Drogos's page

Drogos wrote:

I will echo what everyone else has mentioned, Adamantine is the better option for a main weapon (IE one you intend to enchant).

Is it really worth it though?

Is it worth holding off on upgrading your main weapon at all until you've got 3000gp to spare? And another 2K to start enchanting it.

Golems show up pretty commonly in higher levels and the vast majority are only adamantine to bypass. But the question at hand was very specific about whether to get Cold Iron or Adamantine as a main weapon. In that case, the best option is Adamantine. I also think Adamantine is pretty much the first purchase for the character who's job it is to hit things with the pointy end. Magic only DR doesn't typically show up until you're out of 1-5 range and after that point you are typically well on your way to affording both things. Getting to a +4 weapon is MUCH more expensive than that 3k initial investment. I did the wait on my -1 and it sucked, but in the long run I was incredibly happy with the decision.

People have mentioned sundering as a tactic. My -1 is a sunder specialist and never once ran into an encounter where it was possible to sunder but couldn't bypass the hardness. Of course, he's only 13.2, but +5 steel or +3 mithral items are incredibly uncommon.

I will echo what everyone else has mentioned, Adamantine is the better option for a main weapon (IE one you intend to enchant).

Jeff Hazuka wrote:

And here I am, wishing that there was another level of GM credit boxes.

I wouldn't be upset if there was a 'bigger' goal.

Or make it a choice:

A row of three boxes worth 1 goal; a row of 5 boxes worth 2 goals, and a row of 13 boxes worth 4 goals. Word it so you can only access one of the 'goal tracks.'

I like where you're going with this, though I don't know if I'd make them exclusive.

Why not just do three boxes worth 1 goal, then another 5 boxes worth 1 goal, then another 8 boxes worth 1 goal? Then, someone who GMs a lot could end up hitting three goals, but it gets progressively harder each time. In the mean time, the easiest one only needing three GM sessions makes it more realistic as an incentive for people like me who don't GM as much and/or apply their GM credits to different PCs.

I'm on board for this, though I think 3, 6, 12 would be a better breakdown. I'd also be ok with just a 3 for 1 goal. I don't GM enough for it to be a huge deal breaker for me, but I think those that frequently GM past the current 5 boxes should not get shafted from rewards when they are often stuck GMing or there be no PFS offered.

I feel similar to the OP regarding this item. I actively try to GM as I'm able, but I like to play my characters too. The one character who I've applied GM credit to lvl 6 still hasn't seen table play. I don't like that, as I don't have a huge breadth of characters. But since I've never played what is, I feel, a pretty cool concept, it has no history to me and thus I prefer my other characters that I've played at all that are the same level range; including characters I actually dislike (I'm looking at you Gnome Cavalier).

I'd prefer a 2x 3 for 1 goal breakdown rather than a 2 & 3 breakdown. I don't think the GMs who GM regularly are going to have any trouble getting 6 for the 2 goals (most of our regular GMs locally actually run out of GM boxes on characters). And 3 tables is not too much for people to get if they GM infrequently.

Just a reminder, you are carrying an object that might be illegal.

huh? I don't recall anything we're carrying being illegal.

I'm going to Necro like whoa for a second because there were some valid questions that I've never seen addressed.

I also find it relatively arbitrary that the ability is locked behind not just a feat choice but also working with potentially evil creatures which would be out of character for some familiar users (this mostly comes up in Core play, since there are options outside of Imp or Quasit for Standard). I think it's appropriate that the ability to activate wands be locked behind a feat selection. I do not think it's appropriate to also have an alignment/role-playing restriction as well.

I think the restrictions should be an improved familiar with a language and an appendage capable of holding a wand. I could also understand wanting to make it only those familiars available at level 7 or above, but I don't see a huge problem with Elementals using wands more so than Mephits.

Anyways, just my thoughts and since it's not in the heart of GenCon maybe it could get a bit of a rethink.

You could also choose dwarf rather than Half-Orc and use a Battleaxe or War-hammer two-handed when not casting touch spells. Most of the other ideas I concur with.

Indeed, glad it got worked out.

