Blue Dragon

Bluemagetim's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 715 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 715 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Recall knowledge has the secret trait. Do you tell players they failed after rolling for them? I ask because if you've told them here is the answer and another answer and your telling the player one is false then they know they failed the check triggering dubious knowledge.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So actually I think we should look at this differently.

This feat changes what failure does. Rather than get no information you get the result of a critical fail and a success but dont know which piece of info is true and which is false.

Theres a fundamental shift in what constitutes failure.
Giving nothing is the same as not having the feat so thats probably not right to do.
Because you are giving something false (crit fail equivalent result) you should also give something true (success equivalent result)

The balance comes in the player not know which is which or at the very least playing their character as if the character doesnt know which is which. I mean essantially the character has bad info and good and believes both are good pieces of info.

This feat is only fun for players who want to roleplay acting on bad info because they are supposed to get it on a fail now and supposed to play on that info as if the character believes it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The more i learn about the game the more I look back on earlier ideas ive had and see how some dont hold up with my current understanding of the game.

This one with proficiency built into stances might be ok with some tweaks.
For one whatever weapons are selected to be considered incorporated into the style expressed by a particular stance those weapons should treated as simple weapons to monk while they are in that stance. This makes proficiency scale and only apply while that style of fighting is in use. This also allows the stance benefits to be designed with the included weapons in mind for balance.

But exequiel759 is right that the idea locks in fighting stances with certain weapons and limits concepts. I think I am ok with that though if it means the design can approach more inclusion of weapons into the stance design so they can benefit from them and do so in a way that balances the stance benefits with the weapons allowed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I find threads dealing with RK to be helpful for me. Its probably the most time consuming mechanic to prepare for and dubious knowledge puts you on the spot to falsify something and give it to them along with either the truth to the question they asked or falsify the answer for their question and give something extra thats true.
I can see why some people are happier when none of their players have it.

This feat though feels like its supposed to make failing RK fun and its seems the way its played out for most people is not fun.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

I have a table of players that really hate secret checks generally, so we have had a lot of talks about recall knowledge in particular and I have been working on some variant rules for removing secret checks.

As a player, I love dubious knowledge and I think, as a GM, the secret to responding to it is to make sure you generally are just giving so much information ion recall knowledge checks, that the players don’t feel cheated o when one aspect of that knowledge isn’t so accurate. I also tend to tell players that they failed when activating dubious knowledge so they doing feel cheated when they critically succeed, but are worried that the extra piece of information is false.

When someone picks up this feat they really are asking to be mislead some of the time. The only way to really do that is keep the checks secret. But when your group has fun with the misinformation and plays it faithfully when they know its false but their character doesn't I think that makes for best use of the feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
exequiel759 wrote:

I'm not that sure that each stance having a group of weapons in which you become proficient is the right way to go, because if anything, that would make things much as arbritary or more than having the monk trait IMO.

Let's take the Iomedaean monk example of Sibelius Eos Owm; let's say you want to play a Mountain Stance monk because you want to go full Str and because your temple is a mountain or whatever, but the feat itself doesn't include longswords but rather some spears and polearms, but the stance that does allow you to use longswords (Dragon Stance for example) doesn't fit the flavor of your character. This effectively creates a champion / cleric situation in which often you have to build your character first and then come up with the flavor and background second.

What they IMO should do is make Monastic Weaponry a baseline feature of monks and then have a feat similar to Ancestral Weaponry in which weapons with either the agile or finesse trait gain the monk trait. Then a feat such as Peafowl Stance could become a 2nd level feat instead and expand its options to weapons beyond swords, with something like all simple and martial weapons?

Thats a good point. When i initially thought of this my idea was more restrictive even then groups. It was specific weapons that for mechanical reasons the designers would deem balanced for that stance.

It really was looking at it from a mechanical angle and I didnt consider character concept design.

