Boar

RtrnofdMax's page

Organized Play Member. 649 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 7 Organized Play characters.


Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So, question for the crowd concerning Sacred Weapon and crits...

A. All sacred weapons have a standard crit range and multiplier (19-20/x2 or maybe 20/x3)?

B. Whenever a sacred weapon scores a crit, all of the additional damage is based off the original weapon damage?

C. It works as is (weapon damage scales, crit stats are drawn from the weapon, which means some will crit more often, but only for x2, others rarely but for x3)

So....

1. Which is easiest to use?
2. Which is the most balanced?
3. Which is the most fun?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

C.

From a DPR perspective, you have weapons that do 5% (20/x2), 10% (19-20/x2,20/x3), 15% (18-20/x2,20/x4), and 20% (19-20/x3) more damage with crits. I think we should ignore the 5% group since this includes mainly simple weapons, and the 20% group since this is a group of one (Falcata) that takes feats to get. So the majority of people will be choosing either 10% or 15% more crit damage. People make a far bigger deal of crits than they should. Huge scythe crits are fun, but static damage is far more important.

Adding the scaling damage, and the ability to make any weapon Sacred, removed damage dice envy and made deity choice flavorful, as it should be.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some feat ideas, basically copied from the Inquisitor, as this is the class I think we need to look to for parity.

Extra Fervor:

Your fervor in battle is especially strong.

Prerequisites: Fervor class feature.

Increase your daily uses of the Fervor ability by 2.

Faithful Fervor:

The power of your faith grants you additional power.

Prerequisites: Fervor class feature.

Increase your daily uses of the Fervor ability by half of your Wisdom bonus (minimum 1).

Sacred Unity:

The power of your deity flows into weapon and armor alike.

Prerequisites: Warpriest level 10th

The Sacred Weapon and Armor abilities can be activated with a single swift action.

Note: Unless the character has Enduring Weapon the duration of Sacred Weapon is still counted in rounds.

Enduring Weapon:

Maintaining your Sacred Weapon takes less effort.

Prerequisite: Sacred Weapon +2 class feature

By expending 2 uses of your Sacred Weapon ability, the duration of Sacred Weapon increases to 1 min. per use.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because rebuilds are the Devil and only used by munchkins to create broken characters/game the system. Rebuilds are also like bed bugs in that once you let them in you can't get rid of them. Or something like that.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is a sample build for that DPR request made a few posts up.

Aasimar Channel Smiter:

Race: Aasimar (vanilla)
Deity: Gorum
Blessing: Destruction, Glory
Str: 16 (14+2)
Dex: 10 (10)
Con: 15 (13+2)
Int: 10 (10)
Wis: 22 (16+2+2+2)
Cha: 16 (12+2+2)

Feats: Power Attack (retrained, 1st), Furious Focus (retrained, 1st bonus), Channel Smite (3rd), Guided Hand (3rd, bonus), Extra Channelx2 (5th, 9th), Improved Init (6th, bonus), Improved Channel (7th), Vital Strike (9th, bonus)

Gear: M/W Full Plate (make +2 with Magic Vestment), +2 Greatsword, Headband of Wis/Cha +2, Belt of Str/Con +2, Phylactery of Negative Channeling, Amulet of NA +1, Ring of Protection +1, Jingasa, Cloak of Protection +2

A single attack with your weapon increased another +2 with Sacred Weapon would look like so:

+18 vs. AC, 4d6 + 14 + 5d6(DC20)

DPR(AC 24, Will +10): .75*(4*3.5+14)*(1+.1)+.75*(5*3.5)*(.45*1+.55*.5) = 32.6

Full Attack would be:

DPR(AC 24, Will +10): .75*(2*3.5+14)*(1+.1)+.4*(2*3.5+14)*(1+.1)+(.75+(.25*.4))*(5*3.5)*(.45*1+.5 5*.5) = 37.3

If you are able to activate Destructive Attacks for +5 damage, they increase to 36.7 and 43.7, respectively.

I would like to see a full Str build, because this isn't impressive.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Trent wrote:
Firstly, in regard to the large number of things they get at level 1, I would personally be really happy if the level 1 bonus feet was moved to level 2. Its actually really challenging to even find combat feets that you qualify for with 0 BAB.

