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

Belazoar's page

170 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

One of my groups started an adventure traveling cross country, the group pooled money for rations.

Those with survival made daily checks, DC 10, as listed in the CRB, and supplemented rations to make up the difference. For your situation I'd still have them make a standard DC 10 check.

However, you said there's "limited food and water," but didn't mention a terrain. I'm just wondering how much of that assessment is fair to the situation. Are they in a desolate wasteland or desert? If not, the horses shouldn't be included as food dependent members of the party. There should be enough to graze regardless of season. Just look at the herds of caribou that get plenty to eat while traveling in huge groups.

Ranged touch attacks for the snowballs.

Avoid en elimination system, it's the least fun.

Rhyme or rime? I'm guessing the former.

What all do you know about it? Got any links for us?

I hear there are far worse things to catch there than any of the diseases/viruses you listed.

Zombies better be careful.

Yeah, cops kicking in your door for being too religious in the privacy of your home.

How could anything bad possibly come from that?

Personally, I don't see the need to roll to hit for this.

I wonder what kind of hijinks this could cause with a reach weapon, if any.

Does allowing yourself to be hit make you helpless? Something you may want to work out with your dm before hand.

Your reasoning never takes into account why she was there and what she was doing in the first place. She isn't arbitrarily going to kill the good guys, and their sitting around while a killer roams free make for more consideration for Samara than what i feel you are giving her.

Also, their reason for detaining her in the first place is more political than lawful or good.

Remember, Justicars don't kill innocent people casually. Samara allowed herself to be detained for 24 hours, but warned that if she isn't released by then, she'll have to kill anyone that stands in her way.

At the point where evil is allowed to succeed by the idle hands of the good, you have a hard time convincing me of their 'innocence.' I'm still pushing that Lawful Good be kept on the table, though, LN makes since to. Justicar law does seem more focused on righting wrongs, and protecting innocent then simple law for the sake of law.

And the person Samara was after was a sociopath who had murdered countless people.

I'm not buying evil as a quality of Samara. Gotta be twisting the situation.

Honestly, the only problem I see for you is finding a deity that would fit with the concept. Obviously, Asmodeus is the best fit, and he is LE. I can see Erastil as a strict god, supporting such a code, but it's focus would be shifted to nature, and there's loads of precedent in nature where animals back-down or die. Survival for the fittest. Still not LG.
Calistria. Heh. Anyway.

Pan wrote:
From my experience in Mass effect I don't think Paladin would fit. For instance, the scene where the justicar threatens to kill the officer for interfering with her investigation isn't something I see a paladin doing. On a law level its a good match but the justicar doesn't seem to fit the good bit of being a paladin.

I could see it. Justicars are strictly lawful, but don't let things like politics, red-tape, etc. interfere in tracking down criminals, which she was. Justicar law, in the eyes of Justicars, supersede local law. In a sense, the officers was giving the criminal time to get away, thus, the Justicar, by her code, was justified in killing the officer, if that is what was necessary to continue pursuit.

It's a severe code, but it is definitely bent towards good, imo.

The other side of the coin is, if your DM allows this, keeping with the code is going to be just as severe in adherence, so do your character justice and take time to wrap your head around the concept.

Cool idea, Sir Dante.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saran wrap.

Thanks, Jacob. Easy to forget T.H.A.C.0, some of it keeps bad, though like attributes.

Is that when we lost parry too? I rather miss parry.

Skills & Powers had a workable system that divided each attribute into two sub-scores. From the base score a player could personalize the sub-scores by lowering one of them to raise the other, up to two points for a four point spread.

That would be the best way to do it, imo. Simply adding a seventh "looks" attribute just gives cheese-heads another stat to dump.

*sigh* When did attributes get changed to abilites, anyway?

Considering that you are starting at lvl 3, I recommend that you check out the feat: Accursed Hex. That will let you grab cackle at lvl 2 without having to play through lvl 1 with out it.

Personally, I like misfortune over evil eye. Accursed hex helps it land, and if it lands, following hexes take four successes to resist.

Either way, Accursed Hex is my top recommendation.

