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

voska66's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 2,413 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 2,413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Create pit could cause structural damage depending on the situation. It would be 100% up the GM to determine if a structure would be damaged. Using create pit like this would required a engineering skill check in my game to determine if and how much damage could be done. That's how I'd do it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I find role playing XP alienates players. Some players are just not that outgoing. I mean I've had games with thespians that get really into character and they are great fun in a game. I don't think I should reward them for doing something they find fun nor do they expect it. That's just the way they are how they play the game. It wouldn't be fair to reward them because of who they are.

Now at the same time you do reward those who are tactically oriented that make the battle easier. They get XP for monsters. Personally I think getting XP for killing monsters is stupid. You should get XP for completing goals.

That's why when I play a AP I set the XP to be enough to level up when book say so which is based on the goals. I don't tell my players that though. I give them XP but they might not get exactly what the book says for killing monsters. They might be short and bump it up or they could be over and scale it back.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I reward XP not for roleplaying but for out combat situations which may involved roleplaying or a minimum figuring out what skill to use when and succeeding the DC. The key is to know what skill to use when. Is intimidate the skill that needs to used, if so you can roleplay it but you still get the same XP as if you didn't.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rogue works well for most games as most games don't get to the high levels. The rogue has sweet spot where they are awesome from level 4-8. It's at the high levels where skills aren't as much of issue as the party covers a lot of skills now and skill check become trivial. Then there is combat high level. You have the best armor you can get and monsters are still hitting you on 2 our better. Your hit points are little lower but this isn't as big of deal now that you can train your hit points up. Your attack tend to miss unless you have party buffs like inspire courage to help you along.

I've just GMed a lot games and several APs at the rogue sometime there are no problems and other time it ends in frustration. What seems to make the difference is the party. If you have a party capable of buffs the rogue does fairly well. If you have party each with their individual bonuses the rogue suffers. For example a ranger with animal companion vs giving the party a bonus to hit and damage. The rogue does really well when a high level ranger is giving the rogue +3 to hit. Add in a Bard with inspire courage and the rogue is deadly. Swap that to fighter who can't help the rogue out with blasting sorcerer and a battle oriented Oracle and the rogue suffers.

I've used this against my players. Had a group of low level rogues along with ranger and bard. Made the encounter quite deadly. Made up an encounter with TH ranger with combat patrol and a pole arm. I was able to provide flanking over huge area while the bard inspired everyone. It was a mess of sneak attacks. So it's not like the rogue is useless but relies on the party to make them better.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By RAW the Kasatha has 1 primary attack and 3 secondary attacks. They get this via the Multi-Armed racial trait. It says right in the race that they get an attack with all of their hands.

"Multi-Armed: A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands."

Mulitweapon fighting does not grant you any extra attacks. It just reduces the penalties when you have 3 or more attacks.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I see argument for both sides. I don't think there is any RAW way you take this with out developer input.

Like for example I can accept Ryic's argument. At the same time I can that argument to make it work as well. Since wildblooded are sorcerers than mutated blood line are Sorcerer blood line as only a sorcerer can choose them.

I admit I'm biased though as GM I've made many NPC sorcerers with wildblooded bloodlines and I prefer that rules say I'm right as this is something I don't want to house rule.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Eltacolibre wrote:

I didn't see any mention about pfs limitation. Also in pfs you couldn't even do any of these house rules anyway...still tho. Heh, lower point buy who even cares, just play a battlefield control wizard and stay in the back. Let the BSF fights the monster, cast a spell to end the encounter and that's it.

I and the group are perfectly ok with this. The point of these are to prevent you from being able to both cast and fight extremely well. People are acting like giving people different point buys is the equivalent to punching people in the face. The rules I've seen proposed for low magic games and the support associated with them compared to this option boggles my mind. People are ok with completely removing magic but the idea of giving slightly less to a caster who actually plays it horrifies them.

It is like a punch in the face. You want to limit magic delay it. This won't accomplish that. 10 pt buy for Wizard, you'd still have 18 casting stat and all the spell you have at 25 pt. What you will have is wizard with more weaknesses and lower AC. MAD classes will suffer greatly.

