|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I'm also looking for a group, as a player or GM if that is what's needed. I live in Redmond and know of a couple places we could play in this area. Oxlay, I've noticed you replied to a bunch of threads in the east Sound area, drop me a message at zuckussand4 (dot) lom (at) gmail (dot) com and let's combine our efforts to get a game going.
I'm in Redmond but willing to drive a bit. Sunday nights aren't ideal for me but depending on the specific times it might just work. I own the Saga Edition Core Rulebook and have read through it,t but haven't had a chance to play it at all. If you're still looking for players I'd be interested. If you want you can email me at zuckussand4 (dot) lom (at) gmail (dot) com
I'd personally like to see a sorcerer archetype along the lines of the old 3.5 Warmage. And I mean an actual archetype, not just a bloodline. Limited evocation-centric spell list, armored casting, bonus damage, stuff like that. Because sometimes when I play an arcane character I just want to nuke the hell out of everything. This isn't always a plus to everybody. While it is mechanically superior in most cases, sometimes the flavor just doesn't fit. Speaking of which, I was hoping to see something along the lines of the Sage Sorcerer bloodline, for the Magus: an archetype that allows the Magus to cast spontaneously using Charisma. This, I think, would be an acceptable alternative to the 3.5 Warmage-inspired archetype SunsetPsychosis requested.
There's a feat that lets archers add the damage of all their hits against a single target together before applying damage reduction. Pretty much guarantees that ranged damage will always be > than melee.
Regarding TWF without a light weapon in the off-hand: that DOES hurt, especially early on, but I can't think of much that can be done about it. It's only -2 over what a normal TWF would be taking, so I figure it's bearable, and it gets easier as you gain more levels. One way to help counteract that is through mutagen and rage. Luckily, they provide differently typed +4 bonuses to strength, meaning that at level three, he can imbibe his mutagen (for every fight if your group doesn't mind waiting an hour between) and rage for a massive +8 strength, bringing my particular build to 26 strength. I'm now thinking instead of greatswords I'll be a bit more varied and go with a lucerne hammer in two hands and a bardiche in the other two. I get reach, which combines with my fast movement speed to get me into full attack position that much more quickly. I'm going to use this level 3 character in a test game as my group tries out d20 pro. Normally we avoid cheese and really bizarre concepts, but for this the GM gave us his blessing to go full dirty, so I'm going to have a lot of fun with this. I'm trying to figure out how you are wielding two two handed weapons with only three arms. Discovery at alchemist 2 is vestigial arm, then extra discovery vestigial arm for +2 arms- 4 arms total. This.
Since nobody has responded, I'll expand the subject. I'll stat it out at level 3, since that's the earliest I could get the concept working Human Barbarian 1/Alchemist (Vivisectionist) 2 Str 16+2
Feats:
Equip: +1 greatsword, masterwork greatsword, masterwork breastplate First round of combat he pops his mutagen for +4 strength, and moves into position. Second round, he begins raging and full attacks for +6/+6 to hit, doing 2d6+16/2d6+15 on a hit. This includes -4/-4 for TWF with a weapon that isn't light in the off hand. Admittedly he could only do that on a very limited basis, especially at 3rd level when he only has a few rounds of barbarian rage per day. I'm mainly curious if this is legal RAW and/or RAI. It seems about right, but it definitely is gray area as far as rules and precedence are concerned.
5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
First, here's the discovery: Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times. Source: Ultimate Magic So here's my question: If I were to take this discovery twice, would it be rules legal to have, say, an Alchemist with two-weapon fighting swinging around two two-handed weapons? The specific character concept I have in mind is an alchemist/barbarian (or alchemist/fighter, not sure yet) who wields two falchions while raging and under the effects of his mutagen. I'm thinking I'll start with a level of barbarian, then take two levels of Alchemist. Use my level 2 discovery and my level 3 feat (via Extra Discovery) to have him sprout two extra arms suddenly as a result of his alchemical experimentations. It probably isn't worth the two level dip and the feat from a mechanical, damage-dealing standpoint, but I really like the imagery involved. If anybody can point out why I shouldn't be able to do this (in a strictly RAW sense) I'll rethink it.
Our table was really worried too, what with all the 5-star GMs and Venture Captains at the other tables. Cheers to us for rocking.
