Isai Odighuzua

mcv's page

328 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Don't take Precise Shot for a switch-hitter. When there's melee, you're in it. Focus your archery on long range stuff. Strength is more important than Dex (though that's definitely second), and but that high strength composite bow as soon as possible. (Until then, spears and slings are great options. And besides, any character should have a sling because it costs nothing.)

I love switch-hitters because of their realism. The switch-hitter is the Aragorn of rangers: great in melee, but also good with a bow. Very versatile, and can use any weapon. The right favoured enemy (or become a Guide) will close the melee gap with the pure fighter.

I took a level of Barbarian for the bonus move (the rage is nice too, though I only use it to finish the combat) and because it emphasizes the wild background of my Wildborn half-elf.

Also, while two-handed weapons are mechanically best (because you'll never have time to don a shield), a one-handed weapon has the advantage that you don't have to drop your bow. But with high strength, you can afford to carry some spare weapons. I sometimes leave a trail of weapons across the battlefield because I keep switching between ranged and melee.

All in all, it's a very fun class to play. And on top of that, you still get a ton of skills for outside combat, and eventually even some spells. But it'd be fun even without those.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love Bards for their versatility and flexibility. Note that a Bard doesn't have to be a musician. In a Kingmaker campaign, I'm playing a politician who uses Perform: Oratory to give speeches and inspire courage. A Bard can also be a kind of wizard or sorcerer with more focus on knowledge and buffing (in fact, people have argued that Gandalf fits the Bard class better than the Wizard class). Or you can be a kind of rogue. Or you can take any of the crazy archetypes to turn it into something completely different.

Back in the 3.5 days, I liked rogues because I felt you could turn them into anything. They were never very good at it, though. Pathfinder Bards are similar, except they really are good.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

Sort of tangential, but I have to wonder why "I read books a lot so I have super powers" and "My great grandmother dated a dragon so I have super powers" and "I'm really religious so I have super powers" and "I'm a hippie so I have super powers" are all things we readily accept and nod along with but "I've trained my body beyond the point of human perfection, so I have super powers" is in turn so readily balked at as absurd. Except when a monk or barbarian does it I guess.

To me at least none of them seem particularly more absurd than the others.

I totally agree. High level fighters should be just as much world-shattering heroes as high-level spellcasters are.

It's worth looking at legends of ancient Celtic heroes. One could play a game of Hurley (hockey with less rules) against 150 opponents and win. Another could throw a spear at an opponent, jump on the spear, ride it towards the target, and then jump off the spear and behead the target just before the spear hit. Realistic? Of course not! They're high-level epic heroes.

But even if you do want realism, there's a really easy solution to that: magic is unrealistic, so it shouldn't work on high-level fighters. They can shrug off any spell, and maybe magic even stops working near them if they want it to. That would seriously tip the balance to the other side, and I'm only arguing for it in order to shove the realism argument down the throats of the spellcasters.

A more interesting mechanism to make fighters more awesome can be found in DCC, and was also tried in a playtest version of D&D Next (but didn't quite make it into the final version, unfortunately):

Fighters (and rogues, I think) would get special dice (expertise or superiority dice, I think they were called) that they can use for all sorts of things, like increasing the damage they deal, decreasing the damage they receive, but also all sorts of other things. The dice would start small (1d4, probably), but increase in size and number as you level up, so you could end up with 3d8 or more at some point. And as you level up, you get access to more ways to use these dice, giving fighters their own sort of quadratic growth. You get these dice every round, and if you get multiple, you could use one die for to-hit, and another to reduce damage, for example.

I forgot the list of all the things you could use them for, but I think they included extra damage (only 1 die), sneak attack (multiple dice), bonus to hit, parry (reduce damage, great for wading through hordes of mooks), and a lot more. I'd certainly be for adding dice to saving throws too. High level fighters need to be tenacious and unstoppable, so the ability to boost saves fits perfectly. It's an inexhaustable resource, which is very martial, and it won't bend reality the way spells do, but it will make fighters a lot better at the things they can already do, while introducing interesting decisions beyond "do I use power attack or not?".

But I also think skills need to remain more relevant at high levels, and fighters need to get more of them. More importantly, they need to become more reliable. A rogue who maxed out his disable device should be able to pick every lock he finds. DCs shouldn't be going up at the same speed as skills.

I also think fighters should excel with every single weapon. That a fighter has to focus on one specific weapon and sucks with any other type of weapon, feels very unfightery to me. A fighter should be able to attack effectively with anything.

I think I lucked out on the Con damage. I have Con 14, but my notes look like I only had 8 points of Con damage. Or maybe I only wrote it down after the first Lesser Restoration.

We did recalculate the damage based on wood and hardness. A Sleep Arrow (wooden, the GM ruled) also survived, and after a single Mending it's not even broken anymore.

I did lose two Masterwork Mighty +4 composite longbows. Fortunately earlier we'd encountered two enemies that used exactly the same type of bow I used, so a party member carried one spare, and I now still have a bow.

It was a combination of extreme bad luck (or perhaps an extremely bad decision) and some extremely good luck.

The damage was done by Green Slime, which apparently ignores the hardness of metal (but not of wood and stone, which is of little use to me).

I understand, but according to the GM, this encounter ignored hardness. Though it'd certainly be odd if Paizo's own encounter ignored their own rules.

The 28 points of damage is prescribed by the encounter (from an Adventure Path). Hardness and energy damage had no effect as far as I know. It's that high because it took 4 or 5 rounds before I realized what I'd jumped into. (I kept failing my will checks for the illusion.) And again, the damage to all items was apparently part of the encounter.

Greater Make Whole is not going to be any use to me because it's from a book we don't use, unfortunately.

Repairing magic items with craft feats could be an option, except we opted out of those because we can't buy the required ingredients; the only settlement only reliably has items of 400 gp or less at the moment. So we've got to make do with the items we find. It's a shame that some of our best items now got broken or destroyed.

Although a broken greataxe is apparently still usable. Rules suggest its magic might not work properly, but offers no explanation in what way it might fail. If it's only broken, it is still magical as far as I can tell, and Mending or Make Whole will bring it back to working order with no problem.

Mending has a limit of 1 lb per level, so being level 5, items of 5 lbs or less can be Mended. Everything else requires Make Whole, which is a lot slower, being a level 2 spell.

My suggestion to use Mending to restore the hitpoints of all destroyed smaller (including magical) items and only use Make Whole once to restore the magic, was considered a loophole, which I understand, because Mending has unlimited uses. But requiring Make Whole for the whole thing would make Mending a counter to Make Whole, which would be odd. Perhaps a limit of 1 Mending per item per day (as I read elsewhere on this forum) would be a fair compromise.

