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

Kurukami's page

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


1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I'd imagine so, but as a sorcerer I'd think you could find a better use for the two or three feats you'd need to get a +2 or +4 on the roll. :)

Rynjin wrote:
It's not as useful as some listed here, but I always thought Draconic Reservoir was pretty good if you were playing a melee caster.

Draconic Reservoir seems as though it'd only be useful against a small enemy category - namely, enemy spellcasters. Wouldn't most natural-energy -attack users (say, red dragons) be immune to the very energy you just absorbed?

I find communal resist energy more useful on a party basis.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Ultimate Combat wrote:

Righteous Hunter

At 14th level, a divine hunter’s ranged weapons are treated as good-aligned for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction. Any ranged attacks made by an ally within 10 feet of her are likewise treated as good-aligned for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction.

This ability functions only while the divine hunter is conscious.

This ability replaces aura of righteousness.

In the baseline class, paladins gain aura of righteousness at level 17, and it specifies:

CRB wrote:

Aura of Righteousness

At 17th level, a paladin gains DR 5/evil and immunity to compulsion spells and spell-like abilities. Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against compulsion effects.

This ability functions only while the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

Does a Divine Hunter still gain Aura of Faith, which they would normally get at 14th level (and which is very similar to Righteous Hunter)? Or is the Righteous Hunter archetype ability supposed to replace Aura of Faith instead of Aura of Righteousness?

Indivar wrote:

I have heard of people 'dipping' into sorcerer to get the bloodline arcana under the idea that it covers your wizard spells as well. Such as elemental or draconic (change to chosen energy type,

and +1 damage per die matching your draconic energy type respectively).

Or Fey. +2 to all enchantment (compulsion) spells, and I can further add Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus? Why yes, I'll have my hideous laughter, hold person, confusion, and feeblemind with a side order of +4 DC, thank you very much!

The only thing better would be to go crossblooded fey/undead, so all those corporeal undead would be hit by your mind-affecting enchantment spells as well. *evil grin*

wraithstrike wrote:
Joana wrote:
PRD>Magic>Spell Descriptions>Duration wrote:
Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.

Nice find. I think restoration just took a back seat to dispel magic then. :)

That is 1000 or 5000 gp I won't be spending, and it comes at a great time since I am about to be making a cleric soon.

Well, restoration usually gets used in my campaign to counteract things like disease (mummy rot FTW!) or a shadow's STR drain. Both of those are supernatural abilities, rather than spell-like abilities, and so can't be dispelled. Restoration is definitely the cure for things like that.

kinevon wrote:
Do remember, though, that the blind demon needs to make a check, because of being blind, to actually successfully use the spell-like effect.

Hmmm. That's a new one on me. wrote:

The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

And nothing under Spell-Like Abilities seems to say anything similar. Do you have a reference to support that?

Grimmy wrote:
Is Bar-Lgura one of those WotC ip monsters that they can't put in Pathfinder?

Yup. It's from the Savage Tide adventure path.

This most recent session, I had a character hit a bar-lgura demon with blindness. The spell actually got past the demon's spell resistance and it failed its Will save, so I figured, sure, give them a small break.

Of course, the demon has dispel magic at will, so the next round I had it roll to try to dispel the blindness. You've never heard such an outcry from the player side of the table.

My reasoning goes like this: yes, it's a permanent effect, but unlike [ibestow curse[/i] or feeblemind or other such spells, there's nothing in the text that says it can't be affected by dispel magic. Therefore, it can. (Also, despite it being cast by a cleric, it's only a 2nd level sorcerer/wizard spell, and if a dispel can't pop it there's something awry.)

Nonetheless, I'd like the opinions of the boards to use in the disagreement.

Ultimate Combat wrote:
You cause ammunition, including shuriken, to exude radiant energy. Creatures that take penalties in bright light take these penalties for 1 round after being struck by such ammunition. Undead and creatures harmed by sunlight take an additional 1d6 points of damage from such projectiles. This extra damage and half of any other damage you deal with an affected projectile results directly from radiant energy and is not subject to damage resistance.

Obviously, the extra damage only applies to undead and creatures harmed by sunlight. However, does the "ignores damage resistance" portion also apply only to such creatures, or would you be able to use it to punch through the DR of opponents unaffected by sunlight -- say, demons, or golems?

clawoftiamat wrote:
You have to have identified the creature using kirin style and it takes a swift action to use the damage buff. You could only use it on one attack per round. For a magus, I could see this being somewhat useful if you for some reason have that many extra feats.

