Divergent's page

How in the world is the Wild Stalker Barbarian+?

And where does it get "most" of the Ranger class abilities.

Lets analyze the Wild Stalker shall we:
Rage -3 thats in itself a Problem beacause the better Rage Powers all have a Minimum Classlevel.
No Greater Rage at all.
Fewer Hitpoints
Loses Favoured enemy.
Loses Combat Style.
Loses Hunters Bond.
Loses Quarry.
Loses Improved Quarry

Now what does he get in eychange:
Track O_o
Endurance as a Bonus Feat wow this is getting better and better
Lowlight Vision Barbarian can get
Perception Bonus well thats something I guess
Favoured Terrain Barbarian can get
Evasion well thats at least something
Wild Talents Those are s#+! Rage Powers are way better

So what the Wild Stalker does is give a weaker rage without DR and all that barbarian archetype stuff, in exchange for a Perception Bonus, Evasion and here it comes .........Track.
Oh and you get +2 Skill Points.
I´m not saying this can´t make a decent character, It probably can because it´s somewhat of a Barbarian.....just weaker.

Actually. . .

A Wild Stalker, in comparison to a Barbarian, loses:
Damage Reduction.
Trap Sense.
Greater/Mighty Rage.
Tireless Rage.
Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Two rage powers.
Six rounds of rage.
One less hit point a level.

What does that boil down to? Lose a few small bonuses to hit and damage (neither of which really matter, since to hit bonuses scale faster than AC, and +2 or 3 damage is paltry), lose a hit point every level (also unimportant, since most hit points are gained through Con bonuses, and you have a d10 anyways). Improved Uncanny Dodge is a very situational ability, which amounts to essentially gaining +2 AC every once in a blue moon. Six rounds of rage is worth one feat, and Damage Reduction is near-useless in the small amounts provided by the Barbarian class.

So, honestly, you aren't missing much.

On the other hand, you gain:
Low-light vision/ perception bonuses.
Four bonus feats.
Track.
Wild Empathy.
Endurance.
Woodland Stride.
Evasion.
Favored Terrain.
Quarry.
Camouflage.
Improved Evasion.
HiPs.
Improved Quarry.
Master Hunter.
Good Reflex save.
Two more skill ranks a level.
4th level spells (this is the big one).

While Wild Empathy, Woodland Stride, Endurance, and Track are all pretty situational, they are at least, free bonuses. The extra good save, combined with Evasion and Improved Evasion, means you are less vulnerable to any wizard who's idiot enough to even use blasting spells, so you gain increased combat longevity in magic duels. Favored Terrains, Camouflage, and HiPs all provide nice bonuses when called for, but those aren't the meat of the Wild Stalker. Bonus feats are bonus feats. The best thing, however, the thing that makes the Wild Stalker objectively better than the regular Barbarian, and arguably the Ranger, is the access to 4th level spells and extra skill points. The boost in versatility just from those two things is massive, allowing actual contribution outside combat, which is where the real power in 3.x comes from.

tl;dr: the versatility of spells and skills, plus extra skills, bonus feats, and other out-of-combat options, makes the Wild Stalker a straight upgrade over a regular Barbarian.

Wild Stalker(Ranger):
I really don´t get this one, what it is is a Barbarian-3.It really does not get anything a Barbarian could´t get ,and it trades out all that makes him a Ranger.

Wild Stalker is actually Barbarian+, since they get nearly all of the barbarian's class features slapped onto a ranger chassis, including most of the Ranger's class abilities, 4th level spells, and 6+ skill ranks. Pretty much a straight improvement over both classes.

The http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue -archetypes/rake Rogue archetype allows you to make intimidate checks as a free action if you sacrifice one sneak attack dice. The http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue -archetypes/scout archetype allows you to get a single sneak attack off if you move more than 10 feet in a round. This is where it gets interesting; http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shatter-defenses-combat---final lets you attack a shaken enemy as if they were flat-footed. So, combined with some method of free movement, such as http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power/effect-words/accelerate or hustle, you can move and full-sneak-attack, as well as intimidate your enemy.

Seconding a shapeshifting class. Would prefer if it didn't have spells either.

TOZ wrote:

Trinam wrote:

Actually you can probably just ignore this thread. Move on folks, nothing to see here.

"Stop having fun guys!"

I feel silly, now.

And yet, this discussion is as relevant today as it was back in the ancient times of CoDzilla.

You say that as if CoDzilla didn't still exist.

An attack action is differnet than making an attack. Vital strike is an attack action so is what is called out in scout.

