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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,616 posts (10,382 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Domestichauscat wrote:
Nothing, it isn't really a big deal. Some classes are better than others? So what? Everybody's on the same team anyways. I could see balance being a huge concern for say, competitive games. Like fighting games and mobas. But for this? Nah man, the fighter is on the same team as the wizard. Why should the fighter care if he's theoretically worse off in the long run? That dude's gonna help him out!
Because, if the Fighter/Rogue/Monk can be reliably replaced with a summoned monster/large cat/dude who casts spells and does everything better than they do, why would you want to be one?

And why would you want one of those in your party? Both in and out-of-character.

AC doesn't really become useless at high-level, but it changes its usefulness.

Instead of completely negating damage like it does at low levels, the main function of AC shifts to mitigating damage. That is... At high level, you'll probably always take the first hit from an combat-focused opponent, but a good AC can still stop its iterative attacks. It's the difference between eating 1d8+20 and eating 4d8+80. And a good Touch AC helps against those all-powerful rays. Arcane casters have poor BAB, after all.

That said, I think AC should scale with BAB as well. IMO, it's pretty idiotic that a 20th level Fighter has the same AC as a 1st level Fighter with the same gear. How does a character go 19 levels without learning how to better defend herself from attacks?


Kaisoku wrote:
Great Stuff

Some pretty awesome suggestions there. A few of them are similar to some of the house-rules I'm play-testing with my friends. The other is stuff I'll certainly consider adding to my own games.


Great episode! Much better than the first one! Makes me recover a little of my faith in the series. Let's hope it keeps improving.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was being facetious, of course I want lots of players with different play styles in the game.

If that's truly the case, I sincerely apologize... And blame my mistake on Poe's law. :P

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

But, and I can't stress this enough:

The Original Summoner Already Exists And You Can Play One TODAY!

So the Unchained Summoner, going a different direction is a GOOD thing, because it allows for DIFFERENT PLAYSTYLES.

By doing something different you ACTUALLY have MORE options not LESS.

The problem is that the original summoner isn't great either... That one is too powerful, but the unchained version is, ironically, too restrictive with the eidolon forms.

IMHO, an ideal Unchained Summoner would simply have a revised spell list and revised evolution points cost. Maaaaybe a level-based limit on number of natural attacks as well.

IMO, the UnSummoner took a step forward and 2 steps back.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
No, the hardcovers have always been supposed to support the assumed campaign setting of the Pathfinder: Campaign Setting. That's why the goblins in the bestiary have pumpkin heads.

Then why do the devs keep saying it's setting neutral? Who is mistaken (or being dishonest) here? You or the devs?

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The assumed campaign setting has a specific cosmology. The Clerics list the campaign setting gods, and not just generic knockoffs.

Pathfinder is designed to support games that use Golarion as a setting, but is in no way meant to be restricted to it.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Finally, I know it's terrible that players keep ruining the game with their munchkinry, and constant optimisation, I keep telling people that this game would be so much better without those pesky players. Sadly the one thing you cannot change is the nature of gamers. What you CAN change is the mechanics that they use to interact with the game.

Yeah... How dare those players play the game the way they want! Truly they are ruining Pathfinder for everyone else, since we are all forced to play with them and using the same play style. We should ban those guys!

This is exactly what this niche game needs! Fewer players!


You know what truly ruins this game? This sort of elitist holier-than-thou attitude that accuses others of "ruining the game" and says Pathfinder would be "better off without those players". I find that attitude condescending, offensive, irrational and harmful to Pathfinder and tabletop RPGs in general.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Careful, KC!

You'll cause someone to give us another round of the "fantastic" argument that is "I'll prove that I'm not being willfully obtuse and adhering to the specific words, rather than the very obvious meaning behind them... By being even more willfully obtuse and adhering even more strictly to the specific words, rather than the very obvious meaning behind them."

Of course it is...

