Male Human Expert 7
Phrip wrote:
That's exactly like my backup character!
Male Human Expert 7
The_Beetle wrote: Bruno: Indus sounds thematically perfect, nice call. Love the medallion. Thanks! As a start I consider it a focus for my Archeologist's Luck - it was fate that made me notice it and pick it up. I'm also considering the Rogue Talent that gives Psychic Sensitivity later, and the medallion could have something to do with that as well. But nothing is set in stone. I briefly entertained the idea of a ranger or paladin based on the medjai from The Mummy as well. If Phrip feels very strongly about being a tomb rob... archeologist, I could go that route instead :)
Male Human Expert 7
Greetings one and all! Looking forward to being a player after having been relegated to DM and father for the past six or so years! I'm still working on my character, but the rough outline is as follows: Indus Ionaeus, a young Taldan male, son of a scholar who came to Wati a few years ago to study Osirion's culture. Through his father's long obsession with the country and culture of Osirion, Ionaeus has developed a knack for architecture, traps and old languages. Shortly after landing in Wati, he found a simple medalion, and though it doesn't appear to be magical, he considers it a lucky charm of sorts. He carries a sword at his side as well as a whip, and to protect his eyes from the harsh sun he wears a broad-brimmed leather hat ... da da da daaaa, da da dah! Human/Bard (Archeologist) heading towards the Whip Mastery feat chain.
Detect Magic isn't that great. First round, you sense if there's magic in the area of effect, second round the number and strength of each aura, and finally in the third round you can pinpoint each. So the wizard using mislead can move away from the area of effect before you pinpoint him. Or use a powerful spell to kill you or something completely different. Remember that if Spellcraft allows him to determine the spell he casts it also allows him to identity what you are casting
Osric the Vindictive wrote:
I have been in a similar situation. A former friend of mine is gay (and/or transgender, not entirely sure), and everything she does and says is about being gay. She only watches TV shows with gay characters, she always plays gay characters in RPGs and all her posts are about being gay. Now, I have no problem with gay people, plenty of my other friends are gay, but they are not "only" gay. They don't identify as solely being gay. They are gay AND academics, or gay AND nerds, or gay AND artists, etc. In your situation, if Person T "only" brings her Trans issues to the table and nothing else, I can understand Person A saying something like "I don't want to hear about/deal with your trans issues all the time". This would be the same if a friend was a big sports fan and all they brought to the gaming table was talking about sports, or if they were politically active and all they brought to the table was political stuff. Of course, Person A may have been a bit rough in his way of saying this, but best suggestion is they have a chat away from the table and find out if this is what is happening.
I'd say two awakened animals (of the same species, obviously) might be able to produce awakened (or at least semi-awakened) offspring, but that the genetic strain would wash out in a few generations, resulting in ever more "stupid" generations, until it was back to normal animal intellect. It'd be awesome to play an awakened animal, I think. Maybe a raven rogue or something.
Bill Dunn wrote:
A warhorse will die or at least deteriorate pretty quickly, if it only gets grass, though.
WackyPeanut wrote: As for the coup the grace question. Invisible or not, a sleeping creature is already subject to a coup de grace. Invisibility should grant them a +2 to hit in any non-coup de grace attack. Thanks for the answers. The Coup De Grace question was in regards to them hearing the person approaching, thus waking up and no longer being subject to CdG :)
Hi ye mighty boards, I have a question about a situation that is very likely to come up in my next game session, and I apologize if it has been asked a gazzillion times before. Let us imagine a group of adventurers with invisibility spells running while infiltrating an enemy stronghold. As per the spell, they get +20 to Stealth (or +40 if not moving), but the spell also says it doesn't silence them in any way. How would that affect a sentry's chances of detecting them sneaking by on the other side of a door, or otherwise out of sight? My reading is, that since there's no visual detecting possible, invisibility does not benefit the party (though the door does give a good bonus). How about if they try to sneak up on a sleeping guard and coup de grace him? He's also not using his eyes, as he is sleeping (and already taking a -10 penalty on Perception checks). My reading here is, that invisibility also doesn't provide any bonus to the party. Thanks in advance :)
I'm probably taking a break from Pathfinder to explore 5th edition, both because I want to give the new system a test run and a real chance, and because I'm momentarily fatigued by Pathfinder. Guess what, that happens in almost all genres, hobbies, etc. and is not a sign that X sucks, just that versatility is good. I also play more than one board game or computer game, and even my most favorite game gets momentarily boring, if I don't play anything else once in a while. What I've seen of 5th so far, it is the best edition Wizards have published so far FOR ME. Does it make it better than PF? No. It makes it different. But while we are at the topic of editions, I'm one of the (maybe few) people who wouldn't mind seeing a Pathfinder Second Edition in 2-3 years. Not necessarily a completely new version, but something where the many options have been tuned, combined and collected in fewer places. Without using the Internet (thanks pfsrd) or HeroLab, it is currently very difficult to have a perspective of all the many (and wonderful) options available to you. Anyways, this isn't a critique of the people working at Paizo, who do an amazing job.
I've been toying with giving everybody the three following feats (whether they have to meet the preregs to use them I haven't decided yet): Combat Expertise
Basically, these are just options that you can take on your turn, not special training. I am considering making a lower quality version available for free and then making them available as "Improved", but that doesn't remove the feat tax. Have also been toying with the idea of folding Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization into one feat - sure, that'd give non-fighters access to a +2 bonus to damage, but I hardly think that is what makes or breaks the fighter.
