|
LogicNinja posted:Magus? Battlefield control? Grease, obscuring mist, fog cloud, glitterdust, web, sleet storm, stinking cloud.... They don't cover all the bases, but good enough for this. quote:The Magus can do a lot of damage in ideal circumstances in melee, but so can a Fighter. You're right, which is why it didn't make my original list of suggestions. However, in this case, they conveniently cover the important deficiencies, apart from healing.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
pawsplay posted:Grease, obscuring mist, fog cloud, glitterdust, web, sleet storm, stinking cloud.... They don't cover all the bases, but good enough for this. Well, we got another player who is dead set on playing a cleric, so I may just roll with a full arcane caster. I've never played one in PF, so it should be fun. If not, there's always why "whip n' trip" Bard I rolled up!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
What are some good items for a fifth level Alchemist? I'm really drawing a blank here .
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 11:56
|
|
|
It depends a good bit on your play style. Theres lots of distinct ways to run the Alchemist after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 06:27
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, I'm playing a Magus, blade-bound archetype wielding a bastard sword(not reskinned into a katana. It's a giant black bastard sword.), who is also a word caster and level 4. I've got a total of ~4700gp at my disposal. Other than the obvious "keen" on the sword for 2000gp, any other(better?) suggestions for a character who's main purpose is dealing damage? We already have a wizard, so don't bother going on about how dealing damage isn't as effective as magic, I'm just enjoying playing the character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:While we're on the subject, I'm playing a Magus, blade-bound archetype wielding a bastard sword(not reskinned into a katana. It's a giant black bastard sword.), who is also a word caster and level 4. I've got a total of ~4700gp at my disposal. Other than the obvious "keen" on the sword for 2000gp, any other(better?) suggestions for a character who's main purpose is dealing damage? You can't just make a Keen weapon. It has to already be enchanted to at least +1, so the only way to buy a Keen weapon is to buy a +1 Keen weapon, costing 8000 gp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
Kvantum posted:You can't just make a Keen weapon. It has to already be enchanted to at least +1, so the only way to buy a Keen weapon is to buy a +1 Keen weapon, costing 8000 gp. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound I'll cop to the budgeting error on my part, because the keen would raise the cost to that of +2. However, the bladebound class feature sword actually becomes a +1 sword at character level 3, so it would be perfectly within the rules to make it a keen weapon(since the magus in question is level 4, wielding a +1 Bastard Sword).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound I'd talk over with your GM about whether or not he'd let you enhance your sword further. On the one hand I'm not seeing anything that says you can't, but it's not discussed at all and its ego score is set in stone as it gains abilities, while additional enhancements would mess with that. If your DM is allowing further enchantments, great, but make sure. As for what to spend your cash on, grab some armour boosting items, any two of of ring of protection, straight up magic armour and/or an amulet of natural armour at +1 apiece will cost you 4000 for +2 AC, a very nice deal indeed. This leaves you 700 for miscellaneous potions and scrolls to round out your belt. Alternatively that 4000 could go towards a headband of intellect, or a +1 to AC, a level 1 pearl of power and a +1 cloak of resistance. If I were you I'd go for an amulet of natural armour +1, a cloak of resistance +1 and the pearl of power, then grab a few potions and scrolls. It's boring but very functional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
Yeah you should probably go with a Cloak of Not-Failing-Saves-and-Sitting-Out-Entire-Battles +1. Also they're pretty cheap so you can still buy lots of other stuff, like some +1 armor and then saving the rest to buy a Headband of Doing-Your-Job-Better +2 next level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 12:20
|
|
|
Agreed, and as far as weapon enchants go keen is pretty unimpressive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 15:02
|
|
|
If you're in to the teamwork thing Menacing is cool. Bane if you have a general idea of what you'll be fighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
The enchants that are really likely to stand the test of time are straight up extra plus to hit and damage, holy, and sacred. Bane evil outsider could work too
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Does anyone recall any rules in PF or 3.X for magically or alchemically breeding monsters? Playing in this Kingmaker campaign is a lot of fun so far and the thought of setting up long term projects is exciting. Making some new creatures and unleashing them on the Riverlands seems a much better use of my time than crafting magic weapons for my ungreatful party members.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
There are some, sorta rules for it in Eberron and I think faerun. In PF the thing I'd suggest to do is look over their simple templates as a good starting point to work from to design anything further you want. Always start with a base creature, its just easier book keeping and makes a lot of sense. If you really want to go more exotic just start grabbing random 3x books- most of them have some pretty weird ideas to steal/base from. Kingmaker is great in its sandboxing to let that kind of thing happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
