Darl Quethos

SithHunter's page

Goblin Squad Member. 131 posts. 1 review. No lists. 2 wishlists.


1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Testing 1,2,3

Seranov wrote:
qutoes wrote:
No one likes a str. staff magus with a trip build ? you can control the battle field nicely .
Can you share some information about this? It's very relevant to a character I'm planning.

Here's a link with a couple of good Staff Magus builds, as well as some lively discussion:


Helaman wrote:

IF you can get this character to higher level its the ULTIMATE gish. Magic is your 'female canine'... you can cast whatever you need, when you need and you can still fight OK.

That said this character really only works at the upper end of levels and if your campaign is low level it isnt gonna work, and if its likely to top out around 12th (PFS) to 14th level then its gonna be a lot of pain for not a lot of time of being in your preferred Zone.

In a pre-gen (start at 8th level etc) it is a pretty decent and fun approach because you avoid the growth stage.

This is going to be a homebrew starting at around level 7. Maybe I can get the GM to push it to level 8 ;)

But thanks for all the suggestions.

Axebeard wrote:

This will be difficult to pull off. I would either prioritize dex and go dervish dance or prioritize strength. I would not buy 18s in intelligence and wisdom. Your spell levels will be far enough behind to where trying to buff the DCs with ability scores is a losing battle. I'd concentrate on cleric self-buff and party-buff spells, magus no-save damage spells, and divinations.

At level 20, you'll have level 7 cleric spells and level 6 magus spells, meaning that you only need wisdom 17 and intelligence 16 to cast those spells. I'd recommend buying 14 int/14 wis and look for a +4/+4 headband.

If you're building this for flavor or character, go for it. Also, having a character with a wide variety of abilities can be fun, or just what some groups need. I would expect it, though, to be less effective than a level 20 cleric or level 20 magus. You basically spend 7 levels developing a magus, then throw the brakes on for 3 levels do develop a cleric, and then give up progression of all features from both classes except for the spellcasting progression of both. And, honestly, that's where the magus gets a lot of its power: Things like arcane pool, ability to cast in more kinds of armor, (although 7 is pretty good for this.) and improvements to previously-acquired class features. And, of course, considering the cleric side of things you give up domain abilities and channel dice - but those are a much less important part of the cleric than features are to a magus.

All that having been said, I'd choose domains that give you basically the best of their domain power at level 1 and high-quality spells.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Axebeard!

In looking at the Magus abilities above 7th level it looks like I'm going to give up a lot in the way of melee combat for a much larger spell progression. If starting from level one, I see this as being very difficult in the beginning. Levels 4-7 would be REALLY painful.

james maissen wrote:
SithHunter wrote:


I was actually looking at Broad Study and thought it would make sense to try to multiclass a Magus and use it.

Good luck, but I don't see it coming to fruition.


Sorry you feel that way James. Personally I think the build has potential and I'd like to try it.

Perhaps in theory the build might seem to sacrifice too much in some areas, but experience leads me to believe that it may be different in actual practice.

SolidHalo wrote:

Okay I just did a quick build on hero lab to answer a few of the questions.

BAB: +12 So the attack structure is: 12/7/2. Using 20 point buy I was able to get melee up to 13/8/3 (before magic items)

I chose half elf and put his stat boost in int and boosted both wisdom and int with stat boosts at 4-20 levels stats are as follows
Str: 12 Dex: 12 Con: 12 Int: 18 Wis: 18 Cha: 12 (Point buy 20)

Spell break down: Cleric: 0-7 (7 being 1 Spell/1 Domain Spell) Magus: 0-6 (6 being 2 Spells) with a Headband of Mental Superiority you get a one spell boost to both Spell lists at 7 (which means boost in the lower ones as well)

Mind you this was just a quick rundown as I am not the best person for optimization builds. Just thought I help give you an idea what it would look like.

Okay so he won't be a front line melee guy, maybe an opportunistic mid range spell caster.

I'm going to go with human for the race (flavor purposes). Looking at the point buy a build like this may be a little MAD, though I don't have to emphasize strength as much.

Here's a question...which deity should I select? Magic would be the obvious flavorful choice. Any others with better domain powers?

james maissen wrote:
SithHunter wrote:

I know this build was suggested in a guide here on the boards. Has anyone tried it out yet?

Perhaps an optimized build for it? I know it would make use of the Broad Study Arcana.

I'm really thinking about trying this out, any suggestions on skills/feats/equipment would be appreciated.

What are you attempting to achieve with this?

I don't think you will be as happy as with something else.

But it would be nice to see broad study be worthwhile, I don't see why there is a level restriction on that arcana.


I was actually looking at Broad Study and thought it would make sense to try to multiclass a Magus and use it.

As far as what I'm trying to accomplish, I just wanted to see what it would be like to have a Magus who can use both arcane and divine at the same time using spellstrike and spell combat.

