Ima throw a rock.
Would you allow the 3pp Taninim, and it's class the Draconic Exemplar? It is available on d20pfsrd now ( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/rite-publishing/draconic- exemplar ). It's basically dragons-for-players (should be good fun if the dragonrider makes it into the party too :) ). If needed for RP purposes, I can take the power that lets me assume human form, and thanks to the gestalt, I'll have some abilities I can actually still use once I do. And anyway, ending at lvl 12 reduces the risk of growing too large to fit into the dungeons (At lvl 5 he's Medium, at lvl 8 he's Large Lvl 12 is when he grows to Huge.)
If that's not allowed, I can try for a Gunslinger/Cleric, or a Swashbuckler/Summoner.
Let me read through it. It sounds like the sort of thing I should be careful about allowing without understanding the execution. I'll get back to you.
I have yet to do a pbp game, so how exactly is that done?
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nr91?DHs-Guide-to-Play-By-Post-gaming
Would you allow the 3pp Taninim, and it's class the Draconic Exemplar? It is available on d20pfsrd now ( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/rite-publishing/draconic- exemplar ). It's basically dragons-for-players (should be good fun if the dragonrider makes it into the party too :) ). If needed for RP purposes, I can take the power that lets me assume human form, and thanks to the gestalt, I'll have some abilities I can actually still use once I do. And anyway, ending at lvl 12 reduces the risk of growing too large to fit into the dungeons (At lvl 5 he's Medium, at lvl 8 he's Large Lvl 12 is when he grows to Huge.)
If that's not allowed, I can try for a Gunslinger/Cleric, or a Swashbuckler/Summoner.
All right. I'll cautiously allow it, as I think it's cool, and it fits, kind of. What were you going to gestalt it with?
I actually own the Taninim book. You can also go with being a tiny faerie dragon that scales differently with dracomorphosis. :)
I'm definitely interested. Been trying to get in a game for a while (just in one game right now, two others have died on me). I have an idea for a Psychic Detective/Unchained Rogue who works for the Andoran government (not necessarily the military).
All right. I'll cautiously allow it, as I think it's cool, and it fits, kind of. What were you going to gestalt it with?
Sorcerer seemed the most thematically appropriate... but I noticed that the sorcerer archetype for the Taninim, the Trueblood sorcerer, isn't listed on d20pfsrd. It's actually a pretty simple archetype: It forces you to take the Draconic Bloodline, the ditches the lvl 1 ability to grow claws for an earlier limited use breath weapon, and it replaces the Eschew materials feat with the ability to eat spell components and absorb them into your scales.
It's mostly for flavor, letting you get the appropriate draconic bloodline, without getting a useless power (technically, not all Taninim have permanent claw attacks, but they can get them as an alternate racial trait). If you'll allow it, I'll take it. If you won't allow it, I'll just use a regular sorcerer.
(Should you allow it, I ask for one ruling: the eating spell components ability says a scale with a spell component has a visible mark, it can be destroyed, and has a hardness and hp. But it doesn't say exactly how someone would attack them. A Sunder attempt makes the most sense to me. Should you rule that a single area-spell hits them all and can wipe out my spellcasting ability in one shot... I'll look for a different archetype. :) )
All right. I'll cautiously allow it, as I think it's cool, and it fits, kind of. What were you going to gestalt it with?
Sorcerer seemed the most thematically appropriate... but I noticed that the sorcerer archetype for the Taninim, the Trueblood sorcerer, isn't listed on d20pfsrd. It's actually a pretty simple archetype: It forces you to take the Draconic Bloodline, the ditches the lvl 1 ability to grow claws for an earlier limited use breath weapon, and it replaces the Eschew materials feat with the ability to eat spell components and absorb them into your scales.
It's mostly for flavor, letting you get the appropriate draconic bloodline, without getting a useless power (technically, not all Taninim have permanent claw attacks, but they can get them as an alternate racial trait). If you'll allow it, I'll take it. If you won't allow it, I'll just use a regular sorcerer.
(Should you allow it, I ask for one ruling: the eating spell components ability says a scale with a spell component has a visible mark, it can be destroyed, and has a hardness and hp. But it doesn't say exactly how someone would attack them. A Sunder attempt makes the most sense to me. Should you rule that a single area-spell hits them all and can wipe out my spellcasting ability in one shot... I'll look for a different archetype. :) )
Your scales would be attended objects so it shouldn't be an issue.
Sure, go for it.
As for the scales thing, hitting one of them is a sunder attempt.
However, I have a houserule for area of effects that deal damage on a failed reflex save: if you roll a 1 on your saving throw, one of your items (randomly determined) takes damage from the spell as well. Magic items get to save for half, but non-magical items(like spell component pouches) don't.
