Flesh Golem

Jak the Looney Alchemist's page

604 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 604 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Tom S 820 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
The storm giant example is not the best, as suddenly it has the AC and high damage of a CR 15 encounter, two above its listed one. Not to mention good luck finding someone willing to buy a Huge sized magical greatsword =/

+2 AC, +1 to hit and d6+1 extra damage is that big a deal?

The cheesy part of that is the gear being useless.

It dose not matter if the gear useful to the party. It only matter how useful it is to monster. If you give a Ork an 100k deed to some ocean front property in Arizona it does not change his CR one bit.

Off topic, but how can one have ocean front property in arizona? It is somewhat surrounded by land on all sides.

Edit: On topic, that is not nice. At least give them something they can try to unload.


Brain in a Jar wrote:


Good job. Except that "thief" isn't a class. Otherwise your example is fairly...oh wait i see you're being a sarcastic jerk for no reason.

I'm not bashing people who in their games want to play a "good" Assassin and it's a house-rule in their game. So i don't understand why you're mocking me.

Most people from what I've seen just want the mechanics and don't care about the fluff behind the class. I don't care if you use house rules to get your way. But seriously i see people ranting about Evil Assassin's, Lawful Good Paladin's, etc. Questioning why?

The reason why is that when they were made...

The thief is one of the archetypal rogues. I was not trying to mock you. I was demonstrating that you're adding words that are not present in the rules, via your perception of the fluff text. I could do the exact same thing with Paladins demonstrating why they are the ultimate evil from my perspective.

"Why can't the Wizard wear armor without penalties?
Why does my Cleric need a Divine Focus?
Why do any of the classes have prerequisites?
Why do any of the classes have differences?"

These are questions of mechanics. They are mandated for a logical reason and are not based off of opinion or build.

I do not wish to play an assassin and I don't really care if paizo changes the rules. I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. I agree with Cheapy's post.

The only real reasons seem to be tradition and popularity. Nothing wrong with that it works for me.

Mind you other points of consideration for your argument. It mentions nothing about assassins being paid for their actions in the text or their motivations for their actions outside of the fluff text. To do so would be to limit character design and therefore appeal.

The reason that this question comes up so often is that in nearly every case of designated alignment there is a mechanical justification for it, except for in a few cases, one of which is the assassin. None of its powers or talents is any more or less fundamentally evil than any other classes powers. The only mechanical justification for the evil text is the mandatory killing requirement which many see as nonsensical. That requirement being akin to stating that all paladins must have backstories that include 6 years of church doctrine and all rogues must have stolen and or backstabbed at least one person.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:

It's quite plain and simple. Look at just about any example of an Assassin and they are not good guys.

Their profession is cold blood murder and they don't blink an eye at killing an innocent person if that's the target.

For the people that say, "but i kill people for good reasons", that's a nice way to sugar coat the fact that you're a professional murderer.

The entire point of the prestige class is murder for profit. If you want to play a "good" Assassin then just don't take the prestige class. Just take a selection of feats and abilities that allow you to do your job.

Play a fighter, a rogue, a ninja, or even a wizard. That way you can play you're watered down "good" Assassin.

It's quite plain and simple. Look at just about any example of a thief and they are not good guys.

Their profession is stealing and they don't blink an eye at stealing from an innocent person if that's the target.

For the people that say, "but I steal from people for good reasons", that's a nice way to sugar coat the fact that you're a professional thief.

The entire point of the class is to steal for profit.... I could go on, but I think I've proven my point. Anyone can do this for their view of any given class by interpreting the fluff text that way. This is why generally the fluff text is disregarded when it comes to rules mechanics.


I don't know if the paladin was metagaming. I don't really see enough information above to be sure of that.

The party seemed to know they were going into a gnoll slave camp and that they would be grossly outnumbered and that acting rashly could get them all killed.

If the paladin knew all of this and doubted his own self control and/or has a history of might before brains if present in that situation then in my book he was not meta gaming.

