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

MyTThor's page

516 posts (601 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 516 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mojorat wrote:

It cant exist by the rules actually. Heres the thing. Metamagic Rods never change your slot they are Free action Bam metamagic feat happens.

Heres the problem, That does not work with highten. A Highten Spell /has/ to go in the Slot that it is cast as. If a spell is considered say a level 6 spell there is no way in the game to lower that spell so it is cast in a level 5 slot.

So every spell effected by the highten metamagic feat is of the level it has been heightend to and /must/ use that level of slot.

Or i should say such an item does not work for prepared casters. It would work fine for spontanious casters.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Kazaan wrote:

If you're wearing your boots, they are a "part of you" so "you" are touching the ground. Same goes for wearing fully covering clothing. Hypothetically speaking, if you were flying in the air, but your belt were long enough to reach the ground, you'd still be "touching the ground".

A more pertinent point is: what counts as "ground"? Foundation of a building? Paved road? Dirt? Bedrock? Blanket of leaves? Snow? Ice? Mud? If I hold a clot of dirt and then start flying, am I still "touching the ground"? If I levitate a big chunk of "ground" and stand on it, does that still count? What if I'm climbing up a cliff? Standing on the ceiling of a natural cave?

This seems to be a pretty in-depth assumption. Is there somewhere in the rules that says your clothing is considered a part of you? Your belt example is obviously not going to come up often but as a DM I'd certainly rule otherwise.

But regarding the OP, yeah, I would think it'd be hard to find anyone who says it requires skin to ground contact.

Jaelithe wrote:

Well, considering I have always, for 30+ years, used real-world religion in my games, it's not an issue I shy away from, by any means. Christianity and Islam have always held sway over much of both my home-brew and historical fantasy campaigns. I find made-up gods wildly uninteresting, frankly.

You say that you find made up gods uninteresting, but you use these real-world gods in your world. Real world gods are made up, too, you know. And I say that (mostly) not as a snarky atheist, but from most religious people's point of view, every god except their own is made-up.

So what makes a real world made-up god more interesting than a made-up world made-up god?

It is RAW and RAI. Specific trumps general has nothing to do with it. This isn't an exception to the normal rule, it is the normal rule. A secondary attack is, by rule, treated as a primary attack if there aren't any other attacks for it to be secondary to.

Now granted, it would make sense to perhaps have a reference to this rule in the witch's section, but word count is precious.

I feel like there is either too much or too little information here. I don't see the usefulness of breaking down a class to a half page write up. The ideas of each class can be conveyed in a sentence or two, and then if the person is interested, they can just read the relevant text in the CRB or on the PRD.

Agree with the previous poster that noted that many of your rules are specific to your home game. Again it's a bit wordy - you can basically sum it all up in "Don't metagame, DM is the boss, be nice to the game host." Is anyone reading the thing about being clean and smelling nice and changing their hygiene habits?

Sorry, you clearly put some effort into this, but I'm not sure who your audience is. No one who's really brand spanking new to tabletop RPG's is going to get all the way through this thing. On the flip side, anyone who is somewhat experienced is going to be skimming around looking for anything that's useful to them.

I would say definitely not a move action. You're basically using the bookcase to attack the enemy. Why would it be less of an action to push a 100lb+ bookcase at a guy than it is to stab at someone with a knife?

Clearly this isn't going to be specifically called out in the rules. So as you said it's up to the GM. If I were you I'd have asked ahead of time what kind of action he'd put it at.

The DC is debatable, but I would have called it a strength check as well.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

If in the thread?

What do I mean by Normal?

I mean people who just want to play!

I come to these boards and I see optimization, munchkin, powergaming, discussions of what tier is what class, that rogues are useless...etc...etc...etc.

When we play, we could care less about that stuff. There may be some ensuring that your character is the best it could be...but we don't try to game the system to the point of being some sort of super powered engine that has every little thing planned from the get go.

We play to have fun. Not fun that means we are tweaking the character by the numbers, but fun in that we roleplay the character that we want.

We don't have a problem with the Rogue, normally they are going to be the ones that are able to disable traps and such (yes, I know some say let the spellcaster do it...but we have the Rogue do it). They want to play a Rogue...they want to have that type of character. They don't want to play a Ninja...they want to play a Rogue. So they choose a Rogue.

