corwyn42's page

All the element type feats are impulses - so everything related to the six elements are out.

The other abilities the Kineticist has that don't require a free hand are:

* Elemental Familiar

If you familiar is strong enough, you can command it to perform some of those things you want done but have no free hands for.

* Voice of Elements

Some communication abilities and Charisma based skill check buffs, but nothing helpful for combat.

* Kinetic Activation

You could prepare a staff and activate it for spells that only use the verbal trait (assuming you are holding that staff).

* Elemental Transformation/Apotheosis

You can be affected by elemental form. This would grant you a movement type that the Kineticist might not normally have (i.e. Fly for Air, Burrow for Earth, Swim for Water) that will allow the both hands full Kineticist an opportunity to flee or improve their position in combat.

* Effortless Impulse

If you have an impulse active and then perform interact actions that result in both hands being full, you can still Sustain the impulse for no actions.

* Nourishing Gate

Not really helpful in combat, but using this feat doesn't appear to require any hands free.

That is everything specific to the Kineticist class that doesn't have the impulse trait.

I think the reason they gave the Stone Shield feat an action is so that you couldn't shape your Earth element into a weapon (if you had the Elemental Weapon feat) *and* a shield (if you took both feats) with a single action - something you could easily do if you chose the single Elemental Earth Gate.

Since the PF1E version of Gather Power was a supernatural ability (which didn't provoke), I think the Gather Element action should remove the Manipulate trait; however, since not all creates have the attack of opportunity capability, that may be the reason why they included it.

The Elemental Weapon Feat would make the gathered element into a weapon (say a longsword) and if you took that feat, then you could make melee attacks with it without provoking. I think this is similar to the PF1E version of Kinetic Blade. The gathering of the element would provoke, but once gathered, you could move into melee range and use a Strike action with an air/earth/fire/water shaped longsword doing the longsword weapon damage of 1d8 but instead of slashing damage the damage type would match your elemental blast damage type (based on Table 1-2). If you had handwraps of mighty fists with a Striking Rune, it would increase the damage dice based on the level of the Rune.

Using a Strike action with an Elemental Weapon wouldn't expend the gathered element, so you could continue to make Strike attacks with it until you decided to use some other Impulse action with the Overflow trait. The Elemental Blast action doesn't have the Overflow trait, so if the enemy moves out of melee range, you could blast it with a ranged Strike and still maintain your Elemental Weapon.

Fighting Golems is one reason to take the Universal Gate - allowing you access to different elements. Based on the Golem's Antimagic line, each Golem can be Harmed by one damage type. For example, Clay/Fossil Golems are harmed by cold or water and slowed by earth. A Flesh Golem is harmed by fire and slowed by cold. The Iron Golem is harmed by acid and slowed by electricity. So only the fire/water elements can potentially damage a Golem using the standard Elemental Blast action unless a water based Elemental Blast that includes the water trait but does bludgeoning damage doesn't qualify as water damage.

Various Impulse abilities can cause cold or electricity damage, but the playtest doesn't show any way to cause acid damage. Perhaps the final sourcebook: Pathfinder Rage of Elements will include some acid damage capabilities using the elements of metal and/or wood.

Someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

I get my second shot on Wednesday. I didn't have any reaction to the first one. Is the second shot more likely to cause an issue?

Walthus shrugs "Tough to say for sure, but I know there is more than one set of tracks. I am not used to tracking skeletons, they aren't your normal marsh creatures. "

I sent the PM to Mott, looking for any advice on what kind of character would help balance the party.

Waiting on Beastbrother

Fine with me

I would be willing to play - even if only for a short time until an existing player returns. I can build the Adrianna character in Hero Lab and create a similar alias.

If sorcerer, then I will play the cleric. If druid, then I will play the rogue (unless the druid is not the group healer).

I am thinking of playing either the classic cleric or rogue - depending on other party member preferences. I really need to know which before I can flush out the details.

If cleric, I am also thinking of playing an aasimar with Sarenrae as my diety using the Archon-Blooded heritage and building a justice flavored type background.

If rogue, I am thinking of playing a tiefling. Have to figure out a complicated backstory to fit with a good alignment.

Any suggestions/ideas/comments are welcome at this point.

Yes, putting everything into the profile was my plan. I just used Pathbuilder to get a starting point.

