Eben TheQuiet wrote:
Better stat usage and some interesting tactical/mechanical possibilities depending on which Mystery you choose.
Please qualify this with some examples. Either way, CHA or WIS is a very low priority stat for a barbarian, but at least with WIS as a primary casting stat, I get bonuses to Will saves, Perception, and survival
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
Though I guess if you're specifically looking for Channel, Cleric is better than all but an Oracle of Life.
Channel positive energy isn't a deal-breaker, but access to higher-level spells and having a wide spell list is important.
I am in need of some advice for creating a gestalt barbarian/cleric for an upcoming game. The concept behind the character is a religious fanatic who throws herself into the fray, relying on her god to protect her while she deals out steely judgement. Modus operandi would be the buff before combat, then use channel energy/heals afterwards.
I chose this combo because I wanted rage powers like invulnerable rager and I also wanted access to the full list of cleric spells. Battle oracle was an option, and still may be, but I don't need lots of spells per day with this character concept, as the cleric class is there to support the barbarian. If someone can convince me otherwise, I could go back to oracle of battle.
We are using 20 point buy, human character, 5th level. Some non-standard equipment buys, so I'm not too concerned about that right now, but if you know of a cheap "must-have" piece of gear under 2000, let me know.
That's ridiculous! How can you play a fantasy RPG with objective, defined forces of good and evil? Don't you know that a game you play to relax and have fun should be chocked full of relativistic moral quandries designed to make sure a martial class has a bad time at the table?
Detect Magic wrote:
Here is a way to fix that plot hook. A wheel on one of the wagons breaks, sending the cargo tumbling down the side of a small cliff. The caravan workers have to spend a fair amount of time collecting the cargo, repacking it, AND fix the wheel.
Thanks for someone bringing this up.
Is smiting every evil you see really lawful good?
Maybe. Is it part of his own code to slay any evil he encounters?
If so, would running to save your life be justification for loss of powers for a day if your deity expects you to always fight, even if it does mean being a martyr?
No, retreating from a more powerful adversary is very pragmatic. It makes no sense to throw your life away from an obviously more powerful opponent. Regroup, plan, gather allies and resources, then renew the attack.
What conditions have come up where a paladin lost powers in your games?
I haven't had any paladins in my games fall, but the one time I did force an alignment shift was when a Chaotic Good character tortured a Kender.
What conditions have come up where you disagreed with your DM on whether the paladin should have?
I think you need to sit down with this player and discuss what your expectations of the class are and explain to him how your world works before he joins. Maybe you just need to ban the class outright. In a world where evil aberrations run the streets, all the paladins would have been hunted to extinction long ago.
Also, get his input on how he expects to play his class on what his code will be. To me, it seems like you're already pretty set on making this guy fall before you've even met him.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Yeah, my favorite one is a landscape 4-panel screen. The World's Greatest Screen In practice, the screen doesn't take up 44" on the table, only about 22". Two panels wide, and the other two panels are bent back towards the DM. Since the panels are 11" long, you can lay a piece of paper down behind it and the screen can hide everything if you want it to.
Here are the inserts I use for that screen: 4-panel landscape screen inserts. I print two copies of the carts and have one set facing me and the other set facing the players. I fin these to be much more useful than the charts on the official screen.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I think a level 6 NPC could qualify for the PRC, if you look at it from an RAI perspective. I think there was an error in the pre-reqs for the class, as it lists Bluff and Disguise as requiring +7, but other pre-req skills as +5. It is likely that whoever wrote the class was adding the +2 bonus to Bluff and Disguise from the Deceitful to the pre-reqs. Also, most PrCs are meant to be taken after 5 levels of a regular class.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
It also means I can damage my "friends" with any damaging touch attack spell without needing an attack roll.
I think the wording needs to be tweaked.
Huh, so you can cast Harm on a friend without needing an attack roll as long as you are in combat. That makes things... interesting.
Lets say i wanted to hit a friendly with a beneficial ranged touch attack in combat. Would i still roll to attack as per normal, against their touch AC?
If they want you to hit them, you can forego the roll. Technically you also need to roll to hit someone with a melee touch attack to cast Cure Light Wounds.
The wording of the feat implies that you reduce your cumulative penalty, not the penalty per range increment.
So, here is how it would break down:
0-80 ft: -0 (0 mod reduce by two to get 0)
Still, taking a shot out to 240 ft without any range penalty is pretty sweet.
Ask them, are you really interested in playing Pathfinder, or are you more interested in hanging out? If they just want to hang out, then schedule that for another night separate from the RPG night. Let them know if they want to just spectate, then try not to interrupt the game.
Another option would be to find a more laid-back and simpler rule set. It could be that they want to play an RPG, but don't like a heavier rules system like Pathfinder.
This is worse than death in Pathfinder.
I don't think it was intentional on his part. He hasn't played with us for a half a year and just got back into the game two weeks ago. Contrary to what has been suggested by others, I do talk to other players in the group, but they aren't actively watching this thread to reply in real time.
Yes, I CAN tweak the build to be a super-effective mega-flanking sneak attacker, but I have to make sacrifices to do so. My main point is that the bard really didn't have to make many sacrifices to become better at my core skills and even ignores a primary class feature without impacting his effectiveness.
