Yo. I could definitely be down with this game. Any class (type) still needed? I enjoy playing anything.
Search Posts
You must be right. Hooray!
Was there any final confirmation on if Alternate Classes can take archetypes from their original class? For instance, a Beast Rider Cavalier gives up Heavy Armor and Trades in his mount, two things a samurai would still have to trade in. I saw some dispute about this in here, but most of it was pretty old. Let me know.
There are also things for more charisma based rogues to do. There are a couple of neat talents in there to make them better. They get some minor magical abilities by taking the Ninja dip feat, and they are no longer the only sneaky class without Hide in Plain Sight. They added enough things to let them mechanically do what people have been protesting that they do anyway. I like Ninjas better due to the style of rogue I would look forward to playing. Rogues, however, still have the advantage in traps, which comes up as often as your DM makes it. (It also costs 2 talents to get your first Ninja Talent, while Ninjas can take all Basic Rogue Talents immediately). There is also the issue of Ninjas ki pool running of cha instead of wis (rogues), and better options for using it, which again gives them an edge to me. Even with all this, rogues are still a full time and a half better than they were before.
Whether you were a rogue fan or not before, I would like to congratulate the developers on listening to what people were saying and making some fairly (IMO) necessary changes to the rogue. I honestly prefer the Ninja now, but there is enough mechanical gap between the Ninja and Rogue to keep one from flat out dominating as a whole. Just thought I would mention it, as I'm normally one of the first people to discredit the rogue at every turn. Hooray for UC!
There's not really anything preventing him from having 2 20HD zombies at 10th level. Aside from you as the DM creating problems for him. Such as those creatures never existing in a form he can animate and how hard it is to walk around with huge creatures.
Summon Monster 5 wins with Celestial/Infernal Whooly Rhinos. Summon Monster 7 does the same with outsider variants of T-rexs. As far as damage goes those are the best two bang for your buck. Between the smite and their already high damage it gets ridiculous.
Or just be a ranger. Or just refuse your domain. I don't think any DM/GM would demand that you have/use a domain.
Clerics are fine. Flavor is subjective. RP is something people do regardless of class. Most cure spells that aren't heal/mass heal are indeed useless in battle, though in between fights and at the end of the night are amazing. I feel the same way about channeling. Turning in Pathfinder is actually really good because there aren't the same crappy HD requirements that there used to be, and fear is a pretty good weapon. Their spells offer some of the best utility in the game, and they can do a bit of damage (Harm, Flame Strike, Blade Barrier)though as a class they tend to be poor controllers. I think that's one thing that separates them from the other casters in the game. I like subdomains. i think they provide some interesting options and are the only way that clerics ever get Fly, which is a big deal for anyone who actually plays their character. (We house rule that the two domains represent one from the player and one from the Deity, though sub/domains work in either context). I've heard plenty of talk about how oracles are better than clerics, to me it's the same conversation as the sorc vs. wizards, it's all about what you want to play. Note: Most of the healing spells would be better if they did something in addition to curing tiny amounts of health. For instance combining Divine Favor + Cure Whatever as a higher level spell.
I would suggest tunneling through d20pfsrd and finding animals that have a large number of attacks, preferably with large die in those attacks. i.e. - allosaurus, dire tiger, giant squid. Otherwise, don't forget that druids have a lot going for them aside from shapeshifting. They also have decent spells and a pet with ridiculous buffs.
Not completely sure on the mechanics here. I know that if a creature is charmed by two casters there are opposed charisma checks to see who gains control. I would probably have it play out in a similar fashion.
I honestly think that a well constructed bard is better than rogues at skills at higher levels. But this is just an opinion. I understand that rogues get more skill points. But the ability to use one skill as two (which bards get with their performances) really levels the playing field.
Superstitious works pretty well too. That with Iron will and a cloak of resistance with the bonus you get while raging should put you in fairly safe ground. If you are still nervous and have a party member that can do so before hand, have them charm person/monster on you. That way if an enemy caster tries to do the same thing at least you'll get an opposed cha roll from your caster to help the situation.
This ability can only be placed on a piercing or slashing weapon. This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll. This benefit doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat). Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +1 bonus. ---If you're talking about expanding the crit modifier than it should be possible. The rules are only in place to ensure that people don't further increase the crit threat range. **Edit** Yeah...what Happler said.
