Acererak

DeathSpot's page

Organized Play Member. 471 posts (480 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Biztak wrote:
can one make a full attack action after foolhardy rush?

Yes, you can. You've used an immediate action, so you don't get a swift action, but you can certainly make a full attack.

Liberty's Edge

bigrig107 wrote:

Evil does NOT have to be selfish.

At all.

Just out of curiosity, how do you have Evil without including selfishness? Isn't that part and parcel of the definition?

Liberty's Edge

Wizard, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, and meatshield.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cthulhu was around before Gygax. He's THAT old.

...also, am I the only one who thinks 'Gygax' fits right in as a name for a Great Old One?

Liberty's Edge

Jeven's got it right. Give the PCs some headaches figuring out how to transport all that cash around.

Side note: I vaguely remember playing in a PFS scenario (or maybe a module; it's been a while) a couple of years ago where one of the treasures was a bag of 2500 gp in a swamp, that an NPC had dropped there when he was killed or kidnapped or something. That's 50 pounds of gold, that a peasant or some such was just carrying through a swamp. Because fantasy worlds not only don't have to make sense, they're specifically prohibited from doing so.

Liberty's Edge

First, a question: do you want the players to win easily? If so, don't bother changing Karzoug's spells or tactics, or anything about the Eye of Avarice. Trust me, he's not as tough as the book makes him seem, especially to strong ranged characters.
If you want it to be a challenge, you may want to change K's listed spells. All of his spells are from the CRB; giving him some from the later sourcebooks (even if it's just the APG, UM, and UC) can really beef him up. Fickle winds comes to mind immediately, of course.
Another thing to change: when I played through it, the GM made one change to the environment that made our task much tougher: he had Karzoug set the Eye so that magical (non-winged) flight was impossible for anyone but him. PCs who wanted to fly had to change to a winged form, with all the attendant headaches involved. Made a huge difference, as his giants didn't really need to move much to be effective anyway.
Another thing I'd change is to make each current square of the map a 10' instead of a 5'. This assumes you're using the Anniversary Edition, not the original. All of K's giant allies may be squeezed by the current map (suffering movement and attack penalties; not sure why Paizo didn't notice this in their update). Gives the giants more room to maneuver and makes the PCs take longer to get to K, making the fight last longer.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Radar is often used to AVOID hitting things.

Liberty's Edge

Pappy, that's exactly what I'm wondering. Can I use AMF to protect me from WoS? Both are spells, and both specifically state that they suppress any other spell (with the exceptions listed in the spells, neither of which is either spell). Either AMF suppresses WoS, or WoS suppresses AMF, or both suppress the other (not really possible to my thinking), or neither suppresses the other (except the wording of both spells says they'd suppress the other).
Claxon, you're not quite right on my situation: I'm walking along (with bull's strength up, and come across a WoS. I cast AMF (which, btw, is centered on me, not stationary) and walk through the WoS. What happens to the bull's strength?
A strict reading of AMF says it would suppress the WoS while it's in the AMF's area of effect. A strict reading of WoS says it would suppress the AMF for 1 round/level. Both of those things...can't happen. I think. One should win. I don't know which.
Now, there's also the bit Claxon mentioned about two or more AMFs sharing the same space, and how they don't affect each other. But they're...not exactly the same. WoS has an additional effect. And neither is called out as being immune to the other.

Liberty's Edge

Except WOS suppresses spells for a number of rounds after the objects/spells leave it, whereas AMF only suppresses while in the area of effect. That, to me, is an important distinction.
Here's the key question: let's say I have bull's strength up, cast AMF, then walk through a WOS, then a round later, dismiss the AMF. What happens to the bull's strength? Is it unaffected, because the AMF suppressed the WOS? Is it suppressed by the WOS, because the WOS suppressed the AMF and all other spells I have up? The two spell effects have conflicting actions here. Can I use AMF to get by a WOS without losing all the spells I have up? And yes, I know AMF is a lower-level spell, but there are innumerable instances where a lower-level spell neutralizes a higher-level one.

Liberty's Edge

*bump*

Seriously, nothing? Both spells specifically state that they suppress any other spell they come into contact with. That...can't be right. One will have to lose. Yes, WOS says it doesn't work on higher-caster-level spells...but what if it's the higher-level one?

