Cruel Devotee

Use Headbutt!!'s page

Organized Play Member. 106 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Use Headbutt!! wrote:
Blave wrote:
It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.
originally when the playtest first came out and people had issues with limited heightening Mark Seifter mentioned that in their internal play testing total heightening led to decision paralysis. Mind you, I am sure there are other balance reasons too, but that was the reason they had mentioned for doing away with it.
I continue to find the analysis paralysis excuse completely unconvincing. If MY derp-ass player group can run 3.x / DS Psionics just fine with no holdups or problems, then 99% of players could handle unlimited heightening without a problem. It's not worth designing around the 1%.

I fully agree, but I was just clarifying to Blave why Data originally dedicated his argument to opposing decision paralysis instead of other balances.

As for dispelling, I think it is fine as is? I mean if dispel magic was a cantrip that scaled then anyone within 6 character levels (3 spell levels) could spam it until they succeeded at a counteract check. I feel like lvl 14 characters should not be able to auto-dispel epic level spells if given an half an hour. That being said, it being feasible through days/weeks of hard work (i.e. repeated castings from high level slots) seems decently fair.

On the dispelling note, I don't think sorcerers being able to always have the right level dispel magic is really that huge a benefit. Thanks to counteract levels you take a -5/lvl that the spell is lower than the thing is is trying to counter act. If sorcerers had a feat that gave them a +5 but only when trying to dispel an existing magical effect I am not sure how frequently that feat would be taken. Is it good? sure. Is it so good that you need to completely redesign sorcerer hightens to avoid it? not really.

I think what they were trying to draw attention to is that normally "A cantrip is always automatically hightened to the highest level of spell you can cast as a [whatever class you are reading the cantrip class feature from]". With the feat, suddenly the highest spell you can cast is a lot lower than half your level so they added that text in there to let you know that no, your cantrips do fully scale. You are absolutely right about there being no wording on the base dedication to let you know whether they scale or not without additional feats. I, personally, would rule that they do, but the base feat does need clarification for that ruling to become RAW.

Blave wrote:
It's not just a analysis paralysis issue. It's also about stuff like spontaneous casters always having the exact level of dispel magic to dispel an effect wihout overspending.

originally when the playtest first came out and people had issues with limited heightening Mark Seifter mentioned that in their internal play testing total heightening led to decision paralysis. Mind you, I am sure there are other balance reasons too, but that was the reason they had mentioned for doing away with it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it this confusion comes from the fact that medicine is used to both diagnose disease and to suture wounds. Suturing wounds is very similar to crafting and thus logically is int based (or dex based but that isn't really an option here). In the real world diagnosing diseases is int based because you have to memorize as many diseases as possible and then compare the noted symptoms to the diseases you know. In sword and fantasy adventures though, diagnosing diseases is wisdom based because you need to determine what is wrong. Sensing that their lymph nodes are inflamed, feeling that they have a high fever, listening to their breathing to see if there is fluid in the lungs, these are all wisdom based tasks. In the real world we have machines to measure and quantify most of those tasks which puts more emphasis on the int side of medicine but that isn't an option in the pathfinder setting.

Additionally in 3.5/pf1 you would treat patients over long periods of time (closer to being a nurse rather than doctor) and help them recover over the period of 8 hours or a day to help increase natural healing. That was always more of a wisdom based task. I think medicine being wis based in PF2 is more of a hold over from that than anything else.

Currently medicine doesn't have that option and with the new emphasis on immediate surgery/first aid from the new skill use/wound mechanic I feel like medicine is starting to lean more int based. That being said, thematically it is in the realm of wis based characters so I am fine with it (though I agree int needs some boosting).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark Seifter stated that originally they playtested sorcerers being able to heighten any spell known but that it led to decision paralysis (trying to find his original post on the subject). As such, since they have already "proven" that it doesn't work in concept I think their minds are already made up. I hope that they change it because I think sorcerers should be able to heighten any known spell but without a ton of support for that method on these forums I doubt it is a change we will see.

Quandary wrote:
People who like Arcanist would like to have it Day 1, but just because Paizo might leave it for APG isn't reason to turn Wiz or Sorc into an Arcanist. When Arcanist is released you will have what you want, that doesn't justify destroying what Wiz/Sorc are.

I disagree. The Arcanist in PF1 was designed as a hybrid between sorcerer and wizard. They did this by taking the best aspects of sorcerer (repeated casting of the spell known) and wizard (preping metamagic, changing spells prepared, learning more spells) casting and balancing it around the worst aspects of both classes (sorcerer slower spell progression and on the fly metamagic penalty and wizard lower default daily spells per slot). If you notice, PF2 doesn't have many of those downsides to balance around: metamagic doesn't work that way anymore, wizards and sorcerers get the same level of spells at the same time and get the same number of spells per day (sorcerers get +1/lvl from blood lines, but the default before class abilities is the same). In the current system it is impossible to release the arcanist as it was because it would completely overshadow the wizard. I am worried that there never will be a PF2 arcanist because what can you remove to go "sure the arcanist is better as spell prep but it is balanced because of _____"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

While I do think many save-or-suck spells needed the nerf, I feel what we got in exchange is far worse. We're now in "roll the dice, if you fail then you're... slightly inconvenienced". I feel that we've lost something exciting and interesting with the nerf of all the spells and abilities that can change the course of a battle. I don't know what the middle-ground solution is, but I hope one can be found.

I agree that we went from too OP to too weak. I would prefer to see more spells with potent debuffs on normal fails and crit fails ending the encounter. So crit success means nothing happens, success means mild inconvenience, failure means hampered, and crit fail means game over. Sleep is trying to do that, but because it is meant to avoid combat it can't swing the tide of battle

Dasrak wrote:
Use Headbutt!! wrote:
but the fact that all they have to do to wake up is make a perception check at -4 vs any loud noise means it is no longer save or lose (though what constitutes a loud noise is up for debate. medium armor walking around the room? maybe fine? medium armor walking up adjacent to the asleep person? personally I'd rule that as requiring a save)
The fact that the DC is unlisted means that there's going to be huge table variation on this spell. It could really stand for some more elaboration on that perception check. The fact that coup-de-grace is gone and they don't drop prone means it's not really that bad anymore anyways.
Hmm yes there should be more guidelines for what DCs various noises require to be heard, but for people in armor for instance it is an opposed sneak vs perception roll (which is terrible for PCs since monster perception is absurdly high). From page 320 in the rulebook:
the rules wrote:
"If there is a loud noise going on around you, at the start of your turn you can attempt a Perception check as a free action with a -4 circumstance penalty against the noise's DC (or the lowest DC if there is more than one noise), waking up if you succeed. For creatures attempting to stay quiet, this is a Stealth DC.

Perhaps from a RAW point of view once asleep the PCs should make stealth checks all the time or the target can automatically wake up, but I like interpreting the "loud noises only" to give the PCs more leeway and make the spell less than useless.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
Use Headbutt!! wrote:
That being said, a lot of sorcerer players in PF1 felt punished for wanting to play sorcerers. These rules are there to help add a little flexibility and bring sorcerers more in line with wizard versatility. They did so by making the sorcerers feel more wizardly. Does it feel a bit odd? Yes most certainly. Do I understand why they did it? Absolutely.

