Feral Halfling

Aristophanes's page

Organized Play Member. 206 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Mark,

Xenocrat wrote:

Ctrl-F: "Charisma"

[No results found]

Is it feasible to make a Bard that doesn't pump Charisma? (I'd really prefer an Int based Occult caster). I'm sure Charisma is the Bard's casting stat, but I'm guessing that unless you insist on mind controlling people with your spells you've got enough utility/buffs that you might get by without worrying about your DCs too much.

Given that (I think it was) Mark said that one could make a fairly effective Cleric with a 10 Wis, I'm guessing one could do the same with any caster type with the right spell selection.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Hey, Sailor Moon was clumsy, frail, and even weak willed at times, but she still righted wrongs and triumphed over evil, and that means you: In the name of the moon, she punishes you.

Sailor Moon is a bad example. She would get shanked by a goblin and die in the first encounter. Nobody is just going to wait around while she spends the first three to five rounds transforming into her super-powered identity. The combat will already be half-over (with her the first casualty).

She is an example much better suited to a system that can actually handle genre-emulation, or is built for her genre (comedy urban high-fantasy).

Elric (of Stormbringer, I forget his nation of origin) would be a good example of a Heroic Fantasy Adventurer with a famously low degree of Constitution, and given his reliance on a life-drinking Artifact for basic survival, he might even be considered Untrained in Fortitude (and given that he's also a wizard) and have a low HP total as well.

Elric of Melnibone.

Grand Lodge

I wonder how much a potion would need to cost, with the current math and balancing factors, for it to not need resonance to activate.
Or, how much would a "pre-infused" potion, one that was created with resonance already in it, need to cost. *Just spitballing*

Grand Lodge

Charlatan wrote:

lol will "resonate" with you.

Must be about Fighters.

Nah, it's gonna be Humans, 'cause everybody who plays it is human. Get it?

Grand Lodge

We also may get a Wednesday blog or two for things like Multi-classing.

Grand Lodge

Benjamin Medrano wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:

Blog: Your monk could take Monastic Weaponry at 1st level, letting him use his unarmed attack proficiencies, as well as any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks, with simple and martial monk weapons.

This does not say Monks aren't proficient with any weapons. It just lets them use Flurry of Blows with the weapons.

Alas, you missed this line earlier in the blog:

blog wrote:


Monks aren't trained in any weapons, but they are trained in all unarmed attacks.

I must say that I have no problem with monastic training, I just wish monks were proficient with at least simple monk weapons from the beginning.

Edit: Ninjaed!

Yeah, I missed that part. I actually noticed it about 3 seconds after I sent that post, but I couldn't stop it because it was at that exact moment when they started their "scheduled maintenance". lol

Grand Lodge

Blog: Your monk could take Monastic Weaponry at 1st level, letting him use his unarmed attack proficiencies, as well as any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks, with simple and martial monk weapons.

This does not say Monks aren't proficient with any weapons. It just lets them use Flurry of Blows with the weapons.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re: AC- Aren't Bracers of Armor going to be a thing? would they not help with the AC disparity?

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Scorcerer.
*that should cover it!*

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Druid.

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Ranger.

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Monk.

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Bard.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For some reason, this thread brings to mind the line from 1776:
John Adams: "This is a revolution damn it! We've got to offend somebody!"

Don't know why.

Grand Lodge

Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Can we please not call them "anathema". How about "taboo" or some other similar word.

ANATHEMA

ta-boo, ta-boo-oo!
ANATHEMA
ta-boo, ta-boo!
ANATHEMA
ta-boo, ta-boo-oo, ta-boo-oo, ta-boo-oo, ta-boo ta-boo ta-boo ta ta ta-boo

(I regret nothing)

Great. Thanks for the earworm, Wandy.

ANATHEMA
ta-boo, ta-boo-oo!
ANATHEMA
ta-boo, ta-boo!
ANATHEMA
ta-boo, ta-boo-oo, ta-boo-oo, ta-boo-oo, ta-boo ta-boo ta-boo ta ta ta-boo
*GAAAAAHHH!*

Grand Lodge

Goblin Scholar Bard, specializing in perform oratory.
His lore would be Goblinoids.
His downtime is giving lectures about Goblins: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
His name is Rugglesby.

