Klorox's page

1,539 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 1,539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Slim Jim wrote:

"Common" Orcs ("CR 1/3" is an unfunny joke) are a sphincter-clenching terror at low-level, and it doesn't help that the Pathfinder variety switched out 3e's greataxes for falchions, tripling their chances of scoring a crit against you. They're +7 on a charge.

And there's usually an Orc Berserker (CR1) in the group; he'll have a raging Str of 28 and is +11 on a charge. With Ferocity and rage up, it takes 45pts (almost double their listed 24hp) of damage to drop them.

That's nothing new, I remember a single bugbear TPK'ing a first lvl party in AD&D... and any monster with above average strength (from orcs to ogres to giants) took a serious power up between AD&D2 and 3.xx, which was retained in PF

well, with luck, here we won't have rain, but it might be very hot too... of course, being demophobic, I won't attend the parade, even though it's in my neighborhood...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

man, you're getting me interested

Charles de Batz de Castelmore Marquis of Artagnan would definitely not have had cleric levels.

wrong, by the time Mazarin was a minister, De Richelieu was dead, and d'Artagnan started his career foiling Richelieu's plots, ... that was long before he became Louis XIV's personal hound, of course... plus, he mighjt have been a slayer-swash, but I'm not sure about hunter, and he was not religious, that was Aramis' schtick

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I rarely use monsters in my world's settings. I really don't have any that I hate or even dislike (I'm ALWAYS the GM). As a player however, wraiths scare the hell out of me.

as a player, I hate incorporeal undead in general, but I have a fond momory of the day when my lvl5 priest of Sarenrae made a natural 20 on turning a wraith and destroyed it outright... without this, it might have turned into a tpk.

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I rarely use monsters in my world's settings. I really don't have any that I hate or even dislike (I'm ALWAYS the GM). As a player however, wraiths scare the hell out of me.

as a player, I hate incorporeal monsters and undead in general, but I have a fond momory of the day when my lvl5 priest of Sarenrae made a natural 20 on turning a wraith and destroyed it outright... without this, it might have turned into a tpk.

Matthew Downie wrote:

I once lost a character to a giant ooze monster that fell down from the roof of a cavern. This led to me saying "I check the ceiling" when I entered a slimy cave with my next character.

I was then accused of meta-gaming because that wasn't something this character would have learned. (And yes, there was another ooze monster up there...)
Which raises the question, can you improve as a player without cheating?

a character can be careful about what falls from the ceiling without having heard the specific tale of your character... back in AD&D1 enough adventurers had horror stories about piercers and green slime dropping from the ceiling for any would be adventurer to be careful about what's above as well as what's below, or in front or back of him.

EDIT, oh, and nice thread necromancy, I reacted before I saw the dates.

well, bug the 'errata', they should have done that before they published ARG, because the Scarred Witch doctor works perfectly well as oroginally published, and the new version is... well, it never felt right to me.

Yeah, I know, I may have been contaminated by D&D4 where many classes were mostly SAD on whatever main ability they were built around, so a CON based spelllcaster does not shock me anymore, but still there was something that felt right about the SWD drawing power from its sheer endurance... and if it had to be based on a mental ability, Wis or Char would feel more appropriate, don't ask me why, it's just that an orc class based on Int just feels dead wrong.

I remember it, but I don't really get your meaning. could you please amplify? I mean, sure, a 1/2Orc can add to his Int as easily as to his CON... but I'm thinking of conventional full Orcs who are penalized in INt (and have no Con Bonus).

clearly as dumb as was turning the Orc Scarred Shaman witch archetype INt based in an errata when the class was obviously made to be Con SAD, in the "corrected" state, it's MAD and virtually unplayable.

born_of_fire wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:
Haldrick wrote:
I am strongly of the view that if a group decides on a non balanced party it is the player job to make it work, not the GM's.

Isn't it much easier for the GM to adapt the campaign?


a) not everyone has the time, inclination and/or skill to adapt a campaign -there is a reason adventure paths are so popular.

b) if the players, as a party, made a choice to skip being able to handle certain challenges it is not the GMs job to softball them for that choice. There are consequences of choices and the group need to adapt to that, either by planning better at the start or spending resources to fill that lack during the game.