Adding: I think i also advocated for rethinking and rewriting stance benefits to work with weapons not just the stances given unarmed attack. Since not all of them do.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Is it too different from not being able to use wolf jaw when your not in wolf stance?
You can think of it as having trained to use a weapon group in a particular stance and not really being proficient when attempting other fighting styles


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I suggested weapon training be build into stances.
If you go into a stance you also turn on proficiency with all weapons that stance is meant to use just like it also provides use of a special unarmed attack. They could do it by weapon group or by individual weapons but by weapon group allows new weapons to be added later without errata.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Errenor wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

I think in order to make that feat give what its supposed to give some part of the information needs to be correct or true and some part of it needs to be incorrect.

Good information about the wrong monster seems to me to fit this.
Actually giving the player a weakness and saying it is a resistance seems to fit.

Both of those are simply false answers (so are for crit fails).

"There's A and there're two options about it, one of which is true" and "False statement about A" are really different things. You are not satisfying your own requirements in your first sentence.
At least there should be a clear statement about importance of A, so it would be close to the default 'the truth and a lie'.
Bluemagetim wrote:
To add to this it may be better to give them a weakness and a resistance but one of them is wrong.
Yeah, which is the default and clear option.

Your right Errenor.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Dancing Wind wrote:
Squark wrote:
The fluff will probably need less retconning since it wasn't tied to something that got remastered.

Because Varsovian is new here:

Paizo has a forum rule that asks us to refer to the flavor text in Paizo materials.

Jonathan Morgantini wrote:
As a reminder, we do not user the terms 'crunch and fluff' to refer to rules and lore on the forums. Rules and lore are the preferred terms. I will be enforcing that, and it will appear in the next update to the Community Guidelines.
I really appreciate that being part of the community guidelines. Crunch and fluff is great for describing the texture of popcorn not great for describing words on a page.
Doubleplusgood I dare say! /snark

I try


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I feel there would be a lot of metagaming around the information given depending on how its given.

If you give one answer to their question then they know they cant really trust it fully.
I think the only way to get around that is to give 2 answers one true and one false.
Added: Ideally the player should not know they failed and that some of the information they have is untrue.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As a player taking that feat means the player knows they are going to get bad information when they fail but there needs to be good information too for their to be a benefit to taking the feat.
So first off all RK rolls at least from that player need to be secret checks, cant be lax about it and let them roll it.
Whenever they crit succeed or fail they always get extra information than their question.
On a crit they get true information for thier question and the extra information is true. On a fail they still get an answer to thier question and some extra info. You just decide whether the extra info is true or the answer to their question is true but one will be false info.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think in order to make that feat give what its supposed to give some part of the information needs to be correct or true and some part of it needs to be incorrect.

Good information about the wrong monster seems to me to fit this.
Actually giving the player a weakness and saying it is a resistance seems to fit.

It may be too generous to give them vague information that has no incorrect aspect to it.

To add to this it may be better to give them a weakness and a resistance but one of them is wrong.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

SuperBidi's example was correct information that is not specific information

shroudb's example was information that is about the monster but Edit: doesnt say what is correct about it

The movie reference i gave would be correct information but wrong monster.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Its like in some movie I saw where a bull is about to charge and the other guy says to stay perfectly still and it cant see you.

If everyone remembers that was the advice from Jurassic park for the T-rex. The bull here just had an easier target to gore.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You could do something like a a Gnome with the cursed background and your curse is that you have been magically aged. Gnomes dont suffer from traditional aging, instead they suffer from the bleaching so this curse is really weird.
I feel witch with spinner of threads could be a fun match for that aging curse.
Its as if your character is cursed to experience time in a way that is not natural for a Gnome making you appear aged but with that have come these witch powers that allow you to interact with these fate based witch powers.
Edit:Maybe you have been cursed with a fate that belonged to a human or something else that ages normally. Or fate swapped and some human out there is experiencing the bleaching while you age like a human?

At level 2 just take the Loremaster archetype to get really good at lores on top of the witch class abilities.
This will make Intelligence your main thing since witch has int as its key stat and you can make cha a secondary good stat by putting it at +3.

