Matt Beatty's page

Matt Beatty wrote:

I agree. Right now +2d6 is not much but at 11 lvl its +6d6 on a charge (pounce will give me a full attack +2d6 per attack, 3 attacks). The idea being that stuff dies in one turn and I then charge to the next monster.

My worry is that I am thinking way to down the road and should be thinking in the now.

As a THW user you have room for feats so I still think going down the vital strike chain is a better option, but im not playing in your campaign so your strategy may be spot on. (in the campaign I am in now there is usually only 1-3 stronger enemies as opposed to several weaker ones.)

At lvl 10 vital strike becomes a useless feat. Why would I move normally and take one swing when I could charge twice the distance and make a full attack. At lower lvls vital strike can be useful, but all my feats are already planned out. Most barbarian feat lists look like this: Power attack, raging vitality, extra rage power, extra rage power, extra rage power, extra rage power, ... you get the point. The new rage powers are just too good.

Still, my conundrum distills down to to extra damage vs earlier fortification.

Thanks Sean for letting us know it got posted today!

I'd agree that the spell rules do imply that different Evil Eye modifiers shouldn't stack, but here's a LINK to a Developer claiming it should work.

Since the official rule isn't 100% clear, I'd go with that.

Yes. But those are spell rules. Supernatural abilities are completely different (No AoO, No Spell Resistance, etc.). I am more inclined to rule that we can in no way treat a supernatural ability like a spell, otherwise it would be a Spell-Like Ability.

Thanks for the reference to SKR. That helps put some umph behind stacking.

Last thought, have you considered a vicious weapon? It deals +2d6 damage but deals +1d6 to you each time. Consider what your lowered AC and appearance of a low AC is going to cause you to suffer in terms of damage, and think if a vicious weapon is a better route for that extra damage. Heck you might want both (perhaps a +1 vicious merciful furious weapon). I...

Would the viscious damage be soakable by DR? It says that the damage is "energy" but does not give a type, so I am assumming that the word "energy" is just fluff and mechanically it adds 2d6 weapon damage to monster and 1d6 weapon damage to me.

Honestly Id go for the mithral as a barbarian in melee you are already pretty decked out offensively and +2d6 to damage really isn't a whole lot. Also if you want you could take vital strike which if you are using a greatsword is basically going to do the exact same thing (working in situations where you can't charge, but still have to move up to the enemy). Now if your were mounted the rhino hide becomes a different story entirely though you are not so my vote is for the mithral.

I agree. Right now +2d6 is not much but at 11 lvl its +6d6 on a charge (pounce will give me a full attack +2d6 per attack, 3 attacks). The idea being that stuff dies in one turn and I then charge to the next monster.

My worry is that I am thinking way to down the road and should be thinking in the now.

The only thing I can see for evil eye stacking as long as it is different modifiers is this. Beware: this is written for spells not SU, as such it may not count at all as a rule for evil eye.

Same Effect with Differing Results:
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Note that the previous effects are not removed or dispelled, so the previous modifiers should still be in effect when you hit the monster with the next evil eye debuff.

Since we are talking supernatural abilities and not spells, here is my other thought on it. Since its not a spell the spell rules do not apply and the only thing governing it is modifiers of the same type don't stack. Since we are not stacking modifiers but modifying different things each time they should all stay on the target.

Playing an pouncing (at lvl 10) Invulnerable rage barbarian with all the associated AC negatives I can get (So AC is not to important). I am currently at lvl 4 and am going to buy armor. I need advice on which direction to go with my armor. Here are my two choices that I see.

1) Rhino Hide armor - +2 hide that gives a +2d6 damage on charge attacks. At lvl 10 this will be alot of damage. Downside is that its med armor so I take a hit to speed. No crit mitigation to begin with but could be added on as I progress.

2) +1 light fortification Mithril Breastplate - Better AC by 1. Light armor so I get full movement. Also has the beginings of fortification (I got crit last scenario with a +2 flaming burst greataxe. 45 points of damage makes you concider crit mitigation, especially with such a low AC).

