baahk36's page

Gozreh has pretty much all my favorite domains. None are necessarily the absolute best but all can be used effectively if you get creative. I also like that they give you options for warpriest or cloistered builds.

Travel-lends itself to either build and lets you get where you need to be when you need to be there. The advanced domain lets you circumvent challenges that might otherwise require a spell slot to get around.

Air-The basic power is just ok but the fact that it has a range of 500 feet certainly makes it interesting. The advanced domain though is great. It makes those times you have to move into a questionable location a lot less risky. Again great for cloistered or warpriest.

Nature-probably better for the warpriest as their more likely to be in a position for the basic domain power to matter. The advanced power is nice just to get your party up and running faster.

Water-at first glance seems lackluster, and is definitely more useful for cloistered clerics. But the basic power is great to use on your allies who can choose to critically fail allowing you to move them in or out of combat as the situation may demand. The advanced power is situational, but as many times as enemies like to throw fire at parties makes it a fun trick to have in your back pocket. Not to mention the number of times I've played adventures where something was hurting down, especially now that create water isn't a cantrip anymore.

Side tangent. You can make a totally viable necromancer in PFS1 without ever creating any undead spawn of your own. I've played one up to level 13 now and he's never once created any undead. Taken control of existing undead with spells/class abilities yes, but that was it. He is mostly about understanding the interplay of the forces of life and death and manipulating them. So he's focused on the debuff spells in the necromancy school mostly and has been highly effective. So there are ways to play a necromancer that doesn't hinge on undead.

But in regards to the current topic, an undead minion that functions in a similar vein to the druid's animal companion would be very fun and thematic. I doubt we'd see it as a wizard thing though. I think that sounds more like whatever version of the spiritualist we see in second edition.

Realistically I don't think we'll see a way to play undead controlling specialists as a workable build for PFS2. Might just have to hang on to the concept for an AP/home game that can be more accommodating to such things. But who knows what future books will hold.

Goblin scoundrel rogue. They specialize in "monster" law filing counter suits for wrongful injury on the behalf of the families of all the monstrous humanoid races that thoughtless adventurers killed without proof or due process. Not above using his rogue skills to plant a little evidence to win his cases.

Make him a razortooth goblin for that winning smile.

I make them all the time. I'm pretty sure if someone looked at most of my PF1 characters they'd think I was a totally new player. But I've only ever had one character die out of the two dozen plus I've played in either APs or PFS. And I think most people would say they didn't regret having those characters at the table with them.

It is entirely possible to make a non-"optimal" character that is fun to play but who can still meaningfully contribute at the table.

That being said, when you create a character in a system like pathfinder, you should be aware that the math of the system plays a big part in how your character performs. When you are building a character I feel it behooves a player to acknowledge the role the math will affect things at the table. Role playing games contain within them a social contract, sometimes spoken sometimes not, that when we sit at the table we're all there to work together to have a good time playing the game we love.

If a player shows up with a character they built for fun but that is mechanically unsound no matter how fun the character is when the rubber meets the road it can cause problems not only with the player's enjoyment but with the enjoyment of the other players at the table. For example if someone brings an elf sorcerer to the table who put all their stat increases into STR and WIS because they want their character to be strong and insightful but they have done nothing to address the fact that they have 8 CON and terrible AC that character is going to become a liability at some point and the other characters then have to pick up the slack which isn't a fun position to be in.

I don't feel anyone should feel compelled to subscribe to the "one true build" mentality. The difference between a 16 and 18 in a stat to allow for different choices at character creation is not going to spell the ruination of all things for a character.

As long as a player recognizes the consequences of their choices then play whatever ancestry/background/class combo you want. But I feel like it's the responsibility of every player to develop a good grasp of system mechanics so the choices they make are informed choices. It's when we let the mechanics drive every choice we make that it becomes a problem.

So all the math coversations are good in my opinion. Just don't feel bound by them.

I think the question to ask is what stats are taking your boosts away from STR and DEX? I've mocked up a few monks so far and almost all of them have had a 16 in one and an 18 in the other (ancestry flaws aside. Sorry halfling monk) If your concept is pulling those boosts into other stats, so be it. But it might be worth looking at if you could get away with a 12 in that extra stay instead of a 14 or whatever the case may be.

