Pathfinder General /pfg/

Cumming inside your Tiefling waifu for the purposes of procreation and in furtherance of your romantic relationship

Unraveling mysteries, taking revenge, doing scour off an aasimar hooker's ass, busting cults, killing sworn goes, etc.

There may or may not be incentives for using different weapons rather than a matching pair.

there should be good ones, as different weapon pairs are going up against weapon focus, weapon training, and so on and so forth.

Earlier (), I showcased a 3rd-level, Paizo + Spheres of Might build that showed that the most optimal possible build for a 3rd-level unarmed sage does nothing but spam the same action ad nauseam.

I have pieced together a 3rd-level sentinel/blacksmith this time, and the results are similar. The single best combat tactic of this build is to spam the same attack over and over, ignoring its more interesting options.

Presenting... Spheres of Might: Revenge of the Ordained Defender/Zweihander Sentinel.

Level: 3rd
Race: Oni-spawn tiefling (prehensile tail, scaled skin, underworld guide)
Class: Sentinel 1/blacksmith 2

Key Ability Scores: Strength 16+2, Wisdom 16+2
Key Traits: Empathic Diplomat (regional), Reactionary (combat)
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Extra Combat Talent

Combat Talents: 6 = 2 base + 1 sentinel + 2 blacksmith + 1 Extra Combat Talent
• Equipment (free, Weapons, Melee Weapon Training, martial focus always dedicated to this): Critical Hammer (free), Heavy Arms Training, Polearm Master
• Guardian (free)
• Lance: Advancing Carnage, Advancing Carnage, Calculated Violence

Maintenance: Sharpen Weapons: The blacksmith and his allies gain a +2 bonus to all damage rolls made with manufactured weapons.
Smithing Insight: Practiced Power: The blacksmith gains a +1 competence bonus to attack and damage rolls made with hammers.

Key Equipment: Masterwork full plate (1,650 gp), masterwork Large lucerne hammer (330 gp), both possibly self-crafted with Profession (blacksmith) and skilled craftsman

Numbers:
• Initiative: 8 = 4 Wisdom modifier from Wise Reflexes + 2 underworld guide + 2 Reactionary
• AoOs per Round: 5 = 1 base + 4 Wisdom modifier from Combat Reflexes and Wise Reflexes
• Attack Bonus: 3 BAB + 4 Strength modifier + 1 competence + 1 Equipment sphere dedication + 1 masterwork enhancement = +10
• Damage: 3d6 Large lucerne hammer + 6 Strength modifier multiplied + 1 competence + 2 sharpen weapons = 3d6+9, 19-20/×3 with Critical Hammer

damn you niggas work fast

I bet YOU GUYS didn't get distracted by an accidental discharge of seductive booty energy

>three
>pair
Do you even understand words or numbers?

You're still incapable of making actual characters for actual games, so you're still not a reliable source of feedback. There might be an issue with spamming the same action or there may not, but we can't take your word for it.

Nah, we're just getting distracted by an accidental discharge of serrated arrowheads.

What happened to the other thread? Was it too deviant even for this place?

This character is fairly durable, between high HD, extra hit points from the Guardian sphere, temporary hit points from sentinel's reserve, rock-solid saving throws (including Wisdom-based Reflex), and full plate. Offense is where this character shines.

Every round, the character does nothing but go up to an enemy (possibly with a charge) and whack them with the giant hammer. Attack bonus +10, damage 3d6+9, 19-20/×3. If that hits, the Lance sphere, Advancing Carnage, Advancing Carnage, and Calculated Violence trigger, hopefully generating more and more attacks with which to smack down enemies.

The character can also contribute through fully-threatening reach and Combat Reflexes, and some party support from the blacksmith's maintenance... but these are passive effects that do not influence active combat options.

The character has some interesting combat options, such as the Guardian sphere's challenge and the Lancer sphere's impale... but why bother with them? The Guardian challenge expends martial focus and move actions, and the Lance impale deprives the character of a weapon. Better to dedicate the martial focus to the Equipment sphere for that extra point of accuracy, so as to ensure that each attack lands and the Lancer talents actually trigger.

Again, it is rather disappointing how some of the most optimal builds in Spheres of Might do nothing but spam the same combo ad nauseam.

At 4th-level, the character takes another level in blacksmith and takes the Power Attack equipment talent, of course. The build still does nothing but spam its single best attack.

Thick dragon waifus.

Just cuz I said the words wrong don't mean I said them wrong.

>A low level character doesn't have a ton of options
>#shocked

>You three are a great pair of old childhood friends
That doesn't make sense though. Is English your first language?

