Doompatrol's page

182 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we go to the basics, ignoring archetypes and other potentially balance changing optional features, I've always thought this is how paizo view it.

For 9th level casters, how good your spell list and whether you where prepared or spontaneous would determine how good your other class features where.

Core classes only

Spell Casting

1. Wizard
2. Cleric
3. Sorcerer
4. Druid

Class Features

1. Druid
2. Sorcerer
3. Cleric
4. Wizard

The Wizard has arguably the best spell list and form of spellcasting in the game, so it has the worst class features. You could debate between Cleric and Sorcerer, Sorcerer has a better spell list but it's casting style is worse and class chasis, armor availability, saves and hit dice, but the Cleric has worst class feature, although the front loaded aspect of domains gives the Cleric the advantage in most games but I think that's something paizo didn't account for at the time.

You then try to apply this formula to other 9th level classes. Take the Witch, best compared with a Wizard, it has a weaker spell list but hexes are suppose to be superior to a Wizards other class features.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've heard the Vigilante archetype Teisatsu referred to as the Unchained Ninja, I don't know how true that is but it possibly could be a better option for a ninja than the ninja class which seems to have been neglected. It gets the ninja ki pool and access to ninja, monk and of course vigilante talents.

The ninja doesn't have the help with dex combat that the unchained Rogue got, the vigilante has that and you also get to play around with the social talents, could be some good picks for the character you have in mind.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not feats but the Duettist archetype has a lot of potential, the performances the familiar can access are not limited to the basic Bard options, it also includes those you can get from other archetypes and masterpieces.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I don't believe there's any sort of innate magical potential that is required for learning magic on Golarion. Every infant is born with the potential to become a 20th level Wizard, it's just that very few of them actually do.

I wouldn't say that's true at all.

It's more like most of us can dabble in Physics, but less can make a career out of it and only a handful have the ability to be renowned.

A level 11+ wizard would be considered rare and powerful and in most cases, they are the level they are at because they've reached their limit.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me personally it will simply be the Eidolon can't use magic items. That balancing factor at least makes sense in universe, it can't invest in the item. The idea that the Eidolon cannot use non-magical items seems stupid, seems like the affect of a curse and there's no reasonable expectation for it and I can't see it breaking the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lyrakien, Pooka or Liminal sprite, I just like the idea of fairy familiars, azata has the better stats though.

I use to think it was a shame there is no evil fairy but then there's nothing to stop you having a female Imp.

In general I favour humanoid familiars because they feel more like there own characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:

It's been sort of mentioned already but the Rogue doesn't need to be fixed because if you want to take it another direction you just play another class.

More straightforward in combat, play a Slayer

Magic, play an Investigator.

Want Ki, Ninja

Want to focus on being a face or have more interesting talents, Vigilante

Is there any need to find a niche for the Rogue other than having a class called the Rogue and if the class gives you what you want more than the others, play it.

But this is kinda the Point.... All of these "rogue niche" things have been slowly pulled off of the rogue and given to other classes that can now do those rogue things better than the rogue.

So if every rogue thing you might be interested in doing, sneaking, backstabbing, smart-mouth face, etc... Its better to pick something else.

Which is why I don't think it needs fixed,

To answer the thread questions, should the Rogue have full bab? no, it already has it in the Slayer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's been sort of mentioned already but the Rogue doesn't need to be fixed because if you want to take it another direction you just play another class.

More straightforward in combat, play a Slayer

Magic, play an Investigator.

Want Ki, Ninja

Want to focus on being a face or have more interesting talents, Vigilante

Is there any need to find a niche for the Rogue other than having a class called the Rogue and if the class gives you what you want more than the others, play it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My rule of thumb for spell research is that you can do it for a theme, not more power.

Stronger burning hands, sure, that's balanced against what already exists.

Improved shield, your just asking for more power for casters.

Spells from other classes, hell no, there are class features for that because you aren't just suppose to casually poach. The Wizard shouldn't see the Bard Player casting good hope and go "I'll take that"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A number of comments saying that Rogues have no accuracy booster but that's what I consider debilitating injury, the penalty to AC when you land the first attack is substantial and really helps

I know someone whose flippin loves Rogues and when they where in position they where like blenders but the biggest issue was always getting there. With 2 other martials fights where often over before they could fully contribute but outside of combat was never an issue.

