Shorafa Pamodae

KrispyXIV's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,350 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:

Wow, I love how it's always "you need to play to understand" from you people. If you bothered checking my profile, you might've noticed I have a level 3 Wizard in Pathfinder Society.

Keep at it then, and have an open mind. Moderate your expectations to what one fourth of the party should be able to accomplish on a regular basis, and understand that the new status quo is that you'll fail to hit on a regular basis. This applies to all classes, but casters are on the bottom end of the accuracy curve and notice it most.

I've GM-ed for two parties to 10+ at this point - I've yet to see my Casters struggle to hold their own. Yeah, sometimes things Critically Succeed on a save and their action is wasted - but there are more results that have an effect on that die roll than Martials get.

Spell attacks may be a bit unreliable, but there are ways to mitigate that. Let your allies spend an action to Aid (there's nothing that prevents them from aiding your attack roll other than potentially your GM), let them make the target flat footed, etc.

I've seen caster players flourish in actual play and it isn't flagging as they rise in level. I'm not saying they're perfect - but I've yet to see them as anything close to bad.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm currently running Age of Ashes for two parties concurrently, and the difficulty issues you've noted are accurate. Single higher level foes tend to be significantly scarier than groups.

That said, another thing I noted was that the party I assumed would be more fragile in combat, a two-handed fighter, an alchemist, a champion and a bard is MUCH better able to cope with higher level foes than my party with a barbarian, champion, archer fighter, sorcerer, and druid.

I initially assumed more combatants would be superior in combat, the but the reality is that numbers count less than the first parties ability to Synergize in combat. Bonuses and penalties on the enemy count for a LOT when getting your combat numbers to be more favorable than needing a high number to hit... You can pretty easily swing the numbers by at least 4 without needing a failed save (Frightened 1, Inspire Courage for 1, Flat Footed for 2), which increases the entire parties damage output by a LOT. Not taking long-shot swings and instead using the Aid action can push that even higher.

Swinging the math on a higher level target by 6 points will make them feel much more manageable.

Don't underestimate 'minor' effects either, which have their effect 'multiplied' against a more difficult enemy. A boss monster still only has 3 actions, so slowed 1 on a successful save against a Slow spell is still plenty crippling, and Concealment (see Mistform elixirs) have a bigger payout when they eat an attack that may have hit on a 2.

I've finished book 3 with one group and will be soon with the other, and I can say that as they've learned how to manage the obstacles associated with a higher level foe, these encounters have grown more manageable.

My bard-less party has a little bit harder time, but they've been adopting strategies (like aiding) to help them improve their odds of hitting on their main attacks, instead of wasting actions on things like a Strike at -10.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
I don't believe that any one has asked for caster to end fights with one spell.

I feel like this is the iconic thing for spellcasters in PF1 though - spells were potent, reliable, and often disabled or removed a key target from an encounter in one action.

I think one of the most "different" things about PF2 is learning that against some foes (like ones at level +3), you're playing for a different Degree of Success than you're used to. Rolling a failure on your save is a win because it isnt a critical failure, and them failing to Critically Succeed against your spell is a win because you just stole one of their actions with Slow.

Against a level +3 boss, stealing 1/3 of their actions for a turn is a big deal. They cant move and use a 2 action activity, they cant use a 3 action activity at all, etc. Against a lot of things, that's a win.

In a fight that's 4v1, stealing 1/3 of the "1" sides actions is a perfectly valid use of one person's turn. It's a legit contribution. You just have to get past the fact that the target technically "won" on their save.

I do think it's a new concept though, that what save result constitutes a win varies by opposition. In play though, I think it works great.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Three books completed in Age of Ashes now with two separate parties, both of which contain a Fighter.

Someone may want to come tell my spellcasters they're supposed to feel bad or that they're underpowered, because they sure as heck arent feeling it.

The fighters are by far the best at fighting, but the Bard in one party effectively carry's and enables the party through buffs, debuffs and illusions. Bards swing math hard, and their spell list has amazing utility and decent blasts, even.

The other party has a Druid and a Sorcerer, and both find plenty to contribute to the party.

