voska66's page

Correct... this focuses pretty much entirely on NPCs made with Core Rulebook only options.

Unless we get an NPC Codex II using APG, UltM, and UltC, I am NOT a happy subscriber over this. I thought Paizo had moved on from the WotC school of "release a great big rules book and never mention its contents again".

Edit: Could we at least get stat treatments for the Iconics from the other base classes, if nothing else?

Color me shocked, SHOCKED, that to increase your defenses, you need to decrease your offensive capabilities. What a stunning revelation.

What if tumbling would always provoke AoO but, for the purpose of those AoO, the tumbler's AC and touch AC would be his acrobatics check result? If the defender's attack roll result his higher than the tumbler's acrobatics check result, the defender would still need to hit the tumbler's real AC with the same attack roll result.

Do you think it could make tumbling viable from level 1 to 20? I checked the attack roll modifiers of some of the big monsters in the Bestiary, and it seems like it's way under their respective CMD.

I think I will give it a try.

EDIT: Alternatively, instead of throwing 1d20, the defender could "take 10" on his attack roll and if the tumble fails, the defender would have to make a real attack roll against the tumbler to confirm the hit.

Essentially, the whole fight is a horrible comparison with ridiculous rules.

Core rule book no magic items..........

Well........Pathfinder put out supplements to improve classes that already exist.

This is sort of like saying....If I put Bruce Lee in a fight against a US Marine, and took away the soldier's guns.......and took away the soldier's grenades........and took away the soldier's vehicles........and took away the soldier's weapons making this an unarmed fight...........and put the fighters in a 10x10 foot room.

The soldier would stand no chance for victory against Bruce Lee.

If I took a human, and put her up against an Alien, and took away all of her guns, and gave her a sharpened pencil.......The Alien would totally win.

If I took a baby, and put him in a crib. And then I took the big red button that launches all of the nukes in that crib..... the baby would totally destroy the world within 2 hours.

The DM is constraining the rules to prove his point. In a real game, the DM is simply wrong.

nuts, I was hoping for changelings to be previewed

What I don't like is DR/Magic as this is basically pointless. By the time you meet a creature with DR/Magic, everyone in the party has a magic weapon. It might as well be DR/weapon. I allow each enhancement bonus to bypass 5 points of DR/Magic, so DR 10/Magic drops to DR 5 if struck with a +1 weapon (regardless of any other magical properties, so a +1 flaming still only bypasses 5 of the DR) but is entirely bypassed by +2 or better weapon. (This also makes a +2 enhancement more valuable compared with elemental damage so it's not such an easy decision). With the same general sense, I would probably inform my players that high enhancement bonuses don't bypass other types of DR.

Let's make this simple.

Full plate +9 armor bonus & Mage Armor +4 armor bonus do not stack

Full plate +9 armor bonus & Magic Vestment +4 enhancement bonus DO stack

Ergo, Mage Armor and Magic Vestment are DIFFERENT and your statement that both spells (and Robes of the Archmagi) provide "an enhancement to an armor bonus" is incorrect. That is how Magic Vestment works. It is NOT how Mage Armor works. It is also not how Robes of the Archmagi work, unless the description saying they provide an "armor" bonus is erroneous.

There may be other 'spell targeting' reasons that Magic Vestment cannot be stacked onto Robes of the Archmagi, but your claim that the AC effects of the two are exactly the same is demonstrably false.

I thought the robes were an enhancement bonus also, but I looked to check first, and I noticed it said they provided an armor bonus.
So then I check the item crafting requirements. The spells used are mage armor and shield of faith which provide a deflection bonus to AC, and an armor bonus to AC.

The magic vestment spell provides an enhancement bonus to AC.

If they wanted to robes to be an enhancement bonus they would have used magic vestment as a creation requirement IMHO.

Assassins kill people for money. That's evil. Period. End of discussion. If you don't like that, then you should over haul the entire alignment system rather than just do away with alignments for classes. Or just play a ninja who kills only kills bad people for money and call yourself an assassin.