Grand Lodge

Weather Report wrote:
graystone wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.
We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?
Yes, what is the Standard Model for PF, can a character's fart provide enough propulsion to move though the atmosphere of Golarian?

Only if you take the Legendary Fart Feat, and have access to Legendary baked beans.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I have great respect for NWA and Run-DMc, I truly prefer the works of Scott Joplin.

Grand Lodge

I really like the Masterpieces for Bards, and hope they have something like them.

Grand Lodge

Where's my Rope Use? I want to be Legendary in Rope Use! Golarion's version of Will Rogers!!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

If you losers can put wings on your cats then I should be able to peel the wings off my owl and give it gills every morning.

If not, wizards will need to start breading flightless owls to be more effective familiars. I will brand the flightless owls "Powls"; they will be the owls who are good pals.

Flightless owls... interbred with... BEARS! Bearowls!

Now you're just being silly!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:
.....!

......! ,,:..?

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
.

Good point.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see Bards use mostly Spell Point abilities, and get spells in a similar way to 3.5's Factotum, which Jason helped create. It would reinforce the notion of Bards as dabblers in magic, and I'd give them access to all four lists.

Grand Lodge

Cauthon1041 wrote:

As someone who played Rogues and Alchemists a lot, I always found poisons to be underwhelming, even at early levels, and nearly useless past level 7, let alone after 10. This was always disappointing to me since they take so much time and effort to craft, and even more cunning to use in many situations.

I suppose I'm wondering is: What are the chances of poisons either getting a general buff/overhaul or at least introducing a system that lets dedicated poisoners increase the efficacy of their craft?

With the fact that either Jason or Mark said that poisons would be better in PF2, my guess is that there will be some toxins and venoms that will take full advantage of the 4 tier save system. One might fail on a crit save, cause sickened one for a few rounds on a regular save, sickened 2 on a normal failed save, and sickened 4 on a critical fail.

I have no hard evidence. Just speculation.

Grand Lodge

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

While I don't consider it a good thing, it's a thing I've grown to accept simply because that's the way it's always been,

That's a fallacy, and an awful reason to keep things as they are, specially those thigns that are not considered a good thing.

Quote:
and nobody has bothered or shown desire to change it.

That's obviously a false statement, that need no further proof to be dismissed when it's stated in a thread started by the desire to change it

BTW, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned William Tell as a crossbow fictional character, to add to Van helsing or Varric from Dragon Age not to mention Paizo's own Iconic ranger, or several fantasy tropes like dwarven crossbownmen, and multiple other characters like:
Mad Max characters
Alysa from Bloodknights
Diablo 3 iconic demon hunter
Guts from Berserk
Daryl of Walking Dead...

And, although not his primary weapon, Etienne Navar from LadyHawke used a cool looking double crossbow! I mean, yes, he did, accidentally shoot his true love with it, but it was still cool!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Shadows were detailed during the Glass Cannon podcast. They apply a stacking debuff as an action when they hit you (don't recall the name right now), and you die if it gets to a high enough level.
Sounds like the 5th Ed Shadow, reduces your Str, when you hit 0, you die.

From the pfsrd.

Strength Damage (Su)
A shadow’s touch deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living creature. This is a negative energy effect. A creature dies if this Strength damage equals or exceeds its actual Strength score.

Create Spawn (Su)
A humanoid creature killed by a shadow’s Strength damage becomes a shadow under the control of its killer in 1d4 rounds.

This is how shadows have always worked. I don't understand the confusion.

Grand Lodge

The Mad Comrade wrote:
Psiphyre wrote:
Weather Report wrote:

I am not keen on number of actions first, it will bleed reading down, much prefer if the first word on the line is the name of the ability/weapon,etc, so:

Mace (1 action)
Summon Demon (2 actions)
Diddle Sphinc (3 actions)

Not:

1 Action: Mace.
2 Actions: Summon Demon.
3 Actions: Diddle Sphinc.

Umm...

What does "Diddle Sphinc" do?
Did you mean 'Riddle Sphinx' perhaps?

