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

Kazaan's page

4,090 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,090 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

As for you, Kazaan. Yet you seem to not even understand what a ponce is. A source is whatever the developers state it is. It is not like air or legs, because its not a physical thing that "exists" per se in real life. We don't have feats. We don't have class features. We have ability scores because they're just an abstraction of human capabilities, but our modifiers are as unknown to us as our character's are.

Finally, stop being insulting just because you disagree. Flagging your posts.

Stop being insulted by things that aren't insulting. If you mis-identified what I wrote as insulting, it's up to you to correct your error. The developers may design the system but there are still rules of internal consistency and logic that not even they can break. If they do, it ceases to be a system and, instead, becomes a hodgepodge. A "source" exists just as much as air or legs. I can readily conceive of the "source" of a river or the "source" of an electrical current. I can also conceive that the value of water flowing through the river or the value of electrical current flowing through a wire are distinct from, albeit related to, the source. But the water flowing in the river isn't the lake from which the river originates and the electrical current in a wire isn't the battery or generator from which it originates. Likewise, the bonus equal to your Strength modifier is not the combat rules that allow you to add your Strength modifier (or some factor thereof) to your damage rolls. The rules for the Power Attack feat that allow you to add +2 to damage with BAB between 4 and 8 is not the same source as the rules for Weapon Specialization which allow you to add +2 to your damage rolls, despite the fact that they share the same value. They write the rules based on a balance of what needs to be explicitly spelled out and what they can trust a reasonable person to figure out as a matter of common sense and correlation to things we already understand. They didn't feel the need to explicitly define "source" because they figured that a reasonable person would understand what a "source" is. The problem isn't that they were ambiguous, the problem is too many people fail to exorcise their reason and logic and, instead, come up with ridiculous conclusions like, "Dragon Ferocity gives you half your Strength bonus on damage rolls, but you already get a bonus from Strength so it effectively does nothing." That comes from a failure to comprehend what a "source" is using plain old common sense and rationality. By contrast, when they have something like Prone Shooter which removes a penalty that never existed in the first place, that is irreconcilable within the internal consistency of the rules. When they come up with contradicting FAQs saying that "effects related to race" means different things for Racial Heritage and half-breed races, that is irreconcilable within the internal consistency of the rules. But if the rule works fine with one understanding of what a "source" is and is non-functional with a different understanding, one can readily presume that the functional interpretation is the correct one. No rational person can refute this; it is a fundamental principal of logic.


claudekennilol wrote:

Reach is a weapon on the property that indicates how big that weapon is. A medium glaive reaches an extra 5'. A large glaive reaches an extra 10'. If you as a medium creature could somehow wield a large glaive, your threatened area would go out to 15'. Weapons don't just magically change sizes depending on who is using them.

Until it's officially stated one way or the other, anything else is obviously wrong because weapons don't change sizes on their own. "Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach" is a blanket general statement. You've got to be intelligent and extrapolate what that actually means and if you're trying to say that weapons shrink or grow depending on who is wielding them that can't be right.

A tiny creature has 0' of natural reach. With a reach weapon such as a longspear, such a creature can attack out to 5' but with any other kind of weapon (say, a Greatsword), they can only attack a creature with whom they share a space. Does that mean that a Medium creature wielding a Tiny Greatsword has 0' reach on their attack? A Glaive is only 7 feet long while a Greatsword is 5 feet long. The Glaive has only 2 feet on the Greatsword but the Glaive gives an additional 5 feet of reach just because of its size? Moreover, a Small Glaive would be 3.5 feet and a Small Greatsword would be 2.5 feet but a Small creature can still attack out to 5' with the Greatsword and out to 10' with the 3.5 foot Glaive. A Tiny Greatsword is 1.25 feet and a Tiny Glaive is 1.75 feet but a Tiny creature with 0' natural reach wielding a 1.75 foot Glaive can attack out to a full 5 feet. Meanwhile, a Medium creature wielding a Large Bastard Sword (8 feet in length) can't attack at reach but a Medium creature wielding a Medium Glaive (7 feet) can. Your argument is invalid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
So the only thing we have to go on is the word of a paizo employee.
I do take his word; The word I follow if the one where he says he's not the rules guy. That and Stephen Radney-MacFarland saying that non-FAQ/errata posts aren't RAW.
True, and once again, we have no RAW stating what a source is. Its not even defined in common terms. It's not located in core or any splat. You have virtually nothing stating one way or another except for the paizo employee that has made a statement one way.

Where in the rules does it define what Air is? It says that certain creature types either do or do not breathe air, but it doesn't qualify exactly what "air" is. What about legs? The rules state that a humanoid creature typically has two arms, two legs, and a head. But what, exactly, are "legs"? If I walk on my hands, do my arms now become legs or are they still arms? What about "is"? Where in the rules does it define what the meaning of the word "is" is? It's almost like they figured they could cut down on space necessary for the rules books if they didn't bother with things that anyone with half a brain could figure out for themselves. What is a "source"? It's the rules that give you permission to add the bonus. How do I know? For the same reason I know what Air and Legs are and the meaning of the word "is"; because I'm not a complete ponce.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.
Unless, you know, a leading paizo employee had made a flat out statement disagreeing with you on what the source was.

You mean the same leading paizo employee who made a flat out statement that Vital Strike is fine to use on a Full-Attack? Guess what... leading Paizo employees aren't immune from not fully understanding the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses. Anyone can be in error, even in understanding the logic and internal consistency of a system they, themselves, created.


This is essentially the contrary position of the, "I want to eliminate all pain and suffering in the world by killing everyone," mentality. It works in theory and it may vary well work in a world of subjective morality. But Pathfinder is kind of based around the concept that Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos) are tangible forces in the universe; as real as we'd consider Gravity and Electromagnetism. You aren't Evil based on your perceptions of your actions; there is no, "each side in the conflict considered themselves good and the opposition evil". There is Good and there is Evil (capitalization important).

I'd suggest maybe go for CN and possibly more of a Deadpool kind of mentality; not reveling in the slaughter for its own sake but simply accepting it as a messy part of the job. It's important to enjoy your work, but there's more to life than just work. The character you describe, however, is obsessed with this work and consumed by it. She's essentially a workaholic murder-hobo.


There are three parts to any bonus; Source, Value, and Type.

Source is what rules element allows you to add that bonus. In this case, the Source is the default Combat rules; they allow you to add your Strength modifier to your damage roll.