I see what you want to do and I think different experience tracks would work better. Say you have the wizard need 3000 XP to make level 2 but the fighter only need 1300 XP. That right there slows magic down. When the fighter is level 13, the wizard will be 10th level with 4th level spells instead 6th level spells. You can average the level to get the APL. So a classic party of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard would have to 13th level and 2 10 level for an APL of 12. Now you have APL 12 party with out access to teleport and overland flight for example that would normally be available for APL 12 party. That seem to accomplish you goal.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wouldn't do this. I think what might be better idea is full casters use slow experience progression, 2/3 caster use normal and martials with up to 4th level casting use fast.

Back in the 2E days that how it worked. I'm going off complete memory here but you have exp progression. All the class fell into one of the categories. To get to 2nd level you had 1250, 1500, 2000, 2250, or 2500 exp. I think it was Thieves and Bards on 1250, Cleric and Druids on 1500, fighter on 2000, Rangers and Paladins 2250, and Wizards at 2500. The one thing I do remember is cleric wasn't a full caster like that wizard and much weaker spells which is why it was cheap on the XP.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It's like saying "pick a vehicle" then turning around and saying "you can't pick that one, because it is a truck, and not a car. You need to pick a car."

Why not just say "pick a car" in the first place if that is what was intended?

This is where your wrong they were specific. They said sorcerer bloodline, not sorcerer bloodline or wildblooded bloodline.

They are two sepetate types of bloodlines.

You don't stop being a sorcerer when you choose a archetype. The archetype modifies via mutation your sorcerer bloodline but are still a sorcerer with a blood line.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
Eldritch Heritage(Sylvan) doesn't work. Sylvan isn't a bloodline, it's an archetype.

It's a bloodline AND an archetype. Therefore I'd argue that it is perfectly legal.

Eldritch Heritage merely asks if it is a bloodline. Is it a bloodline?

Yes? Then you can take it.

No? Then you can't take it.

Since it is both, and Eldritch Heritage doesn't care one lick about archetypes, I'm pretty certain you're good to go!

Actually it is not a bloodline. It is a mutated bloodline. Different thing.
A mutated bloodline was still a bloodline last I checked.

I agree, the Wild Blooded bloodline would be valid for the EH feat. I see nothing baring that. It's blood line all the same.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've never seen anyone go out buy a rod of metamagic dazing. The lesser rod is 14,000 and applies to 1-3 level spells which mean the save DC won't be that high for CR 11-13 encounters as you will be level 10 by the time you can afford this rod. So unless the GM tosses this to you early it's won't be available. As well it's major rod so finding one will be difficult at best and impossible if the GM doesn't want you to have it. By the time you can get this there will be better ways to shut down encounters.

This rod in the hands of level 5 wizard though is very powerful. Just a level 5 wizard shouldn't have an item like this.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The game also assumes a opponents will use their armor to defend. The shell would be a source of their natural armor and they would be working to keep that shell between itself and you blows.

If the tortise is helpless you auto hit with a critical doing a coup de gras. This would be attacking it's squishy parts which normally it would try to defend.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:

I kind of see the slayer and investigator as dividing the rogue concept between them - the slayer as a fightery combat rogue and the investigator as the "skill rogue".

That said, the slayer changes a lot depending on what talents you take. The obvious option is the ranger style talents, combat trick and weapon training, but if you take talents like trapfinding, trap spotter, fast stealth etc you can make a very "rogueish" slayer.

Stealth and trap finding isn't what makes a rogue a rogue. It's the whole package. While the class is weak it's interesting what you can do if the GM or published adventure allows you to do those things.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

Slayer, Investigator, Skald and Brawler are great. Special shoutout to the Slayer because Rogue fix.

Hunter, Shaman, Arcanist and Bloodrager are OK.

Warpriest and Swashbuckler are meh.

I thought the Slayer would be Rogue fix but having played on from level 1 to 12 now I'm finding the slayer isn't that roguish. I find I'm more like a spelless ranger with trap finding. A slayer is more of killer than a rogue. I guess it fixes the combat oriented rogue.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A dragon could use his treasure hoard, I've done it in my games but remember to increase the CR for having more wealth.

A ancient red dragon could wear barding but they would suffer spell failure just as sorcerer would. They could use mitheral chain +5 I suppose and give it the feat Arcane Armor Training in place of staggering critical to give it +9 to it's AC. While your at it make the armor cold resistant 30 with greater energy resistance and heavy fortification. Give it +5 amulet of might fists. There is more than enough in treasure to accommodate that.

