HaraldKlak's page

As a GM, I have the rule that player names are disallowed at the table, and enforce it (although less strictly in some games). In my experience it help keep the character perspective in the game.

Regarding names I've never set clear rules. Personally though, I favor names that are A) somewhat realistic medival names (thus not too fantasy-themed) and B) are easily pronuncable (I've seen too many characters whose names are forgotten because they are long and bothersome).

I've been looking at something similar (although a synthesist to get as many unarmed attacks as possible).

There is a problem though, concerning the synergy between AoMF and conductive. While I don't think there has been any official comment, there seem to be a lot that favors the ruling that the amulet counts as a single weapon in regards to weapon special abilities.

In that interpretation you only get to deliver the negative level(s) once.
Similarly it affects whether or not you loose the attack bonus on every attack on abilities such as defending.

I would allow it in a heartbeat.
Giving up elven immunities and elven magic to bump low light vision into darkvision? No balance issues here.

Fog cloud would help (or darkness if they don't have darkvision). If they can't see you, they can't target you.

False focus doesn't work if you are a straight cleric necromancer though. It's also useless for anything except using 1 hd undead to spring traps (which is easily done with summon monster 1).

Thanks, i will try to take a look at necrotic cyst.

I wanted to make a necromancer that could have a strong undead minion following around and create additional undead when necessary, but that doesn't seem possible under the current rules (at least not without throwing a ton of money down the drain).

Still really dissapointed that a level 11 necromancer can only create 2HD undead...

False focus can create free undeads up to 4 HD.

While they are going to be weak, it can actually work quite well. Low HD Burning Skeletons are awesome. Each round adjacent enemies take 1d6 fire damage, and attacking them unarmed or with natural attacks deal 1d6 fire damage as well. No save for half. Racking up 10 of these can make a significant impact on an encounter. They cannot simply be ignored due to the ongoing damage from their aura, and every attack on them is one less on the PCs.

For a strong undead minion, you need a creature with as high as possible str and some natural attacks. Making it into a bloody skeletons make it a one time expense.

Why can a lvl 11 necromancer only create 2HD undead? In an aura of desecrate the necromancer is able to animate a 44 HD creature. Granted, you need at creature with that many racial hit dice, but even a 22 HD like a Bloody Ancient Black Dragon Skeleton is going to be pretty awesome at lvl 11, for the meager sum of 1100 gp.

Anything that doesn't deal actual fire damage. The enemies you got so far, becomes significantly easier when the druid cast resist energy on every party member.

I am pretty sure it doesn't work like that. I can't find a rules reference, but it seem like a generel tendency that precision damage (and abilities such as flaming) isn't multiplied at all.

EDIT: Found it, but I see BBT beat me to the reference.

All being said has anyone else felt the same way as an alchemist or feels there is a need to either change the required level or have an addition to the rules for Haste and other spells like it or are things fine the way they are?

I think it is fine the way it is. Fast Bombs makes the alchemist an excredibly efficient blaster. I think it becomes too strong to allow multiple bombs earlier. If you lower the requirement, you'd get extra bombs earlier through rapid shot (+ haste at lvl 7, or earlier cast by others).

I love the Gravewalker witch for necromancers.

You get the animate dead spells at the same spell levels as a cleric.
To reduce expenses you can get the False Focus feat, and the Blood Money spell.

...

A Shield only need be wielded, to be used as a weapon.
...

And this is the part, where I find your look on shield rules to be a bit selective.

Light and heavy shield is armor types that can be used as weapons. Claiming that they are only weapons, disregards what they are beside a weapon.

EDIT: To add an example based on your interpretation that gets absurd: Spiked Armor. Just like a light shield it figures in the weapons table. So would you allow a spiked full plate to be quick drawn and wielded as a light weapon?

As far as magic goes, I am considering outright banning arcane magic, leaving just Divine and whatever concoctions the Alchemists can come up with. Possibly adding in the Artificer from ToS.

Too harsh?

If you want it low magic, I'd suggest banning full casters (and maybe the summoner).