Soldiers kill people for money, but a Fighter class can be any alignment.

Rogues specialize in dishonorable combat (Sneak Attacks, Poison Use, etc.) but they can be any alignment.

The "murderers must be evil" argument really holds no weight, which is why I question the prerequisite.

No.

So you think the best time to alienate customers by requiring them to purchase a whole new set of expensive books is when your biggest competitor is alienating theirs as well? Bad, bad idea.

I looked it up, and you're right, it isn't written properly. I beleive in 3.5 it was more explicit that it allows BAB extra attacks with the off hand.

Even so, the 2-weapon fighting entrie states specifically that the penalty is to the specific one attack granted by attacking with the off hand. "You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way." You'll see that it says THE attack with your off hand, while specifying attack or attacks above.

As written, there is no penalty. This is still clearly an oversight, and some sort of errata aught to address it in future editions. As intended, however, the -2 is to all attacks made. You would be correct in your assertion that no text can prove this, however. At least, I can't find one.

The UMR needs to be clarified, as I totally see how it's unclear. I'm starting a discussion with Jason and Stephen about this. IMO, the ability needs to say something like "The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy."

Cleric channels positive energy to heal the living? Living are affected. Undead are unaffected, and so are creatures with NEA because they're treated as undead.

Cleric channels positive to harm undead? Living are unaffected. Undead are affected, and so are creatures with NEA because they're treated as undead.

Cleric channels negative energy to harm the living? Living are affected. Undead are unaffected, and so are creatures with NEA because they're treated as undead.

Cleric channels negative energy to heal undead? Living are unaffected. Undead are affected, and so are creatures with NEA because they're treated as undead.

You're missing the part about the dhampir being alive. You have to pick whether you are targeting living or undead when you channel. A dhampir is not undead. Nobody has said that a burst doesn't affect all valid targets in the area.

Example :

Cleric channels positive to heal living in a 30 ft burst. Inside that burst is 1 human necromancer, 4 allies, and 5 skeletons. The cleric heals himself, his 4 allies, and the necromancer, because all are living creatures. The skeletons are not harmed, because he channeled to affect living, not undead.

Same cleric channels positive to harm undead in a 30 ft burst. Inside that burst is the same group. Only the 5 skeletons are affected, and they all take damage. None of the other creatures are undead, so they are not affected by the positive energy. Not healed, not harmed, nothing.

The cleric has no choice, he has to pick living or undead as the target of his channel. The channel only affects targets that fall into one of those two categories. The dhampir is alive, he's affected by targeting living. He just reacts to whatever energy is channeled the opposite of a normal human.

Yes, the Urban Ranger and the Archaeologist Bard give me a run for my money. But focusing on a goal instead of trying to do everything really helps to close the gap.

They don't just give you a run for your money, they leave you in the dust.

The Urban Ranger does combat far better than you could hope to while still holding up the trapfinding thing and some skills. Because he gets a combat style he can even TWF without dex leaving the statpoints to not dump int completely, and he gets spellcasting starting at level 4.

So the combat focused rogue is out of a job.

The Archaeologist does traps differently (always take 10 and halved disarm time instead of the 1/2 level bonus), has those rogue talents if he needs them, and has 6 level spellcasting. With Versatile Performance he's a better skill monkey, and with several key spells already on his spell list and Charisma already an important attribute he can UMD at least as well as the rogue.

Looks like both the skill rogue and UMD rogue are also out of jobs.

Maybe it's time to admit that Rogue is all fluff no crunch. Thieves and locksmiths and expert treasure hunters can be built just as easily as mechanically superior bard or ranger archetypes. All that's left is slapping rogue levels on enemies to make the PCs fear being flanked.

In my mind, the anti paladin is lawful evil - no way around it! Chaotic evil doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I would keep paladins to just lawful good by the way. It's just to iconic and wrapped up in he tradition of the class ...

Rogues are the only none spellcaster that does not have full bab, and what are they given instead?