I'd go witch/wizard/druid/cleric, eliminating Charisma as a required stat and getting more 4th level spells. Still far from optimal, but it's an...interesting concept.
I can't recommend letting an item do this, I'd suggest instead that he just is very careful with his dog until level 7, and takes Leadership with it as his cohort. The rules for monsters as cohort aren't very fleshed out, but you basically start giving it class levels instead of extra hit dice; it's on the GM to figure out what it's base level adjustment would be.
For one, it's an amazing feat for animal companions, eidolons, and mounts to take; basically any sort of combat-oriented cohort that can't wield weapons will want this. It also allows Monks to overcome DR/Magic on all of their attacks, without having to spend Ki points or buy an AoMF. It also makes non-monk unarmed combatants more viable, especially fighters, who could later retrain it once they can afford a nice AoMF. Of course, it's a pretty small niche, but it's nice to be able to do it and not be completely and utterly useless against something with DR/Magic.
Just found that I did make a major mistake, the second arrow from Many Shot gets full damage bonuses. Recalculated damage per round is 28 without rapid shot, 31 with, so the gap was closed somewhat but not entirely. It's still good to get Rapid Shot.
I decided to go ahead and do the math. Hope I haven't made any mistakes.... 23 is the average AC for a CR 9 creature according to the bestiary (see table [link=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation]here[/link]. Without Rapid Shot:
Math:
+4 dex +1 WF +2 enhancement +9 BAB -3 Deadly Aim +13/+8, means you have a 55%/30% chance to hit Damage:
You hit for 19.475 damage per round on average with a full attack.
Math:
+4 dex +1 WF +2 enhancement +9 BAB -3 Deadly Aim -2 Rapid Shot +11/11/6 means you have a 45%/45%/20% chance to hit Damage:
24.5 average damage on first shot, 20 damage on other shots You hit for 24.025 damage per round on average with a full attack. This issue is going to be the case most enemies appropriate for your CR, though the numbers get weird in places where you need a natural 20 to hit or anything but a 1 to hit. Enemies with DR that you can't bypass are favored even more by using Deadly Aim with Rapid Shot, which can punch through said DR to do some damage.
If you do the math, it actually works out in favor of stacking + damage bonuses even at the expense of +hit bonuses. The extra damage more than negates the increase in misses; basically, when you hit you'll wop a much bigger wallop. Including Rapid Shot means you'll have a lot of arrows in the air every time you full attack, and so on average you'll hit more often, even with the -2 to to hit and deadly aim.
Three means a pause...but the sentence resumes after the three periods. Four means that it trails off and the sentence is ended....
I'd reconsider your allotment of points, with a little bit of shuffling you can get (after the +4 Belt of Giant Strength) something like: Str 20 (base 15, +1 at level 8, +4 from the belt)
With this you lose a point of strength modifier, but the higher constitution and wisdom are more than worth it. Since you already have Toughness, go with Iron Will (and Improved if you can spare the feat). You'll still be a terror on the battlefield, but one that is considerably harder to put down.
I strongly recommend specializing. It sounds like you aren't especially attached to the Enchantment school, so why not oppose that as well? Even if you prepare a few enchantment spells here and there, as long as you don't do more than 1 enchantment spell per spell level per day you'll wind up with at least as many slots overall; most days you'll wind up with more. You'll also get better school powers out of it. The Conjuration power that extends summon spell durations is a godsend at early levels, Diviner's boost to initiative is awesome, the Illusionist powers are useful....
I'd recommend going with either a Paladin or an Oracle. Oracle is a bit more newbie friendly but he'll have a hard time staying up later. Conversely, Paladin will have no healing at first level but be fine after that, and in the long run will be better off IMO. As GM you might be kind and give them access to some kind of healing for that first level, otherwise they're either going to have a hard time early on or later on.
I like my gnomes to have really long names. My current Kingmaker character is the ruler of his own nation and has about 25 middle names. I think his name is over 70 syllables when he says the whole thing, which he does, at every opportunity he gets. Alternately you could go with a simple name with a title, something along the lines of Rhialto the Marvellous (Jack Vance character), Pharonare the Fabulous, or Mark the Reasonably Modest.