I would be perfectly happy with a feat at 2nd, 5th, 8th and so on levels. It gives you the same number of feats overall, but hits some important milestones along the way including when you reach BAB +1, BAB +6 and your last level in regular PFS.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you guys are derailing away from a very good post by Andrew. If we are to follow what SKR wrote, it changes a great many things.


    *Gloves of dueling affect any Fighter Archetype that increases to hit and damage for a weapon, regardless of whether it is called Weapon Training or not.
    *Eldritch Heritage can be advanced by Robes of Arcane Heritage.
    *I guess I thought I would think of a lot more when I started this list.

But more importantly, it gives GMs a lot more room to allow things rather than the default attitude of denying just to be safe. If this were adopted, I think we will start hearing a lot more of "I'd allow it" instead of "Sorry, that's not this and vice versa, so you can't."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Battle Herald. +5 to hit and damage, bonuses on saves, the ability to give new saves, plus bodyguard and in harms' way.

You have something to do every round that isn't affected by a die roll, so you never have a bad turn. You let other people's characters shine. Since you're just there to help other characters, you never have to deal with kill envy. It's honestly just a relaxing experience.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ragathiel, mostly because he lets his Paladin's Rage.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Link

It's under Attacks.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Following the theme of many of these posts: Hearing a player you ran for the previous night, asking the coordinator if you were running anything that day.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The greatest strength of humanity is their adaptability. You can't just walk in and say, I am human, fight me the way I want to fight. Figure out how to make up for your weaknesses.

In addition to what has been mentioned, it is entirely possible to have darkvision as a Human.

1) The spell Darkvision, or Alter Self, will both give you enhanced vision.

2)There is also a trait called Blood of Dragons that will give you low-light vision. Couple that with Panther Domain or Mooncaller Druid, the Aspect of the Beast feat, or Night Vision Rage for the Barbarian, and you have Darkvision.

3) Cryptbreaker Alchemists, Cave Domain Druids, Infiltrator Rangers, Superstitious Barbarians, Orc and Shadow Sorcerers or Darkness Channeling Clerics all grant Darkvision.

4) An Ebon Wayfinder is 18k. A Belt of Dwarvenkind is 14.9k. Lenses of Situational Sight are 5k for 10 uses of Darkvision.

But, like was said before, just having a better source of light than their source of darkness is really all you need. Being prepared to deal with darkness is as important as being prepared to not be clawed to death.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Despite what the first responder said, I too agree that they can't be combined.

Archetypes are about give and take. You give a bit from the base class to get from the archetype. For illustration, when you modify a base ability, you give up all of the base ability to get back an ability that is mostly the same with some changes. When you replace an ability, you give up all of the base ability and get something completely different. Either way, you give up the base ability and get another one back from the archetype.

In your example, the Oath of the Wyrm Paladin gives up his Divine Bond to get back the modified Divine Bond from OotW. Despite have the same name, and this just being a modification of how it works, there was still a replacement of the base Divine Bond ability. Give and Take.

Shining Knight replaces Divine Bond with a version where you can only take a Bonded Mount.

In both cases, the base Divine Bond was replaced by a different version of Divine Bond (albeit a very similar version in one case). Because both modify, replace, affect, pertain to, restrict, etc. the Divine Bond base class feature, they can't be combined.

P.S. The one place where my explanation falls apart is with the spells gained from an Oathbound Paladin. Since each oath gives the character more spells and it explicitly says you can combine oaths, spells would have to be broken up into subabilities for this to make sense.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wind Chime wrote:

Here to prove Double Barrel Guns aren't broken so here is the maths of me trying to break them.

Double Barrel (Brokenness)

Goblin
Fighter (weapon master) 4
Gunslinger (Pisterello) 6

Attributes:
Str: 10
Dex: 21+4= 25
Con: 13
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Cha: 06

Feats:
9 feats total (5, 3 fighter bonus, 1 gunslinger bonus)
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Rapid Shot
Deadly Aim
Weapon Focus (Double Barrelled Pistol)
Weapon Specialization (double Barrelled Pistol)
Iron Will
Rapid Reload (Double Barrel Pistol)
Improved Critical (Double Barrel Pistol)

Equipment
Gloves of Duelling 15,000
Belt of Dexterity 16,000
Double Barrelled Pistol (+3) 20,050
Mithril Breast-Plate +1 5350
Cloak of Resistance +2 4,000

