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

JiCi's page

1,412 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Can't GMs simply allow more companions anyway? That doesn't seem like a game-breaking house rule.

If druids can have them, so can rangers... and you've equalized the class :P


Ok... NPCs follow a "rule" based on their wealth, as in that a NPC has a specific amount of GPs to spend to be at the current CR listed.

What if I want to make them richer than usual, thus making them stronger than usual?

Is there a rule of thumb about that, like "+1 CR for every extra 10,000 GP" or something?

I do remember seeing NPcs with the following [paraphrased] note: "[This NPC] has stronger gear than usual, thus is considered 1 CR higher." However, they don't specify what items make that NPC better than usual.


Kalindlara wrote:
Delvers and tojanida at least made it into Misfit Monsters Revisited. ^_^

Delvers could be in B5 as well. It's not like Paizo doesn't have a backlog of monsters anyway. Just check the huge lists of monsters from APs and such that I've made :P


Myth Lord wrote:
Digesters say hello.

I said "one of the few monsters". Pretty sure a few more could be converted.


Kalindlara wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why is everyone so excited for the ravid?

Seems like one of the few monsters that are still not in Pathfinder yet, but are still OGL.

We might not be seeing Beholders, Displacer Beasts and Mind Flayers anytime soon, but the Ravid is still a possibility.


Milo v3 wrote:
Paizo didn't make psionic material because DSP already has a monopoly on that market and it would be stupid for them to try and take it. Most the psionic rules are upon the OGL and can be taken by anyone, only things that aren't are basically from Complete Psionic... which no one wanted in the first place.

I agree that Complete Psionic was a major letdown...

However, I don't think that Paizo "let" DP publish psionic materials. I see it that DP just wanted to convert the whole thing for PF and did it. Paizo? I could have sworn that I've read an answer saying that they didn't have plans for psionics... at all...

You could say that DP beat them to it, but I say that Paizo never intended to make psionic materials. Beside... good luck including THIS into Golarion.

It was easy for WotC's Eberron due to Sarlona and the Kalashtars, but in Golarion? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure...

"Occult" is very easy, because the world's cultures make it so. Same goes with alchemy, eidolons and firearms. Psionics however? No idea where to even introduce them if it was the case.

Then again people... Occult Adventures has the Kineticist... that can become a telekineticist with blasts, flying and even a "mind blade" using the Kinetic Blade talent.


Dragon78 wrote:
It doesn't mean those creature abilities will not be altered to fit psychic magic rules instead of psionics.

Oh... point taken...


Duiker wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Creatures that can warp the minds of their victims, including the caller in darkness, thought eater, and the bizarre brain mole

Woaw, woaw, woaw, woaw... time out here...

- Caller in Darkness: psionic incorporeal undead creature made from the soul of a tortured victim.
- Brain Mole: psionic rodent which can transmit a disease that drains power points.
- Thought Eater: psionic skeletal avian creature from the Ethereal Plane which feed on people's thoughts... or power points...

See the common link here? Yeah... me too...

Aren't psionic creatures, as well as the whole psionic mecanic, WotC's IP? How did Paizo get its hands on that?

Oh, and don't point to Dreamscarred Press and their psionic books. That doesn't count, because these guys at DP are 3rd-parties, unlike Paizo. 3rd-parties MIGHT have an easier time dealing with exclusive stuff, but Paizo, as a 1st-party, cannot.

Good for them if they did, but... to me, that strikes me as shocking O_O

They were released under the OGL. It takes thirty seconds on google to find them in the old d20 srd.

Oh... nevermind...

Wait, even the rules???

I thought Paizo said that they couldn't make psionic material due to being under WotC's control or something.


Neal Litherland wrote:
Android PCs have been pretty popular, and I love the idea of being allowed to play one. A lot of the gamers I've spoken to, however, feel that androids should only be allowed to take levels of certain classes. That's why, for this week's Table Talk installment, I decided to set forth the details of my idea for an android barbarian.

I'm not gonna go into the mecanical details, but only from a concept view here.

Androids should be able to take any classes their wish. They just need a good... reason to explain certain features.