There's obvious utility of Invisibility, Clairvoyance, and tons of other spells that solve problems while completely eliminating associated risks (by not having associated saves), but it's not like offensive magic hasn't been useful either.

Theres plenty of opportunities for spells like Magic Missile (AC of level +3 enemies matters not at all), Fireball (critically failed saves happen more often with multiple targets, and are satisfying as hell) and Phantasmal Killer (damage and frightened even if they succeed are well worth the actions when you consider what it does for the rest of the party).

What hasn't happened is a spellcaster winning an entire fight because their target flubbed one roll.

Everything seems to be working pretty well from my actual experience thus far, with no significant sign of new issues developing as we go up in level.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're necroing a thread based on experience since launch...

I've had an Alchemist in one of my two Age of Ashes campaigns I'm running who has played since level 1. Its definitely been the class with the most hurdles, and is probably the most awkward to play.

That said, I don't think its horrible.

The class has a lot of utility, the ability to target elemental weaknesses easily, and can do nasty things like impose Flat-Footed on targets that persists regardless of circumstance. This has been extremely powerful. As well, certain elixirs like Mistform are extremely efficient (action wise) damage reduction that apply across all tiers of play.

I think the big issues of the class are most evident at level 1 -

First, the class lies to you about your primary attribute. Accuracy is more important than anything, and therefore either Dexterity (for bombers) or Strength (for mutagenists) needs to be your highest stat, full stop. Intelligence is nice for the class... like Charisma is nice for a Paladin. But starting with a 14-16 because you thought your accuracy stat was less important than the listed primary stat - Intelligence - because the book told you so - is demoralizing once the full impact of your reduced accuracy kicks your repeatedly across the life of your character.

Second, the resource curve for the class is NOT 'fun'. You're most strained for resources early on when they feel really darned important, and later on you have SO MANY reagents there ceases to be any real daily management. Just make all the things.

Beyond that, its one of the few classes in the core rulebook that isn't easy to play - a lot of the combat classes are pretty foolproof if you start with a 18 primary stat, with class feats serving as icing on your badass-cake. Alchemist requires a lot of choices, and it demands those choices be good, or you're going to have a bad time. Its fairly unique in this regard.

Altogether, I don't think Alchemist is a bad class - I just don't know it belongs in the Core rulebook, where it really should come with a giant "Advanced Players Only/Challenge Class" warning label.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Current proficiency, plus one weapon group of choice.

4 Skills per level, and 2 class skills of player choice.

Bravery applies to all Will Saves.

Bonus Feats are not limited to combat feats, and the Manual of War becomes a class feature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
No matter how many times I read this ruling, I can't get over that they let SLAs get you into these things early, thus making Aasimar automatically better for it than any other race.
Yeah, I don't like that either. I wouldn't mind if every race could just get in early though.

The lack of a rush of overpowered Theurges and Eldritch Knights says to me that the prerequisites are way too high by default, because the classes are still just ok even if you shortcut them.

In both cases, First level spells and reduced skill rank requirement would probably be fine.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
If the enemy is intelligent...

That's just it. If an enemy is intelligent - and not all monsters are - they should realize they're getting nowhere attacking X and should move on to try to take out Y and Z.

The OP's GM isn't necessarily "ignoring him"... he may just be playing the bad guys intelligently. I can't tell. But as a GM I am very, very careful to vary the tactics I use based on a} intelligence and b} knowledge.

The big reason why the game doesn't have an aggro system is because that denies a creature its intelligence, coupled with what's-good-for-the-goose meaning that such a thing would be used against PCs as well.

What, you've never gone after an NPC first just because you didn't like him, or he was a jerk, or because he insulted your characters mother?

What's good for the players is fair for the NPC's in this case, IMO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still say this is as simple as 'you don't gain benefits from abilities you haven't gained yet'. Malachi has consistently ignored this problem. The text under the 6th level Sohei class ability never gets looked at or referenced until you are Sohei 6.

Until that point, if you have an ability called Weapon Training it works exactly as the source of that ability says. You never ever get to look ahead.

Anything at all to contradict the above has yet to be provided.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tried roleplaying?

Lots of people and things aren't appreciative of creative criticisms of their progenitors. As well, the devout probably won't take well to their divine patrons being slandered. Arrogant fighters and Kung Fu guys might not like you comparing their skills and to children or the elderly. Wizards are known to be overconfident and arrogant.

