Kittenological's page

20k is A LOT of soldiers. Even if only 10% of them can actually target the PCs and only 5% of them roll natural 20 to hit, that's still 100 damage dice per round. You'll want some sort of Wind Wall et cetara to block incoming damage and any bit of DR goes a long way.

I'd say a more reasonable number would be in the 150-200ish well trained soldiers, moving in small groups to avoid the bulk of AoE damage (they are, under experienced command).

The actual number of soldiers notwithstanding though, I think battlefield control spells should come in much more handy than direct-damage ones because once you can isolate a pocket of safety within which you can recuperate/regroup every now and then, it's going to make fighting a lot easier. It's still going to be tedious however = =

Remember, at no point in history (except for the stone ages) did soldiers actually clash head-on into its enemies. Combats were fought in a series of skirmishes involving long-range weapons (slings, javelins and bow/crossbows) and melee combats were extremely coordinated between two armies.

A combat-oriented PrC that advances/enhanced Wild Shape!

Even if SLAs count as casting spell, it's still a 3rd level spell, not 1st. So it shouldn't work.

That is an excellent RAW point.

The Barbarian didn't kill without qualms. He met people who were willing to kill/imprison him in combat. Had he killed them without reason sure he'd be evil, but that's not the case here.

Again, it is unlawful in society for a criminal to kill the cops to avoid being arrested. Evil though? I can't imagine so. They are simply opposing forces at that point. Otherwise every revolutionary ever would have to be evil and that just is not the case. That doesn't make it good to do so of course, mind you, just neutral.

Outlaws killing law enforcement and other people who are after them sounds more like a Chaotic act (defy authority) than purely evil.

Ned Kelly is a historical figure in Australia whose greatest crime amounts up to killing a couple of police officers who were in pursuit. He was a folk hero back then and he still is somewhat of a Robin Hood figure.

Why are so many people suggested Zen archer when it has been very expressly stated that a melee weapon, the quarter staff, is what is going to be used?

Because I'm not a smart man D:

qinggong

Zen Archer. Simple, easy for a newbie, wisdom is the stat you need. You have up front guy so archer would work.

Monks are difficult to play and master, are very rewarding but if you don't know what you are doing it all goes bad quickly and they can be very weak without feats and stats reinforcing your character. Zen Archer is simple easy straitforward and powerful.

Yeah. Powergaming-wise, Monks are difficult to build and play effectively. However, in an average group of adventurers that aren't expected to handle everything that come their way, monks offer the crucial element of being prepared for more situations than, say, a fighter would be.

For a beginner who should be exploring the different options playing a TRPG brings (as opposed to computer-based ones), I think monks make a great choice that comes without the hassle of keeping track of a spell list.

I second rorek55 in recommending Zen Archer. One of the most competent builds in the game, can hold his own well and therefore fun for the beginner to tinker around with.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

If by balanced you mean 'generally garbage' I would agree. How often do you see PF players actually TAKE a prestige class?

In my opinion, balanced prestige classes would be something people, be they casuals or optimizers, would take about as often as they did not. As it currently stands there are nearly zero prestige classes that give back as much as you give up.

I wish I could favorite this twice.

Don't worry bro I got your back. I wish Paizo would use more PrCs to diversify class NOT more archetypes. I mean, archetypes are neat but PrCs feel more of a defining choice and feels somehow more satisfying. Having that *turning point* in a character's career is such a great feeling.

Edit: back on topic though, I find Synthesist Summoner to be the borkidy-broken class in pf, with other casters following in tow. Martial characters... let's not talk about them unless we're using the Book of Nine Swords or something. The book that made martial less sucky.

Wow... I harshly disagree here. I say, you have the option of playing an idiot or a fool or a character lacking social skills, but to say "you must role-play this way" is the complete opposite of how a roleplaying game should function. Besides, it makes some sense that an INT 7 character could still solve puzzles, as I know some guys who are really smart guys, but they can't solve a crossword puzzle to save their lives, and some guys who... well... are the opposite. Now, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, but I'm not saying Intellegence doesn't play a part, but I'm saying that you don't have to play a supergenius to solve puzzles in a game.

I get where you're coming from and it's kind of like describing an idiot savant, right? But I think those exceptional cases are, indeed, exceptional and should be represented not by sheer role playing, but backed up with high ranks in a relevant skill.

So for our fighter with 7 Int to be a tactical genius, we'd have to expect him to have a really high rank in Profession: Soldier.

Fat chance.

Littlefinger strikes me as NE especially on the tv series.

idk, anyone who plays the Game of Thrones strike me as Lawful, since without the 'law' (the Game), they would be without purpose.

