Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Nexian Galley

Are's page

4,157 posts (8,077 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Only 2 more session of serpents left then the npcs can celebrate their victory!!!!!!!

Having read Serpent's Skull, I never got the sense that the NPCs were in any way more important than the PCs (or even anywhere close to as important). The NPCs are there either as support for the PCs or to provide information, while it should be up to the PCs how to utilize that support and how to act upon that information.

While it could easily be turned into a game where the NPCs are very important, it doesn't have to be. I believe it should be possible to run through the AP with minimal NPC-interaction if that's what the players desire. It's been a while since I read through it, though, so my memory could be faulty.

Minor spoiler:
I will say that I wish the AP had provided an option for groups who don't want to be affiliated with any of the factions; when I run it, I'm going to make sure such an option is available.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
I'm not sure what the RAI is (using manyshot in that specific kind of attack and move is hardly broken), but I'm fairly sure any argument from RAI that would sink this interpretation would equally sink Vital Strike on a full attack.

The interaction of Manyshot and that phrase regarding full attacks has been clarified in the FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Manyshot: Can I fire two arrows with my shot, then cancel the full attack and take a move?

No. Though the rules for "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of asking "why doesn't this exist?", try asking "what would my PCs do to disrupt something like this?" Answering the second may well answer the first.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Don't forget you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast too. If they're invisible you don't get the check.

Jason Bulmahn on this topic (quoted below for everyone's convenience).

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.

Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.

This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Edit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
That seems pretty definitive...

Take a look at the descriptive text of the Strike Back feat: "You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you."

While not really rules text, the descriptive text is indicative of what the feat is supposed to be able to do, and that certainly suggests that the game's designers believe you can't normally use sunder against the weapon of an opponent with greater reach than you, regardless of if you consider the weapon or the opponent the target.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The GM could simply change some of the treasure to be Small-sized.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Domestic violence on males is a problem, on the other hand. It's much less of one than that against women, but those men who are abused have an even harder time getting help or even sympathy. On the gripping hand, it's often raised in discussions about abuse of women to torpedo the discussion, much like other "But think of the poor men" issues. This one just does happen to have a real problem attached to it.

There have been studies showing that 40% of domestic violence victims are male. If those studies are accurate, it's not "much less" of a problem, as both would be genuine, widespread issues.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't use GMPCs, so I can't really speak on that front. In terms of GM impartiality, though, as a GM I'm absolutely rooting for the players. I want the PCs to succeed, so the players can experience the entirety of the campaign.

At the same time, the enemies I place before the PCs don't have any such considerations. They will do their best to kill the PCs (or otherwise hinder them, when appropriate). Some times this means one or more PCs end up dead; I don't "fudge" rolls to keep them alive.

So, I'm not impartial, but at the same time I don't actively skew the odds in one group's favor (other than the way the game already gives PCs the upper hand through the CR system and wealth system).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
The wording itself is a holdover from 3.5 that needed official clarification in that system to make clear (because it's not) - so the easiest thing to do is either make a ruling that you can use it once in an attack chain (which would make the feat pretty much a must have - but not really overpowered in my opinion) or pretend the wording is like *every other feat that uses a standard action*.

Considering the feat was created for the Pathfinder RPG and didn't exist in 3.5, you can't really call the wording a holdover from 3.5 :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apart from the problem of severe front-loading of the merchant's expenses*, which leads to increased risk, there's also the problem of teleport needing to be cast at CL 24 in order to bring a Gargantuan creature. Even with boots, the brachiosaurus can't activate them itself, so you'd still need CL 24 boots for the animal handler.

*(49k gp for boots + 18k gp for brachiosaurus with assorted items results in a total expenditure of 67k gp before he makes even a single copper piece in return; alternatively 19k gp with a teleporting wizard in place of the booted animal-handler; both compared to only 11.6k gp of expenditure for the initial trip with the ship)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The damage reduction thing seems like a simple misunderstanding of how it works. If you approach him (preferably before or after a session, rather than during it) with something like "you know, I thought DR worked like <this>", he'd probably appreciate the correction.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me just preface this post by saying that everybody should use the method they prefer :)

I'll try to explain the appeal of, let's call it "Method A" (ie; 00-0 = 100), a little better.

In Method A, apart from the one single instance of 00-0, one die always produces the first digit of the number, and the other die always produces the second digit of the number. It doesn't become like addition as such, because the numbers on the two dice directly correspond to the number you get. Rolling 40-0, 40-1, 40-2 etc produces 40, 41, 42.

