Spell Pen says: "You get a +2 bonus on caster level checks (1d20 + caster level) made to overcome a creature’s spell resistance." It says you get +2 on CL checks to overcome SR, period, with no specification on the type of ability that calls the SR check into question. Spell Like Abilities are subject to SR. Therefore, Spell Pen works with SLAs.
I've tried all sorts of stat generation methods and in the end I came to the conclusion that ability scores are sorta like sex: They really aren't that big of a deal unless you don't get enough. So... new game I just told people to fill in whatever the hell they wanted, up to 16 pre-racial, but that we were going on the honor system of "how do you envision your character?". Everyone who was playing a MAD class got what they needed, and my SAD friends got to decide if they really needed their other stats to be all that high. As a DM it really doesn't make much difference to me either way, but everyone else got to be happy. Only a few sessions in, but not really seeing an issue so far.
Summoners use charisma for spells and may end up with higher charisma. So between them and the eidolon they could be better at fighting and being the party face. Better yet be a Master Summoner. Spend your Eidolon's few Evolution points on Skilled for various social skills. You are the support caster, Eidolon is the face, summons are the fighters/healers/other support casters/everything else.
Ok, I will bite. How are Fighters, a class that encourages mediocre charisma, intelligence, and wisdom, has 2 skills points per level, and lacks basic social skills as class skills suited in any way to be a ruler?
I think in some ways we are going to be talking in circles. If there was not a caster disparity, then a martial and caster of the same level should be the same level of threat. But you are acknowledging that they aren't because clearly the caster is the more dangerous foe. I think that comes back to essentially saying, "yeah, casters are busted but you can mitigate if you specifically plan around them." It is like you are saying that no problem ever existed because you took steps to fix it, but if there was never a problem then why did you have to take those steps.
Of course mention them do another edition where they fix those supposed problems and everyone loses their mind. Because spells are fun and interesting. Would rather see other classes elevated with fun and interesting abilities than chopping down the casters. 4E had its own quirks but did what it set out to do well, i.e. be a pen and paper MMO, but in 5E everything is just so bland and tedious.
Ah, the old "I'm hiding in your closet Fallacy".
Fears effects irritate me. Getting grappled by a giant monster, turned to stone because of magickz most foul, or being cast into a plane eternal torment? Ok that's cool, I'm being acted on by the world. Getting charmed or dominated? Okay cool, if I get to roleplay it out still: Who doesn't love the opportunity to have a good reason to fight the party? But fear? It strips you of all character agency and is embarrassing. As a DM I introduced a houserule that you can keep full control of your character while Frightened, but take a -4 to everything. Panicked is -8. If you choose to give into the fear as RAW, you don't take those negatives. It keeps the Fear effects relevant without the session turning into a farce everytime one is introduced, though I usually have mooks/animals/etc usually take the run option.
A geisha would have to be quite a level to effectively use tea ceremony AND normal bardic performances on a few people. It's like the entire feat build would be Extra Performance.
Geisha is iffy. There are a lot of unanswered rules questions (so expect table variance) concerning the archetype, but how about this as a thought experiment: How would you rate the Geisha assuming optimal rulings? Optimal rulings would include: 1. Tea Ceremony can affect targets at any range.
To be honest, even with all that, I'd still say Geisha is middle of the road, though good in certain niche circumstances. It would still be very limited per day to the round expenditure costs. The optional double stacking of performances would be cool, I am not convinced of how practical it would be. That said, I'd like to have a Geisha as a NPC buddy that I had a telepathic connection to though.