For the purpose of that, all your scales are considered a single item.
It's a fairly minor risk though.
Actually made a Feykin Taninim when I got the book. Made her an Arcanist who likes to pretend to be a familiar. Wouldn't mind using her, but I'd rather use my earlier idea.
I'll be sure to ask a party member to keep a spare spell component pouch in case I really need another snack. :)
One final question: Noxious Bite feat, yay or nay? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/noxious-bite) I can qualify for it, but it is a monster feat, so I'll understand if it's not allowed.
Are you allowing the new archetypes or class templates from Path of War: Expanded's BETA?
Please comment on my build. Is there anything you are looking for specifically? Also, how optimized should the builds be. I have more optimized builds than this one if it is going to be very hard.First impressions?
1. If you're not using an archetype, any reason you went original Barbarian vs. Unchained? (I know the Unchained Summoner is a ridiculous nerf on the class, but the others are supposed to be "improved" compared to the originals. I've only glanced at barbarian, but it looks solid...
While I agree on most of the others, specifically the armored hulk (which imo, would work VERY well with a fighter)
unchained barb, was, nerfed.
Many of the bonuses you got from rage turned into stances (such as powerful swing for extra damage, the reckless abandon that lowered AC for +to hit, and the one that added Dodge bonus to AC, which means only one is active at a time)
Rage now gives static bonuses, while this is a wash, or, even slight buff for two weapon barbs, two handed barbs get shafted since now they only gain the flat damage bonus, instead of 1/2 their new strength (while its small, 1-2 points of damage only) its still a nerf there.
although, unchained barbs have less of a habit of falling to "suddenly dead" syndrome.
That's too bad to hear; I was hoping it might be good. I saw the elimination of Barbarian Sudden Death syndrome, and was hoping for the best with the rest of the class. Summoner seems to have been nerfed into abject useless unplayability; I suppose it's too much to hope for that Unchained Monk or Rogue might be any good? (I already noticed that Unchained Monk is arbitrarily considered incompatable with all existing Archetypes, which beside being inexplicable, also does not seem a good sign).
Seems like the overall consensus on Unchained is nerf, nerf, big ol' stinking nerf-stick.. Add that in to the boatload of nerfs that came along with the latest errata, it seems almost like Paizo is trying to kill off their own game. It's tough to watch.
I'll be sure to ask a party member to keep a spare spell component pouch in case I really need another snack. :)
One final question: Noxious Bite feat, yay or nay? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/noxious-bite) I can qualify for it, but it is a monster feat, so I'll understand if it's not allowed.
Only if you're okay with me using it on you guys.
Are you allowing the new archetypes or class templates from Path of War: Expanded's BETA?
Yes.
@RigorRictus, I think the unchained rogue at least is a good step up - they get finesse training, which is what weapon finesse always wished it could have been. Some of the talents might've been nerfed, or maybe not, but I think it's worth it overall.
The monk is fun too, I like it better than the original, even though the archetype thing is a little funky.
I can understand why the Unchained Monk isn't compatible, since it doesn't have static abilities like the original Monk and instead gains talents like a Rogue, and all of the Monk archetypes replace static abilites.
I do like the Unchained Barbarian, I much prefer the static bonuses from Rage than the attribute bonus. As for the rage powers, I've not felt that they're a problem, since I haven't heard that you can't just use the old ones along with the new ones.
|
Please comment on my build. Is there anything you are looking for specifically? Also, how optimized should the builds be. I have more optimized builds than this one if it is going to be very hard.First impressions?
1. If you're not using an archetype, any reason you went original Barbarian vs. Unchained? (I know the Unchained Summoner is a ridiculous nerf on the class, but the others are supposed to be "improved" compared to the originals. I've only glanced at barbarian, but it looks solid...
While I agree on most of the others, specifically the armored hulk (which imo, would work VERY well with a fighter)
unchained barb, was, nerfed.
Many of the bonuses you got from rage turned into stances (such as powerful swing for extra damage, the reckless abandon that lowered AC for +to hit, and the one that added Dodge bonus to AC, which means only one is active at a time)
Rage now gives static bonuses, while this is a wash, or, even slight buff for two weapon barbs, two handed barbs get shafted since now they only gain the flat damage bonus, instead of 1/2 their new strength (while its small, 1-2 points of damage only) its still a nerf there.
although, unchained barbs have less of a habit of falling to "suddenly dead" syndrome.
That's too bad to hear; I was hoping it might be good. I saw the elimination of Barbarian Sudden Death syndrome, and was hoping for the best with the rest of the class. Summoner seems to have been nerfed into abject useless unplayability; I suppose it's too much to hope for that Unchained Monk or Rogue might be any good? (I already noticed that Unchained Monk is arbitrarily considered incompatable with all existing Archetypes, which beside being inexplicable, also does not seem a good sign).
