ChainsawSam's page

Eidolons are eidolons. And now they are something else entirely. In many ways, they have lost customization (particularly with regards to the body types). In others, they've simply lost large chunks of it. And those chunks have been replaced with pre-packaged flavor, which is definitely not what I signed on for.

Prepackaged, alignment restricted flavor.

Which is my complaint.

It's dumb.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, just that it gives me pause. I would expect table variation. The set of mechanics of the sneak attack doesn't involve anything explicitly underhanded, but it carries an undeniable narrative weight.

In other words, a paladin's code may interfere with sneak attack, because even though you can decide on the flavor or narrative of a mechanical ability, it carries meaning tied to a cultural trope that those mechanics reflect/try to represent. So saying "sneak attacks don't have to be sneaky" is fine, but they also CAN be, you know?

In any case, the sanctified slayer seems perfect for this. I suppose it depends on whether "holy" means general divine or good-aligned divine for the concept as a whole.

The "Paladin's Code" is poorly defined bullshit. When it's better defined, it's scattered throughout a bunch of books that nobody pays attention to.

I swear, the "Paladin's Code" is perhaps one of the worst things about this damned game and definitely one of the worst things about this community. Can't have a single mention of the word "Paladin" without 6 people chiming in about their wildly different opinions on whatever. They either need to make an itemized list of what is and is not ok for a Paladin to do, in plain language, or switch to a very few, well defined tenants like 5th edition did.

Want to be a Paladin with Sneak Attack? Fine. Follow Sarenrae:

The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer

fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.

Can't think of too many demons, evil dragons, necromancers, or bandits that fight "fairly."

How about Iomedae?

I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.

Can't think of too many opponents worthy of honor in a typical adventure path, most of them are pretty dishonorable, despicable, and generally shitty people/things. They go in the folder labeled "contempt."

So that's two of the most stuck-up, goody-two-shoes ladies in the pantheon and their explictly defined oaths seem to be a-ok with being as brutal as possible when the situation calls for it. They at least put it in an acceptable grey area.

Don't get me started on Torag.

Can we put this damn thing to bed?

Kerney wrote:

...(particularly the awful unchained version)...

What's awful about it? I haven't seen it in play or statted one out.

It's not just that it is weaker, which it is (and deserved to be), it's what they did to the Eidolon itself.

Rather than being this super cool customizable being of nebulous origin, it's now a specific kind of Outsider (Angel, Demon, Elemental, etc). Each type evolution restrictions, and each type is restricted by alignment.

So they essentially took most of the fun out of the class.

Crazy, chaotic, whacked-out, mad-scientist Gnomes can't have big ass robots anymore. What crock of hard-boiled bullshit.

Otherwhere wrote:

Giving fighters all good saves, like the (Core) Monk, seems like a good idea as well.

Knowing that Fighters have few weaknesses ("Hmm - I could try to Charm him, but it's iffy whether or not I can") would make casters need to rely on their own bodyguards more.

There's a precedent for it - Back in 1st ed D&D, high-level Fighters had all-around the best saving throws (except save vs. spells, where magic users edged them out by one point).

But for some reason, the devs have decreed that all non-caster gotta be weak willed. Even the Unchained Monk. Because taking on hideous monsters with nothing but a pointy stick is something any dunce can do, I guess...

This is one of the things that pisses me off so much about post 3.0 D&D. The Front Liner's effective toughness has been reduced dramatically.

Paizo's just taken it to its illogical conclusion by giving everyone and their dog a shit will save (even Alchemists for crying out loud).

This argument has always been an argument pertaining to [TRIGGER WARNING] tiers.

Lets just get that all out in the open and be honest with ourselves.

Martials don't need bigger numbers.

Martials don't need "more interesting things."

Martials do need to be useful in a wider variety of situations. They need to be capable of contributing to the success of the party outside of their (usually extremely limited) niches.

It isn't about "interesting," though I'm sure we could think of something neat. Making the Monk movement bonus not an Enhancement bonus isn't going to make the class stop sucking the 70% of situations it sucks in. It's about being useful in more situations. Broadening their narrow niche.

In modern pathfinder that niche can be as laser precise as "hits things with Falchion." Falchion lost? Functionality lost. Bad guys heavily resistant to slashing damage? Functionality severely hampered. Bad guys at the other side of a large ravine? Major functionality lost. Problems more complicated than "hit guy with sword?" Better just sit it out.

Or functionality like "Do a bunch of mundane and frankly sort of boring tasks that Magic will make obsolete in 8 levels." Usually this sort of stuff isn't even particularly fun:

"I want to open the treasure chest, but I take a look around first."

"Roll perception."

"28."

"It's trapped."

"OK, I disarm it.... 31."

"OK it's disarmed."

"I open the treasure chest."

Seriously. This is super exciting stuff.

This is for a lot of reasons. The introduction of social skills made it so most parties tend to default to a "Face" to do the talking when before, everyone just sort of talked things out cooperatively. Everyone could participate in the conversation without dreading someone calling for some sort of social roll or calling them out for being ugly/uncharismatic/whatever.

Skills, as we know them, didn't even used to exist. They used to just be Thief class features. Though, really, the "Rogue" job has always sort of sucked as I've described above. Traps can either be disarmed with a simple roll and are a boring speed bump, or they're some undisarmable puzzle in which case, they're interesting but why the hell did we bother to bring the Rogue? (You still brought a Thief back in the day because they were the only one who could Listen and that was a useful survival skill, the thief also served as a decent rear defense for the Wizard back when that was more of an issue).

Feat chains are overly complicated and long in order to gain just a little bit of functionality. This encourages hyperspecialization. Try to make a mundane character with a wide variety of combat options, attack types, and maneuver choices and you end up with a puddle of mediocre crap.

There's also 32342834923479237 more spells than there used to be. Invariably, somewhere in that big pile of crap is a spell that will make situation X trivial, and that hurts the functionality of class Y. Less of a problem for Wizards because they'd need to have found the spell, and written it down, but Clerics just have the damn things and anyone with some system mastery can grab up solutions to common problems without trouble. Leave a couple slots unprepared and there's nothing you can't solve with your spellbook and a bit of time.

All of this sort of culminates together into the problem we're at now. Which is, again, a [TRIGGER WARNING] tier problem. It is a problem of certain classes not being useful in a wide enough variety of situations. Its about versatility. Its about flexibility. Its about utility.

I'll paraphrase Sean Reynolds:

If a Wizard specialized in fire spells learns the party will be going up against fire giants, he just prepares different spells. If a Fighter specialized in the long sword learns he will be going up against things with large amounts of slash resistance or things he can't melee attack, he just take's it up the tail pipe.

something like that.

As for solutions?

I don't know. The game is pretty deep into itself at this point and if anyone really cared they'd have been a bit more thorough with the "Unchaining."

Should just spread Martial Flexibility around a hell of a lot more. Just Duct Tape Martial Master on to the side of the Fighter class as a freebie.

Rewrite every single rogue talent ever because they're all terrible. Seriously. If there were only 2 rogue talents, one of them was Combat Trick and the other was every other rogue talent in the game rolled into a ball and tied up with a pretty bow, I'd have to think really hard about which one to take.

Also, remind me to send Paizo a f&~&ing plaque that reads "Stop giving non-INT classes 2 skill points a level, ya dinguses."

Other solutions? Enjoy 5th edition before it's bloated to hell. Which is kind of funny because the main reason we don't play 5th is lack of customization options, but as soon as they make more books with more options they'll likely throw in enough bloat to fall into the same issues.