Still, repairing most magic items will have to wait until we level up. A simple Ring of Protection has CL5, so we have to wait until level 10 before it can be repaired, and so is my Sleep Arrow. +1 weapons are CL 3, so we can repair them when we're level 6. A Ring of Feather falling is CL 1, so it can be repaired right now (as soon as we take the time for it). My Muleback Cords are CL 3, so can be repaired fairly soon. Both of my +3 items are only broken, so they can be repaired with Make Whole with no problems. Only the Ring of Protection +1 and the Sleep Arrow are going to be useless for the foreseeable future. And I don't care much about that arrow (who would have thought a 132 gp item would be my most powerful magic item?).

All in all, the damage, while tremendous, does not seem to be crippling. I was lucky that we've found several masterwork mighty Str 18 composite longbows, and someone else was carrying one of them, and another PC had a spare set of arrows, so I can still shoot. My Breastplate can be Made Whole, and someone had an Armored Coat as backup so I got some armor in the mean time. It's mostly the loss of my mundane gear (rope, alchemist's fire) and the potions that turned me from overprepared into underprepared.

All in all it was a good lesson.

My Ranger jumped enthusiastically in a pool of slime or acid (in my defense: it looked like a pile of gold) and all my items ended up taking 28 points of damage. I want to figure out what can still be salvaged.

I'm aware of the Mending and Make Whole spells, but it's not entirely clear to me what can repaired and how. Here's how I understand it:

* All mundane items are destroyed, except for my Masterwork Breastplate, which is broken.
* Mundane items that are destroyed cannot be repaired, so they are permanently lost.
* Most magic items are destroyed, except armor and +2 and +3 weapons because they get +10 HP per +1 (I have two greataxes +1 bane, one of them large, so unusable to me).
* The physical aspect of most destroyed magic items can be repaired, but restoring the magical abilities has additional requirements as mentioned in Make Whole.
* Magic items that are only broken (I think that's only my collection of +3 weapons) retain their magical properties.
* Potions and wands are lost.

Is this correct?

Is there a way to restore the magical function of magic items where the caster doesn't meet the requirements for Make Whole? Or should we wait until we do meet those requirements?

Are there any other items that could have survived 28 points of damage, other than armor and magic weapons?

One advantage of the Dazzling Display route is that Weapon Focus (whip) also opens up Whip Mastery. Not exactly a great weapon, but that would make it better. And it would allow me to fight while staying out of reach.

I still regret not going the Dazzling Display route, but two feats is very expensive. And if I take Leadership, 9th level is the earliest I can now finally get Dazzling Display.

I can't find Intimidating Song, by the way. Do you mean Intimidating Performance? That looks pretty cool, though it's a third feat I'd need, and it's from the wrong book.

Blistering Invective is a spell I really want, but I'm not sure it's allowed in our game. I'll ask.

Arcane Strike increases my damage (by +2! it scales with level), but not my to-hit or my AC. I'm too vulnerable in my experience.

Though if I did join the melee, I could also take Enforcer. Sounds a bit nasty for a ruler, but demoralizing on doing non-lethal damage is certainly nice. Non-lethal damage? This would work with my whip, from a distance.

You're right, Improved Initiative never hurts for a buffer, and I've had plenty of combats where I got in trouble in the first round due to bad positioning and acting late in the turn. It's a very unexciting feat, though.

Spellsong is brilliant! That might be exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. It'd certainly make spells like Charm Person a lot less conspicuous. UM might be allowed. This could be it. Great find!

Here's an insanely cool one I found: Battle Cry. Unfortunately from ACG, which I doubt is allowed. Tone is perfect, but perhaps a bit too powerful. Though it doesn't stack with Inspire Courage, I think.

And before anyone suggests Arcane Strike: I love the idea, but honestly, I just don't do a lot of damage. I've resigned myself to buffing and debuffing (as well as ruling the kingdom, of course!).

My Bard reached level 5! Yay! Only I have no idea what feat to pick.

My Bard is an extreme talky Bard. Or actually not a bard, but a politician. Words are his weapon, or I'd like them to be, and one time, I managed to stall half of our attackers by talking to them while the rest of the group mopped up the rest of the attackers (I was tied to a tree by my friends; definitely my finest hour).

We're playing Kingmaker, and with his political ambition and crazy high Charisma, my Bard is the ruler of our little kingdom. The rest of the group are a Fighter (just took a level of Cavalier, I think), a Paladin with crazy high charisma and diplomacy (though his roleplaying tends to lead to intimidate rolls rather than diplomacy rolls), and a travel domain cleric archer (unusual build, but remarkably effective with his high speed, though he sucks at channeling). So I'm also the only arcane caster in the group, which is going reasonably well. With Strength 14 I don't suck completely at melee, but with my light armour I tend to go down way too fast, so I try to stay away from the front lines these days.

The build started out inspired by Treantmonk's Controller Bard, but I deviated from that plan because some things didn't work out:

I wanted to go for Dazzling Display to intimidate all enemies at once, only unable to take Weapon Focus at level 1, that meant I could get Dazzling Display at level 5 at the earliest. I took Lingering Performance at level 1 instead, which is certainly a nice feat to have, but hardly essential or character defining.

Because we had plenty of time and nowhere to buy magic items, I took Craft Wondrous Item at level 3 instead of Weapon Focus (which, as feat tax, is not very appealing by itself). I may have thought the Blistering Invective spell would be a good replacement for Dazzling Display, only I think we're not using that book (which sucks; it's the most fantastic spell).

So if I now finally go for Weapon Focus, I can have Dazzling Display at level 7, but at level 8 I get the bardic performance Dirge of Doom, which does the same thing but better. So maybe I need something else. Besides, I want to take Leadership at level 7 (Just because. I'm already a leader, so I need followers).

So now I've got this hole at level 5.

Some ideas from Treantmonk's guide:
Exotic Weapon: Net - I actually have a net, but I rarely use it; its range of 10 ft, which is useless against opponent with reach. Also, the description sounds like nets are trivial to destroy with regular damage.
Combat Expertise (and then on to improved trip) - Bonus AC but even less likely to contribute anything in melee. Not sure if that's of any use to me. Also, I hear bad things about tripping.
Intimidating Prowess - actually a social feat that makes use of my Strength 14. But it adds up to only a +2, which doesn't seem worth it.

Another option would be to continue in the magic item creation direction, like Craft Magic Arms and Armor? Only despite owning a big kingdom, we don't actually have a lot of personal funds for item creation (I've created a few cloaks and stat boost items so far), and we don't want to loot the treasury. But magic item creation does seem feasible for a Bard.

