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

Charender's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,073 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,073 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

All that said.
#18 Use a d12 when rolling for initiative, because feats like improved initiative and having a 20 dex mean squat when you have a 40 point swing on opposed rolls, and that lonely d12 never gets used.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

There have been many quotes of the essay on magic item pricing which uses the ring as its example.

And then say, 'See! It is 10,800gp therefore it is command word activated!'

Er...nope. It is 20,000gp, and you can't infer anything from that.

Although some have posted with their opinion of whether at a certain price the ring was 'worth it' or not, I'm only interested in the price as an excersise in reverse engineering.

I 'know' that the hat of disguise is command word activated, because I can plug in the final price (1,800gp) to the formulas for both command word and use activated to see which it matches. It matches command word, therefore it must be command word.

I do the same for the ring, and it's much more expensive than either formula, so the reverse engineering doesn't give you an answer to the command word/use activated question.

There was the essay on magic item pricing. It says the 20,000 was arbitrary, because being able to use it over and over again negates the disadvantage of the effect ending when you attack. Well, this would be true for both command word and use activated, so that doesn't help.

Why would creators ever create their items as command word activated when they could just as easily make them activated by a silent act of will? Especially a stealth item like the ring! The answer is that it's cheaper; you get a 10% discount for making it command word activated.

Okay, I'm creating a ring of invisibility. How much does the use activated version cost? 12,000gp. How much does the command word version cost? Only 10,800gp. Brilliant! I'll get the cheap version and save 1,200gp! Er...no...it's actually 20,000gp.

Oh! Well in that case, I might as well have the 'use activated/silent act of will' version! You'd have to be insane not to!

Given these circumstances, it's not credible that any command word versions were ever made at all.

It is worse than that. People keep refenrecing the pricing discussion, but the price was set during 3.0.

In 3.0 the duration of invisibility was 10 rounds / level.
In 3.0 the cost of a Use-activated item was Spell Level x Caster Level x 2000, which means the price for a use activated ring of invisibility would have beem 2 x 3 x 2000 -> 12000. So 20,000 is still more than a use activated ring of invisibility would have been.

The price has been 20,000 since 3.0, if you want to even try to reverse engineer it, you have to use all of the 3.0 rules.


thejeff wrote:
Charender wrote:

Ok, I had to look that up, because it really bugged me. Here is a complete list of all of the changes through various editions that have affected the Ring of Invisibility.

2nd ed or earlier. Wear ring to activate. Last forever. Breaks on attack, but cannot turn back on for 1 round which is 10 minutes.

3rd ed
- 1 round changed from 10 minutes to 6 seconds.
- Ring changed to use activated
- Duration of invisibility changed from 24 hours to 10 min/level

3.5 ed
- Duration of invisibility changed from 10 min/level to 1 min/level

So 3.0 changed the item from infinite to 30 minutes per use. 3.5 changed it from 30 minutes to 3.

Note that the changes in the item from 2E to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.5 were not explicit. The change in duration is not mentioned, but has to be derived from the change in language about how it works like the spell.

And most in this argument would say that the ring in 3.0 & later is not "use-activated", but "Command word". :)

Agreed, but command activated at 30 minutes per use is still a lot more viable than 3 minutes.

This feels more and more like an issue where the item has not changed, but all of the rules around the item have with a net result of nerfing the crap out of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I had to look that up, because it really bugged me. Here is a complete list of all of the changes through various editions that have affected the Ring of Invisibility.

2nd ed or earlier. Wear ring to activate. Last forever. Breaks on attack, but cannot turn back on for 1 round which is 10 minutes.

3rd ed
- 1 round changed from 10 minutes to 6 seconds.
- Ring changed to use activated
- Duration of invisibility changed from 24 hours to 10 min/level

3.5 ed
- Duration of invisibility changed from 10 min/level to 1 min/level

So 3.0 changed the item from infinite to 30 minutes per use. 3.5 changed it from 30 minutes to 3.


#8 Make Fighting defensively just work like combat expertise(so it scales with level), and change combat expertise into a feat that lets you add half your int modifier to your CMB and CMD(minimum of 1). Stop the feat tax!


I would rule it as
1 pound per point of AC.
Item must be of masterwork quality, but does not get the -1 armor check that most MW items get.
10% chance of divination failure per point of AC if worn.
If placed such that total concealment is given, tower shield or magic item hidden under the armor, then divination fails.


BigDTBone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Gauss wrote:
I wonder if the Devs read threads like this and just laugh at us fighting like dogs over a tiny bone.
I think it is more like why do so many read the rules so pedantically?
Because the game has over 2000 pages as rules content. A certain amount of pedantry is required. This is doubly so when a ruling comes down that changes someone's understanding of the rules.

Or when the ruling explicitly changes the item from how it used to work in older editions.

I have been playing since 2nd ed, and I don't go out a read FAQ religiously, so this thread is literally the first time I have even had to consider that things changed, because the wording of the RAW alone really didn't make it seem like it worked any differently.


A well built bard can be very sneaky and conniving, and with bardic performance + arcane strike + a bow, you are not completely useless in combat.


It seems like that would be a good optional archtype, because....
1. Not every bard uses sound. There are several non-sound based perform options.
2. A lot of bard abilities do rely on influencing thoughts and emotions.


Just a note. I would not give the slotless item doubling to an item that must be held in your hand. That is not a slotless item.


thejeff wrote:
Marco Polaris wrote:
Perhaps I am naive, but wouldn't a transgender PC not want magic to alter their body? I thought that a transgender was someone who wanted social and cultural recognition as a member of the opposite perceived gender without changing their sex--that someone who wanted to be the other sex as well as be recognized as the other perceived gender was a transsexual. Did I get that mixed up?

Terminology is tricky. I believe transgender was originally a broader term covering both and some other related things, but it's become the preferred term for many people.

It's worth bringing up though that some people don't actually choose to alter their body or not to alter it beyond hormonal treatments. The trans-iconic may or may not be one of those. The only change referred to in the backstory is a HRT analogy.

Some of that is likely because of the imperfect nature of current surgery, so more would probably take a complete magical transformation, but some might well opt not to.