Or just play E6 like I do. These problems don't exist in E6. E6 is good for you, puts hair on your chest.

Tyrantherus wrote:

Also Summoners got nerfed into the ground in comparison with the unchained variant. Would you allow a summoner in your party now with the unchained version, or would it still be a no-go?

It's now the only version allowed in PFS play. Having played a PFS APG Summoner to retirement, I'd say that the adjustments were badly needed. Home DM's who banned the original class should take a look at allowing the Unchained! variant.

I have also played a Summoner to high level.

I hate Hate HATE HATE the Unchained Summoner.

Not rearranging the spell list. That was probably a good idea, and needed.

Not fiddling around with the Evolution list, the cost and level requirements. That was a good idea. Restrictions on what kinds of Eidolons can get what, little irksome, but alright I get it.

Not screwing around with the number of Evolution Points. I don't really think this was a big deal after fiddling with the Evolution list, but I can see where they're going and I get it.

The Eidolons themselves.

Linking the Eidolons to specific outsider types is boring. Heavily cuts down on the creativity in building a monster, which is one of the things I liked about the class. Pisses me off, but--

WHY IS EVERYTHING LINKED TO ALIGNMENT!? AREN'T THERE ENOUGH CRAP ALIGNMENT-SLAVE THINGS IN THE GAME ALREADY?

I just want to build a big damn clockwork automaton to do my bidding, it sounds like a Gnome thing to do. Why the hell does it have to be an Inevitable and force me to be Lawful while they're at it?

Really pissing on my "insane genius inventor" vibe Paizo. THAT is what pissed me off.

heroin urinating dinosaurs and golden shining heroes.

The "golden shining" and "heroin urinating" aren't related are they?

You know what does a halfway decent job of helping this out, all on it's own?

Martial Flexibility.

I've been considering just giving Fighters the Martial Master Archetype. Not as an archetype that replaces abilities, just duct-taping it on to the side of the Fighter and calling it good.

Fighters suck because so much of what they do is hyperspecialization, "I get one skill point a level (generalizing the min-max stereotype), and I used my feats to do exactly one maneuver, and do damage with exactly one weapon. The end." Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization. They have an extremely limited comfort zone and stepping out of it at all relegates them to complete mediocrity.

They're essentially encouraged to do this to keep up with what the expectations set out by the Barbarian and Paladin (Ranger too, but that's a different bag entirely).

Just giving them Martial Flexibility, on top of whatever the hell else it is they've got would give them enough options to handle whatever disparate situations come up and would probably go a long way towards helping out the class.

Specifically the Martial Master version because it's not as good as the Brawler version (starts at level 5, slower progression) and Brawlers can still feel like pretty-pretty-princesses.

I'm getting to a point where I'm wondering why not just give it to everyone without spells. The chief complaint there is a lack of flexibility because of the lack of magic, and it'd certainly help.

I haven't playtested it yet, but I honestly don't think it'd be game-breaking. Hell, I don't think it'd make up the disparity all the way. I mean, so what if the Fighter, Barbarian, or Rogue can suddenly pick up a bow and shoot halfway decently, pick up spring attack on the fly, or have access to whirlwind and cleave for a fight. For a minute at a time, a few feats a day, a few times a day? It's fine.

Might have to add a stipulation you can't use it for more Rogue Talents (but who would right?) or Rage Powers (because those are actually good), but I'm not even sure that'd be necessary.

And as soon as pouch sundering ever works, every caster from then on who can afford 20-30 gp of purchases has multiple pouches/divine foci. This applies to both sides of the screen as well, by the way.

That's why it's such a dodgy move. The GM (or more rarely, the player) gets to shout "surprise" as a PC/major NPC gets crippled until they are in a position to resupply, and then half a dozen pouches get bought or some NPC treasure listings get tweaked and the whole tactic gets thrown out as the stupid trivially defeatable nonsense it is. It's just one big "gotya" that punishes those who don't put a lot of effort into their/their NPC's item lists, and the horrific effect it has when it works ensures the trick will only ever work once on those who are caught out. Those who do pay attention will get to have a once-off chuckle as a martial deals 20gp worth of item damage instead of HP damage that is life threatening and requires multiple CLW wand pokes to heal (more than 20gp worth), while they start pulling their bat droppings from pouches 2-4 instead without being the slightest bit inconvenienced.

Buying more than one pouch completely invalidates the strategy too.

It's not like we're tracking individual spider legs, eyes of newt, and clumps of butter anymore. A spell pouch just has "stuff" in it and we use "stuff" to cast spells. Cut open one pouch of "stuff" and there is still other pouches of "stuff."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I do find it funny when players expect to be able to do things to NPCs but get upset when NPCs do the same thing to their PCs. I see that all the time on these forums.

That's because whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.

The game isn't "fair." There are two teams, but one team is 4 I's trying to spell team and the other team is one guy playing all the parts. The second team also chooses the arena the game is played in. The second team can also change their entire offensive line between every match. The second team also has no real concept of 'permanence,' as any damage done, items lost, or limbs destroyed don't affect the next match.

Also, if the first team wins everyone is happy and they keep playing. If the second team "wins," the game is over.

So certain tactics are much dirtier when performed by the second team. If the first team pulls some dirty tricks to foil the second team's plan or engineers a situation where the second team has no hope of providing opposition, it's frustrating for the second team but the next match is a blank slate. The second team's tactics automatically have much further reaching consequences on the first team.

Been there, done it. Wouldn't recommend it.

Rogue was pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes using a vast network of Noble, underground, and black market connections to make things happen...

Let me put this into a more common perspective.

Imagine a group of adventurers going through Westeros and unraveling conspiracy after conspiracy. Thwarting a couple before they've been hatched, but most others they're doing damage control on. It all eventually points in the same direction.

So the PC's track down Littlefinger, stab him, and he's dead. That's it. That's the encounter.

That isn't the end of the story, because now everyone is upset with the party because they either thought that Littlefinger was some upstanding, noble, whatever or they knew he was a scumbag but counted on his scumbaggery.

In other words, it's not a great resolution to a high level campaign. The climax is crap and the denouement is everyone being an ingrate about the whole thing. Makes an excellent mid-campaign minion for a proper BBEG (cause then they've got this information from Littlefinger that points towards something more concrete, satisfying, and sinister), but it's not particularly satisfying as the BBEG himself.

Or they players don't kill him and instead try to politically destroy him, blah blah blah, long story short: There's a reason most of us aren't just playing Vampire instead. If you've got a group that is into that stuff, really genuinely into it, and will remain invested in it rather than becoming terribly bored, then go for it, but that isn't exactly a 1:1 match with the Pathfinder demographic and chances are that you'll have at least one bored/restless/unhappy player at the table.

That last sentence is a train wreck.

I have found that dwelling on the likely 'familly history' of most half orcs to be taboo at most tables.

Just once I'd like to see a half-orc with a wonderful family life.

"Oh my parents? They're great. Still alive actually, and very supportive of my life choices. See, they're both half orc. So they both had pretty crappy childhoods and decided they wanted better for their son/daughter."

HWalsh wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

The people arguing for change are arguing objective mechanical issues.

If you can't argue those you are wasting everyone's time.

There is no such thing as objective mechanical issues in the context of a traditional role-playing game. Any argument based solely around "the rules with no context" is completely invalidated.

You can only argue "objective mechanical issues" with a video game where there isn't a subjective overlord in charge of everything.

