Sythesist Summoner - who cares about action economy - what would a party or intellegent enemies do against a summoner and his eidolon? - Kill the caster.
Now as syntesist you just gave yourself AC so high that only a natural 20 will hit you. AND you still a caster, but you don't need to buff since you already have more attacks than anybody else and your damage is silly.
Playing with Sythesist just doesn't work after lvl 8.
Even intelligent enemies might not know targeting the summoner will make the eidolon disappear. Summoner is a relatively rare class to encounter in most settings, and most NPCs outright don't understand what they really are, mistaking them for witches and conjurers (neither of which lose their summons when you knock them out).
This is my basic impression of Pathfinder in general; great ideas, so-so execution. For every part of 3.5 that PF fixed, something else got broke.Honestly, I had the same reaction to Vital Strike: cool idea, poor execution...
- Gauss
Josh: I hve to disagree. PF is vastly better on balance issues. Where it falls down is on rules clarity and layout. That is a big problem but can be worked around.
- Gauss
Can anyone point out where is says that the grease spell is not ignitable?
Can anyone point out where it says it is?
Can anyone point out where it says it is?
This.
I imagine it would talk about damage if it was flammable.
Just like the web spell does.
Touché gentlemen
Where is this? Do you mean how GMW doesn't contribute to the bypassing special material bonus or is there some rule that +1 flaming thundering ice wounding sword doesn't gain 4 to hit and damage if boosted by GMW.
Combining Greater Magic Weapon and +1 weapon with +9 of Special Abilities does not work in PF anymore. Yay!
No.
I mean that if you cast GMW on a +1 w +9 sword, you don't get a potentially +5 w +9 Sword.
The rules specifically limit a weapon to +10 total enhancements, whether those come from the weapon, spells, innate abilities, or other sources.
==Aelryinth
Source?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-weaponNo text here.
Starbuck_II:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my basic impression of Pathfinder in general; great ideas, so-so execution. For every part of 3.5 that PF fixed, something else got broke.Honestly, I had the same reaction to Vital Strike: cool idea, poor execution...
- GaussJosh: I hve to disagree. PF is vastly better on balance issues. Where it falls down is on rules clarity and layout. That is a big problem but can be worked around.
- Gauss
I consider rules clarity and layout to be pretty big things. Like I said, fix one thing, something else breaks. One wrong word and an unintended loophole opens up that breaks all new things that weren't broken before, like what happened to the *Zen Archer after the "Flurry=TWF" debacle.
*I haven't kept up with the dozens of Monk threads as to whether Zen Archer got fixed or not.
I'm still playing Pathfinder, and I'm still discover little things that got changed for the better from 3.5, it's just in my case that 3.5 was "the devil I know" and I knew all the workarounds and fixes. I like a lot of what I'm seeing in PF, but some of the same old problems just don't go away. I'm just in the process of learning all new workarounds.
Josh M.:
My experience with 3.x is 'here is a game that encourages you to level dip in order to create interesting and cheesy characters'. My experience with PF is 'here is a game that encourages you to pick an interesting class/archetype and stick with it'. I love the difference.
- Gauss
My experience with 3.x is 'here is a game that encourages you to level dip in order to create interesting and cheesy characters'. My experience with PF is 'here is a game that encourages you to pick an interesting class/archetype and stick with it'. I love the difference.
Exactly.
Starbuck_II:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.- Gauss
And yet, they break those rules in the Core book:
https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/magic-items/artifacts/major-art ifacts/axe-of-the-dwarvish-lordsYes, it is a Artifact, but it defies the rules as it adds to higher than +10.
Hammer of Thunderbolts as well.
Holy Avenger is likely as well: unless you know how to get Greate Dispel magic (at will) for low ability bonus.
Not to mention bane weapons loaded with other enhancements/abilities.
You do realize artifacts completely break the rules anyhow? That is why it is an ARTIFACT. :)
As for Greater Dispel Magic it would not cost a weapon ability bonus. It is an ability that should have a flat cost. Not all weapon abilities use the +enhancement method.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why wouldn't you know all about syntesists?
I a world were people get to be syntesists - wouldn't the first rule of fighter club be "don't mess with the syntesist - they are silly powerfull"
The second rule of fighter club would be "seriously sytesists are f¤%& ing bad ass"
and then the third rule would be "don't talk about fighter club - some syntesist might hear about us and hurt us"...
Why wouldn't you know all about syntesists?
I a world were people get to be syntesists - wouldn't the first rule of fighter club be "don't mess with the syntesist - they are silly powerfull"The second rule of fighter club would be "seriously sytesists are f¤%& ing bad ass"
and then the third rule would be "don't talk about fighter club - some syntesist might hear about us and hurt us"...
But the secret rule of FC is start the arguing about the rules for that mess of a archetype. They have the stop, put down their weapons start looking up the FAQ, random posts by devs, etc...THEN you kill them. Easy peasey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Josh M.:
My experience with 3.x is 'here is a game that encourages you to level dip in order to create interesting and cheesy characters'. My experience with PF is 'here is a game that encourages you to pick an interesting class/archetype and stick with it'. I love the difference.
