|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 
If you have to ask, you don't need to know.
265: Stupid party! I'm only adventuring with them because I felt like it, n-not because I l-like the elf, or something like that. S-so don't get the wrong idea, got it?!
Mechanics aside, I must say I have to agree with the OP, flavor-wise. Last time I checked, a Sorcerer was able to wield magic due to some ancient or eldritch powers singing in his blood. Like the magic of Dragons.
Coming soon to a supplement near you: The Commoner Bloodline.
Also to note, before reading this thread, I had no idea that Tieflings couldn't be the target of X Person spells. It really is so far beyond logic that I never would have guessed, and must have glossed over reading those parts of the ARG or something. You won't find it spelled out in the ARG. The whole 'immune to Person spells' thing is simple and logical application of the rules of 'xxx Person works only on Humanoid type targets'. Actually, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sprinkle holy water on an evil human sorcerer, he'll get wet. Sprinkle the same holy water on an evil Oread sorcerer, ooh, look at the effect of holy water having on evil outsiders. Tieflings (and Aasimar, Sylphs, etc.) are utterly unaffected by an Antilife Shell. Because 'Humor doesn't translate well', any Aasimar is less likely to be affected by a Hideous Laughter spell cast by a human. Your friendly Succubus Bard, on the other hand, is quite adept at finding the perfect punchline for her fellow outsider. A Tiefling cannot ever use a Hat of Disguise to appear human (as you cannot appear as another creature type). Disguising himself as a fire elemental, though, is no problem at all. While Shadows and normal Vampires still can easily kill your average Tiefling, they cannot change him into one of their own (the Shadow's spawn ability working only on humanoids, the vampire's only on creatures of their own type) Should I continue? Yes, some of these effects are counter-intuitive. Some are illogical. Yet, it is the developer's explicit intent that the planetouched races are Native Outsiders, period. So, I wouldn't count on that changing anytime soon. Frankly, my group has found the whole shebang to be more hassle than it's worth, and we have shifted the 0HD Native Outsider races to Humanoids with the (planetouched) subtype, and I recommend this house rule to whatever group I am playing with... but this is, and will remain, a house rule.
Spidey-sense tingling? *ducks for cover*
All skills that are class skills for any class you have levels in are considered class skills for your character, and as such receive the trained bonus.
If I ever hand out treasure that's above or under WBL, I self-mutilate myself during the night. Pictures, or it didn't happen!
Frankly, I think instating the policy of 'No rules questions, folks' as a response to that ominous 'get your house in order' thread was... kind of an overreaction. There are many forumites (myself included) who liked to get an opinion on how the creative director was seeing the rules without intending to use the 'JJ said this, so your differing opinion must be ZOMGBADWRONG!!1!11' hammer. Might I kindly ask you to return to giving out your personal opinion about how you think some things should be resolved?
I just checked in for voting, and feel the urgent need for adding a possibility to declare 'None of these items should advance'. Out of the first 10 items I saw, precisely zero adhered to the template. I am not talking a wrongly placed semicolon, but all caps instead of bold text, the ubiquious 'wonderous item' and the like.
Is it just me? Am I too harsh, or elitist? Did I get off with a bad start?
I must admit, the so-called 'Most important rule: Did you warn him?' is the one I disagree with. Granted; in most cases, the Paladin (or rather, his player) should be be given the chance to see he is straying from the path; however, there are exceptions. A Paladin that takes offense on the (admittedly outrageous) prices a shopkeeper asks, leaves the shop and tries to set fire to the building the following night will fall without warning in my game. A Paladin who follows a code that states 'My word is my honor' who formally enters parley with an enemy emissary, only to strike him down (with a resounding 'SMITE EVIL') once negotiations have begun with no treachery on the enemy's part will fall. No, I will not accept excuses along the lines of 'Hey, he was evil, so I was doing a good thing.' A Paladin who gains an audience with the Crown Princess, and runs her through before she can finish the sentence of 'Welcome, hero of *urgh*' because, well, the player felt that 'this b#?ch was going to betray us anyway' will fall so hard he reaches terminal velocity before impacting on the floor. As for the 'no win situation': I agree that it is bad form for a GM to make a habit out of crafting a situation that only have 'You fall' solutions for a Paladin. Truth be told, I don't design my adventures that way. However, even if I don't design the adventure in such ways, some antagonist NPC's who have a personal gripe with the PCs will attempt to strike them where it hurts. Their reputations. Their loved ones. Their possessions. Their faith. And if a scheming devil, or an experienced succubus sees a possibility to maneuver the Pally into a situation where he seems to have the choice between falling and failing... trust me, it will do its very best.