That CR 19 Dragon should be CR 20 then as that would exceed 123,000 GP in treasure at 270,000 not counting anything else you add.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By RAW it would work. The 3rd level Phalanx fighter treats the pole arm as if it were a one handed weapon. Swashbuckler finesse and slash grace apply to one handed weapons. In the hands of 3rd level phalanx fighter the pole arm is a one handed weapon. The condition is met so it works.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Don't worry too much, the invisibility is nice but easily countered. The ninja suffers from the same problem the rogue does. They lack a method to boost their attack bonus. So they will miss lots at the higher levels.

A ninja and even the rogue can be very over powered in appearance if they have party that makes them so. With debuffs making it easier to hit and buffs to increasing their attack bonus along with some softening up from ranged touch spells. An ninja with grt invis will be wiping things out. Things it's 2 other party members allowing them to. So it's not overpowered at all.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've found Dex to Damage looks good on the surface and works well higher point build but on 15 point build it has several draw backs. One is you need strength at 10 just doesn't cut. 12 or 13 at minimum, going 13 allows power attack. you want to max you dex, 16 cost you 10 points, 3 for Str and 2 for Con. You can make a decent fighter with that but try and make a Magus. You still want that Str, you need even more now that you have a spell book and spell components at 5 extra pounds. That dex drops to 14 so you can have int of 14. You +2 to Int to get 16. So now you are 13 and 14 for Str and Dex. Is it really worth 2 feats to get +1 to hit and damage? You could play a Elf dropping you con to 10 and getting 16 Dex that could be worth it. But you see it's a debate. That makes this not a bad thing.

Everything goes in favor of Dex of Damage as soon as you go higher stats via rolling or point build.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm running it now finishing book 3 and I'm finding the CRs aren't correct. Too many CR 8 fights for APL 14 Parties. If I'm following mythic adventures right the APL of a 4 level 12 character with 5 mythic tiers be average character level +2. Also the wealth in the game is almost double normal Wealth by level guideline for level 12 characters but is about right on for APL 14 party. Level 12 being 108,000 and level 14 being 185,000.

So it seem like the encounter design was set up for non mythic character. So I've increased the CR of most of the encounters in Book by 2-5 CR by adding the advanced template, adding extra monster, or adding addition levels to the bad guys.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By 8th level common bandits shouldn't be a threat to the PCs. The leaders of the bandits would be a threat and they would higher level. Basically PCs would be moving up the food chain. If the PCs were to become a real threat to the bandits who are organized they would take action against the PCs by hiring assassins, plotting against them, framing them for crimes and all sorts of tactics to eliminate the threat to their livelihood.

Unorganized random bandits would just meet an untidy end as they have no network of power to climb. Organized bandits would organized in cells forming a guild which could be very dangerous to high level PCs and the organized crime would have high level bad guys calling the shots.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

Good counter argument.

Some people really love evil characters tho. But evil is easy....being good is much harder. The hardest alignment for me to play is LG. I typically sway CG when I play good. my typical alignment tho is CN as i typically play "I do what i want damn your laws and ethics" kind of characters.

I actually found playing lawful evil quite challenging. After playing for a few games I found myself not really being LE but LN. I struggled with how my alignment of LE was really evil when I obey the laws and the law kind make you not evil unless the GM throws you situation where you choice is to use the law for good or evil but that rarely ever comes up in an adventure.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A paladin shouldn't have anymore of issues working with Lawful Evil member of the party than Chaotic Good member.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Published NPCs are not GMPCs. A GMPC is character I as GM make to play in an AP along with characters. The NPCs in the AP are just that, NPCs. They are there for the players to interact with. Some provide information, some provide boons, some help in a fight, some manage the base of operations. NPC can flesh out the story and give shape to an AP. In the end they are NPCs and the players are free to ignore them if they want though that would be detrimental but not fatal. There are rewards for those that like role play with the NPC just as there are reward for those just want to be immersed in the combat.

Sounds to me that the problem here is not GMPC or NPC but that you don't care to role play for information and boons. There is some merit to that. Not everyone one wants to jump through role playing hoops. A good GM should notice that and be able to balance it with those who like a good NPC and those who could care less.