- A Barbarian's rage could be an overclocking setup.
- A Sorcerer's bloodline could be a set of nanites exposed to arcane residual energy
- A Cleric's faith could be... anything really.

Iron Gods:
There's an AI that calls itself a deity and can grant domains and spells. Yeah... if an Artificial Intelligence can be considered religious, pretty sure an android can be a faithful zealot.

- An Oracle's curse could be a malfunction
- A Kineticist's specialization could be a battery.

Everything can be explained via a gadget or setup :P


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Any objection that I wait for the complete version before downloading it?
No objection here.

Ok, just to make sure ^_^


Mechagamera wrote:
Creatures that can warp the minds of their victims, including the caller in darkness, thought eater, and the bizarre brain mole

Woaw, woaw, woaw, woaw... time out here...

- Caller in Darkness: psionic incorporeal undead creature made from the soul of a tortured victim.
- Brain Mole: psionic rodent which can transmit a disease that drains power points.
- Thought Eater: psionic skeletal avian creature from the Ethereal Plane which feed on people's thoughts... or power points...

See the common link here? Yeah... me too...

Aren't psionic creatures, as well as the whole psionic mecanic, WotC's IP? How did Paizo get its hands on that?

Oh, and don't point to Dreamscarred Press and their psionic books. That doesn't count, because these guys at DP are 3rd-parties, unlike Paizo. 3rd-parties MIGHT have an easier time dealing with exclusive stuff, but Paizo, as a 1st-party, cannot.

Good for them if they did, but... to me, that strikes me as shocking O_O


Dragon78 wrote:
I wonder if the Dream Dragons will be the next set of 5 true dragons will be or are they something else.

Well, they've been adding true dragons in every Bestiary so far, I'd say that it's possible.


Here's the confirmation for dis-believers :P

Fall 2015 for the release apparently.


Why are you guys requesting more lycanthropes... when you can make your own pretty easily?

Were-serpents, were-ravens, were-foxes and were-jackals can all be done normally with the template at hand, all you need is the right base animal for it. Furthermore, no lycanthrope has their own set of rules, so... no fret about missing an ability or two.

I dunno, but I feel like it would be a waste of spots to add more lycanthropes in the book when people can already create their own versions.

Were-vermins on the other hand...

On topic... how about "physical manifestations of magic"?
- a spirit of evocation magic
- a spirit of abjuration magic
- a spirit of conjuration magic
- etc...

A spellcaster dies, his spirit gets reborned as a living eldritch creature. That would be a nice set of creatures.

Also, I don't know HOW it would be doable, BUT... I'd like Huge, Gargantuan and/or Colossal creatures and/or classes of creatures, but at a low CR, like below CR 12, 10 or even 8. I want to give PCs a challenge against bigger creatures WITHOUT having to wait 10 levels to be a suitable encounter.

I dunno... a new race of giants, a species of sand worms, a group of drakes, name it... Pretty sure you can get Huge, Gargautuan and Colossal creatures without having to go into high-level play.


Is this gonna work like eidolons or iron titans, where you purchase abilities using points and customize your dragon as you see fit?


Barbarian: Mounted Fury
Bard: Archaeologist
Cleric: Undead Lord
Druid: Goliath Druid
Fighter: Two-Weapon Warrior
Monk: Zen Archer
Paladin: Divine Hunter
Ranger: Wild Stalker
Rogue: Swordmaster (Tengu)
Sorcerer: Wildblooded (Sage) / Battle Sorcerer (conversion)
Wizard: Spell Sage
Alchemist: Grenadier
Cavalier: Musketeer
Gunslinger: Pistolero
Inquisitor: Spellbreaker
Magus: Bladebound / Kensai
Oracle: Warsighted
Summoner: Evolutionist
Witch: White-haired Witch
Ninja: -none- (how come no archetype have been done for it yet?)
Samurai: Sword Saint
Arcanist: White Mage
Bloodrager: Bloody-Knuckled Rowdy
Brawler: Shield Champion
Hunter: Verminous Hunter
Investigator: Steel Hound
Shaman: Witch Doctor
Skald: Herald of The Horn
Slayer: Bounty Hunter
Swashbuckler: Picaroon
Warpriest: Sacred Fist


Nefreet wrote:
Polearms do not need any feats in order for you to threaten with them.