I don't think it's possible. A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric's domain granted power, sorcerer's bloodline power, oracle's mystery revelation, or wizard's arcane school power). The ability you are referring to lets you grow claws for use as an attack, not add bonus damage or work as a separate attack.
Our group ported over from 4E to Pathfinder and we had problems converting our warlock and warlord. We just used a cleric for the warlord (which was similar enough) and there are various alternatives to the warlock, such as modified 3.5 material, certain bloodlines of sorcerer, or going witch (which basically just changes the primary stat and does similar things though with an expanded spell list and a familiar). If you are facing the same problem I would just say go with whatever keeps the feel of the character they were previously playing, these are just a couple of the options available.
If you want to use poison be an alchemist, they do it better by leaps and bounds.
Eidelons can be ridonkulously stealth if you make them that way, and fly. Now if you want your eidelon to be a death machine AND a stealth/skill character you're on trickier ground.
Summoner is the single most often screwed up class in terms of people declaring OP! The vast majority of the time when people post something that seems to be good to be true, it just flat out is (via cheating). I wouldn't worry too much about the people at paizo reading too much into this. While they do check on this forum on a regular basis i've seen a lot of "We only pay attention to what we deem important" type comments from them, i'm assuming in an attempt to subside nerd rage. There is little to no chance of one of them reading a poorly constructed scenario/character and viewing that as the norm, which seems to be your concern. People believe things on here the same way people use wikipedia. Smart people just know to check your sources.
half-elves just get to pick two favored classes. if the DM Ok'd it i don't see why they couldn't take the Eclectic feat for the same reason as above.
The only reason i would see that come into play is if i was playing a half-elf.
Thalin - I see what you're doing there....Clever Boy. Tip - if you don't like this post, quit writing "someone should stop this post" or "why are people still arguing here". All this does is push the topic back towards the top of the forums for more people to be reminded that it exists. That's my take on it. I got what I came for. I still feel that rogues are the weakest class mechanically in PF (IN MY OPINION). I also go to see that i'm not the only person out there that feels this way. HOWEVER, i no longer feel that they are not useless and this point has been mostly proven here. Good chat fellas.
That's not actually a pattern so much as just a list, but thanks it's still helpful.
Fair enough....disappointing but at least we have a definitive answer. Is there any chance of rules or guidelines for adding new monsters to the list?
Is there anywhere else we could try to convince the great people of Paizo to rethink this as a possibility?
Power Attack, Cleave, Furious Focus, Toughness, Lightning Reflexes....hell i would take scribe scroll before i took the two summon feats. It really depends on what you're trying to make.
It would be nice to get a simple list, or at least rules for what should be summonable for each level of the spell. This was something that bothered me in the 3.0-3.5 days as well as more monsters kept coming out of the woodworks and classes that enjoyed summoning....which is almost all of the spellcasters in D&D never got to use any of them without a DM basically guessing what would be appropriate.
Does anyone know if any of the critters in the Bestiary 2 will be available for summoning with either Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally? Because it would be awesome if it did so, and there is really no reason why they shouldn't be available. I haven't seen the book yet, since it hasn't been released yet. Also curious about new critters being available as animal companions and improved familiars, but the summon part is what really interests me.
Most things that would make a traditional paladin better. It really depends on what level character you're talking about making here. Two-hander? What Race? i just realized that you could use a half orc's bite attack to smite...
I think another caster works better for summoners if you don't want the eidelon, mostly because of the things you would gain from the other classes. Wiz/Sorc (or even cleric kind of) works fairly well if you just want to be a guy who summons a lot crap. I had looked at the summoner and thought of making the eidelon more of a consultant. Giving him abilities that focus on skills, stealth and knowledge (possibly serving as a mount at times) more than being a big bad ass fighter. This would still give you a decent amount of buff spells, regular summons and the summon monster as a standard action ability (which is highly underrated). But it's all about flavor, the above is only if you are sure you want to play the Summoner class. Conjurer's have always been decently strong in D&D and continue to be in Pathfinder. Wizard/sorc is a good choice. *Personally, i like the idea of a cleric summoner. You can do some nasty tricks with Sanctuary or even grosser with the aura from the Glory domain if you plan it well. (letting the monsters fight while you heal and buff, you're not directly attacking so sanctuary stays active). This also gives you access to ton of healing spells, some utility spells and even a couple of damage spells (summoning a wall of blades or something). It works pretty well, i know from experience. Food for thought. *
If he refuses to change classes it will be painful for him to play. However, if i had to do it, i would focus less on int. and more on str and hope that some of my spells (mostly buffers and utility to stay away from a lower DC) can make up for the way i'd neutered myself. All of this would be done better with sorc, oracle or even bard but that's another story.
