RAuer2's page

That was it. I missed that Tactician gives the first level Cavalier a bonus teamwork feat. Thank you, and also thank you for the archetype. I found it creative and promptly began thinking of possibilities when I read it, both in games set in Golarion and other settings. Very nice :)

...while the Master of Many Styles was altered a bit to make it more rewarding to those that stuck with it, as opposed to just dipping into the class for quick benefits.

Greetings Jason,

I'm in the same boat as LilyHaze, Rynjin, and some other posters in that I am having trouble finding the upside in the new MoMS. I am open to the idea that I am just not seeing the benefits yet. As ErichAD suggested, perhaps it would help to see a sample build so we can understand the intent of the new MoMS. Is this possible?

As others have pointed out and I agree with, a significant impediment is that the new Master of Many Styles needs to meet the prerequisites of any and every feat that he would like to spend a wildcard feat on. This means that the new MoMS expends just as much resources and effort to buy a style feat, or reach the end of a style feat chain, as a regular monk.

If the point of the MoMS is to, well, master many styles, this leads to reduced flexibility in how a new MoMS spends feats and skill points and allocates stats when compared to the old MoMS, also as other posters have pointed out.

LilyHaze mentioned at the end of their analysis that the new MoMS seems more like an Apprentice of Many Styles than a Master, which I took to mean "good at opening a style feat chain but not progressing further into it". At the moment, and hopefully without being offensive, that seems accurate.

Are we missing the advantage, the specialty, of this revised archetype? If we are, please help us out. May we have an example of how the wildcard feat rewards the new MoMS, of how this feature is intended to be useful and flexible?

Ask your GM how he wants to handle it. Without the GM saying otherwise, the safe assumption is that you should track them, if nothing else so that you are prepared to do so when the game starts and don't need to handle it at the last minute.

As a player, if you have to count arrows, stock up. You cannot know when you will be able to resupply.

The first time I played an archer the GM asked me to track arrows (during character creation, this was not a surprise after we started). I was fine with that and thought "Oh, I'll just buy a second quiver of 20 arrows. That's 40 arrows total, more than enough." We were away from resupply for a while and before the end of the first set of adventures I was fighting with a borrowed sword. Don't let that happen to you.

When we hit town, I immediately went to three quivers of 20 arrows each and not long afterward to four quivers. It was soon not enough. Our adventures frequently kept us away from easy resupply and as soon as you start raising your number of attacks you will consume arrows at a frightening rate.

When our party could afford mounts, I asked the GM about commissioning a carpenter to make a barrel that held 200 arrows and kept that on my horse. It wasn't useful in combat, but between combats I could restocked and over a series of adventures it helped a lot.

As soon as I could afford it, I paid for a pack animal and another arrow barrel. I was the only party member with a pack animal over the course of the game. It was a horse, but I named him Pepe and called him my little mule. The GM never specifically messed with Pepe (or the other mounts).

Now, all that is game-specific of course. If your GM's adventures will not range too far from a source of arrow supply, then how many you carry might not matter much (or often). If your party is travelling the world exploring new lands, then be prepared or you'll wind up a swordsman with a bunch of archery feats.

Tracking arrows did not lower my fun with the character or game at all. The GM handled arrow recovery by telling me to track it presuming A) 50% of all misses can be recovered, B) if we don't hold the battlefield then I obviously don't get to recover arrows. In the end it wasn't a big deal.

That is the thing though, why would a party be fighting her for that to matter? Also, as an NPC, wouldn't it be simpler to give Eludecia wealth and equipment of a NPC not a PC?

Sure give her gear necessary and appropriate for her level and class, but apart from that I feel there doesn't need to be such importance placed on her equipment.

... I agree. Since this is your thread, I think that rather than try to convince Aelyrinth that CR does or does not work a certain way, I should really be answering your questions. After all, the CR thing is more a nit to pick than anything else, so let's focus on making a cool NPC.

So, back to one of your earlier posts. You said this:

...she will be Lawful Good by fluff if such an alignment is a tentative thing given the nature of succubus.

