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

mplindustries's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Marathon Voter. 5,124 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 5,124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hydromancer wrote:
I would posit that is indeed 1d2 con damage per round maximum. Once you've been afflicted by a poison, additional poisonings do nothing but raise the DC of the save they need to make.

I am fairly positive that you still take the initial damage (though only make one roll per round afterward).

Hydromancer wrote:
Unfortunately admixtures are not discoveries and do not benefit from the Alchemist's discovery DC formula (10 + 1/2 level + Int).

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I believe it ought to be the spell DC.

Hydromancer wrote:
The precise bombs tax only works on the fire splash damage of minimum bomb damage.

And as a result, it will protect your allies from the viper admixture:

"...and the other vipers attack up to three creatures that take damage from the splash damage."

If they don't take splash damage, they don't take Vipers. And the admixture also implies a choice is made--I believe you can choose to have the vipers affect fewer than three additional creatures.

Hydromancer wrote:
If an alchemist with viper were to land 4 bombs in a round (not unreasonable for a 12th level alchemist) and they were indeed auto-poison, would mean up to four targets would take 1d4+int and 1d2 con damage, with a save DC of 21 (approx a 75% chance with an okay fort save at CR 12 to negate it next turn).

No, it would mean up to four targets took 4d4 + 4xInt. You seem to be positing the level 12 Alchemist would have a very low Int of +5, so, that's 4d4 + 20 (30 average). +30 damage to up to four targets is an amazing 4th level extract all by itself (yes, because the vipers make touch attacks, I'm assuming they all hit--Touch AC is a joke at level 12+).

I still believe they could take the initial poison damage repeatedly, but even if not, auto-poisoning them with just base Venomous Snake poison would be a DC: 19, not 21.

Hydromancer wrote:
Honestly as a DM I would either say it either auto poisoned but kept it's DC 13 or used Spell DC (10 + Spell Level + Int) as the save for the poison.

And I would say spell save for sure.

Hydromancer wrote:
I agree with the consistency thing, though I wouldn't be surprised to find a spell elsewhere with the poison descriptor not offering a save.

I would. There are 23 spells/extracts in Pathfinder with the Poison descriptor (thank you, Archives of Nethys). Viper Bomb Admixture actually isn't one of them, but, yeah, every single spell with the Poison descriptor involves a Fortitude save except for Pernicious Poison, which doesn't actually poison someone, it makes it harder to save vs. poisons.

It is absolutely unheard of and, in my opinion, ridiculous, to think there would be a poison for which you don't get to make an initial save.

If your companion has an Intelligence of 3, they could take Shield Proficiency as a feat. As long as they had a hand to wield it, they could use the shield (so, an Ape maybe could--expect table variation...I might not allow it because apes walk on their hands and it'd be very awkward for it to carry a shield as a result). You don't have to take Extra Items, though, because Shields are not slotted--weapons, shields, rods, wands, etc. are slotless. You just hold them in your hands.

Trample doesn't use the Overrun Rules, it bypasses them. You can overrun OR trample, not both at once.

So, the question I have now is, how did I misread this so wildly?

Slashing Grace actually affects any one-handed slashing weapon for which you have weapon focus, so, you can apply it to multiple weapons. Not to the kukri, of course, since it is light, but it would work on a scimitar with an effortless lace or a pair of sawtooth sabres.

As for the question, I do think that, by the rules, double slice is required. However, I do not think it would be unbalanced to allow it for free with a twf in general. Twf seriously sucks compared to a two-hander in most cases, and it's especially bad for a swashbuckler/daring champion who loses out on precise strike doing it (though, in theory, eventually, your challenge damage should compensate for losing precise strike).

Pretty much none. It's a totally reasonable rule.

No, this is crazy. They absolutely get a save. You get poisoned and you make a save. That's how it works.

And stop acting like 1d2 automatic con damage is reasonable for a 4th level extract or whatever because of Poison and Cloudkill. This is not 1d2 Con damage once, this is 1d4+int normal damage plus 1d2 con damage to up to four targets on every bomb thrown in every round for 11+ rounds with no possibility of friendly fire (because as an 11th level alchemist, you have either paid your Precise Bombs tax, or you've been murdered by your party).

Let me create a hypothetical spell: it's a 4th level Inquisitor, Bard, and Ranger spell that lasts rounds per level. The effect is: you receive an untyped bonus to damage rolls equal to 1d4 + casting stat. Can you imagine how fast that would hit the top of every class guide's rankings? Now, add to it, that it also deals that bonus damage to up to three nearby enemies. Mind blown.

The point is, it's an awesome spell as is. However, the DC of the poison is probably not 13. Since it adds an effect to your bombs, I would suggest it uses your bomb's DC (i.e. 10 + 1/2 level + Int), or at the very least, the spell save.

Just to head this off at the pass: You can't retrain shield proficiency granted by class weapon/armor proficiencies.

Hogeyhead wrote:
First there are two mechanical ways of doing this as a chassis. Two weapon fighting (or equivalent) or high bab.