Wizard versatility?

As a sorcerer, I can cast any spell I know on the fly, without having prepared it beforehand. Can a wizard do that? Why would I want to have to prepare beforehand? The whole point of playing a sorcerer is that he is more versatile than a wizard!

Hmm I feel like my point was not conveyed adequately. When dropped into a situation with no previous context the sorcerer will have more spell options available and thus be a lot more flexible. That is a play style I absolutely loved which is why I always preferred sorcerers and oracles to wizards and clerics. In exchange, wizards got higher level spells 1 level early, could metamagic with the normal spell casting actions rather than full round, had the similar total number of spells available per day with school dedication, had a ton more skills, and with 10min of study could swap out spells known. Do you not feel like those punish the sorcerer? When a situation was not an immediate threat (i.e. divinations the morning of, players planning an assault/ambush, coming across a barricade) the wizard was the one with more flexibility because he had nearly unlimited spells "known" (depends on GP expenditure) and could tailor spells accordingly. If a sorcerer and a wizard come across a locked door and the sorcerer knows "knock" then the sorcerer is more likely to be able to settle the situation right then and there (immediate flexibility sorc>wiz). If the sorcerer does not know "knock" than he has to retrain a spell or gain a level where as the wizard has to look at his books for 10min (prep flexibility wiz>>>sorc). These new rules help mitigate that. The sorcerer being able to say at the start of the day that he preps x, y, and z is a very wizardly thing to do which is why it rubs PF1 players wrong, but it fixes the sorcerer's inability to solve certain challenges without MASSIVE time investment which is very much a good thing. Is it still weaker than a wizard? yes, but now for different reasons.

I do think spell casting is weak in it's current iteration, but I am happy to see save or lose spells being nerfed. What could be less fun than "roll the dice, if you fail then this encounter is over"?That being said, I am on the fence on whether or not they have been nerfed too hard. Judging by the spells listed, it looks like your player picked spells that were golden in PF1 and assumed they would still be top picks in PF2. Glitterdust is a decent "anti-invis" spell now but is most certainly not the "the encounter is over unless they have blindsight" spell it used to be. Sleep is a good sneaking spell (if sneaking was not as insanely difficult as it currently is) but the fact that all they have to do to wake up is make a perception check at -4 vs any loud noise means it is no longer save or lose (though what constitutes a loud noise is up for debate. medium armor walking around the room? maybe fine? medium armor walking up adjacent to the asleep person? personally I'd rule that as requiring a save)

As you mentioned, the odds of success for most actions in this system is supposed to be around 50%-65%. I feel that with fort being strong, ref being normal, and will being low the saves should have been closer to +11/+8/+5 rather than +13/+10/+7 but as a particularly difficult encounter those saves look ok-ish. The situation your player faced was the unfortunate experience of "rolls don't always match probability." If all 4 spells had been targeting will saves, there is still a 1/16 chance that the beast passes all the saves. With the situation he faced (2 reflex, 1 fort, 1 will) odds are closer to 1/6. It stinks and it feels terrible, but sometimes the dice gods are just vengeful. Like I mentioned I do think spell casting is weak currently. I do agree that there should be more spell slots (although cantrips have helped this immensely) Buffs need to feel more important, blasting needs to be better, utility needs to be revamped, but saves seem to be where they should be (maybe -1 or -2). In PF1 it was easy to boost save DCs high enough not to care what you were targeting but in PF2 you pretty much have to be able to make knowledge checks to find their weak saves and target accordingly.

ErichAD wrote:
I'd normally recommend just keeping her low level, but without feats or anything to pump up her professional skills that doesn't work out that well. The Pathfinder 2 system would pretty obviously use monster rules and just stick her with whatever she needed completely outside the normal system. That's not very satisfying if she is a recurring character and continues to fight off assassins as she may need to progress as a normal party member at some point. She also sounds like the sort of NPC that a new player or dead player would be interested in taking up later in the game, so it'd be nice to have proper stats for her.

In a home game I would just house rule a special feat for her (either a static +5 to certain skills or an additional +1/lvl in exchange for either a static penalty or penalty/lvl to actions with the attack trait). Make it a NPC only feat and be done with it. If a dead player wants to take over her, then re-balance things (while discussing it with the player) then. Not saying that there isn't issues with the skill system (because I believe there is) but I feel like NPC are not the way to draw attention to it because the DM can easily say "these are her numbers, make it so!"

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Belisar wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.

Alchemaic, this is another example.

This call for auto scaling feats so you could take more feats from a different class you multiclass into without losing the full progress advantages in your primary class. But this literally means, you spend less time in your primary class but want to rip full benefits of that class like you weren't dabbling into other classes. Why should a primary class feat auto scale, when you do not focus on your primary class and instead dabble into other classes to rip benefits from them?

Again, if a char wants to diversify and studies/trains different fields of expertise he can only do so at the expense of his primary class. Even in Golarion, the day has only that much hours.

I feel like we are reading very different comments. The way you are commenting it seems like you are comparing scaling crossclass characters to non-scaling single class ones. Khatib is saying all characters should have more access to feat options and one way to do that is to remove feat taxes that slightly increase feats you have already taken. The druid who is only a druid has to pick animal companion feats over and over and feels like they are missing out on doing other druid things. PF1 druids could have scaling animal companions while dedicating their feats to either spell casting or martial proficiency. In PF2 it feels like you are giving up on other druid flavors due to limited feat options. Some people are ok with that (PF2 and PF1 are different systems, stop comparing them) some people want to fix it by having a ton of class feat selections, and some people want to fix it by having scaling feats. Each solution has different pros and cons (which is why people gravitate to different answers), but either of the two proposed changes would still reward druids staying druids by having more druidy things but would reward druid fighters by being a little less druidy in exchange for being more fighter (which appears to be your disagreement).

As for David Silver's comments, he was asking for classes to be able to branch out. Currently the only ranged ranger is a crossbow wielder. Sure you could be an elf and get bow proficiencies but if your class gives you no benefits for using a bow why would you? In PF1, the inquisitor could be an excellent ranged combatant but it felt very different from a zen archer. They did this buy applying general feats with class locked abilities. Most of the comments I have seen have argued that there are many class specific feats that should be open to all classes, but no one wants ALL of the class feats/abilities to be generalized. If you want a very specific fighter only feat you take the dedication, but if you just want some backing for using bows should you really have to crossclass? Your response seems to imply that he wants the inquisitors to have wisdom to attacks and flurry of bows from zen archer in addition to all inquisitor class abilities and feats or in PF2 to have rangers be awesome with both crossbows and normal bows. No. He just wants access to point blank shot without crossclassing and he is willing to give up a ranger feat to do so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Foreverjune: I get what you are saying. Personally I tend to suffer from decision paralysis in terms of character building. Building a character in PF1 for me would be a week long experience as I would put together half a dozen half formed ideas, and then refine over and over until I locked down the perfect character to fill the party niche, have a couple cool abilities I would find fun to use, and flesh out how he would go about most combats. For me the sorcerers and oracles were amazing spell casting classes because almost all of the abilities were set while leveling up. That way character building could stay as character building and game play could stay as game play. If you prefer more day to day decisions you had the choice of playing wizards or clerics. In exchange for less spell tracking per day I was fine giving up a little bit of power (despite personal preference I do believe wizards were often better than sorcerers powerwise).

