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

wraithstrike's page

35,157 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 35,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Saethori wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Mechanical Pear wrote:


I think the Arcanist has the only effective counterspell in the game, and I like it. I just wish they got more points in their pool (my build only gains 12 points a day at level 20, but would burn 3 level 8 spells for another 24 points).

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.

Quote:
By expending 1 point from her arcane reservoir, the arcanist can attempt to counter a spell as it is being cast.
Pear is referring to points in his/her arcane pool, and the ability to consume spell slots to increase how much is available.

Ok, I see what is being said now.


Mechanical Pear wrote:


I think the Arcanist has the only effective counterspell in the game, and I like it. I just wish they got more points in their pool (my build only gains 12 points a day at level 20, but would burn 3 level 8 spells for another 24 points).

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.

Quote:
By expending 1 point from her arcane reservoir, the arcanist can attempt to counter a spell as it is being cast.


kevin_video wrote:

Back in 3.5, everyone got a set amount of XP based on their level. If you were lower, you got more. If you were higher, you got less. I don't see such rules in Pathfinder. I know a friend of mine has said that his group has a +10%/-10% per level difference, but is that an official rule? I can't find it if it is.

What is the official ruling? It can't be that one doesn't exist. That'd be stupid if you missed a bunch of sessions for whatever reason, and you ended up being forever 2-3 levels lower than everyone else with no possible hope of making up the difference.

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.


cuatroespada wrote:

RAI is unknowable.

That statement is 100% false.

There are enough statements from board members that match devs to prove it.


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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.)

If we want to be pedantic that way, you use the action to activate the item, but then it has to act to cast the spell ....

So, when is the item turn?
What is initiative modifier (generally items don't have a dexterity stat, so - should be treated as dex 10 or dex 0?
How do it know where you want to go (most items have no intelligence)?
Etc.

Are you saying Paizo intended for staves to let you qualify for prestige classes?


cuatroespada wrote:
Derek345 wrote:
One often overlooked rule is that you can't prepare a full set of new divine spells after a rest. Clerics get one set of spells per day.

that's actually not true. read the next section.

PRD wrote:
Spell Selection and Preparation: A divine spellcaster selects and prepares spells ahead of time through prayer and meditation at a particular time of day. The time required to prepare spells is the same as it is for a wizard (1 hour), as is the requirement for a relatively peaceful environment. When preparing spells for the day, a cleric can leave some of her spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes. During these extra sessions of preparation, she can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if she prepares more than one-quarter of his spells.
italicized emphasis mine.

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.


Gilfalas wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You do not qualify since you do not actually have the feat outside of raging.

So to use a feat to qualify for other feats you must actually possess that feat at all times and not only in special circumstances like bloodrage, martial flexibility or Inquisitor Teamwork Feat?

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.


You do not qualify since you do not actually have the feat outside of raging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Third Mind wrote:

Probably an easy question, but I had run a game for some friends last night and it ended up with 13 character in initiative and since a good chunk of those characters (7) were identical creatures, I also found it was easy to get confused as to which were going when. Accidentally having a couple go before they were supposed to, forgetting who was next.

I wrote what I could down, but when you have wolf 1, wolf 2, all the way up to wolf 7, it's easy to get them mixed up. Any advice on how to better keep track of so many creatures / characters when running through the initiative chain?

I use different minis even if they are the same creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ridiculon wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.)


They are pretty much equal in power. If the wizard is a 10, then the arcanist is a 9.8 or 9.9 and vice versa. The ability of the player should be your concern because if he can wreck your game with one class he can also do it with the other one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
You still see people playing rogues instead of wizards. It doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with rogues.
Funny. I'd say that's exactly what it means.

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.


wraithstrike wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Kurald Galain wrote:
wraithstrike 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.

Precisely.

If this thread was about barbarians, then the OP would have posted that "daggers are underwhelming for barbs, greatswords are better!" and advise people not to take weapon focus (dagger), and not to buy a +1 dagger as your primary weapon.

And then people would be responding "yes, but daggers do damage" or "well, I had this barbarian with a dagger, and I really liked him", or pointing out that "a barbarian's damage with daggers goes up when he rages".

If you're going to compare hypotheticals at least be intellectually honest when comparing them.

