So what're the least-optimal options these days?


Advice

351 to 366 of 366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

SheepishEidolon wrote:
Jynnjun wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Human rogues trying to do a halfling's job and failing miserably are an embarrassment to the profession.
Halflings? The poor dears don't even have low light vision, let alone darkvision. No, halflings aren't the best rogues despite Bilbo's history.
...halflings are quite focused on making up some of a rogue's weaknesses (AB, AC, saves) and improving some of their strengths (Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth)....<snip list of vision-granting items>

Not only that, but most halfling racial archetypes and racial traits and feats lend themselves very well to roguish careers. (They're also not saddled with a CHA penalty like those better-DEX'd goblins we can't play in PFS anyway outside of one-offs, so it's not as if we're missing out.)


The darkvision granting items are pretty expensive by normal wealth-by-level, though I understand PFS is more generous. 5-6K is too much IMO until 7th level (23 500 gp), and even if you're willing to spend half your wealth that's out of reach until level 5.

Silver Crusade

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Fromper wrote:
KitsuneWarlock wrote:
Ah, well, flavorful prestige classes are still really subpar. Especially the older, martial and skill based prestige classes like Duelist, Lion Blade and Sleepless Detective. Even the updated ones.

Yup. I really want the Halfling Opportunist to be useful, because it's so flavorful. But making the signature class ability a CMB check on a race that gets penalties to CMB from size and strength penalties, and it's a 3/4 BAB class, was really poor planning. It just never really works.

And every prestige class I've looked at has had some other similar problems. Since my Opportunist, I've kind of given up on prestige classes altogether. I never even look at them or consider taking them any more.

Was this before or after Pathfinder Unchained (Rogue Unchained and Fractional Base Bonuses)? (Alternatively, anyone try it on a Slayer chassis instead of a Rogue chassis?) Also, the ccpstone ability doesn't depend upon CMB, and is pretty good (ALL your Attacks of Opportunity are Sneak Attacks -- combine with Combat Reflexes and Elven Branched Spear, the latter of which gives you +2 on your Attacks of Opportunity).

I think it was originally published for 3.5, before the Core Rulebook, but I could be mistaken. Definitely before Unchained, though. And really, Exploitive Maneuver is the class's defining ability from level 1. Waiting until you've had 10 levels of a prestige class to get something good out of it is pretty bad.

In the past, I've thought that pairing it with Lore Warden fighter would be a good combination, though I never got around to trying it. With the recent nerf to Lore Warden (which may or may not affect PFS, depending on how they handle it), it's probably not as good any more.


Shadow dancer

Dark Archive

graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Fighting with alchemical weapons - not Bombs, mind you, but stuff like Acid or fireworks. Sounds cool, looks cool, doesn't work too well. If someone could make a character who could effectively fight with fireworks that would be sweet.
I've thought about this, Slipslinger style lets you do this with alchemical splash weapons (liquid ice and the like) the problem is that your ammunition is *really* expensive, which is something you need to resolve somehow. Even with the appropriate crafting skills, you're still looking at like 20gp per attack.
Full pouch + Focusing Flask is your friend. You end up with 3d6 damage touch energy attacks with saves based on your level. I paired this with a launching crossbow and Toxicant to add range and poison to that attacks. Throw in Concentrated Splash to bump that 3d6 up to x1.5 damage!

That combination doesn't work without a houserule. Full Pouch specifies that you have to draw:

Full Pouch, PFSRD wrote:
an alchemical item, but not a dose of disease, a poison, a magic potion, or another type of consumable item.

A Focusing Flask is not, itself, an alchemical item - it is a Wondrous Item. Therefore it is not a legal target for Full Pouch.


LuniasM wrote:
A Focusing Flask is not, itself, an alchemical item - it is a Wondrous Item. Therefore it is not a legal target for Full Pouch.

I've never heard anyone say this. The flask isn't "a dose of disease, a poison, a magic potion, or another type of consumable item" but it IS a concentration of "up to three alchemical splash weapons". I wouldn't expect the magic of the flask to be duplicated but I see nothing that disallows the concentrated splash weapons from being copied: It's just into a mundane flask.

LuniasM wrote:
That combination doesn't work without a houserule.

I disagree and would say it'd be a houserule to stop it from working. The spell isn't worded like ABUNDANT AMMUNITION to say " nonmagical ammunition":

It states what it can be "an alchemical item"
It states what it can't be "not a dose of disease, a poison, a magic potion, or another type of consumable item"

What's not on either list: "a Wondrous Item". Now NOTE TARGET: "1 object touched" and NOT "an alchemical item" as you suggest. You can target any object, it only works if it's done on an alchemical item and a filled flask is that; it just happens to be a wondrous item too.

Total house-rule to block it IMO...


It's not listed under alchemical items. It's a magic item listed as wondourous.

I agree that doesn't work. It's more a house rule to say it does IMO


Cavall wrote:
It's not listed under alchemical items.

alchemical item ISN'T the target is it?

Cavall wrote:
It's a magic item listed as wondrous.

Filled with an alchemical item right?

So what again stops the spell from duplicating the actual alchemical item? All it says is that it only duplicates alchemical items, which I assume includes a non-magic flask.

Or are you suggesting that this spell duplicates special flasks as long as they are mundane? For instance, if I take an Iron vial and make it out of mithril: this spell is going to make an endless supply of mithril iron vials? Or does it make more sense that just creates generic flasks? And is there anything that requires the material stay in a Focusing Flask to work?

