If your group thinks a Rogue is a necessary part of the party, I don't know what you're going to convince them of.
Make an alchemist chirurgeon/vivisectionist/internal alchemist. Focus on the bludgeoner/sap artist line and you'll do unarmed sneak attack nonlethal damage enough to drop anything in one round. You have the skill points to be the rogue, too. You are the healer and the striker, with some arcane casting ability.
Drop monsters in a single round routinely, then when the bbeg comes up, sit there giving out healing potions until the damage catches up with your healing and everybody dies. That will demonstrate the silliness of having one of your primary damage dealers doing the opposite.
Or, you know, don't play with a group of people who doesn't give a crap whether you have fun.
Didn't notice those names toward the bottom of the list.
The concept of "evil" as in people who want others to suffer just on principle is very very rare in the real world. GW Bush and Arpaio don't qualify. Plus, even if you are politically opposed to them, I'd think you should take issue with what are perceived as their LACK of lawfulness.
LE believes that laws and society exist for him/her to achieve personal gain. They're interested in what their country can do for them, and they're looking for ways to get ahead by manipulating the rules and moving the playing field.
CN believes everything above as well, but instead of taking advantage of it, they're pointing to the LE guy as an example of why laws suck.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, #8 and #13 aren't house rules, they're just the rules.
I've never heard of anyone changing the rules to make Eldritch Heritage more powerful.
Why do you have house rules about guns when you ban guns and gunslingers?
I don't understand #27. Is the point of this rule to stop people without melee weapons besides armor spikes to take AOO's?
To the OP, I say play RAW, then change what you don't like. Give the RAW a chance before you go changing anything. You'll probably find that some rules others swear are broken work fine for you, and rules others think are fine your group doesn't care for. The only rule of thumb is if you're going to be making up houserules on the fly, be lenient about letting players get do-overs on actions that don't do what they were planning, or let them re-build character concepts especially hurt by a houserule you adopt.
IMO Oracles are better than clerics. Clerics don't have versatile enough spells to be primary casters without judicious use of domains or other few abilities that give spells. Domain spells can be only prepared in their respective slots, while Oracle mystery spells, which serve the same purpose, can be used as often as they want. Almost all clerics will spend some time in melee or ranged combat, and Oracle mysteries revelations do more for combat than domain powers. The one level delay of spell levels is rough, but every other oracle ability is better than cleric abilities. Even the curse gives you benefit, and GOOD ones.
Each mystery has at least 2 or 3 VERY good revelations. I think they are better flavor-wise then clerics, too. Only thing I don't like is being dependent on cha rather than wis. Wis is a better stat overall. But even with regard to that, several mysteries have abilities that transfer certain stat dependencies to charisma.
I say give em a chance. Oracle is my favorite class.
My group plays that you can and it's not unbalancing. Trading a standard for a second move gives precedent. Obviously a standard action would be "more" than a swift, but the relationship between move and swift isn't necessarily codified. However, given the ability to use a swift along with a full-round and not doing the same with a move, I think it points to Standard>Move>Swift>Free.
SlimGauge is correct that there is no RAW provision for it.
There are people out there that claim the effective level cannot go beyond 20, because the Oracle class itself does not go beyond 20, so if you're planning to take this character past level 13 you might not want to boost your revelation that much (or at all).
I know people think that way but it's just not supported in the rules. There are rules in the CRB to advance past 20th, and they're not even listed as optional rules. Powers that cap at a certain level say so. In my opinion there's just no support for the idea that advancement ends at 20th, and even less for the idea that powers stop advancing at 20th. So 20th level characters automatically gain no benefit from any (of the MANY) feats, magic items, and abilities that give you bonuses to your effective level for various effects?
Someone mentioned it as a dip, but going Titan Mauler Barbarian and doing a twf ECB/Shield build is a nice option.
Alternately, the two level dip into Titan Mauler could be combined with the two-weapon warrior fighter archetype to lessen the penalties for using 2 ECB's. Come on, that's freaking awesome.
I really can't imagine an interpretation that would say you don't get the benefit. I also think the idea that spell DC's aren't part of the effect of spells is right out. The DC of an effect is directly tied to your level, then items that raise your level with relation to that effect raise the DC. Period.
I've never heard anyone interpret it differently.
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
I'd say a request to give you something for free, when the sale of that something for profit is his livelihood and basically his entire raison d'etre, is pretty much the definition of "against its nature."
Also, the word is Rogue. Rouge is what women (and some men) put on their cheeks.
You can read it that way and I don't think it's crazy to interpret RAI that way, but those words aren't written there at all. Not even close.
Do you read skill rank requirements for prestige classes as being the only skills the character is allowed to have? If they need BAB +5, do they not qualify when they have BAB +6. +7, etc?
I agree with the idea that in this specific case, enemy is just a place holder.
However, the general rule is that if a word doesn't have a game-specific definition, then its real world definition applies via common sense. I don't really see how you can interpret the word "enemy" to mean "ally."
Your way of thinking means basically that every word not specifically defined by the game is therefore not a "rules term" and carries no meaning whatsoever?
Moving my recent thread derailment to its own home here.
General question - when your form changes to another form due to a polymorph spell, how does your new form vs your natural form influence what spells effect you?
Specific example: I am a humanoid. I use Plant Shape to become a plant creature. I am hit with a Horrid Wilting spell. Do I take 1d6 per caster level or 1d8 per caster level?