Value is how much the bonus is. Sometimes, it's static like Weapon Specialization; the value is +2. Sometimes it's dynamic such as Power Attack where the value of the bonus scales with thresholds of BAB. Other times, it derives its value from one of your attribute scores. Mind you, this doesn't make the attribute score the source of the bonus, just the basis for the value. Sometimes, there is a factor involved such as, when wielding a 2-h weapon (or a 1-h weapon in two hands), you add 1.5x Str bonus.

Type is inconsequential to this question since the Str bonus to damage is untyped anyway so I won't go into detail on this.

So, what we have, is a single Source with two different abilities (one feat and one class ability) that alter how you derive the Value of the bonus. It's also not compounding the bonus such as the case with a pair of "double" effects. It's outright replacing the factor. Normally, you deal 1x Str modifier with an attack. If using a 2-h weapon (or 1-h in two hands), you get a a 50% bonus to that. Both the abilities in question change that from a 50% bonus to a 100% bonus. This is the same logic that tells us that Overhand Chop isn't saying to add 2x Str bonus on top of the 1.5x you'd normally get for using a weapon in two hands. So the combo is outright redundant, at least when it comes to charging.


Reach is a property of the weapon. It either has reach or it does not have reach. The size of the weapon does not enter the equation beyond whether or not the creature is able to wield it. A Human could wield a Tiny Longspear as a light weapon and it would still have reach, thus he can attack out to 10' reach per normal rules just the same as if he were wielding a Small or Medium Longspear. A Whip will triple your natural reach regardless of whether it is a Small, Medium, or Large variety. Reach is not a function of the size of the weapon by the standard rules; it's like any other special property. A Sai is a Monk weapon regardless of size and a Tonfa is a Blocking weapon regardless of size and a Temple Sword is a Trip weapon regardless of size. Likewise, a Longspear is a Reach weapon regardless of size and a Large non-Reach weapon is also not a Reach weapon regardless of size. Even if you were to wield a Huge Sunblade (for context, about the size of the wing of a Cessna), it would not have Reach because it's based on a Bastard Sword and a Bastard Sword does not have Reach.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Double stacking stats leads to abuse quickly, simply because such things are targets for those who realize how powerful they are...

That's the Slippery Slope fallacy. It doesn't dismiss the principal that the bonuses stack so long as they follow the normal rules for stacking bonuses and doesn't change the fact that the value is what comes from the attribute score; it is not the source of the bonus. Otherwise, Dragon Ferocity is broken because you could never add half your Str bonus to your Unarmed Strikes because they already get your Str bonus added by default. The default Str bonus added is sourced from the default combat rules while the bonus provided by Dragon Ferocity is sourced from that feat.

Additionally, in your example of the Monk and Fighter, it doesn't take into consideration that a Monk, ultimately, has less damage output than a Fighter so being able to get more armor is washed by the ability of the Fighter to drop the enemy faster (dead opponents usually don't hurt you). The Fighter will usually pick armor that lets him use most of his Dex bonus anyway as he will not over-invest in Dex if he also intends to wear Dex-restricting armor. Moreover, due to the Monk's heavy reliance on Flurry of Blows, the difference in movement between a Monk and a heavily armored Fighter isn't all that significant. Calling it "abuse" is misleading on two fronts; one, it presumes that it wasn't intended to be allowed from the start and two, it exaggerates the strength of such a build. Also, as stated above, such a designation doesn't counter the position that it's allowed by the rules; those who think it isn't don't fully understand the difference between Source and Value when it comes to stacking bonuses.


LazarX wrote:
If you can wield it in one hand and it does slashing damage, the answer is yes.

As several FAQs have clarified, "one-handed" and "in one hand" are entirely different mechanical concepts.


Pathfinder doesn't stack like that in the first place. It's always based on the base value not cumulative so if it did stack it would be a 3 point increase in the range, taking you from 15-20 to 12-20, not to 9-20. So, "it doesn't stack" means they don't combine at all.


The original question wasn't entirely clear. But, if I'm reading it correctly now, you want to approach the netted opponent while keeping the net closed, not remain stationary and drag them to you, right? In that case, it's just as BBT said; you're just moving and not significantly manipulating the rope (that would be a move action in itself; manipulate an item). So it's no different than just walking towards them and letting the rope go slack in terms of action economy. Just keep in mind that, if you don't have a non-hand weapon, both of your hands are occupied with the rope so you won't threaten.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One-handed is a category of weapon. In all cases where handedness is considered, they state as such. For example, Power Attack lists two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons wielded in two hands as separate in the list of attacks that get +50% Power Attack bonus. If they intended the Bladebound Magus to be able to take either one-handed or light weapons, they would have stated one-handed or light weapons. So, by default rules, no, a Bladebound Magus cannot take a light weapon such as a Kukri or a Dagger as their Blackblade.

Though, we were talking in another thread about a houserule to allow a variant of Blackblade that let you "split" your Blackblade levels (similar to Broodmaster Summoner) into a pair of light weapons (light slashing + shortsword) and you divide the weapon levels between them.


fel_horfrost wrote:
My question is that if you wanted to could you still use a move action to activate it

Of course. Nothing in the later tiers of the ability take away the ability to activate it as a move action. At lvl 10 and up, you can activate it as a move action to get three feats. The only thing is that by lvl 12, both the swift and move action give you the same number of feats and, at lvl 20, the swift (and only the swift) gives you as many as you want (up to your daily limit) while the move is still capped at just three.


Falcar wrote:

Not sure about this one but for a less situational charisma to attack rolls could a mythic tier three with beyond morality be both a paladin and antipaladin? Throw in hell knight for smite chaos and now only lawful neutral and true neutral is safe from your charisma.

But I have no clue if you actually can do that or not so it very likely does not work.

Edit: I forgot that smite gives you a deflection bonus to AC against the target of your smite.

Anti-pally and Pally are "alternate classes" like Rogue/Ninja and Cavalier/Samurai. They count as "complex archetypes" so you can't combine the two even if you did overcome the alignment incongruity.

Regarding the topic at hand, a Scion of Humanity Aasimar with Racial Heritage(Orc), a variant heritage that provides a Con bonus, and the Scarred Witch Doctor Witch archetype is always nice.


Barachiel Shina wrote:

What's the problem exactly?

It says Rapid Reload reduces the speed to reload a ranged weapon chosen. If you chose Rifle, it goes from Move Action to Free Action. Likewise with everything else. Case solved...?

