Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker Builds and Strats Thread

[Yosharian]

Endgame they all feature like 50%.

Concealment is a bane of fighters in this game, really. Worse than high AC.

Yikes. *nervously eyes lack of Blind-Fight on his builds*

 

[Ent]

Thinking about making an elemental bloodline eldritch scion. Whats the best energy type in the game?

 

[Luckmann]

Thinking about making an elemental bloodline eldritch scion. Whats the best energy type in the game?

Acid.

Spoiler

Allahu Akbar

 

[Ramnozack]

Is an eldritch knight melee build any good? I know that it won't as good of a caster as a pure wizard or as good at melee as a magus, but its a better caster than a magus and a better melee fighter than a wizard. You could go with a 2h power attacking strength build and with your full BAB you could get 4 attacks compared to the magus' 3. Not to mention access to a more varied spell list and 7-9th level spells.

 

[Ent]

Don't you have to give up a couple of points of your BAB to be an eldritch knight? Unless theres a way to gain access to it some other way like starting with a race with a spell like ability.

 

[Incendax]

Thinking about making an elemental bloodline eldritch scion. Whats the best energy type in the game?

Water if you are going tank. Air and Fire are decent for DPS. Earth is the only weak link.

 

[Yosharian]

Is an eldritch knight melee build any good? I know that it won't as good of a caster as a pure wizard or as good at melee as a magus, but its a better caster than a magus and a better melee fighter than a wizard. You could go with a 2h power attacking strength build and with your full BAB you could get 4 attacks compared to the magus' 3. Not to mention access to a more varied spell list and 7-9th level spells.

There are two main issues with the Eldritch Knight, and they can be summed up with one word: MAGUS.

1. The EK doesn't have any easy way of casting in armor. It takes two feats to use the best light armor, which is a significant investment, not to mention that you need decent Dex to make the most out of light armor, which isn't suited to a melee Strength build (you can still do it, but it isn't 'optimal'). Magus, meanwhile, gets casting in armor for free, even in heavy armor!

2. The Magus gets tons of free stuff, principally the ability to use Arcane Pool to boost his weapon Enhancement AND the ability to apply his casting ability score modifer to his attack roll. This means the Magus can easily penetrate DR that will cause major problems for the EK, and his attack roll will always be higher.

This is without even taking into account Spell Combat or Spellstrike, or Spell Recall.

That said, EK is still pretty good, and I almost took one for my own party. But ultimately, Magus just does everything EK does, better.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Anyone using a formation that has Valerie attracting 100% of the enemy aggro, and then flanking from behind with 6 ft. range weapons? Valerie at times is almost untouchable, and as long as I keep the formation right and don't attract attention for my damage dealers, we can flank them and wipe them out pretty well. Also, she's actually a great attacker in this run for me, level 6 with a +10 attack bonus, using the magical trident that lets her cast Call Lightning. She's a beast right now at level 6.

 

[Luckmann]

Is an eldritch knight melee build any good? I know that it won't as good of a caster as a pure wizard or as good at melee as a magus, but its a better caster than a magus and a better melee fighter than a wizard. You could go with a 2h power attacking strength build and with your full BAB you could get 4 attacks compared to the magus' 3. Not to mention access to a more varied spell list and 7-9th level spells.

There are two main issues with the Eldritch Knight, and they can be summed up with one word: MAGUS.

1. The EK doesn't have any easy way of casting in armor. It takes two feats to use the best light armor, which is a significant investment, not to mention that you need decent Dex to make the most out of light armor, which isn't suited to a melee Strength build (you can still do it, but it isn't 'optimal'). Magus, meanwhile, gets casting in armor for free, even in heavy armor!

2. The Magus gets tons of free stuff, principally the ability to use Arcane Pool to boost his weapon Enhancement AND the ability to apply his casting ability score modifer to his attack roll. This means the Magus can easily penetrate DR that will cause major problems for the EK, and his attack roll will always be higher.

This is without even taking into account Spell Combat or Spellstrike, or Spell Recall.

That said, EK is still pretty good, and I almost took one for my own party. But ultimately, Magus just does everything EK does, better.

Except, of course, casting spells. Magus never get high-level spells, whereas an Eldritch Knight only loses 1 Caster Level, allowing it to go all the way up to 9th-level spellcasting.

Not saying I don't prefer a Magus, but saying it does *everything* better is wrong.

 

[Ent]

Didn't owlcat kinda nerf some of the pure casters by leaving out some of the crazier high level spells?

 

[Ramnozack]

Didn't owlcat kinda nerf some of the pure casters by leaving out some of the crazier high level spells?

