Dispari Scuro's page

I think the whole "Fate's Favored is good (in specific scenarios), therefore it should be nerfed or removed entirely" is a little extreme. Fate's Favored can be better than a lot of traits, but only for specific characters or items. I've used it, but only on one or two characters who were built around it. There are a lot of traits that I use more often just because they're universally good. I can't really utilize Fate's Favored on every character, and even if I could, there are other things traits are good for that help flesh out characters in better ways.

Feats are the same way. There are definitely feats out there that are better than normal feats. Some are just really good, and work their way into my builds quite often. There are also hundreds of absolutely awful feats. That doesn't make me want to destroy the ones that are actually good.

People keep going back to this "traits are supposed to be half a feat," but I don't think that's a rule anywhere. It's barely even a guideline. You can look at traits like Reactionary or Deft Dodger and say, yes, that's equivalent to half a (specific) feat. But traits like Firebug are just as good as a feat -- it's equivalent to Weapon Focus if you're an alchemist. Actually it's better, because it works for all thrown splash weapons AND bombs. Armor Expert is something you can't even get with a feat. If you look at Muscle of the Society, that's again something you can't get with a feat, and it's better than a masterwork backpack at helping you carry things. Any of the "gain skill as class skill" traits are basically a +4 bonus, and many of those buff more than one skill. Extremely Fashionable is +1 to three different skills and makes one a class skill (another +3). That's comparable to full strength Skill Focus, with a little bit more spread, and no level restriction. I know I consider taking that trait every time I make a social character -- does that mean it needs to be removed?

And really, "half a feat" is meaningless when feats are all over the place. Some feats are like "If you have this, your character is amazing." Others are like "Well uh, once a day any time there's a full moon and your HP is exactly 0, you can get a +1 to perform (dance) checks." Yeah, Fate's Favored is better than some feats. But Hunter's Knack is better than "some feats," and it's one of the worst and most situational traits I know of.

There are other traits I flock to at every opportunity. Instead of trying to remove the ones that are actually good, maybe make less of them that are terrible?

I just got this deck and I'm actually really confused about some of the rules. Mostly about when and why you'd enter a tide, and what that actually gets you.

If I'm understanding tides right, starting a tide with a tide card allows it to last indefinitely until you're stopped by one of the listed conditions?

The rules state that you can begin a tide any time you want using any card. If it's not a tide card, the effect only lasts until your next round. You don't even gain any benefit for being in a tide (if anything, it's a detriment). I don't see why you'd start a tide with a non-tide card.

Being in a tide indicates that you can only play cards from your hand. What does this mean? Normally you replace a card when playing it, so do you stop doing that and just keep your current cards until your tide ends? Do you discard the one you just played? Do you discard each one you play until you're out? Or is this referring to something else? Am I missing something?

You stay in a tide until you play a card without a continue effect. But if you do play another one, do you start stacking all those continue effects? Let's say I start with a bonus +1 to Fort saves, then play a card for +1 to dodge, then play one for free rerolls for half damage. Do I get all three of those until the GM stops me?

If someone is really, really good at something, then let them be good at it. Eventually they will pass static checks, yes, but those generally don't matter much. There are a lot of sliding scale or opposed checks that should keep things competitive for the most part. There are some real issues to moving the bar, mostly revolving around just making the game less fun.

For one, the more someone invests in a skill, the further they are from the average. If you keep rebalancing skill checks for the highest person in the party, nobody else is going to have a shot at them. Imagine you have someone who has about a +5 in all knowledge checks just to be able to roll on them. And then you have one guy who has a +15 in two of them. Well, if you start balancing all the knowledge DCs to be 25+, the first guy is NEVER going to make any checks, and even trying is a waste of time and character investment.

Also, if I become aware that the GM is just moving the bar... why even invest in the skills at all? Why not just slap 1 skill rank in there, not worry about stuff like Alertness or Skill Focus? If I have a 50% success rate with a +5, and a 50% success rate with a +20, I may as well just go take something else. If I knew that I was playing a bard with maxed knowledge skills, with bardic knowledge, amateur investigator, and skill focus, and the GM was still going to make me struggle with skill checks, I'd just stop trying and ask for a feat refund.

