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

Caedwyr's page

2,727 posts (2,729 including aliases). 6 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 2,727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Imbicatus wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I imagine it's because a lot of the inspiration for the class came from Avatar's water benders, of which not a single one can breath water.

Or the Furycrafters in Codex Alera, none of which can breath water. Or Marvel's Iceman, who can't breath water.

I can't think of anyone in Fiction or pop culture who can manipulate water who can also breath water, unless they got that ability racially.

Actually, water furycrafters are shown several times to use their water furycraft to allow them to breathe under the water (by making an air pocket).

WormysQueue wrote:

Thanks but TOZ already gave me a link to it :)

And you actually made me curious, so it stands on my to-read-list as of now.

Scavion's link is a more recent version I think. TOZ's link is to the discussion/design thread for Kirthfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Take a look at Cerulean Seas for how electrical attacks are modified underwater. It has pretty comprehensive rules.

Cerulean Seas, Chapter 6: Magic of the Sea wrote:
Electricity Energy Effects: Electricity is a common element under the ocean, though it assumes a much different form than it does on land. On land, electricity is known for its bright crackling arcs of lightning. While these are not unheard of in an undersea setting, the fact is that the oceans rarely get hit with lightning. The surface water of the sea does not typically heat up enough to cause the positive charge needed for lightning to occur. When it does occur, it is almost always near shore. After lightning hits the water, it disperses in a great and terrible electrical sphere that is as deadly as it is undetectable. The picture this paints of underwater electricity is more commonly exemplified by the electric eel. Instead of flashy and sweeping arcs, electricity is known for its invisible spheres of damage. The lightning bolt of the sea, electrical surge, is actually a small sphere of electricity that travels towards the target, rather than a continuous arc. Aside from a trail of dead plankton and the occasional bubble of steam, this effect is relatively quiet and undetectable compared to its drylander equivalent.
Cerulean Seas, Chapter 6: Magic of the Sea - Electrical Surge wrote:


School evocation [electricity]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3, witch 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a few scales from an electric eel)
Range 120 ft.
Area 120-ft. line
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
You release a pulse of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. The pulse begins at your fingertips, and moves forward at lightning speed to the end of the area. While the end effect is the same as its surface equivalent "lightning bolt," the source of the damage is basically a five foot diameter sphere of electricity traveling through the extent of the area very quickly rather than a continuous stream of electrical energy arcing from the caster to the target.

The electrical surge can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the pulse may continue beyond the barrier if the spell's range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does. Out of water, this spell has a range of touch, with an area of "creature touched".

Based off these two, if you wanted to modify electrical spells in the water when they haven't been designed for the environment, you could make them touch ranged spheres rather than their normal effect.

Most Robin Hood stories also end with Robin Hood leading a rebellion to return the rightful king from his usurper brother.

If you want some good material for underwater adventuring, I'd recommend checking out Cerulean Seas by Alluria Publishing. It has lots of undersea magic, some new equipment, weapons, armor, and magic items as well as rules for underwater combat and hazards. If you are planning on doing much underwater/water proximal adventuring or are looking for some really cool ideas I'd recommend checking it out.

So, here's a question while we are on the topic of honour and paladins. In Pathfinder, is the honour in the paladin code internal honor or external honor? Does the type of honor the paladin must follow depend on if they get their powers from a deity or from a concept? How does the existence of divination powers affect the type of honor?

Or in other words, if a paladin commits a sin, but no one is around, does anyone hear the sound?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking as a person with less GM experience, I would prefer to have the CR of dragons/outsiders etc reflect their actual capabilities and be consistent in how they are applied compared to other creatures/NPCs. This would make it easier to use them in encounters that I design because it doesn't have a hidden assumption that they are going to be used as a solo monster.

If you want to make it easier for a GM to use as a solo monster, maybe a general rule or template could be designed to help turn a creature/NPC into an appropriate solo monster fight. The PF system already has problems in encounter design for solo fights. Enemies are either too powerful and wipe the floor with the players if they aren't holding the idiot ball, or they are overwhelmed by the action economy.

If you look at how other games treat solo enemy fights, they normally have padded HP, more actions, and attacks/moves that put pressure on the entire party, but not high enough damage/threat that they can one-shot party members. Then again, many games also make their solo enemies hold the idiot ball and not use their abilities to the fullest. Personally, I've always found encounters that involve multiple enemies, terrain, and hazards to be much more interesting and satisfying.

For enemies that normally come in groups, I can see a potential problem in the other direction. Solo they are weaker than normal, but group synergy can raise their threat level above what multiple monsters/npcs would normally provide. I'm guessing you have some sort of adjustment factor to the CR calculations, but if you don't, a tool such as this would make it much easier for GMs to design encounters and have the expected difficulty levels.

Snowlilly wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
If the Efreeti's Wish SLA is HD dependent, when does the Efreeti lose access to it when they are Enervated or Level Drained?

Negative levels do not remove spells, SLAs, etc.

The simulacrum is not suffering from negative levels. It is a lower HD creature.

You still run into this bit of text:

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Of course, if we go to Spell-like Abilities we find the following:

PRD Bestiary Universal Monster Rules wrote:
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature's caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.

Where the bolded text says quite explicitly that lowering caster level doesn't impact the ability of the creature to cast the spells, but it also provides good evidence for Anzyr's argument that abilities not explicitly tied to HD are not modified by Simulacrum.

