ClemulusRex's page

Does anyone know if the Azlanti were particularly long-lived compared to other human ethnicities? Aroden was obviously a special case, and the longevity of Xin and the Runelords could be explained as a result of their arcane mastery, but I feel like as the 'high men (and women)' of Golarion, they should have the extended lifespan that that trope tends to imply. But maybe I'm assuming/imposing too much of a Dúnedain allegory.

I'm just a scant couple of hours away from heading off to my own Kingmaker game!

I decided to use Kingmaker as my attempt at the Half-elf oracle/sorc/mystic theurge concept. I know there's been a lot of ink spilled over that already, so I won't try to repeat too much of it here. Needless to say, my DM has let me take the 3.5 'Practiced Spellcaster' feat for both classes. I decided to Improved Focus in Enchantment spells and further enhance that with the Fey Bloodline (which conveniently fits well into the campaign.) Naturally, my character was a shoo-in for Ruler, but there have been times (no skill points!) when I wish I had chosen to go straight Bard.

I can second (third? fourth?) that druids and rangers can go gangbusters in this Adventure Path. Our own Druid has been damn near essential. Who'd have thought that the 'crop-growing' version of the Plant Growth spell would actually produce a mechanical benefit in a campaign?

All-in-all, Kingmaker has been one of my favorite campaigns so far. After 25+ years of D&D it's been a long-awaited dream to actually have PCs running their own nation. My one disappointment is that most of our group is made up of folks for whom the kingdom-building parts are just 'boring math' and opportunities for intrigue and politicking are brushed under the carpet...

Well, I won't lie. I would have rather seen a single-player campaign set in the Pathfinder universe. As much as I like CRPGs, the MMO dynamic has never appealed to me when I could just schedule a tabletop session instead. I realize that MMOs are the wave of the future in a lot of ways, though, so if it means that Pathfinder Online has to happen before we get the Golarion equivalent of a NWN, Baldur's Gate, or Dragon Age, then so be it.

Actually KenderKin, have you looked at my Improved Spell-Casting feat?

Oh, whoops. I guess I just repeated you in a different way, myself.

I would have to support Set's suggestion near the beginning of the thread to use something like the AU Magic Rating. It sounds a lot like what the d20 Conan game did by giving ALL classes a "Magic Attack Bonus" in addition to a BAB, even though there were only one and a half spellcasting classes.

I like the idea that if a Sorcerer or Wizard gives half it's level in BAB, that a Fighter should give half his level in MAB/effective CL. The complaint was made that the Fighter is not a spellcasting class and that it shouldn't contribute to the effective CL at all, but I say just chalk it up the character's inherent "heroicness" for being someone of X level. In the aforementioned example of the Fighter 19/Wizard 1, the character in question may not know a lot of arcane theory (spellcraft, arcana, access to spell levels), but he's probably been healed, zapped, charmed, incinerated, bolstered, and beguiled by magic more times than he cares to remember and therefore could very reasonably have developed an intuitive feel for it.

On the flip side, I don't see a multiclass character's Fighter levels contributing to actual spells known, however. The Wizard levels aren't contributing to the number of Fighter bonus feats, are they? However, Fighter bonus feats (and Rogue talents, and Barbarian rage powers...) progress at the same rate that an A-level caster gets spell levels--once every two character levels. How about then just implementing a feat that bumps your "spells per day" up two notches on the chart for one class each time you take it (limited, of course, but your total effective caster level)?

This would, in effect, create more of a piecemeal, "pay-as-you-go" alternative to the MT,AT, or EK, but would by no means obsolete them, I think.

Anyone else have a problem with the rule that if you jog for more than an hour, you're automatically fatigued no matter what your Con score or Fort save is, or whether or not you have the Endurance feat? It hasn't actually come up, but it bothers me on principle that in one of my current games I have a 9th level Barbarian with a 22 Con and the Endurance feat, yet her companion that has the "Farm Raised" (not sure if that's the exact name) trait is a better distance runner since he can just ignore fatigue once per day. (Granted, my character can forced march on through the night almost without having to make a roll, but that's beside the point.) I find this particularly irksome as I always thought of the Endurance Feat as the spiritual successor to the Running NWP from 2nd Edition, which allowed one to do exactly that--run for hours on end.

Maybe implement a similar rule to that of performing a forced march, but with a higher DC? Every hour after the first, make a DC 15 Fort save to avoid the non-lethal damage, and it goes up by one (two?) every hour after. Or maybe the save just lets you avoid the Fatigued condition but not the damage?