While in Method B, the first die only produces the first digit of the number if the second die isn't 0. If it is 0, then the first digit is increased by 1. Rolling 40-1, 40-2 etc is still the same, but when rolling 40-0, the result is 50.

Anyway, if you only roll percentile dice once per session or so on average, it probably doesn't matter which method you use. But I've been in sessions where, at the evening wrap-up, several dragon hoards were determined through rolling on percentile-based treasure tables, and in that case I think even subconscious changing of "4"'s to "5"'s would have become confusing after a while :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
So the 0 on a d10 always means "10" ... Except when rolling percentiles. Why change that?

Mainly because, when having 0 mean 0 except when you roll 00 and 0 together, you can just read the die results as they're written for 99 out of 100 possible results. While when counting the 0 as 10, you have to mentally change that 0 to a 10 for 10 out of 100 rolls.

(ie; rolling "90" and "0" instantly looks like a roll of "90", while it takes a little bit of mental work to make it a roll of "100".)

Many people would rather do the mental change only once per 100 rolls rather than 10 times per 100 rolls. Plus, people usually learn percentile-rolling one way (whether method 1 or method 2), and then find it difficult to change the method they're used to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The third method is to use a d10 that has 1-10 on it rather than 0-9 (although rare, I've seen some), along with either a 00-90 die or a 0-9 die used as the 10-digit. That way no conversion will be necessary :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MurphysParadox wrote:
If your GM doesn't allow GMs, you go tiger.

I wouldn't; GMs are way too powerful as a wild shape option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules for designing a trap are actually rather simple: Just decide what you want the trap to do.

Then, once you're done, you can determine the CR of said newly-designed trap by using the CR-modifier tables. Since you can now ignore everything that's not applicable to your trap, the process becomes much easier than if you were to start with the table.

Of course, if the final result is a CR that's too high or too low compared to what you wanted, you can then check the table again to see which parts of the trap you can modify to reach the desired result.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The simplest explanation is that the Weretiger stat errata was an error.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Genghis Khan wrote:

Then some said, can we really do that? He said in general no but the dm allows it. By then, we had all made out characters and the dm is new to pathfinder so she let it go not knowing more about it.


I am asking to you, as dm and players that are into this game alot. What do you all think about this?

Mostly, I think that a person who knows something can't be done by the rules, but asks the DM to allow it anyway because he knows the DM is new and expects him to know what should and shouldn't be allowed, is pretty much not really a "friend", at least in terms of playing a cooperative game.

I'd suggest that the DM asks him to retire the character and create a new one, built according to the rules. That way everyone can have fun, rather than only this one person.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The word "holy" in "+5 holy cold iron longsword" indeed indicates the weapon quality. It's the same as a holy avenger, whose cost is also indicative of being at least a +7 weapon.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
williamoak wrote:
GMs dislike "I win" buttons because it turn their encounters into a joke. I dont put too much effort into encounters, so I dont mind, but many folks do, so be careful...

I once spent the better part of 4 days lovingly crafting an encounter near the end of one campaign, only for the PCs to defeat it in a single round. I didn't mind, though; they used a neat trick to pull it off, and I already had my fun while creating the encounter :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.

The rules don't mention how this is done at all. None of the groups I've played in have used the "players asking questions" method (I wasn't aware that some people did it that way until I started visiting these forums). Both methods should work fine for the purpose.

Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It reduces the number of AoOs you can make, as per the FAQ on ability score increases (which obviously should work the same way for penalties):

FAQ wrote:

Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases: Why do temporary bonuses only apply to some things?

Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.

The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.

For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.

Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.

A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.

Bolding and cursive in the answer are mine.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Divinity is so much more powerful than mythic that it's not even in the same ballpark. So no, that wouldn't be balanced.

Here's a list of what a character gets at divine rank 1, just to save others having to look it up:

