Fatespinner's page

I've decided what I want to do.

An elven shaman (Leader, Primal) with the "stalker spirit" companion that comes in the form of a scorpion. He's a wanderer, like most Athasian elves, and serves as an agent of the dying planet's wrath against the Wizard-Kings and, indeed, pretty much any user of arcane magic... though he might be willing to give preservers a pass if they can prove their methods are effective.

Do they even HAVE Defilers/Preservers in 4E anymore? Bear in mind that I am drawing on 2E knowledge of the setting. I'm certainly going to be off on many things.

Also, would you have any objection to "re-flavoring" some of the powers? There are several that involve "Wrath of the Winter" that I would like to see re-skinned as "Wrath of the Burning Sky" to fit with the desert theme and deal fire instead of cold damage.

Yes it is, but don't worry.

As long as you're willing to tolerate the fact that my access to resources is somewhat limited, I would be glad to join. I am partial to Controllers and Leaders, the Invoker (PHB2) and Bard (PHB2) in particular. I have been wanting to try out the Rogue in 4E, though, so if we need a Striker, I can do that too. I have only played in about a half-dozen 4E games, most of which were Living Forgotten Realms and thus were very brief, combat-intensive games. I have played a Bard through the Wrath of the River King adventure by Wolfgang Baur, though, and that was a lot of fun.

Phoenix is huge, come on there has to be someone.

Anyway, bump.

I lived in Mesa for 10 years and have several friends there who still game regularly, though sadly I am no longer among them. If you want to leave me your e-mail address, I will gladly pass it on to my friends who can then contact you to see if you'd be a good fit for whatever they're playing now.

I believe they're currently running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms using Pathfinder rules, set in Cormyr last I checked.

Green Giant wrote:

Let’s see…

The potion of bear’s endurance to either Runzyl or Janosz OR Basher or Bor.

Give the potion to Runzyl. That way he can rage longer.

Not gonna help me, boss.

Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.

Besides, Runzyl already has a +2 enhancement bonus to his CON from his belt, so the potion would actually only give me +2 more. I'm sure others will get more usefulness out of it than I will.

Have you got access to the Character Builder?

I'm not even certain what that is. Is that the DDI character generation program? If so, then no, I do not have a DDI subscription.

Aubrey pimped your game in our discussion thread. I'm a relative 4E noob, but I love Dark Sun from back in the day. I have the 4E PHB and PHB2, but that's it as far as reference sources. I also do not have any of the 4E Dark Sun materials (and I have no clue what they've changed since 2E). Assuming that these facts are not condemning, I would be interested in joining.

Any of you guys interested in a 4e Dark Sun game? FabesMini is thinking of running one. I played in his White Boar of Kilfay game and it was a good one.

Ehhhhh... I don't have any of the 4e DS material. My resources are limited to the PHB and PHB2, but if that's okay, I might look into it.

Confusion really doesn't need the kind of buffing discussed upstream. It's a really good spell as-is.

My 2gp

Note that we are discussing lesser confusion here, the 1st-level spell, not its big brother confusion, which I agree is a perfectly fine spell as-is.

Fatespinner wrote:

Now, granted, two +5 short swords are actually getting a net benefit of +5 damage since EACH WEAPON is dealing +5 instead of the greatsword's single +5

There's part of your answer: A pair of equally strong weapons will generally give you twice the damage bonus, since you have roughly twice as many attacks.

Oh yeah, absolutely. That's why I mentioned it. But, it also means that DR gets applied twice AND you need two attack rolls to get two hits, as you mention...

But let's imagine that we agree that it's not quite the same (the attack bonus will be less, even more so when you figure in the two-weapon fighting penalty, though that's not the weapons' fault)

Let's also not forget that no character is making full attacks all the time and that's where the Power Attack/Vital Striker with the greatsword is REALLY outpacing the dual-wielder.