One of the most situation based class abilities in the game to make up for it, and as it stands now, even in a perfect situation for the rogue, the other martial will still do more damage than the rogue, and this with more health, ac and saves.

So to summarize it, rogues are the squishiest melee fighter, that still demands them to look for tactical positions where they are extra vulnerable, and still do sub-par damage. Do anyone really find this fair or balanced in anyway? Should not the class that need to work to get into the right positions where they are exposed, especially when they are so frail, not be THE damage machine?

Even bumping them to full bab will not make them the top martial class damage wise, even when sneak attacking. The rogue needs more.

The rogue is playable, but far from fine, if your rogues does compete with your martial classes, then they are terrible under optimized.

houstonderek wrote:

But, as I am old school, I agree.

The idea isn't about erasing shortcomings.

After all were not playing a game where a single players shortcoming should really have any substantial effect on the enjoyment of the game as a whole.

If your players are playing against each other then being smarter gives you an advantage.

But these are the same players who will complain that there character has an 18 intelligence so he should get a hint.

Basically they're trying to use their charisma(convince the GM) instead of their intelligence.

I am going to disagree with you to a degree. I have characters which wield longswords, but I as a player have absolutely no idea how to wield a sword of any type aside from "keep the pointy end away from me". Also, I make characters who have amazing strength and have knocked iron doors off their hinges. I'm not sure that I am strong enough to break through a thick piece of plywood. Why are the mental stats so different? If I am DMing and want to use a riddle or some other puzzle I definitely allow appropriate checks to those with the right knowledge/skill/high base stat for hints. I also would let my players discuss the problem with each other out of character and then switch back to "in character" when giving their response. I feel that even though I am absolutely horrid at solving riddles my Wizard with a 26 INT and max ranks in linguistics (with class bonus and an additional +2) should be able to decipher something.

We are not our characters and our characters are not us. There needs to be a divide between in-character and out-of-character if you want to run this as an RP game. I am all for giving the group something which requires some thought and gets away from the "roll dice and I'll tell you if you win the game" adventures, but you need to consider the difference between PLAYING a wizard with a massive intelligence and BEING a wizard with a massive intelligence. Allowing for players to gain some hints if they are struggling does not detract from the game. Having the party sit for an hour trying to figure out a puzzle does.

There's any disparity?

I've never like this. It's basically a feat tax in order for a wizard to have the most iconic wizard weapon as their bonded object.

Then again, most of the other wizard related rules that have been put out seem to aimed towards eliminating any perceived weaknesses in the class, and generally trying to make the other classes obsolete, sot it doesn't really bother me that much.

I always understood the iconic wizard`s staff to be - mechanically speaking - a simple 1d6 club. I imagine quarterstaves as longer, heaver and more balanced to allow TWF.

I'm getting told that it is, and I don't have enough experience with Rogues to agree or disagree. I've always leaned towards Ranger, Fighter, and Sorcerer. How does the Rogue stack up in combat to other classes as far as RAW is concerned?

Edit: Should I have posted this here? It seemed appropriate since this is an issue dealing with the class under RAW, but maybe it should have gone in Advice. Would a moderator please move it?

Yes. Rogues are underpowered as written. They cannot be compared effectively to non-magic using classes whose role is to deal damage and fight, while also being compared effectively to those who have magic and fight, and cannot be compared to those who have magic as their primary focus.

Example: Rogue vs Ranger. Both have a lot of skills, both are capable of being stealthy, and both have lots of tricks. Ranger is better in combat, has more tricks (ranger spells are actually quite good), and even gets a pet (flanking buddy or mount).

Example: Rogue vs Inquisitor. Both have average base attack, both have lots of skills. Inquisitor is better in combat more often. Inquisitor also has lots of spiffy spells. More often than not, inquisitor wins.

Example: Rogue vs Bard. Both have a lot of skills, and both are medium base attack classes. Bards are better teammates than rogues. Bards have faaaaaar more versatility than rogues (having a variety of excellent spells to benefit both himself and his party). Bard has spells that augment his stealthiness (he can give himself concealment allowing him to use Stealth while observed, like the Predator's cloaking device).