- Speed increases to 60 ft.
- +1 divine bonus to AC and +1 natural armor bonus to AC
- +1 divine bonus to attacks and doesn't fail on a natural 1.
- bypass damage reduction as your alignment (ie; if you're LG, you bypass DR/lawful and DR/good).
- +1 divine bonus to all saves and doesn't fail on a natural 1.
- +1 divine bonus to all skill checks, ability checks, and caster level checks.
- immunity to polymorphing, petrification, and other form-altering, except your own such effects.
- immunity to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain.
- immunity to mind-affecting effects (specifically noted: charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
- immunity to acid, cold, and electricity.
- immunity to disease, poison, stunning, magical sleep, paralysis, death effects, and disintegration.
- DR 15/epic.
- fire resistance 6.
- SR 33.
- gains three salient divine abilities (here are four example abilities you can choose at rank 1: (1) assume any size you wish as a free action; (2) choose one metamagic feat that you can apply as a free action to any spell without increasing level; (3) gain fast healing 21); (4) gains ability to use true resurrection at will, with no material component, regardless of the time passed or condition of the body).
- cannot die from natural causes, doesn't age, doesn't need to eat, sleep, or breathe, not subject to death from massive damage.
- if you have darkvision or low-light vision, they now extend to 1 mile.
- 10 ft aura, where beings within except those you choose are either fascinated, shaken (with the bonus of even a glance from you causing those shaken to be frightened), or your chosen gaining +4 to attacks, saves, and checks while others take a -4 penalty to the same.
- can understand, speak, and read any language, plus can speak directly to any individual within 1 mile.
- can use greater teleport as an SLA at will, except only for yourself and up to 100 pounds of objects.
- can treat any creature of your familiar's type within 1 mile as your familiar, and can switch between creatures instantaneously (only one creature can count as the familiar at a time).

- gains a 100 ft. radius area/realm where you can set the temperature as you wish, plus add whatever sounds and scents you like.
- all domain powers from the domains you can grant, if cleric.
- all domain spells you can grant as spell-like abilities, plus you can cast all such spells spontaneously.
- as standard action, can perceive everything within 1 mile of any of your worshippers, holy sites, or places/objects sacred to you, plus anywhere your name is spoken for 1 hour afterwards, and can speak to such people or people near such places/objects.
- a bunch of abilities related to your portfolio.


Most of these abilities become better with more divine ranks (in particular, all the "+1 divine bonus" abilities increase per rank).

Even if you remove the abilities that are related to having worshippers, having a portfolio, and granting spells, this is nowhere near balanced with mythic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

aboniks: The actual prerequisites in the Core Rulebook (rather than the slightly misleading guideline in the NPC Codex) are simply as follows:

PRD, Eldritch Knight wrote:


To qualify to become an eldritch knight, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Weapon Proficiency: Must be proficient with all martial weapons.

Spells: Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.

So qualifying for the PrC is not a problem for the dragon at all (as long as it's proficient with martial weapons).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Winterwolf: You don't need to take our 1-year-old words for it; the official FAQ states the same thing:

FAQ wrote:

Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?

No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

And since you thought I was reading into it what I want, I'll just mention that my personal view is that Vital Strike is too restrictive, and should work on both spring attacks and charges ;)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:

If they clarify that the PHB is 500-odd pages long with all of the races/classes that were previously in all of the 4E PHBs, I think a lot of people will be happy with that. The PATHFINDER core book's RRP is also $49.95 (£30 here0, but is so huge it's quite reasonable value for money.

If it's another 200-300 page book with iffy artwork, I don't think that will go down so well.

Speaking only for myself, I seriously hope the book is much closer to 300 pages than 500. The PF Core Book is too large for convenient use at the table (and especially too large for reading in bed :P).

Anyway, I'll be happy to pay $50 for the book, even if that means $150 in total for all the core rules. That would only be a drop in the ocean compared to what I've spent on 3.5, 4E, and PF over the years, not to mention the various other systems I've bought core rules for but never played ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malcolm Bookchild wrote:
It does allow magical beasts, says it right there, you could be a small or medium dragon. So while not a full grown dragon, you could wild shape into a dragon

Dragons are of the Dragon type, not the Magical Beast type.

Plus, wild shape doesn't grant the ability to become a Magical Beast, even while the relevant beast shape spell does. Wild shape says "when taking the form of animals, a druid's wild shape now functions as beast shape III", not that wild shape functions as beast shape III for all purposes.

Now, a druid can take the form of a dragon (and some other forms, including those of magical beasts), but must do so via the 9th-level shapechange spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm.. Sense Motive: 1d20 + 0 ⇒ (4) + 0 = 4

That makes perfect sense, alright, let's go with that.. oh, wait! Adds +11 GM circumstance bonus Ahh, such tricksy wizards and gnomes! You almost had me :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll just say that Dazing Spell looks like one of the most overpowered feats I've seen since Divine Metamagic ;)

Multiple rounds of dazing is an auto-win against most enemies, if they fail that save.