Introduce "off-hand weapons". They only work if you use them as an offhand weapon of equal or higher power (or otherwise they don't work as well as they could) and cost 50% of their normal price. You can also do this to double weapons.

So when the hunk wielder has a +4 greatsword for 32000, you have a pair of +4 short swords for 48000, or a pair of +3 weapons for 27000.

This has promise. The notion of putting a mechanical emphasis on "off-hand" seems a little odd to me... and what happens if you put a +2 flaming burst off-hand short sword into your main hand? Does it downgrade to +1 flaming? What about a +1 speed dagger? I can see a lot of arbitration issues arising there. What about "companion weapons" that lose all enchantment except when wielded alongside their "mate" and function along the lines of your "off-hand" idea?

1) There's plenty of much better level 1 spells as well. (Charm person, hideous laughter, sleep)

2) These all also target sleep.
3) You aren't limited to X attacks per day.
4) Nor will a charmed character, laughing character, or sleeping characters.

Charm Person is hard to use in combat (target gets a +5 on the save). Sleep is a full-round casting time and is thusly prone to disruption. Hideous Laughter is usually pretty good, though, yeah. Different spells for different purposes. Lesser Confusion also has the fun bonus of making it possible to deal a significant amount of damage. Say you tag an orc with a greataxe with it, who then attacks his ally. What other first-level spell deals 1d12+6 damage? :)

Well, let's see:

1.) It's a 1st-level spell, so bards have access to it at level 1.
2.) It targets Will, which is the weak save for physically-powerful types that you would generally WANT to have attacking someone other than yourself or your allies.
3.) Yeah, there's a 25% chance that nothing happens. You know what else has more than a 25% chance of not doing anything when you're playing a 1st-level bard? Making an attack roll.
4.) "Note that a confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked)." You have the ability to (possibly!) remove the creature's capacity to AoO someone (like the party's rogue moving in for a flank) for a round. Not bad!

So yeah, it's not an AWESOME spell by any means, but it's not terrible either. This is a 1st-level spell we're talking about here. By the time the bard gains some higher level spells and this one becomes useless, you can always swap it out for something else that scales better.

Or along those lines, that the set you enchant gains a bonus of 1 less than you'd enchant a single weapon with. A +1 would not be lowered, though. They'd probably just be masterwork weapons if separated so it wouldn't be just a cheap way to make magic weapons...

Thoughts?

It's a good idea in principle... until you realize that, early on, it's still cheaper to buy two +1 short swords (or even two +2 short swords) than a single pair of matched short swords priced one tier higher.

+1 short sword = 2360gp x 2 = 4720gp
+1 matched short swords (a +2 weapon by your system) = 8720gp

+2 short sword = 8360gp x 2 = 16,720gp
+2 matched short swords (a +3 weapon) = 18,720gp

Then, finally, you start saving money:

+3 short sword = 18,360gp x 2 = 36,720gp
+3 matched short swords (a +4 weapon) = 32,720gp

Good idea, though, but I don't think it has the effect necessary to balance the problem.

I thought you got xp for that, but perhaps I forgot to give it - correct me if I am wrong. It also includes a "Surviving Eston" bonus, but wasn't explicitly including xp for your separate encounters, which I did intend to give.

Ah yes, you did. I just went back to double check and found it. All set then. Still some 10,000 XP from level 10, but we're getting there!

Did the 7700 xp we just got include the encounter we had while separated into two groups or was that just for the nightwing/festrogs?

As has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards and others, the two-weapon fighting style is grossly suboptimal from a mechanical standpoint when compared to two-handed weapons. Classes such as the rogue that are able to add significant bonus damage on a per-hit basis CAN make up for some of this discrepancy, but another major factor against two-weapon fighting... it's prohibitively expensive!