So, in conclusion I agree that you are correct and that level draining/enervating a monster doesn't prevent them from using their SLAs. It would remove the ability to cast a spell however if the caster level dropped below the required CL to cast the spell. These rule interactions just make creating simulacrums of creatures with lots of non-level/HD dependent SLAs the better choice in many situations. I would suggest that it still leaves the Simulacrum spell pretty much unplayable outside of a GM adjudicated plot device. To make it more usable, it either needs to be modified for both player and GM use, or it needs to be marked similar to artifacts where they are not part of the systems considered open to everyone.

On the more interesting part of the discussion, how would people rewrite Simulacrum so it is actually useable as written in a game without distorting everything?

One of the ideas I've seen is to have spells like Simulacrum, planar binding, create undead, animate dead, planar ally and similar add options to the Leadership rules and run everything under the Leadership system.

Under such a system, Simulacrum would still need to be rewritten to better define what it does and what a half-powered version entails with respect to things that are not explicitly linked to HD. The more complete solution would be to link more things in bestiary stat blocks to HD so the game would give a meaningful response to things like level drain or other effects that play with character level on enemies that don't have any class levels.

If the Efreeti's Wish SLA is HD dependent, when does the Efreeti lose access to it when they are Enervated or Level Drained?

Ashiel wrote:

The most common undead that have urges aren't really a moral issue. Ghouls eat dead things and they prefer them well dead and rotting. Vampires need kill no one. Wights and mummies have no hungers.

So, Ghouls = pak'ma'ra? The suggestion of the text in the bestiary is that they are canabilistic as well as carrion eaters/prefer their meat aged. However, the canabilistic portion is rarely the part that gets called out in discussions and instead the focus tends to be on the carrion eater portion. I'm not really going anywhere with this, I just thought it was an interesting observation of how these types of discussions normally go.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

From my experience with technical writing where it is important to eliminate ambiguity, writing less is often the best approach. It takes more work but you can frequently find a way to communicate a concept or meaning using fewer words with less ambiguity.

Even within the legal community, there is a movement to eliminate legalese as it is difficult to understand and frequently creates additional ambiguity which in turns requires additional text to eliminate.

Aralicia wrote:
cablop wrote:
Bad players still do good fighters, bad players make the worst casters ever.

Here's rundown of a level 1 fighter made by a player I know :

Human Fighter 1
Attributes : 20 Dex, no other score above 12
Feats : Exotic Weapon Proficiency (hand crossbow), Two Weapon Fighting, Dodge
Notable Gear : 2x hand crossbow, leather armor, no melee weapon.

Typical Combat Tactic (what the player usually did):
- First round : fire two bolt (+4/+4, 1d4 damage each). If he's unlucky, he's got an ally in mele, and he's firing at +0.
- Second round : sheathe the first crossbow, reload the second
- Third round : sheathe the second crossbow, draw the first crossbow
- Fourth round : reload the first crossbow, draw the second
- Fifth round : repeat first round

This isn't even a joke. It's an actual character who's been played for multiple games.
Bad players can make terrible fighters.

The sad thing is, conceptually this type of fighter should be able to work with the feats and gear selected. A guy who is lightly armored and mobile and who fights with two hand cross-bows seems right out of a Van Hellsing/League of Extraordinary Gentlemen story. The feats are the obvious ones a new player would select to realize the concept.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

How do stealth, lighting, and concealment rules work?

How do ride and charge rules and all the various feats/subsystems work together?

Hi Lee,

This is a happy surprise. Thanks for the response.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I do a lot of technical writing at work and frequently the phrasings with the most clarity actually use substantially less words to so. It does require someone with skills in technical writing.

@Ashiel: Going straight to an accusation of lying is a very strong and antagonistic move. You'd be better off saying "you appear to be mistaken here". It doesn't make any claims to the poster's motive and honesty. The accusations of lying can come out later once the poster has revealed more of their motives/argument techniques and you can actually catch them in a deliberate falsehood.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
A lot of the stuff may be allowable in a strictly RAW manner, but there's a ton of stuff that is RAW-legal that any GM who is even halfway competent isn't going to allow.

Okay, then that is saying that there is lots of material in the game which will trip up any new GM and thus newer players/GMs should either find another game or expect to have lots of problems until they have stepped on all the landmines.

It is actually possible to create Arkalion according to the game rules. It is not necessary to cheat, as you seem to be implying, to build the character. Now, common house rules and gentleman agreements mean that characters like Arkalion don't normally show up in the game, but again that is like saying Rule 0 absolves Paizo of any responsibility to write worthwhile or balanced material for their game.

A bit of a thread tangent, but Anzyr, you might be interested in checking out Tacticslion's infinity engine for some possible places to go further with Arkalion.

Post 1
Post 2

upsidedownlamp wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
That sounds like a reasonable implementation.
Or retitle it from Favorites to Bookmark?

That would work as well, but I'd suggest changing the symbol on the forums to something that looks more like a bookmark. Otherwise people will see the little + sign and just continue to use it as a +1/agree button (as well as some people using it for the intended purpose).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That sounds like a reasonable implementation.

