Sajan

Ryan Freire's page

3,554 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

No bro, you didn't, you created something to fulfill YOUR argument and then halfassed your way through it, pretty common on this board honestly but im over this.


ShroudedInLight wrote:

Sneak Attack is also quite difficult to add to a charge attack except during that surprise round. Notably, the Vigilante sneak attack is usually d4s which means its on average about 1.25 damage per level. Which makes it a bad Smite Evil.

It is insanely frustrating when you point out situations where something is going to be overpowered and people continually argue something else from a completely different situation.

In this thread I've had to explain that yes, we're talking about a hypothetical vigilante that combined avenger and stalker with access to all the talents options from both twice.

and now we have a response to my "in the surprise round this" that answers with something that has nothing to do with in the surprise round.

I do not believe you people have very good arguments as to why it would not eclipse every other martial out there.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
How willing to use 3rd party are you? The Spirit Blade archetype is excellent archetype for a weapon that aides its wielder.

eh, they shouldn't be too helpful, after all they're servants of rakshasa ranas, not whatever mortal they happen to be hanging around.


avr wrote:
In a game run by a friend (which I'm not in) a couple of characters are discovering that mirror image after working for ages has stopped being reliable due to enemies seeing thru illusions in the last few sessions of their game.

Yeah, but you still wanna layer defenses. maybe SOME of what you fight is immune to illusions but at the point EVERYTHING you fight is immune to non mind affecting illusions you're kinda getting a raw deal


avr wrote:
At the very endgame illusions work less than you'd like. Far too many enemies are immune or see thru your invisibility or something.

It does have mirror image though


If high level martials were EXPECTED to have pounce there would be more options for it than...what bard monk vigilante and shifter? Someone would have wrote a feat that keyed off whirlwind attack or something.

Stalker vigilantes don't get ITWF til 8, which means TWrend comes late.

Also, im sorry but the mad rush/stalker thing is a big deal. Pounce is a big deal when you have vigilante sneak and are two weapon fighting. Its nearly 30 damage a hit, even if it doesnt multiply on a crit. Like the commentary there about peoples unchained rogue?

Literally irrelevant given that we're talking about a "sneak attack" martial with full BAB and pounce. You can parse and ignore aspects of the class and try to restrict or widen focus however you want but the package of stalker+avenger would wildly outclass other martials quickly.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

PS: I didn't use the 10 foot search rule in 3.5 or Pathfinder because I felt like it took up too much time.

Its one of the things that made classic style dungeon crawling the worst.

Only if you roll for each 10'x10' square. Instead, you should use one roll for the whole area the characters are searching, but multiplying the time for the number of 10'x 10' squares, plus modifiers for how cluttered is the area and eventually the movement neede, if it is a large area.

.
Which is fine, much like "passive perception" but not RAW, so not how GM's new to the game and not involved in the online community will run it.

Rolling the dice only when the success or failure do something instead of rolling them when the roll is meaningless is perfectly RAW.

except RAW "make a perception check to notice a trap without declaring you're searching for it" is a rogue talent and they took "make a perception check for going near a secret door" from elves.

So...unless you want to blunder into traps and miss secret doors, you're still rolling to check every 10X10 square.


avr wrote:

Vigilantes with pounce (mad rush) don't get their version of sneak attack and vice versa.

But yes, vigilante makes a better TWFer than a barbarian. And barbarian makes a better greataxe-swinging lunatic than a vigilante. Horses for courses.

You literally aren't following the conversation.

The discussion in question wrote:

Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.

My position is that simply applying both specializations to vigilante creates an Ur-Martial that has a strong potential to wildly outshine all the others by virtue of being equal to superior in combat output, and better even than a number of 6 level casters at out of combat engagement.


avr wrote:

+2-3 attack, and the possibility of rage powers which do different things to vigilante talents.

Lethal grace adds to damage when using dex to attack, str to damage. If you just use str to attack & damage making your character is going to be easier.

The vigilante makes for a different but not better character in a fight. It will be better out of combat true.

And if you TWF you're going to use lethal grace. Its also conveniently the fighting style that benefits most from having pounce, and the fighting style that synergizes best with having access to "sneak attack"


avr wrote:
Vigilante doesn't replace the barbarian (who can get pounce on their own of course), or the paladin, and is much more squishy than a fighter. I guess it might be said to replace the slayer and maybe the rogue? Though rogues have their own odd tricks these days as do monks. I can live with a quality replacement to one class which never got a lot of traction anyway.