Well, the imperfect natures of it, and the irreversability. In fantasyland, you cast a spell and poof you are a new gender. If you realize that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the gender fence, you can switch back just as easily.

Also, the various magical disguises allow you to try on a different gender a lot easier than you can in real life.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jayder22 wrote:

That is the thing though, In the books, the A'dam doesn't give control. Well, it gives limited control as in, cannot leave from this spot, and cannot channel etc. But the Sul'dam cannot force the Damane to channel a certain way. She can only give pain repeatedly until the Damane breaks/gives in and does what she wants.

The male A'dam is a different thing entirely.

I'm on the second to last book and every detailed description thus far seems to indicate that there's a greater degree of control than that. At minimum there should be some sort of low level telepathy so the two linked people effectively act as one.

Maybe....

Spoiler:

Also remember the dirty little secret that the Sul'dam are all latent channelers. This means that the A'dam may actually be forming a link between 2 channelers or it could be that after working with another channeler for a long period of time, the linking just happens naturally.


Ravingdork wrote:
Charender wrote:
Teleport as written in RAW cannot bypass a desert that the players have never crossed.

It absolutely can, provided the location they are teleporting to is one they are familiar with. (They could have previously gone around the desert, or through a portal, or any number of ways to get to point B without having had to go through the desert).

Now, if your goal is IN the desert that you've never visited, then you will have a harder time of it.

But that's just me being pedantic.

The bolded portion was meant to imply that the players have not seen the location they are trying to reach.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charender wrote:

There were multiple question, scry and fry was one of them, but lets take your desert journey example...
1. Has the party wizard seen anything on the other side of the desert? No.

Yes. Elrond was there, on the slopes of Mt. Doom, when Elendil fell and Isildur cut the ring from Sauron's hand with the shards of Narsil.

And teleport spells do not exist in LOTR. My point was that returns trips in fiction often get abbreviated, so it is perfectly ok narrative wise for the teleport spell to make the return trip faster.

Teleport as written in RAW cannot bypass a desert that the players have never crossed.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Charender wrote:
B. I have already pointed out multiples ways to stop scry and fry by RAW. Apparently having a evil wizard with superhuman intelligence actually act like a person with superhuman intelligence is somehow trying to screw the players.

I think the problem here is that the original question was "why would they go on a long desert trek full of danger when they could just teleport past it?" Note that "just teleport past the desert" is not the same as "scry and fry the final boss". They might teleport past the desert and then have to get into the bosses base using other methods.

You're talking about warding the bosses base like it's reasonable, and it is. But teleporting past the desert rather than taking a long, potentially dangerous, and really itchy journey is also reasonable. If the boss can't teleport-trap an area the size of the desert then teleport is till a better idea than walking. And if the boss is smart and can teleport-trap an area the size of the desert, then there's no reasonable plan for the PCs - they're going to lose and there's no point even trying to take that boss down.

Basically, if you have teleport and long range scrying the "long desert journey" campaign is pretty much out. And as long as everyone knows that it doesn't have to be a problem. But if the GM is like "oh no, I statted out this entire desert because it had not occurred to me that you would bypass it with teleport! Now that you have decided to use the spell that is part of your class mechanics and hence something I tacitly approved when you chose the spell, I will punish you!" well, that's bad.

There were multiple question, scry and fry was one of them, but lets take your desert journey example...

1. Has the party wizard seen anything on the other side of the desert? No.
2. Does anyone in the part know someone on the other side of the desert they can scry reliably? No.
3. Does the party have any was to view something on the other side of the desert? No
4. Under these conditions, can the party teleport across the desert? Nope.

This is my point. Your hypothetical party can only teleport across the desert if you do not enforce the restrictions already on the teleport spell. At best, teleport would allow for a quicker return trip, which line of with fiction. In LOTR, the trip to Mordor took 3 books, the return took like 2 chapters.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Charender wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.

Using the spell creation rules, you could make a spell that functions exactly like Hallow, but limited in that it only allows you to attach a spell to an area for a year(the other 3 effects of Hallow are removed). Since the spell is basically a weakened version of Hallow, that would put it at a level 4 spell. Combine with diminsional anchor, and you can ward an area for a year the cost of 2 4th level spells. A level 7 wizard could ward quite a large area in a month's time.

Which is great - problem is since it didn't come already written in core or splat any DM who writes up such a spell is resorting to GM fiat and arbitrarily trying to "screw the caster".

At least that's the mentality directed towards people who want to reign in power or try to eliminate win buttons.

A. I would let my players create the exact same spell if they wanted to. It is a balanced spell, and if both the players and the villains have the spell how am I trying to "screw the caster"? DM fiat is when you only let the bad guys have all the fun toys.

B. I have already pointed out multiples ways to stop scry and fry by RAW. Apparently having a evil wizard with superhuman intelligence actually act like a person with superhuman intelligence is somehow trying to screw the players.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
stuff

So running a 5 minute session where players try to do stuff, and automatically succeed at everything they attempt, and thus easily defeat all villains in the world is fun?

If you are allowed to change genres with a "Nun is preganant" ploy, why can I not switch to the drama genre with a "No, she is faking it to cover up her torrid affair with the head nun".

You seem to be running under the assumption that challenging the players and giving them temporary set backs is somehow not fun or that what is fun for the players is the only consideration in play.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Nicos wrote:


BUt I want to comment about the "narrativist approach". Rewritting everything because the PC made a bad decision (teleporting or traveling by land, or whatever really) just diminish the value of this style. It does not matter what the player choose because everything will be accommodated to be "fair" for them. The player made a decision, the world react to that decision in whatever appropriated,done.

I think you may not understand the narrativist style. Narrativist style gaming is not about "fair," but about "fun."

It may help to think of a narrativist group as a group doing improvisational theater. The point is to react to what everyone else in the group is doing in an interesting way. If I'm on stage and the girl in the nun costume announces "I'm pregnant," I might have to abandon my really funny oneliner about the local political situation, because the show's just turned into a sex comedy.

Similarly, if the girl in the wizard costume announces "we're teleporting to Mordor," the appropriate thing to do is to lose the Moria skit because it won't be needed. No matter how much work I put into that marvelous Balrog accent.