Was just wondering... ^^'

--C.

Well, thanks to you, "Riddling the Sphinx" is a new sly phrase for an act not repeatable when around polite company. ;)

Thank you Mad Comrade. I saw DeadPool 2 this afternoon, so my brain was already in the right frame of mind, but this just made me laugh out loud uncontrollably for 2 minutes!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
ugh -1000 net points for linking fleetwood...

Why would you lose points for linking one of the greatest bands in the history of recorded music?

Grand Lodge

Neriathale wrote:

Magic, whether as items, spells or rituals, for making life more comfortable when you are slogging through the wilderness. Tiny Hut, Heroes's Feast, Unseen Servant, Conjure Carriage etc. Because nothing says 'I am a ridiculously powerful wizard' like strolling into the BBEG's stronghold bathed, wearing clean clothes, hot croissant in hand.

A hot Croissant! Are you nuts? That would be totally broken! Maybe a warm bagel, and at legendary levels.

**Sheeesh! Next thing you know, someone will want to bring back underwater basket weaving!**

Grand Lodge

Malk_Content wrote:
thflame wrote:


CHA affects magic item use now, so a character with 6 CHA can't use potions reliably or equip magic items until level 2.

Just to chime in, I'm willing to bet Resonance, like most things you get as a character feature whether from levels, class features or attributes, will have a minimum of 1.

Yeah, that's my guess, too.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Canyonero!

Grand Lodge

willuwontu wrote:
Rodrigo Lasmoreira wrote:

Newbie in the forum here. What means AoE and DoT?

Is there someplace where I can find all this abbreviations meaning?

Also, very nice! Just optimistic about the new monsters systems!

AoE= Area of Effect, ex fireball does damage in an aoe

DoT= Damage over Time, ex bleed is a DoT effect

Google tends to be a good source for finding meanings of abbreviations (no offense meant, just answering your question), a lot of terms are commonly used between game systems.

Wow Will, you Ninja'd 2 developers! Impressive. ;-)

Grand Lodge

Seisho wrote:

We already heard that mondays post is going to be about monsters and probably how to build them and...stuff

Now what I really hope and wish for:

Monster creation rules in Core

I know it takes a few probably important pages but this would make the core rulebook really all on NEEDS to play.

In SF I was kind of bummed to find out that I had to wait for the bestiary to build mobs and encounters. Converting was an option...but imo not a good one...

I know we're getting monsters next week, but I didn't hear that it was scheduled for Monday. I expected it to be Friday, with Wizards on Monday. Where did you hear Monsters on Monday?

Grand Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:

Thinking on the cookie cutter topic, I want to see how varied builds can be, based on the info we already have. I suppose that at any step the floating ability boost cannot stack with a set ability boost

Start
STR 10
DEX 10
CON 10
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 10

Then I pick a race, let's say halfling. I will arbitrarily put the floating bonus in a non-penalized score, say CON
STR 8
DEX 12
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 12

Optimizing some more (and sticking to tropes, I then choose the Rogue class and I assume that they get a boost to DEX
STR 8
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 12

Optimizing again to max DEX now and keep on following tropes, I select the Street Urchin background with the DEX boost and the floating boost to an already boosted score
STR 8
DEX 16
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 14

Finally, I suppose that the last step of attributing free ability boosts will consist of 3 floating ability boosts, that will go to my maximized scores

STR 8 = 0
DEX 18 = 10
CON 14 = 5
INT 10 = 0
WIS 10 = 0
CHA 16 = 5

So, first score at 18, second score at 16 and third score at 14. That seems quite manageable and not too unbalanced. It also happens to make a neat 20 point buy for a PF1 Halfling

Most evenly distributed stats with this method would be something like :

STR 12 = 5
DEX 14 = 2
CON 12 = 2
INT 12 = 2
WIS 12 = 2
CHA 14 = 2

So, something you can get with a 15 point buy on a PF1 Halfling

I believe the consensus guess is that the final step will be +2 to 4 abilities.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Almarane wrote:

Now that people talk about it... I seriously never thought about playing both PF1 AND PF2. But that would be a very good idea. I like PF1, I'm starting to get to know enough rules to play it correctly, and that would be a shame to start over.

