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

MaxAstro's page

328 posts. No reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Haha, eating your way through a door. That is a really clever use of the spell.

Yeah, it works on anything that isn't magical (or has "exceptional qualities", which is GM fiat territory, but probably no eating adamantine, at least).

If you are worried about balance, it would be entirely reasonable to put a limit on how many pounds of food someone can eat without incapacitating themselves. :)

If they remember it, then you haven't given them a sufficiently suicidal order. :p

I ran a game via MapTool once, and the PC with low-light vision saved the party's bacon several times, since with a sunrod he could spot monsters 120' feet out. Meanwhile, the PC with darkvision kept missing concealment rolls due to dim light.

Other than that, I've never really seen low-light vision come into play much.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now if a monk grapples this succubus...

I visualize it as the monk moving too fast for you to follow where the attack is going to come from.

On the other hand, by my preferred ROC* metric, heck yes does it work. :)

*Rule of Cool

...It's not like this is going to make monks overpowered, after all...

A) StFrancisss, you win this thread.

B) My interpretation of the jumping rules in this situation (this argument did come up at a table) is this: The DC to cross the pit is 10. HOWEVER, you need to spend 15 feet of movement doing so. If you don't have the extra five feet of (non-jumping) movement to legally move into the next square after your jump, then you fall.

Yes, this is unrealistic.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see the assumption that all negative conditions should be easily removable at the level you are expected to suffer them as a flaw.

While I don't want to ruin people's fun by taking them out of participation entirely, I also feel that Pathfinder has a lack of lasting consequences compared to other systems I have played.

Adam Daigle wrote:
I'd greatly love to read a campaign journal from a GM that ran both concurrently, every other week switching off, and then pitted each group against themselves at the end.

I will try to keep a journal then, because that is almost exactly what I am going to do. :)

A friend and I will actually be running both at the same time - he will run Hell's Vengeance one day of the week, I will run Hell's Rebels another day.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am so, so excited about this AP. I was going to skip Hell's Rebels. Now, instead, myself and a friend are going to wait until both APs are out and then run both at the same time, possibly with largely the same players in each (except he will be playing in one and I will be playing in the other, of course).

I am quite interested to see how Hell's Vengeance compares to Way of the Wicked, which I consider not just the best evil AP ever but straight up one of the best APs of all time period.

But this is Paizo we are talking about. It will of course be great. :)

EDIT: And for people who think a fun evil AP isn't possible, seriously, check out Way of the Wicked. I didn't think it was possible either, but that AP completely sold me. I ran the entire thing and it was the most fun my players and I have had with any AP except Kingmaker.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I have said a couple times now that I was much more excited about Hell's Rebels when I thought it was an evil campaign. I was all ready to skip it entirely since traditional good vs evil APs aren't really my thing.

Drat it, Paizo, shut up and take my money! :p A good campaign that ties into an evil campaign immediately following it is just too cool. T_T

For what it is worth, my gaming group has decided to ban full casters from the setting entirely. There was an in-setting event to explain why (My Golarion really doesn't look like the normal Golarion anymore, I might have to do a "setting writeup" for it at some point), but wizards, clerics, druids, etc. simply don't exist anymore. Or those that do are effectively NPC classes - a cleric now gets partial caster progression but no new class features to make up for it, for example.

So far it has significantly improved our high level play experience.

Yeah, I have a savage technologist in my Iron Gods campaign, and that typo was one of the first things I noticed about the class.

Still, being able to Dex-rage is awesome.

Oh, here's another one:

Say I have my mount move up to it's speed and then attack. Do I have a standard action left then?

If yes, why, if move + attack takes the same amount of time as move + move?

Please read the example I posted. The rules say I explicitly have a standard action left, and I don't see anywhere that it says that my mount's movement uses up that standard action.

Making it require 10 feet of movement makes it completely useless, since that means you are trading out weapon training, an ability that gives extra accuracy and damage to all attacks, for an ability that only gives accuracy and damage to single attacks.

Katana and wakizashi proficiency are not worth the loss of heavy armor and shields for the typical fighter - I would say the skills make up for that.

Initiative bonus is typically superior to bravery, but not by much. And bravery is a weak class feature on a weak class. You are not going to be breaking any games with an ability that takes until level 10 to equal the strength of a single feat.

I would say Bob Bob Bob is right - the only real balance issue is that it should give up all of weapon training.

Sure. We'll even assume that you are NOT controlling the mount as a free action.

Mounts in Combat wrote:

Horses, ponies, and riding dogs can serve readily as combat steeds. Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can't do anything else until your next turn.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

So, I am mounted on a non-combat trained horse. I successfully make a DC 20 Ride check as a move action to control my mount. I then direct my mount to take a double move. I then make a DC 20 Ride check to fast dismount as a free action. Finally, I take my standard action (the one I can perform "after the move action" as the rules explicitly say) to move up to my speed.

Now, I will be the first to say that this is completely silly from a physics perspective and shouldn't work. But RAW, I think it does.

