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

Knight Magenta's page

639 posts. Alias of Kirill.


RSS

1 to 50 of 639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Its not +4. This is because you are giving up an attack to activate it, so it is not correct to use the +X system to price it. Amanuensis provides a good alternative. Though If the weapon was also magical, you would have to multiply the cost of the lower of the weapon price or frost-fall by 1.5.

That said, I think both frost and frosty burst are mediocre enhancments. If you wanted your frosty burst weapon to cast frostfall on a crit, I would probobly allow it.


Voadam wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:


Objective does not mean that "there is no debate over it on the boards." It means that there is no debate over it in character. A paladin can tell you, with absolute certainty, that a particular person, place or thing is Evil. That's objective.

Almost. Detect evil is not quite so cut and dried.

If a good cleric of a [Good] god with an aura of good has actively evil intentions while being scanned by detect evil he will detect as evil.

Quote:
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.

Detect evil does not tell you whether someone is evil or not, just that they are either evil, have an evil subtype, or have actively evil intentions.

Also there are a ton of ways to hide an evil alignment from detection.

In character it is really hard to objectively know something is evil as opposed to just probably evil.

Objectively the evil exists in the game, there can be plenty of debate over evil in character though.

Well sure, you can trick people and the like. I just meant that Evil is a measurable quantity, like temperature or peanuts. It is a thing that exists. You could argue about whether a creature is Evil or just looks evil but no-one sane will say "well the devil thinks it is good!" Not even the devil.


A level 2 ranger can also make two attacks with the TWF combat style :) And he will do comperable damage on account of having a higher strength since he does not need int.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:


That's utterly ridiculous and a VERY good reason not to play in Golarion, where Saturday Morning Cartoon morality runs rampant.

Redicuous or not, this is how Golarion is. This is also how Greyhawk and Faerun worked. Your home game may be different, but when you are talking to a random person on the boards, this is the assumption. Pretending that it is otherwise and that everyone should know this is a recipe for point-less arguments and frustration.

Zhayne wrote:


Since what actions are and aren't evil is, by definition, subjective (and...

This is not even accepted as truth in the real world. A substantial number of people will argue that good is what God wills, and is objective. Others might argue that good is that which minimizes suffering, and is thus mesurable and objective.

The point of making alignment objective in Golarion is to reduce arguments at the table by letting the DM say "This is just how it works here. He is wearing his Evil pants."


Zhayne wrote:


No spells should have alignment descriptors. What the spell is doesn't matter, how you use it does.

There is no reason that both can't matter.

Consider the proverbial time-traveler that goes ad kills baby Hitler. The murder of a baby is an evil act. However, preventing the holocaust must be a good act (ignore the paradox problem. Say the time traveler solved it).

So is what the time traveler did a good or an evil act? you can't pick just one, because in that one action there were two acts. Spells are the same way. Summoning a devil is and evil act. Forcing that devil to work at the soup-kitchen is a good act. Whichever of those is metaphysically stronger in your world determines your character's alignment.

Would you not agree that summoning an angel to work your soup-kitchen is a more good act than using a devil?


Lifat wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

People tell me that the alignment system in PF is objective. If this is the case, then intent doesn't and can't matter; by definition, that's subjective.

This is (yet) another case that demonstrates that alignment is unworkable, contradictory, and a useless morass.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry but "alignment system in PF is objective" cracked me up. Whoever told you that clearly haven't spent much time on this forum. There are insane amounts of discussion about what the different alignments should mean. This part of the rules is probably the most subjective there is in this game and you should expect extreme table variance.

I don't find alignment useless exactly, but I will grant you that it is a huge mess. Personally speaking I'm fine with it because in the groups I play in we have come to an understanding about it (different for each group, but still).
I could see it as very annoying for PFS with players/GMs you don't know or play with often because you will be told one thing at one table and another thing at another table and you wont be able to point to the rules and disprove either.

Objective does not mean that "there is no debate over it on the boards." It means that there is no debate over it in character. A paladin can tell you, with absolute certainty, that a particular person, place or thing is Evil. That's objective.

Compare Objective/Subjective.

In the real world, morality could be said to be subjective, as we often talk about what it means to be right or wrong, good or evil.

In Golarion, you can go to a beach whre the sand is Evil. Then you can swim in the Evil lake, and then play with the Evil, but mindless, larve.