Knowledge skills should help with the above. More than anything, talk to your dm about it!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else in the group suffer from this sort of harassment? These sorts of rulings... On the spot changes to the way the game works by default that come specifically at you... Don't bode well.

If you like the GM, I'd talk it out and find out if there's some underlying issue.

If they're no one to you, I'd bail. It sounds like they're messing with you in a very bad way.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've run multiple AP's with core Fighters, monks and rogue's in them as players. They tend to be as effective as anyone in the narrative sense, and I've yet to see any of them not have fun because of the limitations of their class.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You do not gain the benefits of class features before you have them. Period. This needs to be dealt with, and cannot just be ignored.

If someone can find an example of the above being untrue (class features with benefits prior to gaining them) , then we can meaningfully have a discussion here.

Otherwise, the text in the Sohei feature is meaningless until you are Sohei 6.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
walter mcwilliams wrote:
Reading these posts is crazy! How do GM's who perpetrate this type of insanity keep players in their groups! So thankful for the great GM's I have in my circle of gamers!!

They don't, I assume. I dropped from a Kingmaker game after session one when it was ruled that one character could not make Survival checks to provide food for the party-we each had to 'take a turn' making those checks because of a lack of 'opportunities' that check 'represented'. Suddenly my low wisdom bard, who I had rolled knowing we had a ridiculous survival specialist in the party, was a gigantic liability who was starving the whole party.

Especially since I was not allowed to opt out and just provide food from gp either...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Removing and modifying are completely different things, by definition. Removing spells is modifying the class.

Yep, but removing is subsumed into modifying.

Its relative. Removing a class feature modifies the class, yes.

It has not modified that class feature; its text and function remain identical, you simply no longer have access to it.

Example with cookies: You have a cookie. If I take your cookie, the cookie is unchanged but is now mine; I have modified the ownership, but not the cookie itself. If instead I add frosting, I have modified your cookie.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had 'fun' in a rifts campaign once trying to play a power armor character.

Things like attempting to camouflage myself with extensive Resources expended and being told hiding in an iron man scale armor was impossible, being unable to maneuver indoors in the same, etc were one type of bad.

Being told I could not wear my armor 'in town' because it was unreasonable was the real kicker. In any other setting, sure. In this one, half the people on the street could vaporize me with a thought because most of them were some sort of monster, cyborg or mage. Power armor was my equivalent of a tazer, but I ended up being the only one in the party required to walk around helpless most of the time (because everyone else was one of the aforementioned monsters).

The character retired after his first badass attempt at an ambush ended with him being given no chance at Stealth against enemies who used Magic (which normally does not function this way) which simply ignored his armor (in this system, it's your Hp) and one rounded him.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, for the sake of advancing discussion and increasing clarity...

Does anyone not agree that the probable intent of the Sorcerer FAQ would be more clearly stated as the following? (changes bolded)

"Sorcerer: Do the bonuses granted from Bloodline Arcana apply to all of the spells cast by the sorcerer, or just those cast from the sorcerer's spell list?
The Bloodline Arcana powers apply to the effects of the spells cast by characters of that bloodline, not just those cast using the sorcerer's spell slots.

General rule: If a class ability modifies the effects of spells you cast, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)"

If so, would the issue at hand be more clearly phrased as the following question?

"General Spellcasting Question: If I have an ability that appears to let me cast spells from one class from another classes slots, may I?"

I'd guess that the intent for the above question would put the answer as, "No. You need an ability like the Mystic Theurge's combined spells class feature to do that unless you have some way to add spells to you class spell list."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Now define spellcasting and modifies.

The big problem right now is, to me this is self evident. To everyone I know, this is self evident.

Its whats listed under your 'Spells' class feature, as that's the simplest and most functional definition.

Everything else is an amendment or modification to that... you know, as you have 'how it works' under spells, and then things like Spontaneous Casting change, or 'modify', how those base rules work.

Think of it this way: if there were an archetype that replaced 'Spellcasting', what would it replace? (hint: its 'Spells')

If there were an archetype that modified Spellcasting, or replaced a modification to spellcasting, or gave you new ways to use that spellcasting, what would it replace?

