Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Adventures Pathfinder Campaign Setting Pathfinder Player Companion Pathfinder Accessories Pathfinder Miniatures Pathfinder Fiction Pathfinder® Society™ Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatible Products Pathfinder Apparel & Gifts Pathfinder Licensed Products
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Combat (OGL)

***½( ) (based on 41 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Combat (OGL)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Hardcover: $39.99

Add PDF: $9.99

Add Non-Mint: $39.99 $29.99

Facebook Twitter Email

Seize the initiative and chop your foes to pieces with this exhaustive guide to the art of martial combat in this exciting new rulebook for the smash-hit Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, suitable for players and Game Masters alike!

This comprehensive 256-page hardcover reference reveals the martial secrets of the Pathfinder RPG rules like never before! Tons of new tricks and techniques for combat-oriented character classes put a sharp edge on your weapons and a sure step in your tactics, ranging from new barbarian rage powers, new cavalier orders, tons of new rogue talents, and more than 60 new archetypes for nearly every Pathfinder RPG character class, including spellcasters like wizards and clerics.

Ultimate Combat also introduces three new Pathfinder RPG classes: the ninja, samurai, and gunslinger! The ninja blends the subterfuge of the rogue with high-flying martial arts and assassination techniques. The samurai is an unstoppable armored warrior who lives by a strong code of honor—with or without a master. The gunslinger combines the fighter’s martial prowess with a new grit mechanic that allows her to pull off fantastic acts with a pistol or rifle. All this plus tons of new armor and weapons, a complete treatment of firearms in the Pathfinder RPG, a vast array of martial arts, finishing moves, vehicle combat, duels, and new combat-oriented spells for every spellcasting class in the game!

    Ultimate Combat includes:
  • New player character options for 14 Pathfinder RPG base classes, including alchemist discoveries, barbarian rage powers, cavalier orders, combat-cleric archetypes, animal shaman druids, new fighter archetypes like gladiator and armor master, inquisitor archetypes like witch-hunter or spellbreaker, combat-themed magus arcana, monk archetypes based on mastery of martial arts, new paladin archetypes like angelic warrior, ranger archetypes like big game hunter and trapper, new rogue tricks, and wizard archetypes like the gunmage
  • The ninja, samurai, and gunslinger, brand-new 20-level alternate classes specially designed to get the most out of combat
  • Hundreds of new combat-oriented feats including martial arts feat trees, finishing moves, and combination feats
  • In-depth overviews on a variety of combat-related topics, such as armor, Asian weapons, duels, fighting schools, guns, siege weapons, and more
  • A complete system covering vehicle combat, including wagons, boats, airships, and more
  • Tons of optional combat rules like called shots, armor as damage reduction, and new ways to track character health
  • …and much, much more!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-359-0

Ultimate Combat Errata

Last Updated - 1/22/2014

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscription.

Product Availability


Hardcover: Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 7 business days.

PDF: Fulfilled immediately. Will be added to your My Downloads Page immediately upon purchase of PDF.

Non-Mint: Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 7 business days. This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at webmaster@paizo.com.

PZO1118


See Also:



651 to 700 of 928 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

xn0o0cl3 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why was the Gun Mage renamed to Spellslinger? It seems kind of awkward. I have to explain to everyone what I mean by Spellslinger, while Gun Mage was pretty obvious.

Quite possibly because of the fact that the majority of classes in the Pathfinder universe have a gun variant archetype. As such, there are multiple types of spell-using gun-shooting classes. As such, gun mage may be obvious what it is, but if they're going to get creative for every other class, might as well do so again here.

Also possible the term is somehow protected under some other trademark or copy-write, I don't know if the term is technically public domain or not. If not, then utilizing it gets dicey.

Finally, Paizo likes to be creative, and could have just taken artistic liberty here because they wanted something they could then copy write. Or simply wanted to be unique.

Regardless of the reason, if gun-mage works for letting people know what you are, then just say it. Like one of my players is a Vivisectionist, but instead of trying to call them that all the time, it's easier to remember him as the alchemist, and we move on.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My 1st question: Prone Shooter's primary effect is that you don't take the -4 penalty for firing a crossbow or firearm while prone. But you already don't take a -4 penalty for firing a crossbow while prone -- PF p. 195, table 8-5, footnote 3. The UC p. 136 says firearms are like crossbows vis a vis firing while prone.