Suddenly you don't have characters that only can do magic. The Bard and Magus become the spellslingers of the game, and the paladin and inquisitor get to become the primary healers in the world (although healing is significantly become scarce).

Additionally I'd suggest you remove all those spells that remove survival issues from the game.

It says it takes a move action to don a shield in the armor section of the equipment area of PRD. A shield is listed as a weapon also. Quick draw allows a weapon to be drawn as a free action instead of a move action.
I believe that, without any better rules to go by, I would have to say that by RAW you can quick draw a shield.

The existance of the quickdraw shield pretty much disproves this. They would probably not include an shield that specifically can be drawn as a free action with Quick Draw if that was the case for every shield.

Explain.

A shield is a type of armor that also work like a weapon. Both the rules for armor (specifically shields) and for weapons need to be taken into account.

While weapons can be drawn as a free action with quickdraw, a shield need to donned with is unaffected by quickdraw (apart from the quickdraw shield).

If we simply apply the weapons rules, we disregard the rules concerning armor.
When we treat the shield as both, you need a move action to don it. Or get a quickdraw light shield and the quickdraw feat to do it as a free action.

It is a weapon.

A shield, as well, is a weapon.

All can be quickdrawn, and used to attack.

A shield is a weapon.

A Klar is a weapon.

A shield is a weapon.

It isn't really RAW if you ignore half of the rules regarding the item...

Isn't it listed as a shield as well?

By the description it count as a spiked light shield. Shield normally can't be quickdrawn, eventhough they are listed in the weapons table due to bashing.

Personally, I would allow a quickdraw klar by paying the extra 50 gp, to make it similar to a quickdraw light shield.

I don't know of any official word on this.

However, there seem to be a consensus that you are allowed to prepare (or spontaneously cast) spell with metamagics applied, eventhough they only work if you change the descriptor when it is cast.

So a wizard could prepare a Rime Fireball. If he changes it to a cold spell when it is cast, the Rime metamagic takes effect. If he cast it without changing the descriptor, the spell just works as a normal fireball, using a higher spell slot.

It is the same for a sorcerer, although casting spontaneously removes the risk of applying a metamagic that you might not be able to use.

Hi, the book claims riding dog, the prd (which admittedly does contain any updates and errata) claims dog, are you free to pick or is it specifically dog?

It was changed (in the 5 printing as I recall) but didn't get mentioned in the official errata.

You should go with the regular dog, the riding dog is too strong for the SM1 choices, and almost similar to the 2-lvl hyena.

It is correct that it is revealing instead of death.

The symbol-spells generelly refers to Symbol of Death, regarding the way that kind of spells work (triggers, duration, etc.).

An don't forget the bonus to will saves when raging.

So a raging 14th level dhampir barbarian get the following bonusses:

Enchantment effects: +9 (+3+2+4)
Mind-effecting: +5 (+3+2)
All other will saves: +3

Yes, they stack.

Not only are they different types (undead resistance is a racial bonus, and indomitable will is an untyped bonus), but indomitable will even states that it stacks with all other bonusses.

I realize they probably saved word count by not saying "Druid or wizard level" but... as I said, I've gamed with some very very RAW heavy GMs over the years that would totally jump on this and make it therefore worthless to an arcane caster.

Does it matter?

I can't see why anyone would take it for a familiar. The familiar gains +2 int, +2 NA, and some kind of lesser special ability.

If a character readied an action to catch a bomb with a bag of holding/haver sack, how would you as players/GM's handle it?

First of all, this does not belong in the rules section, as the rules does not provide an possiblity of stopping a ranged attack with a readied action.

To answer your question, my initial response is to make it a reflex save (using the bomb DC) to catch it in the bag.
The consequences would be A) the contents of the bag (maybe just a couple of items) takes the damage from the bomb, and B) on a natural 1 on the save, the bag ruptures, and all content is lost.

If it becomes a standard strategy rather than a one-time fun experiment, I would revise the above.

"You mean I can put the -2 in my dump stat and place +2 in my two most important stats just like that!?"

I fail to see how that encourages roleplaying as opposed to rollplaying.

