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

Matthew Downie's page

1,524 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Gobo Horde wrote:
we already baned houses here.

You have a house-bane weapon? Good strategy.

You broke the internet! We're all doomed!

For, say, a human cleric who's put their stat bonus into Wisdom, getting turned into a dwarf or half-orc is going to make you more powerful. However, this depends on you either being lucky or willing to die repeatedly to get a good race. Getting turned into a small race is really unhelpful unless you have one of those GMs who allows magic equipment to automatically change size to fit you.

It's only swarms of insect-sized creatures that are immune to weapon damage. A swarm of rats is vulnerable to weapons. Invulnerable to sneak attacks? Probably RAI even if not RAW. Although since they can't be flanked it would be fairly hard to get sneak damage anyway.

Hm... If a player said he wanted to take & inflict maximum damage from falling, I might allow them to add 1d6 to the roll.

I think I'm biased towards allowing this kind of dumb tactic to work. Caster-martial disparity is pretty bad in swarm encounters.

Trying not to injure yourself while falling is covered in the Acrobatics rules. You don't take a critical hit for falling while unconscious.

A falling object and the thing it lands on take the same amount of damage. It wouldn't be unreasonable to apply the same rule to a falling character. So if you used Acrobatics to reduce the falling damage you took, it would also reduce the damage you inflicted on the target.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

An infinite use ring of True Strike wouldn't be particularly overpowered if it's a standard action to use every time.

Doesn't regeneration make you immune to bleed damage?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object."
That suggests that anything in the square automatically takes damage. It sounds like an area damage effect to me.

Even if you're small sized and you're firing a 1d8 heavy crossbow, it can still be useful. Fire it once at the start of battle, then drop it and use acid splash.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, very few human languages were carefully designed and tested by professional languageers.

Mage Armor gives an Armor bonus, the same type of bonus as you get from wearing armour. They don't stack.

Undone wrote:
Communal 10/level spells are poor choices because 10/min level is significantly better than 10/min/level/target.

For an imminent danger to your entire party, would you rather spend four+ rounds and all your level two spell slots or one action and one level three spell slot?

Communal spells are overpowered in my opinion. In one round, you can give your entire party near immunity to a specific threat, which is crippling to many kinds of opponent. With a lesser rod of reach they don't even need to stand together.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Level 3 Spells: This might be the worst spell level of all lists, in the entire game. There are less than 4 spells you'd ever want to prepare on a normal adventuring day and they are all spells from a previous edition which didn't get nerfed.

Blindness, Daylight (or Deeper Darkness for a group with darkvision), Dispel Magic, Invisibility Purge, Magic Circle against Evil, Magic Vestment, Prayer, Stone Shape, Summon Monster III, Wind Wall, and the Communal versions of Delay Poison and Resist Energy all seem like useful spells to have prepared. Which nine of those are you saying are spells I'd never want on a normal adventuring day? And that's not to mention Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Remove Disease and Water Breathing which you can leave a slot open for.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The economics of it are complicated by the fact that spin-offs can provide a significant income, meaning that even if RPG rulebooks & adventures run at a loss, they can often make the money back.

D&D is a valuable intellectual property providing income from miniatures, movies, novels, 1980s cartoons, comics and videogames.

Similarly, superhero comics make very little money, but so long as superhero movies make billions, it hardly matters.

Sap, whip and bolas are also nonlethal by default.

'Spells per day' and 'spells in your spellbook' are two different things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:
He can actually write four scrolls a day (they take 2 hours if under 250 gp)

There is a (weird) rule in the magic item creation section which doesn't seem to make any exception for scrolls or potions: "Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day."

K177Y C47 wrote:
What do you think your fighter/rogue is doing? If you are not the only martial in the party (which you probably are not) then they are probably right there with you, so someone in reach is not that hard

Not incredibly hard (assuming the enemy is standing on the ground close to the martial ally with nothing in the way), but to avoid giving the enemy a chance to be woken up, you need a combo like:

A: Fighter charges the enemy.
B: Enemy gets a round to do whatever he wants - retreat, kill the fighter, turn invisible, etc.
C: If the enemy and fighter are still adjacent, Warpriest moves in and double-touches the bad guy.
D: Fighter inflicts coup-de-grace.
Quite a lot of things could go wrong between A & C.
It's an effective technique, but not an instant kill. If you have a third ally who can teleport the fighter to the right position, it gets easier.

This spell targets one 5 foot square; I'll put it at the corner of four map squares and hit all four of my enemies!

Oh? Then that's significantly better than the old Repose Domain power.

It's not a combo you can pull off effortlessly, though. You need to have conserved your blessings for the purpose. You need a healthy ally with a weapon already in reach of the BBEG. You need to time it such that your ally acts immediately after you, so no allies of the BBEG can intervene to wake him up before the CdG. You need to land two melee touch attacks (sometimes easy, but what about the flying mirror-imaged wizard?). You, presumably, need to penetrate spell resistance twice? You need the BBEG not to know this is your technique or he could have an ally standing by with a readied action to wake him up should he fall asleep in combat...

xavier c wrote:
I just want a cleric that can blast stuff.
Link fixed.