1) There are more ambiguous requirements to fulfill the tenets of your faith. Ambuiguity means most DMs will be less likely to enforce anything. This depends entirely on your GM and your group, but in my experience the Cleric's responsibilities have led to some great roleplaying. 2) More Skill Points: 4 skill points so they can actually know something. This seems like a fair tradeoff with losing your good saves to Fortitude. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I'll take the fortitude save every single time. I don't know about you but given the choice of being polymorphed, turned to stone, poison, or outright killed is far more undesirable than failing a skill check. 3) Same BAB/HP: Same BAB and hp. Wash 4) Spontaneous Casts: You can spontaneous cast all of your spells. Cleric spell lists have a lot of filler, and there are only 3-5 spells you'd want to use at any level anyway, so there is no harm done here. For any spells you don't know, you can just use scrolls and wands (and you're in a better place to use UMD since CHR is your primary stat). There may only be 3-5 spells you want to use regularly at any level, but what about the situational ones? What about raising the dead, removing ability damage, a dozen undead-related spells, situational buffs (resist energy, protection from/magic circle/dispel alignment), removing curses/poisons/diseases...the list of situational spells goes on and on and on. A resourceful cleric can prepare his spell list based on what he expects to encounter, and then later prepare spells to fix things that he couldn't fix the previous day. 5) More Spells per Day: They have more spells per day. And they aren't constrained by one of those spells being forced to be a domain spell. Domain spells should have been the spells that clerics can spontaneously cast, NOT cure spells. And clerics should have never been forced to "use or lose" their domain spells. 1 more spell per spell level per day is a big deal, but there will be plenty of situations where the oracle doesn't have anything useful to cast, while the much more diversified cleric will, so I think the extra spell per day is a wash. 6
These both are good, but so are domains.
Not quite true, only Clerics get access to subdomains. It's not much, but only they get it and some of those domains are damn good. - channel energy? life oracle, paladin (and charisma based, so they are better than a cleric!) After spending a mystery you can do it 1+Cha modifier times a day, cleric gets 3+Cha modifier times a day for free. Sure, Oracle is going to have a better charisma modifier, but it evens the game up a bit, plus ALL non-evil clerics can do it, only oracles of one specific Mystery, one which pidgeonholed you into healing, gain the ability. Paladin can do it but isn't likely to during combat, and channeling energy quickly drains their uses of Lay on Hands. - cleric spell list? Oracle A lot of the spells on the Cleric spell list are ones that you don't really need to cast all day, and for spontaneous casters every spell you choose needs to be very useful. An oracle who heals will be expected to know Restoration and Raise Dead, but every single situational spell like that which he learns is going to detract from his everyday versatility, where as a cleric can prepare magic as he see's fit. Plus, oracle access to new spell levels is one character level behind, which can make a big difference. Clerics are better casters than oracles for the same exact reason that wizards are better than sorcerers. There are no archetypes in the APG for the cleric, only subdomains, and to add insult to injury, subdomains are available to many classes! It's like giving the barbarians new rage powers, and then allow a fighter to take them. See above. Subdomains are Cleric ONLY. It was clarified in a forum post, no classes that get domains may take any of the subdomains instead, only Clerics may.
Only if you want to use it in combat, which is a terrible choice anyway. The healing will never keep up with the damage that baddies put out, much better to spend your turn buffing or, if absolutely necessary, spontaneously casting your highest level Cure spell. - front loaded. The cleric is the only class in pathfinder that screams "prestige class" to me Prestige class into what? Most casting prestige classes are either poor BAB or giving up caster levels, either of which is a poor choice. Also, only if you don't mind losing your channel energy and domain progressions, which, in spite of your evident opinion of them, are quite good. - few options. 2 skill points/lev (and many useful skills), no bonus feat, no special power besides domains, which can't bee choosen freely. Want the demon domain? no way if you are not chaotic evil. So what you're saying is, "No special powers besides domains, which are a special power with some restrictions". Huh. Right. 2 skill points a level is understandable considering how powerful the class already is.
I'm not sure who is suggesting Oracle instead, but I usually would recommend the other way around for anybody who isn't a total newbie. Healing is only strongly discouraged because it's tactically a better choice to disable an enemy ASAP than to delay said disabling by diverting resources to healing, which doesn't scale as quickly as damage. Channel energy is a bad choice in combat. Outside of combat, it's a godsend, because it lets clerics get the entire group healed, often without having to waste any of their precious spell slots.
