Am I missing something?
I see only one 13th level ancestry feat, and no 17th level ancestry feats at all. Are these set to come in future books or...?
Search Posts
Ravingdork's Nudel the Destroyer deals 36d8+23, and can maximize that damage(to 311) using Furious Finish. It's just one attack. The math on the dice of that attack seems off. Base: 4d8
Or am I missing something? Also, Strong Jaw indicates that only if the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized to double the damage, but the Behemoth Hippo is only Huge. Is it assumed then that because the Behemoth Hippo's bite damage is so high, that it is the bite attack of a larger creature?
Subject pretty much says it all. Looking for builds and some rough idea on damage output. Thanks :)
Our gaming group has decided to give this system a try, but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around one specific section of it pertaining to natural armor. According to the variant rule: A creature that has both DR from a source other than armor and a natural armor bonus gains the effects of an enhanced form of DR, similar to how the composition of the armor grants special DR/armor defenses (see Table: Armor Composition and DR). If a creature has magical armor, natural armor, and DR, it takes the best form of the special protection provided by both its armor and its mix of DR and natural armor to its DR/armor. For instance, if a creature has natural armor and DR/magic and is wearing adamantine armor, that creature’s DR/armor functions as DR/—, and can be bypassed by Gargantuan or larger creatures, since the adamantine armor provides the best of the two damage reductions. How is it determined what the 'best form' of damage reduction is? I understand that DR/- is the best (excepting DR/epic if running a mythic game), but the example doesn't address other forms, like DR/Bludgeoning, or DR/Chaotic, or DR/Silver. What is the hierarchy involved? Which of those is better than the other?
I don't have to worry about the players exploiting a trait. I've got a pretty good group. I hadn't considered the duration issue, though. Good ideas, gentlemen :)
Really? No one?
So, I'm starting an all dwarven campaign, and I've decided to add a few traits of my own to add some additional dwarfy flavor. I could use some suggestions on what sort of trait bonus to give a food-based trait.
Thanks!
Great suggestions! Thank you!
Unfortunately we're already running Kingmaker in an other group, heh - I should have mentioned that. We've also run all of Skull & Shackles. Rappan Athuk is also out since one of our players has been exposed to a great deal of it already, but something *like* that would be fantastic.
My group and I have decided it would be fun to run an all Dwarf campaign. What I'm looking for is an adventure path or modules that could easily be modified or already thematically appropriate for a group of all Dwarves. Note that we had originally attempted to play Rise of the Runelords, but that path focused too heavily on the town and its people, so I'm hoping to find something that doesn't involve so many NPCs. Thank you in advance for you suggestions!
The main reason I questioned it is because 'Frightened' is actually linked in the flavor text.
I have a question with regards to the Frightful Presence monster rule. You'll notice that there are three distinct conditions mentioned in the ability description, which I show listed in bold below:
So which is it? Does the creature become frightened or panicked if he fails and is 4 Hit Dice of fewer? Conditions
No, they are the same class. Granted, but it doesn't (as far as I've been able to read) expressly say you cannot multiclass the same class.
Is it possible to multiclass the same class? For example, 3rd level character. 2 Levels of Monk (Sensei Archtype)
Ultimately, I'm attempting to replace Strength and Dexterity with my Wisdom modifier for use with attacking, as per the Sensie ability: Insightful Strike (Ex) At 2nd level, a sensei may use his Wisdom bonus in lieu of his Strength or Dexterity on attack rolls and combat maneuver checks with unarmed strikes or monk weapons. This ability replaces evasion and the bonus feat gained at 2nd level. The only other way I could do it is through the Guiding Hand feat - which would mean I'd have to get Channel Energy from somewhere (In the campaign setting we're playing in, there are no clerics or paladins, so I'd have to go with priest or oracle with the life mystery).
Another option, depending on how permissive your DM is, would be to go with the Kensai archetype. Then your weapon of choice could be a Katana. Mmmm... Katana...
Ah. In that case, I would go with a rapier instead of a longsword. The higher crit range will benefit a STR based magus (plus remember, spellstrike does have the ability to crit as well) - and if you could eventually get your hands on a keen rapier, you'd be criting on 15-20 - which is fantastic. Edit: I forgot a Magus can give their weapon the keen quality, which makes this even better.
I'm a little confused... you're making a STR-based Magus AND a non-Dervish/DEX Magus?
Fantastic! Great ideas, I especially like the poorly worded wish.
1) A bag is spotted laying beside the road. Upon closer inspection, it contains a severed head. 2) Thick, [insert strange color here] smoke is seen rising from the woods. 3) A sinkhole drops the group into an ancient underground cavern/temple/city. 4) The sound of a baby crying nearby. 5) The party encounters an archaeological team/dig with some interesting/strange discoveries. 6) A trail of copper/silver/gold/platinum coins leads into a cave. 7) Some kind of natural disaster threatens to destroy a village the party is staying overnight in. Flood, volcano, etc. 8) A crazy hermit with riddles - a "treasure map" as a reward.