I'm running WotR, the NPCs are there as window dressing. The NPCs are resource for the PC. One in particular is the party lacks a skill monkey so a lot of the time loot is identified by the NPC when the PCs get back to town. Appraisal is done there as well along with decipher books and languages. I use the rogue NPC to allow the PC to have greater shopping ability via Black Market ties for example. I don't role play that out though I could if the players were interested, they aren't though. Se we don't, it's just assumed.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I never understood the point of monk weapons. In fact I hate it. I house rule the monk to me non eastern flavor. I had create an Aldori Dueling Monk order in Bevroy. They got none of the classic monk weapon but were trained and proficient in light and heavy blades along with dueling sword.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seem to me it would provoke an attack of opportunity as it doesn't say that it won't. If it didn't provoke the text would say so. I don't think that is unclear.

From the PRD:
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action."

The last line if this weren't to provoke would say so. It would say this instead "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity".

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Looks about right, I played a Barbarian like that in RotRL. The DR was extremely helpful, I'd have died with out it that high. I mean I was taking 40 damage a hit at times so even with DR I was still a little over 20 damage and hit and had a huge amount of hit point. My AC was horrible but the damage output was huge. I used Reckless Abandon and Power Attack.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

Schroedinger's Ranger has a quiver full of arrows to bypass the material DR. Not so much the combination DRs, the alignment DRs, the epic DR, - DR, etc.

I don't think a quiver full of a bunch of arrows is going help a ranger stuck in box where you don't if the ranger is alive, dead or both until you open the box. <grin>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My biggest beef with Cluster Shot is once you have you have no reason to not use it as there is no penalty. So Clustered Shot everything on off hand chance they may have DR. I don't like this aspect. For me Cluster Shot should be at -2 to all attacks when you use it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:


I addressed that. Flexible spell slots shouldn't be a 400% markup over a pearl.


BretI wrote:

The spontaneous caster item is the Runestone of Power.

Originally printed in Pathfinder Society Field Guide (pg 53) it is also in Advanced Class Guide (pg 234). The price is 2,000 gp (1st), 8,000 gp (2nd), 18,000 gp (3rd), 32,000 gp (4th), 50,000 gp (5th), 72,000 gp (6th), 98,000 gp (7th), 128,000 gp (8th), 162,000 gp (9th).


Seriously, why?

Because spontaneous casters always get the short end of the stick on the rules, it's really there if you know where to look.

The big reason why they cost double is they are more useful than pearls of power by a large magnitude. Say I'm wizard and cast the shield spell and between fights use my pearl to recall the shield spell. I can only cast shield. Now say I'm sorcerer and cast shield as well but I use the rune stone. I still have spell for the day to cast any other spell I'm know which can be a very wide list of with using Pages or Spell Knowledge and playing a Human sorcerer. At 1000 gp a spell, I could most of the spells that wizard has as known spells and the rune stone allows me to cast any one of them. Much more powerful and pearl of power. Double seems a really good deal to me.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
blahpers wrote:

I'd still use pearls almost exclusively unless a GM dropped a ring of wizardry into my lap.

Well, yes. If you get something for free, you might as well use it. Cost is no longer an issue.

It's not free, a ring of Wizardy is 20,000 gp of treasure allocated. That's 20,000 gp of something else you won't get. If you don't like the ring you can sell it for 1/2 price. So definitely not free.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I haven't had an issue with mythic power points, my players burn through them fast. Like on your turn you spend a free action for amazing initiative, you use shadow stealth and move action, as a swift action you Fleet Charge and as an Immediate action you surge the die to hit. You just blew through 4 mythic power points in 1 round. At tier 4 you have 11, that over 1/4 of your power in 1 round. You can blow through it all in 1 encounter. So my players tend to conserve it and nova once in a while.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I found nothing wrong with mythic adventures. Ran home brew game with it and it worked great.

Now the AP Wrath of the Righteous, that has problems. I think these problems come from the AP being designed to be run with out mythic. So if you have mythic you are over powered for most if not all of the encounters.