Edited to add detail.

Liberty's Edge

Franko, it seems to me that your primary goal here is to make money, not save time. The more money you have, the easier the game gets. That's all. If it gets too easy, congratulations: you just won Pathfinder. Now none of the other players at your table will have any fun. Hooray. Why would you want a game you can't lose at? Why do you want that? Why not just cheat at solitaire?
Trust me, it gets boring quick.

Liberty's Edge

"Yo mama so dumb, not even awaken works on her."

Liberty's Edge

What happens if I cast antimagic field, then walk through a wall of suppression? Does the AMF get dispelled? What about any spells I have up that are currently suppressed by the AMF? Do they go away? Or does the AMF protect everything inside it from the WOS?

Liberty's Edge

Tirq wrote:
On one hand, one shovel blow to the face shouldn't hurt the average superhuman Player Character... but on the other hand, it is a Wizard, they're not exactly known for being meatshields...

Whaddaya mean, wizards don't have meatshields? That's practically a class feature!

...oh, wait. You said being a meatshield? Urg. That's...gross. Dude, seriously, get some help. Blech. Talk about unnatural. Don't ever even think that way.

Liberty's Edge

28 people marked this as a favorite.

DM says: I let him play an evil character to give your paladin some roleplaying opportunities.
DM means: He's my friend and you're not. Also, I hate paladins.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, but can you change it after someone else posts? Huh? Can you? Not so tough now, are you?

Liberty's Edge

Yes, it is. But so is everything else in the world, depending on where you're standing.

I thought this thread would be a rant about how the other player's making a Lawful Stupid paladin and all that. Instead, it was just a 'I wanna have PVP even if I say it's not gonna be' thread.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what you never see on these boards? A story about how a paladin and an antipaladin got along just fine and the players liked it so much they're going to do it again. There's probably a reason for that.

Liberty's Edge

Me, I think the easiest way to deal with diseases in Pathfinder is the way the devs have it set up: either you're immune, or you're not. It's a GAME. It's not supposed to accurately model reality. Sheesh.

Liberty's Edge

If you're looking for the earliest level at which you can fly, then the druid mentioned above is as good as any. If you're looking for flying as fast as you can, it'd be hard to beat wind walk.

Liberty's Edge

Some early thoughts on this:
1. Incendius cannot take all of the Expanded arcana feats you've given him. Specifically, he cannot take more than one of the level 8s, because he'd only gain access to that as his second-to-last feat.
2. The planetar is inside the prismatic sphere, and thus cannot have shield other active, as the sphere will block line of effect for the spell. Likewise for other spells. And the planetar can't cast through the sphere, or get out of it to cast without being affected by it.
3. You've given Incendius both a rod of absorption and a Staff of the Master. If he's holding both, he doesn't have a way of performing somatic components. Maybe invest in a glove of storing?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...um, yeah, I guess that's technically within the rules. But don't. Because yes, it creates a problem; using that method can give you essentially unlimited wealth. While that seems cool at first, you'd destabilize the game to the point is isn't worth playing any more. After all, why play a game you can't lose?
As a GM, I'd tell a player that tried that, "Congratulations, you win Pathfinder. Now go play something else while the rest of us have fun."

Liberty's Edge

Blood money wrote:
Material components created by blood money transform back into blood at the end of the round if they have not been used as a material component.

That's why.

Liberty's Edge

Nothing is safe. Everything will kill you, especially in PFS. That said, yes, you can have a +4 or lower bonus to your casting stat...it'll just make creatures a bit more likely to resist. If you're casting save-or-suck spells, you'll be a bit less likely to succeed the first casting. So what? How many martials (for example) kill a creature with their first attack?

Liberty's Edge

I'm of the other opinion...unless you're going to ban gunslingers as a class in your game, why restrict them from making a full attack like any other martial class, regardless of what their chosen weapon is? If gunslingers can't make a full attack, why are they a full-BAB class?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The basic thing to hash out with your GM and the other players is whether they're going to try to make your paladin fall. If the GM is, you'll fall no matter what you try. Now, if you're okay with that, carry on. If not (and it seems that way from the tone of this thread), then you need to work out a compromise where you can play the PC you want and the other guys can play the PCs they want without too much conflict. If the other players are playing evil PCs so they can make a paladin fall, you might as well not bother playing a paladin...unless you want the challenge of trying to stick to the straight and narrow anyway. I wouldn't want to do that, but I'm not you. Anyway, talk it out before you play, and figure out what you - as a group - will find fun.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, I'd forgotten the 'away from you' bit in the rules as well. While I'd certainly house rule that a caster could include himself in an area-effect spell, it does seem to be RAW that he cannot.