Why not a little of both: the GM adapting and the players adapting? There’s likely no game at all if the GM ruthlessly slaughters the characters to teach the players some sort of lesson about party composition.

careful, I have a memory (back in d&d4) of a DM trying to adapt the challenge of an encounter to the party... what he unwittingly did was TPK us.

DRD1812 wrote:
Mike J wrote:
It is more about having the right mix of capabilities rather than having a “balanced party” (whatever that is.) If the party lacks certain capabilities, the game will become an uphill battle. Is having the right mix a necessary evil? I’d say no. It is a good idea? You betcha.
It's interesting to me that the concept of "balanced party" is so closely aligned with classes. If feat selection, gear, or hired NPCs can replaced the need to "play a trap guy / healer," then then idea of class-as-party-role may be a bit of a red herring.

a rogue with maxed out UMI and a few wands and scrolls does not replace a proper cleric, nor does a mage with a wand of knock replace the trap guy. can be useful and make you feel that yu did not really need them for a time, but when you spring a real nasty trap or need a cure THIS ROUND and the rogue flunks his UMI... plus , there are times when you need stuff that is hard to get in wand form (say revivify or higher revival spells), and then the rogue can't do a thing for you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

remember, all serious multiclassing starts with dipping

djdust wrote:
Last week I finally finished and submitted my grad school thesis paper. Only took me 6 months :|

Only 6 months to whip up your thesis? felicitations, my own took me about 2 years, mostly because I needed the second year to have access to more corpus to study, and then put my notes into form.

Well, I recently submitted a healer to a party for a PbP game on another site, because the party lacked one, otherwise, I'd have submitted something a lot more striky or wizardy... so, yeah, I do believe in the old fashioned 'all roles must be filled' party.

Now, I don't necessarily insist on it, but if we're stymied by a locked door because there's no rogue and our wizard is a pure blaster, or if people die because we don't have a healer on site, I tend not to be happy about it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vanykrye wrote:
Exotic weapons have only gone too far when you look at it and go "There is no way someone could effectively wield that weapon without maiming themselves."

You know, I tend to think that when I handle a pair of nunchuks...

Bards were a very special case, and I oughgt to know, I played one from 1st level fighter to 14th lvl bard... then again, I don't remember that there were bards in that arena game, possibly not enough XP allowance for them to be an interesting option... and I guess even a simple druid might have gotten at me in a bad way, but I was lucky.

Illusionists were weird... I mean, they were more than just wizards specializing in illusion school... they had a number of unique spells, and more importantly, the entrance requirements were the stiffest after the paladin, meaning they were not really a competition for wizards, though they were extremely dangerous (I won a high level arena game with an illusionist made up for the occasion, squishy as hell in spite of the devenisove spells and items he used, but who needs the HP of a barbarian when you can oneshot the opposition.)

"Wizards started with the schools in the Players Handbook " ?!?
You know that originally, wizards were supposed to be generalists, right? school specialisation was introduced in AD&D2, and made more systematized in 3.xx, though even there it was accompanied by stiff penalties (I mean, there were no discoveries then to let you study your forbidden schools, yes, forbidden).

to say that "Wizards started with the schools" is a grave misinterpretation of D&D history.

Also, I'm bothered that generalists are such weaksauce in this version, let's not speak of D&D5 where they have done away with generalists altogether.

well, in a campaign, I put the characters facing a disproportionately large band of orcs immigration onto civilized lands... I put far too many orcs so they would not just destroy them and walk on, because the story is that they have been chased off their traditional huntiong grounds by an undead epidemic, the goal of the campaign is for the characters to unmask and defeat the necromancer... I still have time to decide what hints I'll drop.

depends, the great invasions (4th-6th centuries AD) seem to have been a chain of barbarians pushing each other, starting in China and ending in Spain and North Africa... some went farther than others for instance, if the Chinese Xiung-Nu are indeed our Huns, they seem to have gone from Turkestan to Norther Italy/Eastern France.

Similarly, the earliest Celts (Hallstatt) lived in Modern Germany and Czech republic, later Celts (La Tène) were Swiss, and by the time they enter written history, they lived in Gaul and the British Isles, their earlier territories having been taken over by Germans and Slavs.