- Gauss
I love both and I don't see why there needs to be a difference. I played plenty of single-classed characters in 3.5e.
Starbuck_II:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.- Gauss
Am I crazy or were there some threads about Magus and bard(Arcane duelists) being able to get +15 and effectively break that rule ?
@Phasics. A bit of threadomancy, and I do not know your the answer for your question, but rereading this thread brought up another point.
Nobody ever took vital strike in my games, so I have houseruled vital strike so there is ANY incentive for anyone to ever take it:
Can be used any time you are limited to one attack per round (charge, spring, etc), increases damage by 2d6 per feat, both to make it decent for people using smaller weapons, and to limit the cheese of wielding an oversized weapon, cast lead blades and enlarge self to do 16d8 or whatever.
Works surprisingly well. Most fighting types still prefer full attack, but at least now the gap in damage is not in the 3-digit zone at levels 10+.
And others that share this mentality.
Let me introduce you to the mounted barbarian. Give him a lance, then spirited charge, finally give him furious finish. by lvl 9 or so when you can get both, you are dealing 6 times your damage on a charge and always max damage. by lvl 16, 17 you are dealing TWELVE TIMES your attack damage and always max damage!Here is what happens. vital strike gives you your attack damage twice on a hit, furious focus maximises it, then the lance triples the damage. at later levels, greater vital strike gives you your attack damage 4 times, furious focus maximises it, then lance triples that to 12. If you really built for it, I have made it work by lvl 7, and capable of attacking multiple times with furious finish by lvl 8.
This is why I would never allow it to work on a charge.
Vicious weapon + Damage reduction. I thought I was so clever :(.Yeah I did that one too...
What makes it not work?
What makes it not work?Vicious weapon + Damage reduction. I thought I was so clever :(.Yeah I did that one too...
vicious weapon damage against you is untyped thus DR doesn't apply
If I recall right, the damage it does against you is based off Negative Energy, so certain things CAN negate the damage. At least, that's what the fluff text seems to imply.
If I recall right, the damage it does against you is based off Negative Energy, so certain things CAN negate the damage. At least, that's what the fluff text seems to imply.
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.
Untyped
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Isn't the spell needed to create a Vicious weapon "Enervation", which is specifically a Negative Energy spell?
Since this is true, why does the Vicious weapon NOT deal Negative Energy damage to you?
Well ain't that a load of ****.
Isn't the spell needed to create a Vicious weapon "Enervation", which is specifically a Negative Energy spell?
Heh I don't write the rules dude I just copy and paste em ;)
as written you take the damage and there is no way to avoid it... well I guess you could try using Ablative Barrier to convert up to 5 lethal dmg to 5 non-lethal dmg, since Ablative Barrier converts any lethal damage regardless of source
you could then become immune to non lethal damage and get around it that way.
RAW and RAI however want you to pay the piper and give up 1d6 HP every time you strike with a vicious weapon ;)
There was some axe that gives you Negative Levels when you hit someone with it. The fluff text says that undead love to use it because the drawback does nothing to them. Technically it works for Dhampir too, but only to a limited extent. This one is ALSO crafted with Enervation as a spell component.
There was some axe that gives you Negative Levels when you hit someone with it. The fluff text says that undead love to use it because the drawback does nothing to them. Technically it works for Dhampir too, but only to a limited extent. This one is ALSO crafted with Enervation as a spell component.
what's your point ?
I mean if you wanna house rule it in your own game that's fine but the rules don't come much more clear than that.
In retrospect, I probably didn't even have a point.
But hey, at least I gave some people the idea for a houserule now :3
Not only that, you also reminded me of that axe. My first thought was, barbarians have a rage power that ignores negative levels! Well Renewed Life does do that, but only 1 per 5 levels... Aww, I thought I could create a barbarian that attempted to lifedrain enemies while trying to keep himself from getting to low. Guess that is another combo that doesn't work, so hey this is in the right thread!
Side note, does anyone else know of, say a wondrous item that might ignore negative levels? Make this work?
Flurry of Blows, Wild-shaping to a Large tiger, and attempting to Charge-Pounce-Flurry.
Bonus points for leaping off your flying Animal Companion that can no longer fly once you turn into a Large rider.
Alright so here we go, would this work?
Oracle of bones resist life revelation
Resist Life (Su): You are treated as an undead creature when you are targeted by positive or negative energy. You are not subject to Turn Undead or Command Undead (or any other effect that specifically targets undead), unless you are actually an undead creature. At 7th level, you receive channel resistance +2. This bonus increases by +2 at 11th and 15th level
are negative levels considered negative energy, and so would you be immune? I am wondering if a 2 level dip in a lame oracle of bones is the way to go.
Here's mine: the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype's Doublestrike + 2 lances + mounted charge = ouch
But no, because charging is essentially a move action combined with an atack action into a single full action. Would it have killed them to make charging a seperate move action ?
I agree with pretty much everything said about Vital Strike, considering it cannot be used much with other feats. Maybe they should have added the extra that the Vital Strike total damage gets multiplied by a critical hit.