I'm going to be playing in a PF game, and thought I'd run an eldritch knight. I'm thinking of running with the following: Ex-monk1/barbarian1/sorceror4/DD4/EK10. This will let me use wisdom as my casting stat, along with adding wis to ac. Alternately, I could replace the monk and barb levels with 2 levels of paladin for cha to saves. The game starts at 3rd level, and I rolled the following stats: 18, 15, 15, 14, 12, 9.
The game will be core classes only, but a feat or two from other sources may be allowed.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Does anyone else think this spell is useless? In AD&D, it would kill anyone with 60 hp or less, which would kill most magic users and your average thief, but at the level you get the spell, most other classes would be unaffected unless wounded to some degree. With the inflation of hit points over the editions, power word won't kill anyone of similar level to the caster unless he's substantially wounded. A 15th level wizard will have, on average 52.5 hit points before con bonuses. And let's face it, any 15th level wizard is going to get an item with a con bonus, due to his fragile hp. so let's say he starts with a 14 and gets a +6 from an item. So, 75 hp from con at 15th level. 127.5 hp on average. PWK will do squat, but one lightning bolt later, it could work. Any d8 or higher class is going to have to take quite a bit of damage before pwk is usable. That's before favored class bonuses, too.
So, I'm thinking of upping the damage to 150. Am I crazy? Think that's too harsh? Some of the higher level beasties have well over 300 health, so they are effectively immune until at half health even with this modification.
Thanks in advance.
So, I have a player going for dragon disciple and I have a couple questions.
1: Does the barbarian rage power animal fury stack with the dds claw/bite routine? I.E., can a dd take TWO bite attacks, albeit the 2nd one at a -5 penalty in combination with the normal claw/claw/bite routine?
Animal Fury (Ex): While raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is
2: If (1) is correct, can he use a weapon in conjunction with his bite attack(s)? Say bab +11 - Greataxe +9, +4, -1, Bite +9, +4? (for the purpose of this thought experiment, no other bonuses such as strength, magic, etc are factored in).
That's a lot of attacks for such a low base attack.
Any clarification is greatly appreciated, thanks.
I really like rhe eldritch knight class, but I'd like the option of a more martial fighter/mage. As it stands, the ek seems to be a mage/fighter. I'm thinking of changing the 3rd level spells requirement to 1st level spells and 5 ranks of knowledge arcana. That way, a fighter 4/wizard 5 could enter it, or a fighter 1/wizard 5 as it stands now. At 20, you could be a fighter 9/wizard 1/EK 10. Anyone think that would be unbalancing?
This ability is entirely too powerful. Please remove it from the core rules, or make it an optional rule. I mean, there's absolutely no need for healing spells, when a cleric can heal the entire party with one use of turn undead. 4d6 healing to the entire party at level 7 when cure serious is a 4th level spell gained at level 7 for 4d8+7 to ONE person? Not to mention the effect on the game world. 600 soldiers wounded, possibly dying from a battle, just cram 'em in one room and let a cleric walk by and poof they're back on the front lines.
I mentioned this in the other thread, but rather than clutter it up, I thought I'd make a new thread.
Some of us would rather our rangers be gruff, tough wilderness warriors, not tumbling nimble rogues. That type of a ranger shouldn't have evasion, replace it with the mettle ability that the Templar has. Or better yet, offer a choice of evasion or mettle paths. That should satisfy everyone.
Coming back from the dead should have more consequences. Negative levels from raise dead and resurrection should be permanent. And someone resurrected should not be able to jump right back into the fray (one minute casting time, not withstanding.) There has to be some cost for dying, though 2 levels from raise dead is a bit much, reduce it to one and make it permanent.
A first level cleric with the air domain can use a touch attack at will o do 1d6 points of damage and it scales with level. Why would he ever choose to melee anything? A typical cleric might have a 16 strength, so his mace would do 1d8+3 and the attack roll will be harder to make.
Once per day per 3 levels would be much better.
I like the idea of 4 classes. Fighter/Cleric/thief/mage.
Just convert the other classes abilities into skills and feat chains, so a fighter can become a ranger/paladin by selecting the right skills and feats. A thief can become a bard the same way. A cleric can choose druidic feats skills, spells, etc.
Why does every edition increase hit points? Hit points are fine as is, please do not increase them. Allowing the options in the alpha booklet will be fine. As long as they are options and not the default. I like the way those are laid out. Let each individual DM choose between whichever option he likes and since they are in the core book, players will have no reason to b+*!@. If I have to houserule the "standard" method, players will whine. If I can point to an option in the book, people will tend to go with the flow.
I can say we are using hit point method one, exp chart 2, feat progression 3, for example.