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

Liegence's page

63 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ben, from Grizzly Adams!


So how does an Astradaemon attack on a soul in the river play out? Do they ever go after particular souls or are they just random assaults? If daemons are actively hunting down the PC's as antagonists what's the chance of this occurring on death and how could it be detected/prevented?


You are correct. Two weapon rend is a nice DPR boost for 2-wep fighters. Much more reliable than GTW. Likely it is the single best damage boosting feat for a TWF. It also helps a slight bit in overcoming DR, which is a big problem for TWF, because it is additional damage and not a separate hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PC's return from the dungeon of doom only to find that their local lord has sentanced them to bridgework for a fortnight - priceless!


There is no win or lose in an RPG imho. There is only the enjoyment of the story.

End a game like the way Mass Effect 3 ended you should expect criticism.


Some of the funnest sessions I've had were games where the entire party was severly underskilled, particularly in skills like knowledges, diplomacy, sense motive, heal, etc. I think everyone is familiar with those uh oh moments when the fighter realizes that lie is going to sound mighty stupid when he attempts his penalty-only bluff check... good times.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Property rights is one of those values I often see misrepresented in Fantasy settings that interests me greatly. It doesn't get as much attention as gender equality and slavery because those are fairly hot topics, but almost every medieval rpg I have played in is supposedly a feudal society but with modern/western values when it comes to property and ownership.


Fly Hex goes a long way on survivability. A little CON and Toughness goes a long way at higher levels. At low levels you can wreck mobs with Color Spray or specific targets with Daze/Ear Piercing Scream/Sleep Hex


You only need to push them 5 feet and then you can take a 5 ft step back.


I would say nothing is banned per se. I strongly discourage players that summon or rely primarily on companions not necessarily because of their power but more because they are time consuming. They bank action economy and horde action for themselves usually at the detriment of the other players.


Zark wrote:
Coridan wrote:
How does rage song interact with animal companions? Are they automatically willing or unwilling?

Sorry. Pets are not affected.

Advanced Class Guide Playtest wrote:


A raging song is language-dependent with audible
components, but not visual components. Affected allies
must be able to hear the skald for the song to have any effect.

My bold.

Speak with Animals?


Why limit the additional feature of Empathy to once a day? There is already a limiting factor (spend an inspiration point).


Veil specifically would not hide auras. Veil changes the look, feel and smell of the targets. It does not change the alignment. A paladin senses the alignment of the targets.

This is a bad ruling for Veil. I think it's bad that a level 6 spell could be so easily foiled by a level 1 spell but it is what it is. However, were this deception devised by a creature with sufficient Knowledge Religion he should know that his aura is still exposed and it is reasonable to suspect he would add Undetectable Alignment to his ruse.

It makes sense within the game's spell paradigm. Alignments, Detecting Alignments and hiding Alignments are in the purview of know religion and divine spells. Illusions are arcane, so by virtue of that fact it makes more sense that Detect Alignment can bypass and reveal aspect of Veiled creatures.

My follow up question would be this: if a lich glamoured himself via an illusion spell to look like a nonundead creature does he still ping undead when detect undead is cast?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Core Bard. It's awesome with 5 PC's, great out of the box no specialty type required. All knowledges basically covered here. Take stealth.

Big Cat Druid. Control caster, some support. Take stealth.

Ranger archer. Hunter bond preferred to share favored bonus, apply fav enemy to campaign if dm drops hints. Take stealth.

Wizard, conjurer. Splurge for an amazing Improved Familiar (Imp, Fae Dragon or the Azata). More control, summons. Dump enchantment and let the Bard cover that and other Cha activities. Out of class stealth and get invis and levitate/fly. Elf or gnome.

Dex Paladin. Half elf is good. Weapon bond your Agile one hand wep that you use. Buff, healing. Your damage comes from smite. Take stealth.


Lord_Malkov wrote:

Alternatively, you could just pick up performing combatant and hero's (heroic? too lazy to check) display. This lets you get a swift action intimidate on all foes in 30ft as a swift action if you can make a performance check (performing combatant allows you to treat all combats like performances).