Sometimes I make characters who I know will be able to blow certain checks out of the water, because that's what they're SUPPOSED to be good at. A character with +18 to intimidate at level 4 SHOULD be really impressive, because I put a lot of work into making the character excel at that. And if I invest heavily in being able to lie to people, I should be better at it than most people, instead of creating some sort of warped reality where I'm the only person in the world who's capable of pulling it off.

So basically, if they get to the point where some checks are trivial, don't worry about it. Most really important checks will scale, and even if they don't, that's what the character is built for. You wouldn't take away a fighter's sword because he's too good at stabbing people compared to the wizard.

Shield Champion is a weird archetype and it wouldn't surprise me if it gets revisited at some point. Being given feats you have to qualify isn't unheard of, but it is unusual. But a lot of things in the ACG are questionable or clunky, so I wouldn't consider the archetype gospel regarding anything.

Still, considering the huge number of feats brawler already gets, giving up a couple to get even more feats for free doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Brawlers already get 7 bonus feats, plus the entire TWF tree (+3 feats), plus Unarmed Strike, plus martial flexibility for up to 3 more feats, and this archetype gives THREE MORE FEATS. If my math is right, they have approximately fifty jillion feats. So having to take Shield Focus to get Improved Shield Focus for free doesn't seem like anything to complain about.

Inquisitor with the conversion inquisition can use Wisdom for bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate. All three are class skills, so you can just ignore Cha and still be the party face. You get to be a good combat character and get a lot of good skills (including a strong boost to identifying monsters). Make a half-orc and get another +1/2 level to intimidate and identifying monsters. Get sacred tattoo and fate's favored while you're at it.

The feat was changed last minute to do something it wasn't originally designed for (Dex to damage). And although the feat is technically available to everyone, it's really meant to be a Swashbuckler feat, who can finesse one-handed weapons.

But yes, the way the feat is now, there are only two weapons you can actually get Dex to attack and damage with, and both are exotic: Whip and Aldori Dueling Sword. This makes the feat EXTREMELY difficult for anyone but a Swashbuckler to use.

I believe a dev said he assumed it was meant to work with light weapons, but admitted he is not a rules guy. We will have to wait for an errata.

In the meantime, you can wait for Fencing Grace to come out, which will allow Dex to attack and damage, but only for rapier.

Use an Elixir of Sex Shift. If it doesn't work, the character is pregnant.

Dispari Scuro wrote:

This right here is TERRIBLE. You're telling me that in a single 6-second round of combat I can notice and get a shot at dodging 19 different attacks from enemies, but if I move to intercept one thing thrown at me I have to stand perfectly still for the entire six seconds and let EVERYTHING hit me? And as Thewms said, similar to the above rule of intentionally failing a save: you don't put yourself in a position to fail all saves for the remainder of that round.

I don't think it's that terrible. It's logically consistent with the rest of his concerns, which we don't happen to share.

I generally have a very hard time understanding why people want to make it difficult, if not impossible to do something as simple as cooperate with allies. Like people who want you to take an entire feat tree just to be able to feed someone a potion. Discouraging teamwork seems to go against the entire idea of tabletop gaming with friends.

Healing Bomb:
Benefit: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it heal damage instead of dealing it. Creating a healing bomb requires the alchemist to expend an infused extract or potion containing a cure spell. A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb. Creatures in the splash radius are healed for the minimum amount of damage the cure spell is capable of healing. A healing bomb damages undead instead of healing them.

Some questions.

1) Do you still have to make an attack roll against allies? I'm guessing so just to judge your ability to throw things accurately at range. But is it possible for an ally to just decide not to dodge? Can they at least consider themselves flat-footed or something? I know it targets touch AC, but a high-dex character might be hard to actually hit, and I can't imagine not being able to turn off your desire to leap out of the way, especially if I yell, "Healing incoming!"

2) Can you throw a bomb at yourself? And again, can you decide not to dodge it?