The story so far: The players were hired by the lord of a city to escort him to a "secret meeting" being held atop the land's highest mountain. There have been assassination attempts, some political intrigue and unseen enemies attempting to thwart their journey. The center of dwarven society, and greatest dwarven city, is build into the mountain the PCs are traveling to. When the PCs reached the dwarven city, they learned of plans to kill the current king (the believed end of the royal line) and seat a noble being controlled by the BBEG. The reason for this, is that only the king or someone of the royal bloodline has access to the ancient vault, wherein an artifact is kept - an artifact of elven make we will call "The Key". The PCs discovered this plan, and also learned that dwarf in their party is a lost heir to the throne. They prevented the King's assassination, acquired "The Key" but don't yet know what it does. They PCs were also tipped off that the Lord they have been escorting isn't what he appears to be. When we resume game, they will likely attempt to ascertain his true identity. What is actually going on: I need help bringing all of these things together. Sort of... the tie that binds. -There is no secret meeting. At the top of the mountain is actually a prison, a magical "bubble" holding an elf queen. Accessible only by someone holding "The Key". -The lord that hired them is actually an ancient elf in disguise (the king/lover/husband of the imprisoned elf queen), and knew the dwarf in the party was an heir to the dwarven throne and thus would have access to "The Key" - he obviously wants to reunite with his love. Here's where it starts getting difficult. I want the reason for the elf queen to be imprisoned to have something to do with a lost elven city. Releasing her reveals the ancient city along with its power/treasure, but I also want something bad to happen (maybe several bad things to happen). Perhaps in doing so the Tarrasque is awoken. I like that it gives the PCs choice. Do they help the elven lord reunite with his lover knowing the consequences (the PCs may or may not be powerful enough to fight a tarrasque by the time they reach the summit). Do they prevent the elven lord from releasing his queen, saving the lives of people? Also, there is still a BBEG in the background, that just wants the power/riches he believes can be found in the lost elven city. So, I guess I'm just looking for a few suggestions to help pull all of this together. There's a good framework, but there's a few holes I'm having trouble filling.
Well, because Leadership is already banned by most non-workaholic GMs ?Oh, I'm sorry. You meant to say "incompetent" GMs, right? :D Not only do I allow leadership, but I give it for free to PCs that reach 7th level and have a Charisma of 17 or higher (Those without the charisma requirement may also still opt to purchase the feat). I just make the PC do all the work. They want a cohort? They are responsible for it.
I'm really not sure I can articulate a proper answer. When I created my world, I just... sat down with a piece of paper and started drawing. I had a basic idea of a theme or concept, but as far as the actually landmass, I just... started drawing.
The +3 bonus is a simplified hold-over from version 3.5 In version 3.5, the max ranks for class skills at level 1 was actually 4 and players were granted enough skill points to compensate. So, for example, a 1st level rogue got (8 + int)x4 skill points to spend.
I would go with skeletons. They come in a wide variety of challenge ratings. So, for a first encounter, I would probably throw the weakest ones at them, maybe like 3 or 4 of them, and see how they do. If they defeat them with ease, maybe try one or two harder ones - and so on.
Actually, that group is level 7 already and the rogue is still having a blast :)
I once ran a fighter/barbarian only campaign with Nordic themes. Was absolutely fantastic.
All good information, thank you :)
I HIGHLY recommend against the point buy system. The point buy system robs your players of roleplay opportunities. To give you an example, I'm currently running a game where the rogue rolled a character with a 6 in intelligence and a 5 in wisdom. He took it in stride and enjoys the hell out of roleplaying an idiot rogue. There was one scene in particular where the PCs were handed a bag in a crowded inn. The rogue looked in the bag and saw there was a severed head inside - but he wanted the bag (it was a very nice bag). So, he simply dumped the head out of the bag, sending it rolling across the floor. You can well imagine the scene that unfolded. It was extremely entertaining for everyone involved. Generally speaking, most players aren't going to handicap themselves like that using a point buy system. Obviously this is purely opinion, so do with it as you will :)
Is it possible for this to truly be a viable PC? I love the idea of a Gnome Illusionist, I'm just not sure I can really contribute much of value to a party with this concept. Thoughts? Suggestion?
No 18-20 crit range monk weapons? Was this done on purpose?
This is simply not accurate. This would put MORE money into the hands of Americans, not less. Those at the lower income would stand to gain the most from the Fair Tax. A prebate is issued to households which would cover the basic needs, such as food. Keep in mind something. Corporate taxes would be eliminated from businesses - thus making the United States the world's greatest tax haven for business. When taxes are raised on businesses, the business doesn't actually pay that additional tax. The cost of goods is simply increased. The fair tax simply replaces the inclusive taxes already present in goods.
