Foofer's page

36 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


My friend just bought this PDF for me so that I could run a more interesting Skull & Shackles campaign, and though I'm quite pleased with the book (though it does take some tinkering to make it work for skull and shackles), there is one contradictory rule that is throwing me off.

Under Carrying Capacity the rules state that I should generally ignore the weight of the crew unless it exceeds a thousand people, but under recruitment it tells me that each working sailor requires 600 pounds of carrying capacity. I tried to build a mock-up sailing ship with the latter rules, but counting the weight of the eight hull and six rigging locations I used, my ship was well into it's medium load before I had enough crew for each section of the ship to perform it's basic functions.
So, I'm looking for a little clarification on what I should be counting towards my ships carrying capacity, and I'd be grateful to anyone who could help me out there.

Other than that, I'd just like to solicit opinions on how many guns people believe is reasonable per hull location. A Sailing-ship in standard pathfinder can hold ten large sized siege weapons per side and two or the front and back. Fire as she bears allows for considerably more than that provided one dedicates a whole hull section to cannons, but seeing as I'm not building a ship of the line I figure that most of those hull sections are made up of living, or cargo space. I was thinking about taking the amount of cannons that one deck (not full hull section) can hold, and halving it. That puts the cannon numbers more in line with Skull and shackles, but I worry that if I have too few the combat might take too long. Thoughts?

Alright, I'll get on converting my builds to text. What levels do you want to see them at? Originally I was going to post them at 1,5,10,15 and 20, but it got to be too much work and take up too much space. Also, do you want damage tables, full equipment?.. what do you want, what does a posted build require?

amorangias wrote:
If it was Tier 1, I'd share your worry. At Tier 5, it seems about right. A spellcaster who knows his job will simply fall back on spells that don't require saving throws, so this mostly shuts down already suboptimal tactics and various "cheap shots".

You could be right as there are plenty of decent spells that don't rely on saves. I'm not sure though, I still worry that this will significantly lower the options a DM has for encounters.

My own DM expressed her concern with the ability, which is why I brought it up. It's a Planescape game using pathfinder rules, and though she wants us to eventually obtain mythic tiers, she doesn't want us carving through swaths of angels and demons like they were goblins. As well she doesn't want to go and hand out mythic templates to everything we fight.. So I dunno.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mythic characters are supposed to perform on a different level from those who are not graced with such abilities, but even so I feel that the ability to automatically pass every save forced upon mythic character by a non-mythic source is too powerful an ability.
It turns every encounter from a non-mythic source that relies on spells or abilities into child's play, and I feel like it would put too much stress on the DM in designing encounters unless they were going to place a mythic tier upon everything you face.
There is also no such ability which grants mythic characters a near perfect defense against non-mythic characters in physical combat, so I don't understand why they would be so strong against magic.
I do feel like Mythic characters should be better at resisting spells, I just don't think they should be immune to such a great number of them. I don't yet have an idea for an alternative, but I'd welcome suggestions if anyone has some.

Being able to take mythic abilities other than Armor Mastery is not an advantage strength based characters have over dexterity based characters. It's just another choice, and another advantage that dexterity based characters have at their disposal.

You are forgetting the Armor Master mythic champion ability that plays a key role in furthering dexterity's mastery over strength. For, by mythic tier 3, long before any of the better mythic ability options unlock, you could be wearing full-plate with no maximum dexterity modifier.

As for the previous statement about skills, I would say that tumble checks, balance checks and stealth checks come in to play far more than climb or swim checks in the average D&D game, and are not so easily by-passed with things like a knotted rope, or first level spell to allow you to breath in water.

I have seen many of you make statements as to why the benefits of dexterity are not necessary, or valuable to a fighter (though I disagree with those statements); I have yet to see someone explain to me just how strength, which adds to your melee attack, melee damage and two skills, will be balanced with a dexterity that adds to your attack bonus, melee damage, armor class, reflex saves, initiative and 6 skills.
Show me how they are balanced, and don't simply say that dexterity requires the spendature of two regular and one mythic feat, because I doubt any strength based fighter would turn down the chance to add their strength to AC, Initiative, Reflex saves and ranged attack at the same feat cost.

