Rogeif Yharloc

Texas Snyper's page

Organized Play Member. 719 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 719 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quote:

Age Categories

Many of a true dragon’s abilities, attacks, and other statistics improve as a dragon grows older. These increases are divided into 12 age categories—as a dragon ages, its base statistics change as noted on Table: Dragon Age Categories.

Quote:

Size: This shows how many size categories by which to increase the dragon’s base size, depending on its age (from Tiny to Small, Small to Medium, and so on). A true dragon does not gain the standard increases to ability scores when it achieves a larger size—instead, true dragons gain ability score increases according to their age category, as indicated on the Dragon Ability Scores table.

Hit Dice: This shows how many additional Hit Dice a dragon gains over its base Hit Dice as it grows. Increases to Hit Dice grant extra hit points, feats, and skill ranks as well as increase the dragon’s base attack bonus and base save bonuses. Dragons have skill ranks equal to 6 + their Intelligence modifier per Hit Die. A dragon’s increases to ability scores for gaining Hit Dice are included in the total ability score increases (see the Dragon Ability Scores table).

Natural Armor: This shows by what amount the dragon’s base natural armor bonus increases with each age category.

Breath Weapon: Each dragon has a breath weapon (see Combat) that deals a base amount of damage. This multiplier increases the number of dice of damage dealt by the dragon’s breath weapon. For example, a mature adult dragon with a base breath weapon that deals 2d6 acid damage would deal 14d6 acid damage (due to the ×7 multiplier).

Emphases are mine. Size, HD (and therefore breath), and even natural armor are all determined by their age category. And since the abilities you mentioned are requisite on size and size is dictated by age category the previously mentioned abilities are dependent on the age of the dragon. Cause: Age category, Effect: everything else

Furthermore, nowhere in pathfinder does increasing or decreasing in size has bestowed additional abilities that you did not already have. Spells like beast form, FotD, Monstrous Physique, etc explicitly say when additional abilities are gained. Enlarge/Reduce Person has no such mentions. Unless the actual or "effective" size change also bestows additional abilities, the dragon gains nothing by changing size via magic.


merpius wrote:
However, things like the breath weapon, ability to perform a tail sweep or crush, and fly speed all key off of a dragon's size as well. Note that none of these key off of the dragon's age class; that effect is only indirect, in that the age class will increase size.

I'm looking for RAW here. Where did you get that idea? Unless there's an entry somewhere that says that, I'm pretty sure all new things a dragon gets is based on its age category.


Yes that works. You can use gather power and its supercharge version to reduce the cost of metakinesis.


Overall it probably doesn't get overlooked as a great buff spell, but it certainly is overlooked as "the best 3rd level spells". Heroism. Heroism is amazing at shoring up accuracy deficiencies for 3/4 BAB classes and TWF builds, as well as be a blanket boost to all saves. And the duration means it can last for multiple combats, potentially an entire dungeon with an extend rod.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
...unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list.

It's right there in the quoted FAQ. They are added to their spell list AND given as a spell known.


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Rovagug is angry because he's got all them teeth but doesn't have any hands to hold a toothbrush.

I heard it was because of his enlarged medulla oblongata.


Look at it this way. It says all combat maneuver attempts to grapple auto fail, correct? Grapple attempts are attacks, as all CMBs are attacks. All of them. It is not an attack roll to pick up an unconscious ally without FoM so it isn't an attack roll to pick up one WITH FoM.


Holding and carrying a person doesn't have to mean grapple just like holding a weapon doesn't have to mean you are wielding it. Furthermore, since the person is unconscious and has no movement there is nothing to hinder their movement so yes you can fireman carry an unconscious person under FoM.

Unless you want to argue that people under FoM are immune to unconsciousness and/or death. Both of which hinder their movement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:

p.16: To calculate her AC, add 10 plus her Dexterity

modifier (up to her armor’s Dexterity modifier cap), plus
her proficiency modifier with her armor, plus her armor’s
item bonus to AC and any other bonuses and penalties
that always apply.

