Pathfinder General /pfg/
BambooForrest's Favorite 2hu Edition
Unified /pfg/ link repository: http://pastebin.com/53QiHfcU
Old Thread: >>44906228
What're some fun adventures you could have when you're small enough to ride a mouse like it's a warhorse?
What sort of challenges should one throw at a tiny party?
>some of the toy-sized inhabitants of the area used to be human
>one Ulfen raiding party decided generations ago that they'd not have a new king until someone could slay the stray dog that sometimes wandered into the abandoned manor they now inhabit
>while Husky King sounds a lot less glorious than Linnorm King, it'd be a real feat at your size
>Forgetting to post a pic
Anyways, I rolled a 70 to intimidate with my Antipaladin / Dread and quite literally scared away a CR 12 Daemon into returning to hell.
I know it's cheating but I once had a mythic character who got +100 on a stealth check. Joked that that's how Norgerber (presumably a Rogue in life) actually managed to make everyone forget who he truly was before going all godmode.
How do I Oracle? I'm playing in a game soon and the setting is one where shamanism and prophets and stuff are more common within the culture than a "church" really.
However, looking over the Oracles stuff, they just seem like a crappy copy of clerics. What can they do to shine at fairly lowish levels (6-12)?
I rolled a nat 20+40 knowledge check on my DM's homebrew devil.
I ended up learning his true name and can now call upon him to do my deeds. I haven't. I'm smart and genre-savvy enough to know my DM will fuck it up anyhow.
What do you want to do? A few choice mysteries give you really powerful revelations depending on what you favor doing. Oracle's a pretty well designed and versatile class and the Cleric spell list is generally sparse enough of truly great spells that the trade off isn't so bad (Unlike the Wizard Sorcerer trade off where there's so many damn good spells that the limit is abysmal).
Well, the entire rest of the party are big bulky melee fighters, so some kind of support role would be nice. Healing was my main plan, but any kind of buff/debuff/support skills playstyles would be nice.
If I must use combat, I think I'd prefer to go with a bow or ranged weapon of some sort.
What does /tg/ think of "Dex-to-Damage" feats? I'm stuck with a GM who thinks they're "bullshit" and has disallowed all forms of Dex-to-Damage.
Unfortunately my favorite two classes to play as, Magus and Unchained Ninja, both sort of rely on it to be any good. Should I make an argument that the Unchained Ninja is built around it and that the Magus sucks until it gets heavy armor without it? Or should I just play another class?
Also note that GM is buttmad because he wanted Dex-to-Damage as a monk last time he was a player and the GM then had said no because Monks don't get that according to the rules.
Yeah, already tried that. Despite wanting it on the last character he played, he's now suddenly of the opinion that it's "unbalanced" and that the system shouldn't allow you to "completely dump a stat like that"... and to some extent, I actually agree. However at the same time it's not as if Fighters don't get to dump Int, Charisma, Wisdom, ect... pretty much every class in the game gets to dump stuff.
I'm about to run a kineticist through an adventure path going aether, then earth, then air. What should I know? What items work really well with this class? How can I get some synergy going with it?
I'm aiming for a trickster type. Any suggestions?
You realize that it's possible to roll any particular combination on any given roll, right? It's not like the highest on each die is less likely than the lowest on each die magically because it's good for the PC.
Oh, punctuation error. My bad.
I rolled 2 crits and rolled max damage for my 4 scimitar attacks, during one round.
Still sounds unlikely, but I ain't lying about my miraculous rolls.
This is me half the time.
I'll admit, I make almost all of my characters
well-adjusted with relatively happy childhoods.
>the Secret Sociopath
This is the rest of my group.
As for Dex-to-Damage, I'm okay with it. I know I'd allow it as a GM.
Is it a good idea to summon a Lemure to assist in combat with average men?
Is it a good idea to allow the Lemure to assist with interrogating the surviving highwayman by making him watch it devour his dead friends by encompassing them in its mass?
Is it a good idea to do this in front of a wounded knight and his squire who are close friends of the royal inquisition hellbent on ridding the mire of devilspawn?
Is it a good idea to do any of this while worshipping Lamashtu?
We just don't know.
If healing's what you want then the classic life link Oradin is the build for you.
Debuffing's really easy, there tends to be a solid debuff at every level.
Level 1: Command or Murderous Command. Command is always good, Murderous Command is AMAZING if you can convince your GM that the stupid guys will start infighting when you pull it off, otherwise it's still great but less versatile than Command.
Level 2: Sound Burst is a classic. AoE save or stun for 1 round is solid, though possibly dangerous in an all melee party
Level 3: Blindness/Deafness and Bestow Curse are the classics.
If you're going Oradin that's plenty deep for spells and that should get you a long ways in.
Good buffs for a doofy party of fighters is bull's strength early on (make dudes hit harder and more accurately before they get those nice +4 strength belts), communal resist energy (so they don't get wrecked by a single fireball) and communal protection from evil are all winners.
At 4th level there's baby's wannabe Haste with Blessing of Fervor -- still great if you've got no arcane caster to shore up that hole, though. Fervor is better for casting types (that free metamagic)
Where'd you get 9% from? The crit is 30%, confirming the crit merely means he has to hit again, which likely he does the vast majority of the time. It would be 30% and 30% or 9% to roll 2 crits. You don't have to roll in your crit range twice to confirm crits, you just have to hit the target.
As for max on 4d6, like I said, unlikely.
Calm your autism m8.
I'm not gonna lie. Everyone in our table is this with different flavors.
>Player 1: "We could try killing everyone"
>Player 2: "Too messy. I could easily mind-control them instead into jumping into my bag of holding instead"
>Player 3: "Guys, lets just walk away and poison their food later tonight."
>Player 1: "Or kill them in their sleep"
>Player: "That too"
>DM: "Have you guys considered, maybe introducing yourselves to the duke and duchess first and offering your talents in exchange of payment, BEFORE plotting to rob and kill them!?"
Play with a GM who's not retarded and lets you ignore spell components costing less than 5gp.
Non-sorcerers can take it took, but it's sort of a waste of a feat.
Seriously, I've never run a game where the GM actually makes us keep track of components. He usually doesn't make archers keep track of their ammo either unless they're using some sort of rare/special ammo.
Someone's self-buffed himself before posting on /tg/ I see
Level 1 Human Cavalier, Daring Champion.
Weapon Focus (Any 1-Handed Slashing Weapon) Slashing Grace.
I now have Dex-to-hit and Damage at level one. I can finesse a Battleaxe better than a rogue can a rapier.
It's a little broken.
Too bad cavaliers suck.
But damn, that looks better than Dervish Dancer for Maguses... well... maybe. I'm not sure if there are many other weapons with the same crit range as Scimitars.
>What sort of challenges should one throw at a tiny party?
You do undestand that a tiny party is a good deal stronger than a medium-sized one as evertyone is smart enough to stick to classes that rock the world anyway?