Wellspring Gnome with Occult as the tradition your connected to kinda represents your connection to some occult origin of the aging curse more so than normal Gnome primal innate magic.
Gnome Obsession gets you started early with a lore and comes with assurance for it. That lore can be changed anytime you have a day of downtime. When the party knows what they will face with a day of down time in between makes this kinda useful.

As a gnome you can pick up innate spells with your ancestry feats (wellspring heritage starts you with a cantrip as well) these will use cha as the casting stat while your witch spells will use int. Its at least a consolation that your cha is getting both use for cha skills and innate spells. Just have to decide how into dex or con you want. Wis is the defensive stat that gets left behind here but chalk it up to your character knowing a lot but being oblivious to their surroundings


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dancing Wind wrote:
Squark wrote:
The fluff will probably need less retconning since it wasn't tied to something that got remastered.

Because Varsovian is new here:

Paizo has a forum rule that asks us to refer to the flavor text in Paizo materials.

Jonathan Morgantini wrote:
As a reminder, we do not user the terms 'crunch and fluff' to refer to rules and lore on the forums. Rules and lore are the preferred terms. I will be enforcing that, and it will appear in the next update to the Community Guidelines.

I really appreciate that being part of the community guidelines. Crunch and fluff is great for describing the texture of popcorn not great for describing words on a page.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ive never played an oracle so im coming at this as a question to better understand the class.
Some are saying just know when not to ramp up your curse. That kind of reminds me of the conversations around barbarian rage and when to not use it. The question then is when you are in a situation where ramping up your curse is too detrimental are you left as a worse caster without accessing that mechanic? Or is the oracle when not ramping up their curse still a very effective class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I dont think crossbow ace as it is should be compared to feats that are meant to increase damage. I mean it can donthat but its not really the main thing it does.
If you were going to reload anyway then crossbow ace is adding mainly a defensive action to that reload. The option to create a diversion is there but it is wasted if your doing a reload as your last action.
If it added hunt prey to the list of actions you could do with your reload then it would probably be better for offense.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe the outwit ranger ends up splitting the enemy group with thise tactics and for her the encounter becomes a chase for the enemies pursuing her while the rest of the party attacks the remaining enemies as a normal encounter.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
exequiel759 wrote:

I really want to like outwit, I really do, but if in a combat-centric system you are going to make me chose between being good at combat or being good out of combat I'm always going to choose to be good at combat because I don't want to be a burden to the party and I also want to have fun during combat. Even the investigator, which is IMO a class that really needs a lot of love, at least doesn't force you to make the choice between being good at combat and out of combat. I feel outwit needs some warpriest love and get better feat support, and probably some small built-in effect in the subclass itself.

Sadly, the ranger was already re-printed and Paizo pretty much left the class as is.

If running an AP with a pretty narrow combat focused design i understand this point to a degree.

Im running my own campaign with friends. I have the opportunity to let my outwit player use what they are good at leading up to encounters. Any player can do these things but people pick outwit because they like to do them and want to be better at them. Things like scouting the enemy position recalling info about the terrain and geography and finding a trail that leads the party to an advantageous position before starting the encounter. Maybe one with higher ground with boulders to roll down at the enemy.
Maybe they wanted to set up a an ambush where they attack from hiding, create a diversion and sneak off. While the enemy is focused on finding the outwit ranger the rest of the party joins in the attack.
That kind of player wants to contribute in unique ways and has fun when they succeed on those kinds of checks and their ideas helped the party in some way. Outwit gives bonuses to stuff like this. Crossbow ace compresses a reload with take cover or create diversion. So really it allows an reload to be squeezed into a turn that was probably going to leave it for next turn.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

I imagine they'll get around to it in player core 2. That's where we expect the non-multiclass archetypes.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Outwit ranger with some charisma is getting the most out if crossbow ace. Even a +2 in cha with outwit is equivalent to having a +4 in cha.

I would say its in line with outwit being a more defensive and skill oriented path.