A +5 greatsword is only 40gp more than a +5 short sword, yet the two-weapon fighter needs TWO of these short swords to even hope to compare to the greatsword in terms of usefulness. Thus, the cost difference is a whopping 50,000+ gp for something that is LESS effective in general. Now, granted, two +5 short swords are actually getting a net benefit of +5 damage since EACH WEAPON is dealing +5 instead of the greatsword's single +5 but hear me out: A mechanic/system should be in place that allows the creation of a weapon "set." A single pairing of weapons that can be enchanted/enhanced/targeted as though they were a single item. There may be an increased initial cost for a "matched" set of items, perhaps an extra 1000gp or something.

"The leather wrapped around the grips of these twin short swords comes from the hide of the same demonic beast that rampaged through the village only a few short years ago. The hide serves to tie the weapons together with an otherworldly bond, greatly enhancing the ease with which they may be enchanted."

After the initial investment, though, the weapons are treated as one object for the purpose of enhancing. Perhaps one weapon would need to be designated as the "master" and the other the "slave" such that, in the event that the weapons are separated for more than a few minutes, the slave weapon loses all magical properties until brought near the master again. This would also prevent abuse in the form of players buying a "set" of greatswords and then having two separate characters getting their weapons essentially at half cost. Perhaps the "master" weapon also has one of the demon's teeth ensconced in the pommel or adorning the crossguard or something to differentiate them.

Thoughts?

I'm not entirely sure about casting with your off hand, but you would have to have an iterative BAB of at least +6/+1 to attack twice with your main hand.

Assuming you could do this, you'd also have to be holding the charge already, and I do not know if you are able to attack while doing so.

There is no "off-hand" for casting. The rules simply state that you "must have a hand free." Which hand it is is irrelevant.

And yes, if you are holding the charge for a touch spell, you should be able to use one of your attack routine to deliver (or attempt to deliver) the stored charge.

However, really anal GMs might see this little caveat:

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

The GM might rule that touching your own weapon discharges the spell, but that's an overly strict interpretation in my opinion especially if you already had the weapon in hand when you cast.

I have an interesting question that I can't really figure out...

Can I combine a melee touch attack with a full round attack action (assuming I have a hand free)? Let's say I have 3 attacks for the round, could I attack with my weapon for the first attack, use a melee touch attack with my second attack on my "off" hand, and then use the third attack with my weapon again?

As long as whatever touch attack ability you're using isn't a standard action itself, there's no reason you couldn't. That being said, the vast majority of touch attacks are either spells or special abilities that often state what kind of action they are.

A generous GM might let you insert a Quickened touch attack spell into your full attack routine, but normally you're not going to be able to utilize a touch attack in the same round as a full attack action.

I've never played WoD, or owned it, but I have heard it mentioned plenty. Sounds cool.

And what's the new job?

Network Administrator. Been here since December but have now been officially vetted (got through my 90 day probationary period). I thought I mentioned that somewhere before?

If you're interested in signing up for WoD, I'd love to have you. Character creation and mechanics are rather simple and it's a classless system, so you can play any concept you want. Setting would be modern day America (haven't decided which city yet). Ideally characters will all be affiliated with an institution of higher education in some way, whether they be students or faculty. This will provide an easy way to promote familiarity between PCs rather than just being "a bunch of random people who HAPPEN to get caught up in the same weirdness together."

Hey, so, while we're all thinking about hypothetical games here.... now that I'm finally settled into my new job and about to get settled into our new apartment, I'm wanting to get a WoD PbP started. I want to keep it small, no more than 4 players, so that I won't run into the issues I've had previously with long stretches of inactivity.

The theme of the game will very much be modern supernatural horror. Vaguely Cthulhu-esque with some good old-fashioned mysticism thrown in for flavor. Player characters would be ordinary mortals throughout the game, but I have devised a system by which your characters will eventually be able to obtain a small selection of supernatural abilities... often with something of a drawback or sacrifice involved.

I didn't want to create an "open enrollment" thread in Gamer Connection about it because, well, I wouldn't trust just anyone to do a game like this justice. As far as rulebooks are concerned, you really shouldn't need one, but the core WoD book will be sufficient for character creation and general rules familiarity. If you don't have that book but are still interested, I'm pretty sure we can still make it work. WoD rules are pretty fantastically simple and intuitive.

