Inquisitor With +38 AB At Level 12?


Advice


This is without the Brown Fur Transmuter transforming him into a form which would give another +2 AB. Is this sort of thing normal?

Grand Lodge

Without more information, difficult to say.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My base inquisitor at level nine can get around +27 If everything comes together up and everything is active, So I feel like it's theoretically possible to do it with a munchkin build. However, it would be pretty wacky for him to have that number on Round 1 of combat.

My + to hit comes from:

+4 from 18 str, +6 from Bab, +2 from weapon enchant, +3 divine favor, +3 judgment (with judgement surge), +2 bane, +4 outflank +2 Heroism, +1 haste (hopefully I have an arcane caster with me). You could pump this higher with weapon focus and some other feats and such.

Does he spend the first couple rounds buffing?


No, it is not normal.

It's not normal that a PC should ever need +38 AB at level 12, since the average AC of a CR-equivalent opponent is supposed to be 27. But you aren't holding a normal game for your players, so I'm gonna guess our opinions on what is normal aren't that important for your table.

If you're wondering how they reached +38, you should probably just ask your player instead of us. But considering that the Inquisitor is pretty good at stacking buffs, I don't doubt it's possible.

Divine Favor, Heroism, Justice Judgement, Bane, etc results in pretty big bonuses, which should let them touch 30 AB without sacrificing any feats.

Inflated gold per level and just picking up Outflank should definitely make 38 AB possible.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Anything is possible.

But until you say more than "OMG +38AB WTF" we don't have enough information to give any advice.

Do you have a breakdown of how this is happening? Can you post the characters stats or even better a copy of the character sheet


Lyoto Machida wrote:
Does he spend the first couple rounds buffing?

Literally just Divine Power in terms of spells that "need" to be cast in combat. Heroism is long term.

Technically Judgement and Greater Bane as well but those are swift actions, one on turn one and one on turn two.

Wonderstell wrote:
It's not normal that a PC should ever need +38 AB at level 12, since the average AC of a CR-equivalent opponent is supposed to be 27. But you aren't holding a normal game for your players, so I'm gonna guess our opinions on what is normal aren't that important for your table.

Check the attitude, please. Here's the roster for the main combat last night (first fight of level 12, mainly meant to let them play around with new abilities and feel awesome...especially the sorcerer who just got Chain Lightning):

10 CR6 creatures (AC 23 each)
20 CR6 creatures (AC 23 each)
1 CR10 creature (AC 31)
1 CR10 creature (AC 31)
1 CR10 creature (AC 36)

Wonderstell wrote:
If you're wondering how they reached +38, you should probably just ask your player instead of us. But considering that the Inquisitor is pretty good at stacking buffs, I don't doubt it's possible.

I know how they reached it, I went over the math once I saw the number. That's why this is in Advice rather than Rules.

Wonderstell wrote:
Inflated gold per level and just picking up Outflank should definitely make 38 AB possible.

Quick character sheet audit shows 111kish, with 8k of it in a back-up Ghost Touch weapon. That's also with no crafting, so full price for everything.

Name Violation wrote:

Anything is possible.

But until you say more than "OMG +38AB WTF" we don't have enough information to give any advice.

That was pretty much my initial reaction, yes. But it all seems possible within the rules, that doesn't stop my reaction as you so aptly put it.

Name Violation wrote:
Do you have a breakdown of how this is happening? Can you post the characters stats or even better a copy of the character sheet

It's in Fantasy Ground (VTT) so unless you can parse the XML a character sheet isn't possible. But here's the relevant info:

STR: 22 (16 at level 1, +2 from leveling, +4 from belt)
BAB: 9 (level 12 Inquisitor)
+3 Falchion
Weapon Focus

That adds up to 19.

Outflank is 23.
Menacing weapon from his Animal Companion is 25.
Divine Power (with Fate's Favored) is 30 (+4 base becomes +5 with FF)
Heroism is 32
Judgement is 36 (would be +3 but Dwarf Favored Class bonus gets it to +4)
Greater Bane is 38 (plus more damage)

Can also put any other info you'd like to see it.


Inquisitors are kind of ridiculous, especially in bursts. All of that and they also get lots of skills and out of combat bonuses. Do keep in mind that some creatures are immune to being flanked, like elementals, but that just shaves off +6 of his potential attack bonus.

Grand Lodge

Legit but it's on an ideal case, it would be better to see the average case where there are long buffs in order, but assuming no time to do in-combat ones because the setup doesn't allow the party to do so outside of the first round, and no "casting before pushing the door".

Grand Lodge

Sounds like a pretty munchkin character, but I wonder what his own AC is?

My inquisitor has a pretty noticeable weakness when it comes to dealing with things with lots of attacks who hit hard, since it's d8 hp class.

It's especially rough if something gets in my face before I complete my divine favor prep.


Philippe Lam wrote:
Legit but it's on an ideal case, it would be better to see the average case where there are long buffs in order, but assuming no time to do in-combat ones because the setup doesn't allow the party to do so outside of the first round, and no "casting before pushing the door".

The class has stealth and invisibility on its spell list, while also being wisdom based and having perception. The normal case doesn’t usually have the inquisitor going in blind.

Now, the inquisitor abilities can get used up pretty quick, but there are plenty of campaigns that have 15 minute adventuring days, and the inquistor can really take advantage of that.


Balkoth wrote:
Wonderstell wrote:
It's not normal that a PC should ever need +38 AB at level 12, since the average AC of a CR-equivalent opponent is supposed to be 27. But you aren't holding a normal game for your players, so I'm gonna guess our opinions on what is normal aren't that important for your table.