Actually, my question is the other way round:
Gabdalf? I'd say Sorcerer, Dyslexian Bloodline. *scnr*
I am aware of this effect. Being a GM for a group of friends I play with, I have the luxury of my use of Rule Zero not being an issue. I have the trust of my players that I won't attempt to trick them with something they'd perceive as a cheesy rule hole exploit, and I can rely on them not trying to do a letter-of-the-RAW-approach, either. In fact, if one of my players tried to do something the rest of the group perceived as a munchkin idea, the group as a whole would probably try to shoot that thing down before I have to interfere. In my opinion (and I know that I risk being yelled at for this), problems start when things start to get competitive rather than cooperative. If you cultivate a GM-vs-player approach, if you start to consider the game as a competition you have to win, it is only logical to use the allowed possibilities to the maximum legal extent (and maybe some more, if you don't get caught). Unfortunately, the people who propose that rule zero should be burned and its ashes scattered, that players have a RAW-given right to do whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, period... these people appear to be a pretty vocal fraction on these boards. Organized play complicates things as well: When I wrote about the 'holy cow of zero table variance', I meant exactly that. Zero variance means that you cannot have 'gentlemen agreements' between players and GM, since these will differ from table to table. Unless my memory fails me, James not only states that he loves additional options, more stories, more world... he also states that he would love to give some more control back to the GM. Which pretty much flies in the face of both 'zero table variance' and 'RAW is LAW'. </rant>
I believe that most of the issues are over people who can't apply common sense to the rules and overread everything they see. In fact, I am starting to doubt so-called common sense is truly common in the first place.
I simply pointed out that by RAW, the bastard sword's description points out that you can use it two handed with martial weapon proficiency and by literal reading of the RAW it means you can wield any size of bastard sword. Negative on that, Houston. By Malachi's reading of the rules, you would be proficient in the two handed use of the bastard sword of any size. However, the weapon size rules remain untouched, shifting a huge (or larger) Bastard Sword out of wieldable range. So, while you are proficient with a colossal bastard sword in theory, you are physically incapable of wielding it.
*sigh* After trying to claim Bane, why stop there? Hey, I got a holy weapon... shouldn't I get the added bonus by treating my opponent as if it were an evil outsider?
May I call to your attention that the developers themselves stated that, at times, common sense should be applied instead of reading just the letter of the RAW? And now, back to your regularly sceduled discussion.
Hmm... there's always the Separatist Cleric Archetype, as a last resort.
Both are correct, there is no contradiction. Being an Outsider, the Eidolon enjoys 6+Int modifier skill points per level.
If the Summoner increases his Eidolon's Int, the Eidolon will retroactively gain skill points, just as a character does.
And finally, the GM can and should ban stuff he doesn't want to use. If he doesn't like the rules. If it doesn't fit the campaign he's got in mind. Whatever. He doesn't have to cater to every whim of the players and somehow try to make a coherent game out of it. ^^ This ^^
*shrugs* Frankly, while my own character concepts pretty much default to somewhere between NG and CG, I have no problem with players playing evil characters. What I have issues with are:
If you have a concept of an evil character that is interesting to play with, is able to fit within a team, and is not running contrary to what was agreed as campaign theme, go ahead.
In a nutshell, please make sure that you are playing with the group and the GM's ideas, not against them. Almost any alignment (with maybe the exception of CE) can be a valid choice for a character that will be fun for the other players to play with. Choosing to play an evil character in no way frees you from the primary directive: play in a way that everyone at the table is having fun. Problem is, quite a lot of players seem to equate evil = psychopathic, or destructive, preferrably in a way that targets the other characters.