The problem with that approach is when teleporting into Mordor is either A. not possible by the rules or B. a really bad idea because that is exactly was the villain is expecting.

If you are dealing with a smart opponent, then you have to assume that they have through of the easy and obvious things, and try the things they may not think of, like say sneaking into Mordor the back way through a deathtrap guarded by a giant demon spider.

I may not get to use my awesome Balrog voice, but the player telling me "Why don't we just fly into Mordor on eagles?" would get a response of "Roll a DC 10 wisdom check" followed by "Do you thing the master of Mordor has flying forces of his own, and don't you think you might be a tad bit obvious?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:


So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.

Using the spell creation rules, you could make a spell that functions exactly like Hallow, but limited in that it only allows you to attach a spell to an area for a year(the other 3 effects of Hallow are removed). Since the spell is basically a weakened version of Hallow, that would put it at a level 4 spell. Combine with diminsional anchor, and you can ward an area for a year the cost of 2 4th level spells. A level 7 wizard could ward quite a large area in a month's time.

This all ignores that to teleport, you need to have viewed the area once. Lead sheeting blocks scrying, so if the area is shielded, then the only way you can teleport in is to have actually been there before.

All of that is RAW. One of the biggest problems with magic in Pathfinder is that DMs are not enforcing the limits on spells that are already in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Charender wrote:
So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell.
Even better! And another good example of how magic acts in a believable fantasy narrative -- that is, it has limitations. And what self-respecting BBEG would spend years creating a lair, and not put a sheet of lead lining in the walls? Of course, if your players read every detail of a spell, and use it to their advantage, that's "good play". If a BBEG does the same thing it's called "DM Fiat". Makes no sense to me.
I do agree with you on this. Way too many players think it's cool when they manipulate the details of the magic system and the individual spells, but get huffy when the DM tries doing exactly the same thing. I also think that far too few DMs actually run spell users as a player would, feeding the viscous cycle.

Well there is also the problem with adversarial DMs. A lot of players cannot tell the difference between a DM who uses good system mastery to challenge them and a DM who uses arbitrary rulings and unlimited resources to crush them. This is especially true in the middle of an encounter.

I make it very clear that anything I do can be done by the players. Usually once I explain the rules of why something doesn't work, my players realize they can do the same thing, and they are ok with it. Do this for a while, and you build up trust with your players.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charender wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Any spell that is better than teleport trap would therefore have to be at least seventh level and probably higher. Making it cover a substantially larger area, enough that you can't even teleport "near" the BBEG's stronghold, should be at least an 8th level spell.

Unhallow with an attached Dimensional Anchor says hi.
Forty foot radius. But that's a good catch.

For a year. You could easily protect an entire castle with a half months worth of spells.

The bigger point is that a level 4 spell Dimensional Anchor is capable of defeating level 5 or higher spells like teleport.

By RAW, you can easily stop players from using scry and fry with just Unhallow, Dimensional Anchor and lead sheeting


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Zalman wrote:


Bottom line is this: if a 5th-level spell is powerful enough to transport a party across the world to a specific location, then the "guidelines" for spell creation should allow for an equal-and-opposite effect by a spell of the same level.

I can use a first-level spell to inflict the dead condition on a creature -- therefore, the guidelines should allow a first-level spell to remove it?

Your "bottom line" is nonsense, and fortunately the designers didn't follow it.

Defense is usually more difficult than offense, because the offense has the advantage of knowing exactly where and when the attack will be made. (Re-read your Clausewitz if you don't believe me.) The larger an area you are trying to defend, the harder it is, of course.

If you want to make a 5th level spell that will stop a single teleport attempt that you designate at casting time, that's easy enough to do. If you want to make a spell that will stop any and all teleport attempts over a long period of time, that's substantially more powerful an effect than 5th level.

So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell.

Spoiler:

Scrying: a scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. The sensor, however, is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus functions normally even if you have been blinded or deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.

Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Really, the only gaming approach where teleporting shouldn't work is some kind of hard-core simulation where there is way more anti-teleportation effect than there is in pathfinder. So, house rules. And that's not unreasonable as a notion, but the players shouldn't be surprised OOC to find out that their options are suddenly shut down.
It's not really house rules. New spells can be created by anyone, by the book (page 219 of the Core Rulebook), and why wouldn't a BBEG trying to secure a stronghold create all sorts of new anti-teleportation wards?

Because there are rules, or at least guidelines, about how new spells work. And the first guideline is to look at the existing spell list and make sure it's balanced.

Any spell that is better than teleport trap would therefore have to be at least seventh level and probably higher. Making it cover a substantially larger area, enough that you can't even teleport "near" the BBEG's stronghold, should be at least an 8th level spell.

If we're talking about a group of 9th level characters, they shouldn't be going up against an opponent capable of casting 8th level spells. (That caster is a CR+5 encounter at a minimum, not counting minions or environment.)

The alternative is that you're being horribly adversarial, to the point I'd consider it outright cheating. ("Oh, yes, he's developed a new first-level spell that does 10d6 of fire damage to every opponent within 1000 feet. Reflex save to reduce the damage to 9d6.")

Unhallow with an attached Dimensional Anchor says hi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Abilities that act as if you are X sizes larger do not stack with each other. This is because if you are medium, having 2 abilities that act as if you are 1 size larger would both make you act as if you are large, but since they do not actually make you large, they cannot stack because they are both operating on your actual size.

2. Abilities that change your size do not stack with each other. I believe that all of these abilities are polymorphs which explicitly to not stack.

But abilities that actually change your size will stack with abilities that makes you act as if you are larger.


Weirdo wrote:

I'd agree that this would work better as a one-time thing than a regular campaign feature. It's a neat idea, but you don't want the party constantly finding loot they can't use, whether that's because out of alignment/race/class restrictions or just because no one in the party wears heavy armour and all the BBEG have full plate.

Charender wrote:
One problem with this is that UMD specifically allows you to mimic any race when activating items. So even if you made the activation something that only X race can do, UMD still allows a human to emulate it close enough to activate the item.

The race restriction on items is more like a magic DNA test: an orc (or half-orc, or human with Racial Heritage Orc) who is raised among humans can activate an orcs-only magic item.