Turn 1
Hunt prey
Strike maybe with backstabber depending in how combat started.
Crossbow ace to take cover and reload (defensive use)

Turn 2
Strike
Crossbow ace to create diversion and reload (offensive use)
Strike with backstabber

Create diversion can be used then with a next action to hide making the turn more defensive.

Yes, this is the sort of build that can utilize the new version of the feat. But how many rangers have you seen with outwit? Is it more than 10%

Im sure its rare which would make my player running it pretty happy she picked it. But for her it works for the kind of play she finds fun.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Outwit ranger with some charisma is getting the most out if crossbow ace. Even a +2 in cha with outwit is equivalent to having a +4 in cha.
I would say its in line with outwit being a more defensive and skill oriented path.

Turn 1
Hunt prey
Strike maybe with backstabber depending in how combat started.
Crossbow ace to take cover and reload (defensive use)

Turn 2
Strike
Crossbow ace to create diversion and reload (offensive use)
Strike with backstabber

Create diversion can be used then with a next action to hide making the turn more defensive.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I wonder why they chose to not specify self or personal for spells that only target ones self?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

i also think it would help in balancing trip to treat tripping creatures larger than the PC similar to a complex lock. Players can work together to trip a larger creature but all the successes have to be done in the same round and a crit would be treated as two successes.

Aid ?

When using this house rule If aid makes the difference between a success and a crit for the trip then that crit trip would be two successes toward tripling the larger creature (its basically just borrowing from lockpick rules for complex locks to represent a creature that's harder to bring to the ground). That would give the characters who are good enough to meet the aid DC but not good enough to meet the fort DC of the larger creature a way to help the trip get through.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

i also think it would help in balancing trip to treat tripping creatures larger than the PC similar to a complex lock. Players can work together to trip a larger creature but all the successes have to be done in the same round and a crit would be treated as two successes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Right fort dc. And the creature would need to actually have athletics and be good at it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Shove and other pushback effects might be an overlooked help against teams that rely on trip.
If a monster holds their turn till after their ally shoves a fighter pc away it would help.

Depending on how shove is handled when being shoved into a square occupied by another pc it could expose a weakness to the hallway lineup attempting to bottleneck the monsters and trip them as they come.

It didnt seem perfectly clear to me from the forced movement section and moving through a creatures space section but if a pc is shoved into another pc it seems the gm needs to decide how to deal with forced movement into or through another creatures space.

Example
A) forced movement from the monster using shove put the pc in a space they cannot occupy as there is another pc there and the monster strides as part of the shove into the space the pc used to be in making that a space the pc cannot occupy. Where does the pc end up? Couod they end up prone? Or could the second pc end up moved and possibly prone?

This use of shove sounds like its actually pretty strong if it results in a pc on the ground.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If my understanding is correct the spirit of design for this game was to minimize the number of rolls to determine outcomes too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Then maybe they benefit more from reactions that allow them to get into position more than reactive strike?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Trip.H wrote:


Repertoire casters IMO are the closest to those w/ "spell list paralysis" precisely because they don't have an easy time changing their selection once made.

While Clerics have the full list to pick from each day, the fact that they can just freely pick the next day really does mean that it's kind of a nothing-burger to see a giant list.

This has been somewhat the opposite of my experience. Repertoire casters spend some time considering spells, but not significantly moreso than anyone else and do it during what's usually downtime (i.e. leveling up) too.

Cleric and Druid style prepared casters on the other hand not only have a lot of overhead but are expected to sometimes make decisions mid session (because it happens every time they rest). While the individual decisions are more reversible, the volume and frequency are significant enough to make them problematic. To the point where a significant number of prepared casters I've had in my games simply abandon their own mechanics and play like a spontaneous caster (i.e. picking their spells once and rarely, if ever, changing them).

I agree. But what's interesting is spontaneous casters have more options during combat, and that means their cognitive load is more likely to hit at a point it slows other players down.

This depends heavily on spell selection.