My thoughts is that she would have Sarenrae as her deity, since she is all about redemption and unlike that of the D&D pantheon could very likely given Eludecia a chance to prove herself.

In the morning I will look up the succubus and edit some of the above.

What feats, skills, and equipment would any of you suggest?

So she's LG, has made paladin, and been accepted by a god. Like you pointed out, not likely to be an enemy of the PCs. Alrighty.

First, I think Aratrok did a nice job with his suggested stat block back on page one and I think you can get some nice ideas from that (or just use it).

For my own thoughts... Outsider, pretty much ageless. I would suggest one skill point in each knowledge skill to reflect "life knowledge," so to speak. Doesn't have to be more than one point unless you want her to be a specialist/sage with one or more knowledge skills (which could be an angle for the party to interact with her).

I would suggest emphasizing charisma skills (to reflect her connection with and interest in mortals) but you might consider excluding intimidate (she's here to bring hope, not fear).

Give her a perform and/or some sort of craft related to art. She's got a rare, rare demonic soul (or whatever) and might find expressive outlets.

She uses two-handed weapons in the write-up (glaive, greatsword), so of course the usual feats to be an efficient melee. You'll have 10 feats (20 total hit dice should result in 10). Depending on the "power level" or niche you want her to fill, this is enough to play with some channel feats or mercy feats (like Aratrok's build), or toss in a skill focus if you would like a high specific skill to be something she is known for.

For equipment, eh. She's not set up to be an enemy so combat specific things are not such a big deal. Weapon, armor, a few widgets. Aratrok has a good list. Maybe things to reflect her faith, or perhaps a magic item she can use to help others (even in little ways! Ask the staff at the inn if you can cast pred for them, saves them some work!)

I would consider messing with the spell-like abilities. You are the GM and it would be easy to say that she's lost her summon (for example). I'd keep the energy drain because it is so defining for a succubus and also something she almost certainly can never do again (probably bad for a paladin to suck life energy). The profane gift could go also, or be changed to a divine gift and modified however you see fit.

I hope that helps!

If one of the points of contention is how the CR shakes out when adding paladin levels to a monster, then I think a good measuring stick would be other monsters that are at the CRs in question. A dragon seems like a reasonable measuring stick because adjusting the age category of the dragon will scale CR up/down and still use the "same" monster.

If the succubus paladin 12 is CR 15, then we can compare it to a CR 15 very old black dragon.

If the succubus paladin 12 is CR 19, then we can compare it to a CR 19 great wyrm black dragon.

We would want to look at things like hit points, AC, saves, damage output from an attack routine, spells, specials (breath weapon, channel and such), reach, to-hit bonuses on the attacks, and so on.

Between the very old black dragon and the great wyrm black dragon, I think the succubus looks much closer to the CR 15 very old black dragon.

That is not an exhaustive test of the succubus' CR, but it seems to be a valid one. Additional comparisons with other monsters can be added to this, but this comparison does seem like a reasonable start. What do you all think?

The PrC requirements have not changed at all, the only thing that changed is the ability of certain races/classes to circumvent those requirements.

A race/class combo that used to be able to fast track can now enter at exactly the same time as anyone else, at the rate written in each PrC entry. The classes haven't changed and neither have their entry requirements.

I prefer to think of it as meeting the requirements rather than circumventing or fast tracking. You (and David Higaki) are right that the classes have not changed and neither have the entry requirements.

What has changed are the ways that a character can legally be built to meet the entry requirements.

To me, this seems like it might be two sides of the same coin. On one side, the requirements for the prestige class change. On the other side, the ways a character can legally be built to meet the requirements have changed.

On both sides, how characters can be built to enter prestige classes has changed.

Don't we come to the same end result?

Erik Mona wrote:

If there was commercial pressure to include scantily clad women on covers in 2007, that same pressure does not necessarily exist in 2014. In other words, given the way our business has changed in the last 7 years, I no longer think this excuse holds water, and you shouldn't either.