In the case of a Shibboleth command item, the biological identity of the user is not as important as the cultural identity - a human raised by orcs, without a drop of orcish blood, would be able to activate the item, but a full-blood orc adopted by humans would not have the correct accent.

A UMD may indeed still be useful in activating the item, but in terms of flavour it would be more like a "blind activation" task because the command word is, while not quite unknown, alien enough that you have to guess around a bit with the pronunciation (assuming you can physically produce the sound; if not you need to get creative).

My point was that if you can bypass magical restrictions on your actual race, then getting around hard to pronounce words should be easier.


Trogdar wrote:
So all the dex fighter needs is the twf feat tree, three feats for dex to damage, and three ranged feats... This doesn't seem like a lot of feats to anyone else? I mean, this is completely nonviable on anything other than a fighter unless you want to have it play out at super high level when, incidentally, the martial classes become more and more marginalized by the games changing nature.

TWF only requires 2 feats: TWF, and Improved TWF(at level 6). Greater TWF is optional as it is a minor increase in DPR.

Dex to damage only requires 1 feat: Weapon finesse. The other feats are just ways to allow you to use weapon finesse with other weapons.

You can make a dex based TWF paladin work just fine with just these 3 feats and agile weapons. Having a dex to damage feat just eliminates the need for agile weapons, and thus lets me start closing the damage gap with a str character sooner.

Pick up Piranha strike, and I am solid in melee, and now I have to option to either...

Pick up more feats to becomes better at melee(IE weapon focus, two weapon defense, etc.)

OR

Pick up a few archer feats to become a better rounded character(point blank shot, rapid shot, deadly aim)

If I go the second route, I will be a better archer than any str character could ever hope to be.


Aelryinth wrote:

A TWF Dex fighter is the best comparison vs a TWF Str fighter. And since he has a higher AC, he doesn't suffer the poor AC that's the lot of the 2h and TWF styles.

A comparable is the Sword and Board builds, but the AC and saves of the Dex fighter will have the edge, in the end.

A 2h Dex fighter can do well, but will lag in damage even if he has better defenses.

So that's why you see the TWF Dex builds...it looks the best vs Str.
---
And WEapon focus is a feat tax...as people have said, there's better ways to get a +1 to hit, except you need this for (dum dum dum) other feats, esp the weapon spec tree.

==Aelryinth

The problem with this is the dex requirements on TWF feats. A Str based TWF will eventually need a 19 dexterity if they want to get all of the TWF feats. A Dex based TWF will already have a 19 dex and then some. This is why I like to compare the Dex TWF to a Str Two-hander.


One problem with this is that UMD specifically allows you to mimic any race when activating items. So even if you made the activation something that only X race can do, UMD still allows a human to emulate it close enough to activate the item.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

Can we pick a position and stick with it? It's rather hard to make a counterpoint when there's a completely different argument every time I post. Are dex builds:

1) Superior at low levels, but strength catches up later.

2) Slow to start, but then catch up once agile weapons are available.

3) Equal and low levels, and superior later.

How about

4) More complicated than all of that. I have mostly been pointing out the advantages of dex builds, since the str advantages have been pretty well covered.

With the current RAW
At low levels, Dex builds will have a significant defensive advantage over STR builds, while STR builds will have a significant damage advantage. At level 1, I can hit 18-20 AC with a dex build while doing 2 attacks at 1d6 damage with a +3 to hit. With a strength build, I can get 2d6 + 12 with a +7 to hit, but end up with an AC of 14(yay, barbarian rage).

By the time the dex builds start to catch up to the str builds in damage, the str builds have the opportunity to catch up in AC, init, and reflex saves via feats and equipment. This happens around level 6-8.

At level 10, things are pretty balanced, but dex builds have a clear advantage in init and reflex, and there are no feats left for the str build to take to close the gap. The str build maintains a damage advantage, but only in the absence of party buffs. From this point on, the dex build stays on par in damage(especially in a group setting), and gets increasingly better init and reflex.

By level 15, the dex build is usually on top, but most campaigns are over or winding down at this point, and the advantage isn't huge. Also, this is comparing highly optimized built from scratch builds, which is not how campaigns generally play out.

TLDR: Dex builds are currently 2-5 levels of suck damage with high defense to be all around stronger at higher levels.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

If you want to talk about levels 1-3, then at low levels the feat expenditure for being a dex character is downright punitive, and the magic item route is (obviously) not available. If you want to two weapon fight with dex-to-damage just using feats, you'd have to have:

Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Slashing Grace
Two-Weapon Fighting
Exotic Weapon Prof (Aldori Dueling Sword or Sawtooth Sabre)
Piranha Strike

Even if you're running a human fighter, it'll take a while to get all of those. Plus further the rest of the TWF feats down the line. One of the big advantages of swinging a two-handed weapon has always been the comparative lack of feat taxes. Power Attack is pretty much it. I can think of plenty of used I could find for those five extra feats.

Not to mention that Greater Magic Weapon doesn't grant the DR penetration of a proper enhancement bonus. And DR already hurts TWF-ers more than it hurts a character with fewer, harder hits.

FYI, Weapon Focus and Pirahna Strike are a wash since a two-hander will be getting weapon focus and power attack as well. Exotic Weapon Prof. and slashing grace are not a requirement for TWF, because Kukri's get the job done just fine. The only feat tax on TWFing is TWF, Imp TWF, Greater IWF. Also, note that Greater TWF is considered optional because it is a minimal DPS gain. The only feat tax on dex to damage is currently weapon finesse. That is only 3 feats, 4 if you created a general dex to damage feat. The real hit to the dex TWFer right now is having to enchant 2 agile weapons. -1 to hit and damage on both weapons hurts quite a bit, and you don't get those weapons until around level 6-8, which oddly enough is about the time when strength fighters are getting access to all that nifty armor that helps them make up for the difference in AC.

There are plenty of other ways to get around DR in a group setting: Golf bag approach, Penetrating strike, Weapon Blanches, and spells like align weapon. If DR is slowing you down significantly, you are probably doing it wrong.


Nicos wrote:
Charender wrote:
Dual wielding light weapons is one of the best dex based options
Enchanting the two weaposn is also more expensive than the diference beteween heavy armor and light armor.