So, the only use for Prone Shooter is (a) if you use a sling, (b) have WF (sling), and (c) have Prone Slinger? Was this feat sponsored by Admiral Ackbar? ;)

The styles are pretty neat, from first glance, but I wish there were some that didn't need Improved Unarmed Strike (cool sword/axe/whatever styles, for example).

The feats table says Extra Bane lets you use the bane class ability "3 additional times per day" -- should be rounds per day.

Channeled Revival: it seems like you cure damage as if you cast breath of life -- but what if you have no caster level? Just a flat 5d8? (If you're a paladin with the warrior of the holy light archetype, you still have lay on hands and channel energy, and thus take the feat -- but no spells so no caster level.)

Also, a full round action plus having to touch the fresh corpse means that this feat is only ever going to be usable if you are standing right next to the person when they get killed.

I'd hope it would be more like Channel Energy -- within 30 ft, hp recovered based on Channel Energy rather than caster level. Then it would be useful, and worth a feat. As it is, it will very rarely come up.

Regarding Cleaving Strike and Improved Cleaving Strike -- who thought 3.5e's Cleave or Great Cleave were so awesome that they needed more prerequisites before you could take them? IME, folks remembered to assign their Dodge feat's AC bonus and actually assigned it to someone that attacked 'em more often than Cleave came up, let alone Great Cleave! ;)

PS: Having read the Rending Fury chain of feats: I am now ascared of troll fighters. Yikes!


xn0o0cl3 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why was the Gun Mage renamed to Spellslinger? It seems kind of awkward. I have to explain to everyone what I mean by Spellslinger, while Gun Mage was pretty obvious.

My point exactly, I run a Forgotten Realms game where the term "spellslinger" in that world means the same as "sellsword", basically a mercenary spellcaster that sells their services of spellcasting to others. Gunmage is best (and I doubt it's trademarked, can't trademark a term like that I don't think)

Liberty's Edge

Deanoth wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Slipstream wrote:
I'm curious about the Divine Strategist and Sanctified Rogue. May not need to multi-class some of my favorite features anymore if they are what I think they are.

Alas, the Sanctified Rogue is probably not what you think. I was hoping for the same thing, but it turned out to be one of the saddest, lamest archetypes ever!

You give up UNCANNY DODGE for a +1 to Fort and Will....ever!!! Then you give up (naturally) Improved Uncanny Dodge for an augury spell.....ONCE PER DAY!!

THAT'S IT

On the other hand...Divine Strategist gives up one domain and channel energy to gain a massive bonus to initiative (plus always acting in surprise rounds); aid another that gives a hefty bonus to concentration and CL checks; and Int bonus to flanking attacks (plus a once a day Int bonus to attack).

This might be something you think is lame... but this is NOT about you or min/maxing. Not every single class, archetype, feature, feat, skill, spell or anything else like that for that matter has to be applicable to min/maxing. It CAN be about Role Playing and such too. Just because someone does not like it or thinks it is lame does not make it so for everyone else.

So please refrain from the lame speak for now ok :)

I'm all for roleplaying. Yet at the same time if I have to give up a decent ability such as uncanny dodge I expect to get more than a +1 to fort and will. Imo it sure as hell does not make up for losing such a useful ability as Uncanny Dodge. The postive imo does not balance out the negative. Same thing with the Clostered Cleric. One thing imo posters so not understand that the system does not reward you for doing so. Sure it maybe fun to roleplay such a class yet unlike a regular Rogue your at a disadvantage.


Deanoth wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Slipstream wrote:
I'm curious about the Divine Strategist and Sanctified Rogue. May not need to multi-class some of my favorite features anymore if they are what I think they are.

Alas, the Sanctified Rogue is probably not what you think. I was hoping for the same thing, but it turned out to be one of the saddest, lamest archetypes ever!

You give up UNCANNY DODGE for a +1 to Fort and Will....ever!!! Then you give up (naturally) Improved Uncanny Dodge for an augury spell.....ONCE PER DAY!!