What exactly does the barbarian have that the vigilante doesnt?

+2 or 3 higher to hit? It isn't a significant amount of damage, the combination of access to weapon specialization and lethal grace is higher damage than rage.

It isn't skill use, or out of combat utility, the vigilante has more skill points and actual class abilities with out of combat utility. Saves because of superstition, sure, but its not like having 2 strong saves and 1 weak one is particularly bad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SunKing wrote:
It’s a little quieter, with considered, measured discussion around a system we love and aren’t giving up on yet. Sure - we know that PF1 has its failings. But it’s what we’ve invested so much time, energy and cash into. And I like this community as it is now: a little less noise than before. And I intend to share, borrow and steal from all of you for the indefinite future. Thanks

Plus the longer it goes on the more likely stuff gets re-looked at and community based modifications to the system will begin taking over


Wonderstell wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I mean feel free to try it out but you're really not gonna like the way it will utterly marginalize every other full BAB class out there.

I think this might be a case where you should run the numbers before making assumptions. UnMonk and Barb both have in-class options for movement during a full-attack (which comes earlier than lv 12), and comparable dmg output without relying on precision dmg.

How exactly do you think it will marginalize other classes?

6+ int skill modifiers, Every "bonus feat" is actually 2 to 3 combat feats, access to pounce, a +1/2 level to damage choice, higher class based speed boost than anything but monk, bypasses prerequisites all over the place on feat chains.

And to be clear...they don't RELY on precision damage, they have access to weapon specialization(which comes conveniently bundled with weapon focus) and lethal grace. The avenger vigilante on its own is comparable to whatever martial you care to put out there. You're ADDING precision damage, at 12th level to the tune of +27 damage a hit on the surprise round, and +15ish on average when you forgo a single attack in your full attack in order to feint, because they also get two weapon feint improved feint and greater feint with a single selection and bypassing prereqs.


Wonderstell wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Instagibbing something in the surprise round outside what you're expected to instagib at your CR is just as disruptive to campaigns as a godwizard scry and frying.

Eeeehhh... Mad Rush Stalker Vigilante is possible as a Wildsoul but I don't see that breaking much. It's still just a full-attack, but you're taking a total of -6 to AC for your trouble. Being able to attack while moving is kind of mandatory for a high-level (melee) martial to be useful.

I mean feel free to try it out but you're really not gonna like the way it will utterly marginalize every other full BAB class out there.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

PS: I didn't use the 10 foot search rule in 3.5 or Pathfinder because I felt like it took up too much time.

Its one of the things that made classic style dungeon crawling the worst.

Only if you roll for each 10'x10' square. Instead, you should use one roll for the whole area the characters are searching, but multiplying the time for the number of 10'x 10' squares, plus modifiers for how cluttered is the area and eventually the movement neede, if it is a large area.

.

Which is fine, much like "passive perception" but not RAW, so not how GM's new to the game and not involved in the online community will run it.


wraithstrike wrote:

PS: I didn't use the 10 foot search rule in 3.5 or Pathfinder because I felt like it took up too much time.

Its one of the things that made classic style dungeon crawling the worst.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:


Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.

While its not creating a god wizard or anything, with no weird supplements or feat rulings at all, a vigilante who counts as both rolls out of the surprise round with a 50' charge that will 90% of the time instagib whatever the vigilante charges.

Mad rush + d8 sneak attacks + 1/2 level in damage + TWF chain is too much.

Oh no, a character who throws a good pile of resources into combat will excel at combat exactly during the surprise round and otherwise just be about on par with an Animal Totem Barbarian?

The humanity. It's not spellcasting, combat can survive having a man whose goal is to run at things and try to smash them.

Instagibbing something in the surprise round outside what you're expected to instagib at your CR is just as disruptive to campaigns as a godwizard scry and frying.

Also, thats two vigilante talents and the best possible fighting style for any class with pounce available hardly a massive investment.


Same way you'd do a pirate campaign but on land. Magic treasure comes from people sent to hunt down the bandits. As things escalate perhaps the party becomes bandit kings, recruited by an enemy nation that intends to invade the country they're in. Banditry turns to full scale military looting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
yukongil wrote:
why does the Cleric need more options for Channel when Channel Energy allows them to free up most all of their spells for whatever they want to actually do?

