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

Eric The Pipe's page

381 posts. Alias of Eric Stipe.


1 to 50 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

+1 to what LazarX said.

But also, you could just ignore the rules on this... I do on all the other +'d weapons that bypass things. For example, DR 5/Cold Iron requires cold Iron in my games, none of that +2(+3 (really not sure)) or equivalent stuff.

Either way, calm down. It's just a game.

I'm running the Reign of Winter camp with two players... I gave them the summoner's Eidolon (without any of the other abilities of the class) to make up for the reduced players. It's worked perfectly. Optionally, if the DM is really worried about it, use the Gestalt rules, the increase in abilities but no increase in actions, works well to balance out out the lack of players.

Morgen wrote:

So effectively your trying to bring back the older D&D editions dual classing?

Huh, wonder how that would work out for Pathfinder.

In a way. I've never really liked the 3rd edition version of multiclassing. It was one of the things 2ed did great.

Kolokotroni wrote:
jump head first off buildings and survive etc.

This could only happen if it could happen in normal e6. HP is still going to be maxed out at 6d12, which any normal 6e barbarian can get.

Kolokotroni wrote:

Sure there are still limitations, but overall power could and would still go up. Pets in particular would be an issue.

For instance, a character gets to level 6 in summoner. He has a 6th level summoner. Then he gets to 6th level in druid, he has a 6th level animal companion, then he gets to 6th level in ranger and takes boon companion, he now has himself, with summoner, druid and ranger abilities and 2 animal companions and an eidolon.

meh, there could be a lot of creatures on the board, I can do worse with a straight summoner. 1d3 wolves + eidolon + other stuff.

Kolokotroni wrote: does defeat the purpose of E6. If you dont like advancement stopping, then conceptually E6 isnt a good fit for you, and you need to look at something entirely different.

I'll agree to disagree. I think it takes care of a lot of the problems people have with the system (Higher level spells, multiple attacks, saving throws through the roof, etc.), while fixing the stagnation involved. The highest BAB is still going to be 6, the highest skill point level is still going to be 6 and the highest level spell is still going to be third, only cast by a fifth level wizard/cleric/witch or sixth level sorcerer/oracle.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea behind E6, but I find the stagnation of the character to be boring (I have the same problem with only 20 levels in a class). The character goes up 6 levels, then just stops, gaining some feats after that. The most they can hope for is a dm that is willing to turn the higher level abilities into feats. So, I came up with an alternate idea, of sorts...

It is a combination of E6, Gestalt and Dual-Classing (from second addition). Multiclassing under the current rules is out. But, when the Character hits 6th (or what ever max level the DM is using, for E8 etc.) they can start over in another class. HP, Skill points, BAB and Saving throws work like Gestalt, they are replaced with the higher value from previous levels. The XP to gain the next level would be the equivalent to what is needed to get to the new level in the class +1. (So 2nd level xp for the first level, and 7th level xp for the 6th level in the class)

An example: The 6th level wizard dual-classes into a fighter. The wizard does not get a +1 bab at 1st level, but the fighter does, so the characters BAB increases by 1. But when the character becomes a second level fighter, the wizard side already gives a +1 BAB, so the BAB is not increased. The bonuses replace, not stack, with the original bonuses of that level for the character, like a gestalt character.

This would continue to provide the same spell level limitations, BAB limitations and all the other limitations of e6.

One of the problems is Hit Points. Most people don't keep track of the Hit point amount they gain at each level. An easy alternate is to add two hit points per hit die increase. So the wizard in the above example would gain four hit points, increasing the max to 10.

Feats would still occur every other level, and ability score adjustment would also increase at 4th (realize that after the first time, it takes 6 levels to increase a score, not 4).

Special abilities would build up, but the power levels would still be lower powered. The number of skills would increase only horizontally, not vertically, and only when a class with higher skill points is taken. And the highest power magic items would still be incredibly limited.

Just a thought. Any input is welcome. :)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Pronounce it however you like for your home game. Considering that people are STILL divided on how to pronounce "drow" (rhymes with "grow" or rhymes with "cow"), pick one that sounds good to you. :)

Thank you anyways. :)

The Shining Fool wrote:

This may just be the view of a language nerd, but really? If the pronunciation is out of your comfort zone? Change it.

Nouns - especially proper nouns - are nonce-words. They are linguistic gap fillers. Choose something you think is cool and go with it, yeah?