So does anyone have any interesting ideas for feats for a Bard? Doing something fun with my high social skills would be great. Doesn't have to be combat oriented, but could be. I suppose something that makes my Strength 14 less pointless would be nice. Preferably Core or APG, maybe UM (I keep forgetting if we're using that). Something interesting and unique is better than a small bonus on something I rarely use. Something suitable for a ruler or noble would be particularly nice.

Any ideas?

For monks with their ninja-like abilities, stuff like invisibility and teleportation make a lot of sense. Ninja in some legends can do that, so why not Monks?

For rogues, it's clear that rogue talents need to be seriously upgraded. Lots of rogue talents offer really cool abilities, but they're tiny, and not remotely on the same level as a feat. And even feat-level abilities wouldn't be enough to get rogues on the same level as barbarians or rangers. So give all the small rogue talents for free, maybe one per level, maybe even more than that. And on the levels where you should get an actual rogue talent, you get a big upgraded version that's more in line with barbarian rage powers or something a magical class could do. Climb speed, movement that's effectively a short-range teleport, that sort of stuff.

Fighters primarily need more staying power, I think. Some extra skill points would be nice too, but primarily, fighters should be the backbone that simply will not go down. They shouldn't be so vulnerable to domination, for example. Maybe they should get a similar boost to saving throws as the one Paladins get, but based on Con or Str (depending on how generous you want to be).

Reread the spider battle to see just how heroic Bilbo was in combat. He singlehandedly saved everybody's life there.

You don't have to be a front-line fighter to contribute to combat. Bardic Performance is a very easy way to contribute, of course. Archaeologists lose that, but are actually better fighters than plain bards. Playing an Archaeologist and not taking advantage of that makes little sense. Maybe another class or archetype fits his desired play style better, although being new, he probably has no idea what kind of play style he prefers. Archaeologist is not bad as an all-round choice to explore different play styles; he can fight, sneak, cast spells, open locks, etc.

If he doesn't want melee, give him a bow. Excellent weapon in the hands of a high-dex archaeologist. And don't forget whip proficiency! Lousy for damage, but it has reach and can trip and disarm. Not a great weapon in the long run, but fun to play around with at low levels with little investment. And maybe he does want to go down the (expensive) whip feat chain.

Also recommend Grease as a fun spell for trickery in combat.

Finally, as a GM, you could put non-combat objectives in your combats. Some of the most fun combats I've been in had me freeing a prisoner while my buddies were fighting, or being tied to a tree by my buddies (I was a werewolf and it was full moon, but I hadn't changed yet), and talking a bunch of attackers out of the fight by convincing them I was on their side. Any combat that's more than simply bashing away hitpoints is instantly memorable. It's good to do even if you don't have a dedicated non-combatant in your group. (Though I have no idea how this fits in your AP.)

But it's probably also worth discussing the combat heavy nature of the campaign with him.

I'd be fine with the lowest possible stat block during training; it won't matter much during the downtime. It's more to take the opportunity to get some training in.

Is it possible for a level 3 Ranger to start training an animal and then, upon reaching level 4, turn it into his Animal Companion?

An obvious obstacle here may be that Bestiary stats may differ from AC stats.

Some more context: in a campaign, my ranger 3/barbarian 1 found a geier (giant vulture) egg. The GM informed me that I would be able to use it as Animal Companion. I've been carrying it around and keeping it warm ever since. No idea how long before the egg hatches, but considering the speed at which we raced through the first couple of levels (at most 2 weeks from level 1 to 4), I assumed it'd hatch when I hit the appropriate level.

However, having finished a major milestone, we're suddenly facing a year of downtime, and I'm not ranger level 4 yet. Will the egg take more than a year to hatch? That seems unlikely. But if it hatches, I can't take it as AC yet. But a year of downtime would be great for training it. But is that of any use if I'll just turn it into an AC later?

According to my GM, each place has only one terrain type, so it's either urban, or desert, and not both. On the other hand, the Natural Armor +2 stacks with the bonus from an amulet or Barkskin (though not both), so I went with Infultrator and the Natural Armor adaptation.

My Favorite Enemy are Gnolls. Strange choice, I know, but we fought a lot of Gnolls so far. (Unfortunately it seems we're at peace with the Gnolls now, and they won't let me murder any more of them. We might be headed into undead or demon territory, if I'm reading the direction of the campaign correctly.)

Anyway, Gnolls. That means Infiltrator is going to give me either Darkvision or Natural Armor. Both are absolutely nice. Darkvision for a high sneak/perception scout (though I already have low-light vision), and a bit of extra armor is certainly nice for a switch-hitter, though I'm leaning towards Darkvision (if I pick Infiltrator, that is).

@Helcack, I don't see the value in that long list of abilities, since I have to pick only one of them. I can't switch abilities around, as far as I understand. At level 8 (9 in my case, because I've also got a level of Barbarian) I get two more adaptations, but by that time I'll also have my second favored enemy.

Although you do have a point; looking at my likely options: if my next favored enemy is going to be undead, that only adds saving throw boosters and Skill Focus (Stealth) to my options. If it's Outsiders, I get Energy Resistance 5. Not a lot of choice there. Which means I'll have to pick less likely enemies. But I really see no sign that we might encounter reptilians or giants here. Animals are more likely, but the desert isn't exactly teeming with life.

@Claxon, Instant Enemy is cool. Terrain Bond is unfortunately 4th level, and therefore unlikely to matter much for the foreseeable future. It's also from a book we're not using.

@Pipefox, I already have that problem with Favored Enemy. We've fought tons of Gnolls so far, but I think I must have forgotten my bonus half the time. I suspect the Infiltrator bonuses might be easier to remember.

So it looks like I won't get optimal use out of Infiltrator, but also not out of Favored Terrain.

I think the big question is how the GM is going to rule edge cases in favored terrain: will they count for both or not? If they do count, that might make Favored Terrain better. If not, it becomes extremely circumstantial.

I'm currently playing a Ranger and considering taking the Infiltrator archetype. Infiltrator loses Favored Terrain though, and I'm trying to understand what I'm really giving up here.

The bonus are nice. Not killer, but a Stealth bonus won't hurt, Initiative is nice. (Perception is overkill for me, because it is already sky high.) But it's extremely circumstantial. We happen to be playing a desert campaign, so desert sounds like an obvious choice for favored terrain, except that most of our encounters take place in or around a semi-abandoned town on a hill in the desert. Is that urban, hill or desert? And we're about to explore the basement of a temple. Is that urban or underground? Can a place count as multiple terrains? Am I completely subjected to the whim of the GM here?