And if you are getting Shatter Defenses, you already qualify.

Wouldn't this only work in performance combat, ie in front of a crowd? Wait, nevermind :)


+1 on thread

I was just looking into a build like this. Nice lead on Strong Impression, I missed that one. Follow up question: can a raging barbarian/rogue sneak attack or does rage prevent the precision damage?


Clustered Shots.

The threads are out there, so no need to go into further detail.

And about 70% of "General" feats.


This really comes down to an understanding with your DM about what is realistic in combat.

If you're fighting mindless creatures, then getting "aggro" just means being in front. Against anything more intelligent then it's simply a matter of party tactics vs. enemy tactics. This isn't an MMO, and it's completely fair for an enemy to take a shot at the squishies if they're open.


The more accepting your players are of PC death, and the more likely it is to occcur, the better it is to just roll stats. If you are playing a long term story-based Campaign you should point buy.


I suggest using E6 or E8 variant. Level 1 and 2 are bad, but over 11 is worse IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just say no to monster PC's.... just say no


Agree with Thelemonanche.

Sleep is a powerful first level spell that rapidly decreases in power. Color spray is arguably more powerful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Only a Rogue (or archetype with trapfinding) can detect a magical trap. Garbage.

Assumes all magic traps have some magical permanent means of not giving off a magical aura. Gives rogues some supernatural sense to detect these that cannot be rationally be explained. ie, why can't a highly perceptive elven sorcerer using detect magic have at least a chance to find a magic trap?

I feel this abilities overrated utility and inability to be duplicated through other class features (save very poor options like Find Traps) has done massive damage to the rogue class; this is the core feature that has lead to the rogues imbalance in my mind.


Does anyone else find a discussion on the internet regarding how unbalanced intimidate is because of the negative social reprecussions of its use to be a little ironic?

I guess in light of that if your character just uses it annonymously it would be ZOMG uber.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh... as little as possible! It's the easily the most needlessly overused skill.

Very quickly you will get an understanding of which PC's are perceptive and how much. If you want to give out flavor details just accredit them to the PC's you know are most perceptive. If it's inconsequential I say no roll.

If it is to perceive an ambush or a PC actively makes a perception check as a move equivalent action then that's appropriate enough. But even then you have to make sure they're not overdoing it. Over the top paranoid trapfinding will grind games down to sheer monotony.


To answer the OP's question, it's a three feat progression that (when fighting defensively with a free hand) gives you +3 attack, +1 dodge, the ability to deflect melee attacks and a very good potential for an attack of opportunity each round.

Obviously that's a strong advantage for three feats - especially against the "average" feat. The high AC of your build (with the added boon of access to barkskin) makes it even better.

Your narrative, particularly your character's performance compared to the other members of your party, suggests at your gaming table it was unbalanced and I believe your DM was right to call its balance into question relative to the scenario.


Per the Universal Monster Rules an Incorporal Creature... "cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions".

So, no, you could not use Crane Wing to deflect its attack. Nor could it Crane Wing you if it was an incorporal monk :)


Ravingdork wrote:
Lord_Malkov wrote:
You want the Crane Style workaround? Use a creature with reach. Monk can't get in there to fight defensively until the big baddy gets his swing.

You can fight defensively without being in melee with a creature you know. You just need to spend the appropriate action and make an attack. That attack doesn't have to be against a creature.

I see it done all the time.

Explain please? Crane Style lasts until the beginning of your next turn - how would it apply to a movement based AoO (if appropriately triggered) assuming you need to take a move action to reach the creature?


Post build please?


Constrictor Snake only gets 2 stars? Underrated.


Definitely pre-12th. Much like the other posters, I think 12th is probably too high. Around 7th-8th level for me is when the game still holds a balance between power and playability. Agree with Yora.

My biggest concern with the game at higher levels is simply the sheer number of hours of combat between rests I have to put my gaming group through before I can even threaten to run their resources low. That, and spells start becoming game breaking (or game breaking spells of lower level become problematic due to high spells per day). At 7th or 8th, a short but tough fight can wear the PC's down. At 12th+, to start wearing down smart PC's just takes dozens of rounds and usually takes careful DM planning against go to spells that seek shelter.