We don't have problems with Monks...they want to play a Monk. That's what they want to do. No, dip in to this, than that...for no reason other than there is any changes in class it's due to a Roleplaying reason...not a numbers reason.

We play to have fun. We play to roleplay. We don't sweep through encounters like water...but we have fun. We don't play to have a numbers game, we play to have fun together.

Is there anyone else who plays like this...perhaps we are abnormal these days, but it used to be that playing an RPG was more like what was described above.

If you play simply for the fun of it, without overly worrying about these tier things, or whether your rogue fits into the group, or if your monk is strong here and how you play!

Personally, I don't find the game fun when my character doesn't kick ass. I don't have to be the perfectly optimized end-all be-all character, but if I'm rolling a Paladin, I'm damn sure going to be able to work over some evil dragons.

That said, the reason you see more talk about optimization than role-playing on the board is because it makes more sense to ask a question about objective things like mechanics rather than subjective things like backstory. Role-playing should come from within - I'm not going to go on a message board to have other people create my character's personality. But if I have an issue where I want to know what the mechanically best feat is, I'll ask for opinion. It doesn't mean I'll take the best feat every time, but I want to know the ramifications of what I can and can't do.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the Rules Questions forum should be split into two separate forums: One where people are really asking for answers to their question, and one where people are only looking for people who agree with them and will totally disregard the opinion, no matter how well sourced or researched, of those who don't agree. Would save some time, I feel like.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
When I sit down at your table you can worry about telling me how to play my character. Until then, I'll just keep playing it by the rules. I really don't give two figs what JJ said, since he is self-admitted not a rules guy.

Not sure if this is in response to me, or others, or just a general statement. But if you don't want anyone's input on how to interpret a rule, starting a thread asking for input on the Rules Questions section of the website seems like an interesting move.

And while James is admittedly not a rules guy, like you say, the guy is a high-level designer at Paizo. While his opinion might not be an official ruling, I think it's safe to say that it carries more weight than Joe Schmoe Message Board Poster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has been asked several times and the opinions come up decidedly mixed. For my money, eldritch heritage gives you an effective sorcerer level, and the robes raise that level. Personally, I don't think there's much ambiguity, it's pretty straightforward.

There are many spells, for instance, that in their description say "when this spell is cast, the [wizard/cleric/whatever] creates a glowing ball of..." whatever. Are we to interpret that other classes that get the spell on their list don't get to benefit because it's restricted to one class by the description?

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Belafon wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
It does work that way RAW because there is no ability an inquisitor can use called Greater Bane. Greater Bane is just what happens when an inquisitor who is considered level 12 or higher for the purpose of Bane uses their Bane class ability.

Take another read of the inquisitor class. They are separate class features.

Bane (Su): At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift action. She must select one creature type when she uses this ability (and a subtype if the creature type selected is humanoid or outsider). Once selected, the type can be changed as a swift action. This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon. If dropped or taken, the weapon resumes granting this ability if it is returned to the inquisitor before the duration expires. This ability lasts for a number of rounds per day equal to the inquisitor’s level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Greater Bane (Su): At 12th level, whenever an inquisitor uses her bane ability, the amount of bonus damage dealt by the weapon against creatures of the selected type increases to 4d6.

Which ability do you use when you activate Greater Bane? Oh, look at that, you use your Bane ability. Greater Bane is just what occurs when you are effectively level 12 for the purposes of Bane. And the Bane Baldrix raises your effective level for the purpose of Bane.

I'm done discussing this, though. We can either get back onto the topic of the thread or we can just stop talking altogether.

There's nothing about Bane to suggest it's precision-based damage. I can't see why it wouldn't be doubled, RAW.

Though for your character, as others have said, you do not have the greater bane ability yet, so you wouldn't get this benefit. Per James Jacobs, and the most straightforward reading of the rules. They're different class features. The fact that they are similar does not change that. Sorry to keep playing after you took your ball and went home.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Those I know in the gay community, both "influential" and rank and file LGBT folks, prefer "gay" to "homosexual." Homosexual is ok as an adjective, just not as a noun. Much like the difference between black as in "black people" and saying like "mostly blacks go to that club."