Because healing wands already do that. In Pathfinder, the burdon of HP healing does not lie on the Cleric.

And since you already don't need healing spells, what Channel Energy does is makes it seem that the class is mainly about healing, even though it isn't, and it's only some people who're stuck in the past shoving their nostalgia crap down people's throats. There is no "40 years of weight", because the game only existed for 11 years (12 with the CRB playtest). That it somewhat encourages people to stick to their outdated misdirected believes about the Cleric is part of the reason I would like to see it removed (and replaced it with something selectable, which could include the option to select it still).

Ryan Freire wrote:
Frankly i find the addition of wands to the cheap consumable marketplace to be one of the worst aspects of pathfinder.
Better than forcing people to play classes they don't want to play, that's for sure. I do actually dislike healing wands, too, and removed them for my current game, but that's really a discussion for a different thread.

Heal skill has enough feats now that you don't really need a specific class to play healer anymore.


rorek55 wrote:

they way I look at it, Con is not that much of a defense. Take a 10 con, vs a 14 con. Thats a difference 2 hp a level, I admit, I rarely make a character with a con lower than 12 myself, so I am hesitant. But, thats only if I go for elf due to the -2 con.

I'd be banking on- higher AC, armor, shield, abjuration bonuses, conjuration healing, and, at level 10 mirror image, and being able to pick where and when I want to get into, or out of, melee with side step teleporting. The biggest issue for me is the lower fort save.

I've found 12 con is acceptable in most situations. As the few times I've had a character die, the extra hp wouldn't have made a difference.

I like the idea of the trappings of the warrior, I also like the trappings of the mage one, and it gives me an idea for a caster focused occultist based on elemental energy damage.

As said, I don't see him being the one to take the brunt of the enemy if I can help it, if I can't, well, I may be up the creak. But as I said, that usually isn't changed by more hp.

If I do decide to go for the panoplies, do you think power attack would be worth investing in?

Con is a massive defense in the first 5 or 6 levels. Its often the difference between an unlucky crit or high roll dropping you in the fight or not. It does get less relevant later, but builds that ignore the challenges you face GETTING to the levels where they take off tend not to actually reach those levels outside of a discussion or forum.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

I'd love to say yes to show my support for PF1, but I don't think that's true.

Nothing physical, and nothing as inflexible as a pdf. I'm also not entirely sure the current team has the same design goals that made the original PF1 something I like.

But, all that aside, I'd pay money toward a project to complete the roll20 PF1 compendium. I'd support a "complete bestiary art assets" project for illustrations and icons for everything they've created to be made freely available; though I'm not inspired by the direction PF2's art direction took, so I'd still wait and see on the project. I'd support an online interactive atlas of Golarion, sort of like this but with a more professional look and better optimized. I'd also support an online project that inserted the full text for identical abilities rather than referencing some other thing in their rules entry.

But a book? No, probably not.

I'd pay for a 1.5 pass over the rules, a condensation of the feat trees and a reworking of old content to take new content and design philosophies into account. (Like all of the old fighter archetypes removing weapon and/or armor training, with the new archetypes balancing those choices between one or the other and bonus feats/bravery)

I'd like a core book to include a visual combat flowchart and sub charts for maneuvers (grapple in particular). Seems like almost every rpg ive encountered eventually has to flowchart some option put out and itd be nice to just have it included in the core book from the get go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm. Well if you say so, I haven't gotten that impression on either of things you stated. I'm pretty sure there are actually more pages and thus more words than in old campaign setting book. Sad to hear your attempt to try it out didn't go well though.

I mean...they took a -cha race and turned it into + cha kender for one.

I think your complain would be more valid if you said small sized dex/cha+ ;D But seriously, goblins having wisdom penalty makes more sense than charisma to me due to all the singing and ridiculous antics. Either way, doesn't make them kender since goblins don't come with "Oh, but you gotta love those kenders for borrowing your items! Aren't they rascals" text.

(that said I agree that goblins being common instead of uncommon makes no sense considering that I believe tengu should be common instead ;P I would have rather had orcs as new core ancestry than goblins)

Or hobgoblin since they went and gave them their own nations and they have an entire edition of being known for working for/with other humanoids, vs how goblins were portrayed all edition long.

But yes, also yet another + cha race as though small = cute. Could have just as easily been dex/int for all that twisted cunning they spent pages writing about.