Infiltrator at least lets me decide when it works, even if it's only for a limited time per day.

In all the arguing over the meaning of words, I completely missed the answer to my other question:

Chemlak wrote:

Highways offer improved movement speed in many terrain types:

Desert, Hills, Jungle, Swamp, and Tundra. Anywhere else, roads are just as good.

Thanks! That's good to know. We do have hills in Kingmaker (not sure about the others yet) so I guess they're still kinda useful, just not everywhere.

I wanted to ask where I could find these rules, but I already found them: (under "Local Movement").

It is abundantly clear that the rules are not making this as clear as they could. The simple fact that people get confused by this, is evidence enough of that.

There are places in the rules that could be interpreted as implying that you can have only one farm, but nowhere does it say so explicitly. Considering how trivial it is to make this explicit, why not do it? I'm glad Chemlak will FAQ this; that seems like the appropriate thing here.

A slightly more thorough rewrite would be nice. I think someone (here or elsewhere?) suggested that the asterisks should go to the mine, quarry and sawmill, with the rule "you can have only one improvement with an asterisk, you can have one each of the other improvements", would make it even clearer, and also clear up the issue of people thinking you're not allowed to build roads to mines (which is a confusion I've seen somewhere else, and that too could be argued to be RAW).

All these literal interpretations of RAW can probably easily be seen to be nonsense once you try to apply them in a real game, or even when you consider the implications of the rules, but the fact remains that the rules could have been written a bit clearer and more explicit here.

Good lord, are we suddenly quoting dictionaries and arguing what words mean? The rules are pretty clear in allowing multiple farms per hex. And saying that a farm is not a farm is getting a bit silly.

Gauss wrote:
Uwotm8, there is NOTHING indicating that you can build multiples of an improvement in a single hex.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that indicates you can't, and there's several things indicating you can: the asterisk at the Farm entry, the fact that the Watchtower explicitly states you can't have another Watchtower in the same hex (a limitation missing from Farm), and the fact that building multiples of the same thing is also the standard in settlements (even if a "house" is actually an entire residential block). So yes, there is every reason to assume that this is the default, and I can't find any rule limiting the number of terrain improvements.

If you check the original rules on this you were able to build one farmland per grassland or hills hex.

What original rules? I have just Ultimate Campaign. I know it's based on Kingmaker, but lots of stuff changed between Kingmaker and UC. If the rule used to be there and it's not there now, that must mean they removed it, which is even weirder.

Heck, even the rule itself says that they have to be "other improvements". Two Farms are not "other improvements" they are the same improvement.

No, they are different farms. Are we the same person because we are both people? This is a silly argument.

Ultimate Campaign p210 wrote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements.
You are misreading the rule and by RAW you can only have one improvement of any single kind in a hex. One Farm + one Mine + one Road + one Watchtower/Fort + etc...

The Watchtower states this explicitly, as do mines, sawmill, etc. Farm explicitly does not.

Unless there's a rule I've overlooked, the RAW clearly allow multiple farms with no clear limit. This is probably very unbalancing and unreasonable, so this rule requires a fix. But the RAW are at the very least extremely unclear about this, and unless I've overlooked the rule limiting the number of terrain improvements, they very clearly allow multiple farms.

(They also allow multiple roads, canals and aquaducts, but you don't get any added benefit from those, so who cares?)


Edit: I think I understand your confusion, you are conflating 'terrain improvement' with 'buildings'.

Terrain Improvements do not take up a city's squares. Your reference to buildings has no bearing on terrain improvements. Terrain improvements are on the hex scale, not the city grid scale.

I know they are different things. I'm just looking at the rules for terrain improvements, and there seems to be no rule limiting their number (except for Mine, Sawmill and Quarry).

The disagreement we have is that you seem to read a rule that I can't find anywhere: the rule limiting the number of terrain improvements to one per type. I agree that rule should exist, or some other limitation to the number of farms, but I don't see that rule anywhere.

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

In a discussion, I noticed people discussing farms as if you could have only one farm per hex. This makes a lot of sense, but I notice it's not what the rules actually say: Farm is listed with a *, which means it can be combined with other improvements, just like roads, canals, aquaducts, etc can. So can it only combine with non-farms then? Nowhere in the rules does it specify that, but Watchtower, which also has a *, explicitly states: "A Watchtower cannot share a hex with a Fort or another Watchtower." The farm does not include that limitation.

So according to the RAW, you can have multiple farms per hex. And I think that means there's no limit to the number of farms per hex. This sounds broken.

Besides, farms are big things. They need lots of space. Why should you be able to combine a farm with a mine, or a farm with a quarry, but not a mine with a quarry?

Is it safe to assume that the * shouldn't be there? Same with Fisheries?

Also, what do Highways do? They cost double what roads cost, but don't seem to add any benefit.

Peet wrote:
A farm reduces your consumption by 2 BP. But having the hex to put the farm in increases consumption by 1 BP, since that increases the kingdom's size by 1. So the farm supports its own hex and provides another BP of support after that.

Only if you have only one farm per hex. Nowhere (in Ultimate Campaign at least, as far as I can tell) does it say each hex has a limit of only one farm. In fact, the farm is listed as explicitly being able to share its hex with other improvements. That could be an error, of course; farming is one of the most space-intensive industries there is, so if a sawmill can't share its hex, a farm probably shouldn't be able to either, but according to the rules, it can. (Compare with the Watchtower, which can also share its hex, but explicitly says it can't share its hex with another Watchtower. The farm doesn't say anything like that.)

Obviously there should be a limit to the number of farms per hex, and 1 might be a very reasonable limit, but as far as I can tell from the rules, there's no limit.

As for magic item slots, I don't see the point of them at all (in UC at least, in original Kingmaker, they seem clearly broken if I see how strategies revolve around exploiting them). Yeah, there might be a magic item for sale, but can't that item be for sale anyway? If there's a shop that sells magic items, then surely I can also find other items there? A single minor potion? Really?

Besides, there's got to be someone in the group, or a cohort, or even a citizen in the realm (like the owner of the magic item building) who can create them for you? Just ask. Commission an item, if they don't have it at hand. The magic item slot is the least interesting aspect of such a building. Having a place where you can commission items is far more interesting.

hgsolo wrote:
If your GM is consistently throwing solo monster encounters at you then they deserve to be trivialized by a net. If you ever face more than one of something the net can only be as good as any other single target debuff.

Don't worry, he isn't. It's just that we're about to face one that has beaten us before. We're trying to be more prepared this time. Maybe we're already over prepared, but the idea of using nets to buy us some time is definitely appealing.