A martial class moving and making 2 attacks?! PREPOSTEROUS!!!

Ah, I see... I thought you were starting a new game (or bringing in a new character) at 8th level. Anyway, I really like Combat Reflexes, specially for Dex builds. It's a pretty cool feat.

But I'd suggest Cornugon Smash and then Hurtful. It's a really freaking good combination.

Oh, and Improved Critical, of course.

Get the Fey Foundling feat. It has amazing synergy with your LoH ability.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Well... If they can do it with a -20 penalty, they deserve that +2 to AC. :P

The Rogue being underpowered is mostly an error of execution. The idea behind its mechanics is pretty solid ("This guy has lots of utility out of combat, and while not a heavy hitter, he can deal a good, possibly great, amount of damage if he finds an opening"). The problem is just the execution... Turns out that in practice, Rogues aren't all that useful out of combat and their one and only offensive tool, while not bad, is simply not good enough to make it relevant in combat.

The Fighter design is a completely different case, though. The whole design philosophy behind the class is extremelly flawed ("This guy can hit things really hard. All day long. So to balance that, he'll be awful at everything else!"). That's terrible design. Not surprisingly, it made a terrible class.

In the Monk's case... Well, considering how random are its class features and how little synergy they have with each other... I'm guessing the original designer had nothing but the vaguest idea of what the class was supposed to do...

Paizo inheritted and adopted these design philosophies. They knew their flaws but simply didn't do enough to fix them. And in some points, made them even worse.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Not sure...

I might be a tad much, but OTOH, a creature who can grapple without being grappled should be really good at grappling... And that's not such a common ability.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I think I'm going with something like this...

- Grapple doesn't necessarily pull enemies into an adjacent square, but it's always possible to attack the grappling limb. This is considered a called shot, though, so the attack suffers a -4 penalty.

- Creatures with constrict must still succeed on a Grapple check to sustain the grapple, but it can be done as a free action. The limb used to constrict the target is unable to attack, though.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Well, it seems Pull doesn't require a grappled target. The creature can simply try to pull in any target it hits.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Rynjin wrote:
You now understand my dilemma when running the Hangman Tree in Carrion Crown. I just ruled that graplng pulls them within reach, not adjacent (for example if you Grapple someone with Lunge) and then Pull was used to yank people off the ground and into the air, helpless to attack the creature at 15 feet of Reach.

That's a possible solution. But I think it makes Grapple too good for a Large+ creatures... Any Enlarged creature suddenly being able to grapple and sustain a grapple from complete safety seem too much to me. It gets too close to an auto-win against slightly smaller opponents...

Though I suppose we could allow the grappled creature to attack the limbs of the attacker...

Additionally, I think creatures with constrict shouldn't need an action to sustain the grapple. Your limb is already around your target anyway!

Grapple is a mess... -.-'

Help me think of ways to simplify and streamline it... I guess I could start a thread... Hmmm...

Redjack_rose wrote:
So... is anyone going to admit they were wrong?

Only if someone admits being willfully obtuse and adhering to the specific words, rather than the very obvious meaning behind them...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Turns out it's not off the table. Saying "but it's much harder than it should be" is a pretty clear case of moving the goalposts, don't you think?

Only if you're being willfully obtuse and adhering to the specific words, rather than the very obvious meaning behind them.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

While some of the complaints are valid (though I mostly like it) - complaints of Unchained summoner being weaker are silly. That's like complaining that the Unchained rogue is broken in comparison to the core rogue.

In both cases -


Just because it does what's designed to do doesn't mean it's good design.

Limiting the class power is okay, but doing so by making the class' main feature extremely restrictive is not good design. It limits player creativity and character variety.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The spell changes are great, but the eidolon templates were clumsy and overly restrictive in flavor, in my opinion. Especially rank is the alignment limitations on something as simple as body type.

Couldn't have said it better!

