I would advise to see the sex change as something similar to a high level healing spell. Anevia was suffering from the mismatch between her inner self - soul if you will - and her physical body. To alleviate this suffering is an act of healing and healing the ones you love is not a selfish act. It may be less altruistic than healing strangers, but the alternative - not helping your loved ones when you could - would not be morally sound.
The issue might have been different if the sword was really a holy sword or holy avenger even or if Irabeth had actually sold it knowingly to cultists, but neither is the case.
Pounce requires a quadruped base form.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
While the absence of offence does not make something acceptable or good, the presence of offence does at least constitute some kind of evil. Though, I would argue, that if the offence is not justified, it constitutes a very minor evil and if it is justified than the real problem is not the offence but what was taken offence at. The offence then mostly signals the presence of a more substantial evil. And furthermore, one might argue that if taking offence is justified, than it is also mandatory. That is: If I was right to take offence at what you did, everyone who didn't take offence at it, should have.
But of course, the parties taking offence are as entitled as everyone to participate in moral discourse. At best one might say that strong feelings of being offended might cloud the judgement.
But my point was not about who should decide, it was about what should count as reasons and evidence for a moral judgement.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Making and stating a moral judgement is not an implicit assumption of infallibility. Any such judgement should always be open to argument.
Here's own in support of my stated position:
Why should whether or not someone actually takes offence at misrepresentation not be the arbiter of its moral value?
Both of these reason can of course be subject of argument themselves.
Along similar lines: Denying subjectivism (necessary for reasons of practical consistency) does not equal the assertion of one's own moral infallibility, it is merely denying subjectivism.
Whether or not someone is offended is immaterial to the issue. The reinforcement of the faulty stereotype is a problem for the holders of the stereotype as well as for its target. A homophobic culture is not any better, if there is no homosexual behaviour. If it were, the perfect answer to homophobia would be to get rid of all homosexuals.To put it simply and bluntly: the problem resides with the perpetrators, not with the victims.
If that interpretation is actually correct, Poison Bomb is pretty nasty. Auto death for anything 6th level or lower, without poison immunity, caught in it.
How much is there that is level 6 or lower and has SR?
Yes, anything can be interpreted as motivated by selfishness.I save the innocent kid because:
I expected a monetary reward.
I want to turn him into an evil henchman.
I liked him.
I liked his mother.
I wanted to go to bed with his mother.
Even: I wanted to feel good about myself.
But, the code also specifies that the Antipaladin's action must not only serve his own ends, but that those ends must also be dark. Now, what precisely counts are dark ends is up for grabs, but of all the examples, I think the only one that easily qualifies is number 2.
I've re-read it a few times, and I am pretty sure that, RAW, there is no save here. The interesting question, to me, would be whether this also bypasses SR. Basically, I see nothing saying that there are qualifiers past the ranged touch for determining whether you are affected.
Bombs are (Su), so spell resistance does not apply to them.
I do find amusing that in a post about cultural assumptions, generalizing and offensive stereotypes there are talks about 'the west' as some sort of cultural monolith. Perhaps a lesson there?
Due to the prevalence of consumer capitalism working to structure not only production in the same way (the lives of labourers and capitalist and their relations are very similar, no matter where they live) but also consumption (Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood, consumer electronics,...), there is at least some sense to be made from talking about a "western culture".But: Culture is never monolithic. Not in one town or family. It is the nature of culture (one might conjecture: its very evolutionary function) to change. And change in culture is always also change in particular behaviours of particular humans.
That said, there is a great drive towards cultural homogenization in the geographical territory of said western culture. If you want to think of it in Marxist terms: once a region has adopted capitalist production, it must adapt its old stories and modes of interpretation and structuring behaviour to this reality or adopt to some degree or another, cultural elements that already fit a society under that mode of production. Elements, which are often provided by enactment of capitalist consumption itself.
One certainly cannot speak of "the orient" in that way. From a western imperial perspective, the west is the centre, everything else is the periphery (if it appears on the map at all). Furthermore, historical imperial processes most often were not to any great extent cultural. Most commonly imperialism meant an exchange of ruling elites, with the vast majority of the population more or less unaffected by it. Even such a cultural giant as old China presented only a cultural colonialism of the elites.