Is there a compelling reason to go Lame? Why not choose Tongues or something else? I pretty much only ever suggest Lame for Barbarians/Bloodragers.

My roommate is playing a very similar build (currently 2 BARB/3 CLERIC of Cayden Caillean) and is sitting at the same crossroads. 2 Barb is fairly nice for the Uncanny Dodge and he picked up the extra AoO rage power because he enlarges himself in combat. The compelling thing to me, especially in CORE, is you'll be able to be a very mobile combatant that can get around the field quickly to help your allies out. A number of condition removal spells in CORE are touch and CORE limits the options available in standard to handle those conditions on one's own. Because of this, I would recommend the second build. Eventually, you can run, teleport and fly around the field to either beat the tar out of something or help a pathfinder out.

Rage Power and Revelation scaling with the prestige class levels and a couple little bumps in terms of auto casts on raging. It's honestly mechanically pretty weak, but there is a lot of flavor in the class...or was when the APG first came out. Now you can do similar with other class builds.

Man, I really ought to pay attention to the tabs.

Amsheagar, if your friend can finish this session, I can finish the other two scenarios if you would be unable to. Of course, I'd rather the original plan go through, but any help you need, I'm happy to do whatever I can.

Elven branch spear instead? Gives you your finesse attack for your trips, which gives you +2, and all boosts to cmb are necessary to make maneuvers function correctly.

If you have access to it, book two of rotrl has this same storytelling device. When my group played through it, a good bit did get missed by us, but it was creepy as hell for sure.

The AP provides items for dealing with haunts. Increase their number if those are the only option available. But honestly, the only real way to deal with haunts is positive energy and channeling is the main way of dealing that (typically because haunts affect an area and the easiest way to do positive energy in an area is channeling).

I built my PFS rage prophet with a focus on barbarian. With an amount of once per rage powers (strength surge, elemental strike, etc) and Oracle levels that allowed him to self buff, he's been plenty effective all the way to 12 (invulnerable rager 6/Oracle of battle 3/rage prophet 3). Of course, is PFS so it's not terribly difficult to do with an OK team. Also, I built him before bloodragers were a thing, so in today's game, I'd likely just build a bloodrager. But he's still very viable, but fills in more of a secondary striker role than a main melee one.

I'll echo what everyone else here is saying, rapier/scimitar is superior for a swashbuckler because of better crit chance.

That being said, I made mine a falcata wielder because of the rondellero taldan fighting style and I'm a bigger fan of reinforcing the setting with character choices than being mechanically superior. And the 10% better chance of crits is balanced by the stronger hits for large static bonuses (because obviously, I'm power attacking).

Shadowdancer so you get a Shadow companion. Permanent flank buddy to trigger all the sneak attack dice and str damage will make the pcs wary of engaging it. Plus the paladin can heal it and it's likely that you'll also have a negative energy cleric in the party that can too.

There's a rage power for an extra one. Honestly, after playing a reach build with 16 dex to level 6 in PFS, I've only ran into a situation where I've used more than 2 aoos twice. I feel like 3+ aoos are likely to go to waste more times than not. I play with a barbarian/reach cleric that enlarges and uses the rage power for another aoo and he's only been tapped out on aoos once.

Day Jobs are performed by the Pathfinder. The only affect a Familiar would have on Day Job rolls is if it gave a bonus to the skill in question (ie Diplomacy, Appraise, etc).

To add to that, there's the fact that great wealth could be there, which can tempt anyone.

There's always the long lost family relic deep in the earth.

Pretty sure John is ok with having evil henchfolks for neutral pathfinders. Something about an otter or something...

Get the Shadow Companion ASAP. They are really strong.

I'm playing a Halfling Ranger into Shadowdancer. I'm going an even split, first 6 in Ranger, remaining in Shadowdancer. The concept is to build for Reach and Spring Attack to be a mobile striker. I'll post my planned build below. Obviously, you'll have some differences, and you'll get to take advantage of Enlarge Person to make your doughnut of death that much bigger.