And what about at level 1-3 when no one has magic weapons or armor?

At level 1, you have 100-200 gold.
Strength character has 13-14 dex with an 18 strength. 100 gold gets you a chain shirt. for a 15-16 AC.
Dexterity characters have a 18 dex. Of have for the same 100 gold I get a chain shirt too and have an 18 AC or they can spend 10 gold on leather and have a 16 AC.

Once you hit level 5 or so, you have enough WBL to start getting the exact equipment you want, but starting out, Dex characters have a significant wealth advantage. This is another places where YMMV. Level 1 is the only time you have complete control over your character's gear. Once the game starts, the campaign and pacing may dictate what gear is available to you.

Having to enchant a second weapon is one of the few reasons why TWF damage lags behind a two-hander, but depending on party composition, you may not need to enchant a second weapon(Greater Magic Weapon).


Secret Wizard wrote:

Charender, the best STR-based characters have methods to move at full speed with heavy armor. Dwarfs, dwarf-heritage, Fighter levels, or spells that allow it (like the Rangers').

Also, Piranha Strike is only good if you dual-wield light weapons or only use one. It is useless if you use Spiked Chain, Elven Curved Sword, Scimitar, Rapier, Dueling Sword, etc.

The STR fighter will deal incredibly more powerful crits thanks to Power Attack scaling, but the bard thing is true.

So basically, you have to be a level 7 fighter who doesn't swap out armor training, a dwarf(with an inherent 20 foot move), burn a feat, or burn resources. Heavy armor is still more expensive. I would say that dex characters still have a massive advantage here.

Dual wielding light weapons is one of the best dex based options, but if you absolutely need power attack, a 2 level dip in ranger gets you power attack without needing to have a 13 strength. Otherwise, piranha strike will get the job done.

STR fighter may get bigger crits, but the TWF will give you more frequent smaller crits. Big crits also give you more overkill, which is a loss in damage dealt. I am more than willing to call it a wash.

Also, in addition to bards, look at a TWF paladin or a normal TWF fighter's damage when a paladin uses their group smite.


Kazumetsa_Raijin wrote:
Charender wrote:
Right now, I feel that the balance is in a good place, dex characters have better defenses, but they do slightly less damage.

Honestly, I agree. For only 4 more points of AC/Reflex/Init, we miss out on some stupendous Str damage multipliers and Feats/Feat requirements. I'm sure there are a plethora of other trade-offs too(like MAD characters, it helps a lot). I feel it's a fair or decent trade at the least.

I really just wish Weapon Finesse gave us both the ability to use Dex Mod with Attacks on One-Handed/Light Weapons, and/or Dex-to-Damage with those weapons. It'd be nice if it was just knocked down to One feat cost, instead of having to do these silly multiclasses/feat-taxes to go with the norm.

Actually, I think that the balance is in a good place with the current RAW(IE no general dex to damage feat). I can use agile weapons, feats like dervish dance, or certain class abilities to gain dex to damage, but I generally take a hit to my damage output in doing so that balances out my character not needing strength.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some things that seem to have been overlooked thus far
1. For a strength character to match a dex character in AC they will have to use heavier armor. A character with a 14 dex or less will be looking at heavy armor which will give you a movement penalty even if you make it mithril. Not being able to make attack due to movement restrictions is a huge DPS loss. Also, heavy armor is generally more expensive than light armor, when means the strength fighter has less WBL for other things. The movement penalty and initial cost of armor are both major reasons for me favoring dex character over strength ones.
2. Saying that a strength character can take a cloak of resist to shore up their low reflex saves is irrelevant. Almost every character is going to take a cloak of resist.
3. A dex character can get away with a 10 strength(thank you piranha strike), a strength character generally needs a 13+ for their dex because they still need it for AC and access for feats like dodge.
4. Scaling. At level 10, with a standard build and belt of std/dex +4, you should have a 24 to your dex or str. The strength character will have maybe a 14 for their dex. That means the dex character has a +5 init, +5 reflex save, +5 AC. The best the strength fighter can do without losing movement is mithril breast plate(4350gp, +6AC) for a total of +8 AC. Meanwhile, the dex character grabs darkleaf studded leather(925 gp, +2 AC) for a total of +9 AC. If the strength character grabs improved initiative and lightning reflexes to mirror weapon finesse and the dex to damage feat, they are still -3325 gold, -1 initiative, -3 reflex, and -1 AC compared to the dexterity character. More importantly, the gap will only grow as the character go up in level, because the strength character will focus on gaining strength, and the dex character will focus on dex.
5. Games are not played in a vacuum. TWF characters are generally 10% behind strength character in damage on their own, but a TWF or feral fighter(IE lots of low damage attacks) gains a lot more damage from a bardic performance than a two-hander. A lot of two-hand builds are already hitting on a 2+ with their opening attack with power attack, so they don't benefit as much from raw pluses to hit like bless and good hope or being turned invisible via improved visibility. Meanwhile, a lot of defensive buffing spells overlap with bonuses from equipment(ring of protecting overlaps with shield of faith for example). On a well rounded character, it is usually easier to gain offense that it is to gain defense.

Right now, I feel that the balance is in a good place, dex characters have better defenses, but they do slightly less damage.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:

I think there are a few different ways a person could be neutral. But I also think that by far the most common is people who believe that they're good, and think of themselves as good, and even try and do good things fairly often...

...just not quite often enough. People are really good at being selfish. And really good at lying to themselves. And really good at persuading themselves that this selfish thing they're doing is totally not selfish and totally something they're doing for the sake of someone else.

Of course, they're not thieves... but they will help themselves to a bottle of booze that's sat around unattended. After all, someone's lost it. Or they wouldn't steal from anyone who couldn't afford it... but this time? This one time? This specific person clearly can afford it, so it's okay! And never mind that that happens every fortnight. And they'd never f$$* up a friends relationship! But it was obvious that that last partner was a bad idea, so they were just helping the friend see it. Or they're not corrupt, but everyone knows that some free drinks now and again is just a perk of the job. Or they're not cruel, not sadistic! But sometimes they're in a bad mood, and they lash out, and it's not their fault because they'd had a few drinks and everyone knows what they're like after a few drinks.