It's also really nice in lower levels where magic items themselves are unique and interesting in and of themselves and PC's are looking for utility and not necessarily the next numeric increase for their gear.


IMHO, the race options as currently written have sufficient power/skill diversity. I think the race options are clearly significant enough for a min/maxer to scale rate or declare any race optimal for a set build or even class. Some race abilities are taken for granted when they are actually quite nice and very differentiating. Darkvision, for example.

Additionally, i think the expanded race options as developed are robust and offer a variety of effectual tweaking. Even some of the race feats are pretty solid. I for one think some of them, like Steel Soul, are really strong.

Ultimately, this is a roleplaying game so if you want your race to have meaningful impact the onus is on the player and the DM to make the race selection feel significant.


Go with half-elf, take ancestral arms and choose Flying Blade (+2 attack on AoO's, 1d12 damage x3 crits)


A good twist should leave the characters feeling blindsided! If the twist has no real clues given to them before the event takes place, the players may feel like it was cheap if they're especially critical, but typically I've found players fond of intrigue. I agree it does work when there are especially vague clues that could not have ultimately determined the twist but portent some danger in the way.

With foreshadowing, it's more a literary device than a clue. Let's say a main characters brother is about to betray him. A night before some tavern wench could be complaining about how her brother in-law stole her inheritance and that you can't trust anyone - not even family. You should be prepping the player to encounter the common theme in an uncanny way, but it's not an outright clue.

I'd say use a bit of both, an indeterminable clue and good thematic foreshadowing, if this is to be a true twist with the intention of blindsiding the players. And I will say that's ok if you setup a twist with no means of avoidance.

As for your sandbox NPC - I would say chunk the %'s altogether and determine if the story would be better driven with the mysterious stranger there are not. %'s are nice when you're drawing adventures for others to be used, or if you're trying trying to determine which PC's ultimately find and interact with this NPC, but you should value your planning time enough such that if you draft a sidequest you're not bound by random numbers which determine it's inclusion. The final test of a sidequest's inclusion should be the opinion of the players upon finding its hook.

How I plan - I usually use two notebooks. One book I keep in my brainstorming sessions, metaplot notes, important events, etc, and I use the other notebook (graph book) to design dungeons, encounters, etc. The best thing you can do as a DM relating to planning is just take good notes during the session to ensure you're creating a plot that follows the players intentions. If they're not clear - just ask them at the end of the session: what is your character's motivation, what's his sense of adventure, what's he yearning for, what does he plan to do with his time, etc.


So now we are going on intent of the rules and not the rules themselves, where as before that was not applicable? I am sorry, please be consistent. Please show me in the text where it says swallow whole, as initiated by grab (for instance), removes the grapple requirement of a standard action each round to maintain the grapple.

If losing the grapple condition now, by intent of the rules as you stated, somehow releases us of the requirement to maintain the grapple let us apply 'intent of the rules' logic to grab in similar fashion which with the -20 CMB check also grants the similar scenario of the grappler not gaining the grappled condition. We can reasonably conclude it makes sense for a colossal kraken to hold more than one person in its tentacles each round without this nonsensical notion that every 6 seconds he mystically is compelled to drop all but one of his victims.


Follow up question... are you also suggesting that if a creature uses Swallow Whole it would also have to make a standard action grapple check each round to maintain the grapple?


Grick wrote:
Liegence wrote:

Because the -20 CMB check is an optional roll to both make and maintain the grapple. One roll, triggered by the grab ability.

"if it chooses to do the latter (hold), it takes a -20 penalty to its CMB check (singular, one check) to make and maintain the grapple"

A (singular) check to make AND maintain the grapple.

If the creature so chooses, it may make a normal grapple check on a grab that imposes normal grapple rules, such as the normal rule to take a standard action each round to maintain.

But what makes you think he doesn't have to maintain it next round?