Check the attitude, please. Here's the roster for the main combat last night (first fight of level 12, mainly meant to let them play around with new abilities and feel awesome...especially the sorcerer who just got Chain Lightning):

10 CR6 creatures (AC 23 each)
20 CR6 creatures (AC 23 each)
1 CR10 creature (AC 31)
1 CR10 creature (AC 31)
1 CR10 creature (AC 36)

Sorry if you interpreted it as snark, I've just gotten the impression that you hold a very high-powered game where +38 AB might not be enough to guarantee a hit at level 12.

While your examples do show that your creature AC values are a bit inflated, +38 AB is still just overkill.
So it is "normal" for an Inquisitor to be able to reach that AB at level 12, but usually there just isn't any reason for them to buff their AB to that number.

I'm guessing the rest of the party is about 10-15 points below that, and you worry about being able to challenge the Inquisitor while not shutting down the rest of them?


Balkoth wrote:
Lyoto Machida wrote:
Does he spend the first couple rounds buffing?

Literally just Divine Power in terms of spells that "need" to be cast in combat. Heroism is long term.

Technically Judgement and Greater Bane as well but those are swift actions, one on turn one and one on turn two.

Wonderstell wrote:
It's not normal that a PC should ever need +38 AB at level 12, since the average AC of a CR-equivalent opponent is supposed to be 27. But you aren't holding a normal game for your players, so I'm gonna guess our opinions on what is normal aren't that important for your table.

Check the attitude, please. Here's the roster for the main combat last night (first fight of level 12, mainly meant to let them play around with new abilities and feel awesome...especially the sorcerer who just got Chain Lightning):

10 CR6 creatures (AC 23 each)
20 CR6 creatures (AC 23 each)
1 CR10 creature (AC 31)
1 CR10 creature (AC 31)
1 CR10 creature (AC 36)

Wonderstell wrote:
If you're wondering how they reached +38, you should probably just ask your player instead of us. But considering that the Inquisitor is pretty good at stacking buffs, I don't doubt it's possible.

I know how they reached it, I went over the math once I saw the number. That's why this is in Advice rather than Rules.

Wonderstell wrote:
Inflated gold per level and just picking up Outflank should definitely make 38 AB possible.

Quick character sheet audit shows 111kish, with 8k of it in a back-up Ghost Touch weapon. That's also with no crafting, so full price for everything.

Name Violation wrote:

Anything is possible.

But until you say more than "OMG +38AB WTF" we don't have enough information to give any advice.

That was pretty much my initial reaction, yes. But it all seems possible within the rules, that doesn't stop my reaction as you so aptly put it.

Name Violation wrote:
Do you have a breakdown of how this is happening? Can you post the characters stats
...

Looking at the breakdown, I'd say "Yes, pretty normal". My current character has 11BAB at level 13 (so slightly more than a straight 3/4 class, from multiclassing), and a static AB of 20, which is basically exactly on par with your player. Throw in flanking, a couple buff spells, and two rounds worth of swift actions, and it seems entirely reasonable. Plus he can only maintain that level of BAB for limited number of rounds per day, and he's essentially using resources to massively over-inflate his bonus higher than he needs it to be. Odds are some other aspect of his character is suffering adequately to make it up.

Grand Lodge

Are you trouble challenging the player? From My experience playing a melee inquisitor, here are the things I don't want to face:

Long spans of time between combats that force me to recast heroism, delay posion and other assorted buffs.

Numerous combats of moderate difficulty with a several enemies each that forces me to debate when I spend bane at inopportune times.

Hit and run tactics, something like a cavalier with ride by attack or a bunch of flying archers would be a significant headache.


Welcome to the Pathfinder Advice forum. Some here are more interested in chest-beating tribally for their style of play than offering advice for yours. You already seem aware of this.

That said, your question is subjective: "Is this sort of thing normal?".

"Normal" requires qualification to meaningfully discuss. As a baseline I offer Paizo's Monster Creation rules. Scrolling down to locate the table, these give the following relevant averages for a CR12 monster:

HP: 160
AC: 27
High Attack: 22
High Damage (average value if everything hits): 60

These statistics, however, are a little simplified and dated, though easy to get into. If you want a deeper dive, the later-published, ironically-named Simple Monster Creation rules offer a more detailed statistical breakdown. Extracting from the Combat creature arrays on a sub-page gets the below relevant averages for a CR12 monster:

HP: 176
AC: 29
Touch AC: 17
Flat-Footed AC: 21

High Weapon Attacks: +21/+16/+11
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 35

Low Weapon Attacks: +15/+10/+5
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 26

Two Natural Attacks: +21/+21
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 31

Three Natural Attacks: +21/+16/+16
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 41/21/21

You may notice these values tend to be higher than those found in the earlier Monster Creation rules/guidelines.

Nominally, a PC with "normal" wealth by level is of a CR equal to their class levels, notwithstanding a powerful race or mythic tiers. While you haven't provided the typical damage values or other statistics of this character, if you presented a clone of them as a CR12 enemy, by either of the above references they would not be normal. Discounting the bonus owed to flanking, which is conditional, the character's leading strike is a +32 to attack. This is matched earliest by a CR22 "normal" monster, which is, poetically, worth 32 times as much experience and thus nominal challenge as a CR12 monster.

That's pretty abnormal, but seemingly legitimate.


Artificial 20 wrote:

Welcome to the Pathfinder Advice forum. Some here are more interested in chest-beating tribally for their style of play than offering advice for yours. You already seem aware of this.

That said, your question is subjective: "Is this sort of thing normal?".

