Search Posts
As many have have already stated, the lack of a rule does not an opposing rule make. The rules don't state that my sorcerer can't make any creature he wants die by looking at it funny as a free action, but I still doubt my GM would allow it.
The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like.In my opinion, Backswing falls within the "and the like", or even the specific the "Strength bonus to damage". As such, RAW is against it. Good catch. I'm not very familiar with Titan Mauler, and assumed it worked like wielding a lance one-handed while mounted.
Synthesist Summoner 1/Vivisectionist Alchemist 1/Barbarian 1 Biped eidolon; ability increase (str) and improved damage (claws) as evolutions, with improved natural attack as eidolon feat. Add power attack, and assuming a raging, mutagened full attack, you get two claws at 1d8 + 10 (+1d6 if a sneak attack) This is off the top of my head, and I'm sure it can be improved.
I'm getting the impression that this is just a way to convince people that sneak attack was better. I must say I prefer option 2. I would be perfectly happy waiting for quick study, as long as I can keep beating on the same enemy. That being said, I implore you to give serious consideration to the idea of utilizing studied combat to apply debilitating conditions. I'm sure you can gather from this thread how much this concept excites the community, while staying true to my impression of the investigator's role, both mechanically and in flavor. Lastly, I'd like to echo the question of why cognatogen is not an available alchemist discovery. Was this intentional, or merely an oversight? Thanks in advance for considering my input.
You are correct in terms of how spirited charge works. It multiplies damage, not just weapon damage. However, your power attack calculation seems to be off. I know that your lance allows you to use double your str mod on damage, but that doesn't mean it doubles power attack damage (this may be the case, but that was not mentioned). Additionally, if you are a lvl 11 fighter, you base power attack should be -3/+6.
I've wanted to try out a whip-based Fighter (Lore Warden) / Magus (Kensai) for a while. Use a whirlwind attack to trip all enemies within 15', greater trip and improved whip mastery to then hit all within 10' that fell (with combat reflexes and superior reflexes you should have plenty of AoOs to spare) and still get a Spellstrike with 15' range on top of it. Also, Dex and Int are basically all you need.
They may add their Constitution modifier as a bonus to Reflex, and Will saves if it is higher. I would suggest changing the wording of Lord of Battle. I'm under the impression that you may use Con in place of Dex or Wis, but I could easily see it being interpreted as being in addition. Either way it could use some clarification.
As stated in my own thread here, I am in need of help with archetypes for Bards, Inquisitors, and Paladins that remove spells, in the same vein as the Ranger's Skirmisher archetype. Are you up to it?
Especially considering the optional rule that allows someone with Weapon Focus to choose your result out of two effects (three with Greater). I have used this optional rule, and it works wonderfully in both the crit deck and the fumble deck.
I've been focusing mostly on Bards so far, and feel that the best route is to pump Bardic Performance. Ideas I have started to play with include more versatility, more rounds, and Performance Meta-Effects, a la Cheapy. Thoughts?
I have to agree with Cheapy. While most of the basic principles behind alchemy weren't based on the modern scientific method, modern chemistry developed directly out of alchemy. Incidentally, being that science is simply knowledge of the physical world developed through observation, no recorded human history predates science.
@LazarX: I realize that the Trapper Archetype replaces spells, however, I will be using Maxximilius's version of the Trapper Archetype, as I would like to allow the two to overlap. Also, Alchemists represent scientific advancement in this campaign setting, not magic. @Thorkull: The Alchemists take care of healing. Also, potions will be much cheaper.
I'm developing a campaign setting in which the only spellcasters are Sorcerers, with only one of each bloodline in existence at any time. The Sorcerers of the world have established a tyrannical ruler-ship over the populace, and will be the primary villains of the campaign. As such, all spellcasting classes will be off-limits to PCs. However, I would like to still allow Bards, Inquisitors, Paladins, and Rangers. All Rangers will have the Skirmisher archetype, so as to allow them without spellcasting. I would like help in developing similar archetypes for Bards, Inquisitors, and Paladins, so that the classes are still viable, albeit lacking spellcasting capabilities. Developing class archetypes is not my strong suit, so any thoughts/suggestions, no matter how bizarre, are welcome. Note: Alchemists are not considered spellcasters for this purpose and will be completely allowed.
In addition to something similar to what Dosgamer presented, I would suggest including encounters that allowed you to deal with large groups of mooks without taking them head-on. Examples include capturing a significant post, such as a high ridge providing nice cover, or creating an artificial bottleneck. They could station their own troops in such locations to deal with the bulk of the opposing army in the background of the game, while the PCs dealt with the commanding officers. You could also send them to destroy provisions, cut off a supply line, sabotage siege weapons, etc.
It depends quite a bit on the system of government, the current political situation, and the most popular philosophies among the society. For instance, bards, paladins, and even cavaliers would work well for the stereotypical medieval fantasy setting. Wizards would work well, particularly in some sort of counsel in any society primarily focused on cleverness. Clerics are the obvious choice for a theocracy whereas barbarians or druids would easily fit into a more tribal society. It all boils down to the specifics.
Oath-breaker is interesting. You give up the ability to cast most of your spells to blast consistently, albeit not very fantastically, and gain an extra hex, as well as gaining Major/Grand hexes two levels earlier. This means you can pick up 2 more grand hexes. Whereas normally you could have a maximum of three, you can take 5 by 20. The blasting isn't fantastic in a strict, damage dealing sense, but Cursed Blast is pretty wonderful, especially with the increased hex versatility.
The answer to both questions is one and the same. There are two weapon enhancements called "Dueling". The one you are familiar with, from APG, and one from Pathfinder Society Field Guide.
Fury's Fall should help.
All I can think of is to present the players with a real puzzle box and have them try to solve it, but that could be very frustrating if the players are not inclined to that sort of thing. If that's the case, or if you don't want to go through the trouble of acquiring a puzzle box, I would just stick with skill checks, mostly Disable Device and Knowledge (Engineering).
I'd say you're both right. They belong in the same class as keyboards, but keyboards should be Sleight of Hand and Disable Device, anyways. Also, I like the idea of more skills to be replaced with performance. As it stands, you can cover all of the bases with four performance types (act, dance, oratory, & percussion), and the fifth instance of Versatile Performance becomes pointless. That is purely from an optimization standpoint, of course.
"We have more to worry about than the militaristic side of the Church. There are 100 archbishops, 1000 bishops, and even more simple priests. Their agents could be anywhere and everywhere. This will be a war of information, as well as might." Asriel moves to stand by Fafhrd, inspecting the clockwork soldier. "I would be delighted to share my knowledge on the matter with you."
I could always add it in after they get used to things some. They pick up on things quick, so perhaps after a few sessions I'll expand the actions they can do to include combat maneuvers. I did the same thing when running a campaign for my younger brother and his friends, all around 10 at the time. Every few sessions, I would introduce new options to them, and then in the next session, I would start having the enemies slowly begin to use the options as well. It worked wonderfully, and they quickly grasped how these mechanics could be used without being overwhelmed. By the time we finished playing, we were using the full rules. Also, I would suggest talking to whichever kids would like to play casters, and figure out what they want to do with their magic (attacks, protection, etc) and help guide them through spell selection.
I am fleshing out my homebrew campaign setting and decided to allow my previously NPC exclusive races as playable. This is the current iteration, and I was looking for advice regarding the balance compared to core races, regarding the Artiari and Natlari especially, as they have unique features that I have difficulty determining the power level for.
|
