes a small, rapidly growing patch of corrosive acid to appear on the target. On the first round, the acid deals 1 point of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15). On the second round, the acid patch grows and deals 1d4 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d4). On the third and final round, the acid patch covers the entire creature and deals 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6). The target can spend a full-round action to scrape off the acid, or can wash it off with at least 1 gallon of liquid to halve the damage for that round and negate the remaining rounds of the spell."

Ok, so, we've extended this to 6 rounds. Let's say we're a 15th level spellcaster. What does the spell say happens?

Round 1: 15 acid damage ("On the first round, the acid deals 1 point of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15).")

Round 2: 15d4 acid damage ("On the second round, the acid patch grows and deals 1d4 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d4).")

Round 3: 15d6 ("On the third and final round, the acid patch covers the entire creature and deals 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6).")

Round 4: Nothing happens. (No mention of round 4)

Round 5: Nothing happens. (No mention fo round 5)

Round 6: 15d6 ("On the third and final round, the acid patch covers the entire creature and deals 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6).")


How do you pull aggro?
Play 4e instead.

It's a shame there's no middle ground available between the people that find "mmo tanking" to be ridiculous and immersion breaking, and those that wish they didn't have to be a spellcaster in order to contribute something to the party other than damage.


You know, I never noticed that Mounted Combat used an immediate action because Trick Riding lets you use Mounted Combat twice per turn. Uh, how does that work if it costs an immediate action?


It is one attack, but it has multiple attack rolls, and deals damage as the sum of what multiple attacks would deal, so...yeah, I agree with the above and want to know the specific question you're really looking to abuse/manipulate before we give a specific answer.


thaX wrote:
To Clarify, when the bleed condition is first inflicted, you roll the 1d6, record that number and the roll result is what is done each turn. If you take bleed damage again, it doesn't stack, the highest roll takes precedence.

No, that's not true. You take 1d6 points of bleed. You roll it every round to determine the bleed, it is not a single number you determine with a roll, it is a variable bleed.

If you get hit by a second 1d6 bleed effect, you roll 2d6 each round and take the higher amount. A third time? Roll 3d6 and take the highest, etc.

1 to 50 of 5,223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.