Er, or you could just be a Cutpurse which literally gets an ability called "Stab and Grab." He was just asking whether or not the free Sleight of Hand check to pick pocket them could be used to steal their weapon (and no, it can't, unless it's still sheathed).

Personally, I think the Shaman class is awesome and one of my top 5 favorite classes. The spirit powers and a rare few hex durations are the only things that use Charisma, so, there's nothing wrong with the way the Shaman is built.

Here's the breakdown by Spirit:

Battle uses Charisma for uses per day of base, Greater, and True spirit abilities. However, it's probably the second least useful Spirit for a Wizard anyway.

Bones uses Wisdom for the DC of it's Greater ability and only uses Charisma for the uses per day of its crappy Touch of the Grave that you'll have little incentive to use.

Flame, Stone, Waves, and Wind, which all follow the same pattern, use Charisma for uses per day of their crappy touch attacks, but they use Wisdom for the DC of their Greater abilities and no stats for their True abilities.

Heavens uses Charisma only to determine uses per day for its crappy (sensing a theme here?) base spirit ability, uses no ability for its greater, and needs Wisdom for the DC of its True spirit SLAs.

Life uses Charisma for Channeling and its True Spirit ability, which is admittedly a pretty strong reason to have some Charisma, but the Greater spirit ability uses no stat (and is garbage anyway).

Lore uses Charisma for uses per day of its basic ability (which is awful because it's a standard action), and then no stat for the other abilities.

Mammoth weirdly uses Charisma for the DC of is basic ability and its uses per day, which is a shame, because it's pretty good, but well, not for a Wizard, so that's not too big a deal. The other two powers use no stat, but, yeah, everything but the pet is crappy for a Wizard anyway.

Nature uses Charisma for uses per day for its junky basic ability, then no stat for anything else.

So, no, I don't think the archetype needs a change, I don't think the Shaman is poorly done, and I don't think you especially need Charisma unless you want a lousy-for-a-wizard Spirit or the Life Spirit, which, well, that's the price you pay, just like the Cleric.

Switching the Wisdom for Intelligence does help a few spirits, but, remember, they're not necessarily done printing spirits, so, the clause is there for the future, too, when more spirits might use Wisdom for more things.

You can't take a weapon they are grabbing with Sleight of Hand or the Steal maneuver, but you could take a weapon they have not yet drawn.

Taking a weapon from someone's hand requires an unarmed disarm (edit: or a whip with that one feat whose name I'm blanking on, but which is probably relevant for a follower of Calistria).

Shaman are Wisdom based. Only a select few abilities of theirs use Charisma, and unfortunately, most of them are spirit powers.

The archetype is no weaker than a Shaman, which needs mostly Wisdom with a non-dumped Charisma for some of their spirit powers. I see no reason you need to change this archetype.

"I wanna make a bleed character but..." realized it was a terrible idea and gave up? I hope? Because bleeding in Pathfinder is horrible. It's one of those things that should be super awesome, but then, they were too afraid of what it might do if left unchecked and made it nonstacking. So, unless you're talking about a Wounding Weapon or Bleeding Critical, you're basically one and done. And Wounding/Bleeding Critical only stack with themselves (not other sources of bleed or even each other), so, you're still only getting once source of bleed and just hoping that you hit/crit enough to matter.

Further, despite being a stacking source of bleed, Wounding is also a trap. In order for the bleed to be worth it (over just having +2 more enhancement bonus), you need to stop hitting the bad guy and/or otherwise purposefully let him live long enough to bleed to death.

You deal 10 damage on a hit (I know, super weak, just go with it for ease of example) and, let's arbitrarily say you hit three times per round.

With a wounding weapon:
Round 1: You deal 30 damage total and they take 3 bleed.
Round 2: They take 3 bleed and deal 30 more damage (63 total) and they have Bleed 6
Round 3: They take 6 bleed, you deal 30 more damage (99 total) and they have 9 bleed
Round 4: They take 9 bleed, you deal 30 more damage (138 total) and they have 12 bleed, etc.

With just a +2 enhancement bonus:
Round 1: You deal 36 damage
Round 2: You deal 36 more (72 total)
Round 3: You deal 36 more (108 total)
Round 4: You deal 36 more (144 total)

It's a bad deal. They need to survive way too long for you to get anything out of it (seriously, if the bad guy is up 5 rounds, you're probably dead--I've almost never seen fights last that long unless they were whiff fests).

Bleeding Critical is actually not bad since there's no trade-off, but unpredictable enough that building your character around it is silly, especially since the likelihood that you could crit twice on a guy and still have them standing long enough to take significant bleed is ridiculous.

Basically, yeah, don't do this. It sucks, and I wish there were ways to make effect DoT characters, but, yeah, it's not going to happen, sorry.

Bleed, like so many things (disease, anyone?) is a weapon for NPCs to screw with PCs. The PCs are actually expected to survive, so stacking bleed is actually much more of a concern for them, since they might have to spend precious combat actions stopping it and it can also kill long after the bad guy that inflicted it is dead (meanwhile, if the PC is dead, it is generally irrelevant that the bad guy died from the bleed afterwards).