Well, the logic is sound enough: With the freedom to choose, you don't choose a mechanical optimal race instead of your choice based on flavor.

As said before, I don't agree with it, but there is a logic behind.

I wouldn't like free-for-all races. When I make a character it is a balance between flavor and mechanical-not-suckiness. I often make character without a racial bonus in the primary ability score. Often that end up in unexpected strengths and weaknesses that give value to the character concept.

This change would sway the focus toward more min-maxing of the mechanics in an unneccesary way.

Yeah, Skinsend is a pretty awful spell. Used offensively as an Alchemist (and I think only they can do it) via Touch Injection is pretty sweet. But I still just...refuse to pay the feat/discovery tax on Infusion for the ability to do what any other caster can. So my alchemist will have to pass on that trick.

I bolded two parts, I find a bit inconsistent. As you state yourself, alchemists are able to pull of tricks that noone else can.

Apart from the offensive combo above, they get to grant some rather sweet personal buff spells to their allies.

Under construct's attributes, some of the listed things are

• An extra X hit points (20 if medium size)
  
• Dies at 0 HP instead of getting into negative HP
  
• Cannot be healed (except by fast healing and repair-like spells/abilities)
  

1) Doesn't apply. The spell specifies the amount of HP you got.

2) Apply. Downside of being a construct.
3) Doesn't apply, IMO. The spell makes it clear that you cannot be healed above the hp you got (skinwise) when the spell was cast. This suggest that you can actually be healed.

It seem like a fair ruling.

I would add:
- The companion does get weapon proficiencies, but don't have limbs to use them, unless anthropomorpic animal or other polymorph is cast beforehand.
- The companion cannot be affected by spell through the share spell ability while transformation is in effect (similar to caster loosing the ability).

Freezing Spell is a 3rd party feat that predates the Rime Spell feat. Since they are similar in their effect, I would consider only allowing one of them.

@Magic Missile. It doesn't work. You cannot use Freezing Spell with it, since it doesn't grant a saving throw.

In other circumstances, freezing spell should allow Rime Spell, since it give the spell the cold-descriptor.

Uh, decapitation is typically an instant kill, so that ability is super incredibly OP. I mean, compare it to this weapon quality.

I am pretty sure the ability is intended to work as flavor when you kill someone, hence the "used to finish off a victim"-part.

I like the idea a lot. Great flavor, and history behind it, that I would like to include in a story sometime.

Mechanically however, I don't really like it. You've basically introduced the two-handed falcata with trip and perfomance.

Scythes are great for their high crit modifier, not range. IMO, you should build upon that instead.

The +2 to coup de grace save is a bit insignificant, so would suggest a bonus to massive damage DC instead, supporting the whole deadly critical / decapacitation portion.

Our point is simply that AC 19 isn't extraordinary at lvl 1. A sword and board fighter is likely to have it, and is going to increase several point over the next two levels.
Thus, while it might seem problematic in the specific encounters, it is well within what can be expected.

Abadar suggest useful ideas to challenge him. Otherwise, I'd say, let the tank have his fun. Martials tend to shine in lower levels, and that isn't a bad thing. As stated earlier it doesn't seem like a character that is going to dominate the game in the longer run.

Spring attack would allow you to move and avoid the AoE. I said nothing about not getting AoE'd if appropriate.

he'd go up, hit the guy, and yes, he'd fall down if he missed. That's exactly akin to jumping, landing on a concealed pit, and falling down. Nothing special about it. If it's an armored fighter vs a spellcaster, he'll likely overload the spell and drag him down by weight if he manages to grab hold.

==Aelryinth

The reason I mention Spring Attack, is that it allow you to move before and after the attack.

Normally you don't get to do that. And nothing in the rules suggest that you get to take an action before the falling rules sets in.

It is not comparable to jumping on to a concealed pit, as the problem isn't the jumping and falling down part, but the attempt to take an action in-between.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that it doesn't seem like a great deal.

While a lot of 1-st level monsters has difficulty hitting AC 19, remember to increase their chances through charging and flanking.