Even if a rewording of the feat does makes it clear that it only works for finesse weapons -and- that you may not add 1.5x your dexterity to damage, it will still invalidate strength for all builds that aren't strictly two-handed weapon fighters. That said, the minor loss to damage won't balance out with the gains provided to your AC, Initiative, Reflex saves and Skills that dexterity provides.

There's no real comparison here, unless they change strength to do double stat damage, but that would simply imbalance the game further.
Then of course there is the issue that all the other strength based builds are no longer viable. Sword and board and strength based two weapon fighters are laughable when compared to their dexterity based counterpart. It'll also completely change class rolls, as rogues take up the mantle of greatest overall damage dealers and AC tanks with their ability to sword and board and two weapon fight as effectively as any strength based fullplate wearing fighter with the added bonus of sneak attacks.

The feat, Mythic weapon finesse, shuffles everything around when it comes to melee combat. The division between what dexterity can do and what Strength can do is important. It's what creates the balance between AC and damage, ranged and melee, defense and offense, risk and reward. I don't believe for a second that adding this feat adds more options for people, if anything it will simply limit what viable options people use. Right now there's a lot of creative builds that use both strength and dexterity, after this, because you won't have to way merits of both stats, you'll limit how people choose to build their characters.

... Also, people keep saying that dexterity based characters need this feat because it would allow for a greater variety of viable builds. The defense you give is that fighters with two handed weapons will still be able to add 1.5 times to their damage, thus allowing them to do slightly more damage than a dex based alternative. If you take a moment to think about that, you're saying that people who focus on strength should have a single viable build so that dex based characters can have a variety of build options.

I dropped blind fight, improved blind fight and toughness. The mythic feat I dropped was mythic toughness. I only had two barbarian levels; and the way mythic weapon finesse is stated you could 1.5 times dex because it says you use dex in place of strength for all melee attacks.
Regardless, either way, dex does not need a buff. There are plenty of effective, or even over powered dex based builds. Adding this feat simply tips the balance of all melee fighters in favor of dex.
Sure, they could add other strength based feats to balance it out, but then it's just a pointless arms race when it makes more sense to simply remove the feat.

So I started taking some old builds I have and started converting them to dex builds with the inclusion of Mythic weapon finesse; what I found was thus. With my two-handed fighter/barbarian, I switched out 3 of his feats for Weapon finesse, Exotic weapon proficiency (elven curve blade) and agile maneuvers. I also made the dex based version an urban barbarian so he could rage for a bonus to his dex. I found that level for level both characters did the same damage, had the same attack bonus and had the same CMB. The only difference was in their AC, reflex save, initiative and movement speed, of which the dex based version started dwarfing the Str based by about level 5. At level 20, providing one +5 book and one +6 belt and 4 tiers of mythic, the primary difference between the two was that the dex based character had 13 higher AC, 13 higher initiative, and had 13 higher reflex save.
I did the same thing with a sword and board fighter with similar results. Fact is, I haven't been able to think of a strength based build I couldn't replicate as a dex based character with this new feat, and they always perform equally in offense and are far superior in defense.
If anyone can propose a strength based build that can provide something substantial that its dex counter part cant, I'm all ears, but so far all my tests have just proven my theory that the feat invalidates strength.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really can't understand where you people (those defending the feat) are coming from. It's not balanced, clearly. Not one of you have brought up any points to the contrary. You're just calling me a whiner. It's not like it effects me as a player, it just allows me to build that much more powerful a character, and it's not like it would adversely effect me as a DM, because I could just ban the feat. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's unbalance. Are there other things that are unbalanced? of course. That doesn't mean this isn't.
Now do me a solid, and if you're going to reply, do so in a constructive way. I'm willing to have my mind changed if you make some legitimate points on the subject matter.

