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

LoreKeeper's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter, 2014 Star Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,896 posts (8,598 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 20 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,896 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I think the trick is to play non-casters. Whew! Problem pushed away to the GM ;)


What? The initiative order is forever long; Mahjik only got another action just now. He'll be able to focus on the deeper darkness ahead of him soon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

See Lefty X, martials don't really have a problem dealing damage. That isn't where they take second place to casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

heh. hehehe. bahahahahahaa!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just a moment's food for thought: all and any re-imagining of the rogue class (and classes in general) should try to not solve all the problems of the class. Building a level of weakness into the class (and perhaps compensating for it elsewhere in the class) helps to diversify the class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

+1 to Haladir

There are plenty of classes, even PFS-legal ones, that fit the bill of sacred warrior for any given faith or philosophy. If your true gripe is that those classes don't get to bypass DR and add Cha to saves, well that is a silly reason.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Yes, nerfing martial characters, just what the game needs. [/sarc]

I only play martial characters (and only melee ones at that, no sucky ranged ones). I just don't like Power Attack.

I'm all for buffing martials, but Power Attack is not what I want. It's boring, it's powerful in wrong ways, it makes encounters less interesting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
christos gurd wrote:
There going to be any feat rewrites?

This is a biggie, I think. Some feats really shouldn't do what they do. Power Attack is a good example. It is statistically sound with respect to how much damage scaling happens - but it isn't balanced that well in practice. PCs are hitting for 1d8+42. "Tough" monsters evaporate in one round.

The thing is, although it should balance out: the party has too many ways to buff to-hit to the point where a miss (even with Power Attack penalty) is very unlikely - but the damage output is exceedingly high. Not to mention incidentally side-effects, such as significantly reducing the value of DR on many creatures that rely on it as their primary means for defense. CR 8 fighting-type monsters can have attacks that deal 1d6+3 damage; and the PCs that encounter them do 1d6+15.

Increase the penalty, reduce the damage, limit the scaling, add additional negative riders (AC penalty, limited use, limited per-round-use, Standard Action use, 1 round fatigue, not-multiplied-on-crits, etc).

The bottom-line is that the feat is too good; I'm willing to say "fun-diminishing", particularly for something that PCs pick up at level 1.

What I would suggest:

Power Attack
Benefit: You can choose to take a –2 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a bonus on all melee damage rolls equal to your Constitution modifier. This bonus damage is halved if the attack is made with a weapon wielded in one hand.


  • benefits traditional martial "tough guys", especially barbarians(!)
  • significant but not over-powering bonus
  • scales benignly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A suggestion: instead of having 40 point buy, start with 20 point buy - but at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 do not give a static +1 to a stat. Instead give +3, +4, +5, +6, +7 additional point buy. (Players can save points if they want, even from level 1 onwards.)

The +3 at level 4 is not enough for a SAD player to push his primary stat to 19 or 20, but it is enough for a MAD player to push a 13 to 14 as well as an 11 to 12. (Since it is additional point buy, you do not have to apply the extra points to the same stat.)

Note that the point buy still applies on the values without racials, so a 18 (16 + 2 racial) can be pushed to 19 (17 + 2) at 4th level with +3 point buy.


Happy birthday!

Don't for a minute believe that thing those Blink182 people say ;)


We fiiiine :D

Goblin Squad Member

Monk.

That said, I feel GW need to prioritize the class diversification and implementation above other content. I think everybody deserves to be able to play the game with the character they have in their head. Rather than choosing 1 of the 3 initial classes and fight against an ever expanding list of different enemies.


Welcome back to the land of the living ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cool :) welcome aboard.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd seriously consider taking Sprain Ogre's suggestions to heart.

A bunch of "good" PCs that let that happen are not good, they are looking to ride on the easy coattails of being celebrated heroes. Not suffer through moral quandaries or make hard decisions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think a lot of this discussion is hogwash. "Hypersexualized" is a term that should be used to actual hypersexualized content. Attractive presentation is not hypersexualized presentation, no matter how much you want to point out all the girl images cleavage and model-like proportions. Hyperbole does not make the argument more sound (and xeose4 makes appropriate commentary and apology to that effect earlier in the thread).

