Perelir

Pupsocket's page

1,562 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:


So, the real problem lies with the inability of GMs to tackle the 15-minutes day of adventuring.

When the casters have spent all their spells, the barbarian all his rage rounds and the paladin all his smites and lay on hands, the good old meat shields and their flanking buddies can shine again ;-)

This wasn't even true in (pre-Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons, and it's certainly not true today.


claudekennilol wrote:
But it ended with my wife's character on the ground one health away from death. The GM wouldn't let anyone walk up and heal her saying "no one is close enough to heal her" even though they hadn't acted yet before her next turn. (and everyone was within their move range)

I smell issues (other than minor rules disagreements).


blahpers wrote:


The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.

That's a totally legit wish. Below level 6 or so.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I personally believe that if someone can make a concept worth with a particular class or class combination that's good enough for me. I like having more than one way to accomplish the same overall goal.

Why isn't there a discussion on how other classes can do what classes other than the rogue or fighter can do (concept wise not specific abilities)?

Because only the Rogue and the Fighter ride the short bus (and, to some extent the Cavalier, but he's got a proper pet).


Rynjin wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
Wov......that spell has NO business being level 5. As a level 3 spell, I might buy a scroll of that, but I wouldn't take it as a spell known even if it was level 2.

You'll take it, and here's why: It is the ONLY spell option you have for flight as an Inquisitor.

I searched desperately for an alternative.

Sooo.....Inquisitors have to buy flight? Because this dog doesn't roll around until level 12 at the earliest.


Wov......that spell has NO business being level 5. As a level 3 spell, I might buy a scroll of that, but I wouldn't take it as a spell known even if it was level 2.


Barring exceptional circumstances, it just works. Silence spells, being encased in solid rock, or 200' of seperation, sure, those are unusual circumstances that call for some adjudication, but in most fights, just don't waste your time on it.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

I want a skill monkey that can advance in 10 skills at once and NOT suck in it's other abilities.

Rogues can put all their points into DEX and INT to basically have 10-12 skills, and be good at most of the Rogue abilities.

No other class can really do that. They normally don't get the skill points.

If you try to cover 10-12 skills with your Rogue, you WILL be mediocre at many of them. Could you name for us the skills you think your Rogue should have?

GreyWolfLord wrote:


Bards can't, they will suck at being bards (aka, CHA will be a dump stat instead).

I don't think you know Bards. Or Rangers. And you certainly don't know Alchemists.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
...but if you run a REAL dungeon with a REAL day (at least 8-12 hours)...where you'd actually NEED a Rogue (so none of this one or two trap stuff, the dungeon is LOADED with traps and locks and other things), they run out of these types of spells within the first hour or two...and then...they are back at the square where a Rogue with a high Dex is better at many of the skills.

Your neckbeard doesn't impress me, i used to DM with the red box edition. Even back then, the giant dungeons had places to rest and recover spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


also i loved the part where you criticized the form of my response rather than its contents thumbs up

Your haiku-like writing is super annoying. It's a valid thing to criticize. And he didn't just criticize your form, he also criticized the content.


"I want a simple character" is a valid preference.

"But you can just roleplay an interesting character" is the Stormwind Fallacy. Yes, your Fighter can be a boisterous, rough-and-tumble giant of man, colossal in mirth and melancholy...but so can any other character.

This thread is about whether there are any niches left for the short bus classes. Some Rogue archetypes have unique abilities, but those are gained at level 4 at the very latest (if you count Ninja as a separate class). Thug Rogue 1 is still a cornerstone dip for demoralize builds, for example. It's much the same with Fighter archetypes.

And then you have the complete dogs, like the Tower Shield specialist, that give you level 4 appropriate abilities way past level 10.


Soluzar wrote:


First, when taking the Spirit Guide archtype allows an oracle to pick one shaman spirit. Is it possible to choose the Life Mystery? According to the class you can change it each day but it's not what I have in mind.

You can't take the Life Mystery. But I'm sure you can take the Life Spirit. And get two Channel pools. But your FCB doesn't affect your channeling from the Life Spirit.


Larkos wrote:

Well a Tower Shield Specialist can be good if you want to play a Roman Legionnaire.

The fighter is tricky to roleplay effectively because the class doesn't give as much to work off of so you have to do it yourself. A witch or a bloodrager has plenty of fluff to draw RP out of.

