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

EvilMinion's page

870 posts. Alias of CursedFrogurt.


RSS

1 to 50 of 870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

OK, I've given it some thought, and I think I'm going to bow out of the AP.

Too much for me! =)

But the rest of you have fun.

Now to figure out how to undot myself... hmmm.


ya, wait, don't withdraw because I pondered a goblin. =)

I was just throwing it out there to see what folks thought of it.

To be honest, I'm pondering not doing the AP thing at all.
I get way too caught up in this stuff and am no sure I should be committing to it at this point.


.


Re: goblin PC thoughts

The general hope will be to tie his background in with one of the other players (whoever feels up the RP side of things and a willingness to work it in)

Basic premise being, said other pc managed (completely unintentionally) to save him from drowning (exact details of the event to be decided)... and ever since, despite countless attempts to lose him or shoo him away, he's been following them around incessantly like a cheerful little puppy... (that occassionally goes all feral and gnaws someone's leg off.)

They finally gave up trying to dodge him, and just got used to him following them around. Though he doesn't speak common (goblins do not get it automatically) and the other PC does not speak goblin, eventually the two of them have worked out a sort of pseudo language between them (part common, part goblin, part facial expression and physical gestures and tone, etc) that they understand each other well enough... much to the confusion of others.

Mechanically, I can give him common, just not use it.

(my main reason for hoping to do it this way, is because I want to make him this seemingly happy cheerful little fellow that's almost always talking to himself and breaking out into cheerful-sounding goblin tunes he makes up on the fly (like Golum in the LotR movie singing his little song while catching the fish) It would be really difficult to come up with all of this for real, so much easier to just mention he's off to one side singing something then worry about making up the words (I'm obsessive enough I'd probably try to do it)

I don't intend on him being a big conversationalist, just a missile you point and shoot at the enemy (possibly with a hidden clever side not immediately obvious.. depending on how my stats work out =))

Motivation is not a big issue, as he will just be intent on doing whatever the other PC is doing, and supporting their decisions over anyone elses. (In reality he believes the other PC is an avatar of the goblin hero god Zogmugot, who for whatever reason decided to allow him to live then stick around so clearly he must assist them in all things)

Not sure on the campaign traits, will partially depend on when he and the other PC meet up (I could work in a few of them if needed)

The feral gnasher archetype is a goblin only barbarian archetype that basically gives them a bite attack and upgrades to that.
So his main attack would be a natural bite attack, and I'd want to focus on that...
There's also some improvised weapon stuff to work with too (I'm pondering the throwing random things as he charges in to gnaw)

Lots of background and Rp stuff rolling around my head still, but don't want to dive too far down this rabbit hole if its not going to work for the campaign.


Hmmm...

The only pc I'm inspired to play at the moment, that I can't do in PFS, is a goblin feral gnasher...

Mostly for the rp side of it, as I'd hope to convince everyone *not* to know goblin =)

Not sure how viable the archetype is over the long haul though, as want to mostly just gnaw on things.

Will have to ponder.


The musket and pistol used to say the same thing (what the pistol does now)

The errata changed the musket wording, but they forgot to change the pistol wording.

There was a later clarification that the pistol was supposed to change as well in the same way.


These were errataed (?) not too long ago.
The language should be the same for both now (the musket one has been updated properly the pistol wording is wrong)

ie: using both barrels is a standard action

This was primarily to avoid all the gun shenanigans that used to occur with folks shooting both barrels for every attack during a full attack actions.

So in your example, you would lose your iterative attack (as you can't full attack anymore firing both barrels) but gain the 2nd bullet ... so +2/+2

Unsure what happens if you misfire on both ... =) kaboom?


Nor can you use bite attacks when your mouth is already occupied holding onto your target.


GM V wrote:
its a 1-5 but we will probably be in the high tier. It is part 3 of an arc and you get to play with mythic powers.

Its actually a 3-7.

The first 2 parts were 1-5, the 3rd part is higher.


demonolgist wrote:
EvilMinion wrote:

Slashing grace does not work when fighting with more than one weapon.

And the beard counts as an off-hand weapon, and precise strike won't work either.

You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.

precise strike does work because: To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler. my other hand is not being used for anything but a buckler.
we house ruled slashing grace the same because the wording is any time another hand is otherwise occupied this was brought up because of a character that was made with slashing grace before the nerfs were inplimented.

You are paraphrasing.