There's 2 important distinctions in perceptions here that should be highlighted:


  • Fan service for males: the impression the discussion here gives is that every single female image is serving the (straight) male libido. The root of this premise is that the female images have breasts (a primary female sexual characteristic and thus unavoidable) and show skin. The fallacy here is that those 2 qualities make for sexy females. The truth: they do not. The vast(!) majority of female images are attractive, but also the vast majority of female images aren't sexy. And often the actually sexy images do not show skin or cleavage.

  • Fan service for females: the impression is that there's rarely much of interest for girl gamers (or for that matter gay guy gamers). On actual enquiry about specific examples of what are otherwise attractive male images: eyes are wrong, smile is wrong, wields an unattractive weapon, is described as unfriendly, doesn't follow acceptable deity, is evil-aligned, wouldn't want a long-term relationship, has a missing tooth, is sickly, is too old, is more-like-a-father, is part of the underground, is poor/unclean, etc. The truth: the majority of male images is attractive.

The bottom line here is that for females there is a large disparity of what constitutes attractive for the individual girl. Sample discussion from existing art has different girl gamers highlight entirely different samples and aren't interested in the other images. Tastes differ after all. But 90% of female image samples are "sexy" because they "got boobs". Well: 90% of female images are "not sexy" to me.

Is the base assumption here that "sexy" for guys is an image for a female that they'd have an imaginary one-night-stand with; while "sexy" for females is an image for a guy that they'd have as an imaginary husband?

...

Since the discussion started on Wrath of the Righteous, I decided to page through The Midnight Isles and give my sexy rating of the character art:

Potential WoR spoiler:

Ash giant thug (male, not sexy)
Mutasafen (male, sexy)
Yaniel (female, "handsome", not sexy; perhaps sexy to a lesbian)
Ursathella (female, average, sexy? to taste)
Nezirrius (n/a)
Gelderfang (male, ruggedly handsome, sexy? to taste)
Vellexia (female, sexy)
Nocticula (portrait only)
Kestoglyr Mantiel (male, not sexy)
Fulsome queen (female, not sexy)
Melaxmera (n/a)
Abyssal harvester (n/a)
Half-fiend mythic minotaur (male, sexy? to taste)
Galfrey (female, not sexy; gender invariant art)
Hepzamirah (female, sexy? to taste)
Minagho (female, sexy)
Shamira (female, sexy? to taste)
Cambion (male, sexy)
Nocticalu (female, sexy)

Note Vellexia as an example of a sexy female without the need to show breasts or excessive skin. I've given a couple of females that I'd personally classify as unsexy (Ursathella, Hepzamirah, Shamira) the benefit of the doubt and made them sexy "to taste".

Male sexy count: 2
Male sexy to taste count: 2
Male unsexy: 2

Female sexy count: 3
Female sexy to taste count: 3
Female unsexy: 3

In my opinion: a bit of an edge in favor of the male gamer, but adequate presentation for both genders. Given the male-dominated clientele, this is acceptable.

...now I grant that any number of female gamers won't classify the males that >I< classified as "sexy" as sexy themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that they're presented visually as sexualized as any of the sexualized female images.

Just because you don't like chocolate raisins doesn't mean its not a sweet.

...

Finally: xeose4 also points out that for him (though not for the discussion in general in this thread) the emphasis is on equal opportunity of game content. This is an argument that I can get behind to a certain extent; but by and large Paizo has handled sexuality reasonably well.

When designing an AP, the authors (by necessity) take certain baselines into consideration and work from there. The party consists of 4 PCs with a spread of 1 front-line, 1 divine, 1 arcane and 1 misc. The party is not min-maxed. Players "buy in" to the story and don't actively derail it. And as a quiet assumption: the players are male. The story is presented to (in general) appeal to the male.