I was looking on d20pfsrd and just found the Brazen Deceiver archetype and I was about to make a post about it, but then found this. Let's continue the discussion. Here is my take on it: Brazen Deceiver is perfection. It is a straight upgrade to Bard. It is... the chosen one. In combination with Pageant of the Peacock anyway (which I consider to be to Bard as Power Attack is to any melee fighter). Okay so... 1. You lose some worthless abilities no one cares about to get less penalties for obscene lies. Though this varies by DM, as no one plays Bluff as written really, but actually having a class feature that says "no, it really is that much more believable coming from me" tends to give you a lot more leeway with a lot of DMs. Regardless, you lose two waste of written space abilities to get it, so either you gain a great boon or it is a wash. 2. Lose Well Versed (i.e. an ability I don't even write down on my character sheet when I make a Bard) for a feat that gives you stealth casting and performances. Yes! 3. Shameless Scoundrel - +1/2 level to stealth, disguise, and bluff instead of Bardic Knowledge. Downgrade or sidegrade depending on what you want to do with your build? No. This is beyond upgrade. Pageant of the Peacock, yo. 4. Invoke the Blood... these spells are added to spells KNOWN, not as spells that you may select from, as per many other archetypes. Now, the spells aren't great, but they do bring a ton of versatility. But is loses Versatile Performance you say... I agree that looks bad, but you need to see the whole picture. 5. Devil's Tongue. Remember Pageant of the Peacock? Bluff IS all intelligence skills AND checks now. Gaining Lore Master to Bluff only is again a straight upgrade. With Pageant of the Peacock taken into account, this archetype essentially gives you +1/2 level to all intelligence skills and checks, bluff, stealth, disguise; the ability to take 10 (or 20 sometimes per day) on bluff and all intelligence skills/checks; a bunch of automatically known spells (some of dubious use, but the shadowy spells do have a lot of potential versatility). You do lose some skill power with the loss of Versatile Performance, but in comparison to the gains is it worth getting upset about? Overall, the only issue with Brazen Deceiver is that you can't take it with Dirge Bard, Diva, or one of the other cool niche archetypes (i.e. opportunity cost), but if you want to be a "standard" bard, i.e. a know it all skill monkey social skill master with performance and support spells, well, Brazen Deceiver is straight profit.
For investigations I tend to play fast and loose. Know what happened, why, and maybe some important details, but don't be all set in your ways for small stuff or even sometimes for middle-ing stuff. If the players ask to make rolls that make sense, let them do it, assign a reasonable sounding DC, and invent some minor details on the spot. Don't be afraid to let the PCs fill in the gaps for you. For instance if they become convinced that John the Baker had to have been involved and what they are saying makes enough sense to make you wish you had gone that route even though you didn't, don't be afraid to make John part of the conspiracy. It lets the players feel like geniuses and makes it look like whatever awesome thing happened was "just as planned." It also removes the problem of "well s#!+, the PCs didn't make that DC 20 check an hour ago so now what?" That said, if the players/characters are being idiots and are way off track, don't be afraid to slap them down in game, for them to fail, or for partial clues to literally fall into their lap from more competent NPCs. Also remember Chandler's Law: "When in doubt [i.e. you wrote yourself into a corner], have a man come through a door with a gun [or sword] in his hand."
Note that you lose 4 until your next turn if an enemy ever comes within 4 of your AC. So essentially the bonus from Crane Wing can only ever help you against 1 attack per round.
The listed combination provides only DR 20/-, not 26. Neither Dragon Totem nor any of the powers that bear it as a prerequisite give DR. I meant the Dragon Totem line. The second one gives +2 DR for each Dragon Totem feat you have as well. With the three feats you get +6 DR, a limited Flight per day, and an good energy resit. It's not too bad.
Because getting feedback is the point of an open playtest?
Eh, you really can't fault ranged characters for all being the same build. There are really no interesting or unique options in that style and even if there were it is too feat intensive for them to be usable until high level.
I played mine as a Ur Priest, and I think the mechanics fit the theme well. I have no idea if that is fitting for your home game though.
I really love the Book(s) of the Damned for Demons and Daemons. I'm sure I've read through the one for Devils at some point but as I can't recall anything from it then it clearly didn't make much of an impression.