The exact wording is of import
Slashing Grace: "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons"

Precise Strike: "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her off hand"
Barbazu Beard: "A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon"

Whether its in your hand is not relevant, for either ability.
If you're using two or more weapons (wherever they are) slashing grace does not function. If you're using an off-hand weapon (which the barbazu beard is) precise strike does not work.

If you've house ruled around the stuff, that's fine. But straight up, not so much.


Slashing grace does not work when fighting with more than one weapon.

And the beard counts as an off-hand weapon, and precise strike won't work either.

**

a dozen greater invisible critters spamming dominate person... your pc's will hate you =)

**

I think seasons 4 and 5 have all sorts of nicely connected gems in them, connecting things from both seasons and from multiple directions.

General plot spoilers for a number of Season 4 and 5 scenarios:

The afore mentioned Disappeared -> Fortress of the Nail in season 4 leading to the confrontation with TD in Vengeance at Sundered Craig in season 5

The Glories of the Past series in season 4 ... followed by the season 5 (Siege of the Diamond City) special ... leading into The Traitor's Lodge ... then to the same Vengeance at Sundered Craig scenario mentioned above, though for a different (but connected) npc confrontation.

And the Library of the Lion -> Horn of Aroden connection you mention above ... to find the Horn... then onto Assault on the Wound to actually use it (if you're the right faction) ... and the events in Assault happen more or less in conjunction with the events in Sundered Craig.

There's all great connected stuff going on there.

All in all, I think they did a great job of making the PC's feel connected to the massive events that went on with the whole Sky Citadel/Worldwound storylines. And not just in the above scenarios, but many others.


I thought you couldn't take Advanced Weapon Training until level 9?

**

The problem is that you want your mount to be an actual griffon... just a young one.

That leads to problems.

From an enemy not knowing that its not an animal, assuming its a magical beast...

To someone using Gorge of Gluttons on it =)

Its not 'just fluff that doesn't affect mechanics' if its type is visually different.


The rule quoted for smoke is not the rule for 'normal smoke' its the rule for 'heavy smoke'.

There's a difference.

It is the same as the smoke from a smokestick.

ie: it does nothing but obscure vision, just in a bigger area.


Just cause its a spell like ability, does not change the casting time.

It still takes a whole minute.

Quote:
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description


You said it already, it seems the closest to the urgrosh.

Which is basically a battleaxe/spear combo.

If you want to ignore the spear side, then its just a battleaxe.

It is not a dwarven waraxe.

You could use feat you mention, to do piercing damage with a battleaxe.
Or you could use the same feat to just take exotic weapon proficiency in the urgrosh
Or if your a dwarf, you get it as a martial proficiency for nothing.
If you're human, you can take the adoptive parentage racial trait (replaces your bonus feat) to get the whole dwarven weapon familiarity and achieve the same result (plus a few other weapon profs and languages).

/shrug

mileage will vary


There is no miss chance due to being incorporeal.

The concealment from the evolution should apply to everything (corporeal or not). that's part of the 'shadow' stuff, not the 'incorporeal' stuff.

Shadow Form is not making your eidolon incorporeal. Be clear on that. It gives it some concealment, and allows it to affect incorporeal creatures... but it is not incorporeal itself else it would not need to give it the Ghost Touch ability, as incorporeal creatures can already affect other incorporeal creatures.

And just for clarity, you can give your eidolon the shadow form evolution via the level 2 summoner spell, lesser evolution surge.
In case you don't want your eidolon all shadow all the time.

Also, this evolution might not be PFS legal, unless you're a Fetchling... if it matters.


You already found one. With shadow form, the melee attacks do 50% to corporeal creatures, not incorporeal. You get full damage on incorporeal.


Gwen Smith wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
In the Pathfinder Society Primer there is the spell Kreighton's Perusal, but that is all I know of.
I love this spell. All my knowledge-based characters keep a wand of this in a spring-loaded wrist sheath. Add a handy haversack with all the the Pathfinder Chronicles in it, and you have +2 to any knowledge check in a single round.

Utilizing the chronicles takes more then a round... well unless you spent the hour on the right book earlier in the day I suppose.


To reitterate what the previous poster was referring to...

It looks like someone overwrote the slayer class description page with the slayer archetype page.

ie:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/classes/slayer.html
and
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/classOptions/slayer.h tml

both have the same content.

Not sure when this happened... but as of now, its impossible to look at the class description =)

**

outshyn wrote:

The spell Make Whole will fully restore a fully destroyed weapon. Yes, even if it's completely destroyed, Make Whole will return it to perfect working condition! There is a risk/cost -- the person casting Make Whole must have a caster level "at least twice that of the item." So you may need a high level caster, and that might cost a little extra.

