Melkiador's page

Organized Play Member. 6,795 posts (6,797 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 6,795 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It is possible the temple could provide the healing today for expected payment in the future. Paladins are fairly trustworthy debtors; but, as adventurers, are also rather death-prone.

That reminds me. What I will miss the most are new APs for PF1. Right now I have quite a few that I haven't even touched. But eventually, I'll have gone through them all. There will probably be a few good 3rd party APs, but those are more rare and hard to judge for quality, and of course won't be set in Golarion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anvil Mithrashield wrote:

"Call animal compels a single animal to come to you. Animals that follow that animal of their own accord act under their own volition; their minds are not affected."

I didn't read where that might happen as a result of a "Call Animal" spell? To my knowledge there is no roll the player makes to succeed in casting the spell, hence no way to fail it. Why would that happen, specifically as it applies to PFS/ organized play?

Your example was a wolf. Wolves are social creatures. If a member of the pack wanders off in a random direction, it is reasonable that the pack might follow it. It'd be different if the animal was more solitary, like a tiger. The magic only specifies so far, and it's up to the GM to determine how the rest of the world reacts for the rest of the way.

For instance, let's say I cast disintegrate on one of a group of low level mooks. Do the rest of the mooks run away? Disintegrate doesn't say anything about causing people to flee, but a GM could easily say the rest of the mooks are so spooked by one of their buddies turning to dust that they all flee from the powerful magic immediately.

Perspectively, I've been GMing for 34 years. If it's not in the rules, why would a GM do that (outside of hating druids or disliking a particular player)?

I imagine it's more about disliking the tactic than the player. It was all just a hypothetical to let you know that you can't rely on your interpretation of any rule, even in PFS. It will probably work with many GMs, but if a GM really doesn't want you to do something, it's not that hard to make a ruling to keep you from doing something. And the tactics that have the most "cheese" are the tactics that are most likely to be met with counter DM rulings.

Squiggit wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
While the classes in core are part of the default assumption.
The reality is that there's no such thing as a default assumption, that's the whole idea behind rule 0 and GM discretion. Plus there's a difference between "not all options are going to be at all tables" and "this class is basically a house rule."

Except unchained is house rules, including the classes. This is because they can take a lot of outside rulings by the DM to make them work. For instance, the unchained rogue listed a lot of talents it gets from core series books, but what about all of the player companion options that came before it. Does it get those too? We can't know for sure, because it's house rules. You have to ask the DM. The unchained monk and old archetypes? House rules. It's a very house-rules-y book.

No one said to disregard it in terms of advice. But that advice has to be couched in the reality that unchained isn’t an option at every table. Meanwhile the classes in core are part of the default assumption. As an aside, many of the DMs who ban unchained also ban the summoner.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Wanted: Some of the feat types in the splat books could have been so much more, like the team work feats in the Evil and Anti-hero books.
Personally, I'm hoping to expand on some of those abandoned subsystems in my own time. ^_^

I do look forward to seeing some unfiltered Isabelle content. The future of Pathfinder must be 3rd party.

I mean, multiple teams of designers designed the core classes over multiple iterations. So multiple groups of professionals thought they were fine how they were. It’s not shocking that some DMs would agree with all of those experts from over all of that time.

Honestly, I never knew where the total concept for the alchemist came from. There's not a lot of bomb-throwing, potion-swigging, studious mutants in fantasy fiction.

Derklord wrote:
@Melkiador: I don't see a reason not to use them that isn't either stupid or malicious.

It’s easy to think anything is stupid if you don’t like the result.

David knott 242 wrote:

We do know that feat chains are much shorter.

The "problem" with feat chains is that you can always add on to them.

I'm just telling you what I have seen in various places, from various GMs. Mostly from the looking for group on roll20, which I scan through regularly to see what's happening in the game in general, but seen it in other places too. Most of the GMs have not seemed stupid or malicious. People just have different tastes and desires. The unchained classes aren't as widely accepted as you want them to be.

I wonder if it'd be more interesting to ask, "What class would you never take without using an archetype?"

Loved: Summoning, in general

Wanted: A do-over of the synthesist that worked more like the Pathfinder polymorph, with a stat boost instead of a stat replacement.

Hated: General lack of martial versatility outside of combat.

Will Miss: The customized archetype system. The pf2-feat-based-archetype system doesn't please me at all.

Derklord wrote:

Disclaimer: None of this is intended as hostility towards you!