Did he dodge that one? Possibly really depends on how you look at it. On the other hand it could be that the paladin spent a very long and painful day sitting watching a mule praying that his team, that he could not help due to his own failings, was able to save the slaves.

Or he could be a metagaming prig and said peh I'm not going to bother.

As far as the overall difficulty of the situation is concerned it sounds to me that the party is a little slow at problem solving. There isn't anything really wrong with that. As presented there are numerous solutions to the above problem assuming a willing dm which the OP seems to be. I'd just want to keep in mind my audience. This was a puzzle, some groups don't really go for puzzles or intrigue and you might want to keep them simple if that is the case.

I've played with groups that your situation was the standard affair every week. I've also played with groups that would have never conceived of that situation occurring in one of their games. On the whole it seems like the OP handled a difficult situation well.


Tell your dm to read the diplomacy skill.

" Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

Ignoring the fact that he his house ruling diplomacy to work on pcs. It would still auto fail because the sorcerer in question is not making a request other than change your belief system and that does go against your values and/or nature.


Solution 1: Sure it is people do it all the time. I've done it myself on occasion. Irritating hell yes. Unplayable no.

Yeah solution 2 is ideal, but what are you going to do. Solution 3 is the question of is it worth it to chew out my player for using metagaming knowledge to reroll a save/attack/spell resistance check. The only answer to that is dm and situation based.

Personally I'd call them on it and let it slide the first time.

Your proposed solution 4 is alright, the only problem is the implementation of it. If you've got players that don't metagame then you're weakening their power. If you've got players that do metagame then you're installing a limiter on it. The problem is the dm isn't playing fair if they institute house rules on the fly. The character should know what their powers do when they take them. It becomes a question of foresight.


Solution: 1. All attack roll numbers will be handed in on little slips of paper so as to not compromise the integrity of the luck cleric.

Edit: Email is faster and saves trees.

2. Trust the cleric to roleplay his character and not metagame his knowledge of the opponents ac and only to reroll on really bad rolls.

3. Don't worry about it. If the pc is burning rerolls on attack swings he's probably wasting them.

Edit: The following concerns can easily be corrected by following solution 2. If you character is using out of game knowledge to influence his character then the problem isn't the power.


LOD 2 added in demon's talon, so you could replace a hand with just craft wondrous item and a good bit of cash.


You say celestial and I'm thinking you guys are high enough that you got cash to blow. False conclusion on my part. Sorry about that. Yeah until you're rolling in dough or have a crafter on hand they can be somewhat prohibitively expensive.


I'm pretty sure its in the UC. Just checked yup its in there silken ceremonial armor.


Uh? Bracers of armor have no max dex bonus and the armor bonus can be set wherever you'd like up, or rather can afford up to a max of eight.


Bracers of armor not available?


Black tentacles by bow, hell yeah. Awe inspiring? heck no. Handy? dear god yes.


"Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus with selected natural weapon.

Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike.

Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature."

The question is does your dm consider two weapon rend to be an effect that augments an unarmed strike or they consider it to be an effect that augments an attack action.

I see it as a conditional effect augmenting an attack action as opposed to augmenting specifically an unarmed strike.

As I said a case could be made for it either way.

Edit: Don't mind me.


blackbloodtroll wrote:


Get feral combat training, get both effects.

Ahhh I see what you're saying now. I can see the argument since technically they are being triggered by separate sources, but I don't think it would work because two weapon rend doesn't have improved unarmed combat as a prerequisite so feral combat wouldn't apply. Also two weapon rend states that the damage can only be dealt once each round. It doesn't differentiate between sources or triggers just has that hard close.

Although I could see a flexible dm going for it.

Kyris. Yeah it isn't really an awe inspiring set up considering how expensive the feat tax happens to be. However, I did build a moms that used a similar set up and stacked boar style on that mess with the other auxiliary rend feats set in, that was also less damage heavy, but really cool.... at least in concept.


You are effectively creating a new creature either way at least until someone can find some rules for making mini golems. I have not found any. I've looked. Wanted a mini iron golem. This is the best I've found so far.