So you're saying that if I turn into a magical beast, I'm not susceptible to hold monster, but I would be to hold person? Seems kinda wonky.
James Risner wrote:
Well then I feel MUCH better about leaving out my snarky comment.
I don't see that in a quick glance over the polymorph rules or the EB spell description. Can you point me toward your source?
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Emphasis mine. Doesn't seem to be any vagueness at all, RAW.
However, if you wanted to get into a philosophical/RAI debate about it, I guess you could discuss at what point after you decide to attack them they cease to be your ally and become your enemy. I doubt the intent of the rules is that the fact that someone doubts you will strike them in some way makes it easier to avoid your attacks. If anything, it's more likely they should not only provoke if you want to take the AoO, but quite reasonably could be considered flat-footed.
But if they're not truly becoming your enemy - let's say you're using your AoO to trip them to protect them from getting into a fight with a too-powerful opponent, for instance - RAW you don't get an AoO.
My humble opinion is that the use of the word enemy in this instance is just poor word choice and should have been "creature" or something like that instead.
You should try stressing that certain parts of your build are non-negotiable. People will still recommend what they think about your build, though, because that's what you're asking them for. When you ask for people's opinions, don't be surprised when they actually give them.
"The area within the grove is temperate and comfortable, like that of a tiny hut, although the grove provides no illumination and provides no protection from the elements."
So if there's a blizzard going on, you aren't protected from it, but the area is temperate and comfortable? How exactly would those two mesh?
This is a whole lot of supposition on your part. I don't think there's any indication any of this is either RAW or RAI. Not to say that it's refuted, but you're taking as a given several very specific ways of looking at the rules that are not codified.
If the robes don't apply, I think it has to be based on the idea that the Robe text specifically references a Sorcerer. This whole idea of the robe "looking at the power as you use it" vs "looking at a static power" is pulled directly from your behind.
And I really don't understand how anyone would think this is overpowered. If it's not overpowered to get the power through Eldritch Heritage, then it can't be overpowered to increase the effective level, since the benefit you get from the robe as an Eldritch Heritage build is nowhere near the benefit a sorcerer gets from it.
Seriously? You think there's any chance the devs' intent in making the Robe of Components was to make a way for you to become a well-off holy water dealer?
This is a looping exploit
I guess that answers both of our questions.
Why would you ever ready an action to hit a spellcaster if it cost you the AoO? Why wouldn't you just use your standard action in the round, since under your rules you're somehow being PENALIZED for good planning and tactics?
What are the arguments against getting both? Not with regard to whether it's intended or a good idea -- I mean is there an interpretation of the written rules that would suggest otherwise? I don't see anything that suggests you wouldn't get both.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if Magic Jar itself is a death effect, or are you just referring to the fact that you die if the spell ends and you're out of range, and asking if that specific effect is a death effect?
Generally (maybe 100% of the time, not sure) if it's a death effect, it'll say so. Since Magic Jar in general doesn't even kill the target, I can't imagine it being a death effect. As for the result of you dying if you go out of range, I can see an argument it is a death effect, but RAW, it isn't, because it doesn't say it is.
The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.
In fact, the very fact that this is a FAQ and not errata confirms that it is not a hard cap on how many times you can do something in a round. A FAQ doesn't change rules, it clarifies them. Now this is sometimes seen as a change when people have been playing it the other way, but (in theory) it isn't. If the devs meant to put a hard cap on the # of free actions that could be done in a round, they would have errata'd the section in the core rulebook that says you can do as many as you want.
Small simple but colorful details are what makes for good descriptions of people and towns. Pick a couple of details about the way a person looks, or acts, or talks, and use it as their calling card. Don't overdo it, make it into a stand up comedy act, but one memorable thing is better than 15 bland things. Same thing for a city - especially a small town. Blue painted signposts at the town square. It'll be memorable for your players - instead of incessant "which town was that again?"
KEVIN HELMES wrote:
That logic leads to the opposite conclusion from the one you are reaching. Archetypes can be mixed with other archetypes. So if you consider an alternate class an archetype, why wouldn't you be able to take an archetype?
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:
You're certainly in the minority with this opinion. With all the bonuses to spellcraft, overcome spell resistance, etc, elves have lots of candy. And the vast majority of people prefer dex over con for any pure caster (except the witch doctor, and the rage prophet ragecaster.)
A house rule I'm considering for an upcoming campaign - each character can have a readied standard action that automatically goes off at the beginning of combat. Buff spell, class ability, whatever. I'm trying to let people use more of their abilities - it sucks when you never get to use something because while it's a cool buff, it never trumps another round of actual damage-doing.
If the PC's are surprised, they still get the readied buff, but after the surprise round - making surprise rounds a little more momentous, since you're not only flat-footed but without your favorite buff.
Each person would have to have their "basic" choice, selected in advance - no tailoring it to the individual encounter, waiting to see what you're fighting before choosing, etc.
Should I cap the spell level/power of the ability somehow? Any other restrictions I should consider?
But power attack applies on every attack, and double slice only applies when full attacking. The guides are just one person's way of looking at things so they're valuable in that respect - you don't have to agree with them.
Calling them "wrong" or "bad" information is belittling to people that put in a lot of work on them. "Wrong" is spelling "does" as "dose," and "dual" as "duel."