It works with ANY 1-handed Slashing Weapon, and you can just do that first level and then go take your normal class after. Since you also have Medium Amror Prof, get into Mith B.Plate and you can ignore spell failure so even casting doesn't slow you down.
Hello Kensai Magus. So its a really solid start.
Thinking of joining my local PFS. No idea what kind of play is usually expected at these events though. What're some options that probably won't get me run out?
Thinking of trying Magus or Unchained Monk.
I don't think PFS allows "Unchained" classes since they're third-party content.
That being said, even the unchained version of the monk still completely sucks. You're honestly better off just going with a Rogue or Ninja, taking "Improved Unarmed Combat", and using your sneak attack damage as fluff for lethal unarmed strikes.
As for what won't get you thrown out... eh, avoid the more advanced archetypes and you're probably fine. Avoid Magus. I'll be honest, the whole "Spam Shocking Grasp to out-damage everyone!" thing is boring as hell and I hate GM'ing for Maguses who do that.
So I'm going to be playing in an evil campaign and I've decided to try out the Slayer hybrid class. I'm going to be an NE Damphir with the Executioner archetype. I've got a +4 Dex mod and a +2 Str mod, and I think composite bows will be my primary weapon. For now I've got a longsword for melee, and took Point Blank Shot as my lvl 1 feat. I think I'll get Weapon Finesse as my next feat and swap over to the rapier but I'm not sure.
Is this build viable? What kinds of feats would you recommend?
No 3rd party shit allowed, btw.
Apologies, the first unchained class I ever played was Ninja which is third-party, so I guess I kinda assumed they all were.
Generally memorizing what's first party or not hasn't been a big deal for me, since I play with a group that's fairly open on what they allow... but I'm pretty sure PFS isn't quite as lax, from what I've heard.
Dwarf is a pretty cool Cavalier too. All those saving throws bonus from Wisdom,Con,Hardy,Glory of the Old.
Be Order of the Tome for even more saving throws and ability to cast scroll from any Divine class.
Just finished a session in which my character is now sharing his body with an unpleasant ghost. But, what my GM hasn't realised is that I have the Silver Crane Discipline and that next level I'm going to be grabbing one of those 'Pinion' strikes and self-flagellate the ghost out of me.
I don't care for them, but I don't really see them as bullshit. If you can rely on finesse and hand-eye coordination to hit better you should be able to deal more damage with it to.
Weapon finesse should've just given you both in the first place.
Plus if the GM wants he can fuck them over with entangle or dex damaging poisons.
Unchained Ninja or Magus (Especially so) don't need them as bad as you think though.
You can do just fine without them.
Have you tried challenging him outside of using shocking grasp?
Like an enemy who's immune to electric attacks? Or is in a globe of invulnerability?
It's not hard to punish a player for using the same tactic over and over.
Sure... but the magus is a weird class in the sense that they HAVE to lean on that. Take that away an they become so worthless as to not be fun.
Yeah, they COULD take other spells... but they usually wont. Last time I threw electric immune enemies at a player, they just used that meta-magic feat that changes the spell's element instead of trying another combat style.
I dunno, maybe I just lack confidence as a GM, but I'm sorta afraid of shutting down my players too hard. Someone plays a magus cos they wana swing around a magic sword... throwing magic-immune enemies at them feels like a dick move.
>Sure... but the magus is a weird class in the sense that they HAVE to lean on that. Take that away an they become so worthless as to not be fun.
Hell naw. You got chill touch, you got true strike for maneuvers, you got a lot of things you can do aside from trying to alpha strike with shocking grasp.
Why people don't know about this? It's pretty obvious.
> When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB....
> Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus.
You can still fail.
The original statement by Stormwind that he called fallacious was "you cannot optimize and roleplay the same character." That is clearly fallacious.
It is often expanded to mean "optimization and roleplaying are completely independent and have no impact on one another," which is, in the extreme, not true (though in practice it's true enough to be workable). But that's not what "the Stormwind Fallacy" is.
I disagree I've seen some nasty disarming magus, but I see what you mean from a GM's stand point.
When your characters make a one trick pony it at least has the advantage of letting them shine when appropriate. I just don't see how a class with the ability to cast and fight decently ends up being so...unimaginative.
Alright, I have a question about the feat "Whip-Slinger".
A player has sent me a message saying thusly:
>It lets you threaten all squares that you can hit with your sling. That's 50'. 50'. Let me repeat that one more time. 50'.
>Or, if you're feeling spicy, you can threaten 80' instead with the sling staff (rather than a normal sling). But the ride doesn't stop there. Even if your sling is unloaded, you can still take AoOs (with a measly -4 atk for the "inconvenience").
My immediate response is to laugh and say "The fuck are you smoking, no that isn't how it works", but I'm going to not kneejerk and ask for elucidation.
Actual text of whip-slinger:
>When wielding a sling, double sling, or halfling sling staff, you threaten areas around you as normal and can make attacks of opportunity with the sling into these threatened areas. The sling deals 1d4 nonlethal bludgeoning damage (1d6 for a Medium wielder), threatens a critical hit on a 20, and deals ×2 damage on a critical hit. If the sling isn’t loaded with ammunition when you make an attack of opportunity, you take a –4 penalty on the attack roll.
I'm lazy so I'll just quote relevant rule for you.
> you threaten areas around you as normal and can make attacks of opportunity with the sling into these threatened areas.
> Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).
T-Fag is known for extrapolating some odd conclusions from text that to most is very clear, as in this case.
Basically what I thought.
It turned into 2 seconds of back and forth before I dropped the hammer and said I made my call, unless you find an official source saying otherwise.
I mean, Aoos at range is something high level initiators can do, but as a core PF feat? They don't have the balls to do it.
Ha, fuck no!
Look, I respect his work on 4e optimizing, and used some of it, but he hasn't brought anything meaningful or worthwhile to these threads save extreme edge case rule queries to people who have flat out stated they don't have the time to field them.
Unlike his 4e work, I can't even use any of it, because some of it is so screwball, I'd have to struggle how to make it work in something that wasn't just a thought experiment.
I co-GM for a Pathfinder group (one main GM, one co-GM [me], four players).
Planescape setting, 8th-level gestalt, 60 point buy, free powerful template for everyone that includes twice base land speed good flight and many mid-level SLAs, third-party classes only.I have also wound up playing in a game with one of those four players as GM.
Since all of our classes heavily integrate Dreamscarred Press material and we often wind up experimenting with new material (sometimes even completely rebuilding characters), our policy from day one when it comes to unclear rules has never been "have the GM settle it," but rather, "ask the developers about it." The logic is that asking for designer intent and clarification will give the clearest possible answer.
Over the course of the past couple of weeks alone, players of my group have asked about everything from the the Augmented Blade, the Awakened Blade's Hypercognitive Focus and mystics, the Deep Impact feat and maneuvers, how certain athanatism powers work, how Genesis works, the costs for hiring psionicists, the Blade Rush Frenzy blade skill, and Solar Wind and firearms.