One suggestion is maybe a mid game talent , 6th level, that lets them move once as a swift action and then an advanced talent that lets them do that once a combat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you play sorcerer or psychic you would just need to make sure you have a mixture of enchantment/illusion and general spells. So for example at 3rd level you would have your choice of a mind altering spell and haste. It shouldn't be that hard if you start from the beginning and get use to your spells as you level. You will easily have enough options to not need to worry about mind immune enemies

Mysterious Stranger recommended Kitsune Sorcerer, the only thing I would have to say about that is that if the opponent isn't immune to mind effects, it can be too good and may annoy the GM. The save DC's can get crazy high with that one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would look at the Psychic, it also has a strong enchantment illusion focus, some spells earlier than the sorcerer/wizard, amplifications that increase the DC saves and one that lets them affect undead without the Mesmerists fail chance. It can also be a good face either with student of philosophy or a charisma discipline, it gets all the face skills.

The biggest weakness would be that the Mesmerist suffers the most in situations where enchantment/illusion spells aren't that useful, needing to fall back on its tricks, the wizard and psychic spell list has better access to more general spells as well like haste and fly

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say Sorcerer based on these criteria.

Spells slots, blasting is not a precision playstyle, you're a hammer and you will need to use up more resources being a hammer.

No awkward or cheese builds are required. Out of the box, lots of bloodlines strongly support it, as well as mutations. You can optimise with crossblood if you want, but it's not required.

Sorcerer/Wizard spell list has the best blast spells.

Kineticist is good for single targets but they where really stingy with area effects, very few good options until very high level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:

I haven't much looked at the Kinetic Knight as a stand alone option... but I would imagine that they could invest in backup ranged options just like any other melee combatant.

Even a vanilla Kineticist focusing more on their ranged blasts is likely to spend a feat or two on their melee abilities... in the exact same sense, a Kinetic Knight could easily spend a feat or two on having a capable ranged backup option.

Grab PBS and carry a +1 bow... buy the ioun stone to have it be a HornBow... put the Training enchantment on it loaded with Rapid Shot.

I believe the melee options for a Kinetic Knight are potent enough that you might just have feats to spare if you aren't greedy.

I mean of course a kinetic knight can carry a ranged weapon, I've never seen a player with this expensive mid maxxy set up for their back up ranged weapon, not that it's op, just as op as you can get with no class features to support it.

A basic kineticist pairs so well with melee because it requires only one feat, weapon finesse. Then both styles are fully functional. The normal ranged fighting style is a notorious feat hog and at this point you're suggesting it so the knight can be slightly better with their emergency back up weapon. Why do that?

At some point, you need to stop defending it when have gotten to the point where you suggest things like this. To try and mimic what the basic kineticist is already good at with 1 feat and 1 infusion, not mediocre with heavy investment

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Kinetic Knight having full attack for free also means that they can use high cost infusions easier without having to Gather Power as often. Gather Power being relegated to when you want some of the other abilities.

Ride the Blast is fun and all, but having Pounce is much more useful. Not to mention that you rarely need Ride the Blast. Charging however? That is very useful. Also you discount free infusions. But many normal Kineticist would spend feats on more infusions. Something a Kinetic Knight straight up doesn't need.

Did I mention that Samurai Resolve gives access to the wonderful feat: Unconquerable Resolve? This wonderful feat that you can take multiple times gives you your HD in temp HP for each time you took the feat, every resolve point spent. That's right, when you spend a point to avoid a spell you also get HP to mitigate any damage that might still pass through. Effectively countering burn damage. (Taking the feat twice with 2 resolve points is 40 HP a day no questions asked).

There really is no comparing the tankiness of Regular vs Knight.

A normal kineticist already has the free blast, that free use only applies to the basic blade, not any of the advanced melee options, the normal kineticist also has the option of applying substance infusions to variety of ranged area affects. As for gather power, it's very much a requirement for the knight, they cannot use any of the decent substance infusions until level 8 without taking burn.

So if we use entangling, the gold standard early, a normal kineticist can hit an opponent within blast range, a knight is restricted to melee range, a simply inferior option.