Assuming medium size for an adult human. I'd drop the young template on it. That's going to affect pretty much everything but con which is still affected because golems get bonus hp factored in on size. So you drop the cr. Which then drops the price from 10500 to 9000.


bbt This is where I'd start

"This section provides guidelines for those seeking to calculate the costs of crafting their own constructs. As a rough guideline, a construct’s price is equal to its challenge rating squared, then multiplied by 500 gp. Constructs with a fractional CR rating base their price on that fraction of 500 gp. For example, a CR 1/2 construct has a price of 250 gp. The cost of magical supplies for the Craft Construct feat is half this price, with the construct taking 1 day to create per 1,000 gp of the construct’s base price. Some constructs, particularly golems, have additional raw material costs that must be paid in full, regardless of whether the creator possesses the Craft Construct feat. Raw materials typically cost somewhere between 5% and 10% of the construct’s base price.

Constructs with multiple special abilities cost more to create. The first special ability is included in the construct’s base cost. The next two special abilities increase the calculated price by +1/2 CR per ability. Thereafter, any additional special abilities add +1 CR per ability. Examples of special abilities include having a higher DR value than a typical construct of its CR (above DR 5 for CRs 1–8, above DR 10 for CR 9+), monster statistics that exceed those recommended for the construct’s CR, the standard golem immunity to magic, DR or hardness that can’t be overcome by all adamantine weapons, ability to be fully healed by a single spell, and most special attacks and special qualities.

Particularly powerful special abilities, such as an iron golem’s exceptionally high attack bonus, count as two lesser abilities. Animated objects are a special case—their base price is not increased by any abilities paid for with Construction Points, since these abilities are already factored into an Animated Object’s CR. In addition, golems and homunculi created with extra Hit Dice, the advanced template, or shield guardian abilities should all be priced as described in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary, rather than by adjusting pricing for their new CR.

Abilities that weaken or potentially place a construct at a disadvantage rarely reduce the construct’s price. An exception is the berserk ability. Constructs that have a chance of going berserk receive –1 CR adjustment to their calculated price if control can be reestablished (like a flesh golem) or –2 CR adjustment for permanent loss of control (like a clay golem). The following is an example of the calculated costs for creating a stone golem (CR 11). A stone golem’s special abilities are golem immunity to magic, full healing from transmute mud to rock, a high to-hit bonus (+22 vs. the +19 typical for CR 11), and the ability to slow its foes. Further, since its spell vulnerabilities are not tied to common spells or effects, its immunity to magic cost is doubled, giving the stone golem a total of 5 special abilities. The first special ability doesn’t affect the cost, the next two increase the cost by +1/2 CR each, and the final two each increase the cost by +1 CR individually, making its effective CR for pricing equal to 14. This produces a calculated price of 98,000 gp, rounded up to an even 100,000 gp.

When designing a new construct, keep in mind that the above pricing formula only serves as a guideline. As with magic items, construct pricing remains more art than science, and like magic items, compare new constructs to existing ones for guidance. If you’re not sure, err on the side of a higher price."

Probably should have just done a link. Check out your ultimate magic.

Edit: Shrinking a golem is one of the few times I could definitely see lowering the cost in relation to cr. Considering that size influences quite a things for them. To drop a golem's size is to plummet its combat effectiveness and overall survivability.


I don't think he needs feral combat training really. He isn't using his natural attacks with any unarmed feats or powers.

I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't stack. There isn't any rend type damage. Neither are ex rend effects. Neither feat seems to state or imply exclusivity other than they each can only be activated once per round.


Ravingdork wrote:

The reason I do it the way I do is I have really poor memory. I often forget what number of temporary hit points I have, or where I put that sticky note.

If I roll it as I'm damaged, it usually gets used up and I only have to know the result for the two seconds it takes me to do the hit point/damage math.

I highly recommend getting a cheap notebook for your character. At the start of every game I pick a page and that is my note paper for the day. Come up with a shorthand for all of your spells and other temporary modifiers and just note time cast and variable effect if its got one. I find this saves me a great deal of time and effort.