Anyway.. I think a better challenge would be to use CRB material only, against either a specific Bestiary dragon or a dragon built using only Bestiary and CRB material (and while I like to use some of a dragon's treasure as items it will use, it should still prefer to sleep on a huge pile of gold and jewels!)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the simplest option would be to allow the race and the archetype to stack, thus increasing the darkvision range of those races to 120 ft.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Draconomicon gave the following age expectancies:
Wyrmling : 0-5 Years
Very Young : 6-15 Years
Young : 16-25 Years
Juvenile : 26-50 Years
Young Adult : 51-100 Years
Adult : 101-200 Years
Mature Adult : 201-400 Years
Old : 401-600 Years
Very Old : 601-800 Years
Ancient : 801-1000 Years
Wyrm : 1001-1200 Years
Great Wyrm : 1201+ Years

It then went on to say that the exact amount of years a dragon could live after reaching Great Wyrm stage was a matter of debate among scholars, with some even contending that dragons could live forever. However, it also stated that a pair of reputable scholars had found that white dragons could live up to 2100 years, while gold dragons could live up to 4400 years.

Those latter findings matches the life expectancy rules printed in one of the book's sidebars: For a chromatic dragon, multiply its Charisma score by 50 and add it to 1200. For a metallic dragon, multiply its Charisma score by 100 and add it to 1200.

Then, after reaching the computed maximum age, the dragon would have to make a DC 20 CON check. If it fails, it dies. If it succeeds, it loses 1 CON. The check is afterwards performed each year.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, thank you. In my view, that's not the intended behaviour, but it certainly clarifies your position. Since we run these types of spells completely differently, I don't think we'll be able to agree, so I'll stop posting here and leave others to make up their own minds :)


Edit: With standard action summoning the creature would come right away on the same turn, since the spell would no longer use the special rule for spells with a "1 round" casting time. Thus, it would act immediately, even before your move action if so desired.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
I totally disagree here. The first round is the round you're casting the spell. You get a free bolt in round one (i.e. immediately before your turn). Then, on the second round, you can call down a lightning bolt as a standard action.

Spell-durations don't begin while you're casting the spell, so I don't see any way the text can possibly refer to the round of casting.

Besides, if it worked that way, why would the text even say "each round after the first"? It would have been easier (and less confusing) to simply say "each round".

In my opinion, the purpose of the text "each round after the first" is specifically to prevent 2 bolts within such a short time-span (just before your initiative count, then on your initiative count). Granted, it wouldn't be overpowering to allow the double-bolt, considering the spell is fairly weak either way, but I believe that's how it works as written.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have only one request: Please include a sentence for each archetype stating which abilities that archetype replaces or alters.

It's pretty time consuming to have to read all of each archetype's abilities to figure out which archetypes replace something I don't want to lose. A single sentence would make it a lot easier to quickly skim past those archetypes, and only focus on those that would be suitable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or Perform (chess)

Likely, a GM-level chess player would have a high Intelligence and Wisdom, plus considerable ranks in Knowledge: Chess.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You should certainly not let him have a homebrew animate dead that creates ghouls. If for no other reason, then because the existing spell that creates ghouls (create undead) is a 6th-level spell, while animate dead is a 3rd/4th-level spell (depending on class).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:

No. Multiweapon Fighting replaces a Two-Weapon Fighting. Since you no longer have Two-Weapon Fighting, you no longer have the prerequisites for Improved or Greater.

With multiple arms, you are getting the extra off-hand attacks immediately, instead of having to wait for the feats...that is why there aren't Improved or Greater Multiweapon fighting feats.

To be fair, Multiweapon Fighting works exactly like Two-Weapon Fighting; all it does is to reduce penalties for attacks you could already make.

I would let MWF function as the prerequisite for ITWF and GTWF. In any case, each of the latter feats will only add 1 additional attack; they don't add one per offhand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oooh, nice! Veiled masters and Night Heralds, all in one book? Sign me up :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the PRD link to the relevant page.

In print, you'll find these rules in the GameMastery Guide, starting on page 204.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just had a thought.. What if this was the result of a simple marital spat, and in a few minutes the other great wyrm white dragon is coming back to apologize and make amends? It won't be particularly pleased with the interfering adventuring party :)

Anyway; if you decide not to kill it, you'll have a fairly decent bargaining chip with the wyrmling (as long as you keep it alive). The dragon might allow you to live if you play this card right.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you can target yourself. However, no matter who you target with it, you can't wait until damage is rolled for the killing blow (as then it will be too late).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe most of those who have been advocating the use of sunder in this thread have said they'll use it very rarely, such as once or twice per campaign. So none would fit the mold of a "sunder-happy GM".