So I think for most people the path of neutrality is the path of making excuses for your own petty selfishness, but keeping your selfishness petty enough that you can still excuse it.

I would add that one of their justifications for being selfish or petty is, "I am been a good boy lately, I can't be nice all the time." They do good, but like the bad things it is a lot of little things that don't really add up to much.


One thing that I did not see specifically mentioned would be what I have seen referred to as the innocent alignment. That are similar to animals in they do not have the capacity to understand moral choices. Unlike animals, they simply have not developed the capacity yet.

They may a concept of right and wrong in that they can register that you did something wrong to me, but they are not yet capable of understanding altruism or malice because they haven't internalized the concept of others having thoughts and feelings like themselves. Basically children, a man raised by wild animals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was DMing a campaign, and we had a sequence where the party was trying to save a group of clerics from a pair of assassins. The assassins had infiltrated the clerics and were taking them out, and the party was getting frustrated. It was a tense cat and mouse game that evenutually blew up into an all out battle. The results of the battle were a draw. 2 clerics and the party druid dead in exchange for one of the assassins. The other twist, the assassins used a potion that caused people killed while under its influence to have spell resistance against resurrections, so the party druid was looking to be dead for good. We were about level 14, and the druid was an integral member of the party, so his loss would be keenly felt.

The assassins were paid lawful evil mercenaries, but they were not going to keep the contract to the death. They were also twin sisters. So, the living assassin really wanted her sister back, so she met the party and offered a trade, her sister's body intact for the antidote to the anti-ress poison. I take the body, and you never see me again. Mind you, the assassins had racked up a pretty impressive body count of clerics at this point, so the thought of just letting them walk was a hard thing to stomach.

So basically, save your friend to let a cold blooded killer live again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Could you elaborate on "physical representations"?

Sure.

Extracts
The alchemist uses prepared casting mechanics for their extracts. But since the extracts are physical objects in the fiction, it doesn't seem weird that you'd have to decide how many of each you make in advance.

If I make two loafs of bread, it isn't weird that I can make them both the same kind or each a different kind. Nor is it strange that I have to decide in advance what kind of bread I'll want.

And it's intuitively obvious that, if I made a variety, I can eat all the sandwich bread and still have french bread for dinner. That's just how objects work.

Extracts feel the same way. "The red ones are healing, the clear one is true strike. I can use all my healing without touching true strike. And if I don't use true strike at all, it'll just go bad."

Clerics
Looking at the average cleric: they pray in the morning, selecting an array of spells, and later in the day can call on those exact spells (or spontaneous healing).

So you can cure three curses, diseases, or cases of blindness/deafness. But you have to choose exactly which in the morning and how many of each.

That seems pretty strange as the default flavor for miracle workers. Running out of juice is understandable, but making tactical decisions about the miracles you need for the day feels really weird.

Now, some real world faiths prepare charms, incense, prayer scrolls, or other single-use items. It'd feel pretty natural in those cases, hence what I was saying about physical representations.

Cheers!
Landon

I would go a step further. The fact that clerics "Cast" spells at all really kills it for me. Gods are powerful beings with goals, and the divine magic system takes the power away from the god and basically makes them into the clerics little magic genie. To make matter worse, you have Wands of Cure light wounds. "Yeah, I just stored my god's divine power right here in this wand for anyone to use...."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Haladir's method is how I handle it as well. CHA score has absolutely zilch to do with physical appearance.

Same here.

I've even considered divorcing the social skills from Charisma and making it a 'Power' stat used for all spells and spell-like abilities and such, so it's purely an internal power measurement rather than the odd amalgam of things it is now.

This especially make sense when you look at all the stats and realize that the physical and mental stats mirror each other.

Wisdom = Mental Constitution
Intelligence = Mental Dexterity
Charisma = Mental Strength

Strength is about getting the physical world to do your bidding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I give the bonus of Combat Expertise for free, then I modified the combat Expertise feat to something different.

Combat Expertise - Req. Int 13, Add half of you intelligence bonus to you CMB/CMD, minimum of 1.


Something else is item commissioning. People are used to I going to Wal-mart, and if they don't have it, they don't have it.

Even today, a lot of special or rare items are comissioned. IE, I find a craftsman, I pay him 20-30% upfront, then I come back a month later, pay him the balance, and collect the item.

Once you get past the basics, a lot of shops simply cannot afford to keep rare goods in stock. A holy avenger +5 is worth more than most medium sized towns, no shop is going to keep that in stock just incase a wealthy paladin wanders by.


As a general rule, you can only gain a bonus from a particular stat once no matter how they are typed.

Gaining wis and dex to damage, yes.
Gaining dex to damage twice, no.


Cuttler wrote:

Looking at the thread I wondered if the actual conditions was not overlooked.

People argued about whether a natural 20 always succeed. I believe that the conclusion that a natural 20 is critical success is sound and right.

However, have we really looked at the right condition for success?

Let's look again at the definition of parry as submitted by the OP:

Parry:
Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss. Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks. At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action. To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses. For each size category that the attacking creature

(emphasis mine)

Parry is not rolling an attack against an ac, it's rolling against another attack roll. Parry seems to work if the defender's roll is higher than the attacker's roll. It doesn't require to succeed to hit against something.

so does it really matter if it's a natural 20 or not? In the end, by RAW, it requires to be higher than the other one's attack roll.

So, following this reasoning, if both have a natural 20, it doesn't matter, the one with the highest bonus total attack roll) wins....

Or another example: if attacker rolls a nat 20 (an automatic hit)with a +2 bonus to attack roll (total 22) and the defender has rolled 18 with a +5 bonus to attack roll (total 23), then the parry (23) should beat the attack roll(22. Yes the attack roll succeeded, but the parry worked also since it only required to have a higher attack roll than the attacker.

In the end, does it matter if the attacker succeed at hitting with or without a natural 20. In...

Spoiler:

Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

The parry is clearly listed as being an attack roll. Attack rolls are subject to the rule of 20 which mean that a 20 is an automatic hit. In this case a hit would be interpreted as a successful parry. The rules would be bloated if they listed every place the rule of 20 comes into play, and how it works in that particular instance. Hence why we have a general for the rule of 20.