THAT'S IT

On the other hand...Divine Strategist gives up one domain and channel energy to gain a massive bonus to initiative (plus always acting in surprise rounds); aid another that gives a hefty bonus to concentration and CL checks; and Int bonus to flanking attacks (plus a once a day Int bonus to attack).

This might be something you think is lame... but this is NOT about you or min/maxing. Not every single class, archetype, feature, feat, skill, spell or anything else like that for that matter has to be applicable to min/maxing. It CAN be about Role Playing and such too. Just because someone does not like it or thinks it is lame does not make it so for everyone else.

So please refrain from the lame speak for now ok :)

Well, if you want to give up your Uncanny Dodge for a +1 on two saves, you are free to do so. Just as I am free to express my opinion without being censored simply because it is a negative opinion, and you don't agree with it.

You call it min/max, I call it fairness/balance. Most every archetype I've seen has a decent trade-off for what you give up, and some are a little overpowered. But this one is just lame.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32, 2012 Top 4

Colin McComb wrote:
Well, thanks. As I noted above, much of the credit should go to the developer for this section (I'll say SKR, because he was my in-house guy for the project). It's his friendly hand you see there, fixing my mistakes. :)

I'd like to leap onto Colin's wagon here and acknowledge how awesome Paizo's in-house designers are. (SKR was my contact as well.) My feats and fighting style turnovers were very nicely cleaned up, polished, and in some cases renamed ... all for the better!


Any feat to help you move and attack?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Slipstream wrote:
I'm curious about the Divine Strategist and Sanctified Rogue. May not need to multi-class some of my favorite features anymore if they are what I think they are.

Alas, the Sanctified Rogue is probably not what you think. I was hoping for the same thing, but it turned out to be one of the saddest, lamest archetypes ever!

You give up UNCANNY DODGE for a +1 to Fort and Will....ever!!! Then you give up (naturally) Improved Uncanny Dodge for an augury spell.....ONCE PER DAY!!

THAT'S IT

On the other hand...Divine Strategist gives up one domain and channel energy to gain a massive bonus to initiative (plus always acting in surprise rounds); aid another that gives a hefty bonus to concentration and CL checks; and Int bonus to flanking attacks (plus a once a day Int bonus to attack).

This might be something you think is lame... but this is NOT about you or min/maxing. Not every single class, archetype, feature, feat, skill, spell or anything else like that for that matter has to be applicable to min/maxing. It CAN be about Role Playing and such too. Just because someone does not like it or thinks it is lame does not make it so for everyone else.

So please refrain from the lame speak for now ok :)

I'm all for roleplaying. Yet at the same time if I have to give up a decent ability such as uncanny dodge I expect to get more than a +1 to fort and will. Imo it sure as hell does not make up for losing such a useful ability as Uncanny Dodge. The postive imo does not balance out the negative. Same thing with the Clostered Cleric. One thing imo posters so not understand that the system does not reward you for doing so. Sure it maybe fun to roleplay such a class yet unlike a regular Rogue your at a disadvantage.

Again this is about Role Playing and not min/maxing. There does not have to be a quid pro quo type of exchange here. There does not have to be a balance at all. While it might not appeal to you or someone else. Others it might appeal to. There does not always have to have opportunities for Min/Maxing in all classes, archetypes and so on... there should be some flavor type things too just FOR FLAVOR. Everyone should have some of the things that they want in a book not just one style of game play. While it might not appeal to you it does others. So please keep that in mind when you see something you personally do not like.

There does not always have to be a reward at the exchange of something else.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Can'tFindthePath wrote:


Well, if you want to give up your Uncanny Dodge for a +1 on two saves, you are free to do so. Just as I am free to express my opinion without being censored simply because it is a negative opinion, and you don't agree with it.

You call it min/max, I call it fairness/balance. Most every archetype I've seen has a decent trade-off for what you give up, and some are a little overpowered. But this one is just lame.

I am not censoring you, as I can not do so. I am just tired of hearing/reading the balance thing in threads like this. There is always at least one person that crys out about one class or feat or spell or some such that is "Lame" as you put it or just not fair or underpowered. While yes it might just be that, underpowered does not make it unplayable to some of the people that it DOES appeal to.