Sure, weapons and armor don't automatically re-size, but does anyone know of a spell/effect that lets you re-size them? 4th Ed. has that effect automatically built into the "Enchant Item" ritual, I know. I hate to suggest that Pathfinder take a page from 4th Ed's playbook, but I know that my halfling fighter is going to be very sad when his party comes across that medium-size +2 Flaming longsword...

Ah, thanks. I guess that's what I wanted to know, actually.

Yes, I realize I might be beating a dead horse (or riding dog, in my character's case) as there have already been a few threads discussing some variation of this question in the past, one as recent as last month. However, in all the posts I read, I noticed that the two cents of any of the developers was conspicuously absent. I guess I'm just hoping that repeated mentioning of it will get one of them to chime in, or better yet, cause them to grant some clarification to mounted combat in general in a future publication.

I guess the basic question is: Can a character's mount also make an attack on a foe while the character is making a Ride-By Attack?

From previous threads, I seemed to find people fairly evenly spread between the following four general answers:

1) Yes. Both the character and his/her mount are making a charge action, thus both get an attack as part of it.

2) Yes, IF the mount also has Spring Attack. (Or Fly-By Attack in the proper cases.)

3) Yes, IF the mount also has Spring Attack. HOWEVER, since a Spring Attack cannot be a part of a charge (a ruling that I personally find to be up for debate), the mount and/or rider must also acquire a home-brew feat in order to coordinate the Spring and the Ride-By Attacks.

4) No. A Spring Attack is NEVER a charge. You lose. Go home. Stop trying to be "creative" with the rules. By the way, you're a cheese-monkey.

Sorry. Was I a little too snarky with that last one?

After discussing it with my group, the consensus seemed to be #3, with both my character and his mount needing to spend an extra feat over and above the Spring/Ride-By. Which I'm totally cool with. It'd just be nice if a more official rule were to eventually get handed down from on high, one way or another.

*Nudge*

My perfect party:

1) Fighter. In heavy armor.
2) Cleric. In heaviest armor he could wear.
3) Rogue.
4) Wizard.

Only once have I ever actually been in a party that had this composition (I was the thief, it was 2E, and it helped me to swear off thieves forever). Just about every other party I've been in includes people with 2-3 classes (prestige and base), we're all versatile but no one wears heavy armor (usually not even medium), AC is a problem, there is no front line, and so on. It'd be nice to see this thing happen again.

And to be honest, I'm as much part of the problem as anyone else. I just usually have 1 fewer classes than the next person (2 in the current party vs. 3 for the others; 1 in a party where 2 and 3 were the norm; etc.). It's just a strange concept to me, this 'iconic' party.

You know, in terms of functionality and versatility, it's hard to beat the iconic, four-person party.

I sympathize with the "no heavy tank" thing. I myself have a hard time packing on heavy and sometimes even medium armor even as a dedicated fighter. For one, I like having 30 feet of movement in combat. Also, from a role-play perspective, one would probably not want more than a mail shirt or breastplate while trekking through rough wilderness and spelunking in caverns. In real life heavy armor is exactly that--heavy. And hot and uncomfortable. I realize that we're playing a fantasy game, but I also just kind of dig the image of a more lightly armored fighter skillfully avoiding and deflecting blows. The rules don't exactly support that too well, as the general assumption from day one with D&D has been that better armor and magic items are the most efficient ways of being harder to hit, but it doesn't stop me from trying sometimes.

I don't know about perfect in the sense of optimized, but the party I really want play is Team Arcane Research - the all-wizard party. There would probably be significant multi-classing, but everyone would be primarily a wizard. We would solve all our problems through the use of intelligence and magic.

I was going to chime in with something similar. My friends and I have often mused over the idea of "theme" parties like this. For example, a group of knight-errant paladins, all from different backgrounds (i.e. having taken 1-3 levels of other classes before joining the order.)

Another concept I loved for a more "fairy tale" style of game was that of traveling circus performers. You could have your "Strong Man" (Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk), "Animal-Tamer" (Ranger or Druid), "Acrobat" (Rogue, Monk, Bard), "Illusionist" (er, Illusionist. Or Bard), "Fortune-Teller/Seer" (Diviner, Cleric, Rogue, or Bard depending on if the fortune-telling is genuine or not), and "Ringmaster" (Bard), to name a few. It'd be great for episodic adventures, as the troupe would be forever on the move. You could do it as sort of a "Scooby-Doo" campaign with the carnival wagon as the "Mystery Machine" and the do-gooding characters constantly getting dragged into the mysteries and troubles of whatever town they happened to roll into that week. Combat would probably be far less frequent, and then you'd probably have to use some optional or home brew rules to compensate for the lack of armor and weapons, especially if you wanted to preserve the more light-hearted fairy-tale feel of the game.