Technically you add only proficiency modifiers for armor. Not for unarmored. If unarmored defense was a thing to be taken into account for every class then they would have added that bracket on the character sheet.

You'd think they would. They didn't. Unless explicitly said that they are proficient in it, they are untrained. Animal companions are trained in unarmored defense. Monks are expert at it. All other classes are unspecified which means they are all untrained.

For example, under unarmed strikes it states that everybody is trained in unarmed strikes. There is no such wording for unarmored defense.


Haste gives the person 1 more Action but must be used for either a Strike or a Stride. I'm looking for clarification on if you can use this extra action for special attacks like Double Slice or Power Attack. They say "Make a Strike..." but do the actions spent to do the action count as a Strike action? Or is Haste limited to only just the basic Strike Action and basic Stride action?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The point is that for EVERY scenario where you don't have a hard 10 min cap or are in combat, the lvl 4+ wizard can "spontaneously" prep for the scenario in front of them. Spell rarity helps, but that mostly doesn't apply until spell level 6+. Wizards can still spontaneously heighten their entire spell book better than a sorcerer can. Everybody knows prepared > spontaneous 80+% of the time, but the ability for wizards to spend 10 mins to heighten any and all of their spells at any time puts the wizard MILES ahead of the sorcerer.

Spontaneous casting was nerfed into the ground because of "choice paralysis" yet prepared casting has MANY more choices and wasn't touched at all.


bump. Am I the only one that sees access to a bag of holding costing an RP each as an issue? At most it should be an Invest to be able to maintain its ability to be active and accessible but it should not cost 1 RP for each time you want to use it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The bag of holding (pg 382) has an [[A]] Operate Activation action to use it. Activating Magic Items (pg 376) says that unless an item says, for example, "Command activation, no cost" it costs 1 RP to activate. This means that every time you put something in or take something out of a bag of holding you have to use RP.

Pull wand of healing out of bag of holding 1RP. Use wand to heal 1RP per use. Put wand of healing back into bag of holding 1RP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that single level 4 feat completely busts the prepared/spontaneous paradigm. It turns a wizard into a prepared caster in combat and time crunch scenarios but a spontaneous caster when time isn't a factor. On top of that, they can "spontaneously heighten" their entire spell book anytime they use this. They're better at spontaneous heighten than sorcerers and bards. At the very least, it should be closer to a lvl 14 or lvl 16 feat if not removed entirely. It completely negates one of the weaknesses of prepared casting while spontaneous continues to get the shaft.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My problems with sorcerer, and bard where applicable:

1) Fewer class feats. For a system that requires class feats to be able to tade them out for archetypes, prestige classes, or multiclassing, the sorcerer comes up extremely short in their ability to use these. Every class should have the same number of class feats if class feats are essential to how 2e and character customization is working.

2) "Spontaneous" Heighten. First it's a complete misnomer, it's prepared heighten. You prepare what spells you want to heighten . Secondly it's a bandaid fix to spontaneous casters who are completely inferior to prepared casters in regards to 2e's spell system. A wizard only needs one copy of the spell and he can cast all versions. Sure it has to be prepared but now he only needs 10 minutes to swap out his prepped list mid day. Sorcerer has to retrain AND give up a different spell. Or wait another day to prepare spontaneous heighten differently, completely counter to the sorcerer design.

3) No form of down casting. Not only is the sorcerer screwed out of the new core feature of spell heightening, a requirement for more advanced spells but they can't even cast a weaker version of a spell they already know. They're not different spells, they're the same spell at different power levels. If I know fireball 5 then I should be able to cast fireball 3. It's the same spell but with less power.

4) "Paralysis of choice". It's a bullahit cop out. How is there no issue about paralysis of choice when it comes to prepared casters and what they want to prepare?