It also makes it easier to diagram out your rolls if someone calls shenanigans.


Kyoni wrote:

Jak: if your feets are dragging on the ground I'd give you that -5 to ride checks because your feet getting in the way is making it harder to ride (but not impossible)

One of the base rules is common sense. ;-)

Imho you should get severe penalties for trying to ride these... but you could try. 8-)

If the mount is inappropriate then you take a -5 penalty. So well yeah.

There aren't any rules that dictate which part of your body has the strength so in accordance with the rules and oddly enough logic if the pseduodragon can carry you it can fly with you. Stipulating that muleback cords only make your arms stronger is silly. If this were the case then they would be useless because your most of your carrying weight is generally distributed across your back and shoulders.

Mind you unless you're pretty freaking tiny the pseudodragon isn't going to be carrying you at all even with muleback cords, because size modifiers affect carry weight, and even if you are he isn't going to be flying very fast due to weight and travel restrictions.

Yes I know strength has little to do with flight, but if we start breaking out the formulas for aerodynamics then we have to take flight away from pretty much every nonmagical flier in the game particularly dragons. If you apply the real world logic in one situation you should probably apply it in all corresponding situations.


Is there a problem with legs being dragged on the ground? If it really bothers the character in question sit cross legged. Probably want to make a custom saddle so that it would be more comfortable.

The only thing that size seems to affect is carrying capacity.

Str still not high enough I'm thinking on the tiny dragon due to the size modifier but I see where you're going.


"Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect)."

It is also why it specifically calls out universal formula as not working with infusion. Universal formula being a personal range extract and not working with infusion because the caster has to make a decision about which extract it functions as.

If you drink an infusion the drinker functions as the caster. I've spent the last ten minutes running paizo forums searches and have yet to find any evidence to the contrary.

Edit: Yes I am aware that I'm quoting potion rules after stating that they don't function with potion rules. After checking every other thread I could find it was the only relevant comparison that was consistent in logic. So I recant my previous statement. Whereas it doesn't state that they do mechanically in many ways they mirror.

"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist." I found this under the general alchemy heading. Infusion seems to be written precisely to be a way around the range restriction on potions.


Name Violation wrote:
but that doesnt change the fact they are range :personal. only the alchemist can benefit from them, anyone else is an invalid target

Alright I'll bite. Where are you getting this from?


Actually name violation it does.

"When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects."

Nowhere in there does it state or imply that infusions follow potion rules.

Simple solution Montis don't sell them higher level potions if you don't want them to have them. More complicated solution. Don't worry about it. He's going to run out of level 2 extracts real quick buffing the party that way. Just watch the duration times and separate out a few fights and you'll probably nip that problem right in the bud.


Glutton wrote:
It is a much better rage power tree than it gets credit for.

Seriously. I never noticed that and always considered it to be the slightly gimped, but flavorful little sibling of the other trees, but I'll be damned that is pretty awesome.

I feel oddly tempted to scrap my next character idea and draw up a barb/rage prophet/bones oracle. Negative energy zaps while he casts how can you knock that.


Glutton wrote:
furthermore these little buggers can attack if you move like a mini pounce, and can attack even if you are in a situation that prevents you from attacking (held, etc)

Hmm... I had never thought of that. There must be a fun and effective way to use that. Maybe spirit totem mixed with panther style... Hmm... It looks like it attacks whether the barb does or not.


Toss up a build so that we can verify its legal and its weaknesses and then it will be possible to take it from there.

Beyond that start throwing around non evil villains.

Edit: Pesky ninja.


To go out on a limb and give the dm the benefit of the doubt as far as sanity is concerned I'll state that he probably thought that you were "casting" your false life more than once per usage of the spell.

That is the only reason I could see for him being upset other than nitpicking over procedure.

I wouldn't care in the slightest. If it does not matter it does not matter.


Shallowsoul cool but for many others that are a myriad number of reasons for wanting to play said characters. In some campaigns they are necessary. Some people feel pathfinder is a competitive sport. Some people have deep seeded psychological issues regarding their views of themselves and make up for it by roleplay. Some people don't care about the rules. The list can go on all day.

