Doompatrol's page

108 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Has no one mentioned Skald? Sure it's called Skald but you can reflavor it how you want including how raging song plays out.

It covers strength, social, solid in combat and excellent utility.


It effects creatures but it doesn't target any.

Also where is this 4 times thing coming from?


There's creative character building and then there's level dipping in classes that should be character defining for a minor mechanical advantage.

Taking levels in fighter is fine, that just represents improving your martial training but dipping 2 levels in Paladin and 1 in Oracle, 2 classes with backgrounds that should heavily define your character is munchkining. It's when any semblance of a character is thrown out for mechanics.

But all that aside I would advise they stick with Druid for simple enjoyment. As a new player it will be much more satisfying to get access to those higher level spells and take the caster archetype that secret wizard recommends. As a caster Druid it won't all be blasting, you will be want to be dropping summons, walls, entangles and buffs.


This isn't really possible for a character who isn't actually a caster with a martial focus. You could play an occultist and use the item powers but you aren't passing yourself off as a caster, you are one.

When I say its not possible, I mean in normal play. You could ask the GM for a heap of money to buy a lot of expensive magic items under the condition that you lose or give them up when you use your martial abilities.


2 recommendations from me.

1 is to change class to the Slayer, you get way more skill points and it's mechanically more interesting than a vanilla fighter but able to do the same job. It's the class I would always recommend for a new player going melee or ranged, right level of interest but not too mechanically complicated.

The other is to take the archetype for fighter called the gloomblade, this allows you to summon a shadow weapon at will of any melee weapon you want and it gets free enhancements. It's really cool and pretty good being able to switch between a great sword or a reach weapon when you need them.


One of the options for Bards when they pick versatile is proficiency with a weapon or weapon Focus if they are already proficient.


Yomabo wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:


Constitution 14 lower speed removes con penalty

How do you mean?

Also, do you have a question or are you just sharing your build

Questioning whether it would work out. We will be fighting a lot of giants.

Alternative is swashbuckler for same sort of style but without the Bard options.


Finalizing the build for my martial for giant slayer.

Dervish Dawn Bard

Stats at level 6

Strength 13
Dexterity 21 includes enhancement
Constitution 14 lower speed removes con penalty
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 7
Charisma 16

Feats

Dervish Dawn bonus
Weapon Focus from Bard
1st ?
3rd power attack
5th hurtful
7th pick up Cornugon smash here

Traits: both campaign

One that gives you half of the dwarven defense against giants
One that lets you intimidate giants regardless of size

Take the song at 7th that acts as a short term freedom of movement so I can prevent myself and the rest of the party becoming giant squeeze toys.

The biggest issue at the moment is reach but I will have soundstriker and bladed dash which should hopefully help.


PCScipio wrote:

Resource management helps ensure that you don't run out of Battle Dance — I try to avoid using it for easier encounters.

At 5th lvl, with Cat's Grace, Heroism, Battle Dance, a masterwork weapon and Arcane Strike, I will be +17 to hit, for 1d4+12 damage.

Similar but I'm really going to have to watch the resources.

I will also take soundstriker. On the first turn if the enemy is not next to me, soundstrike and then activate battle dance and arcane strike so they have to move in, rather than my character moving in.


The party consists of a Cleric caster who seconds reach attacks, Witch, Druid blaster and Arcanist.

I was originally considering a duettist Bard but as there aren't any other martials I thought about taking Dawnflower Dervish, the self only buffer.

Character would be Halfling, heroism up as often as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I’m not making anything up. You can’t not look for racism/sexism and then state you’ll react when you somehow see it despite not looking for it.

Fantasy games or real life don’t really have much to do with the situation. But if you go out of your way to make your PCs racist in game I’m gonna ask why.

You do need to justify your character’s actions of they’re doing Evil stuff and they or you are trying to pass it off as Good.

You can play a racist character fine, it’s when you try to pass the character or the racism off as Good that brings the issues."

Let me be clear, I am trying to say you see it when it's not there.