So far, Hero Points are a great resource in the games I play and/or GM. What we don't use are the Hero Point Feats. They are a bit too meta-gamey, in our opinion.
- The alter self spell has had its duration reduced from 10 minutes per level to 1 minute per level. That pretty much eliminates its usefulness in a social, diplomatic setting, especially at low-to-mid levels. Indeed. This spell has pretty much been changed into yet another buffing effect. Bonus points for granting +2 to a stat if you change 'into someone of my own race'.- The CMB mechanic should offer greater advantages to larger and naturally-grabby creatures; as is, creatures with grab are frequently better off simply attacking normally than by using the ability. On the other end, CMD is pretty much b0rken in several cases. So, being big makes it that much more difficult to move past you, huh?And, while it is dang hard to even touch a zig-zagging Atomie, just grabbing her out of the air is no problem at all... - I don't understand why the bonus Weapon Finesse feat was removed from Tiny creatures (cats, monkeys, rats, etc). All of these creatures used to have one of the skill-bonus feats in addition to Weapon Finesse, which at least served to differentiate them a little bit more. Now, their feat slot is taken up by a feat they should have had for free. Frankly, I wouldn't even require the feat. A simple rule of Tiny (or smaller) creatures using Dex instead of Str (as they already do for Swimming and Climbing) would both lift the Feat tax, and allow Tiny vermin to actually employ their Dex for attacks. As is, lil' spidey cannot use Dex in any case, being mindless, and thus, featless.- I don't like that a high enhancement bonus allows you to overcome DR/material and DR/alignment, and I like smite evil's ability to overcome all DR even less. Amen, on both parts. I'd make the Pally's smites count as lawful, good, and magic. We can talk about epic if the Pally is epi... ahem, mythic. But DR/evil? DR/vorpal? Puh-leese, give me a break!
Oh joy... yet another corner case where applying RAW by the letter shows that we have moved beyond the scope where the rules were intended to go. Just add a minimum of +500 to mithril (or mithral, or mythril, see if I care) weapons (akin to the +300 for masterwork); use the tried and trusted formular for mithral ammunition, and leave things be. Seriously, guys: Are you trying to play a game, or are you practicing for your final exams in legalese?
Hmm... is it just me, or wouldn't the visuals of this feat be fitting for an Elven Curve Blade, as well?
Ah, I see. You already posted my favorite. Just to drive the point home: *ahem* 8. Firefly
who should I pick to join the game? The cleric or the pally? Take the one who will 'fit' into the party better, both as a player and as a character. From what you wrote, the Pally player is more enthusiastic. This would be quite a bonus in my book. Now, how would the players fit into the group?
Don't forget to add the Int bonus to the number of spells you can learn for free when you level. And where would you have that idea from? Last time I checked, you added your Int bonus to the number of spells you received with your first wizard level only.
Negative on that, Houston. Your usable spell slots, and the spells known, are tied to the class that you got them with. (A question, though: Would a Page of Spell Knowledge (UE) be usable with either slot? I think it would...)
"It's too late! Next spell!" . Amen to that.. Taking the Cure line of spells from Necromancy into Conjuration, then stuffing the barrage of fear-inducing spell into Necromancy rather than Enchantment (a school messing with emotions); to accentuate the fact that Necromancy is ICKY AND SCAAAAAARY is one of the pet peeves I have with 3.X. Same with your Mage Armor example. It's a g~#*%%n force spell, which has Evocation written all over it, with a possible second entry into Abjuration. Someone just had to make double sure to make Conjuration the most useful school EVAH. </rant>
A monster's treasure is part of its CR. Then, what good are the tables that cross-index damage, AC, hp, and whatnot with CR?
Clerics (along with inquisitors), to me, are the only truly offensive aspect of the game. I don't mind religions in games--the associated drama can be fantastic--but when a game attaches mechanics to an "existing" deity it becomes a different issue. And it's not just the patron requirement: deities in most settings are untouchable by even the highest HD mortal around. "Faith" is not magical and I'm sick of seeing mundanes drawing power from it. So, in a nutshell... magic, dragons and the like are perfectly fine with you, but the thought that there are beings whose power is, by definition, vastly superior to the characters using lesser beings (aka mortals) as their agents does not fit with it? I must admit, I fail to follow your train of thought.