5) Bloodline powers seem pretty weak once again. Granted, I haven't playtested them yet but they've once again gone with "go melee things" as sorcerer powers. The more martial oriented bloodlines should also give armor proficiency and/or other methods to make them less squishy. Otherwise they're basically useless. And they cost a class feat.


Yes they are retroactive. It's a terrible place to have it but the magic item quality potent addresses that.


MerlinCross wrote:
Texas Snyper wrote:
They did say they were greatly reducing the reliance on the Big 6, not removing them entirely. Armor improvements also goes to saves so there's the cloak. Just not having the ring or necklace and instead having proficiency scaling armor takes care of them. All that's left is magic weapon, magic armor, and stat item. Magic weapon and armor were definitely going to stay around, they're pretty core to game/system. The stat item is only a minor boost, and you can only benefit from one. It's not like having a +6/+6 belt for your barb. You can still choose to not get/attune to these and you won't be hindered like you would in 1e.

I don't see a "You can only attune to 1 item" so if that exists I skipped over it.

And a +2 is a +2. Sure it's not the +6/+6 but I can't see people skipping out on that. People didn't self hinder themselves in PF1, I don't see that starting to happen in PF2.

Chooo Choo. All board the expected item train again.

I stumbled upon it myself, its talked about on pg 345 under the Potent item quality.

pg 345 wrote:

Potent When a character invests an item with this trait, it improves one of that character’s ability scores, either increasing it to 18 or increasing it by 2, whichever grants the higher ability score. This ability score increase grants all the benefits of the new ability score. Increasing Intelligence lets the owner become trained in an additional skill, increasing Charisma adds to her Resonance Points, increasing Constitution gives her more Hit Points, and so on. These benefits go away once the investiture runs out.

A potent item grants this benefit only the first time it’s invested within a 24-hour period, and a character can benefit from only one potent item at a time. If a character attempts to invest a potent item when she already has one invested, she doesn’t gain the ability score increase from the second item (though she still gains any other benefits from the second item).


Yea, I'm pretty sure they intended to have everybody to be proficient in unarmored but it doesn't say that anywhere in the PDF. Honestly, I would be fine if they kept wizards and sorcerers as untrained and have anybody who has armor training be trained in unarmored. They should also modify the armor training feat to include unarmored in with light armor.


They did say they were greatly reducing the reliance on the Big 6, not removing them entirely. Armor improvements also goes to saves so there's the cloak. Just not having the ring or necklace and instead having proficiency scaling armor takes care of them. All that's left is magic weapon, magic armor, and stat item. Magic weapon and armor were definitely going to stay around, they're pretty core to game/system. The stat item is only a minor boost, and you can only benefit from one. It's not like having a +6/+6 belt for your barb. You can still choose to not get/attune to these and you won't be hindered like you would in 1e.


Voss wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

Power attack muliplies them.

Page 179 wrote:

COUNTING WEAPON DAMAGE DICE

Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice (such as charge or forceful) include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice for a magic weapon. They don’t count additional dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like. On a critical hit, you double this bonus only once; you don’t double it again due to the number of damage dice increasing.
It needs better wording though.

Multiplies...what?

Power attack doesn't multiply anything.

The text you're quoting is for the charge property on a lance, or the forceful property from scimitars and greataxes. Those properties give you +x damage, where x is the number of damage dice (almost always 1+however many dice the weapon potency rune gives you). If you crit with one of these weapons it does 2x, not 2x+y if it is also deadly.

Colette Brunel wrote:
Voss wrote:

Yep. Power attack adds 1 die. 2 if 10th level or higher. It neatly avoids any issues.

It's also not particularly impressive at higher levels. Still useful, but... I suspect the damage curve falls off.

In that case, it does not look like barbarians and paladins want to rely on Power Attack at all.

If Power Attack fails to multiply the extra damage dice, then:
Barbarians want neither Double Slice nor Power Attack.
Fighters want a two-handed weapon and Furious Focus and Sudden Charge (or possibly both with the human's Natural Ambition).
Paladins want neither Double Slice nor Power Attack.
Rangers want neither Double Slice nor Power Attack.
Rogues want to multiclass into fighter for Double Slice.
Does this seem about right?

