Badaxes are respected enough to name a city after them: Bad Axe, Michigan. I was going to point this out! Grew up twenty minutes from there. :)
Should probably be in the PFS forum, but I'll say that you mostly want to be prepared for almost anything. Have ways to deal with DR of all kinds (silver, cold iron, DR/good, etc), swarms, mindless creatures, a source of flight/climb and some light to counter darkness effects (oil of Daylight is good at this). I'm sure others can be more helpful as I've been out of the game for a while.
He could probably keep attacking, assuming he wasn't using a two-handed weapon or the like. Though he may still be able to switch to a smaller/natural weapon. Best case, you get him to punch you a few times and possibly provoke. :)
I don't remember the exact scenario, but we recently encountered a water elemental (or genie maybe?) that we needed something from. The particular character I was playing frequently makes crass attempts at flirting, and early on gave a compliment on her "frothy ripples." Honestly it didn't sound so dirty until it left my mouth. XD
This is a silly question. Use common sense like the developers have said (multiple times) and realize it's just a variation on sneak attack.
It would be odd for Uncanny Dodge to mention "unawareness" specifically since it was only recently defined. Hidden strike isn't sneak attack. Hidden strike applies in all ways that sneak attack does dealing d4s of damage. It also applies in two ways that sneak attack doesn't. It applies when the target considers the vigilante a friend and when the target is unaware of the striker. In these cases it does d8s of damage. In addition to all this and to solidify that Hidden strike is definitely a new thing it also applies against targets with concealment. So yes Pathfinder did change that. A rogue attacking an unaware target (I.e. a failed perception check) would still get sneak attack. They could also get sneak attack if they attack a supposed "ally," though it would probably require a bluff check. Both of these work for the same reason: they effectively make the target flat-footed.
The old Shadow Conjuration/evocation guides had some good flavoring for disbelieving your own illusions, though that's more about how to fluff it after deciding if it's mechanically possible. Couldn't find the link with a quick search, hopefully it's still out there. =s
As for UMD, it's not figuring out how to make an item work, but rather making it work through force of will. You do have to make the check each time you go to use the wand/item/etc, and a natural 1 is always a failure, which isn't in keeping with having it all figured out. Further, the reason you can't use spellcraft to 'fake out' a wand or staff is because spellcraft is "getting" the item and understanding whether or not you have the power to legitimately use the item. (Emphasis mine). Just a quick clarification: a natural 1 isn't auto-fail for any skill checks, including UMD. There are just penalties if you roll a 1 on UMD and fail (if you succeed on a 1 you're in the clear). On topic, I personally like the idea of subbing in different attributes for skills in specific situations. I thought there were other systems that called this out (D&D 4 or 5e, maybe?). I think L5R was another system that had 'typical' attributes for skills, but allowed switching them if the situation called for it.
They use the minimum ability modifier, like a scroll. If they're range touch they should still require touching of some sort, whether wand or hand.
It's not the highest-optimized, but unarmed monks can certainly be done. Don't mistake optimal for viable.
Think of it as wizards working on developing spells (even ones they've seen before) until it finally clicks when they level. They're basically 'researching' an extant spell and trying to figure out over time exactly how to make it work for themselves. That's an excellent way to generalize it.
Experience is just one more thing for PCs to track, and for the GM to calculate. It's a whole complicated system designed to keep characters on track to level when the story needs them to (in published adventures, at least). Seems simpler to just bypass all that and use story-based leveling.
Scribing a spell into a spellbook just take some spellcraft skill.
Agreed.
That would be neat! Ganzi are a cool race, and unique. Then again I just like proteans. I don't have many boons, or I'd offer a trade. :(
On topic, I think Myth #7 is your weakest point, Jiggy, since it's based mostly on assumption and fails to account for the fact that anecdotal evidence can be presented and dismissed to support either conclusion. The only way to really know would be a detailed study that isn't likely to happen.Are you under the impression that my discussion of #7 was attempting to draw conclusions about the presence or absence of C/MD in Pathfinder? Only about its presence in actual play, as you stated in the header. Your OP seems to state that anecdotes stating that the disparity exists are ignored, but doesn't mention that anecdotes stating that it is minimal or can be managed can also be ignored. It seems one-sided in that sense. I mean that in a respectful manner. Please correct me if I've made a mistake somewhere.
This isn't going to be a very interesting thread if people just keep quoting the OP as though they're making a point.