I like it, I will use it if the GM is ok with it.

First pass at character sheet: (built using Pathbuilder)
Oryn Goldenstalk

Character Background in progress. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Background so far:
1. Raised on farm growing grains (wheat, corn, etc). Flat/open landscape.
2. Character obsessed with tornadoes (think the movie Twister, but Oryn has a fascination with the power of the wind) - kineticist awakening moment based on attempting to see what the inside of a tornado looks like.

Need to determine where on Golarion farm would be located - weather patterns similar to central US.
Need to determine a deity associated with weather/storms.

2d6 + 6 ⇒ (4, 5) + 6 = 15
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 4) + 6 = 16
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 3) + 6 = 15
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 1) + 6 = 8
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 2) + 6 = 9
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 2) + 6 = 14

2d6 + 6 ⇒ (2, 6) + 6 = 14
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 6) + 6 = 17
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 6) + 6 = 18
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (2, 5) + 6 = 13
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 5) + 6 = 17
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 3) + 6 = 15

I am interested in playing an air kineticist

Action economy, action economy, and um, action economy. IMO, it the best feature of the new system. It really improved game flow.

Ditto, ditto, ditto

Pathbuilder2e for the android is good. It doesn't have support for deities so domain spells and related things have to be done manually. It only has the CRB included. Not sure if there are plans for the app to get updated.

It is free, so if you have an android device it is worth downloading.

corwyn42 wrote:

CRB Pg 444 wrote:

Ambiguous Rules. Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.

Since it is clear that the words "all enemies in the area" and "Each creature in the area" are ambiguous, would changing the text "Each creature in the area" to "Foes in the area" be considered too good to be true?

IMO, no. "all enemies in the area" in no way conflicts with "Each creature in the area" as enemies are a subset of creatures. Add to that creatures is in the line that has actual mechanics in it [the line telling you who saves] and it seems clear to me the line that would be removed in this case is the line referring to "all enemies".

AS to the last line of Ambiguous Rules, I don't think either options is too good/bad to make a choice obvious to me. As such, go with the part that's clearly mechanics.

It is not a question of conflict. It is a question of more than one interpretation . I would also like to know where in the CRB it states where to start the mechanics of a rule. Why is the second sentence more important than the first sentence? IMO who the spell affects is part of the spell mechanics. The first sentence implies only enemies excluding allies and the caster, the second implies all creatures including allies and the caster. This is the very definition of ambiguous.

Ambiguous Rules. Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.

Since it is clear that the words "all enemies in the area" and "Each creature in the area" are ambiguous, would changing the text "Each creature in the area" to "Foes in the area" be considered too good to be true?

Can you use the Magic Weapon innate arcane spell from the Energize Weapon Universal feat on your Kinetic Blast? or is it limited to standard physical weapons? What is the action economy for using the Blade Rush Universal feat? How high is the cover created using the Kinetic Cover feat?

Yeah like this:
Cross Skill Feats
Trailseeker Articles
Free Articles <= Had to fix this one :)

I would keep it as a 2 action spell. Start with two rays at 2nd level - each at 2d6. Any number of targets - all of which have to be within 30' range. Keep the spell attack roll/ray (all at current MAP). Change spell to Heightened +1 to add an additional ray. Power level consistent with Fireball - difference being persistent damage and targets+roll vs area+Reflex save. Range is much shorter than Fireball. Much more effective in close quarters with multiple enemies mixed with allies.

I appreciate everyone's advice thus far, and must admit, I am quite surprised at the negative reactions. If nothing else, it does show me that there is something fundamentally wrong with my initial setup and that adjustments will need to be made (and many of you have been clear as to what you think that is).

Well, I for one would love to hear about the actual outcome of your GM play with this scenario. Perhaps you can start a new thread and let us all know how it actually was received by your group (with any/all changes you may have made). If it is anything close to your character generations, I imagine it would be quite the interesting read.

Thanks for all your posts.

If you are OK with using Fantasy Grounds as the Virtual Table Top and Discord/Teamspeak as the Audio portion of game play, you can find games where you hire someone to GM. Rates vary. You need a PC and a headset w/ a microphone.

Go to Fantasy Grounds - Looking for a Group

I'd combine something like this with the houserule someone previously mentioned of not letting Shields be permanently destroyed, only rendered useless until repaired.