But it looks like the monster won't be trivialized by the net, because he can break it with just one of its many attacks.

Net as a long term debuff is also fine. Although I'm really hoping to use it to buy us some time.

Increasing the range of a net seems almost like cheating. The range is so short, you've got to be in danger to throw it. Making it a true ranged weapon takes away the primary downside of the net.

But assuming our net has a range of only 10 feet, the monster can trivially break it with its first attack and then tear into the thrower with its remaining attacks? Because that makes the full round strength check a bit meaningless. 5 points of damage is pretty trivial.

Is enchanting a net really worth it? It's going to get destroyed pretty soon.

Nearyn wrote:

I believe that yes, the monster could attack the net, thereby attempting to destroy it. The monster still has to use one or more attacks to break the net, though, meaning that even if it moves into melee range of a target with its remaining move-action, that is still a round spent not charging and mauling the cleric ;)

Also you only provoke attacks of opportunity from the enemy if they can reach you. Since you throw a net and only have to hit touch-AC, you can usually throw it from out of reach and still have a good chance of entangling your enemy.

Alas! Net has a maximum range of 10 feet, so if the monster has reach, you're in range.

So could the monster use one of its attacks to sunder the net, and the rest to tear the net thrower apart? And if the initial sunder fails, could it continue to try to sunder, and once he's free, use the rest of his attacks on the net thrower?

Suppose you're fighting a large, scary monster with lots of scary attacks, can you throw a net at it to buy time? According to the description of Net:

An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a full-round action).

So you can get out with a full round action, (and let's assume our monster has no problem passing that Strength check). If it takes a full round action, that's an excellent deal for a party that needs a few rounds to buff at the start of combat. One PC sacrifices his action to waste one full round of the monster.

But can the monster get out faster than that? It says the Net has 5 HP. Could it use on of its many attacks to rip the net to pieces and the rest to rip one of us to pieces? If that's possible, then the net isn't so useful. (Also because you already get an attack of opportunity when you throw it.)

Ask a Shoanti wrote:
mcv wrote:
Opening Volley (UC): This has got to be the ultimate switch-hitter feat. Your ranged attack gives you a bonus on your next melee attack. No idea who would use this other than a switch-hitter. Of course you're only going to get this bonus once in most combats. Unless you've got a back up ranged weapon.

Opening Volley is a really cool and flavorful feat concept, which to my mind doesn’t quite work out in practice.

The feat provides:

Whenever you deal damage with a ranged attack, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on the next melee attack roll you make against the opponent. This attack must occur before the end of your next turn.

Sounds cool! But consider the myriad of very common circumstances when you won’t be able to pull it off:

1. Your initial ranged attack misses the foe.

2. Your initial ranged attack kills the foe.

3. Someone else in your party kills the opponent off before you can make that melee attack.

4. You can’t reach the foe to strike with a melee attack before the end of your next turn.

5. You can’t reach the foe without drawing an attack of opportunity and you’re not prepared to risk it (the route is not clear or perhaps you are based by another foe in the intervening period).

Yeah, but in many of these cases, you can simply try again next turn. It's obviously not a bonus you're going to get every turn, or even every other turn. What I'm most afraid of is that you're only going to get the bonus once per combat, and that's really not much.

Well, I suppose after you've killed all adjacent opponents in melee, you could switch back to archery to get the bonus again. The real problem there is that you're always going to need a move action to put your previous weapon away. You can't afford to drop your weapons all over the battlefield. So maybe the switch-hitter needs a Quick Sheath feat. And the ability to quick draw a bow.

I do think this feat concept was on the right track, but I’d like to see it re-worked so that it has more practical use before I'd select it over another available option. Perhaps conferring the melee attack bonus whether the ranged attack hits or not, or have the bonus last longer removing the “end of next turn” requirement. Those suggestions might cause the feat to become overpowered rather quickly though.

I don't think those changes will matter much. How many turns do you usually have between shooting and melee?

As an aside, one of the reasons I dig this feat is it's one of the few combat feats that has no prerequisites. I don’t know why, but I always find that cool. That should happen more often.

I agree. Lots of feats are basically a commitment to a big feat tree. The thing that makes the switch-hitter so cool is that you can ignore prerequisites for all those archery feats.

Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

It looks like your philosophy is slightly different from Treantmonk's. He wants to shoot until he can get into melee, and then he gets into melee. Possibly through a charge.
Slightly different. As I know the Switch hitter ranger has a lower AC being in Medium armor. I tend to not want to get into melee until I am FORCED to get into melee.

I consider someone in charge range as forcing me into melee. If I don't charge him, he charges me. So either I charge, or I shoot once and move out of charge range.

... recently had a fight where he was scouting, encountered a dire boar that could smell him, which started a bit of a running fight: first bow, then greatsword, then withdraw because I couldn't take another hit, then I threw a javelin, and finally charged again to finish it off.
with a 1v1 fight that is how they typically go. But a switch hitter ranger has his tools as well as a group. If the group plays right and you are playing smart then the fights won't have to be between 2 targets and playing the game of rocket tag with each other.

The rest of the group was present, but not quite as close as I'd liked, and the tank was slow in his heavy armour. So I had to survive on my own for a few rounds. And when the boar hit, it took out 80% of my hit points, so that was time to withdraw.

Staying completely mobile is another strategy all together. But you will loose against a pounce creature or in a room where you are backed into a corner and they have reach. Also you provoke AoO unless it is a full withdraw in which case they just charge you down.

That depends on the terrain. As far as I understand, a charge has to be in a straight line, but a withdrawal doesn't. I had to cross some open space to get to my buddies, though, so I spent one turn hitting him in melee before he gored me and I had to run again.

In any case, I think this tactical running makes combat a lot more fun than simple attrition.

Depends on what it is in melee with. If it is busy with a summoned creature I'm not going to charge in and provide the DM with a new target that is meaningful and can die. Or if your wolf is currently Got something on Trip can still shoot them without the major penalties. You can take rapid shot tho if you like and wait till Improved Precise Shot to not incur penalties that way but 10 levels is a long wait. You can also retrain at that point if you follow retraining rules.

I'm not sure if I want my animal companion to handle the melee alone. If it's our tank (a paladin) it'd be a different matter.

I guess another big difference between your and Treantmonk's switch-hitter is that he intends to get into melee, and is basically geared towards that, whereas you intend to stay out of melee because it's too dangerous.

The danger is absolutely an issue. I've been wondering if it makes more sense to get a polearm so I can stay behind the tank in a fight.