A couple questions first. What are your feats and how much control do you have in changing this list as it currently exists, like is it set mostly in stone or can you make larger changes if desired? A few thoughts in no particular order: 1st: I would suggest more immediate action spells here: Liberating Command (pretty much auto save an ally from a grapple) and Windy Escape (negate a critical hit/sneak attack on yourself) are great as they remain useful forever, especially at high levels. Heightened Awareness is also a great spell; 10/min level, dismiss it to get +4 initiative. I would drop Vanish (obsolete, you have Invisibility) and Mage Armor (get a wand or a magic haramaki - the haramaki is better in the long run as you can get armor properties on it like Spell Storing). 2nd: Investigative Mind is very solid; lets you roll twice for knowledge checks and lasts practically forever. Frigid Touch is also nice as though you don't want to be in melee, if you have to be then auto-staggering an enemy with no save can be a life saver as it stops you from eating a full attack; also having this in a Spell Storing armor can save your life for the same reasons. I would suggest dropping Communal Mount (irrelevant at your level) and Minor Image (illusions are iffy, but if they work for you keep it) or Stone Call (at your level most things are probably flying anyway, including your party). 3rd: Contingent Action can be amazing depending on your party; cast it on the fighter so he can move as soon as he sees an enemy and then full attack on his first turn for instance. Battering Blast is a very good blast spell as it does all force damage and hits touch and isn't reflex for half though it does have a reflex save for a rider effect; if you plan on taking Dazing Spell then Battering Blast is a very good delivery system as you can force a single target to make multiple saves against it in the same round while still doing good damage. I would suggest dropping Aqueous Orb (requires to saves for a real effect, moves along the ground so easy to avoid) and Phantom Steed (you have other methods of travel). 4th: Emergency Force Sphere is the best defensive spell in the game as it immediate action stops pretty much everything; I would get it ASAP because at high levels you can be playing rocket tag and you do not want to get tagged first. Greater Invisibility is also great, though it loses some usefulness at your level until you can pick up Mind Blank at level 16; still good to have just in case though. I would drop Confusion (a lot of things are immune) and Summon Monster 4 (lower level summons really do not scale well against level appropriate targets); Ball Lightning is a bit iffy too, but amazing as a Dazing Spell carrier. 5th: Looks good to me. I'd personally go Wall of Force over Stone, but that is really a matter of preference and both are solid. Icy Prison is a nice spell to consider though. 6th: Looks good too. Chains of Light and Contingency are also good choices though.
It is a 1st level spell, but Ill Omen is great, especially if you have a PC that likes to throw down save or suck spells. Gotta love spells with great effects and no saves. As Arbane already said, Vomit Swarm is another fun one. Beyond those I can't think of anything else that would meet your needs that is specific to the Witch or at least not on the Wizard/Cleric list.
Here's mine; it was based on a plot item I recently handed out to my low level PCs. A little too much "spell in a can" and I thought the price was way too high for what it did, but according to the cost guidelines it should have been even higher so I wasn't sure how to go for it. Candle of Otherworldly Fire
The candle provides constant light as per the spell faerie fire in a 30 foot emanation. All magical darkness effects of 7th level or lower that come within the candle’s light range are temporarily suppressed. The candle’s flame emits no heat and as such the candle never burns out or is consumed, though it can be extinguished or relit as a standard action. Any creature, including one not in the light itself, viewing the area illuminated by the candle sees the area and all creatures and objects within as if the viewer was under the effects of arcane sight and detect secret doors. In addition, the viewer may make a will save against any illusion effect that can be disbelieved within the candle’s light range as if he had carefully studied or interacted with the illusion. Some who bear a candle of otherworldly fire do not truly understand the implications of such powers until it is far too late: The candle’s light also acts as a beacon for strange extraplanar creatures who are attracted to it like moths to a flame. Every time the candle is lit and for every hour it burns, there is a 5% chance of 1d4+1 hounds of tindalos appearing and attacking the wielder of the candle and all within its light. Even stranger and more powerful creatures may be drawn to the fire if it persists for long periods of time or is relit too often.