But then again, given the strong LE example that Tywin is, I suppose Littlefinger could be interpreted as NE.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

ZanThrax wrote:

SLAs count as spells for prerequisite purposes, so any race with a second level divine spell as an SLA qualifies. A few domains and inquisitions also grant SLAs that meet the requirements.

Would you please site the rule that says a Spell-like ability counts as a spell for the purpose of qualifying for a prestige class?

I am not familiar with the rule, and I am interested in taking advantage of it.

But I will surely be challenged at the table if I try to do this, and I would love to be able to quote chapter and verse, both in the Core Rulebook and in d20pfsrd.com.

This FAQ right here. Also the one right after it says how to tell whether it's arcane or divine.

Oh wow that is pretty cool, I guess. I wonder what other combinations are possible.

the Dude, the Big Lebowski strikes me as CN.

Aaah this is beautiful. I'd certainly be a Druid (my favourite class), probably a dwarf too. I don't have any specific builds in mind but I might update this once I do.

Damn and I was enjoying my Dazing Stone Spike too :(

Stop playing an alignment.

Start playing a character.

Hear hear.

Chaotic Neutral is like the Dude from the Big Lebowski. All he wanted was a rug :(

yeah here's hoping Mystic Theurge would get its well-deserved 14th level progression. Being always 1-2 levels behind in spells is A LOT to pay for when you don't even have the action economy to cast all the spells anyways.

Let me try to go back on topic:

Wizards can be better than sorcerers because they have the option to keep a spell slot open and use it to cast a highly circumstantial yet useful spell like control weather.

Sorcerer can do the same by buying a scroll (which the wizard had to do in the first place anyways).

What it all boils down to is whether you want to play a character that is always prepared (Wizard) or one that, despite being not as prepared, is ready to beat the living S#it out of things to get his way (sorcerer).

Or both (arcanist) yay

we need more plant forms for druids :(

Why do I feel like I'm the only one who keeps usable scrolls of really circumstantial spells rather than spending the time and resources to scribe it onto the spellbook?

I mean, who the heck prepares a Control Weather? I'd much rather have a scroll of one than have one sitting in my spellbook doing absolutely nothing. Well, other than feeling like I've made a huge collection of trading cards... I mean spells.

So in my experience, I found I spend just as much on scrolls whether I be a sorcerer, a wizard or even a druid. Well, especially as a divine caster because you can't keep a spell slot open and prepare it on the fly. And that, these scrolls really add up to making any character highly versatile much more so than its paper stats would indicate.

Morally ambiguous doesn't really cover it. Different cultures have different standards of what is right and wrong; applying our current perspective on such issues just confuses it even more.

God agreed that David pulled a dick move iirc, so the current example here doesn't really work with what I was just saying, but whatever.

Totally agree. Unless one was playing in a campaign world where every baby counted (and it was a HUGE part of the campaign), it probably won't fly.

Anyways my point is that people do bad things where they don't mean to. That doesn't make them any worse than what they are when they're having a good day. Being good, GOOD good, means you always work to be good, feeling always inadequate.

If you just have a quota of good deeds to do and tick off of a list, you probably ain't gonna last long being in the Good bracket.

Also the Arcanist kinda happened, so yeah...

Oh yeah what's the deal with that beastie? Feels like a sorcerer with more spell versatility in exchange for the permanent bloodline bonus. I say permanent because I'm pretty sure an arcanist can gain bloodline/specialisation benefit for a minute at a time by expending its reservoir one way or another.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I am starting to think the Wizard got shafted with the introduction of Bloodlines...

Good. We from the Society of Martials fully support caster-shafting. No, not that way...

Maybe play a Wizard to show some brand loyalty? And if you just want to feel like Gandalf even though Gandalf was like a magician or a Bard of some kind?

Well I don't remember if Gandalf ever carried a spellbook around and seeing how charismatic he is, I suspect he might be a bloody SORCERER.

Radhagast is certainly a druid. (Have I spelt his name correctly?)

Intensified, Reach, shocking grasp. O_O

Respectfully,
--Bacon

It's always better with Bacon.

Intensified Shocking grasp. Deal more damage than a friggin' catapult!

Kittenological wrote:

Kinda like how in the bible King David totally snatched a married woman and had the husband killed, but he got real stern talking-to from a prophet (whose name I forget) and later the son from that relationship turns out to be King Solomon. People make mistakes.

Well... To be fair, kidnapping an woman and killing her husband is closer to "extremely evil act" than to "just a mistake".

Yeah terrible example. The woman came willingly enough though. So poor, poor husband.

Oh I remember their names now the wife is Bathsheba and that would make the husband's name Uriah. King David sent Uriah to the front lines to be killed.