I call it min/max because in all fairness it sort of is when you exchange one power for another. So if I were to take Uncanny Dodge out of the picture and not put in something of equal value in your opinion it is unfair and unbalanced but it IS the very defined approach to min/maxing. There does NOT have to have a decent exchange for each trade off. Because some people like that and it is the style of gaming THEY do. I personally do not, at least not a lot but I certainly do not give up on the class because it is not "Balanced" like you want it to be.

BTW just because I do not agree with your opinion does not make yours any less valid as that is YOUR style of gaming and you have the right to it, but just like you have that right so does everyone else have their right to their styles of gaming too.

Contributor

Colin McComb wrote:
Well, thanks. As I noted above, much of the credit should go to the developer for this section (I'll say SKR, because he was my in-house guy for the project). It's his friendly hand you see there, fixing my mistakes. :)

The kudos go to Stephen in this case, as he developed all of UC (I only did an initial pass on the feats, and he looked at them after that).


Deanoth wrote:


Again this is about Role Playing and not min/maxing. There does not have to be a quid pro quo type of exchange here.

Yes they do.

If it's for roleplaying, i can roleplay a standard rogue as an holy individual, a "scoundrel with an hearth of gold +++".

If it's for roleplaying, pure roleplaying, have uncanny dodge does not mean I am less holy. If so, please explain clearly why.

BUT if I losse uncanny dodge for a +1 to saves I am not more holy than before: I lost an ability to avoid attacks for a crappy bonus. I am not more or less holy.

And really, stop with this mindset. Is too much a good justification for poorly tought mechanics.

Dear God. +1 to saves. Did they fear of making the Rogue too strong :D ?


Alright, I can wait no longer. I need vehicle combat spoilers. NEED. I have waited patiently, but if someone doesn't tell me what an Airship is in Golarion, my head may explode. Are we talking hot air baloons? Zepplins? A longship lashed to some air elementals? A friggan magical Final Fantasy spaceship?! Throw me something please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deanoth wrote:
[Again this is about Role Playing and not min/maxing. There does not have to be a quid pro quo type of exchange here. There does not have to be a balance at all....

Here's my new wizard archetype: you give up all spellcasting. In exchange you get a free pony at 1st level. It's too small to ride, and does not advance or get any special abilities, but it's friendly and cute.

Go ahead and play this archetype in the next game. It's all about RP. No one needs balance. Balance is for min-maxers.

When a rule forces you to actively hurt yourself in the name of "flavor," that's a sign of BAD DESIGN. People pay money for good design. Abandoning design altogether and "just RPing" with no numbers requires no rulebooks at all and thus no expenditure of money -- just make up a story.


Razz wrote:
xn0o0cl3 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why was the Gun Mage renamed to Spellslinger? It seems kind of awkward. I have to explain to everyone what I mean by Spellslinger, while Gun Mage was pretty obvious.
My point exactly, I run a Forgotten Realms game where the term "spellslinger" in that world means the same as "sellsword", basically a mercenary spellcaster that sells their services of spellcasting to others. Gunmage is best (and I doubt it's trademarked, can't trademark a term like that I don't think)

sure you can TM _____ and _____ looks at the MIND FLAYER

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 , Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
coyote6 wrote:

My 1st question: Prone Shooter's primary effect is that you don't take the -4 penalty for firing a crossbow or firearm while prone. But you already don't take a -4 penalty for firing a crossbow while prone -- PF p. 195, table 8-5, footnote 3. The UC p. 136 says firearms are like crossbows vis a vis firing while prone.

So, the only use for Prone Shooter is (a) if you use a sling, (b) have WF (sling), and (c) have Prone Slinger? Was this feat sponsored by Admiral Ackbar? ;)

I wrote that feat. In my turnover it gave a small (I think +1 or +2) bonus to attack rolls when shooting from prone.


What is the word on the Dragoon Archtype?
Is it a spear or gun user?

Scarab Sages

Bloodbane wrote:

What is the word on the Dragoon Archtype?

Is it a spear or gun user?

Spear(Lance primarily). It's like they merged the idea of real dragoons with Final Fantasy dragoons, in a way that I, at least, really enjoy.