MrCharisma wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.
This is the best argument I've seen for why Sorcerers are a tier higher than Wizards.

I think their tier should be about even, especially if the sorcerer has gained extra spells known, like with the human favored class bonus.

It’s a very fine line with knowing every spell you could reasonably need and with having enough slots to know that many spells. And it takes way more system mastery to cherry pick those spells. The wizard is much more beginner friendly, because if you pick the wrong spell, you’re just down a little gold and downtime.

To be clear, I don't actually think Sorcerers are a tier higher than wizards, but that argument really really argues for spontaneous casters over prepared casters - which is fairly contrary to most tier lists I've seen.

Also for beginners do I highly recommend spontaneous casters over prepared casters. With just a little help from your friends when picking spells you can make sure you're not "useless", and after that you spend WAY less time staring at lists and spreadsheets and never have to worry about picking your spells at the start of the day. Prepared 9th level casters are a nightmare for new players, and often a nightmare for everyone else at the table who's waiting for their turn.

... Also summon builds. #&@% summon builds!

The big thing about prepared is the ability to leave like 1 spell slot of each level empty after a minute and just hunt the exact story control spell you need inbetween fights


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm. Well if you say so, I haven't gotten that impression on either of things you stated. I'm pretty sure there are actually more pages and thus more words than in old campaign setting book. Sad to hear your attempt to try it out didn't go well though.

I mean...they took a -cha race and turned it into + cha kender for one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brawler guide, wombo combo

Brawler guide, debuffin with style

Here are two brawler guides that each have some specific information on how to pick feats to open up the widest variety of martial flexibility options.

Not gonna be 100% relevant to picking up barroom brawler but does a good job of explaining how to get the most out of the ability.


MrCharisma wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.
This is the best argument I've seen for why Sorcerers are a tier higher than Wizards.

eh, i find wizard schools more compelling than sorcerer bloodlines 9/10 times


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:


Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.

While its not creating a god wizard or anything, with no weird supplements or feat rulings at all, a vigilante who counts as both rolls out of the surprise round with a 50' charge that will 90% of the time instagib whatever the vigilante charges.

Mad rush + d8 sneak attacks + 1/2 level in damage + TWF chain is too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:

Improved Maneuver:

Prerequisite;
The misguided desire to attempt any Combat Maneuver.

Benefit;
You no longer provoke AoO when attempting any Combat Maneuver. Furthermore, you receive a +2 bonus to your CMB when you attempt any Combat Maneuver.

AND, that fixes 'em all...

Combat Expertise: Prereq int 13. You no longer provoke attacks of opportunity for attempting a combat maneuver, gain +2 to all combat maneuvers. (counts as all improved combat maneuver feats currently in game)

Dodge: Prereq dex 13. Gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC, when moving through a threatened area this increases to +5 vs attacks of opportunity provoked from movement. When making an attack roll you may take -1 to hit to gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn. Every 4 BAB increase the penalty and bonus by 1.

Declutters a massive amount of feat tangle.

Combat maneuvers are a 3 feat chain to the quick maneuver option and a 2 feat investment for any maneuver past the first. Much more reasonable.

Whirlwind attack becomes a 3 feat chain.

I also like the idea of combat feat chains working more like vigilante talents, where you pick one and get 2-3 options staggered by level.


VoodistMonk wrote:

I find that there are far more useful feats when you give up on gimmick BS like combat maneuvers (except Dirty Tricks), feinting, or whatever nonsense strings together AoO... when you actually just pursue solid mechanical choices, useful feats exist in abundance. And a lot of them come from post-CRB toolboxes. It is easy to get overwhelmed with all the superfluous crap focused on gimmick BS, though. This is obviously coming from the perspective of a martial... martials NEED feats... or at least most of them do.

I do not know the extent of, nor give a $#!+ about feats for spellcasters... did you need a feat for proficiency in your spells? Didn't think so. Did it require a whole string of feats for your chosen offensive strategy to key off of your highest stat? No? Get lost. Go sit in your tower (your Tier 1 tower).

Combat maneuvers are for sure in need of a massive condensing. I kind of wonder if more feats wouldn't benefit from the Equipment trick/Weapon trick/magic trick style of rebalancing, where you take the feat and then as you fulfill more requirements you get different benefits from it.