The healing explicitly prevents you from dying. You do not die for a split second then come back. Therefore, I would argue the healing happens just before the actual effects of the damage received come into play, meaning, no, you do not fall prone or drop your stuff.

Let me save you some effort: Bleeding Attack is crappy garbage. Don't waste a trick on it. What tricks do you already have?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
There is objective good and evil, we just delude ourselves with relativity in order to be a~@!~!~s without accountability
Now please define "objective good and evil" in the real world context. If you're going to trot out something, then you're obliged to give meaning to it. Spoiler: It's not the simple subject that most people imagine.

We don't have to be able to define objective good and evil for it to exist. Humans were around for thousands of years before we could define DNA, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist or that humans couldn't see its effects in the world.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Billybrainpan wrote:
1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?

No, in game terms, they are four entirely separate cosmic forces.

Billybrainpan wrote:
2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?

Yes, abortion, child abuse, and rape are always evil acts and can never be justified.

Billybrainpan wrote:
3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?

I don't understand this question. You can, but are not always likely to know. A properly formed conscience helps.

Billybrainpan wrote:

4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?

5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

These are weird questions. What do you mean here? Are you asking if good people only play good characters or, what? If that's the case, no, the player and the character are different people. A person's views on morality may color their character--someone that thinks X is evil will play a different evil character than someone who thinks X is neutral or even good.

Billybrainpan wrote:
6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?

That's a question well beyond the scope of a quick forum post. In general, no. I'm not sure that you can really label people "evil" in the real world. In D&D, no, a single act doesn't make you evil, either, but a collection of them will.

Billybrainpan wrote:
7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?

No, alignment does not equal morality. Alignment is a cosmic force, not a measurement of right/wrong.

And there is objective morality--we just may not always know what it is. ;)

Calth wrote:
I am still not a huge fan of the hunter. I mean, if you arent playing a primal hunter, which I think is significantly better than the base class, you are better off going with a sacred huntsmaster Inquisitor, which is basically a Hunter+. You trade, for the most part, early focus access, the third focus, and some mostly worthless nature flavored abilities for bane, a domain, better skill abilities, and a better spell list.

I disagree on the spell list. Early access to Ranger spells is what I consider the best seller for Hunter.

Oddman80 wrote:
37 uses of up to 9d8+72 Weird Words (SU) abilities.

Just wanted to point out that Weird Words has now been FAQed, so that's not how it works anymore.

Also, if this was in relation to your Snake in the Howdah, the throw rider trick would either not apply at all, because, Howdah, or it would apply to everyone in the Howdah. There's no way for him to have thrown the Snake and not the other guy.

A bag of flour and, arguably, being set on fire by an alchemist's fire or bomb would pinpoint the enemy's square, but not make them visible (still 50% miss chance). Glitterdust, however, visibly outlines them and cancels their +40 stealth, so, I'm thinking that allows for normal attacks.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
In my current campaign there's two min-maxed players in the party, currently at level 11, both with Dexterity based combat builds, ones a swashbuckler and the other is a Weapon Adept Monk...

Whoah, whoah, whoah, I'm going to have to stop you right there. Those are not min-maxed characters. Those are two of the worst classes in the game--like, easily bottom five. These sound like people who managed to make terrible classes pretty decent, which should be applauded, not hated and plotted against.

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
Suffice to say I decided to be mildly stupid and multiclassed, using a combination of a modified 3.5 Warblade, Arcane Duelist, and currently prestige classing as a Low Templar, with a Warg as a mount.

What the heck? If you're allowed Warblade and you have some caster, why didn't you go Jade Phoenix Mage (I love and miss that prestige class)? And where are you getting a mount? I...just don't understand where you're going with this at all.

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
My AC is still lower than either of the other two players, my damage is 15-20 usually per attack, and they can outmaneuver me on top of beat me on skill rolls.

15-20 damage per hit at level 11 is really sad. A level 1 full BAB class with 18 Strength and a Greatsword is dropping 2d6+9 with power attack (16 average)--if you're doing level 1 damage at level 11, maybe stop blaming the "min-maxers" making crappy classes useful and reconsider your own choices?

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
My spells cant hold them down usually

Wait, what? This is a PvP game?

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
It's gotten to the point where the GM is trying to find ways to get me on an even playing field with them because he can easily see them abusing their builds against the party if they decided to, especially because both players are Chaotic Good and my goal is to fall to Lawful Evil before working my way back to Lawful Good, which could be cut short if the two decided I need to be killed.

Uh, so, they players that made the best of bad builds are also playing by the normal assumptions of the game (i.e. that they'll be good and work together with their team), but that's bad because you want to script out an alignment fall/redemption storyline ahead of time? Huh?

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
In short/aka TL, DR; anyone have any suggestions to cut down Dex-based combat characters with good saves...

I just can't even...this thread feels insane.

Normally, you cut them down by having, you know, normal CR 11-14 enemies, because this party has zero magical support to deal with basic threats. In general, something like an Ooze would wreck a swashbuckler (and the monk, too, if it had some kind of damage shield effect), but, yeah, anything that could kill those two would laugh at you and the other two members of the party (a multi-class nightmare and two other members of the bottom 5 classes). This game sounds like a disaster. The only thing that could be worse was if it was play by post. Wow.