No.

Have you done the math on... any of that?

Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice (such as charge or forceful) include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice for a magic weapon.

Power attack looks at your weapon die. This explicitly says potency increases your weapon die. "Add one weapon die" = (weapon+potency)[base] +(weapon+potency)[power attack] + (IF 10+ then: (weapon+potency))[power attack scale]


The Basic X and Advanced X are so that you don't just get the multiclass feat at later levels and just jump right into the good stuff. Basic+Advanced gives your character a form of progression through the multiclass.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From the playtest book it looks like the monk and animal companion are the only ones trained in unarmored defense. Everybody else should be taking a -2 to their AC if they aren't wearing armor. This is further supported by Mage Armor's wording of using the casters Unarmored Defense proficiency on top of the spell's bonus to AC. None of the classes mention being trained in it. This is either an oversight (they are trained but it isn't mentioned anywhere) or Ezren's preview sheet was wrong and his AC should be two lower.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:

This seems a bit intrusive and a bit more unnecessary. Not as intrusive and unnecessary as forcing everybody to play in Golarion or spend hours separating it from the core rules like picking unwanted raisins from a chocolate chip cookie, but I digress.

It seems to me that rarity as relates to setting is something the GM can decide on his own, and for other uses, was perfectly serviced by a mention in a stat block.

Do we really need to service the pedantic and unsophisticated on such an intimate level? I remember when these games challenged you to be resourceful, creative, and to learn a little something along the way.

It's also modifiable by the GM for their setting, they're just giving a generic baseline. Now GMs don't have to go through the (soon to be) very expansive spell list and label each and every one of them if they have a base rarity, just the ones the GM would want to change. It also gives the GM a RAW reason why X or Y can't be found by the PCs when the min/maxer groans about not having [specific item/spell].


Quandary wrote:
^ I think Spell Points are better match to Upcasting than Resonance, given Resonance governs your utilization of EXTERNAL magical items, while Upcasting is a matter of your own [class] magical power. I think that would also establisher broader usage for Spell Points than just spamming the same 3 Bloodline Powers.

Spell points could work too. Downcast at will. Upcast at the cost of resonance or spell points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if its been mentioned yet (too many pages of comments to go through) but I would like the idea of a sorcerer being able to downcast their spells all day, and can up cast spells but that costs Resonance to do. The downcasting makes a thematic sense and lets a sorcerer with innate powers who knows Fireball 3 to also be able to do Fireball 1, etc. It then also follows thematic of the sorcerer actively using their CHA (RP) to forcibly upscale a spell they know, spontaneously. It preserves the spontaneous aspect to the class, limits how often the class can do it, isn't "balanced" around items and WBL that a GM may screw up or not accurately provide and instead keeps the balancing internal to the class abilities. and gives a better feel to how the class is designed. IMO.

tl;dr - Downcast spontaneously all day, upcast spontaneously but costs RP each time you do it.


Tallow wrote:
Texas Snyper wrote:
Tallow wrote:

The melee line for the Redcap:

Please have something, a semi-colon, the words or, and, or a double dash or something that visibly separates the two types of attacks. Right now the damage for the Scythe blends directly into the start of the bladed boot attack. Visibly that's really bad and confusing. Especially if you are listing Damage: with a bold label directly after each type of attack, then the next attack needs to also either be labeled [[A]]Melee: on its own line, or some icon or word to separate the two attacks so they are visibly distinct from one another.

e.g.

Quote:

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing; boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

or

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
[[A]] Melee boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

my preference is a separate line for each attack

or

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing -or- boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

I think the "boot" entry doesn't have an [[A]] tag next to it is because it can only be done as a part of the [[R]] reaction of stomp. It's on a second line because it is its own attack but it can't be done as a part of a [[A]] Strike action, it's only used when you [[R]] Reaction.
Then shouldn't it be tagged with [[R]]?