I'm all for playing the character you want to play. Some characters just fit into different campaigns better than others. I'm far less likely to play my fireball flinging sorcerer in a campaign that I know is going to be dealing a lot with the plane of fire. A lower DEX monk with a higher charisma or wisdom might struggle in a super deadly gritty survival game but might be just the thing in a game involving more intrigue or social encounters where the other aspects of the monk package can really shine.

Knowing the game your going to be playing in can make a big difference in how much you enjoy a character.

I'm having a hard time myself finding reasons not to play a gnome for any class. I love their ancestry feats which can give pretty much any class the little push it needs to make it awesome or special. And their ability score boosts fall out well for most classes.

As a player who actively avoids playing humans I have so many. I'm a human in real life, why would I want to be one in my fantasy game? I get their mechanics are strong but I'll take being a halfling over a human any day.

Anyway, my first character is an elf bard-maestro muse-whose muse is the sea. He's spent so long staring into its fathomless depths and seen so many fellow sailors lost to its pull he's become a bit obsessed with it. He sings lamenting dirges and is very morose.

STR 10
DEX 16
CON 10
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 18

Spell selection is mostly anything I can flavor to be sea themed. For example, grim tendrils I describe as being long strands of seaweed with bits of jagged coral tied into them.

I'm expecting hexes to be a strong mechanic like it is in first edition. At least as one option. I'm envisioning hexes working like bard compositions but focused on debuffs rather than buffs.

At the core I expect they will all be prepared occult casters then a choice of focus beyond that.

-hex focus
-patron focus with powers much like cleric domains
-familiar focus build

That would give three distinct flavors of witch that would build upon frameworks they have already established.

I enjoy the fact that I can go into each class and find something I want to make a character around. Back in first edition I wouldn't have touched half the classes in the core rulebook with a ten foot pole. Now I have more ideas than I do opportunities to play them.

Goblin sorcerer works well. Draconic bloodline-red or gold-can get burn it as your first ancestry feat and charhide heritage for a very thematic start.

Undead sounds super flavorful. I know I'd be creeped out by a half undead goblin.

As has been mentioned before, faerie dust isn't just benefiting you. It helps with any other will saves or perception checks forced on the monster(s) by the rest of your party.

Heck if you can get it off right before a fight starts you've sunk their initiative roll in most cases.

But the thing I actually think is best about the spell is that it takes away reactions. This is huge since reactions are more than just attacks of opportunity now. They include things now like counterspelling, stopping movement, and reducing damage. All these things can make or break a fight and for one action not only are you potentially setting up your next spell to succeed but denying the enemy of whatever defensive technique it might have been counting on to live to its next turn.

On top of all that the spell is very thematic in capturing the elusive nature of the get so +1 for flavor.

Dwarven angelic sorcerer. Spirit link, angelic halo, shield other. Take toughness and mountain stoutness. Basically become an HP battery for the front liner. Pair with a shield focused champion for even more damage mitigation and laugh as monsters try to eat through the resulting mess.

I agree that the 3+modifier needs to be put back. Taking it away makes the class too MAD, forcing you to either build a fighting cleric or healer cleric. As it stands, you either need to forsake channeling in order to have decent combat stats or boost charisma so you can have channels. Before at least you could have some channels to help the party.

Saying that this is because of the treat wounds mechanic doesn't hold up. Personally I hate the treat wounds mechanic. It feels way too gimmicky to me and I think is even sillier than wands of CLW were in 1st edition. That aside, the place I want my channels isn't outside of combat. It's during the fight. The divine spell list isn't robust enough to make the class meaningful enough without channels. If clerics without high charisma are then having to then dedicate some of those spell slots to heal spells to make up for the lack of channels then clerics are in a very bad place.

#2 would be my choice. But only in the context of limited fixed duration. I'm not a fan of the variable duration concept as I can envision scenarios where rage ending too soon meaning the death of the barbarian or in a worst case scenario the whole party. The biggest potential victim of this being the dragon totem barbarian who is using his totem wings to fight a flying enemy and then suddenly poof wings gone enjoy your falling damage. With fixed limited bursts yes you lose the "uncontrolled" aspect of the rage but I always felt that embodied fine in the penalty to AC. With the fixed but limited duration we had before this update at least you could plan your turns reasonably. But when your core mechanic is at the whim of the dice that much it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Failing that, I'd go for option 1 as my second choice.