Well thought out post. However,I don't think that the disparity that exists is as large as some seem to claim, or that it's even a very big problem. Most games I've played in are happy to overcome an obstacle together, even if someone else provided the key. Something I haven't seen mentioned is that a caster is better off as a force multiplier than trying to steal the show: Invisibly is usually better to cast on the rogue. Overland Flight is great, but it only helps the caster (who probably can't carry party members over that chasm) - casting Fly on the big strong fighter is more useful there, and in many fights as well (similarly, telekinetic is a great spell that makes teamwork shine). When I play a caster, I want to save my spells when I can and let the social characters talk first (which sometimes includes my own social skills too), before resorting to magic that could fail and hinder further attempts (assuming I even have the right spell ready for that situation). Not to mention that many martial-types can access some of these abilities through either their own limited spellcasting, other features/feats, or consumables (though I admit they sometimes come with greater cost or less versatility compared to a pure caster). Overall, it's not something I worry about that much, nor have I seen it significantly impact the enjoyment of players in any games I've been in. There are usually much more noticeable issues, such as differing levels of optimization, or conflicting styles of play. Luckily, those are much easier to fix. Edit- more examples.
Pathfinder is getting pretty clunky. More options are nice and can be ignored, but puts more onus on home groups to ban/allow/houserule things they don't want to deal with.
@Divoxx, even though you're getting flak, you have the right attitude (it's the internet, can't take it too seriously). I don't know that I'd go so far as to allow a gnoll (though I understand in the case of a brand new player, I'd probably give them a quick race change). I had some VCs years ago that ran my first character though scenarios even tough he was a level or two below the minimum (he went easy on me). We only had one table going, and it was the best option in his mind. VCs like that are what grew our lodge to a very popular group that spanned the county and regularly hosted 7+ tables per week over three locations and days. Unfortunately, Paizo's heavy-handed approach to some rules and seeming distrust of the player base drove them away, and reduced one of the most vibrant and popular PFS lodges in the country (if not the world) to a minor group -- in Paizo's own backyard no less!
I agree, though that set DC 20 sense motive will likely be easier unless the liar isn't trained in bluff.
Also a fair point. I usually just shoot for 18 myself. Kinda sucks if you're not playing a race with the right stat boost though.
Being a team builder seems like a good plan. Bards are usually welcome for all. You might want to avoid being a scout, as that can eat up table time solo, and some people can get miffed about that. (I think it's foolish to not scout if you can though, but I digress.)
I'd describe it more as "20 INT will help as a nice boost that you probably don't absolutely need." Though at this point it's probably just an issue of semantics and relative expectations. ;)
You have most or all of the options here now. At this point it's just deciding where you want to sacrifice. But seriously, an arcane caster is a simple way to avoid a lot if it.
5e seems interesting with its "compacting" of the large number growth over levels, though I haven't played it myself. Though even in pathfinder core you can get heavily optimized characters that wreck things, though perhaps with a slightly lower ceiling. You're best bet is to talk to your characters before the campaign and come to an agreement about the power level you'd like everyone to be at. Ask them to avoid ridiculous power-builds, and that you'll set the adventure difficulty accordingly. Discuss how dangerous/serious you'd like the tone of the campaign to be. This may give them incentive to try interesting, unoptimized builds they wouldn't normally try, or get heavily into a non-standard roleplay character. I like to give characters a high point buy with hard limits on starting ability scores to encourage diversity and help MAD classes/concepts.
Actually, the most important consideration is probably the type of group you play with, and the types of games you usually play. Are the other players hardcore optimizers, or not? Does the GM tend to run harsh, difficult games, or is the tone more casual and friendly? The best groups are usually those with similar levels of optimization and min-maxing. You should try to match your group so you don't outshine everyone, or fall behind.
Mechanically, INT is more useful, but an 18 will not hurt you if you want to play a more rounded character, or if it fits the story you've written (especially with mythic).
Both of these cases are resolved simply enough by applying the ruling I described above (essentially eliminating flat-footed in that combat). Initiative just determines who is quicker to draw.
In my area GMs often rule that combatants aren't flat footed at the start of combat in situations where both sides are aware and ready for combat, such as a duel, or two groups facing off with weapons ready. At least, I do.
And get higher CL ones if it's not PFS. Oils/potions for daylight and such. Maybe get multiple mnemonic vestments if you use it frequently. Or just play an arcane caster where you can't get a lot of those debuff removers, then it's not your fault. Consider offensive wands. Ennervate is good, as is scorching ray with better CL.
Technical Aside:
That could be a mistaken perception from my early PFS character with the feat. You may be right!
Though it does/may (depending on the GM) require graduating from the Academae in Korvosa, which is easier to work into backstory at first than later.
Pages of spell knowledge are a good idea. Otherwise, you'll just have to make sacrifices of which spells to take and leave. You only know so many spells, unless you're part human and can take the favored class bonus for tons of spells. On scrolls, you can never have too many. My characters spend quite a bit on scrolls for emergency situations.