1) Ranger - Combat Reflexes, Favored Enemy: Human
2) Ranger - Precise Shot*
3) Ranger - Dodge, Endurance*, Favored Terrain: Urban
4) Ranger - Hunter's Bond: Companions
5) Ranger - Mobility, Favored Enemy: Undead
6) Ranger - Improved Precise Shot*
7) Shadowdancer - Lunge
8) Shadowdancer
9) Shadowdancer - Spring Attack, Rogue Talent: Power Attack or Weapon Focus, Shadow Companion

I made some of my character decisions because of the CORE character challenge. If I were to redo it, I would probably build a bit different with the following.

Human Barbarian 2/Cleric 3 of Cyaden Caileen (Strength & Travel Domains)/Shadowdancer 3, then likely finish with Barbarian. I'd keep the Feats largely the same except pick up Power Attack at 1st. I'd use buff spells to up offensive power (Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, etc) and Mithral Breastplate. With that much movement and the ability to become large, you will have little trouble controlling the battlefield. You just need enough WIS to be able to cast spells (12+headband ought to be more than enough), CHA is an afterthought, because channeling is not horribly important to you.

In CORE PFS, the only options are Druids or Clerics with the Animal Domain for Owlbear access.

Also magic is weird, Extraordinary abilities perhaps less so...

If you go pure Ranger, you're going to want to choose your Favored Enemies wisely. Without Instant Enemy it's more important to choose wisely. I've got Human as my first one, and it is likely the best first choice. I'll likely choose Undead as my 5th level, while increasing Human to +4. If I had a third increase, I'd probably do either Evil Outsider or Construct, depending on if you decided to focus play on certain seasons, and likely make the 3rd choice my other +4.

And just to make sure it is addressed somewhere in this thread, Courageous was FAQ'd to provide the morale bonus increase only to saves vs. fear.

Problem with Cavs is that they don't get access to the full Druid list of potential Animal Companions/Mounts. Fruian addressed this with his own charging Halfling by being a Beast Master Ranger in order to open up the full list. This is great, because a Giant Gecko is the master of all charging mounts, save perhaps a Roc. The ability to use walls and ceilings as charge lanes makes charging extremely viable. He used gold from the first couple levels to purchase a mount out of Ultimate Equipment until he reached level 4 (costs 400 gp). This is honestly, one of the best ways to build a charge character. Having played my own Cavalier (gnome riding a boar) to 6th, it's incredibly difficult to get charges in a 2d space (even if you can get a lane, your allies are going to step into it, no matter how much cajoling you do).

Thornkeep is actually pretty good for mounted combat because the scale of the first level is 1 square = 10 ft. Make sure to point this out to your GM because it is often missed.

Now, if you decide to build a Gendarme, you're actually losing out on a very powerful ability in Tactician (I know you've already given it up, but it's still better than people understand). My Cav is a Gendarme and in hindsight, I would have preferred to just make him a fighter since giving up Tactician. Your truncated list of potential bonus feats make you trapped into forcing Mounted Combat to be useful while not actually giving you enough feats to make it work well. I would just stay APG Cavalier, which makes you a strong party buffer and gives your mount some purpose beyond just being your mount.

Or stick with Charging and become a Hunter with a Gecko.

I would say a 6 INT can count. Complex math, not so much, but at least be able to count to 100, most kids out of kindergarten in the States can do that. And this is a magical beast that hangs out with (presumably) a very intelligent, reality altering spell caster on a regular basis; and it has skill ranks equal to the character, so it knows many things. I know when I GM, I don't let familiars run rough shod over an adventure, but if you're willing to risk it, I'll let you gain the benefits of it. Familiars are expensive to replace anyways. There's an inherent cost to them, unlike animal companions.

I'm playing a Ranger in CORE. He's a reach build going to Shadowdancer PrC. The full BaB is useful and he's got plenty of skills. That being said, I don't think you get a lot out of a CORE Ranger. Ranger class is greatly improved by Archetypes IME. I would seriously just stay Druid, maybe dip Barbarian for a couple levels to up damage while Wild Shaped in combat. Magical Knack to regain caster levels, invest in CON to keep your HPs up and get you a few extra rounds of rage. But just a straight Druid means you get higher level spells online SAP, which is a game changer. Pretty much every 2 levels of non spell caster means one less spell level access.