To threaten reach, no, to threaten a range shorter, like 5ft instead of 10ft, yes.


Segovax wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, it is the only One-Handed Reach weapon, that I don't need a feat tree to threaten with?

Correct.

Any assumptions people have about swift action this or that is still just an assumption, and therefor has no bearing in PFS.
A weapon with reach given in the qualities and no stipulations in the description threatens at 10 feet for small and medium characters. Since the flickmace has no description, this is how the weapon functions in PFS unless an errata changes it.

I know that the whip needs a feat or two to threaten reach, same goes with polearms... but if you don't need a feat to threaten reach with a spiked chain, pretty sure you don't need one for the flickmace.


Ravingdork wrote:
Why would you ever have it in mace form then?

Couple reasons:

1) Concealment; having a reach weapon "hidden" is a pretty good strategy to surprise your opponents.

2) Tripping; you can trip, but can your opponents if you fail.

3) TWF; unless you have 2 flickmaces, good TWFing someone with a flickmace and shortsword... when you can't reach the opponent with the sword. Even if it's unraveled, what's the point of the reach quality if you threaten the opponent with the short sword anyway?

4) Disarm; a reach weapon can be disarmed like any other... except that when it does, it lands further away from you than a non-reach weapon.

5) Enhancements; some of them might not work for reach weapons.

6) Feats; see enhancements above.


My understanding:
Works normally as a regular heavy mace; becomes a one-handed flail with the reach and trip qualities as a swift action; becomes back a heavy mace as another swift action.

The reach works like spiked chain: normal reach, but with the ability to hit adjacent opponents.

Think about it: polearms are... kinda stiff; flails and chains are not.


Kinda wished that the flickmace and switchscythe were added to the Melee Toolbox :(


NG, NE, N, LN and CN dragons... basically alignment/balance dragons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Myth Lord wrote:

NPC Codex it will be, mark my words, everything leads to it.

Bleh.

And most humans seem to want more humans instead of another awesome bestiary.

I'm not a fan of more lycanthropes, I think the ones we got really cover the most needed ones.

You're still harping on that? Dude, if you cannot take it, then just get out already! Geez...


Any objection that I wait for the complete version before downloading it? It's listed, so I can check out its progress easily.


Lorathorn wrote:
I would guess that a desire for a more interesting Kaiju-fighting vehicle would be sated by converting Dragon Mech material, but that's just a stab in the dark.

The problem is that the Dragonmech rules for mechs... aren't easy to grasp.

- To move, you need a pilot.
- If the pilot isn't "proficient" with mechs, he needs a gunner to attack.
- The mech cannot attack AND move in the same round, unless the pilot has a feat.
- For each weapon, a gunner is needed.
- The pilot needs another feat to make use of the weapons on board

In short... it isn't as simple as simply controlling a Gargantuan creature...


Justin Sluder wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Ok... upon a second reading, there's something... off about Taurosu: it's a Kaiju-killing Kaiju... that deals Con damage upon hitting with its natural attacks... that will not work on Kaijus due to them being immune to ability damage.

Huh... yeah... kinda of a pointless ability... unless Kaiju Bane makes it possible for Taurosu to deal ability damage to other Kaijus...

Care to enlighten me on that issue here please?

Thanks in advance ^_^

It's simply an oversight. Kaiju should take Con damage as listed from Taurosu's attacks.

Thanks for the info ^_^


Maybe some clarifications here:

I can get an Intelligent Item to cast at will an empowered intensified shocking grasp (4th-level) or an empowered maximized intensified shocking grasp (7th-level)... but not a regular shocking grasp (1st-level).

Furthermore, an Intelligent Item can have a different purpose than the ones suggested, such as "obey your wielder without question", meaning that its wielder could utilize the dedicated power without any kind of restriction.

An example: I could make a female Android magus/techomancer who crafted 4 Intelligent arc pistols, which can fly at a speed of 30 feet... and could cast disintegrate at will... since the purpose could be either "defeat whoever challenges the wielder" or "obey your wielder".