Did you read the original post?

Rapid Reload "sets" reload speed based on the firearm type. So a 2-h firearm goes from full-round to standard and a 1-h firearm goes from standard to move. Then, enter Alchemical Cartridges. They actually do "reduce" from whatever it happens to be at the moment so a 2-h goes from full-round to standard, a 2-h with Rapid Reload goes from standard to move, etc. The issue is that Metal Cartridges are Alchemical Cartridges:

PRD wrote:
Metal Cartridge: These sturdier versions of alchemical cartridges serve as the ammunition for advanced firearms. They can hold either bullets or pellets.

All Metal Cartridges are Alchemical Cartridges and the rules for Alchemical Cartridges state that they reduce the reload speed by one step. So if Advanced Firearms all reload as Move actions by default, Advanced Firearms get no benefit from Rapid Reload because it's already at a Move action to reload. However, since it uses a Metal Cartridge, you always reduce the reload speed (since Metal Cartridges are Alchemical Cartridges) so all advanced firearms reload as free actions right off the bat; no Rapid Reload necessary. On the other hand, if the reduction for Metal Cartridges is already "taken for granted" in the stated reload speeds (it's not "really" a move action but rather a standard action to reload advanced firearms), then rapid Reload would work at least on 1-h advanced firearms. That's the ambiguity in the rules; are we supposed to handle the reload speed reduction granted by the metal alchemical cartridges on top of move action reloading for advanced firearms or is it already "pre-calculated" and the "real" reload speed for them is a standard action?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
d20 wrote:

A brawler can take a move action to gain the benefit of a combat feat she doesn't possess. This effect lasts for 1 minute. The brawler must meet all the feat's prerequisites. She may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + 1/2 her brawler level (minimum 1).

The brawler can use this ability again before the duration expires in order to replace the previous combat feat with another choice.

If a combat feat has a daily use limitation (such as Stunning Fist), any uses of that combat feat while using this ability count toward that feat's daily limit.
The above is the basis of the class ability. These rules apply when you get it and only if a supplementary rule below explicitly changes something in the above does it change. If not explicitly changed, these rules hold over because they don't want to repeat them 4 more times.

At 6th level, a brawler can use this ability to gain the benefit of two combat feats at the same time. She may select one feat as a swift action or two feats as a move action. She may use one of these feats to meet a prerequisite of the second feat; doing so means that she cannot replace a feat currently fulfilling another's prerequisite without also replacing those feats that require it. Each individual feat selected counts toward her daily uses of this ability.
Instead of getting one feat as a move action, you can get two feats as a move or one as a swift. This does not contradict the previously stated rule that using it again before the duration is up replaces the previously selected feats so it doesn't need to explicitly repeat that any more than it needs to repeat the number of uses per day is still 3 + half brawler lvl.

At 10th level, a brawler can use this ability to gain the benefit of three combat feats at the same time. She may select one feat as a free action, two feats as a swift action, or three feats as a move action. She may use one of the feats to meet a prerequisite of the second and third feats, and use the second feat to meet a prerequisite of the third feat. Each individual feat selected counts toward her daily uses of this ability.
One as a free, two as swift, three as move. Was previously only one as swift and two as move.

At 12th level, a brawler can use this ability to gain the benefit of one combat feat as an immediate action or three combat feats as a swift action. Each individual feat selected counts toward her daily uses of this ability.
Is still one as Free action, but now instead of two as a Swift, you can pick three as a Swift. That does not remove your ability to take three as a Move. In addition, you can take one as an Immediate action (not on your turn).

At 20th level, a brawler can use this ability to gain the benefit of any number of combat feats as a swift action. Each feat selected counts toward her daily uses of this ability.
This is the funky one. You can take any number of feats as a swift action, but still only three as a Move action. It probably should have included Move, but, as it stands, it does not.

Analysis now with 100% more bold flavor


burkoJames wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
So a Medium Sphere would have an AC of 3 while Small has 2 and Large has 4.
Size bonuses work In The opposite direction. Small is +1 to Ac, large is -1. So a small would have Ac of 4, and a large an Ac of 2

\

Yeah, that's what I meant.


I don't have a problem with this. Bonus points if you travel feet-first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:

Remember that "range" for a ranged weapon is merely the range increment. A Thrown weapon can go out to a max of 5x its ranged increment, but with the rope, you simply ignore that factor and the furthest it can attack to is 10' from you. Now, if you let go of the rope, you could arguably throw it as far as you can, but you lose the ability to pull it back. The Distance enhancement, likewise, only affects the range increment, not the nature of the rope. Also keep in mind that, as a ranged attack rather than melee, you provoke AoO when attacking with a Rope Dart.

PS: You need some of that length of rope to hold it so, while it says "12 feet of cord", you can presume that about 2 feet of that is reserved as handling length and only 10' is your "working length".

Except it never says that. It has 0 caveats about it AT ALL. If it was treated as a really long ranged melee weapon then yeah, it can only attack out to its range. But it is a ranged weapon, and it has 0 specific rules regarding it, besides the flavour text which means 0 to how the rope dart works. So, in fact, the rope dart does attack out to 20 ft, can attack out to 100 ft, follows the rules for ranged enchancements, and technically can gain the benefit of rapid shot...

I mean, if there was a caveat written on it saying something to the effect of "Cannot attack outside of it's first range increment" then that would be one thing, but there is NOTHING about it... so RAW... its weird.

It doesn't need to say that because it's common sense. They don't need to outline every simple concept in the rules because, if they did, the rule book would be tens of thousands of pages long and weigh a few metric tons.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

English is a very fluid language.

In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence.

So it doesn't need to explicitly insult our intelligence by saying the rope dart is attached to a 12' cord which can be used to pull it back after it has been thrown and that cord prevents it from attacking out past the length of the cord because any person with half a brain can figure that out from the fact that the cord is held at one end and isn't 100 feet long. You say, "it's just fluff text" but that is an incorrect assessment. It represents a mechanical process and explains it in "plain English", relying on a reader to be able to put two and two together and come up with four rather than turnip. Would you also say that a Dagger can be thrown to its full 5x range increments even while attached to a weapon cord?

In other words, I don't see how explicitly stating it can be thrown and then retrieved with a tug of the cord and that the cord is only 12 feet long isn't saying that it can only be thrown out to the length of the cord. You say "it never says that". Well, guess what; it does. The correct assessment for you would have been, "I didn't think it said that, I must have missed it." You know, since you were asking for details on how the weapon worked and all... implying that you're unsure. I can't see how one can be unsure of how it works, but then a reasonable explanation is shot down because, suddenly, you know exactly what is or isn't valid.