Except that identifying the creature only takes a DC (15+CR) roll, which is effectively a cakewalk for any wizard. Fighting a CR 10 creature, as a 10th level wizard, you'll have at least (10 ranks + 3 class skill + 7 INT bonus), minimum, making the check succeed on at most a 5 or better. Higher INT items, or more substantial inherent bonuses, mean it's even less of a problem.

I'm not complaining, mind you. My monk/wizard build just got a lot nastier, that's all I'm saying. *grin*

Might it be possible to add a filter for ranges? I know I was looking to narrow down a list of touch spells best used in cooperation with Reach Spell, and the filters as they stand currently don't have that capability.


The frost giant chuckled, a low, horrible sound. "Your friends are defeated, and you are helpless in my grasp. Do you understand now how hopeless your attempt to defeat me was? What did you ever think you could do to stop me?"

The draconic sorcerer struggled to free himself from the giant's grip, then glanced down at his necklace before looking up with a wild grin. "Spark."

The resulting explosion, it is said, could be seen as far as the valley's floor.

*evil grin*

For purposes of a resist energy spell, would an entire necklace of missiles detonating at once be considered one large block of fire damage (i.e., all the dice of damage being rolled together, and resistance only then being subtracted from the total) or many smaller blocks (each missile being considered a separate source of damage, and thus possibly being more resistable)?

So you want to be spending move actions in the middle of combat to re-dose your weapons, one at a time? That hardly seems like the sort of thing Batman would do. He'd be more about the preparation, the sudden strike, the sly rejoinder of "Oh yes, I poisoned you back at the beginning of the combat... didn't I tell you I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocaine powder?"

But hey, to each their own image of Batman. :)

Rathendar wrote:
James Thomas wrote:
Has anyone done a Pathfinder conversion for this excellent classic adventure? I'm planning to run it this week and I could use some help with my prep. A few monsters I can just use from the Bestiary -- but if you know this adventure, you know almost everything is an original creation.
The Hidden Shrine was used as a Site in the Savage Tide AP as a nostalgia/history nod. A lot of DM's expanded from the small section used into more from the old classic module. You could check under that forum and see if there is anything there you could mine for ideas.

I'm in the middle of converting the whole thing over to Pathfinder for my Savage Tide campaign, with a few small updates and changes (like bumping many of the shrine nasties up to around CR 6-7 -- a single wight, for example, isn't going to do much of anything against a well-equipped and coordinated party of 6th level PCs). I'll post a link to the finished product, along with monster sheets, once I get it done. Not that this'll help the OP from a year ago, but who knows, someone else might be interested.

(For one thing, I shifted Xipe the ogre mage over from a "giant" oni to a "reptilian" oni (though with the same stats, mostly) and changed his name to Cipactli, the crocodile-headed Aztec god of earthquakes and eternal hunger and such. It seemed to fit better with the area being theoretically infested with lizardfolk, after all.)

What, no one?

Well, fair enough. I accept the judgement of my peers. : )

He's moving more than half his base land speed in the round. Therefore, at least to my understanding, there should be a penalty to his Stealth roll.

In my campaign, one of the clerics has the Thought domain and therefore has been regularly been preparing seek thoughts. The PC is using this on a ship at sea with the claimed question of "do you mean harm to me or any of my companions?" -- thus, basically, the player is trying to word it as a method of detecting nearby enemies.

I think that interpretation is ridiculous. The APG phrases the spell as "you may scan for either the answer to a simple question (such as "Where is the hidden lair of the wererats?" or for information on a general topic (such as the beliefs of an evil cult)", and goes on to say that you can engage people in normal conversation with the spell up to try to bring up leading questions about topics of interest.

To me, this very specifically means you don't get free looks into questions of "are you an enemy?" You have to actually talk to said target to try to bring their thoughts around to the topic you'd like to discern their true thoughts on.

Thoughts? Opinions?

One of the players in my campaign is playing a rogue. Despite the book definition of Stealth indicating that:

PF Core Rulebook wrote:
You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

He claims that he can take a move action at half speed while using Stealth, then take another move action at half speed in place of his standard action, thus effectively moving at his full speed without penalty.