Dervish dance is balanced because you can't two hand it, and you can't use anything in your off hand. With this new feat you could two hand an elven curve blade, do as much damage as a greatsword, and with a few lose points into strength still power attack and greater power attack.
Also, the excuse that you could spring mythic levels upon your party at high levels so that their builds won't be able to rely on it doesn't negate the fact that mythic weapon finesse still invalidates strength. It is in no way ever balanced to have a feat or feat train that allows all the major benefits of another stat. I mean, if they added a feat train that lets you add your Strength to AC and reflex saves instead of dex, how stupid would that be?
Also, carrying capacity, really? In a world of muleback cords and bags of holding, that is never an issue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mythic weapon finesse allows a player to use dexterity instead of strength for all melee attack and damage roles with finesse weapons. Essentially, it invalidates strength.
I can't imagine that any melee based character in a mythic campaign would focus on strength over dexterity when it's as easy as a couple feats to gain all the damage benefits of strength with the defensive and skill benefits of dexterity. Combined with the mythic champion abilities that remove the dexterity caps on armor, and strength is even less attractive. Personally I have always felt that there is a good balance between the benefits of strength and dexterity, and the idea of a feat that so drastically tips the scales in favor one over the other just seems.. not well thought out.

Okay, let me start by saying this whole situation is kind of awesome. I love the idea of a party going psychotically paranoid and turning on one of it's own.

Secondly, let me say that NONE of this is your fault. Your party had no real reason to take such drastic actions against you, and paladin more than anyone should know better than to beat and torture anyone, let alone someone who isn't evil. (Yes, constantly beating someone unconscious, even just to keep them from moving, IS A FORM OF TORTURE.) If the DM really wanted people to stay together as a party, it would have been as easy as, like Anetra said, having his god give the paladin a subtle nudge away from such actions.

That said, as far as things have gone, as the DM I would have punished the rest of the party. Mind you I still would have given them hints that this was a bad course of action, but if their paranoia got the best of them, I would have had great fun letting it blow up in their face.

Letting them torture you, get the information, and the scroll, only to have the Paladin fall, and the templar attack, ideally killing the gunslinger and making off with the scroll. The Paladin would have egg on his face, and require an atonement, and the gunslinger would have caused the very thing she was trying to prevent. It would have been such poetic justice.

Oh well, as it is it's still a pretty cool situation. Don't feel bad about it, none of it's your fault. Try not to think these events as a bad thing; instead, think of all the new interesting roleplay possibilities that can arise from it.

I don't want to bring this to the table, I never want anyone to ever bring this to the table; that's why I'm bringing it up.
Anyway, I didn't do the calculations myself, I think my friend was factoring in improved and greater multi-weapon fighting when he came up with 152 attacks, thought I'm not sure if those feats are actually in pathfinder.

You're not thinking about multi-weapon fighting. That's the feat you take, and there's no limit the number of off hand attacks you can have with it. So if I have 38 arms I have at least 38 attacks as long as I'm holding weapons. Also, speed totally stacks. It's been that way since 3.5, and I don't see anywhere that Paizo has changed it.
I could be wrong, but they'd need to clarify the wording.

Speed weapons do actually stack with each other, they just don't stack with haste. That's the advantage of them, that's why they are a +3 bonus. Only useful for things that fight with at least two weapons mind you, but quite useful for them.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

My friend was looking over the summer recently and discovered what I hope is a problem that has already been corrected. Though your eidolon has a maximum of 7 "natural" attacks, it seems there is no limit to the attacks they can make with weapons.
If you pair this with the fact that the "limbs" evolution only costs 2 points and allows you to grow a set of arms capable of wielding weapons, it's easy to see how ones eidolon could eventually stack up an insane number of attacks. (calculated the maximum as 152 attacks with speed weapons, not that any party could ever afford 38 speed weapons).
You mix all that with hammer the gap, and you've got a monster that's capable of killing just about anything in one round.
So, I'm curious if there is a maximum number of limbs you can use to attack with weapons, or if I can just go ahead and build myself a Hecatoncheires.

When it comes to the armor, can't you just take a single feat and be done with it? It's not that big a draw-back.

If you take one or two levels of Barbarian you can gain the movement speed and with armor training use it in conjunction with full plate. If you want to be a battlefield control character, a fighter with one level of Barbarian should easily be able to out do a straight Barbarian.
I envisioned a fighter with two barbarian levels, dodge, mobility, spring attack, lunge, step up, combat reflexes, stand still, unexpected strike as your rage power, extra rage so you can go a little longer and.. and you are in a way better situation than a barbarian of the same level.
That's my problem with Barbarian. It seems like the new shadow dancer to me. Take a couple levels for the speed and maybe one useful rage power and then get out.