That being said, a lot of sorcerer players in PF1 felt punished for wanting to play sorcerers. These rules are there to help add a little flexibility and bring sorcerers more in line with wizard versatility. They did so by making the sorcerers feel more wizardly. Does it feel a bit odd? Yes most certainly. Do I understand why they did it? Absolutely.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

The problem I think is if the rogue has 10 more then the ranger to do a task when you set the DC you make it igther impossible for the ranger or embarrassingly easy for the rogue. If the trap were meant to be a real challenge I mean and not just an inconvenience. If the trap were meant to be simple then I have no objection for igther of them having an easy time with it.

(also off topic a bit but I didn't know bear traps have locks on them is that a thing?)

Ok, but the difference in modifiers between scenario A where the ranger and rogue get +1/lvl and scenario B where the ranger and the rogue get +1/2 per level is 0. I mean 13/15/17 has the same differences as the 8/10/12 mentioned. It is still a bounded system with no difference in odds for success (assuming DCs are balanced around the same 1/2 rate), the only mechanical changes are how fast the bonus ramps up. I support it because I feel the proportion of bonuses fits the real world better and thus helps justifies the character skills narratively.

Admittedly my last sentence did mention my preference for +2/tier instead of +1, which I should have left off or turned into a separate point. Despite that, with double bonus from training at extreme levels the difference between untrained and legendary is only +8 instead of the current +5. If +3 is such a huge deal perhaps magic item bonuses to skills should be nerfed instead?

Lastly, yes bear traps do not have locks. A better example would have been the animal companion getting captured and being locked in a cage and then the ranger finding him later. However I feel most characters keep their animal companions with them almost all the time so I wanted an example that could quickly happen (plus it was early morning and I had not slept so I didn't think about it).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Leveling up is training too. some of the attribute is about training as well. you get some dex because of rogue training some dex because your background required it you gain some because you level up which...

I feel like I have poorly defined some terms so things like training can be taken multiple ways. Personally I define "working at a particular task" to be training while "learning to think on your feet by completing challenges" to be experience. Let's look at a quick example ok?

A ranger has lived his entire life in the forest hunting deer with a bow and skinning and selling their pelts. He has high dex and experience using said dex both to hunt and with skills (skinning pelts is a high finesse task). So the high level ranger who has never seen a lock in his life suddenly find's his animal companion's foot trapped in a bear trap from a rival hunter and needs to pick the lock to free his companion. Well, he has a high dex which makes it a lot easier to feel when the lock's pins go into place. That should play a huge part and it does. Not only is he naturally gifted with high dex but he has practiced using his hands both for tasks and combat (high level). Once again that should make the task easier but with the current system it maks it A LOT easier (+10). Unfortunatly he has no ideas how locks work so that is a -2. Ok now compare that to a rogue with the same level. The rogue has been practicing picking locks all his life because his livelihood depends on it (master). Compared to a similairly stated ranger he has a +2 due to training which makes his bonus +4 relative.

That +4 seems like a lot but it represents that the difference between having no idea how something works and a task you practice everyday is only 40% of the benefit you get for shooting a bow (and the ability to think on your feet from fighting in combat). Additionally half of that difference isn't from a bonus but rather from not having a penalty. So having a ton of training is really only 1/5th the worth of general experience at mid level (worse at high levels). The difference between 2 identical rogues but one picks a lock every day while one picks a lock every year is a mere +2 out of a total bonus of +17 (assuming neither has a bonus item). If level was +1/2 then focused training would be 2/12 while general learning and problem solving would be 5/12 and superhuman dex would be the last 5/12. The previous ranger would be attempting it at a +8, the general use rogue would be at a +10 and the life long lock picker would be at a +12. Despite being equal differences, it feels like a much stronger effect than the 13/15/17 in the current system. To me, 8/10/14 (with training being +2/tier) seems more representative of the situation but I do understand why people want a more bounded range.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I do believe that 1/lvl is an easier number to remember but my issue with 1/lvl isn't how it works but how it feels. As ludovicus mentioned earlier a lvl 10 character will have a +20 in his/her chosen field (10lvl, 5stat, 2 training, 3 item). As a character I feel pathetic that the effort I put into training and honing my skill makes up 1/10th of my proficiency (the smallest number added). You are great at picking locks not because of the years you spent in the thieves guild training but because A) you punched a couple dragons in the face, B) because you were always very dexterous, and C) because you found these cool gloves in a box somewhere.

With the +.5/lvl system suddenly these numbers are more rounded. +5/lvl, +5/stats, +3/items, +2/training. Every bonus has always been relevant but suddenly IT FEELS like the training plays a bigger part. General experience=natural proclivity>tools [roughly]=training. Personally I would like to see training give larger bonuses and be more available (as well as small alternative bonus to balance class features). For instance if training was +2/tier suddenly training would be about on par with level. From a narrative perception geniuses (people with high natural stats) would pull away from the crowd but with heroic hard work and training characters could catch up. I realize that boosting training means you have to balance other class features and there are a myriad of other potential issues that crop up, but these numbers can be adjusted. For instance the fighter has superior training and thus will have the highest attack bonus, but perhaps the barbarian rage gives a small bonus to hit at higher levels so that they are only a little behind and the other classes can achieve at least expert level with some weapons. You still get the high numbers=high fantasy feel, but where those numbers come from is different. I can cut that dragon in half not because I grinded killing a bunch of small mooks but because I am a high level barbarian and am ANGRY! My spells can turn the tide of battle not because I practiced wacking people with my stave but because I am a high level wizard and I AM POWER! It feels so much more statisfying to say "I AM A HIGH LEVEL ____" rather than "I AM A HIGH LEVEL"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like if someone has to roll multiple times it should be the DM. There are fair systems but it can be up for interpretation. For instance, if I am rolling multiple dice and order matters, I declare that target order is based on final dice position going left to right with top to bottom breaking ties. But it can be hard to convey position order to the DM and determining whether top/bottom tie is required or if it is still an obvious left right ruling. It is fine with friends because they trust me to be unbiased in judging, but for random tables or for friends that try and slip one past occasionally it can lead to issues.

Why this applies here is because in the current system if the wizard cast fireball on 6 mooks, the DM can quickly decide a system and roll all the dice at once. Few players accuse the DM of cheating because if a DM ever feels like cheating there are far less obvious ways to do it. If we use your new system then it is the player who is rolling 6 times, has to tell the DM how they want to apply the dice to the targets and then the DM and player have to agree on the results. Alternatively the Wizard has to roll the dice one at a time after saying each target. Conversely when the party is targeted by a fireball with the current system, each player just has to roll once and announce their results which is both more satisfying for the player and faster for the table. If we use your suggestion, then the DM rolls X times and then tells each player his results. This is far less satisfying for the players because they feel like they have less agency.

EDIT: also it aids in keeping the monster's stats a mystery. The DM rolls and then tells the player how many monsters passed/failed the check. With the suggested system the player knows each result and thus has an easier time judging what the monster's reflex AC or Fortitude AC is. I feel like leaving it unknown helps prevent metagaming

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

You aren't going to get anywhere if you keep bouncing from point to point without bothering to understand anything.