Example: Rogue vs Druid. Rogue has more skills. Druid doesn't need many of them. Both have the same base attack. Druid is better in combat. Druid has more versatility (wild shape + spells + random immunities + animal companion + weapon & armor proficiencies, etc). Druids get a flanking buddy (or an off-tank). Druids are full-casters, so also get to play with some summoning and blasting.

Etc, etc, etc.

The biggest problem is the rogue is presented like it's supposed to be a skirmishing damage dealer. One of its main abilities, sneak attack, progresses every odd level and appears to be its main focus to most people. They have lots of skills, but then again anyone can invest skill points in things, so that's not really a huge deal. They don't have any magic abilities to fall back on (literally being the only 3/4 BAB class without magic) except Use Magic Device (which requires you to have magic items and/or expend resources to get them to use).

Sadly, Use Magic Device is nice, but not an argument in the rogue's favor. Fighters can have Use Magic Device. Wizards can have Use Magic Device. Bards have Use Magic Device and come Charisma-focused and class-skilled on top of it.

Basically, rogues do not excel in combat. They do not excel out of combat (they're good out of combat but limited in a magical environment). They have virtually no teamwork-based abilities. They just kind of fall flat.

And I say this as someone who likes rogues. :P

Quote:

new Asia-inspired archetypes, feats and martial arts styles

Definitely my favorite part of the blurb. The martial art style feats in Ultimate Combat are easily my favorite addition to the feats - and I'm keen to see more, particularly Dragon Empires-themed ones.

Personally I'd like to see some combat style feats which aren't just for monks (i.e. feat trees which focus on unarmed strikes). I mean, you can use some of the martial arts style feats while wielding a weapon (like Crane Style), but not to the same level of effectiveness (although a duelist using Crane's Wing would definitely get pretty annoying). I know the idea of "Kung-Fu Schools" is heavily engrained in our popular culture thanks to 90's Hong Kong Kung-Fu flicks, but c'mon guys, show the sword schools some love, too!

Your wall of texts are dull and meandering without substance or point. Disapprove all you like, I'm not concerned about you missing my point. Like your friend you are not going to be convinced.

Whats your point?

Why do you allow Str to damage on every attack, but balk at Sneak Attack?

That's my point, but you don't care about it. Nothing will change your mind on this. So have fun with that.

*Some* portrayals of vampires probably warrant a high Charisma (certainly not the 30 Days of Night / Near Dark / Nosferatu sorts, but yes to the Draculas and the Lestats), but the Cha-as-Con thing tends to result in *zombies* having a higher Cha score than a bear or tiger (which lives or dies during mating season based on it's ability to Intimidate!).

I disagree. The "30 Days of Night" Vampire did indeed have a high charisma, but it's focus was fear and terror, not social ability or socializing.

Charisma is force of personality and spirit and that can be beautiful/convincing or horrifying/terrifying or even a combination of those and more.

If the Vampires in '30' scared you then that was their Charisma (enhanced with circumstance bonuses from their brutal and violent actions).

I'm posting as I posted in another thread.

Now, the monk text says:
" A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks."

The Feral Combat training states:
"Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature."

I believe the main problem with the interpretation of said feat is the bolded word "WITH".

My believe is that it works in both monk stances, cause on both sentences in the monk entry it states "...such weapons as part of a flurry of blows" and "...attacks in addition to his flurry of blows".

Now, in no part of that sentences the word WITH is used, and this leads me to believe that the word WITH stated in the feat description allows you to use both stances, that is to totally eliminate that part of the monk flurry of blows entry.

I think it's reasonable to assume that.

Personally, I find Pathfinder slightly harder to run more roleplaying intensive games in than 3.5e, largely due to the way they reduced the skills, one of the main non-combat elements of the game. But this is minor.