I call shenanigans. What's your take on it?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

First: Fatigue and exhaustion affect mental stats, not just physical ones. This is true in life, and should be true in the game as well in order to make the mechanics run more smoothly and to preserve some semblance of balance.

The optional rule outlined below is a two-edged sword: it allows accumulated hit point damage to hinder combat effectiveness. This tends to slightly improve the overall effectiveness of melee and of evocation spells, vis-à-vis battlefield-control spells. However, it also inhibits “Die Hard” scenarios for PCs, by presenting them with penalties for wounds.

Interesting. I'm still reading it over. Of course, what also occurred to me with this is that this could provide an additional benefit to PCs that take Endurance/Diehard -- perhaps lessening the penalties by a level, or something.

Blueluck wrote:

In general:

While I understand and even sympathize with your desire to add wound effects to Pathfinder, I think you're playing the wrong game. Many game systems exist that handle wounding in a more detailed and realistic manner than D&D/Pathfinder.

(second spoiler)
* All characters receive maximum hit dice rolls at each level. (You're going to be imposing penalties at low HP, so the total will have to be higher to maintain game balance.)
* A character with less than 1/2 of their HP remaining is Fatigued until healed to above 1/2 HP.
* A character with less than 1/4 of their HP remaining is Staggered until healed to above 1/4 HP.

I do like your round of ideas. In fact, I'd be tempted to make the "less than 1/4 hp" thing include exhausted as well as staggered. However, neither of those penalties you're mentioning does anything to substantially handicap spellcasters either -- given that they're based largely on standard actions, especially.

Now, if there was something about forcing Concentration checks, or a penalty to skills, for a seriously wounded character whenever they're doing something that requires concentration -- whether it be casting a spell, picking a lock, trying to do something acrobatic, or the like -- I'd be all for that. Just imagine a ballet dancer trying to do a full, perfect routine with a torn ligament -- doesn't it make sense that would be tougher?

For my next campaign, however far down the line that may be, I want to put together some house rules which make hit points less of a yes/no thing. That is, that getting hurt and losing hit points means a character/opponent/NPC can take penalties before they actually go unconscious.

Additionally, I want to work in that taking critical hits adds wounding penalties, making them even more nasty.

I'm basing this along lines similar to what I remember about wound penalties in Shadowrun. What I'd like to say is that each "wound" would impose a cumulative -1 penalty to attack, CMB, AC, and possibly concentration checks, as well as a 5' loss movement per wound. (After all, it should be harder to sprint forward and lunge forcefully at the enemy while dodging a counterattack when you've got an arrowhead grinding against your hipbone.)

In theory, this ratio of wounding would be based off of both Constitution and character level/hit dice. A character with higher Constitution or level should be able to fight longer, with fewer penalties. Additionally, while classes with smaller hit dice will be unconscious, classes with larger hit dice will be able to continue fighting -- even though it will be at substantial penalties.

All averages and maxes below aren't counting favored class hit point bonuses. All penalties are calculated as one wound being suffered for each (1/2 CON plus level) hit points taken. (And by that I mean the actual CON score, not the CON bonus.)

5th level fighter (20 CON, so 5d10+25 hp)
(average 52.5 hp, max 75)
-1 at 15 hp taken
-2 at 30 hp
-3 at 45 hp
-4 at 60 hp
-5 at 75 hp

10th level fighter (24 CON, so 10d10+70 hp)
(average 125, max 170)
-1 at 22 hp taken
-2 at 44 hp
-3 at 66 hp
-4 at 88 hp
-5 at 110 hp
-6 at 132 hp
-7 at 154 hp

5th lvl rogue (14 CON, so 5d8+10 hp)
(average 32.5, max 50)
-1 at 12 hp taken
-2 at 24 hp
-3 at 36 hp
-4 at 48 hp

10th lvl rogue (16 CON, so 10d8+30 hp)
(average 75, max 110)
-1 at 18 hp taken
-2 at 36 hp
-3 at 54 hp
-4 at 72 hp
-5 at 90 hp
-6 at 108 hp

5th lvl wizard (12 CON, so 5d6+5 hp)
(average 22.5, max 35)
-1 at 11 hp taken
-2 at 22 hp
-3 at 33 hp

5th lvl wizard (16 CON, so 5d6+15 hp)
(average 32.5, max 45)
-1 at 13 hp taken
-2 at 26 hp
-3 at 39 hp

