Id do knifemaster paired with scout
I've been thinking about that, the loss of uncanny dodge is all that is holding me back.
Search Posts
Scaled first Monk provides cha bonus to AC. Which as a low strength rogue I need.
Already done. Turns out official FAQ rules any change to a strength multiplier does not benefit a feature that changes strength damage to Dex damage (even though paizo did it themselves with a character in an adventure path) problem is replacing it. Not many useful feats I qualify for at level 3 and all the feats I get at higher levels also can't be taken at level 3.
Hey all looking for some build advice. This is what I got so far, I based it on the Noble Assassin build for Pathfinder kingmaker on Neoseeker, but obviously had to be tweaked for PFS (No Vivisectionist, One combat trick, limited bonus feat lists, paper plays different, etc) Race: Kitsune Alignment: Lawful-Good Traits: Adopted (Half-elf: Elven Reflexes), Hidden Hand Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Disable Device, Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Stealth, Perception, Use Magic Device, Knowledge (local) 1, Sleight of Hand 1, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) 1 Gear (lvl 1): Leather armor, 2 x Daggers, Light Crossbow, Crossbow Bolts, Free Monk Outfit, Rogue's Kit (carried by dog in a small pack saddle) Pack Animal: Guard Dog (Combat Trained per Ultimate Equipment) Str 7 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 14 Wis 7 Cha 16 Increase Dex to 22 at Lvl 16 and Wis to 8 at Lvl 20 Rogue Unchained (Knife Master) 16 Monk Unchained (Scaled Fist) 2 Paladin (Divine Hunter) 2 Level 1: Rogue - Feat: Two-Weapon Fighting Level 2: Rogue - Talent: Minor Magic (Acid Splash or similar) Level 3: Rogue - Feat: Double Slice, Finesse Training: Kukri Level 4: Paladin Level 5: Monk - Feat: Accomplished Sneak Attacker, Bonus Feat: Dodge Level 6: Paladin Level 7: Rogue - Feat: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Talent: Weapon Training (Kukri) Level 8: Rogue - Skill Unlock: Disable Device Level 9: Rogue - Feat: Dazzling Display, Talent: Combat Trick (Shatter Defenses) Level 10: Rogue Level 11: Rogue - Feat: Improved Critical (Kukri), Major Magic (Shield) Level 12: Rogue Level 13: Rogue - Feat: Combat Reflexes, Advanced Talent: Opportunist, Skill Unlock: Stealth Level 14: Rogue - Finesse Training: Dagger Level 15: Rogue - Feat: Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Advanced Talent: Crippling Strike Level 16: Rogue Level 17: Rogue - Feat: Deceitful, Advanced Talent: Double Debilitation Level 18: Rogue - Skill Unlock: Bluff Level 19: Rogue - Feat: Blind Fight, Advanced Talent: Dispelling Attack Level 20: Monk - Bonus Feat: Throw Anything Sources Used: Core, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, Pathfinder Unchained, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Campaign, Dirty Tactics Toolbox, Legacy of Dragons, Advanced Race Guide So first question, is this a legal build? Is there a better level 20 option than monk? (not that I'll ever get there in PFS play, but assuming I do, I want that class to be a full BAB class) Build I based this on had 4 levels of Vivisectionist starting at level 14, which was super handy given the dexterity mutagen and ability to cast shield without expending talents or relying on UMD to do so, while otherwise acting like rogue, but obviously it is illegal in PFS. So question is should I dip into a pure alchemist anyway (and lose out on an advanced talent or two, and possibly some sneak dice), is there another class or archetype that is a better option for obtaining mutagens, or should I stick to my rogue levels? Anything clearly broken I should fix? Any path of feats or class dips that would work better? Any other skills I should point dip? any of the current max skills I should nuke to a point dip or some other rank?