For example, rather than dude a miles-high jump where you come down on an opponent with a spear, there's a (high level) feature that lets you make a charge in which you dismount at least 10 feet before the end, leap the remaining distance yourself, and get the damage of a boosted lance charge. Fortunately, they also have features that let them use a Lance while on foot just fine.


Drillboss D wrote:
Bloodbane wrote:

What is the word on the Dragoon Archtype?

Is it a spear or gun user?

Spear(Lance primarily). It's like they merged the idea of real dragoons with Final Fantasy dragoons, in a way that I, at least, really enjoy.

For example, rather than dude a miles-high jump where you come down on an opponent with a spear, there's a (high level) feature that lets you make a charge in which you dismount at least 10 feet before the end, leap the remaining distance yourself, and get the damage of a boosted lance charge. Fortunately, they also have features that let them use a Lance while on foot just fine.

Boo-Yah, Just what I wanted :D

Well not quite but as long as its not the gunman :D


Bloodbane wrote:

What is the word on the Dragoon Archtype?

Is it a spear or gun user?

I'm putting money on mounted polearm theme. The 'real' dragoons from whatever time period in Europe. Probably has nothing to do with the Highwind lineage or the Colt revolver.

EDIT: Ninja'd and corrected! Sounds interesting.

Scarab Sages

Foghammer wrote:
Bloodbane wrote:

What is the word on the Dragoon Archtype?

Is it a spear or gun user?

I'm putting money on mounted polearm theme. The 'real' dragoons from whatever time period in Europe. Probably has nothing to do with the Highwind lineage or the Colt revolver.

EDIT: Ninja'd and corrected! Sounds interesting.

Indeed. Also I think the word Dragoon comes from a type of gun, in that the original guns were mounted infantry with guns (get to battle on horse, dismount, fight on foot with a gun traditionally made to kind of look like a dragon). What I dig is that it looks like Paizo merged the concepts together.

They don't receive a mount, mind you, BUT they look plenty awesome without one and then get cooler when they get to ride something.


Is there a picture with the description?

Scarab Sages

Bloodbane wrote:
Is there a picture with the description?

The art in the fighter section is a fighter with a spear, the head of which is dragon shaped. So, I'm thinking yes.


So, can anyone give me some info on the Merciful Healer archetype? I needs it for a cleric I want to run. D:


Drillboss D wrote:
Bloodbane wrote:
Is there a picture with the description?
The art in the fighter section is a fighter with a spear, the head of which is dragon shaped. So, I'm thinking yes.

EPIC!

Contributor

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Colin McComb wrote:
Well, thanks. As I noted above, much of the credit should go to the developer for this section (I'll say SKR, because he was my in-house guy for the project). It's his friendly hand you see there, fixing my mistakes. :)
The kudos go to Stephen in this case, as he developed all of UC (I only did an initial pass on the feats, and he looked at them after that).

Well, all right then - SRM it is. Thanks, Stephen!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
[Again this is about Role Playing and not min/maxing. There does not have to be a quid pro quo type of exchange here. There does not have to be a balance at all....

Here's my new wizard archetype: you give up all spellcasting. In exchange you get a free pony at 1st level. It's too small to ride, and does not advance or get any special abilities, but it's friendly and cute.

Go ahead and play this archetype in the next game. It's all about RP. No one needs balance. Balance is for min-maxers.

When a rule forces you to actively hurt yourself in the name of "flavor," that's a sign of BAD DESIGN. People pay money for good design. Abandoning design altogether and "just RPing" with no numbers requires no rulebooks at all and thus no expenditure of money -- just make up a story.

Where in the rules for any feature of any single class for any feat, spell or anything else for that matter says that you HAVE to play the way it says or else? You do not have to play the class you are complaining about. Nor do you have to ride the pony in your example above which is laughable and a poor analogy to say the least. I never ever once said NO ONE NEEDS balance!!! Stop putting words in text I did not say please. I did say there does not have to be balance but I will go a step further and clarify for you ok, Balance is NOT needed to play a class or play a feature of some kind. Just because you say it needs to be as such does not make it so. Keep using your poor analogy and play the rules as written and force yourself to play the class you are complaining about then... as you mentioned you are forced to play it and are not given a choice on whether or not you want to, right?