The swordlord prestige class suffers from two problems: a) it requires a lot of feat investment that distracts from getting AC and DPR up and b) it only brings dex to damage online at a time when you could also afford an agile weapon. So unless you really want to make use of dazzling display and disarm, it is not a good choice. If you do, however, be sure to include two levels of order of the cockatrice cavalier.
Having played a bomb focused alchemist with confusion bombs for some time, I must say that in my experience the discovery is well balanced. It is in fact decidedly weaker than stink bomb in many situations. If it would allow a save, I would not take it. Confusion is not a devastating enough single target debuff that it would justify a chance of it not working, given that there are other options available.
This is in part due to the fact that the optimal situation for a confusion effect consists in several targets in close proximity affected at the same time. A situation that is hard to impossible for an alchemist to generate, since they are limited by the number of attacks they have. This can be optimized, but doing so is costly. By level 8, when confusion bombs become available, an alchemist can have 2-4 attacks, plus haste. 4 attacks require a 17 dex (certainly doable) and 2 feats. Haste is not a very good buff for Alchemists in general, because they can only target themselves with it, further increasing the cost to optimize.
Granted, the alchemist can repeat this feat next round (remember though, that spending 5 bombs per round will very quickly eat through your resources), but then, so can a sorcerer or a wizard if they want to.
The only issue I see with this is when it is used against player characters, since it effectively robs a player of control of their character without allowing even a save.
Can be combined with Aldori Swordlord PRC or Dervish Dance for a dex based build (better AC, worse DPR) or strength based (vice versa).
"I will now ask you a question" Morgu'ul the Malefactorial Manipulator shouted, the serrated blade of his sacrificial dagger poised at the young man's throat. "And you will answer with a lie. If you do not, I will cut this fool's pretty throat!"
Since taking a hand off a weapon and putting it back is a free action, there's nothing stopping your from using a 1-handed weapon, attacking with it in two hands during your turn and switching to 1-handed after your attack.
Also, if you go with MoMS, do take tiger style & tiger pounce, shifting PA penalty to AC is just too good, in particular with crane wing taking over some defensive duty from AC.
On a final note, the Agathion blooded Aasimar can take the Enlightened Warrior trait, which allows for a non-lawful monk, if you want to avoid an alignment shift. The rest of the race isn't half bad, though you'd have to do without a bonus to STR.
I do think that the game does a terrible job at controlling damage, in particular how it develops over the levels. The span of possible damage per round is just too wide between different builds. If an optimized character does 2-3 times the damage an unoptimized character of the same general type does, that just makes scaling almost impossible.
It's like a mirror image & and a fire shield spell. Are those overpowered?
Arguably, mirror image is more powerful, because it can negate more than one attack per turn and being able to temporarily focus effects is in general better than being able to have endurance.
You know it doesn't say anywhere that you can get an effective druid level above your character level. Tho for the single class oracle this would make the ability kind of useless.
It doesn't say anywhere that you cannot and the math gives results where effective druid level > character level, so it seems pretty obvious that it's possible.
He would not need to chose a horse.
"being entitled to an animal companion" is not "being entitled to the same type of animal companion". As long as you are entitled to an object that falls under the category of animal companion, the levels stack.
Thus, a druid who multiclasses as a cavalier would stack their cavalier level with their druid levels to determine the effective level for their animal companion even if the particular companion is not available to cavaliers.
The first thing you have to realize is that what matters is not the structure of the adventure, but the experience of the players. Something is a railroad only if perceived as such. Even if there is really only one path to take, as long as that path is accepted by the players as the logical and appropriate path, there will be no experience of railroading.
But as soon as players feel that they are supposed to do this or that and feel that they have no reasons for it, or do not identify with that choice or find it inappropriate for their characters, the experience of being railroaded can appear.
Therefore an adventure needs to provide a context for player choices to make them meaningful and if the context is right for your group of players and their characters, no amount of "structural railroading" will be a problem. By structural railroading, I mean to what degree the adventure text itself does not allow for deviations from a particular sequence of events, something which, btw. is highly encouraged by the level/CR subsystem.
Similarly, if the players have no indications for theirs choices, they can feel left out of the scenario. That is a pitfall for sandbox games: you still need to provide a context for player choices, to make them meaningful. A good sandbox game is basically a railroad of forking paths: You still need to provide a meaningful context for player choices so as to allow them to make those choices their own, even if they are moving within a preset of options.