Uh, I can't imagine why this is a question. Any time an ally is attacked, you can spend an AoO to Aid their AC against that attack. The number of attacks coming from a specific enemy is irrelevant. If your ally is attacked 3 times (be it once each by 3 different enemies, or three times by a single one) and you have at least 3 AoOs, you can aid each time.

Damiancrr wrote:
1. Can you Charge while jumping(Jumping to a Flying Creature or Over Rivers of Lava)

You can jump during a charge, absolutely, so jumping over the rivers of lava works. However, you can't jump charge a flying creature unless there's somewhere for you stand next to the attacker.

Damiancrr wrote:
2. Can you Charge While Flying and can you Pummeling Charge While Flying

Yes to both.

Damiancrr wrote:
3. this one is a little complicated so ill explain the situation. A player was on a Huge Roc with a Howdah and was 15ft in the air, another playing was a ranger on a large category Wolf By using lunge he struck upwards 15ft and tried to strike the player on the top of the Huge Roc. So two question here, first, does being on a mount mean you are technically 5ft off the ground and thus be able to hit 15ft up with reach. and Second, with only 15ft reach could you hit the person on top of the Roc?

Technically, you occupy the exact same space as your mount, so the Ranger is occupying the entire 10' cube the wolf is in. That means he can attack something 15' off the ground without lunge, since he attacks 5' and he's 10' up. He could hit 20' with Lunge. [Edit: Unless by 15' up, you mean there's 15' of space between the Roc and the ground, which is actually 20' up. Then he'd need Lunge.]

Likewise, the people in a Howdah count as mounted for attacks, so, they also occupy the entire 15' cube the Roc occupies. That means the Ranger can attack the Roc rider, but the rider would have cover.

Damiancrr wrote:
4. Does tremorsense negate the misschance from invisibility

No, you can pinpoint the square the invisibility guy is in, but you still suffer a 50% miss chance.

Damiancrr wrote:
5. Is a snake immune to the Throw Rider Trick since it is immune to trips

I don't think you're understanding the Throw Rider Trick. Either that or you have somehow constructed a situation where a Snake is trying to ride on an unfriendly mount...I don't understand how this could possibly come up.

Damiancrr wrote:
6. Does the Throw Rider Trick break invisibility?

The mount's invisibility? Yes, it is a combat maneuver check, which counts as an attack.

Damiancrr wrote:
7. Can you Tumble during a charge,withdraw,run?

Yes. Why would you question this?

The NPC is an 8th level Heretic Sanctified Slayer with the Reformation Inquisition in a no-magic-items E8 game.

As he is a Sanctified Slayer, he gets a Slayer Talent (and more with post 8th feats). Slayer weirdly lists Unwitting Ally as an option under the basic slayer talents, and yes, he took it. Frankly, I didn't even realize it was an advanced Rogue talent. However, that just helps with flanking and only for 1 round per target.

The point of the character is that he used to infiltrate illegal cults and weed out heretics, but, something happened that kind of broke him. He's gone mad and sort of switched faiths to the one he was previously hunting, but a twisted version of it. When the PCs encounter him, it'll be tense, but unclear. He's doing something...wrong...but he's also crazy and thinks he's doing something good, so, the theme of it is, to some degree, uncertainty.

I think it would be thematic for him to count enemies as allies, but, it turns out, there is a Sanctified Slayer in the party as well, so, I want to be careful about setting precedents.

Daspolo wrote:
1. Which would you say are the three most powerful of the sorcerer bloodlines, all else being equal. Of them who is the most powerful.

Arcane, Impossible (because of magic item crafting), and probably Fey. If you're talking high level (15th+) then Abyssal edges its way on the list.

Daspolo wrote:
2. I am trying to make components an especially important part of this playthrough, as in my interpretation the material components are the source of the wizards actual magical energies and the thing that sets them apart. I'm considering changing the material components so that they are divided by which domain they align with and thus simplifying it to a manageable level. Do you think this will work? Are there any better ways to go about this.

Since everything is controlled by Sorcerers, and they get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat, I feel like you're focusing on the wrong thing here.

And Material Components are not the source of a wizard's power because there are lots and lots of spells without Material Components.

Daspolo wrote:
3. As I expect player created spells to be fairly common in this universe what guidelines would you give me to avoid making them get overpowered.

I honestly would not allow this at all. I would only let them "create" existing spells (Oh, you invented "Scorching Ray!"), or reskin existing spells ("Oh, you learned Acid Ball [which is exactly like Fireball but with Acid damage]). Otherwise, they're going to wreck the game with it.

Daspolo wrote:
4. I'm probably going to make this a sandbox campaign as opposed to any set in stone storyline, any advice for how to prepare for this?

I don't really know how to answer this--I only run sandbox games, so, I don't know how to contrast what you'd do to plan a set story. Frankly, I wouldn't even know how to begin running a game with a specific, set storyline.

Daspolo wrote:
5. Any other suggestions or ideas.