3) Do you add your int to it like the alchemist class feature says? Relevant info: An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. What about the tiefling favored class bonus? The text: Add +1/2 to the alchemist's bomb damage.

I would allow this... but purely as a roleplay decision. So the question is, are you trying to get anything out of it? Are you trying to be small sized? Do you want the stat bumps? If it's purely a roleplay decision, I could see trying to persuade you to just play the character without interference from the GM. OTOH, if they still say no, that's their right.

If you're trying to get stats out of it, then definitely the rules are there for a reason. Otherwise, sign me up for a +6 dex goblin gunslinger child.

One thing I can see ... is that the precise strike deed requires that you have at least 1 panache point. But if you're a magus, you don't have any panache.

Flamboyant arcana allows you to treat your arcane pool as panache and use it to accomplish deeds.

At any rate, I've been wondering about this myself. It's probably the best deed to pick up with this magus arcana, assuming it works. It doesn't say you count your level as swashbuckler, though.

Similarly, this is another good deed: "Evasive (Ex): At 11th level, while a swashbuckler has at least 1 panache point, she gains the benefits of the evasion, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge rogue class features. She uses her swashbuckler level as her rogue level for improved uncanny dodge."

So, the question is, do you count your magus levels as swashbuckler levels, which count as rogue levels? Or are you a "zero level rogue" for the purposes of improved uncanny dodge?

It's also possible the magus arcana only works with deeds you have to spend panache points on, and "passive" ones do not work. But it doesn't quite say that. So how DOES this work, exactly? I would really like a clarification.

That... looks to be the case. It doesn't seem to have the line that prevents them from using skills or spellcasting while raging.

That's amazing.

In fact, it specifically says everyone OTHER than the skald. I may have to definitely play one now.

I'm just looking at anything that gets bardic knowledge because I want to do a knowledge-centric character, and I'm comparing all the classes side-by-side. I have a question about the new Skald class from the ACG. Their Inspired Rage says:

"While under the effects of inspired rage, allies other than the skald cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration."

So just to clarify: Does this mean that the Skald herself gets the str/con benefits (and the -1 AC), but can still use any skills, and cast spells unhindered?

redliska wrote:

Most martial classes require 4 stats already 5 if they want to use most combat maneuvers. The class doesn't seem unreasonably MAD.

So this martial class requires 5 stats and 6 if you want to use most combat maneuvers.

A question, What would you consider MAD?

Requiring 7 stats, obviously!

Do count me on board as one of the people who doesn't think that a fighter type needs two additional stats for their class abilities. Just to compare existing classes:

* Paladins only use CHA for their class abilities.
* Rangers only use WIS for their class abilities.
* Inquisitors only use WIS for their class abilities.
* Maguses only use INT for their class abilities.
* Clerics use both CHA and WIS, but only because they really don't have to be fighters and don't even need builds with high STR and CON to do things.

Following that design, I think Warpriests should only use WIS or CHA, not both. Between the two I think WIS would be more interesting. But I don't know if there's some unwritten rule that channeling and stuff has to work on CHA. If there is, just make the whole class work on CHA. Either way, the class already needs physical stats like STR, DEX, and CON. Don't also require TWO mental stats.

This is really Sad, the Warpriest should be able to dust the Inquisitor. The Inquisitor is a 6+ skill point class. Lots of utility, brings more than just combat to the party. Why would someone play a Warpriest?

Well for one, I wouldn't spend several rounds sitting there buffing and not fighting. The warpriest has the ability to jump right into combat and buff herself as the combat goes without sacrificing any turns.

Two, the warpriest has more access to better weapons and armor and eventually does pretty darn good damage with any weapon.

Three, the warpriest can lay on hands herself without sacrificing any turns of combat (again, inquisitor cannot). She can also channel energy if she wants to, healing the whole party.

Four, you can't say inquisitors have 6+int skill points but also rely on them always having bane. To realistically use bane all the time you're going to have to sink at least 6 of those skill points into actual knowledge skills, and keep up with them, so you can actually identify the creatures (unless you're just metagaming) to use bane on. So one of two scenarios appears: A) you actually can't always count on bane so shouldn't include it in your calculations, or B) you actually don't have that many skill points left.