The concept intrigued me, so I wanted to try it out.

wraithstrike wrote:

It does seem interesting.

Arcane Strike is good since you will be using weapon damage after the first hit.

If you can still get your attack bonus high enough power attack should be a decent option.

weapon focus

improved init

Spell Penetration if you plan on trying to force any saves on a regular basis.

Great Fortitude

intensify spell(works well with shocking grasp and a high crit range weapon).

Improved critical.

Some good options there. I'm kind of concerned that the build may be a little too "broad" as far as what to do when, but I like versatility. I think Toughness would be a good addition as well.

wraithstrike wrote:

The low BAB of the MT is going to make it hard for the character to hit target AC at higher levels. <--This doe not mean it won't work.

At level 20 your BAB will be 13 I think. You are probably thinking that is only 2 lower than the 15 you would have as 20th level magus or cleric, but if you plan to do a lot of damage that -2 affects DPR(damage per round a lot).

How you plan to use the build in combat will determine what are good feats for you.

Thanks for the reply Wraithstrike :)

I figure with this kind of build I can focus on making good use of touch attacks insted of straight weapon damage. Since I'll have a good supply of spells to choose from, I will also be able to self buff and improve my attack and damage. I believe this build is versatile enough to cast from the mid to back ranks as well.

I know this build was suggested in a guide here on the boards. Has anyone tried it out yet?

Perhaps an optimized build for it? I know it would make use of the Broad Study Arcana.

I'm really thinking about trying this out, any suggestions on skills/feats/equipment would be appreciated.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
So no. That way madness, and projectile-launched rulesbooks, leads.

I have definitely been here during 3E and 3.5 lol.

I'm leaning toward the Oracle dip route as well, as my DM has ruled the same way Jason did above. It might take a little longer to get there but it's worth it once I do.

Once again thanks for all the suggestions. Looking back, I think this is a very informative thread :)

D'arandriel wrote:
Please explain. I would think you can rage cycle every round with allnight, since you ignore the effects of fatigue while using the herb. One of the effects of fatigue being that you can not enter into rage while fatigued. I think to argue otherwise is just semantics and rules lawyering. If you can ignore the effects of fatigue, then for all intents and purposes, you are not fatigued.

Hard to explain it any better than Jason Nelson did above but here goes: Fatigued is a condition. While Allnight and Invigorate remove the EFFECTS of the condition, it's not the same as removing the condition itself.

Therefore a fatigued barbarian may not be suffering the effects of the fatigued condition, but he's still fatigued and cannot rage until that condition goes away.

My DM has ruled the same way, so I have to take a hard look at Optimistic Gambler and see how that works.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
SithHunter wrote:
Okay so as I look at these two builds, I see that Stream's uses a dip into Lame Oracle to avoid the fatigue problem post raging, and STR Ranger uses allnight herbs (potions of Invigorate work as well). Both are solid in their own right. Man I want to play them both lol.

Based on wording, I'd personally say Allnight doesn't work for this (though Heart of the Fields will once a day). Allnight specifically says that it removes the effects of Fatigued, not the condition itself, and Rage cannot be entered while Fatigued, so I'd rule that while you won't suffer the penalties, you still can't enter Rage for a few rounds after ending it, since you're still Fatigued, just ignoring the penalties.

But that's just me, many GMs might allow it.

Interesting take on that Deadmanwalking, so would the potion of Invigorate work? Or is it the fact that it's an illusion make it fall under the same effect as Allnight?

Okay so as I look at these two builds, I see that Stream's uses a dip into Lame Oracle to avoid the fatigue problem post raging, and STR Ranger uses allnight herbs (potions of Invigorate work as well). Both are solid in their own right. Man I want to play them both lol.

But from level one I think both are very viable. I'm definitely dropping this thread in my favorites tabs. Thanks to everyone for the builds and advice. :)

Was thinking about going with a wizard hating type of barb. Haven't played one like that in a long time. So Spell Sunder is definitely on the list. Eater of Magic looks amazing as well.

Um, I doubt I have room for all these feats lol.

Okay so I'm beginning to understand why this particular barb build is so popular.

Which 1/rage powers are worth getting?

Thanks for all the responses and the builds. I really like them both. Calain's is good because he goes Barb all the way. StreamOfTheSky's build is awesome because I like the idea of a cursed person, raging in battle...the background could be amazing.

I've seen multiple suggestions on reach weapons. My question is once the enemy gets inside (within 5 ft) you can't use them right? Or is that only with certain reach weapons.

I was going to go with human (for feats and skills)with a 20pt buy along the lines of Calain's build. Maybe I should keep a reach and a 2 hander ready for all circumstances. Perhaps take quick draw for fast weapon switching.

Oh, and what is Rage Cycling?