I quickly rework some of the encounters in the book. Some I leave easy for the players to feal mythic. When I tweak an encounter I increase hit points sometime up to max. I add the the advanced template or increase the monster count. I've advanced the mythic tier on some monsters that already mythic as well. This seem to work well.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't ban classes, classes to me are the mechanic it's how you flavor the class that counts. To use you example of a medieval setting I'd say no to Ninjas in traditional sense but if player wanted to play a medieval styled ninja I'd be curious to see what they come up with.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like them all except for the arcanist. It's not that I think it's over powered it's just every time I try reading the class I glaze over. Something about it just doesn't interest me. I like all the other classes, they interest me.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Carl Hanson wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Balance is very important for the overall health of a game. It's no fun being useless and there's many many opportunities in Pathfinder to become useless. I'd rather have everyone be useful then cater to a hypothetical player who enjoys being useless or enjoys being overpowered. And I think everyone agrees. Except the hypothetical person. But I've never met a hypothetical before.

I have played a lot of RPGs over the years, and balance did not exist in any of them as anything more than an illusion. In any system that allows choices, some choices will be better than others--sometimes much better--even if which options are better is determined by situational variants (such as campaign style in an RPG).

Further, balance is not necessiraly as desirable as some people seem to think it is. In the harsh reality of game design, the trade-off for adding balance is usually a reduction of uniqueness because the more varity of options used, the harder it becomes to balance all of those options.

As to the uselessness of certain classes. Almost every Pathfinder or D&D game that I have ever played in has included a Figher and/or a Rogue, and I have never heard a player in any of those games complain that they felt useless. I know that my experience may not be the same as yours, but it is just as valid; and there should be rules to support both of our playstyles.

I've played many classes and I find they all have their points when I feel useless. It's not an issue. I mean I feel useless in dungeon of traps when only the rogue in the party is disarming them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Compared to most games I've played in the past Pathfinder has been very good and keeping power creep to minimum. For how many books with new classes, more feats, more spells, more monster, more magic items the creep really hasn't impacted much.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like Pathfinder as is in the sense that I don't need a new edition. Sure there are some things that bother me but they are minor. An upgrade to the fighter and rogue for example would be great. So feats I feel could change. Some feat trees could be condensed into a single scaling feat. None of this would require a new version of the game but the core rule book could be reworked to work with later books.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
Outlander is a campaign trait for Rise of the Runelords, so it's not available unless your GM explicitly allows you to snipe campaign traits from APs.

While it is a RotRL Trait it is also an APG campaign trait. The funny thing about this is when I made a Character for RotRL I chose a trait from the APG when I didn't have the players guide. Later downloading it I found the trait I chose. What coincidence. It would outlander exile.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Starting at 1st especially when you are high level is really a bad idea. The reason is the the character would stopping game time as they level up after every encounter. Talk about a why to kill game time only rush a character through levels in over of few encounters only to end up 1 level below the party.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thormind wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

1) Boots of speed grant Haste. Haste specifically does not work with speed weapons. Still only getting a cap of 5 attacks per round.

2) 5*(40)=200 but you have not counted your to hit. You haven't calculated dpr at all. We need the hit numbers because honestly it doesn't matter how many attack you have if they're all terrible.

3) Level 13 200 DPR is not hard.

1) true, i got mixed with the Slayer, he gets 6th from high BAB. My rogue only has 5, thats why all my numbers were with 5 attacks.

2) Sure i can include to hit. Just like the Barb 3rd attack (with no speed) my fifth attack is not reliable. The thing is me losing one hit is a lower lost than a barb losing one. And to kill most stuff at my lvl i do not need to hit with all my attacks.

3) Don't know, maybe we are not expert at creating characters. All i know is that when we started at lvl 1 the barb felt way more powerful than all the other characters. But the more we advanced in lvl, the more the rogue started to get en edge. Now at 13 in my group they all see my rogue as a bit overpowered (even me).

This came as a surprise because when i started reading the forums i kept seeing post about rogue being weak. The same thing is happening with the caster of the group. He was created as a blaster. Almost all guide in the advice section say not to do so, that it is weaker. The melee in the group are complaining because he kills most stuff before they can get one attack in...

I think if you are finding yourself a bit over powered that probably means you are fight CR 12-14 encounters. That's fine but there should also be a few CR 15 and maybe 1 CR 16. A CR 16 fight will show you how weak the rogue is and that is level appropriate encounter that will 1/3 to 1/2 the party resources.