The AC can pick up the feat Narrow Frame to negate much of the issues with being in dungeons built for medium sized folk.

Book 2 and 3 will see a big shift in challenge, and it only increases from there I'm led to believe. I wouldn't be so concerned about it. If they run over the first book, it'll only make them overconfident going to the next books.

I concur with apbrake. And there's the whole if you are actually paying for content the company can continue to exist and thus provide more content for the game you're enjoying. Compared to the price of a movie nowadays, PFS is a fairly inexpensive entertainment outlet.

Character just hit level 2. Hasn't been played at 2 at all. I ran through a module for his first level and wasn't happy with his initial build and just kind of scrapped him until I figured out what I wanted. I'm pretty sure if I was cheating greysector would have a few choice words for me. I've also got a wand on him. He's Elven, I'll be working on building him on the site this weekend as I get some time.

I think I'm going to rebuild as a Paladin. I can't seem to make a Core Monk I'm happy with and I haven't done a straight Paladin. So Paladin 2, leaning Elven.

I'd put the +2 to STR and here's why. That 18 makes you capable in melee without any further investment,and you invest in a +4 STR bow and nothing further (Instant Enemy will more than make up for further investments into STR for Damage). A single feat for Quickdraw and a 2 handed weapon and you can dish out strong damage even without further feat investment; strong enough to serve as the distraction from the full attacking Ninja. You can choose to invest more feats into your ranged combat. I would put 4th & 8th stat increases to DEX, 12th to CON (+12 HP is not terrible) then any further into DEX. Focus your stat belt in DEX; add CON if you have the money just lying around. Your first combat feat would be Precise Shot and then Improved Precise Shot at 6. With a melee character and a Druid (who might also be summoning), you are going to want to be able to ignore all that cover your allies are providing your enemies, which essentially is a +4 to hit vs the Ninja at the same level. While Claxon is right about the feat option, it's nowhere near as helpful in my experience than Improved Point Blank. If all you cared about was using a Bow, I'd say just be a Zen Archer and be done.

If I were building the character you mentioned wanting to play, I'd do this:

1st - Quickdraw
2nd - Precise Shot
3rd - Point Blank Shot
5th - Rapid Shot or Deadly Aim (depends on how often I'm seeing my favored enemies crop up; Rapid if they are common, Deadly Aim if they are not)
6th - Improved Precise Shot
7th - Rapid Shot or Deadly Aim (whichever 5th ends up being)
9th - Improved Critical: Bow
10th - Manyshot
11th - Clustered Shots

This would also be my first play by post game. I would be bringing a level 2 monk.

I'd be interested in a Core play through, because I've played the various bits on different characters in Standard. I would be bringing a level 2 character (likely Monk or Cleric, but he's still up in the air as I decide what I really want to play).

I find that ACs tend to be a little light on HP, so I typically get Toughness as their first feat. Next, if I wanted the Wolf to be good at Tripping, I'd take Weapon Focus: Bite. One thing I like to remind people is that right out of the gate, ACs can wear Leather Barding with no penalty, that's +2 to AC for relatively cheap. Then get Masterwork Studded Leather when they get their size increase. When animals only have one attack, I'm pretty tempted to get Improved Natural Attack when they qualify. Power Attack can be ok for ACs because they tend to have pretty nice STR scores, and it opens up things like Bull Rush and Drag. Finally, when ACs are large, I'll often invest in Narrow Frame, especially if there is an abundance of 5ft hallways.

Ask the GM to run Heresy of Man part 1 and try and explain how anyone stays in the society after that scenario.

At my FLGS we have two-three tables every week of Core and about 1-2 of normal campaign. The store also has a number of 3-5 star GMs and people who have been playing for several seasons. Core has largely been a way to replay, while also bringing in folks completely new to the game. It's a decent set up, and it's allowed me to play with my roommates through some of the low tier scenarios that I've already played. Like most things with PFS, locality has a big impact on the culture of the tables.