One "theme" party a few of us did get to play in 3.5 was the "Masters of the Wild" (after the 3.0 class supplement)--a Druid, Ranger, and Barbarian. Our DM was running old "Isle of Dread" module and converting it on the fly. We didn't consciously make the party based on the module, but we got a couple of hours into the first session and had a "forehead slap" moment where we realized we had already "won" the adventure. All three characters trained in Survival, Tracking, Hold/Charm animal spells, Ranger with favored enemy of Animals...It was a thing of beauty. In the end, I really felt like my Barbarian was kind of the weak link.

Did Aragorn not use a bow in the mines of moria? Perhaps I'm thinking of the movie.

I am pretty sure that Anduril was not specified as one or two handed in the books, though in the movie it is used both one or two handed (Bastard sword or longsword would do the trick there).

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the movie. I can't remember an instance in the books where Aragorn is even described as having touched a bow. Anduril in the movies (WHEN he finally gets it, grumblegrumble...) as well as his previous sidearm are both pretty clearly bastard swords. In the books, however, I think Anduril is just described as "sword", which usually refers to your typical longsword/broadsword.

Sorry. Strayed a little off-topic, there.

You don't want to be using feats on exotic weapon proficiency for 1 point of damage on average!

I agree! Especially for a non-fighter. Just spitballing, there.

I certainly see the AC issue. A switch hitter doesn't have a stellar Dex, and is wearing lighter armor. However, I would be wondering if a single handed weapon is doing significant enough damage in melee (when not fighting a favored enemy) to warrant entering melee at all?

As I said, for that reason this build might lean more heavily on the archery, maybe making it an "Archer with a splash of Switch-Hitter". On the other hand, I kind of think that not having to drop your bow actually helps the "switch-hitter" role/concept. Sure, you might subsequently have to ditch your sword into the dirt or waste a move action sheathing it, but being able to switch back to ranged without using a less effective backup weapon bears consideration at least.

Otherwise, yeah, the single-handed switch-hit ranger lags a bit in the melee damage department. But with the better AC he can serve as a decent tank or line-holder when the party needs it. Also, he can switch to melee against weaker foes as an ammunition-saving tactic.

For me, there's also just a style issue in wielding the classic broadsword. Sure, there's nothing un-Rangerey about packing a big, two-handed woodsman's axe (greataxe,) and I realize that your guide is meant mostly to optimize mechanics anyway. However, if you go straight to the iconic source, Aragorn (who never actually used a bow in the books as I recall) was pretty clearly a broadsword kind of guy.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure this wasn't covered yet, but apologies if so.

I've always been a big fan of the "switch-hitter" ranger, myself, but my preferred armament for melee is sword/buckler. You can use the buckler while armed with a bow without penalty, and when you need to switch to melee you simply draw your sword. No muss, no fuss. No expensive magical bow lost and trampled in the dust. No need for a backup ranged weapon. Sure, this ranger's not as big a damage dealer in melee (perhaps making him lean a little more on his archery skills,) but he's got a better AC, especially once that buckler gets enchanted. The damage deficiency can be slightly mitigated by upgrading to a bastard sword, I guess.

...I'm talking about sweet stuff, like being able to grapple someone and throw them at another guy. Happens all the freaking time in the movies and in books. The strong guy picks some guy up over his head and chucks him into some other dude's domepiece. How do I make sure only a strong guy can take it?

I make the prerequisites the following: 17 STR (Meaning the possibility exists of not qualifying for it unaugmented, which is OK), Improved Grapple, Throw Anything...

Yeah, this is pretty much along the lines of what I was getting at with the maneuvers idea, but without necessarily needing to spend a feat on it. It's a relatively specialized situation that you aren't going to get to use all the time, but it's nice to have around. With the maneuvers concept, 17 Str + Improved Grapple + Throw anything = "I can throw a dude", rather than "I qualify to buy a feat to throw a dude".

Stuff like that might encourage players to take some of the more "off the beaten path" feats in order to qualify for a wider variety of combat stunts.

Speaking as a long-time fan of Fighters and other "man/woman of action" classes, I don't think they are particularly underpowered in PF. I thought Andrew Troemner's above observation of them being "conservative but reliable" was fairly astute, even taking anti-magic fields out of the picture.