Both armors would probably be upgraded along the fortification lines as I lvled.

Thanks for any advice.

I think the appropriate way to think about enlarge person is that at the time of casting the spell has an effect. That effect at the time of casting last so many rounds. New things therefor do not get enlarged as they were not in the target of the spell when cast.

yep, it's glorious. I'll sometimes use evil eye to soften an enemy saving throw so I can lock a misfortune on him, then after the misfortune I go back to the evil eye targeting attack rolls.

then I cackle (literally) as every time it attacks it must roll twice at -4 and take the worse result. Relax and watch the party rip it to shreds. Who needs spells?

Absolutely. A witch might not have great defenses, but when the big boss has a -4 everything and has to roll twice and take the lowest even the witch can tank it. It's a thing a beauty and can literally save a party.

A good SoD for a witch at early levels is Hold Person. Note that a witch gets it an entire spell level early. You can squeeze alot of use out of it as a lvl 2 spell.

I completely agree with you on the spell ratings for a witch vs a wizard. As such, I am not happy with the current guide as it relies upon your ratings of spells for a wizard. Although some spells would be rated high for both I would like to see a rating based off the witch.

Treantmonk, since your back on the boards and are currently playing a witch, I wouldn't mind picking your brain. I am having trouble deciding on a patron. I am between deception (for invisibility), trickery (for mirror image), or time (haste and silence). What are your takes on Patrons? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

plus a rogue in the group could encourage that giant to let go quickly. If you take a look at the table labeled as "Table: Armor Class Modifiers" in the combat section of the prd(should also be in the book, but I cannot remember the page/table number), it states that:

Quote:

Defender is… Melee Ranged
... ... ...
Grappling (but attacker is not) +0(1) +0(1)

And if you look at note (1) at the bottom of the table:

Quote:

(1) The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

All this together means that the rogue would be sneak attacking as much as they want till the giant releases the grapple.

Please note that that table and the text describing grapple and the grappled condition do not agree with each other. In cases like this I take the text as rule and not the table (which was probably taken directly from 3.5 and not altered to fit the new rules).

Paraphrased from grappled condition in Core Rulebook:
When grappled both creatures gain the grappled condition which is a -4 DEX (note: not a complete loss of DEX -> therefor no sneak attack) and a -2 on all attack rolls and combat maneuvers other than grapple. That is it. As such, hit the grappler to your hearts content. In addition, as the player grappled you can still full attack with a light weapon, one-handed, or natural weapon.

The inappropriately sized rules are not exactly great for judging how to use a two-handed weapon in on hand. These rules also state that "If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all." These rules are specifically for weapons intended for a creature that is a different size category than you.

I would say the appropriate rule would be this: "Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon."

The text says that two hands are required to use it. As such you can not wield a two-handed weapon in one hand period. You may hold it but you can not attack with it using one hand.

Depends I guess on the cannons size. First off I would make him make a Str check to get the bugger out of the whole all by himself. If its a ridiculous sized cannon for one man to move around tell him that he didn't think ahead and can not get it out of the hole. Next, I would say it needs to be pre-loaded while in the hole (you can apply some danger to this if you want to. The gunslinger has all kinds of nice negatives for running around with gun powder). Thirdly, He is going to have to light the fuse of the cannon somehow and the light is going to break his stealth. Lastly, I would say that he will take a -4 to attack because he is not proficient with being a munchkin with a cannon.

If nothing else let him do it once and then have the cannon blow up because the poor fool has no idea how to maintain and use a cannon.

Just finished playing it at the 4-5 level. Final boss was not too tough once I closed with her. However, taking a thrown Axe crit (45 points of damage) to the face put a serious hurting on my HP. Probably the worst thing she could have done to me considering the weapon used. I think at 4-5 she has a little more survivability but she still went down after 2 or so hits.