If you look at how a lot of people use the favourite function, I would suggest that many are using it more as a +1/agree tool than a favourite post I want to keep track of for later tool. From what I've seen on other sites, this is a pretty common adaptation by the forum populations. If there is no other visible reaction button, people will start to use whatever is available.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've done it as well in the past. I'm just saying, that on other forums it is something I've observed that gets weaponized when lots of the other ways people can be unpleasant and nasty to each other gets locked down. Also, even if we don't mean it that way, it is very easy for the person to get moderated to take it as others attacking them if they see a moderator post with a huge number of agrees. It contributes to the feeling of being dogpiled. If you want the moderators to be seen as not taking sides in an argument or more of a neutral faction that enforces the spirit of the rules, it has been shown to be better to prevent one side or another from co-opting them or be seen to co-opting. This isn't for some high-minded reason, but rather just what I've seen work best at other forums.

The other big thing you need to prevent, because it helps foster a negative atmosphere, is people piling on in agreement to whatever moderation action is taken. Either prevent people from +'ing a moderation post, or make it an infractable offense for doing so. Otherwise you can very easily get an "I told you so" or a "I win" type atmosphere that further engenders hard feelings. Ideally, when the moderation happens, everyone stops discussing/acting in the way that triggered the moderation. As I've seen mentioned elsewhere, it takes two to have an argument and in a self-policed forum people will just choose to not engage or cross the line in the first place. It takes a while to achieve such a community, but it is very rewarding and tends to allow for an expansion of the audience to people you would never have thought were potential community members.

Thanks for the response. It seems to be the most straightforward way of handling things.

I've previously communicated the below to paizo via another medium, but I think it's worth reposting to the current discussion:

The current moderation approach of deleting all offending posts, is self-defeating and creating more work for the moderation team.

Another quote, about profanity filters

Another community manager wrote:

What’s the reason for the filter? To stop people swearing. The theory is that there’ll be no fun in swearing if the words don’t come out right. In practise, one of the following things happens

  • The users continue swearing constantly, happy in the knowledge that it will be filtered regardless. Your forum becomes ****** full of this kind of ****, and it looks ****** terrible.
  • The users respond to your filter by trying to find the limits of it. Is **** filtered? What about if I spell it with a ph instead of an f? What if I use numbers instead of letters? What if I- etc. You will never beat human ingenuity on this matter.
  • Some users are bright enough to stop swearing, and are simply more creative and passive-aggressive in the ways that they’re awful to each other.

Aside from the fact that swearing is manifestly brilliant, a profanity filter is a software solution to a management problem. If you don’t want people swearing on your forum, tell them that it isn’t allowed. Put it in the rules. Use whatever gradual punishment systems you have in place if they ignore you. Ban them if they persist. If your users won’t do what you ask them to without a software solution, you’re getting something wrong.

What is happening is that people are treating the deletions as a profanity filter, in that they feel free to be as awful to each other as they like, safe in the knowledge that all that will happen is a few posts might get deleted. Even worse, people learn to game the system and figure out ways to get stuff by the moderators, which in turn creates an even more toxic environment.

If instead, the offending posts were flagged in some way, and a visible graduated punishment system (points, jailing, infractions, temp bans, etc) was used to show that the behaviour was not appropriate, experience on other sites shows that this is less work for the moderators in the long run.

To go with this, you would also need a rule to not +1 a moderator's response or comment on the moderation (cheering on, etc) in the thread, or you get the negative dogpiling that can make a community unattractive.

@Crimeo: My guess is that there may or may not be a clearly written wording that explains you do not ever gain the creature type. Pathfinder is written with a lot of ambiguous text that never had the advantage of being reviewed by a technical writer. The polymorph spells are one example of a mess of inconsitencies. Even worse are the Crushing Hand, Stunning Hand, etc series of spells. The text in the book has all sorts of references to previous spells in the series, but there is a whole mess of exceptions and extra addons that are not consistently passed on or continued that makes it almost impossible to figure out all of what each spell is supposed to do.

There has been little to no effort to standardize mechanics wording or to take care to avoid previously defined mechanics keywords (don't ever look at the flavour text for Feats unless you want to open up another whole can of worms). The spell system and much of the game systems exist in a space between extremely detailed, mechanically defined aspects and "it's magic make-believe, who cares about consistency" approach. If you want a more rigorously defined system to allow players to extrapolate what is posssible and make plans from there, then you are going to need to do a lot of house-ruling and planning ahead. The major mechanics in this game do not hold to strict or consistent limits on how they interact or work. It is not a Brandon Sanderson magic system for sure!

Also, these boards are extremely hostile to new players or players without an extensive background in the game or an expansive knowledge of all the unwritten rules. The moderation tends to selectively allow for dogpiling and even name calling in these situations. Expect to be attacked and your questions ignored if you call into question or ask for reasoning/textural support behind common wisdom.

Just pick up or Paizo can print the Talented classes. That would do the trick.

@Anzyr: It looks like the statblock got truncated from the longer version. This one doesn't show the contetns of the various blessed books, etc.

You could make planar binding add some additional recruitment options to those already offered by Leadership. Then, work out with your GM what those additional options are.

@Lemmy: Here are some possible 3pp options that let you play a martial type character a bit differently than the normal builds:

Masquerade Reveler archetype for Barbarians. Gives you more build options and lets you go places with the class you normally can't. Written by Mark Seifter, a paizo employee which might help with your case to your GM.

Swordmaster adds some additional tactics for martial characters and a powerup that isn't as obvious as the Path of War options. It might be more palatable to your GM.