Melkiador wrote:
[unMonks] are a bit house-rule-ish, and I've seen multiple DMs not allow them.
Every GM who doesn't allow unMonk is an idiot and a jerk (presuming cMonk is allowed, i.e. not counting flavor reason cases). There is absolutely nothing "house-rule-ish" about the unchained classes. Sure, the book says "which parts of this book you incorporate into your game, and which parts you leave on the shelf, are entirely your call", but the same is true for literally every other book (including the CRB) just as much.

Most of those books don't override other existing rules though. The usual complaints I see from DMs about unchained are something like:

1) It's overpowered. And you really can't can't deny that the unchained rogue and monk are more powerful than their core counterparts, and many DMs think the core versions are fine as they are.
2) You can't use Unchained whole cloth. The DMs feel like if they have to use part of the book, namely the classes, then they are supposed to use the other parts of the book, like background skills and automatic bonus progression. It's a bit of a slippery slope argument, but a lot of time pressed GMs just don't want to take the time to sort through it all, and prefer to say 'yay' or 'nay' to an entire book.
3) Bloat. Some GMs only allow a handful of sources and unchained is just bloat to them

I'm just saying that you should never assume that the unchained monk is the monk being discussed when someone is talking about the monk. When people mean the unchained monk, they almost always specify that it is the unchained monk, usually with a contraction of umonk or unmonk.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The monster would be under no special compulsion to fight, but you could use something like diplomacy to talk an intelligent monster into fighting for you. And you could try to stick to monsters that will naturally want to fight your enemies. For instance, a summoned angel will pretty easily fight evil outsiders and undead, without you even needing to ask.

Yeah, the problem is that the list changes for the kind of wizard you are. Were you lucky enough to get a high casting stat for save or suck spells? Do you want to focus on blasting? Do you have a good dexterity for ranged touch spells? What’s your spell specialization? Those and many other factors influence what is a good spell for any given wizard.

I was never talking about the unMonk. Those are a bit house-rule-ish, and I've seen multiple DMs not allow them. But yes, the unMonk mostly did what it set out to do, and is actually a good unarmed attacker. The base monk has "issues", but it's the monk that people know and most accept as "the monk". My actual point was to show that having a big damage die can be misleading as to how powerful a class is, which the base monk was handy for displaying.

Maybe you can change the story a bit and have them discover evil puppet masters who have been pulling the strings on both sides trying to lead to a bloody civil war. And now it is up to the PCs to reveal this to the world and take them down.

Antiquarian is probably my default investigator. Empiricist is ok if you want to abuse point buy, but I don’t like the feel of dumping a lot of stats.

Kineticist can be a lot to take in.

1. You have the blast. That part is pretty straight forward.
2. You have burn, which is like a resource pool but you also take non-lethal damage for how much you’ve used it.
3. You have infusions that modify the blast. These usually cost burn, but the cost goes down as you level because of infusion specialization.
4. You have overflow which gives buffs based on your level and how much burn you've taken.
5. You have metakinesis, which is like metamagic for the blasts, and it uses burn.
6. You have gather power, which can lower the final burn cost of a blast.
7. You have utility powers which may or may not cost burn, with typically no way to avoid the burn if there is any.
8. You have defense powers that are free but you can improve with burn.
9. You have composite blasts which are a lot like regular blasts but usually do multiple damage types with slightly more damage and have burn.
10. You have internal buffer which lets you pay tomorrow’s burn costs today.

Derklord wrote:
@Temperans: For what Melkiador did, the ability scores are indeed irrelevant - 1d3+2+X is greater than 1d6+X, no matter the value of X. Ignoring Flurry ruined the comparison, though.

I’ve ran the numbers before, but there are too many variable for a clean comparison. It depends on your chances to hit which varies a lot by enemy and total attack bonus. You have to build a nearly complete character which someone will always tear apart for not having this-or-that option.

But also if you just move the comparison to level 4 then the barbarian also has “flurry”

Temperans wrote:

I dont really want fight and cause problems for the poster, but I was indeed curious as to why you gave the barbarian +2 Str but gave the Monk +0. Also, it seems counter productive to mention how the barbarian rage + rage powers are better than a monk without even talking about the monk: While also saying that comparing base stats is unhelpful. Even if the monk is MAD, it doesn't mean the stats are meaningless.

In terms of accuracy, Flurry of Blows is no different than full BaB TWF. So I dont see how there is an accuracy problem (besides people who use Power Attack all the time).

Finally, I never mentioned anything about magic items. But even if I did, using magic items can definetly useful if done correctly, since each class has a set they prefer which can definetly be compared.

The barbarian was raging, so had an additional +2 to his attack and damage rolls from +4 to strength from rage. It didn’t matter what his base stats are because both classes have base stats and magic items. I was only comparing the class abilities in a vacuum because almost anything else that you can give to one class, you could give to the other, and those numbers cancel out.