What happens when cartoons are drawn mocking Muhammad?
What happens when cartoons are drawn mocking Jesus or Christianity?
Two things: First: www.usdebtclock.org Republican and Democrats are both responsible for our massive debt. 16 Trillion dollars? Are they insane? I realize social issues are important to a lot of people, but to me - nation debt seems like the elephant in the room. Or... perhaps freight train... filled with elephants. Second: www.fairtax.org We need the Fair Tax. I don't care who implements it. The president that does will go down in history as the man or woman that put the country back on the path towards prosperity.
The original version of the spell immobilized the target for a round. It was later errata'd and the save condition reduced to staggered. Which is why I always use d20pfsrd instead of the books.
As per the spell the creature that saves is not immobilized, it is staggered. Staggered A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
I tend to not let my vast knowledge get in the way of other peoples games This concerns me a little. It may be that the rules lawyer thing is just the gaming group's way of dealing with a different issue entirely. For example: A girl that starts crying at the checkout line in a grocery store when they have to call for a price check, isn't crying about that. Do you suppose it's possible that your knowledge of the rules is being presented badly, that perhaps those in the group are getting an arrogant vibe from you or that you have a measure of hubris because of what you know? As the old adage goes "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." Ultimately, it is difficult to say if you are or are not a rules lawyer without actually being present during one of your games. Since this thread is here, and it's being brought up in your games though, there is something wrong. Personally, if I see something happening during game where a rule is being used incorrectly (like your example of the rogue/rogue multi-classing archetype thing) then the way I typically will handle it, is that I'll wait until the game session is over, then have a private talk with the individual, be it DM or player. That way, they aren't embarrassed about being called out, and it doesn't interrupt the game.
Assuming the charges are what create the value of the wand, here's another way to do it. 19 charges remaining out of 50. That's a reduction of 31 charges. 31/50 (31 divided by 50) gives you 0.62, or a 62% reduction in value.
Per the pathfinder rules: Breaking Items When a character tries to break or burst something with sudden force rather than by dealing damage, use a Strength check (rather than an attack roll and damage roll, as with the sunder special attack) to determine whether he succeeds. Personally, I've always had a bit of an issue with this - with ability checks in general. Let's use, for example, a burly warrior and a frail wizard. The warrior has a strength of 18(+4) and the wizard has a strength of 10(+0). The two of them come across a simple door and decide to break it down. The DC to break down a simple door is 13. The warrior rolls poorly (he rolls an 8, which gives him a final check of 12) so he fails to break down the door even though he's broken much stronger doors in the past. The wizard smugly steps up and tells the warrior to move aside. He rolls a 16. Bam. The door breaks open and the wizard scoffs at the clearly inept warrior. Okay, so. I realize the following: I know that something like bashing open a door with a strength check is something that can be repeated, and the chance for the warrior to break the door is ultimately higher due to his strength score. Additionally, I can appreciate the humor that comes from the scenario I depicted. It bothers me a little though. I haven't actually run the math, but I think the warrior with an 18 strength, and thus a +4 modifier, only has a 20% advantage over the wizard. It just does not feel right. An idea I had that might work as a possible fix for it, is to allow characters to spend skill point ranks increasing the modifier on ability based checks. So, one would have Strength listed as a skill (I haven't decided yet if I'd make certain abilities class or cross-class) and it would go like this: Level 4 Fighter with 18 Strength Skills
This now reflects that the fighter has learned how to bash down doors well, or how to control his strength better. In essence... strength training like those that compete in strength competitions. Anyhow, I'm not sure how or if the idea will fly. I figured I'd toss it to the wolves and see if it survives.
The DM who does that extra work is a good DM, and deserves all the respect for fleshing out the campaign world at large. Just like with players, there are good and bad DMs. I consider a DM who doesn't do much work for the campaign world (or to work things out with his players) can't really be called a good one, just like how most of us can agree that munchkins and people who ignore the story completely generally make bad players. True. The more prepared the DM is, the more depth and richness will be added to the game. Still, this can differ from gaming group to gaming group. Some groups love the complexities of social interactions in towns. Others really don't care what people think of them and are really just interested in the dungeon crawl.
I found it most useful in assisting me with world-building. It also allowed me to fill in some racial gaps.