101 New Skill Uses lets non-magical characters do more things with the skills they possess. This opens up things a bit more for the mundane.

Liber Influxus Communis: Book of Collective Influence This features several martial classes with more options that you might find interesting and your GM might permit: Battle Lord, an intelligent leader of others; Metamorph, a partial shapeshifter; Mnemonic, a brainy monk that will copy your moves; Mystic, an elemental bender type monk class; Survivor, a ranger type without spells that makes their allies better and harder to kill - also pretty simple. There are several others in here you might find of interest as well and I'd highly suggest checking out Endzeitgeist's review.

The Maurader is a martial class based around moving all the time. Not too powerful, but plays very differently from most martial builds you see on the forums.

Malefactor is a class that bestows negative luck on those around them. It's a D8 class, but does not get any spells. It plays differently than most of the other martials from what I've seen.

The Luckbringer is the inverse of the malefactor. It manipulates the luck of those around them to cause all sorts of positive effects. It is built on the Time Thief chasis, so it is more of a skirmisher type analogue.

The Animist is another full-BAB nature avenger/ partial shapeshifter type with all sorts of interesting options and a very elegant handling of the class.

Anachronistic Advenures features a range of classes with a high degree of customizability and some superb secondary rules systems. Don't be put off by the fish-out-of-water or planetary romance stylings of these classes. If you file off the fluff, you are still left with a range of cool class options and builds. My review touches on some of my favourite parts of the secondary systems.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but those are a decent start. Let me know what you think might fly with your GM and what types of classes/options you are looking for and I'll try to refine my suggestions.

Just to eliminate another possibility, is only Path of War out, or is it all 3pp? There's some other really good stuff that does things differently than Path of War for martials, but it is non-Paizo material.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I saw your review this morning and it made me remember my promise to post my own review. There's a number of subsystems that have been done by others, very well, but even still the ones in this book work well or are complementary to those other sources. Most of the systems are very simple and easy to implement.

I look forward to seeing your review posted over here as well :)

I finally added my review. As I note in the review, while the classes and archetypes are pretty awesome and provide a huge amount of customization, the secondary systems are the real draw of the book for me. Nicely done!

From the posts I summarized above, it looks like you can't go deeper than 50 ft or higher than 200 ft.

Additionally, the only stone available is from small rocks. This seems to indicate that the ground does not have any bedrock to near surface anywhere within the arena.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll probably regret this, but here is the opening post.

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:


If a 20th level of each class was played in an all out battle who would be victorious. It would be every man for himself, no teams.

1 Who would win/survive: I think the pally or the summoner. Pally because it can tank like crazy and has crazy saves, it also has good healing/condition removal. Summoner because they have an eidolon and can summon tons of other creatures to help. Barb and cleric may have a chance also.

2 Who would die first: I would say rouge because they are so squishy.

3 Who would kill the most opponents: I would say Blaster Wizard because of all the aoe available. Range,Lance,Pounce Barb would do pretty well also because of the sheer damage output.

4 If they had to stay alive for at least 2 months in the wild who would win then: I would say probably ranger or it still could be pally or summoner though. Ranger because they can make animals friendly, can hunt really well, and are stealthy.

What are your opinions on this. Plz say who and why they would do well.

By the way all of the characters would be played by people of an equal skill level.


Pretty sparse on the rules and arena. The arena seems to be "everywhere" and the rules are "all-out battle" which sounds like anything valid under the rules of PFRPG goes.

Further down the page in post 27 you add

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:

88000 just like a normal 20th level character

no teleporting out of the arena by the way and no gating in either. basic summons are allowed.

and obviously these wizards have never met a good range lance pounce barb in the beginning of combat before they put up all their buffs.

Now there is an arena, and you cannot gate or teleport in or out of it. The size of the arena is not defined. There appears to be no limitation on monsters summoned via the Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally and related spells. No word on Planar Binding/Planar Ally line of spells.

On page two in post 67 you add:

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:

Obviously everyone ignored the rule about You are not allowed to leave the arena at all. also I said you can not gate things in. I said only normal summons would be aloud and I am pretty sure a Harbinger Daemon spawn as your body does not count as a normal summon. Plus Arkalion would die before he even managed to do all this. I said everyone enters un buffed. This wizard would probably not even complete a quarter of his buffs before an angry barbarian ripped him to shreds while he is medidtating.

In this post, you have retconed your previous posts and added an additional limitation that everyone enters the arena unbuffed.

Further down in post 72 you add

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:

In the first place why would a demigod/demon help you.

"Although I already said they are not allowed due to they are not a normal summon.

To classify what I mean by normal summon: Anything that you can summon using "summon monster X". levels 1-9. No half god demon things.

Which clarifies that only Summon Monster I-IX is a valid summon. No word on things that can be summoned by Summon Nature's Ally or anything that is not able to be summoned by Summon Monster IX, but is in one of the related Summon Z series of spells like

Summon Ancestral Guardian
Summon Cacodaemon
Summon Ceustodaemon
Summon Derghodaemon
Summon Eidolon
Summon Elder Worm
Summon Erodaemon
Summon Flight of Eagles
Summon Froghemoth
Summon Genie
Summon Giant Ally
Summon Infernal Host
Summon Instrument
Summon Kami
Summon Laborers
Summon Lesser Psychopomp
Summon Meladaemon
Summon Minor Ally
Summon Minor Monster
Summon Stampede
Summon Swarm
Summon Thanadaemon
Summon Totem Creature
Summon Vanth

In post 78 you add some additional limitations on what "gear" constitutes in response to Anzyr.