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
if physical looks and cosmetic attractiveness were based on Charisma; how do you explain the transition from Mammy Graul to a Nymph to Cthulhu? how do you explain the many quite unattractive historical dictators with a great aura of authority? how do you explain the concept of the cute but shy wallflower? it's not that were expecting to be so pretty as to make other people do stuff for us, an unrealistic perk of appearance. it's that we want more control over our appearance instead of "you must have X charisma score to have Y Physical Build."

It's not a matter of "if." Appearance is under Charisma. It's listed in the CRB under Charisma. I already stated in my first post there's no limit on how your character looks. I already stated high scores do not mean beauty or likeability. It doesn't matter if you are an ugly dictator or cute wallflower, your charisma mod is what it is; nymph or Graul.

You can go on all day providing examples of how charisma, and any other ability score, doesn't perfectly take into account the individual qualities it represents. Of course, it wouldn't, but it's been simplified down to one ability, charisma. You can homebrew/houserule it down all you like. Pathfinder doesn't make the distinction, though. If you dump charisma and have a negative mod, then anything your do regarding the qualities that charisma encompasses, you take that penalty.

Symbol of Mirroring, Secure Shelter, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles, Summon Monster, Stinking Cloud, Web, Haunting Mists. Those are just spells on your list, not including patron spells.

Hat of Disguise is super cheap. Get separated, obscuring mist, disguise, send people that run in the wrong direction.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Apperance and attractivness are related but not one in the same. If someone tried to dump Cha and make up for it by being beautiful it would be totally up to the NPC. If the NPC thinks they could gain favor by following through they will. If the NPC sees it for what it is they will.

There's a good reason for some confusion. Charisma specifically claims appearance. Older versions of D&D used low scores to represent the negative aspects of personality and appearance. It's not so, now. Charisma is a gauge of "how much" instead of pleasant/unpleasant and attractive/unattractive. If you play your character as snarky and unpleasant, that's fine. But if your charisma is low, you are bad at it, reflected by a negative modifier. If your charisma is high, you are good at it, reflected by a positive modifier.

High charisma doesn't presume niceness like it used to. That's why Cthulhu is rocking massive charisma; he's not inspiring lust or friendliness, but things are still in his favor socially because he is so terrifying, alien and his presence is so powerful.

All the other abilities will, for rp purposes, affect ones charisma and attractiveness; strength for physique, dexterity for graces, constitution for healthy glow or the opposite of that to any number of degrees. Int and wis for be knowlegable about topics and wisdom provides when to speak and what, of all the things to say would be choice. Charisma is the delivery, vocal and in manner.

As far as to what a character looks like, sure, however you want. Until you become attractive or ugly enough to affect the outcome of an exchange based on how you look. Then the actual charisma stat becomes relevant. If it never becomes an issue in game then there's no need to mess with it.

Just like any other ability, if the player wants their appearance to provide their character an advantage in game, they should have a character with an appropriate charisma. If you can't come to terms with using charisma incorporate comeliness.

All the games I have put out by Palladium has a physical beauty stat; Palladium RPG, RIFTS, Night Breed, Heroes Unlimited, etc.

All the games that use the WoD system have appearance; World of Darkness, Exalted, Scion, etc.

Scion used the appearance stat to represent how beautiful or hideous you were, so a 5 in appearance would be the limit of mortal beauty or ugliness. Then there was set of epic stats, but you didn't ask about that.

Shadowrun didn't, just charisma.
Most D&D didn't, but made several attempts to incorporate comeliness throughout the years; Greyhawk setting box, the skills & powers separated charisma into two sub-stats. I think 1st Ed. Unearthed Arcana may have had some rules for it. Have to check on that.

Been too long since I've played Battletech.

As far as using charisma; the stats specifically states that it doesn't represent physical attractiveness alone, but that doesn't mean players should be allowed to sidestep low scores.

What's that spell that shoots out fire dragons and explodes in the target square, Snapfire Dragonworks or something.

Find the M.E.R.P. book that had the wizards stated out. Will make converting him much easier.