Using a large bastard sword is not really a net gain. You trade a -2 attack for an average +2 damage. However, if you play the spell stacking game (enlarge person and lead blade) or go with the vital strike chain it can net you quite a bit more damage for that -2 attack.

Nope. Dragon needs to be helpless. Here is why - Coup De Grace is a full round action. It is not a quick thing. The dragon is aware but just has not seen the rogue. The minute you put knife to flesh, the dragon is going to see him and then good by rogue.

By the way. How does one sneak up on a dragon with out some kind of spell on them? The damn things have low light and darkvision. Must have been a very cluttered layer.

Thirdly, the dead guard was a mook with 1 HP.

I have not GMed my current table yet but I am in the situation were our current GM does not post the sessions online. I think the main reason he does not is just laziness. Also he makes the claim that it does not matter. The paper record trumps all and so there is no reason for him to do it.

As for solutions: I know for a fact that our GM has claimed his credits for GMing these sessions. Is there anyway that you can restrict GM credit until the session has been reported? This way they can not apply credit to a character until they have reported that session for all players.

I like the idea of the sorcerer. For counterspelling you want more spells per day (for more counterspells).

My big recomendation - Grab Improved Counterspell feat.
When counterspelling, you may use a spell of the same school that is one or more spell levels higher than the target spell.

This way you are not reliant upon dispel magic all the time.

waiph wrote:

wear armor.

Seriously, until you get to level 10, you don't even have the AC of a chain shirt, so don't bother.

That's semi-bad advice; my savage barbarians don't bother with armor from level 3 onwards (where the dodge-bonus starts) - and use potions of mage armor to get the remainder of the AC. +4 armor bonus is very substantial and the potions are cheap and last for an hour.

I would go as far as to just ignore getting bracers of armor until you can afford ones that outdo mage armor. Like said, potions are cheap. In addition it is very easy now to get UMD as a class skill (its a trait and you get a +2 to it) and then you can rock a 750gp wand of mage armor.

Such an interpretation is among the most mind-boggingly stupid things I've ever seen (not blaming you as the source of it), and it stems entirely from the artificiality of square-grid battlemaps -- whose lines are invisible from the POV of the characters themselves -- which means that ANY exploitation of the interpretation constitutes 100% pure, unrefined meta-gaming without the least shred of any valid in-character excuse for the behavior).

I agree. I have always found the rules regarding this to be completely based on the choice of squares vs hexes and the 5ft-15ft rule. It does not make sense and breaks verisimilitude, however that is the way RAW is.

Honestly, there are only two ways to fight with a barbarian. Grab a two hander and go to town or go natural weapons. TWF takes alot of feats that could be better spent on rage powers.

But you are not restricted. You in fact have a full action. You are using the Ready Action action. In this case you get a standard action at some other time that you stipulate.

The restricted action part of charge is for if it is a surprise round or you have a condition which limits you to a standard action.

Matt Beatty wrote:

My big problem with pathfinder reach weapons (probably brought up already) is that you can not prevent closing through the corners. Because of the way things are written you can charge in on a corner and not get attacked.

(Huh?) ...what ruling or book text supports that?

There is no rule other than the rule that says the first square on a diagonal is 5 ft and the second is 15 ft away. In 3.5 there was a specific rule that said that a reach weapon ignored this and the second square was 10 ft away. They removed that rule in pathfinder.

The diagrams on d20pfsrd are wrong. They are the old diagrams using 3.5 rules. Those diagrams do not exist in pathfinder. This is how it works in Pathfinder.

x.x.x.x.x.x.x
x.x.T.T.T.x.x
x.T.x.x.x.T.x
x.T.x.C.x.T.x
x.T.x.x.x.T.x
x.x.T.T.T.x.x
x.x.x.x.x.x.x

x=non-threatened square
T=threatened square
C=character

Note the diagonals! If I move in on one of the diagonals at no time do I go though a T

Secondly, since AoO are based on the leaving of a threatened "square", the enemy can take that diagonal path and nor provoke an AoO. He is 15 ft away and not threatened and then hes 5 ft away and not threatened = No AoO. Some people will argue that at some point the enemy does move through a threatened area at 10 ft away but pathfinder rules do not function that way. The rules specifically state threatened square.

