Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker Builds and Strats Thread

[rusty_shackleford]

fact:
archer fighter is the best build

No, this is:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/640820/discussions/0/3393916911747585718/

too much setup and effort

 

[Zero Credibility]

Magus does requires more micromanagement to make use of those abilities in game though, spellcombat in particular. I've made the switch to EK and I'm happier for it. Level 8 now, got me a nice mithral breastplate, feats to reduce spell failure to zero, already more spells than a magus, comparable attack and AC,... I do miss spellstrike, but for your basic buff-and-wade-in-sword-swinging the character feels perfectly fine. And he will only get better as his spellcasting pulls away. Sure, it's a dex focused character, but even magus only gets medium armor at level 7, and heavy at 13.

 

[Yosharian]

True Seeing is supposed to negate certain things, such as the Displacement spell. It sees through Invisibility spells. It does not negate Concealment, and neither does Glitterdust (which just applies a Stealth penalty).

What you need to counter Concealment that is not related to Displacement (so some kind of innate ability or something like that) is the Echolocation spell, or the Blind-Fight feat. If you're ranged, you can pick up the Improved Precise Shot feat to negate Concealment entirely (unless it's Total Concealment).

That said, this is all based off Pathfinder rules, so fuck knows how it actually behaves in-game.

Edit: 'Faerie Fire' (druid level 1 spell) apparently is supposed to negate some types of Concealment.

 

[Cael]

People get confused because the term concealment has several definitions/uses. For example, a completely invisible enemy has 50% concealment even if you know which square they are in (from a successful Listen check, for example). This is, of course, not the same as concealment from obscuring terrain, which is typically 20%. Nor is it the same as the total concealment granted by a tower shield if you chose to hide behind it.

DnD 3.x had terminology problems and Pathfinder inherited a lot of it.

So, let's go through the spells one by one (3.5 versions):

See Invisibility negates Invisibility. That is it. Therefore, it will allow you to hit an Invisible creature as though it was visible (no 50% concealment from invisibility). However, if it was obscured by other means, then it will still have the concealment from those means.

Glitterdust and Faerie Fire outlines and marks the enemy. It does not make them visible. Therefore, it negates the 50% invisibility concealment bonus, but it does not allow you to do precision strikes on them (e.g., sneak attacks), which is, unfortunately, another definition of concealment.

True Sight negates Invisibiity, Displacement and illusions. It does not help vs Hide or other non-magic forms of concealment.

If the game does not behave like the above, then there is a bug.

 

[Yosharian]

People get confused because the term concealment has several definitions/uses. For example, a completely invisible enemy has 50% concealment even if you know which square they are in (from a successful Listen check, for example). This is, of course, not the same as concealment from obscuring terrain, which is typically 20%. Nor is it the same as the total concealment granted by a tower shield if you chose to hide behind it.

DnD 3.x had terminology problems and Pathfinder inherited a lot of it.

So, let's go through the spells one by one (3.5 versions):

See Invisibility negates Invisibility. That is it. Therefore, it will allow you to hit an Invisible creature as though it was visible (no 50% concealment from invisibility). However, if it was obscured by other means, then it will still have the concealment from those means.

Glitterdust and Faerie Fire outlines and marks the enemy. It does not make them visible. Therefore, it negates the 50% invisibility concealment bonus, but it does not allow you to do precision strikes on them (e.g., sneak attacks), which is, unfortunately, another definition of concealment.

True Sight negates Invisibiity, Displacement and illusions. It does not help vs Hide or other non-magic forms of concealment.

If the game does not behave like the above, then there is a bug.

There's nothing in the Glitterdust text that specifies that it counters Concealment...

I get that you said 3.5 but this is a Pathfinder game...

Found a thread here:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1xo?Glitterdust-vs-Displacement

Consensus seems to be Glitterdust does NOT affect Concealment.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

[
No, this is:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/640820/discussions/0/3393916911747585718/

I like more sneak dice like the next guy but what I'm seeing here is:
1 vivi = 0 BAB
9 Magus = 6 BAB
10 AT = 5 BAB
---
11 BAB

Sounds like someone who really does a lot of damage on a flanked or flatfooted target when he actually hits, but how often does he hit? Especially against the difficult opponents not some ez trash mobs?
I dunno, so far I see chars with far better attack progression miss a lot, so I'm really uncertain about how well this will work in the game. I know, ranged touch attacks on rays should be easier to connect, unfortunately there's a bit of a stat bloat in this game which means the touch AC is high as fuck as well. I see the wizard chick miss with her rays all the time.

topic concealment:
Well, there's true strike. This let's you ignore concealment. I already used it to great effect on my archer magus vs redonkulous AC opponents.

topic magus vs EK
Well, how many pool points do I have at lvl 8? 6 or 7? To say you can use that stuff all the time is nonsense unless you also rest all the time. If you really have to buff up for the bossfight you can do lots of good stuff in addition to the usual spell buffs and that's of course a great advantage.
Spell combat from the beginning - yes that's great too but nothing stops you from taking 2 magus levels then going EK for instance and you'll have spell combat. Both classes have their merit, though one is a main class and thus gives significant boons ealier whereas the other is a prestige class, so a direct comparison is always a bit difficult. Anyway the premise "Magus made EK obsolete" is wrong, EK has something going for it too.