So yeah... the omittion of lower and higher spell levels is weird, because 1) lower levels would be good for low-level characters and 2) higher levels would be good for artifacts and mythic items.


kestral287 wrote:

But the game is willing to let us have 4th-level spells at will with a second action per round. Are 3rd level spells inherently better than 4th now?

I mean, I understand your point as it reflects on the concept that you get a free shot with a spell each turn if it's at-will, and that's really, really good (and it is, especially when you get into the 5th level plus options). But the game allows us that. It just demands that we use Greater Dispel Magic and not Dispel Magic, because... reasons.

My thought exactly...


When crafting an Intelligent Item, you can give it a purpose, as well as a dedicated power. The item can have the ability to cast a spell at will, be of 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th-level.

Oddly enough, an item cannot have the ability to cast a spell from a level above or below the aforementioned levels.

Any reason why? It doesn't seem 1) to be complicated to make adjustable prices and Ego modifiers for such spells and 2) to be broken to make a really powerful or much weaker intelligent items.


Ok... upon a second reading, there's something... off about Taurosu: it's a Kaiju-killing Kaiju... that deals Con damage upon hitting with its natural attacks... that will not work on Kaijus due to them being immune to ability damage.

Huh... yeah... kinda of a pointless ability... unless Kaiju Bane makes it possible for Taurosu to deal ability damage to other Kaijus...

Care to enlighten me on that issue here please?

Thanks in advance ^_^


Lune wrote:
To try to understand where we are coming from when we are trying to help you: we are not going to be helpful in answering fluff questions? The reason is because you can fluff your character however you want regardless of what the name of the class is that you pick. I think you already know this because despite wanting to play a "Cavalier" you do not wish to have or use a mount. You could do that without modifying the base Cavalier and just never use your mount. But you want other abilities in place of your mount. This is when we have to ask the question of which abilities are you looking for in this character and which abilities do you not want. It really does boil down to you asking a question that is rooted in mechanics, you see.

Ok, I believe I can give you a definitive answer here:

1) Yes, I want a mount-less cavalier for mecanical/rule reasons and for better utilitarian reasons. That was the reason why I asked.

2) I have a serious issue with the idea for NOT using class features simply because I don't want to. At this point, might as well LOOK for something to replace a "useless" feature by a "useful" one.

3) As people stated, some of the other classes that grant companions, mounts, familiars and even eidolons have either an option within the feature or archetypes that replace such features by something else. I didn't notice that for the Cavalier aside from ONE archetype, the Daring Champion, on my first read. I know about the Archives, but that didn't catch my eyes.

4) I'll be looking through the suggested archetypes and then judge by myself which one will better suit me and my group. I'm not gonna do that blindly and regret it later...

5) Finally, "fluff", for me, is what I use to shape my character roleplay-wise and I use the given class features to help me that. Playing a mounted cavalier will not be the same as playing a mount-less one, trust me...

Lune wrote:

Let me try to ask some probing questions here that might help us give you more directly helpful feedback:

1. What role do you want this character to fulfill in your party?
2. Have you considered what tactics you would like your character to employ in combat?
3. What type of weapon are you considering using? 1-handed, 2-handed, two weapon fighting, sword and board, polearm/reach weapon?
4. Are skills important to your concept? Which ones?
5. Is bolstering your party a large part of your concept?
6. Do you have any compunctions about which race you would like to play?
7. What resources are allowed? Is this a PFS game or home game?

1) Combat and team player, as the cavalier has several team-bostering abilities. I actually suck at micro-managing, so... spells aren't my forte.

2) Mostly buff first and charge into combat after. Not gonna be reckless though...
3) The suggested archetypes will "decide" my arsenal. For instance, if I pick Musketeer, I'll focus on firearms and thus ranged combat. If I end up picking Daring Champion, I'll go with an estoc and hit-and-run tactics. I'm adaptable.
4) Hard to say really, I'll go for the basic ones for adventuring and possibly for interaction, regardless of the archetype chosen.
5) Let's just say that the more helpful I can be to my teammates, the better. Sure, a cleric or wizard can do just that, but hey, my abilities can substitute their spells sometimes.
6) No... although I usually go with humans since the extra feat and skill points are welcomed in any class.
7) Not yet, but any Paizo book is allowed.