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:
Obviously everyone ignored the rule about You are not allowed to leave the arena at all. also I said you can not gate things in. I said only normal summons would be aloud and I am pretty sure a Harbinger Daemon spawn as your body does not count as a normal summon. Plus Arkalion would die before he even managed to do all this. I said everyone enters un buffed. This wizard would probably not even complete a quarter of his buffs before an angry barbarian ripped him to shreds while he is medidtating.
Your opening post does not contain those rules. Furthermore, the daemon is not a summon. It was produced by a Simulacrum Drakainia's Birth Spawn ability and possessed. Since Arkalion is in the body 24/7, he would arrive at the arena in that body and his presently empty body which is not "him" at the moment would be left behind. At that point, no buffs are really needed. If other people show up geared for combat, I see no reason he would not be as well (note that he gears up his Daemon form for combat).

I am pretty sure daemon forms are not gear.

Here is the definition of gear:

equipment that is used for a particular purpose.
synonyms: equipment, apparatus, paraphernalia, articles, appliances, impedimenta; More

A harbinger is not a piece of equipment.

La dee doo dee da I am just going to march down to the store and pick up a harbinger. What are you doing today?

In post 88. You add an additional prohibition on the use of Wish.

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:
Mathius wrote:

While the deamon body is very powerful it is hardly need for this build. It just helps to be in a differnt

Mindblank will always be up. Cast timestop when you go first. If the areana has stone in change into an earth elemental and move inside of it. Cast MMM inside the rock and enter it.

If that does not work just hide in rock and buff yourself there.

What stops him from polymorphing any object into the body he wants and taking it over that way? With a small statue of the thing the body lasts for an hour.

He can wish in a planatar or other powerful body and take it that way.

The part that takes the longest is transferring the gear to the new body.

Also realize that Anzyr is argue the extreme case so that rules can be changed to make more sense. As it is he can actually build the body in the arena in short order.

If he can not make a new body he use wish to cast greater planar bind and make allies to fight for him that way. Use Dim lock and just forget the circle. Win the check and order them to kill everything in the arena that is not the caster or his ally.



This also appears to prevent one from using Summon Monster IX to summon an extra-planar being, but I'll assume you meant to say that Summon Monster X creatures are still okay.

In post 89 you add some information on what the ground is made of, what materials are present, and what flora is present.

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:
The arena is floor is made of grass and. It is like a forest with tons of trees. The only stone you can get is from small rocks.

In Post 103 you add some dimensions to the arena, which has now gone from "all of reality" to a much smaller space. You have clarified again that only Summon Monster I-IX and eidolons work. Druids and other users of Summon Nature's Ally are out of luck it seems. You also add some more geography and flora information about the arena and then stipulate that the arena cannot be escaped from, similar to Ravenloft.

Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:

Going underground is technically legal within the rules. Although cheesy, it works. You can only go 50ft down and 200 ft up otherwise it counts as leaving the arena though.

The arena is 1 sq mile.

Yes. Dragons can not be summoned into the arena. As Darksol said only summon monster 1-9 and Eidolons work.

The ground is grass and there are a bunch of trees. Like a forest

In addition there are small rivers and streams in the arena. The deepest being only a few feet.

And there is no possible escape from the arena.

@Mathius although you could earth glide down and make a hallow, do not forget that Monks have a feather fall ability also.

So, as you can see, there have been lots of clarifications, restrictions, and additions to the rules. I stand by my suggestion that everyone wait until you have finished defining your rules, restrictions, and any other limitations before continuing the discussion, so we can all have a common point of reference and understanding to work from.

Maybe everyone should wait until you are done defining the rules and arena before offering up their thoughts. Right now things are changing fairly quickly.

Starbuck_II wrote:
Wait, in Kirthfiner if you lower a Undead's Cha to 0 is it re-dead?

It seems to work the same way as the core rules, since reducing a Con to 0 in those rules kills the character and undead use their Cha in place of Con. So, based on my understanding of how the rules interact, yes.

andreww had a good general purpose spell list for a sorcerer along with good scrolls to have on hand. I will try to dig it up as it sounds like what you are looking for.


Here are a few of the good posts about generalist oracles and sorcerers. Take a look at the spell lists and how andreww explains how they can be played to handle most situations. These should give you an idea of what some of the better/more versatile spells are.

Lore Oracle - Abuses old Paragon Surge
Non-Paragon Surge Lore Oracle


One small correction to both Oracles. Neither need to use Magical Lineage for Holy Word as they are only applying one Metamagic feat to it which Spell Perfection takes care of. As such both have switched Lineage to Heal allowing for emergency quickened Heal spells in a crisis, albeit for a level 9 spell slot.

Other options might include Euphoric Tranquillity so you can add Persistent, Harm for Quicken or cheaper Persistent, Greater Dispel for Quicken or Flame Strike for Persistent and Dazing.

Sage Sorcerer

Pre-nerf Paragon Surge Sorcerer
Blaster Wizard
Non-paragon surge sorcerer

Found what I was looking for. A thread on Arcane Sorcerer spells and which ones they should grab.