As a sorcerer I will pick 1 spell i plan to use in combat per spell rank, everything else is more situational like charm or fly. I generally know what im throwing at enemies because i only play a sorcerer to cast those particular spells.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Pronate11 wrote:
I wouldn't say its good, but a bow on a caster is a good third action. If you can't get it from your ancestry, and your classes level 12 feats suck, its not a terrible pick.

maybe for me its because I like playing elves and aiuvaran but getting elf weapon familiarity just seems like a much easier way of being expert in bows and you get the crit spec.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Fighter Archtype and level 12 needed to gain.

Diverse Weapon Expert wrote:


Your proficiency ranks for simple weapons and martial weapons increase to expert, and your proficiency rank for advanced weapons increases to trained.

If you are playing a martial and have the fighter archtype getting advanced weapon training lets you get to master with a full weapon group and that includes all the advanced weapons in that group.

If your not playing a martial is seems kind of pointless as well and certainly not worth using a level 12 feat on it.
Am I wrong? Has anyone made good use of it?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ah ok i was wondering how to get to master proficiency with weapons like the falcata but just realized it was fighter's advanced weapon training that you can pick up at level 12 through archtype that lets you pick swords and treat all swords as martial weapons.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Tooth for a Tooth
Reaction
Once per day
Trigger: you are are critically hit but before you receive damage.
Effect: Strike at the foe that critically hit you. If you have Furious Finish you may use this instead.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When the falcata was mentioned earlier I thought of a fighter with magus dedication for spell striker and hybrid study for dimensional assault. Then keep leaning into focus spells by getting psychic dedication with oscillating wave.
But I wasnt sure if you can use the amp version of ignition for a spell strike.
A spell strike with a falcata and amped ignition would crit for a lot of d12s.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

You keep adding stipulations that aren't actually reflected in the anathema. What the anathema says:

Deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption.

What it does NOT say:

Deny an evil creature opportunity to become repentent.

They have to be repentant at the time you'd kill them, not just have the potential to eventually regret their actions. That means they are already feeling or showing remorse and guilt for their evil ways. And since clerics of Saranrae don't have mind reading on their spell list, the creature really needs to be showing that, not just feeling it.

Lethal poisons aren't great for taking prisoners so they can find goodness later, but you know what else aren't? Scimitars and fireballs. If Saranrae cared as much about taking prisoners as you seem to think, her weapons of choice would be saps and non-lethal mental damage. Even killing a surrendering creature wouldn't violate anathema in and of itself. If the creature isn't remorseful, you can still execute them. Nor are you expected to create an opportunity to surrender.

That's my take at least.

But on the last point. Battles are not over in one swing right?
If you launch fireballs and strike with a scimitar you haven't condemned the foe to death with it until you take that final strike.
Such a foe has a chance to yield on round 2 or maybe 3. Situations can be complex and if they yield does the Sarenite just cut them down?
Now you have a foe that is no longer a threat wounded (not in the mechanical sense but the literal sense)
With poison that option to stop killing those who yield gets more complicated. That is really what I am getting at.
Is that situation always going to happen? Probably not, but IMO using poison is callous as it takes the choice to kill out of the Sarenites hands if they set it and forget it (especially so with poisoning food style assassinations)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
That feels skewed to me. Remember, the anathema says you need to give REPENTENT creatures a chance at redemption. It also says you can't fail to strike down evil. Nothing asks a cleric or Saranrae to take non-repentent creatures alive. If that was a goal, then Saranrae would probably bestow non-lethal spells like Phantom Pain instead of very, very lethal fireballs, and probably have a fist or non-lethal weapon instead of a scimitar for their war priests.

Smiting evil is well within the wheelhouse, but you must know evil first.

How do you know who cannot become repentant once they know they have been defeated? How do you know there are no pressures on the overlord? No compulsion? No coercion from greater powers? What if they themselves are misguided? Manipulated? This seems too black and white and there are plenty of black and white situations but my problem with poison in these cases is there is no room to find out if you are dealing with evil that must be smited or something else.
Again im not saying its never ok, I'm saying that Sarenite values seems to make using poison more challenging than those who don't care about who they are killing.