Seems like the overall consensus on Unchained is nerf, nerf, big ol' stinking nerf-stick.. Add that in to the boatload of nerfs that came along with the latest errata, it seems...
actually, the unchained barb and summoner got toned down, I feel like they are still QUITE playable.
however, the rogue (who IS compatable with archetypes) got a huge buff.
The monk also got a HUGE buff, being one of the few classes that can move 100+ft a turn and still full attack (with 5 Full BaB + Additional if spending ki and under haste effects)
they do good damage, and are 1d10 HD.
What kind of cookies?
I can understand why Summoner got targeted, as even though nothing was wrong with it, a fair number of less-experienced GM's seemed to have trouble knowing how to account for it, but why did barbarian need a nerf? That never exactly seemed a problem class to me...
(The only exception with summoner that I would agree needed work was the Synthesist. Did that ever get an official fix?)
I can understand why Summoner got targeted, as even though nothing was wrong with it, a fair number of less-experienced GM's seemed to have trouble knowing how to account for it, but why did barbarian need a nerf? That never exactly seemed a problem class to me...
(The only exception with summoner that I would agree needed work was the Synthesist. Did that ever get an official fix?)
Nyet. In fact I think the Synthesist is still compatible with the Unchained Summoner.
The reason they gave for barbarian was that people had some kind of trouble "recalculating" their stats when raging, hence the different writing.
It really makes me unhappy since it makes rage even less versatile.
That was such a silly oversight; part of the initial Pathfinder claim to fame was trying to fix the Polymorph/Druid issue, where a character could dump their physical stats, stack their mental stats, an spend all their time in a shape that made them as strong as a melee loaded character. Do what did they do? They introduced a class that could dump physical, stack mental, spend all their time in a shape that made them as tough as a physically loaded martial class, and then gave them the ability to double up on their HP, and ending up with half again as many HP as a Barbarian!
When I allow Synthesist, I do introduce a nerf (as much as I hate nerfs), in this case I think it's better than just banning the class (er, Archetype). All I do is say you use your own base physical stats (instead of those of the eidolon - and you can still add the 2pt stat bonuses, etc.), and get the Eidolon's con bonus on HP per level, but no bonus dice. Seems to balance pretty well after that...
That was such a silly oversight; part of the initial Pathfinder claim to fame was trying to fix the Polymorph/Druid issue, where a character could dump their physical stats, stack their mental stats, an spend all their time in a shape that made them as strong as a melee loaded character. Do what did they do? They introduced a class that could dump physical, stack mental, spend all their time in a shape that made them as tough as a physically loaded martial class, and then gave them the ability to double up on their HP, and ending up with half again as many HP as a Barbarian!
When I allow Synthesist, I do introduce a nerf (as much as I hate nerfs), in this case I think it's better than just banning the class (er, Archetype). All I do is say you use your own base physical stats (instead of those of the eidolon), and get the Eidolon's con bonus on HP per level, but no bonus dice. Seems to balance pretty well after that...
Arguably the base summoner is a good deal more powerful than the synthesist, and the master summoner is even more.
I just hate that the Unchained Summoner decided to take the route of forcing players into a certain flavor of eidolon.
A Trench Fighter//Mesmerist might be interesting. Think I'll whip one up.
I agree that the new eidolon themes do kind of kill (or at least heavily curtail) the creative possibilities of the concept. The master Summoner I dislike only for the logistical challenge they present (how many creatures you need to track and account for), but I have never found it to be a power concern. Ditto for base summoner; it's not a problematic class in general.
A Trench Fighter//Mesmerist might be interesting. Think I'll whip one up.
What's this about? I think a recruitment thread might be trying to derail our sidebar/rant session or something...
I agree that the new eidolon themes do kind of kill (or at least heavily curtail) the creative possibilities of the concept. The master Summoner I dislike only for the logistical challenge they present (how many creatures you need to track and account for), but I have never found it to be a power concern. Ditto for base summoner; it's not a problematic class in general.
Problem is that synthesist has to choose between casting and fightan'. Summoner's (especially master) can just pop out a creature and then just keep casting away from behind their wall of disposable meat. They end up turning the action economy on its head, which has the potential to be pretty devastating.
A Trench Fighter//Mesmerist might be interesting. Think I'll whip one up.What's this about? I think a recruitment thread might be trying to derail our sidebar/rant session or something...
Yeah, no straying off-topic Escheton, I thought I made that clear in the OP!
Seriously though, I'd prefer if you spoilered further Unchained discussion from here on out.
Unchained works very hard to smoothe out the classes with the highest feast/famine. The fact that you had to rules lawyer or jump through hoops to make classes work much better than they should, because they weren't very good without doing so, seemed to be the target. The worst and best case scenarios were so far apart, it was ridiculous.