 

[Yosharian]

topic concealment:
Well, there's true strike. This let's you ignore concealment. I already used it to great effect on my archer magus vs redonkulous AC opponents.

Huh? True Strike?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Huh? True Strike?

Yes, True Strike.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/true-strike/

Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

 

[Yosharian]

Huh? True Strike?

Yes, True Strike.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/true-strike/

Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

Oh shit son. I did not know that.

 

[Cael]

People get confused because the term concealment has several definitions/uses. For example, a completely invisible enemy has 50% concealment even if you know which square they are in (from a successful Listen check, for example). This is, of course, not the same as concealment from obscuring terrain, which is typically 20%. Nor is it the same as the total concealment granted by a tower shield if you chose to hide behind it.

DnD 3.x had terminology problems and Pathfinder inherited a lot of it.

So, let's go through the spells one by one (3.5 versions):

See Invisibility negates Invisibility. That is it. Therefore, it will allow you to hit an Invisible creature as though it was visible (no 50% concealment from invisibility). However, if it was obscured by other means, then it will still have the concealment from those means.

Glitterdust and Faerie Fire outlines and marks the enemy. It does not make them visible. Therefore, it negates the 50% invisibility concealment bonus, but it does not allow you to do precision strikes on them (e.g., sneak attacks), which is, unfortunately, another definition of concealment.

True Sight negates Invisibiity, Displacement and illusions. It does not help vs Hide or other non-magic forms of concealment.

If the game does not behave like the above, then there is a bug.

There's nothing in the Glitterdust text that specifies that it counters Concealment...

I get that you said 3.5 but this is a Pathfinder game...

Found a thread here:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1xo?Glitterdust-vs-Displacement

Consensus seems to be Glitterdust does NOT affect Concealment.

If it reveals an invisible creature, it counters the concealment given by invisibility. I did not think even Paizotards need to be told that.

 

[Yosharian]

People get confused because the term concealment has several definitions/uses. For example, a completely invisible enemy has 50% concealment even if you know which square they are in (from a successful Listen check, for example). This is, of course, not the same as concealment from obscuring terrain, which is typically 20%. Nor is it the same as the total concealment granted by a tower shield if you chose to hide behind it.

DnD 3.x had terminology problems and Pathfinder inherited a lot of it.

So, let's go through the spells one by one (3.5 versions):

See Invisibility negates Invisibility. That is it. Therefore, it will allow you to hit an Invisible creature as though it was visible (no 50% concealment from invisibility). However, if it was obscured by other means, then it will still have the concealment from those means.

Glitterdust and Faerie Fire outlines and marks the enemy. It does not make them visible. Therefore, it negates the 50% invisibility concealment bonus, but it does not allow you to do precision strikes on them (e.g., sneak attacks), which is, unfortunately, another definition of concealment.

True Sight negates Invisibiity, Displacement and illusions. It does not help vs Hide or other non-magic forms of concealment.

If the game does not behave like the above, then there is a bug.

There's nothing in the Glitterdust text that specifies that it counters Concealment...

I get that you said 3.5 but this is a Pathfinder game...

Found a thread here:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1xo?Glitterdust-vs-Displacement

Consensus seems to be Glitterdust does NOT affect Concealment.

If it reveals an invisible creature, it counters the concealment given by invisibility. I did not think even Paizotards need to be told that.

Except it doesnt, per the spell's written text.

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Stealth checks.

The spell specifically references invisible things, it does not reference Concealment at all.

This means that it outlines invisible objects and allows them to be seen, so it counters invisibility effects. But it does not counter effects like Blur and Displacement, here's the Displacement text as an example:

The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

Displacement is an Illusion spell that makes the creature appear in a slightly different place to where it actually is, thus Glitterdust has no effect because the glittery dust that the spell releases is also shifted visually by the Displacement spell.

That's why Glitterdust specifically fails to mention Concealment.