At Level 13 you probably has 22-25 attack bonus in flanking position. A CR 13 you need 3 to hit a typical monster but CR 16 you will 50% or less with your primary attack. As you go up that gets worse and find pretty soon you need 15 or higher on your primary attack. The monster has more hit points that you could do if all your attacks hit. It deals enough damage in full attack to drop you and only needs 4 or better to hit you. This doesn't mean it's impossible to play a rogue, you just hang back hiding and wait for the monster to take enough damage that you can kill in with 1 attack. That blaster caster is you friend here.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

Why the hell did Weapon Finesse not do Dex to both attack and damage with finessable weapons?

This problem goes back all the way to 3.0 in the year 2000, and even cropped up in the Star Wars RPG. What was the design intent behind it?

The design intent is there for balance. By design some classes are more powerful but balanced by requiring multiple attributes to be effective. Allow Dex to damage means one less stat you need in point buy and you can dump it down to max out dex. This may cause some classes to be more powerful that should be.

Then there is str stat, it's use would be reduced.

I think those are the argument behind it. Personally I don't buy it. It uses up feats and those are in short supply. I'd go higher strength to save few feats many instances as well as to fit a concept. I'd go dex to damage for concept.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thormind wrote:
Orthos wrote:

Sounds like your Paladin and Barbarian are either badly made or badly played then.

Without being able to look in on your game in more detail, I'm not sure how you're pulling that off. Every rogue we've had in ours has lagged behind the rest of the party significantly, and there's a LOT of evidence on the forums of other groups doing likewise, as well as mechanical examination of its failings.

Rogue with greater two weapon fighting and/or boots of speed and/or a speed weapon has 5-6 attacks on a full round. Base weapon damage 1d6+4 when sneaking(i am using swords of dubtlety). Base sneak damage 5d6 per attack. So total 6d6+4 per attack time 5 attacks = 50-200 dmg per round. It can even be higher if you add two weapon rend (1d10+1 1/2str per round). I might be wrong but i doubt any other melee class (outside a Slayer) can reach that...

Yes there are other classes that get many skills but none get that high dmg and defense. And not many get trapfinding and trapspoter.

My barbarian does 140-228 damage a round assuming all my attacks hit which they won't. Starting with a +31 to hit which means I can actually hit CR appropriate encounters with an AC of 38. For defense my AC is 28 with 8 DR and a crap load of hit points that probably double a rogues. There's a fighter in the game that out damages me using the Two Handed Weapon fighter and he has a 34 AC in Full Plate.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thormind wrote:

Just for fun i created a lvl 13 Slayer to compare with my lvl 13 Rogue. I used same base stat, same gear and same combat style (Dex two weapon fighting)

The Slayer is just superior in combat. Full BAB gives him more attacks per round with higher hit chances. He lose some dice of sneak dammage but it is largely compensated by the hit/dmg bonuses he gets from studied target. He also has better saving throws and they are boosted again by studied target.

Skillwise he loses trapfinding but he has access to it from a talent. He has a little bit less skill points and different class skills but again this is compensated by studied target.

He has access to almost all good rogue talents and he gets new ones.

Like if that was not enough the Stygian Slayer archetype was added:

-Invisibility more than once per day for a single talent: no talent better than that anyway.
-The ability to use wand and staff to cast some extremely useful spells as a caster: you lose some small bonuses to a few skills.
-The ability to cast BOTH gaseous form and fog cloud on yourself for 7 minutes per day for a single talent: no talent better than that anyway...
-You lose medium and heavy armor but if you are dex based, most of the time you do not use these to keep your dex bonus.

Conclusion: This class should have been given 3/4 BAB like the rogue

I say the opposite, the Rogue should be Full BAB. Even at full BAB the rogue would be weaker than the Slayer. The rogue is the weakest class in the game, don't measure against it. I don't really see the slayer replacing a rogue anymore than the ranger did.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's one player that has Summoning App on his IPad. That's been great as he can pull up the stats for summoning much quicker. Definitely speeds up the game.

I use my IPAD for the rules books, it's the main reason I subscribed to get the PDFs. I have also used a laptop when I GM, there are tons of site with random encounter generators, treasure generators, dungeon generators, name generators and other useful tools. Some you pay for most you don't.

