|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ok, I see what is being said now.
Mechanical Pear wrote:
The arcanist is not burning an arcane point per spell level so for those 3 8th level spells you should only be burning 3 points.
By expending 1 point from her arcane reservoir, the arcanist can attempt to counter a spell as it is being cast.
There is no official rule to catch up. The designers don't suggest that you have people at different levels. Yeah it seems unfair to let everyone get XP, even if they did not participate, but it is better than continuous deaths, and having others at a lower level hurts the party as a whole, not just that one player/character.
Personally, I dont even use XP as a GM anymore.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The rules are clear that you cannot assign your favored class ability to something you don’t have. But what about the retraining rules? Could those be used to retrain your favored class ability once you gain the ability? That would mean that effectively you can assign a favored class bonus to a higher level class ability.
That would likely not work either and be FAQ'd into nonexistence if it became common.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Are you saying Paizo intended for staves to let you qualify for prestige classes?
You are incorrect. You get to use a specific slot once per day. Nobody said you have to fill all of your slots at once though.
Correct. You must have the feat to use it to qualify for the next feat.
When you only have use of the feat under special circumstances that is not the same as having the feat.
Third Mind wrote:
I use different minis even if they are the same creature.
As a player I have always had someone post guard because you never know when Team Evil might show up.
As a GM I don't "make" the players do anything, but depending on the situation they may be disturbed. So far nobody has ever tried to spend the night sleeping without at least one person on guard unless they were in a demiplane.
I believe the current rules/opinion of the forum is that you can't have a character who fights with more than 2 arms. There are certain monsters that can do it, but you run into all sorts of rules and balance issues if you attempt to let a PC use Multi-Weapon Fighting.
That is not true at all. In these debates before evidence has been provided that it is possible to fight with multiple weapons. The opinion is more that this should not be available to PC, but that is an issue of balance, not rules.
To answer the OP shield bonuses do not stack so you can have 80 shields and your shield bonus to AC will not stack because shield bonuses don't stack.
If one wants to be pedantic the item casting the spell means you still get to do stuff, but we know that is not going to fly if the PDT steps in. The items is the one supplying the spell, and you are still going to get stuck with the penalties associated with it. You do not qualify for.
Staves have a similar affect. They allow the user to activate a spell, while not being the actual caster, and he is still stuck with any penalties such as losing his movement after using DD. He can not however use the staff to qualify for any feats since he is only activating an item.
Otherwise someone(fighter, rogue, etc) could get a staff with arcane and divine spells and qualify for Mystic Theurge(Spells: Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells.)
False. Many GM's either have houserules or they run the game in such a way as to reduce/negate the imbalance. That does not mean the problem does not exist. If you want to subscribe to the logic that "the GM can fix it" then nothing is broken, and everything should be allowed because the GM can account for in his own games. However for people prefer not to or don't have the time to fix things, these problems show up quiet often.
People also buy the books because they don't have time to houserule everything and they assume Paizo has mostly pre-balanced it for them.
In addition you see some people avoid the rogue because of it's problem so by that logic alone, which I also think is not a good reason*, you can argue it is not balanced.
*I am referring to idea that some people avoid it is not sufficient to say it is broken and likewise some people playing the class is not sufficient to say the class is ok.
Sundakan it is also intellectually dishonest to only call out one side. I am waiting for you to call out the person who made that "poor" statement. Don't ever mention my name again if you can't call out both sides. Part of the reason I made that statement was because I knew someone would complain, and it just happened to be you. You have been found lacking in integrity.It's been well over 24 hours. This is my last comment on the topic at least until I see you do this again.
Thanks for the answers. The PC in question is a Shaman, so would that be WIS vs. the opposing spell-casters applicable attribute? Or using CHA anyway?
It's still cha vs cha. It doesn't default to your main casting stat so if the other caster is cha-based then he has an advantage in most cases.
I agree in principle, but the feats really just allow things the core rules do not allow so your anger/dissatisfaction is misdirected.
I don't know what call truce does, but I am assuming it lets you use diplomacy mid-combat, but that is not a problem with call truce if I guess correctly at how it works.
That is a problem with the core rules because by the rules it takes one minute(minimum) to make a diplomacy check. Sure a GM can allow it, but a GM can also ignore the call truce feat.
Another example of this(blaming a feat( is the strikeback feat. People blamed that feat because they mistakenly believed that you did not have to be able to attack the square the creature was occupying.
Kurald Galain wrote:
Take Ear-Piercing Scream off that list. It might stop someone for one round. EE is ahead from the day it shows up.Spell is a full round to cast. You get disrupted and the spell is gone. The enemies also have to be in a neat formation for you.
Daze works once and then it is done. EE just keeps chugging along.
Glitterdust is nice when it works, so that is not a bad example. Web also provides cover. I see them as being situationally better, and EE is generally more useful.
PS: Once again I would glitterdust is the only competitor for generally usefulness, and EE helps you not burn spell slots, and it is useful on its own.
I was just as intellectually honest as whoever claimed that EE was a poor option.
Kurald Galain wrote:
The witch having something else they could do, does not make EE poor.That is like saying the barbarian could have hit for 900 points of damage so this 450 points of damage is garbage.