What is the common thread to go from designed AP to reality? The GM. The GM needs to handle that his/her 7 players are all paladins. The GM has to engineer a return-to-plot after 2 PCs decide to petition the queen in Kyonin instead of saving the Worldwound. The GM also has to re-imagine a female love interest into a male love interest for his/her female gamer. On the whole going from a female love interest to a male love interest is - on average across all campaigns - less work than to design the love interest as male in the first place and converting to female as needed. Of course, that doesn't mean that all romantic options should be designed as female upfront. And here Paizo can perhaps improve the odds a bit for female gamers.

In my opinion, a bit of a shoot-your-own foot is happening here sometimes: as often a suitable position in the AP for a male romantic option is taken by a female, not to have a female romantic option available - but to have a powerful female in a position of prominence or authority. I.e. sometimes fighting gender inequity on a professional level can create gender inequity on a social/romantic level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This depends heavily what you play. Certain seasons of Pathfinder Society are very friendly to non-optimized builds.

Bards are, almost by definition, great all-rounders.

Given my love of, and the challenge in optimizing, monks: they can be great "non-optimized" characters. Good insight and good defenses mean that they can stick around long enough in all events to do their non-optimized things.

A themed spellcaster that purposefully picks all his/her spells to be not (directly) combat orientated. An illusionist is an easy example, but you could also go with a plant theme, or a architect caster who focuses all his spells on building things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Another way of looking at it: a cleric may well feel that an anti-magic zone disrupts the connection with their deity. Especially if (s)he is not aware she's in an anti-magic zone; but even if she does know.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've got a couple of disrelated issues with regards to the topic, I'll go through them separately:

1. I like the discussion (and expect its fruit to show in upcoming Paizo products). But I would like to point out something that bugs me with SRS assertions:

SRS, opening post wrote:
Male beauty and female beauty are not really on the same continuum. Masculine women are not the most beautiful possibility of masculinity, at least if you're a gay male like I am.

I can appreciate that sentiment, but I find that pretty much all examples of beautiful men linked by SRS later on can be described as feminine looking guys; certainly all the ones labelled as "cute". Naturally it is possible to split hairs on this, but is that really far from the truth? For the art team it would be a lottery system to find an appropriately cute looking guy that has the right amount of gruff and the right amount of fluff.

(By the way: what is wrong with Nethys, visually speaking, in this regard? From the description and visualization I kept thinking he would be a shoo-in. Or is he okay visually but the sporadic madness is a problem?)

2. I think the spread for male eye-candy can - and should - be improved. There is definitely a lack of guys that look nice, while at the same time appearing desirable enough for the sack, or reliable enough to be marriage material. Or at least not averse to going out to dinner with.

3. But, I would like to point out that the abundance of sexualized female imagery is not really all that. Don't misunderstand - there is lots of it. But there is only a (very) small handful that actually hits the "sexy" strike zone. The kind that makes me nudge a buddy and go "dude! check this out!". (Almost invariably those reactions are reserved for awesome action scenes in Paizo products, for me.)


Treat yourself to your favorite dish :)


Best of luck!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That is some very sexy artwork right there.


For now at least. Maybe by level 3 its all high seas and fog.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Allowing a player to pretend that a weapon is not a weapon so that he can abuse the improvised weapon rule to find the closest weapon to a spear and come up with something that is not a spear makes a mockery of the rules for improvised weapons, reach weapons, double weapons, DR/bludgeoning/piercing/slashing, several feats including Versatile Weapon and Catch Off Guard, and several abilities including Spinning Lance, Pole Master and Monk of the Empty Hand.

Not at all. If a player wants to use a spear in reverse (kinda like a quarterstaff), then that is great. 1d6, bludgeoning, -4 to attack. Good to go. He cannot improvise a quarterstaff into a spear (assuming a normal quarterstaff), as there is no pointy end to a (normal) quarterstaff.

Trying to use a long spear as an improvised long quarterstaff (i.e. with reach) may be subject to GM's approval. Personally I wouldn't allow it.

No mockery is being made. A -4 penalty to attack, and the inability to make a quarterstaff to slashing damage (for lack of cutting edge), is the most sensible (i.e. conforming to real life) and most inclusive ruling. "Inclusive ruling" in this case is meant to be a rule that allows the greatest number of players to have fun.