Edit: I just found out that you can't tumble through attacks of opportunity if you're wearing any armor that hampers your movement. So unless you're wearing light armor your screwed as a Barbarian, but fighters can do it in full plate. Jesus.. just more nails in the coffin of the once useful class.

So I'm currently playing in a game and have a 8th level Barbarian. With the release of the official game I find my Barbarian significantly changed, and I am unable to do any of the things I was planning to with it. My DM isn't allowing me to re-level my character with any other class levels so I'm stuck with the bastard at least until he gets killed off, so...
I'm trying to make the best out of a horrible situation, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out a decent build for him.
What I'd like to do is build him in a way that is unique from a fighter, something that ideally only a Barbarian can do, but I can't actually think of anything that a fighter couldn't do better. The reason I'm specificly asking about a build that wouldn't be more effective as a fighter, is because if I'm forced into that it would just make me bitter as hell that I can't re-level my character, so.. something unique, so I at least don't feel like I've wasted all my levels.

21 Str
16 Dex
16 Con
13 Int
10 Wis
10 Cha

Anything you can think of with those stats.. to make him unique. (stats include bonuses from leveling up to 8)

When comparing a Fighter to a Barbarian you have to assume the fighter will take Weapon Focus, Improved Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Improved Weapon Specialization. With these bonus' by level 5 they are doing the same damage and have the same bonus to attack. (provided the barbarian doesn't take weapon focus, but for a fighter with 11 free feats why not, for a barbarian it's a harder choice)After level 9 the fighters will always do more damage and hit better than a barbarian provided they take the feats.
The fact that fighters move at full speed in armor negates the Barbarian speed bonus unless, the Barbarian wears light armor, which results in a much higher AC for fighters on average.
Fighters are more versatile because feats make your character more versatile than the any of the rage abilities do, and last the entire combat. Also, fighter feats like penetrating strike will have fighters dealing more damage against all creatures with damage reduction.
Now there are a couple of immunities that are good for a Barbarian, but even if you have a DM that won't just avoid using those abilities on your character if he knows you have the immunities, it's not like they will come up every session, and fighters can easily pick some extra saving throw feats that barbarians will have to take a hit in order to acquire.

Best combination I can think of is a couple levels in Barbarian for extra movement (that you'll be able to use in armor as a fighter) and maybe pick up extra rage, then go all Fighter. Unless your playing a 20+ level game, then the end game fighter abilities dominate.

It's not the fighters abilities that make them that much better than the Barbarian. I'd say the Barbarians base abilities are now balanced with the fighters base abilities. They each have their niches, that's alright. It's the Fighters bonus feats, and exclusive feats that make it so much better. Barbarian rage powers.. are a joke.
In the beta they worked great, the power needed to be toned down a little, but the point system, and general effectiveness vs cost was a good one. But they didn't just tone the powers down, they made them all but useless. I'd trade them for bonus feats any day.

Fighters are still pretty damn good with their fighter specific feats, and flat bonus' to hit and damage. It's Barbarians that got truly screwed. They now do less damage, hit their targets less often, take more damage and are less versatile than fighters, and paladins. That's while they're raging.
They also took out the two handed weapon feats and didn't replace them.

I'm curious as to what people think of the final version of the Barbarian, compared to the beta version and other final version melee classes?

Eric Tillemans wrote:
Foofer wrote:
I know about the preview. I'm wondering which powers are which.
Uh, there's 27 powers and I'm way too lazy to list how they all work.

Hehe. That's plenty fair. I'll wait til Thursday.

I know about the preview. I'm wondering which powers are which.

The Barbarian Rage powers. Are they once per day, or rage, or constant?. Or do they take Rage points?