Dipping is for martials? weird. I've dipped a few times, but that was mostly to make Mystic theurges or the warlock equivalent ... back when I played 3.5.

point to you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAI does nothing to forbid dips... nothing in the rAW or RAI says that there must be a certain parity between original and secondary classes... to a point, with so many interesting class abilities being granted in very early levels, I'd say that the game is built for dippiing, even if the lvl20 cap rewards show that the intent is for characters to actually reach lvl20.

Personally, when it comes to making my own characters, I hate dipping... then again, I might indulge in it if I found and interesting and coherent build that demanded it.

Also, define 'dipping', if my character who's level x in one class, takes a level in another class, as per OP's version, that's dipping, even if intent is to take as many levels in the secondary class as in the primary one starts with dipping. Most PrCs require some degree of dipping in the build, and they are an integral part of the game.

The A series was a prelude to the G series? dammit, I passed that by... and you forget that the whole concludes withn module Q1 where you get to try and slay a goddess/demon princess on her own plane

thaanks for the reality check Slim Jim

1 person marked this as a favorite.

and major hugging to Cindy... it seems needed

Freehold DM wrote:
I am disgusted by the supreme courts decisiom today.

what did you expect of the Roberts court? the conservatives have been stocking the SCOTUS with their men since the shrub era, and Obie could not do the same, and all the great liberal justices are either dead or retired... seriously, today's decision was foredone.

Arachnofiend wrote:

There are more differences than can be easily summarized. The biggest in my view is a revamp on class mechanics so that every class is modular to the same degree as say the Kineticist.

Nothing in 2E will be compatible with stuff in 1E without conversion, or vice versa.

thanks, I don't know what the kineticist is, I don't have the book for it (and it's likely my favorite class anyway since, in 3.xx, I was a major warlock fan), but I get your point and wonder if I should resell or get rid of my current edition PF books... I suck at character building in that system anyway...

DeathlessOne wrote:
Hmm? I don't plan on finding out. If it is compatible with the current version of pathfinder, I will probably borrow some mechanics but I won't be switching over to it. Some of it looks promising though.

well, I'm going through a massive $$$ shortage, so I'm definitely not buying the playtest versions, and I'm interesting in knowing how useful my old style books will be in the new style play... one thing I have no interest in is goblin PCs, but I need to know more.

I hope this is the correct part of the forums to ask this, but the title tells all, I'd like to know how much of a difference there will be between the old and the new, how compatible they will be, and all that.

Alchemist's fire, you can't go wrong with a classic.

unless you're a red dragon, I seriously counsel against trying to wim in hot lava... it's fairly liquid for molten rock, so you can swim in it, but it's really nearly as hot as a fire elemental.

well, I've abandoned GMing because, in my own eyes, I couldn't make proper work of it...

You're lucky, Tim, I've had my share and more of bad DM's, myself included. but one of the worse was the guy who TPK'd a whole party of beginners with a single bugbear, and, in another game, forced my cleric to renounce his deity of choice to adopt a ludicrous one of his own devising... given that this was session play and not campaign play (where it might have been interesting), I took it rather ill.

deuxhero wrote:
Wouldn't a ring of substance get around the whole "doesn't remember to eat" thing?

No it wouldn't, ujndead don't need food, eating is just part of the routine of acting like a living being to pass for one. a ring of sustenance has no effect on an undead, and certainly none about its tendency to rot away.

Yeah, I have a fellow player who has no understanding of the rules and plays a spellcaster... plus he constantly sets other players' teeeth on edge and can't recognize when he's been wrong, I guess that his latest outburst just condemned a campaign I had hoped to see to its ending to an early finish.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
Thunderlord wrote:
The PCs must join forces with the only country willing to fight the Soviets. With Nazi Technology and Support, the PCs end winter on Golarion but their Nazi allies are doomed to lose a war against Russia since they wasted resources saving the world!

Not sure I'm down for an AP that involves the PC's allying (even temporarily) with one of the most heinous, genocidal regimes in history... even in an evil campaign. o.O

Not that it would ever happen, but I'd definitely be up for an AP where you fight Nazi's.

YOu know that Stalin racked up a death count a lot higher than the Nazis, right?

Yep, that would, except of course liches tend to be high level full casters, i.e, clerics witches and wizards (are there lich sorcerers?)... and having to take 10 lvls of alchemist tends to send that out the window...