"Normal" requires qualification to meaningfully discuss. As a baseline I offer Paizo's Monster Creation rules. Scrolling down to locate the table, these give the following relevant averages for a CR12 monster:

HP: 160
AC: 27
High Attack: 22
High Damage (average value if everything hits): 60

These statistics, however, are a little simplified and dated, though easy to get into. If you want a deeper dive, the later-published, ironically-named Simple Monster Creation rules offer a more detailed statistical breakdown. Extracting from the Combat creature arrays on a sub-page gets the below relevant averages for a CR12 monster:

HP: 176
AC: 29
Touch AC: 17
Flat-Footed AC: 21

High Weapon Attacks: +21/+16/+11
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 35

Low Weapon Attacks: +15/+10/+5
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 26

Two Natural Attacks: +21/+21
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 31

Three Natural Attacks: +21/+16/+16
Damage (average value, per successful hit): 41/21/21

You may notice these values tend to be higher than those found in the earlier Monster Creation rules/guidelines.

Nominally, a PC with "normal" wealth by level is of a CR equal to their class levels, notwithstanding a powerful race or mythic tiers. While you haven't provided the typical damage values or other statistics of this character, if you presented a clone of them as a CR12 enemy, by either of the above references they would not be normal. Discounting the bonus owed to flanking, which is conditional, the character's leading strike is a +32 to...

I think this is a good way to compare the relative attack bonus, but I also think you're not evaluating them in a comparable way. The actual attack of the Inquisitor is right on par with these CR12 options. The flanking is positioning, as you said, so remove that +4. +7 is coming from buff spells, which aren't going to be part of a bestiary entry, so subtract that. +27 AB. Remove the bonus that literally only works for 12 rounds a day, and you have +25 AB. Arguably, that is a value which could be used for comparison purposes; it requires activating a class feature, but one that lasts all of combat, so could be considered nearly always up. A little high, but averages assume some "normal" values will be a bit higher. I maintain that the player is pretty normal, just maybe oddly concerned with boosting attack bonus over AC or saves.


How do other players feel about this? Does he make them feel useless?


Wonderstell wrote:
Sorry if you interpreted it as snark, I've just gotten the impression that you hold a very high-powered game where +38 AB might not be enough to guarantee a hit at level 12.

I think there's two misconceptions here that should be cleared up.

First, my game is a fairly low-powered Pathfinder game.

A, while I am allowing a 25 point buy, characters can't go below an 8 or above a 16 prior to racial bonuses. So no one can start with a 20 and a character who would dump two stats to 7 is effectively only getting a 21 point buy. Frankly it was originally 20 point buy and you could dump to 7 but I had a pair of players who really hated having low Charisma and would sacrifice other important stats to keep it positive.

B, I'm severely limiting the selection of books to CRB/APG/ACG with everything else per approval -- and I've turned down a lot of things (including some stuff within those three books).

C, the group is pretty close to WBL and there's no crafting, so no getting items at 50% off.

D, more powerful races are allowed but toned down.

E, there's no gestalt or anything else like that.

Second, Pathfinder itself is by default a very high powered game -- people can wind up with 40+ AB, AC, and damage per hit while having hundreds of HP.

Hell, at level 11 I had an Unchained Monk in the group who was attacking for +30, dealing 80+ damage a hit, and consistently had 41+ AC...AFTER some nerfs I applied. And he wasn't even using something like Crane Style or his AC would be even higher (though his damage would be slightly lower).

And if we're treating the monster creation rules as RAW, then let's remember another point of RAW: a character with PC class levels and PC wealth is considered that CR of a creature (NPC wealth is one less).

So I could take a carbon copy of that monk and throw it at the party (some of his numbers would be slightly lower due to lacking group buffs) and we'd have a CR11 enemy with still like 39ish AC. And again that's AFTER nerfs and NOT allowing a lot of stuff and WITHOUT using a defensive style.

Or to bring up this Inquisitor, he's running around with a 2H weapon while having 38 AC with a Judgement (and a polymorph) at level 12.

Wonderstell wrote:
While your examples do show that your creature AC values are a bit inflated, +38 AB is still just overkill.

I revamped the monster creation based on what players have ACTUALLY been doing -- because right now a Balor is supposed to be as strong as 24 level 11 characters but the Unchained Monk could more or less solo it with one round of group buffs, at least in a straight up melee fight.

For example, the default scaling is roughly 11 + 1.26 per CR. I upped it to 11 + 2 per CR. Basically takes into account more the stuff that players can do as the level since the game apparently vastly underestimates character growth. Meaning a CR14 enemy would have a default of 39 AC...which is only 1 more than the Inquisitor's AC at level 12, so I'm wondering if I need to tweak the values again. Especially since the Inquisitor also has 38 AC...and would be at 40 with a polymorph.

Wonderstell wrote:
I'm guessing the rest of the party is about 10-15 points below that, and you worry about being able to challenge the Inquisitor while not shutting down the rest of them?

That's a good chunk of it -- the Archer Paladin, for example, has 29 AB with Rapid Shot/Point Blank Shot/Smite Evil/Divine Favor.

And if the game was primarily story based with combat as an afterthought I'd be less worried -- but the campaign is primarily challenging combat. Hell, a few sessions ago a major enemy was in really bad shape after a long fight and I elected to have him flee when the party inadvertently gave him an opening to do so. The catch is this was quite late after a long session and I was so focused on the boss trying to survive that I didn't realize I could probably had TPKed the group if I had him be more aggressive. I was just worried about him living another round. So the next morning I get this message from an upset player...

"i see no reason why he even had to run, he could have just killed us. He had the upper hand on us. I get it if you dont want another TPK but still....It feels like you are pulling punches which I am fine with but I am rather you make that clear going forward that is how the game is going to be run."

We talked and I told him that I apparently missed it given the late hour, it wasn't intentional, and he seemed satisfied...but that's the mentality of at least a good chunk of the group.