That group policy is why I ask the DSP writers here. The others in the group do it just as often; it is just that they ask anonymously, and collectively, they have probably asked about twice or thrice as much as I have.
Unlike the 4e threads where the main point of my posts was to give build ideas and dole out advice, I post here mainly to *ask for clarifications*, because I am not especially interested in that many builds in particular.
I apologize, then.
1) Why are you under the impression that the devs exist solely to cater to your group? They have lives outside of answering your dumb questions.
2) Does that apology mean you're gonna fuck off? Somehow I doubt it.
Think of it as impartiality between the players and the GM (or GM and co-GM, in this case).
People will ask questions regarding DSP material in these threads regardless. There is nothing that can be done to stop it.
Will it truly hurt so much to add more questions?
The group's internal policy is "ask the developers" in this case.
What makes a question "a good question" vs. "should be solved by GM ruling"?
Off hand, the last inquiry I personally asked was the range on the mystic's Quell Magic, which was supposedly a "good question." What makes that "good" and the others "bad"?
About to start reading the entire thread, so I'll pose a question while strolling through the crazy:
Marrionette Possession vs. Deep Slumber for a touch attack-centric, chaotic neutral necromancer?
>Had a Half-Orc Barbarian, Rourke Boarfist.
>Played with him and my group for 3 year campaign, hit level epic 30.
>all of my skill points into intimidate.
>intimidation so high townsfolk had to roll collective will saves to not die of heart failure when ole Rourke walked into the room.
Let's stop the attacks, shall we?
Speaking personally as a dev, I like and appreciate unclear rules or major concerns being brought to me. It lets me fix things that I hadn't seen, clarify rules that weren't, and rebalance where things get abusive.
There is a fine line, though. Gareth talked about some of it, with Corner Case discussion. While we can easily clarify RAI, there comes a point where fixing the RAW just opens more corner cases. After that point it's about as useful as hearing our stuff is overpowered with no other feedback.
There are other lines, but that's a much longer discussion. Please recognize where "helpful" stops and respect each other, as well as the guys you're giving feedback to. Many of these are common sense, which PFG is typically decent at. Answer questions, and if we see stuff is being misunderstood by more than one person here or there we can step in to clarify and rewrite.
What do you consider a corner case to be handled by "common sense," and what do you consider a "good question"?
I seem unable to distinguish between the two, and my group does not seem able to help with this either consider that *they* also constantly ask questions here, and they include the likes of people finding Autohypnosis to be "overpowered" because it allows a character to memorize every detail of the campaign.
DSP has a monster classes subscription up on their website.
Anyone know which DSP author wrote it? Is it any good?
I don't remember seeing any playtests for it and whilst i used to jump at these products i got screwed over by in the company of angels despite that being from a company that previously published excellent shit in that product line.
Build-wise: Draconic and
if your GM allows it, Sage
Draconic benefits the most, of the bloodlines I've actually payed attention to, since a sorcerer using natural attacks outside of polymorph is fucking retarded, and a free spell tattoo/day is worth more than a limited breath attack.
An example of a good question you submitted was:
>What is the range on Quell Magic?
That's a question about an oversight in an ability, one that can be expected to have a concrete answer which isn't supposed to be open to interpretation.
An example of a bad question would be:
>What is the limit on uses of Autohypnosis?
This is a bad question because it asks about upper bounds of something that takes up time in a game, and will vary based on the attitudes of players, DMs and different session needs and thus should be left to the DM to decide how much is appropriate.
In addition, questions about how abilities we write interact with /your/ houserules aren't something we can answer. Gestalt falls under this category, as does the use of 3.5 material. We can't answer questions about material we don't support, or rules that you've made up that apply to only your table.
I hope that helps clear things up for you.
Looking at the preview it certainly doesn't look well designed, but i can't see it being tier 5. To me it looks like the higher end of tier 4/low end of tier 3, as it still gets casting and/or tons of SLAs, shapeshifting, wings, immunities, ludicrous stats etc.
Bard Casting off the cleric list is pretty shit imo, I'd probably just take the SLAs for stuff like at will dispel magic and access to quicken SLA. But i agree how can this thing be tier 5?
I'm also confused why it only has 15 levels. The best monster classes go all the way to 20 regardless of how strong the original monster was.
This is unintuitive to me, because the question on Quell Magic's range was *not* one that came up in a game, while Autohypnosis actually was one that came up in a campaign.
What about questions on material that seems unclear, such as how temporary manifester level increases work when manifesting powers with long casting times, or the instantaneous/permanent durations of various athanatism powers? Are those good questions or corner cases?
What of inquiries that cover material of suspect game balance, such as the tactician's Collective Defenses? A good question or a corner case?
What about questions regarding intersections of rules that cause illegal or impossible game states, such as Negative Energy Affinity (from Seventh Path) creating a nonexistent element for the Elemental Flux discipline? Good question or corner case?
I have only ever asked a single question on gestalt, and that was related to power pools (and that was never answered, probably for the best).
To add to this: a if you want to blast and your GM allows you to stack metamagic traits, a human tattooed sorcerer of the draconic blood can stack +CL boosts (spell specialization, magic tattoo), grab empowered spell, and be spitting out 1d4+4 burning hands at level 1, and chucking (10d6*1.5)+10 fireballs by level 7.
Tattooed sorcerer is excellent, and I have put it on basically every single sorcerer I have ever made. It's actually starting to make it hard to make sorcerers, because I can't /stop/ putting it on.
>I have only ever asked a single question on gestalt, and that was related to power pools (and that was never answered, probably for the best).
I asked that question once on RPG.SE, see also what answer it got if you still want an answer (if not THE answer).
>mfw that same campaign has been "looking" for a DM on Roll20 for the past 5 months
Let it die, guys.
Anybody for quick input? I have a mighty need.
Sometimes people get it in their heads that the best way to play the game they want is make someone else do it.
Sometimes those people have other people who think the same way. This is how you get those groups of 4 looking for a DM willing to play the plot they want, in the setting they want, at the time they want and with the character generation they expect.
Shit, I actually remember the campaign *started* with a DM but died about a month in, and they've been advertising ever since. So not only would an incoming DM have to deal with having everything listed above, but they'd also have to deal with prebuilt characters and the little bit of plot they got done in those sessions.
I used examples that you posted because they seemed relevant to your interests. It doesn't matter if it comes up in a game or not, that really has no bearing on whether or not something is a question a Developer should answer or a question the DM should answer,
although my personal philosophy is that it's the DM's job to make the necessary rulings in game and adjust accordingly afterwards in order to maintain a functioning system.
>What about questions on material that seems unclear, such as how temporary manifester level increases work when manifesting powers with long casting times, or the instantaneous/permanent durations of various athanatism powers? Are those good questions or corner cases?
