|
At this point I decree that the Warpriest, Skald, Arcanist, and Hunter are all too hosed to enjoy playtesting until they are revised. The Bloodrager is getting there, so is the Investigator. Slayer seems pretty good as is, but needs more talents and favored target needs to be tweaked. I think they just about nailed Shaman out of the gate, although hex is a weird name for a shaman ability. Swashbuckler and Brawler are such damned messes I'm just waiting for the next evolution before I am going to care very much.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
B.B. Rodriguez posted:At low-levels, I can see where you have little to no offensive power, but my guy really came into his own at level 8. Having the Wizard cast Greater Invisibility on me and beasting out with Many Shot, Rapid Shot, etc plus all those sneak attack dice really saved our party. I really felt like I was Batman-like, always having the right tool for the situation. I find it funny that you said you always had the right tool for the situation, right after describing the "right tool" for the situation of combat being "the Wizard"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:I find it funny that you said you always had the right tool for the situation, right after describing the "right tool" for the situation of combat being "the Wizard" I do get Greater Invisibility next level, but yeah, that spell broke the encounter when I was getting 6 sneak attacks per round with Clustered Shots. We are also using the Mythic rules, so through a convoluted scenario involving Mythic Haste and 3 other abilities, we were getting 2 full attack actions per round. Our ranger ended up laying out 14 shots in one round that were Clustered Shots. The thing is, our Wizard is really good for buffing our party and making sure we can fight on our terms, but he deals no damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
He's doing way more damage than he ever could with offensive spells. Just count all the sneak attack dice he's adding to the fight with that one invisibility spell. And all the attacks that hit because of attack bonus buffs, attacks missed from defensive buffs, opponents unable to act etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
So inspired by The Last Canadians from GiantBomb.com, some co-workers and I have decided to learn Pathfinder. However, if we're going to do this, we're going to do it right... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
veekie posted:He's doing way more damage than he ever could with offensive spells. Just count all the sneak attack dice he's adding to the fight with that one invisibility spell. And all the attacks that hit because of attack bonus buffs, attacks missed from defensive buffs, opponents unable to act etc. I get that, but at least he's not Phantasmal Killer'ing people and shutting down the game with his *Wizard Skillz*. The other characters are actually the ones loving poo poo up, he just made them better. But all that is a player choice. edit: But really, it's DnD/Pathfinder, the Wizard will always be better than all the other classes. This just made it fun for others as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Wrist Watch posted:If you take the Infiltrator archetype with an Inquisitor (add wis mod to bluff/diplomacy check in addition to the normal ability score modifier) and then take one of the many inquisitions that switches cha mod for wisdom when making bluff/diplomacy checks, does that mean you add your wisdom twice when making those rolls? Totally non-official ruling: Yes. You're applying your ability score modifier to the check as "normal", and then you also get an additional bonus to the check which happens to be equal to the same ability score modifier. Normally you can't double up like this, but I do believe that's one of the few situations where it's technically within the rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Monster w21 Faces posted:So inspired by The Last Canadians from GiantBomb.com, some co-workers and I have decided to learn Pathfinder. What are you planning on running/playing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Beginner's Box to start with I would assume. I won't be GMing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Totally non-official ruling: Thanks. I thought this was the case but adding the same modifier twice seemed so weird I thought I had to be misreading something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Monster w21 Faces posted:Beginner's Box to start with I would assume. I won't be GMing. Ah okay, I had assumed you made the envelopes and were GMing. Thankfully the giantbomb guys picked the best adventure path to go into so that should be good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Wrist Watch posted:Thanks. Weird, but not really that strong. It's basically just a +5 bonus to skill for most people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Wrist Watch posted:Thanks. Yeah, like I said usually that isn't allowed. For example, if you had two different class features that both said "Add your Wisdom bonus to your Armor Class", you'd only get it once. It works in the case you described because you're not technically adding your Wisdom bonus to the skill check twice--the skill check itself includes your Wisdom bonus, then you're adding your Wisdom bonus to it. It's a semantic distinction, but that can be important if you want to get into the technical nitty-gritty of the system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
veekie posted:Weird, but not really that strong. It's basically just a +5 bonus to skill for most people. The campaign I'm making this guy for starts at level 5. I don't know how many points we're getting for point buy, but including our starting funds I could probably hit 20 wis relatively easily. Considering they're class skills that's an automatic +13 to any bluff/diplomacy roll before even considering ranks or other bonuses. It just seemed kind of high which is why I wanted to double check. v  ve: Thanks for helping to clarify, Zurai