Liberty's Edge

As far as 0-level spells, a wizard gets all of them at first level, so you don't need to include them (Sorcerers, as second-class citizens, don't really deserve good spells, so they can have, uh, drench, breeze, scoop, and root. And they can like it). As far as other spells...I'm not going to argue about what should be left off the list, because everyone's different; here's what I'd include that you didn't:

First level
Ant haul
Illusion of calm
Ray of enfeeblement

Second level
Blood transcription
Pilfering hand
Stone call
Touch of idiocy

Third level
Arcane sight
Ray of exhaustion

Fourth level
Acid pit
Emergency force sphere
Obsidian flow
Wandering star motes

Fifth level
Contact other plane
Mind fog

Sixth level
Cold ice strike
Legend lore
Sirocco

Seventh level
Firebrand
Hungry darkness

Eighth level
Incendiary cloud
Prediction of failure

Ninth level
Fiery body
Icy prison, mass
Spellbane
Suffocation, mass

Liberty's Edge

Yes, you need to have an OOC discussion, but you need to include your GM. You also need to ask some or all of the following questions: who made their PC first, you or the gunslinger? Why did the GM allow one when the other was already there? Were you (even unintentionally) being the jerk by deciding to play a paladin when there were already evil PCs in the party? Can you either change your play style to accommodate them, or do they need to play different alignments? Is the GM going to make you fall for associating with evil? You're all playing this to have fun, and you're not going to do so if one side of this is going to be deliberately messing with the other.

Liberty's Edge

Yes. The caster can pick any corner of his/her square to be the starting point; no reason he or she cannot choose one that does that.

Liberty's Edge

Leave. Leave. Leave leave leave leave leave leave leave.

Seriously, if the GM is onboard with him being an asshat, take whatever other players are fed up and go game somewhere else. It'll be a pain at first, but you'll be glad you did. This isn't an in-game-solvable issue, or, very probably, an out-of-game solvable one, short of leaving.

Liberty's Edge

Xaratherus wrote:
As a related aside (and this isn't directed at the OP), keep in mind that adamantine does nothing to bypass hardness against objects with hardness of 21 or higher. The moment you hit hardness 21, the first 21 points of damage from an adamantine weapon is 'ignored' just as if the weapon weren't adamantine at all.

Adamantine ignores hardness less than 20, not 21 (emphasis mine). An adamantine weapon doesn't bypass the hardness of an adamantine object or creature, any more than a steel pick would bypass the hardness of a steel wall.

Liberty's Edge

[

LazarX wrote:


The mount can't pounce unless it ends it's movement on the intended target. Ride by essentially prohibits the mount from attacking AT ALL. You can choose one of the two, not both.

Why? RBA just says you can continue the movement after your attack. Why can't your mount finish its movement with a pounce? Nothing in RBA says anything about not getting closer to the target, or restricts the mount in any way other than the charge requirement, which is already a pounce requirement.

Liberty's Edge

Hungry darkness is just awesome, unless you're only 13th level when you use it. No save, and automatic Con damage? Yes please! And even better, there's the fact that enemies in it need to either move slowly or risk falling because of the darkness. Dazing hungry darkness is just being mean, though.

Liberty's Edge

I think if you've got a reach weapon and your mount doesn't have reach, you can pull it off. Your mount charges, you attack when you hit the 10-foot point, and then your mount finishes its movement (admittedly, only five feet) and pounces. What am I missing?

Liberty's Edge

What's a paladin's favorite TV show? Fall-ty Towers!

Why do paladins make bad farmers? Because they always let their fields lie fall-ow!

What's a paladin's favorite game? Fall-ow the leader!