Frozen is stating a very basic fact. If you have a single feat available to all classes that interacts with each class's abilities differently, then you have a multiplier. If you manually adjust the feat based on which class is using it, then you have something merely additive. So, if you want more variety, which method do you chose?

Merlin is stating another very simple fact. The +/- 10 crit mechanic means that there will be no modifier more important than hit frequency and anything that doesn't increase hit frequency will be discarded by most players. That being the case, which ever class/feat combo is best situated to boost hit frequency will be the class/feat combo most commonly selected.

As a way of seconding what ErichAD said with hard examples, take a look at the Druid. They have a couple set styles (wildshape, storm, animal companion, plant), and if paizo prints a new style for them then there will be +1 character style option. As for the wildshape druid, there is a magical item that is absolutely required that allows you to use your own bonuses instead of the spell's default bonuses. Pretend for a moment that that item was a feat rather than a prohibitively expensive item. If there was a class gated feat that said "use your own bonuses when transformed" then the druid would have +1 option. If the feat was not class locked than suddenly any transforming character has the option of building a melee build. +x options where x is the number of classes with access to polymorph spells/abilities. Sure there will be some that are better than others (the rogue that multiclasses wizard for spells won't get many uses out of it) but leaving those options open makes for more varied characters and more characters that can FEEL different. And think for a moment about how that could change other class aspects! Suddenly if strength is a secondary priority for the caster then melee touch spells that before would never see use suddenly become a reasonable option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hahaha oh man, greenbound summoner feat more than made summoning a valid choice in 3.5. Sure it was still a full round spell but all animal summons having +6str (and +2 to most other stats), dr10/magic AND slashing, and free spell like abilities was stupidly good for a feat that required no pre-req feats. PF went the opposite route and gave options to summon as standard actions with certain feats which I think made it a valid choice and superior summons has some crazy applications too.

As for PF2 I really like the way it set up summons. It is still a full (non-hasted) turn to cast but now it happens on the end of your turn instead of continuing onto the start of your next turn (and thus being interruptible). It follows the same rules as animal companions in terms of action economy (better if you get the feat to bypass concentration) which is nice because it keeps rules consistent. It is also a fair trade since it doesn't add to your multi-attack penalty (unlike spiritual weapon/guardian) and trades 1 of your actions for 2 of the summon's/companion's.

I think my only concern is how weak the summons are. Due to the +lvl scaling having your summons be cr your lvl-4 makes them feel really weak and makes their spells more likely to be crit saved against. I need to do more testing to see how they actually compare and would like to hear how you all feel on the subject.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another good reason to have a free boost per class is the wildshape druid. Their wildshape functions #/day off STR and with a magic item you can keep your own stats so STR is important there for keeping your attack bonus and damage up. Despite STR clearly being that archetype's defining stat you can never have greater than a 16 in it at level 1.

Heck a ton of the old PF1 archetypes played off alternate stats like gish bards, morphing alchemist, charisma paladin, ect. Why mess up fun alternative class styles by predetermining stats?

Build a golem (junk golem is only 5.2k, but wax golems are more fun in a lot of ways), put the rune on the golem's shield, repeat, repeat, repeat, cover shield with a cloth. have the golem walk up to someone and remove the cloth.


my personal favorites:
Bounty hunter slayer/thug rogue with a reach weapon and either shatter defenses or halfling opportunist so you get SA on AOOs. "What's that? you charge me? well cool, you are now blind, entangled, and frightened so I guess you turn around and try and limp away?"

Lunar duel cursed oracle while your tiger wears a spell storing amulet of mighty fists. Cat charges and puts the spell ill omen on the boss, you cast mass inflict light wounds and confuse everyone (with misfortune, the boss rolls 3 times and takes the lowest roll)

Pugwampis. That is the whole build. First worlder summoner (or the feat summon evil monster if you are evil) summons pugwampis, everyone else flails about ineffectually.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hopeoftheflame wrote:

I want to make a librarian character that when anger speaks more with her fist and less with words.

I work at a library so I thought it would be cool to make a character similar to myself.

I immediately support this thread and the anger issues it represents :-D

May I introduce you to the kirin style and it's follow up kirin strike? As a swift action you add double your int to an attack (melee or ranged). Since it only applies once you can build it into single attack builds (spring attack, vital strike, lance charging). So now you have a choice: got normal melee class (fighter/urban barb/ranger/ect) and have int as a tertiary stat (str or dex being primary, con as a secondary) or go as a int based class (magus/alchemist) and building towards melee. I could easily see an alchemist as a librarian. Double bonus on the alchemist: get a conductive amulet of mighty fists and now your punches explode (dealing your int as damage again).

Wait, so people are really arguing that perception of a creature provides flanking? I mean if you think that not knowing a creature is there prevents it from flanking than the opposite (certain that a creature is there even if there isn't one) must provide flanking. In this way lies madness. 1st round of combat: the gnome rogue uses ghost sounds to mimic someone drawing a weapon behind the fighter and says "Ok bob, when he lets his guard down, hamstring him from behind." For the rest of combat (or at least until the fighter wonders why nothing has happened yet) the fighter is flanked. Heck, with a high enough bluff check you could probably convince the fighter even without ghost sounds. I am all for preventing a invisible caster from flanking if you are willing to let a couple skill ranks do the same thing. On a completely unrelated note, I have a rogue that I would love you play in a game you DM.
...what? no reason.

So I have not actually played the AP, and I am hoping the this isn't a spoiler, but I am pretty sure the end goal of king maker is to make a king. Unfortunately, if it follows the kingdom making rules like I think it does, than unlike all the other really cool positions of power which are based off one of 2 abilities scores, the role of king is charisma based only. Unfortunately, the sorcerer who normally would have a Cha score of heck yes chose to play a sage who focuses on wisdom instead, so there is a woefully empty seat on the throne that you might just be able to fill. As such I throw in my vote for skald. The position of king in this game isn't one who makes all the decisions (intelligent and/or wise advisers are great for that), but one who leads the country. Skalds who literally invoke emotions in people seems like a good fit. Hmm, you know who I think of when I think of fantasy kings? Aragorn from lord of the rings. You know what is a fun rage power? lesser spirit totem. I'll let you draw the connection.

I said feral gnasher is an amazing archetype more for the flavor than anything else. On a small sized creature with a str penalty it is less than optimized. The archetype is best for humans/half orcs who take the racial heritage (goblin) feat. With a potion of enlarge person you can bite gargantuan creatures and grapple them with your teeth. It is fun as hell, but that route isn't exactly applicable here.

I second roguerouge. You don't want to triple class. Duel classing isn't ideal but it is hard to give a barbarian shamanistic flavor. It is easier to give the alchemist rage like flavor but I was under the impression you wanted to be actual barbarian because this guy worshiped the old barbarian right? The best route for that would be chirurgeon vivisectionst alchemist and urban barbarian. You get infusions for heal spells without wasting a discovery (thus shamanistic feel) and you trade out the bomb damage which wouldn't do well on a barbarian build for sneak attack. But if you go that route you do not get a mount. The question becomes how badly do you want a mount? Between racial, urban rage, and mutagen you are getting +12 to dex. Start with an 18, grab a +4 item and you have 34dex for a +12 MODIFIER. You are then applying this to initative, AC, attacks, damage, and stealth. If you want a mount that can actually survive you need to give up some of these bonuses. Winged marauder trades out the mutagen for a dire bat (great scout), while burn rider trades out dex rage for some VERY goblin flavored things and a mount. If you are set on having a mount, I think I would talk to your DM about allowing burn rider to stack with urban barbarian (and you only getting one of their fast movement swaps) and taking winged marauder. If he says no, take one of the 2 archetypes and boon companion to somewhat mitigate the levels in the other class.