Quark Blast wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Someone has never been truly panicked before.

Men who have deservedly won the Congressional Medal of Honor have soiled themselves in the conduct of their "above and beyond" duty. That qualifies as Scared ******** and yet they did it.

Being afraid does not mean being confused or otherwise irrational.

If the Fear spell induces unabated spastic running away, then I refer you back to the in-game definition of "panicked" and this part of my previous post that responds to said definition:

Those portions I bolded are in DIRECT CONFLICT with each other.

Which is to say, as written, the "panicked" condition doesn't make sense. Not a lick.

Coriat wrote:
Per the panicked condition, you cannot choose to go back into the maze on this basis. Although it may be the only way that your character knows leads out...

My PC can cast a Haste spell without penalty that takes Verbal, Somatic, and Material components, yet he otherwise runs around in circles?

Really? I mean, really?

Can't we just say the RAW are a little broke here? Mainly just the description of the "panicked" condition.

Coriat wrote:
You just described the thought process of a person who passed their Will save.

No. Said PC is still under the effects of the Fear. Meaning she cannot choose to attack the BBEG but must instead put distance between herself and BBEG at all costs - Or - decide to burn a potion of Remove Fear to be more effective at getting away.

Which, once the potion is effective, would then allow said PC to confront the BBEG if so chosen but also allow her to effectively get out. The latter being the reason for drinking the potion, the former being a potentially useful side effect.

Again, casting a spell is a heck of a lot more involved than popping the cork and quaffing a potion. My PC can do the first [which requires exacting recall and coordinated execution of...

Why stop there? According to your logic, the PC could attack the BBEG because the fastest way to not be afraid is to remove the source of your fear!

Also, those who are "scared s#~#less" are not "panicked." Panicked people are the guys who trip when running away from zombies.


For Infernal healing to be evil, it does not need cosmic consequences. IH could change how your thought-processess work to make Evil actions seem more reasonable in your mind.


Ability damage is not really damage. It's more of a debuff. You can convert drain/damage into conditions instead of tracking scaling penalties. Keep track of the damage/drain as normal, but apply regular conditions at certain thresholds.

If the damage is more than 2, but less than half the character's stat, apply the lesser condition, if it is more than half, apply the greater condition. If the damage is more than the stat, then the character is unconscious.

STR/DEX Damage
lesser: fatigued
greater: exhausted

INT/WIS/CHA Damage
lesser: sickend
greater: nauseated

Con damage
lesser: sickend
greater: nauseated
Unlike other abilities, each point of CON damage also deals 1/2 your level in un-typed damage. Also, when your CON damage equals your CON score you die.

These sort of mimic the effects of ability damage. They may be more dangerous this way since the conditions affect more things, but they don't really scale up.

Adjust the thresholds to fit. It may make more sense to make the lesser condition start at 4 damage and the greater start at a (character's max stat - 4)


If illusions can block sight, they can block sky-lights. If light passes through a thing, that thing is by definition transparent (or translucent :p)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can't take a move-action and full attack. You could however, 5-ft step and full attack. Bladed dash is not a move action. It is a spell.


Dredd can totally be a paladin. Remember, Good is not nice. Paladins don't need to be about flowers and redemption. They can be about righteous vengeance and fire-based purging.


I like this item. Its interesting but simple and straight-forward :) I think I will be adding one of these into a treasure pile soon.


Caws Rorec wrote:

Let us also assume for whatever reason he has both barrels of his double barrel enchanted at +3 (yes double barrels function like double weapons)

...

Where does it say that double-barrled pistols function as double weapons?

The other double-weapon firearms, like the musket-warhamer specifically call out that they are double weapons.


You need a free hand to make somatic components. So no dual-staffs. And its not really a balance mechanism. Dragon-hide is pretty cheap at only 2x price. It's mostly just for flavor.


Defining "natural" to mean "part of the natural world" is sort of silly. Because then you could argue that everything is natural. Even undead, as they appear spontaneously, some would even say naturally. This is not a useful definition.

Natural is usually used to mean X steps removed from what is made by mindless processes. Where X is something reasonable small.


Mark Seifter wrote:


As untyped bonuses from the same source, they wouldn't stack. The confusing nature of the feat, of course, is why that Special clause tongue-in-cheekly refers to the fact that the designer really needs to specify what happens if you take it multiple times.