Deanoth wrote:


Where in the rules for any feature of any single class for any feat, spell or anything else for that matter says that you HAVE to play the way it says or else? You do not have to play the class you are complaining about. Nor do you have to ride the pony in your example above which is laughable and a poor analogy to say the least. I never ever once said NO ONE NEEDS balance!!! Stop putting words in text I did not say please. I did say there does not have to be balance but I will go a step further and clarify for you ok, Balance is NOT needed to play a class or play a feature of some kind. Just because you say it needs to be as such does not make it so. Keep using your poor analogy and play the rules as written and force yourself to play the class you are complaining about then... as you mentioned you are forced to play it and are not given a choice on whether or not you want to, right?

The only thing you said that I object to, is when you "asked me" in an admonishing tone, to stop stating my opinion. Because, apparently, I might influence the wee ones and ruin their chance to play a crappy archetype.

As far as your point about min/maxing; there certainly does have to be balance in the published designs. The Rogue is designed and extensively playtested as a balanced member of the Base Class line up. If you take a high value ability from that class, you must replace it in kind; at least in the official rules. A player is free to not utilize his classes abilities if he wants to "roleplay" not being as good as the other PCs. But I doubt that's much fun for anyone in the group after awhile.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

While everybody is busy reading the actual content of the book, I glanced over at the credits page. And I found this:

Development: Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Chris Sims

Before somebody screams "4E designers are writing my Pathfinder books, noes!" I'd like to say that liked Secrets of Sarlona very much and I'm happy to see Chris working for Paizo :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Another non-rules discover that made me smile:

page 7: "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

Heh.


Gorbacz wrote:

While everybody is busy reading the actual content of the book, I glanced over at the credits page. And I found this:

Development: Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Chris Sims

Before somebody screams "4E designers are writing my Pathfinder books, noes!" I'd like to say that liked Secrets of Sarlona very much and I'm happy to see Chris working for Paizo :)

Secrets of Sarlona was really good. I never played Eberron, and still I used it for a specific region of my campaign.

In the crunch session, the feats and weapon part was particularly inspiring and I can't wait to see if there are similar things in the UC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deanoth wrote:

Stuff

Oh, awesome, another one of these arguments. It's like all RPG-related internet discussions have come full circle. Let's see if we can speed this along.

First he'll say a new option is lame (let's keep in mind that the rogue is already one of the weakest classes in the game and that their real saving grace IS their list of defensive capabilities). Then you'll insist that it's totally fine and should totally be there for players that want to play that kind of character while making a bunch of backhanded comments about how his play style just differs from your (get it? he's one of those 'roll' players who only care about math while you're one of the elite 'role' players). These things already happened.

Then you'll go back and forth a few times, or a lot if you're persistent. Then somebody will quote the Oberoni Fallacy and my soul will die a little bit more (it's at -7 right now). Then he'll say that, if you don't enjoy the 'game' aspect of the game, you should just play make believe. You'll insist (completely without irony) that you enjoy the mechanical challenges of the game, because your opinion is completely incompatible with such a mechanically robust system. but you'll still refuse to back down on this particular issue because, it's an internet argument and no one ever admits that they're wrong. He'll insist that he enjoys the roleplaying aspect of the game AT LEAST as much as the rollplaying aspect (because he never said otherwise) and that a good character concept should also be backed by strong mechanics. Then it'll turn out you two basically have the same gaming style, but just disagree on this one particular archetype. Puppies may be involved.

So let's all just agree to the following:

-Good rp =/= bad mechanics
-Good Mechanics =/= bad rp(or "rollplaying")
-Everyone optimizes their characters within reason, unless their character concept involves being bad at their job (please note the "within Reason")
-All options should be mechanically viable, to prevent the elitist crap like 'trap options' or 'system mastery'.
-balance is impossible to attain (and the path is littered with 4e), but some semblance of it should be attemped.
-When a character trades one ability for another, it should be of roughly equivalent worth (unless, again, their character concept involves being bad at their job). If the option is clearly vastly mechanically inferior, in basically all campaigns, it is, in fact, lame.