Ok so looks like you want a couple different things here. Witch for the mud hex, alchemist for shaman feels and barbarian because he idealized the old barbarian (and you want to smash people). So I definitely recommend dex build (stealth is dex based after all). For the alchemist level I would suggest the winged marauder which is a goblin only archetype where you get a flying animal companion. Unfortunately you give up the mutagen which is useful in a dex-centric build, but a flying companion greatly helps with the scouting. For barbarian there is an AMAZING goblin archetype called feral gnasher, but for a dex barbarian you probably want the urban barbarian (can apply rage to str, con, or dex but only 1 at a time). For DPS you want to focus on how to get dex to damage. At 10th level the agile weapon enchantment is going to be your best bet. Weapon-wise you have a good number of options of 2 handed finessable weapons but I think the real stand out one is the elven branched spear which is a reach weapon. A recent FAQ said that dex to damage abilities apply 1.5 on 2 handed weapons.

In 3.5 there was a spell that for the life of me I can not remember now. It was like baleful transposition except cast an illusion that made the 2 people who swapped positions look like each other. so person A swapped placed with person B and looked like person B for a round (and person B looked like person A). Soooooo much fun. But yeah I think my favorite spell in PF is summon monster when you have either the first worlder archetype or the summon evil monsters feat, because you can summon pugwampis. ....PUGWAMPIS!!!!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We are somewhat inoculated to murder because it is a common trope in media/literary works/news/ect. It is far worse than torture or rape (hmmm perhaps less so in a world with concrete proof of an afterlife and where people can be brought back to life for money? That is a fairly interesting tangent, but we are talking about out of character reactions rather than in character reactions), but because we are used to the concept of it, it doesn't shock us like other evil acts do. For instance, which makes you shudder more: "I ripped his head off" or "I ripped his finger nails off". For me, I twitched a little at the idea of getting fingernails ripped off despite the fact that losing my head is far far more serious. Well, I realize that murder being worse is my personal opinion from a extremely privileged area of the world where I don't have to usually fear either of those things. However, logically I think that suffering extreme fear+pain and surviving emotionally and physically scarred is still usually a better alternative than not surviving. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE AWFUL. Rape is seriously hushed up in America, there is not enough immediate counseling for victims, and, worse, victims are often times made to feel like it is their fault. Slut shaming is a serious thing, which is completely illogical since you are effectively blaming the victim for the attacker's inability to control himself. This is a serious problem and society needs to take a better look at the issue, however I am not sure pathfinder is the medium to do such a discussion. If you are playing an evil character who does evil things and everyone at the table knows that these are evil things which they should not do in real life then why is the severity of evilness being called into question? So why then is it ok to play a guy that stabs a man for his mostly empty gold pouch but not one that kicks puppies (or other shock value evil acts).

THAT BEING SAID! Rule 0 is "don't be a dick." If a player like the OP or the female player said "hey, woah this is not ok. I've had real life experiences that this is too close to." the player in question should ret-con the hell out of his actions. Hell, that should always be the case. I know someone whose dad passed away with cancer and it left a huge emotional scar on her. It doesn't matter that sick parent dying is a common trope in media/stories, if that scenario comes up in a situation she is playing in, it should be changed. The point of the any game is to have fun, but a game that comes at the cost of poking someone else's emotional wound is a pretty F-ed up game. I don't think that RP-ing a messed up situation is in and of itself messed up, but turning to your fellow player and saying "I don't care about how this effects you" is a sure sign they are in need of serious counseling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think my new favorite archetype of all time is the bounty hunter slayer. Every sneak attack doesn't do extra damage and instead gives a dirty trick with a bonus based on # of SA dice. Now, you stack the ability to blind, entangle, ect (or more with dirty trick master) with any fear build (enforcer or cornugon smash) and shatter defenses and EVERY attack is a sneak attack (including AOOs). So lets say an enlarged slayer with the long arm spell and a reach weapon is chilling in a square. That is 3 AOOs/dirty tricks on anyone stupid enough to approach (4 if you threaten with a non-reach weapon like bite or gauntlets) so now they are attacking you blind, entangled, sickened, and shaken. But wait, lets up the fear factor! Toss in soulless gaze, thug rogue, or unchained rogue skill unlock (intimidate) and instead of shaken they are now frightened. Which mean they have to immediately turn around and try and flee INSTEAD OF ATTACKING YOU. Oh did I mention that the archetype can dirty trick on ranged sneak attacks too? Oh yes. Greater invis, obscuring mist + goz mask, or even just blinding them with the first dirty trick and suddenly you are free to effectively remove people from combat withing 30 feat. What, too close? Yeah I agree. Grab the sniper goggles and now you can dirty trick as far as the eye can see and composite bow can reach.

I know it has been 5 hours so idk if you are still going to check this thread, but I think the short answer would be no. I would not allow the clockwork template (either of the 2) because it is too specialized compared to the normal celestial/fiendish template. Clockwork (from advanced bestiary rather than tome of horror's clockwork) gives double the DR of celestial, front loaded resistances, gives a huge boost to AC (in the form of NA bonuses, +4 dex, and the dodge feat) and does more damage early on thanks to the +4 strength. It gives up a weak spell resistance and smite damage (which is actually pretty strong at later levels). This means that at low levels clockwork creatures will absolutely destroy comparative celestial creature. Even at high levels the clockworks will be stronger in defense and accuracy (though weaker in damage vs creatures the celestial can smite).

That being said, link him to the resolute template from bestiary 2. It states that a caster using summon monster can summon a lawful version instead of a good version of the creature. It is more easy to fluff a lawful creature as a construct than a good creature (inevitables anyone?). On that note, here is a ring that lets you summon inevitables with summon monster spells:Link. With the resolute template in mind (after all there is already a histroy of substituting templates for summon monster) make a template that does fit along the same lines. DR/adamantine that scales the way celestial does (0/5/10 instead of clockwork's 5/10/15/20). Resist acid, cold, fire, and sonic that scales in exchange for vulnerability to electricity instead of clockwork's straight resist 10 (resistance to 1 extra energy type in exchange for vulnerability is pretty fair). Those 2 are easy swaps, the real question is how to trade out spell resist and smite in a flavorful way. And that is a conversation you can only have with your DM. talk to him and get a dialog going about what HE thinks is a fair exchange for those abilities. If he wants your input perhaps suggest that the construct creature type makes it immune to mind effecting spells thus you are getting immunity to a small set of spells in exchange for spell resistance to all spells. Leave smite as smite chaotic or perhaps add electric damage equal to 1/2 the smite damage it would have gotten?

On a completely unrelated note: if you are going alchemist with a construct flavor perhaps you would be interested in the construct rider alchemist archetype?