Moving on, here is what I believe is the ultimate 3rd-level unarmed sage, again using only Paizo and Spheres of Might sources. This build works best in a game wherein the retraining rules are available, so as to retrain away Extra Combat Talent feats, but the build works just fine even without them.

This build also does nothing but spam the same combo over and over. I do not understand why the writers of Spheres of Might chose to write talents in such a way that some of them could be stacked into a single bread-and-butter combo that could then be spammed repeatedly.

Level: 3rd
Race: Human (heart of the slums)
Class: Sage

Key Ability Scores: Dexterity 16+2, Wisdom 16
Traits: Child of the Streets (social), Empathic Diplomat (regional), possibly Reactionary (combat) if a drawback is taken
Feats: Combat Reflexes (human bonus), Extra Combat Talent, Extra Combat Talent

Combat Talents:
• Equipment: Finesse Fighting (free)
• Open Hand (free, focus is always dedicated to this): Lunging Strikes, Snap Kick, Sweeping Kicks
• Scoundrel: Dirty Mugging, Playing Dirty

Key Equipment: Gloves of Larceny (2,500 gp), Ioun Torch (75 gp)

Attack Bonuses:
• Unarmed Strike: +5 = 1 BAB + 4 Dexterity modifier
• Sleight of Hand Bonus: +18 = 3 ranks + 4 Dexterity modifier + 3 class skill + 1 trait + 2 racial + 5 competence
• Trip Bonus: 7+2d6 = 3 sage level + 4 Dexterity modifier + 2d6 chi gong

~

What happens on this character's turn? They go up to an enemy and perform a dirty trick combat maneuver. Because of the Scoundrel sphere and chi gong, they roll +18+2d6, and probably blind an enemy for a few rounds. The opponent must spend a standard action to remove the blindness.

Landing the dirty trick triggers Dirty Mugging. They make an attack of opportunity against the foe. The sage's attack bonus is +5, but it will probably hit a blinded target. If the sage hits, they deal 1d6 + 2 + Strength modifier damage, plus 2d6 from chi gong, plus 1 nonlethal from Open Hand.

If this attack hits, Sweeping Kicks triggers. They make a trip attempt, rolling +7+2d6. This will probably succeed, since the target is blinded (penalties to AC apply to CMD).

If the trip attempt is successful, Snap Kick triggers. That is another attack at +5, again dealing 1d6 + 2 + Strength modifier damage, plus 2d6 from chi gong, plus 1 nonlethal from Open Hand.

It is a little luck-dependent, but the payoff is impressive by non-DSP standards: a blinded and prone enemy, along with two reasonably-damaging attacks, all from one standard action.

All of this, by the way, is if the sage opts to *not* use Stunning Fist. If the sage used that, then the enemy could very well be stunned for a round.

~

What happens on the target's turn? It is screwed. The blindness will take a standard action to clear. Standing from prone as a move action will provoke an attack of opportunity. The enemy could also be stunned from Stunning Fist.

What happens on other enemies' turns? If they are melee-focused and they lack reach, then they will provoke attacks of opportunity from the sage. The sage can trip them with a +7+2d6 bonus, and a successful trip provokes a further attack of opportunity. Woe to them if the sage activates Stunning Fist.

The sage is quite frail against enemies who can attack from 10+ feet away, but Manipulate Flow and Sage's Riposte can offer some respite.

~

It is a shame how effective such spam is.

At 4th-level, the character uses retraining to acquire Playing Dirty as a regular combat talent, and takes Focused Sphere (Scoundrel). This allows them to charge and then perform the dirty trick combo, significantly improving mobility. The sage's cripple class feature also causes them to deal Strength damage with each instance of chi gong damage.

You're STILL incapable of making actual characters for actual games, so you're still not a reliable source of feedback. There might be an issue with spamming the same action or there may not, but we can't take your word for it.

2hu, could you place your text slabs in a pastebin?

>You're still incapable of making actual characters for actual games, so you're still not a reliable source of feedback
What the fuck does that have to do with the math of how broken something might be? 2hu might be autistic, but at least he's not retarded like you.

>Playtest
>Characterization mattering at all when the playtest is for mechanics
>"We can't take your word" because they're proving that this shit is fucked
So you're a retard, then.

It's only theorycrafting; untestable because he can't actually use those characters in games. If he doesn't know how to play Pathfinder, why would his feedback be valuable?

Are you actually retarded? This is a play test, he is showing what is wrong with the current material.

So tell me what occurs once he is playing that makes any of his build theory untrue? No seriously, at the moment you're just acting like a whiny tard.

That's not how playtests work. Simply by showing that it's broken, 2hu's already proven that something needs fixed. Whether or not it's "actually used in a game" is pointless, because the fundamental math and work underneath it is busted with proof.

2hu does more math than BUILDPOSTER, does so more consistently, and shows that such a thing needs to be fixed before going out.