The only thing that upsets me is that PF1 will not be "maintained" when PF2 will be out. We will probably not have new APs PF1-compatible, and there is still a bunch of things that would need enhancement and/or rebalancing in PF1. New mechanics that could be added to PF1 too. But I guess this will need houserulling from now out.

I'm not angry. Just a little sad

To this date, there is enough 3rd Ed/PF1 material to keep you entertained for many lifetimes. I mean, to actually use all the material, wow, could take centuries (millennia?).

Also, I would be very surprised if, a month or two after the first 2E AP is released, someone hasn't posted a 2E to 1E conversion of it. And most likely posted somewhere on this site. We have an incredibly industrious and generous fan base here.

Grand Lodge

Joe M. wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
They also said "monsters coming next week". So Wizards on Monday and Monsters on Friday...probably.

Oh really? I missed that. I was half-listening while trying to work on something else. (I'm kind of sick of Paladin stuff so didn't really commit to this one.)

Do you know about where in the stream that was mentioned, so I can go listen to the surrounding discussion and pick up what I missed?

Dan Tharp mentions it @ 1:12:55.

Grand Lodge

Joe M. wrote:

Good tidbit about class previews at the very end of last night's Paizo Friday Twitch stream with Mark. Headline: We're pretty much guaranteed to see Wizard this week (or maybe next).

Here's why:

Starting at 1:14:13, Mark reveals that class preview blogs are coordinated with the PaizoCon playtest sessions. There will be 6 Playtest pregens available for play at PaizoCon, and the preview blogs are arranged to cover those 6 classes before the convention.

So far, the blogs have covered: Fighter, Rogue, Alchemist, Cleric, Paladin. Mark says that "you can guess what the sixth one might be."

PaizoCon starts Friday 25 May. So that means Wizard this week or next and one week without a class preview. Wizard for obvious reasons: they aren't going into the big convention without the Fighter-Rogue-Cleric-Wizard quartet. (Also, haven't some of the streamed games featured Wizard characters?)

So I'd guess Wizard this week and no class preview next week as Paizo gears up for the convention.

(Incidentally, at some earlier point in the stream Mark says that we won't see information about the Druid until "much later" but it's not clear to me whether he was exaggerating for effect or whether his comment means what it says on its face.)

They also said "monsters coming next week". So Wizards on Monday and Monsters on Friday...probably.

Grand Lodge

DrunkInRlyeh wrote:
I'd like to pitch "Iconoclast" as potential class name.

An unconventional eccentric who marches to a different drummer ...

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladinosaur wrote:
Bringing that horrible storyline is almost like saying Thor is a frog.

BLASPHEMY!

Walt Simonson's run on THOR was AWESOME!
The FROG OF THUNDER! BETA-RAY BILL! ICONIC!!!
He made Thor fun to read again! 3+ years of greatness!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about Anarchist. And a power to cause confusion. And a high level ability to make people switch bodies for a round, causing...chaos. ;-)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This may have been addressed already, but 740 posts is too many right now: If creating undead is evil, then a good god would not even give their clerics the ability to do it in the first place.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:


"Dogslicer" was coined by goblins. Goblins give things funny names. Because they're funny.

Serious medieval realism has never been the goal of Pathfinder, it's had tongue-in-cheek aspects since inception.

Actual weapon names are more than a little tongue in cheek or "apply directly to forehead" themselves.

Bed de corbin Ravens beak

Guisarme : Weeding iron

zweinhander: two hander

claymore (both types): sword

Zanbatō: is an actual horse chopper.

And let us not forget the imfamous Bohemian Ear Spoon!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
161) Can a Bard still inspire courage when Silenced by playing the sound of silence?
I'd, personally, play 4'33" by John Cage.

The acoustic version.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Souls At War wrote:

154) Will the 10 ft pole get cheaper or will it be labelled as being made of metal?

155) four options axis intead of three? (add Unaligned "opposing" Neutral)
156) Will Paladin be a base class or a prestige class?
157) Will there finally be rules about replacing Weapon proficiencies (or whatever) for creatures lacking the ability to use manufactured weapons.