I could use some advice on a Pathfinder wizard. I'm playing in a Pathfinderized World's Largest Dungeon, currently at level 7 with a brand new wizard. Unbeknownst to me, the DM decided that all NPCs struck by a spell affecting more than one target will get a single save instead of individual ones unless there's five or fewer targets and the spell save is all-or-nothing. While this doesn't completely derail my traditional AoE-reliant builds - after all, failure for one target is usually failure for all of them - it frustrates the hell out of me. I'm inclined to either try something different or find a way to make my DCs ludicrously high and bend the dungeon over my knee. So, any recommendations for a dungeon-crawling wizard? For reference, the rest of the party includes a fireball-spamming Fire Domain Theologian Cleric, a Summoner with a pretty robust slam-based eidolon, an unremarkable rogue and a seriously powergamed Magus whose build is incomprehensible to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Kestral posted:I could use some advice on a Pathfinder wizard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
I hope this isn't asked a lot, but I googled around a bunch and couldn't really find any solid opinions. Is there any way to make a sword and board fighter work with two-weapon fighting? I don't have a lot of D&D experience and all the "builds" use terms that I don't recognize and don't bring anything up when googled, like "axe buckler". Basically I would like a guy who can use his shield offensively while also fighting with a bastard sword in his mainhand, and who can two-hand the bastard sword if he wants a little extra damage (preferably without dropping the shield... so like a buckler or something). But I don't even know if something like this is feasible in the rules, or what equipment it will necessitate, or what feats to take. Advice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Triple Word Score posted:I hope this isn't asked a lot, but I googled around a bunch and couldn't really find any solid opinions. Is there any way to make a sword and board fighter work with two-weapon fighting? I don't have a lot of D&D experience and all the "builds" use terms that I don't recognize and don't bring anything up when googled, like "axe buckler". Sword and shield builds are very viable, albeit they are trickier to build than say, a two-handed weapon fighter. This (somewhat outdated) guide has a whole section devoted to sword and shield fighters (see "The Defender of the Weak").
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Triple Word Score posted:I hope this isn't asked a lot, but I googled around a bunch and couldn't really find any solid opinions. Is there any way to make a sword and board fighter work with two-weapon fighting? I don't have a lot of D&D experience and all the "builds" use terms that I don't recognize and don't bring anything up when googled, like "axe buckler". Haystack's guide got it right for the most part but the key things to deal with here: -Forget the bastard sword, its a wasted feat for this purpose. Get a Longsword, Rapier or Scimitar if you're intent on a sword. -If you don't mind the visual change The Phalanx Soldier ACF is fantastic, as it allows you to make use of a two handed reach weapon WHILE using a shield. This gives you some added tricks, with a heavy shield you can provide cover to your party spellcasters(thus denying AoOs even if they cast in melee). It is costly though, as it takes away Weapons(costing you that rather nice bonus to hit) and Armor training(meaning you must give up either Improved TWF or wearing heavier armors, ITWF is a bit limited, because using the covering benefit takes your move action, on the other hand you'd be using Combat Reflexes anyway, and more Dex is usually good). This is a defensive/controlly build. Essentially you do these things: -Combat Reflexes + Polearm reach pin down a large area -Shield covering makes it so you can draw fire, because like hell they can hit whoever you're protecting. -Shield bashing comes with free bull rushes. Getting bullrushed back into the reach of your polearm means they must take AoOs to close with you again. Stat priorities are Str, Dexm Con. Its not an aggressive setup. Enemies must still come to you(any melee TWF fighter is like that really). However you now have a REASON for them to come to you(the squishy you're providing Cover for). And you'll make their lives a misery for trying. Charging won't work(Immediate Brace). 5ft steps won't work(Shield slam bull rushing). Walking in won't work(Combat Reflexes). The problem is it only starts coming online at level 9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 09:11
|
|
|
Thanks for the input and the link to that guide. I like the idea of the polearm guy but he doesn't fit my current character concept. The sword-and-board guide was a great jumping-off point though, and I think I made a guy I'm happy with. Gonna shield bash some jerks 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Paizo are releasing a "beginner box". Now that wouldn't be so unexpected if it was just pregenerated characters, minis, dice and an adventure, but they seem to be "streamlining" the rules. And we all know how much of an outcry that caused whenever WotC did it. I'm wondering if some of this could hint at a Second Edition of Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