Now, please stop cluttering up this thread with a repeat of this argument. Some of us are curious about the product. Kthxbye.

Grand Lodge

Any new cavilier orders? Apart from the Sammy ones?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Helaman wrote:
Any new cavilier orders? Apart from the Sammy ones?

Three.

The Order of the Blue Rose is pacifist (and seems designed specifically for worshippers of Shelyn to me), though not to the point of denying that they are a martial class; they get bonuses to attacks as well as damage against the challenged foe, but only if they have offered terms of surrender first.

The Order of the Seal swears to protect a particular location, object or person with their lives; they gain morale bonuses to attacks when defending their charge or to saves against attempts to learn secrets about their charge.

The Order of the Tome fights on behalf of knowledge, though some defend all knowledge while others work to protect the world from "knowledge that should not be." They get the ability to read and use scrolls with far greater ease than most noncasters, and their challenge also grants bonuses to saves against spells and spell-likes from the target of their challenge.

Grand Lodge

Shisumo wrote:
Good stuff I want to buy

Thanks mate.


Gorbacz wrote:

While everybody is busy reading the actual content of the book, I glanced over at the credits page. And I found this:

Development: Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Chris Sims

Before somebody screams "4E designers are writing my Pathfinder books, noes!" I'd like to say that liked Secrets of Sarlona very much and I'm happy to see Chris working for Paizo :)

It makes me happy, actually, because it's a testament to 4e's failure and, hence, the laying off or resignation of their staff who deep down probably regret 4e and turning D&D into that garbage. So much so, in fact, they came on board Pathfinder. My wish of seeing WotC's downfall with D&D is coming true. :D

Back to the main topic, what are finishing moves, anyone?


Shisumo wrote:


The Order of the Tome fights on behalf of knowledge, though some defend all knowledge while others work to protect the world from "knowledge that should not be." They get the ability to read and use scrolls with far greater ease than most noncasters, and their challenge also grants bonuses to saves against spells and spell-likes from the target of their challenge.

Very very cool.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Deanoth wrote:


Where in the rules for any feature of any single class for any feat, spell or anything else for that matter says that you HAVE to play the way it says or else? You do not have to play the class you are complaining about. Nor do you have to ride the pony in your example above which is laughable and a poor analogy to say the least. I never ever once said NO ONE NEEDS balance!!! Stop putting words in text I did not say please. I did say there does not have to be balance but I will go a step further and clarify for you ok, Balance is NOT needed to play a class or play a feature of some kind. Just because you say it needs to be as such does not make it so. Keep using your poor analogy and play the rules as written and force yourself to play the class you are complaining about then... as you mentioned you are forced to play it and are not given a choice on whether or not you want to, right?

The only thing you said that I object to, is when you "asked me" in an admonishing tone, to stop stating my opinion. Because, apparently, I might influence the wee ones and ruin their chance to play a crappy archetype.

As far as your point about min/maxing; there certainly does have to be balance in the published designs. The Rogue is designed and extensively playtested as a balanced member of the Base Class line up. If you take a high value ability from that class, you must replace it in kind; at least in the official rules. A player is free to not utilize his classes abilities if he wants to "roleplay" not being as good as the other PCs. But I doubt that's much fun for anyone in the group after awhile.

Actually I never tried to be admonishing or mentioned to keep your opinion to yourself as I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech but just because something can be said or done does not mean that it should be :)

The thing is yo9u are absolutely correct and the Rogue was ostensibly tested over and over, but that is the iconic class of the rogue. Each Archetype was not as much as the rogue was though and with that being said each Archetype is mostly there for flavor... and while we disagree on the extent of the usefulness of such a build, the fact that it is in the book speaks larger volumes in my opinion and flavor does matter :)


Anybody read anything about airships? I'm begging here.


D john wrote:
Anybody read anything about airships? I'm begging here.

- Airship: basically a sailing ship hanging below a balloon, armed with 6 large or 4 huge siege weapons.

- Alchemical Dragon: a dragon-shaped airship powered by an alchemical engine; same armament as the Airship, but more durable.

- Glider: smaller aircraft without weapons.