Consistent eh? what about the rule that requires you to have a chronicle to play a non-standard race? Chronicles only given out at conventions as ambiguous rewards, and quite frankly there is only one convention in my area that is large enough that pathfinder society would consider sending chronicles to, well maybe another one now, but only because it explicitly uses the phrase "Comic-con" in its title, getting hype it doesn't deserve by using the universally recognized name. Even if I managed to receive one of these chronicles at a convention, the Chronicle received would be completely random and would still not likely reflect the type of characters I enjoy playing. And in order to receive said Chronicle I would either have to play a character that I don't like, because I don't have access to the options I want, or I would have to GM, while chafing under rules that make game-play contrived. The whole point of Pathfinder is to make an open-ended world where anything can happen, putting it in a box and streamlining the process turns the whole thing into a budget-cut, rushed-release video game; which is something I could rent from a Redbox and return the next day if I really wanted it. If the rules went something like, Core Rulebook only or Core Rulebook + APG + Ultimate guides that would be bearable, at least everyone would be playing with the same rule set, and the books wouldn't be nitpicked apart until there's nothing left. But turning around and saying that because someone was lucky enough to be present and chosen to receive a chronicle at this convention, they get to play this race or class that nobody else can is just ridiculous. As far as House-rules go, in most homebrew campaigns, house-rules arise to cover ambiguous or poorly worded game mechanics in most cases, or to replace a game mechanic the GM doesn't like with a mechanic they do like, or sometimes, GMs will white-list or blacklist source books explicitly in their campaigns. Most mechanic changes are broad and far reaching, such as my current GM has disallowed firearms and anything that relies on gunpowder in his campaign, something that even the source books recommend a player discusses with his/her GM prior to using. But just glancing into the rules for organized play, it seems they cherry-pick feats, spells, races, and classes though the entire gambit of books. In order to even create a Pathfinder Society eligible character, I would have to double check, triple check, and quadruple check the source books and this Pathfinder Society guide, to make sure I'm not trampling the rule laid out in the fine text of Ordinance Fun-Suck, Section C, sub-paragraph VIII. (or at least that is what it would feel like) it would also prevent the use of character creation aids such as PC-gen because they do not cherry-pick the rules. Getting back to this specific rule, even if crafting is house-ruled out (which allows players to focus more on combat and advancing the story) and all spell effects end at the end of each scenario (which often makes sense, but not always) It still makes no sense that the Holy water created via Bless water reverts to mundane water or that the Masterwork item created via Masterwork Transformation should revert to a mundane item. Both of these spells are instantaneous cast spells, and neither of them require complex calculations or selecting from a wide-variety of options. Neither of these spells hold-up game-play in either real-time or game-time. They more-or-less accomplish the same results in the same time frame that an exchange with an NPC would take. In fact, it is even less of a holdup on game-play to cast these spells than it is to deal with NPC purchases. You avoid the diplomacy check to gather information to find an npc with the wares you want, you avoid the diplomacy check to barter away the old gear (in the case of Masterwork Transformation) and you avoid the diplomacy check to barter for the new gear (in the case of holy water, silver powder is much easier to find and more or less has a fixed price, in a pinch a PC could grind up 250 SP into dust with a mortar and pestle). In game-time this amounts to a few hours saved traveling around and talking with people, in real-time this saves about 15 minutes of the GM's time. You may say that the rules still allow these options within the scenario and the player can most definitely save the GM some time and hassle, but why would the player want to spend money for something that is just going to disappear at the end of the session?
So essentially "Create Undead" is a useless spell that should never under any circumstances be used. As at CL 11 you can only raise Ghouls which are CR 1 creatures, which with only 13 HP (they don't even have DR) would be destroyed in 1 hit in any CR appropriate encounter for the party, thereby wasting your 100 GP investment vs. at CL 8 my party killed a few cyclops and I animated them into bloody skeletons which are CR 6 with the template, they have a nice juicy 85 HP (10HD +2 per HD from charisma and +2 per HD from casting near an altar with a desecrate spell), DR 5/Bludgeoning, fast healing 5, and unless destroyed by holy forces (unlikely in my campaign) they come back to unlife in 1 hour if destroyed, meaning that my investment of 500 GP is never wasted. Even if you rule that 5 Ghouls could be raised from the corpse of 1 Cyclops (10 HD per cyclops/2 HD per Ghoul) which would technically make them CR 5.5 altogether and also cost 500 GP, but as we all know it is always much easier to kill many of a very weak thing than it is to kill only 1 of a much stronger thing. And even if the Ghouls were able to manage to make a passable threat to your enemies, many of them would be destroyed every encounter creating a never ending money sink. As far as ease of control goes, it is much, much easier to control a mindless undead, you give them a command and they do it, plain and simple, if you have an evil GM they may force you to specify your exact wording, and punish you if the exact wording results in something you don't want, but then you just have to make sure your commands are clear and concise. Giving such a command is a free action as all it requires is speech. Intelligent undead are a problem from day 1, first you have to either cast the command undead spell or use the command undead feat to bring them under your control. If you use the command undead spell you will be constantly rolling opposed charisma checks to get them to so much as shuffle their feet, ability checks are generally considered to be standard actions. Essentially in order for you to get them to be effective on a battle field you will be arguing with them every round of battle instead of casting buffs, debuffs, and engaging in battle yourself. Using the feat, the undead gets a save to throw off its bonds of slavery every day, and if your GM is evil they will choose