Mojo Jojo posted:Paizo are releasing a "beginner box". Now that wouldn't be so unexpected if it was just pregenerated characters, minis, dice and an adventure, but they seem to be "streamlining" the rules. And we all know how much of an outcry that caused whenever WotC did it. They are streamlined in the sense that you won't find rules for desert dehydration. It has been stated repeatedly that the game will be 100% compatible with the core rules. Every so often a comment about streamlining or cutting down the rules is misinterpreted to mean the rules are changing, which as far as I know, they are not. I would be irritated if the rules were changed for the beginner box because A) it's a disservice to players when they stop being beginners, and B) it's unnecessary. If you include only what is necessary to run a basic, low level game, the Pathfinder rules are already very simple.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
I remember the 3.0 beginner's box had a small pamphlet for rules which covered the basic d20 mechanics but nothing was changed from the actual rules. They made sure not to even mention the grapple rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
Funnily enough, it's grappling that has been left out of this one too. The "Grab" ability on the Salamander was just a free grapple attempts. As listed on the monster preview, "Grab" now reads quote:Grab The salamander’s target is grabbed (see page 95), 100% compatible does not mean "exactly the same". When Pathfinder launched, they boasted it was 100% compatible with 3.5e. I'm not saying that anything will necessarily change, it just seems like a good opportunity if they had the inclination (like perhaps collapsing climb and swim into "athletics"). I'm not saying "This is second edition". I'm saying, this could provide insight into what Paizo would do with a second edition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
It's been a while since I played 3.5. I was a kid, and didn't even really understand the rules then. So I'm trying to understand the Pathfinder concepts now. I find myself a bit confused by how CR works. I was looking at the Werebear in Bestiary 2, page 181. It has a ranger level of 4, and a CR of 4. I asked a friend if class levels always dictate CR, and she says it doesn't. She says in the case of Lycanthropes, the template would dictate CR. I looked at the Lycanthrope template rules in Bestiary, page 196, and it says that the CR of a Lycanthrope is always the base level of the creature + 1. But all the Lycanthropes in both Bestiaries have CRs equal to their class levels. And I haven't even begun to figure how or if class levels affect creature CRs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
CR is pretty awful in general but adding class levels to a monster adds to the CR. Not sure about Pathfinder but I'm pretty sure in 3.5 there was a sidebar explaining that you can use class levels -1 on NPCs above a certain level. Of course, this means a level 10 Human Wizard is the same CR as a level 10 Orc Fighter or whatever and they are significantly different challenges. If you're DMing and working out encounters you should use CR as a guideline and modify it up and down based on your party's composition. A group with pure casters can punch way above their level and there are plenty of monster immunities or weaknesses that can really polarise a fight. If you're got rogues in your group and no clerics then Undead are harder than their sticker price etc. So, yes, class levels affect CR but don't stress too much about +1 or +2 CR because CR is such a swingy and inaccurate measure you really need to judge each monster pretty much separately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:It's been a while since I played 3.5. I was a kid, and didn't even really understand the rules then. So I'm trying to understand the Pathfinder concepts now. I find myself a bit confused by how CR works. The CR of an NPC is assumed to be level -1 (or level -2 for NPC class only). In other words, the CR of a lycanthrope will always equal class level, unless the base animal has a higher CR. For instance, a weregrizzlybear is always going to be at least CR 5, since grizzlies are CR 4, even if the weregrizzly has less than five class levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Karandras posted:CR is pretty awful in general but adding class levels to a monster adds to the CR. In fact, Pathfinder suggests a +/-1 ad hoc CR adjustment may often be necessitated by NPCs, depending on context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Oh wow, okay. That is very edifying. Thanks to both of you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
No worries! You will probably need more than +/-1 for a lot of things and factors like terrain or circumstances are often way more important than a hitdie or two. Did you have a group at the moment? If you give us a basic run down of the characters we can point out the sorts of things that will be unusually weak or dangerous for your CR (Aside from straight casters but that is a given)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
Sadly not. We're a few months out from having time to play. With previous games I've run and participated in, lack of preparation has murdered the campaign early. I thought I'd take advantage of the time I have now to really get acquainted with the rules and prepare a campaign. I have to admit I'm a tad overwhelmed. I'm worried about under-preparing, but I'm also concerned about over-preparing. Not even sure where or how I should begin. Do you think I should get a cast of player characters early and design around them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