But then this means that both the feat *and* the Attribute is the source.

This ruling bothers me a lot. I feel that this makes it hard to figure out what feats/abilities actually do by reading them. Cause now you have to keep in mind how that feat calculates its numbers. It just feels to me that it is needlessly constraining future design space. The bonus type-system is elegant and intuitive. You can tell what stacks and what does not just by reading a feat or ability. Making attributes sources means that you need to back track where modifiers come from.

A specific example is of Fury's Fall, where whether that feat does anything at all is dependent on if I have Agile Maneuvers or not. And that means that when I take Agile Maneuvers I need to now note on my sheet that my attack bonus now has a dex component.


So, if we are going to be patching all the stuff that this FAQ broke with more FAQ, wouldn't be simpler to have said that untyped bonuses always stack, and then patched the cases that were broken before? Like saying that "fury's fall does not stack with weapon finesse"?

Also, Mark, question about your hypothetical feat that let you add your charisma as a bunch of different bonuses: What would happen if two of the options were:
- You gain a bonus equal to your strength bonus to AC
- You gain a bonus equal to your Wisdom bonus to AC

Would taking both of those options let you have both your Strength and your Wisdom, because both of those are different sources, or is the feat also a source?


Richard Torruellas wrote:

This is where I as a GM allow the player to throw 30000 shields. And then tell him his max damage does not manage to overcome it's DR. Since he doesn't get the magic bonus to shield damage. Then I immediately ask him one more question.

"How are you still breathing and living? You just went through the motions of throwing and unstrapping 30000 times in 0 seconds. No human body can take that. Even if you want to say it took more than 0 seconds you still have quite some explaining to do. In fact at 6 seconds you are still moving so fast that you have turned yourself into a fine red mist."

No amount of rules whoring will get you out of that and consequently, the pathfinder version of hell since they technically committed suicide. No deity likes followers that commit suicide unless evil. Even then they prefer you kill others in their name rather than yourself. Also you'd be in a form of hell anyways since your god is evil.

Also none of these rules cover retrieving a shield. Ready and searching through a bag are two separate things. Unless there is an item that allows you to pull items out as a free action. Either way he's still red mist. And explaining some things to the gods.

There are no rules for moving too fast in pathfinder. Try again.

Also, with a Clustered Shots and a blink-back belt, we can make attacks with our shield at all targets in 5 range increments for ifinite damage.


I've always wanted to build Master Yi from league of legends. His signature move is moving so fast so as to cut four people before they feel the slash. Standard Wushu stuff. You can do it with the magus and dimensional agility line of feats, but that comes online way to late and I play games that are pre level 10. Also Master Yi does not use shocking grasp :p and he wields a two-handed sword.


An example of how more options can decrease diversity:

Say I add a feat that says: your ranged hits automatically threaten criticals. Ranged characters are already strong, but at this point there is no reason to play any melee damage dealer. Diversity is lost.

On the other hand it is not the case that there is one optimal build. Since your goal is 'defeat the monsters' not 'max dpr' you can for example, buff allies or debuff enemies or controll the battlefield, or be really good against undead, etc...


From my reading of the spell, you can't place it in a 10ft hallway. The sloped edges are part of the pit, and must be placed on a valid surface. This makes the spell a little tricky in dungeons.


You could always have a nice man arrive from Brevoy and explain to them that using weapons of mass destruction on populated areas is considered a war-crime.


@diego.

The rules assume the gm audits. Otherwise, it makes no sense to care about wbl at all. You drop loot that the encounters say and that's it.

There is especially no reason to value items as full price or half price depending on who is using them, unless you audit wbl and change loot drops.


Lets step back a moment. Do you really need strong-jaw specifically, or are you just trying to beef-up your ac a bit? Whats wrong with a flaming aomf? It boosts damage and saves headaches... items that directly boost attack damage should be priced as +s anyway, so if you absolutely needed strong jaw, id price as a +2 or +3 weapon enchantment.


In my mind, crafting is not supposed to give you half price anything. Its about customization. You find a +1 human bane sword, you sell it for half price and make a +1 undead bane sword. Net gain is 0.

Without the feat, you sell the sword for half price, and then wait for the dm to increase loot drops to bring you up to appropriate wealth :p Maybe you find a +2 sword later, but the correct bane was useful right *now* so the feat is not wasted.


