Search Posts
There is also the possiblity of going Oracle for Sidestep secret, using Cha instead of Dex for AC and reflex saves. I also want to second Paladin for Cha to saves, Lay on Hands for HP, and those immunities they get.
You can sorta solve SAD MAD issues by giving the players stat arrays instead of pointbuy.
Hmmm, how about the "deathwatch" spell revealing if someone has been resurrected? It reveals if something is undead, so if you are making undeath and ressurection similar in theological terms, then you could allow the spell to treat them similarly. If you want to restrict it, have any divine caster of Pharasma able to cast this version of the spell. EDIT: You would probably want to put the spell on the Inquisitor list, as it currently is only on the Cleric list (also an archetype of alechmist, I think).
Well if the GM is dealing this vile damage, you might as well run with it.
Ah, I retract my previous objection. I misread it and didn't see the "used to finish off a victim" bit. It is not incredibly overpowered.
Maybe go Wizard (Conjuration) or Summoner and just summon lots of things.
Uh, decapitation is typically an instant kill, so that ability is super incredibly OP. I mean, compare it to this weapon quality.
Skills:
Feats:
Starting equipment:
Tactic:
BAM and the vile damage is gone :) -------------------------------- Ok, that is obviously a bit silly, but given the description and the fact that the consecrate spell didn't work, I'm not sure what else you can do other than visit a holy place.
You count as your own ally. Off topic flanking madness:
Hmm, is there some way to be in two places at once? I'm trying to find a way to flank by yourself.
I think there are some ways to do it with illusion spells and feats, or summoning, but I want a way for a single person to flank an enemy. What if you were a huge creature (3*3, yeah?), an an incorporeal creature moved into one of your squares (he can probably do that, as he has no body).
@Jester David, what exactly do you mean by "partially revealed"? There would be a bright patch in the room from which screams of pain and the crackling of flame could be heard.
No its completely intended. There have been various debates about all kinds of rays and touch spells with sneak attack (most notable scorching ray). Nonono I didn't make myself clear. I just mean touching people. Not delivering spells or special abilities through touch attacks, just "attacking" someone with a touch. So, level 1, why can't a rogue walk up to flat-footed people and go "I do a touch attack for 1d6 sneak attack damage!"
Hey, I know it is incredibly dumb and obviously not intended, but can someone explain to me, from a rules perspective, why absolutely regular touch attacks would not deal sneak attack damage? "The rogue's attack deals extra damage .. anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC ... or when the rogue flanks her target." As written, it appears that rogues can: flank, do a touch attack, then deal damage for no sensible reason.
Dervish dance only works if your other hand does not have a weapon, so you could only use one flame blade, not dual wield. Dervish dance lets you use your Dex "instead" of Str for damage (and attack). Since Str does not add to the damage of the flame blade, replacing Str with Dex wont make your Dex add to damage. Still, provided you are flanking or whatnot, they would allow you to Sneak Attack on touch AC. Come to think of it, so would Guns...
I'd imagine that if your character can recognise a failed save then you would have no issue with it being metagamey. It is justifiable, I think. You notice an ally neither braces nor ducks as a fireball approaches, so you cast this spell to help (reroll a failed reflex save vs fireball). A destructive ray of force impacts your ally and they start to cough, so you cast this spell to help (reroll a failed fortitude save vs disintegrate). An enemy spellcaster waves their hand and your ally cracks a smile, so you cast this spell to help (reroll a failed will save vs hideous laughter). Your character needn't know exactly what it wrong, merely that an ally is in trouble and this spells helps. EDIT: this is also probably in the wrong subforum. Your question doesn't really pertain to the rules.
I like the idea of a Paladin/Alchemist.
Not to mention:
Ok, it is probably too MAD to work well, but it is a fun idea.
The point of the synth summoner, I think, is that you can merge with your eidolon. In that form you use your mental stats and the eidolon's physical stats. This will make your 2 irrelevant. Making the 2 irrelevant is obviously your best bet.
So if you are happy with the complexity of the summoner class (I think the eidolon is a fiddly class feature) then it works well. Good luck. Other suggestions you have already heard::
Wizard with Cha 2. Oracle with Dex 2 (using Sidestep Secret to use Cha instead of Dex for AC and Reflex) Sorceror with Int 2. (You still get that 1 skill point, so it is not really much worse than Int 8.) The summoner, though, is the only one that makes you not collapse if you take a bit of damage to your dump stat, since you will probably always be merged with your eidolon, in constant fear that to return to your original form would be your doooooooom
A versatile class will be able to use your good rolls, and your party lacks arcane casting so it could be fun to fill that niche. So my suggestions, in no particular order, are: Magus:
Bard:
Alchemist:
Dragon Disciple:
EDIT: ...divine magic league... Haha, go Inquisitor then. You get some versatility, using both casting and fighting. Just get the Fighter to change to Ranger and then everyone gets divine casting!
What exactly is locked in? What race are you?