Hope that helps :)


Oh, before I forget, the Sword Saint archetype for samurais, often regarded as a cavalier sub-archetype, replaces the mount by the Iaijutsu abilities.


Woaw, woaw, woaw, how did that turn sour again? Yikes...

Chess Pwn wrote:
You've already received your answer. That's just how the rules are. Cavaliers have mounts and only a few archetypes change that. If you're still expecting something please restate what you're looking for, because as far as cavaliers are concerned I feel you've received all you're going to get. Everything else will just be repeating advice at this point.

Ok... here is where I come from: back in 3.5 D&D, druids and rangers had to get a companion, sorcerers and wizards had to get a familiar and paladins had to get a mount. In Pathfinder however, these classes now have a choice... which is basically having something else than to care for another creature.

I see the cavalier with a similar ability... which DOESN'T have an option by default. Is there an option to replace the mount? I don't know, so that's why I asked the boards for. Did we list out every single archetype a cavalier can take to replace a mount? I don't know because Paizo spread this info across myriads of sources. I hope that we listed everything, but if we didn't, let's keep on looking.

I kinda get that a cavalier is supposed to be mounted, but... wasn't the paladin supposed to be like that in 3e? Now he can be mounted, or not. The cavalier? No choice there by default...

A mount is a powerful ally... except when space can't be used at your advantage. In dungeons, that's gonna happen a lot. So basically, the paladin has an option to trade the mount for a weapon bond, while the cavalier cannot and can get screwed at any given time due to not being able to ride his mount.

Oh, nice Order of the Sword ability you got there! Too bad you can't use it because you cannot ride your horse right now... That's what I want to avoid. That's why I asked if there are archetypes to replace the mount by something else.

Kudos for those who listed archetypes that do replace the mount, that's what I've been asking for.


Lune wrote:

Now... if we return to the question that I have asked repeatedly:

Why do you want to play a CAVALIER? Like, what mechanics do you want out of the class?

Because if there are no mechanical reasons that you want to go with the class and you do not want to use the mount then I am better that there are a lot better ways to meet the character concept that you have in mind rather than going with a mount focused class.

Ok, you're harping on that way too much or you're overthinking about it to the extreme...

I'll say it again:
1) The Order's abilities
2) The abilities related to helping the group
3) The idea that a cavalier isn't just a Lego-built fighter who STILL can't serve a purpose in a game session
4) The cavalier's roleplay opportunities (yes, to me, that's important)

Now... to go back on topic:
1) The paladin can ALREADY get an ability to replace a mount.
2) The cavalier cannot initially get an ability to replace a mount, unless archetypes are taken into account
3) A mount is NOT ideal for dungeoneering... regardless of how you look at it. Fine, if you have a wide-open space campaign, but yeah... good luck even predicting this...

Why WOULDN'T I pick a class for fluff reasons? D&D isn't a video game where everything about your PC is fleshed out for you y'know. THAT's important to consider when creating a character. Maybe you don't care and only see into abilities and how much damage you can deal a round, but I go further than that...


Dragon78 wrote:
Robot celestials power up your holy lasers:)

*Points to the Evaluator Robot*

Guess they already got that covered XD


Arachnofiend wrote:

It sounds like the Order is what JiCi wants out of the Cavalier, which those archetypes can't provide.

Weird there isn't an archetype that gives an Order.

Huh... aside from the Order of the Sword, which is mount-related, all other Orders can be used by archetypes.

To have quickly read the archetypes, none of them has abilities that replaces the challenges and/or the orders.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I agree with you, but I still don't see why you can't accomplish this with the Daring Champion; one feat to use an estoc with strength is still going to be more efficient than two to get dex-to-damage.

Because the Daring Champion... was the only archetype I could find for a mount-less cavalier, so I wanted to ask you guys what else is there out there for that.


Lune wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Lune wrote:

Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?

I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.

My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.

Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.

I'm sorry, JiCi, but that doesn't really answer the question. Why do you want to play a Cavalier in the first place?