You could house-rule it however you want. I actually prefer the 3.5 rule in home games. I also play PFS and so I have to follow the actual rules sometimes.

I need a ruling on this as there is a lack of rules on this subject.

I want to get Rhino Hide Armor for my pouncing barbarian:
1)Can I further enhance this armor to a +3 bonus?
2)Could I get this armor but change its base armor to say a chain shirt or a hide shirt so it was light?

I guess the over arching question is can I build a custom armor that has the +2d6 charge damage ability as long as I account for its cost?

Oddly enough. Hide shirt is in two different modules, the hide shirt is only banned in one of them.

Agreed. The closer ? could be hit with a range weapon but has cover while the second ? can be hit by a lunge normally.

My big problem with pathfinder reach weapons (probably brought up already) is that you can not prevent closing through the corners. Because of the way things are written you can charge in on a corner and not get attacked. Nothing will prevent this (well having natural reach would). I wish they had brought in the D&D3.5 ruling that reach weapons ignored the 5-15ft rule and counted as 5-10ft (Like the diagrams on d20pfsrd show).

I suggest taking him aside and confronting him. Just tell him that he needs to stop reading ahead and ruining it for you and the other players. I would not give him an ultimatum just yet but if things keep up you might have to threaten him with banishment from the table.

Another option is to not use red herrings but blue herrings. Make the changes real, make the written route the red herring and your rewrite as the real way. In addition, throw in some other stuff. You don't have to prepare it ahead of time, just throw it it. Tell his character to make a reflex roll or fall into the 15 foot pit of spikes. (Yes I can be an evil Gm when I want to). Your God. You can set the DC to what ever you want and the damage to whatever you want. This way hes guaranteed to fall in and guaranteed to be hurt but not directly to death. Every time he does something that his character should not know, do something that the player does not know as punishment. He will get the picture sooner or later.

VS was a good attempt at a mobile character.I think no matter how you cut it, VS is still lacking compared to a full attack. Ideally your best bet is Pounce or something similar.

It would be great if it could be combined with other damage styles to create a truly mobile fighter but I don't see that happening. I also think they should have made it one feat that increased with lvl. I would seriously think of taking it then. In the right setting though it still has potential. I have seen a two handed fighter do consistently better damage than most other characters because he didn't build the character around full attacks but around a single big attack.

Agreed...throw in some of your own stuff. Change up the traps or put them in new places. If they are puzzles and you have a little time, change them up too. Throw in some random encounters.

If your suspicions keep growing, pull the player aside and tell him that your not appreciating what hes doing. If all else fails channel your inner 1st ed GM and smite his character into a pile of dust. "Gods strikes you down for cheating, roll a new character."

waraxe = dwarven waraxe 1d10, battleaxe is the 1d8 version

Thx..my bad. Yes a dwarven waraxe will net you a you more damage with this. Not bad if your a dwarf and get proficiency for free.

Indeed, though you can get the same dice by taking four ranger levels and casting lead blades.

Or....take UMD and get a wand of it for 750 gp. Hence my barbarian with enlarge person and lead blades.

Matt Beatty wrote:

In my opinion the feat plus a -2 attack is not worth the measly extra damage you get out of wielding a large bastard sword

Look at the greataxe vs. large waraxe comparison above. -- With Improved Vital Strike, you are -2att/+12dmg on a highest-bonus single attack, which is double the -4att/+12dmg trade-off ratio of Power Attack at BAB12.

A great Axe is a 1d12 weapon and a large waraxe is a 2d6 weapon. Enlarge them or lead blade them and they both go to 3d6. There is no difference. They are the same damage once you start changing their effective size. That is what I am getting at. The above posts mistakened the waraxe as going from 1d8 to 2d8, it doesn't. 1d8 goes to 2d6 while 1d10 goes to 2d8. Take a look at table 6-5 on pg 145 of core rulebook.