Heretek is right, summoner and kineticist have some complicated aspects that might confuse a new player. Though you probably know the person better than we do. Fighter is simple, but depending on the player they might get frustrated by the lack of out-of-combat versatility, and there are a lot of feats to sort through. They'd need some guidance on useful feats.
Carry scrolls, and grab a few offensive spells for combat. Align weapon and air walk are two spells that probably work well on scrolls, as well as less-common debuff removers. A Mnemonic vestment will help if you need to use a scroll with limited actions, or abilities that only work with cast spells. If you focus on a few versatile combat spells you can get away without taking too many. Something without SR, something non-mind-affecting, maybe a summon monster spell, etc.
As others have said, 20 int is nice if you need high DCs, but 18 is fine and makes you more versatile. Since you mentioned summoning, Academae Graduate is a feat that can ONLY be taken at first level. Standard action summons are very powerful, and fatigued isn't that bad for a wizard if you fail the save. Carry a few potions of lesser restoration (and maybe Invigorate) for after the fight.
Yep! You can ignore most requisites by adding even more to the DC. Can't ignore the feats though. You could also have another caster provide the spell, or use a scroll, but then you'd have to pay for the material component of the spell.
He's making a joke.
You're playing PFS? If so, you won't ever be using the ship combat rules. As far as I'm aware, the only thing you can use your ship for is flavor during travel.
If you/the GM allows the item to exist, there wouldn't be a problem with it deactivating itself.
Fluff. Still probably a really strong item though, and more artifact-level. But at that price point... hard to say.
As a less-dickish way of saying there are no buyers, maybe no one has the coin to meet their price. On that note, just let the PCs decide what it's worth to them if they want to sell it. Is it supposed to be part of the plot? Then devise some way to convince them to keep it. A curse could work, but it might be better to come up with a compelling story reason to nudge them towards deciding to keep it on their own. Perhaps they need to protect it to prevent a catastrophe, or even destroy it. Maybe they find out their arch-nemesis really wants it, and would probably buy it from whoever they sold it to. If it's not a story element... why are you giving them artifacts in the first place? :P
Sunder is the third CM that can replace an attack, along with trip and disarm.
Since you put the restriction on races, why not just alter the darkness effect so it's less annoying/deadly? Give light a visibility of 10-20' instead, or stash a few potions of Darkvision somewhere nearby.
Inquisitor judgement is a great feature. It's flexible and lasts an entire combat. It may not stack up to uber-optimized power-gamers, but that seems more an issue of player expectation than the class.
Druid with the Reincarnated archetype?
Are you the GM? Make the "Necromantic Affinity" feat work with all negative energy like it should. Or just prep some Cure spells and use those with fervor. They're better anyway.
Actually, the Red Mantis are perfectly okay with non-RMAs using the sawtooth sabre (it's mentioned in some of the setting guides). It makes it harder to tell which ones are the real agents, and spreads fear of their reputation. Some friends and I have joked about RMAs randomly entering combat to disarm & correct a character using the sabres incorrectly ("They supposed to face down! Like this!").
I've uploaded the version I had saved on my drive: link
Actually, plane shift requires a focus attuned to that plane. Even though by silly-RAW you have the focus required for every personal demiplane ever in a spell component pouch, I'd rule that you don't have such foci unless you've explicitly created/acquired it. Keep in mind that ruling would keep baddies from freely invading your own demiplane as well. ;) Edit: makes for some interesting and thematic loot when you kill a BBEG. Follow-up adventure hook in his personal domain. ;)
I'm just going to comment on this because the scientist in me was bothered, and I can't resist. The surface area/volume ratio of a creature (or any objects with similar densities) does actually decrease at a relatively consistent rate. In the real world, most living creatures have very similar densities, very close to that of water due to their bodies largely being made of it. It somewhat depends on shape, but it we use a sphere as an example the volume increases by the cube of the radius (r^3) while the surface area increases by the square (r^2). It should be obvious that volume increases much more quickly. This is actually one reason why organisms are limited in their size the way they are. A single-celled amoeba can't grow to the size of a person because they don't have enough surface area to absorb oxygen/nutrients/etc fast enough to sustain their relatively-larger volume.
Enough nerding out, though. To be on topic, making AoE effects do damage by squares would require a lot of tinkering, and would make an already-complicated game even more so, with little to no payoff -- hence, a bad idea. Edit: No one's even touched on the idea that Hit Points are more abstract measure of combat ability than actual injuries. For the example of the 20th-vs-1st level fighter in a fireball, the 20th level guy is just luckier/quicker/more experienced/etc.
|