Synthesist also isn't really a problem, in my eyes. A single dip of Synthesist is kind of broken, and of course you can totally break the class as a whole (but see above).
Also, there were a lot of calculations and minor mechanics to keep track of for barbarian. (Attack mods, carrying capacity, skill mods, how long you've been in rage, whether or not you used that one attack this fight 7 rounds ago, that you can only use once per rage...)
I do agree that it's unfortunately pigeon-holing what they did with summoner, but then spiritualist came out, and it's abated my fears. I really want other 'binder' type classes, whether fae, plant, magical beast, ancient spirits, dragons, dream critters... :)
Finally, the reason a summoned monster is so darn dangerous is because of things like Earthglide on summon monster 2, Truespeech on summon monster 3, along with a couple other powerful spells. It's powerful because it brings repeated utility to the table in addition to action economy, that you don't even have to choose before you prepare summon monster -or- have normal access to.
On a more related note... I'm leaning heavily towards oracle/kineticist. It creates a really neat flavor, the route I'm going... and not the one that fire suggested to me initially. :)
Okay, I'm going for a gunslinger/monk (kata master)/rogue (unchained). Yes, I do the gun kata.
Now do you enforce the nerf about kata masters not getting opportune parry and riposte? If so, I'll have to spend a level on swashbuckler.
Where'd the nerf come from? I haven't kept up with the kata master monk, but it sounds like it's from ACG, yes?
Edit: Keep Parry & Riposte. No dodging panache.
Yes, the ACG errata hit lots of character types.
Thank you!
Yes, the ACG errata hit lots of character types.
I think you mean, "Mercilessly gutted them in their sleep."
Character-wise, I was just having a thought about a Gunslinger/Monk, though Philo beat me to it. My concept is quite a bit different in practice though, as it still relates to my sniper concept. Monk synergises well, and the skill set works well practically and thematically for an athletic independent type, with good stealth and mobility, able to reposition easily and rapidly, and having unnatural levels of focus and training. The question would be, that given the settings (Commonplace guns), how would you feel about a Zen Archer that applies his talents to rifle instead of a bow? That particular idea is one I've had kicking around in my head for a while, as it seems so perfectly matched with the abilities, but I've never had quite the right game where the concept seemed to fit.
I think this would probably be a bit of a reflavored/reskinned monk, that was like a modern sniper, a specialized commando type with such incredible focus that he is able to pull off amazing feats of accuracy.
Of course, it is just one approach on how to make the concept work well, so if it doesn't sit well with you, just let me know and I'll move on to the next idea.
Without looking: isn't zen archer 'bout letting fly multiple shots? Would that stack with Dead Shot?
Not sure. It does a few other things that caught my interest, such as 1 Ki to add +50ft to range increment for a round, or 1 Ki to add in an extra shot, and of course the obvious, Flurry of Arrows Hail of Bullets!
I think Dead Shot would be incompatable with Flurry, etc., as it only applies to the 'Level-Appropriate' number of shots you can usually fire. I believe Rapid-Fire and Two-Weapon Fighting don't apply, so I think Flurry would be in the same boat.
Regarding the monk sniper: Hmm. I don't think I'll allow that.
Ah, too bad. I think it's a brilliant fit. First time trying to pitch it, but I don't think I'll give up on it entirely - file it away for another game at another time.
If I can ask, is there a particular issue that stands as a concern for allowing this kind of concept? Or is it just going outside the rules in general that strikes as troublesome?
Going outside the rules with regard to monk weapon groups worry me a bit, to be honest.
I've run a zen archer through this adventure before, and it was rather hard to deal with without overpowering the rest of the group. I'm not quite sure I want to deal with one of those who also target touch AC on top of everything else.
Fair enough. Moving on...
Here is the submission for Johnnycat. I'm playing challenge mode; dropping all spellcasting from ranger and bard (well, not that challenging I guess.)
Backstory is in profile and there'll be a little more fluff coming tomorrow.
As always, feedback/criticism is always welcome and appreciated.
Here is the submission for Johnnycat. I'm playing challenge mode; dropping all spellcasting from ranger and bard (well, not that challenging I guess.)
Backstory is in profile and there'll be a little more fluff coming tomorrow.
As always, feedback/criticism is always welcome and appreciated.
Huh. You know, that was surprisingly cool, even without (as you say) knowing what you're referencing.
@Rigor- A gunslinger/inquisitor could make for a pretty solid sniper... You'd have the skills for scouting and sniping, the travel domain could provide some of the mobility you're looking for, and stacking judgment and bane on the gunslinger's already considerable damage should be pretty deadly (plus good stat synergy).