Yes you can make many attacks in a turn especially if he has a reach weapon and combat reflexes.

. . . Kind of just like a full attack action.

EDIT: Also, if the ability were activated by a standard action, it would have to state so. As it is, it is activated by you making at least one attack after moving more than 10 feet.

Don't forget that if you're going the dual-wield route you need two enchanted weapons.

Really the two-handed strength-based ninja pulls out the consistent high damage. The weapon finesse dexterity two weapon fighting stars aligning one? Eh.

Actually, I'm still gonna say 'sneak attack, eh.'

The ninja is fun because of vanishing trick, because of mirror image, because of the sweet acrobatics you can do. Sneak attack is awful compared with any of the other damage mechanics in the game, but at least the ninja can turn invisible to do it reliably.

That's kind of the point of my build, since it means you an get sneak attack off consistently, making it much better.

@Talonhawke:
Oops, missed that. 48,000 is right.

@Talonhawke:

You still aren't getting it. An attack action is whenever you make an attack, so if I were to make a full attack after moving, all of my attacks would be 'attack actions.'

Q: What type of action (standard, full, move, swift, free) does Vital Strike use?

A: (Jason Bulmahn) Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.

Note: Attack Action means it is one of the types of action listed under Standard Actions List. You see that Attack is is one of the types of Standard Actions available others including: Activate Magic Item, Cast a Spell, Total Defense, and Use Special Ability. [Source]

This should help you understand that there is a difference.

You can make an attack action as a standard action, yes. But you'll notice that if all attack actions were standard actions, you couldn't make full attacks, because all of the attacks therein are attack actions.

24,000G would be the cheapest and your GM has a right to tell you its gonna be more as thats a pretty powerful ability to have on any character.

What? The formula for a continuous item is Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp. Accelerate is a 2nd level spell, so assuming minimum caster level, that's 2 x 3 x 2,000gp, which comes out to 12,000.

While there's nothing wrong with a pure classed ninja, barbarian, fighter and ranger levels are like salt: a sprinkle almost never hurts.

I dunno, I suppose it's a matter of taste. Personally, I would prefer the extra sneak attack die, skill points, and proximity to more ki points. Extra to hit, damage, and HP never hurt anyone though, I'll admit.

Ugh, I said I wouldn't acknowledge you and then I fail my will save.

Cornugon Smash

Doesn't require a sneak attack to use, doesn't require moving or flanking, just requires a power attack, which if you were going for damage, you were doing anyway.

Now please take it to another thread. Post your DPR if you like. You might troll some more people.

Cornugon Smash is much more inefficient. Taking both two-weapon fighting penalties as well as power attack penalties, on a medium BAB chassis? Ugh. Rake does it better.

@Talonhawke:
You still aren't getting it. An attack action is whenever you make an attack, so if I were to make a full attack after moving, all of my attacks would be 'attack actions.'

Also how often can you count on having access to the free move magic in one day.

Level 2 caster ability so potions are good for 3 rnds at a time with a cost of 300gp.

I wouldn't buy potions for this sort of thing, I would buy a ring of constant Accelerate. Only about 12,000 GP.

As for build choice, I would go pure Ninja if I were you. Mixing two classes, both of whom have a limited resource pool to draw from to fuel their class features, tends not to work out.

Alternate Classes

Alternate classes are standalone classes whose basic ideas are very close to established base classes, yet whose required alterations would be too expansive for an archetype. An alternate class operates exactly as a base class, save that a character who takes a level in an alternate class can never take a level in its associated class—a samurai cannot also be a cavalier, and vice versa.

And once again the ninja can use anything outside of the differences in class so the ninja can now have his extra move as well.

Huh, that might work. Alright, I concede that the Ninja may be capable of becoming a Scout.

Yes, the Ninja can have the Scout archetype and the extra move action, but neither of those things are what allow this build to work. The move action allows you to get off a full attack, the first of which is a sneak attack, thanks to Scout. You then use the Rake archetypes ability (which the ninja cannot have) to sacrifice 1 or 2 sneak attack dice, allowing you to make an intimidate check as a free action. Since you have now struck a shaken enemy, the rest of your attacks against him count as if he were flat-footed, thanks to Shattering Defenses. That's how it works.

You're wrong, but okay. We're off-topic.

Pfft. Trying to just dismiss my argument because you don't have a response backed by the rules? Classy.

The Ninja by RAW can take the scout archetype. It is an alternate rogue class and it has the prerequisite abilities to give up.