Of course, that could be regional, or even just those I'm exposed to who have an opinion.

By the way, Rynjin, you talk about people being offended "for" other people. I think one of the really dumb ideas that our society has is that you're not allowed to be offended unless you're a member of the group in question. I think every bigot (to be clear, I'm not including you in this category) weakens and cheapens the value of life and society as a whole.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

That's a good philosophy to live by (to an extent), but it's not what this thread is about.

Threads like this are exactly what people are talking about when they say PC-ness has gone too far.

"Well this thing exists and it talks about something in a manner that might be obliquely offensive to some people if you squint hard enough."

Too far. Way too far.

Walking up and calling a black man the n-word or a homosexual a f** is offensive. Those words serve no purpose other than to be offensive.

But this thread is on par with someone getting offended at me calling my friend "Dude" and the guy sitting nearby, who I don't even know, telling me that word is offensive because if implies my friend self-identifies as a male, and have I asked him that or am I just assuming?

The thread ASKED if it was offensive. General consensus seems to be that it isn't. What is wrong with that? Someone else making sure they aren't offending people in some way infringes on your life?

By the way, calling someone "a homosexual" is generally considered offensive these days. Bear in mind that if you don't have a lot of gay friends, no one expects you to know this ahead of time, and I'm not calling you out or anything, just an FYI.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

And the general courtesy is, when a word or meme that has been traditionally used as a slur or form of social control against a minority is re-appropriated by that minority, they alone get to use it and define it... not those from outside, especially by someone who still wields institutionalized privilege.
Also known as a double standard.
Double standard equals bad.

Seriously? Are you really asking that?

Double Standard (n)-
a set of principles that allows greater freedom to one person or group than to another

It's hypocritical and it's unfair. If you rip into me for stealing something, then a week later you steal something and say 'well, it's okay when I do it', that's bull. Same thing.

Double standards are only bad if you conflate "equal" with "equitable." Equal means you treat everyone the same. Equitable means you give everyone the same level of consideration. Giving a proper amount of consideration to everyone doesn't necessarily mean that you treat them all the same. Black people aren't being hurtful and insensitive when using the n-word. Other groups are. (These are generalizations, of course, and there are white people who could use the word to good effect in, say, a scholarly piece*, or a stand-up comedy act, and there are black people who don't buy in to the idea that there's ever a good time to use the word.)

*See The Student As N****r, written by Jerry Farber, who I was lucky enough to study under in school.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:
I think that the idea that there's "too much political correctness around these days" is a lie propagated by people who think that they're too cool and edgy to be considerate of others.

Not particularly.

If I worried that everything I said was going to offend someone I'd never open my mouth because all these wannabe social activists who hang out on Tumblr and masturbate to whatever half-thought out idea they've come up with this week about how everything ever created is offensive.

Frozen is offensive because there's not enough black people.

Game of Thrones is offensive because Cersei is a b@+%! and that's a blow to feminism everywhere.

Lion King is offensive because it portrays baboons in a stereotypical way and all kinds of other b~##%~!&.

It's not about worrying that everything you do might be offensive. That is PC taken too far. It's about changing your behavior (or not) when you know for a fact that it's offensive.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Faelyn wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Anyway, here is my old post in an old thread about this item.
That is a pretty great post.

I whole heartedly agree.

K177Y C47 wrote:

Honestly I am offended at the horridly stupid levels PC-ness has gotten and that groups like LGBT communities can get away with things like "this offends me" as if the whole world has to cater to them. :p


That's an issue with American society in general, I think. Politically Correctness has gotten so far out of control to the point now that it's starting to become an infringement on 1st Amendment Rights (this is just an American perspective).

Granted there is a huge difference between having a difference of opinion on a subject and hateful, inflammatory speech. Unfortunately with how sensitive many of these type subjects are... the line between the two is often blurred and easily misconstrued.

This thread could get ugly, so I want this to be as non-inflammatory as possible. But the 1st amendment gives freedom of speech; it doesn't say that anyone has to sit there and hear your speech and not respond if it offends them.