We have a few examples of Spontaneous Casting being replaced or modified, I believe, under Druid.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

The problem is that some people think that swapping your memorized spells for cure spells "modifies your spellcasting", while other don't think so.

The problem isn't the FAQ, is the definition of what modifie your spellcasting and what don't.

And of what is spellcsting, as the term is used in different meanings (while I think that using any magic item isn't spellcasting, sometime the term is used in item descriptions [a couple of possible exceptions exist, but using staves isn't one of them, the staves have very clear rules about what abilities you can use with them]).

Way more basic problems than that FAQ is you disagree on what those terms mean.

The problem IS the Sorcerer FAQ, and the selective application thereof that some people desire to make of it.

If it didn't have 'General Rule' right there in the FAQ, I'd have sympathy for your point of view. But It flat out says its inclusive unless an ability specifically says otherwise.

Spontaneous Casting does not say otherwise. The fact that its written with clerics in mind... hence the reference to 'The Cleric'... is irrelevant, since the ability itself says any prepared spell.

Either the FAQ needs to be modified, or Spontaneous casting does.

Arguments like "Does it make any sense a Wizard 19 can cast Cure Critical Wounds?" are irrelevant (and silly, they can for all intents and purposes, and can pretty much duplicate any divine feat they want at that point...) as they are explicitly statements of opinion and ignore the rules themselves.

Round and round we go.

You think that swapping spell modify your spellcasting, I think that it swap the spell and don't change how you cast it at all.

By the Spells rule for clerics, they may cast spells they've prepared (abbreviated). Such is how spellcasting works for them.

Spontaneous casting allows them to break the above rules; it has modified their spellcasting.

Its not complicated. Its an ancillary rule that modifies how Clerics cast spells. Its not like I'm spinning this somehow, or making stuff up. Its just fact.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

The problem is that some people think that swapping your memorized spells for cure spells "modifies your spellcasting", while other don't think so.

The problem isn't the FAQ, is the definition of what modifie your spellcasting and what don't.

And of what is spellcsting, as the term is used in different meanings (while I think that using any magic item isn't spellcasting, sometime the term is used in item descriptions [a couple of possible exceptions exist, but using staves isn't one of them, the staves have very clear rules about what abilities you can use with them]).

Way more basic problems than that FAQ is you disagree on what those terms mean.

The problem IS the Sorcerer FAQ, and the selective application thereof that some people desire to make of it.

If it didn't have 'General Rule' right there in the FAQ, I'd have sympathy for your point of view. But It flat out says its inclusive unless an ability specifically says otherwise.

Spontaneous Casting does not say otherwise. The fact that its written with clerics in mind... hence the reference to 'The Cleric'... is irrelevant, since the ability itself says any prepared spell.

Either the FAQ needs to be modified, or Spontaneous casting does.

Arguments like "Does it make any sense a Wizard 19 can cast Cure Critical Wounds?" are irrelevant (and silly, they can for all intents and purposes, and can pretty much duplicate any divine feat they want at that point...) as they are explicitly statements of opinion and ignore the rules themselves.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

What is the caster level of that Cure Critical wounds?
It is a clerical ability, so it has a CL of 1.


PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

this seem to prohibit that.

I don't see how it follows that using the Cleric ability to modify the other class' spell, you would use Cleric CL instead of the other class' CL, since the spell you are modifying still comes from the other class.

A Sorcerer 1/Wizard 10 casts fireball, but changes it to cold with their bloodline ability. He used a sorcerer ability, but the CL is still 10.

So the Druid 19/Cleric 1 would be able to spontaneously cast cure spells from Druid slots, but would be restricted in the alignment of spells they can cast.

PRD wrote:
Spontaneous Casting: A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).

Who is doing the action? The good cleric. It is an ability of the cleric class.

What are you trying to say, that a cleric class abilities can be based on his levels as a wizard/druid/whatever?

This is a flawed argument. 'The good cleric' in this case is simply identifying who has the ability... the cleric. Its the subject of the sentence. Its telling you who is doing the action that comes later. It is COMPLETELY interchangeable with 'the character' or 'this character' or 'this cleric', because all of these things are accurate descriptions of the character in question (who, by virtue of having a level in cleric, is a cleric).