When designing Save or Lose abilities like hold person, one needs to consider how changes might increase or decrease the lethality of the ability. For example, it has been argued by others that the changes from the 3.0 hold person to the 3.5 hold person actually made the spell more lethal in normal play:

The impact of the changes between 3.5 and 3.0 Hold Person is very simple to understand indeed. The 3e version takes you out of the fight on a failed save. That means that you sit out the next few rounds and if the rest of the party is captured or killed then so are you. And if your party wins, then your character becomes un-paralyzed in a few rounds. The 3.5 version could end every round, which means that the enemy is incentivized to coup de grace you immediately, which they do and then you have to make a new character. It makes the spell less good in that one of your allies has to spend an action to hammer it in, but while it has no real effect on team monster it makes the spell much more lethal to player characters. Less functional, more game distrupting.

Of course, the change was made to prevent a player sitting out for multiple turns without anything to do, but the change had the unintended consequence of incentivizing monsters/enemies to go for the coup-de-grace more often because the effect could end much sooner.

This of course applies to SoL/SoD spells for casters as well and it is why I prefer to use ablative defenses against SoL/SoD effects for both casters and martials.

From Kirthfinder


Strength: A character whose Strength is reduced to 1 is entangled. A character with a Strength of 0 is helpless, prone, and cannot stand up. [...]

Dexterity: [...]A character with a Dexterity of 1 is slowed; a character with a Dexterity of 0 is paralyzed.

Constitution: A character with a Constitution of 1 is infirm and can do nothing but rest; a character with a constitution of 0 is dead.
[...][U]ndead and constructs have no Constitution scores. Undead use their Charisma modifier for hit points and Fortitude saves in place of their Con modifier, as in the core rules. Constructs use their Strength modifier similarly; this supersedes the arbitrary size-based bonus hp listed in the Core Rules. This amendment [...] allows constructs to be difficult to destroy without increasing their BAB; a strong but clumsy golem running amok is an iconic image not modeled well by providing constructs with a full BAB progression.

Intelligence: A character with an Intelligence of 1 is feebleminded, with the mental acuity of a reptile. A character with an Intelligence of 0 is a mindless automaton. [...]

Wisdom: [...]A character with a Wisdom of 1 is confused. A character with a Wisdom of 0 is completely insane, has no external sensory input, and is unaware that the outside world exists.

Charisma: [...]A character with a Charisma of 1 has insufficient ego to exert executive autonomy; he or she acts as if charmed by everyone he or she interacts with. A character with a Charisma of 0 is dominated, likewise.

Resurrecting this thread to ask a question about nagas. Has there been enough material provided to understand the ecology of nagas and how to deal with raising a non-evil naga. The existence of Guardian Nagas calls into question whether or not there is an actual racial difference between regular Dark/Spirit Naga and Guardians, or if it is entirely in the upbringing and society in which they are raised.

The Monster Orphanages thread provided some ideas on this dilemma: ries#107

Mikaze wrote:


Recommended Deities: Desna, Cayden Cailean, Sarenrae, Shelyn, Sinashakti, Abadar
Recommended Environment: Urban

Reviled as a feral, cursed race of cannibals, the worst elements of the stereotypical harpy's character is primarily a result of environmnet and an unhealhty culture. Being raised within civilization rather than cast out of it curbs the worst facets of harpy "nature". In fact, several "wild" harpies have acclimated to civilization and become successful members of society on their own.*

Harpies present unique problems and potential when integrating them into society, most of which stem from their capability of flight and their supernaturally captivating singing voices.

Housing harpies, both in their youth and adulthood, can require unconventional approaches to architecture and city planning. Multistory "loft" houses with upper story entrances are a popular approach, though it is suggested that such entrances be built with the safety of non-harpies in mind. Balcony-like designs can help aesthetically bring them in line with pre-existing neighboring buildings.

If older harpies are unavailable, teaching youths how to fly can prove difficult and highly dangerous. It is highly advised that spellcasters experienced with flight be on hand for a harpy's early development, as is access to the spell featherfall.

Natural flight and humanoid forms also provide harpies ample opportunities as messengers and couriers, and one with the right connections and patronage can find their services in great demand. Law enforcing entities and the military would also do well to consider recruitment of harpies capable of taking orders.

The captivating singing ability of the race typically manifests with the onset of adulthood. Caregivers are advised to teach the proper use of this ability, or rather how not to use it, before this phase of their life.

This ability has enabled many harpies to find success as entertainers and as attractions for businesses, but this has also brought with it no small amount of controversy as many have questioned the fairness and ethics of using such a magically charming ability to draw both audiences and customers. Critics question the ethics of using the mind-affecting nature of the ability and the unfairness of being able to literally steal audiences and customers from those without access to it. Defenders note that the ability can only draw customers, but cannot force them to buy wares or reward performances with coin. Notably, many bards and entrepreneuring spellcasters have kept relatively quiet in this debate. Different cities have taken different approaches towards the legality of the issue, most often erring on the side of healthy commerce, whoever that may favor. It should be noted that in the fields of law enforcement, this ability has been credited with preventing several suicides and defusing hostage situations without the loss of life.

As a monogendered race similar to medusas, they are dependant upon interaction with other races to propogate. This presents just one more way through which harpies can be integrated into society, as a race running parallel with "mainstream" humanoids.