As a straight white male, I'm the quintessential "playing life on easy mode" guy. I try to be as supportive as I can be to the LGBT community and my wife is black, if that gives you an idea as to my position on racial prejudice. But like anyone, I'm occasionally going to say something that comes off as insensitive. For instance, I was speaking with someone a few years ago who is a pre-op trans male, and I used a term that he found insensitive (I can't remember, I think it was "tranny"). I was told it's not the preferred term, and I stopped. That was the end of it. He knew I wasn't trying to be offensive, and he didn't jump all over me about it, and I tried to delete it from my vocabulary.

I do think that if someone tells you something offends them, you should endeavor to stop. That's not political correctness, it's common courtesy. Unless you think for some reason you should still use the term, at which point it has nothing to do with political correctness; you're just a jerk. (not you, but the generic you.)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say that someone who's trans would understand better than anyone how much it sucks to be the "wrong" gender against your will.

Weaponbreaker wrote:
I would strongly disagree, the greensting slayer gains the sneak attack ability and always has it. That's like saying that since a rogue isn't flanking he can use any ability or feat based off having sneak attack. I'd check with your dm, not a message board...

But he doesn't always have it -- he's got it only if he spends an arcane pool point.

Agree with Zahmahkibo this doesn't fly.

Vamptastic wrote:
No, that's alright but it's superficial. Keep going. Who -is- he?

This is an optimization thread. His backstory has no bearing.

Elbedor wrote:

Greater Trip and the placement of the AoO before or after the Prone effect have been discussed on here extensively by many people (myself included). But a scenario has come to mind that begs the question of how this trip event should resolve.

I have nothing to contribute to the mechanical side of this debate. Instead, I'd like the be the pedantic jerk who corrects everyone's grammar online.

That's not what "begging the question" is. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy that means you're using your statement itself as proof for your statement. Like saying "that guy can't play basketball because he has no game."

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious how the conversation went.

"Hey I found this way to take precise shot at level 1 with my Half-Elf Ranger."
"Oh yeah, cool! What is it?"
"Um, The Internet -- yeah, that's the ticket."
"What/where on the internet?"
"THE INTERNET, OKAY!?!?! Stop grilling me!"

What a dumb, offensive thing to say.

First: who cares? A good amount of artistic expression throughout history has come with the aid of mind-altering substances. What do I care where the idea comes from, if I like it? Unless you're talking about hardcore drug addiction, which isn't a joking matter.

I understand you're just being tongue-in-cheek, but this crap isn't funny.

That's like complaining about books not being released at a pace you like and making a post saying "What's with the delays? Are the Paizo writers dealing with terminal cancer?"

Tell him the jerk store called, and they're running out of him.

Dalgar the Great wrote:
Rage Prophet would be nice.

Mine's nearly ready for publication: stay tuned ;)

Not for nothing, but I'd suggest adding spoiler tags, especially if you're quoting AP stat blocks with so much specificity.

Oh, sure I'm ok with you shapeshifting into a bear and mauling the hell out of that Demon, but I'll be damned if you're not leaving footprints! Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but that's ridiculous!!

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would personally hate if a monster decided not to power attack because the GM was trying to take it easy with me. To me there's no point in playing the game if you're not going to play for keeps.

SmiloDan wrote:
Inquisitor would be my first suggestion. But if she doesn't like the inquisitor, maybe the alchemist? I think there is an archetype that replaces the bomb with sneak attack.

Yeah Vivisectionist/Chirurgeon alchemist is the best rogue/healer in the game. Inquisitor is a divine/rogue hybrid in many ways, but not much of a healer, overall.

I can't imagine a DM ruling other than that you use a spontaneous casting.

I agree that the rules as written is 100% clear, but I think that the rules forum can be about RAI vs RAW as well.

It certainly is circumstantial, and quite flimsy. But I think that not many rage powers fit an archetype as closely as moment of clarity fits this one. Notice that even the next rage power in the same line as moment of clarity (perfect clarity) is one of the recommended rage powers. Moment of clarity would be a huge oversight.

PrinceDogWaterIII wrote:

"This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage."

Followed by rage's normal text...

"While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration."

You've got your answer.