I loved the barbarian as it was released in the book. Both my wife and I enjoyed playing them at different points during the playtest and I looked forward to playing one either in a campaign or in society. But if rage comes down to a variable like the 1.6 update I won't touch them with a ten foot pole.

Works for me. My free boost was going to go into wisdom anyway so all told it comes out the same. But I like the change. It makes them more distinct from gnomes and gives the two races potentially different niches to fill.

Halfling fey sorcerer here I come.

In the preview before the playtest was released, it was said that halflings would have boosts to Dex, Cha, and a free boost. In the playtest doc though they are listed as getting boosts to Dex and Wis and a free boost.

Does anyone know if this was a misprint or a deliberate change?

I'm personally a fan of the halfling ninja. I play one in our Hell's Rebels campaign. I made him to be a sneaky infiltrator. I went all in on stealth and sniping so mine is more made for killing things from a distance but with some different feat/trick choices you can just as easily make a melee assassin. The stats looks like this:

7
20
12
10
10
14

For melee feats you can go weapon finesse, two weapon fighting and things of that nature. Then pick up the vanishing trick and shadow clone trick for some cool flavor. The build works just as well for anything with racial bonuses to DEX and CHA, so catfolk, ifrit, and vishkanya if you want a slightly different flavor to the character. They'll obviously end up with slightly different stats after racial adjustments. But it's a good framework to go off of.

If you want to make a sneaky spellcasters I'd go with a halfling sorcerer with the shadow bloodline, or umbral wild blooded if you like the 1st level power there better. You can get a really high stealth score with him. Take the swift as shadows alternate racial trait. All told you end up being really sneaky. Once you pick up the silent spell feat your enemies won't be able to hear you cast, and unless they make their perception checks they'll never get a chance to see your somatic components.

I'd personally go with an oracle. You can get the healing spells by default but you can really tailor your spell choices to be whatever you want to be. Depending on your mystery and spell choices you could be a front line fighter, a blaster, a controller, a buffer. Really whatever you want. I'd talk with the guy playing the wizard and see what role he is planning on filling and then you can build to compliment.

Druid can also be a good choice. Again they are a flexible class with the added benefit of being able to change your spells every day.

Just wanted to do a quick double check before I make this character. The first level bloodline power gives you good alignment on your melee attacks. This is an always active power correct and not an only while raging correct?

I can understand the question. Where I play I've got people that want to play their character no matter how "bad" it is and I've got people that want to min/max their way to victory and scoff as their level 2 character defeats the final boss before anyone else in the party even has a chance to act. The two groups often come into conflict. Either because the ones playing their pet character die because the min/maxxers don't care about CR and get into situations the less optimized characters can't handle or because the min/maxxers don't enjoy having to carry the pet character players. Sometimes the tables work out that the two groups don't play together and everyone is happy. What it really highlights is the weakness in the PFS system. But it's a problem with no easy solution.

My thought is that outside of PFS where you can't totally control who you play with, it's important to talk with the the other players about what they want to get out of the game. Finding a common ground from which to come at character creation can go a long way toward smoothing out this issue.

At the end of the day you're playing this game to have fun. What that fun means is going to vary from person to person. One of the best things you can do is to be upfront about what that fun means to you. Most groups and DMs I've played with over the years have been willing to work with me to let me have the fun I'm seeking. And a really good player will try to do the same for others. Let the guy that wants to be the crazy DPS guy have his moment and then hopefully he'll extend the same courtesy to you to let you have your role playing scene where not a single dice gets rolled but a good story gets told. In my experience cooperation between players is far more important than cooperation between characters to the success of this game.

I'd probably go with a blight druid. Spells like feast of ashes and cup of dust. Have him be focused on the entropic aspects of nature; death, decay, and disease etc. Gives you a strong flavor to roleplay and mechanically you can have a good debuff build.