I've had an eye on this for a while now, and was wondering if and when there would be a dead tree version available. I think I'll go ahead and make the plunge when payday comes around, I'm very interested in this book.
It seems to me like you really don't need to focus on dex to play this character, it's easily done as a strength based fighter. Yes, if you want to take Aldori Dueling Mastery, you'll need Weapon Finesse, but fighters get enough feats that it's not too bad to waste one on that just to get access to the other. Otherwise I see nothing to prevent you from playing this as a strength-based fighter.
Just wanted to point something out to you, but if you want 3 skill ranks and +4 hit points per hit dice, you can just lower CON to 16 and raise INT to 12, put favored class bonus into hit points, and come out with 3 points to spare for point buy, which you can use to increase charisma. I'd do something like.... STR 10 (12-2)
FC into HP and you wind up with the same hit points and same number of skill ranks.
MapTool and all that other free stuff is cool, but no one can honestly say those tools provide the same level of functionality as an officially licensed VTT, built by the game makers themselves. No one can say that they don't either- as of yet, we haven't actually seen any of the promises WotC delivered.
Meh, I'll go ahead and add some suggestions preemptively. If you can specify what you're looking for, I'll add some more later. Crypt of the Everflame (Paizo Publishing): Although this can be used as the first piece of a trilogy of modules, it works perfectly well on its own and it's a great way to get a group together and adventuring. I ran this to introduce my players to Pathfinder and we had a great time. This is generic enough to be dropped into any campaign setting with little to no modification. Carrion Hill (Paizo Publishing): This is a level 5 standalone module with an H.P. Lovecraft bent. It's a really great investigation/horror module, and though I haven't had the chance to run it, I've been drooling over the chance ever since I flipped through it in the gaming store. This one is also pretty generic and should work in just about any setting with minimal effort. Curse of the Riven Sky (Paizo Publishing): Meant for a 10th level party, this might be pushing the boundaries of what E8 characters can accomplish, but eventually they should be able to handle it. It would definitely be end-game material for an E8 campaign, but I think it could succeed strongly in that role. I really love this module, it just bleeds epic rural adventure. The description on Paizo's store doesn't even do Curse of the Riven Sky justice- it features quarreling Giants, cyclops, trolls, an ettin, a dragon, giant animals (dire bear, rocs, wolves), a trek through hostile Viking-themed mountains...all written by Monte Cook. I really, really love this adventure, and will probably try to use it as the last adventure in a campaign if I ever use E8.
In no particular order:
1. FATE - I have yet to play this and have only GMed it a few times but it remains my favourite game, so much so that I put together Free FATE! I particularly like the Cubicle 7 implementation with Starblazer Adventures and Legends of Anglerre (I would really like to run a Star Wars game using the former and an Eberron game using the latter). I had the pleasure of using Starblazer Adventures to run a very short Star Wars campaign, and it works incredibly well. I don't you could find a better match.
Although I'm prepared to accept the idea that my group may be unusual, I haven't seen this problem. Since Pathfinder released, I've played in numerous 1-offs and short campaigns, and two long running adventure path campaigns. In those two campaigns we've seen 3 bards (2 PCs, 1 cohort) and they've all proven quite useful.
Or you could just take Improved Unarmed Strike. Ninjas being great martial artists is a very specific niche of fiction. Historical ninja (if they existed at all) were just spies--they didn't have a grand tradition of martial arts. Fictional ninja have been everything from martial artists to magicians to lorekeepers to any number of other things. I could say more, but that would just be ranting at that point. Totally agree with this post. Just take Improved Unarmed Strike. The breadth and diversity of characters that have been described as ninja in fiction means that NO single class will be able to cover everything that has been written about ninjas.
Odds of this happening are pretty phenomenally low, so the game can hardly be blamed. It's the risk you take when you roll hit dice. The GM for my Kingmaker game has us roll our hit dice plus another dice one step down (so the fighter rolls a d10 and a d8) and the player takes the better result. This has given us slightly higher than average HP, but has also saved us from multiple levels of rolling 1's.
Gotta say, I think a lot of these problems are pretty valid. I want to see this class be able to compete with other ranged damage dealers, and as it is, it just won't. We need more and better things to spend grit on, more grit points in general, and a re-haul of how firearms work to make them viable.