Anyhow, I don't remember Bathsheba or Solomon getting stoned to death so I'm pretty sure a LG guy can get away with it too. ...or not.

Damn old testaments so morally ambiguous.

I wasn't aware that paladins needed any fixing. I played an evil PC once, ONCE and had a paladin archnemesis. Never again.

Anywho, I don't consider the Paladin's code of ethics to be a vulnerability; it's more of a loose guideline and a recommendation on how to act. Paladins aren't robots. They're people and they have bad days. What makes them good is that even when they are on their lowest, they can be counted on to do good. Make amends where she failed previously.

If the DM feels the paladin's attitude to be inadequate, make her repent before making her fall. Send an NPC to deliver the 'failure to follow ethics' notice.

Kinda like how in the bible King David totally snatched a married woman and had the husband killed, but he got real stern talking-to from a prophet (whose name I forget) and later the son from that relationship turns out to be King Solomon. People make mistakes.

the Hunter class doesn't seem to suggest much in the way of wildshaping :( I really want another class that gets wildshape! I don't care for 9th level spells or any spells at all!

that sneaky poster name really got me into this thread. I feel kidnapped. ...and obliged to divulge my opinion.

Yeah I do miss that 'discover and make it your own' feel that 3.5's extensive splatbooks gave me. Pathfinder on the other hand, seem to be too afraid of moving out of the Core Rule's shadows. So I've only got 3rd-party materials that really introduce any new rules.

I'm not saying it's bad in that it's 'stagnant'. Having the rule rooted deeply in its own core ideas is actually very good. It produces less confusion and it's really easy to keep track of things and do stuff on the fly. So I'd say PF's taken the noble route of setting priorities on how it really plays on the board, than how we make interesting and creative stuff in our free time.

That brings me to the point of this discussion, the lack of feelings of 'discovery'.

Hopefully future PF materials and perhaps even Pathfinder 2.0 would bring about all the different mechanics and twists that I miss. Mythics rule did do something similar, but it's based on such... a 'general' rule in that if somebody on the table was using the rule, everyone basically have to. So that rules out any feelings of 'exclusivity' for the lack of a better term.

come on, please let there be a wildshaping skillmonkey!

I would rate the 'Display of X' line of abilities higher than Mythic Sustenance myself. +20 to the right ability can be a gamechanger. Mythic Sustenance though, is easily duplicated by low-level spells (water breathing, gust of wind, goodberry and so on) and lacks the sheer versatility of the Display ability paths.

True, although i find the 30 ft limitation kind of awkard.

Its all too common for enemies or allies to move beyond the 30 ft range before you can cackle...which forces you to spend one round doing nothing but moving into range and cackling.

Also i can totally see a witch hunter or someone who has knowledge about hexes getting affected by a hex then using a withdraw action to run out of range for 1-2 rounds so that the hex expires before the witch can cackle again, thereby becoming immune to it for 24 hours.

Well, withdrawing is always a viable measure to avoid being afflicted with ANY kind of such debilitating effect.

Unless the DM's out to get you, you probably won't be running into too many enemies that know just how to avoid stuff by knowing its intrinsic mechanical knowledge. ...that's just meta-gaming.

Can retain essence be used to salvage magic device traps in a dungeon? Magic device traps are created by craft wondrous items.

heh, I used to do that a lot. Cleared a dungeon? Use the downtime to dismantle ALL the trapz! The party loved it (Eberron's not the best place to find high-level magic items) and the DM was OK with is since it meant he didn't have to make obvious attempts at distributing even loots.

My opinion is that monks can be as good as fighters but they must adhere to a specific set of builds to do so.

Fighters have the luxury of being able to customise as seen fit. Monks, sacrifice that build versatility to gain the inherent utility its ki usage brings.

I once read somebody describe this so succinctly using halfling fighter as an example but I just can't find it now..

I HATE not being able to wear metal armours with my druid. HATE IT!!!!

You can kill all the animals both beautiful and wild, wearing their rotting hide for protection. You can also go off chopping down all the trees you see, to char and twist and fashion them into mockeries of nature for your own personal protection.

But whenu mine ores and craft ingots out of solid ground, hurting no living thing, melt it down and craft metallic armor and the moment you put it on, you're no longer a druid.

Druid Logic: you can wear stuff as long as something died to craft it.

idk, you'd be catering to not only one very spoiled group of affisciandos but two. Not the easiest order to fill, but I would be all over it if it tickles me in all the right places.

ok, a question: what's with Minotaur being added to the Races tab? I don't really remember Minotaurs being described as a race significant enough to be added on along with Kalashtar and Shifters.

A good job though, I think the 'race' captures the feel of being a minotaur quite well. That being said though, I think you should halve the Con bonus and add to Wis. They're well known for their ability to navigate through maze.