I don't really see why not. However, it would cost you two feats to do so which seems a little much to me.
BARDBARIAN. Meh. It was in one of the books when talking about a random orc encounter. When multiclassing bard, to me, it's a waste most times unless you're willing to put in 5 levels or so. The rage prophet thing above is pretty interesting though.
BARDBARIAN. It's all about taste, and party composition. Personally, i would just stick out the barbarian, and move towards getting superstitous (which is redonkulous if you're a human) and pounce. In my experience multiclassing spellcasting classes and melee classes never turns out as good as intended.
This is an interesting post to determine effectively what classes are more complicated than they are worth. In that, i would say that some people prefer their classes complicated with many options so that the class can feel as customized as possible. In regards of complications i agree with your post. In terms of power or enjoyment i would definitely disagree. Also, i think many people view monk as a selfish class because they are generally designed to be loners (mechanically) they are good at running faster than the people with horses, curing themselves, occasionally making themselves better and hitting things (however not being able to take a hit back as a fighter or barbarian would). Of course there are exceptions but the complications come with the fact that they don't fill a typical niche.
Summoner's eidelons can only have 5 attacks at 9th level. If you were level 8 then it could only have 4 attacks. So for reference, your eidelon was broken, as in cheating. Also, +22 at 8th level is a little steep, and i would like to see what he was playing to make sure that other things were accounted for, such as size penalty to attack, and to make sure things weren't taken before they obtained the requisite level. The summoner isn't the most balanced class but it doesn't help when people don't read through the rules all the way. Personally i think the ability to summon creatures as a standard action is ridiculous enough without the addition of a mega-strong monster bodyguard. This being said, i've seen eidelon's made on both the OP and UP side of the board.
To clarify is the perception bonus on your 10th level character for finding traps or in general?
However it's harder (but not impossible) to get your DC's as high as they were in 3.5 so i feel that it makes it a little bit better for avoiding save or die, or save or suck nonsense.
On a positive not BNW all of the information for the APG is on: http://www.d20pfsrd.com It's really useful, although there are certain aspects that are kind of goofy. I think it helps out non-casters more than casters, which is a bonus. Mostly, my post was addressing changes in the APG. I felt that other (to me) lackluster classes got their norm boosted up further, while the rogue didn't really get that much in return. (this is opinion, so please don't freak out). Also, Bob please give BNW a build, i would suggest 10th level standard manual starting gear. (10th level is the make or break level to me so a good place to start). Use only Core and APG, so that people can't complain as much. I'm as interested to see what's going on here as much as everyone else. The argument about scouting is kind of a moot point for various reasons. I don't know why people are still posting here. I think the point has been proven that rogues are non-useless. They are use-specific. Although, some of those uses are highly questionable.
Archers are disgusting because they get to full attack pretty much at will. So with many shot, rapid fire and deadly aim that gets pretty friggin' gross pretty quick. Two-handers also do ridiculous amounts of damage, especially when they can get up close enough to get a full attack. The Two-hander spec fighter in the APG is disgusting, as is furious focus which pretty much assures that a fighter can power attack all day long. In a fight it's just about the way you want to play, i always got pissed when our fighter decided to be an archer as now the character with the most hps is in the back of the party while everyone else is getting punched in the face by giants or whatever.
Don't forget that the way barred schools work now is that they simply take up two slots. We have a wizard in our party that continues to think that he simply can't cast spells of a certain school (not sure if it ever worked that way). I think for a blaster controller i would drop divination and enchantment (unless you were going to be a flat out enchanter). Enchantment is one of my favorite schools, but there are a lot of limitations on their spells, and spells like charm person/monster are almost useless in comparison unless you put significant effort into them (with the whole -4 to DC crap.)