Wasum wrote:
How do other players feel about this? Does he make them feel useless?

At least two other people are frustrated (out of 6 total). Two others tend more towards a support role and the last just brought in a Vivisectionist monstrosity mentioned in another thread...which is mainly a probably because I didn't expect him to polymorph into a CR20 creature with 6 extra bite attacks.

Lyoto Machida wrote:
Sounds like a pretty munchkin character, but I wonder what his own AC is?

38 usually. 36 if they don't have a chance to polymorph him.

He's also just a straight level 12 Inquisitor using standard stuff, don't think munchkin seems appropriate (which is what frustrates me the most -- nothing he's doing seems against RAI or unreasonable but the results are nuts).

Artificial 20 wrote:
Nominally, a PC with "normal" wealth by level is of a CR equal to their class levels, notwithstanding a powerful race or mythic tiers. While you haven't provided the typical damage values or other statistics of this character, if you presented a clone of them as a CR12 enemy, by either of the above references they would not be normal. Discounting the bonus owed to flanking, which is conditional, the character's leading strike is a +32 to attack. This is matched earliest by a CR22 "normal" monster, which is, poetically, worth 32 times as much experience and thus nominal challenge as a CR12 monster.

This is more or less why I've given up on the default monster creation table, aye.

Also, the flanking isn't really conditional -- he has an animal companion (Animal Domain) and Pack Flanking so as long as his pet is next to the enemy he gets the flanking bonus. Which is like 90%+ of the time.

awbattles wrote:
+7 is coming from buff spells, which aren't going to be part of a bestiary entry, so subtract that.

Au contraire:

"Because this system uses benchmark numbers instead of calculating individual statistics, a monster that uses its spells primarily to increase its own abilities (so that it can become a strong melee combatant, for instance) should use the array that best matches the way it will be used in the game rather than using the spellcaster array just because it can cast magic."

In other words, monsters with powerful buff spells are going to have less default AB/damage to compensate. Or if you're doing simple monster creation, you just bake the buff spells in and go with the final numbers.

awbattles wrote:
I maintain that the player is pretty normal, just maybe oddly concerned with boosting attack bonus over AC or saves.

38 AC with a 2H and saving throws of 20/17/24 seem pretty good to me.


Just be aware that your limited selection of books contain a majority of the most powerful options in the game.

Liberty's Edge

To answer your Q: No it's not normal, this is what happens when you let your Inq overbuff spending 3-10 rounds of pre-combat setup, ideal positioning, built to spec munchkin nonsense and also burning up all their daily uses of various abilities.

If it's disruptive to your game, just drop a few save or die spells on them and make them reroll something that doesn't require the perfect confluence of buffs to hit on every attack short of rolling a 1. Should this be causing the encounters to be trivialized then there is a problem that the GM has a responsibility to address, through force if necessary.

If it's not really a problem for the challenge rating for the party then let it ride and just start dropping ambushes and multiple encounters per day on the group.


Statistically, a regular to-hit of 26 or higher at Level 12 is min-maxed - anything past that point is really just the player wasting resources buffing something that doesn't need to be buffed. Emphasis on "regular" in the previous sentence - short-term, occasional buffs can easily put you past this viability limit, and shouldn't really be counted. Otherwise, lots of good advice here.


This seems about average honestly they could be doing much better if you hadn't nerfed a bunch of things especially since a level 7 fighter pre buffs should be having about a +20 to hit(21 if they start out with slightly higher str). Now you are adding 5 levels more loot and much higher level spells and buff time of course some one will get to or bypass +40 to hit.


Themetricsystem wrote:
To answer your Q: No it's not normal, this is what happens when you let your Inq overbuff spending 3-10 rounds of pre-combat setup, ideal positioning, built to spec munchkin nonsense and also burning up all their daily uses of various abilities.

I only see a few buffs that would even stop him from full attacking. Heroism and Divine Power. If he is casting both of them then yes, there is a lot of rounds for buffing but we were also told there are two party buffers so Heroism is most likely coming from one of them plus at this level, it does last a long time. So might have gotten one round to buff which seems to be not that hard to do. Personally, I do not think this is out of line and does not even seem to be min-maxing since I doubt he does a whole lot of damage.

Themetricsystem wrote:
If it's disruptive to your game, just drop a few save or die spells on them and make them reroll something that doesn't require the perfect confluence of buffs to hit on every attack short of rolling a 1. Should this be causing the encounters to be trivialized then there is a problem that the GM has a responsibility to address, through force if necessary.

This is the wrong way to handle it. Never do this. Talk to the player out of character and tell them that you are upset with their attack bonus and ask them to not use those powers. It is easy as that. If they refuse then you have a problem player on your hand and there are many ways to deal with that. I do not really know how your game is run but this is the best way instead of changing the rules.

Balkoth wrote:

I revamped the monster creation based on what players have ACTUALLY been doing -- because right now a Balor is supposed to be as strong as 24 level 11 characters but the Unchained Monk could more or less solo it with one round of group buffs, at least in a straight up melee fight.

For example, the default scaling is roughly 11 + 1.26 per CR. I upped it to 11 + 2 per CR. Basically takes into account more the stuff that players can do as the level since the game apparently vastly underestimates character growth. Meaning a CR14 enemy would have a default of 39 AC...which is only 1 more than the Inquisitor's AC at level 12, so I'm wondering if I need to tweak the values again. Especially since the Inquisitor also has 38 AC...and would be at 40 with a polymorph.

I am sorry, you are doing what? No one will be able to hit these guys and every battle is going to be a slog. This game was not made to have monsters have so much AC. Let's say you give CR 14 creatures 41 or 42 ac. That is only two levels higher, this Inq will only miss on a 1 or 2 but what about the rest of the party? The paladin is currently at 29 AB, he will miss on his first attack a lot. Based on the monster creation table, it seems that they want full BAB hitting on the first attack most of the time.