Paizo went really freaking overboard with the nerfs to the class. They really should stop trying to nerf stuff, because they simply can't do it right. They always end up Crane Wing-nuking stuff into the ground.

All they really had to do was revise the spell list and maybe refine a few evolution costs (e.g.: Pounce should definitely cost more than 1 point).

An Inquisitor with the Animal Domain would be awesome. It gets an Animal Companion at 4th level and doesn't lose any of the Inquisitor's cool features.

If this is a home game, you should also consider simply allowing a custom feat that gives her a scaling mount or animal companion.... Or maybe just change the Ranger's list of class skills (not that being a class skill makes much of a difference, anyway).

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

As the two travelers approach the fallen woman, she raises her arm in a very rigid manner, but doesn't raise her head.

A couple roots shoot from underground and towards the duo, taking both by surprise and smashing against their chests...

root: 1d20 ⇒ 9 damage: 1d4 + 1 ⇒ (3) + 1 = 4
grab: 1d20 ⇒ 2

root: 1d20 ⇒ 12 damage: 1d4 + 1 ⇒ (4) + 1 = 5
grab: 1d20 ⇒ 16 damage: 1d4 + 3 ⇒ (1) + 3 = 4

Eitylen manages to escape the deadly grip of the animated roots, but Frederick isn't as quick and suddenly finds himself wrapped by the wooden tentacles...

The fallen womanslowly and rigidly stands, but her torso remains mostly bent forward, keeping her face covered.

Eitylen takes 4 hp damage.
Frederick takes 9 hp damage and is Grappled

Initiative Roll:

Brother Cyrus: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (9) + 2 = 11
Eitylen: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (17) + 6 = 23
Frederick: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (9) + 5 = 14

Ayren: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (6) + 5 = 11

Creature: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (7) + 5 = 12

Final Initiative:

Brother Cyrus

Roll20 updated
Round 1
Eitylen's turn, though I don't mind if you want to switch turns with each other, since you got your turns right after each other.

Inquisitor would be nice...

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Rynjin wrote:

Really, I just want opacity as far as Detect goes because it seems weird that a "new" technique (Detect Psionics) is tweaked to recognize ancient powers for some reason. Identify is kind of a hold-over from from the old magics, a potion that does much the same thing. I picked it because it added just a tiny bit f extra favor wihout being a real hindrance (it's a one time cost of 10 gp and a 1st level slot you only need on downtime on rare occasions).

Most enemies with SR will be changed to have PR instead, and likewise SLAs will usually become PLAs (and different but similar in effect as a result). Very very rare creatures will still have SR (like Dragons or Outsiders), but I'll probably end up giving them BOTH in many cases, except where it wouldn't make sense (Golems, for example, would not be immune to Psionics except for the specific Psionic base golems like Crystal Golems, since Golems were specifically made anti-magical weapons).

TL;DR: It's a case by case.

Seems needlessly complicated, IMHO... But it's no big deal.

- - -

Donovan doesn't have any home city in particular... Ever since he left the island where he was "raised", he wondered around, never staying longer than a few years in the same settlement. Originally, he's trying to find out more about the little machines that "raised" him or about his parents, in time, that became a secondary concern, he just grew used to travelling.

- - -

Anyway, I can finally go back to posting with some frequency. I found a new apartment! The first one in my life with both of the following qualities: 1- I can afford it. 2- It's probably not a former murder-house. XD

Doesn't happen.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Apparently on Spellcraft checks... And creatures with SR.

I don't know what creatures of the bestiaries are present in this setting, some of them might have SR, though. And quite a few creatures have some sort of supernatural or spell-like ability that could easily be flavored as psionics.

I'm not trying to pressure you one way or another. I just want to know how it works. If it's not something our characters would know, then nevermind.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Uh... Why would that change whether or not spell/psionics transparency applies?

Does that mean psionic abilities ignore spell resistance and magic ignore psionic resistance and so on?

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

What about magic/psionics transparency (or whatever it's called)?