I know because all of these "objective mechanical issues" go away the second the Wizard has a sleepless night. These "objective mechanical issues" go away the second the party is on the run and doesn't have time to spend an hour in the morning and has to go, immediately. These "objective mechanical issues" go away the second the party has to travel overnight and doesn't have time for 8 hours of sleep.

All things that happen in the genre, and are fairly common, but yet nobody in the "objective mechanical issues" arena take them into account.

Edit:
To add... This is also why Paizo's own devs said they are more interested in actual game events than theory crafting in this manner. Because "objective theory crafting" is an invalid approach to a tabletop RPG.

Again, you have nothing.

All you've done is describe a mechanical situation where the caster is at a disadvantage.

You've used objective mechanics to argue against objective mechanics to argue that they're invalid.

It's also an argument old enough to drive a car.

It's not new, it's been debunked and run around enough times that it predates Pathfinder by a good several years.

So what else have you got?

It's also sort of an Oberoni Fallacy.

Arguing that the game isn't flawed, or that the flaws don't matter, just because people have the ability to change the game does not negate those flaws. Those flaws are still, very much, flaws that the game has.

His argument (invalid as it is), also does nothing to assauge the angst of someone stuck playing a character in a game that is facing these sorts of problems.

So it wasn't even a great angle of attack in the first place.

Try enemies with spell-like abilities rather than spells? Demons etc. They can't be counterspelled if I understand correctly, Flexible Counterspell or no.

Well I'll be damned. Avr's right.

Spellike Abilities

Usually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component

A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell nor can they be counterspelled.

Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.

So there you go.

Apparently this was subject to an errata rabbit hole. 4th printing cleared it up. Spell-Like Abilities cannot be counterspelled.

Oh it's certainly comical, I just think it is a good enough abstracted mechanic for an abstracted gamiest tabletop system.

Have we talked about how bizzare/useless counter-spelling is? Because I hate it. It's so obscure and such a pain to use that it might as well not even be a rule.

ChainsawSam wrote:

Gwyn, Lord of Cinder?

He's a God.

http://darksouls.wikidot.com/gwyn-lord-of-cinder

So nope. Doesn't count. He's not a Martial.

Not really though.

After linking the Fire, the First Flame burned his knights and made Gwyn himself its fuel. Thus, he became known as Lord of Cinder.

There's hardly anything left of the guy or his power. It's pretty much a straight up sword fight.

Of course, at this point it's sort of splitting hairs.

This is a guy who was a super powerful God. He had a super powerful army and a coterie of powerful knights. He had powerful magic support from a Witch, a Dragon, and his own family. He was completely unstoppable.

The only reason the game's story is even possible is because Gwyn doesn't have any of that anymore, his reign, his kingdom, his army, and the world as a whole are all pretty much over.

So this guy was indomitable until he set to keeping this flame burning to keep his piddly collapsing kingdom and world inching along, burning up his own essence and power to do so for a few centuries until finally the player can show up and kill him.

At that point it's not even a fight, it's a mercy killing. A pretty damn difficult mercy killing, but it's hardly fighting him and his forces in their prime.

As for the showdown, it's about as much of a straight up swordfight as you can get because that's all he's got left (youtube link).

As far as languages go, I say get over it.

Has anyone asking for languages to be changed actually played in a system with more complicated rules? You have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it is to both roleplay and run a conversation where someone is half fluent?

As much as I hate my players, and as fun as it would be to go: "Roll your linguistics? Oops, you meant to say 'go in peace,' but actually insulted his mother, roll init," it just isn't worth the headache.

If you want languages to be a sticking point, just make more of them. Disband common and replace it with a half dozen regional languages and dialects. Then you can still have a functional language barrier without screwing around with varying levels of vocabulary and understanding.

Smart players will just get a translator hireling or cast tongues anyway. It's not worth adding a large amount of complexity to the game's basic communication for the sake of what amounts to either 3sp/day (trained hireling) or a low level spell slot (tongues).

Grond wrote:

If you have never played this game before I highly recommend playing a fighter or a martial class to learn the basics before you try to play a spell caster.

Which fighter or martial class should I play from the core class?

I don't recommend Fighter specifically because almost all of its power stems from Feats and building a decent Fighter means needing to know quite a bit about he hundred-billion-zillion Feats out there.

If it's your first go, I like to recommend Ranger..

Specifically with the Spirit Ranger Archetype..

Ranger is a pretty great "Pathfinder Sampler Platter" for new players. Except for the Animal Companion, which is terrible for them as it essentially requires they manage two entirely different characters every round in combat. Most new players have their hands full with one character.

The Spirit Ranger archetype gets rid of the Animal Companion and replaces it with the ability to cast Augury. Which can be a nice way for new players to get some direction when they're stuck.

For the Ranger itself:

1. You get a class that can reliably hit pretty well. This assures you'll perform pretty adequately in combat.

2. You get a class that awards combat feats in neat little thematic packages. This'll mean your main fighting style gets supported pretty well without having to dig through a dozen different books hunting for feats.

3. You get a class that is reasonably tough. Pretty good hit point progression and they can wear up to Medium Armor at the start. This assures you can take a hit or two. Ranger also has good Fortitude and Reflex saves, which will cover a good amount of the magic coming your way.

4. You get a class with lots of skill points. This will let you find ways to participate and be useful to the party outside of combat. You're also pretty assured to get used to how skills work. If you're shy, those skill points can also be safely tucked into things like Perception, Survival, and knowledge skills.

5. You get a class with situational bonuses. You're going to have to get used to tracking little temporary or situational +'s and -'s in combat, and Ranger has one that's easy to understand built right in. Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain can be sort of a pain in the butt, but most of the pain is picking good ones. Once they're picked it's easy to know if you've got the bonus or not because they're pretty cut and dry (I get +2 to hit and +2 to damage against Orks, if it's not an Ork, I don't get that. I also get a bunch of bonuses if I'm in the Forest, if I'm not in a forest, I don't get that). Ask your DM for advice to help you pick some decent ones for the game, I'm sure they'll be willing to help.

6. You get a class that gradually introduces the Magic mechanics. Learning how Magic works is a big fat pain in the ass as a new player. Ranger gets a very limited spell list that is introduced very gradually. You've got time to learn the system while taking it slow.

7. Finally, you get a class with a well known Role-Model. The Ranger class is essentially based off of Aragorn from Lord of the Rings in the first place. When in doubt, WWAD. What Would Aragorn Do?

Martial Combat, Feats, Skills, and a bit of Magic. All wrapped up in a decently survivable package. Play Ranger for a bit and you'll have walked down the buffet line and had a bite of most of the major game elements of Pathfinder. Then when you make your next character you'll have a good idea what parts of the game you enjoy and what to focus on.

Lore Warden/Marital Master can be a pretty potent combination. The hard part is going to be waiting on Martial Master to start paying off (and sitting out how depressing Lore Warden 2 is when you no longer need or want Combat Expertise).

Still, you're looking at being able to do a lot of fun things with maneuvers and actually having the feats to make use of a few of them.

I'd heartily recommend starting out with Dirty Trick. It's the most fun maneuver as it tends to require some sort of justification or description of the action. It's the maneuver most likely to get you into the 'shtick' of being a dirty fighting scoundrel. The Greater and Quick versions are worth taking and justify their cost in my opinion.

Trip is also pretty useful, and by the time it's Greaterized you're making up for the lost attack performing the maneuver (also bonus attacks of opportunity, think about picking up the stomp as well, that's dirty).