Melkiador wrote:
Just be aware that your limited selection of books contain a majority of the most powerful options in the game.

If you're referring to full casters, I'm aware, but right now I'm concerned about the balance between martials.

Themetricsystem wrote:
To answer your Q: No it's not normal, this is what happens when you let your Inq overbuff spending 3-10 rounds of pre-combat setup

I'm sorry, what?

He has Heroism, that lasts for 2 hours per cast right now.

Then he spent one round in combat casting Divine Power, that's it.

Themetricsystem wrote:
ideal positioning

Meaning "next to his animal companion?" Not exactly hard.

Themetricsystem wrote:
built to spec munchkin nonsense and also burning up all their daily uses of various abilities.

Exactly what has he done that is munchkin? That's a serious question -- the result seems munchkin, but all the individual decisions seem reasonable.

Also, "standard" Pathfinder combats only last like 2-3 rounds so 12+ rounds of Bane is enough for 4-6 combats...

GM Rednal wrote:
Statistically, a regular to-hit of 26 or higher at Level 12 is min-maxed - anything past that point is really just the player wasting resources buffing something that doesn't need to be buffed.

Again, an enemy with class levels (which a lot of enemies in this campaign are) can easily have 40+ AC at level 11 as demonstrated by my own players.

doomman47 wrote:
This seems about average honestly they could be doing much better if you hadn't nerfed a bunch of things especially since a level 7 fighter pre buffs should be having about a +20 to hit(21 if they start out with slightly higher str).

Please share how you got those numbers.

I'm getting something like

7 BAB
4 from base strength (19)
1 from strength item (Belt +2)
1 from +1 weapon
1 from Weapon Focus
1 from Weapon Training

That's 15. Not 20ish.

That said, a level 12 Fighter would have something like...

12 BAB
7 from strength (including strength item)
+3 weapon
+4 weapon training
+2 GWF

That's 28. With Heroism, Outflank, and Menacing that's 36, "only" 2 less than the Inquisitor (of course, the Inquisitor has an Animal Companion, larger damage bonuses (14 from Greater Bane alone), and a bunch of spells to buff the group).

Kianti wrote:
Personally, I do not think this is out of line and does not even seem to be min-maxing since I doubt he does a whole lot of damage.

Define a whole lot of damage?

He's hitting for 9 (1.5 str) + 5 (Falchion) + 14 (Greater Bane) + 3 (+3 weapon) + 5 (Divine Power with Fate's Favored) = 36 base damage.

That goes up to 44.5 if Polymorphed by the Arcanist and 53.5 if Power Attacking (would have 39 AB still at that point).

Kianti wrote:
It is easy as that. If they refuse then you have a problem player on your hand and there are many ways to deal with that. I do not really know how your game is run but this is the best way instead of changing the rules.

Except that is changing the rules.

Also, the campaign is supposed to be about challenging combat so simply saying "Hey I need you to not use those abilities" feels like a cheap cop-out at best.

If something needs to be nerfed I'm happy to nerf it, but I expect the players to make powerful (but not munchkin) characters.

Kianti wrote:
That is only two levels higher, this Inq will only miss on a 1 or 2 but what about the rest of the party?

They'll miss a lot more.

Going by the normal AC, last level (level 11) ONE character was doing over 300 damage per round to CR 11 enemies (CR 11 enemies have 145 HP, for reference). Killing two enemies per round that are supposed to be roughly your strength is clearly skewed.

So I can either go in and start nerfing characters to bring them in line with what the game expects or I can start scaling up the enemies. I got feedback from my players which indicated they'd rather I do the latter.

Hence how you get a 1200 HP boss who also summons a bunch of adds when the party is level 11.

P.S. Also remember an enemy monk built roughly the same as the PC monk could have the same or higher AC at the same level and thus the same CR. I've just tried to avoid doing that and instead am just using general AC/AB guidelines.


7bab +6str +1 weapon focus +3 weapon training(gloves of dueling are a must have for a fighter) and a +2 weapon gets them +19 attack bonus pre buffed of they pick a race that can give +4 str like orc or aasimar they can get it higher.

Or they can go a dex build and play a goblin and have even more to hit.


Also that damage looks tiny especially compared to what a sorc can dish out or even a min maxed martial. Even am barbarian at several levels lower would laugh at those numbers.


Also your pcs are level 12 they should be doing crazy cool stuff at that level.


*Glances back in* At Level 12, 40-80 damage per round is reasonably viable. This refers mainly to targeting single foes - if you get a Fireball on twelve CR 1 enemies, of course you're going to do way more. XD If they're above 80, that's really higher than necessary and probably hitting diminished returns for them because it's unlikely much of that extra damage is really helping to kill foes faster (<- which in this case is defined as the number of attacks needed to take the enemy down).


Balkoth wrote:

Except that is changing the rules.

Also, the campaign is supposed to be about challenging combat so simply saying "Hey I need you to not use those abilities" feels like a cheap cop-out at best.

If something needs to be nerfed I'm happy to nerf it, but I expect the players to make powerful (but not munchkin) characters.

I understand. I do not know what to tell you then. If you do end up nerfing his character, give him a chance to make a new character since I am sure he did not know this would happen beforehand. Now that is cleared up, what do you want from us? What kind of advice are you looking for? You clearly have an interesting game going on but it's so far from what I am used to that I am not sure I can help you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kianti wrote:
Balkoth wrote:

Except that is changing the rules.

Also, the campaign is supposed to be about challenging combat so simply saying "Hey I need you to not use those abilities" feels like a cheap cop-out at best.