"Inclusive rulings" are, I think, the best way to decide between competing rule interpretations: more characters have more options - and that leads to a richer story. In the same way that all characters can attempt to trip and disarm; they might not be good at it, they might get hit in the face for trying - but they can try. Likewise every character can bludgeon with a spear or longsword. They might not be good at it - but they can try.

The other options?


  • Catch Off Guard: no -4 penalty (cannot make quarterstaff slash)
  • Weapon Versatility: no -4 penalty and can make a quarterstaff slash
  • Spinning Lance, Pole Master, Monk of the Empty Hand: no -4 penalty, specific benefits (e.g. empty hand can slash with a quarterstaff)

There are plenty of reasons to specialize; and plenty of benefit for such specialists. However, to limit the use to *just* those specialists is contrary to real-life expectations: everybody can try.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My GM initially had me take a -4 penalty on attacks when using weapons as improvised weapons on the grounds that the archetype doesn't explicitly grant Catch Off Guard (which would negate the -4 penalty for improvised weapons). We consulted the Paizo staff on it (probably somewhere in Ask James Jacobs Anything), and they stated that Catch Off Guard and Throw Anything are implicitly granted to the monk of the empty hand - there is after all no point to an archetype that takes -4 penalty to fighting all the time. The inference here is that Catch Off Guard applies to improvised fighting with weapons.

I think you need to reconsider "improvised weapons" not being weapons. You are insistent that it is a definition thing, but then you're not looking at the complete list of definitions. Everything can be an improvised weapon.


  • The manufacture of an object to be used for the purpose of hitting someone makes that object a weapon.
  • The non-standard use of an object to hit someone makes that object an improvised weapon.

These are not mutually exclusive; they can readily overlap.

You base your reading of the rules text: "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat—commonly bottles, chair legs, stray femurs, and that sort of thing". From just that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that you have. On the other hand, I claim that the list of examples is incomplete; it could readily include "haft of an axe" without becoming inconsistent - however it would change your reading of the rules significantly.

Consider a bowstring. It certainly is designed to be a weapon (not an improvised weapon). In a bind somebody could use it as a garotte. But doing so is nowhere even close to the realm of intended use of the string; it's an improvised use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe blackbloodtroll specifically is suggesting the minimalist club, or baseball bat, i.e. he's saying that Weapon Versatility (baseball bat) is essentially meaningless. In contrast, a longsword can already be used as an improvised weapon to deal piercing or bludgeoning damage - without a feat (albeit with appropriate penalties unless you have Catch Off Guard).

Weapon Versatility (longsword)'s only advantage, then, is that you can wield it as a hammer without taking a -4 penalty. However, you could do that more generally with any weapon using Catch Off Guard (and without a prerequisite feat).

Essentially this would reduce Weapon Versatility to a trap feat. Not entirely without purpose; but the purpose can be met cheaper and easier with a different feat that happens to also apply more generally than the specific weapon allowed by Weapon Versatility.

However, a baseball bat cannot (reasonably) be used as an improvised slashing weapon. Even with Catch Off Guard (by the simple observation that the necessary cutting edge does not exist). Now, if you allow the literal RAW of Weapon Versatility, then suddenly the feat becomes meaningful in its own right: an improvised baseball bat cannot be used to slash - but a Weapon Versatility (baseball bat) can both slash and pierce. The investment is fair, the payout adequate (if a bit meek). You could say that Weapon Versatility is the cutting edge on the baseball bat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree with blackbloodtroll's argument that this is a very specific net result of a small feat chain. The benefit of the feat matters relatively rarely. Very few classes/builds outside a fighter can even justify spending a feat for this effect. So... mechanically I think the feat is balanced - if a little weak - and on those grounds I feel it is acceptable to allow the RAW to apply under all circumstances.

As a GM I'd have to go a little out of my way to describe it and make it "work" in the story telling; but that is okay too.