..Superstitious Archtype stuff..

I agree with you that it is a pretty good archtype. However, with all the new AC dumping powers I think that DR plays a much more important roll in keeping you alive. Between rage, reckless abandon, Come and Get Me, and charging you effectively loose 14 points of AC at lvl 20. You have to account for that somehow and I think a combination of beast totem and the increase in DR from Invulnerable Rager helps out. I like the Superstitious Archtype, I just wish it didn't stack with Invulnerable Rager.

My major problem with the barbarian is that I want more rage powers in my build and I want them now! Too many good ones to choose.

Being limited to spells only on your spell lists and that you currently know and can cast PLUS all the restrictions currently on potions really takes the power out of this Hex.
It's not a bad hex option but it is no longer worth taking before mid to late level.

Agreed. It's now really only for if you want to play evil and cook small children alive.

This is a fine notion. Let me introduce you to my Enlarged fighter who was wielding a Large Greatsword before he got the spell. (That's 4d6 for the weapon damage dice...)

Just so you know. You can not wield a large two handed weapon. When going from medium to large the weapon must go up in hands. So, a large one hander becomes a two handed weapon in the hands of a medium creature and a large two hander is unwieldable by a medium size creature. Check the last sentence of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" section on pg 144 of core rulebook. No large greatswords. The best you can do is a large bastard sword or dwarven waraxe.

Just remember that the only weapon that gets you a better damage when upped to large is a one handed bastard sword or the dwarven waraxe. The 1d10 goes to 2d8. All the other one handers are 1d8's and when they go large they just go to 2d6. Your better off taking a medium two hander (greatsword, earthbreaker, etc) and not take a -2 attack for the same damage. In my opinion the feat plus a -2 attack is not worth the measly extra damage you get out of wielding a large bastard sword.

Were it would make a difference is if you could wield large two handers as two handers but the rules specifically ban the use of that.

agreed. Superstition a very strong power at higher levels when more things start flinging the will save or suck's around. It also opens up the power witch hunt that can give you an extra damage per 4 levels to anything with spells or spell like abilities (basically everything at high levels). You also open up to disruptive and spellbreaker, the fighter only feats. I think the barbarian can play one of the best mage hunters in the game with these combinations.

You are limited by your AoO that you can make.

I started with a 14 dex and took combat reflexes. This will give me three AoO to use with CaGM. I will probably bump my dex up some with a belt at some point too. Unfortunately, to do this you have to take out some Con, but it is totally worth it. You might want to also get some feats to help with reach (step up series, lunge, a reach weapon) because you need to be threatening when they hit you.

The major problem as to why the barbarian is somewhat pigeon holed into CaGM is that before the APG the barbarian was fairly weak compared to its counter part the fighter. The barbarian had less AC, less hit, and less damage. Now comes along the APG and gives us a few powers that make the fight a little more even. Low and behold, the barbarian now has to take these powers if you are going to compare him to the fighter.

In a party the barbarian has a few options but when you compare him to a fighter their is really only one path that has a standing chance.

I would like to see more rage powers that are active both in and out of rage. I think this would help bring the barbarian up some when not raging.

They are still a very strong way to go for a cleric. I am not sure if they are as strong as 3.5 but compared to other avenues for a pathfinder cleric they are strong. You can stay back, cast spells, and full attack to your hearts delight.

Not all hexes are mind-effecting. Some hexes are and they say so in there description.

There is an FAQ out already on vital strike. It makes it pretty clear that vital strike does not work with charge or spring attack or most things.

The problem is that they use the language "attack action". Although it's not written well, "attack action" is its own type of standard action and is not a fluffy way of saying a single attack (if they meant single attack they would say single attack).

Ok....at first I was mad at you for trolling, then I tried to explain it to you because there was a discrepancy in the editions, now I am back to being pissed off. Give it up! We have explained how it works. That is the ruling. If you don't like it write your own rpg.