Who's a paladin's favorite comedian? Jimmy Fall-on!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a more in-depth example of what makes prescience so awesome: let's say I want to use dominate monster against a creature with spell resistance. I roll my free d20 at the start of the round, and if I roll well, I know in advance that I'm going to beat its resistance. If I roll poorly, I'll simply spend the round buffing my meatshields or use a different spell. Knowing the outcome of what you're going to try is huge.

Liberty's Edge

Also keep in mind that most wizards only have two hands, which means that if you take a bonded wand, staff, or weapon, you cannot cast spells if you're trying to hold something in your off hand, because you no longer have a hand free to cast with. So use of, for example, a persistent rod is right out, unless you're casting a spell with only verbal components. You'd still be able to use a still rod, though.

Liberty's Edge

First off, true strike is a personal spell, not a targeted one, so it can't be used in a spell-storing weapon. In general, though, I'd require a standard action to deal damage to oneself, especially for the purposes of using true strike. I'd allow it as part of a full-attack action if the character had a sufficiently high BAB, and then grant the +20 on the next attack in the sequence.

Liberty's Edge

Of course not, Jiggy. The FAQ is wrong. SKR says a wizard with an Int of 18 gets bonus spells at "spell levels 1, 2, and 3."

...what about 4?

Edit: Also, how do we go about telling Paizo there's a slight error in the FAQ?

Liberty's Edge

Forcecage + hungry darkness. Because if you're not a caster, you should die horribly.

Oh, and a neat thing about hungry darkness: if you cast it at 13th level, you're automatically in the area of effect. Better wait 'til 14th level.

Liberty's Edge

You also need to keep in mind that there are different penalties for moving through a threatened square versus an opponent's space. Moving through a threatened square provokes an AoO if the Acrobatics check is failed; moving through an opponent's space provokes an AoO and you lose the move action. So, while you might not provoke the AoO from an opponent that doesn't have Combat Reflexes (if it has already taken the AoO from your sidestep), you'd still be stuck in an adjacent square if you failed the CMD+5 check.
I might even let a PC try this...but I'd certainly require a second acrobatics check.
Also also, since you're moving at half speed, that 5 feet of movement sideways would cost you 10 feet of movement, and the diagonals would cost you 15 feet each. You'd be at 40 feet of movement when you got to the other side of the opponent, not 15. Without something that lets you move faster than the 30-foot base speed, you'd need to double move to even try this (and thus end your turn if you fail).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's Evil. That's all there is to it. Now, if everyone signed on to play an evil campaign, then no big deal. If not, then you have to figure out where to go with it. I'm personally of the opinion that the GM ought to step in and tell the players (yes, players; this needs to be an OOC discussion) to either play a good party or expect to be hunted down and killed like any other bandits. If they're going to do evil stuff, they're the bad guys. And we all know how that story turns out.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're having trouble with hit points being unrealistic, how do you justify magic at all? I'm not asking this to flame you, I just think that if you're having trouble with one aspect of the game, you may be having (or be going to have) trouble with others. Perhaps, rather than scrap one of the core tenets of the game, you'd be happier either with a shortened lifespan (think E6 or the like), or perhaps a system that tries to be realistic (GURPS or the like). Pathfinder and it's predecessors, while born of a mass-combat system that moduled realism, are not themselves in any way realistic, nor do they pretend to be.

Liberty's Edge

I'd also be sure to have the improvised cannon make a Fort save to avoid bursting. Stone doesn't make a very good cannon; too brittle.

Liberty's Edge

Dread Knight wrote:
A Elf, was slain. The Human claims the Gnome is guilty. The Gnome says the Dwarf did it. The Half-Orc swears he didn't kill the Elf. The Dwarf says the Gnome is lying. If only one of these speaks the truth, who killed the Elf?

Who cares? The stupid elf's dead; dibs on his sword!

Liberty's Edge

Hang on...it's a revolver, and only lasers go "pew pew pew."

Also, I agree with the old explanation about one attack per six seconds. That said, I also also have no problem with tossing real-life examples out the window in favor of game balance.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spike.

"Why'd you name it Spike?"
"Cuz dat what it eat. Duh."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making some sort of mark, so I can find this later (there ought to be a shorter way to say that...maybe some sort of internet-slang thing...somethng that plays on the whole 'dot-something' structure).

Liberty's Edge

What are you saying? There aren't any telephones in Golarion. You could use any number of spells to do the same thing, though.

1 to 50 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>