Druid is too much Radagast, imo.

I could look it up this weekend if you are interested.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good thread. Definitely going to have my dragons use Dusts of Choking and Sneezing.

Thanks for the poison list. Im away from my books atm.

As to the wood; i already see the rp logic behind them not using bows. Im looking at how drow would change based on the world (according to rule set changes) they exist in now.

A lot of things, like drow, got grandfathered into PF as badasses, but when you look at how things worked then and how they work now, wouldn't they do things differently. If there's no reason not to use composite longbows (for example) then why aren't they. Sure, wood. But there's already been precedents set for wood alternatives (not necessarily for PF) such as certain types of giant mushrooms. Besides i don't see that holding back a race like drow much.

If there are no rules for limiting the effectiveness of more powerful ranged weapons with greatly increased ranges, then I say drow would be all about longbows.

And tbo, this is just one aspect of the issue. Look at the whole situation and tell me what you would do, as a race like drow, in their environment that's different then what they do now - due to how the rules have changed since 1st/2nd Ed. preferably, but all opinions are welcome.

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for confirmation or opposion to anything in particular. Drow aren't a part of the game i'm gm'ing and to my knowledge to game i'm playing in. This is just something I like to discuss with you all.

Are there any rule supporting a disadvantage to bows in subterranean settings?

Are there any poisons that knock people unconscious anymore?

To be clear, i fully understand that drow and hand crossbows used to be a deadly combo and why. My question pertains to that combo being laughable now, and if any race were to optimize to fit the current game, wouldn't it be drow?

The hand crossbow thread got me thinking.

Considering the huge overhaul poisons, combat, sight, etc. got with 3rd Ed.+ (including PF), wouldn't one of the most intelligent and diabolical races ever to blight a fantasy world say "Screw hand crossbows" and start using composite longbows from the back of their wall-walking lizard mounts?



Being able to see further then everyone else, with a ranged weapon made for close-quarters and low ceilings.

I'll have to check earlier my AD&D books when I get a chance. Originally, they were dangerous because getting hit by one in the hands of a drow meant save or sleep (and then, probably, die). So they were more of a poison delivery system than for killing stuff with damage.

Also, not sure about their fire rate, but a lot of stuff has changed, like how attacks/round work, and TWF and attacks/round, etc. I think heavies used to have a rate of 1/3, so it's possible that lights were 1/2 and hand were 1/1. Like I said, though, I don't have my books atm and that may be way off.

As for why you'd use them in PF? Racial/cultural preference. Makes me wonder if there are weapons that are never used due to their numbers not being optimal.

Also, nice referencing 1st/2nd Ed. poisons! Should definitely be considered when discussing the hand crossbow. Ah, back when poisons were dangerous, and could kill you.

Gwen Smith wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how often does the GM let the players retcon actions based on "well, my character wouldn't have done that..."?

If this is allowed for the players, then it's reasonable for the GM to run the NPCs the same way. If the GM doesn't let the players do it, then he shouldn't do it for NPCs.

I ran a lot of different RPG systems for years where I created NPCs and entire adventures on the fly. But 3.5/Pathfinder is a really, really hard system to run games that way, and I would never try it now. If your GM is more familiar with an open-ended RPG like Hero System or GURPS, it might be that your GM hasn't has that "oh, crap, I can't do this in 3.5" revelation yet.

It depends on the circumstance. Attacking a fire immune creature with a fire spell, no retcon. Attacking with a ranseur you dropped last round to draw a falcata? Yes. retcon to falcata, please. Basically, if you want to change your action after that action failed, no retcon.

Your GM needs to unwind a little. If you got a free pass because he wasn't paying attention, good for you. It's up to him to make sure it doesn't happen again, or change the line-up if your race choice rendered a lot of opposition ineffective.