Martiln wrote:
SithHunter wrote:

Hey all,

I'm about to start a new campaign and decided to give the Invulnerable Rager a try from level one. I want to build into the CAGM rage power in the most optimized way possible.

Going to use a 20 point build, Pathfinder stuff only. Race doesn't really matter (though I don't like small races much).

So are there any links to decent builds I can use (my search didn't turn up any :( )?

For feats, obviously you're gonna need Combat Reflexes if you want to be able to make all of those AoOs, Power Attack for the damage boost, Vital Strike and its friends are good choices if you're limited to a standard action, Improved Critical is good if you're using a Falchion, and Improved/Greater Sunder for if you like breaking stuff.

for Rage Powers, Reckless Abandon gives you more to hit at the sacrifice of AC, making those power attacks have a better chance of landing, the beast totem line is always a great option(full attack at the end of a charge plus Natural Armor? Hell yes!) Smasher is also good(only if you like to sunder), and knockback can get something scary away from you if you think it might kill you.

I'll have more ideas when I have my books in front of me(at work right now).

Thanks for the reply Martiln! For a weapon I was going to go with a 2 hander. Perhaps a greatsword or greataxe (falchion if 1/2 orc). Combat Reflexes is a must. With Power Attack, should I also use Furious Focus? Would be good to get rid of the penalty for Power Attack. I'm not really looking to specialize in sundering things.

Beast Totem sounds awesome, I have to look into that. Is that an archetype that can be used with invulnerable rager? I'll check out Reckless Abandon as well.

Hey all,

I'm about to start a new campaign and decided to give the Invulnerable Rager a try from level one. I want to build into the CAGM rage power in the most optimized way possible.

Going to use a 20 point build, Pathfinder stuff only. Race doesn't really matter (though I don't like small races much).

So are there any links to decent builds I can use (my search didn't turn up any :( )?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the input! The Paizo community has once again proven how extraordinary it is.

As game day is rapidly approaching, I've finally got a few options to present to my player. hopefully all will turn out well and we can do more playing than debating.

Once again thanks to all! :)

Mathmuse wrote:

I was having trouble seeing how applying the pre-errata Selective Spell to Acid Fog or Black Tentacles is more powerful than applying it to Obsidian Flow or any other instantaneous area-effect spell. Then I realized that perhaps we had different interpretations of the metamagical feat.

I visualize that applying Selective Spell to Black Tentacles would let the sorcerer shape holes in it at selected squares. If the party's fighter is flanked by two enemy barbarians, the sorcerer could cast Black Tentacles surrounding the fighter, but excluding the fighter's square. This would give the fighter an advantage over the grappled barbarians, but he would be trapped in the middle of the Black Tentacle zone, unable to step out of his one safe square. Unless the sorcerer had shaped an exit path of empty squares for him. If so, a third barbarian could rush up that path to attack the fighter, maybe even Bull Rushing the fighter into the tentacles to get grappled.

That sounded reasonably balanced for metamagic.

Irontruth wrote:

Another option that reduces the effectiveness of the feat while still maintaining the original use that you guys played with:

The caster gets X rounds of immunity to the spell, divided by the targets he chooses. So if it's just the party fighter who goes in the spell area, he gets essentially the full effect as you've been playing. If the whole party wants to run through the spell, the duration of their immunity will be shorter.

Reading Irontruth's suggested compromise, I see that another interpretation is that the pre-errata Selective Spell would not create holes in the Black Tentacles. Instead, it would give the fighter total immunity to the Black Tentacles. He could stride through the middle of the tentacles and they would not reach for him nor grapple him. This interpretation would be even more remarkable with Acid Fog, for the fog would part before him like the Red Sea before the Israelites, allowing him acid-free passage, yet would close behind him to eat away at his...

Hey Mathmuse :)

It's the second interpretation. "Targets in the area" are his allies, and his caster has enough of a bonus to select all of them before casting. So those "targets" are unaffected. And yes, they have ignored the debilitating effects of acid fog, black tentacles, and fog cloud. The problem is, as I adjust for these things, it gets more difficult for the rest of the party.

Kalshane wrote:


How many sessions do you estimate are left? I think that makes a difference on how important it would be to force the issue.

I'm of the opinion of going with the errated version, or at least coming up with a compromise, considering the other players are for doing so, and you say it won't nerf the character in question too much.

When errata has come up in my games (and there's been some doozies. Anyone remember the Ninja of the Crescent Moon from D&D 3.0 Sword and Fist?) I've always discussed it with my players, with the errata normally winning out unless there hasn't been a noticeable problem with the original version.

I do always give the player the option of changing out the nerfed option for something different, and they don't have to decide right away. I usually give them a session or two with the revised version if they want before they have to decide whether to swap it or keep it.