That said, if a GM actually is "sunder-happy", they'd have to use a larger than usual amount of classed NPCs (as most monsters don't have the feats to use sunder effectively), and would thus give out considerably more treasure than WBL assumes. This might prevent the wealth-issues.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I decided to see if the 3.5 FAQ had any input on this matter, and it turns out it did:

3.5 FAQ wrote:

Do Empower Spell and Maximize Spell affect d20 rolls made as part of a spell's effect (such as an attack roll or dispel check)?

No. Any attack roll, saving throw, skill check, dispel check, or any other d20 roll required to adjudicate a spell's success or failure is not considered a "variable, numeric effect" of the spell and thus is unaffected by feats such as Empower Spell or Maximize Spell.

Of course, Paizo may choose to rule otherwise. However, with no such ruling currently available, the old system is a good indicator of RAI.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You aren't conjuring more than one creature unless you choose the 1d3 or 1d4+1 options. No creatures are added at all if you choose to summon only a single creature.

If you summon 1d3/1d4+1, all the creatures must be of the same kind. That language isn't changed by Superior Summoning. So, there's no option to add a creature of a different kind.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Axiem wrote:

I think it's kind of intellectually dishonest to say the ACG classes are unoriginal, then hold them up to the APG classes, and say those ARE original.

What's original about the Oracle? Let's build a Spontaneous Cleric.

That's not really groundbreaking, lol. In fact, some of the ACG hybrids are more groundbreaking than that.

The mysteries, curses, and revelations make the oracle something new and all its own, both in terms of flavor and mechanics, even if at its core you could call it a spontaneous cleric.

If the oracle had instead used the cleric's domains or channel energy, along with a smattering of sorcerer bloodlines, you would likely have seen the exact same complaints/concerns for that class as for these.

The problem with the ACG classes isn't that they were built to be hybrids of class x and class y. I wanted to see what Paizo could do with that concept. They did it very well with the Magus, for instance, which feels like a completely new class that stands on its own two feet, despite being kind of a fighter/wizard hybrid.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you trust your players, you could have them still run their own characters even while dominated. That way, they won't be bored out of their mind, as they'll still be playing their character. Only now, they'll be trying to come up with devious methods to carry out the aboleth's orders against their party :)

Also, remember that if the order goes against the dominated character's nature (for instance, an order to attack his friends), they'll get a second save with a bonus. For this reason, I'll normally have the monster/NPC order the dominated character to protect it, as opposed to actively engaging their friends.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mswbear wrote:
Also someone said that the rust monster was nerfed and I would disagree. Two hits vs your weapon or armor and it is destroyed?? That seems scary.

It may still be scary, but the rust monster is definitely less efficient at destroying items now than before.

In 3.5, it only needed to touch the item once to dissolve it (as opposed to PF's twice; 3.5 did grant a Reflex save though).

More importantly, any metal weapon that dealt damage to the rust monster would similarly be dissolved, although without a save. This latter ability is the main difference, and was the main danger of the 3.5 rust monster. Losing that ability certainly counts as a "nerf".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KainPen wrote:
for number 3 it has 10 mins worth of air per portiable hole. same for bags of holding, so every 8 mins you land let eveyone out stretch their legs and get back in. My group did this last game I DM, they used wind walk to get the job done since you go at 60 miles per hour. covering 600 miles is 10 hour trip, give or take an extra hour and half for stops frequant stops. Perfectly do able at level 11. in which you get the spell. It is a lot faster then walking.

Personally, I don't think I'd willingly let myself be stuffed into an airtight bag, hoping that the person carrying the bag would be able to tell accurate time, just to save a few hours (or even days) on a long journey. Those characters would have to be rather trusting to attempt that tactic :)

By the way, wind walk has multiple targets (up to 4 at level 11, 5 at level 12); it wouldn't be necessary to use the portable hole trick when using that spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
BSIV therefore adds nothing to their capabilities.

That isn't quite true. If druids had access to beast shape IV, they would potentially (when applicable to the chosen form) gain better speeds for burrow, fly, and swim, and longer range blindsense and darkvision, plus the new abilities tremorsense, breath weapon, rend, roar, spikes, and elemental resistances/vulnerabilities.

Rend and tremorsense would certainly have been desirable abilities, as would the improved speeds :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are people honestly suggesting that GMs shouldn't use fear effects? Or am I misinterpreting things?

1 to 50 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.