If something needs to be nerfed I'm happy to nerf it, but I expect the players to make powerful (but not munchkin) characters.

I understand. I do not know what to tell you then. If you do end up nerfing his character, give him a chance to make a new character since I am sure he did not know this would happen beforehand. Now that is cleared up, what do you want from us? What kind of advice are you looking for? You clearly have an interesting game going on but it's so far from what I am used to that I am not sure I can help you.

With the amount of posts it seems he is having the same issue with every player in the group where high level characters are doing things high level characters should be doing.


GM Rednal wrote:
*Glances back in* At Level 12, 40-80 damage per round is reasonably viable. This refers mainly to targeting single foes - if you get a Fireball on twelve CR 1 enemies, of course you're going to do way more. XD If they're above 80, that's really higher than necessary and probably hitting diminished returns for them because it's unlikely much of that extra damage is really helping to kill foes faster (<- which in this case is defined as the number of attacks needed to take the enemy down).

Well a sorcerer can one shot a group of cr 11 creatures with one fireball at 12th level, and can get over 300 dpr for single target. Add 3 more levels and they can be doing over 600dpr vs single targets and can wipe out even higher cr enemies in an aoe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Balkoth wrote:
First, my game is a fairly low-powered Pathfinder game.

Yeah, it really isn't.

For some reason, your players seem to optimize their characters to a pretty extreme degree.

In any case, no, an attack roll of +38 at 12th level is not normal. But then again, neither is AC 36 for a CR 10 monster (the CR 10 monster with the highest AC in the game is the Nosferatu at AC 30).

My presumption is that you tried to fight the players min-maxing by increasing monster difficulty/stats, and the players responded by min-maxing even more, and so on, to the point where you're at now.

Grand Lodge

I'm more interested on how the two handed weapon Inquisitor has a 38 AC to be honest.

I can see having a 38 to hit or a 38 AC, but I'm not sure how you get both.


Balkoth wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Just be aware that your limited selection of books contain a majority of the most powerful options in the game.

If you're referring to full casters, I'm aware, but right now I'm concerned about the balance between martials.

Even for martials, those books contain a majority of the strongest options. Barbarians and Bloodragers are beasts. The paladin can be the tankiest tank. And the Ranger's Instant Enemy spell was probably a step too far, for buffing that class. And if you're including 6th level spellcasters as martials, then you have options like the inquisitor, magus, summoner and alchemist which can dish out massive amounts of damage.

Really, the only big thing I can immediately think of outside of those 3 sources is advanced weapon training for the fighter. Most of the stuff outside of the core line of books is weaker, but more flavorful than the stuff inside the core line.

Grand Lodge

How is this a problem? You dont get anything out of bypassing AC by alot.
A touch attacking gunslinger will do the samme and having easier time full attacking each round.
Save or die spells with ridiculous high save DC are just as effective.

Welcome to level 12.


doomman47 wrote:
7bab +6str +1 weapon focus +3 weapon training(gloves of dueling are a must have for a fighter) and a +2 weapon

Our level 7 character has a budget of 23.5k. So far we've spent 15k on Gloves of Dueling and 8.3k on a +2 weapon. That gives us 200 gold for armor, belts, ring, amulets, cloaks, and everything else.

doomman47 wrote:
Also that damage looks tiny especially compared to what a sorc can dish out or even a min maxed martial. Even am barbarian at several levels lower would laugh at those numbers.

I like how people are claiming my campaign is high powered but apparently think Doommman's campaign seems perfectly normal.

Kianti wrote:
Now that is cleared up, what do you want from us? What kind of advice are you looking for?

I'm not sure. I was just thrown for a massive loop when I saw those numbers.

Really I just want everyone on the same page. The problem is party disparity.

doomman47 wrote:
With the amount of posts it seems he is having the same issue with every player in the group where high level characters are doing things high level characters should be doing.

Ironically if that were the case I wouldn't be here baffled.

Instead it was 2 people doing this sort of crazy stuff. Now it's a third who switched from a cleric to a Vivisectionist Alchemist with 9 natural attacks.

The other half of the party seems left behind by a MASSIVE margin.

And a few levels earlier this discrepancy didn't exist, or at least was significantly smaller to the point it wasn't a problem.

doomman47 wrote:
Well a sorcerer can one shot a group of cr 11 creatures with one fireball at 12th level, and can get over 300 dpr for single target. Add 3 more levels and they can be doing over 600dpr vs single targets and can wipe out even higher cr enemies in an aoe.

Again, no one is batting an eye when Doomman thinks a level 15 caster should be able to one-shot a CR26 enemy (according to the Monster Creation chart, that's how much HP a CR26 enemy is supposed to have).

Derklord wrote:
But then again, neither is AC 36 for a CR 10 monster (the CR 10 monster with the highest AC in the game is the Nosferatu at AC 30).

The CR10 with 36 AC is basically a Fighter with a shield.

Without a shield CR10 enemies have 31 AC, which is pretty close to your Nosferatu.

Derklord wrote:
My presumption is that you tried to fight the players min-maxing by increasing monster difficulty/stats, and the players responded by min-maxing even more, and so on, to the point where you're at now.

Well, I started by trying to prevent their min-maxing and keeping their power level at roughly what the game expected.

That upset half of them and they said they'd much rather I change enemies than nerf them (other half wasn't a problem at the time and didn't care either way).

So then I increased monster stats based on what their characters could actually do and then apparently we went off to the races apparently, yes. But now we're leaving behind the other half the party which is my real concern.

Lyoto Machida wrote:

I'm more interested on how the two handed weapon Inquisitor has a 38 AC to be honest.

I can see having a 38 to hit or a 38 AC, but I'm not sure how you get both.