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Do we need identify even if our check is high enough? That would be a pointless arbitrary tax IMO.

Aberzombie wrote:
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

And what I hate, I HATE that Gordon compromised his ideals because of the little baited carrot by the Penguin. And this was actually reinforced and goaded on by in a speech by Bruce?!! Excuse me?

I felt my jaw drop.

They just compromised the moral codes of the current dark hero (Gordon) and the future dark hero (Bruce). WTF!

This, +1000. I was flabbergasted by this bit of plot.*

I actually like it... It's nice to see Gordon and Bruce never compromising their ideals... But doesn't match the show's atmosphere very well.

IMO, it'd be much more interesting if their will faltered, but in time, after seeing the consequences of their compromise, they realized they can't make Gotham a better place if they aren't better than it. It'd have even more meaning if the one to guide them back to the light were Harvey Bullock.

That said, I don't trust the series to handle it well... :/

Hopefully it'll be better than the last few episodes of the first season, which were completely rushed, poorly thought and incredibly frustrating.

On the bright side... No more Fish!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh-o-Lantern wrote:
But, moving too far away would be metagaming, clearly. Because there's obviously no way the mage could guess that the fighter decided not to shoot him for a reason. No way at all. Nope. Unpossible. Fighter is smarter than wizard, wizard loses. Argument settled.


I mean... How could the Int 19 Wizard guess that the bow-wielding Fighter would try to shoot him?

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
How was his sports example dead-on?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The sports example was dead-on because if everyone is having fun and no one is whining about the rogue/Little League player, then you're not playing in the World Series anyway. And that's actually best, if that's what you're going for. When I was in Little League, we all had a ton of fun. But my friend's team didn't have Reggie Jackson playing right field, either, which was a pretty important consideration when they were up to bat against us.

I think Kirth makes a good point... I think. He used a baseball analogy so I can't be sure.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

You spent all this time typing a link? I always said these [url] codes were too complicated!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, we don't even need a major system overhaul. Some fine-tuning could work.

Revise or remove the more game-breaking spells and casters would be okay, even if they stayed more powerful. Just taking a second look at stuff like Maze, Planar Binding, Gate, SoL effects and so on would do wonders for game balance without harming casters...

Make sure spells are less binary, this allows players to have fun with casters without instantly killing/neutralizing a whole character because a player rolled poorly once.

Martials should also get some buffing. In fact, I think this is more important than nerfing casters, since you can always tune down a strong character but can't always tune up a weak one.

Give them more mobility and a greater diversity of effective options both in and out of combat. Remove feat taxes and make sure feats are both effective and interesting. Allow combat maneuvers to work effectively without requiring major investment. stop punishing martial characters for trying to do anything other than stand still and full attack. Allow skills to do cool stuff (Skill unlocks are a good start, but pretty underwhelming, specially when they cost you a feat). Forget the stupid idea that classes should get as few skill points as possible.

The most extensive work would be revising spells and spell-lists.

Secret Wizard wrote:
I feel you are overcompensating, though. Increases in power to previous features are considered "something" a class gains for most progressions.

I disagree. Getting increase in powers is nice, but getting only that is boring and underwhelming.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Level 3 has too much stuff, for one - Solo Tactics is a whole complex subsystem to class building and you just hand it along with a ton of features.

I don't think Solo Tactics is all that complex. It's a nice feature, but nothing to write home about.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Tactical Movement also seems unnecessary - why is this soldier jumping around the battlefield instead of using tactics? Acrobatics is not tactical movement, it's a circus trick. Plus you are giving a bonus to some reflex saves when you already gave the class good reflex saves.

Moving effectively around the battlefield is often required in tactical combat. The idea that Acrobatics is just a "circus trick" is absurd to me.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Level 7 grants you Fearless AND Vigilance, both good features.

Yup. It's a good level. It doesn't bother me. Besides, Fearless is basically an upgrade to Bravery.