Yea I misremembered it as part of its [[R]] for some reason. It's a part of the [[A]] Stomp which is a move and attack action. So I think the reasoning is to put all of the attacks first, then its reactions and special actions.


Tallow wrote:

The melee line for the Redcap:

Please have something, a semi-colon, the words or, and, or a double dash or something that visibly separates the two types of attacks. Right now the damage for the Scythe blends directly into the start of the bladed boot attack. Visibly that's really bad and confusing. Especially if you are listing Damage: with a bold label directly after each type of attack, then the next attack needs to also either be labeled [[A]]Melee: on its own line, or some icon or word to separate the two attacks so they are visibly distinct from one another.

e.g.

Quote:

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing; boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

or

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
[[A]] Melee boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

my preference is a separate line for each attack

or

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing -or- boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

I think the "boot" entry doesn't have an [[A]] tag next to it is because it can only be done as a part of the [[R]] reaction of stomp. It's on a second line because it is its own attack but it can't be done as a part of a [[A]] Strike action, it's only used when you [[R]] Reaction.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Spyglass Archon wrote:
Texas Snyper wrote:
Or: Unshackling paladins from a stupid restriction doesn't prohibit those who want to play LG paladins from still playing LG paladins.
Replacing ghost peppers with chilli peppers doesn't mean more people can stomach ghost peppers it means that their eating chilli peppers.

That makes no sense. Letting "not LG" be an option has no effect on the LG option.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Being pro-choice doesn't kill LG Paladins, but LG Paladins kill choice.

Both are wrong. Taking away the paladin's psyche results in a watered-down "paladin", which kills the classic paladin.

However, if we keep the classic paladin, and add options for people who are not satisfied elsewhere...
No one is forced to play with any one class. Don't like it? Don't use it.

So then lets have the Paladin and then also have the "Totally not a Paladin" that is a complete carbon copy but with alignment being equal to (or possibly within one step of) their deity. Problem solved. Everybody is happy. You get the LG only Paladin AND you get the "Totally not a Paladin" which is exactly the same but not hamstrung.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Or: Unshackling paladins from a stupid restriction doesn't prohibit those who want to play LG paladins from still playing LG paladins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

Trying to explain one more time (last one for today).

Specific alignment mechanics are irrelevant. What the Paladin has is his ethos and moral standards. These are *essential* to the class. If a "paladin" stops having that, it's not a paladin anymore.
By lifting down this ethos and moral, and turn the class into a "champion of whatever we feel like it" is Not changing the class, or "broadening its reach", or anything like that. It is *destroying* the original class, and building *another* one from the ground up, and stealing the name of the previous class, to add insult upon injury!
I'll never accept that, and I'll always speak against this.

But why do these "ethos and moral standards" that are *essential* to the class have to be tied directly to just alignment? Why can't their ethos and moral standards be tied to their deity? The direct source of their power and reason for action. Why should a paladin of Calistria or Desna be LG?

A paladin should be a paragon of their deity. They should be a mortal representation of these ideals on the material plane and in the battlefield. The best way to do that is to properly represent their deity and alignment should be one of those aspects.


Operative would be better for a jack of all trades skill set and provide good damage.

Envoy would be better at filling specific roles (looks like party face and captain role would be a good fit for your party) and with providing combat buffs and unique advantages to the party.


quindraco wrote:
baggageboy wrote:
I have a guy in one group running a blitz/envoy and was considering a guard/envoy. There are quite a few improvisations that don't require you to have a high charisma to use effectively and the extra proficiencies make the multiclass version of an envoy very effective in my opinion.