Fortitude: 11
Will: 8
Reflex: 14
AC: 25=10+7(armour)+5(dex)+2(dodge)+ 1(size)

AB
10 (bab)+7(dex)+1(size)+1(focus)+3(weapons training) + 3(enhancement) = 25, 20

AB (deadly aim)
10 (bab)+7(dex)+1(size)+1(focus)+3(weapons training) + 3(enhancement) – 3(DA) = 22, 17

AB: (rapid shot + deadly aim)
10 (bab)+7(dex)+1(size)+1(focus)+3(weapons training) + 3(enhancement) – 3(DA) -2(RS) = 20,20, 15

AB (rapid shot + deadly aim + double firing)

10 (bab)+7(dex)+1(size)+1(focus)+3(weapons training) + 3(enhancement) – 3(DA) -2(RS) -4 (DF) = 16,16,16,16,11, 11

Damage
1d6+7(dex)+6(DA)+ 3(en)+ 3(WT)+2(WS)
1d6+21

0.95(6d6+126)+0.3(126)
139.65+37.8=177.45

What about the 15% chance per barrel to misfire? You can't hit 95% of the time because on a 2 or 3 you will misfire.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not. I also checked the first two Bestiary erratas.

[rant]Paizo is, in my opinion, not doing a great job with their FAQ system. It is the only way to request that a thread get Dev attention, but it doesn't seem to work in a way that makes the rules team want to answer questions.

We see a thread and the first post got 8 FAQ requests, and then someone offered some subtly different question, or a better restatement and that gets some amount of FAQ requests, and we think the Devs now see that the thread is getting a lot of attention from players. However, they have described a system when they get a database of posts where there is no obvious link between multiple FAQ requests in the same thread.

What's more, they have a limited list of options for how to respond to a FAQ request. Someone above the Rules team has probably set up a metric to gauge how well they are answering FAQ requests; probably something as simple as tracking how many open requests their are and how many are closed. Also, it is likely tracks how long something has been open.

Well a little while ago, there came this huge rash of threads that all stated that their questions had been answered in the FAQ, and they hadn't. After much pressure, one of the devs stated that they were saying threads were answered in FAQ just so they no longer showed up as items they needed to address, despite the fact they never answered the question.

This may have been what happened to this thread. It also may be that someone decided that Mike's answer was sufficient (which it is) and lacking a better way to close this thread, they simply chose the Answered in Errata option.[/rant]

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys are really off topic. There is a whole thread talking about the SoS spells. I am far more interested in hearing ideas about how a self-policing campaign would or wouldn't work. Or why a very strict conservative rules based campaign is or isn't what is needed to make society play work.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, I agree that any familiar that has hands of similar to humanoid shape, should be able to grasp a wand.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Use Antagonize on an NPC who is trying to run away from the party. Honestly, it just seemed like the easiest way to avoid a chase scene. It also forced the DM to have the NPC attack me, which was very out of character for this particular NPC. I don't think she's forgiven me to this day.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One small error in the first post. A medium 1d8 weapon goes to 2d6 when enlarged.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Cheliax shirt doesn't say Pathfinder on it anywhere. Someone would have to ask me what it was for, or look it up online, for it to serve as any source of advertisement.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Netopalis wrote:
What is a backpack, truly, but a shirt that holds things? What is bandana, but a shirt worn on the head? What is a binder, but a shirt for your character sheets?

Seems to me it would be a simple mod to make my shirt into a sash. I could even clip my PFS card to it so all could bask in the glory of my star.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I bought my Cheliax shirt way back when and the ol' beefy-T is not really holding up any more. One sleeve is threatening to secede from the rest of the shirt and any day now I will be handing out free tickets to the gun show. Can I trim the logo off of the front of the shirt and carry that around as my reroll item? I can't see the value in carrying the entire busted shirt around.

Sovereign Court

52 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

The previous thread was lost to the answered in FAQ, but not "bug". Here is a repost clearly stating the question:

Does the AoO granted by Bodyguard follow the normal rules for for AoOs (including being in melee threat range of the enemy), or is the only requirement that you be adjacent to your ally?

Additional Info:
For more background on the different positions people have taken on this issue, and a non-binding rules clarification from the original author of the feat, see the original thread: www.paizo.com/threads/rzs2phpj?Bodyguard-Forum-Compilation-and-Clarificatio n

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it works for your character, I suggest the Wheeling Charge feat for PCs from Lastwall. Having that 90 degree turn during a charge makes setting one up consistently a far easier task.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They didn't touch Bodyguard. Guess I keep campaigning.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for getting this back on topic, Ken.