10th lvl wizard (16 CON, so 10d6+30 hp)
(average 65 hp, max 90)
-1 at 18 hp taken
-2 at 36 hp
-3 at 54 hp
-4 at 72 hp

10th lvl wizard (20 CON, so 10d6+50 hp) (in deference to CoDzilla's high-CON caster builds)
(average 85 hp, max 110)
-1 at 20 hp taken
-2 at 40 hp
-3 at 60 hp
-4 at 80 hp
-5 at 100 hp

Additionally, I was thinking that any critical hit would inflict a number of "wound points" equal to its crit multiplier. Although hit point damage could be healed by your standard curative spells, wounds should be tougher to heal above and beyond just healing the hit point damage.

Any thoughts or critiques?

Randomly, I'd throw a couple of night ambushes at the party. The cleric can't sleep in that full plate armor without getting fatigued, and somehow I doubt he spent a feat on Endurance.

Alternatively, an advanced elder black pudding does wonderfully horrible things to edged-weapons wielders in heavy armor. : )

YuenglingDragon wrote:

Again. I'm talking about other magical weapons. Let me try again.

I have a +1 short sword. I would like it to be a +2 shortsword. I don't have the necessary amount (3000) of gold in my possession to upgrade it. But I do have a +1 greatsword, a +1 hand axe, and two +1 shields. That's more than 3000 gp in stuff. If I have crafting tools and a heat source can I upgrade my short sword?

I think it would still be highly dependent upon conditions and location. "Crafting tools and a heat source" implies an anvil, heavy hammers, and a rather large forge, none of which are easily portable. You could do it on something like a ship that was properly equipped, though it would be tough; middle of the jungle would be a lot tougher. As a GM, I'd argue that the crafting rolls would be substantially higher.

Shaar wrote:

I've got a little argument going on with my GM: I think you can use the stunning fist ability as part of a flurry of blow. He thinks the use of Stunning Fist takes a simple action (and as such can't be used in flurry)

The fact is, there's no indication about it in the manual...

Can someone help me on this one?

A stunning fist attack is just an attack roll, as an unarmed strike. As flurry of blows specifically says a monk can do any combination of unarmed strikes, attacks with a special monk weapon, or disarm, sunder, or trip combat maneuvers with the flurry, I see no reason why stunning fist should be excluded.

Hell, a normal attack is a standard action. The fact that it isn't specifically allowed doesn't mean it's specifically disallowed. As Pathfinder seems to be pretty good about noting exceptions, particularly in feats, and given that the monk can do combat maneuvers (which are also standard actions) I see no reason why your GM's argument holds water. (And I say that as a GM myself!)

Good reasoning. No crew would want to stay on hardtack and salted pork forever -- and especially not in the earlier part of the voyage, what with having potential ports of call to resupply in and jungles to hunt about in. Better to save the preserved rations for the latter portion of the voyage, once the ships break away from the mainland and head south towards the Isle.

Sure, they could fish at that point as well, but who knows what horrors lurk in the deep? *evil grin*

0gre wrote:

Expensive ammo is a decent way to balance it, definitely something to think about. Makes it compare poorly with the bow though in a lot of ways.

Yeah. If the ammo's more expensive, it should accomplish more than just an arrow -- or at least have certain advantages that an arrow doesn't. All things being equal, to do otherwise means there's no reason to choose a firearm over a bow.

Midnightoker wrote:

Although I can see where you are coming from I would say this:

I can play a Drunken Master of the Four Winds and the Mountain (three archetyped monk) and be a really effective and fun to play character.

Oh, I don't disagree! But archetypes define a character from the beginning of their career. Good as the variability is, it means that feat and skill choices are the only real choice they can make -- and the same feats and skills are available to any character.

I liked, and like, prestige classes because they add possibilities later in an adventurer's career. Often, a player will plan to aim towards a particular prestige class from the very beginning, but at least you have that option and can potentially shift paths if you choose.

Kryzbyn wrote:

This is why I think archetypes are superior to PrCs in every way.

Want a battlerager? Barbarian archtype.
Want a Bladesinger? Magus archetype.
Want (racial trope class)? (existing class) archetype.
This works way better than a PrC. No loss, you know what your working for from level 1...
It's just better.

Not in all cases.