I don't have my answer - I have someone completely ignoring my question. I'd think that reading my post would indicate that the obvious reading of the skill was one I had considered. It wouldn't be the first time an archetype was poorly written. My contention (or at least suggestion; I'm not sure I'm 100% behind it) is that the archetype as intended should read that you can use mental skills and abilities.

Given that I'd already outlined that I understood that reading of the ability, quoting it back to me isn't particularly helpful. I appreciate your time, but would you care to actually comment on either of my points?

8 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

the FAQ version of this question: Does an Urban Barbarian under the effects of a controlled rage have the ability to cast spells?

I believe that the most straightforward reading of the archetype is that you cannot cast while raging. However, I think there are two points in favor of it:

1) Without it, it's a very small benefit. Now this certainly isn't proof - many archetypes have abilities that do nothing or next to nothing, either because their intent isn't achieved (looking at you, Titan Mauler), or the idea just isn't mechanically great. But I don't think anyone would argue that the ability to make sense motive checks and knowledge checks to identify enemies is worth losing +2 (or more) to will saves and +4 (or more) to a battle stat. Especially for a class that's generally not going to be good at those skills, anyway.

2) Moment of clarity is not among the recommended rage powers to pair with that archetype. Now this is certainly circumstantial -- but I find it hard to believe that this archetype, which fits that rage power so perfectly, doesn't have that power listed. The only reason I can see is that the archetype makes the rage power obsolete.

TheSideKick wrote:

Look, I'm not going to sit here and extol the benefits of playing a Duergar Paladin because (something about how WoW sucks).

Play any way you want. Dislike Half-Orc. But saying it's unplayable is just really tough to support. A glance at the optimization guides for EVERY class shows Half-Orc as a green choice the majority of the time, with about an equal mix of blue and orange.

So basically you think that a race that the general consensus is that's it's pretty good. So either you're right and everyone else is wrong, or your definition of unplayable is "good instead of great."

9 people marked this as a favorite.
TheSideKick wrote:

i think that H.Orcs are the worst race in the game, and without balancing racial traits and feature like toothy, and the real ferocity (as in diehard) they are near unplayable.

they have the lowest racial PB, and only 1 good feature, wich is martial weapon proficiencies. darkvision is better gained through aasimar or dwarf, and honestly its better just to reflavor a character from a human into an H.Orc so you can actually function.

i would have loved it if they were givin a -2 to cha or int and a static +2 to strength and a variable +2 like humans get. that would make the CRB H.Orc an actual choice other then RP flavor.

I want to say this as nicely as possible, but seriously, this makes you sound like the horrible modern RPG player that everyone complains about.


One less skill point per level, one less feat. Unplayable. You are slightly worse at skill checks from one skill, and you're UNPLAYABLE. One less feat, and you're UNPLAYABLE. YOU CANNOT PLAY. So any character that spends one feat on pure flavor - or, how about spending a feat on weapon proficiency with Falchion - a great weapon.

You cannot play a character with one missing feat and one missing skill point per level, who gets darkvision and good weapon use instead. Yeah, you're officially that guy.

aceDiamond wrote:
However, since it's described as a thicker scimitar, I guess you could say it's from an analogue to middle eastern armories?
PRD wrote:

Essentially a longer version of a scimitar, but with a thinner blade, the elven curve blade is exceptionally rare.

qutoes wrote:

Wood makes a pretty good switch hitter bow/spear or archer support.

I'm pretty sure you can't use shillelagh on a spear though.

Metal is WAY better melee.

Just my 2 cents.

Absolutely disagree that metal is better melee. It should be, but a lot of the abilities fall short.

Lead blades is a good spell and Keen edge is early entry, which is cool, but check out the revelations:
Armor mastery sucks unless you have high dex, which you won't.
Dance of the blades is great, but one of the cool features, the 20% miss chance option, is a move action, so it's better for when you're casting or something. You're not going to lose your full attack to use it.
Iron constitution is meh
Iron Skin is good, but very restricted use and only high level
Iron weapon is not going to keep pace with what you really need to be a primary melee, so basically it'll be for emergencies only
Riddle of steel is useless, even if you want to craft it's not overwhelming
Rusting grasp is lame and situational
Skill at arms is ok but I'd rather dip fighter
Steel scarf is useless. Taking a standard action to do something you're almost guaranteed to be not very good at.
Vision in Steel is useless in combat.