The description of what the cleric may is what is relevant. The restriction in that part of the rules says any prepared spell.

For it to work like you want, for the nth time, it needs to say "any prepared cleric spell".

For what its worth, no one I've showed the sorcerer FAQ to and then asked this question to has gotten the question. The answer to them was obvious... of course the Wizard can convert them to cures. The General Rule in the FAQ says so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
oh lord, why did this keep going, i thought we settled it with, RAW works but it's an unbalanced idea and thus shouldn't be used anyway.

Its not even close to unbalanced. That's why all this opposition is so confusing; no party will ever be hurt by having someone else capable of casting a healing spell. And since it's NOT restoration or heal or any of the important high level condition removers, it's not stepping on the clerics toes.

It's just reducing the number of wands you need to buy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
seebs wrote:

Who said anything about caster levels?

"Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools."

It doesn't say "provided your caster level is high enough for a member of that class to cast that spell."

You're making up additional restrictions not specified by the text.

You duplicate something that exist and you cast the spell at your caster level. Heal on the Adept list is a 5th level spell but it require a CL of 16.

You claim that you can use limited wish to duplicate something that don't exist without exceeding the spell parameters?

Were saying that you're inventing restrictions that don't exist in the rules because you want things to work a certain way.

In the quoted case, it's a simple matter of reading the spell: the only restriction is on class (non sorcerer/wizard) and spell level (5, per adept).

You don't want it to work, so you've added some stuff about CL which does not exist.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

Really? How do you go around duplicating a caster level of 16 (minimum level for casting heal if you are an adept) when your caster level is lower?
"I duplicate an Adept heal with my limited wish."
"Very well, you spend 1.500 gp, and...

Diego, perhaps you should read the rules before responding like this. Limited wish does not care about caster level. Heal is a 5th level Adept spell, and therefore Limited wish can duplicate it if it's not in one of your opposition schools.

Or are you going to say spells don't do what they say they do either?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
It doesn't say "mention a class", it says "says it only applies to spells from that class."

Either you need to say the Magus FAQ on Spell Combat is invalidated by the Sorcerer bloodline FAQ, or you conclude that any time it mentions a class or a class spell list the Sorcerer bloodline FAQ is not in effect.

The bloodline you quoted with Sorcerer mentioned sets a value, it doesn't reference the class doing something (like Magus using Spell Combat or Cleric using Spontaneous Cures) and it doesn't reference the Sorcerer spell list.

Um, the magus FAQ does specifically state Spell Combat only works with Magus spells, which means it does override the Sorcerer FAQ.

Which is specifically what is NOT present for clerics spontaneous casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

Obviously our groups have different expectations for what we want from the class.

That's fine.

I guess what I'm wanting to suggest is this; perhaps the problem isn't that the class doesn't deliver what it needs to in order to be valid, but that it doesn't deliver what you want .

If you're sitting down wanting it to be more than it is, I can see you being unhappy with it.

The simplest solution to that, however, is not to change the fighter. It's to change your expectations of what the fighter should be capable of.

I personally find the idea that a fighter has to compete with wizards for 'power' ludicrous. There are plenty of character ideas I've had where a fighter works best to make a concept work.

Good luck on not having them compare the fighter and full spellcasters, I believe that the way people play MMO's truly affect the way they play games like pathfinder.
Some of us have never played an MMO once in our lives and still expect a game we pay good money for to actually support all classes equally. A Fighter should be just as Viable an option as a Summoner as a Rogue as a Wizard as a Monk as a Druid. Each approaches problems differently, each has a different feel-in-play, but each should be roughly equally powerful in his own way, through all levels of play.

What's funny is, that content is all free.

I paid good money for great setting info, high quality books and art, and a great big slab of paper. The rules I generally look up on my phone or tablet.

As well, I'd like to hear the short list of RPGs better balanced the pathfinder out of the box. I've played several, and most of them are worse by degrees.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not arguing the numbers. Fighter is clearly disadvantaged in the mechanical sense.

In spite of that, it's still the go to favorite for martials at the tables I run and play at. And these are players who are full-well aware of 'the score' when it comes to class balance.