the worst opportunity for this save to be made (like in your sleep, or in the middle of a challenging combat) after which the undead will almost certainly try to kill you (you specifically, they will probably ignore your party unless they get in the way) All of this so they can have they ability to use magic items, but why in the world would you equip what essentially amounts to cannon fodder with extremely expensive equipment? If they had any amount of UMD or spellcasting ability, I could see this as a worthy investment and hand them a wand, but otherwise, it is much better to keep the magic items in the hands of the PCs. I would instead invest a much smaller amount of money in equipping my skeleton cyclops with a Mwk Breastplate and a Mwk Greataxe and calling it a day. About the only way this spell makes sense is that the intelligent undead can technically gain class levels, but even this is shaky as they would unlikely be spending much energy on improving themselves while chaffing under your commands. Even if you got a friendly GM to say sure, lets train those Ghouls up a bit, with your party being at 11th level it will take a long time for that Ghoul to be a formidable threat, and will likely die in combat long before that time, unless you decide to keep it in the back of combat until it is ready, I suppose you would avoid all those pesky opposed charisma checks for a while. To put simply this allegedly superior spell isn't superior at all, and it makes little sense mechanically speaking or Roleplaying-wise. Mechanically a 6th level spell should be an improvement on a 3rd level spell, if a comparable one exists, and in the case of create dead vs animate dead, create dead clearly loses. Roleplaying-wise, it seems that undead created via animate dead retain much more of their past-life abilities than one created via create dead, even after stripping a whole bunch of abilities off via the template a few things remain for your skeleton, such as its size, strength, dexterity (gets a small boost for sloughing off all those extra pounds), its weapon and armor proficiencies, its HD, its general anatomy, its movement speeds (including dig, climb, swim, and in some cases fly), it even keeps a few special qualities if they improve melee or ranged attacks. While if you cast create undead on a creature such as an Ancient Red Dragon and decide to create a ghoul out of it, you end up with the colossal carcass either transforming into a medium sized humanoid, or splitting into several medium sized humanoids, losing all of its natural attacks, losing its fly speed, losing all of its spellcasting ability, getting new ability scores that have absolutely no relation to its original ability scores, etc, etc, etc. At best the only thing that "might" remain from the creature's lifetime is its memories, but if you really want to interrogate the dead for information they might know there is another 3rd level spell, Speak with Dead, that is much more effective. I really don't know what the author of this spell or perhaps the author of the monster entries was thinking, in order for this to be a good spell casting option at all this spell should have either raised intelligent undead more on par with the caster's level, ghouls at level 11 are just worthless, or the monster entries should have been templates similar to the skeleton and zombie entries allowing the players to create powerful undead allies, a ghoulish cyclops might actually be fun to have in the party and worth the pains of controlling it, while a plain old ghoul is just a nuisance and a hulking bloody skeleton standing as a silent sentinel over the party as they sleep is really kinda creepy, even if it is an amazing combatant.
Wow this discussion just makes it so I never want to join Pathfinder Society. From the sounds of it you guys are saying that the rules prevent crafted or spell produced items from persisting from game to game. If this applies only to PCs, it means that PCs should never ever invest in any of the craft skills or feats, and shouldn't bother casting item producing spells (such as bless water) unless that item is to be used immediately. However, why would NPCs be capable of creating items that persist from game to game if PCs can't? I mean from the sounds of the rule, everyone should begin every game session entirely naked in a world devoid of buildings or crafted materials of any sort. (Well at least from your interpretation of the rule, reading the rule, there is no reason why holy water should revert to natural water, there is no duration on the spell because it isn't an effect, it is a result, Water + Silver Powder + Magic = Holy Water) Even if we don't take it to such an extreme as this, it really means a character shouldn't retain any equipment gained during any gaming session, which means that by the time you reach lvl 20 (assuming you manage to survive to this level with inferior equipment) you'll still be wielding your base equipment. One of you said that a magic item is not the result of a spell, you sir are wrong, every magic item contains in its description a spell or spells that must be cast during its creation, excepting the raw enhancement bonus to armor and weapons, thus every magic item is the product of a spell. And why can only alchemists craft potions? Everyone has access to the craft (alchemy) skill and the Brew Potion feat. That is like saying that because I decide to cook at home, but because I am not a chef, the food I cook does not persist in my stomach after eaten or revert to its raw form, and therefore I will starve to death or die from food poisoning, which is ridiculous. Taking an example from earlier in this thread, according to your interpretation of this rule, Masterwork Transformation loses its effect at the end of a session. What does this mean exactly? Does this mean the player's item reverts to being mundane and the money they spent returns to their pockets, or does this mean their money simply goes poof. If the money goes poof, why should a player be penalized for wanting to improve their weapon? Of course this only makes one aspect of Pathfinder Society even worse, I hear that those quests they send you on for prestige often involve crafting, which means players who want prestige will need to invest in crafting skills even though, apparently, those crafting skills can have no real in-game effect (since by the time an item is crafted, it will most likely be the end of the session) I get that Pathfinder Society wants to prevent any exploits like the one the op of this thread was attempting, but at a certain point it just gets ridiculous, can't there simply be a rule for GMs to stomp down on infinite money exploits such as this one? That would make it easier for Paizo, as they wouldn't have to search their rules for all the possible exploits and they wouldn't be stealing fun from the players. |