I also like this, we no longer have to worry about what happens to the Rune situation. I never liked the "You can't repair a destroyed shield" rule anyway.

This brings up an interesting point. What happens to the Property Rune if the shield it is attached to is destroyed? This situation could occur with the Armor Potency Rune applied to armor that is destroyed (albeit a much less likely chance). Does the CRB say what happens to Runes etched onto items that are destroyed? My guess is that they are destroyed with the item, but I can't find anything that states that.

I would also think that you would need to invest in a shield with the Sturdy Property rune - just like a suit of armor requires.

corwyn42 wrote:

E.g. A Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy Shield

That's a tough one as it's adding 2 specific items together then you'd have the possibility too of a Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy High-Grade Adamantine Shield... Things are getting more complicated.

For myself, I think sturdy should be a Property rune for shields that simply adds hardness and hp instead of it being it's own specific shield. Slapping a Lesser Sturdy rune on a shield for +5 hardness and +60 hp would solve a LOT of the issues people have with shields.

I agree allowing both precious materials and superior design and excellent craftmanship would be troublesome.

I like the Sturdy Property runes route. Here is my assessment on progression:

Type Lesser: +3 Hardness, +50 HP; Level 5; Price 160 gp
Type Greater: +8 Hardness, +100 HP; Level 11; Price 1,060 gp
Type Major: +13 Hardness, +150 HP; Level 18; Price 20,560 gp

The level and cost are consistent with the Armor Potency Runes. The increases are based on the increases over a base steel shield from the Sturdy Shield stats - attempting to keep a linear curve. Not sure if you want to increase the BT as well. You could add +25, +50 and +75 respectively.

So for Draco18s, here is the Forge Warden Shield stats when applied with a Greater Sturdy Property Rune:

Hardness 14, BT 62, HP 124

I think that shield would survive a few Shield Blocks at Level 11.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

I’m all ears to hear how this doesn’t answer how it works plain as day unless you want to nit-pick on the details of the elusive Steel and Wood materials.

I explain but I suspect you'd just ignore the question asked multiple times by more than one person: how do you take into affect the different hardness and hp totals of specific shields different from the base materials hardness and hp involved when you change the base materials. Continually pointing to the replaced materials IS ignoring the question, not answering it: pointing out a Standard-Grade Cold Iron Shield's hardness is totally useless in figuring out a Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden...

And again, we don't know is specific shields CAN use other materials. The examples are ALL of normal items, not pre-made specific items. NO examples explain how to substitute the based but enhanced base material for the unenhanced precious material so we don't know if this is an oversight or because it can't be done.

Steel Shield 5 hardness, 20 hp
Forge Warden 6 hardness, 24 hp
Both are steel... so SOMETHING changed the numbers: if it's the enchantments on the shield would it alter the precious material stats? We don't know so I can't understand your saying it's all solved.

graystone is 100% correct (yet again - I am beginning to think he would be an excellent Paizo product Editor)

However, since this thread has been moved to the home-brewed subforum, I think we can discuss how we can address the creation of specific shields using precious materials.

Our choices are: 1) Replacement, 2) Addition, 3) Percentage.

1) Replacement. This choice is consistent with Pumpkinhead11's posts. The Hardness, BT and HP values of the precious material replaces the Hardness, BT and HP values of the specific shield.

2) Addition. This choice requires a comparison between the base statistics of the shield specified against the values specified for the specific shield and adding the difference to the values of the precious materials.

Addition examples:
The Arrow-Catching Shield is a Wooden Shield. The base statistics of a Wooden Shield are: Hardness 3, BT 6 HP 12. The statistics of an Arrow-Catching Shield is Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24. The additions the Arrow-Catching specific shield to the Hardness, BT and HP are respectively: +3, +6, +12.
So, if we wanted to make an Arrow-Catching Shield out of the standard-grade darkwood precious material, we would take the base statistics of the precious material: 5, 10, 20 and add +3, +6, +12 respectively and the resulting Arrow-Catching standard-grade darkwood shield would be: Hardness 8, BT 16, HP 32.

If we wanted to make a Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield the math would be as follows:
Forge Warden is a steel shield: Hardness 5, BT 10, HP 20.
Forge Warden stats: Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24
Additions: +1, +2, +4
Standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 10, BT 20, HP 40
Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 11, BT 22, HP 44

3) Percentage. This choice also requires a comparison between the base statistics of the shield specified against the values specified for the specific shield but instead of adding the difference, it applies a percentage increase.