Are you really arguing still that the rogue has more combat utility than the ninja? The ninja who can turn invisible as a swift action, who can throw bombs that damage or cause smoke? The ninja who can get an extra attack during a full attack over the rogue?

DPR the ninja wins, in utility the ninja wins. The rake is not the only way to intimidate on an attack, nor is it even the best. And sneak attack is not good damage, except in the most generous of circumstances.

The ninja, by RAW, cannot take the Scout archetype, because it is not a Rogue.

None of those are particularly impressive anyways, but I never stated that the Rogue has more combat utility than the ninja, just more consistency.

DPR, the Rogue just won. If you can't get your full sneak attack off, your DPR is less than the Rogue, who did.

These are the most generous of circumstances, since the rogue is getting all of his sneak attacks off.

If your focusing on one attack each round then yeah your gonna fall behing the guy who can go invisible and make full attacks and can also make sneak attacks after moving 10 feet.

I don't think you read my post correctly. Using my combo, the rogue will be moving, full attacking, and getting sneak attack off on all of them.

Regardless of whether the ninja has the correct abilities or not, he can't trade them out because he isn't a rogue anymore, he's a ninja. By your logic, a Barbarian could take the Scout archetype because he has Uncanny Dodge and Imp. Uncanny Dodge.

All of which is besides the point, since the Rake archetype is the important part of the equation, because it lets you make free intimidate checks, which lets you treat the rest of your attacks as sneak attacks.

A ninja can take the scout archetype. Also please tell me why 3.5 damage per die is really so much to shout about?

Er, no, they can't. Ninja is an alternate class, and can't take any of the original class's archetypes because it no longer has any of the class features of the original.

3.5 damage per die isn't much, but when you are two-weapon fighting and getting off 4-5 attacks a round, that adds up. The reason it is something to shout about is because it allows Rogues to be useful in combat in a much more consistent fashion, which is their greatest weakness.

There is nothing that makes a rogue better than a ninja in terms of combat.

And the fact that sneak attack is its most important combat contribution is a problem for the rogue.

Oh, but there is.

The http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue -archetypes/rake Rogue archetype allows you to make intimidate checks as a free action if you sacrifice one sneak attack dice. The http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue -archetypes/scout archetype allows you to get a single sneak attack off if you move more than 10 feet in a round. This is where it gets interesting; http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shatter-defenses-combat---final lets you attack a shaken enemy as if they were flat-footed. So, combined with some method of free movement, such as http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power/effect-words/accelerate or hustle, you can move and full-sneak-attack, as well as intimidate your enemy.

Only a Rogue can pull that one off.

Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

I'm not sure if there's an official ruling on it or not, but in the absence of one saying you can, if I were GM I'd have to rule that sneak attacking falls under an "ability that requires patience or concentration".

So you couldn't do it, or any of the ninja tricks, while raging.

Because the rogue isn't bad enough, let's make some house rules!

Hayato Ken wrote:

Don´t worry about damage, that comes from sneak attack.
If you group fight, take combat expertise and gang up, perfect for ninjas and rogues to deal sneak attack.

Sneak attack is not high damage. Certainly not high enough to make up for the BAB hit from multiclassing monk/ninja. Fighter/ninja will be better, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with barbarian/ninja.

I fully endorse reach weapon sneak as well. Anything to make it easier to do is a good thing. That said, your stats are a little... eh. I would never dump wisdom that far down. Barbarians and ninjas both have a poor will save, so dumping it to 7 means a -2 to start. I would cut strength to 18 and bump up that wisdom to at least 10. The intellect is basically fine because of how many skill points you'll have, although you may feel more stunted than the typical ninja.

Why so much hate for the Rogue? Between the Rogue and the Ninja, the Rogue is the one who wins at sneak attacking, which is the most important combat contribution for both classes.

mplindustries wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

So it would no longer be a party of 4 wizards. That only supports my point.

Well, I think it depends on what point you're trying to prove.

If you're trying to prove that a Wizard needs a tank to survive (especially at low levels), then you're pretty spot on in your assessment.

I'm trying to prove that wizards (or casters in general) are not nearly as powerful as people want to claim. Quite a bit of the talk is hyperbole and I have noticed that when people (not you personally) get called out on it, they can't back it up. I know that casters are potent at any level. I don't think that they can simply walk into Mordor with one hand tied behind their backs because they are casters. That's how it comes across from too many people.

Quote:

If you're trying to prove that being a Figther is as powerful and useful to the group as being a Wizard is, well, I think you'd lose that one. You can hire (or later, summon) an NPC to do the same thing, since all that's really needed is a mobile sack of hit points to take up space, eat some hits, and finish off the "controlled" enemies casters leave in their wake. Congratulations, Fighter player, you fill the same role as a hireling/summon!