Figure out what place Bloodragers have in this setting, since they use Sorcerer bloodlines, too.

I know there's always lots of discussion about whether you count as your own ally or not, but I've not been able to find anything about who can count as your ally. Must it be a mutual thing? Can you consider someone an ally who doesn't consider you an ally in return? Must you actually consider them an ally, or can you just consider them an ally for a short while in order to get some benefit and then consider them an enemy again whenever you feel like it?

This is specifically relevant to me because there is an Inquisitor NPC in my setting who may (or may not) end up in combat with the PCs (they may ally themselves with him, but it's like 50/50). I'm debating between going Preacher or keeping Solo Tactics.

I think it'd be kind of awesome and insidious if he could take Swarm Scatter or Back to Back and get an AC buff when they surround him. Or Outflank/Precise Strike if he can maneuver it right to get to of the party members next to each other.

On the other hand, I sort of fear the precedent. If it works, Inquisitor PCs just got a whole lot more dangerous...

Kaouse wrote:
I wonder what the Cleric multiclass is. Besides domains and Channel Energy, there's not really much the Cleric class can give you, but if it allows you to qualify for Versatile Channel and subsequently the Envoy of Balance Prestige class, I'll be happy. Divine Protection on top of that is quite the bonus too.

I don't have the book, but the Cleric has pretty much the same amount to give as a wizard.

Probably a weak channel to start, then a domain ability, an at-will orison, a more powerful channel, the higher level domain, etc. Just like the Wizard with school power.

rungok wrote:
Kensai magus? Swashbuckler?

Pretty much anyone else but them (and Daring Champion Cavaliers), honestly. Magi rely on threat range because they really deal damage with spell crits (which don't use your weapon's multiplier), not weapon damage. Swashbucklers/Daring Champions need threat range because they regenerate Panache on crits (so, more crits are better than harder crits) and their main damage boost (Precise Strike) doesn't multiply on a crit anyway, so the volume of crits is much more important than the power behind it.

Just about anyone else that swings a weapon can benefit, though. 19-20/x3 is mathematically the best crit profile around.

In Pathfinder, it's 10d6 x 1.5. I believe, however, in 3rd edition, it was 15d6. So, you're not crazy. ;)

I think playing a Dex fighter in Core only is a sucker's game. Obviously, you can do it--the character is pretty much the best it can be. It's just, well, it can't be very good. You really should just petition for the Swashbuckler (edit: forgot this was PFS...I would just try something else).

Or, I guess this is a different issue--why do people want to play core only anyway? The most powerful classes in the game are all in Core (Cleric, Druid, Wizard)--all core does is screw over martial and 6-level caster options.

I would play a Hunter if I wanted to be a Ranger with a lot more spellcasting and/or if I wanted to cast spontaneously with the Druid list.

I know someone that likes Hunters because she can actually speak with her animal (at 11th) without using a spell, so, she feels the in character bond more strongly.

In general, the builds look like Ranger builds. You use Animal Focus and better spells to make up for the BAB loss and lack of favored enemy. You also end up with a feat advantage, because both you and your pet get the bonus teamwork feats.

Honestly, it's better than Ranger in my mind, no question. BAB is nothing compared to spells. The real class that jeopardizes its existence is the Sacred Huntmaster Inquisitor. It's just comes down to a question of, "Do you like the early entry Ranger spells better than Inquisitor spells?" It's a tough call, really.

I actually am no longer sure you even can make a burning bloody skeleton. The way the templates read, you pick one of them to alter the skeleton template. Frankly, I don't know how you would combine them anyway because both set Charisma to a specific value. How would you determine which value wins? There's no order of operations here--you don't make the skeleton burning and then bloody, you'd have to make both at the same time. The ambiguity here combined with the RAI of the main template write ups and animate dead suggests to me it's not even possible to do both on one skeleton.

But if you could do both, the relevant text has already been quoted. If one of these templates doubles effective HD, then two would triple, as per the standard doubles stacking.

Julius Foxton wrote:

you just agreed with what I said.

1hd burning skeleton = 2HD for animating controlling
1hd burning bloody skeleton = 2HD
1hd skeleton champion = 6HD
1hd burning skeleton champ = 6HD
1hd bloody Skeleton champ = 6HD
1hd bloody burning skeleton champ = 6 HD
2hd bloody burning Skeleton champ = 8HD
etc etc


1hd burning skeleton = 2HD for animating controlling
1hd burning bloody skeleton = 3HD (because doubling twice is x3 in Pathfinder)
1hd skeleton champion = DOES NOT WORK WITH ANIMATE DEAD AT ALL
1hd burning skeleton champ = DOES NOT WORK WITH ANIMATE DEAD AT ALL
1hd bloody Skeleton champ = DOES NOT WORK WITH ANIMATE DEAD AT ALL
1hd bloody burning skeleton champ = DOES NOT WORK WITH ANIMATE DEAD AT ALL
2hd bloody burning Skeleton champ = DOES NOT WORK WITH ANIMATE DEAD AT ALL
etc etc

Julius Foxton wrote:
Father wrote:
Numerous variant skeletons exist, such as those whose bones burn with an unending fire and those who drip with gore and reassemble themselves over time. Both of these variant skeletons can be created using animate dead, but they count as twice their normal number of Hit Dice per casting.

quite correct.