I think I'm leaning towards a dwarven cannoneer/gunner type. A gruff, angry dwarf with a big damn firearm. I like it.

I'm playing a gnome fey bloodline sorcerer whose bloodline manifests in subtle sounds around him (he is still very low level). As his power grows, his shadow will behave differently than it should, his eyes may change color from moment to moment, and the tribal marks he bears will begin to animate in low light. His spells are usually accompanied by a faint chime or eerie musical note depending on the spell. His illusions are often accompanied by the sound of laughter on the wind.

What action in the special ability for the barbarian 'Drink for what ales you, should you use?

A potion is a standard so it would be likely that it was the same, but the rules do not specify it, and my GM said he would let it be a move action (he couldn't explaine why).

I - as the drunk barbarian - am happy for the solution my GM took, but I too much of a rule nerd to let this one pass.

How have you done, or would do?

By the book, yes, it's a standard action. However, there is a "Fast Drinker" feat in the APG that is designed for the drunken monks (it requires the drunken ki ability) that I could easily see being allowed for barbarians with the various alcohol-consumption-related rage powers in place of drunken ki. It allows you to drink as a swift action.

I'd say no, and here's why:

Range personal

Target you

Regardless of what spell you put INTO the contingency, the contingency itself is a non-damaging spell that targets the caster and only the caster.

Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.

Against disbelievers, shadow evocations have no effect at all if they do not deal damage.

You, as the caster, know for a fact that your shadow evocation is not real. Ergo, it has no effect for you.

You have only yourself to blame - you are in the right time zone, after all. Fatey - I need an address. You can email me at malexanderfell at hotmail dot com.

E-mail sent. Thanks again!

Anyway, I've got a copy of Prince of Wolves which I was sent free by Paizo. As they want me to hand it to someone who might like it, who wants it and I'll post it to you?

I would be interested in checking out the quality of the Pathfinder fiction, so if you're offering, I will gladly take it off your hands. :)

Tangentially related question -

Is there any feat for divine casters equivalent to Spell Focus / Greater Spell Focus for arcane casters (boosting save DC's)?

Divine spells are still divided into schools just like arcane ones. Hold person is an enchantment, for example, and a 2nd-level cleric spell. A cleric can take Spell Focus/Gr. Spell Focus (Enchantment) to boost the save DCs.

Edgy, non-conformist dot.

Hey folks, I've just been authorized by my employer to sell off a couple of Netgear ProSecure UTM10 devices at substantial discount to anyone who might be interested. Both of them are in near-mint condition and work perfectly fine.

I'm looking to sell them for about $250 each, but I would consider a discount to anyone who wants to purchase both at once. Send an e-mail to zhensley (at) bespoke.com and let me know if you have an interest in purchasing. Make sure you mention you're from the Paizo boards in the subject line of the e-mail. Thanks!

I would prefer a Pathfinder or WoD ruleset since I have never played d20 Modern and know literally nothing about it. That said, if it's fairly close to the bog-standard 3.5/d20 system, I can't imagine it would be hard to learn.

A low-magic campaign would be pretty novel, though. I am fine if you want to eliminate the major spellcasting classes, despite my bias. :)

Honestly, for a steampunk game, I would want to play the Alchemist class from the APG. Someone who knows a lot about the guts and gears of the world's technologies and uses that knowledge to further his own agenda, etc. It is a caster class, but it's not a pure caster and I think the thematics of the Alchemist class fit well in a steampunk setting. Of course, I'm not married to the idea and it is indeed far too early to begin speculating in earnest.

Guys, I've been turning over in my mind a sort of steampunky sort of homebrew, which at the moment is little more than a thought experiment but which I do feel calling at me rather insistently. Assuming I can cobble together something than might resemble a campaign, would you guys be interested? I'm thinking of something pretty much on an invitation-only basis, a bit like we kicked off RotRL with you guys from the Eberron campaign.