Percentage examples:
The Arrow-Catching Shield is a Wooden Shield. The base statistics of a Wooden Shield are: Hardness 3, BT 6 HP 12. The statistics of an Arrow-Catching Shield is Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24. The percentage increase the Arrow-Catching specific shield applies to the Hardness, BT and HP are respectively: +100%, +100%, +100%.
So, if we wanted to make an Arrow-Catching Shield out of the standard-grade darkwood precious material, we would take the base statistics of the precious material: 5, 10, 20 and add +100%, +100%, +100% respectively and the resulting Arrow-Catching standard-grade darkwood shield would be: Hardness 10, BT 20, HP 40.

If we wanted to make a Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield the math would be as follows:
Forge Warden is a steel shield: Hardness 5, BT 10, HP 20.
Forge Warden stats: Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24
Additions: +20%, +20%, +20%
Standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 10, BT 20, HP 40
Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 12, BT 24, HP 48

Should we limit the precious material to the specific shield's item level? E.g. Forge Warden is a Level 10 Item. Should we allow it to be constructed of a level 16 high-grade adamantine material? If so, should we change the Item Level to match the higher level of the material to 16?

Should we also allow for superior design and excellent craftmanship shield versions that use the Sturdy Shield statistics instead of the precious material statistics? E.g. A Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy Shield.

Any Questions/comments?

On Page 450 of the CRB:
"In the midst of combat, you attempt checks to determine if you can damage your foe with weapons, spells, or alchemical concoctions. On a successful check, you hit and deal damage."

"Damage is sometimes given as a fixed amount, but more often than not you’ll make a damage roll to determine how much damage you deal."

"If you’re casting a 3rd-level fireball spell, you’ll roll 6d6."

I would like to see advanced versions of the Spined Shield. This shield gives the character a great deal of flexibility. It can be used like a bow with limited ammunition or a better than sturdy shield for blocking high damage attacks (by breaking off multiple spikes from a single attack).

The regeneration of broken spikes is very appealing as it doesn't require the character to have any crafting skill to restore the spikes.

Imagine if there were higher level versions. They could:

1. Add more spikes
2. Increase the hp of each spike
3. Increase the spikes to +2 greater or +3 major striking shield spikes
4. Increase the hardness, BT and HP in a manner similar to sturdy shields

I think players would enjoy the advanced versions of Spined Shield. I hope we can see them in future books.

Correct. Knowing the damage before deciding to block will help with newer players, but hopefully they should figure this out once they start leveling up and finding out how fragile their shields are at higher levels. They won't need to be a math genius - they will find this out after their shield breaks or is destroyed and now they have an action available every round since they can no longer raise it. They will know their AC no longer includes the +2 bonus and they are more vulnerable to damage.

Some players will always want to know so they can mitigate how many times they need to repair their shields and to keep them from being destroyed. Other players will figure out that healing a player can be done in combat a lot easier than repairing a shield.

Either way players will adapt their play style to match the GM's choice to let the players know the damage amount before hand or to withhold that knowledge.

It is clear to me that the longer someone plays, the better their understanding of mechanics involved. We all have to make decisions every day without having all the relevant details. Players should be able to play and have fun whether the GM allows them to know the damage or not.

ok, that is a lot of text to apply sickened 1 on neutral creatures only on a critical failure. Poor spell design if you ask me. Much simpler to just say only creatures with a directly opposed alignment are affected. Sickened 1 is not going to matter in 99+% of encounters.

Your interpretation may be correct, but then the Divine Decree doesn't make any sense - since it specifically says:

"Those that neither match nor oppose it treat the result of
their saving throw as one degree better and don’t suffer
effects other than damage."

If neutral+not opposed creatures don't suffer any damage *and* don't suffer effects, then there is no reason to include any text about the neutral + non opposed creatures.

I stand by what I said - my interpretation will have the neutral + non opposed creatures take damage - but with a better chance of avoiding it.

The only difference I can see is that if a NG, N, or NE character critically failed against a Divine Decree using Law as the Alignment chosen, they would not suffer the enfeebled 2 for 1 minute effect. However, if the same character critically failed against a Divine Wrath using Law, they would be sickened 1.