Based on what you've said, the character doesn't seem like one that is going to break the system. If his wisdom is low, his offensive spellcasting is going to be weak. With a low cha he is not going to channel that much.
While the cleric might make a decent tank, his AC is going to be lower than a comparable fighter. And his melee offense is going to be significantly lower.

Lobolusk wrote:

Can I take a move action to jump then at the apex attack using standard action ?

yes, jumping is part of normal movement.

==Aelryinth

I am not so sure.

You make a move action, ending it mid-air. Being in the air, without flying, results in you falling down. Thus you be at the ground when you get to take your standard action.

This move is one of the situations, where spring attack is a great feat to have.

It could also be done with ride-by-attack and a jumping mount.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this is fairly easy to accomplish using the vehicle rules. It makes a bicycle difficult to use in combat, as you need your actions to be control it. Although you can continue onwards as a move action, and use a standard action for something else, you'll need precision.

Chariot, Light

These two-wheeled vehicles are often used for racing or as the platform for a single archer racing though the battlefield at high speeds.

Something like:

-------

BICYCLE
Medium land vehicle
Squares 1 (5 ft. by 5 ft.; 5 feet high); Cost ??? gp

DEFENSE
AC 10; Hardness 5 (or more based on material)
hp 30 (14)
Base Save +0

OFFENSE
Maximum Speed: twice the speed of the pulling creature;
Acceleration: the speed of the pulling creature(s)
CMB +1; CMD 11 Ramming Damage 1d6

DESCRIPTION
Propulsion Muscle (pulled; 1 Medium creatures)
Acrobatics, Profession (cycling)
Forward Facing: toward the front of the vehicle
Driving Device: Handlebars
Driving Space: the most forward square of the chariot
Decks 1

SPECIAL:
The rider counts as both driver and pulling creature. A medium creature can ride a medium bicycle
The bicycle does not ignore difficult terrain.
Going uphill counts as difficult terrain (half max speed, half acceleration)

And then you can't use any of those hands off 2ndary natural attacks with claws or whatever.

Seems like a bad trade to me.

Higher damage dice + full str bonus as a monk, rather than claw attacks at -7 with only half str to damage. Seems like a great trade-off to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever the rolls are made in secret, the spell explicitly calls that out. From Spell Turning, for example... "From seven to ten (1d4+6) spell levels are affected by the turning. The exact number is rolled secretly."

So, whether it makes sense or not, the wizard knows how long he has.

After digging around, I found out that this is incorrect.

From the magic chapter on duration:

... If a spell's duration is variable, the duration is rolled secretly so the caster doesn't know how long the spell will last.

So unless anything specifies that the caster know the duration, he does not.

For the sake of many abilities, we might roll it openly, so the GM doesn't have to keep track. But for a spell like time stop, it has a great significance, so it should stay secret.

Can Masterwork Transformation be used on a single piece of ammunition, like a Durable Arrow?

Yes, I believe so.

While the spell states that you can enhance 50 arrows as one weapon, I'd expect a single arrow counts as a weapon for the spell.

I animate this thread!

I have a buddy coming with the idea of a Witch with False Focus.

What can he use this feat on?

Animate Dead is one, as is Masterwork Transformation.

What else?

Remember the 100 gp limit on False Focus. So MW transformation can only be used on tools with false focus.

Apart from this, this thread pretty much sums up some great options.

If somehow he could get communal stoneskin as a witch that is a golden choice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I'm saying is that it is a character choice. If your character already has the appropriate ability scores (and remember that these increase as you level) then training yourself to cast time stop (and assorted reality hacks, aka spells) is no more difficult than training yourself to be able to attack with a +17 BAB.

I've got a hard time envisioning that as a character choice rather than a player choice.

Class, BAB, and ability scores are all game-mechanical terms, rather than in character considerations.

If it is a universal truth that Car X is better than Car Y, why would anyone not take Car X if offered?

That's kind of the dilemma here, which I tried to tell you about. It's why Roy is an in-joke, as you had pointed out.
He basically took Car Y despite everyone around him knowing that Car X is going to drive faster and safer than Car Y.

Well, the abilities of a specific character isn't really a consumer choice. The player might have considerations of whether a choice is optimal or not, the character don't.