I've been thinking about this on and off for a while. Bows are sort of the TWF option of the ranged world. They attack lots and get value from flat damage adds.

What if we made the crossbow the two-handed weapon of the ranged world? So forget about multiple attacks. A crossbow expert gets 1.5x deadly-aim bonus, and 1.5x stat modifier to damage rolls. Rapid-reload does not affect crossbows. Finally, have the multiplier scale with your bab, so it replaces iterative attacks.

Since strength does not make sense for crossbow damage use wisdom bonus for the bonus damage, to represent greater aim.

Since you are not making iterative attacks, you can't fairly have the same maximum damage as the bowman, so I am thinking that high-level crossbow feats should let you apply status effects of some kind.

I would need to run the numbers os it works out corretly, but this sort of what I am thinking of:

[Deadly aim]
Change to give +3 damage for each -1 taken when using crossbows.

[Crossbow Savant]
Requires: Point Blank Shot, Martial Weapon Proficiency (crossbow)
When making a single crossbow attack as a standard action, full round action, or AoO you add 1.5 your wisdom bonus to your damage roll. At each 5 points of BaB beyond 1, the bonus damage from this feat increases by 0.5.


The shadow plane is also undead-themed. You can give you shafowflame elementals ability damage, a fear aura or Create Spawn :D


Just use your standard issue 11 foot pole to propell yourself, like a gondola.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My favorite denizen of magical ruins is the living spell from 3.5. Basically it was a spell given life by a magic accident. It was represented by an ooze that casts the spell on anything it hits or engulfs. My favorite was a living darkness that affects every object it touches with that spell. Scary if the PCs don't have the darkvision.

It also got my pcs to say "I shoot the darkness" in full seriousness :D

Another idea: living grease and some tiny flying animated objects. The grease will make it hard to navigate as it greases the floor, and makes pcs drop weapons while the flying objects will harass them. Incidentally, being affected by the g r ease will make it really easy to escape from its engulf attack, so the encounter should not be super deadly but amusing.


Looks pretty balanced. A little on the weak side, but that's mostly 'cause I don't like hatred and defensive training. I feel it is often too narrow. On the other hand, in a campaign centered around gnolls, that +4 ac is huge.

Id give them something else flavourful instead of defensive training. Maybe an ac bonus when adjacent to multiple foes. Or a spell like ability to shape metal if you want to reference Mirrodin. I think that's where ajani is originally from.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What have I done? I cat bear to look.


I've been looking at the various bears in the bestiary, and it looks like they are uniformly inferior to equal CR cats. compare the Grizzly bear (A cr 5 bear) to a Tiger a CR 4 cat. The cat has better ability scores, more attacks, pounce, and more strength. To add insult to injury, the cat has more hit dice, so the bear does not even really win out with his higher Con.

I smell a cat-spiracy. Paizo, isn't it time to throw off your cuddly overlords?


A longer cast time only hurts low level casters, since high level casters have shorter combats and better spells, like greater invisibility. And low level casters are actually weaker than martials...

Also, by "full round cast time" do you mean "1 round" like summon monster?


Err, that's what I meant. By"call it a day" I meant "be done with it" :p


Dominate already lasts days per level. Nothing stops you from commanding the target to fail its save and re-dominating it. Give it +1 level and call it a day.


Lord Twig wrote:


The helm inflicting pain and "destroying the person's self" are house rules. No where in the description of the item does it say that it causes either of those things. Making those changes could certainly change the morality of using the helm.

** spoiler omitted **...

Not a house rule, but an extrapolation of existing rules. My thinking goes like this:

1) Alignment is central to who you are.
2) Alignment determines whether I kiss the baby or eat the baby.
3) From my moral philosophy, I see a person's "self" as the sum of his actions and choices up to that point.
4) If a hat makes me into a person who would have made none of the choices that make me me in what sense am I still the same person?


Higher level creatures also have more abilities. Compare the stat block of a goblin to that of a Balor...

The PC's skill ranks go up at about 1 rank per CR, but the number of abilities goes up as well. So is I rolled at DC+5, and you told me:
0) this creature is a Demon.
1) "This creature has telepathy out to 100 ft."
2) "This creature has spell resistance."

I'd be pretty upset.

Btw, guess that monster.


P.S. Take a look at the Medium and Large spiders in the bestiary.


