RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,671 posts (3,768 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 8 aliases.
This conversation about rudeness reminds me of the scene in The Exorcist (novel) where...
Spoiler:
...a priest dies of a heart attack while attempting to exorcize a demon, prompting the demon to complain how rude it was of the priest to leave in the middle of their battle of wills.
I actually bounced this idea around with Gary the other day when we were going over the 520 toll bridge. I have a Good-To-Go pass that automatically renews when it gets down to a certain amount. I have no idea if this is feasible or not on paizo.com. We have certain restrictions on how and when we can bill things. I will bring it up though and see if it is feasible.
I believe the point of the hypothetical gift card subscription is that it doesn't automatically renew based on the gift card balance. Instead, the gift card subscription would increase the gift card balance by the same amount each month, regardless of gift card balance. (If it only renewed when the balance was low, it would be identical to paying directly with a credit card, since every gift card purchase would immediately trigger an identical credit card charge to re-up the gift card balance.)
D&D uses Vancian spell casting. Always has (there's a few odd classes out, like the Warlock, sure). Ever since 1974...
There's scads of other RPing games that use spellpoints or many other spell systems. Why try to change D&D to something it isn't?
*Consults OD&D Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry*
Yep. There's point-based psionics in original D&D, appearing in the same sourcebook which first introduced demons. That's right, point-based psionics have been a part of D&D for as long as the game has had demons.
In fact, as of this post, there are more editions of D&D which include point-based psionics than there are editions of D&D which include a race of creatures officially named "demons."
If adding point-based casting to D&D is changing it into "something it isn't," I guess you aren't playing D&D anymore if your character encounters a demon.
I do understand that folks out there want one single ruleset to rule them all, but that's not the way RPGs work, frankly. They are best when they shift and evolve and change to meat each individual game group's preferences and tastes.
Please forward the above quote to whomever at Paizo keeps insisting that all new spellcasting mechanics must use spell slots. :P
@Bardess: I've already done multiple gemstone creatures with the elemental subtype.
@DungeonmasterCal: I can address three of your requests immediately: I've already mentioned what stats I'd use for the fossergrim; "nokken" is just another name for the nix, which appears in Bestiary 3 under nixie; and the Vampire Cat of Nabeshima would be a hengeyokai vampire, or a lycanthrope vampire if you want it to turn others into cat creatures.
@Matthew Shelton: If you are referring to my dragon sovereign template which creates humanoid dragons, the template applies to creatures with the dragon type and does not change them to another type.
I am wondering. Would the Build Point rules become part of the SRD, so I could include them in documents for a homebrew setting that I make publically available?
The BP rules are already Open Game Content. In fact, at least one 3PP has already published a product which includes them.
...an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots.
An infusion that is destroyed is "used." "Used" means "no longer available for use [by anyone]," not "activated."
I know I've seen one from Purple Duck Games, and I'm fairly sure there are one or two others out there. If you don't have access to those, here is a quick inevitable bloodline I slapped together:
Inevitable Bloodline:
One of your ancestors was taken apart and rebuilt by the construct-like lawful outsiders known as inevitables.
Class Skill: Knowledge (planes)
Bonus Spells:detect chaos (3rd); tongues as a 2nd-level spell (5th); hold person (7th); locate creature (9th), mark of justice (11th), true seeing (13th), dictum (15th), shield of law (17th), imprisonment (19th).
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell of the summoning subschool, the creatures summoned gain DR/chaotic equal to 1/2 your sorcerer level (minimum 1). This does not stack with any DR the creature might have.
Bloodline Powers: As you advance in level, you gain powers resembling those of various inevitables.
Energy Bolt (Su) Starting at 1st level, you can unleash a ray of electricity as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. This ray deals 1d6 points of electricity damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Inevitable Resistances (Ex): At 3rd level, you gain DR 5/— against nonlethal damage and a +2 bonus on saving throws against disease and poison. At 9th level, your DR increases to 10/— against nonlethal damage and you saving throw bonus against disease and poison increases to +4.
Energy Blast (Su) At 9th level, you can unleash a blast of thunder and lightning once per day. This 20-foot-radius burst does 1d6 points of damage per sorcerer level. Half of this damage is sonic damage and the remainder is electricty damage. Those caught in the area of your blast receive a Reflex save for half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier. At 17th level, you can use this ability twice per day. At 20th level, you can use this ability three times per day. This power has a range of 60 feet.