Difficult to answer because it depends on the specific question. Generally speaking, if similar abilities offer a concrete definition of something that's missing or unclear in the text you're asking about, that would be worth addressing. If there's nothing noted it's probably something your GM should handle.
>What of inquiries that cover material of suspect game balance, such as the tactician's Collective Defenses? A good question or a corner case?
Again, difficult to answer. People have sent me messages asking if using Power Attack with a strike is unbalanced, and then I've also got complaints about the balance of allowing things like augmented Psychic Reformation. What is or isn't balanced depends very much on the group playing, and all we can do is offer suggestions, but ultimately it's the players (and DM's) decision what material is or isn't appropriate for their game.
>What about questions regarding intersections of rules that cause illegal or impossible game states, such as Negative Energy Affinity (from Seventh Path) creating a nonexistent element for the Elemental Flux discipline? Good question or corner case?
That one? Corner case. It only works under singular circumstances that many people won't be using. Bringing it to our attention is one thing, but your DM should be able to make a reasonable call in that case.
>I have only ever asked a single question on gestalt, and that was related to power pools (and that was never answered, probably for the best).
You are not the only person asking us questions, nor are you the only person reading my post. I get questions about people's houserules, gestalt characters, homebrew, 3.5 feat/item/spell all the time. I can't answer those questions, they're beyond the scope of the material we support.
I mean, usually you should use your best judgement. I can't define what is or isn't something you feel you need our input on, but your group should be trying to solve issues on their own before turning to us. It's your game. Own it.
That sounds awful.
When we lost our dm to college (like a plague, college) we just rotated mini campaigns, designed dungeons for the four who were playing while the fifth sat dm.
It felt like the Conan graphic novels, familiar characters, familiar themes with strikingly different points of view.
It was great! No hired on weeb required.
Ahh, that went live? Excellent. Meet our Monster Classes project.
This got started awhile back by freelancer Jeff Swank and was playtested (as you noticed) on the Paizo forums under another name. Some internal discussion lead to it getting combat-edited by Forrest Heck (you know him from around here), leading eventually into its current form.
Like some other, similar projects, these classed don't have 20 levels because they're meant to get you to where the monster is in terms of CR; they should hover between T4 (poor Bugbear) and upper T3 (fucking fey how do they even). They aren't striving for perfect balance, and the book(s) warn you about this and identify the potentially problematic features, because at the end of the day when we were confronted with a choice between balancing out and playing the monster, we cut closer to the latter than the former. That in mind, we're reasonably confident that these can be used in normal campaigns to play monstrous PCs.
Forrest will be along later to answer questions relating to the project. I'm afraid the beginning and end of my involvement was staring at the initial draft and then slapping the Viking until he assigned Forrest to partner with Jeff for it. Had some really great ideas, but needed a great editor.
>Try playing a character instead of a build.
The GM has made it clear that this is not a roleplay heavy campaign. That's a large part of why we're using PF in the first place.
About Quick Draw, I don't really see it as necessary because the Slayer starts with +1 BAB, so they can just move and draw as a free action anyways.
Sounds like a Forrest-class question, friend.
I also need to note that there were some minor errors of layout in this initial PDF that are currently being corrected. To wit, an editing error dropped the monster class rules (ha...ha...yeah), among some other little things. These should be corrected within the next 48 hours or so, though if anyone's already bought the thing I'm certain we can dig 'em up and post 'em SINCE YOU SORT OF NEED THOSE.
My apologies for the inconvenience.
Unclear rules with no provisions stated on them, that similar options normally have concrete rules on: Ask about this.
Potentially overpowered options: Do not ask about this.
Things that work only "under singular circumstances": Do not ask about this.
This seems clear enough a list. Is this correct?
Does the list change when offering feedback on material that is accepting playtest feedback, and if so, how?
Additionally, are you advising that my group should no longer rely on asking the DSP writers for clarifications, and instead rely on the GM (and the co-GM, me) to make rulings? We were looking to play a game that was as DSP-"orthodox" as possible wherever our house rules did not intervene; should that ideal be discarded.
>upper T3 (fucking fey how do they even)
I would expect outsiders to be the most major offenders, since they are almost universally the Pathfinder monsters with the most fearsome ratio of CR (and, for that matter, HD) to actual versatility and power. That said, I suppose there are some very powerful and versatile low-CR/HD to power and versatility fey, such as the pixie and the nymph; are those the high tier 3 monster classes?
Additionally, I notice in this astral deva PDF that the Mr. Jeff Swank is using -10 or -11 to determine racial ability score modifiers, and is stapling full PC wealth by level onto these monsters.
Would this not mean that a, say, 8 HD (effective PC class level 8) nymph built under these rules could have an astronomically high Charisma modifier to leverage via their racial abilities, including Blinding Beauty, Stunning Glance, and Unearthly Grace?
This is just an example; I am sure there are many other monsters whose unique (or not-so-unique) abilities would benefit greatly from highly inflated ability scores.
Is this the way Mr. Jeff Swank is actually writing these monster classes, or am I mistaken?
Marrionette Possession would be more for character development with our alchemist - in short it would make a best friend story wise, and be useful for scouting and stuff.
Deep Slumber would be help as a gap closer - if everything is asleep, it can't run away. I would be able to cast Stricken Heart and my other melee caster spells easily.
*before peeps get riled up that i didn't pock all the rays and bombs and elemental boom-stick spells, i'm trying to play a true "gravedigger", someone who performed burials as a profession and had limited magic to start, just enough to scare people away from the cemetary and help the dying... Die.
I'm trying not to minmax and stay true to the roleplaying.
> Additionally, are you advising that my group should no longer rely on asking the DSP writers for clarifications, and instead rely on the GM (and the co-GM, me) to make rulings? We were looking to play a game that was as DSP-"orthodox" as possible wherever our house rules did not intervene; should that ideal be discarded.
...I keep staring at this and it's not making any more sense no matter how long I look at it.
What, in the name of every flaming pit of Hell, even is a "DSP-orthodox" game to you? As the developers would run it? Which developers? How? In what circumstances? There's a whole lot of stuff that happens in internal that doesn't get shown because it doesn't need to; one of those things is making sure that our content fits a wide variety of games rather than the games that any individual dev runs, /because we all run them differently/. Forrest's campaigns have an op level that makes me curl in a corner and cry in fear; my games tend to be permissive of concept but mechanically defined by a mutual agreement to keep things on the low end of power. You can see what Elric's games are like, he's publishing a campaign journal on Giantitp. Chris's games don't resemble any of our three. I can't even imagine Andreas's.
All of those come with their own sets of house rules, spot fixes, deliberate alterations, homebrew, and/or ported content from 3.5, to taste. And sometimes it's easy to look at folks playing their game differently and conclude that they're using the content wrong, but those are bad thoughts and they go to bad places. One of the beauties of tabletop is the ability to define your own game your own way; we want to enable that, not strangle it.