The fluff... and the exclusive abilities. I'm usually a Fighter PC who like to explore some fighting styles, but a cavalier has AT LEAST a flavorful reason to be fighting. You have your whole reputation and hierachy and order to back your story and roleplaying opportunities. Also, the challenges are a great way to battle. Finally, the cavalier is made to be a team player, which, like any spellcaster, is valuable to a group.

The fighter has become your typical shoot-first-ask-questions-later or kick-in-the-door style PC with little to no interesting story to create your character and little to no ability that makes you more than your typical sellsword.

While I do not want to turn this into a discussion about the fighter, these are my reasons: I get a better character in and out of combat with the cavalier... or the samurai to a certain extend.

However, considering the huge amount of dungeonneering, I can't go in with a mounted character, even if the mount is Medium. That's why I'm asking for ideas to replace the mount-related abilities by something else. I'll be doing more climbing and crawling than walking.


Lune wrote:

Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?

I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.

My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.

Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.


Ok, let's say I want to play a cavalier, but KNOW that I'll not be needing a mount considering the huge amount of dungeon crawling, can I get an archetype that replace any mount-related ability by something else... aside from the Daring Champion in ACG?

Anything related to weapons, like replacing the mount by the paladin's weapon bond?

Yeah... the paladin has the ability to select either a weapon or a mount... but not the cavalier. You could argue that a mount is needed since it's called a "cavalier", but a "knight" doesn't have to be mounted... I think...


MMCJawa wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Oh yeah that reminds me, I hope we finally get some robots in Bestiary 5.

Aren't robots... exclusive to Numeria?

The Bestiaries kinda must remain generic without going into exclusive setting territories.

While I wouldn't mind at all to see robots in B5, good luck DE-adapting them from Golarion without much consequences... Yeah, yeah, I'm aware that the Technology Guide was "made" into a SRD booklet, but... I don't know... I think that for robots, it would require more thinking than simply copying and pasting them from one source to another.

Your best options for more robots are either wishing for a 2nd Inner Seas Bestiary or by getting all 6 booklets from the Iron Gods AP.

Robots within Golarion are exclusive to Numeria, but robots as generic "monsters" are found throughout literature, movies, TV, etc, so are fair game for a setting agnostic bestiary.

Oh... well, with that angle, sure, I guess these would be eligible then ^_^


Gorbacz wrote:
And aliens!

To follow up my comment, aliens are actually easier to do, since outer space has been used as a theme in Bestiaries before. For robots, this isn't the case... yet.


Dragon78 wrote:
Oh yeah that reminds me, I hope we finally get some robots in Bestiary 5.

Aren't robots... exclusive to Numeria?

The Bestiaries kinda must remain generic without going into exclusive setting territories.

While I wouldn't mind at all to see robots in B5, good luck DE-adapting them from Golarion without much consequences... Yeah, yeah, I'm aware that the Technology Guide was "made" into a SRD booklet, but... I don't know... I think that for robots, it would require more thinking than simply copying and pasting them from one source to another.

Your best options for more robots are either wishing for a 2nd Inner Seas Bestiary or by getting all 6 booklets from the Iron Gods AP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hold on... you're adding magic items that SCALE with the wearer's level?

*angelic choirs*

THANK YOU! Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you :)


LazarX wrote:
JiCi wrote:

So... let me get this straight:

1) My Medium rider can be at any square within a 3-by-3 square area at any given round. I assume that once per round, I can pick in which square I decide to be until my next turn.

7 - 8 - 9
4 - 5 - 6
1 - 2 - 3

So in round 1, I can choose to be at square 2 and on the next round, I can be at square 9. Assuming that the elephant's head is in row 1 to 3, if I'm on any of these squares, I can attack opponents within my weapon's reach.

2) An elephant, being taller than 5ft., gives me the higher ground advantage.

The mounted combat rules only address the standard combination of medium creature and large mount i.e. man on horse or something very close to that in size. The DM can and should make alterations for more extreme rider/mount size differentials. i.e. man/elephant or anything more extreme. A Huge mount may very well make attacking medium creatures that are on the ground simply impossible with anything other than ranged attacks. If you're riding on the Jolly Green Giant's shoulder, you're not going to be hitting anyone with your longsword.