Regeneration (Ex) At 15th level, you gain regeneration 5 (chaotic). Once this regeneration has healed 5 points of damage per sorcerer level, you lose this ability until you next regain your sorcerer spell slots. You can supress or resume the regeneration granted by this power as a free action.
Inevitable Apotheosis (Ex) At 20th level, you are more construct than living creature. Although your type does not change, you gain immunity to disease, nonlethal damage, paralysis, poison, and sleep. You also gain a +4 bonus on saving throws against mind-affecting spells and effects.
I don't know how big is the market for it, but I think that if Paizo would do such a game, it could get all the customers from the tens of retro-clones that are already out. I hear Castles & Crusades is doing pretty well.
Now imagine Paizo doing a high-quality product, full-color paper, WAR drawings, the works, with streamlined old-school rules.
I could make a list of class abilities and their value 1 - 3 or 1 - 5, you could simply use this list to pick a class, but then trade out appropriate abilities as you see fit.
I essentially do this. I use packages of equivalent class features as points of reference when designing new archetypes.
The name Dungeons and Dragons is in the public domain due to its wide use, so it was fair game...
Just a friendly heads up: the name "Dungeons and Dragons" is not in the public domain; it is a registered trademark, which is about as far from public domain as you can get, with even more protections than a copyright. If you use the name "Dungeons and Dragons" in a way Hasbro doesn't like, they have the right to sue you, and they will win.
@+5 Toaster: Take another look at the halfblood template I just made for you; it already allows you to make half-inevitables. (Just grab a 3PP inevitable sorcerer bloodline and use it when applying the template.)
@Ascalaphus: A large bear wouldn't be a new monster. As for plant familiars, I skipped them in my familiar-themed post because it's easy enough to allow several existing plants as improved familiars: leaf leshies and vegepygmies at 3rd level; fungus and gourd leshies at 5th level; and living topiaries with the young template at 7th level.
Man, I disagree about Big Bang Theory's portrayal. While it's not incredible negative, I still feel like it's mocking D&D and Nerds (like everything else in that show).
The problem I have with Big Bang Theory is that it feels like a show about nerds written by people who aren't (and don't understand the subculture of) nerds.
---
15) The X-Files. In one episode, a scene opens with the Lone Gunmen conspiracy club playing an unidentified tabletop RPG (with melodramatic mood lighting and cloaks). The RPG is only included as an amusing way to establish a scene, and doesn't tie into the plot in any way.
This is worse than Strike Back for locking something anyone should be able to do behind a feat.
The existence of a Burglary feat doesn't prevent characters without the Burglary feat from using other abilities to pull off a heist, just as the existence of a Profession (soldier) skill doesn't prevent characters without ranks in that skill from using their class abilities to earn money as mercenaries. The only real difference is that characters with ranks in Profession (soldier) have enough professional training to identify low-risk assignments and eek out a minimum profit; other characters have a hard time finding these low-risk assignments, but are still free to earn money performing other, higher-profile mercenary jobs (a.k.a. adventures).
The best use of Contingent Teleport is "When I say "Vleem" activate teleport," which is basically a free action spell on your turn, but certainly won't stop you from being one turn ganked, or whisk away your dead body.
Actually, the best contingent teleport is, "When I cast liberating command," which is essentially an immediate action teleport. Now you just have to avoid getting caught flat-footed.
My solutions negate your argument. The clone is held a day short of completion until needed.
Read the last sentence of the clone spell. If you even grow a clone while the original is still alive, that clone is inert. That's an additional restriction above and beyond anything that occurs when the clone is completed.
OP, you may want to re-read the Pathfinder version of the clone spell; it only returns the cloned creature to life if the cloned creature is already dead at the time the clone is grown. If you clone yourself while you are still alive, your soul does not then transfer to the clone when you die.
If the original individual has been slain, its soul immediately transfers to the clone...
...and...
The PRD wrote:
A duplicate can be grown while the original still lives, or when the original soul is unavailable, but the resulting body is merely a soulless bit of inert flesh which rots if not preserved.
Note that the soul transfers if the original has been slain, not when the original is slain. The original must have already been slain for the soul transfer to happen. Otherwise, the clone is soulless and inert. End of sentence, end of spell description, no list of conditions which allow the clone to later become anything other than soulless and inert.
In Pathfinder, clone is a way to restore an already dead creature to life, not a contingency effect.