Not to say that sometimes fantasy fiction authors don't go a little crazy with their combinations. If the writer is really married to the idea of a (culturally relevant linguistic reference), then perhaps a glossary in the style of Dune would be in Paizo's best interest. But as a word nerd I beg you - to thine own self be true. I don't care how James of SKR or anyone else wants a word pronounced, I'm gonna go with what works for my group.

I know Language nerds, so I understand what you are saying. I am not a language nerd, I am sadly a math nerd. I grind to a halt as I try to pronounce out how to say some of these names. I can understand how markets work, economics is an interesting subject (I enjoy reading books on it) but give me a word to pronounce out loud, in another language and it's like throwing a stick of dynamite in front of a car, it disrupts the flow of movement, at least a little.

And the biggest problem is the "new" names. Names I have never heard before in any reading I have ever done. I pronounce them out attempted syllable at a time, then turning to the language nerd, in our group, spell it out so he can take a shot at it. It's frustrating.

You lucky S.O.B. The best I get from my players is that if they feel it is no direct threat they don't hunt it down and kill it. Ten-Penny looked at what they did and ran, they watched her go.

One of my players took the suggestion of the need of fire damage to heart, specialized in it to an extreme degree. He blasted the doll with an area effect spell... repeatedly....

I must start with stating my love of the AP's. I've ran two so far and played in many others. My exposure has been incredibly positive.

Now my suggestion: Something that would help me as a DM would be pronunciation guides after all the non-english words and more so after the made up words. Something as simple as (pro·nun·ci·a·tion) after the first time the word appears.

PLEASE, I'm begging you. It's disjointing for me and the players when I fumble over the imaginary (and Russian-ish in the case of Reign of Winter) words that the creative writers come up with.

Answer to the spoiler of Tangent101

From the Resurrection spell: The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

Reading up, it brings him back as though the raise dead spell. Which changes some things. As the DM I'm ruling that the point is to have him come back at half hp, not to mimic the spell exactly. (But that's up to you)

Thank you both.

I'm about to start DMing the Reign of Winter path. Is there any suggestions from any of the people already running it? Just general ones, problems you ran into during the campaign? Thank you.

Pendagast wrote:

where do i get the abilities for?

I dont see anything in ARG that isnt related to outsiders considering elements.

There is mountaineer and terrain stride, and in ARG climber, I like those...maybe lose sprinting and cat's luck (which seems like it would get forgotten more often than not anyway)

Elemental Vulnerability (–2 RP)

Prerequisites: Outsider (native) with ties to an elemental plane.
Weakness: Pick one of the following energy types: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. Members of this race have vulnerability to the chosen energy type. They cannot posses any racial trait that grants them resistance or immunity to this energy type.
Special: This trait can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, choose a different energy type. If a race has vulnerability to fire and immunity to cold, it gains the cold subtype. If a race has vulnerability to cold and immunity to fire, it gains the fire subtype.

Shadow Resistance (2 RP)

Prerequisites: None.
Benefit: Members of this race gain cold resistance 5 and electricity resistance 5.

Change the Electricity resistance to not needing to make fort saves for cold weather and it seems balanced. Hell, by the points you don't even need to exchange anything off of the race abilities. The penalty is what balances out the resistance.

What about some equipment that only worked for mythic characters, in the cases of temporary mythic levels. That way bonus equipment could be given, without exceeding the WBL after the tier goes away.

It's not raw but, I suggest talking to your DM, unless he's a dick that's a feat at worst.

Aberzombie wrote:
Eric The Pipe wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:

Honey is the only natural food which never goes off.

** spoiler omitted **

Actually the process of making Alcohol requires the ability to spoil. Most mead brewers must add water to the honey so it can spoil.
And here I always thought it was because the yeast converts the sugars in the honey, producing alcohol and carbon dioxide.

The sugars can not be converted until it is diluted to the point were it can go bad. It is the breaking down of the structure that allows it to be converted.

Containers with mead have been found to date back to before containers of beer.

Containers with beer have been found to date back to before containers with bread.

The first grain domesticated was barley, for making beer.

The Codes of Hammurabi have a least one law pertaining to beer, which at the time was made by the women of the household.

When Louis Pasteur discovered microbes and the pasteurization process, he was studying beer, not milk.

Before they used hops, a substance called grout was required for use in all beer made in England, it's recipe was a secret as it was used as the means for taxing beer consumption at the time. The recipe is now lost to time.

The reason Guinness was the biggest selling beer in Ireland was because it had the lowest alcohol content and was there for the cheapest. The level of alcohol dictated the tax on the liquid. When shipped to America and places like that, the alcohol content was upped.