If I said the barbarian had the maximum starting strength of 20, then you could say the monk has the same strength, but when raging, the barbarian is still +4 more, with corresponding +2 to attack and damage. So, the 20 never actually mattered to the comparison. That +2 to attack and damage from strength is a class feature that the monk does not have, the same that the monk’s bigger damage die is a class feature that the barbarian doesn’t have.

Temperans wrote:
(Why is the monk not adding his str to the attack? Is he Dex based and only got 10 Str? Also if you added Rage, you should take into account Flurry of Blows adding an extra attack: Aka, more accuracy vs more chances to hit.)

The point was to just compare class features. Factoring in base stats and magic items isn’t helpful for comparison. Though counting base stats would probably just reflect badly on the monk who is more multiple ability dependent than the barbarian.

Counting flurry is complicated, but ultimately doesn’t make up much for the lack of accuracy. The unchained flurry is better and might be superior to the barbarian but I haven’t run those numbers.

Note that with the brawler rage power, the barbarian could have a base 1d6 unarmed damage at level 2, and with the greater brawler rage power could have its own flurry at level 4 or level 3 if you take an extra rage power feat.

Zwordsman wrote:

Uh most martials honestly. You want static bonuses generally speaking. So the smaller dice on the punch matters less.

So fighters and barbs can get a ton.

For comparison, a first level barbarian’s strength gives +2 to its damage. So, its raging unarmed strike does 1d3+2, before other modifiers, for an average 4 damage. The 1st level monk does 1d6 with its unarmed strike for an average 3.5 damage. On average, every jump of the monk’s damage die is just an effective +1 to damage. Now, consider that the barbarian is not only getting a bonus to its damage but also to its accuracy and you can see that the barbarian can punch things as good as or better than the monk. And then add in the barbarian rage powers for unarmed strike and the monk just starts looking bad.

And other classes have their own ways of doing this. The fighter would get its bonuses from weapon specialization and advanced weapon training.

Lazaryus wrote:

We're dead set on a +2 being locked in on Intelligence, but maybe we can have the other +2 and the -2 be floating.

We'll probably replace the flexible bonus feat with Technologist and the ability to gain whatever feats they qualify for throughout their adventure that has Technologist as a prerequisite for free.

That should be fine, but you need to decide how you feel about them applying their bonus and penalty to the same stat or to intelligence.


Change Shape

A Creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific Creature or type of Creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A Creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a Polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature's Description, but the Creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the Creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their Description.

Seriously, the floating ability bonus is fine as it is. No matter what you justify for a set of modifiers, it probably won’t match someone’s view of humanity. Which is the whole reason for the floating bonus, in the first place.

The real and only problem with humans is that a completely open bonus feat is just way too strong for most builds. So, you should just focus on taking that away and seeing what you can add to replace it.

Spell strike favors weapons with high crit ranges. So most magus builds use those kinds of weapons.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no perfect option. The magus is very versatile. If you start throwing larger numbers of enemies at them, he'll just switch to using anti-group spells, or worse, talk the party into resting after every fight, so he can contribute.

If you don't want to downplay combat or nerf the magus, then the only remaining option is to buff the rest of the party while raising the difficulty. The GM could try giving the other characters 1 mythic tier and see if that makes up the difference. But this option still isn't "fair", because the magus is basically being relatively penalized for being optimal. In the end, this is very little different than nerfing the magus.

Personally, I would just let all the fights be a cakewalk and focus more on the other elements of the game. The magus spent a lot of energy to be good at one thing, so just downplay that one thing. Or rather than buffing the enemies, let them die in one hit, so it doesn't matter how much damage someone does.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread isn't really the place for it, but most undead are simply magically evil. Ethics has nothing to do with it. They are evil, because evil is a tangible physical property in that world. You can argue that that's an odd design choice for that fantasy world, but it is what it is.

I think some people have been traumatized by overpowered gestalt campaign experiences. It really doesn't seem like this GM is upping the difficulty of the adventure. At least not yet.

I’d probably go with an evangelist cleric. You can buff the party very well and do some backup healing if needed.

Just going with generic wizard stuff, how good is your party at dealing with invisibility or something like obscuring cloud? If the wizards get a little prep time, mirror image is very nice against kineticists.

Hybrid classes are allowed, but you just can’t “double up” on classes with it. So no slayer/rogue or oracle/shaman. Or in this case, no arcanist/wizard.

Qw3rty wrote:

Hi All,

I’d like to have your recommendations for a gestalt build.