I'm fairly confident there will be a PF 2.0 at some point. I see Advanced Class Guide as a kind of test balloon, looking at alternative ways to make some of the old classes (especially Investigator, Slayer and War Priest). However, I don't think we'll actually get 2.0 for at least 4-5 years. And that's a good thing in my opinion. I like PF, though I am beginning to feel a bit overloaded with material. Options are good, but when you sit down to make a character, you either must 1) have a ton of books, 2) use the SRD or 3) use HeroLab or similar. My hope is that the SRD and HeroLab (or similar) will be supported even more in the future, and I think it is logical to assume it will be. More and more people are using electronics (iPads, tablets, laptops) in their games, which makes it easier to look up feats, spells, classes, etc. I'm happy that Paizo allows most content to be available on the SRD, and one thing that would make me drop PF would be an abandonment of this policy. I'll happily shell out the money for the PFD, the HeroLab data pack and occasionally the physical book, it it really appeals to me, but not having an e-version of the information would be a deal breaker.
Hi Once upon a time, around the release of 3.0, there was a scenario in Dungeon Magazine that I'm trying to find. The adventure had the players enter some goblin caves to find a sword, I think, only to have an earthquake hit the region just as the players were to make their way out... If anyone can point me to the name of the scenario and/or the issue of Dungeon, I would be a happy camper...
Mulet wrote: Paladin's are such a beacon of good, that just their Aura can convert men of lesser standing to lead better lives. And taking the winnings from gambling is something that is morally ambiguous. Ergo, a Paladin should be conflicted by it. Why is taking the winnings from gambling any more morally ambiguous than taking the money from winning an arm wrestling competition or doing a job? I'm really curious here. Poker (which is what he was playing) is a game of skill. Do you think that using skill to win is generally morally ambiguous, or is it just games of skill that is so?
I once ran an introduction game for 10 mildly to moderately mentally retarded kids age 10-12. What I did was create fairly iconic but simple characters and give them some simplified character sheets with their options spelled out. E.g. a Fighter who could attack or attack hard (he had weapon focus, toughness and power attack), so the player should only decide between hitting or hitting hard, or a ranger with the ability to shoot twice (weapon focus and rapid shot - yes, I broke the prerequisites a little, but this was easier, as I handwaved position in combat). All of them grasped it really well and had fun, and the kid who played the rogue quickly found out that being a rogue is all about stealing the treasure from the other players. My point is, if these could do it, your kid with her good reading abilities and fair grasp of math should have no problems. ***And if the word mentally retarded offense anyone, I'm sorry, but that's the medical term according to my dictionary***
Because technically, the thug isn't surprised...he's maybe a little confused over the fact that the Kensai knew he was coming, but still... If the Kensai can't see his opponent, he can't charge him (except by blindly picking a square, running up and attacking with at least 50% miss chance. What the Kensai CAN do is ready an attack ("if I get attacked, I'll whack the fool"), which will happen after the thug charges, but before he rolls his attack roll. Seems very Kensai-y to me...
I can find the list of skills, yes :) I was also thinking of using the Performance Combat feats heavily, maybe even grant all players a bonus Performance Combat feat. I'm thinking a field size of 15 x 20 squares...that means 100 feet from end to end. For Passing I was thinking the ball is a thrown weapon with range increment 20' (technically should be more, but to actually have "range penalties" matter, I think that's good. Passing while threatened will obviously provoke, unless you have a feat that allows ranged attacks without provoking. If you Pass to a player who is threatened, you take -4 (firing into melee) and possibly cover penalties. I like the idea of catching being Sleight of Hands - DC should probably be something like 10 or 15 + 4 if threatened + range penalty on the Pass (to reflect whether the Pass was accurate or not) + cover
I've long toyed with an idea for a Pathfinder campaign. The essential idea is that a game similar to Blood Bowl exists, e.g. American Football with a lot of beating your opponents to a pulp. The PCs will be part of a team of "BB"-players, traveling around from match to match, having encounters both on and off the field. Ideally about 50% of the "combat" encounters will be matches, while the rest will be a variety of bar brawls, being ambushed by fans of opposing teams, etc. But I'm a bit stuck on some rules. Tackling is Trip or Grapple. Taking the ball from an opponent is Disarm and/or Steal. Throwing is probably just a ranged attack, but what about catching said ball? All ideas are welcome...
Hi, A Question arose in our CC game tonight, where the Cleric used Deathwatch while encountering an invisible undead. Deathwatch states: "Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death." It doesn't say that you must be able to actually "see" the creatures, thus suggesting that you would know where the invisible undead creature was and therefore at least know which square to attack (with a 50% miss chance). Is that a reasonable reading? Or how would they interact?
I'm playing an archeologist with a heavy repeating crossbow and the vital strike feat looking at one +24 to hit, 2d10+13 attack every round, more or less all day long (27 rounds of archeologist's luck, in 3-round increments) should be enough for most situations. Would I be able to do more damage with a ranged combattant? Sure. But it is decent and it is one of those instance where VS is not, IMO a trap. And before someone says I'd be able to do better average damage using rapid shot, etc., no, not likely. I'm using two other feats that preclude more than one attack per round (Focused Shot and Bullseye Shot), which contribute +4 to hit and currently +5 to damage)... His damage will improve immensely on my next level (where I get Deadly Aim for another +6 damage), and by level 15 I'll be looking at +30 to hit and 3d10+26 damage, with crits on 17-20 for another 1d10+26 damage...
Why wouldn't they? Spell Combat: "At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)." Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon." While the second bolded part might indicate that it isn't possible, the first says it works much like two-weapon fighting, and Haste works fine with TWF.
|