Undone wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Codzilla was a 3.0/3.5 thing, and required a lot of splat books and navigating a few grey areas, and focused on self-buffing.
Core Cleric and druid were and are the two most powerful classes in the entire game.

The 3.5 Codzilla thing was because clerics and druids who picked the right combination of options could outperform martials in melee while remaining full casters. They're still top-tier classes but I don't see them winning the DPR olympics. (Unless there's a wild-shape option I'm forgetting about.)

Spend your money on scrolls of Heal. Ride a fast-moving animal companion so you can get to the people who need healing quickly.

xavier c wrote:
I just want a cleric that can blast stuff.

It can be done.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clerics have decent BAB and HD, good saves, channel energy, cool domain powers, spontaneous healing spells, and free access to every spell on their list. If their spells were as good as the wizard's as well, it would be hard to justify playing anything that wasn't a cleric.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it helps to think that only adventurers level up by adventuring; it's their personality type.

(Some psychologist divide people up into 'Auditory Learners', who can learn from listening to lectures, 'Visual Learners', who can learn by watching or reading, and 'Kinesthetic Learners' who can only really learn by doing.)

So the heir to the throne would level up just by having tutors intensively train him. Someone who's been trained by the best swordsmen in the kingdom for fifteen years ought to be better at fighting than a level 1 barbarian.

If you want to have a Lex Luthor genius who is dangerous, but not through his own personal power, the nearest you can come in the Pathfinder rules is probably a high level aristocrat/expert. A low level character is always going to be weak willed and incompetent compared to a high level character.

The only ruler you could really represent as a low level character is a fairly feeble one - either a fool who received his position through inheritance and is unlikely to last long, or a figurehead with a high level guy behind him who is the real ruler.

Wiggz wrote:
Wizards are only guaranteed access to two spells per level, they are reliant on chance and GM fiat for all the rest, neither of which are guaranteed.

Not guaranteed, but cheap scrolls being available in every town is the normal game assumption.

The differences I've noticed:

Sorcerers take a while to get going. You get to level 4, and you finally get to learn one, and only one, second level spell. A wizard could be casting three different level two spells a day at level 3.

With wizards and other prepared characters, if you cast a spell, you no longer have that spell. For me that makes casting spells a stressful decision. If I cast Fly now, and I only prepared it once, I won't have access to it for the rest of the day, which could be fatal. That leads me to try to save all my spells for emergencies. (Most people don't seem to have this issue. It can also be mitigated with Pearls of Power.)
With spontaneous casters, once you've leveled up enough, if you have five level 3 spells per day and you know Fly and Haste and Fireball, you can cast any of those spells four times and still have the ability to cast all those spells, or a lower level spell (with a metamagic feat?) from the same slot.

Ipslore the Red wrote:

Cons of the boots:

-More expensive
-Takes up a slot that you might want for a different pair of shoes if you get ambushed
-Doesn't work in an aerial or aquatic campaign(?)
-More easily stolen, sundered, or damaged from stepping in lava, acid, or an ooze.

Also, if you take 50 damage in a fight, you then have to make the party wait five minutes before continuing. This will cause buffs to run out, give enemies a chance to regroup, etc.

Yes, but there's a difference between 'enemies can only hit on a 15' and 'enemies can only hit on a 20 because the PC put all his feats and money into improving AC'.

Ah, binary chop technique. In English, you can identify a single letter with five yes or no questions.
Is the first letter of his name 'N' or later in the alphabet? No.
Is it 'G' or later in the alphabet? Yes.
Is it 'J' or later in the alphabet? Yes.
Is it 'L' or later in the alphabet? Yes.
Is it 'M'? Yes.

Ah, the old 'Fighters with swords and shields are overpowered' problem.

With something like a Skeletal Champion, you're free to play them as crazed life-hating undeads with no survival instinct who attack whoever seems easiest to murder.

If you can, don't let any one PC get too high AC. It makes fights silly. What intelligent enemy is going to keep fighting if they can't land a hit? Then you get a situation where everyone is running all the time.

Beyond that, I wouldn't worry too much, as long as the players are having fun.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Intelligent enemies should make similar decisions to the PCs. If there's an enemy who seems dangerous but easy to hit, you should probably target them.

There might be other considerations - some foes may think, "I am going to challenge the strongest enemy, to demonstrate my invincible power!"

If you're unsure, rolling a dice openly is usually acceptable. "On a 1 or 2, he attacks the cleric. On a 3 or 4, he moves to attack the fighter. On a 5 or 6, he provokes an AoO from the cleric and runs past him to attack the witch."

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

5. "I never have this problem because the DM fixes it!"

Answer: Then you're playing storytime hour, not Pathfinder. If we fixed the problems, you could still play storytime hour, and we would BOTH win.

If you're going to repost this, you might want to edit the tone of that one. If I ban some of the more abusable magics (Simulacrum and teleporting to places you've only scried on and dazing metamagic, etc) and ensure that the fighter finds an intelligent magic weapon that gives him some cool abilities, and it results in a game that seems balanced, that's not 'storytime hour', whatever that is. It's Pathfinder with houserules. And who plays Pathfinder without houserules?