I've seen it around here, but it is pretty rare. And is often derailed by suggestions to do something else entirely because it'll be more powerful. A lot of topics like that tend to confuse class names with character concepts, i.e. the person who wants his character to be roguish charlatan thinking that means they must take the class Rogue. Telling someone that they can do better to mechanically fulfill their concept by dropping their preconceived notions about class choice is hardly derailing the conversation and telling them to do anything else entirely.
Literally anyone in the world can come up with a story for a character that interests and excites them. Not everyone has the understanding of a particular RPG system to the extent that can turn that concept into a mechanically strong build. Maybe that's why very few people feel the need to bring up their backstory; it is already decided so it is irrelevant to the build conversation unless you really have no idea about how to express it mechanically. Most people have some idea about that though.
1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference) I 100% disagree. If you go with low point buy all you are doing is slamming the door on weaker classes and encouraging PCs to play SAD classes, i.e. the strongest classes in the game already.
My farewell to this thread is simple: more filigree next year. Blood filigree.
You don't have to tell DCs, but at times it can be pretty obvious when the DM has arbitrarily decided that you aren't going to succeed. I may have rolled a 2 on the die but I still have a grand total of 35; if that's not enough to do whatever clearly simple and/or moderately difficult task I'm trying to do then I will call you on it. As far as withholding enemy AC, I find that slows the game down without really improving anything. Players will have it ballparked after a couple attack rolls, and in the meantime them throwing numbers at me to confirm or deny just means it takes them longer to finish their turn. At high levels in particular I consider concealed AC to be especially wasteful; just tell me the AC in advance so I can get these 5 attacks, all of which have differing modifiers for attack and damage, calculated before my turn so you don't have to waste a few minutes watching me desperately math it out while our limited game time ticks away.
It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action. I'm pretty sure no one, especially me, said that players should only be able to do actions specifically listed in the rules. Rather I'm saying that it is nice that the DM does not have to make up rules on the fly for most situations because there are already rules. That adds consistency, lets players know where they stand, and can allow the DM to focus on other matters. As I said in the rest of post you quoted, that can lead to issues but then again so can anything, including DM fiat, taken to extremes.
FATAL has 977 pages. 977 pages of sheer "holy **** I can't believe someone actually wrote this."
I increasingly detest characterizing any refereed RPG as "Mother may I". It's just more of one group of players talking down to another or players of one game talking down to players of another.. This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't.While I agree with most of the post this is wrong. As the GM can give you a circumstance bonus for doing so. Circumstance bonuses still are sort of based on "Mother May I". I can see your point about the term seeming condescending (it doesn't quite strike me that way, but I can see why it would for others), but I do find it apt in many ways. It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action. In some ways I like "DM may I" as if you have a DM that is willing to work with you then the sky is the limit as long as you can justify your actions; that is true of any tabletop RPG really, but is often less emphasized in rules heavy systems. On the other hand, that lack of consistency can be a major annoyance in a game like Pathfinder. Finding out that the DM changed something seemingly innocuous could lead to your solid character build ceasing to function or it being unexpectedly dominant; in a mechanics heavy game, a single not fully thought out rules change really can be the proverbial butterfly that started the typhoon on the other side of the world. Rules heavy games tend to lead to more consistent rulings, but systems like that also have their own problems like needing an ability to do literally anything. With everything spelled out players may not bother trying to get "creative" in their play as they know that as per the rules it means nothing; DM's can still apply bonuses and penalties based on circumstance and such or come up with rules on the fly, but in a rules heavy game the players gunning for those is an afterthought instead of a primary goal. Concerning rules heavy systems defining the minutiae of what characters can and cannot do,Helpless Prisoner is pretty much the ultimate example of that downside; as per the rules, sweet talking your captor into loosening your bonds is now a distinct mechanic tied to a specific feat. Since there is a feat for it, arguably no one without the feat can now do said action. That of course is a rather extreme example of the principle at work as many reasonable DMs would still allow you to do that with diplomacy or bluff without needing that feat, but it does set a bad precedent and not all feats-that-shouldn't-be-feats are quite as obvious.