Also, keep in mind that not all situations of using multiple weapons counts as "two-weapon fighting". If you have 4 iterative attacks, you can divide them between any weapon you have available however you please. You could take them all with the weapon in one hand, all with the weapon in the other hand, or split them between both (or more if you have more hands or non-hand weapons like boot blade or armor spikes). They're still the same BAB/-5/-10/-15 iterative attacks. In other words, so long as you stick to your normal BAB allowance, all your weapons are main-hand. It's only when you use an off-hand weapon to get more than your normal BAB allowance that you trigger TWF rules, suffer attack penalties, and your off-hand weapon get half Str to damage (if melee).


Remember that "range" for a ranged weapon is merely the range increment. A Thrown weapon can go out to a max of 5x its ranged increment, but with the rope, you simply ignore that factor and the furthest it can attack to is 10' from you. Now, if you let go of the rope, you could arguably throw it as far as you can, but you lose the ability to pull it back. The Distance enhancement, likewise, only affects the range increment, not the nature of the rope. Also keep in mind that, as a ranged attack rather than melee, you provoke AoO when attacking with a Rope Dart.

PS: You need some of that length of rope to hold it so, while it says "12 feet of cord", you can presume that about 2 feet of that is reserved as handling length and only 10' is your "working length".


Weapon enhances are separate from Defense enhancements and Shield Master allows you to use your Defense enhancements for offense.

So, normally, you'd have a Klar that attacks as a +1 Keen weapon. But with Shield Master, you'd use the +3 defensive enhancement instead of the +1 offensive enhancement. It's still unclear if the Keen is "married" to the +1 in such a way that you have to choose between +3 or +1 Keen or if you can "overlap" them in that you have +3, +1, and Keen; the +3 overrides the +1 but the Keen is still there. There are a few debates on that subject floating around and, to my knowledge, we haven't come to a definite conclusion nor gotten any feedback from the devs.

PS: @Argus, Read the Ranger Style talent more carefully.

d20 wrote:
Ranger Combat Style (Ex): The slayer selects a ranger combat style (such as archery or two-weapon combat) and gains a combat feat from the first feat list of that style. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites. At 6th level, he may select this talent again and add the 6th-level ranger combat feats from his chosen style to the list. At 10th level, he may select this talent again and add the 10th-level ranger combat feats from his chosen style to the list.

You don't get to add the lvl 6 feats until you've picked the Ranger Combat Style talent again, meaning you must have picked it a first time. So you can't skip straight to a lvl 6 Ranger Combat feat, you must take it once for one of the base feats first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't make it a double weapon. That's for when it's entirely one piece and you can attack with both ends. This concept doesn't qualify. It should be two separate weapons.

Also, the Metal Cartridges used for advanced firearms are a type of Alchemical Cartridge so it's simply an issue of using a more general term when a more specific one is preferable.

Lastly, while Yang could shoot as part of a punch, you'll notice she doesn't always shoot while she punches. Her usual style is a sequence of punches in which one (usually the last, but sometimes a middle punch) is a blast punch. So I'd say she spends a swift action to make one attack target touch and deal extra damage. She also uses the recoil to get an extra attack in a-la Haste (this could be a feat).

Regarding ammo, she also has different types. If you watch the Yellow trailer, you'll see when she's fighting the mooks, she uses ammo that just blasts up close but when she fights the twins, she switches to ammo that can actually shoot ranged.

Are you going to try implementing her Semblance as well or is this purely about trying to re-create Ember Celica?

References (caution: spoilers if you haven't watched the whole series):
Yellow Trailer (Yang's trailer)
Season 1, Volume 1, Episode 6 (Yang vs Ursa)
Season 1, Volume 1, Episode 8 (Big team fight)
Season 1, Volume 2, Episode 4 (Team fight)


Lets see, 5 days per feature, three features, that means 15 days so that checks out. Cost is 10 x character lvl x days so, 10 x 11 x 15 = 1650 so that checks out. And 1PP per day would be 15PP. It checks out the way I see it.


How about this:

Human Slayer:
1) TWF, WF: Earthbreaker
2) Talent: Weapon Training: Klar
3) T&F
4) Talent: Ranger TWF Style: Double Slice
5) Improved Shield Bash
6) Talent: Ranger TWF Style: ITWF
7) Shield Slam
8) Talent: (your choice)
9) (your choice)
10) Talent: Ranger TWF style: Two-Weapon Rend
11) Shield Mastery

Thunder and Fang is completely online at lvl 3. You only need 15 Dex to qualify for TWF since you use talents to access Ranger Styles. Lvl 6 gets you an extra off-hand attack and the third from GTWF is really unnecessary. You get an open talent slot at lvl 8 to customize however you want as well as an open feat slot at lvl 9. Two-Weapon Rend and Shield Mastery at the end are really just gravy. ISB becomes pure feat tax, mind you, only to access Shield Slam and Shield Mastery. Alternatively, you could go for Weapon+Shield style and drop ITWF and Rend in favor of Slam(lvl 4), Mastery(lvl 6), and either Bashing Finish or GSF at lvl 10. This saves you from needing to take ISB so your progression would be as follows:

1) TWF, WF: Earthbreaker
2) Talent: Weapon Training: Klar
3) T&F
4) Talent: Ranger Shield Style: Shield Slam
5) Double Slice
6) Talent: Ranger Shield Style: Shield Master
7) ITWF
8) Talent: (your choice)
9) (your choice)
10) Talent: Ranger Shield Style: [Bashing Finish or GSF]
11) TWR

This requires an investment of 17 Dex to get the TWF feats, but you can skip ISB using Ranger Styles since T&F covers that benefit already.


If you want to "convert" smaller diamonds into a larger one, Fabricate would be your go-to spell. If you need a 20k diamond, and you have four 5k diamonds, Fabricate would let you use the smaller diamonds as components to "create" an integrated, complete 20k diamond. If it were a particularly fine-cut diamond (ie. Craft DC higher than what 'take 10' would auto-succeed at), you'd also need to make a Craft(Jewelry) check.


Nefreet wrote:
Fun fact: the modern words "Diamond" and "Adamantine" come from the same root word, adámas ("unbreakable"), in Greek.