TL;DR we are angry depressed people and telling us we're your role models gives us strange feelings of fear and shame.
Marionette Possession straight-up doesn't work with undead.
Deep Slumber isn't a gap closer, it's a combat ender. If everything is asleep you can coup de grace everything.
Take your pick.
You're missing "Don't ask questions about interaction with homebrew or non-PF material (this includes 3.5)"
But again, you're asking for simple concrete definitions for very general and nuanced concepts.
Material that is in active playtest is a lot more open to nitpicking, but 4chan is not an ideal format to receive such feedback because posts don't stick around for long enough for us to address them or refer back to them at a later date. I know a lot of anon doesn't like the forums we use, but they at least present us with the opportunity to save useful feedback.
As for your interaction with the GM of your game, the GM is supposed to be the arbiter of the rules and it is their job to come up with the necessary solutions. To me, your policy of asking the Devs first speaks of a lack of trust in your DM and their ability to make sound judgement. No offense.
I already have command undead, and M.P. only works with willing targets, i.e., a familiar, a party member, a villager who can't speak but saw who killed the governor, whatever. It also grants telepathic communication between both parties until the duration ends.
And the sleep one is a combat ender, or avoider..
If you have a 3rd lvl better spell (non-evil) for a gravedigger, I'd gladly take counsel.
Psion Egoist 5, Metamorph 9. Used Student's Robes to get Shared Effect for party buffing. Reaching the end of the campaign and we are fighting a Very Old Blue Dragon who was attacking the capital of the country while it was invaded by Dragon cultists. Used Shared Effect to buff party with Electricity Immunity from Super Natural shift, Flight, and either +4 Strength with +2 size categories or +4 dex with -2 size categories. Shift type to construct for lots of immunities, like to ability damage.
Amulet of Mighty Fists +5
Item of Strong Jaw for +2 effective size categories, +2 size categoires due to Metamorphosis, Major. Strength Buffed by 16 through overchanneled Psychofeedback, augmented to not give ability damage, which your immune to, until after its done.
Strength score is 44.
Gain 3 claws from Major Metamorphosis which end up doing 6d8+22, avg 49
Gain 2 claws from Claws of the Beast which are augmented 15pp so after other size increases its 9d6+22, avg 53.5. One more swing due to Haste from Boots of battle.
Use Touchsight so I can see difference betwen mirage and real deal, and to see invisible. Shared with Party. Mind Link everybody.
Someone finally finds its invisible ass. Manifest hustle, Manifest Augmented Fold Space, have the feat Dimensional Agility so I still have a move action and standard action left and can full attack. All hit, get a crit on one of the claws of the beast hits. Hit for a total of 359 dmg. Still up due to DM playing with always max hitdice for characters and monsters. Small size Psicrystal with effective size Huge weapons. 3 claws of 3d8+7, 2 claws of 6d6+7 dmg. Only has a +17 to hit vs AC of 34. Miss, Miss, Miss, Miss, Crit. 40dmg after multiplier. Its down, and not dead.
396 HP on that fucker.
>Ghetto king of smack is still pretty good
>receive feedback for posts that don't stick around long enough
The irony of this statement is that more anons have screencapped your responses that any other dev here, save Gareth, which is only because we love harassing him.
I know what you're saying but I still find it funny.
I've asked this once before but it was ages ago. Since you are doing stuff like Katana Expertise, wouldn't it be possible to do a feat that improves tower shields?
Like say enabling shield bashes and/or making the "set the shield like a wall" thing easier to do?
So a shaman can select witch hexes, but he cannot select advanced hexes or grand hexes, correct? I think I'd rather use hexcrafter magus if that's the case, since shaman hexes feel pretty underwhelming overall.
Possible? Sure. But there's so much wrong with tower shields that fixing them would necessitate far more work than I'm willing to put in. A couple generals back I listed off everything wrong with tower shields, it's a good 2-3 feats worth of fix.
Plus, I actively hate them.
You live in bizzaro world to me then.
Why does it have to be 3 feats worth of fix? Why not just have a feat that makes tower shields work, why would you divide it up into feat tax?
Did anyone screencap elrics anti-tower stuff?
Because if I write it as 2-3 feats people will come along and yell at me until they "force" me to reduce it down to 1 feat.
Whereas if I write it as 1 feat from the start, they'll come yell at me until I'm forced to make it into a chain of feats.
Gunsmoke mystic is fun. I'm waiting on word from a friend about what level guns we'll have access to in his Skulls and Shackles game. Then I need to decide between gunsmoke mystic and privateer warlord.
It could just be a feat that pings off of maneuvers to work better (such as iron tortoise), or be an archetype that advances their proficiency in it thereby justifying it being "featless".
Fair point I suppose. At least gunsmoke mystic makes guns suck less battery acid. I'm pretty sure people can universally agree on not sucking battery acid, whereas I guess cocks have an recherche sort of beauty to them.
So, I'm plotting out a lizardfolk barbarian as a potential backup character.
The guys I play with don't let you stack archetypes at present, so I don't get an alcohol fueled Invulnerable Rager.
Similarly not sure if they'll let me do an arched dip into Unbreakable Fighter, which would free up 2 feats if they do. Probably use at least one of those to make up for the lost lv20 Rage Power.
Looking at, if I stick to pure barbarism:
Feats: Power Attack, Diehard, Endurance, Stalwart, Combat Reflexes, ?, Imp.Stalwart, ?, ?, ?
Rage: L.Beast.T, Superstition, Beast.T, Witch Hunter, G.Beast.T, C&GM, ?, ?, ?, ?
The Beast Totem line counts as a class feature, right? Thusly stacking with the IR DR/-, base Barb DR/-, and the Stalwart DR/-
Gives me convenient backup weapons either way, and pounce.
That's a very pessimistic view and I'm disappointed to hear it influences your work.
Privateer warlord by level 2 can have like 10 feats.
They aren't great feats, but its still funny.
>Privateer warlord by level 2 can have like 10 feats.
Oh I know. It's fun, but I'm kind of waiting to hear back before settling on a character for sure. I'm not fond of building my characters in a vacuum, so I'd like to see what others are building before I proceed.
Your better off making something like a Light Towershield.
Basically make it a Heavy Shield and give it the ability to provide cover. Remove the -2 for attack rolls. Reduce the armor check penalty to 5. Reduce Arcane Failure chance to 25% Keep the standard action for cover normally.
If you were doing it to make the normal one usable as a feat chain it would end up like.
Tower Shield Combat: No longer take -2 to attack rolls when wielding a tower shield.
-Tower Shield Bash: Reduce ACP with Tower Shields by 5, minimum 1
--Tower Shield Mastery: At anytime on your turn as a free action you can use your tower shield to provide cover for yourself.
If you wanted it as a single feat.