Difficult to tell how many sessions are left at this point because it really depends on what actions the players take. If I had to ball park it, I'd say at least 8-10. That's me guessing on the low end.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I've been reading this for a while and thinking about how I would handle it in my own games. I would like to mention that your thread title and the actual problem are not the same. If this was the middle of the campaign, I would enforce the errata. This isn't the case though. You are at the end and have already dealt with the feat up to this point. As GM, you have adapted already. I would let him keep things the old way with the understanding that future characters will follow errata as it comes out and that if these characters are played in the future, then he will have to deal with the errata at that point.

Good call on the thread title. I should have said in the middle of an adventure.

hogarth wrote:
I like your suggestions (replace the feat or allow it to apply to the first round only), but I'd let the players vote on it. If they were all happy with the too-good-to-be-true old version, I probably wouldn't be a killjoy and insist on nerfing it.

My players are of the mind that whatever is fastest so they can play. We only play every 2 weeks after all, so it would be a shame to waste a bunch of time on it debating the issue.

Black Moria wrote:

Since it the last chapter of the AP, I would allow the feat to stand as is, since in essence, you have been living with it up to now and the campaign is in the home stretch.

That said, this is what I would do to deal with the issue if the feat is really the burr under your saddle. Modify some of the encounters (not all, just what you consider the important ones) by adding a spellcaster or two with Dispel Magic or replacing a meat shield or two with a spellcaster or two with Dispel Magic.

Then when the 'Selective' spell like Black Tentacles is cast, have the spellcaster(s) dispel the effect. In that way, the player get to enjoy the feat but has to work for the win instead of the Selective spell being a 'free pass' to win that encounter.

Unfortunately, by adding casters it changes the complexion of the encounters. To me, it feels a little contrived...like I'm doing it to balance what the player is doing (and I am). It also breaks immersion. ANother thing, if I DO add wizards to dispel, that won't be the only spells that they cast. I'm sure the other players won't appreciate that nastiness.

Kolokotroni wrote:
SithHunter wrote:

In this case, I think his caster has a LOT of different options other than just this feat. And respeccing this late in the AP just seems inefficient at this point as it will take up a lot of time, either in or out of game.

As far as the 'too good ometer' statement, those are words to live by.

While respeccing is ineeficient the player should have the option to do it. He should have to do the work ofcourse (this isn't your work, he has to choose to do it himself). But it isn't fair to change a rule that he may or may not have been hinging his strategy on, and not let him change things. Ofcourse he has lots of options, but there are always specific circumstances that make options important.

For instance, in my group there is one player that ALWAYS prioritizes initiative. He always wants to go first and will always rush up into the fight when he does. Insert me using the 'wrong' version of selective spell so I can continue to use battle field control spells even when my allies are in the thick of things. If I couldn't do this, then my caster might not be able to focus on battle field control given the group, and the party mentality.

The above actually does come up alot in my group. Its a big group (9 people total), and there are always several combatants, and at least a couple focus on going first. So area effect spells become problematic. Most battlefield control spells are area spells. If my party is always getting in the way, not because they are being malicious or stupid but just because they are doing what their character does (fight the enemy hand to hand) then it becomes very hard to focus on those sorts of spells. Selective spells original printing obviously makes that possible and could easily be the catalist that direct my wizard's or sorceror's whole spell list. Where as without that feat I might choose very different spells (and even possibly different other feats like not taking spell focus conjuration for instance).

If he feels the need to rebuild his character for one adventure, I guess he can. That said, one of the major limitations of an AOE Conjuration caster is where to place his spells to greatest effect, and without harming his allies.

Selective Spell (pre errata) got rid of that completely. It was too good. It was changed for a reason.

Kolokotroni wrote:

Personally I agree with selgard. Even if without errata I have done things like this. I do believe that if you are going to change a rule you should give a player a chance to completely re-spec his character, not just replace the one thing you changed. Because sometimes it really can make a huge difference.

People might say that one feat doesn't make or break a character, but sometimes it does. Look at something like dervish dance. That is a single option that makes a certain character concept(pure dex one handed fighter) possible. Without it, it isn't possible. If you were using it and decided it needed to be changed or removed, the player should have the option to rebuild his character or create a new one.

I have in the past changed or removed rules in my game without errata and that is what I did. I simply explained to my player that X combo was making it difficult to challenge the party without going overboard, and that he had to stop using it, but could make changes to his character as he see's fit to move around a new concept, or retool for the same one.

And really like others have said the issue is how far you are into the game. I wouldn't be thrilled as a player about having to make a change to my character in the 6th book of an AP, but if it really is a problem talk to the player again and explain that you feel it is neccassary. And next time, if your 'too good ometer' goes off, dont wait for errata to help you fix it. Get it handled sooner.

In this case, I think his caster has a LOT of different options other than just this feat. And respeccing this late in the AP just seems inefficient at this point as it will take up a lot of time, either in or out of game.

As far as the 'too good ometer' statement, those are words to live by.