Which is especially funny when you consider that, while Diamonds are hard, meaning they cannot be scratched except by another diamond, they can easily be shattered by blunt impact such as from a hammer. A "test" that used to be used to determine if a gem was really a diamond was to hit it with a hammer. Usually it would shatter and the person would conclude, since diamonds are "the hardest substance known", it wasn't a diamond. In actuality, they likely destroyed thousands of actual diamonds in this manner. So much for "unbreakable".


Someone was writing up a set of custom grapple rules that involved three types:

Hold: Not a full grapple, you're just giving them the Entangled condition. Just requires one hand so no penalty for not having two hands available. Replaces any melee attack.

Grapple: Normal, standard grapple.

Tackle: Grapple + Trip, effectively. Standard action or can be performed in place of the melee attack at the end of a Charge. If you fail severely, you fall prone instead.

Maybe use that if you want a little more versatility in your Grapple rules.


Silthe wrote:

I'm the GM in question, and I think that full BAB with a two-handed firearm is overpowered for the game I'm running. Hence, I banned the Musket Master archetype. Justinthyme insist Lightning Reload gives full BAB with two-handers to all gunslingers, so I need to ban the whole class.

I see the Lightning Reload wording as pretty clearly indicating that you get one reload as a free action each round, but Justin insists it's unlimited reloads. So I've just banned him from playing one.

Lightning Reload only works once per round, regardless of whether it's a swift action or coupled with alchemical cartridge/rapid reload to get it down to a free action. In essence, the line that allows you to get it down to a free action only changes the action type, not the limitation of once per round. So even with unlimited free actions per round or any special ability that grants additional swift actions, you can only utilize this deed once per round.

PS: Keep in mind that a misfire will, effectively, shut down any full-attack since it takes a full/standard/move depending on whether he's got quick-clear or not and, if he does, whether he's willing to spend a point on it. It'd have to be a pretty dire circumstance to risk having your gun blow up by firing it before you've cleared it.


Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Speaking as a GM myself, I would allow dual black blades , depending on circumstances.

I would also suggest simply taking one class that grants a black blade rather than two, And to give you two blades, I would split the Black blades abilities/progression the way a Broodmaster Summoners split Eidolons progress.

That is to say, keep the base mental stats, and ego, equal between the two but divide stat boosts, skill ranks, enhancement bonus and arcane pool between the two.

That's a good idea. How about an option, instead of having a single 1-h slashing weapon, rapier, or sword-cane, you can have a pair of light slashing weapons or shortsword.


@ICE: I don't see how the nature of Unarmed Strike in being an mfg/natural weapon has anything to do with the discussion (and I use as lose a definition of "discussion" possible), but it most certainly doesn't render both sides invalid. One side was invalid to begin with and the other certainly isn't affected as such. So lets go over first, the Begging the Question fallacy and second, the nature of Unarmed Strikes.

Begging the Question: Sometimes called "circular logic" or "bootstrapping", this is the logical fallacy of using your intended final conclusion as a beginning premise in order to logically prove itself. In this case, the conclusion is that Natural Attacks can be made in place of Unarmed Strikes for a character who possesses the FCT feat. One of the supporting premises is that a Natural Attack can be made in place of Unarmed Strikes and doing so would be an "augmentation" to said Unarmed Strike which leads logically to the Natural Weapon being used in place of an Unarmed Strike in an otherwise valid attack sequence (ie. Kick/Kick/Kick/Bite/Claw/Claw becomes Bite/Bite/Bite/Bite/Claw/Claw). But you never would have validated the original condition without the premise being presumed allowed. You need to be permitted beforehand to substitute the Natural Attack for Unarmed Strike in order for it to be an augmentation. It's like the old riddle of going back in time to give Mozart (or any other famous composer) a record of his yet un-written music which serves as his inspiration to write said music. Where did the original music come from? Such a situation would be fundamentally and logically impossible, thus any conclusion derived from it is, inherently, invalid.

Unarmed Strikes: Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons, but not Natural Attacks. In the combat section, under Natural Attacks, it states, "Natural Attacks: Attacks made with Natural Weapons..." Natural Attacks are "made with" Natural Weapons such as Claws, Bites, etc. So Unarmed Strikes, while being Natural Weapons, already have a method of use and, so, are not valid for making Natural Attacks. Instead they make Unarmed Attacks. The line for Monks states that their Unarmed Strikes count as both Manufactured weapons and Natural weapons. They already counted as Natural weapons, but if they just wrote that they count as manufactured weapons, that would seem like a replacement (they no longer count as natural weapons). So the normal rule is that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons (distinct from Natural Attacks, mind you) and the Monk's exception is that instead of "just" Natural weapons, they count as both those and manufactured weapons.

The problem we have with Scott is his stubborn insistence on rejecting all logical analysis of his position, his use of circular logic to "prove" his position, and, mainly, the fact that his actions damage the reputation of the community and are harmful to people looking for accurate and valid information. He is spreading disinformation and, regardless of whether this is intentional or inadvertent on his part, it should be halted at best or at least adequately displayed to be disinformation so that it doesn't lead anyone to an incorrect conclusion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing to keep in mind about JRPGs (and east-Asian fantasy settings in general) is the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western philosophy. In Eastern philosophy, there is a strong influence of concepts such as Ki, the vital energy of the body, such that attacking with a Sword isn't "just" about the physics of attacking with the weapon itself but also takes on a metaphysical aspect of how you, the wielder, empower the weapon far beyond what would scientifically be accepted as the weapon's physical limitations. This concept has heavily influenced JRPGs such as Final Fantasy in that melee weapons have a far greater effect derived, in part, by the "spiritual conditioning" of the wielder. The sword strikes so hard not because of the physical properties of the sword but, rather, because of the spiritual force behind the attack. This makes them fundamentally different than purely science-based weapons such as firearms and high-tech weaponry which are cold, dispassionate weapons. Consider Obi-Wan's disdain of blasters from Star Wars as primitive, inelegant weapons. You also have the concepts of Taoism which view the universe as an integrated whole and the scientific process of "dividing" the universe into discrete pieces for analysis hampers your connection to the Tao (sometimes translated as Great Integrity). In the philosophy of Taoism, a person is stronger when they integrate and submit themselves to the universal one-ness and their attack carries with it the entire force of the universe. By contrast, by relying on a weapon of science which derives its power from the slicing of reality into bite-sized bits, you carry no more power than the slices perceived to be directly connected to the weapon. There's no philosophical "umph" behind your attack. That's why medieval weapons are the "go-to" even amid all the otherwise modern, nearly-modern, or even beyond-modern technology used for other purposes.