Main class is a Diviner Wizard, and my first thought was to pair it with a base unchained rogue for additional skill point, free Finesse Training and Sneak Attack, even if I’d like to avoid to be engaged in melee.

Some additional information:

Wizard stats are 7,18,12,20,11,7, actually first level, the plan is to go up to the 20th in a Tomb of Horrors/Rappan Athuk adventure.

We are using the Unchained Action Economy and fractional BAB and saves. No hybrid classes are allowed for the gestalt if they share a base class with the other side.

Until now I received a lot of useful recommendation, what I liked the most are the Alchemist (Mindchemist/Internal Alchemist or Metamorph) and the Investigator (Empiricist).

Do you have any other suggestion for a better second class?

Thank you.


Of your preferred choices, I like the alchemist better. But.... if you are wanting to be the traps person, you would probably be better off to pick that up as a slayer than as the investigator, so you can grab all of the good saves and BAB while you are at it. Between the alchemist and the slayer, the alchemist should be better for focusing on casting and the slayer better at handling the non-casting things if that ever comes up.

It might help to know what your teammates are thinking of handling, as you don't really need more than one traps person, and I really don't like the idea of your primary caster being the one handling that.

Qw3rty wrote:

Update: fractional BAB and saves and no hybrid classes if they share a base class with the other gestalt side.


Just drawing extra attention to this, so it will be a little less ignored by future posts.

You may want to make a post that reiterates all of your needs, wants and rules in the same place, so people can give you more helpful advice.

Yeah, eating eldritch abominations is the kind of thing that's guaranteed to go wrong.

David knott 242 wrote:

The only thing that an Avenger Vigilante doesn't get that a traditional full BAB class gets is a d10 hit die -- they are still stuck with a d8.

There are some really rare circumstances where the difference could come up. For instance, the mental block spell could turn the virtual BAB off for a given time. But for any normal day-to-day use, the Avenger BAB should work the same as real BAB.

An avenger gains a base attack bonus equal to his vigilante level instead of using those listed on Table 1–1. He adds this value to any other base attack bonus gained from other classes or racial Hit Dice as normal.

So, the avenger BAB should count as real for just about anything a regular full BAB class does.

Maybe bloodrager and advance that bloodline instead of the sorcerer, with the dragon disciple.

Magic Trick is a pretty fun feat. Most of the options seem to best suit classes that don’t actually exist, but the fireball set looks pretty good for the average blaster mage.

The Mage's Magnificent Mansion creates a lot, but I'm pretty sure they need to stay inside the Mansion. Fairy Ring Retreat is about the same.

Haunted Shoes can summon a random number twice per day, but doesn't work with magic trick.

It's not unusual for people to keep their vigilante in vigilante identity 99% of the time. Your social identity gives you some extra social options, but you aren't hurting yourself too much by not using them in most games.

The psychometrist vigilante doesn't give up vigilante specialization and so could choose avenger for virtual high BAB. I'm not really familiar with that archetype though.

Dave Justus wrote:
Assuming of course you completely ignore the once per day activation limitation.

Ouch. That snark. Yeah, he obviously missed a very important part of the text. It's not that unusual when reading an item you aren't that familiar with. But of course, if you think an option is too good to be true.... then it probably is, and you should probably read it again to see if you missed something.

Foeclan wrote:
The Expedition Pavilion is 6400gp and handles anything shy of a hurricane.

It doesn't seem to have any barriers to entry, other than some silk drapes. You'd be about as safe by setting up a normal tent inside of the tiny hut effect. The secure shelter at least gives you some solid walls and an arcane lock to bypass.

Tiny Hut doesn't really keep anyone out. It just makes the weather nice inside. I feel like all of the relevant items that do what you want have already been mentioned. So, you'd need to craft your own item and work with your DM to work on the specifics.

As I already mentioned, if going custom, you should be able to build a once per day item that casts secure shelter for a 14 hour duration. And that item should cost around 10,000 gold. You're probably not going to do much better than that.

I suppose another option would be just buying scrolls or wands of secure shelter. The wand would cost 21,000 gp, with 50 charges. The scroll would cost 700gp.

Lelomenia wrote:
I think the hex wording is just poorly thought out

I'm pretty sure it was intentionally worded to be open to multiple sources of summoning and calling. It's the kind of future-proofing you see in a lot of the later books. It was meant to work with spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities and any other form of funky summoning or calling that popped up in the future. The only good way to write that would be to have it as it already is, except maybe add an exception for eidolons if you didn't want them to work.

If the DM gets a bad feeling about this, there’s always the summon eidolon spell, where it should work unquestionably. You can also combine with a rod of giant summoning to stack it with the giant template.

1 to 50 of 6,795 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>