So I'm far from an expert here, but I can give some naive advice. Why skirmisher? Spells are nice and probably better. Furious focus might do you better than Great Cleave as your bonus feat. Dodge only gives +1AC. You might be able to find something better. Mobility doesn't seem too useful. You can probably just 5-foot step away from your target which won't provoke. Combat patrol is a cool sounding trick, but I'm not really sure it is that good. Body Guard and In Harm's Way don't seem that great. You might as well just use your AoO to attack, and giving up an attack at full BAB to instead move an attack to yourself seems limited. Especially when you will most likely be up the front in, you know, melee. Vengeance strike has anti-synergy with reach weapons, as the enemy must be adjacent to you, but you are trying to avoid that. It seems unlikely an enemy will move adjacent to you, just to attack someone else. You also don't want to be adjacent to enemies.
Pokémon is the only game that uses the specific terms "physical" and "special", so that was my main hint. When others use WoW lingo, and tactics, I show them what it is like on the other side. Haha, sorta like this? Anyway, back to the topic, I basically agree with what most everyone else is saying. A dedicated tank is not needed. People who can fight in melee are useful, but instead of "tanking" their goal is typically to deal damage without immediately dying.
bbt, what jargon is that? Is it competitive Pokémon jargon?
Deadly Aim wont work, as it doesn't work with touch attacks, iirc.
Oh, the d20pfsrd has a typo then. Damn, I thought I found a clever way to boost that damage :(
I agree it is a bit unclear. Regardless, we can still think of ways to increase the damage anyway. Bore Bombs are not marked with an asterisk, so they stack with any discovery that does have an asterisk. So under the most restrictive and conservative reading of the rules, an acid bore bomb still deals 1d6+level damage. The Point Black Shot feat will work. A Bard's Inspire Courage will work. It is a bit unclear if Admixtures work with Discoveries, but Targeted Bomb Admixture makes your bombs deal double your int bonus.
Nearyn, what do you mean by "sucking in more arcane points than I know what to do with"?
Which, of course, may run into some slight issues with the Paladin = Lawful Good and Barbarian = Non-Lawful rules. HAHAHA oh man I didn't even consider that. Duh. I guess this is what you get when I try to give build advice with a fever >_<
Another possible level progression would be
Now you can dump dex to get something like this at level 5.
EDIT:
As soupturtle said, it might be best to avoid too many drops in BAB. The Sidestep secret is cool, but if you were to try to go without it these would be my suggestions. I don't know if a Barbarian dip is good or not, but if you are doing it then it is probably best to take that at level 1 in order to get the automatic 12 hitpoints. 2 levels of Paladin is strong, as it gives Cha to all saves. For traits, I don't see why you need UMD as a class skill. So, maybe:
For stats, including the racial +2 STR and CHA, you can, at level 5, have.
I haven't got much experience thinking about Oracle stats and feats, but I guess I'd naively suggest a similar statline to before with charisma and wisdom swapped.
Oooh, just saw an idea in another thread.
As far as I can tell, the bonuses from smite evil apply to splash weapon attacks. Holy Alchemist Fire! Burn the evil! Even more reasons to be a Paladin, haha :)
Maybe this before racials, with the +1s being from leveling.
This build wouldn't actually lose any skill points if it dumped Int to 7, so I'd dump to 7 then put Dex to 12 for that +1 AC and Reflex.
A dip into Barbarian or Fighter could get you a higher first hit die and access to martial weapons (not sure if you actually need that due to archetyping, though). You could go the other way and go mostly a martial class, but dip into spellcasting class for the Wand of Fireball without a UMD check. Not too sure on the mechanics for wand spell levels, though, so the damage might suck without sinking a lot of money into it. Yeah, basically, beat things that are close, and burn things farther away. Go Paladin and use Divine Bond to enchant the bow to be flaming and holy (if it isn't already). No fireball required :) Come on, get your friend to be Lawful Good, do the right thing! hehehe
Are you sure you will need to make concentration checks?
Anyway, a more extreme and min-maxed stat array (before racials) could be: Str 17
Putting the 3 attribute increases for the first 12 levels into Str, Wis and maybe Cha.
Hmm, some gut-reaction suggestions are: Stats before racial bonus
Could dump Int and maybe Cha a bit.
Some feats could be Toughness, Elemental Focus (Fire) and maybe School Focus (Evocation). Probably not 'ideal' yet but a decent starting point for discussion, I hope.
Too bad they don't like LG. Other than the fireball thing Paladin does it all, and even then Smite Evil can be flavored with holy flame bursting with each strike. At level 5 Divine Bond even lets you add the Flaming quality to your weapon!
How desperate are they to cast Fireball? It is a third level spell, so it would take at least 5 levels to get it.
So, options: Possibly learn to cope with Lawful Good and take Paladin. Use a wand of fireball and CLWs to get that divine spellcasting feel. Requires either UMD skill or a dip into cleric/oracle (fire domain) to get Fireball on the spell list. Other levels go to, say, fighter, for more melee ability. Go mostly Cleric/Oracle for more spells, with a dip or feat to use heavy armour. EDIT:
I still think Paladin with a Wand of Fireball (maybe a level dip) is good. Lawful Good is not so bad.