Secret Wizard wrote:
I do think you went overboard with immunities, too. It's something you could have put as Prowesses.

Dealing with fear, fatigue and blood loss is something every Fighter should be amazing at.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Talking of which, many of them are extremely overtuned. Level 2 and you are already as strong as a Monk with unarmed strikes, while wearing heavy armor? Even a Ranger who gets Monastic Legacy through Irori looks at a 1/2 progression. Several others look to be too powerful for something you get every odd level.

I don't mind. If the Fighter decides he wants to focus on unarmed combat, eh should be able to be really good at unarmed combat. Unlike Rangers, Fighters don't have animal companions, spells or the ability to skip prerequisites (including BAB prerequisite) for their most important feats.

Monks have their own thing going... And they aren't exactly an amazing class either, so I don't mind this Fighter being stronger than them.

Secret Wizard wrote:
And I'll say it again: the two free feats at level 1 is a very silly idea. It adds nothing to the class itself and just seems like lathering power on top of this.

It worries me that the 1st level is so front-loaded (and I'm thinking about how to change it), but it does add something to the class. Something extremely important, I'd say: The ability to be character the player wants to play from 1st level.

Secret Wizard wrote:
I'd probably space the features around and make Prowesses something that happens every 3 levels. Or every 2 levels if you remove features.

It seems we have very different ideas of what power level a martial character should be able to achieve. I know this homebrew isn't perfect, but it doesn't seem overpowered to me.

That said, I really appreciate the feedback. Thank you for sharing your criticism.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
4. Having tower shields that aren't terrible (no, really, they can get you killed because there's no legal way in the rules to ever get their max dex higher than +1, even Armor Training doesn't help).
Nitpicky man here to save the day, tower shield specialist

Which isn't a fighter anymore in the same way a kensai wasn't a fighter in Baldur's Gate II. It also does no favors since it loses your other class features which makes the net result a wash.

Likewise, it doesn't do you much good to trade out armor training for tower shield training as either way either your heavy armor or your tower shield is gimping you. Heavy armor just happens to be the better choice most of the time.

EDIT: Also by taking tower shield specialist you're gimping your ability to fight to less than that of a bard's as you lose your scaling bonuses to hit and damage with weapons, leaving you at only BAB plus (maybe) weapon focus feats. That's horrible for a martial. Paladins do better simply by casting divine favor (a 1st level spell).

CWheezy was only pointing out that technically, you can raise your max Dex to AC with tower shield. I don't think he intended to even imply that it was a good archetype...

EDIT: Ninja Inquisitor'ed by CWheezy himself... ¬¬'

One can always try homebrew material.

Not that I'd shameless promote my own work... Unless you're interested, of course

Secret Wizard wrote:
This seems like too chock-full of stuff. You need to start removing stuff until you can say "there's nothing I can remove".


The Revised Fighter gets something every level (as every class should) and nothing about it is extremely powerful or game breaking. It's not super-complicated either...

What do you think should be removed, and why?

Sorry, I forgot to check this thread, since I haven't updated the homebrew in the last couple weeks...

Seth Dresari wrote:
Another thing you can try; In a campaign where AoO isn't available, then at the GM's discretion a Fighter can still have that, but will roll with Disadvantage (roll twice and take the worse result) when making them.

That is a decent house-rule, Seth. However, when designing the homebrew I assume no other house-rules will be in play. Not because I think that'll actually be the case, but because it makes it easier for each player and GM to adopt and adapt this homebrew to their games.

Thank you for the feedback, BTW. :)

Scythia wrote:
A 15 minute adventure day is considered a bad thing for players, but is explicitly the design for NPCs, that's pretty much my point. Adventure design or a DM can discourage players from behaving that way, but the only way to prevent it for NPC is to purposefully play them ineffectually.