Wizards and clerics can be hired too so it's a moot point. Usefulness is going to be too campaign dependent and I am working on avoiding that argument because it's a foolish one from all sides.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Remember that you would have to run through the whole gauntlet. You wouldn't be dealing with just one encounter and calling it a day. You would be expending your resources as you go. The best Will save is the dragon at +4. Of course it also has an initiative bonus of +7, which will be hard to match if the wizards are stuck in 10 point buy.

I think I misunderstood and assumed the Wizards would have ample time, like in a real scenario. They could use familiars to scout ahead and determine what spells they need for the upcoming encounter, and possibly...

The thing is, you can't really prove that wizards aren't as powerful as people make them out to be, because they are that powerful. A popular example on this board is the Schrodingers wizard, who always has the correct spells prepared. You know what? This is the correct way to think of them. Any competent wizard will spend a few spell slots at the beginning of the day to assess whether they will be threatened within the next week, and if so, what will be attacking them. Then they can refine their spell list to be perfectly matched for whatever they will be facing.

More than that, the best spells a wizard can use are Save-or-Sucks, ie. spells that demand a will/ref/fort save or be immobilized or receive some severe penalty. Most enemies don't have the saves to stop all three different types, and those that do can be taken down through other means (such as massive damage via metamagicked spells).

The argument most make against this type of wizard is that they can't do that kind of thing all day long. But, they can. Look at a 5th level specialist wizard; he has at least a dozen spell slots available for use in a day, which means 3 spells for each combat, plus any scrolls, wands, or staves he has crafted. The fighter, or any other martial class, cannot match that, because their resource, HP, is expended much more quickly by getting into them middle of a fight. Healing them doesn't count either, because that is expending further resources to make sure the fighter remains viable, which makes him a drain on party resources, rather than an asset.

In conclusion, a fighters place in the party can easily be taken by a summoned monster, who has the edge on him by being completely expendable and requiring few buffs.

Divergent wrote:

Uh, what? no other level than 1st matters? I don't think you understand exactly what I'm saying. First level is the least indicative of how the rest of the game plays, since at that level there are so few hit points and resources in general to utilize that nearly every combat is a game of rocket tag. I would actually say that there is no level less important than 1st for the purposes of. . . Well, anything.

For the purposes of demonstrating how incredibly awesome a party of 4 wizards is and how well they can always, with ease, half a dozen handle EL+2 encounters, sure it is all that really matters. If they can't handle approximately 2 days of adventuring to make it to level 2, then it doesn't matter how awesome they are at level 2. They didn't live that long.

You said the math was there. I want to see it. You didn't say that the math was there for all levels higher than 1.

Yeah, you know what? I'm done trying to convince you. You're pretty clearly set in your ways, and I doubt any evidence I could present you with will change your mind about the disparity in power between spellcasters and martial characters.

Lets make it a bit clearer; 1st level sucks. Daily resources, which include HP, are incredibly low. Most battles tend to be decided by who wins initiative, and at this level, yes, melee characters tend to be best, because they have more endurance (for this and the next level only, I stress). After about level 3, however, the rocket tag abides, and spellcaster resources improve in both quality and quantity.

Frankly, any experiment done at 1st level simply has no bearing on any other aspect of the game, since it is not representative of the resource management or abilities of classes later in the game.

Lastly, not all characters begin at level 1, and those that do usually don't have to face a series of encounters significantly above their character level.

So, basically, this whole thing is a sham.

Divergent wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Nope. You claimed that a party of wizards at 10 point buy can handle half a dozen CR +2 encounters with ease. I want to see it. I've already selected the 6 encounters. They are nothing special. Certainly nothing out of the ordinary (no customized or template creatures for example). They are straight out of the Bestiary and the Core Rule Book.

Agreed. Changing it to "full caster" now when the post specifically said a party full of wizards is admitting a party full of wizards can't do it. Had it only said a party of full casters, I may have agreed, 10 point buy is hard, but battle clerics are pretty solid at low level, or druids or alchemists. . . I wonder, how hard would this even be for 4 dhampir negative energy channeling clerics.

Refusal to limit myself even further, while under yet more ridiculous handicaps, is not admittance of defeat. 1st level is already the absolute weakest point for spellcasters, so being forced to use only a single class is yet another handicap on a combat that isn't going to reflect spellcasters at their strongest anyways.