Well yes they do. We are talking about a fictional setting, it has everything to do with it. My characters racist because that's practical in the setting, you can be that guy who applies real life to a fictional setting and argues with the party as the village residents get raped and murdered.

In a fictional setting racism/speciesism or whatever you want to call it can be justified. Borg, Daleks, Zombies, demons, goblins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Real talk: "I have been called [whatever] for not liking [work of fiction]" is not a winning argument ever. If you don't like a movie, book, video game, album, or whatever a valid option is always "keep your opinion to yourself" since most people do not care what random strangers think about movies, books, video games, albums, etc.

If you're trying to "rally the troops" by leading a hate-on for whatever it is you dislike, there's a strong chance you just shouldn't do that.

Can't agree at all. There are poster in this thread who all but outright say you are morally wrong for killing make believe fictional races.

So many people love the opinions of others, there are YouTube channels and sites dedicated to gathering the opinions of random strangers.

Do you know what the real lesson should be, if you are about to make a personal attack or accusation against a real flesh and blood person over a fictional character or setting, rethink your priorities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.

So what about when things are racist/sexist?

There’s nothing to pull, are you going around killing people because they’re doing evil things or because of what they look like?

Then its racist or sexist and my character will react how I've designed them whether its the paladin I played who teamed up with a Goblin tribe to take down invading giants (3.5) or the Hobgoblin I played who considers Goblins an underclass.

Depends on the character.

But it's clear that you've made generalizations about real people if they do something involving make believe characters.

You don’t keep a look out for racist or sexist elements but you’ll just know if it’s racist or sexist?

And If they [general] are trying to pass off fantasy racism as a good thing and try to justify it that tells me quite a bit about them.

You're making things up at this point. I don't look for sexism/racism in everything vs know it when I see it and if its fictional I don't overreact.

It shows your inability to separate fantasy from reality and when it comes down to it you're only doing this because racism is the popular cause for people looking for problems.

I don't need to justify my characters actions but if I where to justify killing one specific race on sight in a fictional setting it would be because if left to their own devices they will kill others. That's the way they where written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.

So what about when things are racist/sexist?

There’s nothing to pull, are you going around killing people because they’re doing evil things or because of what they look like?

Then its racist or sexist and my character will react how I've designed them whether its the paladin I played who teamed up with a Goblin tribe to take down invading giants (3.5) or the Hobgoblin I played who considers Goblins an underclass.

Depends on the character.

But it's clear that you've made generalizations about real people if they do something involving make believe characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In most games I've played in certain races (including but not limited to orcs, goblins, gnolls) are typically attacked when met in the wilderness. And if the PC's don't take the initiative and attack them, then the other side will 99% attack them.
Annnnd you never stopped to think why this setup might not be a good thing?

Nah, I actually like having fun and don't try to look at everything from the perspective of everythings racist/sexist.

The game involves going around killing people, I'm sure I could pull negative implications out of my ass on just about all of it it, if that was the aim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

That's a good choice, stick by it. Some folks will tell you it isn't "optimal" or even "viable", but don't listen to them.

The text for the feat tells exactly how it is heightened.

CRB, p40 wrote:
A cantrip is heightened to a spell level equal to half your level rounded up.

That's a very poor choice. Scoundrel is a weak archetype and defending bad choices just for the sake of defending them doesn't change that.

Other archetypes are less mad, better features, much better feats at 10th and what's really funny is later in the game you can get a rogue feat which does what feint does but you don't even need to roll invalidating scoundrel.

Both their and ruffian have an easier time bumping charisma than the archetype for charisma because ruffian doesn't need to bump dex for ac and thief doesn't need strength for damage.


All you really need to take care of traps is the tools, keep thievery updated and decent perception.

The value of both trap finder and careful explorer depends on how much you value other exploration actions, neither are strictly necessary for traps. A rogue may take trap finder so they can look for traps and benefit from sneak at the same time.