If you want to mimic this concept, I'd suggest giving everyone access to "spiritual powers" such as either magic or a Ki pool, but only when using "spiritually conducive weapons", predominantly melee weapons and "elegant" ranged weapons such as bows and thrown weapons, but less effective (or in-effective) on "pure science" weapons such as firearms. One way to address it is to give everyone Arcane Strike sans-prereqs, but it only works in thematically appropriate weapons. It can be modulated as to how it works with actual casters, ki-pool classes, and other classes that fall into neither category.


Consider the following:

Force doesn't care if it's a light object traveling fast or a heavy object traveling slow. A 5 gram object traveling at 25 m/s has the same exact force as a 25 gram object traveling at 5 m/s. The Bow imparts velocity to the projectile and nothing more. So what happens when the Arrow shrinks back down after being imparted a particular velocity by the enlarged Bow? By the laws of physics, if the mass suddenly decreased, the velocity should increase to compensate. That's conservation of energy. It's the same principal that makes an ice-skater spin faster when she starts with arms out and pulls them in. Likewise, if the mass increases, the speed should be reduced. Ergo, by conventional physics, the force should be the same in all cases.

But lets take a quick look at relative damage. A Medium Longbow deals 1d8 damage, a Small deals 1d6 damage, and a Largedeals 2d6 damage. Average it out and you get 3.5 for the Small Longbow, 4.5 for the Medium, and 7 for the Large. Additionally, the weight (and, thus, the mass) doubles for large gear and halves for small gear. From this, we should be able to derive the relative velocity for the different sized bows.

Small Longbow: 3.5 damage = 1 mass * X velocity; X velocity = 3.5
Medium Longbow: 4.5 damage = 2 mass * Y velocity; Y velocity = 2.25
Large Longbow: 7 damage = 4 mass * Z velocity; Z velocity = 1.75

A Large Longbow fires at a lower velocity than a Medium Longbow, relying on the higher mass of the Arrow to make up the difference in force. Likewise, a Small Longbow fires at a higher velocity, compensating for the reduced mass of the arrow.

Now, lets take a look at Enlarge and Reduce person. Reduce person states that projectile damage is based on the weapon that fires it (the bow's velocity). Therefore, since the attack deals 3.5 relative force worth of damage and we know the mass of the arrow is, indeed, changing, we can work out what's going on:

3.5 damage = 2 relative mass * 3.5 velocity * Q
Q = 1/2

So instead of a small Arrow of relative mass 1 traveling at a velocity of 3.5, we have a medium Arrow of relative mass 2 traveling at the original velocity of 3.5. Ordinarily, that would instantly double its Force. But, in practice, doubling the Force means doubling the penetrating power which means it is practically a given that the Arrow will go straight through the target, splitting the Force of damage between the target and whatever was behind it. By contrast, a thrown weapon isn't likely to fully pierce through the target so it just gets its force doubled and deals damage as a medium rather than as a small (technically, according to physics, it should deal damage as a large but lets keep it simple).

Now lets look at Enlarge person. Since we know that the Force is being doubled when going from Reduce to normal, we know that the Force is being halved when going from Enlarge to Normal. So, strictly speaking, if you are Enlarged and fire a Bow, you should deal less than damage than the original medium size would warrant since it's half the mass and also less velocity than a Medium Bow would impart. But, for the simplicity of mechanics, they "fudge" it up and say, "Just use your normal damage without size increases". And, since neither the projectile nor the thrown weapon gets enough force to penetrate the target, you don't have the same loss you have with the Reduced projectile.

PS: Another way to reconcile the different values that I just thought of: In the case of the Reduced->Normal projectile, the energy needed to cause the mass to increase does cause the velocity to decrease. In other words, the projectile converts its velocity into mass so the Force remains consistent. But a thrown weapon, for some reason, absorbs the energy not from its velocity but from some other source. But in the case of Enlarged->Normal, both projectile and thrown weapon are "bleeding off" energy in the conversion of mass and, in both cases, simply bleed it off into the surrounding space rather than into additional velocity. Use whichever method you prefer to fluff the mechanical happenings which are probably the way they are for pure balance considerations.


Here's the full explanation based on a discussion I had with one of the Devs during the TWF FAQ discussion (I forget if it was SKR or JB).

When you deliver a two-handed attack, it "eats" the next potential off-hand attack you could make as well as any natural attacks that involve the arms used to make the two-handed attack. So Claws, Smashes, etc. are right out the moment you use your Greatsword. Your single standard off-hand attack is also subsumed by the 2-h attack. However, what happens if you're wielding, say, a Longsword that need not be wielded one-handed. Lets say, for the sake of example, you have two off-hand attacks (ITWF) and 2 main-hand attacks. You make a two-handed attack with your Longsword at full BAB and this subsumes your full BAB off-hand attack. Now if you made another two-handed attack, it would also eat your second off-hand attack. However, if you switched to one-handed, you'd preserve your off-hand attack and could use an off-hand Unarmed Strike. So your pattern, in this case, would be as follows: Longsword(2h) BAB/Longsword(1h) BAB-5/Unarmed Strike(offhand) BAB-5. On the flip-side, if you make an off-hand attack, you earn "debt" in terms of attack economy; you're obligated to make a one-handed main-hand attack for each off-hand attack you've made before you can make two-handed attacks. To illustrate, lets say you lead off with an off-hand Unarmed Strike this time. You cannot just use your Longsword two-handed immediately in this case; you are obligated to make a one-handed attack to match the one off-hand attack you made and then you can attack with the Longsword two-handed (again, at the expense of your next off-hand attack). I lined all this out and the Dev I spoke to said it was mechanically correct, though very complicated and most players would likely do better to simply pretend you can't do this and that 2-h + twf just don't mix.

Furthermore, "off-hand" doesn't just mean a weapon wielded by hand. Making a 2-h attack subsumes your off-hand attack economy regardless of the limb actually used to make the attack so a 2-h attack would subsume your next off-hand, regardless of whether it involves release and punch, boot blade, armor spikes, etc. However, you can easily make these as iterative attacks with no issue. If you have 3 iteratives, you could do Greatsword BAB/Unarmed strike BAB-5/Greatsword BAB-10 with absolutely no issue.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Edit: You mention he failed to trip an opponent much larger than he is, but you can't even attempt to trip opponents over one size larger than you, unless you're an Underfoot Adept (or maybe he's got something similar I missed).