My personal design philosophy for characters is to be different. I think many people are fine finding uniqueness in their characters personalities, but I have a need to not bring a character that does the same things as someone else at the table or the table before. To do this though, often requires combining somewhat random character options, or taking a fringe ability and trying to figure out how to make it a build fixture.

This is what's fun for me. I don't do it to make a GMs job difficult. I don't do it to powergame, as most often I am not making an optimal build (optimal for concept perhaps, but not a DPR champion by any stretch).

The guide says to use common sense, but to also follow the rules. In so many cases, those are not complimentary statements. I am hoping that there is enough support in the community to modify what 4.3 says about rules and common sense, because what I have observed in practice is far greater adherence to a strict reading of the rules, than common sense. This is the opposite of what the change log for 4.3 says about empowering GMs to use more common sense.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lab_Rat wrote:


It's not a black and white issue, it's a balancing act.

I agreed, and that's how it should be. But I have experienced GMs feeling like they are handcuffed in their ability to make judgments. That's more black than white (or vice versa). I guess what I am looking for is some sort of blessing for GMs to use common sense first, followed closely by RAW. They shouldn't ever violate RAW, but since RAW is often not cut and dried, they should feel like that have a recourse to make the judgment that seems right to them.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
RtrnofdMax wrote:
you have to ignore what a contributor states was his intent. In other words, completely abandon common sense.

So it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to be aware of messageboard posts from contributors, stating their intent?

Or were you saying it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to just take every player's word for it when they say "No really, the author said it does the opposite"?

Or perhaps you mean that it's common sense to think that when you whip out printouts of author commentary and tell the GM to comply with this opposite-of-what's-written ruling, that they'll be totally cool with it and have no reason to raise an eyebrow at you?

If that's what you mean by "common sense", then yes, we should abandon it.

Feeling a little attacked, but I'm going to ignore that.

No, not every GM should know everything that occurs on the boards. The player should have a source for them. No, they should not always take a player's word, but they should be open to hearing the reasoning, and come at it with a willingness to say yes, rather than a predisposition to say no. Yes, I think we should all be prepared for the human beings that write the rules to not have been prepared for certain situations. If the author says, "I wrote that, but that's not what I meant" then you should be able to say ok we can run it differently, rather than saying "nah-uh, no take-backs!".

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

You can’t use the absence of a rule to support being able to do something. You can only use the absence of a rule to support not being able to do something.

Basically, if it doesn’t explicitly say you can do something, you should assume you can’t.

You can buy bullets and cartridges of various materials.

But sorry, I'm not going to allow you to put your cartridge in an open flame to blanch it.

Common sense only goes so far. At some point you have to actually follow the rules of the game, and the PFS campaign.

In this case, because there is no crafting, and there are no provisions to purchase items that have been treated with a blanch, you can't put blanches on paper cartridges.

I was attempting to refute your RAW argument by stating there are no such RAW. There most certainly is a rule for applying weapon blanches to ammunition. I will restate: Alchemical Cartridges are ammunition. Weapon blanch can be applied to ammunition. Alchemical cartridges can have blanches applied to them. That's as simple as it gets.

What you and the latter poster are doing is making up rules. Don't get me wrong, what you are saying absolutely makes sense in the real world and you will never see me try to do this personally. But there isn't a rule that excludes alchemical cartridges from the rules that govern ammunition and the blanching thereof. If people want to pre-blanch their ammunition so that it makes sense to them from a RL standpoint, that's fine with me.

What it comes down to is, can a PFS GM choose to treat alchemical cartridges differently from every other type of ammunition? Until Mike Brock says you can, or an errata or new book details specific rules for blanches and bullets, I can't see how you can.

P.S. And I hate having to argue this point as removing the ability to use common sense from a GM goes against quite a few rulings I wish I had. But if people are going to use strict interpretations of the rules to prevent things, you're going to have to use strict interpretations of the rules to allow things.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


Nothing in RAW supports your ability to purchase ammo with weapon blanche pre-applied.

Well if you want to quote RAW, nothing in the rules says that your alchemical cartridge explodes when subject to fire. There is also nothing in the RAW that says you can't apply ghost salt to an alchemical cartridge. Quite the opposite as an alchemical cartridge is a piece of ammunition and there are rules for applying blanches to ammunition.