It also seems to me that past evil acts have to exist for redemption to take place so no matter how evil their acts were what matters to a Sarenite is if they now are willing to repent for them. (perhaps there are some acts even a Sarenite could not forgive, absolutism is not a great way to approach anything)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Easl wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
2. If killing the bandits is the only way to keep the town safe, there's no real moral differences in doing so by poisoning their food and death by the sword especially if the former increases your odds of success and reduces the odds of you or the other heroes dying.

Golarion is big enough and varied enough to contain both consequentalist and deontological Saraenrites (as well as people who are a mix of both).

So again, rather than the GM setting the terms of whether a Sarenrite should poison or not, I think the better approach is to work with the player to help bring their vision of their Sarenrite to life. And if this means that your in-game religions have a breadth and variety of sects, many of which are inconsistent with each other, and a player's Sarenrite disagrees with the local priest about how Sarenrae wants her to act...well...then your Golarion is quite like RL. :)

My thought was It may be easier to violate Sarenrae's anathema when you take away your control over your ability to stop from killing by setting a time limit on a foes life. Not all foes fight to to the death so it would be important to know what kind of foe your poisoning and if you can stop it. As long as you have the means prepared to cure your poisons you can offer redemption and intervene but I suspect with poison running through someone they might just agree with whatever you say for you to cure it reducing your ability to get a genuine sentiment.

Now if the player would like to make a Sarenite that doesnt care about the consequences of their poison use then at some point I would say they violate their anathema not because they use poison but because they are killing foes whether or not there is a chance of redemption.
I would say a Sarenite using lethal poisons has to be more attentive and careful of its consequences than the typical users of such poisons whos intent is to use them to kill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ferious Thune wrote:
Add the restriction on using Concentrate actions during Rage (particularly things like Demoralize without taking a Feat and Command an Animal).

Oh right I forgot about that one.

The Raven Black wrote:

I think you wrote Spirit Instinct in your recap while meaning Superstition Instinct.

Thanks. I still get those two mixed up in my head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

List of problem areas (premis of it being a problem)
I dont agree with all of them but this is basically everything we talked about so far as a problem area for the barb as i understood it.

Rage's limited use and loss of rage (premis is barb is only as good as other martials when in rage. Barb without rage is just weaker than other martials. Since barb is not better than other martials when raging there is no reason to limit it or for them to have conditions that make them lose it for a whole fight)
Come Get me (Vulnerability far outstrips its benefits, leading to an early grave with no rage and having given little back to foes in return)
Cleave (Map applies making it strictly a worse use of a reaction than reactive strike. In addition adjacency req limits its use, making it will trigger in narrow circumstances. Less triggers + less chance to hit but feat is offered at the same level as reactive strike for barbarian)
Fury barbarian instinct balance (not enough good feats at level 1 to make the 1 extra feat worth losing out on the damage other barbarian instincts enjoy +instinct feats and benefits. Personally adding in its raging resistance seems like a logical absurdity they resist physical weapons rather than resisting a type of damage like slashing or piercing. A hammer and a tail both bludgeon but this barb cant handle tails)
Spirit barbarian anathema (anathema restriction makes playing in a game with ubiquitous use of magic difficult and unreasonably limiting)
-1 AC (Premis is this -1 on top of only med armor and no shield makes barbarians crit magnets)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It feels like the academic dropout hands you the tie in your looking for.
Since it gave you trained in arcane you learned knowledge pertaining to that in your studies at the College of Mysteries. Every time you RK something arcane related you are flexing what you learned there, even if your spellcasting aptitude and abilities were divine in nature. You may have practiced alongside clerics for spell casting but you also took classes on the arcane and it reflects in your knowledge that helps you identify arcane magics, creatures, and items.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sarenites don't murder foes they could rather offer a chance at redemption. lethal poisons will kill without intervention and dead people have no chance at redemption.