Applying such a universal truth about game mechanics into a game world, is even more absurd than applying it to cars. While we actually could set up objective parameters for cars (safety, speed, comfort, fuel consumption, price, and more), people buy different cars, eventhough some of them are bound to be suboptimal.

Playing the Lich as an idiot and removing all the possible buffs he could have is unrealistic.

Since the Lich is a Wizard, it is assumed he has a massive Intelligence score by the time he hits 20, and would thus be smart enough to hide his phylactery in an insanely hard to reach place, probably filled with guards called with Planar Binding or other means.

Doesn't the point then become: A lich played cleverly, can always hide his phylactery in a impossible to find/get to location?

It is correct, if the GM choose to do it that way. But it might not make for a very good game.
We can always build encounters that the players are going to loose against without preparation.

I don't think it is going to be that much of a problem.

Consider that a lvl 20 wizard lich probably has 130 hp, he is not going to survive that many attacks. Any respectable lvl 20 ranged character is going to off him in a full attack.

As others stated, with minimal preparation they can circumvent a lot of the lich's tricks, like protection from evil and high fire resistance.

You can always hide the phylactery in an impossible to find location, if you want to be that gm. But casters isn't going to find it either, provided the lich has done a minimum to protect it from scrying.

Now what would the answer be if she were to use a double weapon? Could the bonus be divided for each end?

No, sadly the smite text specifies that only one end of a double weapon is affected.

I think there is two seperate issues here. Loot balance, and dead/new characters.

1) On the subject of loot gain/loss from dead creatures, I prefer the inheritance/loss of equipment solution, as several has proposed. Alternatively (especially when there isn't any real concieveable way the party would give up the loot), making new characters start without anything other than basic loot and have the party equip them. It requires a rather altruistic party (or players who can disregard it for the benefit of the group).
I wouldn't bother with this at the lowest couple of levels.

2) In my current group, we substitute death with 'death/near death/permanent wounds'. As simple as it is, when you been at negative hp below your con score, you get to roll a d100 + 'amount of negative hp - con score'(stabilize checks continue after "death").
The higher roll, the more severe wound. Death only occurs above 100. Minor wounds might be scarring granting a penalty to certain skill rolls (and perhaps a bonus to others), severe wounds might be loss of a limb and/or reductions in an ability score.

This approach lets the game remain dangerous (perhaps even more so, as the GM doesn't have to pull the punches), while avoiding the revolving door dynamic in the group, and avoiding that bringing people back to life become common place.

By the rules, I can't done, since you can only affect a single weapon.

However, it is probably weaker, so I'd allow it anyway.
In a few cases it is a boon (such as having two +2 weapons, needing a +3 to get through DR), but in most cases, enhancing only the primary weapon would be the mechanically best choice.

It seem to me that you don't really like the idea of centaurs riding other creatures.
If that is the case, you should talk to them about it, plain and simple. Maybe they are okay with it, and drops either being a centaur or a dragon rider. And maybe they surprise you, and have a great, believable idea, as to how the centaurs ride other creatures.

KainMalice wrote:

Heightened Arcane Mark with Umbral Spell + Shadow Grasp.

Keep a few in your pocket until needed.

I were considering this as the cheap solution. However, it seems unclear whether or not shadow grasp function with a spell that doesn't affect an area in it self, before applying shadow grasp.

Since you've got umbral spell, you can make permanent entangling darkness traps.

Use umbral spell and shadow grasp on a continual light spell. Unlike tenebrous spell the umbral spell metamagic doesn't disallow [light]-spells. And the light from the spell has no effect, since it isn't a higher level than itself.

It is a GMs call basically.

The rules themselves doesn't provide for using more than a single off-hand weapon.

Some creatures get more attacks due to having more arms, but there is no general rules to support it.
Based on such creatures however, it might be a reasonable ruling to allow this for the eidolon/synthesist.

If allowed, your synthe-monk would have 7 unarmed strike attacks (2 primary due to bab, and 5 offhand attacks). With MWF the attack sequence is -2/-2/-2/-2/-2/-2/-7.