So you made a claim that you now say is ridiculous. I chose 1st level because if your uberwizards can't make it past 1st level, then no other level matters. You claimed that they could handle half a dozen CR +2 encounters consecutively, regularly.

I'll even be nice and post the six encounters before you create your builds if you would like.

Uh, what? no other level than 1st matters? I don't think you understand exactly what I'm saying. First level is the least indicative of how the rest of the game plays, since at that level there are so few hit points and resources in general to utilize that nearly every combat is a game of rocket tag. I would actually say that there is no level less important than 1st for the purposes of. . . Well, anything.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Nope. You claimed that a party of wizards at 10 point buy can handle half a dozen CR +2 encounters with ease. I want to see it. I've already selected the 6 encounters. They are nothing special. Certainly nothing out of the ordinary (no customized or template creatures for example). They are straight out of the Bestiary and the Core Rule Book.

Agreed. Changing it to "full caster" now when the post specifically said a party full of wizards is admitting a party full of wizards can't do it. Had it only said a party of full casters, I may have agreed, 10 point buy is hard, but battle clerics are pretty solid at low level, or druids or alchemists. . . I wonder, how hard would this even be for 4 dhampir negative energy channeling clerics.

Refusal to limit myself even further, while under yet more ridiculous handicaps, is not admittance of defeat. 1st level is already the absolute weakest point for spellcasters, so being forced to use only a single class is yet another handicap on a combat that isn't going to reflect spellcasters at their strongest anyways.

Wish: Your dead. :)

Now, where are all those wonderful feats/abilities/spells from? I recognize some, but not all of them and I want to know.

Unfortunately, wish doesn't work that way.

Most of those feats and spells are are from 3.5, and I really can't remember most of the source books. Races of the Dragon, Book of Exalted Deeds, Tome of Battle, Ebberon Campaign Setting, and more are in there. Bard love is spread out.

Divergent wrote:

Alright, sure. I don't have much time now, but I'll post up the characters, and even run the challenges, tomorrow. After I do so, I would like to see you create a party of all non-spellcasters that can take on 6 CR 3 encounters in one day.

You don't get to pick the challenges. You're the player :) The GM gets to pick the challenges, and the order. Since I threw down the gauntlet, I'm the GM.

While I am against dump stats, I know that you've only got one choice: you need them. So that we stick to the concept of this thread, why not make sure they are all the same class. Personally, I don't mind but I don't want to hijack this thread any more than I already have.

I will make sure that the encounters are reasonable, using only the Bestiary and the CRB. I have already chosen them but I am not posting them because I don't want you to build to those encounters.

Alright. I will concede to your DMing, provided I can choose separate classes. I don't really care about this thread, and the point isn't to prove that one class can do this, but that any full spellcaster can.

Alright, sure. I don't have much time now, but I'll post up the characters, and even run the challenges, tomorrow. After I do so, I would like to see you create a party of all non-spellcasters that can take on 6 CR 3 encounters in one day.

Divergent wrote:

Trikk wrote:

cranewings wrote:

Pfft, whatever. Pathfinder is a cake walk. If you play it raw a party of 10 point buy fighters and rogues can wreck half a dozen CR +2 encounters in a day. It isn't a hard game by the book.

As the GM, the fact that I kill someone about once a month owes more to the fact that almost every session they have at least one CR +4 fight or worse.

B!#@%&#&. If your party survives half a dozen APL+2 encounters per day then the GM is holding back. There is no way, no math, to support them doing that.

By the book, they would be out of resources halfway through and party members would die in the last encounters (if not before that).

10 point buy on top of that? Yeah, good luck with low to-hit, low defenses and low hit points.

A party of wizards (or any full casters) could take that with ease, including with only 10 point buy.

I'm going to have to quote Trikk:

Quote:

B&@+#%%%. If your party survives half a dozen APL+2 encounters per day then the GM is holding back. There is no way, no math, to support them doing that.

By the book, they would be out of resources halfway through and party members would die in the last encounters (if not before that).

10 point buy on top of that? Yeah, good luck with low to-hit, low defenses and low hit points.

It doesn't change. The only possible ways for that to happen is for the GM to play with kid gloves or to not understand the rules, or both.

Nope. All it requires is that the players understand exactly what they are capable of. Not that I expect you to agree; this board is notoriously low-op. Irregardless, a party of wizards is mathematically capable of defeating opponents far in excess of what any other class is able to. It's simple math, as you say.

cranewings wrote:

Pfft, whatever. Pathfinder is a cake walk. If you play it raw a party of 10 point buy fighters and rogues can wreck half a dozen CR +2 encounters in a day. It isn't a hard game by the book.