That why the fighter usually has to pull a bit of character from his build.

I played my fighter as the black sheep in his family. A big part of this was that he was a disciplined, intelligent fighter that used two weapons instead of the simpler two-handed sword. He's a showoff who likes to demonstrate his superior skill whenever possible. Before you say anything, this was before the Swashbuckler came out.

A Sword-And-Board fighter can play as the anchor for the team not just physically but emotionally. He's stable and nice. he helps others through morally difficult situations with his simple wisdom.

A Cad can play as the rough-and-tumble type that doesn't mind getting down and dirty in order to get the job done. Let the prissy wizard worry about his stupid robes, you're there to do what needs to be done. You'll kill the bad guy the Bard won't. You'll disobey the stupid church when the cleric bows his head. Let the rogue pretend he's bloody Robin Hood, you're the real criminal in the group.

Can these be done with some other class? Probably but that doesn't mean that fighter is worth nothing. He just needs extra work put into his RP.

This is the RPG equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.

The dangerous protagonist in the party of dull stereotypes could do his job better as a Magus. The emotional anchor could be literally any character class ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You are, and one day you'll prove by having an all out slugfest in true bromance tradition. :)
Ah hell, I better hit the gym to build up my weak wrists.

It's gonna be like an MMA fight.

That is, 20 seconds of flailing away, followed by thirty sweaty, grunting minutes of dry humping on the floor.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
High level play even becomes slightly awkward over it; because Steve and I are buddies...
We ARE? :D

Other Steve, not you. Not since the incident.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, the actual defining feature of both classes is that they're mundane. Not "versatile" or "enduring", but mundane. This is a problem, because past level 6 or so, everything is superhuman. Fighters and Rogues are stuck with abilities that are measured against some standard of "realism"; meanwhile, real classes get to say "it's MAGIC, I ain't gotta explain s##+".

On top of having their core feature literally being "sucking", they have other issues.

The Rogue is trying to do the job of attacking people. Other classes who do that have either Full BAB + bonus from class abilities, or medium BAB plus at least 6 levels spellcasting and other class abilties. The Rogue has medium BAB and terrible defenses.

The Fighter is being sold as an action hero, the warrior of legends. But he isn't. He's somewhere between a hired thug/jobber on the football team, and a helmet-wearing short bus rider. When he's not stabbing things, the Fighter is literally the same as the "filth-covered dirt farmer" NPC class. He can't do the job of any action hero, modern or mythical, you would care to name.

High level play even becomes slightly awkward over it; because Steve and I are buddies, we're equals at the table, but....Steve brought a Fighter to the high level game, and a high-level Fighter is just not a player on that field, he's a tool, brought along and used by the actual characters. I mean, I'm playing a game with the NPCs, and one winning move is "putting my Fighter where he can make a Full Attack on an enemy with most defenses down", but Steve's character can't really contribute meaningfully to making that happen. And that means that I'm making decisions for Steve and his character, and it kinda sucks.


Last time Outsider Proficiency to Eldritch Knight was discussed on these boards, one of the designers clarified that you need Creature Type HD to get proficiencies (and class skills) from Type.


So, I'm locked into playing a big, beefy Shoanti Warpriest.

What I'm thinking is, if I play a Sacred Fist instead of a regular WP, I get access to Crusader's Flurry, and I get to run around without armor.

I lose Sacred Weapon, Focus Weapon and Sacred Armor, and my level 3 bonus feat. I gain the ability to make 2 attacks at the very low levels (with FoB). Traitwise, I'm thinking Heirloom Weapon for a Greatsword, and Fates Favored because I'm a Warpriest.

I'm unsure about feats. Not having +1 BAB really limits my options at level 1; I don't know if I will have the opportunity for retraining, so I guess I'm taking Weapon Focus: Greatsword at level 3 and Crusader's Flurry at level 5.

Feat suggestions very welcome. And if I could find a way to flurry with an Earthbreaker, that would be so great.


Iterman wrote:
If it is your contention that it automatically hits, how can they still get a save or SR? Unlike other weapon enhancements (i.e. conductive, spellstrike) there is no language in the enhancement to even remotely assist this assumption.

Yes. there is. It's the bolded line from your own quote.