BTW, Lamontia please post a complete level 6 build to show me how I should have built my swashbuckler rogue. I want to know.
Further up the thread someone suggested that rogues get a +1/die bonus on attack rolls when sneak attack damage would apply. I can totally get behind this rule. It would make my sneak attacks hit more often and go a long way towards making melee sneak attackers more fun to play. When the fighters and full BAB classes can toss out damage in spades without really trying, I'd be happy just doing some nice burst damage after a few turns of positioning and single attacks.
Roberta Yang wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. You built poorly, and poor builds should be punished and gruelingly unfun because ~player skill~. Now you have become a better player and will be playing the character types Pathfinder says you should be saying, so all is well. If anything, you should be thanking Pathfinder for this ingenious design and apologizing for your failure to understand that dex-rogues are for silly children.
I wouldn't be that cynical. I don't think it was an intentional choice by the design team at Paizo to have the class in the current state it is.
As other have pointed out, it is so situational, it is a non-factor. Yes, if I do land a really good hit once in a blue moon (TWF with longsword and shortsword, BTW) I do some nice damage, but it is only in the 24-point range on average. Only one attack will hit most times I do get in a full attack. Meanwhile, the bard is moving in and consistently doing damage. I don't know what his exact stats are, but it is consistent and steady damage on most rounds in the 10-15 point range. Did I mention he can also cast spells?
No, I did not dump DEX, because I thought it would be helpful for AC and skill purposes. I did get a good stat array due to my rolls (we don't do point-buy) so I have an 17 Str and a 20 Dex. I think his stats are higher. Honestly, the only thing that is keeping me alive is a Cloak of Displacement.
Sure, this is probably some sour grapes on my part, but it is a little disheartening to play a character for about a year now to be completely outclassed in my niche role as scout and secondary melee. I'll probably do something heroically stupid in the next session so I can come in with a wizard.
No, I'm not saying he's playing it better, he is just mechanically better at it. His Bluff, Sleight of hand and Stealth skills are better or equal to mine due to the bonus that his archetype grants him. He does more damage in combat (probably mostly gear-related). Also, since I gave up trapfinding for some extra fighter feats for my archetype, he can out-rogue me on the trap side of things. Oh, BTW, he can also cast spells.
I'm pretty much done with this class. I've tried to stick it out for too long.
Anecdote: I am playing a level 6 rogue with the swashbuckler archetype in a campaign. One player just rejoined the group with a level 6 Sandman bard. He is a better fighter and a better rogue than I am, with the benefit of being able to cast haste. Also, he doesn't even bother to use his bardic performance abilities.
Huh, I never noticed that Sp didn't require verbal or somatic components. That actually makes it a viable rogue talent.
Sorry, I misread that. The second point about casting while hidden still applies.
Take out the True Strike before combat, you can't take it with Minor Magic, it is a 1st level spell. Also, you can't cast while hidden, or at the very least, the target would be aware of your presence because it has a verbal component. The bolding is mine:
Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
I think most of these options are going to be too complicated for a player that doesn't like class-based systems. Adding more classes will probably be a non-starter.
Make it simple, create a fighter with Conspiracy Hunter and Charming or Fast-talker traits to pick up the skills (stealth and bluff, respectively). Plus, only fighters get access to the groovy weapon specialization feats.
Thank the run feet for 625 feet per round and you're moving at 71.022 MPH
Thanks! Those are very helpful actually, I'm trying to put together an investigative/roleplaying heavy story. Here's a much more specific question. Do any of you find the inclusion of NPC quoted text annoying? I find myself doing that a lot, and because I have lots of weird, grotesque characters I feel like it's necessary to evoke their personalities and quirks.
If you're doing an investigative scenario, I recommend the rule of three. Try to have at least three clues lead to the next scene or location. Don't expect the PCs to figure it out the first time. They'll ignore the first clue, misinterpret the second and then finally figure out the third one.
Also, don't make finding the clues hinged on a Perception check. Make the clue obvious, but the trick will be interpreting the clue. So, leave a letter on the floor, but make the PCs decipher the code words or figure out who wrote it.
Funnily enough, I had a thread about this right here. It included some statistical data and some issues you'd run into. One of the biggest issues is changing the way Improved Critical works.
I didn't see that thread, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ultimately, I don't think a D20 game can be ported to a multiple dice mechanic without reworking a lot of factors (threat ranges, ACs, etc.) Once you start getting outside of your normal target number range, the probability of success drops off pretty dramatically.
When you plot those probabilities against comparable attack bonuses and ACs, you see they do some weird stuff. If you have a relatively "high" attack bonus, you do best with 2d10 until you hit level 2, then 3d6 gives you better results all the way until level/CR 20
If you have a "low" attack bonus, 2d10 gives you better odds all the way through level 12, then 1d20 and 2d10 net you the same success rates. When you hit level 20, using a straight d20 gets you the best success chance.
I worked this up today after seeing a discussion on G+ about the merits/flaws of rolling 1d20, 2d10 or 3d6 as a mechanic for D20 systems. The sheets compare attack success probabilities against level appropriate ACs among the three mechanics.
BTW, I am not a statistician, so take it easy on me if I made any mistakes.
It cannot engulf as part of a run or charge because those are not standard actions.
FYI, last I knew "re-skinning" mounts/familiars is not PFS legal. That may or may not affect your decision.