Also on the issue of Races, here's a list of things I'd like to see addressed with the Kalashtar:

-typo on the language: it should be written as Riedran, not Reidran as is right now. (pedantic, I know. I just want it to be perfect as I can get it, that's all.)

-Kalashtar's Psion Favored Class option isn't very balanced when compared to what Human FC options allow for Sorcerers. I feel it should add +1/2 Psion Power up to the level at least one lower than the highest she can manifest. Right now it's going to give a 20th-lvl Psion Kalashtar access to 56 powers! I'm pretty sure it's an oversight you forgot to fix XD

-I'm also not so happy about giving Kalashtar non-Telepaths a full access to the discipline powers from Telepathy. Yes it fits thematically but too overpowered, imo.

Part of the reasons why Wild is so friggin' expensive. You don't get no armor check penalty, no weight and no 'you're wearing armor' restriction. Other than the fact that you can't WS while wearing a metal armor, you should be fine.

Pump all 20 pts into Charisma and otherwise stay out of combat. That's what the minions are for.

Seconded. Mixing two viable things don't always make a viable build.

Don't scribe scroll. Take Augment Summoning right away.

seconded.

well we certainly need an Alchemist archetype that gets gunsmithing... like the wizard's spellslinger but a bomblobber!

Powergamer/ruleslawyer

you can't gestalt with two different archetypes of the same class.

Does that mean you believe it can't be used with touch spells? The free action you use to touch to deliver might be granted by the casting of the spell, but it's still a free action separate from the spell itself.

Let's not get too picky here (although we know we can't resist that). That would be the same case as Call Lightning where those extra action required to deliver the attack should be considered an extended segment of the spell cast.

A good guideline would be to see whether the action made to apply the effect of the spell (like delivering touch spell, casting down the bolts of lightning for call lightning, breathing fire, throwing of the fireball etc) would normally do damage on its own or not.

Gesturing without having cast Call Lightning beforehand would not normally do damage, neither will exhaling or doing a throwing motion or touching a being. Special exceptions may exist (e.g. a lich's touch attack) but they are exceptions, not the norm.

So even a caster whose hand is covered with contact poison should still be able to deliver Dazing Shock Grasp because touching the target itself normally does not do damage and the poison, along with the spell, are exceptional cases tracked separately.

I think the Dazing spell doesn't work if it specifically enhances something else- or simply put, is not a standalone spell.

Being a 'standalone' spell means (in my idea) that it doesn't require any separate action that is not part of 'casting' the spell itself from the caster or the beneficiary.

Dazing Summon Monster doesn't work because the final delivery of the damage depends not on the casting of the spell but on the action of the summoned being.

Dazing Greater Magic Weapon doesn't work because casting the spell does not cause damage to another creature. It merely enhances the function of another damage-causing medium (weapon swing). In a way, the wielder of the buffed weapon is the 'summoned creature' as per Dazing Summon Monster.

Dazing Fireball does work as everyone can agree.

Dazing Delayed-blast Fireball does work even though the trigger is now different; it doesn't rely on something outside the spell's description to do damage. Its action is completely based on the spell's description without dazing metamagic.

Dazing Call Lightning/Fire Breath do work because later calling of the bolt/breath are still casting the same spell. In a way, they have an extended segment of the same spell that the caster can choose to activate later.

Dazing Stone Spikes does work because the delivery of the spell is complete upon casting. What triggers the spell is ultimately irrelevant.

Dazing Sun Metal doesn't work because the final delivery of the spell is dependent on a separate action on part of the weapon's wielder.

Dazing Fire Shield/Golum's Armor does work because the delivery of the spell is complete upon casting, the same way as casting a dazing stone spikes. Whether the damage is triggered or not is not dependent upon the action of the caster nor the beneficiary.

Well, since Ninja gets Advanced Talents master trick, I don't see why it can't be backwards incompatiable. I mean, Assassinate is such a juicy ability that makes an entire PrC moot by its mere existence.

I really like the Zen Archer myself. Bonus feats are just too juicy to pass up.

No to both.

I'm pretty sure with the gestalt rules, that you are not meant to use hybrid PrCs like the Eldritch Knight.

You would be correct.

being able to choose whether to apply a metamagic feat or not on the fly is an invaluable tool. Something that needs be kept under check, which they do nicely. I would've been outraged were the penalty be 1 round of casting as opposed to 1 full-round (which, despite its name, takes less time) but since it's not, I'm happy with it.

Piercing Spell is one example where it's far more beneficial to have it on the go rather than preparing it beforehand.

naw, it won't be multiplied. If it were a true weapon damage dice, it would be incorporated into the first xdy format, not 2d6 + 3d6 acid.