Evangelist Cleric would be my suggestion. Inspire Courage will help out the 3/4 BAB classes that are handling combat, full caster to help gain the appropriate spells as they are needed, access to most of the condition removal spells (people often forget this, but as you level, HP damage is just half of what you deal with), and a prepared caster for flexibility. It looks like you won't have to worry about buffing beyond the inspire, so I'd suggest a control caster build. You'd be a bit of Arm with Inspire and healing so you just need to focus on being the Anvil. The spontaneous casting of an Evangelist can help with this aspect, giving a few really solid control spells. And since you have two divine casters besides you, perhaps a variant channeling option to increase your control.

If concealment exists between two targets, typically both take the penalty. This is not the case if one party has a way around the concealment in question (ie light conditions vs darkvision, goz lenses vs fog, etc.).

All this being said, a group of people on the internet disagree with some of the ways your GM ruled given the information you provided. You know what that means in terms of your game? Not a damn thing. If you have a problem with the way the GM ran things, you have been armed with certain knowledge, you can ask them why things seemed to work the way they did. I would approach this as non-confrontational as possible and be clear that the reason for your questioning is based in trying to better understand your GM's rulings so that you can act within them and not bog down combats with uncertainty like asking can I do this, would such and such work, etc. Make the conversation as collaborative as possible and it ought to be productive. If your tone ends up being accusatory, you are going to shoot yourself in the foot and likely just be dismissed by the GM as a whiny player.

By the time you are fighting CR9 creatures, you are anticipated to have 3rd level spells, one of which is Fly. Each character investing in a couple scrolls/potions would serve your group well. You can also use Tanglefoot bags, but those usually aren't nearly as effective at that level.

Your GM seemed to have a specific way they wanted you to tackle the encounter and was going to force you to solve it that way. I don't necessarily agree with their rulings and would have been more flexible, but it's not my call. That's what the GM is there for, to make rulings like that. If you feel like they should've been a little more flexible, talk to them outside of game time. Ask why these outside the box ideas wouldn't function and get some ideas that would work.

Can't you run Risen from the Sands without pregens though?

There's also Undersized Mount, though I had forgotten about the bear being medium as an AC (grumbles something about it making no damn sense bu whatevs).

On the feat question; I wouldn't go through the whole of the cleave chain. The main reason is actually because of when you'll actually be getting the bear you ride. Animal companions are great early on, but around level 7 they start to lose their oomph. I would suggest you invest in mounted combat feats along with power attack. I know my cavalier in pfs is pretty feat starved, and I picked gendarme to get some extra bonus feats. I would also suggest looking at perhaps playing a hunter instead and just pick up heavy armor prof if it's that important. That way you get your bear from the get go and with pack flanking + outflank you'll be making up for the lack of full Bab.

Edit: (for some typos) Also, I should really read the whole thing before commenting. Yeah, I wouldn't bother with the cavalier levels, you're going to get much more out of just being a Hunter. There are a number of scaling level dependent things, and you get spells. I mean how awesome would it be to ride your bear on the freakin ceiling!!

Multiclassing a full caster is bad, a druid doubly so because there are so many abilities that scale by class level. That being said, your concept could stand a dip into ranger. It is by no means the best way to build, but a two level dip nets you a favored enemy, martial weapons, and a combat feat. If you're paying with traits, you can grab magical knack to cancel that in terms of caster level for duration and effect. I will strongly caution against this however because there are so many reasons not to delay your druid growth and the druid can be just fine as a melee combatant.

In my experience there is certainly a difficulty curve between the scenario ranges, especially the ranges where the op is concerned about how much he's buffing the party. By 7 or 8 most builds are fully online doing their shtick and doing it without help (again, this is my common experience, I'm sure for every time that is the case, two more posters can share their pfs horror stories; the few I've run into are far less likely than my experience... Of course I do avoid the horror players after an experience with them). 3-7s and 5-9s are typically not too tough for most of the parties I've been in. 7-11s are far more swingy and a bad group or a poor choice can really wreck some of those scenarios. I think that's the point that a strong buff character really shines without trivializing the content, when they shift the tide and can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

From my experience in the AP, being to gain a flanking bonus from an inanimate object would be highly useful. Flanking can be difficult on some of the maps.