Let's say I want to make an armored arcane abjurer who specializes in dispelling (and does it substantially better than other casters), countermagics, and blocking particular types of attacks. In 3.5, I could accomplish this with the PrC's of master abjurer, runesmith, and initiate of the sevenfold veil. In Pathfinder, there's no way to do it with base classes or archetypes.

And tangentially, I would point out that spell focus (abjuration) is a waste of time, since virtually no abjuration spells require saves and it doesn't add to the rolls for dispelling.

Heh. I don't disagree, given that the 5th level wizard in my campaign regularly seems to hit DCs of 25-30. Personally, I'd be tempted to adjust the levels of information provided - maybe by a +5 DC or so. I'd also apply contextual adjustments based on how much direct experience the PCs have with such things.

unopened wrote:
I´ve seen that spell somewhere, it was a prismatic Spray, turned into a ray, and it was a 5th lvl spell. I may be wrong tho.

You're thinking of the one from the Spell Compendium.

wraithstrike wrote:
Spes Magna Mark wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Nope. That trope always gets trotted out, and people who have seen casters played well know it's not true.
IYE, but not IME. I killed the 15-Minute Adventuring Day quite a while ago. In my games, the "problem" diminished significantly.
What is IYE and IME?

At a wild guess, "In Your Experience" and "In My Experience".

Jason Sonia wrote:
Bertious wrote:
I have a problem with the guns = touch ac concept and thts special materials ok a good gun can shoot through your tin plate mail but what about an adamantite set you lead bullet would be a decorative new badge and little else really.

That would be easy enough to house-rule. Generally, if the armor used to stop the bullet is tougher than the ammo (as in your example), reduce the damage and convert the remainder to non-lethal damage.

The other option is: Use the touch AC to hit the torso (largest section of the body) and deal non-lethal damage OR use the full AC to hit the body, apply DR based on the armor's material, and then apply the remainder of the damage as lethal damage.

Of course, this also opens up the possibility of mithral and adamantine bullets. Not to mention the inevitable subject of the "magic bullet".

"So let me get this straight. You're saying that this one sniper fired one bullet that went in the Prime Minister's shoulder, came out his armpit, turned around and went in through his belly, blew out his spine, then came round and hit him in the back of the skull?"


"G+$!#%ned wizards." ; )

Although martial types did grow substantially stronger with the benefit of the various 3.5 splatbooks, I think that many of said splatbooks -- the Spell Compendium, most notably -- aided magical types even more. CoD's examples frequently include a claim that the entirety of his party can make any save on a 2 or 3 at most, but that claim is built on a foundation of spells such as superior resistance, interfaith blessing, and the like -- which, notably, exist nowhere in Pathfinder core.

CoD has in the past countered arguments that, lacking those, his party would inevitably take down opponents even faster (since presumably said opponents would lack the same buffs, and therefore be more vulnerable to the massed SoS's/SoD's his party of casters generates). I would argue, instead, that the lack makes his party much more fragile and likely to lose a PC or two.

Are casters more powerful than non-caster types? Yes, but this difference has existed since 3.0/3.5 and looks unlikely to change -- at least not without serious houseruling.

One potential houserule to consider is to make all higher-level spellcasting (say, 3rd level spells and above) a full-attack action. Sure, your wizard can cast, but he can't move and cast -- just take a five-foot step, like the martial types can once they get a iterative full attack. A caster could be mobile by sticking to lower-level spells, if he needed to, but the ability to tell the universe to sit down and shut up requires more concentration. ; )

I'm going to be running Sea Wyvern's Wake in a month or so, and started reading through the adventure in more detail to get a good grasp of what's to go on there. One minor detail I noticed, though, is that with the advent of unlimited cantrips/orizons in Pathfinder a single cleric or druid eclipses the need to stop for fresh water at various towns and forts. Unlimited create water, after all, means that any divine caster can top of the ships' stores within a minute.

As many of the events seem to hinge upon stopping at the mouths of freshwater rivers to replenish stores, what alternative reason for stopping might work? "Running out of food" doesn't seem feasible -- why would the expedition have set forth without rations enough to feed the crew and passengers for the full four-month journey?

Any ideas? I could, I suppose, bypass both the flotsam ooze and river-hydra encounters, but that'll put the PCs a bit behind the XP curve for the adventure path. Moreover, it lessens the feeling of "limited resources, away from civilization" as well.