I like Grapple. Grapple defeats mages and there's technically no limit to how big of an enemy you can grapple (there is a limit to what you can pin). With the advent of Grabbing Style (just the first one, screw the rest) I double-love Grapple. Adequately grab an enemy with just one hand and then hack away to your heart's content with your sword.

Where Grapple really gets fun is as fodder for Maneuver Master. There are a ton of neat but situational feats attached to the Grapple lineup. There's a load of cool things you can do with Grapple, but they're all chopped up and spread out to this ridiculous 16 feat Tree, much easier to just pick up the core and grab the others with Martial Flex

Body Shield - When grappling an opponent and faced with an incoming attack, you can make a grapple check against your grappled foe. If successful, you gain cover (+4 AC) against the incoming attack. If the attack misses you because of the cover bonus, the attack hits the grappled foe instead. It's like Crane Wing's abusive older brother.

Chokehold - Allows you to pin an opponent one size larger. Not really worth taking as a permanent feat, but a neat situational pickup.

Deadly Grappler - Another feat too hit or miss to merit a full time slot on the character sheet, but nifty to pick up since you'll have the prereqs. While grappled, you can make your attacks against the grappler as if your weapon were one size larger.

Jawbreaker - Neat, but requires stunning fist. Silence and bleed someone you've grappled. Grapple is already a pretty good caster-killer, this seals the deal against particularly squirmy or tough casters. This one can be useful, but I don't know if I'd pick up Stunning Fist for it. Probably wait until Martial Flex allows you to grab 2 feats at a time and go from there.

Disarm can also be fun, it's certainly smarmy to take the badguy's weapon away from him. Bonus if you turn it against him. I don't really approve of Greater Disarm. Knocking the weapon to some arbitrary square isn't as cool as taking it with your offhand. Disarm Directed is neat, but I'm not sure if it's worth the bother most of the time. Hold the Blade is likewise thematic, but situational, and you can pick it up with just Improved Disarm if it tickles your fancy.

Sunder.... eh. It's useful (would be more useful if you were a Dwarf who could eventually take Shatterspell), but it's not like Grapple where it's worth the investment to open up a bunch of cool Martial Flex options.

Steal is great when it's needed but good situations for it don't seem to come up too often. I'd flex it instead of taking it as a standard feat. If it were really that important that something be stolen, the Rogue ought to have done it before Combat even started right?

I don't recommend Drag or Reposition. Drag you can essentially do with Grapple. Reposition you can do just fine with Ki Throw. Bullrush is a maybe.

So that's my advice. To sum up:

Dirty Trick straight on up to Quick. It's the most fun maneuver and also the most versatile.

Grapple at least to Improved, maybe all the way to Quick depending on how you're using it. At the very least (at improved) you can piss all over a full-caster's cheerios and there isn't much they can do about it. Having higher amounts of Grapple let you ruin other people's days and the line comes with some neat tricks for Flex. Consider Grabbing Style to keep use of your weapon without penalty to the grapple.

Greater Trip (maybe Ki Throw or Vicious Stomp, at least consider them for Flex feats). Improved and Greater Trip are both very brutal maneuvers since just getting up can prompt a load of opportunity attacks from your allies.

Improved Disarm at the most. Other stuff isn't really necessary or interesting. Maybe just flex it.

Bullrush, your call. I don't use it all that often. Hypothetically there's a couple neat things you can do with Bullrush and Flex (Unseat, Spinning Throw, that improved Ki Throw thing), but I haven't gotten around to any of it.

Sunder. Flex it if you need it.

Steal. Flex it if you need it.

Drag and Reposition. Replace with Grapple dragging and Ki Throw.

Deflect Arrows. Flex it.

Catch off Guard is brilliant when it's necessary, but it's rarely necessary. I'd just Flex it.

I prefer a solid one handed weapon that I (predominantly) wield with two hands. Allows you to make solid Power Attacks for the most part, but have a hand free and still attack when needed (Grabbing Style, Deflect Arrows, etc).

This is just what I've tossed together so far for my own character. I can't really account for what kind of game you're going to be playing or with what kind of people.

Have fun.

As to intelligence 7 in general, I guarantee you have known someone who fell in here as it isn't that far removed from human average.

I find most of the tables talking about intelligence in Roleplaying games to be especially nice going up and especially mean going down. Speaking as an older roleplayer (but not too old), I think a lot of this has to do with the nerd persecution of the 80s and 90s before nerd culture became "cool" and we prided ourselves as being especially intelligent compared to the philistines who were mean to us in school.

So, lets just look at statistics. With the standard stat array and rolling dice. Outcomes between 3 and 18. We end up with an average of 10.5 which meshes with the 10-11 range being human average.

We're looking at a standard deviation of 2.9. Ish. There's more to that decimal point but it isn't worth messing with too much. Close enough. That puts the range of one standard deviation, which should fit 68% of the population, between 7.6 intelligence and 13.4 intelligence.

15.87% of the population is dumber than that. We certainly don't institutionalize or give some sort of severe handicap treatment or disability payment to almost 16% of our population based on intelligence alone. Nowhere near that. So those at the bottom end of this spectrum, the 7's and 8's, must be pretty functional adults.

I was going to talk about the other standard deviations lower (second standard deviation from the mean takes us to 4.7), but I couldn't write it in such a way that didn't sound wildly offensive. So screw it.

Back on target. It is definitely safe to say you know someone with 7 INT. Probably not a lot of people with 7 INT, but a couple. You've probably worked with them, held conversations with them, and maybe even roleplayed with them. They're probably not particularly bright, but they're certainly not cretins capable of only grunting and scratching their asses. They likely have trouble picking up concepts the first time, but can work their way through it eventually.

7 INT works out to about 7% of the population.

Imagine your friend who is ugly. Not someone you know who is severely deformed. That friend you have that is ugly, they know they're ugly, everyone knows they're ugly, its obvious. They're not so ugly that it's outright offensive. You could say they're ugly, as a joke or serious, and not feel horrible about it afterwards. That sweet spot of ugly.

I feel confident saying that someone with a 7 INT is dumb. However, I feel confident saying that someone with 7 INT is someone you could say is dumb, to their face. In other words, they're dumb, but not so mentally handicapped as to break the "guilt barrier."

I'd make a comment about "That guy" at your table who always goes, "Wait, what do I roll again?" even though you've been playing for several months, but I think you get the idea.

They're functional adults who just aren't quick. They can perform all labor (so long as they're physically up to the task), and could even probably do your taxes so long as you don't require any oddball deductions or loopholes (basic taxes are pretty simple direction following). They wouldn't be your choice when it came time to optimize the layout of the factory, and they wouldn't be a smart pick if you needed someone to go through a bunch of transactions looking for mistakes, but they should be capable of functioning as adults. Attention span and memory probably aren't great, and you're going to have to go over that plan at least one more time before they've got it, but they're well above Hodor. Jesus I can't even believe a guy who can literally say only one word came up anywhere near a convo about INT 7.

Everyone who roleplays thinks they've got a 15 INT. Oh, at least, right guys! That means that anyone with a 7 should be a drooling moron who cannot understand basic conversation and should probably be cared for. Come on guys, if 10.5 is average then 7 isn't that dumb.

We could go further with this model and overlay IQ over the top of it, but it isn't worth the effort. For starters, IQ is sort of an abstract measure of intelligence in the first place. Additionally, what IQ measures doesn't mesh super well over the top of what the INT stat covers. Oddball measurement (with a healthy amount of criticism) overlaid on top of an abstracted game mechanic seems like a waste of time so let's skip it.