ShadowcatX wrote:

If it was a problem with the other players, I would likely change it immediately. If he doesn't like the errata'd version, he can swap the feat. The DM's job is to make sure all the players have fun, not just one of the players, and no amount of prior mistakes (say letting in the un-errata'd version for however long) will over rule that job.

If it was just a DM problem, and if I hadn't had objections to it before, I'd be in a bit of a quandry. I, like Steve, would probably let the pc keep the feat and just adjust the encounters a bit to compensate for it. I'd also make it a rule starting with the new campaign errata always has precedence even if discovered late.

The only reason I allowed it is because I though it was legit by the book. I *felt* something was off with it, but never thought to check the errata.

But I know if I were to use this tactic on the players, I doubt it would be a fun encounter.

Selgard wrote:

This isn't really an issue of Errata, its just tricking you into thinking it is.

This is an issue of the DM finding something to be too powerful and finding a decent fix for it, and trying to get the player to cooperate with the fix without blowing a gasket.

I am of two minds about this. Generally- the player should always be receptive to the DM trying to fix problems. Now that may mean convincing the DM he is wrong, or it may mean changing the ability. But they should be receptive and listen and try to work things out.
Your situation has a fairly big caveat in it though. You have one adventure left. Why not just let it play out as it has been for the last however-long-its-been-since-he-took-the-feat and then apply the errata for all future campaigns?

Otherwise- if the PC doesn't cooperate.. basically change it anyway. Some changes, for the good of the game and group, have to be done whether the player(s) like them or not. I understand this is fairly heavy handed but Someone has to "settle disputes" when there is a dispute. And that person is the DM.

Alternatively- talk to the group. Find out if they think the feat is an issue. Find out how they may be willing to fix it, if they think it needs a fixing. (of course this only works if you think they'll answer truthfully rather than in their own immediate self interest- since as written pre-errata the feat is fairly strong).

Don't let the fact that the errata showed you a better way fool you though- this is an issue about finding a method to tone down something you think is too powerful. Whether your better way is errata or something of your own creation is really just a red herring.


Thanks for this insightful post, Selgard.

The only thing I would point out is that if this were a feat that I personally thought was too powerful and I was 'houseruling' it, that would cause more friction because I'm moving away from the guidelines (rules). In this instance, the rules (errata in this case) support what I'm doing.

Steve Geddes wrote:
SithHunter wrote:
My solution is to change it immediately, and offer him the chance to change the feat out if he wants.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me - after all, if the pre-errata option is balanced, he's not losing anything since he can switch in something of 'equal power' right? I think your group should definitely be clear on what your 'errata policy' is going to be going forward - that seems to me to be the important issue.

Having said that:

Does anyone have any other thoughts on fair compromises to keep him at the table?

FWIW, I would just let him keep it. I'm presuming (since you didnt mention them) that the other players arent objecting to his keeping it. That means they're all having fun, so everything is working as it should.

In my view compromise is just 'doing what nobody wants'. When hit with conflict of interpretation, I always err in favor of the players. If you think it's all a bit easy for them, I wouldnt rebalance things by targetting that specific feat, but might consider beefing up encounters slightly (with more hit points, more or better positioned minions, etcetera).

Thanks for the post Steve :)

As far as the other players, they are of the mind to alter the feat in some way to make it balanced for the remainder of the campaign.

If I were to alter encounters and/or have a bad guy use the feat on them, they know how powerful it would be. I'm not really for making things more difficult for everyone to balance things out. I would rather attack the source if possible. In this case, the feat itself.

Narrater wrote:
I can see both sides of the argument but in the end if it was my character I would go with the change. Especially since you offered a feat change to compensate for the errata. I believe you are being more then fair.

I'll chalk that one up to the "a feat respec is enough" list. Appreciate the reply Narrater.

Magicdealer wrote:

Personally, I'd let the player continue to use the feat as he has been until the end of the campaign. Why?

If it was really an issue of being "too good" for play, then the dm should have addressed it a long time ago. By allowing him to use it up to this point, the dm has basically implied that while it's really good, it isn't game breaking. As a player, that's what I would have gotten from the situation. After all, if it was game breaking, then the dm would have told him that he couldn't use the feat. Just like many games run concerning leadership.

So if it's not "too good" for play, and just a very good ability, then it's not game breaking to allow him to use it until the end of the campaign.

At that point, I might tell everyone to use the srd when designing their characters and that any errata will be implemented immediately. That way, you won't have this issue come up again.

Thanks for the reply MD. Actually I thought it was too good when he first used it, but when I checked the APG (1st printing) I thought it was legit, so I let it go. Unfortunately I didn't think to check the errata and I'm noticing that I seem to have to adjust more and more for the pre errata feat. I don't blame the player mind you. He's using the rules as they were printed.

Just imagine being able to cast AOE clouds, debuffs, etc without ever having to worry about your companions. I think if the feat had remained that way, it would be a must have for every caster. Thus the errata.