I do agree with YuenglingDragon's point that Fighters (and other warrior-types, actually) could use more tactical options. There's dozens of viable fighter builds, but each one often boils down to only a couple of "go-to" attack routines. Far from being a 4th edition apologist, I do appreciate the spirit (if not the implementation) of what they tried to do to make the "martial" characters more interesting. It would be nice if warrior-types had a bigger toolbox of stuff to use depending on the given situation.

At first my response was to hope that time and more sourcebooks would change this. If, as someone hoped, Paizo were to do more expanded versions of tactical feats it might be a step in the right direction.

Another possibility is to develop a selection of the combat maneuvers similar to those from Mongoose's D20 Conan RPG. They weren't feats themselves, and though they sometimes were similar to 3.5 skill stunts, they didn't cost anything to "learn". Instead they often had ability scores, skill ranks, and/or feats as a prerequisite to perform them. The effects were sometimes simple, like a riposte or a modified bull rush. Other times they were fairly cinematic or situation-specific, like letting go of your sword so it stays impaled in your enemy, causing bleed damage, or running along a ship's railing as you hack off the grapples of a boarding pirate ship.

It was a really neat idea, but at least from the brief time my group spent with the system, it remained sadly underdeveloped. I'm sure you could look through those rule-books to get some ideas for homebrew rules, and I certainly hope Paizo gives it some thought. While I think that such a system should be accessible to all classes, Fighters would/should benefit the most from it by simply having more feats with which to qualify for maneuvers. Maybe develop some advanced maneuvers that required feats further up a feat tree and/or multiple feats from different trees (or no tree at all.) I think that such a system would give Fighters and other sword-slingers more options without necessarily having to rebuild any existing rules.

While I would personally shy away from Wuxia/Anime-esque special-effects, I agree with ProfessorCirno that this does not preclude Fighters from performing superhuman feats of derring-do. Face it, any character with 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics is putting an Olympic gymnast or long-jumper to shame. (Hell, when was the last time YOU sucked up even two points of dagger damage like it was nothing?) Regardless of what you think of the rest of the movie "Willow", the fight at Tir Asleen is what I always picture it should be like to watch a 15th level Fighter go to town--not supernatural, but certainly superhuman. (Speaking of which, is it just me or was Madmartigan the model for Valeros?) Dovetailing that into the "maneuvers/stunts" concept, as a high level Fighter, you SHOULD be able to launch yourself with a catapult or bronco-ride a dragon while stabbing it, but there's currently not much of a way to do that without taking tremendous amounts of punishment or making an obscenely tough grapple check.

As an aside, yes, having different weapons do special things--especially in the hands of an experienced Fighter--would be nice. It might be the excuse we need to bring back the three dozen or so varieties of pole-arm...

As to the non-combat options (or lack thereof) that Fighters have, I've also always thought that the mechanics failed to support their potential as "leaders of men" (or women/elves/dwarves/halflings/orcs/etc.) as demonstrated by literature and history. What about military officers and warrior-kings? I guess one could assume they took a level or two as Aristocrats in order to pick up some Diplomacy and Know (Nobility), but that never sat right with me. The Academy Trained feat that has been mentioned seems to cover this pretty well, but I'd have to take a closer look at it myself.

Well, I was just about to start a lengthy post on almost this exact topic, but I see that somebody beat me to it. I have a Barbarian character that is ethnically half Shoanti, half Varisian. Both cultures having an affinity for tattoos, I thought it might be cool to take the Master Craftsman feat as a stepping stone toward making magical tattoos. I realize this thread is over a month old, and some of my questions and concerns have already been addressed, but I had some things to put my two cents in on if anyone is still paying attention.

My take was that magical tattoos were without a doubt Wondrous Items with the x2 "slotless" modification. As was said above, the mechanic is already there. My only concern on cost was the whole non-transferable/-saleable thing. Not being able to have them physically stolen or sundered is certainly a perk, but having that break even with not being able to sell or trade doesn't sit quite right. Maybe alleviate the cost to x1.75 or even x1.5? Does that seem too powerful?

I myself had some early concerns on game balance and the "cheese factor", but in the end I figure that as long as you get the final cost right, in-game money and time restrictions would be enough of a check on abuse.

I also had some thoughts on perhaps restricting magical tattoos along the lines "thematic appropriateness". Maybe this should just be an in-game roleplaying decision, but it occurred to me that maybe magic tattoos might only have powers that had a certain...physicality? For example, natural armor seems like a far more appropriate choice than just a straight up armor bonus, despite the fact that both bonuses are covered by Wondrous Items. Coming from the opposite direction, protective stuff like elemental resistance, or the powers of a Ring of Regeneration usually fall under different magic item types, but seem to follow that theme of physicality. Thoughts?