I assume that they only address medium riders on large creatures, the rider being one size smaller than the mount, because that's the most common thing. You see more humans on horses, halflings on dogs and hill giants on elephants... even if history has shown us that humans have been riding and attacking on the back on an elephant.

Here's my take:
- True, you're sharing the mount's space, but since there are 9 squares, as opposed to 4, it can get pretty confusing pretty fast. On a horse, you're within range regardless of where you sit on any of the 4 squares. On an elephant, you're not. It would make more sense if you had to move on the saddle in order to attack, like taking the equivalent of your 5-foot adjustment, but only within the mount's area. Furthermore, at the beginning of each round, you get to select another square, once again like a 5-foot adjustment, but that you can pick 2 squares, like going from 4 to 6... and you're still within the mount's area. As for being attacked, it would make sense that if you move from one side to the other, they can't target you.

- Depending on where you are, your 10-foot reach weapon can work.

- An elephant is... what... 10 feet tall? So you're getting the height advantage.

- Finally, well... an elehpant, at least can have more than 1 rider, 5 to be exact: 4 on its back and 1 on its neck. That does limit your movement, but it follows the same rules.

BTW, if you're "riding" on a giant's shoulder, pretty should that 1) you can't move from it and 2) you can't attack from that height.


So... let me get this straight:
1) My Medium rider can be at any square within a 3-by-3 square area at any given round. I assume that once per round, I can pick in which square I decide to be until my next turn.

7 - 8 - 9
4 - 5 - 6
1 - 2 - 3

So in round 1, I can choose to be at square 2 and on the next round, I can be at square 9. Assuming that the elephant's head is in row 1 to 3, if I'm on any of these squares, I can attack opponents within my weapon's reach.

2) An elephant, being taller than 5ft., gives me the higher ground advantage.


P. 164

Horn Harness

This simple harness, basically just a leather lash, straps a
combatant’s arm to the tusk or horn of a Huge or larger animal
such as a gorthek
.

Huh... the gorthek is presented as a Large animal...

Was it supposed to be a Huge one though?


Let's say you have someone riding an elephant... how does it work?
1) Considering that that an elephant takes a 3-by-3 square area, or 15ft., where's the rider? On a horse, he's on the back, but on an elephant... is he on the middle?

2) How does that same rider even attack? An elephant has a 10-ft reach, meaning that even with a lance, the rider cannot attack unless the opponents are directly in front of the elephant. But wait, what about height? Ok, an elephant isn't 15-foot tall, but still. If the rider sits in the middle of an elephant's 15ft. area at say 10 feet high, does this mean he can only attack opponents on the ground, and sides, using reach weapons? The way I see it, the rider cannot use a non-reach weapon unless the opponent is Large or larger.

3) Any way to make these problem easier to solve? I... can only see a polearm master fighter using a sarissa, which is a 15-foot long spear presented in the Giant Hunter's Handbook... or using a ranged weapon, but still, I'm looking for melee combat tips as well.

The reason I'm asking this is simple: you can fight NPCs on the back on elephants or triceratops (regular war mounts, not companions) or you can end up fighting or becoming a Mammoth Rider, which has a Huge mount. How do you use them effectively?


"Variant Multiclassing
Have you ever wanted to multiclass your character for flavor reasons—maybe pick up some bardic performances and versatile performance to represent the time you unexpectedly spent studying music one adventure—but then you realized that your character would be pretty significantly handicapped by taking those two levels in bard? It happens all the time, and it requires you to sacrifice something whichever choice you take. With the variant multiclassing option, you can choose a secondary class and trade out half your feats (3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th) to instead gain a progression of special abilities based on which class you pick. Want to be a fighter who dabbles in divination magic such that he always acts on the surprise round or vexes his foes with hexes? You're covered. Want to be a druid who specializes in taking out dragons as her favored enemy or flies into a rage when the natural world is in danger? You've got that too. With variant multiclassing, you can open more combinations than ever before, without delaying your access to your main class's cool new features!"

THANK YOU! I was hoping to get something that isn't screwing my primary class :D


Dragon78 wrote:
They don't mix often because after 5 years we haven't gotten more then 4 CN outsiders and 5-7 LN outsiders:)

Clever :P

1 to 50 of 1,412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.