Its just a Heavier Shield: treat tower shields as Heavy Shields. Tower Shields no longer give -2 to attack rolls. You can now Shield Bash with Tower Shields. Armor check penalties and Arcane Failure Chance remain the same. You can still use a Tower Shield to Provide Cover, but not at the same time as using it to Shield Bash. Etc.
Something that Elric?
>That's a very pessimistic view and I'm disappointed to hear it influences your work.
Hm? I mean, if someone doesn't like something why would they work on it, especially when what ever option they choose a portion of their base will be against it.
Guys, where's that rule located where a creature with DR can bypass that same DR with their natural attacks? There's one explicitly stated for DR/Epic, but not the other ones, or at least not someplace I can see.
How does one best play a Lizardfolk in Pathfinder, anyway? Their stats are solid but the whole mindset towards the character and their behavior/values just seems alien to me.
Probably because I don't have a lot of experience with playing them.
I'm getting ready to play a Mesmerist with Cunning Caster. In other words, a guy who can cast spells on people in broad daylight with nobody the wiser.
>Charm Person on guards in broad daylight
>Paranoia to make any poor stooge have a psychotic break and possibly get put down by said guards
>dancing lights and ghost sounds EVERYWHERE with no apparent source
What other fun can be had with undetectable low-level spells?
Gareth. I am playing a Raven Lord Harbinger at high level (level 15), and would like to submit feedback for the test play. I was informed you wrote both the harbinger class and the archetype.
Most of the play with be 1v1 so it will test mostly the Raven Lord's action economy efficiency.
How do I submit testplay feedback?
Some of it's obviously going to vary based on GM and their setting...
But RaW, they start out only able to know their own language, so they're about the only barbarians to put points in linguistics. Or, you get to describe a lot of pantomime and misc gesturing.
Or no one at the table cares that you don't know common, and you interact as normal anyway...
As one in a non-lizardfolk party, you're likely an exiled critter for some reason... Defiled the shrine, ate the chief's favorite child, accidentally drank tea without extending the dew-claw, or something.
After that, they're pretty much barbarians already. Tribal warriors with their assorted hang-ups, mistrust of outsiders, but grudging respect for proven strength.
It only applies to certain ones I think. Eg creatures with DR/Magic have attacks what count as magic vs other DR.
The other thing is for alignment based DR and thats based on Subtype.
For monsters it usualy explicitly states if the DR/Magic makes their attacks count as magic for overcoming damage reduction.
It's not so much that I need to do a bait and switch, it's that when I make the switch and the naysayers come forth I'll already have posts, playtesting, and anectdotal support ready to go from those who approve of the change already. It makes it easier to convince those who are skeptical if they can see multiple accounts instead of just me having to support it all on my own.
Why? I see some utility as a rogue alternative or ranged thief/trickster. It also has a few neat abilities. The burn seems to be brutal but I think I can run most days with around 3 burn.
The utility you get as a rogue is pretty shit-tier, and in many ways inferior to the rogue itself.
It's half invisibility. While that's nice, a wand of invisibility will last a rogue his entire adventure more than likely while being overall better. And everything else is just gimmicky.
I'm not saying this to be a dick, I'm just warning you that there are better options for what you want.
Here works, though I might miss it on accident. You can also PM me on Giantitp, post it on our official site, or vhatevah, really.
I should note that the book's in layout right now, though, so your feedback is unlikely to be immediately actionable. Still appreciated, mind! And possibly educational for future archetypes and maybe errata depending, but, y'know, we're past the 11th hour and into midnight here.
Arcane trickster can't do the trickery as well or at as long a range.
I know, I just really want to make it work and it seems like the closest thing to warlock pathfinder has.
It's almost invisibility and a silence effect. You also get telekinetic finesse for ranged trap disarming, sleight of hand stealing, and all sorts of other trickery. You get telekinetic haul for lifting tons of stuff, tons of earthshaping, Huge burrow speeds through solid stone, etherealness at will, 480 ft at will teleporting, haste at will, DR 10, deadly earth + infusions for improved evard's black tentacles, and lots of other effects. I also see utility as a bluffomancer or diplomancer with the right traits. I can see some utility
For harbinger, if I use dark claim on two creatures while having the grasp of darkness, how many maneuver's do I regain?
Is it one for each enemy and one from grasp of darkness like the line below suggests?
> "the Harbinger recovers a single expended maneuver whenever she Claims a creature,"
or do I only gain one from activating dark claim and another from grasp?
Basically does the extra claimed targets from grasp provide additional maneuvers beyond the one stated in the feat?
How does Initiator Level work in PoW? Any different from ToB's 0.5 progression for non-initiating classes?
I'm planning to introduce maneuvers to my table without making them take PoW classes, with the Reserve Feats idea an anon brought up yesterday or the day before (which was that you bring in both maneuvers and reserve feats at the same time, throwing a bone to noncasters and casters at once, and the people who think maneuvers are overpowered must think the exact same way about reserve feats so you just pretend it's a universal options buff to all classes). Naturally half progression won't do, do I need to houserule?
You only recover 2 maneuvers. The wording will be cleared up in the full release.
Yes they run on 1/2 progression from other classes. It's in the systems and use chapter of the book, also on the pfsrd under the same page.
>using grappling infusion
Seriously though, most of this isn't going to come online for a long time. You can splash Aether Kineticist for telekinetic finesse, it's probably fine and might be a good addition to other classes, but all the earth stuff you've listed isn't going to be available until level 14 or later because they added that fucking retarded level restriction. Stone Sculptor and Earth Glide are 5th level infusions which means you'd need to be level 14 to grab them, and Deadly Earth would need you to be level 17 (not to mention paying fucking 7 burn to use it with grappling infusion before reductions).
And I hope you aren't seriously considering Overwhelming Soul, the archetype that deals burn damage through negative levels.
Hey /pfg/, that same annoying anon here who asked about swashbucklers like 5-6 threads ago.
If I were to either take Martial Training a bunch of times, or write an archetype that'd grant maneuver progression like DSP's class archetypes doc, which disciplines do y'all think would fit?
Off the top of my head, Scarlet Throne seems pretty obvious. Maybe Primal Fury?
They're all at will, just some have boosted versions where they need burn. The haste is just one round for the at will and I'm not terribly fond of it.
level of ability x2 is the level you can take it at, earth glide at 10, deadly earth at 12. I do get it though, it's a very sub par class, I just want to make it work.
Just make max maneuver level based on BAB. I was just curious as I thought this and had Excel fill out a chart.
Then let them take maneuvers by spending a feat
or 3 skill points.
True. I'm still pissed that paizo fucked the mesmerist up so bad. They had a perfect chance to reboot the beguiler and all we got was a stupid caster with nothing roguelike about him at all.
I COME ON BEHALF OF A FRIEND WHO CANNOT POST because school filters and proxies and junk.
He would like to know your opinions of Iron Gods as an AP, and whether or not it might be suitable to run as a solo campaign, or perhaps with 1-2 added DMPCs.