Aberzombie wrote:

Honey is the only natural food which never goes off.

** spoiler omitted **

Actually the process of making Alcohol requires the ability to spoil. Most mead brewers must add water to the honey so it can spoil.

Just Spreading The Word on the cool new game by Monte Cook. Check it out, participate in the kick starter if you can. The min has already been met, so now we are just adding more cool stuff.

No more advice?

She is going to be a slyph, and I'm already taking cloud gazer at first. I have an 8 str and planned on spellcasting for attacks. Melee would be just to risky.

Any suggestions for feats for a gestalt Rogue (Rake)/Sorcerer (Stormborn) build for Skull and Shackles, but with a Air ship instead of a normal one?

Orthos wrote:
23. "Let him die. At this point it'll just be simpler to raise/resurrect him."

I've actually said this. We were trying to rescue him from hell, so we put an arrow through his head rather than fight our way through the demons to rescue him.

41. Oh, s!#*, that was flame strike not cure light wounds....

My current favorites are Belgian style yeti (which is even better on tap) and Smokestack Series Bourbon Barrel Quad from Boulevard Brewing Company. Though I'll drink anything produced by Great Divide, and just about have.

Starbuck_II wrote:
Which is silly. Like a Oracle is someone who predicts the future... no they are someone cursed and cast divine spells in Pathfinder.

I would encourage you to type in Oracle to a search engine.

I'd totally include this race in my setting.... Then I'd tell all the players that wanted to play it, they are unwilling to leave their "area" pick a race that would actually want to be a adventurer. Unless we are playing a game with only this race as an option, then let the non-magical role-play commence.

Fozbek wrote:
That forces every single Rogue ever to have 13 Intelligence (which is nearly worthless for them) and spend feats on Combat Expertise (which is worthless for them), Two-Weapon Feint (which doesn't nearly make them viable by itself), and Improved Two-Weapon Feint (which they can't take until level 9 at the earliest and which has 3 pre-req feats as well as high stat requirements). It also forces them into a two-weapon fighting style, because Improved Feint only allows them to make a single attack and Greater Feint actually does almost nothing for the Rogue that uses it.

Please do not tell me what is now "required" based on some rule changes. You'll find it's only required if your goal is to break the system, that I can do without help. The word you want is desired, it is desired to have a 13 Intelligence, and desired to have combat expertise, and all that other crap. The only thing that is required to live and die, and without one you can not do the other.

For the record, I always play rogues, and I always have as high a Intelligence as I can.

Fozbek wrote:
Ugh. That dramatically tips the scales towards heavy armor. It's basically impossible to kill a full BAB character in full plate with those rules unless you can bypass their armor DR. No, really, I mean it. Even a sneak attacking rogue averages to roughly one damage per attack.

It does, but the point of the rogue is to catch the fighter unaware, not just flank.

If you want it to lean a little more that way take away the BAB bonus to defense when he looses his dex (that's the other thing I did).

The best, yet slightly complicated, idea I've come up with is still:

Use the normal rules out of Ultimate Combat: non-magic bonus to dr/magic, ect
This is balanced by the die of damage the weapon does.

Add Con mod to this DR, whatever type it might be.
This balances out Str mod to damage.

Add BAB to hit and to defense
This balances out each based on level and class.

Dex and other bonuses add as normal for touch and flat-footed, ect

Add armor magic bonus to DR and Defense, this balances with magic weapons adding to hit and damage.

This creates a system where,a 15th level fighter fighting a 15th level fighter both with +5 weapons and armor balance out and the dice are the important things... But if one is higher level or has better weapons they quickly become deciding factors.... Training and equipment matter.

If your worried about unarmored people, realize, that in life, unarmored people get killed real quick.

In this system I also suggest that the DC of caster spells are all changed to 1/2 caster level + 10 + casting stat, regardless of the spell. And realize DR even /- doesn't work for energy damage. Wizards with their lack of armor can do massive damage, but must look out for the fighter that can rip through their defenses.

Also this works well with the Wounds and Vigor system.

Snorter wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
And, speaking in character has been required by all sorts of RP heavy DMs, it's not "Old School" at all.
Eric The Pipe wrote:
Old School doesn't have to mean bad, some of the idea's were very good. Only speaking in character is very much old school.

I didn't detect any hint that he thought 'Old School' was a bad thing, just that in his experience, and mine, getting into character is not something that was done way back in the past, that disappeared when the new blood joined in.

If you read any of the examples of play in old rules, it's full of players referring to their PCs in the third person.

"Black Dougal will check the chest for traps."