You mean Possession such as being Magic Jar'd? That's rather inconsistent in terms of power though. Or is there a specific possession you meant?
For your specific example (a person who turns into a brain-monster with mental powers), I'd use a ghost with psion levels and a variant of the malevolence special attack that forces the spirit to inhabit a single host instead of moving from body to body. Have its psion level scale with the host's HD if you want its power level to match that of its host, and give it the mind seed power or some sort of create spawn ability if you want it to be infectious.
Does a PC's story feat take up a feat slot? It would be a shame to force a PC to choose between something related to their background and, say, Power Attack.
-Matt
At a guess, I'd say the default would be yes, with an option to the GM to give a bonus story feat at character creation
As an alternative, GMs could opt for a story feat to take up a feat slot but then grant Power Attack as a bonus feat. We wouldn't want to paint GMs into a corner by saying it's got to be handled just one way.
I don't know about bonus feats, but I'd definitely allow PCs in my campaign to trade two traits for one story feat.
@Nicos: I've already done a golem of magical force. For a CR 15 golem with an aura that negates magic, I would just take an iron golem and give it a permanent antimagic field aura.
@Matthew Shelton: Here's a monstrous magpie which can turn objects invisible and/or teleport them around.
@beej67: Here's a shadow grue. (Other PF-compatible grues can be found in 3.5's Complete Arcane.)
What happens when you have a character who uses two different divine classes and selects two different deities. For instance, if you started out as a cleric of one deity, then multiclass into inquisitor or druid, and selected a different deity?
There is no "select a deity" class feature, just as there is no "select an alignment" class feature. Deity and alignment are things your character has independent of class. They may affect the class features of certain classes, but they are not features of those classes, and exist independent of those classes. Taking a level in a new divine class doesn't give you any special dispensation to select a second deity, just as it doesn't give you any special dispensation to select a second alignment to have in addition to your first alignment.
That being said, if your GM allows characters to worship multiple deities, your character can worship multiple deities even if your character has levels in only one divine class (or none at all). Number of deities worshiped is not a function of your character's class(es).
@Mortagon: I'll design Asian-inpired monsters as specific (and sufficiently interesting) Asian monsters are requested. For one such example, see my response to Sincubus in this post.
@Mystic Snowfang: The description of the fossergrim in folklore almost exactly matches that of the bog nixie in Bestiary 3. And if you want a more handsome male fey, just use the stats for nymphs but call them male.
Yes, this does mean that in a realistic setting, there should be game-mechanical differences between an int 14 character with a +2 bonus and an int 7 character with a +6 bonus. The GM would be completely justified in imposing higher circumstance penalties (or lesser circumstance bonuses) on the int 7 character to reflect the fact that adaptation to new circumstances is harder.
No. The "circumstance penalty" for having a low Intelligence score is the Intelligence modifier that comes with the Intelligence score. That's what the penalty for having a low Intelligence score is in this game. Period.
Many people in this thread keep saying that someone with 7/7/7 Int/Wis/Cha must necessarily be some sort of dimwitted monosyllabic simpleton with no ability to solve problems and no hope of interacting with other members of society in a meaningful way. Well, if that's the case, then you'd better assign an experience point penalty to every character with low mental stats, and give them a maximum level limit, and give them less feats, and restrict them from taking certain classes, because few of the default character advancement options which the game allows a 7/7/7 character to pursue are things that a dimwitted simpleton should be able to accomplish.
Frankly, I refuse to believe that a dimwitted simpleton as crippled as some people want a 7/7/7 character to be could ever acquire more than one or two class levels in anything, even barbarian or fighter. The hopeless, developmentally-disabled character you are describing should be flat-out barred from ever excelling at anything related to adventuring classes. Which, of course, means that a 7/7/7 character can't actually be that crippled, because the game does allow that character to excel in numerous fields of study that a dimwitted simpleton could never master.
EDIT: There are numerous, game-mechanical drawbacks that a 7/7/7 character will face during play, and the player will have to roleplay those drawbacks because they are actual, numerical penalties that affect the outcomes of actions taken in-game. I can see no reason whatsoever to impose arbitrary roleplaying restrictions that aren't already accounted for by those obvious, numerical penalties the character suffers when attempting actions related to mental ability scores.
Oh, by the way, my halfling barbarian is actually 7'10". Don't worry, mechanically he's Small, but mechanically Small doesn't have to be the same as "fluff" small. Only a Simulationist would say such a thing.