Let's not get caught up in finding a way to tell a player he can't do something. There is too much of this in this campaign. People are using common sense to say you can't blanch a cartridge due to our real world understanding about what happens when powder comes into contact with fire. They are also coming up with reasonable ways to get a blanched cartridge without blowing themselves up. I can't see why you're against this. People just want gun ammunition to be treated exactly the same as bows and crossbow bolts, not gain an advantage.

Sovereign Court

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

As I am linking a number of threads, I know that this had been discussed a lot on the boards. However, because the requirements for rules clarifications are to post here and look for a Dev response, I am posting it again.

Summary:

There are two schools of thought -

1) Bodyguard allows the use of the Aid Another action as an attack of opportunity, but it must still follow the rules for the Aid Another action. Specifically, this feat can only be used when you are adjacent to your ally and threatening your enemy in melee.

2) The text of the Bodyguard feat is specific vs. the general text of Aid Another. Normally, you must be within melee threatening range of your enemy to aid an ally's AC. This feat changes it so you must be adjacent your ally to perform this action. If it were intended for you refer back to the general rules for Aid Another, the feat would have said as much.

The first view greatly narrows the usefulness of this feat as it would almost never be useful against ranged and ranged touch attacks, and would also have a narrow window of usefulness in melee as you must meet two conditions related to your position and melee reach.

Would a member of the Rules Team please clarify which view is the intent? Thank you.

Links to previous discussions:

Bodyguard Range
Bodyguard Feat Question
Questions on bodyguard feat
In Harm's Way

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Yep. Not as powerful as some folks think, but very versatile. Other than Skill monkey, one can design a cleric to fill any of the common roles.

The Forgemaster archetype for Dwarf Cleric rewards high Int and removes any need for Cha. It also appears that it could be rather fun to play with on-the-fly buffs like Ghost Touch and the ability to be a sort of Sunder monkey with the Artifice Domain power. You need only touch that spell component pouch and watch it go poof!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Imps are Evil and you can have them as familiars.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, that too.

Here is the one stop shop for all of your legality answers.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

James,

Does the Bodyguard feat allow you to bypass the normal Aid Another rules? I ask because Bodyguard requires you to be adjacent to your ally and Aid Another requires that you be within melee range of the attacking creature when you are aiding AC.

I have to assume that the feat text allows you to Aid when you are simply next to the ally you want to Bodyguard. Otherwise, this feat is useless against ranged attacks, monsters with reach (when you don't have reach), or clever baddies that know they only need to shift out of your melee reach.

Thank you.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

James suggested I post this as a FAQ candidate in his "Ask James" thread:

The Battle Herald PrC doesn't seem to play well with itself.

*Inspiring Command is basically Inspire Courage with additional benefits.
*Inspire Courage gives a Morale bonus to fear saves and a Competence bonus to attack and damage rolls.
*Banner also gives a Morale bonus to fear saves.
*The following Inspiring Command options also give Competence bonuses to attack and/or damage: Inspired Tactics (for crit confirms), Pincer Maneuver (when flanking), Sound the Charge (when charging), and Teamwork (when aiding another's attack).
*Under most cases, you will have your banner out when you would use Inspire Courage.
*Any time you give an Inspiring Command, you are automatically also giving Inspire Courage.

So the Banner and Inspire Courage compete for Morale bonus to fear saves and some Inspiring Command options compete with Inspire Courage for attack and damage bonuses. Is this poorly worded? Are these an exception to the rule where Morale and Competence bonuses would stack? If not, this PrC might need some errata'ing.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because a buckler leaves your hand free while light and heavy shields, and weapons all require the use of the off"hand". A buckler can't be used to attack or bash. Plate Armor does not preclude you from the "dance", why does strapping a dinner plate to your arm?

Sovereign Court

36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 5 people marked this as a favorite.

Does strapping a buckler to your offhand arm count as carrying a weapon or a shield in your offhand? Strictly speaking, your hand is free (not holding a weapon or shield), but it's the definition of "carrying" that is throwing me off. While the weight and armor check penalty of a buckler can be mitigated with materials, I have to imagine that the intention of the feat was for you to have the arm available for use during your "dance" and I am unsure if having an extra weight strapped to your arm would affect you.