Very often you catch a great deal of flack because you seem to believe that your definitions are universal. I have absolutely no problems with your house rules. I don't think many people on the forums do. People take umbrage with how you convey yourself.


Because you're not swinging at the mirror image. You're swinging at the person in question. The images are mirroring your actions.


An example of is not a definition of in regards to subject.

What you define as cheese has been mandatory for survival in several campaigns I've played in. I don't overall enjoy that style of play although I can hold my own.

Invariably whether something is appropriate or inappropriate depends entirely upon group.

In order to answer why people in general try slip one past the dm you're going to need to limit some variables if you want a functional reason. To start with I'd suggest picking a person. The question you've asked is a frighteningly complex question that psychology has yet to give a working answer.

I personally will sit around when I'm bored and draw up obscenely overpowered characters that are perfectly legal that I will never play. I draw them up because I have a love of numbers and the mechanics behind them. I like seeing how far the system can be pushed according to its legal, see the rules, limits. I don't play them because I like a good challenge and I don't see the need to outshine my group or to make my dm work harder to accommodate me. That for me isn't fun and in the group in which I play currently it isn't necessary.


shallowsoul wrote:


That's usually called optimization but your car still has rules for staying "street legal".

Absolutely and those laws are clearly defined. Cheese has yet to be given a non subjective definition that I can find.... other than the traditional milk based variety.

Until we can either get together and decide on a common "cheese" definition for everyone then it is going to vary from group to group. Therefore slinging it around is primarily useless except to assert that one disapproves of an idea and or concept.


That the wizard in question is fifth level (we're assuming that he can cast simulacrum somehow in this hypothetical situation) and he needs to be sixth so that his simulacrum he is planning to make has enough hd that it can have the craft wondrous item feat.


He wasn't stating or implying that they could shallowsoul.


"Acquiring Skills

Each level, your character gains a number of skill ranks dependent upon your class plus your Intelligence modifier. Investing a rank in a skill represents a measure of training in that skill."

When I read the above it means that I have trained in its use and information about the skill. When my character invests in knowledge religion he trains in Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead). The information doesn't magically appear when I spy a vampire. It magically appeared when I went up a level.


You can tightly pack 8 people into a 5 by 5 square (curse those theater group exercises). Moreover it is what the spell says it does. You don't have to know how it works. Simply that it does. That is how magic in most games including pathfinder tends to work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So you've successfully proven that optimizing cross class can be powerful?
I assure you that this is not a trait exclusive to summoners.


There are greases that are flammable and there are greases that are not. Which the spell happens to conjure is not specified the dm gets to decide.


Yes of course it is roleplaying and yeah he is by definition stealing from the party.

Ehhh.... It can be a very very good thing to find these players early on and identify if they belong in your group.

Some groups will take a rogue stealing a few extra coins and do little more than shrug and make comments about those pesky shifty rogues. Others break out the rope and head for the nearest tree.

It really depends on your group.

The question of whether or not a dm should step in is a tough question. I am of the party that states that a dm should never dictate a characters actions unless there is a dominate effect running around. On the other hand warning a player that their characters actions may have extremely adverse effects isn't telling them what to do.

If your group is likely to go for the hanging option then I'd sit down and discuss the negative fallout likely to come from his actions. Much like a dm might warn a wizard that while efficient animating the corpses of the goblins to carry back the treasure the party paladin might find it somewhat amiss. If said player insists on their course of action then you've got a choice to make preferably with the rest of the group.

Let them and let the dice fall where they may instigating perception checks whenever applicable and wait for it or sit down and have a heart to heart with the player and talking about roleplaying styles and how in some groups some styles simply don't work well. The player in question is welcome to change roleplaying styles, character concepts, or groups ideally without hard feelings.

The majority of us are over fourteen we should be capable of talking this out rather than forming a lynch mob against the player. There is nothing inherently wrong with this play style. It just doesn't fit some groups.