"Black Dougal gets pricked by a poisoned needle. Make a save vs poison."

<roll> "Rats! I rolled a 2."

"Black Dougal falls to the floor, dead."

"Frederick the Dwarf will go through Black Dougal's backpack, before he hits the floor."

"Morgan Ironwolf reminds Frederick that she had first dibs on Black Dougal's boots."


While you may have interpreted his post fine, you failed on mine, "Only speaking in character is very much old school." And yes, a lot of that has disappeared in the "new blood."

More direct: The active dis-allowance to speak out of character is something that players consistently did in the past, this is practically the definition of "Old School". It is also something that has not completely carried through to the new players. This does not stop the new players from doing the same, nor does it stop it from being good, nor bad. It does make it an old school thing to do.

Speaking exclusively in character has nothing to do with getting into the character.

Jessica "Babbit" Lagamorph

Went by Babbit, which was the last name of a customer I once had. Still a bad ass name. Her creation was fun, her name rocked and her story was the best. She's the character I bring out when I can't think of something I want to play, cuz she's always fun.

The key is she's a non-combat rogue, hates to fight, loves to use skills, while adventuring.

Kthulhu wrote:
Eric The Pipe wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

I was the one asking this on another thread.

I can't understand number 4. Can someone explain it for me?

An old school DM playing pathfinder would only allow the core book. period. no, I have this cool idea and stuff released to back up the idea and it's not even broken, i'm really a little underpowered.... CORE BOOK ONLY.
Bah, that's a pretender. A true old school GM wouldn't be playing Pathfinder.

True, though I was just trying to explain the idea with a more modern example.

Use the gestalt rules, everyone is half monk. Except don't use, the monk bab or saving throws, the other class is the primary class with just the monk abilities tacked on.. but everyone in the world has this... you should also include armor as dr from ultimate combat...

Maybe also lose flurry of blows, requiring the character to invest in two-weapon fighting instead. (it works the same, it just requires feats)

I've always preferred the 2nd edition version of psionics. They were significantly different than wizards, not just wizards with spell points, which is what most of the current versions are. It had some issues, the whole telepathy thing, but I liked maybe not getting the power to work and wasting the action.

I'd turn it into more of a skill system, with powers known, and a skill check like thing to turn them on. remove the chance for critical failure and critical success from the 2e. and make it cost to keep the power active, but allow rejuvenation of the points when resting, not just at the beginning of the day/after a nights rest.

Instant effects, like fireball, is the domain of the spell caster, not the mind bender.

OH, and the one exception is wild talent, the 2nd ed wild talent did not work, no need to include that.

HeHateMe wrote:
When we found treasure, he would spew all over the stuff he wanted to keep for himself, because he knew none of our characters would want it after that. Whatever was vomit-free, we would split among the rest of the party.

Screw that, the clean spell was a cantrip, just cast that.

Don't really have a favorite Player I've played with. Each of the people I play with on a regular basis have some good things about them and some bad.
One of my friends can drop me to the floor with laughter, and he's decent at role-playing, but trying to get him to learn the rules is a pain and he can't run games with players that are clever.

Another one is a decent designer and is fun to talk game designing with; but he couldn't role-play his way out of a paper bag, he thinks he's smarter then most people, so a moderate intelligence character (10-11) is REALLY stupid according to him.

We all have issues when it comes to role-playing, I'm sure I have my issues. And I almost always play strikers, it's just how my brain works. Every time I try something else I get bored or they change into them. The characters themselves are different in personality, as least as much as I can make them.


I love the gurps system in theory. Bell curves are THE AWESOME. But I still don't have running it down, so playing it is harder than other systems.

I play tons of D&D/Pathfinder, it's got a great easy running combat system, but the skill system leaves something to be desired.

And finally Shadowrun is a favorite because of the magic system and it's possibilities, I swear one of these days I'll rewrite that damned thing into a fantasy/steampunk setting/system... It'll be right after I rewrite FASERIP (another favorite) for simplicity and L5R into a Last Air Bender like setting.

31) I hand out what characters you are to play when you get here.

(and one dm)32)I'll level your characters up for you, you don't know what you got better at during game play.

33)You demand to know why there aren't more unnecessary charts in this book.

Richard Leonhart wrote:
12. when he kills you every two sessions and tells you stories of his old DM who killed them every session.

THIS and more like it, I think that is what pisses me off about "old school" dm's, according to them they had it worse. I just feel like I have it boring.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
And, speaking in character has been required by all sorts of RP heavy DMs, it's not "Old School" at all.

