|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Smoothness of movements, types of movements, sounds it makes, odd smells (elves don't usually smell like rotting flesh), etc.
I mean, a skeleton in full armor is going to be making a lot of noise. The only thing the armor is touching is bone, and that's going to rattle around a ton because it's not properly resting on anything useful.
Might even be a decent maracas stand in. I imagine the Dirge Bard would love that.
I thought this was pretty nice and filled in some gaps with the divination sphere. Especially interesting is the Sensory Overload talent, which lets you use the divination sphere for offensive purposes. It takes you and them out of the fight, but that could still be pretty useful if you're purely focusing on divination.
What do you think would be the best sphere for some sort of object reader? Enhancement would fit, but bestow intelligent specifically calls out "not knowing what happened before it became intelligent". Divination kind of sort of fits, but that's not really checking out the objects so much as standard divination stuff.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Today, Paizo announces Pathfinder, The Toaster(tm), the newest way to bring the excitement of Pathfinder and the giddy flames of goblin kind to a breakfast near you. With exciting toast burn configurations such as "Ezren's Chin", "Griddle of Opposite Germination", and "Runetoast", breakfast will never be boring again!
Just some thoughts:
One of the main problems that I see with the cleric is that it's trying to shoehorn all sorts of practitioners of deities into one chassis. A cleric of the god of magic shouldn't have the same abilities as a cleric of the goddess of battle, but for the most part, other than ~4 relatively minor abilities they are going to have the same sort of things going on.
The best case would probably be one class per god with different powers based on the deities themselves, but that's a lot of work.
I could also see a system sort of like the playtest Vigilante or the summoner's eidolon. Pick a deity, or concepts, and that will restrict you to a number of talents you can select as you level up. Have them be level gated, and share them among deities. That way you get to select things to customize closer to your deity, without having to come up with 20 different classes. Of course this runs into the same problem the holy vigilante ran into, where not every cleric makes sense to be a full caster, so how do you handle that sort of thing?
I know that the person who created the Potions chart for the GMG mistakenly added a number of personal potions to the list. He made a post that basically said "Whoops, my bad, sorry. They shouldn't be on the list" after it was brought up, as personal potions are not meant to be a thing.
There's also a FAQ about personal alchemist extracts given out using Infusion, as that bypasses the rule of no personal "potions".
Just because there are stats for 0-HD races doesn't mean they are meant to be player races. Strix, etc are not meant to be player races but they have 0 HD stats.
Also, technically Drow Noble has the first level adjustment, it's just baked into the CR adjustment. And they also aren't meant to be a player race.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
Based on the actual feat text, yea, it seems fairly obvious that it was banned for power reasons and a huge expectancy of table variation.
Spend 1 feat, acquire the most valuable resource in pathfinder: an extra set of actions.
Did your GM also cause a ruckus in your character's mansion while you were skipping the session, and you're now wondering how to rebuild it using the lyre of building in such a way that you can just take 10 and breeze through it without spending skill ranks?
With the caveat that I totally wanted this to be the case so I probably ignored some good arguments against it, I reasoned that such an expensive item would be masterwork, even if the rules aren't explicit on that. I mean, when was the last time you found a shoddy magic item whose whole point wasn't that appearances can be deceiving?
Second caveat that I found out while researching this post: I wrote a magic item for one of the Player Companion books that explicitly called out the base object as masterwork. So, foiled myself again.
So, in the course of 5 minutes, I just defeated my prior reasoning and found out that I need to find a way to get +2 to perform (strings).
Weapon enhancement bonuses cost double the equivalent armor bonuses, so using the same multiplier for both is a silly thing to do. I could see an argument that it shouldn't be twice the unusual armor formula, but given that the attack bonus portion of an enhancement bonus is by far the most important part of it, I wouldn't say anything beneath a multiplier of 1.8 is fair to use. The ability to overcome DR is irrelevant, as they'll have magic weapons.
The main value of such a ring is that it essentially takes your iterative attacks from "might hit" to "one will hit", essentially giving an extra attack at your full BAB.
Hurray, more rocket tag.
I was toying with the idea a while ago of converting the wizard into either a 6th level caster or reducing the number of spells per day in some way. The most interesting classes to me are the 6th level casters that get lots of unique class abilities that tie them to their theme, and while I can certainly see how spell selection is meant to be like that, there's some big difference that I can't place my finger on.
Basically an attempt to make all schooled-wizards different from one another.
You have to go through a lot of effort to actually create a character that "isn't viable". People routinely play at a power level above what the game was built for, and that provides a huge buffer space. You'll do fine, and magi that aren't the bog-standard-cookie-cutter dervish dancer with intensified shocking grasp do just fine in the game, especially with a competent GM.
Warning: product pimping in this post.
So, I'm kind of in love with this concept, having created the fairly popular inspiring commander cavalier archetype from Rite, the Exemplar brawler archetype already mentioned, the Vanguard slayer archetype, etc. The whole concept has been one of my favorite things since I got into PF.
Recently, Linda Zayas-Palmer and myself released the General class under Legendary Games, and as far as I know, it's the first class that actually gets a group of people under their command. In this case, it takes the troop mechanics from a certain Adventure Path module that takes place on the planet Earth and makes them work for a player-controlled entity.
They also do pretty well at the role of leader in mass combat, so I'd put that class forward as the master of war :)
I'd usually recommend comparing against a CRB only fighter to start, and then including other books later on to see how it'll compare in a real game. I have some rough computed DPR-per-levels here: Optimized CRB only fighter and Non-Optimized CRB only fighter. It's important to note though that the power creep of martials is very real, and, for example, just including gloves of dueling increases the fighter's DPR by like 20%.
I personally do not like comparing things to an archer fighter, because I find archery to be way too overpowered for the investment, and using that as a baseline will just further bring the levels that devolve into rocket tag to a lower level.
Pretty crappy, actually. Then you'd find out first hand all the inconsistencies in the game, and eventually due to having to hold so many contradictory rules in its "brain" at once, you'd be traipsing through a kobold warren one night and suddenly the robot's head explodes.
And there's a good chance that would ruin your beer, not to mention your night!
Remember that almost every single rule in the game is written from the perspective of a humanoid of standard size. Even with a nice Acrobatics score, an elephant in the game cannot jump without crushing itself, as that's what would happen in reality.
Chances are pretty good that your GM is not a robot.
DM Beckett wrote:
Basically the boat I'm in for one of my groups. People don't want to learn anything new, so we're stuck with PF and just MAY try a game of 5e in that group.
Of course, the one time we tried Savage Worlds, everyone thought it was much more complex than PF. No, it really isn't. It's like a fifth as complex. You're just used to 3.X and have internalize all the rules.
This FAQ calls out the Intimidate skill as something separate from fear descriptors, saying they are both fear effects. I take this to mean that Intimidate does not shut down a psychic spellcaster, but it is a wee-bit splitting hairs when the idea of the restriction is that you are mentally assailed.