Evil Eye has been described as a good back-up option (which you disagree with). Were we talking about Barbarians it would be people saying "Buy a gauntlet, you might need it at some point" with others going "But Greatswords are better" and the original parties chiming in that, yes, Greatswords are generally better but having an option you can use in the rare scenarios you are disarmed or grappled is quite nice to have, actually.

I was just as intellectually honest as whoever claimed that EE was a poor option.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grindstone wrote:
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.
The call truce, once again assuming my guess of how it works is correct, allows you to ignore the 1 minute limitation.

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:
Davor wrote:
So, answer this question: What spells is the witch casting?

That's not hard. Daze. Ear-piercing Scream. Sleep (the spell). Glitterdust. Web. Affecting multiple creatures is better than affecting one, and dazing or blinding is better than a -2.

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.


Sundakan wrote:
Kurald Galain wrote:
wraithstrike 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.

Precisely.

If this thread was about barbarians, then the OP would have posted that "daggers are underwhelming for barbs, greatswords are better!" and advise people not to take weapon focus (dagger), and not to buy a +1 dagger as your primary weapon.

And then people would be responding "yes, but daggers do damage" or "well, I had this barbarian with a dagger, and I really liked him", or pointing out that "a barbarian's damage with daggers goes up when he rages".

If you're going to compare hypotheticals at least be intellectually honest when comparing them.

Evil Eye has been described as a good back-up option (which you disagree with). Were we talking about Barbarians it would be people saying "Buy a gauntlet, you might need it at some point" with others going "But Greatswords are better" and the original parties chiming in that, yes, Greatswords are generally better but having an option you can use in the rare scenarios you are disarmed or grappled is quite nice to have, actually.

I was just as intellectually honest as whoever claimed that EE was a poor option.


Kentoras wrote:
And if you do physical, electricity and, for example, fire damage. Will the hardness apply to each of the damages?

No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kurald Galain wrote:
mourge40k wrote:
It seems you're the one that's looking at Evil Eye in a vacuum.

That's very funny considering the rest of your post consists of only pointing out that EE does something instead of wondering if other hexes or spells might do more.

Quote:
What makes it a good hex in my mind
Right. But what makes it a poor hex in gameplay is that in most situations, a witch is more effective doing something else. Don't look at EE in a vacuum, but compare it to other hexes and spells. At least MrCharisma made the effort of doing math on it.

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:
MrCharisma wrote:

Is evil eye the best hex? I don't think anyone would argue that.

Is it useless? I find that hard to believe.

Right. But your math misses the point: you shouldn't look at EE in a vacuum, but compare it to what else you could be doing with your standard action. So it's not useless in the sense that "it does nothing" (which is trivially false), but useless in the sense that "you have something better to do, pretty much ALWAYS".

Many or most novice witch players have the default strategy to either (1) use evil eye and cackle every single turn no matter what, or (2) use evil eye to "set up" for the effect they actually want in turn 2 (or worse, use evil eye to set up misfortune, then both to set up the effect they want on turn 3). Both of these are common traps: they look like good tactics but analysis reveals they're really not.

And that's why we get threads like these every couple weeks, every time a novice witch player comes to that realization on how to improve his game, and wants to share it. This is the forum for advice, after all.

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:

I'm a fan of Evil Eye because of its auto-success. It's good fallback when you don't want to cast a spell or to help set other things up. Once you hit 8th level, a -4 is a fairly significant penalty.

It's also often misplayed in combination with Cackle. If the target makes its save, then Evil Eye lasts for 1 round. That means that it ends just before your next turn in combat. Which means if you cackle on your next turn, it's too late. Evil Eye has already ended, so you can't extend it. You need to cackle on the same round that you Evil Eye (assuming they make their save) in order to extend it indefinitely. The same goes for Misfortune, Fortune, etc. Combine that with the 30 foot range on most of the hexes, and it's a lot less automatic of a round 1 action. If you have to move up to get into range, then you don't have an action to cackle (or you have to activate a Cackling Hag's Blouse to cackle as a swift).

Cackle also only has a 30 foot range, so an effective counter to it is for the enemy to move away from the Witch. Especially if it's an enemy caster that doesn't care about making a full attack. That forces the Witch to use a move action to keep them in range. Combined with a cackle, that means the Witch is spending their entire round to maintain their debuff instead of inflicting a new one (again, excepting items that allow a limited number of swift action cackles per day).