So you've got 2 good melee revelations, 3 after 11th level, 1 good and 1 ok melee spells.

Compare that with wood.

Shillelagh is great at low levels, barkskin is awesome at any level,
Wood weapon is better than iron weapon because you can combine with wood bond
wood bond is great for the reason above along with the combo of transmute metal to wood and ironwood. Basically gives you full BaB with any wooden weapon (bows anyone?). As long as you choose a wooden weapon, you're a full caster with full BaB. That's insane. You just don't get iteratives on the same schedule. Good thing you can cast blessing of fervor.
Wood armor is great, buff it all day with magic vestment.

Wood gets better utility spells and revelations, too. Wood is better at everything except crafting (and metal isn't even that good of a crafter).

PrinceofVisigon wrote:
Well, he's not 'house ruling' it. He referred me to the Magus page for an official FAQ from Paizo and seemingly has not taken my suggestion to post his ruling on this board. Not trying to grief him, I know DM is a hard position to play (doing it myself too) just frustrating when it won't even be admitted that I'm right on this matter and the other characters in the campaign are very powerful half beings, powerful magic users or a combination of that. Not supposed to turn into a venting session. But I wanted you all to know I really appreciate the input.

Unfortunately you'll have to tell him that this question is not likely to get answered by FAQ. You can refer him to this quote from how the FAQ system works:

Paizo wrote:

Some FAQ threads get marked as "No response needed." What does that mean?

In most cases, it means the staff has looked at the question and decided that no official response is needed for that question.
For example, someone might ask, “Do I need to take the Power Attack feat before I can take the Cleave feat?” Because the Cleave feat says “Prerequisite: Power Attack,” it’s obvious that you do need to take that feat, and no answer is needed. In other words, the design team isn’t going to answer questions that a reasonable person could figure out by rereading the book.

Khrysaor wrote:

I've thought about something similar, but you have to restrict the rate that they can put bonuses into each stat. A player could have a 20 start stat with another +8 by level 8 for a 28 total which gives a +9 bonus. +9 on spell DCs can make casters overpowered or even make saves too easy to make for your PCs. A +9 for melee greatly increases the chance to hit. Also gives some big damage to the 2 handers.

A point a level, same stat once every 2 levels tops and cap it at 8 points invested max.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. This is exactly how I proposed it would work.

Drachasor wrote:

Not that great a way to handle it as you have it now. Needs tweaking.

I'd say a +1 to all stats at 5, 10, 15, and 20.

+1 to two stats at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18.

You'd probably want to incorporate automatic AC increases as well. Such as a base AC of 10 + Level instead of just 10. Or lower that down a bit and just reduce some of the AC increasers. Might want to consider consolidating AC bonus types so you can't get a bunch of defunct bonuses from spells that items no longer allow. Fixing the AC silliness probably requires the most work, really, since AC doesn't scale but you need it to. Hence there are tons of ways to get AC.

And you'd want to have increasing saves to remove cloaks of resistance. +1 every 4 levels should work, or even +1 every 3.

Though I am interested in also eliminating the ring of protection/cloak of resistance the same way, I'd like to keep this thread restricted to ability scores.

Would you care to elaborate as to what needs tweaking and how your method addresses those issues? I don't see what the difference would be, overall. Your method makes it less gradual and less customizable. Also, I'm giving them 20 stat points, you're giving them 36, although still no more than 10 to a single stat.

Thanks for response.

Bear in mind when considering what they're giving up that other items that give ability score bonuses would also stack. I think I'd probably cap that at +4 for a total cap of +10 (from enhancement bonuses + level based). Ioun stones come to mind.

Proposed house rule: you get a stat increase each level. The stat increase belts and headbands are removed from the game. The WBL is reduced somewhat to compensate, and you cannot add more than 8 total points to the same stat. Cannot add to the same stat in back to back levels.

Intended effects - eliminate the homogeneity of everyone always working toward the next tier of stat boosting item. Make the stat boosting spells (Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, etc) actually useful spells to have. Also give more weight to the occasional other item that increase a stat. Lessen (somewhat) the need for ye olde Magic Shoppe (though I don't hate it as much as some).