He could also use Ki Throw, but he doesn't have that either. Maybe that's why he failed...

Sang: Ok, I'll try to trip the Huge creature *rolls* I get a total of 49"
GM: Fail.
Sang: Wow, he must have CMD off the charts.
GM: Yeah... sure... something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Why is anyone still responding to Scott? Do you honestly think hes going to change his erroneous argument? Everyone knows how this works, just move on and let this thread die please.

Because some poor innocent person, earnestly searching for accurate information on the forums on this issue, may stumble across this thread and see that Scott's "claims" take up a significant amount of space. They may not have the savvy to look back and see the clear refutations (mainly because Scott spams posts because, if you can't be right, at least be loud). They may be lead to an incorrect conclusion because of Scott's disinformation. That is why people are so persistent in making it abundantly clear that Scott is spreading disinformation. And, honestly, if it were my forum, he'd be banned at this point for his actions as they damage the community... but that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DaRotten wrote:
I dont see how that could be offensive.

You've never heard of Tumblr, have you? Tank, Agro, and DPS are obviously "triggers".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of thinking of it in terms of Aggro like a mumorpuger, think of it more like a MOBA like DOTA or LoL. If you're the tank, there's absolutely no good reason for the other team to focus on you; they want to get the squishy DPS out of the way first so they can chew on the Tank at their leisure. So the Tank needs to shock them into focusing on him first and the DPS, in turn, need to be highly tactical. Additionally, the DPS shouldn't focus on straight damage output but need a contingency in terms of defense and escape. This Sorcerer should have probably taken Toughness as a starting feat. That having been said, there are methods that your primary defender can use to "force their hand" so to speak and split up the enemy tactics. First and foremost is a reach weapon. Reach weapons are the workhorse of the defensive character. It forces the enemy to either eat an AoO or spend extra movement to "go around".

The other side to this is the concept of "logic scripts" for opponents in an encounter, sometimes referred to as "morale limits". For example, if you have a kobold or goblin squad, and their numbers are reduced to just one, the remaining one may well turn tail and run. If the Ogre is reduced to half life, he may start to reconsider the prospects of the fight and turn more defensive and look for a way to flee. Don't presume that every creature is simply going to fight to the death and don't presume that the creature must be killed for the PCs to earn experience for the encounter.


They aren't useless; they just have highly circumstantial uses. People often utilize Deadshot for when they need specialty ammo and want to condense their attack into a single expensive bullet. Lightning Reload works along with that, especially for a 2-h firearm since the reload speed is brought down to swift regardless of the original reload speed.


Yeah, JJ has stated repeatedly that that his answers amount to, "This is how I'd rule it in my personal game," and he always cautions that he isn't a "rules guy" so his answers should be taken with a grain of salt. He'd been wrong in the past as his answers have been outright contradicted when official responses came out. That having been said, while it would make sense that the cover works both ways, you also have to consider mechanical definitions in the game. A wall grants cover to anyone on either side but the sphere explicitly states it grants "you" (as in the caster) cover and does not state in any manner that this cover is reciprocal. Therefore, from a mechanical standpoint, the cover is "one-way". The sphere, being magical in nature, probably opens up briefly to allow the caster to swing a weapon if he wants but closes almost immediately. That's how I'd explain the visuals to work around the given mechanics, anyway.


Bear in mind that he's sitting on 57 of 58 light encumbrance. Once he crosses that threshold, his Monk AC and Monk Speed shut off. He doesn't have to worry about Flurry since he's MoMS, but the loss of AC sitting on a difference of 1 lb may cause him to sweat if some ninja were to apply a strength-draining pressure point technique. Also, do you track money weight? Or does he just have someone else carry his purse for him?


RumpinRufus wrote:

It looks like a 23 point buy to me.

Racial +2 dex, +2 wis, -2 cha
Belt +2 str
Headband +2 int, +2 wis, +2 cha
Level 4 increase +1 dex
Level 8 increase +1 wis

Level 1 14 str (5), 15 dex (7), 13 con (3), 13 int (3), 15 wis (7), 8 cha (-2) = 23 points

Rolled stats maybe?


1) Yes. The sphere is immobile so the caster can't walk around and have it "follow" him. He'd be, effectively, trapped inside until he dismisses the effect or it is destroyed.

2) The sphere is web-like so it has holes and gaps into which you could, say, shoot an arrow or thrust a weapon. So if you overcome his AC even with the cover bonus and strike him, you're only damaging him and not the sphere.

3) This is kind of iffy. There's no explicit provision that missing him re-directs the damage against the sphere. How would you determine the difference between missing the caster but hitting the sphere and missing wide and not striking either one? By strict RAW, a miss is just a miss. You'd have to target the sphere directly. It'd count as smashing an object so you target an effective AC of 3 + size modifier (PRD states that objects not only have a Dex mod of -5 but also an additional -2 penalty to AC because they are entirely incapable of moving). So a Medium Sphere would have an AC of 3 while Small has 2 and Large has 4. But a reasonable houserule would be if you miss by the difference in bonus to AC, you hit the sphere. To illustrate, if their AC without the sphere is 14 and the sphere boosts that to 18, and you get a total of 16 on your attack roll, you can say you hit the sphere but if you get less than 14, you missed even the sphere... and your teammates will laugh at you and say you need glasses.

4) The sphere provides you with cover of some variety. The effect isn't reciprocal as it would be with mundane source of cover (ie. a wall). It's analogous to using a Tower Shield's "deploy" ability to create a virtual "wall" on one side of your square that provides total cover to you because you're huddled directly behind the shield but doesn't, technically, provide the same to anyone standing behind you; they just get the normal cover provided from an intervening character between the attacker and target. So said caster could easily fire a ray out through the little holes with no ill effects.

5) As stated above, it'd be targeted as if smashing an object since it is immobile. AC 10 + size mod + dex mod (effective -5, minus 2 more special for it being an immobile object) gives you 3 AC for a medium sphere. Bigger or smaller spheres will go up or down based on size bonus/penalty. It's all listed out in the Smashing an Object heading under Additional Rules. You can take a full-round action to "line up the shot" and get an auto-hit in melee, or a +5 bonus to attack with ranged. However, you can't normally smash with a piercing weapon (unless you have a specific exception) so you need a slashing/bludgeoning weapon to effectively target the sphere itself.