I am surprised nobody mentioned VMC:magus. I mean blade adept gets spell strike too, but you are giving up most of your exploits for it. plus this opens up other archetypes like the blood arcanist (innate strength? elemental manipulation?), white mage, or the brow fur transmuter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, are you accepting archetypes? Because let me throw out an idea for the phalanx soldier. Sword and board, but, because you are a dwarf, everything is ridiculously oversized. You can wield a tower shield and a lucerne hammer effectively. Imagine for a second this squat gruff man carrying around a wooden wall while wielding a hammer attached to a pole 3 times his size. Plus if he had wanted to go paladin he probably is the kind of guy who would wand support options like giving people cover. (note, heavy shield is actually better in this build than tower shield, but it is your choice on flavor vs power)

Ok in a 2 person party normally I would say cleric without any hesitation, but you are in a party with a monk. Monks benefit especially well with arcane support (mage armor, enlarge person, shield, haste, ect), so I would actually suggest the white mage arcanist. You can heal but you still have access to all those delicious arcane buffs. Witches would also fill this role quite well (and a white haired witch can be an adequate front liner). If you want a little less support and more filling the role yourself I think I agree with hunter or druid. You can front line, you have an AC to front line, and you can still heal everyone as need be.

The best of both worlds is the lunar mystery oracle (duel cursed or spirit guide). You get heals, you get a tiger, you have great armor with the Prophetic Armor revelation, and you have a high charisma so you can UMD those arcane buffs out of wands. With spirit guide you get a little of the versatility of prepared casters (swapping the spirit gives you access to spells you won't need every day like restoration) where as misfortune from duel cursed is a huge help defensively (1 free save reroll/day for both of you, and 1 free reroll/enemy on crits vs you.) and very much appreciated in a 2 person party where if one of you go down the party is half dead. Additionally natural weapons makes for an adequate melee option with very little investment (power attack) so you can save feats for utility to cover all the other rolls.

Hmm why can't you give those powers to a caster type? and by caster do you mean 9th level spells or does that include 6th level spells? Because inquisitor/ warpriest/ hunter (refluffed) could all fit that concept (in addition to magus which was mentioned earlier). Inquisitor could fit pretty well since the class abilities are focused on killing things (like bane and most judgments) or on protecting yourself (healing or protection judgments) which could easily come from an evil source but be re-purposed for neutral or even good uses. Another potential option is the synthesis summoner. I mean you are literally calling on the power of outsiders to boost your combat abilities. With the unchained summoner's rules on eidolons you actually have a difference between the celestial and fiendish backstorys.

When I was in high school it was hard getting a gaming group because everyone had so much going on, but once I reached college there were a number of groups to choose from and I made some of my best friends that way. So when you say "young" which category are you talking about? If you are still in high school I would honestly suggest sticking to pbp and focusing on school/other stuff until you graduate. Things will get easier once you reach college. If you are having trouble finding a group in college then I honestly don't know what to tell you. Advice would depend on which college, where, ect (all information you shouldn't be giving out online).

Sorry, finally back. Ok so first a word of warning: Clerics can be a really fun and powerful class. They have a lot of options for debuffing or smashing people in combat. Unfortunately you won't see it at the first couple levels. Druids on the other hand have a lot more instant pay off in the form of an animal companion, a couple attack spells like produce flame, and a decent weapon buff in shillelagh. What people have been warning you about though is that clerics are one of the few classes that get all the debuff removal spells. Spells like blindness/deafness or bestow curse PERMANENTLY blind or curse a character who fails his save until removed by a spell. This is especially true for fairly new DMs who say "Oh man, I think it would be really cool for the party to fight some vampires now." not realizing that ability drain is permanent where as ability damage can be healed.

TLDR: if your DM refrains from permanent afflictions (or, since you are in an urban setting, if you can have a NPC cleric cast removal for you) then I think you will have a lot more fun playing as a druid. On the other hand, if the DM throws spells like blindness at you and you have no means of getting rid of it, that character might as well be dead. Talk to your DM about treating all creatures with ability drain as dealing ability damage and either having an NPC in town to remove afflictions, offering quests to remove it, or having the spells last days/level instead of being permanent.

The pros: buff spells like bless will not only give you the +1 to hit like shillelagh, but will also apply it to all your allies. Better single target removal in the form of command, murderous command, and hold person. Heal spells can be swapped in on the fly meaning you can prepare more fun spells and only cast healing when it is needed. Domains can add more versatility. Can remove all afflictions
The cons: No damage spells without specific domains. No boost to combat damage. No animal companion.

The pros: Start with an animal companion (read 2nd fighter). Get sustainable damage spells like produce flame (1 spell means multiple rounds of throwing fire at people so you can last multiple combats). More minor debuffs (like stagger, sicken, fatigue, entangle). Better damage boosting spell (shillelagh).
The cons: little removal. Healing spells have to be prepared in advance (taking away from preparing spells like produce fire).

non-core classes:
Oracles are to clerics what sorcerers are to wizards. Prepared casters (like druids/clerics/wizards) have to know which spells and how many of each spell to cast at the beginning of the day (so say, 1 attack spell, 2 debuffs, 2 buffs for instance) where as spontaneous casters (sorcerers/oracles/bards) have a limited spell selection, but if they know 1 buff, 1 debuff, and 1 attack and find out they need 5 buffs that day, they can cast 5 buffs. This makes them a little more new person friendly (as long as they are careful about spell selection). On the other hand, if one of their allies gets blinded the cleric can go to sleep, rest 8 hours, and have remove blindness in the morning. The oracle is stuck with whichever spells he knows. I tend to lean towards spontaneous casters myself but I recognize that is just a matter of preference.

Witches, kind like bards, are an odd arcane class that gets access to the cure spells. They have a couple aggressive spells like the druids do, a lot of affliction removing spells like clerics, and a ton of utility spells like the wizard. Additionally they can rely on hexes so that they don't run out of spells. Hexes are pretty straight forward to understand (which makes them great for newer players), and it is a prepared caster so you can always sleep on it if you find you need a particular spell.

This was designed as a blend between oracles and witches in terms of class abilities, but I find it more closely follows the druid spell list (with all the remove afflictions spells added). this makes it great because you can get that instant satisfaction of throwing fire while still having back up healing/support. If the DM allows outside core classes, I think this would be your best fit.

I hope all this helps. You also mentioned that you find the cleric class abilities confusing? How so? (I would be more than happy to explain). Feel free to message me if you have more questions and I will try and keep tabs on this thread as well.

I have a lot of information to give you, but unfortunatly I have to head to work at the moment and won't have computer access until late tonight. When I get back though I will try explaining a little bit about prepared/spontaneous casters, domains (for druids or clerics), potential issues and status effects you might run into with a fairly new DM, and how the non-core casters compare to their core counter parts. In the meantime though i'll leave you this link on optomizing clerics. There is a lot to read through, but if you want a quick synopsis i would first go to the "cleric types" page and then skim the domains for blue or green potions and pick ones that look fun. For the druid side I would look at this link. I started you off on chapter 2 because, specially at low levels, being a fighter type druid is a little easier. Feel free to check out chapter 1 as a more caster oriented build as well. Good luck.