I don't think the wording is wrong, I think it is specifically worded the way it is so that it overrides the general rule specified on Pg 452. This way the spells can damage those who are true neutral or are neutral and not directly opposed. However, since they are not directly opposed to the Alignment typed damage, they receive the benefit of one degree better result from their Fortitude saving throw.

In your example, you chose Law; so LG, LN, LE characters would be unaffected. NG, N, NE characters receive the one degree better result. CG, CN, CE characters receive normal saving throw results/damage.

I think this is an example where the "Specific Overrides General" Game Conventions mentioned on Pg 444 applies.

I think we can all agree that blocking with a shield is best done at low levels where the Hardness value is close enough to the average strike damage to be effectively used. A steel shield at 2gp with a 5 hardness will be very effective against a level -1 to level 3 moderate monster's average strike damage.

From Table 2-10: Strike Damage from the Monster Creation document, the average damage for a level -1 to level 3 moderate monster is: 3,4,5,8.

So for attacks from these monsters, it is not that important to know the damage beforehand, you will most likely want to use the Shield Block reaction (if not saving it for a strike of some kind). Even if destroyed, replacing a 1-2 gp item is not that difficult.

For martial characters that receive shield block as part of their class, there is no reason not to use shields to block against monsters at levels -1 to 3 unless you want to use both hands for a weapon.

Classes with Shield Block: Champion, Cleric (WarPriest), Druid (but with a more limited hardness of 3 from a wooden shield) and Fighter.

For classes that do not receive shield block, unless you are a human with a Versatile Heritage you cannot get the General shield block feat until you are level 3. Making it a harder choice for a feat that will most likely have diminishing returns starting at your next level.

The average moderate monster strike damage from levels 4 to 7 is 12, 13, 15, 17.

Getting the 5 damage reduction from a normal steel shield block helps, but the risk to your shield (especially from a critically successful strike) goes up significantly. The normal steel shield probably breaks after a couple of blocks. For these levels, if you do not want your shield destroyed, knowing the damage before deciding to block is important.

If you have invested a significant amount of gold in a specific shield, it is even more important - especially since most specific shields do not provide a level appropriate increase in hardness and HP (yes, sturdy shields are best mostly due to the increase in HP).

After level 7, normal shields risk being destroyed by a single block. Even level appropriate sturdy shields will only survive a few blocks before becoming broken.

A level 10 moderate monster's average strike damage is 22 against a level 10 sturdy shield's hardness of 13 results in 9 damage to the shield with each block. The sturdy shield breaks on average with the 6th block. So the 1000 gp item saves you from 6*13=78 points of damage before requiring repair and needs to block against a hit with over 54+13(67) points of damage to go from just above broken to destroyed - which will most likely only occur from a critically successful strike.

From what I can see, using specific shields to block damage from level appropriate monsters has a high risk of being destroyed unless it is a sturdy shield. The sturdy shield's risk comes mostly from critically successful strikes.

It seems to me that you really don't need to know the damage from incoming strikes unless you are using specific shields or you don't want the shield to be broken. For normal/non-sturdy shields it matters most from levels 4 to 7. For sturdy shields you only need to know if the strike was critical. Since the item level for most non-sturdy specific shields is more than 7, their value in blocking incoming damage from level appropriate monsters is minimal and risks being destroyed even by a single block.

Since the designers did not provide sufficient spells, runes or other items to significantly improve a shield's hardness, broken threshold or HP values, it appears they are only really useful at low levels. Unless you are a champion with shield ally, anything other than a sturdy shield should not be used for a Shield Block reaction after level 7 unless you accept the fact that doing so will most likely result in your shield being destroyed (Indestructible Shield being the lone exception).

Instead of having the assassins kill the girl with crossbows, instead have one of them be a "healer" who attempts to help out Jhonas. During this medical attention, the "healer" offers a "healing"/"poison" potion to the girl or perhaps some other more subtle way of bringing about her demise.

Give the party a chance to perceive this deception and potentially intervene. You could make the Perception and/or Sense Motive DCs high enough to reasonably fail but with some chance for them to figure out what is really going on. Have a cleric (or other character with healing capabilities) get a bonus to their roll to detect the deception - perhaps even forcing their own healing attempts. If the party detects the ruse and stops the "healer", you could have the assassins kill the "healer" and allow them to keep up their ruse for a later attempt (see below).