EvilPaladin wrote:
Sorta just skimmed this, but Monkey Lunge is actually a terrible feat. It takes a standard action, and lunge ends at the end of your turn, so it doesn't work for Attacks of Opportunity.

I thought it would work for Attacks of Opportunity. Otherwise it does absolutely nothing, and that can't be right.

But I agree it's terrible. I listed all the feats that seemed appropriate, and ordered them from "probably pretty good" to "looks good until you read more carefully". Monkey Lunge is near the bottom.

Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

No to most of those feats.

Furious Focus is the only good feat on the list and even that is kind of wasted on a switch hitter.

Why is it wasted? Power Attack isn't wasted on a switch hitter, is it? Furious Focus makes you hit more with Power Attack. Although it's still only a +1, and only on one of your iterative attacks. Would Weapon Focus be better? That's only a +1, and for only one of your many weapons, but at least it is a +1 with all attacks with that weapon. When I compare it to that, I guess Furious Focus isn't so great after all.

Try Boon Companion

Good one. No idea how I missed that one. Not switch-hitter specific, but definitely ranger-specific.

Other then that there is not much outside of core that is better.

Apparently. I admit I expected to find more useful feats than I did.

How is it possible that a super versatile multi-weapon specialist has trouble filling out his feat slots?

Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
But what I do not agree with is some of the feat choices. Mainly because the difficulty to hit with the ranged attacks. If your picking up feats you might as well be using them is my understanding. Missing attacks is lost Damage Per Round. So I tweeked the Switch hitter build to my own liking where the person actually can hit with the bow and still be effective in combat. Here is what I came up with:

Yeah, Precise Shot, but isn't the point of the switch-hitter that when there's melee, you're in it? So you shouldn't need Precise Shot.

It looks like your philosophy is slightly different from Treantmonk's. He wants to shoot until he can get into melee, and then he gets into melee. Possibly through a charge. You want to maximize the number of attacks, so even if the melee is 10 foot away, you'll shoot. But isn't an attack with a greatsword better than an attack with bow? Isn't it worth sacrificing a few attacks in order to melee sooner?

If you're against moving, you're probably also totally opposed to Vital Strike. Personally I like more dynamic fights. It's not just about crunching numbers. I'm not terribly experienced with switch-hitters yet, but my ranger/barbarian (suboptimal, I guess) recently had a fight where he was scouting, encountered a dire boar that could smell him, which started a bit of a running fight: first bow, then greatsword, then withdraw because I couldn't take another hit, then I threw a javelin, and finally charged again to finish it off. Of course it's different when you don't have your extra attacks yet, but this kind of creative, mobile battle is a lot more interesting to me than simply standing still and doing full attacks every turn.

While I love Treantmonk's Ranger Guide, it was made with only Core. I've been looking for more up to date advice on switch-hitters, and couldn't find any, so I decided to search through the list of feats for anything non-core that's suitable for switch-hitters.

Here's what I found so far (with the book it's from). Not all of them may be good, but if they suck for a switch-hitter, they probably suck for anyone. I've written down my thoughts on them and would love other opinions.

Opening Volley (UC): This has got to be the ultimate switch-hitter feat. Your ranged attack gives you a bonus on your next melee attack. No idea who would use this other than a switch-hitter. Of course you're only going to get this bonus once in most combats. Unless you've got a back up ranged weapon.

Furious Focus (APG): Makes your first Power Attack easier, which is always nice. You're all about doing damage, after all.

Ammo Drop (HoG): The advantage of the sling, on top of it being ridiculously cheap, is that you get to add your Strength bonus to damage, which makes it an excellent backup weapon for any switch-hitter, and a very likely starting weapon for a 1st level switch hitter. What I didn't know until I saw this feat, is that apparently it takes more time to reload a sling than it does to reload a bow. This advantage changes that. Well, not entirely; apparently you'd also need Juggle Load (HoG) to really reload as fast as a bow. Worth it for a crappy beginner's weapon? Maybe not. Although you do get to add your Strength, and if your Strength is variable (rage, spells, str boosting item you just acquired), that could make a sling more damaging than your composite bow.

Dazing Assault (APG): Not switch-hitter specific, but dazing people is nice, and this builds on a feat you already have. Melee only, though. Feats that work both ranged and melee are better.

Stunning Assault (APG): If dazing is cool, Stunning is even better.

Pushing Assault (APG): Builds on Power Attack. Pushes the target away, which might help to disengage, so you can switch to ranged again, so you can get the bonus from Opening Volley more than once per combat. Is that really worth it? No idea, but it might be worth consideration. And you can still do other tactical stuff by pushing your opponents around.

Focused Shot (APG): Makes me wonder if I should have taken higher Int, but that would make the switch-hitter a bit too MAD. This feat builds on Precise Shot, which is one of the archery feats that we skip, but we can take this as archery style feat, which means we get to ignore that prerequisite. So if you happen to have high Int, this might be a decent choice.

Shield of Swings (APG): You're sometimes a bit short on AC for a true front line fighter, so +4 AC is definitely nice, but sacrificing half your damage? Aren't we about doing tons of damage? Still, when your HP gets low and you can't withdraw, this could be a life saver.

Devastating Strike (UC): Builds on Vital Strike which Treantmonk recommended, but many here think is a bit of a trap. Works both melee and ranged. Could be nice if you use Vital Strike a lot, but is particularly nice if you also have Improved Vital Strike.

Sliding Axe Throw (DoG): Throwing axes? That wasn't our plan. But you get your Strength bonus, and a ranged trip is certainly nice.

Death or Glory (UC): If you really need that finishing blow now, and don't care what happens if you fail. Risky choice, but builds on Power Attack. Melee only.

Desperate Battler (ISWG): You're not a tank, so you shouldn't really be in melee on your own. But you're mobile, and as the group's scout, stuff like that can happen. Melee only, though.

Stabbing Shot (APG): Aren't you supposed to be Aragorn rather than Legolas? This is totally something Legolas does all the time in the movie, but I thought we'd agreed you'd have a sword in your hand by now. This feat is not you, cool though it may seem.

Monkey Lunge (Sargava): If you're going to take Lunge, this makes it seemingly better. But not really; it takes a standard action, which means you can't attack, which means this is only for attack of opportunity monsters.

Reckless Aim (BoF): Man, if only this was a combat style feat. An extra to hit bonus to offset the penalties from Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim would certainly be nice, but alas, we'd have to take feats we intend to skip, so this is not for us.

That's everything that came to mind, ordered roughly from good to "looks nice but isn't". It's a quick write-up, so I must have missed a lot, and I'm sure others have better insights.

Nylanfs wrote:
mcv, have you taken a look at Realmsworks by Lone Wolf?