Cevah wrote:
Use Headbutt!! wrote:
Edit: damn, Rylar must also support the ninja idea, because he said everything I wanted to say and more

Um... Rylar mentioned a Monk. I mentioned a Monk and a Ninja. :-)


Yeah that was me trying to be witty while saying I got ninja'd since Rylar covered almost all the same points I wanted to.

@Cult of vorg: We honestly don't know how the slayer is trying to do archery. On one hand it can get ranger feats but on the other hand it gets sneak attack. If it is being useless in combat my assumption is that he is probably trying to go sniper route. Ranger archery vs slayer archery with ranger feats I can see being EXTREMELY similar to the point where it steps on toes, but warpriest divine casting archery vs sniper archery are very different concepts. In fact I would say if he really is trying to snipe then ace bolter would be more similar not less. I assume that a lot of players on these forums either try not to step on toes or at minimum discuss it before hand, but I am of the opinion that the DM is taking it too far. A summoning conjuration focus sorcerer could easily be in a party with a controller style wizard since their goals are very different, but from what it sounds like, the DM would say no because they both use arcane. The issue is less avoiding stepping on toes and more how big the DM considers the other player's feet. The OP is not allowed any pets (even non combat oriented ones) because the hunter has one, he is not allowed bows because the slayer uses one, he is not allowed a full arcane class or divine class (which is funny because hunter and shaman have very similar spell lists). So his only potential roles are pretty limited to melee, support, or some strange miscellaneous. Personally I love strange miscellaneous, but it can be hard to build a character around (which is why most people have been suggesting alch).

If you take the Rake arcehtype instead of thug, it actually frees up a weapon enhancement (since you no longer need merciful) as well as a feat (enforcer). My point was that the big draw of thug (frightening on an intimidate) is something unchained rogues already get for free at level 5. If you want to go back to mimicking the added sicken effect, sure the weapon enhancement stays equal but you are still saving on a feat. Additionally rake lets you drop 1d6s from SA for +5 to intimidate/dice, so if you simply drop the 1d6 you would have lost from thug's sicken ability anyway, your intimidate DC is only 5 higher than the thug's. Oh and with the prescribed build this thread was asking for (elven branched spear) you would either be going half elf with racial heritage 1st feat or halfling with exotic weapon prof (elven spear) so either way you are not getting enforcer until 3rd level. Thug gets the combo online 2 levels earlier than the skill unlock which is nice and the DC is going to be 5 easier which are both excellent points in it's favor, but rogues are pretty feat starved. For normal builds, I most certainly think thug is the better option, but if you are focusing on a elven branched spear on an unchained rogue I think thug is a bit redundant.

As for beating up on them after they are frightened, yes and no. For melee, 1 round of frightened is 2 rounds of removal (1 to run away, 1 to run back). You hit them again and the cycle continues (while on your other turns you do the same thing for another melee combatant). This is crazy good. Because most opponents are melee, usually this will be a good option. On the other hand, for archery users, mages, or creatures with supernatural abilities, it is only 1 round of removal though before they are free to full attack/cast spells/ breath fire. Since they sprinted away, they are too far for you to charge (unless you did the slowing debilitating strike) so you can not continuously keep them removed. Maybe your own mage can take them out or you have a bow user to pick them off but otherwise it is not a very efficient combat option for you. Halfling opportunist gives your sneak attack damage to AOOs and bounty hunter can make them blind (setting up SA on the AOOs) with dirty tricks so your free extra 3 attacks can actually do some damage worth mentioning (5rogue, 5 halfling op is an extra 5d6/attack for an average of 52.5 extra damage above and beyond your normal aoo damage). Combine the 2 dips and nobody can get near you (anything without excessive reach is blinded when they try to move in close to you), so you have an enormously powerful offensive and defensive ability.

I am not too familiar with serpent skull, what level do you start at? Because with the guided weapon property you can make a pretty SAD cleric or warpriest and still melee, but IDK if you can afford that at the start.

Another class that I am always suggesting is the bounty hunter slayer. 1d10 hd and full BAB so you can front line, SA so you can pair up with the ninja, dex based, and a ton of debuffs. Also gets track which I assume would be quite useful in a jungle. Maybe dip 1 level in unchained rogue to get more SA and dex to damage?

I think if you are placing stats, rolling, and THEN choosing classes your options are int, wis, cha, or dex.

With int, if you roll decent str you can go mutagen alch, if you roll decent dex you can go throwing alch or finesse magus, and if you have no good stats you can go witch. Any way you play it, taking student of philosophy will make you a good party face.

With wis, you can go the melee cleric/warpriest/inquisitor with a decent str, bow warpriest/inquisitor with a decent dex, or guided hand feat on cleric or guided weapon property on warpriest (or the feat at 7th level but that is pretty late entry)/inquisitor if you have a decent enough con to front line. None of the above? pure caster in shamen or cleric. A spell like bless can do a pretty decent job of buffing all allies and summons. Inquisitor can make for a good party face, and if need be you can do a 1 lvl dip in cleric to qualify for guided hand for either inquisitor or warpriest.

With Cha you can go bard/skald for the buffs and do melee with str or archery with dex. Oracles can also be pretty SAD (specially lunar with Cha to ac) but you need a decent str to give it any offense. Duel cursed giving you misfortune can both aid your allies and debuff your enemies. Lastly synthesis summoner uses the eidolon's stats so you know what you are getting (but a lot of DMs hate it soooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

With dex you can go any sort of melee fighter (with a dip in unchained rogue), swashbuckler, slayer, or any archery build. Plus depending on your secondary high stat, and of the previously mentioned builds can be possible (magus, bard, alch, inquisitor, warpriest).

Hope this helps!

edit: OH completely forgot to mention the urban barbarian under dex builds. Buff that dex to insane levels and get it to damage with a 1 lvl dip in rogue. Thanks to a recent FAQ on the unchained rogue, finessable 2 handed weapons, like the elven branched spear get 1.5 dex to damage.

Why is everyone suggesting thug rogue? Skill unlock (intimidate) at lvl 5 unchained rogue does the same thing (except no sicken, but cruel enhancement can do that for you). This opens up swashbuckler archetype (so you can get skill focus intimidate) or the rake archetype so you don't have to worry about enforcer or non-lethal damage. On that line of thought, spring attack on a fear based build is kinda useless. You want to be near them so when they run away they provoke as many attacks as possible (specially with halfling opportunist). Brawler is nice because you can charge them, punch them unarmed (and enforcer/sap master with scout archtype), and then on their turn they try and run provoking 3 attacks (with long arm. more if enlarged). I could see running bounty hunter slayer after a 5 or more levels of rogue. You already want to boost your CMB for halfling oppertunist, and throwing in dirty tricks on every aoo is pure gold. Make them frightened, entangled, blind, and get 4-5 attacks on them? Sure why not?

Yeah this seems like the DM is less than pleased with you as a min-maxer and is thus trying to shoehorn you into less than ideal roles. I mean you can't go arcane, divine, have a pet, or fight competently at range. What does that really leave you? Support (like bard), melee, or some unusual niche like bomber (alch). If support he probably thinks any min-maxing won't break the game, and if melee he can control you with difficult terrain and other environmental hazards. Basically you have 3 options: go with what Alex said (burn it and don't look back), prepare for mediocrity, or build a weird archetype character that the DM will use as evidence that you are the min-maxer he thinks you are (alchemists are fun, but I suggest master summoner). I honestly don't see a win in this situation.