Anon, let me tell you about Will o' Wisps...
Just read the DM's rant at the end of Session 19 if you don't want to go through every, single, reason I hate this AP.
Has anyone here ever run into an unconventional race/class combination? Where the player was able to make an Orcish Wizard, Elven Barbarian or some other thing that should not work, but did?
How did that turn out?
I may be biased since it was the first AP I played during the near-apex of my college years, but Jade Regent will always be my favorite AP.
It just feels like a grand adventure, where the builds are not nearly as important as the characters and the plot moved along at a steady, enjoyable pace.
As a Raven Lord Harbinger I am trying to decide on feats for my dark messenger.
This is my first time using an animal companion, and seeing as it has high int it can get any feat.
Power Attack seems like a go to, but what else may be good?
Also what does changing into a magical beast do to the Dark Messanger?
>Sorrow’s Shadow (Su): At 4th level, the Dark Messenger’s type changes to magical beast and it gains Toughness as a bonus feat. Do not recalculate its base attack bonus, hit points (except those granted by Toughness), saving throws, or skills. Once per turn, as a free action, the Dark Messenger may increase its size to Medium or revert to its natural size. This increases to Large at 10th level, and Huge at 16th level.
It says don't recalculate anything but toughness HP, so does changing to magical beast not actually do anything?
Oh yeah, the class that literally has "git gud at CON" as a class feature from level 1 is real weird on a race that desperately, DESPERATELY wants good CON. I've never thought of it.
B-but Kingmaker is the only AP I've gotten to play.
Will o' Wisps were responsible for my very first character death. Now they're the only thing my NG character has legitimately malicious tendencies towards.
Will o' Wisps are horribly under CR'd. Sure they've got way less health and don't do near as much damage as other CR 6 monsters, but they've got 15 INT, at will invisibility, 50 ft. movement and higher AC than the average CR 9 enemy, with pretty good saves to boot. They are a pain in the ass and I hate them as both a DM and a player.
I can't wait to nauseate, blind, stun, stagger, daze and bull rush the shit out of them next session, even though it'll probably take up the whole game.
4 hour long combats are not fun anons.
Along with them, let's add stirges to the "horribly underrated CR" list. I've bitched about them before.
Doing Con damage after a vs-touch-AC attack roll does not a 1/2 CR monster make.
You're also leaving out the fact that they're immune to magic, which is kind of a big fucking deal.
I was actually recently told that the particular Will o' Wisp responsible for offing my character was an advanced Will o' Wisp, to boot. I'm not sure exactly what level we were when that happened... I want to guess around 6 or 7? It was the Will o' Wisp that
is torturing the kidnapped boy.
Yeah that guy's an asshole. We're not at that point yet
unless I missed something.
They're only immune to magic that allows spell resistance, which isn't as big a deal as you'd think. Plus all my players are using PoW classes, so we don't really run into that issue.
Swarms though, are another story entirely.
>mfw in campaign with rolled stats
>mfw I got nothing below a 14
>mfw I played a Str-based Zweihander Sentinel Elf decked out in heavy plate armor
>mfw I was basically Eredin
Things get fun when you play the gross exception to an assumed rule for races.
Get rid of the skillpoint purchase method, it makes Ranger and Slayer eat everyone for breakfast in progression including actual PoW classes, and it also sharpens the overspecialization issue if people can sacrifice their out-of-combat usefulness to be better in combat.
If you really want to let people add maneuvers outside of feats, without giving any for free (I imagine there are some who don't want to use any at all), let them reduce a level-up's hit die to learn an extra maneuver at that time. By two stages.
But what nonfeat way can you give out Reserve feats? Remember those are supposed to be the equivalent, or at least presented as equivalent in this scheme.
Just use Favored Class Bonus system.
They way they can progress health, skills, a special class ability, or level their maneuver progression.
You can only have 20 and that is a strict cap and opportunity cost for other abilities.
I can't in good conscience support your suggestion to reduce HD size in exchange for maneuvers. Initiators are primarily melee focused and need that HP as a buffer for the inevitable counterattacks they'll receive. Even sticking to ranged maneuvers, an initiator makes a very attractive target for a DM and reducing their HP is going to upset the function of the classes. They don't have access to the kind of utility and protection spells that casters have.
Man, I just had a discussion earlier upthread about how I can't really provide rulings on homebrew.
It depends way too much on the specific wording of the ability and the expected power level you're trying to achieve for me to make any concrete statement. Take a look at what existing archetypes get or existing PoW classes get as they level and try and match whichever of those you feel best fits with your goal.
Is there a ranged-focused martial discipline without supernatural stuff? Or maybe a way to use maneuvers with ranged attacks? I want to make a simple crossbowman who is just really good with his crossbow, making trick shots and stuff, without magical solar rays and winds and stuff like that.
Is there any better way to turn all your damage nonlethal than upgrading your weapon to merciful?
There's the sarenrae trait but I'm maining a rapier so that won't work.
If I'm also maining elemental flux, is it even possible for all this extra energy damage I'm stacking on to be nonlethal, or is energy always lethal?
That's pretty good, thanks.
Also thanks for the tip about nonlethal energy.
How do I increase my to-hit more after STR/DEX enhancements, haste, higher ground bonus, weapon enhancements, and that one cheap ioun
inb4 weapon focus
Okay, general question (directed to anyone familiar with PoW, I don't want to make you feel like a tech support operator here) I'm looking at current PoW text for comparison and just realized I don't actually understand some of Martial Training 1's text at all:
>Your martial initiator level maneuvers granted by this feat (and subsequent Martial Training feats) is equal to half your character level + your attribute modifier that modifies your chosen discipline for use with this discipline (example, Dexterity for a discipline that uses Acrobatics), not to exceed your character level.
Am I retarded or is this hard to understand?
It's a little arcane, but not by much; it's an effect of how 3.pf requires such precision in wording, because Rules Lawyers exist and you have to be specific since not everyone will extract the same RIA from the words.
Pretty sure the word "maneuvers" at the start of that sentence is unnecessary, though, at least for the effect they're going for.
Your initiator level for maneuvers granted by the Martial Training feats is 1/2 level + [Chosen discipline's discipline-skill ability modifier], not to exceed your character level.
Okay, now that my classes for the day are over, I'm able to answer questions.
They fey that made it into the set of monster classes that will be published had decent abilities, actually quite decent SLAs, and the option to swap them for 1-6 spontaneous casting (like each monster class with a pile of SLAs will have). I'm not sure if I'd call them "high tier 3," but they're some of the stronger and more versatile ones. As >>44920107 notes, though, the strongest ones are the outsiders.
Most (but not all) of the monster classes are calculated with stats like this; in the testing, it tended to be not as problematic as one might think. Notably though, nymphs do /not/ have a monster class, because
holy shit have you looked at their abilitiesthe sheer amount of stuff they had was impossible to work into an 8-level progression that wasn't obscenely broken. Pixies are in a similar boar, because their ability load relative to their CR and effective level was just too much.