It bears special notice that harpy and goblin populations have difficulty mixing well. While the stereotypical "death stench" is nonexistant among non-cannibalistic harpies, they do still have a distinct smell. This "musk" contains several pheromones that have proven highly agitating to goblins, inducing anxiety in the lightest cases and outright panic at worst. This is often touted as yet another reason why housing for harpies should be kept as high as possible, as well as why the lower stories of any such structures should be made primarily of stone.

Young harpies are ideally raised in groups, and caregivers will often find that cultural standards introduced to such flocks tend to be self-reinforcing within the group. While this explains the sad commonality of the brutal culture of most harpies, it does prove beneficial when bringing them back into the fold of humanoids as a whole.

While the average harpy lags behind most in intellectual aptitude, their natural abilities provide ample opportunities to thrive and carve out their own unique niche within civilization.

*Naming names would be a bit of a spoiler

Also opted out of the live birth vs eggs issue. SOMEONE ELSE can tackle that. :P

I've heard that the Vitalist makes for a pretty good healer.

Soulshifter wrote:

hmm... I bought it last night from the Paizo website. ok-for-Fantasy-RolePlaying-Games

The file is named Noble_Wild_hires_01-14-2010_.pdf

The site that seems to give the stats online is: -species/noble-animal-species/noble-bear

That's annoying. I have one with a 2010 publication date (hardcopy), but it has the statline shown on That also shouldn't be publicly viewable, since it is a Work in Progress.

I can't find any errata documents either. If you see anything else with issues like that, please send me a PM

Soulshifter wrote:

I've noticed some stark differences between what's presented on the PFSRD and what's written in the book, namely in the ability score modifiers. For instance:

Noble Bear: PFSRD: Ability Score Modifiers: -2 Strength, +6 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom


Noble Bear: TNW: Ability Score Modifiers: +2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution

Am I missing something? These are quite different.

The copy of The Noble Wild: Pathfinder version I am looking at has the racial ability score modifiers listed for the PFSRD? What is the revision date in your copy?

Also, I don't think the PFSRD has the Noble Wild content live on the site.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


And the thing is, they're largely right about this part. It's far better for the developers to be focused on making the game work for the new or casual* player than for the hard-core types. The hardcore types can take care of themselves, find 3pp options, house rule things or otherwise work around it. The more casual ones can't. Or won't. And likely won't stick around long enough to try.
The problem with PF (and 3.x in general) is that it was designed for system mastery to be a big thing at the same time it was designed to work for casual play. It's really hard to have both with letting the system masters break things.
If you're playing in that kind of more casual group the caster/martial issue still kicks in eventually, but it's delayed until higher levels and most campaigns don't go to the high levels.

*I kind of object to the term "casual" here, but don't have a better one that isn't defined negatively. Suffice to say that there are also players who may be very serious about rpgs, but focus more on the roleplaying and character concept without caring much about system mastery.

The thing is, and I've written about this before, the game is extremely difficult and unwelcoming to new players if you do not have a more experienced person to guide you through things. From things I've said previously, and I apologize in advance for the walls of text.

Caedwyr wrote:

As someone who has gotten into D&D around the beginning of Pathfinder, all of the unspoken assumptions just drive me up the wall. It's like there is a giant elephant in the corner of the room and all of the oldtimers and developers act like it isn't there at all and even get upset if you mention it. This game has a huge amount of pitfalls that the more experienced players navigate around without even thinking about.

This really makes the game difficult to pick up and I've had a number of people who expressed interest in trying out the game give up on it because in their words "the game isn't even remotely balanced and I'd rather not waste my time on such a flawed system". Of course, this typically means we end up not playing and TTRPG and so I'm left disappointed we can't play the game together. That said, I'm pretty sympathetic to this point of view. Part of the fun in playing with a mechanical system and not a game of imagination is being able to find cool combinations and being inspired by the system. Part of the appeal of a system like D&D or Pathfinder is the breadth of the system and all the different character archetypes you can potentially create. That the game doesn't actually live up to what it claims it does leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth.

Also, the other thing that drove my group up the wall was the very poor consistency in rules language. This is a game, not an imagination book. Games have their own structures and rules language. Pathfinder and D&D in general appear to have been written with almost no effort to creating consistent language for rules. It's like every time someone comes up with an idea, they just write up some new rules for it rather than looking to see if something similar has already been done. It reminds me of the old "engineer designed programs" which have an extra toggle switch, an extra menu option, or an extra entry field instead of trying to create any sort of unified UI or any sort of design pass to make sure they aren't duplicating a function in a way that is 99% the same.

Sorry for the rant, but as a newer player who has tried but failed to pick up the game several times, the denials that the game rules are unfriendly to new players (and not just the length) really looks like the old boys club sticking their head in the sand.

This rant also ignores the atrocious layout/organization of the books, which make sense for someone who has been playing for 20 years, but not so much for a new player. The beginner's box made an attempt to clean things up, but good luck having a chance of picking up the game without lots of mistakes if you try to switch to the CRB.

Caedwyr wrote:

I like imagination games. They are a lot of fun. However, one of the pitfalls that comes up in these games, is without a proper framework you end up having to rely on the personal balancing skill of the Teamaster/GM rather than allowing the Teamaster/GM to provide scenarios and in-world responses to the player's actions. It makes for a huge burden on the GM, and makes it extremely daunting for a new group. Our original plan was for rotating GMs, but all of the gentleman agreements and balancing the game offloads onto the GM means that people without a strong sense of balance and understanding of how the game functions cannot do the GM role. Or they feel extra stressed out. This has the unfortunate effect of in our situation preventing some of the more creative people from feeling like they can participate in the GM role and makes the GM role feel more like work. The GM has to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on balancing the game mechanics and fixing problems from the game rules rather than spending that time on crafting cool scenarios and characters. In other game systems (board games, CPRGS, card games) the rules are well understood and following the rules is the responsibility of the entire group.