Advancing Carnage and the lancer ability all target against different enemies, it says opponents adjacent to them. Calculated violence also says it can't be used against a foe who's already been attack this round.

Wouldn't that mean if you were fighting a single opponent, impaling them would be a better option? All the things you've stacked together all work at taking out mobs, so they'd be pointless against a single foe, which means it's not the optimal attack routine all the time.

How can you judge what is broken or not if you don't play the game?

Is this how playtesters of Paizo's material used the mechanics and presented their playtesting builds?

By looking at the math and comparing its and its abilities to comparable builds. We know how the game runs and we know how the math works between builds. Comparison between builds and optimal build structure doesn't have to see play to be seen.

A good deal of Paizo material is never play tested and they have no set structure for play testing, it varies from author to author.

I'm not invoking Stormwind Fallacy, I'm arguing that unless you actually play the game you can't have a sense for what is actually broken or not.

A 3rd-level "pure martial" character can, in fact, have a variety of options to them in combat.

We have already seen a basic framework for such a thing: Path of War, or, if we are being more accurate to its origins, the Tome of Battle.

Both Path of War and the Tome of Battle have serious balance issues within their disciplines and maneuvers, but the core conceits are good: you have a limited number of maneuvers readied, you must carefully ration out your standard actions and swift/immediate actions, you must intelligently expend maneuvers, and, when you are tapped out, you must weigh between resorting to regular attacks or activating a recovery mechanic.

There are very few 3rd-level Path of War and Tome of Battle builds that spam a single "best combo" again and again and again, because the framework prevents them from doing so.

In Spheres of Might, on the other hand, it seems that many optimal builds actually *do* just spam a single "best combo" ad nauseam. This is what happens when sphere talents are a mix of horizontal/flexibility upgrades and direct vertical/power upgrades; it is more optimal to take only the latter and stack them onto a single at-will mega-combo.

I am not saying that these builds are "broken" or "overpowered." They are only somewhat stronger than a Paizo-only barbarian rushing in with a greatsword and Power Attack.

What I am trying to convey is that it is so disappointing that optimal builds for these classes (blacksmith, sage, sentinel) ignore their menu of interesting combat options, and instead spam the same "best combo" repeatedly. I was under the impression that Spheres of Might was supposed to make optimal martial characters more interesting, not force them into at-will spammers.

That said, I have yet to crunch out optimal builds for the armiger and the striker. Those two classes have built-in class features for variety, so I hope they can encourage mixed tactics in combat.

I'm asking can you and should you use theorycrafting builds to test mechanics?

>optimal builds for these classes (blacksmith, sage, sentinel) ignore their menu of interesting combat options, and instead spam the same "best combo" repeatedly
How do you know that's actually how they play, 2hu? You have no metric to base versatility on.

Because you can see, with your own eyes, that "blind/prone/stun" is lethal to almost anything?
>Paizo
>Doing anything approaching a rigorous playtest
They're shit at their own job, and 3rd-Party's goal is to be better than them.
Absolutely. Because even if "nobody actually plays a god-wizard" were true (it isn't, people play them), the fact that It Exists and It Could Have Been Stopped If WotC Playtested Their Shit (tm) are still true facts.

And I'm saying you're retarded. I can tell at a glance if something is broken or not because I know how the game is structured. If you can't that either means you don't actually know how the game works or just want a reason to be angry.

Yes, because bonuses and actions are separate from in game, comparison between builds and relative statistics don't actually need to see play. Both theory crafting and in game are important for an overall playtest. Discounting theorycrafting as important makes you an actual retard.

I believe there's value in theorycraft, I don't mind theorycraft analysis, and I'll be looking over this.

While I prefer actual playtest data, all data is worth checking out as long as it's based on actively working with the mechanics.

Also sage is gonna be changed up huge, not sure if it's making the trip to the gish book yet.

>because you can see, with your own eyes, that "blind/prone/stun" is lethal to almost anything?
Jesus fucking Christ, the point I am trying to make is: IS THAT BETTER than spending those talents to diversify your available actions or not? God-wizards are better than dedicated blasters due in part to lack of versatility, so why is that not being considered here? Why is versatility being overlooked?

I have seen the same thing. The reason being their abilities do not have enough internal variability to justify not using the optimal one. The entire structure is too homogeneous. Their abilities aren't different enough that one saves you in anything but small edge cases, edge cases that would have to be catered to and exploited by the GM. Much like a GM who specifically attacks a character's weakness, no matter how narrow. It is unrealistic for play and a hallmark of a bad GM. Even then these abilities generally do so broad a scope it doesn't matter.

If you can't tell that reading the test play then either go back and read it again or play the game more until you understand.