What I mean is, even if the free action does start and maintain the grapple, why don't you still have to maintain it next round, why is that single maintain good forever?

If Jim has Greater Grapple, he can start a grapple as a standard action, and maintain the grapple that turn as a move action. Next round he still has to either maintain the grapple or let it go.

It is not conducting a normal grapple. It is using the 'grab and hold' option of the Grab special attack. The mechanic of the grab and hold option of the Grab special attack is to make a single check at -20 to make and maintain the grapple, and not gain the grappled condition. The 'grab and hold' option is not a normal grapple, they are two different options that are available to creatures that use the grab special attack. It states the one check required is to both make and maintain a grapple


Grick wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Yes, I am saying that if it succeeded in holding a creature it starts and maintains the grapple and deals constict damage as well.

What part of the Grab ability makes you think you don't have to maintain the grapple each round?

Even if you give them a free maintain (using whatever action) when it lands, what excuses it from maintaining (using whatever action) in the future?

Because the -20 CMB check is an optional roll to both make and maintain the grapple. One roll, triggered by the grab ability.

"if it chooses to do the latter (hold), it takes a -20 penalty to its CMB check (singular, one check) to make and maintain the grapple"

A (singular) check to make AND maintain the grapple.

If the creature so chooses, it may make a normal grapple check on a grab that imposes normal grapple rules, such as the normal rule to take a standard action each round to maintain.


Grick wrote:
Liegence wrote:
I am saying if the creature makes it's -20 CMB check option, it starts the grapple, that grapple is considered maintained for future rounds, and it deals constrict damage only (as the rule states). In future rounds, the grapple is considered maintained because the creature chose to hold it.

Wow, so you're completely removing the need to maintain completely.

Do you know that normally, you must make a grapple check, as a standard action, to maintain a grapple every round? You either maintain the grapple or drop it.

Succeeding at the grapple check to maintain is what causes the constrict damage. If that check never happens, then the constrict damage never happens.

Yes, I am saying that if it succeeded in holding a creature it starts and maintains the grapple and deals constict damage as well.

We are not discussing normal grapple checks, we are discussing the grab special ability which, if successful on its single optional -20 check to start and maintain the grapple, deals only constrict damage after the initial hit that triggered grab. It has the option to make a grapple check in future rounds to deal normal attack damage and constrict if it has it. Otherwise, hold deals no damage, the creature grabbed is grappled, and the grabbing creature is not grappled.


Grick wrote:
Liegence wrote:
The 'hold' attempt described, per the rules, both makes and maintains the grapple.

It has conditions that apply to making and maintaining the grapple. Specifically, it applies a penalty and a benefit. The hold text never mentions an action. The only time an action is mentioned is the attempt to start a grapple when it hits with the limb. That only applies to starting a grapple, because that's what it says.

Liegence wrote:
In other words, if a creature opts to Hold you, it gets a Hold check as a free action at -20 and if it makes that check 1) it makes the grapple, 2) it maintains the grapple, 3) it does not gain the grappled condition.

So you're saying a creature with grab and constrict can:

A) hit you, dealing damage (attack roll)
B) start a grapple, dealing constrict damage (CMB roll)
C) maintain the grapple, dealing constrict damage and normal damage (CMB roll at +5)
D) deal damage as the option from maintaining the grapple (no roll at all)

That's five damage rolls on it's turn, before the opponent can even attempt to break the grapple, with an extra 3 damage rolls for each free action it takes after that.

No, not saying that. I am saying if the creature makes it's -20 CMB check option, it starts the grapple, that grapple is considered maintained for future rounds, and it deals constrict damage only (as the rule states). In future rounds, the grapple is considered maintained because the creature chose to hold it. It can full attack and the creature it grabbed, if it didn't escape, is still grappled and will only take constrict damage unless it uses its standard to deal damage to the grappled creature.


Ok, just want to chime in with our groups interpretation. We have argued this exhaustively.

The 'hold' attempt described, per the rules, both makes and maintains the grapple. The creature 'takes a -20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain a grapple'. In other words, if a creature opts to Hold you, it gets a Hold check as a free action at -20 and if it makes that check 1) it makes the grapple, 2) it maintains the grapple, 3) it does not gain the grappled condition.