Garamont's eyes steel themselves as the lumbering hulk of the giant zombie cast an ominous shadow that slowly reach for him. With a shout that was half frustration and half determination he charges at the undead abomination to close the gap, heedless of the swipe of the massive broken-boned fist. The attack fails, not even ruffling Garamont's plumage. Cayden himself must be watching over the brave - if fool-hardy display - still Garamont persevers, his grip on the bowling ball changes ever so slightly; the heavy ball almost feels like it melds with him, becomes an extension to his will. His attack is literally over in a flash, impossibly fast, the frightened orphans will later talk of a pale blueish streak that follows the path of the bowling ball - the wave cuts through the huge zombie: old muscles and tendons split. For a few seconds the massive zombie stands still, then topples and thunders to the ground. Lifeless one more time. Garamont gasps, the bowling ball still outstretched. A thin wisp of smoke rises from it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Malachi:

Apply Occam's Razor of Gaming: OP had a problem and now has a solution that allows him to play what he envisions with a suitable feat/ability tax. This is preferable to "it cannot be done"; and thus Occam's Razor of Gaming implies that all things being equal (or equally unresolved), then the more fun solution applies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azoriel wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
The hilt, pommel, crossguard, etc of a weapon are all objects not designed to be a weapon (in many cases at least). They can be used as improvised weapons by that rule statement.

Actually, among people who study historical weapons, it's commonly understood that most pommels and crossguards on swords were designed for use as weapons. (I have no articles laying out this clause, and the books I have which would address this issue are out of hand right at this moment, but I will state that resources of a more scholastic nature also disagree with you.) Any sword not so designed would be the exception, not the rule. In that case, you'd probably be talking about a wall-hanger or other non-weapon that was never intended for actual use anyway, and then it would be an improvised weapon even if wielded from the hilt.

Per Apocryphile's request, I will leave my correction at that - my stance on this matter was already stated above, and remains unchanged.

Oh yes, absolutely. Historically the Mordsstreich and similar alternate weapon utilization were important techniques in the German school of swordsmanship. I agree, also, that the pommel and the like were made for the purpose of being used as a weapon. My statement refers to the rules context within Pathfinder: since the longsword, for example, is only a slashing weapon (not slashing-or-bludgeoning), the hilt/pommel are not considered weapons for the purpose of the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Without a feat or special ability that says otherwise (there are some which let you do it in limited ways), you can't use a weapon as an improvised weapon.

Quote:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use...

The hilt, pommel, crossguard, etc of a weapon are all objects not designed to be a weapon (in many cases at least). They can be used as improvised weapons by that rule statement.

Quote:
Even if the rules allowed you to use, say, a longsword as an improvised weapon, then the most similar weapon to a longsword...is a longsword! So you would use those stats.

No. Using a longsword as an improvised warhammer (reverse grip) would mean the most similar weapon would be a warhammer or light hammer. It would only be similar to a longsword if you used the slicing end to do damage.

...

Weapon Versatility (Combat) is another way to solve the same problem. It has the advantage that it keeps the damage dice of your weapon (2d6 greatsword-cum-hammer!). But the disadvantage of being keyed to specific weapons, and costing a feat.

Using them as improvised weapons instead does not require a feat and can be done with all weapons, but takes a significant attack penalty and typically smaller damage dice. There are several feats that can remove the penalty and improve the damage dice though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As an improvised weapon. Unless you have some feat or ability in improvised weapons, you take -4 to attack. Additionally a light weapon will not deal more than 1d4 damage; a one-handed and a two-handed weapon not more than 1d6. Only crit on a natural 20, and only a x2 multiplier.

(Catch Off Guard feat will let you wield melee improvised weapons without penalty. Monk of the Empty Hand will also let you wield improvised weapons without penalty. Improvised Weapon Mastery increases the damage dice and crit threat range.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This. Is. AWESOME!


I think it's not so much about the squeezing itself - water can shape itself easily enough - it is about being restricted in its movements. It cannot move in the way that would be ideal for the elemental, and therefor it takes penalties.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mistah J wrote:

One question was "What did you get for your 5th brithday?"

Over 20 sessions later, they were trying to escape a haunted house. Sure enough, when they entered the nursery.. guess what was waiting for them?

freaked them right out.

That is right-on awesome


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Master of the Dark Triad wrote:
A character of mine was a synth summoner. He used bluff to claim that his spells were divine and that his eidolon was him channeling the aspect of his god.