Narxiso wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Dirge of Doom with lingering Performance even better
I think dirge of doom is the best cantrip. However, it’s a debuff, not a buff.

Since there is no save I feel like this is arguing semantics. At the end of the day they both get you to the same destination in a very similar way.

But at the same time a Bard should be getting both. Inspire has a range of 60 feet targeting allies, dirge has a range of 30 targeting enemies so there will be lots of situations when one will be better than the other due to positioning and of course you can use both if you harmonize.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Those high skills however did devalue the enjoyment of other people at the table. No one cares about the discrepancy being large between the untrained and specialist, but the difference between max trained and specialist in PF1 was too big. When someone can have a reasonable stat and max their skill points in a skill but still be absolutely useless compared to the specialist that’s the real issue. So yes your man skill lore oracle skill monkey was making the play experience worse for other people.

This is silly and only works under the assumption that someone else at the table wanted making knowledge checks to be a defining part of their character.

I was playing an arcanist occultist, high intelligence, knowledge skills. I think my summoning ability and spellcasting helped me overcome the grief of not being able to get the highest number on a couple of knowledge checks.

No one is surprised when the Bard has high diplomacy and bluff and it's not like the barbarian is forbidden from talking. The halfling unchained rogue high stealth but the monk can still attempt to hide.


citricking wrote:
You can also use the stats of your unarmed attacks instead, which can get an item bonus.

Wildshape can use your "to hit" and if you mean your unarmed attacks that would only mean the basic punching power.

I have no idea where you are getting the idea of adding item bonuses to the forms attack other than to hit.


Unicore wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:

As shroudb points out the scoundrel has 2 situational abilities for situations they already have or can acquire protection against. Hitting an opponent so they can't flank is highly situational and the rogue has some inbuilt flanking protection.

Denying reactions is situationally powerful but they have mobility and an ability at 12 to use a reaction to counter reactions.

Both the thief and ruffian offer substantial damage increases and damage stacks.

If damage is your primary interest in the tongue, then the scoundrel is probably not for you. That is ok.

Obviously but as I've pointed out the thief is also better as a charisma based rogue being less mad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As shroudb points out the scoundrel has 2 situational abilities for situations they already have or can acquire protection against. Hitting an opponent so they can't flank is highly situational and the rogue has some inbuilt flanking protection.

Denying reactions is situationally powerful but they have mobility and an ability at 12 to use a reaction to counter reactions.

Both the thief and ruffian offer substantial damage increases and damage stacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:

I don't say they are the weakest rogue because their -2 in reflex saves debuff is amazing and totally unique to them, it not only helps casters to land their offensive spells but help martials land the trip maneuver as well.

Then have the rogue feats that require legendary in deception, while other rogues can get them as well they don't have much usage of the skill as scoundrels have.

Far from amazing when they only get that bonus if you crit so not a teamwork option you can build around.

Both the scoundrel and ruffian get great 10th level debilitating strikes, the scoundrels options are situational.

As for legendaries if you are going into late game to add insult to injury, you then have instant opening which is an action to leave the opponent flat footed without even needing to roll.

As I said, if you want charisma based skills I would play a thief instead. Less mad.


This doesn't really feel like a valid complaint when players start with multiple skills so it's not as if you will be punished for taking religion.

The players have options in taking feats for other skills. There is no real need for the feat to come from a specific skill.

The only class that's likely to have issue with the choice of skill feats at the moment is rogue.


Yeah it's easily the weakest of the rogue rackets. Even as a Rogue who wants to use charisma based skills you are better off going thief so you don't need to worry about strength.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The dedication can raise Arcana and Thassilon Lore to expert, but you only get one cantrip, and it's an innate spell so it's locked to Charisma despite being arcane, which is unhelpful for anyone who isn't a sorcerer or bard.
We get so many ability boosts that there's no reason to dump Cha anymore. Both Deception and Intimidate can be used in combat, and Diplomacy can even be used for Income via Bargain Hunter. If one is going for Rollplay over Roleplay, then yeah, Runescarred uses a horrible stat.