I think it's a pretty crappy way of trying to control the power of a party. There are many plot devices that can be used to "reign in" a party without taking direct control of their character. Why is he so upset? Are the battles too quick? Is he upset because he feels that he is losing (DM's are forced to lose sometimes)? What stat buy did you guys get? What level are you? Is he over rewarding you with magic? Is the game too open ended and allowing you to mercilessly run rampant on the town? I would need to know more about the campaign and the specific reason for the OP feeling before i could make a more accurate suggestion, but I would be upset if my DM was doing this to me in the middle of the campaign.
I am not familiar with the d20 version of Dragon Age, but the video game had enough similarities to D&D I was quite curious the first time I saw the actual Dragon Age tabletop book. You could just just DA tabletop book as setting information and rely on regular pathfinder to play your campaign. If the tabletop is similar to the videogame there are already fighters/barbarians/paladins(templars could just have smite spellcaster), rogue/rangers/bards, and sorcerer/oracles in pathfinder. Which would fill all of the slots for characters available in the video game. Then just find monsters that have stat blocks similar to monsters you would present in DA and change their name/description. Sorry for the uneducated post, but i hope it helps.
I'm not too good with making new spells. However, there are a couple of bard spells even at first level that I might suggest: Level 1 - Remove Fear, Saving Finale, Timely Inspiration, Vanish. Fear can wreck a party pretty fast, the next two spells help a good deal with saving throws, and the ability to momentarily be invisible is always nice. Good luck buddy.
I don't think there is anything in the RAW that specifically says this is possible, that is to say that there is nothing that denotes a successful Stealth check denies your opponent his Dex modifier. However, I would think that many people as though it would and believe it to be RAI. Looking at the forum there are many posts related to it. Here is some of what I found: This is the closest explanation concerning RAW "Entropi wrote: The point of this is; where in the rules does it say that you can make a sneak attack while hidden? Good point. All I've found so far is:
That's from the Combat chapter." "Proposed new Sneak Attack while Unobserved rule wrote: If you begin an attack action while you are Unobserved, meaning you are already Invisible or Stealthed before you begin this attack, then your opponent is denied his DEX bonus to his Armor Class and you can Sneak Attack this opponent. Your first attack (if you have more than one) will reveal you to this opponent, automatically removing your Invisibility or Stealth benefits (this is not true of Improved Invisibility) which means that only your first attack gets the benefits of being Invisible or Stealthed; subsequent attacks in this round are treated as normal attacks." The links are provided in case you would like to check/post on those posts rather than here. Also, to show that i'm not taking things out of context.
Upon reading Blindsense it appears to be a fairly useless ability (in regard to rogues). The way it is worded it allows you to be alerted to the presence of a creature within the radius and even to locate it, however, non-visible creatures still get all the bonuses (including, in this case, sneak attack damage due to them being denied their Dex modifier). Non-visable would include in this instance creatures that are hidden due to concealment. Are there non-idiotic ways for the rogue to get stunning attacks himself? I figure there are enough people who routinely play rogues here that someone could tell me if there was. (this is not to say that relying on someone else in the party to be able to do it is idiotic).
I agree that the typical mount should be a quadruped, with exceptions being some flying mounts like a Roc or something.
Sorcs of the arcane bloodline are disgusting. With that party and it's melee focus I would really think about the bard. You would be able to help the rogue in the skill area, you get some levels of utility spell casting, and they will love how much you will add to their abilities in battle. They are also not useless in a fight. If you decide to go wizard, your spec. is all about the way you want to play your character. All of them have their advantages.
Animal companions, if you are a druid, can be made into pretty solid glass jaw fighters. Sometimes just decent combat characters in general. It just depends on what you want to do with them. You could easily have a t-rex doing 5d6+30 or more damage (before vital strike or power attack) with a couple of buff spells. Couple this with bardic or wizard buffs like haste and you've got something that is doing enough damage output to chunk through DR (or just greater magic fang them since they have one attack). While this isn't comparable to many melee builds, it's some pretty decent damage, and you're not really giving up too much to do so. (the above takes 3 spells). You're still a druid that continue to cripple the battlefield with nature spells, some AoE damage, and summons.
|