What the others said, just anybody can be a terrorist... now, if you intend to have a firebomber, alchemist or evoker are indeed best suited for it...

I'll say it again, Gentle Repose only preserve DEAD bodies and body parts, NOT undead. it can't be cast as a preservation spell on an undead creature.

LordKailas wrote:

I don't know if the language has been carried over into pathfinder. But originally (we're talking 2nd edition D&D). The transformation into a lich didn't change your appearance at all. The wizard (or cleric) could continue to eat and drink and if they did it would maintain their physical form. It then went on to explain that while a wizard could maintain their body, they typically didn't since eventually they would "forget" to eat and drink and as a result their body would start to decay after years of failing to consume anything.

It was also assumed that liches were only interested in advancing spell research. Why bother eating if it's just a waste of time and you have no plans to leave your tower when everything you want/need is right here. Even sending minions out to gather things was less about protecting themselves and more about not wanting to waste time leaving the tower.

Actually, and even a bit earlier, (AD&D1) Liches were still dead and decaying... 1st Ed lich Szass Tam had created a spell to maintain his body live looking, but eventually was discovered when he was prevented from using it in time too many times, and he started to look dead (if you can, check out the illo on thne 3.xx splatbook Unapproachable East, which depicts him fighting Rashemen)... but by the time of the original book Dreams of the Red Wizards, he looked normal still.

I hope this link will work

I guess a daily application of a first or second level preservation spell (NOT Gentle repose, that's incompatible with being an undead) could do the job.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

except Gandalf is a fracking godling, even if, as Gandalf the Grey, he was careful NOT to use his magic powers... and Aragorn is indeed likely to be high level, you don't get to be 80 after a lifetime of fighting orcs and other allie/minionss of the Dark Tower by not levelling up... and Bard the Bowman managed to one shot a great wyurm, if that's not high level, I don't know what it.

Yeah, Dragons, lots of dragons, of all ages, sizes and types... plus an evil cult making undead dragons that is to be defeated, and the Red Wyrm that wants to be turned into a dracolich to destry, preferably prior to transformation... needless to say,; I'd use both Mongoose's Van Graaf's Journal of Dragons and the old 3.5 Draconomicon...

well, there's going to be major bickering, if not complete incompatibility between the necromaster and the good cleric.

maybe it would work better if the cleric was good, but worshipped a neutral deity, such as Abadar or Gorum... those are more likely to be pragmatic about raising soldiers from the walking dead.

well, Rysky ninja'ed me. The school of necromancy is mostly unaligned : it's good, evil or neither depending on who uses it and how, not by nature ... but the undead creation spells, on the other hand, are clearly labelled as evil ... so they are antithetic to the proponents of Good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean, taking the campaign to the Demiplane of Dread? sure, the guy who invented that concept should never have been allowed to DM

Avoron wrote:
Klorox wrote:
Gorum is far too chaotic and grim, a paladin worshipping him would need to get regular atonements, or risk falling

Huh, I'm looking for the section of the paladin code where it prohibits worshiping chaotic or grim deities, but I just can't seem to find it.

As for the source of their power, paladins explicitly do not gain their spells from deities the way clerics do:

Divine Spells wrote:
Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.
Paladin spells are powered by the divine forces of law and good. There's no reason a paladin has to worship a deity in the first place, and if they choose to do so there's no reason that deity has to share their alignment.

As per the Paladin hard stats, they HAVE TO be Lawful Good, AND are divinely powered, Gorum is neither... add to that the comparison with clerics who have to be within one alignmenet shift of their sponsoring deity... it is then logical that a paladin's deity has to be Good, Lowful, or both, and can in no way be evil or chaotic, Gorum is Chaotic, ergo ineligible to be worshipped by paladins.. Druids are not free from this alignment restriction either, since they must be within one step of true Neutral.

Also, worshipping a formless "Divine Force", like clerics can do (at least in 3.xx, I don't know if that option is allowed in PF) lets you choose your alignment freely, but being a divine class, and worshipping a being that is definitely at odds with your own stand on ethics, is not allowable. That being would demand that you adopt a fairlyh close stand to its own before bestowing its gifts

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1 to 50 of 1,539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>