I'm about half done reworking all the weird skill related feats in a similar way and folding them into Signature Skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

\

Honestly, there are very few meaningfully useful spells outside of the core books. We aren’t talking about 50 ways to deal damage with fire here.

Kinda the same with feats too


avr wrote:

Utterly failing with a kineticist - rather than being just a bit weak - usually means not understanding their rules or the implications of those rules. Like you need to have some burn taken to get elemental overflow up and running, and saving it all for a possible big boss fight means you suck. Too much burn means you drop when a monster frowns at you. That's not the only issue either.

A kineticist isn't a class to hand to a newbie to play. There are a few traps when building them too.

There are, but honestly "I move action gather power standard action composite blast 5' step still trumps a badly built fighter rogue or monk.


JuliusCromwell wrote:

What are some good Combinations for Entering the dragon Desciple prestige class

Looking for something unique and strong.

Prefer to be human for this.

Bloodrager or sorceror. No need to reinvent the wheel


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:
Channeling is indeed very efficient and a (literal) godsend at low levels, but then there are wands. And replacing that Channeling with an ability that prevents you from taking the damage in the first place obviates the need to channel to heal the damage.

Frankly i find the addition of wands to the cheap consumable marketplace to be one of the worst aspects of pathfinder.

edit: more on topic. Any archetype in the advanced players guide, ultimate magic, or ultimate combat should get a polishing pass. Vigilante could use more options as could void and wood elements of the kineticist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

I also find the idea of white room tier lists to be distasteful at best. The issue I have with them is basically the Batman arguement, where we place wizards witches druids and the like at the top because they can solve issues with a (literal) wave of the hand and the statement of "with enough time and prep they can overcome that, so we assume they do" which amounts to "of course he can do it hes The Batman". Well, unless you have knowledge of all spells to know which to even have; the resources to place them all in your books and the foresight to pick those exact ones, time and planning don't help you and you cant always take 8 hours to adjust.

If I WAS to make a tier list I'd place it in order to how easy it would be to be useful to the party no matter the system mastery you have. No optimization needed, no tricks or loopholes and no must have feats to pour over to be useful. This would actually place 6th level casters on top tier since they can always do SOMETHING, and maybe cleric too for the same reasons. It's hard to screw up making them.

Tier lists tend to focus on individual effort vs team help (ie putting spells above teamwork feats) and for PFS I get that. But for regular groups it's totally the opposite and tier lists should be scrapped completely.

I prefer my tier lists to include a floor as well as a ceiling. It tells a better story of where that class fits in the grand scheme of things

Like low tier for kineticist is probably "c or d rank" just because its hard to be an F for a class if you can do more damage than a lightly optimized fireball or lightning bolt every turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The available space argument is a valid argument with things like player companions, small batch small page count 15 dollar supplements. It doesn't really fly in a core rulebook with as many revisions as this ruleset has had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It can be good, but at the same time in my experience going back to old systems can highlight why you left the system in the first place.

Like nostalgically? I love a tightly controlled for power level rifts game. LOVE it...in theory. By about hour 2 of the math involved in filling out your skills in a palladium system and i remember why i dont play it anymore.

I have amazingly fond memories of 2nd edition forgotten realms and birthright in particular as settings. I'm not into going back to racial caps on levels.


Melkiador wrote:
It's funny how people complain about how OP summoners are when they almost never place in the highest tier.

Its because summoners are OP during the most commonly played levels. Apparently most people don't splash around very much after level 12/13 when they drop off comparatively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Literally any skill choice is going to be either phantom thief rogue or investigator. With knowledge checks you can add bard, with craft and profession you're a human with heart of the fields and the skill focus instead of human bonus feat options.

There aren't many raw int checks, they're usually associated with a skill but AFAIK the only options there are either generic rerolls, one or two spells that add a +1 or 2 and just having a high stat.

Will saves? Dwarf cleric with steelsoul and improved iron will.

Concentration checks are going to involve a ton of surfing through traits, and i think to maximize it you're probably going to end up using the exemplar magic trait to power load magic traits with your feats. Many of those traits are situational but almost all your options will be that way. Bonuses when casting defensively, bonuses that only apply when you're hit while casting, steel falcon has bonuses for casting on a rough moving ship, there are feats for mounts that give bonuses (do reductions i forget which) from casting on horseback while running.


1d8 goes to 2d6


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will offer you a reasonable and easy house rule for perception.