I hadn't. But $50 means I'll be quite a lot cheaper off mapping on paper for the time being.

At our table, everybody has a laptop in front of them these days. Mine is the biggest, so I can't always see the munchies on the table. Not sure how I feel about this development. It is nice to have the PRD and PCGen ready.

On the other hand, I still map and keep notes on paper. Until I find a good tool to create and reorganize annotated maps, I guess.

All my non-Pathfinder games are still entirely on paper with no laptop in sight.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
mcv wrote:

Boon Companion does sound perfect to compensate for my missing levels. Unfortunately it's from a book we don't use (and it doesn't seem part of the open PRD even), so I guess it's not going to be an option.
Well, if your GM isn't allowing it that's one thing, but it's as much a part of the PRD as anything. It's posted on d20pfsrd and pretty sure on the main Pathfinder srd. It's also allowed as far as I know in PFS. So, not sure what you mean by "not part of the open PRD even"

It's not on .

If it's considered highly standard and balanced, I can always ask. But generally the GM doesn't like using rules that aren't in books he doesn't have, which I can totally understand. The fact that it's not listed on Paizo's own PRD site doesn't help, as we tend to use that as our main reference site, rather than d20pfsrd.

But I'll ask. If anyone has a link a discussion about how Ranger's animal companions are too useless without it, that would definitely help. In fact, in another campaign, another player has a ranger with a badger as companion, and the badger has so far been utterly useless, so that would be a pretty strong case to make.

avr wrote:
The Guide archetype makes rangers much easier to use prior to level 10. Sure, you won't be getting favored enemy bonuses against mooks but you will get it (effectively) against all major enemies. Gnolls are a terribly specific favored enemy to take!

I realize that, but this specific campaign appears to be entirely about Gnolls. We're on a mission to scout and eventually defeat some gnoll stronghold, so it looks like I'll mostly be fighting gnolls. (It's a published Adventure Path that takes place in a faux-Moroccan land. I forgot the name.)

Though clearly the gnolls do have some pets: today I killed a dire boar. It was actually a very switch-hittery fight: instead of the scale mail I had before, I wore leather armor I'd found, snuck up to a building that turned out to contain the dire boar. Boar seemed to smell my presence, so I put a few arrows in it and took some distance. It ends up next to me but can't attack anymore (hurray for the barbarian speed bonus!), so I drop the bow and switch to greatsword. He gores me badly, so withdraw while my buddies rush closer to help me. I throw a javelin at it from a distance, and finally charge again for the killing blow. It was a fun, though somewhat terrifying fight (I really couldn't take a second hit, and neither could anyone else). I'm clearly no tank, but I can do terrifying amounts of damage in varying circumstances already.

Rudy2 wrote:
Consider Beastmaster: you don't give up too much, and you get to choose from the full list of animal companions, opening up some great options. With the Boon Companion feat, the +4 levels will exactly compensate both for the level lost from barbarian and the -3 from ranger, giving you a full-leveled animal companion of choice.

Boon Companion does sound perfect to compensate for my missing levels. Unfortunately it's from a book we don't use (and it doesn't seem part of the open PRD even), so I guess it's not going to be an option.

I'm not terribly interested in having the multiple animal companions that Beastmaster allows. The Improved Empathic Link is really neat though, and exactly what everybody would really want from their animal companion but never actually got. But giving up a combat style feat for a switch-hitter? Not sure if that's such a great idea.

The broader choice that the Beastmaster allows won't be necessary; I already picked my animal companion. We found some Geier (large vulture) eggs, and apparently I can hatch and train a geier and eventually take it as my animal companion. At level 7 (11 for me unless I take Boon Companion) it becomes Large and I can use it as a mount, which sounds incredibly cool, though I'm doubtful we'll take this campaign that far.

So Skirmisher is not such a great idea, unless the campaign is unlikely to reach level 11. (And to be honest, I think it actually is unlikely to reach level 11.)

Infiltrator is probably good. While the initiative and skill bonus of Favored Terrain are nice, they're not spectacular, and they depend on being in the right terrain (and I suspect that depends on how lenient the GM is). On the other hand, Darkvision for level * 10 minutes per day lets me do stuff I can't otherwise do. AC +2 for level * 10 minutes per day means I've got that bonus when I need it most. I'd still need to figure out which of those two is better.

To what extent Trapper will be worthwhile, I don't know. Even if traps really are a thing in this campaign (I'm not sure if they are), then giving up spells for a chance to find and disable them, still sounds like a bad trade-off.

On the Trapper, beyond it not being APG, I also have to admit that those traps don't really excite me. I feel like I'd be swapping spells for just Trapfinding.

On the Urban Ranger, I have trouble judging the value of Favored Terrain. We're currently in a building in the desert, about to go to the basement. Will that count as desert, buildings or underground? Favored Terrain is ironically easiest in a city based adventure.

I can see how Instant Enemy is awesome, but I won't get it until level 10 (actually 11 because I started as a Barbarian). No idea if we're even going to get that far.

Trapper is not APG, though. I'm limited to Core and APG.

There's a good in-character reason to give up divine magic too. The other members of the group are a Cleric and a Paladin, both of the same religion (and really enthusiastic about it!), so in response, I took the Skeptic trait. Doesn't actually have anything to do with divine magic, but forgoing divine magic would absolutely be appropriate.

Then again, some of those spells are also really nice.

Thought being limited to Core+APG does limit my spell list quite a bit. I love Longstrider, but it's not exactly killer, is it? Many of the killer spells are ranged, but I'm a switch-hitter. I'm not entirely sure which spells I'd actually want.

I'm trying to figure out if I want some archetypes for my Ranger. My Ranger is actually not a ranger yet, because I started with a level of Barbarian for the extra move (the HP and the rage doesn't suck either), and I'm still level 1. (I'm not actually sure if that level of Barbarian was a good idea; they look like they have synergy, but Rangers get plenty of speed boosting spells later on.)

I'm limited to Core and APG.

My Ranger-to-be is a level 1 half elf Barbarian switch-hitter. Str 18, Dex 15, Con 14, Wis 14. Perception accidentally went through the roof because I decided to put the half-elf skill focus on it. Backgroundwise, I noticed somewhere that half-elves born from wild-elves from the Mwangi expanse are called "wildborn", so if that's a real thing in Golarion, I'll probably go with that. It sounds very appropriate to my layman's ears.

Looking for potential archetypes, the ones that appeal most to me are the Infiltrator, the Skirmisher, and the Urban Ranger. Actually also the Guide, but I know I'll probably be facing Gnolls, and Guide doesn't work with Infiltrator. Although my group lacks a rogue, Urban Ranger doesn't sound appropriate to the character. So are Infiltrator and Skirmisher any good? Are there any other archetypes I should look at?