10 base AC

3 from Dex
11 from +5 Mithral Breastplate
5 from Barkskin
4 from Shield of Faith
3 from Judgement (he activates AB and AC Judgments)
2 from Monstrous Physique

That's 38.

Doesn't even have something like Dodge or a Wand of Shield or something.

Melkiador wrote:
Really, the only big thing I can immediately think of outside of those 3 sources is advanced weapon training for the fighter. Most of the stuff outside of the core line of books is weaker, but more flavorful than the stuff inside the core line.

I would consider Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic as part of the core line of books, no?

Monstrous Physique seems to be a major boost in power as one example from Ultimate Magic. I only allowed it because the Brown Fur Transmuter claimed the monk could use his unarmed strikes as a Huge Bear or something anyway so it really only "hurt" the non-monk party members.

I'd rather regretting allowing it currently.

Not to mention stuff like Quick Dirty Trick, Clustered Shots, Tetori Monk, etc.

*Khan* wrote:
How is this a problem? You dont get anything out of bypassing AC by alot.

It means attacking a higher level enemy doesn't cause you to miss significantly more, which is part of the game's balance. If AB/AC are meaningless then the game boils down to damage and HP, at least from the martial angle.

Which means a creature has to gain a LOT more HP per level to keep up with the appropriate power growth -- right now the game assumes you'll also miss more and thus the HP growth is slower.

*Khan* wrote:
A touch attacking gunslinger will do the samme and having easier time full attacking each round.

Guns aren't allowed for thematic reasons.

*Khan* wrote:
Save or die spells with ridiculous high save DC are just as effective.

Such as?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on that then I have a few pieces of advice. I will start with saying that I do not think anything you find strong from UC and UM are that bad but I doubt my opinion matters to you on that. They have been out for so long now that it is core part of the game as with all the other core line books. People play PF for choices and more books give that. Anyways on to the advice.

Even if you did not allow MP, they would have found a way to get BS to get to the same point. It's just the nature of the spells. You should ban polymorph from the game. That would solve your problem right away. There would be no more OP characters since all their damage would drop off big time but then you are going to have to go back on a lot of the changes you have made to the monsters. This also comes with the price that the players may not be happy. If three people are doing this together then they seem to like it.

You could remove the three players that are giving you a problem. The general advice is that you remove problem players from the game but then you have to look for three new players which I doubt would be very hard since there are always new players but that comes with the unknown of what those players are like.

Then there is the third choice. If these people are your friends and you like playing with them. Change systems. Do it now. The longer you wait, the more headaches you are going to get since it seems like PF might not be what you are looking for from a game. On this front, I can offer you other games to play but I am not really sure what you want from a system so I would need that info from you before I offer anything on that front.

The key to all of this is to have fun right? From what I see here, you are not having any fun and I can't speak for your players. I would be careful in thinking you know what they want though. Depending on how well you know them, they might not be saying everything on their mind. People do not like to confront others. It's by nature and you can see it all over the internet when players and GM talk about problems in their game that could be solved with talking.

I want to help you make your game a better game but I think house-ruling is the wrong way to go about it. It causes all kinds of problems the more you add. That includes messing with the monsters.


Balkoth wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
7bab +6str +1 weapon focus +3 weapon training(gloves of dueling are a must have for a fighter) and a +2 weapon

Our level 7 character has a budget of 23.5k. So far we've spent 15k on Gloves of Dueling and 8.3k on a +2 weapon. That gives us 200 gold for armor, belts, ring, amulets, cloaks, and everything else.

Budget is 47k per person at 7th level, always make sure at least some one in the party can craft, if not some one else can you make sure your own character can craft. So these are the numbers a fighter of that level should have at that level.


Balkoth wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
Also that damage looks tiny especially compared to what a sorc can dish out or even a min maxed martial. Even am barbarian at several levels lower would laugh at those numbers.
doomman47 wrote:
Well a sorcerer can one shot a group of cr 11 creatures with one fireball at 12th level, and can get over 300 dpr for single target. Add 3 more levels and they can be doing over 600dpr vs single targets and can wipe out even higher cr enemies in an aoe.
Again, no one is batting an eye when Doomman thinks a level 15 caster should be able to one-shot a CR26 enemy (according to the Monster Creation chart, that's how much HP a CR26 enemy is supposed to have).

Can !/= will, while mathematically they CAN do such high numbers in practice actually getting those numbers is not as easy. Also you know high level spell casters tend to break things and a damage focused caster is the least worrying caster type in the game.


Kianti wrote:
You should ban polymorph from the game. That would solve your problem right away.

That, right there. <thumbs up>

I hate the traveling-monster-freakshow-circus that the game has trended to in recent years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m failing to see why it matters that they can realible hit an enemy if they could be figniting 33 enemies in an “main encounter” . Plus he is melee so he has to move to something to full attack and he has spend a turn buffing. Really not seeing an issue with this in the way you design encounters.

If martial characters aren’t all but certain to kill every turn I think I’d just lose my mind at the sheer boredom of a fight that long.

Also he is using 4 expendable resources to achieve that, plus having to get outflank to go off, plus maybe other things I forgot.

He can’t do that in multiple combats a day, divine power he probably has 4 castings of, he has 4 judgements a day and 12 rounds of bane.

This is an extremely limited nova and honestly kind of a bad strategy.

They’d be better off only using one of those buffs and just turning Bane on for full attacks. To give them more longevity.

But then I guess is most of the session is taken up with one massive fight there isn’t any reason to be sparring.

How many combats do you have a session?

Shadow Lodge

To be honest, doomman47's games aren't typical in any way, either.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Balkoth wrote:
First, my game is a fairly low-powered Pathfinder game.