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Slayer seems pretty good as is, but needs more talents and favored target needs to be tweaked. Conceptually the Slayer is an archetype we'd been missing (every DM is going to use them for bandits from now on), but it the class needs significantly more moving parts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Ah okay, I had assumed you made the envelopes and were GMing. Thankfully the giantbomb guys picked the best adventure path to go into so that should be good. Oh, I did make the envelopes. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Yeah, like I said usually that isn't allowed. For example, if you had two different class features that both said "Add your Wisdom bonus to your Armor Class", you'd only get it once. It works in the case you described because you're not technically adding your Wisdom bonus to the skill check twice--the skill check itself includes your Wisdom bonus, then you're adding your Wisdom bonus to it. It's a semantic distinction, but that can be important if you want to get into the technical nitty-gritty of the system. Actually, the text for calculating your skill check says you are using your ability score bonus, so you are adding your Wisdom bonus. Note that semantically your Wisdom bonus is a type: it's type is "Wisdom."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
Wrist Watch posted:The campaign I'm making this guy for starts at level 5. I don't know how many points we're getting for point buy, but including our starting funds I could probably hit 20 wis relatively easily. Considering they're class skills that's an automatic +13 to any bluff/diplomacy roll before even considering ranks or other bonuses. It just seemed kind of high which is why I wanted to double check. v Skill bonuses are pretty easy to acquire for the DCs you might encounter at your level, so I wouldn't sweat it, it's a comparable investment to a +5 skill bonus item. What it mostly does is improve the returns on ability score increases, but ability scores are expensive to increase, so it ultimately doesn't matter a whole lot. There are other problems with the social interaction skills, but it's more to do with how those skills work than the bonuses you can get really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
Monster w21 Faces posted:Oh, I did make the envelopes. Well nice work then, they seem pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Actually, the text for calculating your skill check says you are using your ability score bonus, so you are adding your Wisdom bonus. Yes, but it's being added to a different part of the equation than the ability score bonus from the class ability, so the stacking issue doesn't come into play. It's similar but not quite the same as wearing an amulet of natural armor (which gives an enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus to AC) and magical armor (which gives an enhancement bonus to your armor bonus to AC). They're both enhancement bonuses that ultimately increase your AC, but they apply to different parts of the equation so they stack. pawsplay posted:Note that semantically your Wisdom bonus is a type: it's type is "Wisdom." This is actually not true. There is no "wisdom" (or strength, dexterity, etc) bonus type. That is, unless Paizo finally published a list of bonus types in Pathfinder? They cut out the 3rd edition one from the original core book and have never replaced it to my knowledge. In that 3.5 version, there is no allowance for named ability score bonus types.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Would a barbarian kitsune with the Fox Shape feat be able to rage while in fox form? It seems like it, but I want to make sure I'm not overlooking anything before I put this ridiculous build into action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
James Jacobs says that in cases like this, the two bonuses don't fail to stack due to having the same bonus type, they just fail to stack because gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:James Jacobs says that in cases like this, the two bonuses don't fail to stack due to having the same bonus type, they just fail to stack because gently caress you. That's some bullshit. I guess he's ignoring the other types of bonuses that stack with themselves, like deflection and luck bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
B.B. Rodriguez posted:That's some bullshit. I guess he's ignoring the other types of bonuses that stack with themselves, like deflection and luck bonuses. He's also flat-out wrong. Untyped bonuses always stack unless they're from the exact same source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
B.B. Rodriguez posted:That's some bullshit. I guess he's ignoring the other types of bonuses that stack with themselves, like deflection and luck bonuses. The ones that stack with themselves were specifically called out in 3.5. Deflection and Luck bonuses do not. Dodge bonuses do, and Natural Armor bonus doesn't, unless it's from the Barkskin spell, which adds to a creature's existing bonus if they have one. I'm pretty sure those are the only two typed bonuses that stack with themselves. Edit: Circumstance bonuses probably stack too, I forget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:James Jacobs says that in cases like this, the two bonuses don't fail to stack due to having the same bonus type, they just fail to stack because gently caress you. He's saying that bonuses that aren't specified to be of a certain type are considered to be in the "untyped" type, and therefore cannot stack with another untyped bonus because untyped doesn't mean that it isn't a type of bonus, it's a catch-all type of bonus that's called "untyped".  