Goodness this thread got nasty quick. I'm going to ignore the bickering and respond to the OP. For me, it depends entirely on the setting. I'm not familiar with, nor have I ever played in PFS. That being said, consider the following: It stands to reason though that in any high magic setting, the common folk have come to accept the strange and unusual as part of their daily lives. We then go back to the "it depends" aspect of this. How frequently do bizarre things happen? How prolific are non-human races in populated areas? For the sake of answering the 'how' part of your question, lets assume for a moment we have a village populated by humans. Let us also assume that the only non-human race they've encountered is goblin. We'll also say that the goblins have not been especially friendly, having raided the town, perhaps even killed a few people. Here we have a populace whose experience is the tilling of earth, the changing of seasons, basic survival, the village festival, and of course all the interpersonal shenanigans common to small communities. Add a collective disdain for the only thing not like them, the goblins in this case, and a form of paranoid racism begins to flourish. Resentment festers from the deaths of loved ones. Children are taught to hate and fear any goblin they see. Then, one day, a half-demon lizard man with flaming wings and a huge- sized flaming spider pet (I realize it is an exaggerated example, but it is functional for this little scenario) enters town. This creature is so far out of their daily experience, that most will likely respond with terror with perhaps a few with a modicum of fascination. To deal with something so strange, it is likely village elders would be summoned, guards would be alerted, and it would be the biggest event the little village has ever experienced. We are all influenced by our environment and our experiences, and this is also so for NPCs, both individuals and groups. I'm not a psychologist, but it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to envision the outcome I depicted above, nor does it take much to predict what would happen if a player with a goblin character were to enter town. Unfortunately, what this means is more work for the DM. If you are going to allow strange races into your game, then you might want to have at least a basic idea of how different communities in your campaign will react. In the world I created, Drow are exceptionally rare, so much so that most average folk have never heard of them. Elves on the other hand are extremely prolific. So, average people would see a Drow with about the same reaction as seeing an albino, or "I didn't know elves came in that color".
Meh. I really don't see this as a problem.
Here's a couple options:
Hahaha - redward, TheRonin - you made me smile :)
I don't know, guys. Maybe the Antagonize feat is realistic. I've only read through the arguments in favor of Antagonize as written one time and I'm already tempted to go kick a puppy. So if it's possible for an opponent to recite the full text of the Antagonize feat as a standard action, my pacifist character may very well choose to go berserk and punch that opponent in the face. It is MUCH easier to anger someone than it is to seduce someone. Anyone that drives can tell you that.
1) I very much dislike point buy systems, so I use the 4d6 drop lowest. I then also roll a set in secret for each player. The player then has the option of using what they rolled or what I rolled, but the decision is final, even if my scores are worse than theirs. 2) I use the medium or fast depending on the goals of the campaign. Also, I tend to give much better experience rewards for good roleplaying and good story than I do for killing bad guys. Roleplaying should be more about roleplaying and less about how much damage one can do, in my opinion. 3) Lately I've used the stipulation of "If it's available on PFSRD, you can use it," however I still ask the players come to me with their ideas so I can approve or disapprove it (or help them with the concept if it's an unusual one).
Do you think it's a balanced feat as is? If not, why not?I'd probably make it a full round action for balance. Completely irrelevant. The discussion here involves Pathfinder published material.
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat. What is "rule 0"? I've never heard that term before. Ah. Okay, I looked it up. Praise Google. The DM is always right. Got it. The game system provides for us a means to an end - a framework with which to create consistency. However, the game rules and the human element are not mutually exclusive. We are not computers running a program. Let's look at this another way. Fireball. A 5th level PC could saunter into a crowded market, drop a Fireball, and kill a large amount of innocent people. What is preventing him from doing so? There is no game rule stopping him from doing it. Not even alignment stops him from doing it. If the player says he does it, he does it. Does that mean Fireball is broken because it can kill indiscriminately a group of people with literally no hope to survive it? The game, despite what most people would say, does assume a measure of common sense and personal restraint. It is the most difficult thing for new players to both realize and master. Most new players to the game, in my experience, don't do much their first few times playing because they don't realize they can do almost anything. Are there consequences to their actions? Certainly. Is there common sense that says you can or can't do something? Always. In the end, what am I trying to say? Is Antagonize broken? In a void without the human element? Perhaps. Is the feat broken when you include common sense and reason? Absolutely not.
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat. This. I maintain that there isn't a feat or a spell or an ability anywhere in this game pre or post errata that cannot be handled by a reasonable DM. Your word as DM is law, and sorry - but the game rules do not trump the DM. If you, as a DM, think it's logical that a 70 year old lady charges an ogre because he's taunting her - great. Personally, if a player or a monster had Antagonize, it's usefulness would boil down to common sense. Is a defenseless villager being beaten down by a thug? Antagonize him and draw his attention. Is the ogre looking to distract a guard while his goons attempt to sabotage the bridge he's guarding? They better hurry, they only have one round to do it before he realizes what's going on.
I do not have an opinion if this is for Pathfinder Society. For a regular home game with friends however, it is perfectly acceptable to have some leniency. Let him spend his money on creating a +1 item. Trust me, it will not unbalance your game. If for some reason it becomes a problem, magic items are incredibly easy to take away from players. Like taking candy from a baby :)
|