Further proof: please note the phrase 'on it's CMD check' is singular, thus implying that with only one Hold attempt it is obtaining all three benefits: starts grapple, maintains grapple, no grapple condition.

In future rounds, it does no damage unless it has constrict or it makes a grapple check to deal damage.


Haven't had much trouble with any Summoned Monster as a GM except the ones that excel at grabbing. They can seriously ruin your well-planned encounter.


Not only can your character exceed the limits of real-world human strength, but this game has elves and dwarves, too!


Quandary wrote:
yeah... my question is why was this item created?

For your surly dwarvern companion that likes to go out using the armor as evening-wear, get tanked, and bust some heads for good fun.

Or you want mimic any number of Final Fantasy-esque fist-fighters that don't match the Monk archetype (Snow, for ex)

Seems like a perfectly reasonable piece of quirky armor to me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure I really understand the problem here... Fighters fight - that's what they do. If you specialize a Fighter to fight in a particular style, he can push out the DPR because that's what they're built for... Unarmed attacks are just a feature of the overall Monk class which is not necessarily built to be a pure melee combatant like a Fighter. You don't even have to fight unarmed - it's just an option.

I'm not saying that Monks are at the power-level they need to be, but they certainly shouldn't be on par melee combat-wise with a Fighter that specializes in melee combat regardless of his chosen style.

Just my opinion.


Not sure i caught it if you mentioned it, but this is a style decision that is adopted by the gaming group and typically implemented by the GM. If you are a party member, keep it in character and roleplay your human emotions. If you are the GM, and this campaign has been going for some time, it may be too late to change the paradigm now.

If you want to try a more realistic game, use wound points rules (I think they're in APG), limit casting classes to one per two character levels, severly limit magic item availability, cap chars and most npcs to 13th level at campaign conclusion, and plan on giving your PCs an encounter about once out of every five or so that they need to run from (hint: give good context clues that it is too much for the PCs)

You can do it with the Pathfinder rules, just know that when PCs get fly, restoration/regeneration, raise dead/ressurrection, amazing cures, teleportation, bags of holding/portable holes, etc... yeah they pretty well are super and almost immortal. In fact, at level 20 there are several immortality options in the rules.


IMHO, a chaotic diety purposefully ignores or condemns laws or strict rules, in this case particularly if it furthers the good (which in fantasy alignments, killing evil does). I say 3, although i do like the idea of having the character later come upon a good goblin family or a holy orphanage devoted to reforming goblin children.

It's really up to you, but i would think most CG dieties ok with this, or at least not being anyway offended by it. The species is evil, so encouraging their destruction favors their alignment, and i would suggest a chaotic diety wold have no qualms over the method.


It would be a breeze with 2 Summoners at 25 point buy.


If all your players really want to be optimal and shine in combat the best thing to do is allow the suboptimal chars to adjust their builds with your guidance or help from the optimal players. When everyone is eqully munchkiny then just boost the challenges appropriately.

Btw, did you point buy? If this is a rolled stat inequality problem then you may have to do some stat adjusting


Iif i was going to suggest banning one archery feat or ability it would be clustered shots. Maybe not even ban, but double BAB requirement.

DR is a staple of pathfinder 'Boss fights'. Clustered shots is too powerful too early, and there are more than a few threads that back this up. It is arguable more powerful than penetrating stike which is a 12th lvl fighter feat only. On top of that, it just doesn't make any sense (not that this game doesn't already make us suspend disbelief...). Why again does pinning a single 1/2 inch hole in an iron golem somehow overcome his substantial armor and devestate his entire structure? What is so special about that second arrow that it allows it to harm a demon prince normally only vulnerable to holy power? It's just nonsensicle. If clustering shots is such a potent skill then why does it only have an enhanced affect against creatures with DR? As if something only vulnerable to magic is now mystically vulnerable to nonmagic wood because he got shot in the same place twice. This feat is just bad, and i have no idea how it got through beta.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.