Even if the warpriest doesn't do quite as much damage as the inquisitor, it has more options for supporting herself and supporting a party that, in my opinion, make it a valid class.

One major concern, here. That is: a monk is never a class I suggest to new players. Aside from its theme not matching the mechanics (it suggests a wise, dexterous character but you really do need strength instead), it also has this "fluxing BAB."

Fluxing BAB adds book-keeping. In addition, there are so many things tied to BAB that have to be recalculated, aside from number of attacks.

I'm not arguing "math is hard," I'm arguing ease of use and introduction, and time taken recalculating a character sheet. I'd rather see something like a scaled Wis-to-hit than a fluxing BAB...it's easier to explain and handle ingame.

Themewise, I can see flux fitting the class. If there's another option that reduces MAD...and bookkeeping, however, please consider it.

Well for monks, their BAB can change from one round to the next. It depends on if they're flurrying or not. Their BAB is different for a full attack than it is for an AoO (usually). That's definitely extra work.

A warpriest's "BAB" would never change as long as they're always using the same weapon(s). It would only change if they draw a different weapon that they don't have Weapon Focus in. It's a lot more static than a monk, and easier to keep track of.

And you can only use the small selection of spells you've chosen, meaning you will never be able to have the flexibility to handle multiple different situations. I still don't understand the benefit of being a spontaneous other than getting another single use of a spell per day that you could easily prepare anyway.

So, basically, you have a favorite selection of spells and would prepare them or choose them spontaneous regardless? If I'm understanding correctly. And by going spontaneous, you get, what, another daily use of said spell selection?

Yes, you wouldn't have the flexibility, but personally that doesn't matter to me -- and doesn't even seem like something hunter should be shooting for. It doesn't matter if I don't have the flexibility to use Endure Elements one day, that's someone else's job (like a cleric). The character and concept isn't about flexibility, it's about intuition. It's about being good at specific tasks. Your job is to do damage and coordinate with a pet. It's hard to predict if you need 1 Cure Light or 4 for a day. It's hard to know how many times you'll need to cast Bull's Strength or Strong Jaw. It's about the adaptability, casting just the right spells and not being hosed because you didn't prepare the right type of spells that day.

Granted, YOU might want a class that has tons of flexibility, but we're already talking about a reduced spellcasting class. IMO, leave the flexibility to people who have more spells per day and higher level spell selection. Hunter doesn't seem like the right class to fill the "flexible" role. Hunters aren't about flexibility. They're supposed to excel at one thing: hunting. Spontaneous casting would allow them to do that much more effectively, by simply casting the spells they know in the most efficient manner. Hunting is about instinct and adaptability, not predicting what you might need that day. Spontaneous casting would allow you to react to a situation on the fly instead of just being stuck using the spells you prepared.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am concerned about the sacred weapon damage scaling and high crit weapons, but I think I want to see more playtest feedback before I move in any direction on that issue.

Please keep some kind of scaling damage for the sacred weapon. That was the ability that actually sold me on this class, because you could use flavorful but weak weapons to actually do impressive things.

I really like that feature as well, and hope it stays in some form. As it is though it really does tend to favor just flocking to specific weapon setups because it eliminates damage as a variable.

balance-wise, worries about the sacred weapon damage subsitution could be dealt with by saying: use the regular stats OR these (scaling) stats: including DMG, Crit Range, and Crit Multiplier... you get the whole package or nothing (although the other Enhancement bonus part still applies regardless).

Perhaps have different stats for Light, 1H, 2H (you can choose which one you are invoking, but if you have a Dagger Sacred Weapon you are free to choose the 1H stats, the Light is only there for 2WF or certain Light Weapon only scenarios...)

It might be complicated, but it might also be necessary. It's basically trying to emulate something monks get, but monks effectively only have one possible weapon. This creates a lot more variables that I think need to be addressed somehow.