As far the posts question, my immediate reaction would depend largely on the kind of character I am playing. A CN barbarian with a similar bent party probably wouldn't care (unless there is some financial motivation with saving the girl), a LG paladin would likely attempt to bring down the assassins and try to convince the party to do the same (if they detected the deception in the first place).

If the party actually does save the girl, have the adventure/campaign attempt for her demise in some other way (perhaps something the party may also have a difficult time disrupting). You could keep up these attempts until successful and each time find some way to frame the party for her demise. Then you can proceed to the remainder to the adventure - which I assume is about proving their innocence.

There is a talisman that you can attach to a shield: Mending Lattice.

I would suggest that if you are playing where you do not know the amount of damage that a shield will take as a result of using the Shield Block reaction, then you add another Trigger to this item:

Activate <Free> command; Trigger The affixed item would be destroyed; Requirements You are a master in Crafting

If the high value shield is going to be destroyed, this talisman will save the shield from destruction, negating all the damage and completely repair any previous damage. The shield will be vulnerable until a new Mending Lattice talisman can be attached.

You could carry multiple Mending Lattice talismans (if you can find them or make them - they are an Uncommon item) and use the 10 minute time normally used to Treat Wounds to perform the Affix A Talisman exploration activity.

You should be able to apply this talisman to the Forge Warden shield.

Would you be allowed to activate both the 2d6 fire damage to the attacking creature trigger and potentially activate the Mending Lattice destroyed trigger as well (since both a Free Actions)?

Set 1:
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 6) + 6 = 17
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 5) + 6 = 12
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 4) + 6 = 15
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 6) + 6 = 18
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (4, 6) + 6 = 16
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (2, 6) + 6 = 14

Set 2:
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 5) + 6 = 12
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 3) + 6 = 15
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (4, 3) + 6 = 13
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 6) + 6 = 13
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 5) + 6 = 16
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (2, 3) + 6 = 11

I like the first set, interested in playing a Half-Orc Barbarian

I have never done any play by post. I am currently GMing the Wrath of the Righteous AP in a group on Fantasy Grounds, so I have read all the books and am familiar with the story line.

I have read some of the posts on the thread Hyram included and it sounds like the group is really into the game. Our Fantasy Grounds group is about 20% into Book 4 (The Midnight Isles) - just a little ahead of the thread's activity.

If I had some help with details on how to be a good play by post GM, I would consider it.

Only a few creatures were not included in the 3.0 OGL. Umber hulk, mind flayer, beholder, and displacer beast, right off the top of my head.

So Paizo can use drow, ankhegs, and just about anything else.
I think what the issue is, is they are wanting to pull away from the shadow of depending on the 3rd edition OGL.
PF2 is already two steps away. 3.5 to PF1 to PF2.
With them saying ankhev and naming the demons other names (in addition to their old names), I'm thinking that in 10 years in PF3 they'll do away with the old names altogether and truly be their own rules set.

What about the Gith creatures:

"The githyanki are a fictional humanoid race in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game. They are cousins to the githzerai. In the Dark Sun setting, they are simply called gith."

I have never seen them mentioned in any Paizo product. Am I correct in assuming they are in the above list?

Why not make it a White Dragon family? - with two adult dragons and some young white dragons. Have the mother guarding the young ones and the father out killing for food - returning after a period of time - giving the party some time between encounters.

The amount of time can be used to adjust the difficulty. Less time => more likely the party will face both adult dragons (and is one long encounter) - more time gives the party a chance to heal up/prepare for the second encounter. You can also adjust the number of young dragons - not too challenging alone, but can become difficult if there are as many young dragons as party members. Or you can give the father an Elite Adjustment.

Or you could have a single adult white dragon dimension door around the dungeon (or whatever setting you use) forcing the party to chase it into other areas of danger with other challenging encounters - tiring the party out if they wish to press the attack. So that when it finally becomes the "boss" encounter they have used up their magic/healing and need to be careful/strategic.

I like how you think Malk - but you posted it first.

Ah, Dangerous Sorcery - ok I see it now - thanks.

I am curious what do most people think of when they think of playing a gish?

Just a martial character with some kind of magical support originating from the character vs getting the support from another player? It sounds like what it means to play a gish varies a great deal depending on who you ask.