I have to admit, I'm perplexed by people questioning this. I've used them together in several games and never had anyone blink at it before. It would be a huge blow to this type of character, dropping it from "not optimal but workable'" to "seriously suboptimal"... The gp cost just isn't sustainable without Full Pouch...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. That's what I'm saying. The target is an alchemical item. The flask isn't. It is a wondourous item. The spell is very specific that the item (which must be an alchemical item) may not be any other kind of consumable.

The flask is "another kind". A wondrous item.

Additionally, the items contained in are not "one item" so a full pouch wouldn't work on three at a time anyways. Because as written in the flask the items are still "items" in every mention of grouping except Saving Throw.

They are referred to as "the items" repeatedly. So even in your incorrect interpretation they are not "an" item at all, but a collection of items.

Further to That, the item is thrown as a regular splash weapon. NOT an alchemical consumable. It is very clear on THAT as well.

It duplicates an alchemical item. That item must be consumable. As for mithril and iron vials, that should be the source of an FAQ or GM determined. However the spell DPES indicate it suffered from a quality reduction. This may be enough for most GM to rule on the side of no.

There you have a full examination of the spell and item.

We find:
1) it's not an alchemical item
2) can hold more than one item and so doesn't fit under "an item"
3. Not ever referred to as an alchemical item, but treated as a splash weapon.
4. Suffers from quality reduction to likely (stressed likely) eliminate the flask loophole.

So yes. I do disagree with you. I do think your iterpetation is directly flying in the face of the RAW wording and I do think "filled with alchemical" isn't good enough. You may as well suggest goodberry or coin shot effects your back pack because it has copper and raspberries inside of it.

In short, this is a solid case of how you are incorrect, and why.


Cavall wrote:

Yes. That's what I'm saying. The target is an alchemical item. The flask isn't. It is a wondourous item. The spell is very specific that the item (which must be an alchemical item) may not be any other kind of consumable.

The flask is "another kind". A wondrous item.

Additionally, the items contained in are not "one item" so a full pouch wouldn't work on three at a time anyways. Because as written in the flask the items are still "items" in every mention of grouping except Saving Throw.

They are referred to as "the items" repeatedly. So even in your incorrect interpretation they are not "an" item at all, but a collection of items.

Further to That, the item is thrown as a regular splash weapon. NOT an alchemical consumable. It is very clear on THAT as well.

It duplicates an alchemical item. That item must be consumable. As for mithril and iron vials, that should be the source of an FAQ or GM determined. However the spell DPES indicate it suffered from a quality reduction. This may be enough for most GM to rule on the side of no.

There you have a full examination of the spell and item.

We find:
1) it's not an alchemical item
2) can hold more than one item and so doesn't fit under "an item"
3. Not ever referred to as an alchemical item, but treated as a splash weapon.
4. Suffers from quality reduction to likely (stressed likely) eliminate the flask loophole.

So yes. I do disagree with you. I do think your iterpetation is directly flying in the face of the RAW wording and I do think "filled with alchemical" isn't good enough. You may as well suggest goodberry or coin shot effects your back pack because it has copper and raspberries inside of it.

In short, this is a solid case of how you are incorrect, and why.

I'm with Cavall on this one, and I'm very permissive/pro-alchemist. Man, I love my alchemists...


Oh me too. Hybrid casting classes are all my favourites. Bards inquisitors hunters... and of course alchemist. Just wonderful.

Dark Archive

graystone wrote:
And is there anything that requires the material stay in a Focusing Flask to work?

Is there any reason to believe that it doesn't?

As a permissive system, Pathfinder doesn't allow you to do anything besides what it explicitly says you can do. The question to ask shouldn't be "Is there anything that requires the material stay in a Focusing Flask to work?", it should be "Is there anything that allows you to remove the concentrated splash weapon from the flask and use it?" The text of the flask states that you can use the concentrated materials as a splash weapon by throwing the Focusing Flask, which destroys it. The flask does not say that you can take the newly-concentrated material out and place it into a different, non-magical flask and use that as a splash weapon. Given that, there is no reason to believe that Full Pouch would work, as it cannot copy the consumable magic flask that allows you to concentrate the material in the first place.


graystone wrote:

If noone ever questioned you it's probably because they never looked into the issue. It's a pretty clear-cut case.

If you used Full Pouch on a focusing flask filled with alchemical items nothing would happen because you're touching the flask which is a separate item. At best by RAW the only thing that would happen is that an alchemical item gets duplicated with it's own non-magical flask.

It's illogical to think that anything else would happen.

3 alchemical items inside a magic item is not 1 alchemical item. There's no way to debate otherwise. If one or more alchemical items kept inside a magical container could duplicate the magical container than it means Full Pouch could duplicate bags of holdings, portable holes, magic bottles, magic cauldrons, and all sorts of nonsense. They're all just magical items that can act as containers just like a Focusing Flask.


Has anyone said "Wild Rager" yet? All the guides say it's awful and will kill your party.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo-bar barian-archetypes/wild-rager

Edit: Nevermind. I figured this one out my damn self. Now I'm off to build a non-lethal specialist barbarian.


Wild rager works best on the other side of the battle field.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It was not a coincidence that the Wild rager in my game was joined by an alchemist, ray-specialist sorcerer, and a vitalist that could suppress confusion.

351 to 366 of 366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So what're the least-optimal options these days? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.