|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I've been reading a lot of class guides and one thing keeps coming up - action economy
What is action economy for Clerics during encounters?
It seems to me that healing during combat is pretty much frowned upon. Apparently it's a wasted action. So this begs the question - what is the cleric doing in combat.
Obviously there are different builds but I'm mainly interested in non-combat builds. The fighty Cleric is going to be, well, fighting! But what is the caster-type build Cleric doing?
If Channelling is a weak option and casting healing spells a futile attempt to compete with monster damage output [at least until the Heal spell comes online], what is considered good action economy?
You're missing my point. My suggested Solutions are not needed for regular character deaths.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
As Roberta Says: If you lower their level as punishment you're in danger of falling into a cycle of deaths due to the characters being too weak.
1, Reduce starting money down a level. Two levels if you want to make a point or be extra hard.
2, Reduce their stat buy fund by 1 or 2 points per death.
You now have players that don't want to die.
If those two methods don't work... it's time for different players.
Interesting thread. I would have thought [hoped] that by page 5 lantzkev might have grown up a little but alass I fear I've just "handwaved" by not detailing his shortcomings.
To the OP. You've opened up an interesting debate about the Monk, I think you're right, the monk isn't even best at being the monk, which adds weight to the general opinion that the monk sucks.
If, for example, you were a Catfolk attacking with your claws only and you have BAB +6/+1 do you get the secondary attacks because your claws are counted a primary weapons.
So from 2 claws +10, to 2 claws at +10/+5
I think you only get the secondary attacks with actual weapons but I'm not sure. Help!
There are some nice neck items for over-coming DR in the UE.
Natural weapons with good strength will punch through the other DR's. Remember you'll have 3 attacks at full bab and strength [dex], what you lose via DR, you'll gain through landing more hits. Amulet of Mighty Fists will magic up your natural weapons [imo, others may disagree].
A level of Barbarian [Beast Totem, lesser] would net you..
The math doesn't add up to your wildshape AC.
How much have you spent? +5 everything! Can you really get all that for 240k - pretty good if you can.
I thought Armour didn't work in wildshape.
EDIT: I can't add up! But still your DM must be crazy - how on earth does he challenge your party, he'd need CR 20 critters!
I feel for you, as I have one also!
Mine also looks up all the monsters after every session and comments on anything that didn't happen correctly even though I've stated, on many occasions, that I change the monster abilities so that "out of game" knowledge is kept to a minimum and the Knowledge skills actually mean something.
He just can't help himself - which eventually lessens his enjoyment.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I think you'd manage a whole thread by yourself. You seem able to ask and answer your own questions, and others by putting your own words in their mouths, congratulations, you win...something.
Arr, you one of *those* people.
The answer is C)
Matthew Morris wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
That's your example of balance?
No, actually that's yours.
Arguing for something that clearly isn't a go-er at the vast majority of tables just because it might allow X to do something like Y is weird.
Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.
Your logic is flawed.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I think the vast majority of DM's would have a RAMT answer of NO! and probably a "stop trying to break the game, munchkinface" readied action just in case!
Why the hell would anyone argue in favour of this munchkin-ism, balance is the key my friends, balance!
Stone the Crows wrote:
A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school of magic can prepare spells in his prohibited schools by using up 2 slots.
Does this mean that he can use scrolls/wands/stave in his prohibited schools? And if so, is there any penalty for doing so?
Can Divination be a prohibited school? I know in 3.5 it couldn't but I can't seem to locate that rule in PFRPG?
James Jacobs wrote:
Question: Some of the monsters that have more than one attack have the second attack listed after a "comma", whereas some have them listed after an "and".
Obviously the "and" is an extra attack when making a full attack action [full round attack], but what about the "comma" ? Is it an "either or" attack, or something else?
For example, Elephant,
Melee gore +16 (2d8+10), slam +16 (2d6+10)
Can it do both, or either?
Also it does say in the Magic Chapters that spells can be researched, so as in a game I am in at the moment, I would ask th GM to approve the research of a specific spell not in the core before adding it to a list.
Good option, that way the DM can have a look-see first and judge whether Hobinta should have access to it, rather than open up a whole can of Age of Worms!
I've been tinkering with my character sheet continually for ages. It's an Excel sheet with basic calculations. Very easy to customize.
I don't have any Web space to post it on but I'll happily mail it to anyone if you're interested. Maybe one of you guys can upload it to some free web space?
Please state if you want it in .xls [95-2003] or .xlsx 
tricky.bob at sky.com
King of Vrock wrote:
Sure I get that, but the BBEG usually casts all his buffs from his own spell list, as do many other monsters.
The spell DC is the way to go. For example, if the Wizard is flying around and the fighter can't get to him... the DC for his fly spell is going to be an easier target than 11 + his caster level.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell’s caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
Wouldn't all the buff spells cast by the evil wizard be at the same caster level? So you've either going to get the first one, or none of them?
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area. You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends.
Isn't, 11 + caster level of spell, always going to be higher than the spell DC of 10 + Int/Wis/Cha mod + spell level unless you target the highest level spell he has?
A 11th level Wizard casts his highest level spell, Globe of Invulnerability [level 6], he has an Int score of 22 [+6], so DC 22, or Dispel check of 22 [11 + caster level (11) = 22]. Any other spell lower than his highest level spells will be easier to dispel targeting the spell DC rather than his caster level.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Thaks good to know, thanks.
Still, telling Local Game Stores utter rubbish about release dates is really not on. I encourage Paizo to address this issue with any distributors doing so.
I've had a look at UK google and a number of stores are giving next Wednesday as the release date. Maybe they have the same suppler.
If so, they too are not being told the correct info.
Myself, I now have 8 copies, ordered from one of the lucky few stores that did get stock from Esdevium on the correct day, and I've given a copy to my local games store... one of the stores that Esdevium didn't tell me about! Needless to say, they are NOT happy.
Paizo, please look into this. Hobby Games are far better [and no I don't have any connection with them].
Yeah, Manchester vs. little town by the sea...!
My local store phoned me today to tell me that Esdevium Games [main distributor in UK] had not delivered any of the 12 copies he ordered. He was also told that the release date was next Thursday, and he would only get 3 copies!
I phoned Esdevium Games myself and asked if the PF core rule book was released today... answer, "Yes"!
6 of those 12 books were reserved for my gaming group.
Please use Hobby Games in future.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Since I can use a piercing weapon to slay one opponent and then, with cleave, kill his companion with whom he was flanking me, the visuals just aren't going to make sense.
Actually you can't! Cleave requires the second target to be adjacent to the first target, not adjacent to you! Great Cleave requires the same condition.
I can picture a Fighter swinging his Greatsword, trying to cleave through multiply foes...
I can picture a Fighter using a huge Backswing to make an Overhand Chop against his foe to deal extra damage...
But seriously, can you do either of those things with a Piercing weapon?
I can see a overhand chop/backswing working with a heavy flail [bludgeoning], but not with a Scythe [slashing]!
Do we just apply the Feats and ignore these obvious gremlins?
Are you free Tuesdays?
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.