The problem is that there are 2 interpretations of what a 20 means on the attack roll
1. The attack is a hit no matter what
2. The attack is a hit no matter what the target to hit number is.

The problem with interpretation 1 is that it is already well established that a 20 on a hit roll can be negated by concealment. How is a successful parry roll negating a 20 to hit any different than concealment negating a 20 to hit?


DPS, Ranger/Alchemist by Charender — DPR — Haste = DPR, +1 Attack =, +1 hit = DPR, +1 dmg = . DPR — Errors: Ignored = 715 gp over; Brew Potion/Craft Magic Arms & Armor useless feats; Need attack break out since Dervish Dance only helps the Scimitar attacks so -1 STR mode for all natural attacks has strange interaction with Power Attack

The wealth by level can be fixed by going to +3 Mithril Breastplate.
The -1 damage from strength can be fixed by swapping Charisma and Strength.

Not going to repost for multiple reasons
1. It uses self cast Heroism
2. There is some controversy on exactly how many attacks an Alchmist can get, this build uses the most liberal interpretation.
3. I can get more DPR using dual wielded agile weapons instead of dervish dance, making this build somewhat obsolete.
4. Vivisectionist is now banned in PFS. When I originally made this build, it wasn't.

That said, it is a nifty trick to use 2 levels of ranger to get power attack and full martial weapon profiency in a pure dex build.


Marty the Master Summoner

Spoiler:

Master Summoner
Male True Neutral Human
Summoner (Master Summoner) 10
Strength: 8
Dexterity: 18 = 14(base) + 4 enhancement
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 14 = 13(base) +1 from level
Wisdom: 10
Charisma: 22 = 15 base +1 from level + 4 enhancement + 2 racial

Hit Points: 73 HP
Initiative: +6
Attack Bonus: +7/+2 (melee: +4/-1) (ranged: +11/+6)
Fortitude Save: +9 Reflex Save: +10 Will Save: +10
Armor Class(with barkskin and combat expertise): 28 (touch: 20) (flat-footed: 21) CMB: +6 CMD: 26

Feats & Traits: Arcane Strike, Armor Proficiency (Light), Augment Summoning, Combat Expertise +/-2, Dodge, Extend Spell, Great Fortitude, Simple Weapon Proficiency - All, Superior Summoning, Focused Mind, Reactionary

Special Abilities: Summoning Mastery V (11/day) (Sp), Aspect (Su), Eidolon Link (Ex), Hero Points (1), Lesser Eidolon, Life Link (Su), Maker's Call/Transposition (2/day) (Su), Share Spells with Eidolon (Ex)

+1 Longspear (+5/+0, 1d8 damage, crit 20/x3)
Magic Items: MW Longspear(305 gp), Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4(16000 gp), Cloak of Resistance +3(9000 gp), Headband of Alluring Charisma +4[16000 gp), Ring of Protection +3(18000 gp) = 59305 gp

Spells: Barkskin (2), Bull's Strength, Mass (4), Detect Magic (0), Dimension Door (3), Enlarge Person (1), Glitterdust (2), Guidance (0), Haste (2), Heroism (3), Invisibility (2), Light (0), Mage Armor (1), Mage Hand (0), Magic Fang, Greater (3), Message (0), Overland Flight (4), Read Magic (0), Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser (1), See Invisibility (2), Shield (1), Unfetter (1), Wall of Ice (3)

Eidolon

Spoiler:

Male True Neutral Serpentine
Strength: 10 (0)
Dexterity: 22 (+6)
Constitution: 12 (+1)
Intelligence: 7 (-2)
Wisdom: 10 (0)
Charisma: 11 (0)
Acrobatics: +10
Escape Artist: +10
Fly: +12
Perception: +15
Stealth: +25

Hit Points: 28 HP
Initiative: +6
Attack Bonus: +5 (melee: +5) (ranged: +11)
Fortitude Save: +2 Reflex Save: +10 Will Save: +4
Armor Class: 23 (touch: 17) (flat-footed: 17) CMB: +9 CMD: 19 (flat-footed: 13)

Feats & Traits: Weapon Finesse

Special Abilities: Darkvision (60 feet), Scent (Ex), Damage Resistance, Fire (10), Climbing (20 feet), Flight (20 feet, Good), Tail (Ex), Evasion (Ex)

•Bite (Bite) (+13, 1d4+2 damage, crit 20/x2)
•Tail Slap (Tail Slap) (+6, 1d4 damage, crit 20/x2)


Augmented Summoned Lion
Spoiler:

Male True Neutral Lion
Strength: 25 (+7)
Dexterity: 17 (+3)
Constitution: 19 (+4)
Intelligence: 2 (-4)
Wisdom: 12 (+1)
Charisma: 6 (-2)

Hit Points: 42 HP
Initiative: +7
Attack Bonus: +2 (melee: +9) (ranged: +5)
Fortitude Save: +8 Reflex Save: +7 Will Save: +2
Armor Class: 15 (touch: 12) (flat-footed: 12) CMB: +11 CMD: 24 (flat-footed: 21)

Feats & Traits: Improved Initiative, Run, Skill Focus: Perception

Special Abilities: Low-Light Vision, Scent (Ex), +4 Stealth in undergrowth (Ex), Grab (Medium) (Ex), Pounce (Ex)

•Bite (Lion) (+9, 1d8+7 damage, crit 20/x2)
•Claw x2 (Lion) (+9 x2, 1d4+7 damage, crit 20/x2)
•Rake x2 (Lion) (+9 x2, 1d4+7 damage, crit 20/x2)


Note, I am hedging the rules here. 11 summons per day at 10 minutes per summoning means that the summoner can have 1d3+1 lions following them around for 110 minutes per day which is longer than the duration of a 10 min/level spell, so I am working on the assumption for this scenario that the summoner has 3 lions following them when the fight starts.