Let me ask you to clarify the consequences of your own interpretation, then.

If you hit a creature, and then have to hit it again with a touch attack, and you miss, what happens? The spell storing property specifically allows the casting of the spell on that target (only); now you're left holding a charge that....can't discharge on anything other than the intended target?

For that matter, how about all those published clerics with a heavy shield and spell storing mace with cause serious wounds - and trust me, over the years, there have been a lot of those. Are they all idiots? Because they sure as sugar can't attempt a melee touch attack after hitting with their spell storing weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While it is sexy, it's one of the least sexist female character pics I've seen in a long time.


None of the above.

1. You're not casting any spells, the weapon is, so Spellstrike doesn't apply. This is completely certain.

2. The wepaon immediately casts the spell on the target. If it's a touch range spell, it just takes effect on the target immediately. Considerations of touch attacks etc. don't apply; you did just hit him. This is an interpretation of how Spell Storing weapons work; for those who disagree, ask them to describe their interpretation - it will usually lead to some blatantly silly places.

3. No, you never made an attack roll for the spell, so it can't crit. Spellstrike's crit spell ability is an exception to how spell riders on critical hits usually work.

4. Nothing in the Spell Storing property negates saves or SR, and it would be insanely OP if it did.


I have to ask, is this what your sheet at the table would look like? What I mean is, you don't have a line with Inspired Combat and Power Attack already factored in to your attack? That seems bothersome to me.

That said, one attack per round at +9 for 1d8+11 seems weak for a level 6 beatstick. Default level 6 beatstick goes something like +11/+6 for 2d6+16, plus whatever his class abilities are.


Phasics wrote:

Need a rules and logic check on this if you please

Now the Brawler flurry is very clear that it and natural attacks don't mix and that fine, not what is being used here.

Instead
At 7th level we pick up Eldrich Herritage Ghoul Sorcerer Bloodline granting us level 5 in Ghoulish Claws and a 1 round paralysis (Fort Save) .

Now we charge with our claws an hopefully paralyze something on a +9 claw attack keeping it right where we want it for next round

We now take our Iterative Unarmed attacks of +7/+2 and add in +2/+2 for our claws and go to town damaging and hopefully keeping the paralysis going so there is no escape or retribution.

A few level later we could pickup multiattack to reduce those -5 to -2 and around the same time Ghoulish Claws paralysis is now lasting 1d4+1 rounds.

Compared to a Brawler flurry your still losing 1-2 extra attacks at the top end and claws have pitiful damage but once the 1d4+1 rounds kick in you may not need to use the claws every round and since they are a free action to grow you can use them sparingly.

As an after thought Paralysed is also helpless so Coup De Grace could be viable.

Seems legit. Brawler is not really bringing anything to the table, though.


Kensai is overrated, IMO, but it's a valid choice. Eldritch Scion is a hate crime against Magi.


IF the skills listed for Familiars are identical to the skill list for Animals, then it's safe to assume that the list is a helpful tool for the standard case (familiar is an animal), not an override (these skills are class skills, regardless of the familiar's creature type).


swifthunter420 wrote:
why cant the brawler use natural weapons when it says in unarmed strike in features treat unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons and natural weapons. wouldnt that make it were you cant use unarmed strikes with brawlers flurry it seems redundant

If every A is B, it does not follow that every B is A.


Cyrad wrote:

Oh gosh, I wish people used Google Drive for these things!

1) They do get iterative attacks, right? You gave them a full BAB without the iterative attacks listed. Also, if he has a full BAB, he should also have a d10 hit dice.

2) I'm confused why a swordmage is not a spellcaster. I loved the swordmage class because it was an agile spellcasting fighter.

0: Agreed, agreed so much.

1: Stop it, you're just confusing the noobs. There's no difference between a "+6/+1" and a "+6" BAB.

2: Indeed. Swordmage? Needs more mage.


The spell is basically Animate Object, except it lasts longer, makes your body comatose, and makes the Animated Object controlled directly by you instead of by command; see the Magic Jar spell for how to calculate saves, attacks etc.


Dhjika wrote:

I see a lot of animal companions and eidolons with the Extra Traits feat - and it seems a majority of them were raised by halflings.

For a cleric with 0 channels (3 - 3 = 0) - can they take Extra Channels?

