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

75 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
Liegence wrote:

#6 for sure.

I hate Perception checks - they constantly slow the game down. Ironically enough, I miss Search being its own skill.

I also disagree that Perception checks are a DM problem. They are, without house rulings, very much a player choice and therefore can easily become a player problem. They check every room, every door, and want checks before every combat.

My suggested solution, if it's a problem, is just determine what is their perception modifier +10 and force a persistent "take 10"

But that robs you of the pleasure of watching your players squirm after rolling a 1 on a perception check on a door. "Seems legit" is one of the funniest things a GM can say.

Maybe if it was on some rare occasion where only one person checked, but when you have a party of optimized players all using perception checks the chances they all fail are drastically reduced to basically zero.

Besides, there is much entertainment found elsewhere in the adventure than just the perception check at the door!

#6 for sure.

I hate Perception checks - they constantly slow the game down. Ironically enough, I miss Search being its own skill.

I also disagree that Perception checks are a DM problem. They are, without house rulings, very much a player choice and therefore can easily become a player problem. They check every room, every door, and want checks before every combat.

My suggested solution, if it's a problem, is just determine what is their perception modifier +10 and force a persistent "take 10"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The MacGuffin for a quest proposed three or four quests down the line...

I need you to help me find X or all is lost!

You mean this ole thing we find in that Dragon's hoard? We thought it was worthless ... It just has been sitting in our Handysack. Ok well here it is, you paying in coins or gems?

Extra hilarity if they forgot they even had it until after they scavage the dungeon where plot giver thought it might be and came up goose eggs.

As a DM my answer is simply no. Sasquatch and Leprechaun PC's would be disallowed - that simple. If you want to make it work use a simple port - Sas has 1/2 Orc stats with some trait adjustments per race guide and the Lep ports from gnome with trait adjustments. If the player is upset about that b/c he wants a +12 str racial mod then there's a bigger problem here.

As a player, it's very discouraging when you roll up something vanilla just to have the DM subsequently allow a half-dragon barbarian or pixie sorcerer. It's just plain bad for balance and game state overall. It's only fun when it's clearly established beforehand and everyone is allowed to go crazy. And if that's the theme then you're pretty much ignoring balance for the sake of having an anything goes type game

It's easy to limit the availability of Ressurection. Just look at the component: a 10,000 gp Diamond. Flip through the treasure tables and see if you can find the odds of actually having a 10k Diamond appear in a horde (by the treasure generation rules presented I don't even think it's possible). A 10k diamond isn't something the characters can just buy whenever they need one. Having 10k gold on hand doesn't solve the issue.

As for Raise Dead that's another matter, but it has never bothered me before. If a player doesn't want to be raised from the dead I think it's ok in that instance that the spell fails because the soul isn't willing to return.

To answer OP's questions relative to the topic: I would consider "no evil PC's" a common rule. I would also consider NPC tagging a PC that goes evil to be an acceptable solution if in fact a PC becomes an evil character and evil PC's are not allowed. I have no comment on your actual character situation but GM fiat stands apart as the overriding rule here.

Thank you Christopher Rowe - this is exactly what I'm looking for! So most of Season 4 it seems. I should probably check out getting the bundle.

Not looking for AP's, but thank you for the head's up on Night Marches!

PFS scenarios specifically - thanks for the response!

There's so many of them and im not familiar with them.

I'm looking to run a Pathfinder campaign specific to the region of Varisia, at least at the onset, and was wondering if I could get suggestions on good pathfinder scenarios specific to that region.

Any ideas? Starting from level 1 to 12 at most. PC's will be Pathfinders, but the campaign will not be PFS specific

Meh. It's a role playing game. Failing a save in our group isn't necessarily a bad thing - it is what it is. If you miss the save, you role play it. That might mean you act paralyzed, confused, blind, or (if you're lucky) snarl evily at your former allies as you're compelled to kill them!

Game is meant to have fun - there is no win or lose, there's just playing the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sea Hag. Both the stench and the evil eye gaze do not require actions and both can drop a party rather quickly. Only a CR 4

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.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.