Also, an excellent suggestion on using the PFSRD for character creation! I'm definitely going to do that from now on.

It is on the PFSRD however. I believe that's how I found the changed wording.

Interzone wrote:

I think the best idea I have seen on this thread is to have the selective aspect only work on the first round.

Because really: You are only supposed to be able to use it on instantaneous spells...
If the character is used to using it on a non-instantaneous spell, just represent how that would work.. i.e. the tentacles are summoned up in an area, minus a certain number of squares. Then by the next round the 'instantaneous' selective metamagic has worn off, and the tentacles spread out to the remaining squares as they take control.
Makes thematic sense, not unbalanced, and to me it seems very fair to the player.

Well that was one of my ideas. I was hoping for others, but confirmation that this is the best way is also good. Appreciate the post Interzone :)

Robb Smith wrote:

Just out of curiosity, is this a homebrew, or is it an adventure path?

The reason I ask is because, if it's homebrew, there are lots of things to get around it. Freedom of Movement, Cleric domain abilities, Ring of Counterspells, (Greater) Dispel Magic, Dimension Door... all of these things are things that the party should be probably be encountering at this level anyway.

If it's an Adventure Path, your options are of course more limited.

However, rest assured that any NPC caster I ran who encountered (and successfully spellcrafted) a Selective Black Tentacles's response would be "Eff that noise." You are well within your rights to meta the crap out of that.

As for the "feel like you're picking on" aspect... that's what BBEGs do. They identify your weaknesses and dependencies and try to take them away from you.

Agreed. In a homebrew campaign this would be less of a problem. But this is an AP I'm running, and I want to keep the flavor as much as possible.

wraithstrike wrote:
SithHunter wrote:

Lesson learned as far as errata is concerned. I'll have to stay on top of it, and for the next campaign if errata is found, it takes effect immediately. It just hasn't really impacted the campaign very much until now.

Really, all I'm looking for is a decent compromise so that we can do more playing than debating come game time.

Using the feat against the party would be pretty cheesy at this point I think. It would drive the whole thing home, but really wouldn't be fun for any of the players.

And though we're on the last adventure we're definitely more than 3 sessions away from finishing the whole thing.

Ask the player to think of something reasonable or let the group as a whole vote on it. You don't have to tell them you are not going to use the pre-errata version, but strongly hinting that way should let you know if they really think it is balanced or not. I personally think that a person should always follow the "what's good for goose is good for the gander" train of thought when picking an ability.

If you have to deal with this for a few more months I think it should be changed.

For me it would depend on how many more session I had to go through dealing with it. For me 3 is the magic number.

You can also allow him to continue to have his fun, just make sure the final fight is not so easily influenced by the ability.

All good points, wraithstrike. I really don't like using DM influence (ie, using the power against the players, or using DM fiat to "balance" it)to metagame overpowered feats away. My position is that it should be either changed or respecced. I'm hoping to find other options if those don't work.

Robb Smith wrote:

I honestly agree with your player. If it is indeed the last adventure, just tough it out and start any new things with the "corrected" version.

If things have truly been allowed to go for a while with no one noticing (and honestly, checking errata is one of the first things that should happen when something seems "too good"), then it is really is unfair to switch gears in the middle of a campaign. Even allowing retuning is not a viable solution, as the player could have constructed the entire character with the vision that this should be his specialty.

If you really feel the need to, try this "Ok, we'll roll with it as is, but in order to be excluded, they have to be inside the spell effect when it happens. Ergo, no casting Tentacles, excluding 4 people, and then them running in. They have to be INSIDE the AOE of the tentacles when it happens."

Thanks for the post Robb :)

A couple of things. First, you're right I should have checked the errata the very first time he cast it. I failed in that regard.

The only issue I have with "toughing it out" as is is that it's rather powerful and potentially game breaking at this level. As far as retuning, or respeccing the feat, I think his 13th level caster is MORE than a one trick pony. He's perfectly viable without the pre errata feat. Convincing him of that may be a different story, but the feat just puts it over the top, so to speak.

As for your exclusion suggestion, he purposefully places the spell after everyone gets in the AOE. One of the main drawbacks of a battlefield controller character is trying to not catch your allies in the spell. I think it's one of the things that balances the tactic. The feat pre errata makes it a little too easy to bypass that IMO.

wraithstrike wrote:

It is the end of the game, but at the same time I am a GM, and if something is an issue I don't like to deal with it.

Would the player think it was fair if you used the pre-errata version against the party? I am not saying do so, but I am not saying don't do it either. If he complains about turned table then I would suggest he get rid of the feat. Either it is fair for everyone to have the feat or nobody should have it.

If you are less than 3 sessions away from ending the game I might metagame a little and have the bad guys be able to not be affected by some spells, by dispelling the spell or teleporting out of it. Giving them high saves is also an option. Having a counterspelling caster is also an option. He pretty much burns up his spells.