Misplaying cackle is one of the things that leads to the Witch sometimes feeling overpowered. Playing it correctly brings the class back down to earth, and it necessitates a lot more strategic thought. Of course if they fail their save against Evil Eye, you don't really need to cackle at all, because they'll probably be dead before the duration runs out.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Selvaxri wrote:

why not go the simplest route that is often overlooked at high level? Disarm the bastard- Burning Disarm may not outright disarm him, but you could houserule that Burning Disarm ignites that black powder, causing more damage and a higher save to keep hold of the weapon.

You could also build a character that speciallizes in Disarming with Ranged/Ace Disarm and Directed Disarm

or an even lesser used tactic- have someone/thing steal his black powder.
Or for more hilarity- reverse pickpocket an ignited Tindertwig or Toothpick of Pyrotehcnic into his black powder.

RD is not fond of houserules.


James Risner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Do you have a link? I can't find it to read the full text.
It's from the new hell knight book. Is there a prohibition on linking the text before the book's release date?

Paizo doesnt like for the text to be revealed until the book is released.


Do you have a link? I can't find it to read the full text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:


The 3.X DMG actually had rules for generating a class break down for a settlement.

I was about to mention that, and that is what I use for new towns or towns that don't say how many town/city guards are in a place.


Claxon wrote:


I understand what you're saying and generally agree that's how the spell was intended to work, but that's not actually what was written. And I'm mostly pointing it out for academic purposes.

Thanks. I wish more people would do this and not intentionally derail rules conversations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In actual gameplay misfortune makes a Abig difference, especially in boss fights. People complain about the sleeo hex, but it's not that difficult to deal with. -4 to your AC and saves are not small things. Even a -2 isn't small.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At a certain point in combat the fight is effectively over. That is when you stop casting spells. Some people insist on casting spells every round. When you are at a low level that is not a good idea at all. Grab a crossbow or use a cantrip, but don't waste slot/points.


Cavall wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

You can take a 5 foot step with a readied action. So you could say if someone charges at me I foot step behind this door and close it. I have done that excat thing before and the dm just had the monster destroy the door on it's charge. That was fun.

Wouldnt moving 5 feet and closing a door be 2 actions? A readied action allows for just one?

Not that I don't appreciate the hilarity of it. I do.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:

So, I was just thinking, how many of you see level and age as linked?

For example, you can do an AP where you start off as level 1 and play to the end of the AP where you are around 16 or so. But how long does that AP take? A few months? A few years? A few decades?

Or, you can play a game where you start at level 1 and play for years in game, only gaining 10 levels or so.

So, that brings me to the reason for my question. How would you (as GM or as player) see a character concept at level 1 that is a human (with the Reincarnated trait) whose backstory is that she was in her 40's when she was reincarnated by a witch? So, she still has all her memories of before, but being as this is a level 1 campaign she's not the high level one would think a 40 year old should be?

I've always myself seen level as a mechanic necessary because its' a GAME... but to say that one can't be any age you want (granted, she of course doesn't get any bonuses for being that old... again, mechanic vs. concept) and your level only matters in the context of the story narrative.

What is everyone else's thoughts?

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.


No, you can not do that. The only actions you can take when it is not your turn are immediate actions and specific free actions.

He can ready an action to avoid a charge, but that has to be declared in advance. However readying an action takes up your standard action.


Letric wrote:

I'm not saying that I need, but it's a group game, and if I want to play a an 16 STR 12 INT Wizard I need a very good reason. As soon as my players see this they can get a bit angry because I'm not contributing enough.

My idea behind this I must have 20 on INT it's derived from the contribution I can make to a party.
Just to make an example. I have an Oracle of Like who took an achievement feat, when he gets 1k hp healed, all of his heals are maximized, but doing damage reverts this on a 2/1 scale.
Basically he can't do damage, unless it's with summon. He uses a Heavy Shield but doesn't use a weapon, otherwise he can't cast spell, so he doesn't threaten. He doesn't go on the frontline, despite Breastplate and heavy shield. He only cast Summon Monster I and CLW, Channels.

Is he useless? Many will say he is. Others will say he's not. But having a 10 STR Oracle wearing Breastplate and Heavy shield makes no sense (at least to me). Go Light Armor, and no shield, you're always behind anyway.
Bless? What is that. Shield of Faith? I don't know that spell. He has 80% cast only CLW and channel.