As the GM, the fact that I kill someone about once a month owes more to the fact that almost every session they have at least one CR +4 fight or worse.

B!#@%&#&. If your party survives half a dozen APL+2 encounters per day then the GM is holding back. There is no way, no math, to support them doing that.

By the book, they would be out of resources halfway through and party members would die in the last encounters (if not before that).

10 point buy on top of that? Yeah, good luck with low to-hit, low defenses and low hit points.

A party of wizards (or any full casters) could take that with ease, including with only 10 point buy.

(Synthesist) Summoner 20// (Dawnflower Dervish) Bard 4/ Warblade 16.

Race: Silverbrow Human (for the Dragonblood subtype).

Feats:
Flaw- Dragonfire Inspiration
1st- Multiweapon Fighting
Human- Extra Performance
3rd- Song of the White Raven
5th- Words of Creation
7th- Improved Multiweapon Fighting
9th- Song of the Heart
11th- Greater Multiweapon Fighting
13th- Experimental Spellcaster (Accelerate)
15th- Whatever
17th- Whatever
19th- Whatever

Warblade Bonus Feats: Whatever.

All of your Eidolons evolution points should be spent on gaining more and more arms, except at level 8, when you should increase your size to large. All of your arms should be wielding masterwork kukris, ignore magic weapons.

The Dragonfire Inspiration (which requires the Dragonblood subtype) feat turns all of your +x's from the Bards Inspire Courage into +xd6's of extra damage on every attack you make. The Dawnflower Dervish archetype doubles your Inspire Courage bonus, but at the price that it only applies to you. Song of the Heart increases your Inspire Courage by another +1, and Words of Creation doubles the resulting score. Song of the White Raven makes your Bard and Warblade levels stack for determining your effective bard level for Inspire Courage. This results in you getting +20d6 damage to every attack you make.

The Accelerate wordspell allows you to gain an extra move action every turn for several rounds, and is only a 2nd level spell.

The Warblade levels are there so that you can gain two particular maneuvers; White Raven Tactics (which allows you to gain an extra turn as a swift action), and Time Stands Still (which allows you to take two full attacks at once).

So, your combat rounds would look like this.
1st Round- Cast Accelerate (standard action), begin Bardic Performance (move Action), initiate White Raven Tactics (swift action).

2nd Round (gained with White Raven Tactics)- Move towards enemy (extra move action), initiate Time Stands Still (full-round action).

You get 146 attacks, each with +20d6 bonus damage.

Top that.

This has all already been done.

You'll want to check this out; http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222007

Dips are not inherently cheesy, regardless of number. Cheese is when you use vague wordings and shaky rules interpretations to 'cheat' at the game. Otherwise, as long as you are aiding the team and holding your power back for the times it is truly needed, so as not to overshadow your team, most levels of optimization can work well together.

I think the real problem with the Fighter is that the designers decided that they would be stuck in 'gritty' fantasy mode for all their levels, while wizards and other spellcasters were catapulted into high fantasy from level 1. Although high level fighters are indeed capable of fantastic deeds, mainly based around the HP system, they don't really imitate truly heroic characters, such as Hercules, Achilles, or Gilgamesh. They're Conan. Wizards, on the other hand, are supposed to be Merlin and Gandalf, and they do it even better than they were supposed to.

Or you could just, you know, get pounce, charge, and draw all your weapons as a free action.

I allow pretty much everything 3x in my games; I prefer games where you don't need to police your players to ensure balance, and that's difficult with PF only.

TarkXT wrote:

Andy Ferguson wrote:

Someone should come up with a 20th level monk build and see what it looks like.

I'll work on a Sohei at some point. The more I look at them the more they seem to be precisely what's needed.

The initiative boost, ki pool and flurrying with better weapons seems sweet. Tetori looks pretty hot too, the ability to grapple a mage to death, no matter what they do is pretty awesome, it's a shame you can't combine it with Maneuver Master.

It's also a shame you would never get any wizard in a grapple to begin with. . .

Wizards should be able to do all the things they can now, but not all at once. As in, no wizard should have more than one school of arcane magic to use. Boom, problem solved.

. . .

My issue is not that they aren't superhuman, they clearly are, just that they aren't superhuman enough. At high levels a fighter should be the equivalent of a hero like Hercules or Gilgamesh, able to strangle a whirlwind or lift the top off a mountain. Without being able to affect the narrative flow of the game in such a manner, the melee characters are basically constrained to the same role, 'hit things.'

In before, 'but then they aren't fighters!'