Unless he screwed up something important to the story line and needs you to work with him, there's no reason for the guy that controls every monster in the world to fuss over one round in one combat.

thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Bash Sarah Palin all you want, but at least she just has to jot down a few key terms in order to give a speech. Obama needs a word-for-word transcript scrolling on his teleprompter to talk to a room full of sixth-graders or ~10 businessmen.
Her ability to mass produce nonsense isn't exactly a selling point to me. Quite frankly I could care less if our President couldn't walk to the podium without tripping over two left feet. Policies and execution are the only things I care about.
You do realize you're responding to a generic "teleprompter" talking point from almost 4 years ago, right?

Political thread. Your common sense has no place here, mister.

I played DA2 through once. As a mage. By the end of the game I was was pissed at every other mage in the game.

Overlooking how obnoxious and infuriating that was, yeah it was a good game. Not good enough, though.

As far as the rest of it, you can usually tell when someone is just hating on a game (like me). Just wait before you buy the game, then ask about it.

Remember, the further you go in, the stronger the effect. Start with a reasonable dc, like 15, to resist the aura. Then jack it up by 5 for each increment of space in.

And it wouldn't be the first power that makes exception. Paladin's aren't supposed to go there.

I wouldn't make them lose or change class archetype. Favored class benefits would be as race appropriate.

It only takes one wad to ruin the game for everybody else. I've played in games where secretly implanting a bomb (Rifts, btw) in the head of another player, preset to detonate if the player tries to kill any of the rest of us.

When i passed that note to the gm he gave me an approving nod.

Thankfully those days are long over. The people i play with now prioritize the group experience over personal glory. They can still have personal glory, but they don't seek it at the expense of the game.

This campaign smasher thing is interesting, but i haven't seen much here to cause alarm.

I just consider bullets common priced. The rest I've left at listed price.

The craft skill specifically says how much money you can earn in a week of dedicated work. Same as profession. 1/2 a skill check roll/week in g.p.

Seems like a good answer to all these get rich quick schemes.

Luckblades and Rings of Wishes appear, to me, to already include costs that would cover the casting of a Wish.

Potions, Staves, etc. that are basically items that you "load" with a spell requires costly components for the sake of simplification (I know, I know).

I'd rule that; no, you do not need the actual diamond when crafting items like luckblades or wish rings. Why? It lists construction costs, and diamond is not on the list. Also, it will cost you more resources to craft an item than it does to just cast wish. Sounds like a tradeoff.

memorax wrote:
Dont even get me started on how Dragons the size of commercial jets can not only fly yet have enough food to live on.

To be fair, most dragon meals come to it.

In addition to above things listed, I don't allow archetype stacking. That would be negotiable, though, so, almost a ban.

Lead bullets are obscenely overpriced in this game. Crafting a lead ball is like a DC 1 realistically speaking. Lead melts at a relatively low temp, and all you due is pour it in a mold then despur the ball when it cools, which is just a couple minutes.

They can be bought for lowest cost (10% listed, as if common) in my game. Cartridges, however, wont' be so cheap, but not relevant, I guess.

I ban a certain human race.

I ban evil alignments unless I'm running a game for evil players.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a group of people didn't have access a resource they usually use a different resource to achieve the same goal.

If you are wanting to limit iron there are better ways than milking a spell. Maybe all ore. Is highly toxic and/or requires a time comsuming method to puritfy.

If your story is tied to metal coming from a spell and i'm not sure where you want to go with this. People being sacrificed to make the iron usable, not available w/o a nod from a local noble. So many ways to go with it.

Not sure why their area just doesn't have iron resources. Is it country wide, world wide?

Multiple containers.

The Void. It's the worst of them all.

And oddly enough, the most frequent source of granted wishes back in the day. As a player you just can't say no, and as a DM it's a player trap the player know is a trap and you know you get to enjoy watching them jump into it anyway.

As for wishes;

Granted - a huge flying castle, complete with an atmosphere protected shell to keep it safe from storms, and a large preserve for magical wildlife between the castle and the outer wall.

At least IMO, that's the most powerful.

Most of my players wished for things like permanant abilities such as regeneration, or other long term benefit. Occasionally someone would blow a wish on something mundane like +1 to their STR, but only if it was already high.