Yes, one of the things I really dislike about envoys is their shocking lack of reliance on charisma for so many things. At a quick glance, Don't Quit, Get 'Em, Look Alive, Watch Your Step, Expanded Attunement (so 50% of the L1 improvisations), Duck Under, Focus, Hurry, Long-Range Improvisation, Watch Out (so 62.5% of the L4 improvisations), Clever Improvisations, Draw Fire, Heads Up, Improved Get'em (100% of the L6 improvisations!), Desperate Defense, Expert Attack, Improved Hurry, Situational Awareness, and Sustained Determination (83.33% of the L8 improvisations) only interact with your Charisma in that the class manually forces you to use Charisma as your Resolve Points stat, which of course multiclassing immediately addresses. If you have Skill Expertise apply to Computers, Culture, Engineering, or Medicine, you can make a completely charisma-free Envoy.

This wouldn't be a problem if you could select your primary stat, like a Soldier; instead, the forced reliance feels like a straitjacket, like with Solarians.

And even then improves like clever feint and clever attack only indirectly benefit from CHA via bluff which is a skill check so the envoy gets their special dice towards it if they pick it up for their skill expertise.

For the one I'm thinking of building right now as the soldier 1/envoy X Vesk and would still be a party face by getting diplomacy at lvl 1 and bluff at level 5 is plenty soon enough to get the proper get 'em + clever attack combo with the bluff dice and I can be the party face without being super heavy invested in CHA. Meanwhile I can get feats like step up and spellbane to be a real big meatshield.


Sorry for the thread necro but I had a question for doing an envoy build like this. What about doing a soldier 1/envoy X build? It delayed your envoy talents by 1 level but you get your armor and weapon proficiencies as well as a 10 movement boost if you go blitz. Then your only needed feat is versatile specialization. You can also get STR to be your key stat for your resolve points.


Soldier 1/envoy X, soldier for weapon and armor proficiencies, STR key stat, and blitz spec. Envoy has despiriting taunt to give a -2 to a for. They also have Not In the Face where the for takes a -4 to attacking you. Then you can pick up Draw Fire where all foes in range take a -4 to attack anybody but you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathlessOne wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:


Killing Demons is a Good Act on the Good/Evil Axis.

The Moral stance that killing is bad doesn't nessecarily carry over to the cosmic reality present in Pathifnder. If generally you kill a [Evil] creature it's a [Good] act (with some exceptions like torture / grotesque execution).

There's a LG god who explicitly says to take no prisoners except when it's strategically advantageous to do so.

I maintain my opinion that the act of killing is never a Good thing. I don't care that a LG deity allows taking no prisoners. LG deities can have tenants that are non-Good and non-Evil, as I see his tenant to be. Killing an Evil creature is not a Good thing. The actions might be a Good thing if they are protecting innocents from further harm but that has no bearing to the actual ending of the life.

Again, my opinion. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that my opinion differs from your own.

And you aren't wrong, in real life. But in the world of D&D/Pathfinder, our moralities and codes don't apply or translate directly. In our world Good and Evil are abstracts and subjective. In PF, Good and Evil are objective and can be physically measured. A person can have a literal Good Aura. It is tangible, testable.


Whoops, I flipped two different things. Their "effective spell level" is half their class level. Their caster level is their class level. My bad.


I'd say it depends on several factors. Did the cultist attempt to repent? (prob not, since its a cultist). What alignment and what deity is the PC? There are a lot of factors involved.

There are LG deities like Ragathiel who says to kill all evil, no matter what. That is not evil or chaotic. There are other Good deities, like Sarenrae, who would offer redemption first but is fine with killing if the subject won't repent.


Yes they do. Their "effective caster level" is equal to half their class level, rounded down. And since the Wings of Air says that it is "as the spell" they would gain the bonus to the Fly skill.


Not at all. Maybe so if it was "increases by..." But it says "increases to" which means it is explicitly telling what the new duration is.


True, their nova is lacking but that's usually reserved for few#/day. But their round to round DPR is very nearly identical. It's a small price to pay for at will invisibility, ranged Disable, the strongest mage hand in the game, and the ability to beat a mother trucker with another mother trucker.