TIA

All those feats are not created equal. Most of the "Extra X" feats have "X" as a prerequisite. Additional Traits does not.

If you don't have X yet because you're not high enough level or you traded it away, you certainly can't take Extra X. If you're down to zero uses, it's a bit murky.


Sacred Summons usually requires you to summon a creature with alignment subtypes matching your Aura. The combo effect allows you to summon a creature with a matching alignment.


Nice idea.

It seems decently balanced; better than Scorching Ray but only 1/day, which is a big drawback for a Sorcerer spells. But skip the halving of the damage bonus, that's just needlessly fiddly.


The real question is, why is this stinker a 3rd level spell?


Grab them by the hair, wrap the urumi around their neck, yank your urumi back, watch the explosion of gore.


Nefreet wrote:

Pupsocket, I was not replying to the OP, I was replying to the poster who legitimately is getting the two confused.

Edit: in case you didn't notice, the person I was replying to necro'd the thread. The OP likely already has his answer.

Derp, disregard :-)


Guys, seriously? This is not a thread about the Race Trait/Racial Trait confusion. Stop answering questions that no-one is asking.

To the OP: You are correct, half-elves can't take Dual Talent because they have no Bonus Feat Racial Trait to exchange; the option would be valid if they had the ability to pay for it.


Ssalarn wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
The First Worlder's Summon Nature's Ally feature is pretty explicit that it replaces, not alters, the normal Summon Monster,

Not really.

"This ability otherwise replaces the summon monster ability of a normal summoner." The bolded part makes no sense and is clearly a mistake. It should be either "replaces" or "otherwise works as". Given how the ability references back to the base ability, and how the implications of full replacement are not even hinted at in the fluff, it seems most likely that it's intended to be "otherwise works as".

It references the base ability for determining when new tiers of SNA are gained, but otherwise replaces the summon monster ability of a normal summoner. That's not a mistake or confusing, that's actually pretty straightforward.

Here are two scenarios:

A) The archetype was intended to have short duration summons with none of the limitations of the vanilla summoner's ability, and capable of stacking more summonings than the Master Summoner archetype.

B) Sloppy writing and editing.

Do you honestly, sincerely, not out of a desire to win this argument but based on your framework of experience with the world in general and Pathfinder in particular, consider scenario A to be the truth?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
The First Worlder's Summon Nature's Ally feature is pretty explicit that it replaces, not alters, the normal Summon Monster,

Not really.

"This ability otherwise replaces the summon monster ability of a normal summoner." The bolded part makes no sense and is clearly a mistake. It should be either "replaces" or "otherwise works as". Given how the ability references back to the base ability, and how the implications of full replacement are not even hinted at in the fluff, it seems most likely that it's intended to be "otherwise works as".


Marroar Gellantara wrote:


CRB:

"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell."

Now you can either say these two sections intentionally contradict and that PCs have different SLA rules OR that by spell description they mean the paragraph text not the listed casting time.

I find either problematic and would like for one of the two descriptions cleaned up.

Let's assume the bolded part is actually meaningful. That means we either A) reference the casting time of the spell, or B) we go by the notes in the spell descriptions that define the casting time when used as a spell-like ability, for those spells which have that note.

Guess what, for option B), we find a grand total of ZERO spells published so far that interact with it. So that's prooobably not the right interpretation.


Using the Conductive weapon property is no action at all, and touch of Corruption is a completely legit ability to conduct.

You can't use ToC as part of a full attack sequence, because it requires a standard action. During a full attack, you get some number of attacks, and zero standard actions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

Yes. It does.

They will not respond to this or they will errata it because it would make them look thoughtless in errataing the ability score stacking issue.

Oh, it's not an errata, it's a clarification. The rules always worked like this. Just like Flurry of Blows always required two different weapons. We have always been at war with Eurasia.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:


Yes, but SLAs are by default standard actions unless noted otherwise. Just because one SLA was noted as a standard action, that doesn't mean the general rule does not apply.
Core Rulebook, Magic chapter wrote:


A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description.

And what does the description of Summon Monster (the spell) say that the casting time is?


Werebat wrote:


"The caster level for these effects is equal to the gnome's level."

That would seem to indicate that the effects themselves, rather than the gnome, have caster levels.

If this were true, the gnome wouldn't qualify for Arcane Strike. His Gnome Magic SLAs might, but SLAs don't get feats.

