You can find the Launching Crossbow here.
Huh. Grenadier Alchemist. Explosive Missile discovery. Launching crossbow.
Move action: Use the Grenadier ability to add acid damage. Standard action: Load and fire a fire flask imbued with bomb damage. Damage: 1d6+Int fire (+ignition +splash) +1d6+Int acid + 2d6+Int bobmb. AND it's a touch attack at any range. Not bad.
EDIT: If it works.
If you're going martial, the trick is to get multiple full-power attacks. The 3 easiest ways are reach, Cleave and Cleaving Finish.
Personally, I like Human Gendarme Cavalier (Order of the Seal). Feats: Power Attack, Cleave, Cleaving Finish. Get a greatsword for indoors work, a lance for outdoors work, and go into either Fighter or Barbarian from here.
There are 2 arguments in favor of "The 10' Exception"
The semantic: "diagonals count double" is introduced under Movement in the combat chapter. Spell area effects reference back to that in the magic chapter. The descriptions of reach under equipment and under large creatures do NOT reference that ruling, and are not related to movement and AoE.
The legalistic: The actual laws as they are currently written are not the sole source of jurisprudence. The 10´exception existed in earlier editions. It has not been specifically invalidated, neither in the law (core rulebook) or the pre- or post-law material (years and years of blog posts and designer statements). Furthermore, the book has examples of reach, none of which invalidate the 10' exception.
So far, not a strong case. But look at this:
Core Rulebook, p. 195 wrote:
A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it. This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step.
To summarize: The rules plainly state that result X is the intended outcome. Method Y used to produce outcome X. Method Y is not specifically in the new edition, but it's not specifically out either, despite several examples and illustrations offering the opportunity to illustrate the nullification of method Y. Therefore, method Y (10' exception) is still valid.
Counterargument: The usual "assumption of perfection". But that's a weak argument, especially in the face of the quoted paragraph.
EDIT: The quoted text has "usually". Given Spring Attack, Ride-by Attack, cover, concealment and exhausted #AoO as exceptions, I think it's fair to say that "usually" should not be taken to mean "unless approached diagonally".
Justin Ricobaldi wrote:
I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Could you look over my "Ranger Archetype" post (on the first page of this thread) and tell me if that's the problem as you see it?
Justin Ricobaldi wrote:
Guilty as charged. I HAVE been spending too much time at the table optimizing my choices instead of getting into the fun. But, on the other hand, stormwind fallacy. "Powergaming" does not require bad roleplaying. Making unoptimized (or sandbagged) characters does not automatically make you a good roleplayer either.
Very nice build, and it does what you say it does. Well designed.
However, it IS a level 20 build. IME, the game is already completely disintegrating around level 14 or so, and hat happens at level 20 isn't really relevant to "the game". If you were playing that character across a level range, when would you make the sacrifices made to defense, f.ex?
stats or it didn't happen.
There's a Ranger archetype I like, because I like shouty leader-type fighting men.
With this archetype, I can give my allies a combat bonus against a designated target, instead of having favored enemy. And instead of having Hunter's Bond, I can give my allies extra bonus when flanking. Also, at level 7, I lose a minor ability I don't care about in exchange for another minor ability I don't care about, but I'm not taking the 7th level of Ranger anyway.
This is all the archetype does. so, I'm making my gruff shouty ranger-sergeant. He likes game meat, dark beer and soft beds. He dislikes crackers, rum and hammocks.
The name of the archetype? Freebooter. It's from Pirates of Golarion. Mechanically, it's a perfect fit for my shouty ranger-sergeant (who is not, never was, never will be, a pirate).
Is this bad roleplaying? Not only do I not think so, I don't even think it's a matter of taste, I think it's a matter of not being a f++&ing idiot.
And if you listen to both Eric Clapton AND Turisas, you're a bad person.
If you wear both cotton AND nylon, you're a bad person (that one is in the bible, btw).
I'm kind of bad at making characters, and I have the worst character in the party. I need help making a broken character to get on the same level as the broken summoner in my party. I want to know good builds (preferably not spellcasters), but also advice on making characters in the future.
If you're not interested in playing a caster, I guess half-dragon barbarian 6 is your best bet (at level 7). Try getting your GM to allow that.
Lucifer doesn't have
Also, he doesn't have proper gaze attacks, he has standard action single-target debuffs.
So, any competent party can last a good while in this fight. I'm stumped on how to actually kill him though.
Deane Beman wrote:
Well roll me in eggs and flour and bake me in the oven for 20 minutes! :-P
Your guy has spell slots at 1. level but no spells known.