If this is the same game you made the Mitigating Enervation Spam thread about then no it is not. Even if it is a different game, THAT many enemies means it is not low powered unless you aren't even trying to hide the fact you want the Player Characters to lose and get wiped out, and are now upset that isn't happening.


I think you have already diagnosed the source of your "trouble."

Balkoth wrote wrote:

And if the game was primarily story based with combat as an afterthought I'd be less worried -- but the campaign is primarily challenging combat. Hell, a few sessions ago a major enemy was in really bad shape after a long fight and I elected to have him flee when the party inadvertently gave him an opening to do so. The catch is this was quite late after a long session and I was so focused on the boss trying to survive that I didn't realize I could probably had TPKed the group if I had him be more aggressive. I was just worried about him living another round. So the next morning I get this message from an upset player...

"i see no reason why he even had to run, he could have just killed us. He had the upper hand on us. I get it if you dont want another TPK but still....It feels like you are pulling punches which I am fine with but I am rather you make that clear going forward that is how the game is going to be run."

This suggests to me that you have transitioned (or maybe just started there?) from a role-playing/story-based game to a wargame. That at least one player was disappointed you didn't "try to win" by killing all of them seems confirmation. In some ways it speaks to the flexibility of the system that it can be used as a wargame but underlying mechanics make it a challenge. The largest being it becomes the GM vs. the players. And each player is trying his best to make a better monster (or monster-killer.) And as is the case in any other more classic game, there are winners and losers. And some players are better than others. And eventually, there's a chance one or more players will be better than the GM. And then things get weird.

It appears your NeverMiss Inquisitor is a legitimate construct according to the rules. That player is winning. Your recently arrived Vivisectionist is just playing along in the arm's race. And now you have some players who are falling behind. Maybe they aren't as good at finding quirky rule synergies (I really wanted to say perverse rule synergies there just to show my bias) or maybe they're not as interested in doing so.

I don't have any practical advice other than to have an open discussion at the table about how and why everyone is playing. Because, as I think someone suggested earlier in the thread, this is only going to get worse as the levels rise. If you thought your level 12 Inquisitor was death incarnate, wait until the characters get to level 16 or 17. Have any full casters in your group? 9th level spells are world-breaking and potentially game-breaking. On purpose.

Grand Lodge

How long do you say passes each time they search a room?

My GM says it takes about 10 minutes each time a group makes a perception check to thoroughly search a room and I'd suggest you do the same.

This way he can't just have shield of faith, divine favor, monstrous physique etc. all up and running when a fight starts. If you allow all his 12 minute long buffs to last half the dungeon crawl, it's going to be tough for you to challenge him.

Make him spend the first couple rounds buffing himself to his 38 AC and attack instead of just saying it takes 30 seconds to thoroughly search a room and allowing him to get way more mileage out of his spells than he should.


Serum wrote:
To be honest, doomman47's games aren't typical in any way, either.

What's that suppose to mean.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Left hand, meet right.

Shadow Lodge

doomman47 wrote:
Serum wrote:
To be honest, doomman47's games aren't typical in any way, either.
What's that suppose to mean.

It means that your games are hyper-optimized, and outside of the norm of most games (not necessarily that you have game-changing house rules).

Liberty's Edge

Honestly, after reading through this and also the Reddit thread... my best advice would be to show the GM and the offending player this post and on the subreddit.

They should get a good grasp of why it's problematic, what they're doing that you aren't enjoying, and an idea of hopefully how to improve the game.

Fact is, it sounds like your Inq and GM are at war with each other like this is some kind of wargame for them, but the other players and yourself are NOT participating in that aspect of the game so you and likely others are getting frustrated that this one Player is hogging the spotlight.

Truth be told, if everything you've noted here and in other places is really true, I'd talk to the other players who are frustrated, and then spit off and start your own table, even if that means one of you have to GM for a while. These two people are ruining other players fun, and no matter what the nay-sayers here or elsewhere have to say, if one player is able to wreck the game balance and enjoyment for others, then something needs be done.


Themetricsystem wrote:

Honestly, after reading through this and also the Reddit thread... my best advice would be to show the GM and the offending player this post and on the subreddit.

They should get a good grasp of why it's problematic, what they're doing that you aren't enjoying, and an idea of hopefully how to improve the game.

Fact is, it sounds like your Inq and GM are at war with each other like this is some kind of wargame for them, but the other players and yourself are NOT participating in that aspect of the game so you and likely others are getting frustrated that this one Player is hogging the spotlight.

Truth be told, if everything you've noted here and in other places is really true, I'd talk to the other players who are frustrated, and then spit off and start your own table, even if that means one of you have to GM for a while. These two people are ruining other players fun, and no matter what the nay-sayers here or elsewhere have to say, if one player is able to wreck the game balance and enjoyment for others, then something needs be done.

Just an FYI, this thread was made by the GM and that Reddit thread was me. I am not the inq, I am the brown fur arcanist. I am upset for the other players since high AC does not change how I play. When other players are unhappy, so am I and currently, most of the players do not like super high AC. I understand there is a lot to read but I just wanted some outside input on how others would handle it and it seems that I was correct that messing with the game is not the way to go.


Serum wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
Serum wrote:
To be honest, doomman47's games aren't typical in any way, either.
What's that suppose to mean.
It means that your games are hyper-optimized, and outside of the norm of most games (not necessarily that you have game-changing house rules).

Hyper optimised meaning basic math of the class abilities put forth by the developers... nothing I have posted in this thread is hyper optimized anyone could put those characters together if the simply knew the source material, its not hard to see that a fighter with certain items can hit good or that a blaster speced sorcerer can do high damage with blood havoc and a bloodline that supports blasting.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Inquisitor With +38 AB At Level 12? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.