Things like scrying and having bad guys escape can help with that.

I would be willing to accept the feat change because I would see it as cheating otherwise. If he isn't going to take the change I am going to assume he has never GM'd before. I see no reason to get mad about something he never should have had anyway.

I will also suggest not allowing anything that seems to good, and making a houserule that errata always take precedent so that if someone get something that is too good they can't cry foul later on.

Lesson learned as far as errata is concerned. I'll have to stay on top of it, and for the next campaign if errata is found, it takes effect immediately. It just hasn't really impacted the campaign very much until now.

Really, all I'm looking for is a decent compromise so that we can do more playing than debating come game time.

Using the feat against the party would be pretty cheesy at this point I think. It would drive the whole thing home, but really wouldn't be fun for any of the players.

And though we're on the last adventure we're definitely more than 3 sessions away from finishing the whole thing.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Your offer to replace the feat, or use it post errata sounds very reasonable. Any character concept based solely on one feat alone is a poor concept. If you feel rather generous, you can offer to allow him to recreate his character from the ground up. Let him know that as errata effects players, it also effects NPCs and monsters. Fair is fair.

Thanks for the reply BBT. This is a level 13 campaign currently and rebuilding just about ANY character from the ground up is a very time consuming process for the last adventure. I'd like to avoid that option if at all possible. And honestly his character is extremely viable even without the feat. I think part of the problem is just getting him to realize that.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Here's the situation. I'm running a campaign that's just about to end. We use all Pathfinder content (hardcovers).

I will say that everyone at the table (myself included) dropped the "errata ball." That is to say that we usually don't keep up with the printed errata as it usually doesn't affect game play that much.

Well now that's come back and bitten us in the collective rear end.

We have a party mage that has the metamagic feat Selective Spell (APG168). On at least three encounters he's cast a selective black tentacles, and at least two selective acid clouds.

When he did this, my BS detector went off, but as I read and reread the feat in the first printing of the APG, it appeared to be legal. So when I went to build a caster for a different campaign, that feat was the first one on the list to take. But when I read it on the SRD it was worded differently. Then I checked and saw that it had been changed via errata.

I advised the player of this and his solution is to keep the feat as usual (pre errata) until the end of the campaign (we're in the last adventure). My solution is to change it immediately, and offer him the chance to change the feat out if he wants.

I want to keep him at the table as he's an excellent player, but there needs to be a middle ground here.

This feat pre errata is very difficult to deal with in the current campaign without a lot of DM fiat. My current solution is to alter the feat so that the first round it acts pre errata, then after that it acts post errata. That essentially gives the players one free round of actions before being affected.

Does anyone have any other thoughts on fair compromises to keep him at the table?

Gorbacz wrote:
Pol Mordreth wrote:

If you want Histories, ask your players to write histories. Unlink them from the trait and feat selection.

Practical experience shows that:


DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs?
Players: mmmmrmmblleekay

3 months later

DM: Hey guys, about those backstories I asked for...
Players: Hey look, a flying monkey!
DM: ...


DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs? Everyone who turns in a backstory will get 2 traits based on it.
Players: *SCRAMBLE*
DM: Joy!

Sticks and carrots, sticks and carrots.


This is what usually happens with some of my players. I think what I'm going to do is reduce the number of trait choices to one, and have the other come from a Campaign Setting. Not sure which campaign we're going to play next, but it will most likely be an Adventure Path starting from level one.

I also like the idea of just customizing two lists based on the Campaign Setting and having the players pick which traits they want from each list. It's a good way to cull the ones that don't really fit, that they probably won't pick anyway.

Another solution is to combine both those ideas and have them pick one trait from my list, and one from any list.

Much more food for thought :)

I've been running Pathfinder on and off since Beta. One of the many changes that I enjoyed was the addition of traits. Traits allowed for flavor to be added to the character, while at the same time giving the player a 'hook' for some background information.

Some of my players absolutely hated doing character backgrounds, but giving them the benefit of traits caused them to write some very decent and involved character histories! It was wonderful!

Now I'm noticing that most of the players are taking the same traits over and over again for different characters. Reactionary, Magical Knack, Heirloom Weapon...etc. The character histories are rather short and only serve to explain how the character got the traits.

Here's the problem: What do I do about it? Should I just ban traits completely (starting with the next campaign of course)? Or maybe restrict them in some way?

Any advice from the Pathfinder community would be appreciated :)

Playtest conducted at level 9. Samurai is Human. His feats include Step up, Following Step, Step Up and Strike, Vital Strike, Power Attack, Imp. Trip, and Weapon Prof. Meteor Hammer.

Other players in the party were a Gnome Cleric of Sarenrae, Human Druid, and a Halfling Ninja.

The Samurai found himself going solo for a few rounds because of a failed Perception check. Basically he got nailed with two rounds of sneak attacks from a roguish robbery attempt.