Bertious wrote:

I have a problem with the guns = touch ac concept and thts special materials ok a good gun can shoot through your tin plate mail but what about an adamantite set you lead bullet would be a decorative new badge and little else really.

Still the pathfinder armor rules don't work that way therefore all you can really do is assume armor works against guns.

Sure they do. Adamantine armor has damage reduction, which overthrows the touch AC thing to at least some degree.

Hell, protection from normal missiles would manage it even better.

Then again, this comes back to the thought that magical defenses work better than mundane ones.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Bows were fortunately one of those weapons where you could immediately see the improvement -- unlike firearms which continued to have issues well pass the 300 year mark of their discovery. Heck they weren't even reported for penetrating armor until 200 years after they had been in 'use' in europe. "Handcannons" were barely functioning for most of this time prone to all the problems that the bow had plus some(took training, wet weather tended to ruin the powder and fuse, were harder to aim, etc). If it weren't for people hoping for siege engine power in a man portable form the gun wouldn't have been developed.

Even as late as the 1700's guns were known for being inaccurate (dueling pistols were more of a case of "stand and fire until someone gets lucky or we go back to the swords) and most gun deaths are more correctly attributable to poor medical practices than the deadliness of a gun.

Interesting. I hadn't know that, but definitely worth taking into account -- perhaps by lowering the range increment on them, at least in my house rules. That way, bows and the like may be more reliable at long range, but close up they'll be quite potentially dangerous.

Oliver McShade wrote:

3d6 damage and 18-20 crit and Touch AC.... ouch. Ya that would be the end of Bows, Crossbow, and Sword, Dagger, Axes, hammers etc....

Handguns (simple weapon)
1d6 damage crit 20/x3 and Is treated as a Touch Attack....should be plenty of an advantage. Give them 1-15 payload. Two-hand move action to reload.

Rifles (martial weapon)
1d8 damage crit 20/x3 and is treated as a Touch Attack. 1-30 payload. Two-hand move action to reload.

Well, I counterweighted it by requiring exotic weapon proficiency for it, since the matter of caring for and reloading a black powder weapon is pretty challenging for those who don't know how. By comparison, a sword or a club are much easier to use. (Hell, so is a revolver or even a cartridge rifle.)

Also, it takes two full-round actions to reload... I think. I need to go back and look at my house rules.

FireberdGNOME wrote:

Or maybe it is because the projectile slams *through* most armor?

Or would ignoring armor be too difficult a mechanic? Yeah, let's leave ranged touch attacks to the Casters ;)

Nah. I houseruled muskets in my campaign to do base damage of 3d6, 18-20/x3, against touch AC. No, Sir Winsalot, your plate armor won't help you against this particular opponent...

I also houseruled the Crossbowman template in the APG to be applicable to a musket-focused build as well. That, combined with the touch-attack benefit, nicely counterbalanced the slow reload time.

Touch of gracelessness, from the APG, seems tailor-suited for the magus. As a DM, I used it to drop a PC's DEX by 10 in one shot (8th level caster, maxed-out roll), which promptly caused that PC to get flanked and knocked unconscious by the caster's allies. Nothing quite like an abrupt 5-point drop to AC and the inability to run away effectively to turn the tide of a battle.

Anyways, given spellstrike, touch of gracelessness seems ideal.

Back in 3.5, I had a lot of fun with a heavy-armored dwarven abjurer. If I remember right, the build went something like cleric 1 (inquisition, for +4 to dispel checks)/specialist wizard (abjurer) 3/master specialist (abjurer) 1/runesmith 1/master specialist +3/initiate of the sevenfold veil ... 2? I actually got him up to 11th level.

He was a blast to play. I brought him back as an NPC in a later campaign, where his abjurations and general spellcasting wackiness threw the players for a loop. : )

Ravingdork wrote:

Actually, that's completely wrong. It's a non-dimensional space, which is completely different. All that means is that the inside is bigger than the outside. There is nothing stating that it isn't otherwise in the same place or not on the same plane.

This is a common mistake I see a lot of GMs make. If I'm in my bag of holding, and I can see out of the opening, there is absolutely nothing keeping me from dimension dooring out of the bag. I'm not crossing any planar boundries in doing so. A bag of holding or similar non-dimensional device, is not another plane. It's simply a magical bag.