Glitterdust counters invisibility and whatever miss chance such invisibility might grant, but it doesn't counter Concealment directly. If it did, it would say on the spell text 'Counters all concealment', like the Faerie Fire spell does:

A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a -20 penalty on all Stealth checks. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. The light is too dim to have any special effect on undead or dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I think I confused glitterdust with fairy fire. Glitterdust description really says nothing about concealment, whereas fairy fire mentions countering blur/displacement type concealment effects. Which makes it a good spell already. Although if it does nothing against creatures with natural concealment then I guess Blindfight will become a must have unless you have someone who can supply Echolocation for the whole party.

 

[Yosharian]

I think I confused glitterdust with fairy fire. Glitterdust description really says nothing about concealment, whereas fairy fire mentions countering blur/displacement type concealment effects. Which makes it a good spell already. Although if it does nothing against creatures with natural concealment then I guess Blindfight will become a must have unless you have someone who can supply Echolocation for the whole party.

Luckily every one of my physical damage dealers can obtain Echolocation or Improved Precise Shot

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Magus does requires more micromanagement to make use of those abilities in game though, spellcombat in particular. I've made the switch to EK and I'm happier for it. Level 8 now, got me a nice mithral breastplate, feats to reduce spell failure to zero, already more spells than a magus, comparable attack and AC,... I do miss spellstrike, but for your basic buff-and-wade-in-sword-swinging the character feels perfectly fine. And he will only get better as his spellcasting pulls away. Sure, it's a dex focused character, but even magus only gets medium armor at level 7, and heavy at 13.

True, that chapter 2 mithral armor is a gamechanger. If you’re willing to do the extreme micromanagement, though, Magus really shines. High AC enemy? Time to spend a point from the pool and apply my INT bonus to my chance to hit (extra satisfying when you already have spell lined up from a missed spellstrike).

VentilatorOfDoom your arcane pool gets 1 point every other level + your INT bonus. So at level 8 right now, I have 10 (18 INT with a + 4 INT headband). That’s ten one-minute long uses of the +2 enhancement, going to +3 at level 9. I usually give myself keen or 1d6 elemental damage instead.

By comparison, Amiri usually runs out of rage before my Magus runs out of his arcane pool. Even with extra rage, she only gets about 25 rounds per rest, so less than three minutes total, even if it’s easier to ration. I use it like rage: not in extremely trivial fights, but still much more often than not. And I’m not resting that often—too many timed quests.

 

[Shadenuat]

Btw if you want to greatly screw the endgame, roll some sort of char with absurd innate amount of DR not dependant on spells + collect all DR items.

 

[Yosharian]

Invulnerable Rager can easily achieve 15/- by level 16-ish

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

VentilatorOfDoom your arcane pool gets 1 point every other level + your INT bonus. So at level 8 right now, I have 10 (18 INT with a + 4 INT headband). That’s ten one-minute long uses of the +2 enhancement, going to +3 at level 9. I usually give myself keen or 1d6 elemental damage instead.

By comparison, Amiri usually runs out of rage before my Magus runs out of his arcane pool. Even with extra rage, she only gets about 25 rounds per rest, so less than three minutes total, even if it’s easier to ration. I use it like rage: not in extremely trivial fights, but still much more often than not. And I’m not resting that often—too many timed quests.

Well 10min isn't all that much when in a long dungeon. Still, better than barbarian rage by several orders of magnitude. Bard Song as well, really, making these abilities last for a single combat round per charge makes them significantly weaker than in past DnD games.

Does the keen from the magus ability stack with improved critical?

 

[Zero Credibility]

I found magus pool way too useful for spell recall to use on other abilities though. Every one of those points is an extra shocking grasp, or mirror image once improved recall kicks in. To be clear, I'm a big fan of the class in P&P where I enjoy getting the most of the spellcombat / spellstrike / arcana, but there's just too much combat here for me to do the same.

 

[Yosharian]

VentilatorOfDoom your arcane pool gets 1 point every other level + your INT bonus. So at level 8 right now, I have 10 (18 INT with a + 4 INT headband). That’s ten one-minute long uses of the +2 enhancement, going to +3 at level 9. I usually give myself keen or 1d6 elemental damage instead.

By comparison, Amiri usually runs out of rage before my Magus runs out of his arcane pool. Even with extra rage, she only gets about 25 rounds per rest, so less than three minutes total, even if it’s easier to ration. I use it like rage: not in extremely trivial fights, but still much more often than not. And I’m not resting that often—too many timed quests.

Well 10min isn't all that much when in a long dungeon. Still, better than barbarian rage by several orders of magnitude. Bard Song as well, really, making these abilities last for a single combat round per charge makes them significantly weaker than in past DnD games.