+1 to the question about rules for more hybrids.

I think it's wildly inappropriate to ask appropriate questions in a forum of inappropriate questions...Aaahhh, well done sir, well done.

Grand Lodge

Weather Report wrote:
graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, yes, the Druid is in the 4th Ed PHB 2, but I believe the Paladin and Ranger are in the PHB for every edition of D&D, I forget what the deal is in BECMI.

I pointed out the original D&D didn't have paladin in core and addid it later in the Supplement I as a subclass of fighting man.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, the ranger was introduced in The Strategic Review volume 1, number 2. Not core.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of fighter.
No ranger in Basic Dungeons & Dragons.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, druids come out in the Eldritch Wizardry supplement.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition, it was a subclass of cleric.
In "Basic" edition, it came in the Companion set.
In Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, added with Player's Handbook 2.

Ah, gotcha, you're going way back, seemingly into silly-buggers pedantry, anyway, I am not advocating for the inclusion of the Druid, Paladin, or Ranger as classes, they could all easily fit as subclasses, archetypes, or what have you.

Don't get me started on the Barbarian...

Aaahh yes, the Barbarian.

I remember when it was first introduced in the pages of Dragon Magazine. Barbarians couldn't use magic items or accept magical help as I recall, but, like animals, with enough hd/levels, they could affect creatures normally immune to non-magical attacks. I have very fond memories of my first barb., Karnaj.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

Well and as the most contentious aspect of this new edition so far, the longer they drag it out, the more entrenched people will get (are getting) and the more acrimiony will exist, making it more likely they actually lose people over whatever does/doesn't get changed.

Edit: after all we're already at accusing people of having control issues over setting flavor, and severing limbs rather than playing with certain forumites.

Well, you think it is the most contentious part of the new edition. Some agree with you. I think it is up there, but might not be as contentious as Resonance is. I also think of they release both Paladins and Resonance near one another the forums will be a nightmare to keep up with even just reading, let alone moderating.

No. By far the most contentious issue so far is Goblins in core. If the Goblin blog thread hadn't been closed, it would have over 3000 replies by now. No other thread has come close to it!

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

*Buzzer*

That isn't how it works. Paladins don't have to respect unjust laws, and even if the laws were considered just that would be a Chaotic, not Evil, act. Paladins don't fall for that unless that pushes them to being non-Lawful Good. So that would never happen because that isn't how Paladins work.

According to you? Because that's how it worked in the game I was playing in, under the rules-as-written that don't include all of the subjective moral interpretations you think they do-- because you're too self-absorbed to recognize the difference between your opinions and objective facts.

Re-read the Rules as Written.

A Paladin only falls if they break the code (though you can possibly make the interpretation that going after the slavers is not respecting legitimate authority, that is tenuous at best) or performing an evil action.

As written fighting slavers and healing slaves isn't an evil act.

This is the text on the code:

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Legitimate authorities aren't slavers, even if slavery is legal.
Acting with honor, as long as you don't lie, cheat, use poison, etc you are fine.
Helping those in need - You are doing that, though it could be seen as a potential chaotic end it doesn't mesh with the description of what chaotic means in the CRB.
Pushing those who harm or threaten innocents. This is exactly what you are doing.

So nothing in what you described would make you fall.

Something I've always wondered: If being "Lawful" is so important to the paladin, why can't he "smite chaos"? Something I've been pondering for over 40 years.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Water elementals are made entirely of elemental water yet have no special resistance to effects with the water descriptor. That makes sense too.

Having a significant resistance to water effects makes sense - they're not easy to shove around with a magically evoked jet of water that for many would send them tumbling tucas over teakettle. A water elemental should not be immune to cold - they are pure water, so freezing them solid should be a valid tactic. It may not directly harm them - freezing them solid (via sufficient hp damage) may instead render them vulnerable to being shattered, sundered or melted via application of sufficient heat.

Interesting!

Yeah, a water elemental hit with cold damage should be slowed or something.

Enlarged.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm Having the same issues!

ElSilverWind, I'm flagging your post in hopes of it getting noticed more readily.

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>