Well, I agree, I don't think the excuse holds water... in fact, I am not sure it ever held water. I mean, of course I get it, Paizo is a publishing company, and like any company you must reap a profit for your efforts. Sexualizing women and articulating it through some of the most disturbing (heterosexual, white) male power fantasies makes money, as can be evinced by glancing at other forms of popular media. There might even be some sort of relationship between how misogynistic an image is, and how quickly said images fly off the shelves. Though in retrospect, talking about the justification with weasel words ("If there was commercial pressure...") makes it seem like maybe it isn't the case that the market forces forced Paizo to exploit images of women. If not this, then what?

*snipped here*

The weasel words part seems pretty harsh to me. I didn't read anything sinister into "If there was commercial pressure...", and actually the rest of Erik's statement seemed open to present analysis and future change.

I'm just guessing, but maybe the excuse you are asking about is that this is simply the art style that has brought success in the past? It could be as simple as not seeing a need to change a successful strategy until you have a reason to question whether the fundamental reasons that style was successful in the past are still valid reasons today (and also tomorrow).

I'm not trying to offend you Annabel and I hope my text doesn't come across that way.

Tels wrote:

No, I don't think the Thundercaller is "WAY too good" I think the Sound Striker needs to be equal to the Thundercaller as a 'bardic performance damage dealing archetype'.

Ok, I didn't ask what you thought of Thundercaller. I asked if you were aware you are asking for something you have all but been told you won't get. Apparently you are aware.

I am also aware that I am expressing disappointment with the official PDT suggestion for the ability. So, I'm also asking for something different, or as you put it, for "something you have all but been told you won't get." The proposed ability isn't finalized. If it was, PDT would announce that and probably close the thread. I don't regret expressing disappointment or offering feedback and I don't think it is futile or rude to do so as long as everyone, including me, is polite about it.

Neume - Thank you for playtesting. While one experience is not enough to make rock solid conclusions, the results were interesting. I am interested in seeing how your second playtest goes.

I think getting to the Scorching Ray from the PDT redesign might be hard to do in a balanced way.

I also think delivering a status instead of damage would help this ability be better, but few are interested in talking about that and would rather talk about how to get to "deal enough damage to be impressive" instead.

I would like to talk about this.

I think you are right that getting Weird Scorching Word-Ray as an official change, and one that seems balanced, would be hard to do. So, what do you think about this?

1) Problem: Weird Words competes with Inspire Courage and the Sound Striker has both. Idea: Disconnect them. The new Weird Words still replaces suggestion but is no longer considered a bardic performance. Even if this version of Weird Words remains a standard action, this still means it can be used in the same round as Inspire Courage. Now a Bard can contribute to the party *and* contribute with Weird Words.

2) Problem: Damage is an issue that makes is difficult to find consensus. Idea: Add a save vs a debuff. What if the enemy had to save vs the effect of the metamagic feat Concussive Spell? That would be -2 on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks. This would blend with the idea of the Bard as a "party helper" by debuffing enemies (while being able to also use Inspire Courage due to A, above).

3) But what would the damage be? Keep the PDT proposal of 1d8+Cha that increases by another 1d8 at 10th, 14th, and 18th. No save for the damage; the target would save only to avoid the debuff effect from Concussive Spell. Make it sonic energy to fit with the theme of adding the effect of Concussive Spell.

4) What is the save? Make it 10+1/2 Bard level+Charisma, so it scales up like the saves for bardic performance abilities.

5) What about that duration for the debuff? Concussive Spell states that duration equals spell level, but we don't have a spell level. Idea: If the target fails a save, the debuff lasts for a number of rounds equal to the number of d8's taken. Fail a save vs a 2d8 Weird Word? Debuffed for 2 rounds. The debuff does not stack with itself but the duration would be extended by additional applications.

6) Is it still a ray? Yes.

7) What is the range? Close (25 feet plus 5 feet for every two full caster levels).

8) How many Weird Words do I get? One at 6th, up to two at 10th, up to three at 14th, and a max of four at 18th. This matches the progression from number 3.

9) Can I hit one target with multiple Weird Words? No. We give that idea up in exchange for two things: 1) the ability to Weird Words and Inspire Courage at the same time and 2) the debuff effect from Concussive Spell. Also note there is no save for the damage, only to avoid the debuff (per number 3 and also the PDT proposal uses no save for the damage as well).