I am also curious about that Druid build - sounds interesting.

I'm sorry, I was not aware that you couldn't use spells - as the OP included using blast spells:

Second round use a blast spell and cast hunted shot.

If we aren't going to use blast spells (or their equivalent), only spells to buff the martial aspect, then I am not sure how to improve on MongrelHorde's build. However, if that is the case, then I agree that the Fighter build using the Wizard Archetype is a better build.

On a side note, I am trying to figure out how you arrived at 240 damage in 3 rounds w/ a specialized Magic Missile Wizard.

I got 220.5 damage from Magic Missile Wizard in 4 rounds (what am I missing? Maybe I did the math wrong)

Magic Missile (7th) 3 action casting = 12 missiles; 12 * 3.5 = 42
Two Wands of Manifold Missiles (5th Level Spell)
Magic Missile (5th) 1 action casting = 3 missiles; 3 * 3.5 = 10.5

MMX(Y) notation = Magic Missile spell X = level, Y = #actions

Round 1: Use Wand1=MM5(1), Use Wand2=MM5(2) = 31.5
Round 2: MM7(3) + 2 MM5(1) from Wands = 42 + 21 = 63 Total = 94.5
Round 3: MM7(3) + 2 MM5(1) from Wands = 42 + 21 = 63 Total = 157.5
Round 4: MM7(3) + 2 MM5(1) from Wands = 42 + 21 = 63 Total = 220.5

It looks like there needs to be some kind of way to augment the MM spell to either release more missiles or cause each missile to do more damage - but I am at a loss as to what that is. SuperBidi can you help clarify how you got there?

I would also like to see how you achieved 396.5 damage from the evil Cleric - all maxed out Harm spells? Some other kinds of spells?

Using the higher level spell slots gets the job done faster:

Level 13 Wizard with Figher Dedication.
Takes Power Attack, Has a +2 Greater Striking Greatpick. Takes Bespel Weapon.

Wizard uses Evocation School with Spell Blending Arcane Thesis.
Two 5th level spell slots used for a single 7th level spell slot.
With Arcane Bond, wizard can cast 4 7th level spells. All spells will be Chain Lightning.

Round 1: Chain Lightning (7th) + Bespell Weapon + Greatpick Strike
Round 2: Chain Lightning (7th) + Bespell Weapon + Greatpick Strike
Round 3: Chain Lightning (7th) + Bespell Weapon + Greatpick Strike
Round 4: Chain Lightning (7th) + Bespell Weapon + Greatpick Strike
Round 5+: Use MongrelHorde's True Strike + Bespell Weapon + Power Attack

Chain Lightning (7th) = 9d12 Avg Full Dam = 58.5
Using Spell DC of 31 (4 (int) + 4 (expert) + 13 (level) + 10)
Purple Worm saves on 10-19 (50%)
Purple Worm critically saves on a 20 (5%)
Purple Worm critically fails on a 1 (5%)
50% half damage + 40% full damage + 5% double damage = 14.625 + 23.4 + 5.85 = 43.875

To Hit Bonus:
Level: 13
Proficeincy (expert): 4
Ability (Str): 4
Item: 2
Total: 23

Damage
Normal Hit:
3D10 (Greatpick)
D6 from Bespell Weapon
Weapon Specialization: 2
Str: 4
Total Average: 26

Crit:
3D10 turns into 6D12 plus 1 from Fatal, total 7D12
2D6 from Bespell Weapon
Spec: 4
Str: 8
Total: 64.5

Chance for Normal Hit: 50% * 26 = 13
Chance for Crit Hit: 10% * 64.5 = 6.45
Avg Damage from Strike = 19.45

Damage Round 1: 43.875 + 19.45 = 63.325
Damage Round 2: 43.875 + 19.45 = 63.325 Total = 126.65
Damage Round 3: 43.875 + 19.45 = 63.325 Total = 189.975
Damage Round 4: 43.875 + 19.45 = 63.325 Total = 253.3
Damage Round 5: 41.3

Damage after 5 rounds = 294.6

corwyn42 wrote:

I like the "always in range" argument, so the comparison is only about damage and not wasting actions on closing the distance for melee focused gish characters.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how many rounds to go. Perhaps we should compare how many rounds does it take your character to kill the Purple Worm.