Magic jar is very nice.

Vomit swarm, confusion, cloud kill, ill omen, enervation, greater dispel magic, dispel magic, animate object.

Hexs are the bread and butter of a witch lol. Its a very strong ability.

But the spell list is still very good. Strong spell list. So strong they are still a tier 1 class.

Emphasis mine.

Glad someone said it.

To talk briefly about how thematically cool the spell is: Vomit up a 10x10 swarm of spiders/bees/army ants? That's awesome all on its own.

Then we've got a spell that acts as a form of soft terrain control (making an area unappealing to move through or be in), which can move towards enemies as needed, does decent damage without roll or save, and can occasionally stack up a decent poison. It's essentially a summon which is difficult to attack and not particularly worth killing.

Pretty neat spell that stays fairly relevant through mid levels through automatic upgrades (spider -> bee -> army ant), no save, no SR involved, and again, it's just cool to imagine the character doubling over and puking out tens of thousands of insects.

Damage Reduction poops in its cereal pretty hard, but its a fun spell that's worth learning.

Aaaaaannnnd this is why I didn't want to weigh in here.

Honestly, my gut reaction is "Don't do aberrant bloodline. Certainly don't try to pair it with Reach weapons" That extra 5' of reach is just complexity for the sake of complexity and is just asking for an argument with most DMs.

Without the extra 5' of reach it's easy. A quick google search will bring up templates straight from Paizo or the PFSRD. That's a brief and easy argument to win should one occur.

"How does that extra 5' of reach work, and how does it interact with my medium sized Fauchard" is a much more lengthy argument. It'll likely become another argument once Enlarge Person is brought into play.

It doesn't matter whether the community has worked out the solution to one of these rules problems unless your DM is in on the joke. If your DM is not in on the joke then this'll be an argument.

Regular reach weapons control space just great. A small or medium character with a reach weapon controls ~25'x25' The space they occupy and the reach outside. Throw in a decent amount of attacks of opportunity, trip, and stand still and you've got a pretty nasty bit of terrain denial without any further help.

If you are insisting on the initially proposed build (Brawler 2/Bloodrager 4/Fighter X), perhaps consider the Temple Sword. Two Reasons:

1. It has the Trip property while being a decent weapon (halfway decent attack dice and crit range). With the extra 5' you'd control the same reach that a regular polearm user does while also controlling the "dead space" they encounter.

2. It's a Monk weapon and therefore Brawler's Flurry wouldn't go to waste. One more attack is nice and the second level of Brawler doesn't do a heck of a lot for you otherwise.

Further consideration:

Don't get too wrapped up with feats. Martial Flexibility is amazing. If you've got Combat Expertise and Power Attack then you've got just about every combat maneuver available to you on the fly. A Reach build lends itself well to Trip and Stand Still, but not everything can be tripped. Grab something else on the fly. Most casters hate being grappled, but it isn't necessarily worth having in the build as a hard coded feat. Times like that are when Martial Flexibility shines.

Definitely consider Lore Warden fighter. The flat boosts to CMB/CMD are extremely solid. I'd say just got Martial Master/Lore Warden Fighter and ignore Brawler entirely, but then Martial Flexibility doesn't come online until 5th level and I'm not sure what level you'll be starting at. I suppose it would also require a 13 INT, which is a bummer.

Perhaps consider Martial Master/Lore Warden Fighter and Brawler. The usage of Martial Flexibility should stack.

Can this concept work for GMs too when designing encounters? Should a group of villains/monsters contain the ideal mix of hammers, anvils and arms to be a challenge?

Thesis first

What a GM should really do is play to their audience, just like any other form of entertainment.

If you've got group that is particularly strategically minded and enjoys the tactical side of gameplay, you should play just as hard in return. That will boil down to following the advice in this guide (whether intentionally or not).

Flagrant digression for the sake of making a point
Efficiency is:

1. Kill the enemy

-- which means --

2. Increasing our side's capabilities (through buffs and terrain control)

-- and also --

3. Derease the other side's capabilities (through debuffs, terrain control).

-- in order to --

4. Minimize casualties and resource expenditure.

As Tark said, this line of thinking isn't anything new. MMO players talk about this stuff, quite openly, every single day on raid forums. Video game players dive into the minutia of this stuff on a pretty constant basis.

What Tark has done is categorize this stuff, give it names, and bring the conversation here. In this case 1 is Hammer, 2 is Arm, 3 is Anvil, and 4 (due to the nature of resource expenditure, casualties, and healing in Pathfinder) is sort of disseminated between Arm and discussions on positioning and resource expenditure as a whole.

On other forums for other games it might boil down different. Tanks, Healers, DPS, Buffs and Debuffs. Even MMOs with rigid adherence to the "Holy Trinity" of Tank/DPS/Heals will have hundred page conversations about buffs and debuffs and trying to figure out how they fit into their Trinity and how that works into something approaching an idea raid composition (mostly because their idea of Trinity leaves out buffing and debuffing and is therefore sort of flawed in itself).

I've spent very long meetings and briefings during my time in the Army organizing anything from raids to "Cordon Knocks." The amount of thought and effort we'd put into satellite maps and planning how we're going to lock down and control terrain (modern combat's Anvil), is pretty ridiculous. This is in a setting where Hammer is covered (we out shoot and outgun the opposition naturally) and Arm is essentially built in (again, we were exceptionally equipped and supported vs our enemy). Hours spent just pondering terrain, equipment to bring, and laying out an order of objectives.

Historians go over this stuff nonstop as well. Who controlled what terrain, what the advantages were, etc.

I applaud Tark for bringing these discussions forward to the Pathfinder forum and praise him for doing it with a metaphor that mostly makes sense and has been tailored to fit Pathfinder and its players rather than attempting to discuss some Stryker/Leader/Tank/Controller dynamic that wouldn't exactly fit.

Back to DMs in general
Anyway, I have digressed. Combat, real or imagined and as complicated or abstracted as you want to make it, boils down to those 4 things. Period. In Pathfinder it can indeed be disseminated to 3 things and Anvil, Hammer, Arm are good approximations for the mechanics at hand.

If you've got a tactically minded party, or even a party that has "gotten lucky" and is blowing through your content, applying this line of thinking to your encounters will provide better encounters.

I urge you do it cautiously. If you go off half-cocked with as hard of a set up as possible you could very well catch your party off guard and the results will not be favorable.

Beyond DMs
In Video Games, after these discussions become prevalent, the game designers inevitably begin to plan encounters around whatever dynamic their game has encouraged (on purpose or not, game design is funny that way and tends to encourage things without necessarily meaning to).

What I'd really like to see is more discussion about how the game as a whole works and how APs or Classes or Feats fit into more advanced combat tactics (especially seeing as Pathfinder is a game which is more combat focused than others). I don't want to sound like I'm calling them out, but I think it would be neat to hear the game designers weigh in on this sort of stuff when they're talking about new features/classes/APs/etc.

So rather than thinking "what classes do we need?"

You ask. "What jobs do we need covered?"

That's actually quite liberating as it frees you from the burden of having to meet some imaginary class standard the game doesn't naturally enforce.

You raise a very good point that I'd like to reinforce.

I don't know how many times I've been asked to build a certain class or played with someone who was asked to build a certain class, and in either case been disappointed.

"We need a Cleric."

If the only information you give me is that you want a Cleric, I'll probably show up with the biggest, nastiest Iomedaen around. A murderstorm of longsword, butch haircut, and divine energies.