Aether may be lacking in a composite blast until 15 but the math actually keeps it on the heels of the outer elements just fine. Empowered basic blast is single digits behind base composite blast.
Every 2 static dmg (3 w empower) is only a half dmg behind a bonus die for composite. It's also more reliable and consistent because of this. Aether's utility more than makes up for that tiny difference.

No class in the game, including the almighty god wizard, can bench press like an aether can.


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Texas Snyper wrote:
@ryze kuja: The that is the old optimized blaster build. With bloodline mutations, full sorc (no crossblooded) is the way to go for most optimized blaster build. Orc or draconic(pick your element) and with the mutations you can optimize your blasting dmg better and have more options for non blasting spells when they're needed.
Can you do Crossblooded Orc/Draconic and choose Blood Havoc for your 1st lvl bloodline power for a +3 per die?

You can't trade your bloodline powers for the bloodline mutations if you have an archetype that modifies your bloodline, which crossblooded does. Instead you have to trade your bloodline feats which only starts at lvl7 which is much too late for any good use.


@ryze kuja: The that is the old optimized blaster build. With bloodline mutations, full sorc (no crossblooded) is the way to go for most optimized blaster build. Orc or draconic(pick your element) and with the mutations you can optimize your blasting dmg better and have more options for non blasting spells when they're needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You summon one blade as a part of your attack or full attack action. That is the only blade you get for your turn. Once you get quicken metakinesis then you can make two blades.


It does work, it just doesn't work well. It's not an efficient use of burn. Aether or air[lighting] are better picks for expanded element IMO.


pocsaclypse wrote:
Texas Snyper wrote:

Earth kinetic knight. Heavy armor and shield, DR/adamantine, samurai resolve (Unstoppable is the only bad one). Slap on Iron Will and a decent WIS and you should be pretty good at absorbing all sorts of punishment while also dishing out good damage. Your level 7 expanded element + expanded defense talent could be aether for an ablative shield of regenerating temp HP. Or you could pick any of the energy touch attacks from one of the other elements and not worry about extra defense.

Stack your CON out the ass with a good STR and a little DEX. After that, have a decent WIS and your other two mental stats are up to you. At 11, your start of the morning DR is DR 5 and you can boost it up to as high as your lvl (11).

You could expand into water for the energy attack and take the expanded defense for an ac bonus too

Kinetic knights get shields and water's defense doesn't really work that well with it (at all really) so aether's temp HP or air's ranged miss chance are actually better. Air has lightning too which could be good with magnetic and other nice tools like wings of air.


Earth kinetic knight. Heavy armor and shield, DR/adamantine, samurai resolve (Unstoppable is the only bad one). Slap on Iron Will and a decent WIS and you should be pretty good at absorbing all sorts of punishment while also dishing out good damage. Your level 7 expanded element + expanded defense talent could be aether for an ablative shield of regenerating temp HP. Or you could pick any of the energy touch attacks from one of the other elements and not worry about extra defense.

Stack your CON out the ass with a good STR and a little DEX. After that, have a decent WIS and your other two mental stats are up to you. At 11, your start of the morning DR is DR 5 and you can boost it up to as high as your lvl (11).


Sorcerers are the best when they specialize in one thing and be the best they can at that, with supplemental spells known to fill in any gaps or add utility outside that specialization. What do you want to specialize in? The common picks are: blasting, enchanter, battlefield control, illusion, summoning. Unfortunately, while arcane is a great bloodline it's power comes from overall generic power and not specializing in anything in particular. It isn't a bad choice but once you figure out what you want to specialize in there may be other good choices as well.


Marc Radle wrote:

Well, since this thread has been awakened ...

Folks looking for a full BAB class that casts arcane spells might check out the Battle Scion class!

Which happens to be in the revised and expanded New Paths Compendium: Expanded and Revised Hardcover Edition, the Kickstarter for which ends tomorrow :)

Also the bloodrager is a full BAB arcane caster.

1 to 50 of 719 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>