1 HD converted to a variant skeleton should cost double.

but the various templates are free.

so in the example given a bloody burning skeleton champion is a 6HD creature /9based upon adding the templates to you 1 hd fighter) it has only 3hd...1 attack and is not effective in combat against an 6hd fighter class.

No, a 1 HD Burning skeleton has 1 HD, but it counts as having 2HD for the purpose of animating/controlling it.

And yes, the minions are ineffective. Animate dead minions are generally very ineffective--expect them to die in waves. I wouldn't bother. If you do, you probably want them all to be Bloody Skeletons, just so you eventually get them back later and they can die every fight without costing you spells/onyx.

Yeah, I am generally really lenient as a GM, but I, too, would have a Burning, Bloody Skeleton with 3HD count as 9, since you're using two templates that each double the HD for the purposes of control costs.

However, the more important problem is that Animate Dead doesn't allow you to make Skeletal Champions at all. You can only make specifically:

Skeletons (as well as bloody and/or burning versions) and Zombies (plus fast and plague versions). No other template is allowed.

You can't make Skeletal Champions any more than you could make Wights or Ghosts. Hint: Actually following the necromancy rules means you have really crappy minions. NPC Necromancers invariably break the rules to have threatening minions without being overwhelmingly powerful when the PCs face them.

1) No, it must be living (because Duelist sucks and is a hold over from 3.5)

2) No, i is still precision damage, which is not multiplied -- this might be contentious, though. You are likely to get few who would say it does multiply, but the RAI here is definitely not multiplying and I suspect the majority of PFS GMs will say it will not multiply.

3) Yes, as long as the thrown weapons are light or one-handed piercing weapons. There's also no range limitation, so, if you can throw it 100', you can apparently precise strike it.

4) As far as I am aware, there is no creature like that, so, the question is irrelevant.

Yes, most of the language is directly ported and, well, it's awful. Why are you going to play a Duelist? I can't think of a single thing you'd get from Duelist that you couldn't get better just from being a Swashbuckler except Int to AC, which is hardly worth losing all the other interesting deeds Swashbuckler gets (like parry and riposte, which practically makes your AC irrelevant anyway).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Maybe some are just spreading rumors, to get others heated.

I feel like I have been duped.

Unless, of course, some of it is true....

I am picking up two themes in your responses to unchained threads (and I genuinely hope I am wrong as you are generally reasonable):

1) Nobody discuss material I don't have access to! How dare you!?

2) Every change defaults to bad! Nothing can change, you can only add to something, never subtract!

And yeah, that's just crazy. It's the latter attitude that's kept us mired in legacy baggage. Let it go so the game can advance and grow.

And maybe either stop being such an alarmist or stop posting in unchaimed threads until you have access to the material.

Neither multi-class seems worth 5 feats for your Magus. A lot of classes would benefit from the Alchemist one, but there's no benefit to you using bombs as a Magus since you can't spell strike with them. The Wizard one seems like crap.

Very cool subsystem, though. I'm intrigued.

From what I'm told by someone with the book, Rage still actually increases Strength, it just doesn't increase Con because they don't want you to have such wildly fluctuating HP and potentially die at the end of the Rage, so you get Temporary HP instead. They also fixed a lot of garbage rage powers to the degree that there might not be a set of rage powers that 100% of barbarians need to take anymore (i.e. Superstition -> Witch Hunter -> Spell Sunder, Beast Totem for Pounce, and Come and Get Me).

Rogue is basically better in every way, as is Monk. Summoner got nerfed.

I was told backwards compatibility is pretty good, with explicit descriptions of what older talents/rage powers/etc. work and which ones are replaced, etc. The only thing that might harm archetype access is, for example, the fact that a Rogue's "Trap Sense" (which was the most common feature they traded in archetypes) was replaced with a similar ability called "Danger Sense." In a home game, most GMs, I imagine, would simply continue allowing the swap, but for something like PFS, you'll need to wait for a FAQ clarification or whatever.

If this is for a ship, you might be best off with a Crocodile. Grab the bad guy and drag them into the ocean, deathrolling the whole time.

I don't see why you can't do Shaman. None of the general hexes use Charisma, and you can pretty much ignore it with the right spirit selection.

Lore is the only one that heavily uses Charisma (and Int, sadly). Most of them only use Charisma to determine the number of times you can use your crappier abilities. There are some good ones (like Channel and Battle's pseudo Inspire Courage), but yeah, it's mostly "you can deal 1d6 + 1/2 with a touch" nonsense.

Godric501 wrote:
well I havnt been playing very long but the way I was talking with my Gm made it feel like it may have been overpowered and trying to take away from the melee's area.

It does take away from the melee's area. Welcome to Pathfinder (3rd edition D&D in general, actually). Cast spells or go home.

Ok, no, that's not fair. It's really: "cast spells or do slightly more damage, but have absolutely zero narrative power or options other than dealing slightly more damage."