Yeah, I would definitely be willing to guinea pig your homebrew steampunk.

One small request, though: Can we start at higher levels? We've been playing in your various games for over 3 years now and have yet to see level 10. :)

I think that, personally, the reason blasters fail is because of dice and the law of averages.

To hit a monster, a fighter makes an attack roll vs. an AC. Bear in mind all the things a fighter can do to boost his attack. Magic weapons, feats like weapon focus, weapon training, spell effects, charging, flanking, etc. etc. etc.

To hit with a blast spell, a caster must check against SR first. This is pure caster level, so it scales just like the fighter's BAB. However, how can you boost your caster check vs. SR? There are two feats: Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. That gives you +4... and that's it. You also get a lot fewer feats than the fighter does. There's almost nothing else you can do to increase your chance to beat SR, so really, for two of your precious feat slots, you can have exactly what the fighter gets from an 18 STR: +4 to "hit."

Now, let's assume that you both hit. The fighter makes the AC, the wizard nails SR. Okay! Now all the fighter does is roll damage. The wizard, though, has to wait for his enemy to save. Saving throws are a pain in the ass, but a necessary evil. Most blaster spells target Reflex and the target will still take half damage on a successful save. Let's assume that only 25% of your opponents save. You deal half damage to 1 in 4 targets. The fighter deals full damage to every thing he hits. Did I forget to mention that the fighter gets iterative attacks? Yeah, he does. You get 1 spell. Make it count.

Then there's energy resistance. Now, granted, not everything has energy resistance and very few things have MULTIPLE energy resistances, but sometimes you're going to encounter something with resistance to your damage. ER is applied AFTER the saving throw, so if you just dealt half damage to something AND it has energy resist? You might not be hurting it at all. Fighters have to contend with DR as well, but magical weapons bypass various types of DR as you scale up with level (a +5 weapon pretty much shreds anything). You know what you can do about energy resistance (aside from hoping that you have the right energy types prepared to ignore it)? Nothing. Nothing at all. There's some things that are just flat-out IMMUNE to certain damage types. To my knowledge, nothing is IMMUNE to a +5 greatsword.

So, in brief:
Fighter - attack AC, roll damage
Wizard - caster check vs. SR, wait for save, roll damage, pray for no resist/immunity

Oh, did I forget to mention that several blasting spells (scorching ray, polar ray, shocking grasp, etc.) require you to check against SR *AND* make an attack roll? Yeah! So there's TWO chances for you to deal absolutely no damage at all. Fortunately, most spells that require an attack roll do not allow a save but they also don't generally hit multiple targets which substantially reduces your DPR output. And energy resistance/immunity is still an issue.

If you Heighten it to 9th level you've already capped it out and can't apply more metamagic on top of that. But I was wondering about that. I was surprised the language doesn't explicitly exclude Heighten.

prd wrote:

Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level.

Ah, good catch. That's right.

As for Spell Perfection specifically exluding Heighten or not, it's a feat with fairly lofty prerequisites that allows you to boost ONE SPELL out of your entire arsenal. Given the limitation of "no spell slots above 9th" that you've pointed out, I'm not convinced that barring Heighten from the eligibility of Spell Perfection is necessary. It's not like you can take Spell Perfection multiple times and apply it to several key spells to make an uber-combo or anything.

Personally I think there are much better things to use Spell Perfection on besides magic missile. :)

Okay, that makes sense. Another question though, since dazing spell adds a save effect (will if the original spell didn't have a save), could you use persistent spell with the same combo? ie, use a 6th level slot for a dazing persistent spell with spell perfection used to heighten to 9th level?

Again, based on the wording of the rules, I would say no.

Benefit: Whenever a creature targeted by a persistent spell or within its area succeeds on its saving throw against the spell, it must make another saving throw against the effect. If a creature fails this second saving throw, it suffers the full effects of the spell, as if it had failed its first saving throw. A persistent spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.