As a side note: In this new reality of rules I roll a superstitious barbarian with a +80 something to all saves. I win!

I now petition this thread for locking as nothing will ever come of it.

Well lets not derail the this thread into a fighter sucks at high lvl thread. Needless to say the barbarian has options to plug the hole (some coming with big downsides) and the fighter does not.

That would help a lot. As of now you either have to have acrobat pro or a scanner.

However, I have a question for those at Paizo: Vital Strike (greater vital strike to be exact) is mentioned in Treeraiser's stat block (from the Inner Sea World Guide) and it's mentioned in his tactics that he charges with it. Is this a misprint, or an oversight, or what? Sorry if my post seems rude or snappy, just curious.

There are multiple instances of this being done by NPC's. I agree that it seems to be a difference between designers who right the story and make the NPC's and the developers who right the rules. This has come up in Society where an NPC in one scenario can charge and use vital strike. In this instance we can not house rule a change. All we can do is assume this NPC has some special power that lets him do this and move on.

Gloves of Dueling grant a fighter a +2 to his Weapon Training bonus. What do most "conditions" do? Subject you to a -2 penalty. Ergo, for 15k you effectively are ignoring all of those kinds of conditions...at least as far as att/dmg go. Protecting your weapon is an added bonus.

-- But not that committing "fighter heresy" by dipping out of "full BAB" for a level of cleric and the Community domain isn't an option or anything. Alternatively, stay full-BAB with two levels of paladin, and put to use a non-sacked charisma score.

Well... A fighter would not be worried too much about a -2 to everything condition. People are way more worried about the fighter failing a will save against hold person or dominate or flesh to stone or any other real save or suck (die) spell. Those gloves are not going to help you.

This is something that the fighter just will never have. The fighter has awesome AC, attack, and damage. He has to trade something for that and that something is a will save. The best a fighter can do is grab that will save re-roll and pray, preferably with a cleric that can save him when he fails.

I have been using herolab for about a year now. Its very intuitive and allows for very quick character generation (NPC's also). It does stack up money wise but I am trying to convert from paper books to electronic, so I see it as the pdf of the book plus herolab addition still costs less than paper book.

In addition, herolab supports non-d20 systems. So if you play other systems (world of darkness, cortex, mutants and masterminds, etc) you do not need some other program. I play alot of shadowrun, so I am extremely stoked about its addition to herolab.

Also, if you play any virtual tabletops, more and more of them are able to import herolab formats directly into the program and create you digital character.

I agree. In my PFS group we have a ridiculous fighter who tried to maximize a single attack. As such he has cleave, vital strike, and overhand chop. We ended up pouring through the rules to get it right. This is what we came up with:

Overhand chop will work with vital strike because they both key off of making an "attack action" (which has been clearly said to be its own type of standard action made up of one attack).

Overhand chop will work with a charge because it says it does.

Overhand chop will not stack with cleave because it is its own standard action and NOT an "attack action". If they wanted cleave to be an attack action they would have said that and not clarified it as it's own standard action.

Finally, you get to use none of this stuff on an AoO. An attack of opportunity gives you "a single melee attack" and as such very few things can be used in conjunction with and AoO (see barbarian rage power "knockback" for an example of one such thing).

My 2 cents.

prd link - http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

3rd sentence from the top "This compendium is NOT the official Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!"
Do not quote PRD as being official in any manner.

First print says its uberstack. Errata does not fix.
Second print is the only thing out of whack, because it does not align with the errata. And the PRD as stated above is not a official source for rules. More than likely the second print is the error (not the first) because the errata does not fix the issue, and PRD was updated to match the error in second printing.

I agree with you on the prd issue. It is not official because alot of stuff is rewritten for clarity or not updated in a timely fashion. However, if you are at a table and one player has a 2ed printing and you have a 1st ed printing, the 2nd ed printing ALWAYS trumps anything in the 1st Ed printing. There is no question as to which is the current set of rules. The most current printing is always right.