Search Posts
Everyone in my party likes melee weapons over ranged weapons. Next to no one other then myself likes to stealth. Almost everyone in the party likes having a high ac and half of us like spell casters. Our Party right now consists of two fighters, a barbarian, a dervish dance magus, a witch, and a wildshape druid(myself). Needs more melee.
A smart fighter would kill the summoner, not eidolon, first. A smart summoner wouldn't give the fighter the opportunity.
Tell him to obtain more experience with the game before he keeps on assuming that you need a healbot.
Look into the magus, EK(Eldritch Knight) if playing late game, and DD(Dragon Disciple) if looking for something more Interesting.
Whatever you want.
Just make sure everyone has roughly the appropriate wbl. That way you can worry about more important things like the plot and roleplaying.
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. 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 would think it would be easier just to find a different system. However if you truly want to balance pathfinder so it can be low magic then you need a lot of house rules.
Why are we trying to limit the druids options at armor even more? The druid doesn't wear metal armor because it interferes with his casting and connection with nature. Not because he's against metal armor.
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. 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.
Who cares if it's in a single blow? It don't see how that proves that his damage is impressive.
+2 to dex belt. There aren't cloaks of charisma for statistical balance purposes. Btw the dex is better because of the ac, bonus to hit, bonus to reflex, and bonus to stealth since you want to be the corpse(scout) in the party.
A druid can do that without critting at 6th level?In a single blow? Who cares if it's in a single blow?
A druid can do that without critting at 6th level?
Very simple and organized but not that pretty.
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.
just make it's crit range 18-20. Lol.
Don't gingers make the best paladins because they have no soul to be corrupted?
I would lower the power down of the race so it could be played without a level adjustment. Take something like a strix as the base template and work from there.
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.
All you really need is someone that can cast healing spells out of combat and someone that deals damage and you're good to go. Yeah if you're party is melee oriented you'll have a harder time against ranged, but you should do fine. vice versa
Your idea completely strips away class versatility for hybrids and nerfs paladins. Please don't tell me you're serious about half of the things you post on this forum. Also burn the fighter.
Rogues do well in a team that coordinates well and babies him.
Because you can get damage like that unconditionally at level 7 or so with other classes like the druid or alchemist.
does your group typically get fire resist or immunity? I'm asking because of the choice between explosive bomb or force bomb. Also does your party typically get poison resist or immunity? I'm thinking of cloudkill bombs is all.
Are drow noble allowed?
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.
No you're playing your character how you should play your character. Convince the party that the horse must be destroyed through roleplaying.
Humans are boring. I agree for the most part. However they're often the best statistical choice for a character and that's why a lot of people play them.
Can you give me an idea on how powerful you want the villain to be before I start? I'm just wondering because I could create a single pc that could cause a party wipe if used properly.Well, I'd avoid using super cheap tactics to kill the party. But I'd be content with villains that could post a challenge against multiple PCs. 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.
Can you give me an idea on how powerful you want the villain to be before I start? I'm just wondering because I could create a single pc that could cause a party wipe if used properly.
I haven't played elves because they come off as royal pricks. I loathe gnomes and I'm indifferent about halflings.
Actually looks like a typo since it should be 1875... Are you sure that the buy price shouldn't be lower?
It doesn't matter their strength still sucks. an ape at level 4 has 22 strength. it has 11. Poison isn't worth investing in considering that anything with okay saves can ignore the effects. The DCs on poison are pathetic and should be treated as such.
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.
elves, halflings, gnomes, and all the monster races.
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.
I really hope your DM is new.
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
You think you can't see yourself but you actually are seeing yourself.
Why is the item cost 3750 to buy but 1375 to make?
invisibility, immunity to gaze attacks.
Do you penalties for climbing because you don't know where your feet are? Do you take penalties for lock picking because you don't know where your picks are? Can you see through your eye lids? I need answers now. Also what action is breathing?
Does an archer take penalties shooting because it can't see it's bow or the arrows it fires?
I'm wondering if I can somehow make a small area of land turn into a warm forest area so if my ape dies I can revive him.
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.
A magus themed as a pirate.
|