That's my idea behind, being useful to the party. You can come up with any weird build, but a frontline fighter with 12 STR-DEX isn't really useful, he will fail at hitting things, being a threat most of the time.

Where do we draw the line, where do you draw it? When do you start being useful on paper, despite your poor decision-making?

Edit= An 12 INT Wizard is the same as an 18 INT one at level 1, but his DC will make the difference, making his contribution much higher or lower.
I guess we all try to get luck out of the equation. If hitting that Grease depends more on the enemy's luck on the dice roll than your stats, I think things are already looking grim

That 12 and 18 are far apart. If you were a play in my game I would suggest at least a 15.


Letric wrote:

I always struggle with this. Besides some classes like Cleric where if we're going some sort of front line guy we can feel not about a 14 in WIS and a 16 ion STR, usually if we play martials/casters I always feel the need to have the maximum possible.

That 16 on INT wouldn't feel ok being a wizard, not only because of the amount of spells at level 1 (1 extra at 20 is a lot), but also because of DCs and skillpoints.
My current Wizard doesn't have a single rank in Perception. He has Knowledges (a lot of them), Linguistics (yeah), Spellcraft and going to get some into Craft Wood, because DM allowed me to use Amazing Tools for Wands/Staves.
Overall, I'm not sure whether I'm wanting an 18/20 because it's a requisite that I must follow or just because I feel I'm not maximizing the character.
Like playing an Halfling Barbarian. Wasting an 18 to become a 16 feels BAD, WRONG, and horrible! Not only I'm wasting points to buy that 18, but it's also not working, and that +2 DEX isn't going to be suddenly another 18, because buying a 16 is expensive.

So, I'm never sure how to deal with it. Sometimes I wish Skill Points shouldn't be tied to INT, so if I go 16 INT Wizard because I want more agile/dexterous/charming Wizard, will work. But then, you have so many things to avoid being hit, replacing CHA with INT, and downright not caring about it, that still feels wrong.

How do you forum people deal with this? Do you feel ok using an 16 on your main stat, does your GM have limitations on 20s, not being allowed?

1. I don't see this as min-maxing

2. 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.


It is saying you don't get to keep adding 1d4+1 rounds to the duration. Instead 1 round is added to the duration.


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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Akharus wrote:

Honestly, the longer I play and the older I get... the more I think the old tried and true "roll 3d6 for each stat in front of everybody" method is best. Although 4d6 and discard the lowest is fine, too.

It results in unusually powerful characters infrequently, stops stat min/maxing (which can ruin a party, especially when everyone is INT 8), it's fair, and it encourages clever design of a character around what you have to work with, rather than making a designer character for power.

Random stats promote RP, IMO.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer to start at 3rd level as a minimum, but no higher than 7th.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Das Bier wrote:
Yes, it does. As your CL goes up, you get more rays. It stops at 3 rays. With Intensify, it stops at 4 rays.
That has yet to be proven. CL-scaling of rays is not synonymous with CL-scaling of damage barring developer clarification. One does result in the other, but the calculation is "+CL=+ray" instead of "+CL=+damage" like Battering Blast, Ear-Piercing Scream, Fireball, etc. Until you get a FAQ to back you up, I stand by the statement 'Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are not valid for Intensify Spell'.
Yeah, I'll wait on that FAQ, too, and that's the interpretation I'll use until it comes. I don't like overpowering spells like that...BB is nice enough on its own it doesn't need that interpretation to do more.

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.

Fireball wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stats don't really get broken unless you take to an extreme that well beyond what is normal. It is the build than can cause a problem, and even that varies by table.


The Sword wrote:
Cool, thanks for that Wraithstrike.

You're welcome. I figured this was something most people would just accept a dev's word on.


Many feats are subjectively good. It might be great for one build or class to downright crappy for another. It would be a lot more difficult than adding points. How someone plays is also a factor, and some feats value will change based on the other feats you have.


Here is an update. Mark says the person inside the fog makes you lose Dex to AC.

Mark(dev) says you have to directly observe them. Click this link


Charlie Bell wrote:

Just curious--what 7th level spells have given the posters upthread issues?

OT: level 20. But high level play is like dessert--love it, especially after a hearty meal, but it'd make me sick if it was all I ate :)

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
The Sword wrote:
It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.

C/MD summary

What part do you disagree with?

EDIT: This is an open question to all, not just The Sword. Does anyone disagree with any part of the summary?

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".

1 to 50 of 35,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.