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

Nearyn's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 890 posts (893 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 890 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigP4nda wrote:
Not out of distrust or anything, but could you point me to the source? That way I have something official to back myself up with in case GMs are skeptical or unsure of the ruling.
Magic item creation wrote:

Adding New Abilities

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

-Nearyn

EDIT: soooooo Gauss, what possessed you to take levels in Ninja all of a sudden?


14 people marked this as a favorite.

27. Accept the challenge

-Nearyn


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

I haven't read most of the thread, but...

KenderKin wrote:

You do know that the paladin code prevents the triangle right?

"A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Associates is not a part of the paladin code. It has its own separate headline under class features, right after (but not part of) Code of Conduct.

An important, and often overlooked truth. I blame the SRD. Its setup confuses people who check the paladin page for information on their code of conduct. I actually wrote and asked them to fix it, a while ago, but I've yet to hear back from them :C

-Nearyn


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Most love equates to agreement in alignment

What the...

-Nearyn


Ashiel wrote:
Nearyn wrote:

Hey Ashiel, how did you price G.I.N.A and the other traps?

-Nearyn

It's been a while, but I'm 99.99% sure I used the standard rules for magical traps (see environment section of the PRD) and just made them intelligent magic items (basic sentience only adds +250 gp to the market price of an item, then you add some more for various features).

thx a bunch, I'll try to run the numbers :)

-Nearyn


Hey Ashiel, how did you price G.I.N.A and the other traps?

-Nearyn


So calculate based on bestiary reverse engineering or as a trap. Good enough for me. I was just in doubt as to whether there was a seperate system for the CR presented by hostile items :)

Thanks.

-Nearyn


Question in the title.

-Nearyn


gabriel garon wrote:
Is it actually possible to call it with planar binding without using a magic circle, in which case i would only have one chance to try the check? And if he doesnt agree does he have a way of going back? Well... A movanic has planeshift. But still. Thanks for the opinions also. :)

Going by the word of the spell, no, it is unfortunately not possible to call the creature without trying to force it into the trap. Once again I'd advice asking your GM, she may allow it.

I know GMs who say that a called outsider can always return to their plane of origin, but by RAW, I believe the creature is only sent back to its plane upon completion of the service. If it escapes the trap or you release it from the trap, I guess it could then begin looking for a way to return on its own.

-Nearyn


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@OP: It depends on how your GM runs. With that said, my opinion is that yes, under normal circumstances, you can take 10 while climbing, gravity not counting as immediate danger. There's a reason for that.

Imagine, if you will, a circus tightrope-walker. What level is a typical circus tightrope-walker in your campaign? In my campaigns, I'd say a low-level NPC. Walking a tightrope would be around DC 20, so let us just say 20.

Let us say our Tighrope-walker is a level 2 Expert with a standard NPC ability-array. He will have 14 DEX (12base+2human), will have picked acrobatics for a class-skill, and will have feats centered on its use.

For feats we chose Skill Focus(Acrobatics) for his level 1 feat and Acrobatic for his bonus feat. We could argue he'd have the acrobat trait, but let's assume NPCs don't have traits in this example.

So we have a guy with an Acrobatics score that looks like this. 2(skill ranks)+2(ability modifier)+3(class skill)+2(acrobatic)+3(skill focus), coming to a total of +12.

If gravity presents an immediate danger, this guy, hyper-specialized as he is, will fail to walk a tightrope in quiet practice, 4 out 10 times.

If it does not, and he is allowed to take 10, he will never fail, except if something goes wrong. Like a particularly hostile crowd distracting him, the rope not being properly secured, the NPC being sick yet still doing his act, and so on. He might even be able to walk a slackline, although he may wanna have a balance-pole for that.

This, to me, simulates actual circus-artists fairly well, and does not require them to be weirdly high level, in order to avoid falling often enough to be unfit for an act.

-Nearyn


Wraithstrike speaks the truth. Going by core rules casting an [evil] spell is not an evil act, meaning you are in the clear.

Some Devs have stated that it should be, and the optional supplement Champions of Purity states that even the minutest of [evil] spells counts as an evil action.

Wraithstrike is right, you should ask you GM if he's running only by the word of Core, or not.

-Nearyn


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@gabriel garon: don't worry mate, you are completely in the clear. Casting a spell with the alignment descriptor, that is [good] [evil] [lawful] [chaotic] is not an aligned action.

Meaning it is NOT evil to cast an [Evil] spell. The only thing that matters in regards to your alignment is what you do with said spell.

The alignment descriptors indicate how the spells interact with other spells, such as dispel evil, or whether or not a cleric can prepare a certain spell.

Have fun :)

-Nearyn


It's a fun idea. Our GM took a different approach.

As per usual we made characters, personality summaries and backgrounds, all including what would eventually land us in Branderscar. The GM then proceeded to make a "prologue-session", where each of our characters were presented doing what they do best, and then we roleplayed their capture by the long arm of Talirean law.

We got to see our Kitsune rogue swindle and cheat her way into government cash, only to get tracked down and put in irons.