I just found out about it, and I'm a little bit freaking out. I'm playing a Barbarian right now, that completely carries my party. Everything seems like it's going to be different after this. It's just a big shock. Barbarian was always my favorite class, and I was in love with the Pathfinder barbarian. Now it's like sleeping with a woman for 3 months, then looking over at her and she's someone completely different.
So yeah.. over posted a little bit, sorry.

I dunno. The only constant powers I see there are defensive. Barbarians as a class are aggressive, that's why they get bonus' in light or medium armor and negatives to AC. I don't want to spend all my rage powers making them half at good at taking damage as a fighter in full plate, while dealing less damage and hitting less often.

Are you kidding?.. You can't compare basic rage to the new fighter abilities. If you take into account Weapon Training, they get roughly the same attack and damage boost, more if they're using two weapon fighting, or ranged weapons as their primary. Armor Training is generally a far superior to the Con bonus gained by Rage, and it doesn't run out. Then you throw in bonus feats, and more importantly the fighter only feats and the fighter is now better at dealing and taking damage, all day long, with no side-effects.. you can't calm away a bonus to attack and AC, you don't take negative AC either.

So far all I've seen that's once per round is the knock-back power, and c'mon. Once per rage at level 17 they can add +5 damage to a single attack. That's a rage power. That's pathetic.. compared to smite, or fighter weapon feats. That's pathetic... If that's any indication of what's coming for the other rage powers, the barbarians will be right crippled compared to other melee classes. At least in terms of their new abilities... as damage dealers.

I personally am mortified that they removed Rage Points. I thought it was the best thing that all of pathfinder introduced. It turned a basic combat class into something that was a whole lot funner to play, and build.
Now, while they do still have rage powers, they seem to be a heck of a lot weaker, and only one use per day.
Rage powers were fun, choosing when to spend your points was fun. I mean you could rip through something if you spent all your points, but you were screwed for a later encounter. That was a good mechanic.. but now the abilities seem so pathetic and short lasting that what's the point?

I play a Barbarian, and I love rage points. They work well, add a lot of variety and strategy to an otherwise simple class.
Now for the idea of them being thematically inappropriate, well..
It seems odd to me to point out thematic problems with game mechanics when you're rolling dice to determine if you hit your target or not.
Rage points are just a game mechanic, and they work well. If they someone don't seem Barbarian enough, you could always call them endurance sweat-drops or something. I mean, they don't really make any less sense then uses per day.

They've added quite a few neat new feats for shield users, and two weapon fighters. Personally I like the the idea of there being feats targeted at Two-handed weapon users. There hasn't been many before, and it adds more variety between the fighting styles.

An example of a 20th level character isn't always the best way to show the potential of a feat, but I just wanted to point out the build and damage potential of my character with this feat at level 20. Obviously it's not quite so high at lower levels, but with this formula devastating blow does become the more potentially damaging ability that I can conceive.

My human Barbarian started with a strength of 20 and by reaching level 20 his strength will be raised to 24. With Mighty rage that becomes 32 and with an average belt of strength, say +4 that becomes 36.

Now with a scythe I'll have a bonus of 19 damage per hit and 76 on a critical. Add the average damage of the scythe on a critical and I'll have 18 more from weapon damage, and if the item is +3 another 12 on top of that. Now I'm looking at 106 damage.

Now here's where it gets crazy. With a strength of 36 I can pump 13 points into power attack. With a two handed weapon that's 26 extra damage regular, and 104 extra damage on this automatic critical. As a barbarian it's pretty easy to counter the negative to my attack bonus, especially as I only need to worry about one attack, buy using my surprise accuracy ability. Adding my class level to my attack roll.

So that leaves me doing 210 damage every around, I have +7 to my Attack bonus and it only costs me 10 rage points. Sure I can't go on forever doing this, but I can probably go on long enough to kill anything with enough hp to even warrant the strategy. This is also a strategy that's easy enough to incorporate at lower levels without losing too much except bonus' to your AB and A wee bit of damage.

Well there you have it. Now I personally admit I like this feat, I even like this strategy, but I also have to admit it's just a little bit over-powered. I think limiting it to x2 damage makes the most sense, balance wise. Though until that happens, my character will just have to run around with a bunch of disposable scythes on his back in case he faces something with a lot of hp.