One attraction of TTRPGs is the freedom to do things that the rules/computers don't anticipate and having a GM there to adjudicate. The problem is how frequently it isn't something that arises for an odd edge case or corner case, but fundamental aspects of the game design.

I want to be able to be inspired by a movie or a story and to have a game framework that lets me play out an alternate storyline in one of those settings with a group of friends. What I have gotten instead is a system that requires almost as much work on the part of the GM in balancing everything rather than just spending their time with helping the story along and coming up with awesome plot twists as the GM works through what might be happening out of the eyes of the players.

Caedwyr wrote:

Ever watched a movie and said "well, why don't they just do X obvious solution to their problem?" That's the problem with the APs. The game gives you a set of abilities and capabilities and most APs can't deal with what the game provides when someone with even a modicum of problem solving skills and no blinders/gentleman agreements. In which place, why are we playing this imagination game when the rules are heavy, inconsistent and can't even tell the story you want to tell without lots of unwritten assumptions. It wouldn't be so bad if the developers explicitly called out stuff that won't work or things that will need to be removed to work, but it is very rare that they take that step. Even more irritatingly, they will frequently act as though the problem doesn't exist, or it is some sort of personal failing on the player's part if such a problem arises.

Like I ranted above, this makes the game very new player unfriendly and presents an unwelcoming old-boy's club for the community of players who play the game.

Essentially, I was a new player at the beginning of Pathfinder. I was really into it, purchased lots of books, found a group of friends who were willing to try things out. But the system defeated us. The burden on the GM to prevent the basic mechanics of the system not fall apart is extremely high, which leaves less time for coming up with cool stories and scenarios. The Beginners Box is a step in the right direction, but as soon as you progress beyond it you start running into all sorts of problems. Even with the Beginner's Box there are still all sorts of unstated assumptions baked into the system.

As for something like PFS, a quick look at the threads on this forum and the attitude of the PFS GMs will show an incredibly unappealing 'my way or the highway' approach. There's lots of "expect table variation" for what appears to be straightforward mechanics of things that aren't even disruptive to the rest of the group.

So, the TLDR, is if Paizo intended to make the game easy and approachable for new/casual players, they are not succeeding. There are so many unwritten assumptions and conventions that experienced players aren't even aware they follow that the new player will be entirely ignorant of that they can easily derail a game or get it bogged down in confusion over the rules. I really hope there is a cleanup of the rules whenever a Pathfinder 2.0 comes out, because I really like the potential of the system.

Christopher Dudley wrote:

I love the series, and still consider it the best TV SF I've seen. I think it's worth viewing to see how to construct an epic storyline that spans years with the goal visible from day 1. However, there are enough failings about the show that I have decided that it is much better to have watched Babylon 5 than to watch Babylon 5.

Because of the budgetary constraints they constantly ran into, it was the show that made me realize that when an actor appearing on screen has a line, you have to pay them more. I didn't realize it until it became a recurring clunkiness that there were so many awkwardly silent bit parts on the show. I think they could have done better on that.

** spoiler omitted **

Maybe that's just me.

One of the things I've read about the series, is that due to budget constraints they did not have much ability to do reshoots. Towards the end of the series, the actors would come in in the morning, get in costume, do a readthrough of the script on the sets, break for lunch, film the scenes, get out of costume and be finished by 5pm most days.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Well, I've come to the conclusion....Just kill them. That is the best your going to get.

Hopefully you have some sort of daemon familiar that will eat it's soul so it can never come back.

There needs to be like an antimagic collar like the a'dam from the wheel of time.

Depending on the caster's level, it can be better to keep the caster unconscious rather than dead, as dead could trigger a clone to activate or some other way of coming back from death. Then again, incapacitation could be a trigger for some of the caster's contingency... so you really need to have done your research or have multiple redundancies in your methods of restraining the caster. At lower levels, this is going to be less of an issue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
People have been begging Paizo to errata the simulacrum spell since Pathfinder was still in the playtesting stage -- even some of the most rabid fanboys have started threads specifically for that purpose. Paizo has consistently refused to do so.

I don't think they need to. I'm of the opinion that I can tie my shoelaces without waiting for Paizo approval to do so.

There are GMs perfectly happy with the spells as they are. Other GMs like PFS, simply ban it. Others like myself, modify it as needed on a campaign by campaign basis. Freedom of Choice.

Following this design philosophy is a good way to make the game unfriendly to new players/GMs and groups who do not have a bunch of experienced experts to guide them through it. You'd think that they'd want to at least include a sidebar alerting GMs to the issues the spell might cause and ways they might want to help control those issues. Maybe the lack of that information is a deliberate form of gatekeeping, but it's a decision I continue to be surprised that a business intentionally makes since it limits their playerbase. Note that this doesn't just apply to the Simulacrum spell, it shows up in lots of other areas of the game.

To the OP, if you want a list of how crazy you can get with the spell, check out the Standard Level 20 Wizard thread for some zaniness.

1 to 50 of 2,727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.