Does the keen from the magus ability stack with improved critical?

No

 

[Parabalus]

Are there a bunch of Sneak Attack immune enemies later?

 

[Shadenuat]

Sneak Attack is one of the more reliable things in this game. In my opinion it is even too reliable, which puts rogue types above the level they should be.

 

[Cael]

People get confused because the term concealment has several definitions/uses. For example, a completely invisible enemy has 50% concealment even if you know which square they are in (from a successful Listen check, for example). This is, of course, not the same as concealment from obscuring terrain, which is typically 20%. Nor is it the same as the total concealment granted by a tower shield if you chose to hide behind it.

DnD 3.x had terminology problems and Pathfinder inherited a lot of it.

So, let's go through the spells one by one (3.5 versions):

See Invisibility negates Invisibility. That is it. Therefore, it will allow you to hit an Invisible creature as though it was visible (no 50% concealment from invisibility). However, if it was obscured by other means, then it will still have the concealment from those means.

Glitterdust and Faerie Fire outlines and marks the enemy. It does not make them visible. Therefore, it negates the 50% invisibility concealment bonus, but it does not allow you to do precision strikes on them (e.g., sneak attacks), which is, unfortunately, another definition of concealment.

True Sight negates Invisibiity, Displacement and illusions. It does not help vs Hide or other non-magic forms of concealment.

If the game does not behave like the above, then there is a bug.

There's nothing in the Glitterdust text that specifies that it counters Concealment...

I get that you said 3.5 but this is a Pathfinder game...

Found a thread here:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1xo?Glitterdust-vs-Displacement

Consensus seems to be Glitterdust does NOT affect Concealment.

If it reveals an invisible creature, it counters the concealment given by invisibility. I did not think even Paizotards need to be told that.

Except it doesnt, per the spell's written text.

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a -40 penalty on Stealth checks.

The spell specifically references invisible things, it does not reference Concealment at all.

This means that it outlines invisible objects and allows them to be seen, so it counters invisibility effects. But it does not counter effects like Blur and Displacement, here's the Displacement text as an example:

The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

Displacement is an Illusion spell that makes the creature appear in a slightly different place to where it actually is, thus Glitterdust has no effect because the glittery dust that the spell releases is also shifted visually by the Displacement spell.

That's why Glitterdust specifically fails to mention Concealment.

Glitterdust counters invisibility and whatever miss chance such invisibility might grant, but it doesn't counter Concealment directly. If it did, it would say on the spell text 'Counters all concealment', like the Faerie Fire spell does:

A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a -20 penalty on all Stealth checks. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. The light is too dim to have any special effect on undead or dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light.

You gain 50% concealment when invisible. The concealment is an effect of invisibility.

When you remove invisibility, then none of the effects of invisibility applies unless otherwise specified. Glitterdust, by revealing invisible creatures, negates the concealment from invisibility. It need not be specifically mentioned.

 

[Yosharian]

You gain 50% concealment when invisible. The concealment is an effect of invisibility.

When you remove invisibility, then none of the effects of invisibility applies unless otherwise specified. Glitterdust, by revealing invisible creatures, negates the concealment from invisibility. It need not be specifically mentioned.

So, what does Displacement grant?

 

[vazha]

Magus does requires more micromanagement to make use of those abilities in game though, spellcombat in particular. I've made the switch to EK and I'm happier for it. Level 8 now, got me a nice mithral breastplate, feats to reduce spell failure to zero, already more spells than a magus, comparable attack and AC,... I do miss spellstrike, but for your basic buff-and-wade-in-sword-swinging the character feels perfectly fine. And he will only get better as his spellcasting pulls away. Sure, it's a dex focused character, but even magus only gets medium armor at level 7, and heavy at 13.

True, that chapter 2 mithral armor is a gamechanger. If you’re willing to do the extreme micromanagement, though, Magus really shines. High AC enemy? Time to spend a point from the pool and apply my INT bonus to my chance to hit (extra satisfying when you already have spell lined up from a missed spellstrike).

VentilatorOfDoom your arcane pool gets 1 point every other level + your INT bonus. So at level 8 right now, I have 10 (18 INT with a + 4 INT headband). .

why do this when you can cast true strike, a lvl 1 spell, which will give you +20 increase to attack instead? iirc that magus ability is not affected by enduring blade and last for one turn or somesuch.
Also, Eldritch scion is better than EK for a specialized builds while EK is superior when it comes to two hander mage knights who just buff and then smash.

 

[Shaewaroz]

Has anyone experimented with reach weapons? Can you perform combat moves like Cleave from the backrow? I read online that apparently many of the combat moves don't work with reach weapons.