I keep thinking that there is no reason to use bluff at all for this. Your PC can be 100% convinced by it. Or, for that matter, it can be real in the sense that it is a valid mechanical vehicle to achieve what your character says he's doing. Even in Golarion it has established existence in the form of the Godcallers.

(Yes, there are many that thing that no actual "god" is being called; but then again, not all godcallers are considered - and the concept of divinity and deity-ism stretches so far that it is entirely plausible to godcall an entity that grants spells and domains.)

(PS - bonus points for using mythic rules and yourself becoming able to grant spells and domains)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can try this:
Another element that can work wonders: have a session where everything is quite as a normal session - but the encounters keep escalating (add in the normal horror elements that you'd use anyway). At some point somebody might die, or at least drop into negatives, at which point more PCs can die in rapid succession. Some may survive.

The catch of it all - the entirety of the session occurred in a collective dream controlled by [appropriate entity], and the PCs hitpoints for the purpose of the dream are actually sanity points. Anybody that dropped to below 0 hitpoints (even without death) suffers a permanent minor insanity; anybody that actually died in the dream suffers a major insanity.

The dream is, ultimately, just a dream - so no PC is really dead. But the after-effects of the dream should haunt them for the rest of the campaign.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I play in a fantastic pbp for Kingmaker run by DM Barcas here on these forums. It started in January 2011, so we've got quite some history. I've previously played in a real-life Kingmaker too that was very much "by the book".

I can tell you that DM Barcas is running his story very much off the railings. It takes broad inspiration from the AP, but really he's doing his own thing - and I'm loving it. You can look at the campaign info for the details, especially the timeline at the bottom gives a great idea of what has been happening.

To give an indication of how open-ended DM Barcas runs his campaign: not captured in the time line is how my character (Jemini, paladin) spent about half a year real time in her own independent sub-thread after dying to the Staglord (but taking him with her in the process). (The main thread continued as normal and the other characters did not know what Jemini was up to in that time.) In the afterlife she got to know some details about the Staglord that relate to the over-plot of Kingmaker (and are part of DM Barcas re-imagining of the AP); in this discovery Jemini decides that she cannot leave things as is and she follows the Staglord to Abaddon and drags him with her via the Styx to eventually reach Pharasma's realm and petition the goddess to allow *both* to return to life. Jemini barters her own afterlife in the process, linking her (lawful-good) soul with the (evil) soul of the Staglord to have the leverage for Pharasma to allow their mutual revival.

The former Staglord is now a PC played by one of the new recruits to the campaign.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

0 Seconds To Kenabres


Whips should work extra well then, the whip-crack noise is from the tip of the wip breaking the sound barrier.


Or the simple act of attacking causes the elemental to suffer psychological damage along the lines of "why aren't people liking me?" And a bigger weapon with more strength behind it obviously means that that person likes the elemental EVEN LESS!


Maybe a little meta; but I thought elementals cannot be critted?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM Kyle wrote:
LoreKeeper has the right of it. I should be able to play the vanilla CRB Monk to be effective, not an archetype. I play a Zen Archer. Its one of, if not the, best class in the game.

I don't quite go that extreme. I consider both the sensei and monk of the empty hand to be proper monks; while also being of the stronger monk archetypes. Monk archetypes are perfectly valid vehicle to power up the monk - but there's a distinction between monk archetypes that embrace monk-i-ness, and archetypes that are just distantly related to monks.

The core monk is not a power house, but with style feats he certainly plays a fun and decent game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
GM Kyle wrote:

They may be cool, but are they good? Monks don't tend to get good things. What good things they get are nerfed or lackluster at best.

The Zen Archer would like a word with you. :P

Zen archer is a very strong option - but to my liking it isn't a monk option. It is a meditative mystic who uses a bow, and happens to use the monk as base form to get things mechanically right.