Wished for - different things. One had to take pains with wording and specifics, of course. The powers that grant these things are mysterious and powerful, with their own agendas. I've personally pulled off flight, at will, manifesting wings the appearance of my choosing when I flew. Whipping out silvery angel wings, or demonic bat wings at will was an added bonus, and allowed for some great RP.

Another - that magical items I put on absorbed into my body, specifically limiting myself in that this wouldn't allow me to wear additional items over absorbed items. Dispel worked normally, and ejected items. And it didnt work for weapons or armor.

I've never seen a wish wasted on duplicating the effects of another spell, as a DM or a player.

Okay, I'll bite.

1. I'd say no, but wouldn't enforce it. Haversacks place what you want at the top and that's a move action. However, if you enforced this sort of thing for everyone else, by all means enforce it for your gunslinger.

2. Depends on what you are specifically trying to do. I'd say targeting a pocket destroys the pocket, but destroying a coat would make unwearable. Backpack are just big pockets with a strap so both.

3. Same, with the added suck of having a magic item destroyed.

Would gravity affect an extra dimensional space so that stuff would fall out?

For a move action the player could open, insert/retrieve, then close the sack. If the familiar jumped in and the player was basically opening and closing the sack should it still cost him a move action?

Can something in a haversack retrieve itself?

To offer opinions and occasionally help form a consensus?

You do good work, Azothath.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

None. With or without fabricate magic.

To do either you would need an uncut diamond of at least 12,500gp value (uncut value). Then a minumum DC of 30, possibly higher.

Also note that fabricate states the quality of items made are commensurate to the quality of materials used. Rusty iron, therefore, fabricates into iron of similar quality. Therefore, it seems apparent one couldn't even fabricate usable uncut diamonds from the dust.

UE, pg. 388.

Price for uncut diamonds are half, not third. DC 25 will allow you to craft diamonds up to 6,500gp.

Vincent Takeda wrote:

Why you insist on taking the absurdly long route instead of simply being brave and saying 'I'd like to run a campaign with no wish spells' is beyond me. Stop trying to crash the system and blow up the universe when all you have to say is 'I dont wanna'... That way you can find out if those restrictions are the...

No one here is banning wish spells, though I apologize that my completely outlandish "logical conclusions" vex you so.

There's still original question. Can it be done? Doesn't look like it. Should it be done? Not really. How can one get access to wishes? All normal methods still apply.

Happy wishing.

Drachasor wrote:

One could more easily argue diamond dust would become rare if everyone was buying it and then using it up. And one can side-step this whole issue just by buying raw diamonds for 1/3 the final market value, then crafting them into 25k diamonds. That's certainly 100% legal and within the bounds of the Fabricate spell.

Eh, you used all of half a second to think of a side step. You really think high level arcanes are going to spend any more time thinking of that. As I said, ALL diamonds worth less than 25k AND dust will be unavailable for purchase in order to fab up wish diamonds.

And it won't be limited to honest buys. After becoming a high lvl caster there isn't much to keep them from organizing and taking. Good guys can and will justify taking all diamond supply just to keep them out of the hands of evil guys. There would be no end to how far evil casters would go. Each wish would make getting the next easier.

I comes down to this; if one player can do it, so can every other caster. Now, considering no one that can cast wish will ever say,"alrighty, that's enough wishes for me!" Diamonds will be sought and used to the point of making them absurdly rare, which would have happened long before the characters were even born, OR all high lvl casters would be walking around wished to stupid lvs, and no caster would not learn wish as soon as they could. And it doesn't take many wishes to go from fun to lame.

Alternatively, I suppose a DM could pretend that every other arcane in the universe is, somehow, a complete idiot, and give one of his PC's exclusive rights. The game is still going to fail if there are enough wishes to break it.

It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Not long.

Feral wrote:
Asking the other three players to optimizer harder to compete with the synthesist isn't a good solution.

It would be giving them (all 4) the opportunity to balance their characters with each other. If the sumoner toning down his evolutions keeps the game from sucking for 75% of the group and the DM, I don't see why changing a few evolution choices and still have a good build would be a bad thing.

It's just an offering. They may not be interested, maybe they are.

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 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.