At level 6 it's possible for a fighter to fall 150ft and walk away with no permanent damage, and carry a 100lb load for a full day and not be fatigued. So it would have to be E2 maybe. And you would have to ban rangers, paladins and barbarians.

Yes, you can do impossible things in e6, but thats true for even low-level characters. The fact is that the higher level you get, the more ridiculous the power level gets, so instead of pigeonholing martial characters into being 'mundane', they should develop into what are essentially superheroes as they level up.

How insightful. You probably also feel that melee characters are underpowered and casters need a nerf.

>Implying that casters do not need a nerf.

Seriously, I lol'd at this.

One of the things I don't like about the fighter class is the archetypes. It seems the game designers want to push fighters into very narrowly defined fighting styles; archer, brawler, crossbowman, etc. It seems to me that any fighter (other than a kensai) should be well on their way to mastering many fighting styles by 10th level. So, these archetypes don't feel right to me.

It seems that a better collection of archetypes would be built around the attributes; brute (str), duelist (dex), juggernaut (con), tactician (int), kensai (wis), gladiator (cha).

Now this, this sounds like an idea. Maybe at first level you would have a choice of class focus on one stat, and then you would gain physics shattering abilities based around the stat chosen as you level. So, for instance, a Dex fighter might get massive speed bonuses and the ability to leap ridiculous distances, while an endurance fighter might be able to survive atmospheric re-entry, onto a pit of lava.

Actually, I noticed a similar issue with the Skirmisher Ranger archetype. One of it's talents states that it allows you to make a jump check as a free action. Now, I've always assumed that jump checks were part of a move action, but the skill entry blatantly states that when making a jump check you move as far as you can jump, so my initial reaction was, 'wut? i can now reach relativistic speeds by jumping around the world?' Seems like a bit of an issue.

doctor_wu wrote:

I think mainly at really low levels like level 1 or 2 magic missle is useless as it does not do enough damage.

Ah, well, i beg to differ. In such low levels a magic missile may burn half the HP of most opponents and its a SURE hit, which is also very important at lower levels.

Not the first choice maybe, unless you want the opposing caster distracted, but when i doubt... magic missile. Even 2 or 3 Damage are nothing to scoff at, when the timings good. Great range, too.

Yes, at level 1 2-3 damage is fine- but casting Sleep and completely removing 4 enemies from the battle is much better.

BARBARIAN FLUFF AM GENERALLY THAT BARBARIAN RAISED BY MAN WITH CAPE AND AMAZING SUNGLASSES. AND NO SHIRT. AM NEVER NEED FOR SHIRT. THIS MAN AM TEACHING BARBARIAN HOW TO BE LANCE THAT AM PIERCE HEAVENS, AND HOW TO SMASH ANYTHING THAT AM MOVING. THANKS TO MAN WITH MIGHTYFINE CAPE AND AMAZING SUNGLASSES, BARBARIAN AM BECOME SUPERPOWERFUL.

THEN SOME GUY ON INTERNETS AM SAYING CASTYS AM NEVER LOSE. BARBARIAN HAVE NEW GOAL: SMASH MANY CASTYS.

AND BATTY BAT AM TOTALLY A BAT. HAS WINGS. FLIES. SEES INVISIBLE STUFF WITH... SENSES. IT AM BATTY BAT AS SURE AS BARBARIAN AM NOT BATTY BAT.

ALSO IT AM BREATHING HOT DEATH ON ENEMIES. BATTY BAT AM GOOD AT BEING BATTY BAT.

. . .

Atarlost wrote:

And now we have to question why any GM would ever allow a PC a dragon cohort and then let him get the drop on someone as obviously important as a 20th level anything in an environment where his cohort can be present, and give the caster an 18th level cohort.

If the caster knows the duration on his own time stop so he can time delayed blast fireballs to trigger the instant it drops that's 4-16 DBFs metamagiced into a grab bag of elements, and because a level 18 cohort can also cast level 9 spells another 4-16 DBFs. Possibly the 20th level caster is a sorceror to max his charisma for leadership.

it's only a CR10 dragon. but i don't think a superstitious magic hating barbarian would want a mount that uses magic. or use a boatload of magical bling.

Well, you don't need to fluff it as your barbarian being suspicious of magic. He could just be innately resilient to magic, or blessed by the spirits of his tribe, or he's just that cool. Plenty of ways to get around the unfortunate name.

Jason, I did not think AM BARBARIAN could get any more awesome.

Then you put him on a freaking dragon.

...I love you, man.

Hey, wait, wait, wait.

