There is another reason why they would target the 2 hander over the sword and board as well. I'm not referring to a mechanical aggro in any way shape or form. However I'm under the assumption that others can see who is doing more damage then the others. They're things in this game that get around the pathetic excuse a fighter has for presence. I'm not saying that a sword and board can't do their job. I'm saying the two hander does it better. This is because of higher base damage on two handed weapons, 1.5 strength, power attack, and the fact that they benefit more from strength buffs then sword and board fighters do. Tell me that I'm, it won't change a damn thing about how the game is set up.
There is nothing wrong with the shield, there is something wrong with the current trend in that DPR is the only thing that matters. That's my 2 cp on the matter anyways.
That's because this game revolves around targeting the bigger threat and eliminating your enemies. When you go two handed not only are you killing your enemies faster so they will effectively do less damage, you're aggroing them so they're less likely to target the squishies. So the person that goes two handed is actually better at defending than the person with the shield. Given this is only true for full bab classes for the most part. However it's nice to have a shield if you know that you might be pummeled from time to time.
I'm not saying that you should always go dire tiger that would be silly. What I'm saying is that I'd never consider poison a viable option considering how weak it is. Unless the form itself had other redeeming traits. Of course you want other forms of movement for various things. However I'm not going to suggest a weak ass steggo because it has trip even though it'll never hit anything and is sub optimal at best. Please don't make personal attacks against how I roleplay because you've never seen how I do roleplay. If you can't back up your claims don't post them.
Turin the Mad wrote:
Disagree - rolling ability scores is an excellent way to figure out the five w's of a character. Especially if some one has a nasty habit of playing the same thing over and over and over ...
Actually people have tenancies to play characters with similar traits regardless of their stats. Unless you're talking about rolling in order and to which I say that doesn't sound fun at all. There are next to no benefits from rolling stats. You often end up with characters people just want to kill so they can move onto another character because of their power level. I don't want to play in a game where someone's character is better than mine just because they rolled better one time.
Jal Dorak wrote:
Why would the druid be the best option considering it doesn't take it's physical stats from the creatures it forms into anymore? Wouldn't the synthesist summoner be the best option?
Also rolling isn't that organic at all. Considering most DM's will make you reroll if you do badly and others try to catch up others based on their statistics. Also I would like to say that originality isn't derived from a character's statistical attributes.
My current party has the coolest comp ever.
Dwarf two handed fighter archetype. 49hp with the saves of a paladin and does 1d12+21 damage
tactician human fighter 41hp 2d6+15 damage and a lot of skill points. Will be giving everyone outflank for free.
half orc barbarian 2d6+18 damage and 60hp when raging. 40ft ms no escape
wildshape dwarf druid 36hp saves like a paladin. healing, summons, etc(me) large ape. (carries around a scythe) very mobile.
dervish dance human magus deathstar burst damage with great ac. shocking grasp man. access to haste somewhat soon.
elven witch with slumber. Our debuffer and only one that isn't melee. LOL
In order to deal with ranged we'll just soak hits since the lowest ac is like 19 and lowest hp is like 30.(exception our witch)
Our spellcasting is covered by the magus and I.
Our healing is covered by me.
Our skills are covered by the tactician, magus, and I.
Our party face will probably be the tactician and the witch.
Ranged is for scrubs man.
Note this post is only on topic a little bit because of the scythe witch combo.
Because you can get damage like that unconditionally at level 7 or so with other classes like the druid or alchemist.
Why do I care about poisons when they effectively do less damage than an attack? Let alone an 18 dc fort save is pretty easy to pass at level 9 for a good amount of creatures. Let alone a lot of things a immune to poison. 1d2 con damage and some pathetic attack damage for two standard actions? On top of that you have to hit their ac and they have to fail their save. I know it's not saying much but my level 4 druid saves on an 8 against that. I just don't see how you can justify trying to take a weak poisonous snake over a pouncing, grabbing, raking tiger.
Since cheap tactics is a subjective thing I need to know exactly how powerful you want the villains to be. I can make a straight up half orc bomber alchemist that could tpk the party without "cheap tactics".
Before I help you I'm wondering why you're so set on playing a rogue. Also if you weren't aware there are many other classes that can be rogue like and contribute more effectively. I first suggest making a short backstory and description of the character you want to play. Then consider the class that relates the closest to it and still contributes effectively to a party composition. Also look at the ninja considering that it's better than the rogue and can fill the same role.
I personally think that classes should be stripped of their fluff and made solely for statistically character development. That way people have more liberty when creating their own personal character to fit their backstory. Also I'm wondering what Tom actually knows what balance is considering he praises traditional D&D and says that 4e is balanced. I personally think that arbitrarily lowering bab will not solve the problem with fighters. Rather it'll just limit character creation freedom and funnel certain classes into a support role. Bards will no longer be viable as melee skirmishers or archers. No one will play the barbarian considering the fighter will be explicitly the best melee class. The cleric will never be able to hybrid again effectively. Both the inquisitor and magus will never be played again. If you really want to improve the balance of the game I suggest buffing the fighter rather then making some classes unplayable and pushing others into the full caster role.
But because of your specialization you're actually limiting your options. Not only that but poison sucks and a lot of creatures you're not going to effect them with trip. On top of that the Giant Chameleon can't grab and attack in the same turn and has 17 strength at level 4. Another thing to consider is the Stegosaurus sucks at until level 7. It only has a strength of 10 so it's not going to hit anything.
Why is Saurian Shaman rated so high considering the dire tiger is the best combat form level 6 and the best animal companion at lvl 7 is dire tiger? Also why can't you just use the medium sized ape companion form considering it's an animal you know of? Also, why do you think combat maneuvers are more effective then damage considering how weak they are in pathfinder? I'm also why you rate improved natural attack so high but rate power attack so low. I'm just curious because power attack is better for most animals that benefit from damage bonuses considering they have different types of attacks. Also why do you rate Armor Proficiency light so high when you can just get masterwork studded leather and take no penalties to attack rolls and get +3 to ac? Why do you rate the
Well first of all if you honestly want to be a dancing druid I suggest not investing so heavily in cha or str and take dervish dance and bump up dex. I'm saying this because it's a bigger deal to have higher ac, reflex, to hit, and damage then it is to have bonuses to social skills and carrying capacity. Then just invest a little more into social skills and you'll be set.