I'm not trying to be rude or veil anything. What you are saying just makes absolutely no sense to me so I'm trying to discuss the matter with you. Let me try again: There was confusion about whether Rangers are treated as having prerequisites for their style feats or not.
However, that seems unnecessary to me. We could just suppose that the feats are regular feats, which also don't have you treated as having the prerequisites. This should resolve the confusion in a similar manner. The unnecessary-ness of thinking about virtual feats is exacerbated by the fact that virtual feats are not even a thing in this game, and that Ranger style feats are in fact just regular feats.
Furthermore, you complained about a lack of official-ness when people answered you, yet you are happy to talk about virtual feats from a different game, even though no such thing as virtual feats appears in Pathfinder!
But regular feats do not give you access to the prereqss. For example, say you have a +2 STR belt, going from 11 to 13. Now you take Power attack with your new 13 STR. If you ever take off the belt, you now cant use Power Attack, nor take any other feat that requires 13 STR. So the idea of virtual feats it totally irrelevant. This adds to the fact that they are not even a thing in Pathfinder, so the concept seems super irrelevant.
Kazaan's idea should work. Spells like Chill Touch give you one touch attack per (caster) level. Just cast Chill Touch with more than 1 caster level (wands, scrolls or a mutliclass level dip with magical knack might help), then just find some way to make multiple attacks that discharge touch spells. Some ways to do this are: Natural Weapon Ranger, Monk Flurry of Blows, or Draconic Sorcerer's Claws.
I'm a bit confused about why you think a 3.0 or 3.5 source is relevant - you are asking about the Pathfinder game.
Additionally, even if those rules from another game were relevant or official, it wouldn't actually answer your questions.
So for some reason I can't edit my post.
The flavour of this is a lot like the Words of Power / Wordcaster alternative for magic in the core rulebook. Instead of set spells, wordcasters learn words which can be combined to make spells as they see fit.
Just because Space Marines might do things we don't consider good, doesn't mean that those things can't be good in the morals you set up in the universe they play in. Just redefine the morals of the universe to be based on the teachings of the Adeptus Ministorum. To burn the heretic is Good and Lawful. To suffer the witch to live is evil. Now you can use paladins if you like. In Warhammer guns and melee weapons are both common, so you might need to let everyone use them, giving all or most classes or races proficiency in some type of guns.
Byrdology, note that your first post says "eleven" not "elven". Reread some of the posts with that in mind and things will make more sense :) Anyway, I don't understand the rules you are using. How can you do two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon?
So how about we get back to that core question, hmm? You are being a bit unfairly dismissive. While the issue we are tackling is the title issue, both questions (and others) were asked in the original post and both have been continually discussed since the first page. Anyway I'm tending towards agreeing with you. For an action to be a Full Attack, it should be clearly so, but the text does not make it sufficiently clear that Spell Combat is a Full Attack, so RAW I'd say that it is not a Full Attack. (Given the chance I would houserule it to be a type of Full Attack, as I'd prefer that to be the intent of the ability.)
The Cleave example is not flawed, imo. Cleave proves that not all actions that make multiple attacks must be Full Attack actions. Scorching Ray is another example (as it allows multiple ranged touch attacks).
Flurry of Blows is explicitly a type of Full Attack action. So of course it is a Full Attack action.
Nefreet, I think you are being needlessly dismissive of masouse.
--------------- GreenMandar, I'll examine a particular section of the rules you quoted. "Full Attack If you get more than one attack per round ... you must use a full-round action..." I can certainly see your point here. A magus using spell combat might make more than one attack per round, so he better use the full round action described under Full Attack.
I really think the rules here are quite ambiguous, which is a clear mistake in writing.
Well, I was leaning toward them stacking, but now I'm closer to the fence.
If you are unfamiliar with point buy you can use this point buy calculator to do the math for you. Punch in some numbers and see how it goes. It is hard to suggest something without knowing if you want to be melee or ranged (or a switch hitter) but here are ok stats for a melee Ranger:
Maybe also glance at this guide .
While under the effect of Lead Blades and using an Impact weapon, the following rules apply to your weapons: Lead Blades: "All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are".
This is a tough call. I can definitely see where Nefreet is coming from. At the same time, I imagine this example:
Tough call, but I'm leaning towards them stacking.
I'm going to try to unpick what Kazaan means, because I think he is making two different (but related) arguments, and making that clear would benefit us all.
Kazaan seems to be making the following two arguments: 1.
2.
------------------------ Now I'll give my comments on the matter. While I agree with the first argument, I can see why some people may not agree with it. It is clear that the second argument is valid. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Put more simply, if Spell Combat is indeed not a Full Attack Action, then Haste will not grant another attack. While I think the rules indicate that Haste does not grant an extra attack during spell combat, I do think that Haste ought to work with Spell Combat. A small errata noting that Spell Combat is a type of full attack action would be ideal, in my opinion. EDIT: minor clarifications
Do Enlarge spells change your base speed?
From the Advanced Race Guide, I think Sylphs can get 35 base speed. Might be an alternate racial trait. Loraella Arroway has not participated in any online campaigns. |