In battle you can stay your blade when the opponent yields but if you poisoned a foe (the killing kind of poison) the poison may not give you or your foe any options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

heavy armor will also have some speed penalty left over even with high enough str to reduce it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hmm I think it also matters for a Sarenite what the poison will do, who they are poisoning.

Will the poison kill denying the opportunity for redemption? Have you now made them the sick and wounded?

They may have no trouble poisoning an irredeemable evil, but what about anyone not that far gone? Do they have the present ability to cleanse it if they see the person repent as they are doubled over and frothing at the mouth?
Would they then always keep a method of cleansing a poison they administer in case redemption becomes an option?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

The problem with poison is in dishonorable use of it.

Things like Assassinations or Weakening a rival in a fair competition

But using poison as a means to defend your life? Probably not inherently dishonorable or evil.
Not all poisons kill either. You could use it to debilitate a foe to make them surrender or easier to subdue without killing them.

The use of poison being discussed here sounds like assassination to me, which you can certainly argue is dishonorable. But Saranrae doesn't tell you to act honorably, she tells you not to lie. A paladin of Saranrae might not be allowed to be part of such a scheme, but that's because of the paladin code, not Saranrae.

I wouldn't prevent a cleric of Saranrae from participating in an ambush either, for example.

Good point


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The problem with poison is in dishonorable use of it.
Things like Assassinations or Weakening a rival in a fair competition

But using poison as a means to defend your life? Probably not inherently dishonorable or evil.
Not all poisons kill either. You could use it to debilitate a foe to make them surrender or easier to subdue without killing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would love to see damage reduction return.

Adding to this thought:

A small basic DR added to the basic rage effect.
Instincts would then increase it by amounts that help to balance the instincts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When I think of a Barbarian conceptually I think of a strong warrior, athletic, tough, even somewhat agile. They shrug off pain and fight with intense ferocity.
Pathfinder barbarians fuel that ferocity with one of the subclass themes.
When they fight its instinctual aggressive and deadly. They have a quick sense of battle and uncanny reflexes which makes it difficult to catch them offguard.
The Pathfinder barbarian is best categorized as an instinctual warrior, instinct fuels their rage, power, and battle senses rather than just skill and training which they do have as well as they become tested in battle. not to the level of a fighter though who focuses on honing their skill.

-1 Ac represents an overly aggressive approach to battle when raging.
Off guard means they are not able to defend themselves properly.

I dont feel offguard better suits the barbarian it also makes them worse because a barb has an ability to make it harder to become offguard that would be invalidated.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ferious Thune wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
I dont think the foe knows it will be made off guard
Maybe not until the first time it happens. But then, the foe also doesn't know that it will get a +2 to damage, either.
I would think of it as a matter of televising an opening in your defenses but not what your going to do to them for taking that shot at you.

The first time. And maybe they fall for it. Or maybe they just keep killing the person they are already killing, particularly if that person is already Off-Guard. For a taunt to be effective, you need to be able to actually draw enemies away from other targets. One off-guard foe is the same as another Off-Guard foe. It's certainly not a situation where you are going to automatically draw all of the attacks for the rest of the combat. But you will be Off-Guard for the rest of the combat.

Saying that a 10th level feat's main benefit is that you can make yourself Off-Guard (and that you will take extra damage), which is what SuperBidi said, just doesn't make any practical sense. You can make yourself Off-Guard without a 10th level feat, by lying prone or balancing or moving into a flank (at which point, you might also trick them, given Deny Advantage). And all of those can be undone if you start taking too much damage, unlike Come and Get Me.

I agree with you for most of that. It isnt automatic and some situations it might not help at all because just as good a target are already in front of the foe.

It kind of taps into roleplaying a bit though. The barbarian is taunting in that respect even if not in a mechanical respect of compelling. Tt does succeed at making your character a vulnerable target though and that alone can change the behavior of foes even if not in all situations.