If what you meant to say was "We need buffs to increase our capabilities and some healing for back up," then what I'll show up with is entirely different.

Saying, "We need an Arcane caster" and "We need an Anvil, someone to control and debilitate the enemy," will provide two entirely different outcomes from a player trying to build a Wizard.

Classifying characters by their role rather than Class is a clearer and more direct way of communicating and thinking.

For the record, I don't believe this was ever revolutionary, new, etc. Merely a thoughtful clarification on why's of what people do when they build groups and why optimization tends towards certain directions based on class and ability.

I didn't think so either, until I started talking to other people about it. I was pretty surprised how many players, even those who really enjoy the combat aspect of the game, hadn't really put any thought into how it worked or how to be successful.

I initially thought, "It was well written, good for him," but after talking to a few people I started thinking that we probably need to be having these sorts of discussions.

I'm also aware of the criticisms, mainly that it encourages a gamist attitude, but I'm not going to address that now.

That was pretty much the response from some, yes.

I do think that your essay was a well written examination of these roles (mechanics? objectives?) in Pathinder specifically. This line of thinking wasn't anything new to me as I'd essentially been 'round this same bush over and over throughout various MMOs.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Mechanically, every actor in a combat game like this boils down to two broad classifications. Their capabilities and how long they can perform before they cease whatever their output is and instead start being dead. The goal of combat being to make the enemy cease their output before your output ceases.

Therefore, and I'm speaking more broadly than Pathfinder here, there are 4 roles that can be performed.

1. Eliminate the enemy (In PF's case, usually HP damage. Though anything that removes bodies from the opposing force counts).

2. Increase your side's capabilities (buffing, gaining advantages, etc)

3. Hinder your enemy's capabilities (debuffing, control, etc)

4. Deal with casualties that the enemy inflicts.

Essentially, this will get you through most games that boil down combat to numbers. Give to us, take from them, kill them, keep our guys alive. Easy.

Modern most MMOs handle 4 with both Tanks and Healers. The player with the most defenses takes the hits and they have a cadre of people keeping them alive (as well as others whom take incidental damage).

Pathfinder doesn't really do 4. The system doesn't *really* have tanks (though it can be accomplished similarly through control of positioning, terrain, and funky reach tricks, etc) and healing (generally speaking) is an inefficient use of an action.

Therefore 4 isn't particularly worth talking about in the grand scheme of how Pathfinder works. Was covered adequately enough for this game and it certainly doesn't need it's own named role.

For an article pertaining exclusively to Pathfinder you covered everything coherently.

------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as a "gamist attitude" goes, I don't feel it is particularly gamist at all. People spend a lot of time agonizing over tactical decisions both by Soldiers before/during the battle and by high level officers and historians after the battle. They spend all this time thinking through this stuff because it is, literally, their life. It isn't gamist, it's survival.

People who adventure for a living ought to spend quite a bit of time thinking about what that entails and, throughout their careers, they should probably gravitate towards other adventurers with whom they are most likely to be successful and survive. There isn't anything gamist about thinking that the characters we're portraying would want to take the steps necessary to be successful.

There can be just as much drama, intrigue, and tension with a well put together cooperative party than there can with 4 Mary Sues working independently on the same side. Even if this was "gamist" the repercussions should be minimal.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, it was a well written article and one that was, frankly, overdue (a video game launches and people are going into this sort of stuff in depth almost over night). I also think this is a healthy line of conversation. It's not "cheesy combo" or "how to build an overpowered duo with a couple abused feats," it's "how to build an efficient cooperative combat force."

This article is much more suited to long-term cooperative play than most of the builds/ability discussions that I've seen here. We should probably have more of it.

Finally, I don't like the terminology. Hammer and Anvil make me think of ambush tactics. This is entirely a personal problem, and I don't even have the decency to offer new suggestions (though it's far too late to change the terms anyway). You asked for feedback though, so there you go.

I only just now realized how long it has been since you first made this post. I'm actually a little let down that I don't see the terminology more on the boards (e.g. "Help me build a better Arm" or whatever).

Raglum wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Raglum wrote:

But I NEVER EVER heal during combat.

"What never?" "No, Never"

What Never? Well hardly ever!

Yes, never, never,never, no really never.....

"CAPTAIN: Though related to a peer,

I can hand, reef, and steer,
And ship a selvagee;
I am never known to quail
At the furry of a gale,
And I'm never, never sick at sea!
CREW: What, never?
CAPT: No, never!
CREW: What, never?
CAPT: Hardly ever!
CREW: He's hardly ever sick at sea!
Then give three cheers, and one cheer more,
For the hardy Captain of the Pinafore!"

...and whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

I should roll a Sacred Summons user at some point.

Reach Cleric with Sacred Summons is ridiculous. Would play again.

Though I think Oracles are better at being doing the reach weapon thing, Sacred Summon is pretty amazing.

Buffing is good, debuffing is good, and hitting things is good.

Summons are absurdly good.

A flank bonus in the right place is usually as good as most buffs you could provide while doing damage.

A couple of summons can be as good as a wall spell. A summoned wall that does damage and has attacks of opportunity.

Summons take damage that nobody cares about. No one will weep for your fallen hound archon and that's a load of damage an actual party member didn't have to take.

Finally, summoning is practically a swiss army spell. Even by mid-level the summoning lists are diverse enough to handle an awful lot of situations. Flight, battlefield control, maneuvers, buffs, touch attacks...

I read this as Tina Fey. Was very confused.

I swear a good chunk of the class' problems would simply disappear if they got weapons that weren't complete garbage.

Having an Eidolon with crap hit dice and BAB.

#FirstWorlderProblems

Hodor. Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodr. HODOR! Hodor hodor...sneak attack hodor hodor hodor. Hodor magic hodor hodor hodor. Hodor magic HODOR sneak attack.

This would make for the best Autocorrect Prank ever.

Now I just hide and wait for the GF to leave her phone unattended.

Race: Halfling
Class: Emissary Cavalier, Order of the Paw

STR 13
DEX 18 + leveling bonuses here
CON 14
INT 8
WIS 12
CHA 8

FEATS
1. Weapon Finesse
B. Mounted Combat
3. Weapon Proficiency (Elven Curve Blade)
5. Power Attack
B. Mobility
6. Risky Striker
7. Spirited Charge
B. Ride By Attack
9. ???
B. Trick Riding
11. ???

Was tossing this general build around and realized that I just didn't have time to really dig into it on my own. Figured I'd post it up here and see what you guys thought.

The good part about a small Cavalier is being able to take your mount almost anywhere. The downside of course is being ~4 str lower than a "well built" medium cavalier. That ends up being -2 hit and up to -3 damage.

The damage isn't a super big deal, but I typically find the -2 to hit to be a bit burdensome.

So I figured this might very well be the best build I can think of for an Elven Curve Blade. Agile of course.

It allows the two handed Power Attack progression while taking advantage of the Halfling's DEX bonus.

This allows the cavalier to layer Challenge, two handed weapon Power Attack, Risky Striker, and eventually Giant Slayer from Order of the Paw at level 15.

Build is presented at 12ish. Against a large opponent with Challenge active the Halfling is looking at DEX + 12 (power attack) + 8 (risky striker) + 12 (challenge). All of that damage is multiplied on a critical hit, which is another of the ECB's strong suits.

At 15th level it would be DEX + 12 (power attack) + 8 (risky striker) + 15 (challenge) + 7 (giant slayer). That is sort of an awkward level though...

so at 16: DEX + 15 (power attack) + 10 (risky striker) + 16 (challenge) + 8 (giant slayer).