You try to argue in favor of the mechanical benefits and then try to flip it around and claim it's a rollplay vs roleplay thing. What is up with people doing that.

Other stats like wisdom, dex and con are save stats which make them a bigger deal with the numbers so tight and people aren't required to boost charisma to talk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's multiple ways this can be taken into account.

Some of those adventurers tackled multiple issues. Then idea that characters go from 1 to 20 is mechanical, lore wise many can be started with characters claiming to be seasoned adventurers.

Not all of them survived the adventure.

Move on to other planes of existence to tackle issues there.

Some settle down, maybe some of the new PC's are children of these characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LizardMage wrote:

Because Gelugons are blue does not make them calm and inviting...they are literally giant ice mantises with magic, strong allies, and big spear and as an infernal creature probably enjoy torturing mortals. Nothing about any of that is calming.

Color theory shouldn't be being applied to these things.

Again, if you don't like the color change to Drow, don't run them that way. No one is at your table telling you how to describe things.

The poster just said that but pointed out how being blue still diminishes the effect. You had a very popular artist design the xenomorphs, the design would not be as iconic if they where any other colour so yes it should be applied to design. It is ludicrous to think that colour theory shouldn't be part of art.

That last part is also really rude, may as well say go away and shut up because you don't like them disagreeing with you..


The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:

I honestly don't understand the "color theory" argument. Do we really want a world where you can just tell how scary something is supposed to be by its skin color? Are blue dragons somehow automatically less scary than black dragons? Are gelugon devils somehow "calming" because they happen to be blue?

Even if we're operating under the assumption that black is automatically scary (which is problematic in itself), uncertainty and subversion of expectations are big parts of what creates fear. If everything is color-coded then all this uncertainty and dissonance is removed (not to mention the damage that would be done to suspension of disbelief by such an obviously contrived world).

Well to the question about blue dragons being less scary? the answer is yes. This is basic psychology, blue is a less threatening colour.

Sure in real it doesn't matter what colour the wild animal is if it's trying to eat me but we are talking about designs. We design things for a purpose and so if you want your dragon to be seem more threatening it's black or red, not pink or purple.

Reminds of a story where a vampire tried to immunize himself to holy symbols but instead starting seeing them in every crack in the floor, finding problems where there is none.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

When I played a monk I don't know when I would raise a shield; I always use that extra action to just move away from whatever I was recently trying to hurt.

I mean, the turn usually is:
1) Move, Flurry, Move
2) Flurry, Strike, Move
3) Flurry, Move, Strike.

1. Moving means the enemy just moves on to squishier party members.

2. The enemy has a reaction.
3. Enemy has a ranged option.
4. Enemy can keep up so all your really costing them is their least accurate attack.
5. Getting distance between you and the enemy is not an option in the environment.

Lots of scenarios where increasing AC is better.


Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! wrote:
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


And there is no mention of needing 'talent' to become a wizard anywhere that I can find. Just time, money and education. All of which the upper classes have in abundance.

There is no mention of it because as a PC if you want to become a wizard you become a wizard. Obviously it takes a talent to do it. Do you honestly think if tomorrow medical school or law school was made free that everyone would be Doctors or lawyers? No way. A lot of people would go to school for it and while we would get some great doctors or lawyers out of it, we would end up with many more drop-outs or bad doctors and lawyers. There is no "talent" for either profession but it takes a combination of traits that not everyone possesses.

This comparison of wizards with lawyers and doctors is terrible. Let's take Lawyer off the table because those skills often don't even carry abroad. The skills of a doctor on the other hand are universally useful for a career in real life but even your example revolves around the idea of a doctorate, not the skills.

I person could hypothetically have all the skills and knowledge of a doctor but not have gone through the proper educational venues to get that on paper and will not be allowed to practice without going through those hoops, yes a high degree of medical knowledge could occasionally be handy in real life it's a specific career most aim for. A person who has even some degree of magical training can f@%%ing alter reality and you don't need much of an imagination to think up uses for magic.