Pretty obviously, "weapon damage dice" refers to the dice roll listed under "damage" in the weapon listing. That set of dice is multiplied by the vital strike feat chain. The mythic vital strike feat tells to apply the multiplier granted by the vital strike feat chain (x2,x3,x4) also to a specific subset of damage bonuses, as listed in the description.
Be a free-will individualist: Anyone who comes to you seeking redemption shall be redeemed, no matter their past deeds. But those who do not seek redemption need not be spared if they commit deeds of evil (such as attacking a true servant of light, goodness and forgiveness).
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
...you can fly, shoot, talk, make your saves, cake-walk undead, smite occasionally, sense motive and cast divine spells. What's not to love?
No precise shot & improved precise shot means +8 on many shots, almost certainly +4 on about 90%. That's an action better spent being a cleric.
Let's be realistic for a moment, because you have to be realistic about
All else being equal, there are two principles that win pathfinder:
The reason is simply this: damage does nothing until you are dead. 1 HP or 100 HP, you still do the same damage. Hence every time damage that could have been piled on one target is spread out among several targets, you have given the enemy more time to hurt you. That is why blasting is bad unless you are optimized enough to outright kill groups of targets. And it's also why single target debuffs are relatively weak, that -4 to hit could have been damage, after all. Mass debuffs on the other hand help to deny the enemy the ability to concentrate damage.
Why target the easiest target first? That is the place were damage will most rapidly have effects, i.e. take a combatant out of the equation. The fact that commonly the squishy targets are also the most offensively dangerous (the famed tank/glass cannon dichotomy) further strengthens this principle.
Now, we, the players, know this. But do the Monsters, PCs and NPCs? Because knowing this make certain behaviours reasonable that would seem utterly unreasonable in an actual conflict. In an actual conflict being hurt hurts. A broken arm is almost as certain to take you out of a fight as an outright killing blow. Wounded people are slow and in the way and the bind the attention of their allies, who are trying to help them.
The question of this thread ties into this naturally: Should NPCs and Monsters act by the rules of simulation (i.e. according to a psychology that corresponds with a different set of physics) or by the rules of the game.
Ignoring high AC opponents in favour of others requires a high level of tactical thinking, willpower and situational awareness. For most combatants, a present threat cannot be ignored, that is were the awareness of the combatant is focussed, after all.
The only bloodline I'd recommend for martials generally is Arcane.
Alternatively, taking a weapon for your arcane bond almost guarantees that you will always have precisely the magic weapon you want, for half the price no less. Less attractive, but certainly an option is to pick a ring.
No other 1st level bloodline ability is anywhere near as good and most are, frankly, useless.
Everything else, requiring 15+ charisma and coming online only after level 10, is strictly for classes that already have a good reason for a high charisma: Paladins mostly. Unfortunately all the really fun bloodlines, the +6 to strength ones - are thematically odd.
Potions for Alchemical Allocation:
Cure Serious Wounds, Fly and Heroism are the obvious candidates, but anything that provides either long term buffs or out of combat utility is golden.
Still doesn't add to damage. Also, the feat Summon Good Monster (which gets my vote cruddiest feat name ever) gives the Laser Archons the Die Hard feat, which is at least something of an improvement over ferocity.
I don't mind the leafiness. I could well imagine leafy, thorns/acid/poison shooting drones.
The cleric spell Blessing Of Fervor gives a haste effect, which should up drone damage by 1.5. Alternative, let an arcanally inclined companion cast a true Haste after you've summoned your drones. But you know how those wizard folk are, brash and unreliable to wait!
Extending the duration of your summons is awfully nice.
I think that by time this becomes feasible, they last for a fight.
In my experience, the lantern archons get dragged out against foes with massive DR and spell resistance (e.g., golems). I've not seen them used as a general MO before though.
One of the main points for focussing on them is that their lasers overcome damage reduction of any type.
blue the wolf wrote:
cant a summoner do this?
They can. But with Sacred Summons, a cleric can also do it in a standard action and there is no way for a summoner to get inspire courage by himself without cutting into their summoning.
Surivability is not so much an issue and the STR bonus, though probably an impressive experience for a STR 1 creature, will not impact the damage of their laser ray ranged touch attacks.