At any rate, Risky Striker makes up for only getting DEX to damage rather than 150% strength.

The build has a couple of pretty big holes. For starters it doesn't really come together until 5 when it has Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and proficiency in the Elven Curve Blade. This can be alleviated somewhat by taking a level of Fighter.

The other negative is that the build doesn't take quite as much advantage of Spirited Charge as a Lance build would. I'm fairly certain the little bit more accuracy and the extra crit range make up for this.

Finally the mediocre stuff. Wolf? Meh. No reason Beast Rider can't be tacked on for a more interesting mount, but then the build loses Order of the Paw.

Order of the Paw is sort of middling as well. It gives a bonus feat at 8, which is nice but after the critical point where the build is blooming. Order of the Paw is mainly for Giant Killer, which is a nice shtick and synergizes well with Risky Striker, but doesn't even become a factor until 15.

Hypothetically the basics of the build are also feasible as a Gendarme, but it really needs bonus feats from either Gendarme or Emissary to come together.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I don't know how I missed cc2600's build, but it is practically the same thing.

I said I was going to work on a build, and indeed I set to it last night for a few moments. I couldn't come up with anything crunchwise, so I figured I'd go with flavor.

DWARVEN

BEAR

CAVALRY

How cool is that?

I got to work digging through the SRD. Obviously a Dwarf. Beast Rider Archetype and...

Apparently Dwarven Bear Cavalry isn't cool enough for Paizo to include it as an option.

Bear animal companions are small creatures. They only advance to medium.

Wolf animal companions are medium creatures and advance to large.

Wait... what?

So I'm a bit disheartened. It might take me a while to contribute to this one.

I can't help but sense another "Rogue Thread" debacle.

Oh Tark, you lovable scamp.

Boatmurdered.

I think I'm most interested in what spells, feats, and archetypes. The weapon is second thought at the moment.

Then you're already on the right track!

However, for anything that swings a weapon, the weapon tends to be a cornerstone of the feats/archetypes and the rest of the build.

Whips are an option to perform Spellstrike at range. I've seen some decent builds based around this concept but am up in the air about the results. Whips (with feats) and reach seem predominantly about attacks of opportunity to me and the Magus doesn't have much to really leverage an AoO. Whips also strike me as a cool maneuver weapon, but Magus just doesn't have enough goodies to really take advantage of both the whip feats and maneuver feats and make it all work. Of course there is truestrike. Regardless, a Whip-Magus sounds like an interesting build that I unfortunately haven't had the time to really try for myself. I wouldn't say that a Whip Magus HAS to be a Kensai, but the Archetype certainly helps the feat portion of the build come online much sooner.

Then there is unarmed. Something I've been toying with recently. Would be another 'subpar' build unfortunately, but thematically I think it's really neat. I wouldn't build this as a Kensai and instead would choose to go with the Brawling enchant on light armor. I haven't really managed to finish fleshing this build out but I think the options Magus provides could fulfill my Mystical Kung Fu itch better than Monk. There really is no mechanical benefit to going unarmed at all, but I like the flavor and mechanics better than Monk.

The problem with these weapons is the really terrible crit range. Not super necessary, but they will do much less damage overall than something like a scimitar.

As far as Archetypes go:

Black Blade is great for a "low magic" setting as you ensure yourself a weapon that will continue to upgrade despite a penny-pinching DM. Not good for Dervish Dance builds however since Agile isn't an option for inherent enchantment.

Kensai is the best option if you plan a build which requires a lot of weapon based feats. Getting proficiency and focus right off the bat really helps anything build off of a squirrelly weapon (specifically whips, but any exotic weapon falls in as well).

Hexcrafter is an amazing Archetype for opening up your options. Magi are really great Novas. The addition of Slumber and Ice Tomb hexes make the Magi class extremely versatile when blasting isn't a valid option.

At the end of the day, Magus is a pretty powerful class no matter what. If you have Shocking Grasp and Intensify Spell, you'll go a pretty long way regardless. Sure the difference between a finely tuned Magus build and a slapped together build might be pretty severe, but even a mediocre Magus build will have plenty to contribute to their party.

In my experience, table balance is the biggest issue in table top roleplaying.

That is to say the balance between the players themselves rather than the balance between players and opposition.

The DM can really easily adjust fire on enemy power level as the game progresses or even fudge dice rolls here and there when they realize they've underestimated an encounter.

However if the balance between the players is an issue, then the whole game can spiral out of control pretty quickly. If an encounter that challenges or is deadly to one or two players is a cakewalk to another then the Escalation of Force for the campaign becomes awkward. To borrow Tsoli's example; the DM has to balance between challenging Xena and not killing Gabrielle.

That's a hell of a situation to be in for everyone at the table except for Xena. Xena gets to cakewalk encounters and isn't really grasping that the DM has to keep tweaking the monsters to be tougher or that Gabrielle is struggling to survive or even make a difference against the stronger opposition.

Give me 4 weak PCs and I can manage fine. Give me 4 strong PCs and I'll spend a weekend adjusting monsters, but I'll manage fine. Give me 3 weak PCs and a strong one and the game becomes a clusterf+#!.

If you've ever been sitting at a table where everything seemed super fine and easy one encounter and half the party was dead and grumpy the next, you might have been a Xena who was oblivious to how frustrating the other ends of the table were. I know I've been there. Hell, I've seen variations of this concept stop more campaigns dead in their tracks than any other factor.

Therefore, I think table balance is more important than any other factor in a campaign and point buy is my favorite method of character creation. If dice are rolled, I prefer the DM roll up one statline and give it to the players to do with as they please.

Depends on how new.

For new players, Fighter is a bit of a trap. It relies heavily on feats which requires a level of system mastery to build well. If the fighter isn't built well then you have a class which only really does combat well and isn't put together well enough to really shine.

Barbarian and Paladin are a bit better, though Paladin is really restricted by the Alignment system and Barbarian requires some time digging through Rage Powers to find the ones that aren't crap.

For new players I like to recommend Spirit Ranger. The class gets a lot of feats which encourages new players to read up, but it offers them in easier to digest bands due to the weapon style. The class allows players to get their feet wet with the casting system without being overwhelmed by it. Favored Enemy/Terrain are binary mechanics that are easy enough to select with a bit of guidance from the GM and are relatively forgiving with the addition of Instant Enemy. The class gets enough skill points for a new player to get a feel for the skill system and to remain engaged both in and out of combat. Finally, Spirit Ranger gives up the Animal Companion (which is difficult for new players who have issues figuring out what to do each round as is) for augury effects which will allow them to feel out the game with simple yes/no questions.

It is a pretty well put together Archetype/Class for new players to bring something to the table and contribute without having to know too much about the game.

Of course if the player is new to Pathfinder but already knows RPG systems etc, then anything goes.

In a vacuum, archery is hands down the single greatest way to do damage.

--All the attacks of two-weapon fighting while only having one weapon to enchant. Manyshot is, in almost all cases, flat out better than improved two-weapon fighting.

--Ammunition adds quite a bit of versatility.

--Can full attack without having to close distance.

--Deadly Aim is as good as Power Attack for the most part.

--Weapon damage differences between ranged and melee is negligible.

Fortunately Pathfinder doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Have you read the rules for cover and concealment? Really read them? Gigantic pain in the ass. A DM can throw around pretty massive penalties practically at a whim and none of it is far fetched or out of the question.