So you haven't actually seen the players in action yet you are afraid that you will end up DMing a game of Diablo 2... just because of the bolded? As others have said, "Well Built PC" and "Good Roleplayer" are not separate ends of a continuum, but instead two completely different scales. I think you should try playing with the people before you get unduly concerned. It is possible you will have poor roleplayers (or poor players in general), but trying to correlate optimized characters with either of those categories is of rather dubious usefulness. Back to the bolded portion there, I also think your criteria (number of used sources) to define "minmaxed" is off. As someone who uses online resources only and has zero interest in having a psychical copy of most rule books, I find the idea of counting source books to be a bit quaint. Perhaps at one time you could use that as a correlating factor for a player's level of interest in optimization, but now? Sites like Archive of Nethys and d20pfsrd as well as a variety of smartphone apps offer ALL Paizo rules material in a homogeneous and well organized manner; if you use one of those free and convenient sites, it's easier to view all Paizo options than it is to try to view "Core Rulebook only."
Clearly some other voters and I disagree on what makes good items, I thought some of these items should have been culled in cull 1 or 2, not still here after 4 culls.The wonders of public voting. You get a variety of opinions, many of which are WRONG! Fixed it for you :O
2) some of you people must be unemployed given the sheer volume of pots going on throughout each and every day. i am jealous. Says the Marathon Voter :O!
Unless an item says different activating is a standard action.
They cant hold a holy avenger, or stand up to a testimony from a god through a commune spell. They cant detect as good without the aid of magic. Put em under observation for a week, then detect good on them while wearing a simple cloth robe you give them. MFW the succubus Greater Teleports away with the Paladin's Holy weapon, laughing and wincing simultaneously. That said, even if the Succubus was good, it would be debatable about whether or not a Holy weapon would be something she could wield due to her still having the evil subtype. It is rather iffy about how Detect Insert Alignment would work against creatures that are technically Good but radiate Chaotic Evil just for existing; seemingly they would have equal strength Evil and Good auras though. Detect Good and Commune are good methods, but are also methods Paladins have no access to on their own. You also have issues with stopping the at-will Greater Teleport as it's probably not viable to have castings of it up at all times and Succubi have 10% chance of slipping Dimensional Shackles on any given Escape Artist check. I see your point though; if you were determined enough and had enough resources you could use the game mechanics to come up with a fool-proof test for "redeemed" evil outsiders to go through.
Its not about whether or not the creature is doing evil right this second, its about if its going to be doing it. Give an evil demon the chance to stand down and submit to tests to prove its innocence and even the most tricky of demons is going to refuse, because its impossible for them to pass all of them. A redeemed demon however is going to accept because the tests are going to show that it is redeemed. Doubtful. Paladin's aren't known for their awesome Sense Motive abilities and evil outsiders tend to have rather good bluff. Evil beats out Good when it comes to pretending to have switched sides. Evil outsiders are pretty much unfettered in regards to what actions they can take; demons can do "good acts" all day to build trust that they ultimately plan on betraying. Good creatures on the other hand have moral qualms and can only really eat so many kittens before they really begin to wonder if they are still a member of Team Good.
Hes completely in the right to offer even the most evil being a chance to surrender and prove its innocence. That kind of action is even required in the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds. The issue here is that according to the setting being a demon, the literal incarnation of evil and chaos, is not just something that happens to someone through no fault of their own. They aren't chaotic and evil because they are demons, they are demons because they are chaotic and evil. There is no doubt of their guilt; their chaotic evil outsider form is ultimate proof of guilt as their guilt is a prerequisite for becoming a demon. Really the best evil outsiders can offer is "Well, yeah I gleefully committed dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of horrifying, depraved capital crimes, but I'm not doing one right now." It's like letting a known serial killer go on the grounds that he hasn't yet killed anyone in the current town so why are you hassling him.