Old School doesn't have to mean bad, some of the idea's were very good. Only speaking in character is very much old school.

leo1925 wrote:

I was the one asking this on another thread.

I can't understand number 4. Can someone explain it for me?

An old school DM playing pathfinder would only allow the core book. period. no, I have this cool idea and stuff released to back up the idea and it's not even broken, i'm really a little underpowered.... CORE BOOK ONLY.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The DM is ALWAYS right

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
4 of 7 of those are photos.

Are you implying that photography isn't art? Cuz, I, having no talent in photography but knowing a lot of people that do, can tell you that photography is an art, photo-shopped photography equally so.

There could easily be a gunslinger or siege engine sorcerer. Just replace the feats with the special abilities and subtract a spell per day or something. That way the sorcerer gets more things to spend its spells on without changing/inventing bloodlines. (the bloodline feats are mostly crap anyway)

I've really enjoyed the Twenty Palaces series, and the first one is cheep in kindle form HERE

And the Monster Hunter Series, by Larry Correia, is fun. It is a good fast read, with lots of great lines like, "Vampires only sparkle when lit on fire."

KaeYoss wrote:
Eric The Pipe wrote:

Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actions

What, for making a character whose only purpose was to piss off me as a GM?

Nah! Killed you and buried you in the foundation of the house maybe, but not kicked out! :P

Just remember at the end of the story, you love me. Sometimes letting a Player be a jerk isn't a bad thing, it can make a good story better, not all heroes are nice about it.

divby0 wrote:

thank you!

can you give me some more infos, on how you planed to set this up?

markus.teich - at-


To be honest, I haven't put anything down on paper. I just knew that is was there and was going to play it by ear. I just figured they would come across the town while making there way to the next encounter. Then throw ghouls at them until they run away. It wasn't a detailed plot. Mood would be the important part.

caith wrote:

I am playing in a four man group, and by process of elimination have been chosen to be the 'rogue' character. I am not terribly fond of the class in general, as I prefer more of a Druid or Wizard type role. What are some good alternatives to playing a core rogue that won't limit my growth at higher levels or overlap other players roles?

P.S. Arcane Trickster is an option I am thinking of, what are the limitations of this PrC?

The easy way to play a wizard but covering the rogue stuff is to play a wizard, Detect Traps and Knock do all the stuff rogues do that no one else can do. I've already heard tell there is a new bard type that gets the trap finding abilities in UC. Play that.

Don't play an Arcane Trickster, it's the worse of two worlds and just doesn't keep up. (I've tried multiple times.)

godsDMit wrote:
I totally understand where your coming from, but I run a party of 7-8 players, and several of them get bored quite quickly. Sometimes I think the 10% exp penalty is the only thing keeping me from having to work a new character into the story and reasoning for why one left, every session, cause someone was kinda bored and wanted to try someting else.

I could see how that could be a problem that needed a house rule... Good Call.

Kyle Olson wrote:
Eric The Pipe wrote:
Kyle Olson wrote:
Eric The Pipe wrote:
nope, double checked that when i couldn't find them, then re loaded the program, nothing seems to work.

Can you tell me what you're expecting that's not there? I can check to see if it's in the data so I can get a better idea what's happening.

Usually when people can't find monsters it's because of the sources button in the bottom right corner of the screen.

The stuff from the carrion crown series ** spoiler omitted ** and i wouldn't question it, but i swear it was there at one point. And it's got stuff from other parts of Carrion crown, like the ** spoiler omitted ** but some of the other stuff is gone.
The lopper is under "NPCs", you have to change the filter to NPCs or All. I've gone back and forth on setting this filter to default to all, but I should have it remember what you left it on in the near future.

Ok, Thanks for the help, I just turned it off as some point when I was pressing buttons. Once again this this is beautiful, THANK YOU.

I came up with the idea of combining the tiers of classes with multiclassing to make it work nice. the classes are separated into their tiers, then multiclassing works almost exactly like 2e; average of the two rolls, divide xp between the two classes, best of BAB and saves (not stacking).

I've played a lot of gestalt characters, an important part is the HP, roll two dice each appropriate for their class, add together and divide by two.

My general opinion is that Wizard, Druid and Barbarian go on the slow chart, Rogue (and possibly monk and bard) go on the fast chart, and everything else goes on the medium. But you should divide the classes as you wish among the tiers.

also if your including role-play xp, give a character more for acting "in a class," if he casts a bunch of spells or acts wizardly give him xp just for his wizard class, ect.

1 to 50 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.