I actually try to remember that NPCs might have spent some of their resources before they met the PCs (and enemy mages doesn't have all spell slots, the enemy barbarian has fewer rounds of rage, etc)... But that depends on the setting and situation of the encounter... And it's still no guarantee that they are equally worried about preserving resources, since the PC are more likely to be the invaders than the ones being invaded.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

They nerfed Litany of Sloth? Why?

Sometimes I think we'd be better off if Paizo never made another errata.

It's a 1st level enchantment (compulsion) spell, so I always thought it strange that it didn't have a save when it was first printed.

It's what made the spell useful, though. It only lasts 1 round and doesn't incapacitate the enemy.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

They nerfed Litany of Sloth? Why?

Sometimes I think we'd be better off if Paizo never made another errata.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say that pretty much every caster in the game can fulfill all those roles... But arcane full-casters will need to make some very unorthodox choices. Druid are awesome, of course. So are Clerics, but they lack skill points.

Personally, I'd recommend an Inquisitor. Bards and Skalds also make pretty good frontliners.

Milo v3 wrote:

1. That's subjective.

2. I disagree completely.
3. Psionics doesn't really have anything to do with Occult Adventures.
4. You realize that most psychic magic classes are balanced and unique right? Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Medium.... With Psychic is unique, though weak tier 2 rather than balanced, and kineticist is unique, though tier 4/5 rather than balanced.

3 and 4 are debatable, specially 4, but I'm not in the mood for debating. So... Let's agree to disagree.

Other than the Kineticist, all classes from Occult Adventures are needlessly complicated rehashes of existing classes. When it comes to game mechanics, balance and creativity have never been Paizo's forte, but OA and ACG are particularly uninspired.

If you want psychic magic that is balanced and unique, you are much better off with Dreamscarred Press material, IMHO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I think people tend to forget the only appreciable difference between a level 1 fighter and virutally any other character is a feat, a bit of hp and +1 to attack rolls.
Well... That and a feat. And a few gp.
I bolded the part I think you missed.

You shouldn't edit your quotes to make other people look dumber, Ben... That's just mean!

Bluff: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (19) + 3 = 22


TarkXT wrote:
I think people tend to forget the only appreciable difference between a level 1 fighter and virutally any other character is a feat, a bit of hp and +1 to attack rolls.

Well... That and a few gp.

TarkXT wrote:

Oh I was just considering the ways a cookie cutter fighter could get annihilated under those conditions by getting stabbed to death by the wizard.

If I wanted to be really cheeky.

Hell! At 1st level it's very possible that the Wizard's familiar can deal enough damage to kill the Fighter. 12~15 hp isn't all that much...

Jacob Saltband wrote:

I would like to see a 1st lv wizard vs a 1st lv fighter...

20 pt buy, core races, max starting cash.

Combat starts at 100' between combatants.

Who wants build the wizard and who wants to build the fighter?

Edit: sorry forgot to add any archtype but 3rd party.

You know... 1st level is so swingy, it might go both ways.

The Wizard is more likely to win initiative... And that maybe +3 on the Fighter's Will save is really bad. Of course, if the Fighter does make his save or gets to act first, he has a good chance of one-shotting the Wizard (mostly because pretty much everything has a chance of one-shotting anything at 1st level).

It's an all-or-nothing situation based mostly on luck and Initiative that it really doesn't add anything...

I'd bet on the Wizard, though. He's likely to have higher Initiative and a decent AC (14~16)... So the Fighter probably needs at least a 10 to hit him... And needs at least a 12 or so to make his Will save.

EDIT: Wait... They started 100ft away from each other? If this Fighter is not an archer, he doesn't stand a chance.

My Self wrote:

Because with unlimited resources, you can get yourself Wondrous Item crafting feats, and with those, you can get yourself Spellcraft or Craft check boosters, and with those and your infinite money, you could make an item of infinite Time Stop or Wish on command or any number of summoned Planar Allies.

Because I just felt like going that far.

Uh... Is this reply directed at me?

1 to 50 of 7,616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.