Gauss. Multiattack requires 3 or more natural attacks, not limbs. In order for it to do anything some of those attacks have to be secondary. I.E. A witch's hair and nails.


The amulet of soul drinking can be found in the book of the damned 3 or it can be found at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/talis man-of-soul-eating

Its 2700 for another soul taken per day. By the time you hit level 6 or 7 you'll be netting 500 per soul once you're in your mid to late teens you're looking at 1000 per soul. It adds up real quick.

How much of each did you invest in each?

If this is directed at me I'm not sure what you're asking. My pc is currently alchemist 5/souldrinker 7. If I was smart I'd have probably taken alchemist to 6 a little sooner so as to get 4th level spells a little earlier. I would sit down and weigh out how much the oblivion powers are worth to you and when in the campaign you want them.

The oblivion powers work with the feats empower and quicken spell like ability. So also keep them in mind for making your action economy more efficient.


PaperAngel that is pretty much exactly what I'm playing. I'm a buff specialist with an intelligent bag of holding reskined as a bracer filled with rows upon rows of vials. Pick your melee weapon of choice and get conductive on it so that once a round you can snag the extra soul pool points. One of the first things that I crafted was an amulet of souldrinking so I could boost up the number of taken souls per day. It easily paid for itself over the course of the evening. Use enlarge person to get reach so you get a free shot at all incomers.

You can use your intelligent item to handle some of your buffing in combat saving on action economy.

Unlike most crafters soul drinkers have the rather unique ability that they don't have to worry about money. They have to worry about a source of fuel. Luckily fuel is rather easy to find. Don't forget that summon cacodaemon can be used to snag extra soul gems per day.

Edit: Thanks Todd Stewart for the awesome class and huge amount of information on daemons. Been one of my most fun characters to play in years.


If your players are reaching that hard to avoid penalties the problem isn't the rules.

Edit:

1. This is an irrelevant blanket statement. I mean no offense here. It just isn't evidence for anything other than you feel a certain way about certain things that aren't stipulated or named in any fashion. Which is to say that its either a profound truth or logically impossible to prove as most profound truths happen to be.

2. The mechanics are already written.

"The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6."

"Unlike normal animals of its kind, an animal companion's Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion. Most animal companions increase in size when their druid reaches 4th or 7th level, depending on the companion. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished."

A paladin's level is treated as her druid level. Under the animal companion power it states the mechanics for swapping animal companions. At no point does it state any alteration under the paladin heading that affects releasing and binding animal companions.

Edit 2.0 for quotation:

"Should the paladin's mount die, the paladin may not summon another mount for 30 days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first. During this 30-day period, the paladin takes a –1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls."

The above is the only text anywhere in the article altering the swapping of animal companions rules and it only addressing the death of one.

Adding rules to fit the spirit of the class is a house rule.

3. Different flavor of the same thing? That is precisely my point. Antipaladins have rules stipulating changing servants. Paladins have rules for changing mounts. Neither has anything to do with their respective oath other than than the fact that if they violate said oath then they lose their respective class feature.


blahpers wrote:

In my experience, people try too hard to negate the entire code of the paladin, then take offense when they're called on it. There is a certain flavor implied by the ability--this steed is closer to you than a druid companion, as evidenced by the death rules, which don't exist for druid companions. It's not the kind of companion you can simply swap out. You can leave it behind to go somewhere it can't go, but you can't just trade it in for a newer model.

If paizo wanted there to be an exemption for paladins preventing them from changing out animal companions as per the animal companion rules they are stated to follow then it probably would have stated it.

I'm not taking offense. Merely pointing out that adding words that you think are implied is a house rule.

Antipaladins have a death penalty as well. I don't think the oath implies it logic flies.


blahpers wrote:


In this case, to me at least, it isn't obvious how the ability is supposed to work. From an in-game standpoint, it makes about as much sense for a paladin to be able to abandon his most trusted companion without moral consideration than it does for a cleric of the God of Fidelity and Soulmates to be able to "trade up" to a hotter partner. You don't dump your comrade; you find a way to bring her along, or you count the days until you meet again.