Why is that?

That's why I'm trying to share my entirely subjective opinion here. In spite of the mechanical problems, clearly the class does something right in the niche it fills.

I personally think it's because it let's you 'choose' something every level and has a no strings attached element where you can inherently describe it any way you like.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Finished the AP last night, with the PC's effectively narrating through the last two books. Walked through all the encounters like they were nothing.

... And everyone had a blast doing so.

It was a unique roleplaying experience unlike any previous pathfinder experience, which will honestly probably not be repeated due to balance issues.

But since everyone had a great time and will remember this campaign for a long time, I'd have to label the AP a Great Success myself.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have yet to run a campaign without a fighter.

I have yet to have someone playing a fighter be unhappy or disappointed with their character or performance.

In that sense, I really have a hard time supporting the idea there's actually a problem with the class itself.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get why it seems like a couple people are comparing Magic missile to higher level spells at ninth level. It's not competing with slots for wall of force... Its competing with mage armor and color spray.

And it's a wonderfully versatile and uncannily reliable offensive trick. It's not the best spell in the game, but it doesn't have to be to be good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really want a version of this class without any Focus at all on Buffs/Damage in the spell list.

Just want to put this out there for archetype suggestions; I'd love one that has more open spell access.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A crossbow is a Simple Weapon, and therefore available to more classes than the Martial Longbow. Being a Simple Weapon vs. a Martial, it SHOULD be worse than the Martial Equivalent at similar levels of investment.

The advantage of the crossbow (why it revolutionised warfare) has always been that it can be used by any old commoner... Which is reflected by the rules.

I think the problem is that people are expecting more of a Simple weapon than is necessary for it to fill the role of the crossbow within the rules.

No number of feats will make a dagger a kukri, why should the crossbow be different?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
karossii wrote:
Krispy, the issue I see would be in organized play, where a player can come to a group and use the letter of the RAW (whether or not it violates RAI) to play something which is either dramatically overpowered, dramatically underpowered, or simply not 'party friendly'...

Whether or not something is legal for organized play is not necessarily related to it being legal at all.

I dont do PFS, but I am aware many options like Master Summoner and Synthesist are not legal for it.

These options didnt have to be FAQed out of the book, did they? They're still valid choices as written.

The new FAQ ruling may very well end up being illegal for PFS... that doesnt mean it needs changed for general use.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:

One of the problems I tend to see with people who play paladins, they tend to spend a lot of their time either bludgeoning everyone with their code or doing a lot of rhetorical and mental gymnastics to circumvent their code.

I have to agree. If you have to search in the core book to see if an action es evil, then probably that action is not Lawful good.

Additionally, if the thought line, "it'd be easier/more convenient just to..." then it probably isn't good for a paladin.

Paladins dont do 'convenient' or 'easy', they do what's right, even if it's difficult or risky to do so.

A paladin should never have to rationalize or justify his actions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Mergy wrote:

Another example? The bandit king falls to his knees, begging for mercy. Are you required to spare him? Abadar protect us, no! Either tell him to pick up his sword or take him prisoner and execute him with all the righteous justification you possess.

That seems like a quick way to fall.

Right. He may end up being executed, but as a judge, the paladin whom he just stopped attacking is hardly impartial.

The paladin should deliver him to the appropriate authority for trial and potential execution, and stand witness to his crimes at that time.

Assuming absolute authority for judgement and sentence rapidly leads into that whole "absolute power breeds corruption absolutely" thing. Which is bad for paladins, who really should avoid that by nature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
You can make a decent monk with weapons. The class is based around unarmed fighting, and that is not currently a competitive build.

I think this is the true crux of the issue. You can currently build an armed monk that isn't bad by any stretch; while full attacking, they're offensively reasonable and at a level that almost nobody should be disappointed with.

The issue is that you can't do that unarmed, which for the monk, feels wrong.

It would be nice if we could get acknowledgement that this is the primary issue most people see (if I am in fact correct in my assumption that this is everyone's primary issue?), and its been understood.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So how is only needing two stats maybe three being MAD?

Needing three stats to maintain defensive and offensive viability is MAD.