Here's a fun wrinkle.

The rules explicitly say that one thing you CAN do after your mount has double moved is make a single melee attack. That means that after a mounted double move, you still have a standard action left.

So what stops me from having my mount double-move, free dismount, and then use my standard action to move?

Firstly, I'm pretty sure Savage Technologist has a really bad typo. The class says "When a barbarian ability would increase the savage technologist's Strength while raging, it increases her Dexterity instead."

I am 90% sure this is supposed to say "When a barbarian ability would increase the savage technologist's Constitution while raging, it increases her Dexterity instead." Emphasis mine.

However, even if you apply that fix, the modified rage says "when a barbarian ability" - a feat is not a barbarian ability.

So RAW, if your normal rage was +4 STR, +4 DEX, then Amplified Rage would end up giving you +8 STR, +4 CON, +4 DEX. However, house-ruling it to apply to Dex instead seems reasonable to me.

I was much more excited about Hell's Rebels when I thought it was an evil AP.

Reading the description, however, I see that is not the case, and as I am fairly burnt out on traditional good vs evil campaigns I think this will be another AP (counting Giantslayer) that I will be skipping. :(

Some other releases look very exciting, however - Occult Bestiary FTW. Also Distant Shores. SO excited for Distant Shores.

I ended up making Illaris a red herring. My PCs had already been betrayed by a Technic League agent (posing as a PC, no less) in the first book, and I wanted to keep that fresh in their mind. And send them on a merry little chase.

So they found out that there was a Technic League spy in town... and then they found a lot of evidence that Illaris was a spy.

Lucky for them, they confronted her themselves instead of turning her in to the town, and were able to find out that she is a spy... for New Thassilon*, not the Technic League. And she was able to lead them to evidence that the agent who had already betrayed them was the spy they were looking for. They are now eagerly seeking their revenge, and Illaris has joined as a cohort (and something of a romantic fling for one of the PCs).

*My players and I have a rule that all APs we run are canon in all future APs, no matter how things turn out. Kingmaker and (especially) Shattered Star had some... unconventional... endings, so the Golarion I am running this AP in looks fairly different from the standard.

I would go with a two-bladed sword modified into a two-bladed axe. Keep the damage the same, but change the critical from 19-20, which is usually a "sword" crit range, to x3, which is the standard "axe" crit range.

EDIT: Also, that picture does show the weapon being two-bladed; if you look at the bottom near Ajani's feet you can see the second blade.

I don't think Kasatha ARE known, actually.

In book six there's a note about Isuma not wanting to kill the crazy kasatha because she might be the only other living kasatha on Golarion.

That doesn't sound like a "novelty race" to me, otherwise you'd think she would have heard of other kasatha in Starfall.

That is fantastic. And I thought my PCs recruiting the cerebral fungus in the first book as a cohort was out there...

My take on the "why is the final battle not in space" thing: I had the same reaction. Except my reaction was "why is the final BOOK not in space?!"

So here is what I figure. Unity has a worshiper capable of casting Miracle once a day. And an army of robots, including several working excavators. And thousands of years.

When my PCs make it to book six, Unity will be making final preparations to relaunch the Divinity. And it will happen while they are exploring it. :)

For my part, I turned Hellion into a multi-part boss battle, JRPG style, which I feel is very appropriate for giant robot battles.

I.e. each leg has this much HP/hardness, body has this much, claws, etc. And then the whole thing acts as one creature but each functional part gets to participate in a full attack routine.

It went pretty well - my PCs were pretty surprised to find out that they needed to make called shots, but quickly adapted to it and found a good strategy to bring him down. I had the main body be extremely durable, so they disabled his limbs until he had to expose his reactor core for a big attack, and then the party slayer jumped up onto his back and stabbed him in the core until he exploded.

Pretty epic, and the look on their faces when I said "and then he explodes" while the slayer was still standing on his back was priceless. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that while the fighter might have a hard-to-impossible time killing the wizard, the wizard CANNOT kill a mythic fighter.


Because Undetectable, RAW, is such a completely bull!@#$ broken ability that it makes Sacred Geometry look as intimidating as Elephant Stomp.

Here is the wording of Undetectable:

"This grants its bonded user the ability to become utterly undetectable while invisible. While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected or scryed by any method."

Emphasis mine. So let's talk about this for a moment.

You have a contingency that triggers whenever someone attacks you, and plane shifts you to your demiplane. Fair enough. The contingency doesn't trigger. Why? Because the fighter "cannot be detected[...]by any method". The contingency does not detect someone attacking you, and does not trigger.

You ask questions of the gods to get some idea of where the fighter is. This fails. Why? Because the fighter "cannot be detected[...]by any method". THE GODS do not know where he is. They can't tell you. No divination can tell you, in fact. No ANYTHING can tell you.