CR 10 = a cohort level of 18? Where is this stated? I always thought if I wanted a cohort I could just go with CR= to 2 below the players.

I've read a number of threads where people state that blasters are underpowered because their damage can't keep up with hit dice progressions.

This has been proven false a number of times when a blaster is built properly.

Having lost that round, many "blaster-haters" decry such builds as being FAR too focused and requiring FAR too many resources, a point they believe to be in their favor since other spellcasting styles (summoning God-wizarding, battlefield control, buffing/debuffing, save or die, etc.) require far less investment--in fact, almost none at all.

Well, I'm here to show that, such people have lost that argument as well for the very reason they think it won them their argument:

If I can build an effective blaster with with an intense amount of investment...and can build a summoning, save or die, buffing/debuffing, battlefield controlling, god-wizard with little to no investment...than it stands to reason that I should be able to do both at once with the same character, shouldn't it?

After all, save or dies work well, so long as I have decent save DCs (which I will as I have only one primary ability score), summoning is amazing all by itself, battlefield control only requires knowledge on how best to use it, buffing/debuffing are usually automatically successful, etc.

However, a wizard who doesn't build for blasting CAN'T blast worth a damn.

Which do you think is better? A god-wizard? Or a god-wizard that can also blast really, really well? Logic (and the tier system) dictates that the versatile spellcaster capable of doing more is the more powerful character.

Still, I'll let you decide for yourselves.

The thing is you don't need to focus your build onto doing damage, as there are other people that can do damage while you spend your actions in a more fruitful way. That's what summons are for.

Divergent wrote:

Azten wrote:

Blasphemy! It sounds like you are saying that the classes were made to work together to cover each other's weaknesses!

Well, it was supposed to work that way, it just didn't pan out.

Also, in response to the whole, 'barbarian is immune to magic' thing.

-Greater Invisibility
-Enervation
-Dimension Door/Blink/Teleport

Wizard wins.

It's been established that the barbarian has that pendant that absorbs negative levels and grants sr. and a 28 touch ac without including dexterity. And a dire bat/gem of true seeing combo.

Honestly, the tornado is the best answer, and even that only killed the bat.

Oh, alright.

First Round:
-Greater Invisibility
-Quickened Dimension Door

Second Round:
-Use Wand of Greater Dispel Magic

Third Round:
-Enervation
-Quickened Dimension Door

Blasphemy! It sounds like you are saying that the classes were made to work together to cover each other's weaknesses!

Well, it was supposed to work that way, it just didn't pan out.

Also, in response to the whole, 'barbarian is immune to magic' thing.

-Greater Invisibility
-Enervation
-Dimension Door/Blink/Teleport

Wizard wins.

Divergent wrote:

You know, I think this thread has been quite enlightening.

Cool

Divergent wrote:

When an unbuffed Wizard (pretty much the weakest he's going to get)

No one said the wizard has to be unbuffed, though you are right, its pretty easy for a wizard to be unprepared which makes him pretty weak.

Right, easy to be caught unprepared when you yourself specified that the fight just happens spontaneously. No Wizard in an actual game is going to be caught so unawares, mostly because he isn't on the same plane.

Divergent wrote:

faces a pre-buffed melee'r who is already close enough to charge him during his turn

He activated rage, and has a decent charge radius.

Yeah, and permanent true-seeing cast on him by some friendly NPC, a Dire Bat companion, whatever else he feels like he needs. . .

Divergent wrote:

and is specifically designed to negate casters,

He's specifically designed to not suck. That happens to help against casters, but he's solid against non-casters as well.

No, I'm seeing a pretty definitive thing where all his rage powers and most of his feats seem to have been spent on entirely anti-caster powers.

Divergent wrote:

the melee guy has a solid chance of winning.

Well seeing as you tried to just keep suggesting things until you got something right, without a grasp of the mechanics behind the idea's you were suggesting, it was lost when you started posting.

Oh, a personal attack, very mature. The thing is, the Wizard can do almost everything I posted (I'd still debate Gate not working during Time Stop) and more. And that's why he's so powerful, even comparative to the barb, because he can just up and decide to do something else if what he is doing isn't working. The Barb? Nope, hit it again, hope it doesn't have something with a higher CMD or DC or HP than you.

Divergent wrote:

And really, the fact that this is necessary says more about the relative levels of power between casters and melee than anything else I could.

That a barbarian is stronger in a fight that a wizard?

Nice try.

So...have we figured out who has the bigger penis yet?

Depends. The barb is naturally larger, but then the Wizard casts Enlarge Person and the issue gets muddy.