Hopefully Pathfinder Unchained will make it better. But for now, no, you're totally right, spells > melee.

Cevah wrote:

Any comment on Harrowed Summoning or the evolutions I listed?


Harrowed is horrible. It can be minorly helpful when it works, but in all cases, it creates excessive, random book keeping. Even if it were always awesome, I'd still avoid it because you have to mod the summoned creature on the fly, rather than having one pre-prepared (or, I guess, you could just pre-prepare, what, 36 times as many versions? No, I think it's even more...)

The Evolutions you listed are not worth a feat. Reach is ok. But remember, with SMIII, if you're not throwing Lantern Archons out, you're doing it wrong. The Aurochs and a few others are dangerous, but two touch attacks AND DR 10/might as well be unbeatable at level 5 is too good not to use. You won't even need Diehard because I can't think of any way other than spells or an Anti-Paladin to take out a Lantern Archon played smartly at level 5. Higher levels gives you Clustered Shot to get through the DR, but nobody has a Holy Weapon this early, nor can anyone even realistically melee it when it flies 30' above the ground with perfect maneuverability, and ranged attacks can't realistically break 10 per shot reliably yet.

Sacred Summons and throw Lantern Archons out until the NPC runs out of 3rd level slots.

The best 2nd level summon, if you must go there, is probably a small Earth Elemental. Earth Gliding makes them really hard to fight effectively. If you go with the Evil feat, Pugwumpi's are horrible to fight (though not especially dangerous on their own).

The best 1st level summon, is, well they're all awful, but it's probably the Eagle. Seriously, you're significantly better off with the Mount spell if you want a level 1 summon.

If you let players that know what they're doing play Mythic, your game will break at tier 1 without question, and it will get more and more ridiculous as you go.

If you give mythic tiers to players that don't know what they're doing, they'll feel super awesome and cool, but basically do nothing special with it that should cause you concern, even at tier 10.

Sacred Summons first. Then, Superior Summoning later when you're throwing multiple Lantern Archons at the bad guys. Anything that gives Ferocity or Diehard is pretty useless, since, unless there's a FAQ I'm not aware of, summoned creatures disappear when they hit 0 HP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Godric501 wrote:
1. Ok so first thing Arcane Enlightenment: The way he read it and thought it was meant to be interpreted is that the spells cast through it are still arcane magic and as such subject to arcane spell failure. When I asked if that would qualify me for the prestige class Mystic Theurge as well as the feat Theurgy he agreed that it would. when I asked about the portion of the ability that says "they are treated as divine rather than arcane" he said that was for the sake of using wisdom and for any feats and such that may apply. This is one point im not sure I can agree on.

No, your GM is wrong. They become divine spells. They do not qualify you for any feats or prestige classes your normal spells do not, and they are not subject to Arcane Spell Failure.

Godric501 wrote:
2. Spiritual Weapon- Now this one is one im wondering a lot on as well. Spiritual Weapon so what it does is "a weapon made of force appears", now my question is would magic weapon greater effect it?

No, it is not a real weapon. It's just an attack spell that visually looks like a weapon. It gets +1 damage per 3 CLs, and that's basically it. realize you don't hold or swing this weapon, right? You know it just floats around and hits the bad guys on its own, right?

Godric501 wrote:
More specifically the Toppling spell. Im inclined to say it wont work or at least it shouldn't work and is over reaching but just want input on if metamagic should effect the spell at all.

It absolutely works. A toppling Spiritual Weapon would get a free Trip (at your casting stat + CL) every time it hit. Don't worry, it's not powerful, I promise you. Once you hit the upper single digits, Casting Stat + CL becomes woefully inadequate for being monster CMDs.

Godric501 wrote:
Another thing to consider is if the wandering hex Crashing waves should effect it at level 16.

Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn't it? How exactly do you think this spell works?

It sounds very overpowered to me, unless your GM has some kind of houseruled subsystem for how difficult it is to fall asleep. Falling asleep = unconscious, so, you just have to take lots of naps while your allies buff and heal you in between battles.

Boom, no downside and you have some awesome SR.

sirkydor wrote:

I'm not going power gamer.. Cautious Fighter, Blundering Defense, Shielded fighter .. give Ac that works with anyone an still be a threat with a strong hit. I was going to go Darning champion order of blue rose but didn't have the feel i wanted.

That's why I'm looking for one hit boosts. Vital Strike works with attack actions.. Attacks of Opportunity are an attack action.

Yeah, are you doing 3d3+80 at level 6?

So, let me establish a baseline here for the purposes of this discussion. When you deal damage, you roll weapon damage dice plus static modifiers. Let's call that W + S.

When you Vital Strike, you add ONLY the weapon damage again, meaning 2W + S. The static mods you add, like Strength and Power Attack don't add again. Since you're a Halfling in PFS (so, 20 point buy), I'm going to assume you're probably looking at something like a 16 Strength (you probably bought the 16, lost 2 from the racial, and got it back with a belt). You likely have a +1 weapon, and you're using an Estoc, not a Rapier, so, you're not using Fencing Grace to fight with Dex instead. You have at least four feats spoken for (Exotic Weapon Proficiency, the two halfling feats you mentioned, and Vital Strike). I'm going to assume that you have Power Attack and Risky Striker since you mentioned them both.