Seriously though, in a 5 person party there is going to be overlap. Even in a 4 person party you often find similar roles (most clerics melee right along side the fighter, and you and the hunter were both THF). Another thing to ask your DM is if he is ok with you splitting roles with any of the other 3 players. I mean from what you said, the slayer is already frustrated with how combat-useless his character is, so seeing your guy effortlessly do what his character fails time and time again at could be seriously frustrating. If you have a slight overlap with one of the other, more rule oriented characters, surely there wouldn't be as much danger at showing each other up right?

Edit: damn, Rylar must also support the ninja idea, because he said everything I wanted to say and more

The rules for bleed are so convoluted because bleed can refer to a status aliment as well as a damage type. Bleed the status ailment (as seen here), does 1 of three types of damage: bleed damage (HP loss), ability damage, or ability drain. Bleed the damage type is just HP loss. It bypasses DR so the type that caused it (percision/slashing/ect) doesn't matter. As such, bloodletting feat and bleeding attack would not stack because despite the difference in causes, the damage is still of type "bleed".

Edit: as of recently they have started trying to errata out things that deal bleed damage without the bleed status aliment (as seen by the boar style feat). Hopefully this will add clarity to later publications.

_ozy_ the only things you listed that freedom allows and flying under your interpretation doesn't is attacking and moving through solid fog. Grapple states that you can't move, but can take any action that doesn't require 2 hands. This is almost the same wording as being paralyzed so the two should act the same (whichever way you rule). Hold person is just paralysis (odd for a enchantment (compulsion) spell. I guess you are being commanded not to move?), and there is next to no difficult terrain for flying creatures (except solid fog). So yeah, for casters who don't attack and have the stilled spell the only difference is the ability to move through solid fog (oh and the whole being able to fly thing).

Korthis' build has a couple things based on loose interpretation (white haired witch stacking with Prehensile Hair, multiple swift actions per round, and a couple other things) but it both covers everything you need to know about frostbite magus and gives a lot of good suggestions towards the white haired witch. Simplifying things a bit: magus takes magical lineage trait (frostbite) so that rime doesn't increase spell level and takes the feat enforcer. Whenever you attack with a non-lethal weapon (just to be safe. Many DMs will rule that frostbite's nonlethal qualifies, but I don't like leaving it up to chance) you fatigue, entangle, and shaken. Add a cruel weapon and you also sicken.

The bounty hunter slayer archetype lets you do a dirty trick instead of extra damage whenever you can sneak attack at 3rd level. Taking 2 levels of thug rogue (unchained if allowed) lets you also frighten and sicken. Once again take enforcer and you can blind, entangle, frighten, sicken at 5th lvl (TWF to max number of attacks).

Both oracle and sorcerer have some fun tag along effects when they cast spells. 1 duel cursed waves oracle/4 duel blooded sorcerer (cold elemental/void touched) slows, entangles, and silences (and usually fatigues The best part is you can convert snapdragon fireworks to cold and thus shoot off a save vs slow and entangle (with rime spell) every round as a move action while still casting other spells that silence, and require another save vs slow. Thanks to the waves mystery you can fight from a obscuring mist and have total concealment and the misfortune revelation allows a free reroll per day per person (good rerolls for you and allies, bad for enemies)

check out the feral gnasher barbarian. They get throw anything and in addition the ability to pick up objects as a free action. good times, good times.

Alex physical action doesn't have to mean flamboyant action. I'd probably say that flying requires leaning in a direction if you wanted to turn (about as much physical exertion as riding a segway). Nothing crazy like arm flapping or flatulence (like someone exaggeratedly proposed in a previous thread). Speaking of previous threads, I had asked in the other thread on this subject if you felt like a creature under the spell burrow could still move while paralyzed since the wording was the exact same. I think it is easier to imagine someone superman-ing while paralyzed then it is mole person-ing, but all things considered RAW they should work the same way.

Actually now that I think about it, your argument hinges on the fact that the spell telekinetically carrying you and you direct it rather than it modifying your movement type (transmutations has spells of both effects, so it could function either way). Are there any other spells you can think of that allow the recipient control over the spell? Because things like levitation have to be controlled by the caster rather than the target

Ah, sorry about that. missed the first sentence. Yeah I was going to suggest the same thing as kenderkin (though 5th lvl will surfice. 9th level wizard * 5th lvl spell is only 450. Tack on material components and you are out 500gp). Cast it on a burned out ioun stone and you don't even need hands to wield it.

Umm Dretches don't get the see in darkness ability, so I assume you are talking about the lemure (who can't report back due to lack of int score). Still a pretty good option in this instance, specially if you get a scroll of deathward cast on them by the party cleric (dr5 + immune to negative energy str damage should make them all but invulnerable) and weapons against evil will allow them to bypass DR. Getting the cleric a couple scrolls of deathward could also protect your party. As for your spells, I suggest summon pit the moving mass and wail on them with spells at your leisure. As far as offense goes: summon swarm bats should be your go to. Blindsense means auto target, swarm means auto hit, and wounding means that if they fail the save they will be dead by morning (unless they have regeneration which unfortunately melkiador's linked creature does).

Alas, I thought there was a way to gain powerful charge but my search-fu appears weak at the moment. Heck even beast shape doesn't give it to you. If you like the concept though, Hamatula Strike can do it with any piercing weapon (including gore). It can be pretty funny when you are enlarged and hit them at 20ft with a lucerne hammer since grapple states they move adjacent to you. Plus you can wail on them with the reach hammer in the grapple thanks to the feat.

Vanilla fighter is superior especially when flanked by chocolate cookies.

Because we don't know your stats, it is hard to judge if we should build you as a MAD character or as a...well slightly less MAD character. As such I have my advice broken up into 2 columns.

SAD dice (it is a pun!):
So we need to limit the number of ability scores you care about. weapon finesse and agile gets rid of str, but I would actually recommend the guided weapon (or amulet of might fists) which allows you to use wis for attacks and damage. If you are in financial trouble you could also go sensei archetype, but that gives away flurry of blows. Another way to lower MADness is the sohei archtype. You don't have the wis to ac but get to flurry in light armor (and since you are taking an archetype that boost unarmed damage, the archetype might override the class' lack of damage increase).

average dice:
Smite is amazing and the fact that you can smite 2 types of alignments means you want to be smiting whenever possible. "But headbutt, I only have so many ki points!" you say? Wrong. May I introduce the wyrmroot special material? With this material you want crits, but unfortunately most wooden weapons (specially monk weapons) are 20/x2or3. Luckily, paladins give you proficiency in martial weapons, and under the eastern weapons tab there is the sansetsukon which has a 19-20/x2 crit. With improved critical 1/5 of your attacks will regain a ki point. Although this doesn't match the flavor of irori, nothing you get is really dependent on unarmed strikes until 8 levels into the prestige class (total level 12). If you are Maxing wis because you have a guided weapon this isn't as needed.

Another archetype that may interest you (and helps strengthen your weak defense) is the flowing monk. At nearly full BAB you have a pretty nice bonus on trip and a -6 on attacks against you can go a long ways.

While this in no way helps your build:
relevant image

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>