Kurald Galain wrote:
There is a gap between novice(no real combo tactics) and a high level player. Even those who are novices can put together simple combos.
Ferious Thune wrote:
If you are fighting inside a fight is likely to already be withing 30 feet. If you are fighting outside then even one round is good because when polls come up here asking about average, non-boss fights, the fight time is around 3 rounds. Even if evil eye one expires you still have 2 more to hit them with before the round is over.
RD is not fond of houserules.
You can 5 ft step as part of a readied action, so you can ready the action to close the door if someone charges you. You just have to take the 5 ft step to get on the other side of it first.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
I don't link them at all and I don't restrict anything as long as a player's background story is not made to get a mechanical advantage.
Levels are an OOC mechanic so I have no problem with an level 5 NPC who has fought in a war campaign being part of a PC(level 1) backstory, when they both had the exact same experiences in combat.
James Anderson wrote:
I disagree. I've looked into making a sunder or disarm build before. Especially against a holy symbol or spell component pouch, it feels like a d*** move, and ruins the day for the GM.
It is not a dick move, just like a coup de grace is not a dick move. It is something you don't like which is not the same as "it's universally bad". As long as the player's and GM are on the same page it is a non-issue.
If you are using single boss fights then stop doing so. Also if you are running an AP then don't be afraid to up the power of the boss. The AP's are not made to handle optimized parties. Also look into tactics. Having bad guys run away to report tactics to higher ups is valid.
Using things like trip are disarm are also good ideas. If they are resting in enemy HQ it should not take 20 hours for the bad guys to realize their buddies are missing or dead. If this is an ongoing thing then a full on assault makes sense against the party. Also just packing up and leaving makes sense, as well as having every remaining bad guy waiting for them.
That 12 and 18 are far apart. If you were a play in my game I would suggest at least a 15.
1. I don't see this as min-maxing2. How much one has to optimize(make a mechanically good character) depends on the GM.
For my games you can bring a decent character and be ok*.
ok=you should reasonably be able to be useful and not be too close to dying in an AP.
As for 18's they are over-rated with regard to point buy. I find characters are betting off buying up no higher than a 16.
When dealing with natural armor and gaining it there are two ways the rules will word it. One wording means you natural armor increases by the listed amount. The other means your natural armor changes to the listed amount, which is not always a good thing.
If it is worded as the following you add the number:
a +X <bonus type such as enhancment> bonus to the creature's natural armor that means you add the number to the already existing natural armor bonus that the creature has.<---
Example: a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus
If it is worded as the following you replace the number the number:
You gain +4 natural armor bonus.
Your natural armor bonus is your total natural armor bonus. They do not stack. It is just like if a spell such as mage armor grants you a +4 armor bonus which won't stack with the armor bonus provided by armor. However, if the spell said it gives you a +4 <insert bonus type, such as enhancement> to AC then it would stack.
Rolling does nothing to stop min-mixing. That myth needs to be taken out back and shot. It stops a player deliberately choosing how much he can sacrifce in one stat to be good at another, but nothing stops him from putting the best stats where he needs them, while putting the less useful stats in an area that does not hurt as much. Nothing also stops him from putting the best combination of choices(class, magic items, feats, etc) together
Most of the rules were copied and pasted from D&D 3.5, but PF made some adjustments. So basically anything you could do without a feat in 3.5 you can do in Pathfinder, and anything you need a feat or class ability to do in 3.5 also requires a feat or class ability in Pathfinder.
Part of their marketing was to support the 3.5 players who were upset that 4th edition was created.
Das Bier wrote:
Intensify raises the damage cap and only the damage dice/level cap. Things like fireball have a damage dice per caster level cap. Scorching ray has nothing resembling damage dice per caster level.
Scorching ray just like the other spell has a "projectile/attack" per level cap, just like magic missile does.
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
scorching ray wrote:
one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd
<---more rays based on CL
magic missile wrote:
or every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile
<----more missiles based on CL
intensified spell wrote:
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels
<--this really needs to be written better. Is that an FAQ on it, but it does call out damage dice, and not projectiles, rays, and so on.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I can handle it now, but the save or die spells were killing NPC's, and it was 3.5 combined with optimized casters and my first time GM'ing high level play.I dont think it was just spells, but it was a factor. Finger of death and low rolls. I was also using single monster combats.
Yeah I disagree with parts of it, but I think we agree for about 75% of what you wrote.
Like someone said it is really a magic/non-magic disparity, but for the purpose of this comment I will use caster/martial because I am so use to typing it.
I don't think casters outshine martials at most tables, but I do think they have the ability to do so. It just doesn't happen for several reasons, one of which is that it is inefficent to spend spells on something if a someone else can do it with a skill. This of course assumes the problem can be solved with a skill.
Another part of the disparity is that martials can be replaced by casters. Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, I am not saying a wizard, druid, or a cleric is going to match a fighter or a barbarian in DPR vs a single target, but between their ability to fight and their spells they tend to take care of combat with less trouble. The fact that they don't focus on hit point damage as much doesn't change the fact that they make life easier.
I agree with the rest of your write up, until you get to your ideas on how to fit it. I don't think there is an across the board solution(s) that will work. It will vary by table, except for number 10, which is basically "talk to your group".