IDK, I saw that level 8 spell, greater shout or something, that stuns for 4d6 rounds if you fail the save, 2d6 rounds no matter what, in a 60' cone. Seems pretty damn strong to me

 

[Yosharian]

Didn't owlcat kinda nerf some of the pure casters by leaving out some of the crazier high level spells?

Yes they left out Time Stop (too difficult to implement apparently) and a lot of other spells like Charm Person

But spell casters are still really strong... so if it was a nerf, I'm not sure it was very effective

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Except, of course, casting spells.

Not only that, EK is full BAB, Magus only 3/4 BAB. Magus arcane pool fueled abilities last for 1 round typically (lol) until you finally get the ability to spend 2 points to make it last 1min per lvl. Then look at the size of the pool to realize you won't be using that stuff a lot. And... spellcasting is definitely much, much weaker. Otoh you have to wait quite some time before you can take EK levels.

 

[Jarpie]

Does see invisible let you see through concealment?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

fairy fire and glitterdust remove concealment, see invisible doesn't help

 

[Shadenuat]

fairy fire and glitterdust remove concealment

I don't think so

The Concealment many enemies feature is a "Planar" type. Meaning they are part on material plane, part on their plane.

And yeah See Invisibility/True Sight just don't seem to do anything in this game

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

well the spell descriptions say outlined creatures don't benefit from concealment, at the very least it should counter blur/displacement etc, no idea about planar creatures, but it should work there too

 

[Gregz]

fact:
archer fighter is the best build

No, this is:

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

 

[Shadenuat]

I experimented further since then and found the "answer", just forgot to update the thread. Here's wot i found:
* True Sight does nothing. As in, not only against concealment, it's just a spell that you can cast that doesn't do anything.

* See Invisibility, Faerie Fire, Glitterdust, Dispel, Greater Dispel do nothing against this particular form of concealment that some magical beasts, fae and demons have. That may or may not be intended. Those spells will still properly combat spells from enemy casters(Blur/Displacement/Mirror Image/(Greater) Invisibility) when applicable.

3. Any means of obtaining Blindsight - Echolocation, Dragonkind II-III, some sorcerer bloodlines etc. will allow you to bypass this sort of concealment

4. Improved Precise Shot and Improved Blind Fighting also help.

P.S. I don't know for sure what they did in Pathfinder, but back in 3.0/3.5, despite years of experience, i don't remember any sort of "extraplanar concealment", unless that's meant to represent the ability to shift between planes at will, like, say, phase spiders or blink dogs have.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Is an eldritch knight melee build any good?

Eventually yes. e.g. 10EK + 2 Fighter + 8 Wizard= 16BAB 4 attacks, something a Magus never reaches.
But you need most likely 5 Wizards levels to get lvl 3 spell and 1 fighter for proficiencies before you can take EK levels. Your BAB will be bad at the beginning but when you get a bunch of EK levels under the belt it'll get good.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Except, of course, casting spells.

Not only that, EK is full BAB, Magus only 3/4 BAB. Magus arcane pool fueled abilities last for 1 round typically (lol) until you finally get the ability to spend 2 points to make it last 1min per lvl. Then look at the size of the pool to realize you won't be using that stuff a lot. And... spellcasting is definitely much, much weaker. Otoh you have to wait quite some time before you can take EK levels.

Weapon enhancement lasts for a minute from the start. It easily compensates for the lag in BAB progression. I use it almost constantly.

If you want level 9 spells with Eldritch Knight, you’ll also need 7 levels of wizard, which erases most of the BAB advantage anyway. Wiz 7/Fighter1/EK10 has a BAB of 14 (good luck hitting level 20 in this game!). Magus 18 has a BAB of 13 and has 9 + INT bonus in his arcane pool to juice his weapons or recall spells or use any of the shorter term abilities.

As for the extra spells, an Eldritch Knight sure needs them! Once your Magus hits level 7 and can wear medium armor, he requires a lot less self buffing, to say nothing of heavy armor at level 11. The Magus is much less of a glass cannon.

For his tenth level ability, the Eldritch Knight can... basically perform spell combat on criticals. Which is nice, but a Magus can do that from level 1, at any time. When a Magus crits with his weapon using spellstrike, his spells crit, too. EK has nothing like that. And when your level 5 Magus can make his weapon Keen, that happens often, especially with a scimitar or an estoc (15-20 critical threat range!).

EK feels like less than the sum of its parts to me, at least in this particular CRPG. Sure, you get more spells and more fighter feats and a slightly higher BAB, but these abilities have less synergy. The Magus’ abilities compound in a way the Eldritch Knight’s don’t.

 

[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.