I think being able to text at the table would be great as GM. Not everyone has phone though. If they did I could send player specific details to them with out other knowing and it would be less intrusive than passing a note.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
A feat is a lot less of a hit than a 2 level class dip.

That's debatable. I have 10 feats and only 20 levels. Having to spend a feat to get a class ability that I can get with a 2 level dip is a lot more to me than a 2 level dip. I'm usually feat starved when ever I play a divine caster. Just too many feats I want and not feats to take them. So a 2 level dip in Paladin is worth in most cases. The biggest reason I won't take a 2 level dip into Paladin is the alignment.

Edit, still don't like this feat though. I'd HATE to see an caster focused Oracle with having +10 to saves due to 30 CHR.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't view hit points a physical damage rather pool of endurance active avoiding taking damage. When you do take damage you are in negative hit points. Exceed you con and you die. For some people taking any physical damage of significance means they are down and out. For others they can fight on some better than other depending on feats and racial abilities. So shooting a flying dragon isn't harming them yet but they lose altitude when they take damage they are spending hit points to avoid death by say flying in manner that could cause them to lose altitude.

I look at it like this because it doesn't make any sense that you can get stabbed once at first level but you can get stabbed a hundred time at level 20. It just makes more sense that you avoid the stab by spending hit points. Not mechanical change just way of looking at it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Threeshades wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Those who think 5th Edition D&D simplifies things: That may be true right now, but wait a couple of years, and it will bloat right up -- just like 3.5 (in the last couple of years, Wizards of the Coast seemed to have been in a hurry to drive bloat).

Again the simplicity in 5e DnD has nothing to do with the volume of rules available. The gameplay itself has been simplified, much less math, almost all temporary modifiers result in you maybe rolling an extra die here or there and that's it, on the off chance someone has resistance or weakness to some form of damage you might actually multiply someting by two or halve it. In PF you start adding subtracting, multiplying and doing all sorts of other things to your nbumbers before you roll.

And also again, all additional rules to be released will be just as optional as they are with pathfinder.

I don't have problems in PF with attack numbers. I create a sheet with all the bonus and work it out for that level. So when I'm power attacking with Rage I have line for that. I'm not sure if this something they put in the strategy guide but sure is helpful and speeds the game up a lot.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I have never felt that I was "sitting out" of the game when playing a fighter, in combat or out of combat. If you do feel that way, then by definition the GM has failed.

That's not a definition of anything. Not everything is the GM's fault.

If a player makes a character who can't do anything significant in a given situation, then he's the one to blame for feeling left out when that situation comes up.

If that situation is something as common as "being in combat" or "not being in combat", then the player who made a poor decision.

The decision on if game is going to have lot of combat to a lot out of combat or anywhere in between lies solely with the GM. So it's more of an uninformed decision than a poor decision. When I'm starting a new game I inform my player to the level of combat vs non combat. Then if the players focus on too much when I've informed then that truly is a poor decision if they are unhappy about it. If they are happy with that then all is good.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't see this swashbuckler as over powered. It suffers all the same set back any martial class has.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cnetarian wrote:
Swashbuckler doesn't really obsolete any melee class that I can see, maybe the fighter going into duelist but that's about it. Now Slayer however, well the rogue was bad enough but I cannot see any reason to take a rogue when slayer is available.

I'm playing a Slayer now, it's no rogue that's for sure. I can fill the place of rogue by taking disable traps but that's really it. When I make rogue I'm not making a damage dealer. I find making rogue that can fight to be a trap. No matter how much I try it never works. So I focus on non combat stuff like picking talents to augment what I can do with feats and skills. So really all the slayer replaces is the fighting rogue which never worked well to begin with.

Now saying that, if you play a game where you need a rogue who can fight take the slayer. If you play a game where GM plays up opportunities for the rogue go with rogue, the slayer doesn't that well. Also if you compare the slayer to the CRB rogue only the slayer replaces that rogue easily. It's the stuff in the APG and UC that make the roguish in my opinion.

I like talents like Black Market ties, convincing lie, Charmer, hard to fool, honeyed words, quick disguise, and stuff like that. Not very usuful in combat but very useful in campaign where the GM lets you use that. As GM I want a rogue that can do these thing, never see it though. They always go the combat route.

1 to 50 of 2,413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.