The poison DC is a little high for CR 4, as it also staggers.

The medium spider has too much strength and con, and the large one too little.

Usually, going from medium to large gives you +8 str, +4 con and -2 dex.

Check out the monster building guide: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation


1 person marked this as a favorite.

well, this one whispers encouragingly. It says right there :p


Keep in mind, high level creatures have higher DCs because of increased CR. They also have more abilities. If you only dole out information in tiny bits, like "it has spell resistance" then higher level characters actually get worse at identifying creatures...

I usually figure that if you beat the DC by 15, you should no everything. So I divide the monster's abilities into 3-4 groups (defense, offense, special abilities, More special abilities) and let the PCs choose a group.

In the case of multiple knowledge checks, I use the highest roll, and let each player beyond the first that makes the base check to get one more question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Carnal acts with other mortals... It's a voyeur.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I understand PF cosmology, Good and Evil are not value judgments. Good is not "cosmically right" because the Evil gods/forces are just as strong. They have a divine plan just like the forces of Good. Good and Evil are just teams, like Red and Blue.

Evil people are not lost sheep in need of guidance. They are, (some of them) rational people who have chosen to play for team Evil. Just like strong good souls can escape oblivion and retain their memories when they become Archons, mighty evil souls can become Devils if their weight of evil is strong enough.

From a cosmic balance point of view, Helm-ing a villain is a good act, while helm-ing a hero is an Evil act. However, I feel that doing so is morally wrong.

The helm is a sort of nuclear option in the war of good and evil. Most sentients are terrified of being utterly destroyed and replaced with and Anti-you. This interferes with the natural flow of souls into the afterlife. Just like even most evil outsiders don't like Daemons for destroying souls, I feel most forces of Good and Evil would be opposed to the use of helms in this way. This is because everyone knows that if one side starts using them, so will the other side. And then no one wins.

This could lead to an interesting campaign where the resident paladin may be forced to team up with a devil to stop some mortal from Helm-ing other mortals.

In summary: join team Evil. We have dental.


@jiggy. That encounter works, but its sort-of meta-gamey. What realistic creature will spend 90% of his wealth on 1 vial of poison and the rest on three bullets...

Though now that I think about it, you need a point-man to threaten the PCs. So how about a mid range necromancer with a bunch of leveled skeleton champions wielding the crossbows?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really hate the troop rules. If I am a dragon and those Crossbowmen need a 20 + 20 to hit me, then 10 of them suddenly doing 10d10 damage just because they are shooting together is stupid.

Real swarms contain thousands of creatures and do d6 damage. Not 1000d4. If you gather together 400 crossbowmen, then they can do d10 damage to the dragon.


If you ready an action, your initiative resets to just before the event that triggered the action. No double shots for you.

The answer to stronger PCs is just more crossbows. Throw in some difficult terrain and put the marksmen at 100 ft. It will take your PCs some time to cross that terrain.

Example:

16 Warrior 1 crossbowmen /w heavy crossbows. Feat is rapid-reload, and 14 dex. at 30 ft per round, in difficult terrain, it will take the PCs 4 rounds to get to the marksmen. Put the marksmen in a 100ft radius half-circle with the PCs in the middle. Thats 64 shots before they even get into melee.

If your bowmen start either hidden or in darkness, then they get to shoot at flat-footed AC for a little bit. Thats plenty of time to pick off a spell-caster or scout.

All this is about CR 7 or 8, so its a perfect mid-range encounter for a party of level 5 or 6 characters.

Last session our DM sent a party of goblins to ambush us at night with short-bows. They could see in the dark, and could use trees to hit and run. It was scary! Remember, if you have cover, you don't provoke for leaving a threated square.


He performs the ritual, but since he lacks the moral base needed to be a demon, he becomes an Elder Thing. An aberration akin to the Great Old Ones, though less powerful. Its nature and reasons are utterly incomprehensible to mere mortals.


I run incorporeal touches as reaching into your heart and trying to stop it by the application of negative energy. No foot tickle for you!


For the witch and giant: If the witch readies an action to sleep when the giant charges, then the fighter is already in 5ft + CGD range.

On the other hand, a level 3 cleric can do the same thing. So what the hex does is move your party's chance-for-a-miracle level 2 levels earlier...

1 to 50 of 639 << 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.