If someone had the ability to be a wizard they would become one, the obvious value of those skills should be unquestionable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:

This whole thread reminds me of the player profiles Wizards uses when talking about Magic players:

Timmy/Tammy: plays for the experience. In Pathfinder, this would be the player who takes the path of least resistance when it comes to character building - decide on a theme and pick the stuff that matches and call it a day.

Johnny/Jenny: plays to express themselves. In Pathfinder, these would usually be the players who create oddball concepts and tries to figure out how to make those concepts in the game.

Spike: plays to prove themselves. These are the ones pushing the game engine to its breaking point to squeeze out every advantage.

Being aware of these different player types is a Good Thing, as is realizing that clearly not everyone wants the same thing out of the game as you do.

Which is all nonsense because people want multiple things. I've never actually met a pure power gamer who didn't care whatsoever about the theme of the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
If playing a Fighter with a +2 in their main stat isn't viable then I guess all other martials are as well, since that's exactly how accurate they are with a +4.

In fairness, the other martial Classes all have something to make up for the Fighter's greater accuracy.

But yeah, a Str 14 Fighter is by far the most viable attack stat 14 character in the game. Other characrers with their highest stat at 14 are maybe not viable, legitimately.

However, as others note, 16s are completely viable, if not quite optimal.

It depends on what the defining term is for ‘viable’ which seems to change depending on the situation. It also doesn’t help that without a concrete definition viable can apparently be defined by a single point difference from your example. By this logic LuniasM is completely fair in their example that with the presented facts and accompanying opinions that any class other than Fighter wouldn’t be a ‘viable’ Martial class.

No there, not, multiple people have pointed out that other classes have other features.

The Barbarian hits and crits less but adds more damage.

Also it helps if you don't revolve around the word viable. But if you want an example, an animal companion can be a viable source of damage, a player should aim for good.

So yes a fighter with 14 in their attack stat is viable but it's a badly made PC.

We finished a campaign recently with a player with a really badly built martial artist, I offered to help them make changes and they turned the offer down. So you had this character that was more or less a walking damage sponge.

I’m not using the term viable, but rather commenting on it. LunaisM’s response post actually sums up my feelings on the matter quite well. There is a real issue that when statistics and averages get thrown around enough that it has a tendency to for some people to think in right or wrong. Some take it more...

His argument was intrique games and fighter/wizard. If it's an intrique game the GM would let you know but unless said otherwise fighting is the meat and potatos of pathfinder which is why bonuses to hit are valued higher than bonuses to skills, there is also no reason a fighter/wizard can't have 18 str and 14 int to start with. This isn't 1st edition where having 18 to start was a higher investment than 14 or 16.

Which comes to the main point of all this. Why even make an argument for lower stats. It all comes across as very contrarian.

If I say to a new player that 18 is must have, I don't mean that literally but you guys come along and say they don't need an 18, that is technically true but you are not doing them any favors.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
If playing a Fighter with a +2 in their main stat isn't viable then I guess all other martials are as well, since that's exactly how accurate they are with a +4.

In fairness, the other martial Classes all have something to make up for the Fighter's greater accuracy.

But yeah, a Str 14 Fighter is by far the most viable attack stat 14 character in the game. Other characrers with their highest stat at 14 are maybe not viable, legitimately.

However, as others note, 16s are completely viable, if not quite optimal.

It depends on what the defining term is for ‘viable’ which seems to change depending on the situation. It also doesn’t help that without a concrete definition viable can apparently be defined by a single point difference from your example. By this logic LuniasM is completely fair in their example that with the presented facts and accompanying opinions that any class other than Fighter wouldn’t be a ‘viable’ Martial class.

No there, not, multiple people have pointed out that other classes have other features.

The Barbarian hits and crits less but adds more damage.

Also it helps if you don't revolve around the word viable. But if you want an example, an animal companion can be a viable source of damage, a player should aim for good.

So yes a fighter with 14 in their attack stat is viable but it's a badly made PC.