Unintended effects - that's where you guys come in. Anything I'm not considering that I should tweak or reasons this isn't a good idea?

There are aasimar racial feats to get them. The way you describe it, that's exactly what you're looking for.

Yeah I seriously want to know the reasoning behind Bards not getting feats.

For #1, my group plays that you can't recover naturally without getting out of the cold, but magic heals you as per normal. In a world where the gods can basically effect any change on the natural world that you desire, seems a little crazy that they can't overcome some mild frostbite.

I can't imagine the Heal spell should read:

Heal wrote:
Heal enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, poisoned, sickened, and stunned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level. Except if you're cold.

So your point is a style is underpowered, everyone agrees with you and a few suggest workarounds, and you complain that no one's helping you?

Short of developers posting and changing the ability specifically for you, what exactly were you hoping for?

Zhayne wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yes, I believe Paizo designed humans to be an excellent choice in all circumstances. They may not the very best, but they're always a strong choice. And this was on purpose. Golarion is dominated by humans, and its supposed to be. The abilities of humans reflects their strength over other races.
Except Golarion is not Pathfinder, Pathfinder is not Golarion. Golarion is a setting that happens to use the Pathfinder rules.

Well, Pathfinder is not Golarion, but officially, Golarion is Pathfinder. You can adapt Golarion to other rule sets, but it's written for Pathfinder. And it doesn't "happen to" use the Pathfinder rules. It's written by the same company and in some cases the same people, or at least by people who operate under similar principles and ideas of design.

You make it sound like any similarity between the two is a coincidence.

Be a Beast Rider Cavalier and you can basically have the same flavor as (and similar crunch to) a paladin.

Ditto a animal domain cleric - but the crunch is even further off.

Your question about will the animal be survivable with 1 CL behind for the AC? Definitely. Also see how your DM rules on robes of Arcane Heritage - some feel they increase your level for eldritch heritage, some don't.

Personally I find that my DM's hardly ever target your mount unless you're not on them. YMMV, of course, but that's my experience. I have a 14th level mounted character (actually a nature oracle) and I can count the mounted combat ride checks I've had to roll to avoid attacks on both hands.

Alternately, take a look at the Half-Orc feat Beast Rider. Gives you some alternate choices and +2 effective druid levels for an AC. Needs character level 7, but I'd think you can convince your DM to use that feat (or use it as a baseline for a similar feat for other races) to apply to lion. Lions certainly aren't as powerful as some of those creatures allowed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corbin Dallas wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Not even remotely, I am giving a strictly RAW interpretation. Not in the FAQ, not in the feats, not in the fluff, nowhere in this situation do you find anything that says anything about growing new limbs, you won't find it because it isn't there. I know you think it is implied but implication does not equal RAW. I'm not asking for or arguing for any separation, because there is none needed, the feats and faq agree, you qualify to take the feat, but taking a feat that enhances a limb you do not have does nothing, case closed.

We can argue "RAW interpretations" till Armageddon. I have no interest in debating with you how RAW is applied. The community at large can't even agree on that topic. We apparently lack a common frame of reference to continue productive discussion.

I stand by my explanations.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

Case closed.

Don't be a jerk. It's obviously not "case closed" since there's heavy debate on it. Just make your point and move on.

Anyway, I do feel it can go either way. Obviously in normal circumstances half-orcs don't have a tail, but the argument would be that a half-orc with racial heritage (kobold) would have a tail because of his kobold heritage.

Personally I don't think racial heritage is normally meant to create such a drastic physical change, but I certainly don't think adding a 1d4 tail slap is going to be unbalancing.

No. Improved unarmed strike is a requirement to take the style feats. Take a level of martial artist monk if you want to take style feats.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
storyengine wrote:
I am speaking as a psychologist with 20 years of experience, somewhat over candidly because of the implied anonymity of this site.
Calling bull$%*t. Any decent psychologist wouldn't diagnose a person in a public area, considering things such as private messaging exist AS A FEATURE OF THIS FORUM!

Well he never said he was a decent psychologist.

1 to 50 of 516 << 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.