Ride the blast is more than fun, it's an at will teleportation affect, that's incredibly useful. It can also be a better pounce if required although at a hefty cost of 3 burn, although unlike the Knight ability, it can be reduced with a prepared gather for kick in the door situations. The knights ability is always 2 burn. So you probably rarely if ever actually use it. The 50% bonus I keep pointing out, that a Knight does not get, is what you would use emergency burn for 99% of the time.

Yes a normal kineticist would spend feats on more options because it actually has those options to spend feats on. The knight is barred from most form infusions.

You don't get the resolve for free, it's a nice ability, but it's at the cost of a weakened gather power.

The core argument is that a Knight should be notably better at melee than a Kineticist. Taking away range is a big loss and yet, sadly, it's an inferior option.

You can push the resolve and the extra ac if they go water, but you're not selling the class for what its suppose to be. I consider the kineticist to be the best switch hitter in the game. How little investment is required to be good at both ranged and melee. A level one infusion and the weapon finesse feat is all that's required for a normal kineticist to be a solid melee class

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

For the kinetic knight, locking them down in melee means you are keeping them off your ranged party members. Archetype designed for tanking can actually tank.

Maybe that's the disconnect here. Kinetic Knight does have some attack alternate abilities, but those are mostly just allowing for the knight esthetic. On the other hand, Kinetic Knight has a lot of defensive abilities added. If you're looking for a melee striker, that's not exactly what it is. It's more of a tank than anything else.

At least you've somewhat admitted it's not as good as it's role of being the melee kineticist and if by tank you mean stand in the way, either version can do that, but standing in the way is an option, not a role, the normal kineticist can protect the other ranged party members well enough by entangling and not putting itself in harms way, but if it must also do that, it also has that option, unlike the Knight who must always put themselves in harms way to entangle.

My Kineticist was tough already, really good AC, dex highest stat, buckler, further bonuses to my dex from overflow and the aether shield.

But to tank as a role, neither is good at that since they cannot reliably make attacks of opportunity until they can kinetic whip with no burn at 8.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

The kinetic knight can use substance infusions with his blade at level 1. Its not like they have iterative attacks at that level, so that’s pretty decent as a “full attack”. And with infusion specialization you can use substance infusions earlier without paying burn.

Like I said, the real problem is that most elements don’t have enough decent substance infusions.

As I said, they trade the 0 burn range for 0 burn melee. All that means is they can apply it earlier to the blade that a nornal kineticist could already apply to a blast, I didn't want to make the point but at earlier levels I would argue ranged is almost always better and when it comes to infusions like entangling, locking them down at range is so you don't have to face them in melee, that's is an option the Knight doesn't get outside of mid-late game reach.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:

That misses a chunk yeah Doompatrol. Free kinetic blade without burn at level 1, assorted free feat-ish things and free infusions, the samurai's resolve class feature. If you're into the water element in particular your elemental defence stacks with armor and shield which it normally wouldn't.

Empower blast and other metakinesis is the trap; burn which isn't reduced by infusion spec (or anything else until level 19) and which you generally can't gather power for if you're in melee.

I'm more referring to things that would distinguish it from a normal Kineticist that just builds for melee. The free blade is so you can actually do something early game otherwise you would take burn every time you move. That's more a trade of range for melee, normal kineticist has a 0 burn ranged attack, knight has it's 0 burn blade which doesn't reduce the burn on things like whip, which neither build can reliably use until 8. The free infusions are somewhat redundant when you don't really have that many options without range, the normal kineticist gets to pick all the melee options and can still take things like foe throw, impale and fragmentation and no access to one of the best utilities of the class, ride the blast.

Alright, you get an enhancement bonus to your defence in those specific instance of a water kinetic knight.

Metakinesis is reduced by gather power and yes you will rarely use it with melee, you still have a buffer and the option to spend burn. 50% is a huge flippin bonus when you really need to nova. That alone makes me question why would you ever play a Kinetic Knight unless you're dead set on heavy armor.

If it gave you some interesting unique infusions but a normal kineticist can make effectively the same thing but more options and more damage. I've played an aether kineticist with blade who want into air, I'd never play one without blade as it's the best damaging option they've got and I don't see how in any instance, a kinetic knight would have played any differently except giving me less. The only thing I used my buffer for was free empower on my hasted full attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no need for any special tricks with the aether blade, you can just use a broken item.