And this is why people have so many arguments over paladins. It doesn't state or imply that a paladin cannot leave his comrades and that doing so would violate his oath.

Many people seem to enjoy adding words to the raw that fit their idea of a paladin. Druids as well a great deal lately on the forums.

Adding rules to enhance your world is a fine thing just make sure that you let your players know first.


cartmanbeck wrote:


THAT is the power of the alchemist. It's fiscally responsible to be one.

I'll be quoting this every time the group looks at me in askance when I tell them that the next eight hours are quiet time for me instead of bar hopping.


MyTThor wrote:


OR, you could just do the exact same thing in 1 less round by drinking a 2nd level extract of barkskin instead of the alchemical allocation. Sure, Alchemical Allocation stops you from having to have the barkskin formula in your book and it's more versatile, but let's face it, if you're going to do this at the beginning of the first battle of every day, who cares about the versatility?

Can't extend extracts. Can extend potions.


OldManAlexi wrote:
Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:
Of course if you're a standard caster then pick your partner of choice and polymorph away.
I'm not sure I would fear anything with a wizard's base attack bonus.

Ehh low bab is less of an issue for natural attackers. Consider the lowly 6th level wizard. He is the type of guy who wants to stay out of melee so he picks up a hawk for fly and monstrous physique for his dream upgrade an imp(since imps seem to be in style these days).

His hawk is running str 3 dex 17. He has made his little hawk an aomf with agile on it or he can wait until level 7 and buy an upgraded familiar. So the group is going into the evil room in a minute so he morphs his familiar into a charda. It gets a +2 size bonus to dex and a +1 nat armor. Woot.

His familiar instead of doing 2 talons +6 1d4+3, he is batting +7 bite 1d6+4, 4 claws at +7 1d4+4. Is he awe inspiring? Not really. He's a flanking buddy and a little more damage. They get a great deal better once you start opening up the higher shapes.


Jiggy wrote:


You use spider climb when you need to climb or die. When you have a static climb speed, you start finding all kinds of new reasons to get your Spidey on. ;)

I'd also point out that you need to spend an action for the spell/potion/wand route. If you need to boogie NOW, then not having to spend your whole turn retrieving and using an item can save your life.

Similarly, if you get knocked off a cliff in the surprise round, you can make a Climb check (DC 20 + wall's base DC) to catch yourself and not fall. My rogue at least has a chance (on a high roll) of catching himself on a rough wall or rock face. (As he continues to add ranks, his odds get better and better.) The guy who relies on spider climb goes splat.

Situational, yes, but still. :)

You use spider climb when you want to, much the same way you use wall climb.

Yes you have to spend an action. Ideally if you have any sense at all you'll spend it before you start climbing. If you don't have the foresight to understand that hey cliff my climb skill sucks I should break out my spider climb wand I bought for this then nothing will save your character from an untimely demise short of dm intervention. Spider climb lasts 10min/lvl. Wand has 50 charges. How many cliffs am I going to be coming across that I'm worried about burning a charge just in case?

Granted when you have a permanent move speed you start thinking of whole new things to do with them. It makes a great flavor choice.

I'd rather purchase for a combat/face rogue combat trick, offensive defense, underhanded, charmer, fast picks, convincing lie, and black market connections depending on my dm. Mind you this is just off the top of my head and two minutes looking at the talent list.

Edit@Nico Agreed you cannot always rely on spells and magic items. If you can do something without using either I almost always say go for it. But at the same time consider the scenario that being unable to spare a standard action for a wand requires or being unable to use said wand. Also consider the highly limited number of rogue talents. You are a rogue. You are the king skill monkey. For the love of all that is good and holy use them.


I didn't say anything about any rogue talents being overpowered or anything about them being good enough.

I stated that wall climber is easily duplicated. Nothing more and nothing less.

Is a permanent spider climb good enough for me as a non flavor choice to spend one of my talents on? No because it is easily reproduced and there are many other rogue talents that I would rather spend my rather small allotted number on.

1 to 50 of 604 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>