He was going up against 4 roguish types that got the drop on him. He suffered over half his hit points in sneak attack damage before he even knew what was going on.

The villains were doing fine until they started trying to adjust for sneak attacks with 5 foot steps. It got pretty ugly after that. They lost two of their number to vicious katana strikes before the cavalry came to help him out.

The Samurai did an average of about 30 dpr, and he didn't even activate the Flaming burst quality on his keen weapon. He didn't have to use any of his special abilities in this fight, but not a bad warm up. More to come when we play again.

Here are some new play test results for the Ninja. Let's get the general stuff out of the way first:

Party was level 9 and also included a Human Samurai (will post his results in a different thread), Gnome Cleric of Sarenrae, and a Human Druid. Ninja is a halfling.

We had battle against four rogue types. Basically the Samurai got jumped and they wanted to take his stuff.

While the Samurai fought downstairs, the rest of the party could hear the sounds of combat coming from upstairs in their room. the Ninja quickly made the 15 foot leap and managed to land in flanking position with the Samurai behind one of the bad guys. Unfortunately, he missed on the attack.

Cleric tossed out a long distance channel and the Samurai cut down two of the four baddies. Druid turned into an air elemental and used whirlwind, providing the lead BG concealment by accident and negating the Ninja's critical threat (classic).

Things got a little ugly on a round of misses as the BG tried to run away, but the Ninja ended things with a timely Ki Charge. He also used a point of Ki to increase his speed for a round. Vanishing Trick was also used to get an absolutely wicked sneak attack in that really weakened the lead BG (causing him to try to run away to begin with).

All in all, some good stuff there.

The Weave05 wrote:
SithHunter wrote:
[snip] Pits were opened, but the Ninja was able to run over them thanks to Light Step. [snip]

This isn't a complaint per se, and I don't have the ninja document in front of me, but I don't think the ninja could run across open pits simply because they were traps. As far as I know, you could use Light Steps to run across the surface of a pitfall that hasn't been "triggered," (so long as there was some thin layer of debris or something physical covering it that was meant to be fallen through) but not over already opened pits.

Just throwing that out there as something I noticed. All in all, a solid playtest. Thanks for going through the trouble to post it.

Good catch. What I should have said was that the Ninja was able to run over the triggers that opened them. The Rogue, of course, was able to call them out.

I wonder how well a Gunslinger will do with a Ninja, a Cleric, and a Samurai. All in the same group.

There's a possibility that all three might be at my table next week for playtesting. Not quite sure on the Gunslinger though. The player is still debating that, or a different character class.

Either way, I'm going to go with an AP instead of my standard homebrew. I'm a little concerned about party balance, but I have faith in my players so I think they'll find a way to make it work.

Should be interesting if the Gunslinger decides to show up.

I really enjoy the way the Developers allow us to playtest new content before it comes out. It's like getting a Christmas gift early! :)

Oh, and the RotRL AP is absolutely amazing.

Well, I thought that the Ninja playtest was done for me, however someone else in the group wants to play one. So he will now build a Ninja character and I will post the results of the next adventure on this thread as well. There will also be a Samurai in the group, but those results will be posted in a seperate thread for the Samurai alone.

I will change things up a bit and include raw damage numbers and try to include more of what the other characters do. Unfortunately that will probably make for pretty long posts. You have been warned.

This is going to be fun...

Blave wrote:
SithHunter wrote:
The Ninja then made use of Fast Stealth and Light Step to deliver a *crushing* Sneak Attack on a bad guy.
How exactly did that work? Light steps is a full-round action (which also means no light stepped spring attacks for ninjas) so I guess he didn't use it to enter the grease and attacked in the same round?

My apologies for not seeing this earlier. Baddie was flat footed at the time, Ninja charged, Light Stepped over Grease and struck, scoring a critical hit. I wasn't really sure at the time if you could combine Light Step with a charge, but it sure as heck looked cool cinematically, so I allowed it. He even finished with a kneeling follow through, bloody katana in hand while the baddie slowly slumped to the floor.

Shadow_of_death wrote:

I am not sure you ever really answered my question, When burnt out on KI is the ninja weaker then the rogue? and why?

Trapfinding: main argument but it is weak because otherwise we wouldn't say wizards are all that great (can't find, disable, evade, or survive a couple traps) and yet they are considered more powerful then most

Evasion: see trapfinding

so after saying "well your burning ki to make the ninja great and its limited", well who cares, once its gone i am still as good as a rogue.

Now I actually think the class is flavorful and well balanced with the rest of the core classes, but this means the rogue may need some love.

Based on the playtesting, the Ninja player said that he thought he was still on par with the Rogue. The Rogue player said that the only time he felt that the Ninja outshined him was when he burned all his Ki at once in the final fight to do a bunch if tricks.

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>