In order to compensate for class weakness, you need to focus on Strength almost as much as a fighter does, and in order to remain defensively valid without armor, you need a good wisdom and at least a positive dexterity.

I'd like to stop here a moment to note that monks have a +5 AC bonus (what most other people would get from the enhancement on their armor) built right into the class. How about that? A similar mechanic for attacks would seem to be entirely reasonable, IMO.

Note that not needing Int and Charisma, and having them be dumpable, while ok for strictly stat related reasons, is terrible for people who like things like roleplaying. I can build a fighter with one good stat (strength), have positive dexterity and constitution, and not have to dump on my roleplaying stats. Why should all monks have to be stupid and unappealing to keep up?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Countering a paladin is trivial; simply refuse to fight him. If he attacks you unprovoked, he's broken any reasonable code. If his ally attacks you unprovoked, defend yourself and note that's all you're doing, strait to victory.

Alternatively, offer to resolve your dispute in a nonviolent battle of wits... He can't honorably refuse (again, non violence should be preferred by most paladins), and most paladins ain't geniuses.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Other than being a druid, does PF have any way yet to use Spontaneous Casting to cast a Domain spell, instead?

Actually, yes.

Heighten Spell followed by Preferred spell (feats) allows you to cast any single spell you can cast, spontaneously; without the normal metamagic penalties for sponataneous casters even.

This is very good for someone trying to run a Cleric as say, a Fireball spammer. Just prepare all 3rd and higher level slots as support/buff/SoD etc spells, and use them as fireballs as needed.

This a great solution in any case where you really just need one (or maybe two) of your domain spells more than once... which for me at least, was most of the time when I was looking at a domain and thinking, "Man, if only I got more than one of spell X!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is the inquisitor good? If so, murdering her because of alignment is somewhat questionable... Who knows if she's been cursed with an Evil spell effect or not? Judging books by their cover and all that.

If he's neutral... Well, succubi aren't exactly without bargaining tools, and it sounds like she's at a disadvantage and possibly even liable to be thankful for a rescue...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To break it down a little more...

When calculating your bonus to hit, at any time including Flurry, you should follow a few steps.

First should always be to determine your Base Attack Bonus. This applies to all attack rolls. Normally, you'd check your class progression (a +3 for a level 4 monk I believe), but Flurry is a Special Case.

When using Flurry of Blows, you use your class level as your Base Attack Bonus (BAB), so thats a 4.

Next, calculate your other bonuses to this roll. Start with your stat (all attack rolls use some stat or other) which is strength for melee attacks unless something changes this (weapon finesse). So thats a +2. Now, if you've got feats (weapon focus), enhancement bonuses (from weapons or Amulets of Mighty Fists), or other bonuses (there are a lot of potential sources, like spells), add all these too. In this case, you've got your +2 strength. So add that to your Base Attack of +4.

Which brings us to +6 for your attack bonus.

However, Flurry also works similarly to Two Weapon Fighting. This gets you an extra attack, but applies a -2 penalty to attack rolls.

At this point, subtract any penalties you have to attacks from your rolls. This includes Two Weapon Fighting for flurry, but in theory can also include things like being Sickened, Cover, being prone, etc. In this case, just subtract the -2.

That leaves us with a final total of +4 for your attack bonus.

Note, most profiles would actually list your attack routine, that is, your attacks while flurrying, as '+4/+4', which would indicate you have two identical attacks at +4.

Hope that helps!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The feat is clearly written, and Grick is totally correct. The fluff and the rules both agree; everyone threatening the tripped target may take an AOO. Anything else is conjuring rules and adding them to the feat.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because Succubi offer services you can't get anywhere else, duh.


I am of course referring to Profane Gift, and nothing else.

33 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I was looking at the new White Haired Witch archetype, and it seemed pretty neat at first...

The general mechanical-concept is to take the Prehensile Hair Hex and greatly expand its abilities and utility with some cool thematic elements... however in practice, this isn't the case.

Why? Unlike Prehensile Hair, there is no provision for using Intelligence for anything but Damage Rolls (and then, 1x Intelligence instead of 1.5x Intelligence if your Prehensile Hair is your only natural attack) and triggered Grapple checks from the not-Grab grablike ability.