This is actually 3.5 advice but it should still apply? Before my irl games I tend to send out emails about the setting and get some ideas from the other players about what they want to play and throw a little reward for coming up with an idea before the first session. Generally something like "Hey, if you write a paragraph of background stuff I'll choose you a free bonus feat to start the game with!" 3.X is great for that because it has a heap of awful awful feats that no-one in their right mind would ever choose over an actually good feat but they are still flavourful and nifty. Things like the +2 to two skills, Diehard etc. I'm sure Pathfinder introduces a few system mastery feats to trap people as well. You shouldn't plan too far ahead in your game either, really. You might end up frustrating either yourself or your players if you have a series of combats planned but they want to do something slightly different. Plan the world and the major NPCs but only just the first couple of combats and then keep a couple of appropriate level combats up your sleeve in case you need something in a hurry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
I took Diehard/am not in my right mind. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Karandras posted:This is actually 3.5 advice but it should still apply? Solid. This'll save me the trouble of having to second guess what players might find interesting, too. Thanks for the great advice!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
Fix posted:I took Diehard/am not in my right mind. Was it at least on a Ranger?  Evil Sagan posted:Solid. This'll save me the trouble of having to second guess what players might find interesting, too. Thanks for the great advice! No worries! Once you've got some replies you should run your encounters past the thread and get some advice. Are you starting at level 1? Level 1 is awful in 3.X if your players want to make a character they are attached to and want to be fledgling heroes rather than Star Trek red shirts that die whenever they see a 20.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Karandras posted:
I have to admit that was my original intention. My Pathfinder/3.x experience is dangerously close to null, and I think there will be someone completely new to roleplaying games joining us. I thought creating a level one character would be the softest and quickest introduction possible. I could always go easy on them until we get the hang of things. I'm thinking about picking up a Pathfinder module just to get the idea of what a well-developed adventure looks like in terms of content and layout. Any particular suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Was it at least on a Ranger? Nope. Fighter. It fit the character. What other excuse can I use?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:I have to admit that was my original intention. My Pathfinder/3.x experience is dangerously close to null, and I think there will be someone completely new to roleplaying games joining us. I thought creating a level one character would be the softest and quickest introduction possible. I could always go easy on them until we get the hang of things. Just realize that "going easy" may well mean blatantly fudging out lucky rolls. A particularly stiff breeze can injure level 1 PCs, so even if you're throwing low CR encounters at them, a stray crit can straight up kill. I know some people/groups are not okay with the DM going "Let's just say that the goblin didn't crit you" so buyer beware and all that. If you don't really care about sticking to the rolls ad are all Rule 0 all the time, it's much easier to do low-level play with low mortality. On the other hand, I find low-level 3.x excruciatingly boring. Your players might have more fun starting out at, say, level 3 and just spending more time in the next few levels than they normally would. Our PF DM did that and it definitely improved the experience for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 11:56
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Just realize that "going easy" may well mean blatantly fudging out lucky rolls. A particularly stiff breeze can injure level 1 PCs, so even if you're throwing low CR encounters at them, a stray crit can straight up kill. I know some people/groups are not okay with the DM going "Let's just say that the goblin didn't crit you" so buyer beware and all that. If you don't really care about sticking to the rolls ad are all Rule 0 all the time, it's much easier to do low-level play with low mortality. Seconded. I find 4th to be the comfortable spot personally, since you have everyone grown into their core combat style already, unless its something absurdly costly feat wise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Just realize that "going easy" may well mean blatantly fudging out lucky rolls. A particularly stiff breeze can injure level 1 PCs, so even if you're throwing low CR encounters at them, a stray crit can straight up kill. I know some people/groups are not okay with the DM going "Let's just say that the goblin didn't crit you" so buyer beware and all that. If you don't really care about sticking to the rolls ad are all Rule 0 all the time, it's much easier to do low-level play with low mortality. This may not be a super popular suggestion, but especially if you are open to retraining later, I'd suggest making sure 1st level character are optmized for low level play. Just as an example, I designed some sample PCs for a game once, and all the humans got Toughness. Sure, it's just a few hit points, but at 1st level, it's like playing in easy mode. Human wizard, Con 12, Toughness, favored class: wizard (+1 hp) starts with 11 hit points, which is not bad at all. When I start at 1st level, I have on occasion required that players take Toughness at 1st unless they can demonstrate that A) some other feat is needed to complete their basic concept, and B) they will have at least 8 hit points. Meanwhile, avoid crit-heavy monsters. Goblins are great because 1d4+1 is so unlikely to kill anyone, even on a crit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 22:35
|
|