First of all, may I ask why you've chosen to forgo the critical effect feats? Given that you qualify for Critical Mastery, have a decent critical threat range, and so many attacks, I can't see any reason not to take at least a couple of them such as tiring, exhausting, sickening or staggering critical. They're too good to pass up for a straight fighter. Since you've ignored them for both builds I'll move on. I also disagree with going with wounding weapon instead of just an extra +2 enhancement bonus, but I'll ignore that disagreement and leave it be. However, the fact that you don't have power attack, even for a TWF, simply must be a mistake. For purposes of my math I'm removing Persuasive and adding Power Attack. I'm also adding in the Twin Blades bonus of +4 to hit and damage when full attacking with two weapons, that looks like a simple oversight in the original build. With power attack, using the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype, your melee full attack should look something like: Main hand: +1 speed wounding short sword: +28/28/23/18/12 to hit for 1d6+27 damage each.
Bonus Breakdown:
To hit: +18/13/8/3 BAB, +8 strength, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Greater Weapon Focus, +1 Enhancement, +4 Twin Blades, -5 Power Attack; two-weapon fighting penalties are completely negated via the Two Weapon Fighting feat, light weapon in off hand, and the Improved Balance and Perfect Balance class features), extra attack at full BAB from speed property on weapon
Damage: +10 Power Attack, +8 Strength, +4 Twin Blades, +2 Weapon Specialization, +2 Greater Weapon Specialization, +1 Enhancement Off hand: +3 defending wounding short sword (including allocating 2 points to AC as per the original character sheet): +28/23/18 to hit for 1d6+22 each
Bonus Breakdown:
To hit: +18/13/8 BAB, +8 strength, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Greater Weapon Focus, +1 Enhancement, +4 Twin Blades, -5 Power Attack; two-weapon fighting penalties are completely negated via the Two Weapon Fighting feat, light weapon in off hand, and the Improved Balance and Perfect Balance class features)
Damage: +5 Power Attack, +8 Strength, +4 Twin Blades, +2 Weapon Specialization, +2 Greater Weapon Specialization, +1 Enhancement Each hit causes 1 bleed damage, and rend is 1d10+12 damage. Basically, you were completely ignoring the Twin Blades class feature, and not taking Power Attack is a terrible decision for any melee fighter who can take it. All critical threat/hit information and basically all the other math is as you had it. With the original build, you're still missing weapon training in your math, which would add an extra +4 to hit and damage.
4th has this, and it is a terrible idea. Literally everyone begins to pick classes just because a certain class "lines up" right. Imagine a legal Str/Dex or Str/Con -Chr race. It would be difficult to get front liners to play much else, almost regardless of racial abilties. You'd get the people who hate min/maxing doing it, but that would further widen the gap between optimizers and non-optimizers. +1 to this, I completely agree. 4th Edition gets to be really silly in this aspect, and it's my least favorite part of a system that I generally think is alright. I hear about different groups all the time that not only don't include any humans, but also don't include any elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, or half orcs; it's all thri-kreen, goliath, shifter, warforged, deva, genasi, changeling....I don't want to see Pathfinder ever get to that point. Sorry, I'm going to have to say I support their decision to keep it down to the core 7.
Archer. Doesn't really matter if you're a Fighter, Ranger, or Zen Archer, any will work. 3 intelligence and charisma, and get a composite longbow. I'd personally go with Dwarven Zen Archer, you start with 20 con and 20 wisdom, and fairly early on you get to use wisdom instead of dexterity for rolling to hit with your bow. Having a charisma score of 1 gives you a severe weakness to anything that does charisma damage, but you'll have AMAZING saves (all good saves, 18 dexterity, 20 con, 20 wisdom), and do incredible damage with a composite longbow.
To get its full potential Getting its FULL potential isn't exactly the same as a feat tax. A feat tax is something that is so baseline, so necessary to be able to do something effectively, that you basically have to take it in order to have a worthwhile character. Nitpicky, yet, but I can't stand how often the term is thrown around these days. Adding notes in bold
I guess my point is that the thread could use a different name. Dire flail can make use of a ton of feats, but the OP implies that you essentially have to have all of these to be able to use it effectively, which is just not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