That puts you at a +11 to hit for 2d3 + 4 damage on a normal swing. When you Vital Strike, that's 4d3 + 4 damage.

When you're Power Attacking, that's +8 to hit for 2d3 + 8 damage. Vital Strike would be 4d3 + 9.

Risky Striker would add another 4 damage, for 2d3 + 12, or 4d3 + 12 with Vital Strike.

Using all of your special abilities relies on Fighting Defensively, which is a -4 to hit. So, at level 6, it looks like you're probably at a sad +5 to hit for 2d3 + 12 damage (16 average). That's...horrible. Even Vital Striking, 4d3 + 12 damage (20 average), I mean, that's a joke of a character.

There is literally no way for you to deal 3d3. You'd do 2d3 normally, 4d3 on a crit or vital strike, and 6d3 on both. Even critting on a vital strike only brings you damage to 6d3 + 24, at most, which is only 36 average.

A level 1 human fighter with 18 Strength and Power Attack is outdoing you with +4 to hit and 2d6+9 (16 average) damage (4d6+18; 32 average on a crit). Your AC is better, but, your AC is so good and your attack so laughably bad that smart enemies would just do one of the following:

1) Ignore you and kill your party, which at least does get a nice AC buff from standing next to you (if that's your goal, you should also get Combat Reflexes and the Bodyguard feat with the Helpful Halfling trait).

2) Attack your CMD instead, which is terrible because you are small with low strength and fighting defensively doesn't help with that (Fighting Defensively adds an untyped bonus, and untyped bonuses to AC do not apply to CMD).

3) Hit you with spells because your saves are horrible (by virtue of being a Fighter that had to spend a large potion of their Point Buy on Strength just to keep it respectable, thanks to their racial penalty).

So, look, I don't mean to sound harsh, but your character is not going to work. Your math is way off on your damage, for one, and the core strategy behind it is gimpy. It's just not a good idea to play this way--you're in for a world of disappointment.

Yeah, so, I don't want to jump to conclusions and say you're reading Vital Strike wrong, but, uh, I think you're reading Vital Strike wrong. I can't figure out what "Defensive Warrior" is, but I'm guessing it doubles damage dice the same way Vital Strike does. That's why you're doing 3d3. You have a base d3 weapon and you're multiplying it three times.

At level 6, Power Attack/Pirahna Strike will add 4 damage (or 6 if this 1d3 weapon is two-handed (unlikely). Risky Striker is 4 damage. That's +8, or maybe +10. If you have a 22 Strength (unlikely, but possible, that's +9 more damage. Maybe a +1 or +2 weapon, so, that's 1d3+20ish. Where is this 80 coming with? Seems impossible to me at 6th.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Maybe, if we can also all agree that describing shield spikes as effectively increasing the size of the shield is also a typo. By what stretch of imagination or logic does adding a spike to something make it bigger?

There are three written sources for the Klar. Two call it a spiked shield and one calls it armor spikes.

On the other hand, shield spikes are consistently referred to as an effective size increase. Here is the literal RAW (emphasis mine):

"Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."

There's no equivalence in these two arguments. What it appears you are saying is, "I don't like the rules about stacking shield spikes and size increases, so, I'm going to become an obnoxious RAW literalist to prove the folly of holing that position so people will agree with me about Bashing and Shield Spikes.

And actually, I am no longer sure the effective size increase thing even applies here. I kind of see where JJ is coming from--I'm pretty sure shield spikes are a totally separate weapon that happen to be attached to your shield, meaning you don't bash with your spikes, you bash with a shield or just make a regular weapon attack with the spikes. I'm kind of questioning everything here--starting to think an attack with shield spikes might not trigger feats like Shield

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
All melee attacks with shields are shield bashes.

That is not true and it exactly why we're not agreeing here. Shield Spikes are not shield bashes. They are totally separate entries on the weapon table. In fact, I believe the Klar can Bash for 1d3 bludgeoning, shield spike for 1d4 piercing, or slash for 1d6 slashing.

It is a swiss army knife and that's the point of the thing.

But you know what? There's really no RAW here to go on. The Klar is sloppily written and relies entirely on too much, "eh, people will get it."

JJ is not official RAW, but he created the Klar. When there's no RAW or when the RAW is incomprehensible, I go with the writer to get the RAI.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Don't you think that if the designers intended the Klar to be so elaborate and bizarre they might have put that in the weapon description?

Yes. I think it makes more sense than every shield attack being a bash. Especially when the shield spikes I quoted above specifically say it is not a bash, because it had to specifically say it worked like a bash.

Also, Scizores are awful Magus weapons. Magi not going to for a debuff build or a whip-based reach build need two things to be viable:
1) Accuracy (and scizores are not accurate)
2) The widest threat range possible (so, 18-20/x2, which Scizores do not have).

The actual weapon die is pretty much the smallest part of Magi damage. The real damage comes from Shocking Grasp or Frostbite Crits.

1 to 50 of 5,124 << 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.