I actually had the opposite experience. Before the skill consolidation, my characters were either stuck maxing out on the stuff they "needed" to the detriment of the flavor skills, or I felt like the character could never have all the skills the character OUGHT to have due to things that are logically associated with each other requiring separate ranks (perception is probably the best example of this). Skill consolidation allows my characters to actually take character flavor skills to a much greater extent than before. More options is not necessarily better for RP when you are dealing with finite resources like skill points.

Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

I think you're lending too much weight to the skill. I wouldn't consider either the sun or a dragon to be 'fine details'.

(appologies all)

We don't need no epic content
We don't need no high level
No Epic spells in our spell books
Hey! Bulmahn! Leave those charts alone!

All in all you're just another line of XP.
All in all you're just another line of XP.

I refuse to buy this book at this point in time.

ask me again next year.

I want it to be an option. I think more options are better.

Faster than a speeding bullet? *scoffs*

How about faster than light?

Take a bunch of commoners. Line them up shoulder to shoulder roughly 10 feet apart. Have them use the Reposition combat maneuver on you, with auto success since you are letting them move you. One commoner will move you from his right to his left (or vice versa) and then the next commoner in line, who readied an action to reposition you once you land adjacent to him, does the same. Repeat to theoretical infinity.

I call it the commoner lightning rail.

The speed you can go is limited only by the amount of commoners you can line up.

If you are passed through the hands of a million commoners in under 6 seconds (1 round) than you've traveled 15 million feet in 6 seconds, or roughly 2.5 million feet per second (~473.5 miles/second or 1,704,600 miles/hour).

That's not even close to the speed of light, but all it takes is more commoners and it can be done. In any case, you just blew the sound barrier by several orders of magnitude.

...without even breaking any rules.

I'll just leave this here.

You should really do your research before you make rules claims.

I still don't have my APG. Do any of the nonhuman classes get anything for being a sorcerer comparable to +1 spell known/level?

Not really. Half-Orcs get +1/2 to fire spell damage, but elves just gets extra uses of the 1st level bloodline power. Only Humans, Half-Orcs, and Elves get special favored class bonuses for Sorcerers.

That said, I'm definitely in the "I'd rather have the hit points" camp. I can already get pretty much all of the spells known I need with a baseline non favored class Sorcerer; the extra spells would just provide utility, and I can get wands or staves for that.

Gamers at large: Convince me that allowing constructs and undead to be subject to critical hits and sneak attacks is a good idea in light of a more than a decade of game history and the simple reality of what animates the physical substance of these creatures (e.g. no anatomy, etc.).

Reality? Show me a scientific article (in a renovated scientific publication) on the subject of undead and construct bodies and I'll concede the point that this is reality. :P

You might actually find something about "constructs", i.e. machines. It's likely that it will talk about weak spots in construction.

Rogues find them and shamelessly exploit them.

Similarly, undead might not use their organs any more, but still their body is powered by energies, probably flowing in lines or something like that - I slept through my necromancy classes, so I can't tell you for sure - and rogues disrupt those lines.

Vorpal is different. It's a very specific effect - you lop off a head. The head might not be terribly important for the - changed, but still present - "anatomy".

Inquisitor gains the equivalent to evasion with fort and wil lsaves at level 11. At level 5 all of their attacks have "bane" (+2 vs selected type, +2d6 damage; at 11th this becomes +4d6) for level rounds per day that need not be consecutive. Judgements can give pretty much any boost they need, up to three of them at a time from + 1/3 level to AC, Hit, Saves, or +1/2 level in fast healing, ER or DR. If they pick the Anger inquisition they can rage as a barbarian 3 levels lower. With Solo Tactics, they can benefit from teamwork feats without requiring an ally to have them.

They are the perfect solo character class. They have RP class features (bonuses to knowledge checks for enemy weakness, bonus to intimidate and sense motive, tracking as a ranger, always on discern lies, ability to use all detects alignment wise as a paladin) and with great combat ability (dont let the 3/4 BAB fool you).

The synthesist pales in comparison.