We finished a campaign recently with a player with a really badly built martial artist, I offered to help them make changes and they turned the offer down. So you had this character that was more or less a walking damage sponge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
If playing a Fighter with a +2 in their main stat isn't viable then I guess all other martials are as well, since that's exactly how accurate they are with a +4.

Almost as if other martial have other methods of competing like rage , sneak attack or hunter's edge.

This isn't some punpun nonsense, if you are going to play a fighter whose primary feature is being more accurate by 2 and then decide for whatever reason to be less accurate by 2, you can do that of course but lets not pretend it's anything but bad in terms of mechanical decisions.

If a player asked for a feat that gives plus 2 to hit they would told to f@+~ off, that's OP.


Kyrone wrote:
You need to be a caster or have the tricky magic item feat.

That works, thanks.


Do these skills act as the use magic device equivalents or is being a caster the only method of using wands?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
I mean... There is a minimum line that any build has to cross before it's "viable". And being viable is not just about "winning", but about "fun". It's not fun to suck, to get owned by monsters, to miss more than half the time, that your spells never work.
Your notion of what's fun to roleplay seems to exclude a fair amount of things mine do not, and I appreciate the game supporting both parts of that range.
Its easy to play an ineffective combat character. Spread your stats so your highest score is a 14 (or put your highest score in charisma on a non-Sorcerer/bard. The game does support your style of play. What people are checking/complaining about is whether it supports their style of play.
I'd say a 16 Dex/16-18 Cha Scoundrel rogue is pretty viable. Maybe not exactly what one would expect from a Rogue, but it should work pretty well.

That wasn’t what I was saying. I was something more like

STR 14
CON 14
DEX 12
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 12

Pretty sure with human, right background and rogue such a character is possible. If you want to play an ineffective combat character the above would definitely help achieve it.

Even those stats by level 10 could produce a fairly competent Fighter/ MC Wizard. After two sets of 4 boosts, you’re now:

STR 18
CON 18
DEX 12 (Splint/Halfplate for max item+dex)
INT 18
WIS 16
CHA 12

Not too shabby, actually. By level 20 you’re 20 Str/Con/Int. You have more skills and languages, hearty with good saves across the board, are well rounded in just about anything and you’ve burned less attribute points to +18 boosts. I would consider this more long-term than suboptimal. If you wanted to play this that’s perfectly fine.

You spend the first 4 levels being 2 behind everyone which is crippling and the next 14 being 1 behind everyone who started with an 18 in their primary.

If for some reason you want stats like these by 10 while still not harming your basic ability to function you can still start with an 18. As for 20 in in 3 stats, look at it for what you will be really playing with, you will have 19 str/con/int for 9 levels. If enjoying the game is the aim forget about that one last level you may not even play at.

You have features where getting +1 is a big deal. Unless you plan to roleplay as someone ineffectual for laughs, starting with a primary below 18 is silly when the game is balanced around the idea you do.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:

I like to crunch the numbers.

There's me playing a bad ass, effortlessly slaying orc commando death knights with every attack, then I place my dice squarely on the table and in a firm clear voice say "turn". Then Mr RPdamagedon'tmatter shakily picks up his dice in his sweaty hands and ineffectively paws at the blind goblin cripple, he drops his dice and whimpers out a turn as the table try not to look at him.

Wow you sound like a condecending pain in the neck to have at a table. I play minmaxed characters my self in 1e, but god am I glad I don't have the need to feel superior to others at my table and write drivel like this.

I think you've forgotten what a joke is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to crunch the numbers.

There's me playing a bad ass, effortlessly slaying orc commando death knights with every attack, then I place my dice squarely on the table and in a firm clear voice say "turn". Then Mr RPdamagedon'tmatter shakily picks up his dice in his sweaty hands and ineffectively paws at the blind goblin cripple, he drops his dice and whimpers out a turn as the table try not to look at him.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
graystone wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I think it would be really crazy if someone picked a companion just because they liked the animal instead of being concerned with the math, but that's just me.