Things I'd do in preference to rolling 1d6 and multiply it by 40 for Disintegrate damage:
Stop playing before I got to level 20 when Disintegrate does that much damage.
Use a computerised dice roller.
Get all five players to roll 8d6 each simultaneously, add up their totals.
Roll 4d6 and multiply it by ten.

I'd never roll 100d3 (I'd get a computer to do that for me) but rolling one dice and multiplying isn't normal and skews the random distribution. Taking 10d6 damage rarely produces a number outside the 25 to 45 range. If you rolled one dice and multiplied it by 10, there's a good chance you'd take 60 damage, which makes sudden death a lot more likely.

It sounds fair to me - too easy for an experienced group, but probably about right for yours.

VorpalKitten wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Temporary negative levels are not permanent until you fail your fort save. Once you fail your fort save you are stuck with them until you can get them removed via magic.

Well, temporary ones never become permanent, right? Or did they errata this?

"A creature with temporary negative levels receives a new saving throw to remove the negative level each day. The DC of this save is the same as the effect that caused the negative levels."

Since this dead thread was just linked to I'll note that the specific Bestiary rules for energy drain say:

"If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save. On a success, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. On a failure, the negative level becomes permanent."

davypi wrote:
How much difference is there between three 1200XP enounters and one single 3600XP encounter?

Depends on environmental factors. If it's the difference between 'fighting as a team against one owlbear' and 'fighting three owlbears who are all attacking at once', then the latter is massively more dangerous. The party will be taking three times as much damage per round, and will have to inflict three times as much damage to win. One owlbear is a CR 4 encounter and three is a CR 7 encounter.

But if you can get in a situation where three owlbears are stuck in a corridor and can only attack one at a time, it's not much more dangerous than three separate encounters.

He used to be a money-lender, but foolishly lent money to orcs for sub-prime mortgages and lost everything, even the clothes on his back. He now remains naked at all times, to remind him of his past mistakes, in his new career as a private dick.

The OP was talking about an Investigator. So the character I envision is, "Shylock Cumberhorn, Nudist Detective".

Kolokotroni wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
if you are ambushed on a shakey rope bridge with enemies on either side of you shooting arrows. The fighter can pull out a bow and shoot back, the rogue and make acrobatics rolls to make his way to one end and stab someone. The Wizard casts fly and calmly floats above the battle attacking with offensive magic
Unless he has first cast an 'immunity to arrows' spell, that really isn't going to end well for him.
You mean invisibility, greater invisibility, wind wall, mirror image, or any of the dozens of other spells a wizard can use to avoid being hurt during the course of any fight in any encounter?

Yes. In the scenario described, the wizard spends the first two rounds of the combat casting two spells on himself, then can start casting offensive spells on round three. The archer fighter, meanwhile, can be doing full attacks on every one of those rounds. It's not exactly a clear-cut case of superior caster narrative power.

daimaru wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
There are no rules requiring you to wear clothes.
Still, if you don't have fur or scales or something and not wearing clothes, the DM might have you harassed by the authorities whenever you come to town, not served in the inn, whatever.

Some would call that a role-playing problem. I would call it a role-playing opportunity.

Kolokotroni wrote:
if you are ambushed on a shakey rope bridge with enemies on either side of you shooting arrows. The fighter can pull out a bow and shoot back, the rogue and make acrobatics rolls to make his way to one end and stab someone. The Wizard casts fly and calmly floats above the battle attacking with offensive magic

Unless he has first cast an 'immunity to arrows' spell, that really isn't going to end well for him.

It looks like you'll have a terrible Will save. There's a good chance that at some point in the campaign someone will cast a mind control spell on you, and you'll start massacring your allies with your optimal damage output.

There are no rules requiring you to wear clothes.

Ravingdork wrote:
There is a contradiction though. One says "unless noted otherwise" whereas the other says "unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."

They're not inherently contradictory. If the second one is the correct one, the first one is merely being annoyingly vague - it could be taken to mean "unless noted otherwise, for example in the spell description".

Rynjin wrote:
I find that relying on CLW wands to heal the party adds up really quick. If you have a party with, say, a Barbarian and an Anti-Paladin on the frontlines getting pounded all day long, you chew through CLW and Infernal Healing wands like nobody's business. And in-combat healing isn't even an option with them, and that's needed sometimes.

It's about 270GP per 100HP. It's a valid option, depending on WBL assumptions and party makeup. If your GM is pressuring you into fighting ten combats a day, it's probably the best option, since it saves your cleric spells for in-combat healing and other emergencies.

Rynjin wrote:

The Cleric never runs out of healing? Yes, yes he does. Limited Channels (which don't heal a whole lot in the first place past low levels) and limited spell slots means his healing is very limited indeed, especially if he wants to actually have fun instead of doing nothing but patching ouchies all day with every one of his spells.

And I'll tell you the Fighter runs out of muscle and the Rogue runs out of rogueishness really damn quick when the Cleric is out of healing.

The Ranger who's invested in a sack of wands of cure light wounds doesn't tend to run out of (out-of-combat) healing.

1 to 50 of 1,524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.