Unless I've missed something, Kinetic Knight is a trap option. You lose the options for range which a big loss, a kineticist can use a buckler so the shield is not a great advantage. Gather power may require 2 hands to use but it's not an attack, you still only attack with one hand so retain the use of a buckler. The real kicker is that it's worse at what it is suppose to excel at because it cannot empower, a normal kineticist can spend burn to add 50% damage to its melee full attack, not just range.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
As an aside, don't discount the elements just because you're playing a character without an elemental theme, I think Aether / Air would make a better Sith than Aether / Void. Air's defense can be fluffed as deflecting blaster shots, the air kinetic blast is Sith lightning, and Darth Thanaton was able to use the force to fly.

That's something to heavily consider. You can refluff air to whatever you want, you're not a cleric or Druid whose required to worship the elements if they take air.

Given how kinetic blade works for aether, you can use any object as a lightsaber, I would ask the GM to ignore the damage to object used when using it this way just for theme, so it doesn't get smashed up every fight, you're not gaining any mechanical advantage, whether the object is broken or not you do the same damage.

One other trick is to take only the first familiar utility. Have that familiar take the sage archetype and now you've got a knowledgeable familiar in your head, all the familiar bonuses without the risk of them being killed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:

Neat approach to the Necromancer... I like it.

Instead of the zoo/army associated with necromancy as we know it in PF1 now, trim back the number and add class features that make up for the lack of overall HD in your control. The free/lessened cost is a huge plus.

Could easily provide the "white necromancer" non-evil archetype, even an Alchemy-based archetype, and possibly a summon-based archetype where you summon undead rather than raise them?

Maybe incorporate/steal/borrow from Agent of the Grave, and have a late level ability to ease the passage into Lichdom, or otherwise becoming undead, yourself, and retaining your free will and Intelligence and class abilities.

I'll probably homebrew it at some point. I would probably use the Occultist ability as a tough template so around half your level of basic skeletons zombies, number shrinking for more powerful.

For good or non-evil, it would probably be an option for intelligent servants you've made pacts with from the negative energy plane, who serve time with you so they can move on, trading the evil raw power for intelligent minions. Even though mechanically it could end up being very similar I would avoid the summon idea because of how common it is already.

At level 20 may as well make the capstone a choice of Lichdom or Vampire, it's level 20, may as well have fun, also an Oracle choice that gives lycanthropy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:
I would like an official Glossary... a reprint of pretty much everything official in a common format/layout of content... and above all else... consistent language that separates fluff and flavor from the actual descriptive texts.

That could be done I guess, maybe even alone some fans to take care of it and clarified because it would be a lot of work.

Idea I had for a nercomancer would be a rag and bone man. Store undead in their cloak but could only actively control a fixed amount in number and HD, to avoid the issues that typically come with the animate dead spell. To make up for this limitation they wouldn't require onyx and could nominate a skeleton or zombies that would return from dust after spells are restored.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a discussion on whether you would buy another 1st edition pathfinder book, but I think the much more important question is what would people want in it. No point in a new book if it has very little the community would actually be interested in.

The first suggestion is more for new players. I consider the Kineticist to be one of the best beginner classes once you get past the rules, it's thematic and has interesting abilities and by 4th level a typical player will only need to worry about blasting and 2 utility powers, it doesn't overload them with options. But that's the thing, that is once you get past the rules, I know long term players who won't give it a look. It could really do with a tidy up in terms of explanation.

The second is for advanced, I enjoy the class but using it's own unique system means it really gets the shaft in terms of items and options. I think there is one official metamagic equivalent rod but it's priced at maximised greater, at that price it may as well not exist. Perhaps tiers that are restricted by the type of blast, basic, composite to mirror spell level and allow access at more affordable levels.

Other than that off the top of my head I can only thing I can think of at the moment is a focused necromancer class.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a very weak option that requires a lot of investment. Look at the suggestions being given, hit "hard" once with a weapon after a huge investment in strength and feats or just use a cantrip for similar damage.

If it's done in the future it will most likely be an archetype that scales down spell slots for melee specific features.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>