Gamists, narrativists, and simulationists would all agree that your halfling cannot be 7'10" tall in his natural form, because the rules explicitly state how tall halflings can be in real-world feet and inches. In fact, the rules explicitly state how long or tall a Small creature can be in real-world feet and inches (allowing for abstractions in the case of long, narrow creatures like snakes).
That being said, Small (size category) does not equal small (English-language adjective). If that were the case, a character with a small scar on his cheek would somehow have a two-foot long gash on his face, because two feet is the bottom limit for the length of something Small.
Ilja wrote:
When my plot involves a scroll of raise dead as plot device, is that a house rule then? I attach additional meaning to the scroll, and the RAW description of scroll does not state "plot device".
Does defining your scroll as a plot device cause the scroll to have mechanical benefits or restrictions not listed in the rules of the game? If so, then yes, your "plot device" designation is a house rule.
EldonG wrote:
When a roll is called for, and it's an untrained skill, that doesn't change the DC of the roll. A 20 is a reasonable DC. It's quite simple. If you can actually make whatever roll is required successfully, you've performed a skill you were only vaguely familiar with.
If a DC 20 untrained Knowledge check is called for, every character whose isn't trained in that Knowledge skill automatically fails, regardless of Intelligence, because Knowledge is a trained-only skill unless the DC is 10 or lower. So, in the situation you describe, a 7-Int character is exactly as smart as a 17-Int character (and 27-Int character, for that matter).
It is much more reasonable to to enforce the Knowledge rules by requiring untrained DC 10 Knowledge checks in certain situations. That avoids the trouble that arises from requiring higher, trained-only Knowledge checks while still enforcing one of the primary RAW drawbacks of a low Int score. Just realize that high-Int characters also have a reasonable chance of failing untrained DC 10 Knowledge checks, so high-Int characters are also going to fail to come up with clever plans and tactics fairly often when these rules are enforced.
Who here advised that? It certainly wasn't me Steve.
Those monsters aren't going to survive very long in a wizard's world if they don't target the caster first. Hell even animals know to go after the 'easier/less armored prey' first.
Well, the Tactics entry in the stat blocks in every PF module or AP, for one.
In other words, a monster uses dumb tactics if its Tactics entry says it should use dumb tactics. So the designers of the APs feel it necessary to discuss tactics independent of Intelligence scores.
For me, what you call "fluff", the story, is the most vitally important part of the game, and to be credible, must be supported by the stats. If you want your character to be smart, or even average, don't dump the stat.
For me, what I call "fluff" isn't directly supported by any stat in the game. Each ability score measures the probability of a character achieving a certain result (plus carrying capacity for Strength, etc.). I expect the story in-game to exactly agree with the probabilities laid out in the rules. Beyond that, I could care less what numbers I've written on a character sheet. Their only purpose is to determine the aforementioned probabilities.
Intelligence measures a character's ability to "learn and reason." The description of the Intelligence score explicitly lists what learning and reasoning entail in Pathfinder: modifiers to number of skill ranks, number of languages known, wizard spellcasting ability, and Intelligence-based skill checks. The description also specifies that Int 1 or 2 is animal intelligence and Int 0 is comatose. That (plus the glossary definition of a null Intelligence score) is the entire definition of the Intelligence score in the Pathfinder game. The abstract, game-mechanical variable assigned the name Intelligence does not measure anything else.
If your gaming group attaches any additional meaning to the Intelligence score, that is a house rule. A perfectly fine, common-sense-based, simulationist house rule, but a house rule nonetheless. There is no RAW reason for gamers who prefer what you are calling "munchkin" and "delusional" behavior (also known as the gamist and narrativist playstyles) to adopt that house rule.
Gamists are free to interpret the RAW as the "computer code" that runs the game, complete with exploits and bugs. Narrativists are free to ignore anything not explicitly stated in the rules if doing so would give them more freedom to tell their characters' stories. And simulationists are free to assign common-sense relationships between abstract game mechanics and real-world phenomena. None of those three approaches to playing the game is required by the rules.
If all goes according to plan, a third-party publisher will be announcing a short PDF product touching on this very subject in the near future. I've already written the manuscript for the PDF, and other folks are in the process of doing editing and layout. I'll be able to provide more details when the product is finalized and announced by the publisher.
That being said, the product I mention is short and narrowly focused. It leaves plenty of room for other authors to write content related to initiate spellcasters, wizard academies, and similar topics.