The Monster Nemesis ability needs a rewrite for clarity.
Tracking is blah, make it optional.
You could buff the curse ability by saying that a succesful save doesn't count against the daily uses.
Basically, I have one question: What does this guy do? What's his schtick, what makes him work as a 3/4 BAB fighting class?
Jesus f%**, this Real Roleplayer(tm) b**%$&%# is tiresome.
Tests vs mental stats are really not a thing in 3.X games. What are some situations where you would call for a test vs. a mental stat?
Yeah, Martial Mastery is pretty obviously meant to apply to Weapon Focus and Improved Critical, not Dervish Dance.
Played as intended, it's a g!% d#&n terrible feat. Martial Versatility, the lvl 16 feat, would be pretty decent for a restricted lvl 4 feat, but Martial Mastery, as intended, is nothing but a slap in the face.
Xander Davis wrote:
Maneuver Master Monk, Heirloom Weapon: Guisarme, Improved Trip at 1 and Improved Dirty Trick at 2. Flurry of Maneuvers can be done with any weapon, and adjacent enemies safe from your guisarme are threatened by your unarmed strikes/maneuvers (feet, legs, etc). Huge saves, decent AC, ranged trip AoOs with combat reflexes, can entangle/sicken or entangle/blind with a Flurry of Dirty Tricks.
Replace Heirloom Weapon with a rank in Profession: Gardener and the Rough & Ready trait, and use a gardening tool as an improvised Guisarme, for +1 to hit and no great problem if your weapon is destroyed or lost.
I like Human Gendarme-Cavalier, Order of the seal. Power Attack, Cleave, Cleaving Finish, and the challenge ability for free trip attempts.
No - but his 4th level party doesn't need a dedicated healer.
Eh, if it's a CR4 encounter at level 4, save your highest level spells for a challenging encounter.
What's an iconic CR 4 straight fight encounter, two ogres (wait, those are CR 3 now...2 gorillas instead)? A grizzly bear? I'm not cherrypicking to support my argument here, just picking "iconic" simple fights.
Grizzly bear does 3d6+15 on a full attack routine, BTW.
Lvl 6 sorceror (CR 5) with just 2 charmed hill giants (CR 7 each). Easily north of 100 DPR.
James Jacobs even said specifically that Accelerated Drinker+extracts don't work.
As written (and probably intended), A). The spell text doesn't say "summoning spell", it says "summon spell", which is usually the shorthand for "spell with summon in the title".
Fighter counters paladin, just as long as fighter is not evil.
Yeah, no. Assuming characters that aren't PVP Arena one-shot builds, the Paladin not only has swift action self-healing, he'll also get the first Full Attack, because spellcasting means he can force the fighter to close in (or wait while the Paladin out-buffs him).
Check this out. Bard with the Buccaneer archetype gets this little beauty:
Cha to hit, level to non-lethal damage, ends when you deal non-lethal damage to the target. Nothing keeps you from doing lethal damage, getting your Cha to attack rolls.
Seriously, it's quadruple cost for double effect. same as everything else.
second, don't use spells for persistent numerical bonuses. Use Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
shield bonus should probably be priced at 1,000 gp like an armor bonus rather than the more expensive "other", so...16k, ballpark figure.
Dawn Reed-Burton wrote:
I have used that spell a little differently;I cast it before going into combat with more than 1 enemy, move into combat, then next round make my attack vs 2 enemies. Sometimes you can move to where not only are you flanked but you are also flanking.
Sure. But if you had a round to buff before engaging, you could have cast True Strike, Shocking Grasp, Shield or Vanish instead, at the very least.
It's a terrible spell. That's basically it.
Also, it's written by that guy on the team who still hasn't learned how crit confirmation works. same guy who wrote Death or Glory, I suppose.
Best case, facing two enemies, it's kinda like having a re-roll for your standard action single attack. Which is a terrible use of a spell slot and a standard action. If this spell was a swift action, it would probably be just about right - "never taking this, but you only have to ban like 5 1. level spells before i'd consider it".
"But a Magus could cast this with spell combat" you might say. And you'd be a terrible person, banished to the corner, wearing the dunce cap for the rest of the week. A Magus doing that loses: An attack from spell strike this turn. The effect of a 1. level spell this turn. The opportunity to use spell combat next turn.
Whooever wrote this doesn't understand action economy either.
Getting a higher Rate Of Fireballs by passing a staff back and forth between two guys makes no sense at all to me, so it doesn't work.