Similar with the Sohei. Very strong. Lots of flavor. Again monk base class. Again not really a monk.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would like to point out that the devs have previously ruled that duck-typing applies in these kinds of situations. For example the dragoon archetype (UC) gives up weapon training but gets spear training instead; the free hand fighter archetype (APG) gives up weapon training but gets singleton instead. According to the devs, both dragoon and free hand fighter still get the full benefits of "gloves of dueling" (applying the +2 increase to weapon training from the item to spear training and singleton instead).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Remy Balster wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
Each attack is a separate event making each missed attack provoke; but movement is a single event that only provokes once.

Movement isn't a single event, and it can provoke multiple times.

There is however a rule that says a single individual may only take a single AoO against any particular opponent, not matter how many times they might provoke due to movement, per round.

But if a guy ran by 5 different enemies, each time he moved out of a threatened square he provokes. He is going to get hit 5 times. Not just once.

Yes, I concur. I based my statement on the premise of a single character available to take AOOs.

What is not clear, to me, is what happens when a character takes 2 move actions in his turn. Does the second move action count as part of the first move action or not, for the purpose of AOOs?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Each attack is a separate event making each missed attack provoke; but movement is a single event that only provokes once.

Consider it from this perspective: you may substitute disarm, trip and sunder maneuvers for attacks; meaning it is potentially possible for an enemy to attack you, attempt to disarm you, and attempt to trip you, in the same round. Each of those are completely separate, except in terms of the bonus and penalties the rolls share.

Another indicative: a character may take a 5ft step between any attack during a full round attack - meaning it is possible to attack, 5ft step, and attack again against the same target. The ability to 5ft step indicates that the individual attacks are separated into different actions.

Finally, you have to keep in mind that even *if* the attacks all were one event and generally only allow one provoke: the specific rule of Snake Fang would override the general rule; and the specific rule of Snake Fang says "when an opponent’s attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity" - no restriction.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Likewise, there should be a Weapon Focus (touch attack) for spells like inflict light wounds. Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) doesn't apply for that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don't think that changes the conclusion though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I concur with Mojorat. The rulings are what they are.

However, I would like to point out a couple of thoughts and their consequences:

1. Instead of saying "look at the blog post", SKR said he was consulting with the dev team on whether Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) and the amulet would affect combat maneuvers including grapple. Unfortunately we've not heard results of the consultation, but SKR apparently felt that the issue is not as cut and dry as saying "look at the blog post". Perhaps he felt it falls under the special case scenario mentioned in the blog post that "Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers, such as when using a sap in a dirty trick maneuver to hit an opponent in a sensitive spot"; but that is speculation on my part.

2. "Weapon Focus (grapple)" is not a good example of separating grapples from "Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)". Consider "Weapon Focus (sunder)" - this feat gives +1 to all sunder checks, regardless of weapon used (but of course gives no bonus to normal attacks).

3. Likewise "Weapon Focus (grapple)" has legitimate reason for existing other than distinguishing itself from "Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)". Consider a monster that has the grab special ability with both its bite and its tentacles. Taking "Weapon Focus (bite)" would give it +1 to attack as well as the subsequent grab (as illustrated by SKR's blog post). But no benefit on tentacle attempts. Likewise "Weapon Focus (tentacle)" would give the monster +1 to attack and grab with its tentacle, but not to bites. Finally, "Weapon Focus (grapple)" would grant a +1 bonus to grab attempts with both bites and tentacles - but give no bonus to normal attacks with either.

4. Our hypothetical tentacle-bite monster may wear a +1 amulet of mighty fists. Both its bites and its tentacles would gain a +1 to normal attacks; and both bite and tentacle grabs (grapples) gain the +1 from the amulet as well.

The bottom-line is that this means that monsters can use the amulet to be better at grapples, but normal characters can't. An unfortunate consequence.

...

I would like to add that I think it is a short-coming that PFS characters cannot buy an item that grants an enhancement bonus to grapples (or bullrush, etc). I would suggest that the amulet of mighty fists could fill that gap, giving meaning to the item for classes other than monk (and some special builds). I think it would be great if a greataxe wielding barbarian could also pickup a +2 amulet to be better at overrunning, or a sword-n-board fighter may want the amulet to reposition foes better, and so forth.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Edit: oops, saw my mistake.

1 to 50 of 3,896 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.