Infiltrator sounds appropriate. I'd already considered the background that my character had been captured by and escaped from Gnolls, so knowing a gnolls up close sounds suitable. Also, Darkvision and AC +2 don't suck at all. And I'm giving up Favoured Terrain which I'm not terribly sure about.

Skirmisher sounds really cool. I would be giving up spells, which of course hurts, particularly at higher levels, but some of those tricks are pretty awesome:

Deft Stand: I can't believe how many fights with wolves in Kingmaker would have been a lot easier if I'd been able to stand up safely.

Surprise shift and Chameleon Step would do wonders for my mobility. Not sure how important mobility really is, but I really do like abilities like these. I'm not sure if it's worth giving up spells for, though.

Is it better to stick to a basic ranger? Are there other archetypes I should be looking at?

Zhayne wrote:
Finding a better word than 'chaotic' (and a better word than lawful, for that matter) might help.

How about "principled" versus "opportunistic"? Would that make sense?

Shapeshifting to a fast animal?

I guess a triceratops is very bulky for its size. 300 pounds is definitely heavy for a medium animal. A mini T-Rex probably has a much lighter (bird-like?) build.

I'd say you keep the longer shaken effect after the frightened wears off. So you shake him for 20 rounds. Next round, still 19 rounds of shaken to go, you frighten him for 1 round. This round, he's both frightened and shaken (but since frightened includes shaken, the penalties overlap rather than adding up). Next round, still 18 rounds of shaken to go.

N. Jolly wrote:
Yeah, it seems you didn't get that the first option was being rated for a non specific alchemist. I'll admit that's partially my fault, and now I've put a little blurb in the beginning that states how the ratings are working, as not everyone wants to play either Hyde or a bomber.

Like me. I like the idea of playing an Alchemist more than I like the idea of playing a mad bomber or a Hyde, so I'm looking at the first color instead of the other two. This part wasn't confusing for me at all.

Joesi wrote:
Yes, definitely. They just might not be as optimally built. Realize that this guide is more or less a powergaming guide, not a guide on how to make a cool role playing character.

But there's still a difference between a cool roleplaying character that quickly becomes boring because he's no good at what he's supposed to be good at, and a cool roleplaying character that does what you expect him to.

For that reason, I would still love to see some advice on that included in the guide. And this doesn't have to be limited to class abilities and feats. Maybe there's stuff that anyone can do, but that's more conceptually appropriate for an alchemist, and there are some ways to get more out of that. Alchemist's Fire is the obvious one (anyone can throw it, but Alchemists get a bonus) and did get mentioned in the guide, but there might be more. A better treatment of Craft (Alchemy) would make sense. Is there any other alchemical, mechanical or academic stuff that would fit right in? Are there any rules for demolitions (bigger but much slower than bombs)? Is there other stuff I can make that nobody ever does, but actually starts to make sense with an Alchemist?

You could have an alchemist/herbalist monk or an alchemist wizard/summoner, alchemist gunslinger, or other —in my opinion— interesting scenarios. That said, those are classes, not just builds (and you could run a specific build while staying pure alchemist).

I'm leaning towards pure alchemist or maybe just one level of gunslinger for the mechanical edge (and the gunpowder!).

Build-wise, there's the poison option, since poison is the most effective in the hands of an alchemist. There's also the ability to buff/heal, which would rely on using infused extracts (and/or troll styptics), but it's not much different than what a cleric/wizard/other can do without having to spend a feat (except the ability to buff people with personal spells like false life or shield).

I think the way I see an alchemist is as a jack-of-all-trades in these things. He should be able to use bombs and poison if he wants to, but they should not be his primary focus. I would really like making alchemical items (acid, alchemical fire, etc) to be viable, but I'm not sure it is; it takes a very long time compared to true magic items.

Crafting real magic items might also make some sort of sense, but I'm not sure an alchemist can actually do that, considering he's not really actually a spellcaster. Some engineering related stuff would be cool, but are there any rules for that? Is it even practical in an adventuring setting?

I guess you could use a gun, but I personally wouldn't do it and some GMs might be adverse to it because I and/or they have an aversion to having guns in fantasy (magical medieval) settings. That may not apply to all players/GMs though. Alchemist does seem to be a person that makes the most sense to be wielding a gun though. Aside from that, guns are just expensive too— 11 gold per shot (around the price of +1 arrows I think?), as...

Obviously guns require GM fiat, and just having read the gun rules, it's pretty clear you have to be a Gunslinger to use them unless you're playing with Guns Everywhere. But a single level of Gunslinger would not be out of place, would it? That class sounds like they're tinkerers and inventors, and that might fit reasonably well with an alchemist.

I consider Chaotic Good to be The Adventuring Alignment. You want to accomplish good, but you get to break the rules to get there. Being Lawful just gets in the way most of the time. And many adventures and campaigns do fit chaotic characters better than lawful ones.

Sin Eater wrote:

In answer to the question of "Why do you want a Rogue?" and "What do you hope to get out of it?" I've never played a rogue, so I'm looking for new horizons and concepts to play with.

What book is the Archaeologist in? I just got an amazing idea from the name (no, not indiana jones)

It's in Ultimate Combat ( l). And it's definitely the Indiana Jones class, considering Bards start with whip proficiency, but more importantly, it's basically a different kind of Rogue.

He doesn't get the performances that a normal Bard does, but instead, he gets a bonus to everything he does that makes him practically a full-BAB class, as well as providing other bonuses (a limited number of rounds per day). He gets lots of Rogue abilities like Uncanny Dodge, bonuses to perception and disable device, access to rogue talents, etc. And he doesn't lose his spellcasting.

Due to losing his Versatile Performance he's not quite as much a skill monkey as a Rogue or standard Bard are, but 6 per level is still good.

I haven't played one yet, but it's definitely on my list.

I only just took up an interest in Alchemists, and I'm wondering if it's possible to play an effective alchemist that's neither a Mad Bomber nor a Mr Hide. I'm imagining alchemists as more academic, scholarly types, and while they no doubt know how to make bombs, it's not their primary hammer in search of a nail. A brainier alchemist. Maybe one that uses guns and other high tech stuff? Is that possible while still being effective?

I think the main thing I'm missing in this guide is a discussion on play styles. A listing on abilities that are good or bad is useful, but how should I use them? How do I turn those abilities into a coherent whole? And what alchemisty things can I do that aren't specifically tied to these abilities?

1 to 50 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>