So if you're choosing the Infiltrator archetype, three of the most thematically fitting inquisitions are basically useless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Barkskin gives an enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus (treating no natural armor as a +0 bonus). Thus, it modifies the natural armor bonus itself rather than providing a separate, stacking natural armor bonus. The language about stacking in the spell description is kind of awkward. Circumstance bonuses aren't sufficiently codified to need a ruling on whether they stack - you could as easily say that more circumstances grant a bigger bonus straight up. Dodge is the only true stacking typed bonus. James Jacobs's opinion is, unsurprisingly, bad. Fake edit: ^^^ No, what he's doing is mixing up the source of the untyped bonus. He correctly recognizes that untyped bonuses stack unless they are from the same source. What James appears to think is that the source of the bonus here is "Dexterity," when it's actually two different sources: Weapon Finesse and Fury's Fall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Circumstance bonuses aren't sufficiently codified to need a ruling on whether they stack - you could as easily say that more circumstances grant a bigger bonus straight up. This is another of those things lost with the culling of the bonus type list. Circumstance bonuses from different circumstances stack. Ones from the same or very similar circumstances do not stack. For example, a circumstance bonus to Diplomacy for being a member of the local nobility stacks with one for having saved the life of the person the character is talking to. On the other hand, circumstance bonuses for having saved the person and for having saved one of their friends would not stack because they're essentially the same circumstance: the character is personally grateful to the PC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Wrist Watch posted:He's saying that bonuses that aren't specified to be of a certain type are considered to be in the "untyped" type, and therefore cannot stack with another untyped bonus because untyped doesn't mean that it isn't a type of bonus, it's a catch-all type of bonus that's called "untyped". That's ridiculous. Untyped bonuses have always been assumed to stack, that's part of why they're so good! I swear that the PF devs understand their own game less and less as time goes on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
To be fair, James Jacobs isn't a rules guy. He's the Creative Director and has no input on the rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Zurai posted:To be fair, James Jacobs isn't a rules guy. He's the Creative Director and has no input on the rules. I've said this myself in the past, but for some reason it doesn't stop him from posting about the rules all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
So I'm getting really frustrated with how badly this core book is laid out, and need to ask you guys for help again. I'm trying to build a lv 10 cleric of Asmodeus, and want to know whether I would get more out of a secondary in STR or CON. This book is painful to read, and makes literally no mention of abilities within any of the class sections. (As an aside, why is this? Why didn't they make a two page "How to build a character/fill out a character sheet"? The rules for AC are in the Combat section for fucks sake.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/getting-started http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/character-creation Regarding CON/STR, they're two of the easier stats. STR helps you hit in melee, and makes you do more damage when you do. It's also useful for when you're trying to break things, or preform/defend against combat maneuvers, such as grappling or tripping. It's also used in a small number of skills, namely Climb and Swim. CON gives you more hitpoints every level, and is used whenever you make a fortitude save, such as when you get poisoned, hold your breath, or when you try to force yourself to run for long periods of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Sure, I get that. I was just asking opinion. Would you get more mileage out of a STR secondary Cleric or a CON secondary cleric. (I appreciate the links and all, but this isn't my first D&D rodeo. Just my first lv 10 cleric. Usually I'd stick with CON for these situations, but was wondering if there were any big drawbacks/advantages.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Do you plan to hit things with a stick, swim, or climb?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Hahaha, generally, no. I guess I see where you're going with this. I appreciate the insight!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Sure, I get that. I was just asking opinion. Would you get more mileage out of a STR secondary Cleric or a CON secondary cleric. As a Cleric, you'll be better off with CON. You can always buff your STR, but Fort saves come when you aren't prepared.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:I've said this myself in the past, but for some reason it doesn't stop him from posting about the rules all the time. This can be said to be in common for a lot of the devs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Why didn't they make a two page "How to build a character/fill out a character sheet"? This might help. quote:The rules for AC are in the Combat section for fucks sake.) I must say, I'm struggling to understand why the rules for a combat statistic being in the combat section is a problem at all. Where else do you think it should be where it would be easy to reference in the middle of a gaming session? To a certain extent, it sounds like you're expecting to read through the book almost like a narrative, and that really makes no sense for a rule book. It's organized so that you can reference the relevant rules in the future with minimal issue (at least, in theory). Rules for ability scores go in the abilities section, rules for combat scores go in the combat section, rules for skill scores go in the skills section... In terms of whether Strength or Constitution is better for a Cleric...I guess I don't understand why you expect that there's One Right Answer, much less that the rulebook would tell it to you if there were one. It ends up depending on what you want to do--and ultimately, if you have a good GM, shouldn't really matter that much, unless you really just make poor decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
If it's on your character sheet, it should be in the character building section. I still haven't forgiven AD&D 2e for putting the saving throws chart in the middle of it's combat section.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 07:18
|
|