OK, so what is the level of the item? The rules say, "For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met." So let's use the +1 corrosive thundering katana as an example. The enhancement is +1, so that's easy. Corrosive is +1 equivalent, and thundering is too. You pick the highest (they're all 1) and triple it -- so the caster level is merely 1x3 = 3! Make Whole says it'll fully restore the item if the person casting the spell has twice that level, or in this case is at level 6.

Spellcasting services cost "caster level × spell level × 10 gp." So 6th level caster x 2nd level spell x 10 gp = 120 GP. Yes, that's right. To restore our completely destroyed example item, it's a mere 120 GP!!!

You're calculating this wrong in your example

a +1 weapon requires a caster level of 3
Weapon Special Abilities - Caster Level for Weapons wrote:
For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.

A corrosive weapon has a caster level of 10

A thundering weapon has a caster level of 5
Weapon Special Abilities - Caster Level for Weapons wrote:
The caster level of a weapon with a special ability is given in the item description.
Corrosive wrote:
Price +1 bonus; Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th; Weight —
Thundering wrote:
Price +1 bonus; Aura faint necromancy; CL 5th; Weight —

So a +1 corrosive thundering katana, would have a final CL of 10 (the highest of the three) and thus the make whole would require a 20th level caster (thus putting the cost at 20 x 2 x 10 = 400 gp)


Out of curiosity, does a beast rider cavalier qualify to take Monstrous Mount? (They don't meet the requirements, as written, having none of divine bond, hunter's bond, or the mount class feature (the later is traded out for the exotic mount class feature)).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Racial heritage does not, in any way, allow you to select alternate racial abilities.

The answer is no, they can not.


How is this a problem at level 1?

A fine sized gunslinger will be doing what?

1d8->1d6->1d4->1d3->1d2 damage.

So he does 1 or 2 points of damage? And won't have any bonuses to that at 1st level other then maybe point blank shot. Most things will laugh at him.

Now, once the dex to damage kicks in, then it might be a decent number (along with deadly aim) ... but until he gets to level 5, he's not going to destroy anything.

**

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm... was sure the dwarven longhamer and longaxe were going to be in the polearm group as well.

Guess not.

**

I thought there was a rule somewhere that dire animals were not legal to purchase in PFS.

(looking...)

So its not legal to purchase dire animals from the Animal Archive.
But that language is missing from Ultimate Equipment.

Does the AA supersede the UE, due to being the newer publication?

Seems like it should just be a blanket things, but guess not.


or greater overrun.


quibblemuch wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
However, according to the Bestiary monster creation table, that means he's hitting less than half the time with his primary attack.

That is a touch attack, though. While a typical CR 12 monster might have an AC of 27 (per that table), their touch AC is generally significantly lower. Might change your calculation a bit.

Its not a touch attack though.

All the physical kinetic blasts are regular ranged attacks.
Only the elemental kinetic blasts are touch attacks.

Thus his original question.


You'll note that traits are not mentioned anywhere there.

That particular trait is still legal for fighters-only in PFS (except in Core-mode)


There is no official write up for the iconic oracle. That might be part of the problem =P

Those are all player-created stuff.


Try tying it to lesser animate dead, that might bring the cost down.

But if you want the item to control the critters, then ya, it will need to be an intelligent item, as mentioned.


hmm... what happened? When I first posted, we were high tier whether I played 4 or 6... =) Now we're low, regardless.

As with Gunnar, I'd rather not play a 6 in a 3-4.

Curaigh, could you hook up the discussion thread?


Was there an opening? And was it high or low?
No one quite said =)


If you need another body, I can muster another PC.
Either level 6 (ranger) or a 4 (rogue).


No worries!

Always good to have slightly offset start times anyway!


For the record, I am passing on Fane of Fangs. (Just ran it for the 2nd time)

**

What is 'completely legal' can vary greatly from GM to GM.

Just cause you read something one way, and thus sure its 100% legal.
Does not mean the GM might read it another way, and be equally sure its not.

Thus table variation!


Hit the FAQ.

But just to throw another bone in the pile.

Mithril is generally priced by weight for non armor/weapon items.

Would it make sense for the size/weight of the armor to take a similar route...

For instance...

A mithril chain shirt for a human is 1100 gp
A mithril chain shirt for a medium sized small cat has the exact same weight. Sure, it costs a little more to make, due to the odd shape, but the amount of mithril present has not really changed.
So wouldn't it make sense for it to be 200*2 + 1000 = 1200 gp?
I can't see why you'd double the mithril cost if there's the same amount of mithril in it.