PS: You're not supposed to include "FAQ" or "FAQ Request" or the like in the title of your thread. Just state your question and the rest of us flag as to whether it's a FAQ or if there's already a valid answer that can be logically derived from the rules text (no FAQ needed) or if it's really something that is frequently questioned.


Lightning Reload seems to be used for situations where you'll be firing one shot, but still need your move action economy and don't want to use an alchemical shot. For instance, you could combine it with the Bullseye Shot feat (spend a move action to get +4 attack on a ranged attack roll before the end of your turn) or the Dead Shot deed (combine all your BAB attacks into a single shot as a full-round action). This can be useful for specialty ammo (ie. adamantine bullet for DR purposes). But for a full-attack of multiple shots, Rapid Reload + Alchemical is your workhorse for reloading purposes; Lightning Reload is for niche purposes as stated above.


There are non-outsiders that are raised/live in other planes. They gain templates to reflect that they have been heavily exposed to the energies of these planes, but they are still whatever their regular type is. So a Celestial Wolf would be a Wolf that, instead of living on the Material Plane, lived on a Celestial Plane (any Good aligned plane). It absorbed the Good energy there and was changed, but it's still a Wolf; it isn't made of Good energy. So a Human traveling to Heaven would go from Humanoid(Human) to Humanoid(Human, Extraplanar). An Angel in Heaven would be an Outsider(Good, Lawful). If that Angel went to any other plane, Material, Hell, Limbo, wherever, it would become Outsider(Good, Lawful, Extraplanar). Likewise, a Celestial Wolf could be an Animal in Heaven, but becomes an Animal(Extraplanar) when it goes to any other plane.


RaizielDragon wrote:

I know Magus can deliver touch spells as part of an attack. Is there anyway someone could make that work? Some potential issues:

1) Does Magus have Cure spells on their spell list?
2) Can Magus use their fists instead of swords?

Any character can use an Unarmed Strike or Natural Attack to deliver a touch spell; that isn't limited to Magus Only. Both a Magus and a Cleric could apply any touch spell to an Unarmed Strike. If they both had the critical range of their Unarmed Strike boosted to 19-20, only the Magus gets to use that crit range for the effect of their touch spell; a non-Magus using a 19-20 Unarmed Strike to deliver, say, Shocking Grasp could roll a 19 and crit on the Unarmed Strike, but still deal non-crit damage from the Shocking Grasp. He'd have to roll a 20 on the attack to crit on both. Additionally, the Spellstrike ability is what allows the Magus to replace the free Touch as part of casting with a weapon attack; that's not something standard to all touch attacks, not even using an Unarmed Strike or Natural Attack. So, while a Magus could cast Shocking Grasp and replace his free touch with an Unarmed Strike, another caster could not; they'd be limited to a touch attempt and only in a subsequent round when they have the action economy to attempt an unarmed strike (standard attack, full-attack, etc) would they be able to attempt delivering via a punch.

Therefore, this concept has a slight snag; said Warpriest couldn't punch deliver his Cure in the same round he cast it unless he has sufficient action economy (ie. quickened the Cure). If he really wants to deliver it that way, all his Cures will be delayed by one round by default.


Well, qualities of the Overlord. He's clad in armor, wields a 1-h Sword, Axe, or Mace, uses Magic with the other hand, he can dish it out admirably, but he's a bit on the slowish side. So, against "normal" enemies, he'd easily stand his own. I'd say he's a Warrior/Summoner hybrid class with a touch of Magus thrown in there. So I'd probably go with d8 HD, heavy armor proficiency but no shields, martial weapon proficiency. 3/4 BAB seems good for him because he he doesn't seem to get a lot of iteratives (slow attack speed). I'm gonna suggest Master Summoner with the Horde as his Eidolon, but if it gets killed it leaves behind 2d2 individual non-eidolon summons. Individual summons can also be brought in on their own by summoning spells as standard action SLAs. Beyond that, it's just about customizing your Horde. What are you going to focus on? Browns? The Horde gets better damage. Reds? The Horde gets some ranged attack potential. Greens? The Horde can virtually flank by sending out invisible scouts. Blues? Regeneration.


Alzrius wrote:

Does Charisma include a component based on a character's physical appearance? Sure it does; it's right there in the ability description (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

The issue here isn't that people misunderstand the nature of what Charisma represents - it's that when you try to divide the sum total of a person's physical and mental characteristics into a grand total of six categories, you're going to end up mashing different aspects of who they are together under a single umbrella. Charisma is the result of that. It's been awkward since its implementation, but like most of the warts associated with D&D, has become associated with the game's sense of identity.

For good or for bad, beauty is one of the defining characteristics of what Charisma represents, unintuitively combining that with personal magnetism, leadership, and other force-of-personality-related qualities.

Again, Charisma measures a character's <various qualities>. If you have a personality, Charisma measures how strong or weak that personality is. If it's a funny personality, a low-Cha character is funny, but a higher-Cha character is more funny. You don't really get to a point low enough that you start becoming more of the opposite of funny; you just approach (but never quite reach) zero funny. If the character is irritating, a low-Cha character is irritating but a high-Cha character is more irritating. If a character is honorable, a low-Cha character is honorable but a high-Cha character is more honorable. The same goes for appearance. You take a quality of appearance (beautiful, ugly, intimidating, silly, etc.) and more Charisma means more of that quality. Confidence and esteem is what drives it all. Beauty doesn't define your Charisma but, rather, your Charisma defines your Beauty. Charisma determines how strong your Beauty would be to a person who is of the opinion that you are beautiful. Low-Cha means that such a person would find you modestly and plainly beautiful. High-Cha means that such a person finds you more beautiful. But Beauty is only one possibility for Appearance.

"He did great things. Terrible... but great."


How about treating his minions as a swarm? That fits the original concept a bit better. It also eases calculation. You could base it on the Zombie Horde to get the best of both worlds; if you have a few minions, you track them individually but if you have more than a certain threshold, you treat them as a single Horde unit. I'd say say Broodmaster or Master Summoner would be the best archetypes to use. In the case of Broodmaster, each minion is an eidolon but they can all "fuse" to form a horde. In the case of Master Summoner, your single eidolon is a horde but if broken up into individual units, they are treated as normal summons rather than eidolons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooh... that Overlord. I saw the thread title and was thinking of someone else.

1 to 50 of 4,090 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.