That's like saying 'I don't understand why people just don't pick a car that looks nice and instead worry about things like 'can I drive a stick shift' or 'does that electric car have enough range to get me to work''.

The game is built on math so, IMO, it's be "crazy" to ignore the math: it's freeform storymaking if the math doeesn't matter.

I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.

It seems that way because you came into a thread that primarily revolves around discussing the mechanics. If anything it's really rude for you to come in here and derail the thread with "think about the RP"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Is there any reason why I would use a wooden shield instead of a steel one?

You're a druid.


Gladiator, acrobatics and athletics are the standard called upon adventuring skills.

Cat fall is one of the best skill feats in the game. It goes from letting you jump off walls without penalty to letting you fall off mountains without issue.

Maybe consider boosting wisdom instead of strength. It's your will and default initiative stat. Can always pick up hefty hauler


Yeah I was about to chime in with the undervaluing of wolf.

In a full attack set up you would strike with it first when your accuracy is at its best. If the opponent is downed you effectively get +2 to the follow up flurry and if they attempt to stand they lose an action and you get an ao


Even a monk who focuses on strength can start with dex 16 and then 18 at level 5


Blave wrote:

I'd also go Monk > Rogue, though I would probably end up taking some more rogue feats along the way. Tiger Stance with Skirmish Strike is pretty nice, for example.

Mobility can cover quite some distance with the monk speed bonus.

You can also get sneak attack (even if only 1d6) and later upgrade it with Sly Striker to work even against non-flatfooted enemies.

Skirmish is a flourish so won't work with flurry, you also wouldn't be able to take it until 12 and if I was going full monk I would want style savant at 12.

Sly Striker is not available until level 16


Alright with update on simple weapon proficiency equaling unarmed, I am considering making a Rogue/Monk instead of monk.

Take the thief racket, monk dedication at 2, stance at 4 (wolf or tiger), monk moves at 8 and of course flurry at 10.

Won't always need to stance as the base fist is as good as a shortsword, agile, finesse qualities.

Better range option with a shortbow which I can carry and then drop and go straight to punching

Sneak attack.

Great access to skills and skill feats.

Monk on the other hand has better AC, hit points, lvl 1 access to flurry and access to style savant.


Glade wrote:

High dex characters struggle to reach the pinnacles of AC in this edition it seems, since both bracers and clothing have a max dex of +5. Still, perhaps a moderate AC is tolerable if you make sure to not be standing in melee regularly?

With Quick Jump and Cloud Jump he could be fairly mobile at level 15. Skirmish strike to get into flanking position, attack/trip then jump to safety.

I think that's a bit dramatic. They have the same AC is the best light and medium assuming all proficiencies are equal with heavy being one higher, trading speed and bulk for 1 AC.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

If this one's confirmed that's amazing. It makes Rogue multiclassing monk viable.


Garretmander wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Do people really think the 1e Cleric was a one-man-wrecking-machine? Really?

I mean, didn't the Warpriest come along because the Cleric couldn't keep up? Sure they had all the tools to be OP, but they didn't have the action economy to get there fast enough.

...what?

I'm currently playing a low charisma 3.5e straight cleric (ie: the worst possible 3.5e cleric build)

The 3.5 cleric (at least with low charisma) is in way worse a position than a PF1 cleric.

I am the most dominant player in that party, including a dread necromancer (to be fair, no tomb tainted soul), and a druid.

1e cleric was only second best to the wizard, and only at higher levels.

Almost everything about this post is the reverse of the metagame and in game play.

Pathfinder Cleric and Druid where the only 2 classes to get obvious nerfs going into Pathfinder because they where the 2 strongest in the game. Charisma was also a common dump stat.

3.5 Cleric had a lot of its buffs nerfed as well going into 3.5.

The 3.5 Cleric has access to some obscene support.

Point is you shouldn't be comparing the Pathfinder Cleric to one who had access to Divine metamagic, sun rods, domain feats,3.5 Divine power etc

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>