Good use of an unlimited resource there. Especially since you're rolling with 2-3 skill points per level. Mine are in Kn. Religion and Diplomacy, not Kn. Planes. A valid point in regards to unknown opponents, but we are talking about Evil Outsiders. I'd probably be more inclined to try to get into a better position with my move action than to confirm the demon standing in front of me was evil, especially if there has been no implication that finding a non-evil one was even possible.
A 5ft step defeats your readied action in most cases, leaving the enemy to do whatever they were going to do anyway. I'd say putting a solid hit onto the enemy that you have the possibility of one shotting anyway does a better job of securing their safety. I don't think Paladins should be in the habit of starting fights unless someone is in clear and present danger. Too much of this kill 'em all and let Ragathiel sort 'em out attitude among Paladins IMO. Again valid point, but from presented information this would seem to be a "clear and present danger." Innocent people are in harms way and you are facing an enemy that can mindf*#! you (via both magical and mundane methods) if you even give it a moment to "explain itself." As the succubus was actually raising people, there may have even been corpses laying around her to even further seemingly implicate her.
Serious question: As a Paladin do you really routinely use your first round of combat to confirm creatures that are obviously Evil Outsiders are in fact evil? People I can see checking up on, but Evil Outsiders have the evil part right in the name. Anyway, based on the scenario we have a "vile fiend" of the type that is known for being weak in direct combat surrounded by helpless villagers. Getting up close and personal immediately is a smart play: Potential victims are protected, caster-type enemy is threatened, and now you are set to full attack next round. Due to double smite damage on the first attack due to the enemy being an Evil Outsider, you may even be able to one shot it off the charge if you crit.
Man, the hypothetical GM is SUCH a douchebag for including a hypothetical redeemed Demon that a hypothetical Paladin SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT OUT to screw with (meaning he had plenty of time to do some research before he got there). Reading the original post, it sounds like a different demon was busy rampaging around and that's who the PC pally was after. The odd ball redeemed succubus pally was also seeking out that demon and was only in the area because of it. Note that as it would appear that PC and succubus are from different areas, the idea that it was even possible for an "evil outsider" may have never even come up; never heard of it after all and even if you did, succubi are notorious liars and manipulators. So PC walks into the aftermath of a previously done demon attack to investigate and finds a succubus surrounded by people who love her (i.e. demon worshipers or charmed as per their MO)... Literally found a demon surrounded by "victims" at the site of the demonic crime. What conclusion should be drawn based on that? Really it would have been meta-gaming to NOT smite on sight, and I don't quite believe anyone who says they would have cast Detect Evil first (again barring meta-gaming). PC did what was reasonable with the information presented. He only falls if not being omniscient is against his code.
Worst camping item, ever. As opposed to the best camping item: A 1/day mage's magnificent mansion effect that is filled with infinite hookers, and blackjack, and blow, and maybe just forget the whole adventuring thing because we have this item.
An item that benefits one character but screws over the party. That shouldn't cause any trouble at the table should it? That one was actually one of my guilty pleasures.
I found a filigree! Why do we hate filigree, again? Dude, have you ever even committed murder with a filigreed blade? If you don't clean it immediately the blood gets dried in there and can be a b+*@~ to get out. So inconvenient.
YES! Finally an item that lets me reenact the Jennifer Lopez episode of South Park!
Your back story should not take up 1/3 of your text. It should not exist at all, ideally. But how else can I tell you about how everyone (especially all the ladies) loves my pet character because he is so kewl and totally awesome?
The zz's weren't meant to be part of the template
Not sure if joke item, but shine on your glorious shiny dental item.
Pricing can definitely be problematic, especially as the pricing guidelines really are guidelines outside of Big 6 items as everything else tends to be quite niche. Should you go with the suggested price, even though it seems much too steep meaning that no PC would ever own it unless it was DM dropped, or should you try to ballpark it down to something you think is reasonable but at the risk of invalidating similar items and/or creating something too powerful for the price? I really have no answer here, but from several entries I've seen I wish they had gone the more conservative route; at the very least make sure your "+4 magic weapon with other awesome stuff" isn't less expensive than a base +4 weapon. |