Spells that do not require a saving throw to resist or lessen the spell's effect do not benefit from this feat.

The spell itself does not require a saving throw and thus it is ineligible. The save vs. the dazing effect is a save vs. the effect of the feat, not the spell.

I would say that a given target can only be subjected to one save against the dazing effect regardless of how many missiles strike him. This is in line with other "on spell" effects such as the Evoker's "Intense Spells" school ability that adds bonus damage PER CASTING, not per missile or per ray.

The combo seems otherwise legitimate, though, and you could certainly force five targets to make a save vs. dazing, but not one target to make five saves.

Linkin Park - What I've Done
Amy Lee - Sally's Song
Within Temptation - The Howling
Green Day - Holiday
Breaking Benjamin - Break My Fall
Skillet - Comatose
Theory of a Deadman - Not Meant to Be
Disturbed - Mistress
Epica - Never Enough
Evanescence - Like You
Jimmy Eat World - The Middle
Plumb - In My Arms
Korn - B.B.K.
Sevendust - Better Place
Slipknot - Duality
Dark New Day - Brother
Avenged Sevenfold - Afterlife
Breaking Benjamin - So Cold (Acoustic)
The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus - Your Guardian Angel
Trapt - Contagious
Orgy - Blue Monday
A Perfect Circle - The Noose
Korn - Make Me Bad
Nine Days - Absolutely (Story of a Girl)
Evanescence - Going Under
Staind - Right Here

Okay, turn your eyes to the Concentration rules for a second.

Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

It quite clearly states that a spell with a casting time of "1 full round" (or more) can be interrupted by damage. Say Wizard A wants to cast summon monster I. On his turn, he takes a full-round action to cast it. No one has readied an action to interrupt him and he provokes no AoOs for casting. Now, next in the initiative order is Bad Guy A who sees Wizard A casting. He charges Wizard A and hits him with his flail. Wizard A needs to make a Concentration check or lose the spell because, even though he used his full-round action, he's NOT DONE CASTING IT YET. Thus we have the difference between a "full round action" and "1 round" casting times.

EDIT: Also, what Harald said.

I would like to know if you can apply the quicken metamagic feat to a summoner monster spell, to cast the spell as a swift action. If you can does the summoned creature appear immediately and take its action? I did some searching and got mixed answers. Thanks in advance.

No, you cannot quicken the summon monster spells. Here is why:

A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full-round action cannot be quickened.

Casting Time 1 round

One round is longer than 1 full-round action. Ergo, it cannot benefit from the feat.

EDIT: Ninja'd

I know this probably goes against RAI, but I can not find anywhere in the Core book where it says that a specialist wizard can not take the universalist school as one of their opposition schools.

On page 79 of the Core book it just states that a specialist wizard must choose two other schools as his opposition schools. On the same page, it references the "universalist school" several times. Then on page 82, the Univeralist School is listed under Arcane Schools.

So, being that the universalist school exists, and that all schools (except his own) are available to a specialist for choosing as an oppostion school, is this allowed by RAW?

No. From the PRD:

Almost every spell belongs to one of eight schools of magic. A school of magic is a group of related spells that work in similar ways. A small number of spells (arcane mark, limited wish, permanency, prestidigitation, and wish) are universal, belonging to no school.

"Universal" is not a school. It is simply a designated grouping for spells which do not belong to other schools.

I am fine for the use of passive perception rules so long as it applies to bad guys too. As someone who tends to play "sneaky" characters, it would be very aggravating for lucky rolls to beat your stealth check in a scenario which you expect passive perception rolls to be in use.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Give me an official icon thingy, access to devs and I'll dedicate 20 hours a week for minimum wage to this.

Dream part-time job? You bet.

Ah, but here's the rub: if the devs had time to be accessed, this position would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? The devs would do it.