This means you're needing a good strength to make use of your primary class feature, because you need to hit via Str+Half BAB for any of the supplemental features to work, but you dont even get to recieve your strength on damage rolls... that's governed by Intelligence. Hope you can afford good scores in both.

As well, as written, Pull is a near useless ability, as there is no provision for not moving a grappled foe adjacent to you when the grapple begins, which I believe is part of normal grapple rules, right? Seems like you should probably not move the opponent when initiating the grapple, similarly themed to how the witch doesn't gain the grappled condition herself.

Anyways, I was hoping for clarification as to whether this is the intended functionality (which sadly would imply that one of the stronger class features in the game, Hexes, would be replaced by an ability which is arguably less useful than one of said Hexes with the same theme), or if it may have been intended that attack rolls should be Intelligence based as well which may have been ommited or assumed, which would make the archetype more viable.

If anyone else wonders the same, lets hit some FAQ buttons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JrK wrote:
That could be that their weapons just pass through without resistance or that the creatures moves in non-credible ways to dodge the weapon (exception: attack misses).

From PRD, line before the one talked about.

"A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. "

If you fail your save, you do not notice the lack of resistance/other problems with the image. This is not automatic on a successful attack. The whole point of the saving throw is to account for exactly the situation you've described; its included in the existing point of failure, not in additon to it. Playing it as such is significantly nerfing an already limited line of spells... I believe Illusions tend to carry a list of creatures explicitly immune to them up near enchantments.

EDIT: Further, Bobson, the casters adeptness and skill at 'dodging' with the illusion is ALSO already included in the saving throw; more capable casters (whether by higher raw stat or feats such as spell focus) have a more difficult save.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll look for the link guys, but this was ruled on by devs a long time ago. If you have prehensile hair and no other natural attacks, it is 100% considered primary when you use it, and gets 1.5x your strength (intelligence) modifier to damage.

Found it:

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its sort of like the rule 34 of combat. If it exists, someone, somewhere, has figured out a way to hit someone else in the face with it.

Isn't the internet miraculous?

We've just gone from, "Thats silly, I dont know of anyone having ever done that!" to "Actually, we've got evidence of people having done that several times over. Here, I have pictures and videos." in like, what, 2 days?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
northbrb wrote:

I like to think that since we play in a world with so many different races and cultures (not all of which are based on real world cultures) that it is very likely that many of these cultures have developed fighting styles that never existed in our own world.

I am actually a little bugged by the idea that everything added to Pathfinder must have a real world inspiration or counterpart in order to not seem "silly". But as long as the game does not prevent players from playing these concepts legally then I will be happy.

I have often imagined that many Dwarven warriors would have trained in dual-shield wielding, that fighting style just seems to fit with the images I have of great Dwarven warriors.

I agree. The fact that the real world never saw these sorts of fighting styles isn't really relevant, as the real world never had to deal with manticores or dragons or balors...

It seems to me, in a fantasy setting, you'd see at least occasionally adventurers pioneering odd, different, or weird fighting styles, looking for whatever edge they can glean over the horrors of the world.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not live up to expectations.

Compounded, too, I think by the general acceptance of Ninja being actually fairly competitive by comparison, and actually being strait better than the rogue due to the Ninja getting access to almost everything a Rogue has, WITHOUT the reverse being true (no Advanced Ninja Trick rogue talent).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At level 10, my dual-whip Calistrian Preacher-Infiltrator enjoys her 18 Wisdom. But that may be because of how much I get from it... Conversion Domain and Infiltrator means I'm adding it twice to my Bluff and Diplomacy, using it for Intimidate, plus the standard (in the case of initiative, standard for inquisitors) addition of it to Initiative and Will Saves. The extra bonus spell is nice too... the Inquisitor Spell list has some real gems IMO.

For example, burning 3rd level spell slots, I can lock down two opponents fairly effectively for quite a while (Terrible Remorse is pretty well known, Litany of Eloquence... a no save, swift action, non-mind affecting fascinate... I've heard less about). As well, there are some good multi-purpose spells for countering enemies on the Inquisitor list as well (Judgement Light can counter invisibility, lower SR, counter DR, or buff any number of stats)

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>