Furious Kender wrote:

I am one of those GMs who hate those builds, but only because every one of them is effectively the same scimitar+shocking grasp build. It's like they're playing an iconic, and just changing the name. In PFS, unless some change happens, I expect the swashbuckler to have the same mind numbing sameness. Oh, and if the magus in PFS, which is always a Dervish Dancer, is broken, the 4-8 damage coming from Dervish Dance clearly isn't the cause.

This, this right here is why I hate this situation. It's not just that Dex to Damage clearly isn't overpowered, or that the developers say they can't do it and then put it in their game no problem, it's that the flavor restriction that doesn't affect game balance, but makes the actual play experience worse.

If everyone should up to play with their usual finesse weapons it'd be fine. No one has an issue with the current range of finesse combatants - knife masters, shorts swordsman, flourishing rapiers, or other more unorthodox and unique options. But when a feat in the game is tied to a very particular, very unique flavor, and means everyone is wielding the same damn weapon, well thats' a problem. Ooo fascinating, you belong to a unique society with a signature and wholly originally combat style that's awesome. Oh what's that, now every Dex melee characters has the same training and their all using the same exact weapon? It sucks the originality out of characters in the name of game balance which doesn't even make sense!

Right. If dex-to-damage was a class feature you might actually see some variety in builds. All maguses using scimitars is not a result of dex-to-damage, it's a result of the easiest means of attaining that only allowing one single weapon. From the sound of it, swashbuckler has a lot of interesting and valid weapon combinations and all of those would benefit from dex-to-damage.

ubiquitous wrote:

Let's put it this way:

Dex to damage ALREADY EXISTS in the game.

(Dervish Dance. Agile enchantment. The second isn't core, but is certainly in PFS, and a lot of people play PFS)

Are the classes that use Dex to Damage broken/overrunning the game? No.

What more is there to say?

Dervish Dance also isn't core. It's in Inner Sea Magic, which is a Golarion setting book.

As far as the Core line of rulebooks are concerned, Dex to Damage only exists as a Mythic tier feat, which may be too good as is.

Just pointing out, your example of it being too strong is in the context of it working with non-finesse weapons. Which, in the context of swashbuckler, could easily be limited to just specific swashbuckler weapons. Nobody's going to be making a greatsword swashbuckler, in other words.

teribithia9 wrote:

Captain K. wrote:

It's too powerful.

It's better than the Paladin. This ain't right.

It has 6th level spells so it will always be better than the Paladin in most ways, but don't make it better at fighting than us good guys.

A Warpriest of Iomedae is probably a better warrior than a Paladin of Iomadae. This isn't right.

It doesn't get smite.

You just can't beat smite.

You can beat it quite easily against anything that isn't evil.

That's called a "variable." It's hard to say that warpriest is "better" than paladin because it depends on the circumstances and a person's preferences. For one person, no matter what advantages you point out a wizard has over a sorcerer, a sorcerer is simply going to be "better" for them because they don't like the mechanics of prepared spells.

There are a lot of reasons this class isn't necessarily better than paladin: Less HD, weaker saves, weaker heals, less durability overall, lots of class features that rely on limited pool, no animal companion with 6 int and DR... but it depends on if those are things you like. The question is, "better at what?"

If you go so far as to standardize damage, crit modifier, and crit range, then in my mind you should just go one further step and have the Warpriest form a weapon out of pure faith 'force' and forget about having to choose a weapon at all, heh.

Like a Soulknife? That would definitely be interesting! I personally wouldn't say no to that.

The game should not be balanced (or, I'd argue, even designed) around "what does the best DPR".

Well yes, neither do I. I tend to eyeroll when people post down to specific DPR builds for various classes because there are too many variables to consider and I can't imagine playing a character based entirely around how much damage I do in a round. But those types of things should still be taken into consideration, since it's essentially an open door to only pick weapons with great crit ranges (as several people in the thread have already pointed out). In other words, I'm not a powergamer even though I know some people are into that. But I frown on mechanics that invite people to powergame.

Plus, if they really just wanted to give people free reign to roleplay any weapon choice they want, a better option would be to lock all weapons to a specific crit range too. Then they really wouldn't have to worry about the difference in weapons, and people could do as much roleplaying as they wanted without having to worry about the next person outperforming them.