Deanoth wrote:
Actually I never tried to be admonishing or mentioned to keep your opinion to yourself as I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech but just because something can be said or done does not mean that it should be :)

With all due respect and admiration for Velderan's inspired post:

Deanoth wrote:

This might be something you think is lame... but this is NOT about you or min/maxing. Not every single class, archetype, feature, feat, skill, spell or anything else like that for that matter has to be applicable to min/maxing. It CAN be about Role Playing and such too. Just because someone does not like it or thinks it is lame does not make it so for everyone else.

So please refrain from the lame speak for now ok :)

Okay, I'm done....promise.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I had a question regarding the Wounds and Vigor optional rules. How exactly do the Bleed rules factor in?


Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
William Bryan wrote:
I had a question regarding the Wounds and Vigor optional rules. How exactly do the Bleed rules factor in?

This is actually an EXTREMELY good question, as the chapter doesn't talk about the Bleed condition at all. This probably means that you essentially "bleed" out vigor damage. I guess the fluff would be that you're bleeding out, but you're not actually super damaged yet. If I were using this system, I would probably houserule otherwise.

I'd probably play it as follows: if the Bleed effect does Constitution damage, you're in the clear. The rules for Constitution damage are that every point of Constitution damage taken removes 2 wound points. However, for hit point bleed ... well ... I'm inclined to say that the effect should deal wound damage equal to the number of damage dice that would have been rolled for the effect. For example, if you would do 2d4 points of HP bleed, you do 2 wounds instead.

The reason I say this is because it's basically how the system handles negative energy; Inflict Wounds spells are REALLY nasty in this system, any negative energy effect can choose to either deal vigor damage equal to the normal vigor damage or 1 wound per die that would have been rolled (i.e., Inflict Serious Wounds deals 4 wounds because you would have rolled 4 dice for the effect).

T


i skimmed through all the posts but has there been any info on the divine hunter paladin archtype?

Liberty's Edge

Helaman wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Good stuff I want to buy
Thanks mate.

Can't wait to get my copy of this book!

Slight threadjack ...

If you are looking for additional cavalier orders, might I suggest:

Advanced Options: Cavaliers' Orders

and

Advanced Options: More Cavalier Orders

both from Super Genius Games?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 , Star Voter 2014

I removed a post. Play nice.

The Exchange

I haven't seen anything about Alchemists yet, could I get some spoilers about them? Specifically, if possible, some of the discoveries?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Edgar Lamoureux wrote:
I haven't seen anything about Alchemists yet, could I get some spoilers about them? Specifically, if possible, some of the discoveries?

Sure:

- Breath Weapon Bomb: What it sounds like. 15 foot cone, Reflex for half damage.

- Explosive Missile: Infuse ammunition with bomb power, then shoot it, as a combined standard action.

- Immolation Bomb: Deal your bomb damage over time. A 5d6 bomb deals 1d6+INT mod for 5 rounds, INT mod for surrounding enemies.

- Nauseating Flesh: Anyone who makes a bite, engulf or swallow whole attack against you must make a Fort save or be nauseated.

- Poison Conversion: Convert poisons from one type to another, i.e. contact to inhaled/injury/etc.

- Siege Bomb: Create bombs for siege weapons, deals large area damage, but damage is reduced greatly. Sets targets on fire.


Zen79 wrote:
D john wrote:
Anybody read anything about airships? I'm begging here.

- Airship: basically a sailing ship hanging below a balloon, armed with 6 large or 4 huge siege weapons.

- Alchemical Dragon: a dragon-shaped airship powered by an alchemical engine; same armament as the Airship, but more durable.

- Glider: smaller aircraft without weapons.

I can't speak for everybody, but I'm pretty into that. Air balloons are neat, and I'm glad they added some tech without moving into crazy steampunk territory.


Got my Jade Regent PDF today and it mentions Ultimate Combat multiple times. Do people thinking using the gunslinger class would work with the Jade Regent AP? I know one of my players who would jump at the chance, but I'm a bit iffy because I don't know how well it would mesh...don't have any problem with someone playing a ninja or samurai though, should fit in nicely!

651 to 700 of 928 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / paizo.com / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Combat (OGL) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 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.