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

and:

If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

Those are separate rules. Separate modifiers. Chances are, if you're firing into melee (-4 to hit) the enemy also has cover from your big fat friend (+4 AC). That's a swing of 8. Huge.

Precise Shot only negates the -4 to hit. That's why Precise Shot is so important, though it doesn't make the cover rules go away.

Concealment is just as nasty. Lighting? Don't get me started.

Environment? Hell. I can't even skim that chapter without thinking "How is this game even playable?" Did you know that any character standing in the same square as a tree automatically has partial cover? Deep water in a bog gives cover, improved cover to small creatures.

Severe winds are a -4 ranged attack penalty. Rain? Same penalty. Snow? Same penalty. Rain and snow also cut visibility in half.

Storms? Reduce visibility by 3/4, -8 perception check, and -4 to ranged attacks with. siege. weapons. Attacks with conventional ranged weapons are impossible.

You have any idea how much random crap grants concealment? Sagebrush grants concealment for crying out loud.

So long as the players aren't fighting on a flat featureless expanse at high-noon, there should be plenty of ranged combat modifiers being thrown around. Those couple really nasty paragraphs I just posted are just scratching the surface.

In fact, if you're not throwing large penalties towards your archers (and ranged touch attackers) on a pretty regular basis, what is questionable is: why? They're right there in black and white and those rules are the limiting factor against archers and ranged attacks in general.

Granted, a bunch of those modifiers can go away with feats, but we're talking a hell of an investment there.

It takes like 2 feats to cover the basics for a single weapon. It takes something like 5 for two weapons. It takes twice as many to make an archer who can output damage without constantly sucking due to all sorts of nasty modifiers. They still can't eliminate all of them.

I haven't even touched magic. Just completely mundane environment and combat stuff.

There are so many rules in place to keep ranged combat in check that if you haven't been using them, then you simply can't. Not all at once. If you were to bring all of this stuff up at once in one session I guarantee you there would be a hell of an argument. Feelings would be hurt. It's a completely different game when you stop playing like this and start playing like this.

Oh can anyone make a Carnivalist build? If that can be viable at all it sounds like great fun. (Give yourself a flanking buddy, AND replace rogue talents, AND actually justify charisma rogue!)

Oh you can combine it with scout too. Hmmmmmm

I'm not positive, but I think all the familiars are tiny.

Tiny creatures don't threaten like small or larger creatures so they make pretty lousy flank buddies.

Edit: I'm full of crap, there are a couple small options.

Thieves and skill monkeys? I'd take them as the cohort.

That's how you do it.

Tell your GM you're taking Leadership. When they say no, tell them you're making a rogue with crap physical stats and 20 intelligence. It'll just sneak around and pop out to unlock or disarm things. After combat it'll show up with a wand of cure light.

Will hide during combat and sulk in the corner of the local tavern while in town.

Diplomacy for Gather Information I would say is central to the class and should be on the list.

UMD, meh. Not so much. Get it with a trait if it bothers you that much.

But a Slayer needs to know what to slay where before it can even begin the process.

do i seem to be the only one say way hold up here this class is now too powerful. 6th level spells full base attack bonus and swift action Buffs along with rounds per day bonuses to your weapon of choice...

that is too much no fighter could compete with that ever.

I mentioned something along those lines.

Not "OMG WAY TOO POWERFUL" but I think the class does need to be tuned down a notch.

More importantly I think the class actually needs streamlined. Awful lot of class features that don't necessarily have anything to do with one another. Could probably do with just ditching channel altogether.

proftobe wrote:

Its been said a few times and I think Cheaply even linked it in the other thread. The core designers(aka the group that will write this book) think that dex to damage is almost too powerful to be a MYTHIC feat so we wont be seeing it in any class(gunslinger being an exception because of all the built in firearm weirdness). All other dex to damage options are in the Golarion specific books that are overseen by someone who isn't on the core team that thinks dex to damage isn't overpowered. So dervish dance and agile get into the game allowing that trope but I bet the core.design team wish it.wasn't. Its probably not going to happen the need for other dex.to damage options have been howled about on the board and I'm pretty sure they aren't going to change their mind.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the core designers also (apparently) think the Conjuration Wizard wasn't powerful enough in the CRB. If the Gunslinger can get Dex to damage, why not the Swashbuckler, even at the expense of Precise Strike damage if that's what it takes?

DEX to damage on guns and DEX to damage on melee weapons aren't apples and apples.

Guns. Are. Terrible. Sure they are capable of targeting touch AC, but there is so much stacked against them. The awful misfire stuff, reloading, cost of ammunition. The Gunslinger essentially spends 20 levels overcoming firearms.

Melee weapons on the other hand have a crap ton more to work with. Much more reliable, a crap ton more feat access, access to maneuvers, more support from the rules in general.

Needs proficiency Wooden Stake.

Loss of an animal companion kind of ruins the concept. Take a level of Druid to get Freddy the Flanking Ferret. I dislike the unlimited Studies, much like I hate the Witch's unlimited hexes.

Do people commonly play this game with only one player and the GM?

You don't need the Ferret. You have a party.

Hell even Fighters have class skills you can use outside of combat - two different knowledges and the ability to make people soil themselves. Take a feat, and they don't even need Charisma to do the latter one. Sure, you're primary job is combat, but you can still contribute and feel useful instead of waiting for the fight to begin. With an Investigator, you feel awesome outside of fights, but when the fights begin, you're pretty much just waiting for them to end so you can go back to making yourself useful.

As it is, during levels 1 to 3, you're basically a Fighter without the BAB, HP, Armour or abilities. Then at level 4, you're a rogue, but you only get to use your sneak attack once per day per target. But at least you don't have to flank. Yay.

And this is why people don't like the class as it stands. It's not that we want it to be a murder machine; we just want it to contribute something during a fight. Buffing is out of character, as is being a full BAB combatant. Precision damage is one way to go, but you've already said that you don't want the investigator to be able to use it as often as the rogue, which frankly is the only way it can work, while debuffing is the other way to go. Debuffing adds an interesting flavour, and the mechanics for it are already there in the form of Critical Feats.

So what I propose is Studied Combat be gained at level 1, letting you get the INT bonus AC and To Hit bonus early. This means that you can walk into combat and not be immediately murdered, and in fact actually make yourself useful. Then, at level 4 you receive the ability to end your Studied Combat early in exchange for adding a status effect to your target as well as dealing damage. Then, every level where you would currently gain an additional d6, you may apply an additional status effect before your Studied Combat goes down. Sure, you'll never out-damage a rogue, but if at level 15 you go up against a Stone Giant Fighter with four attacks, and walk away a round later with the Stone Giant...

You're off the marker on a few things.

For starters, from 1-3 you're not like a Fighter at all. You're a crappy Alchemist.

Then from 4-20, you're also a crappy Alchemist.

But, bear in mind that at any point after level 3 you could take the Mutagen Discovery. From then on, whenever there is trouble you could don your tweed hat and say, "Elementary my dear Wa-ARHGHABARLGLEBARLEGL!" and turn into a scary monster.

I don't have the book that cutlass is in.

Therefore, rather than just being scimitars without the perks, all of my cutlasses are scimitars.

What the other folks suffer from is what we call "an embarrassment of riches."

Hmmm. Well given the first hour of comments, my inclination right now is to change it back to sneak attack with a every three level progression.

I think I speak for me when I say, "some of us just want a Vivisectionist that isn't ooky and evil."

Though I should warn you, the community seems to not like: Teamwork, Flanking, or Sneak Attack.

So you'd probably only be making me happy in the long run.