Is the Worm doing anything in this scenario? Just using True Strike + Bespell + Ki Strike and a Monk/Wiz kills it on the third turn.

Could make that faster too depending on weapon runes, spell storing specifically could make a difference, and if the target is flat footed.

The Worm is doing nothing - just there for its AC, HP, saves, etc - so all builds are trying to kill the same thing. We are not going to consider any outside influences - if you want the Worm flat-footed, you have to make it so.

Purple Worm stats:
AC 32, HP 270, Saves Fort +28, Ref +21, Will +21
These should be the only things that matter to your gish build.

We can use the Azure and Crimson Worms as more challenging targets.

I like the "always in range" argument, so the comparison is only about damage and not wasting actions on closing the distance for melee focused gish characters.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how many rounds to go. Perhaps we should compare how many rounds does it take your character to kill the Purple Worm.

Perhaps a better use of this thread is to create actual full caster gish builds to level 13. Have it go 3 rounds against a standard/common Creature 13 entry from the Bestiary. Specify what actions your character would do for those 3 rounds and do the math so we have something concrete to compare.

So, requirements:

1. Character must start with a caster class:
- Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer or Wizard
2. Character must Archetype into at least one martial type:
- Alchemist, Barbarian, Champion, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue

3. You choose Ancestry, Background, Ability Scores, Skills, Feats advancing the character to level 13.

4. Select 2 items from the 13th Level Permanent Items (or lower) on the Treasure Table and 2 items from the 13th Level Consumables (or lower) and are able to spend up to 5000 gp for any kind of items/crafting/rune application, etc to outfit your character.

5. Specify the actions for 3 rounds of combat against a Purple Worm which starts 120 feet away and will not use the burrow speed during any of those rounds (so that it can always be targeted). The Purple Worm only moves 40 feet closer each round (no other actions). The gish goes first.

6. Calculate the damage done for those 3 rounds
(Avg damage for damage rolls * % chance to hit or failed save, etc)

7. We are able to compare/comment about the strengths/weaknesses of each build.

Sound reasonable?

dirtypool wrote:

Someone put her behind the locked door. She is being held captive behind it.

She is locked in, and the building is burning. That is all I stated. No enemy in sight or immediate reach.

Either the guy who did it is long gone (would not make sense for him to immolate himself, would it?) or she may even have locked the door herself, dropped a candle while playing with her puppets, panicked and forgot where she put the key.

And the mighty Barbarian who's inner rage lets him even fight dragons can not just freak out and bash down the door in time, because - you know - rules.

If I were to GM this situation I would probably consider this example an acceptable exception to the rule, no more no less.

There is nothing stopping the Barbarian from potentially bashing down the door in time. What is being argued is: "Can the Barbarian benefit from Raging while doing the bashing?" So it really comes down to how liberal you interpret the term "enemy"? (since the CRB has no formal definition to guide us)

Enemy definition:
"a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent."

Based on the definition the enemy is another person - however, in our fantasy setting, "another" can mean monster (i.e. Bestiary entry) - which extends to a great deal more than "people" - including Animated Objects. Is it too much of a stretch to include non-Animated Objects (Walls, Doors, Statues, Furniture, etc. - things with a Hardness value and/or can take Item Damage)? It seems reasonable that the Barbarian feels hatred for the door that is keeping him from rescuing his sister.

If you can convince the GM that the locked door is your enemy by role play, I think the GM should allow you to rage against it and receive all the benefits therein.

If allowed, would you only need to break the door (i.e. sufficient Item Damage to exceed its Broken Threshold) or would you need to reduce its Hit Points to 0 before you would no longer consider it your enemy? Another area for role play - it is broken enough for me to get through - so is it no longer my enemy? vs. even though it is broken now and I can get through and rescue my sister, I am still Raging so I will keep bashing away at this door until it is nothing more than a pile of fire kindling (and hopefully another party member rescues my sister instead of Raging me).

I would say that if you are going to use the Rage Barbarian class action and you are trying to use it for something other than going into combat and killing all enemies you know about, you are trying to do something that was not intended by the game designers.

Personally, using rage for anything other than combat seems like you are meta-gaming. Barbarians rage to kill enemies. All benefits from raging should be applied to further that end.

If you tried to use Rage to gain its benefits to climb a wall or run away or anything that is not combat related, then I would wonder - what kind of barbarian are you?