10) Does it count as type of Bardic Performance at all? No. Not for anything. This is what allows us to use Inspire Courage in the same round we use Weird Words.

11) Does it still uses performance rounds as fuel? It doesn't have to. Option 1) Yes it does use rounds of bardic performance. One round of performance for each Weird Word used. Yes, this would mean burning through performance rounds if we want to Inspire Courage and use Weird Words together. Option 2) No it does not use round of bardic performance. It is a supernatural ability with a number of uses per day tied to the Bard's level. I don't know what would be balanced here, so I'll suggest 1 use per two full Bard levels as a starting idea (so, 3/day at 6th, 4/day at 8th, and so on). Each use would create your maximum number of Weird Words, whatever your maximum is. Of those two options, I like option 1 I think it would encourage me as the Bard to make decisions about how to spend my resources wisely.

12) What about DR? Number 3 suggests making the damage sonic, so no more DR. If the monster is resistant to Sonic, well, use another tool to attack it.

13) What about SR? Weird Words would remain a supernatural ability and would not be subject to SR (like the original and the PDT proposal).

What do you think? Does this seem reasonable while also integrating a debuff rather than focusing on single target damage?

Can we work together to get some sort of agreement on the new ability? It is only a nerf if you read the original (unclear) ability as allowing single target focusing. In the mind of the PDT this proposed version is a boost.

I guess my big issue with the ability in the new PDT form starts with the cost in rounds of performance. Since the number of words and performance rounds both cap at 10, I'll use 10th level as an example (the damage per word goes from 1d8 to 2d8 at 10th also, so the ability should be trending upward in strength here, too). Also, no feats accounted for that would help archery, melee, weird words (as a ray), or anything else.

So I, the Bard, am surrounded by trouble (10 baddies all within 30' of me is definite trouble). I activate Death Blossom and I use weird words. I spend my maximum number of rounds, which is 10. I get to do 2d8+Cha damage per word to each of ten different targets. This should be, roughly, 17 points of damage each (no save).

I used a standard action for weird words. I did not cast a spell since my standard action was spent. I didn't inspire courage because I can create only one bardic performance per round.

At 10th level, I should have roughly 30 rounds of performance. So, I just spent a third of it. What did I get for one third of my performance rounds? 2d8+Cha to 10 baddies, or about 17 points each. I'm just... underwhelmed.

To me, the ability just doesn't give enough to be worth 10 rounds of performance. If I am spending a third of my performance rounds on one trick, it needs to be impressive/cool/effective.

In my head, I am comparing this to what I could also do as a Bard in one round:

A) inspire courage my allies (and myself) for +2 to hit and +2 damage as a move action (assuming I am starting the performance this round, otherwise that would be a free action), and
B) either cast a spell or use a ranged or melee attack.

I think that the Bard and the party would usually be better off if the Sound Striker, who does have the inspire courage performance, didn't use weird words and went with other options.

That's where I am at when I wobble the PDT rewrite of weird words around in my head. I don't want to seem rude talking about someone's idea for the ability, but it looks to me like a combat ability that usually would not be used in combat.

Apocryphile's understanding of it is how I read the FAQ as well.

By the post here, anyone confused about a FAQ, is a power hungry, munchkin douche.

Sorry, that really hurt, and I am bit sore.

Yeah, that, well, yeah that post by PDT was strange to read. I definitely got a "shut the hell up" vibe there. I don't know what to say that couldn't easily be seen as snark (just text after all, no body language or voice to go by when we communicate).

The bottom line, to me, is that the rules of this game may appear to be one set of information bound in a bunch of books with awesome artwork, but in reality the rules were written by different groups of people at different times and those people had different points of view about how things worked.

Sometimes the gears of the rules machine don't mesh well, but overall the rules machine runs pretty nice. And sometimes we're not supposed to ask about the funny noises the machine sometimes makes.

As far as anyone confused by an FAQ... yeah, I thought their post was pretty rude, but not a label for everyone.