Right?

Wrong, you're inventing distinctions that are not there. Even if we go with your interpretation, the FAQ on SLAs brings the CL home to the Gnome.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:


Also, all SLAs are assumed to be arcane unless noted otherwise. Even divine spell SLAs.

That's not what the FAQs sat. Current state of the rules is that SLAs granted by a casting class are the same flavor as the class, then you go through the wizard/cleric/bard/druid hierarchy from the Bestiary definition of SLA, and if it's still unresolved, it's arcane (unless there's a good reason it should be divine). There was a period of time where the hierarchy was used to determine spell level and version, but anything on an arcane list was arcane, and that produced silly results.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Clarification that something is the case does not mean that without the clarification that it would not be the case.

Unless it's an exception, not a clarification.


Trimalchio wrote:
a rock is a weapon and deals 2d4, no reason why it can't be enchanted and then bonded.

Agreed, a rock in the hands of a rock thrower is certainly a weapon. I've read the PFS Guide to Organized Play, and haven't found any society-specific definition of "weapon".

There is a good reason to say it can't be enchanted; that is, turned into the kind thing called a magic weapon, that has a permanent enhancement bonus, and that's the lack of Masterwork Weapon status.

HOWEVER, Divine Bond, Arcane Bond etc are abilities that give an enhancement bonus to a weapon; they do not require a masterwork weapon to function.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A chunk of adamantium is not a rock. But i don't think you need a MW weapon to use Divine Bond.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:


Useless Gimp = REAL ROLEPLAYAR!!. I'm so sick of that argument. The archetype is mechanically bad AND lacking in flavor as far as the Eidolon is concerned.

Anyways, as I've pointed out on this board before, if the First World Summoner's summoning ability doesn't inherit anything from the Vanilla Summoner's SM ability, such as not being Eidolon-limited or unstackable - which is a reading that's strained to the point of dishonesty - it also doesn't get standard action casting time or minutes duration.

A strained reading that even the creative devs interpret it as? K

Devs? I was going to ask if I had missed a ruling, but then I realized you said creative devs.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
I would say that it is one round per level, but SLAs are standard actions unless noted otherwise.

That's an interesting discussion. The Core book and the Bestiary diverge, and there are a few threads about it. Let me just say that if the writers didn't believe SLA:SM was a one round action, there would have been no need to write that it was a standard action for the Summoner class.


LazarX wrote:


An Archetype is not about gaining advantage, it's about taking a different road for flavor and character reasons.

A First World Summoner since he's not using Summon Monster CAN use his eidolon and SNAs at the same time. What he SHOULD be doing is using his eidolon differently as opposed to the brute monster most summoners go for.

Useless Gimp = REAL ROLEPLAYAR!!. I'm so sick of that argument. The archetype is mechanically bad AND lacking in flavor as far as the Eidolon is concerned.

Anyways, as I've pointed out on this board before, if the First World Summoner's summoning ability doesn't inherit anything from the Vanilla Summoner's SM ability, such as not being Eidolon-limited or unstackable - which is a reading that's strained to the point of dishonesty - it also doesn't get standard action casting time or minutes duration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Giving your brother the benefit of the doubt, maybe what he meant was "don't be a disruptive douchebag".


Orcus7 wrote:

Question 1: Does the splash damage count as a direct hit for the purposes of effects like Tangle or Force Damage?

Question 2: If making a Bomb into a Scrap Bomb does it deal Fire Damage And Bleed Damage, or does the Fire Damage become bleed damage?

Answer 1: No, the thing that happens to people who don't take a direct hit does not count as a direct hit.

Answer 2: Like the other discoveries that affect damage type, Scrap Bomb replaces the damage type. So it does piercing damage and possibly bleed, no fire damage.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
stoolpigeon87 wrote:

I can't buy a regular bow, it has to be my Heirloom bow, which is where I was having the problems. Now that I know Masterwork Transformation DOES work (it used to not), this build is good to go.

Sounds like you're asking for advice WITHOUT giving a reasonable amount of information... like, WHY is it important that it is an heirloom and NOT a regular bow?

Because he's only proficient with his heirloom bow.


Run a scenario. assign chronicle sheet to your new character, buy your heirloom bow.

1 to 50 of 1,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>