It doesn't have 20 levels because the goal with this project isn't necessarily "paragon classes," but to allow a PC to play a monster from level 1 to wherever they would normally show up, then branch out. In the case of some monsters, this means they're going to want to look towards prestige classes or base classes that mesh well with their racial abilities. In the case of monsters that take the "you get casting" variant instead of SLAs, you'll be able to multiclass into any caster of the right type (arcane/divine/psychic) to continue the 1-6 casting progression instead of the normal one (which in some cases is technically a nerf, but in most cases will be better than restarting at 1st-level spells).
Oh, and importantly, unlike with Savage Species, you do /not/ have to finish a monster class. You can multiclass or PrC as you like after taking the first level. This is part of the base rules that accidentally got left out (and will be in when the PDF is updated today or tomorrow).
Do you give your NPCs traits? All NPCs, or just some of them? I give all my NOVa traits, in fact I build them with the same PB I give my players, but when they learned this they were practically offended.
I don't unless the NPC originated from a character idea of mine, which is not super-common.
I don't give NPCs decent point buy compared to the heroes, because they're not the heroes. I used to make enemy NPCs an optimization challenge for myself but it's not actually fun or fair to the players to try to 'win' (ie end the whole fucking campaign) with your knowingly-superior skills. Facilitate FUN at your table, not dick-waving. Just doing things like having optimal spell selection badly skews the usefulness of certain defenses and abilities over others in opposition to the game assumptions of variety your PCs build for.
Sometimes for named ones, but NPCs need a feat to do it:
>Character traits are only for player characters. If you want an NPC to have traits, that NPC must "buy" them with the Additional Traits feat. Player characters are special; they're the stars of the game, after all, and it makes sense that they have an advantage over the NPCs of the world in this way.
Also, if you give NPCs a higher point buy that matches PCs, the CR goes up:
>Exceptional Stats (Ex) Baba Yaga was born a perfect specimen of humanity. As a result, her ability scores were generated using 25 points, rather than using the standard 15 point buy used to create most NPCs. Additionally, Baba Yaga has much more gear than an NPC of her level would normally have. These modifications increase her total CR by 2.
If you're giving traits and higher stats to NPCs without raising the CR, the PCs should be offended.
No, but I usually give them the same point buy as the players if they're just class level based.
If it's an NPC that hangs with the party to fill a needed role, then yeah, they get Traits. I do have a habit of giving BBEGS Traits or if it's important to the build or makes things easier, like granting a class skill.
I've never played a melee character before and I'm not quite sure how I can make sure my AC is at the best possible condition. The character I'm going for is a battle oracle and so far this is what I have:
Full plate: +9 AC / max dex +1
Magic vestment: +2
Shield of faith +3
Blessing of fervor +2
Ring of nat armor +2
Thats 30 AC on a campaign that starts at level 11 which is still pretty damn low since the Demon we're fighting has +20 to hit with 5 iterative natural attacks which will probably kill my character in a couple of rounds even if i go with +14 con and start with a +4con belt. The build is going to have a pretty decent dex score so maybe some way to increase my dex bonus would be nice.
Oh and 1pp only.
It also exists to send us a message about what Paizo really thinks of fighters.
DEX is better than plate for defense, especially if you pick up a way to get Dex to damage. Also, don't forget spells to supplement your AC, a 20% miss chance is a lifesaver. So is mirror image.
My mindset has always been that the PCs are made special by their choices and training, not born better, so I usually give everyone in the setting the same PB, unless there's some reason they should have higher or lower PB.
That tends to be how I handle traits. NPCs that hang out with or oppose the PCs, like fellow adventurers or the BBEG and minions, get traits. Random Joe farmer doesn't.
I agree with your first point wholeheartedly.
The other thing is, APs are so under powered, it's almost required that at least a few NPCs get a little buffer to even stand a chance, especially if you have experienced build players or even players who are just good at the game.
Those are not the only non-AC defenses you have available. Divine casters layer on buffs like crazy, you should be doing that. Look at your spell list, you'll find some really good options there.
Post stats. If you have a high dex, conaider dropping the full plate for something else. Ring of Protection is good and cheap. Dodge bonuses stack so find multiple sources of it.
Elric is suggesting concealment. I've had fun playing melee casters at low to mid level who just drop Fog Clouds (which true seeing doesn't see through) and making use of the Blind Fight feat line.
You're also a divine caster, you have access to some of the best buffs in the game. Start reading through spells.
Ultimate Psionics came in the mail today. I didn't realize how heavy 455 pages was, even for a softcover.
Pic semi related. I can see this happening more in Golarion than on Faerun, where my campaign will be taking place.
If you plan on using items that give luck bonuses then the trait Fate's Favored is good. +1 to anything that gives luck bonuses.
Oracle's don't have Heavy Armor proficency. Something like a Mithral Breastplate will serve you better. Touch AC is a big deal.
If you want to beat True Seeing you can use non-magical sources of miss-chance. Like Smokesticks which give concealment.
just want to double check, can eidolons speak to people outside the summoner? i ask because all eidolons have a base int of 7. and in the ability score description of intelligence it says "Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3" so would that make it to where the eidolon can speak? or bare minimum understand what others might be saying? to some degree of course
$39.96, but I had a 20% off coupon at B&N.
Huy guys I was helping one of my PCs build a character and I wanted to make sure I did this right..
Uh, so hes starting as a 3rd level Fighter. And is fluffed to be a blacksmith, so he wants to be good at Sundering.
He has 18 strength - so the +4 mod.
He's using the "Piston Maul" off PFSRD which gives +4 on Sunder damage.
Weapon Proficiency (Fluffed up "Blacksmith Maul")
So a Sunder attempt would have:
3 bab + 4 str + 2 improved sunder - 1 power attack
so + 8 CMB
then damage 1d10 + 2h 6 + 2h powatk 3 + 4 extra sunder damage from the 'piston maul' effect
So damage = 1d10 + 13 on sunder attempts...
Am I doing this correctly?
Sundering is generally a bad idea. If you want to fluff as blacksmith, you'll probably want to start out with a 12/14 on your intelligence score and wisdom score to keep the Profession (Blacksmith) ranks up so you can get Master Craftsman at level 5, alongside an immediate retrain of your level 3 feat for Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
Rolled 1, 4, 3, 6, 4, 5, 5, 1, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 5, 2, 6 = 58 (16d6)
Any given combination of 16 d6 rolls has the same (incredibly low) probability. The fact that one of them has to happen doesn't make it not incredibly unlikely.
Because it makes it so that getting your treasure and loot off of the enemy is costing you resources (you'll need to fix that gear or else it's garbage), rather than being free like normal.
For these two reasons mainly. >>44926897
Also, because sundering becomes totaly useless against any kind of enemy that doesn't rely on manufactured gear, of which there are quite a few in PF.