Passive perception: Whatever taking 10 results in for that character is their perception level just existing. They automatically notice anything of a DC underneath their passive perception score.

Active perception: You roll the dice, and actively search a 5foot square as a move action. This is you moving things around, poking and prodding.

Your games will move along much quicker if you set things up like that.


VoodistMonk wrote:

I was rather surprised by the whole 19-20/×3 weapons making GM's nervous... like, why?

There's no use sweating martials when there's 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells to deal with. Especially martials that aren't archers.

Now that's where the 19-20/×3 PelletBow comes in... 5 levels of Bolt Ace Gunslinger makes it a 19-20/×4... with Improved Critical it's 17-20/×4... AT RANGE! Now it's starting to get interesting, but I wouldn't ever even consider banning it.

As for a Swashbuckler with a Tongi... it's just an option. Not optimal, nothing involving axes (or Swashbucklers) really ever is. But we were talking about axes being used for flavor, not efficiency, so I figured I would throw out an option that hadn't yet been discussed. Not that I like the flavor Swashbuckler brings to the table, but it is an option

I have a perverse desire to go bolt ace 5/Weapon master fighter 15 ranged crit fishing build with fighter critical feats.


Tacticslion wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Instead of plain bard you could go urban skald as well, you'd have access to that spell, AND the ability to throw out dex boosting rage.

How do you get urban onto a skald?

I've been out of the heavier bits of archetypes for a bit and I don't remember this at all, and a quick scan didn't show me Urban Skald (outside of a thing that I made for a friend once.

EDIT: HAH! Literally found it immediately after I posted here.

>insert amused face-palm here<

:D

I was never really a fan of bard for the longest time but as of teamwork feats, shared training and dwarven scholar i'm really deep diving the potential. Teamwork feats are effective even when people divert from "standard" builds to add them if the party is cooperative and taking the same ones. I'm thinking a party of 4 standardly built characters with a 5th handing out half a dozen teamwork feats even just for survivability and mobility cranks the party as a whole to 11 without even reaching into rube goldberg style builds and edge case rulings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact that the feats basically hold no synergy with either the fighter archetype or prestige class makes me think they're in existence solely to splash aldori flavor into other martials.

Like the archetypes and prestige class fit together well, and even if its not the best TACTICAL choice, mechanically its a functional if unexceptional dex "tank".

I feel like the feats are intended to be taken by a rogue or something. At least there's incentive to invest in feinting.

Edit: never mind, just read that last sentence that had no reason to exist in there. does not stack with sneak attack.

Just the worst feat series. Just terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The aldori feats, prc, and archetypes desperately wish for there to be a more mechanically and lorewise fleshed out dueling system integrated into the game.

Its a build for campaigns aimed at martials with low to no magic and even there half the feats are no good.


IME if your build isn't leaning heavily on landing crits for some reason other than raw damage, you're not likely to notice much performance difference just for picking an axe over a sword.


Artofregicide wrote:
The problem with theorycraft is that it doesn't hold up at the table. I've found that x3 and x4 crit weapons can actually be a very strong player on the battlefield. Sure, you don't crit as often (and thus aren't good for crit-fishers) but having a 10% chance of 1-shot an enemy is nothing to sneeze at. Especially against hefty DR and other damage reducers.

Or those times where the encounter is what i like to refer to as "meaty chaff". Beatsticks with high hp and hd maybe 3 or 4 lower than your characters around mid level


Wonderstell wrote:

I did try to make the ultimate caster enabler as a pure martial, but it took too long to come online for the types of games I usually play in. The idea was to be an Eldritch Guardian Fighter with Overwatch Style and Concentrated Fire, using the Weapon Trick that lowers enemy saving throws with readied attacks.

So at level 11 you could theoretically apply a -32 penalty to an enemy's saving throw vs one effect, or spread the penalty out in increments of -8 on multiple effects in a round.

I would love to see this build.


Quote:

The Martial Focus Feat --> Advanced Weapon Training opens up some fighter stuff for you or interesting things like Cut from the Air

Sadly martial focus only counts as weapon training specifically for weapon mastery feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You go to your pit and find X gold coins worth of salvageable gear from whoever fell into it


This is a lot of moving around different items and classes for something that fulfills all the goals in one class. Kinetic knight does all of this and self-removes fatigue via having access to the samurai's resolve ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Might want to consider how to get spellsong in there.

1 to 50 of 3,554 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>