That would mean a chain shirt for a large-sized animal, which only weighs twice as much, would end up 100*4 + 1000*2 = 2400 (instead of 4400 if you'd multiplied it all by 4)

So basicaly, multiply the base armor price by the cost multiplier (x2 for medium, x4 for large) and the mithril price by the weight multiplier (no change for medium, x2 for large)

That makes sense from a materials standpoint, and might keep the armor in a price range where folks might be able to afford them.

Of course, it then makes you ponder small-sized guys...

Just a thought.


Ya, I've seen all that. Thus my confusion =)

I'll hit the FAQ button and hope it gets to a point where someone 'officially' says something!

Given that if its not wrong, the entire animal companion section of a whole book is wrong... perhaps that will lend some weight to getting an answer. Errors in that scope seem like something that should get answered.


what to play... what to play...


Disclaimer: This is for PFS, so keep that in mind... I'm casting the net wider, however, for information's sake.

I have a large sized mount, with the Narrow Frame feat... which is nice to get him into tight spaces... but alas, it does not remove the movement penalty for moving through those spaces.
Which puts the kibosh on options for charging, et al (PC is a cavalier)

So I'm wondering if there are options for removing this penalty for the mount. Traits, Feats, Magic Items, etc

To date i've been able to find a trait (Suck In Your Gut in Kobolds of Golarian... which is not PFS legal (I don't think))

A magic item (the Corset of the Vishkanya... which requires activating to use, which is not permitted by animal companions in PFS)

Is there anything else?

Being able to ignore difficult terrain does not seem to do it.
Would Freedom of Movement?


The NPC Codex supports the ruling.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

This is in regards to the Multiattack feat that druids gain at level 9 for their animal companions.

"An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty."

Which, makes it sound like if you have an animal companion with 3 or more attacks, who has no secondary attacks (which is most of them) that gaining this ability does absolutely nothing.

So, is this a thing? Officially?

Based on the developer post linked, in response to that official blog post, animal companions with 3 (or more) natural attacks, are supposed to get an iterative attack once they get Multiattack at (druid)level 9 if they have no secondary attacks.

This seems contradictory to the wording of course... but if you look at any and all of the animal companions listed in the NPC Codex Appendix from Druid level 9 and up, that have 3 or more attacks (small/large cats, badgers, dinosaurs, etc). All of them gained an iterative on their main attack.

So it seems like this is actually an official thing... and there's some language missing from the ability description.

I'm asking from a PFS perspective of course...


The Kineticist has me curious... though not sure if level 1 is the best point to get a feel for it.

Failing that, barbarian or cleric (since I have aliases set up for them already and I'm lazy! =))


I'll give it a go as well.

**

FLite wrote:
Jessex wrote:
andreww wrote:
A Paladin of a Good aligned deity couldn't cast it in any event as they, like clerics, are incapable of casting spells of an opposite alignment to their Gods.
They are good divine casters. They cannot cast any spell with an evil descriptor period.

Ambiguous, actually.

Their deity does not grant them any evil spells, and they are effectively not on their spell list. But he isn't using his divine levels or divine spell list. He is using his bloodrage. It is a case where he is getting powers from two different sources. One is his god, the other is his blood. The powers from his god don't stop him from using the powers in his blood. But if he uses them for evil, he may lose the powers of his god.

Actually, the restriction on good/evil/chaotic/lawful spells does not state the restrictions are limited to spells from the class itself.

For instance the cleric/inquisitor versions state: "can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one)."

Nowhere does it state that the source of those spells matter.

/shrug


OK, so the text for the Grab evolution for eidolons states that they can only use it on creatures one size smaller then themselves.

This has always been the case, and was not updated with the bestiary ability of the same name... nor was it changed in the Unchained version.

But, looking at the Iconic unchained summoner's eidolon (Padrig) included with the Fane of Fangs quest (@ level 5)...

The text for it's Grab ability does not match the Grab ability in the Unchained book, instead following the bestiary language.

Is this an error in Padrag or an error in the Unchained/APG?

Some clarification from the powers that be would be nice.

I know I've avoided this evolution for some time due to the size limitation.

**

If we already own the scenario in question, we don't need to register a game by this Sunday, correct?

Am humming and hawing about whether I want to give the PBP gming thing a try... just trying to determine my deadline to make up my mind =)

1 to 50 of 870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.