I wish the game made that effective. Unlikely. The aim of the game development is to make combats fast. Over in a few rounds, as opposed to dragging on. Thus, PF always places a heavy emphasis on offense. Compared to offense, defense will always lose out. The game is intended to work that way. Sure, the whole affair leads to rocket tag combat; ideally the one who goes first will not need to worry about a counterattack from the, now dead, opponent; but hey: this way, we will set a new record regarding Encounters Per Second.
However, an Aasimar bard will have a hard time trying this spell on a human or elf, being, like, totally alien. On the other hand, he has it considerably easier when trying to get the point across to a devil. Or elemental. Sometimes, the barriers for sense of humor are strange indeed...
There's nothing to stack. Arcane Strike adds damage.
The bonuses go to two different effects.
Go figure looking for the answer yourself lol. Ah, coming here asking for help, then deciding to not share the answer. Way to go, cowboy!
I'd like to chime in for a First World 'Alice in Wonderland' themed AP. Hmm... how about using the authors that were sugested in another thread... 1) Jacobs
What do you think? Would this lineup work?
I prefer method [2] as well. However, simply slapping an 'advanced' on each and every monster the group encounters may get a tad repetitive. As alternatives, you may consider - adding a 'giant', 'fiendish', 'entropic' or 'axiomatic' template where applicable, instead of 'advanced' - adding a class level to classed opponents. (Careful with spellcasters, reaching a new spell level may be too harsh on the party) - increasing a dragon by an age category (once again, careful with this one) - adding class levels to an existing monster. (Careful though, the resulting CR may be off when using Bestiary calculations... Antipaladin, I'm looking at you!) - tossing in 50% more weenies (e.g. 3 guards intead of 2, or 15 goblins instead of 10) - adding a lieutenant (with a CR of 2 less) to a BBEG - changing the environment, or the situation (this one is more an artthan a science) Generally, adding more monsters shifts the action economy away from player domination... but increases the amount of bookkeeping, and, of course, may be illogical in places. I have taken a mix-and match approach of all the methods stated above (including templating)... so far, things seem to work :)
Here we go again... I think prior to 9th level, which is when the animal companion receives the Multiattack ability, it can only attack with one natural attack, either a bite or one claw. .
and then what if any use does a big cat get outta the multiattack feat? None. The purpose behind Multiattack is to reduce the penalty on secondary attacks. Which you don't have.I think prior to 9th level, which is when the animal companion receives the Multiattack ability, it can only attack with one natural attack, either a bite or one claw. Negative on this, Houston. If it uses a full-round action to full attack, it gets all three natural attacks in that round. If it only uses a standard action, it's one claw or one bite, as usual.
Of course, the easiest way to avoid any grapple penalties is to simply use the grappling attack last, since you can take your 5 attacks in any order you choose. Umm...
Pretty pretty please... it it really necessary to advertise the monstrosity called Facebook even further?
Pathfinder has no issues that can't be solved by an inventive GM and mature players. Tell that to F.A.T.A.L. Contradiction in base parameters.
Your head explodes, no save. *SCNR* Rules-wise, you're solidly in 'does not compute' territory, as the rules assume that a spellcaster is aware of the capabilities of his stuff. My take on the situation would be, you try and employ the rod. Which fails to modify your spell, so you can decide whether you want to sacrifice the usual standard action on top of the already spent swift action to fire the spell normally, or to drop that spell (losing it, but still have your standard action). As for the rod... ask your GM. I can see the rod not even starting up (Error: incompatible spell), I can see the rod burning a charge; hell, I can even see the rod overloading and possibly getting the 'broken' condition... this is massively depending upon what take on magic gadgets your GM has.
Now, for the prize question: Stupid mistake, or calculated provocation?
Off all Adventure Paths it's not useful but the hardcover compilation of the 4 OGL Adventure Path maybe yes... Well, I'd be content with a pathfinderized CoCT...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