Round 1: cast mass's bull's strength, all the lions pounce
With Bull's Strength each lion does 20.8 DPR, a +1 to hit is 5.3 DPR, +1 to damage is 1.75, extra attack is 4.7.
The summoner gets 1d3+1 lions, so with an average of 3 lions, the summoner does 62.5 DPR, +1 to hit is 15.8 DPR, +1 dam is 5.3.
Round 2: Cast haste.
If the lion's can pounce again, they will do 29.2 damage each, +hit gives 6.0 more damage, +damage gives 2 DPR.
If the lion cannot pounce, the will do 10.0 DPR, +hit gives 3.7, +dam gives 1.2
Multiple by 3 for total damage.

Observations

Spoiler:

The character is primarily a group support character who can dish out some decent damage. The damage is pretty good, but if you look at the spell list, this character is also a huge asset to the other party members. With 28 AC, and 73 hp, a summoner isn't exactly squishy either, they can hang out near the melee, and give flanking bonuses.
The Eidolon is not a combat creature, but rather is designed to be a group scout with +25 stealth, +15 perception, and the summmoner can make it invisible/unfettered. As such, I have left the pet's damage out of the equation.

Given a round or 2, the summoner can easily summon more lions and their damage multiplies accordingly. This build multiplies it's damage for every round you have to prepare. If given unlimited rounds to prepare, the damage caps out at around 577.4 DPR(11 summons of 3 creatures each with 2 castings of mass bull's strength to buff 20 of them).

Since the damage is based on multiple creatures with lots of attacks, inspire courage really boosts the damage. With a level 10 bard in the picture, the DPR goes up to 93.8 per 3 lions.

Great action economy. Since all of the damage comes from summoned creatures, there is no opportunity cost if the summoner want to UMD a cure critical from a wand on the fighter in round 3. After buffing the summons, the summoner is free to sit back and do whatever the group needs them to.

In a party situation, it would probably be better to cast haste over mass bull's strength on round 1, but that is a loss in the summoner's DPR.

The summoner never attacks enemies directly, so you can do everything in combat with normal invisibility up.


Addendum: All lions have the potential to be celestial, so they could possibly Smite Evil on round 1 for an extra +5 damage on their first attack, and the numbers do not account for the 5% crit chance the lions have.
Edit note: reposting with the magic weapon dropped as the +1 spear is not part of the DPR calculations. Broke out the details of stat allocation.


Of course, sometimes there is the opposite. I was running a fearless barbarians type character with a newish DM. The campaign was set against the backdrop of a large war. We were low level, and 3 or 4 times in a row, we were force to retreat against the massive army of evil. It all felt very railroady. After we had put of a few levels, I just finally hit a point of eff it. I knew the DM wanted to and expected me to retreat, but my character was a warrior, and I was sick of running away. The DM was not good at winging it, and mass chaos ensued.

Another thing to remember, is that sometimes these people are playing their characters well, and their character will not back down even when you clearly communicate to the player that they should.


I go with a combination of
1. Warn the players at the beginning of the campaign that I use random encounters as well as pre-defined area encounters. This means that there is nothing that says that everything you encounter will within X levels of your party's CR. If you die trying to fight something that is way stronger than you, you will not be mourned.

2. Encourage knowledge checks, and use foreshadowing. Give the players tools to know when they are facing a really tough foe.

Between those 2 things, I have never had problems when players die due to hard fights, and the times they have survived have become the stuff of legends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gingerbreadman wrote:
Charender wrote:

Another thing that kills the druid thing(aside from the Beast Shap limits)

SRD wrote:


At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

Any stickler DM won't just let you polymorph into just any animal, it has to be something you have some familiarity with(as decided by the DM). Just because you have read about it in a rulebook doesn't mean that you character has any clue what it is. I would never let a player whose character has no knowledge of sea creatures polymorph into a dire shark.

This effectively limits your polymorph options based on your Knowledge(Nature) skill. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't make the knowledge check to identify it and you have never seen it in person, you can't polymorph into one.

That depends on how to define familiar. Could a devout follower of the old one in question be considered familiar with his god?

Someone that familiar would likely have ranks in the appropiate knowledge skill right? If they have enough ranks to make the check, then they have the knowledge. That is how knowledge skills work. If they haven't invested any ranks in knowledge skills, then I feel that, as a DM, I have plenty of ground to question their devoutness.

Player - I am a super devout follower of X.
GM - By devout, you mean you would give anything or do anything for them?
Player - Absolutely
GM - And By anything, that does include investing a few skills point to actually know a little bit about them, right?
Player - Uh...

To look at is another way...
Imagine you have a friend who claims to be a "huge fan" of baseball, but when you ask them questions about baseball they can't answer any questions that go beyond the basics(3 strikes, 9 innings, name of the nearest pro team, etc). Would you consider them to actually be a big fan of baseball or a poser?


LazarX wrote:
Charender wrote:

Another thing that kills the druid thing(aside from the Beast Shap limits)

SRD wrote:


At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

Any stickler DM won't just let you polymorph into just any animal, it has to be something you have some familiarity with(as decided by the DM). Just because you have read about it in a rulebook doesn't mean that you character has any clue what it is. I would never let a player whose character has no knowledge of sea creatures polymorph into a dire shark.

This effectively limits your polymorph options based on your Knowledge(Nature) skill. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't make the knowledge check to identify it and you have never seen it in person, you can't polymorph into one.

What I'm thinking of as a general rule is that you need to make a Knowledge Nature roll that's good enough to ask at least 3 questions for the beast whose shape you need to emulate. Appropriate DC modifiers to be added to creatures of environments you're not native to.

Either way, my point is that just because it is in a Bestiary somewhere does not mean the PC automatically knows about it. Even if there are bits of Bokrug in every spelcasting materials shop in Golaron does not mean that a player's character has any idea what that is or why it is useful.


Another thing that kills the druid thing(aside from the Beast Shap limits)

SRD wrote:


At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

Any stickler DM won't just let you polymorph into just any animal, it has to be something you have some familiarity with(as decided by the DM). Just because you have read about it in a rulebook doesn't mean that you character has any clue what it is. I would never let a player whose character has no knowledge of sea creatures polymorph into a dire shark.

This effectively limits your polymorph options based on your Knowledge(Nature) skill. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't make the knowledge check to identify it and you have never seen it in person, you can't polymorph into one.

1 to 50 of 3,073 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.