Amusingly, the phrase nondimensional actually is in the description of the bag of holding. Along with the little tidbit about:

Bag of Holding wrote:
If a bag of holding is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag immediately ruptures and is ruined, and all contents are lost forever.

One arrow to the bag/handy haversack -- which, presuming it's made of leather, has a hardness of 2 and at most 1 hp -- and the summoner's permanently removed from the game, followed immediately by the now-defunct eidolon. As a DM, I'd laugh myself silly pulling that trick on the PC who wanted to bring in such a ridiculous concept.

One possibility that I'd considered -- which would absolutely be a house rule -- is to have armor bonus (and perhaps natural armor bonus) -- change lethal damage equal to the armor bonus into nonlethal damage. That way, heavily armored characters would be a bit more likely to get knocked out than to be knocked into negative hit points and risk bleeding out.

CoDzilla wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.

By itself? An absolutely terrible idea. Especially in PF.

If combined with other things that would actually make it workable, it might be workable.

What kinds of things do you think might make it workable?

stringburka wrote:
But nonlethal damage works fine, as not all damage has to be that way. Nets and grapples are another good way. There's a lot of spells that works. And remember - characters aren't dead at 0hp, so you have a marginal. If you play a lot at high levels, that marginal is much smaller and you might want to house rule it a bit larger (for example half your hit points).

That much I know -- hell, half of the dramatic combats have had a party member or two down into the negatives. (The fighter in the group seems to get down there so frequently he took Diehard!)

Hmmm... well, I suppose there's the possibility of grappling, entangling, or manacle-ing some of them up quickly after a stun effect went off... *evil plotty grin*

I've occasionally come across mentions of parties being captured and having to escape. Aside from instances of surrendering to legal authorities, I've never had a party I was DM'ing for be willing to accept that -- they always seem to want to fight to the death.

Short of an opponent intentionally choosing nonlethal damage (which seems likely to result in said opponent's death, unless the party is massively outnumbered), how would you go about accomplishing that? An overabundance of drow sleep venom? Chain-metamagic'd deep slumber? *grin*

porpentine wrote:
Summon Monster 4: augmented celestial lion. It appears, swift-smites, and pounces. Five attacks, each at +9 with charge, (+11 with flank), for 1d8+7+grab medium once, and four...

That's a solid one, although I'll point out that the extra two claw attacks from the rake require that you start the turn grappling and therefore aren't available on the pounce turn. Still, three attacks at +9 isn't bad by any means at the level.

Recently, I was using the augmented celestial rhino as well for SM4. Summon, swift-smite, and normally it attacks at +10 for 2d6+17. If you give it a little space to get moving in, it powerfully charges for 4d6+20. It's a great minion-clearer, and it's big enough and tough enough (DR/5 on top of that 53 hp) that it's able to soak up a good amount of damage before it goes down.

(And if using it as a DM, you can powerfully charge back and forth between the martialists and the casters, assuming the latter decided they didn't want to be adjacent to the massive horned monstrosity that just one-shotted the rogue into unconsciousness. Not that I've done that as DM, or anything... *wicked grin*)

Midnightoker wrote:
Ryu_Hitome wrote:
I had an idea for a very psycho-analytical gnome who viewed it all very technically and who viewed his eidolon as a manifestation of his id, so that he was the representation of a superego and between them, they had the ego. So the summoner was excessively perfectionistic and stuffy and the eidolon was wild and barely controlled chaos.

My eidolon fought Gandhi. ; )

jreyst wrote:

I really like the positive and helpful comments made thus far in this thread. I personally would like to introduce some sort of mechanic like this for the next campaign I run and seeing the points raised so far has been very helpful.

My first concern also (as mentioned above) is how to use a spell casting-time system with the existing initiative system. I agree that in most rounds, unless a situation is dire, the spell caster is well-served by delaying until after everyone else has gone so that he can not be interrupted. In that case it doesn't matter if his spell has a 1 or 9 "tick" casting time, as since he is already last its just a matter of does the spell go off now, or... now?

So, how would people recommend dealing with that?

One possibility is to have the initiative count indeed "roll over" at zero into the next round -- so delay too long, and the fast dextrous guy at the top of the initiative count, who just stabbed the fighter, might see your wizard ponderously casting a mighty spell and move over to interrupt him.

1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.