It would be someone able to fly solo. James and Jason and Stephen et al don't have time to be on tap.

I will volunteer my time, pro bono, to be the Pathfinder Sage. Just give me access to the FAQ'd post list and I'll start this weekend! :D

Who would win in a fight between these two: Hellknights or Space Marines?

I'd gladly dedicate a few hours a week to the FAQ for free, but as it's been said, the real matter is getting someone to see the rules the same way as the developers do.

Yeah, I'm going to put another vote in for Sorcerer here. No need for scrolls/spellbooks, Eschew Materials for free, and plenty of handy bloodline powers (some more so than others) to fill in for lack of weaponry. Focus primarily on touch/ranged touch spells that don't require saves and you should be okay without stat-boosting items.

I am in favor of the notion that the druids have declared Gilbraith to be a demon and a blight upon the land and that Erfan has been either tasked or inspired to do something about it.

Mothman: Maybe Erfan and Nathaniel have something of a long-term "friendship" established and, when Nathaniel mentions his sister's abduction, Erfan decides (in true Chaotic Neutral fashion) that he is going to join the ranger on his quest to be rid of a mutual enemy.

Erfan is a creature of the forest, a friend of the fae and of the local druids, though he is probably perceived by the locals in much the same light as a satyr or pixie... a mischievous nuisance but certainly nothing to be frightened of.

Any rangers/druids/woodsmen in the area have likely encountered Erfan before and those who were not immediately annoyed by him may have come to enjoy his somewhat alien sense of humor and fickle mannerisms.

Mistwalker wrote:

Kalrik wrote:

If that is correct, my halfling poisoner is disgusting. Two attacks normally, rapid shot, and haste gives him four thrown darts. If he hits with all four he delivers 8 doses of drow poison since he has deadly cocktail. That means that the fortitude save is increased by 14, making the save a DC 27.

With 4 darts, how are you getting 8 doses of poison applied?

Deadly cocktail advanced rogue talent allows for a weapon to be coated in two doses of injury poison.

Yes, but you just quoted this in your original post:

Contact and injury poison cannot inflict more than one dose at a time.

So yes, Deadly Cocktail allows you to apply two doses of poison to a weapon, but they can't inflict more than one dose at a time. For a melee weapon, that's fine. It means that you apply one dose with each of the next two hits. With ranged weapons, though, the ammunition isn't striking multiple times. You'd need to apply two DIFFERENT poisons to get the benefits of that talent (forcing a save against each of the two poisons separately).

Cool beans on the rewrite. One minor question:

Your training has also given you an almost preternatural ability to stay hidden and to confuse your opponents. Once per day you may add 1d6 to your sneak attack.

Does this mean I can increase my sneak attack damage by 1d6 for a single attack? Or for one round (potentially applying to two attacks with two-weapon fighting)?

That headband would be more expensive than that. Effectively he's getting a magic item without expending a magic item slot, so that would increase the cost of the headband element by 100%, not 50%. That makes the basic cost 19,000gp. I question if that's really worth it - Alwyn isn't massive on charisma skills and we already have a guy who specialises in them. The phylactery by itself might be better, and with the loss of Hudak maybe upping CON might be better.

I was operating off this line in the rulebook:

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

That would seem to suggest that two items which would normally share a slot can be combined by increasing the base price of the lesser item by 50%. You are welcome to rule differently, of course.

Rosey, are you OK with me sharing the skill bunny spot?

I was thinking mostly charisma stuff so we shouldn't overlap.
Not that some overlap isn't important.

Honestly, with two sorcerers in the party I don't think we'll lack much for Charisma. The party seems a little weak in the "front line" department, so something with a d10/d12 hit die would probably be ideal, assuming you haven't already set your heart on something.

Paladins are always good for Ravenloft.... >.>

EDIT: Although, looking at the skills between Moorluck's sorc and mine... maybe a bard would be pretty handy. Diplomacy, etc. we are somewhat lacking.