Throwing flour at the fighter fails to detect him. How? No idea, but RAW, no method can succeed in detecting the fighter. He lays his hand on you. You don't notice he's there. He sticks his sword into your chest. You don't notice he's there (by now he's use Divine Source for greater invisibility, so he doesn't lose it for attacking you). You try to walk through him and run into him, causing you to stumble and fall. You. Don't. Notice. That. He's. There.

If you ask me, Undetectable definitely deserves a place next to Sacred Geometry and Blood Money on the altar of "this destroys games".

Anzyr, can I get your agreement on this? I'm certainly with you on the level of breaking the game Wizards are capable of, but this particular Mythic power boggled my mind when I read it. Certainly I don't think it allows the fighter to kill the wizard (clones, clones, the very least), but I'm not sure I can think of a way the wizard can kill the fighter.

Item attempts to fix an underpowered class...

I love these item descriptions that sound like sales brochures. "Act now and we'll include a free cleaning kit!"

Well, that items tops my "would be a nightmare for GM bookkeeping" list...

Why yes, I have played Metal Gear Solid...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Random table item! ~drinks~

Joke item! ~drinks~

Random table item! ~drinks~

Joke item! ~drinks~

...Okay, I'm not thirsty anymore, please stop now...

Soo... this weapon is designed to be wielded by someone with at least seven hands?

I keep having boring staves matched up against outright bad items, and end up voting for the staff...

Why yes, I have heard of Journey to the West...

Eh, your formatting is better than the other guy, and his item is boring, too. So I guess you get the vote.

Rod that is just a descriptive way to cast one spell vs. staff that is just a list of spells with some flavor text...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Found an ~awesome~ staff. Had a couple nitpicks, but overall I am blown away.

Horribly overpowered item vs joke item. What to do...

EDIT: Ugh. Obvious video game reference vs joke item. ~cries~

Wait... you can include hyperlinks in your item description?! That's a thing the rules will allow?! o.O

You know what, for sheer moxie, and the fact that I was able to look up all the rules pertaining to your item in a matter of seconds, I will probably vote for your item every time I see it now.

Still kinda in shock...

Your item's name is a bad pun. I'm only voting for you because I can't actually figure out what the other item does...

"Greatly prized by..."


Also: Two items with "let me write my homebrew world backstory into this item, I'm sure you'll love it".

And one of them is "Only useable by [obscure race] when fighting [obscure monster type]".

And that's still the one I'm voting for, which says something about the other...

Huh. Got two very, very similar items matched up - basically both trying to accomplish the same thing. Even the same kind of weapon.

One was clearly better, tho...

Suffice to say that all three 299-ish wordcount items would have benefited from half the word count.

...Okay, how many times did the rules say "don't use the formatting from Ultimate Equipment"? And you did that anyway... lucky you the other item is just really bland.

So your item is just [unique armor from the CRB] with fancy flavor text...?

That's okay, you are matched against a staff I don't feel bad voting for.

~facepalm~ Just got into voting. Very first matchup:

Random table item vs 299 word SAK.


EDIT: Round 2: 299 word item vs 298 word item. >.>

It should be the first one by the wording. "plus a further point of damage for every full 500gp" means that a 1000gp material component, which contains 500 full gp two times, should cost 3 points.

My friend who ran WotR had a very similar experience to this; he actually cut out the entire last book because he was so burned on the campaign.

Currently, our opinion on Mythic is that it is a great way to give a little extra oomph to a particularly vicious boss, and we have both used it that way a couple times. I do also like Paizo throwing the occasional mythic enemy for the same reason.

I will probably never give my PCs Mythic power, except maybe individual abilities handed out that are appropriate to the characters and not game-breaking.

I typically allow most anything by Dreamscarred Press - both the psionic rules and the Path of War - or Super Genius Games (although not godlings), especially as I draw on a lot of that material to give my PCs opponents. Oh, and I added Pact Magic Unbound to that list lately, because the Occultist is totes cool.

I will also allow other third party material on a case-by-case basis, but only for interesting character ideas, not for powergaming.

As for that feat: It's probably fine. I already allow the Greater Unarmed Strike feat mentioned above from Path of War, and I'd probably use that instead, but it's certainly not going break any games. Monks already aren't breaking any games.

Well, in my house rules in which I basically give all monks pounce at 4th level they actually have come close to dominating a fight. But then the witch shut four monks down with one spell and balance was restored to the universe...

While I certainly don't think anyone will get DQed for that sort of thing, I do think getting those kinds of details right will reflect positively on you. ...Also, getting those kinds of details wrong will probably be more food for Template Fu. :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A bit of advice of my own, based on something that almost messed me up when creating my item this year:

In previous years, with wondrous items, cost has always been half of price.

This year, that is not always true. If you are making a weapon, armor, or shield, please remember that the price of the non-magical base item is not halved. For example, suppose you are making a magical dagger. All together, it ends up with a price of 10,302gp - 10,000gp worth of magical abilities, and 302gp for the masterwork dagger.

The item's cost is 5,302gp - not 5,151gp.

This may be nit-picky, but attention to this level of detail is certainly something I will be looking for when voting this round.

1 to 50 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 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.