We got to see our Oni-blooded Tiefling fighter beat a young noble half to death, in a drunken rage, and then get tossed in jail and stand trial with the young man's uncle preciding as judge.

We got to see our Rakshasa-blooded Tiefling sorceress trap a bunch of people in a temple and burn them all alive in there, before being doggy-piled by the local law-enforcement.

And I got to play my Human Asmodean Cleric, get tracked down and attacked by Sir Balin of Karfield and a wing of riders from the knights of the Alerion. He stood trial for high treason and blasphemy and was sent to Branderscar with the rest.

It was very satisfying, and painted a nice picture of each character before we actually met eachother in the cold confines of a Branderscar cell.

Hope it helps.

-Nearyn


My players would probably ask me why I disallowed non-core material, but I cannot see any of them refusing to play, or even considering refusing to play, just because I was going core only.

-Nearyn


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
No, it is not supported by RAW, and I find it dishonest to say otherwise. It says very explicitly they are guidelines, that ideally GMs would stat out towns as needed, that the 75% rule is a convenience and it is very much a stretch to suggest the 75% rule applies to caster level and to charges.
settlements wrote:


The best way to handle a settlement in your game, of course, is to plan it out, placing every shop and every home, naming every NPC, and mapping every building. Yet settlements are the most complicated locations you're likely to ever feature in your game, and the prospect of fully detailing one is daunting, especially if your PCs are likely to visit multiple settlements.

Presented below are basic rules for a more streamlined method of handling settlements in your game. Essentially, these rules treat settlements almost as characters of their own, complete with stat blocks. Using these rules, you can generate the vital data for a settlement quickly and efficiently, and with this data you can handle the majority of your players' interactions with the settlement.

Trimalchio wrote:
it is not supported by RAW, and I find it dishonest to say otherwise
Trimalchio wrote:
dishonest

... I would be offended that you had the stones, to try to maintain balance atop that very unstable and rickety high-horse, you've constructed for yourself, but I'm too busy laughing incredulously at the ridiculousness of your assertions.

-Nearyn


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
because the NPCs use their treasure! Ooooh, scary. :s

Oooooh shiiiiieet~~!!! Monsters who use items, rather than rupture into shinies upon defeat?! Forget about vital-striking Witchfires, no this -THIS- is the terror of the deep-darks of the world!! What possible chance could any adventurer have against monsters who are not comically swollen piñatas?!!?

Ashiel wrote:
I kind of want to run Wrath of the Righteous with some heavy editing by yours truly (basically killing the mythic taint with sacred fire).

Sounds cool. I -would- ask what your thought is on Mythic, having not really read through it myself, but I'm guessing "killing the mythic taint with sacred fire" is not code for "giving the mythic writers a backrub".

-Nearyn


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
That reminds me of when I was running Flight of the Red Raven for my brother and his friend and rolled a random encounter of 12 wolves. Humorously that fight actually did end pretty quickly because the psychic warrior had learned crystal swarm via a feat so my brother's PC drew their ire and she came up and sprayed the wolves. Didn't kill them but scared the crap out of them and made them run away.

Heh, animals :P

Would you recommend Flight of the Red Raven?

-Nearyn

in response to Ashiel's edit: Noooo, c'mon!! Don't pretend there's ham in your sandwich and then go 'lawl no' :'[

Swing for the cheap-seats! Go full-on Michael Bay meets OOTS!! :D


wraithstrike wrote:
Well "your combats" and "monsters directly from the book" may not be the same thing so that may have been miscommunication.

It could be, but I run monsters straight out of the bestiary most of the time.

-Nearyn


@wraithstrike and Anzyr: I don't really want to continue the discussion of encounter length in here, since it's not the topic of the thread.

Let's just say that after having read wraithstrike's combat summary, I think I've got an idea of why at least some of these short encounters are, well, short.

And while I'm not confident that I could turn every randomly rolled encounter into a 15-rounds battle, without being a spit contrived about it, I feel confident that 'most parties' could not 4-round (or even 6-round) most of my encounters. That includes parties who are so gobsmackingly combat-optimized as to be utterly useless in any other adventuring or challenge-solving capacity.

-Nearyn


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
With that aside if you use stock monsters they are getting destroyed in less than 4 rounds anyway against optimized groups not really working as a team, which is how most groups play.

I admit I dont know about 'most groups', but I don't believe you on the 4 round thing.

wraithstrike wrote:
My players will not move around just to get a +1 to attack unless they are struggling to hit the enemy. That is good combat RP, but it is more efficient to just use the full attack most of the time.

What are the enemies doing while the party is busy trying to full-attack them? My monsters (those who sport any INT, anyway) move so as to prevent themselves from being charged, and work to lower the chances of Stefan Von Strong, also known as The Lawnmower, getting off any full attacks.

wraithstrike wrote:
Earth Elementals have a low intelligence. IIRC it is about a 5, so I don't use too many tactics with them, but lets say they were to go after the sorcerer. If he had fly he would use. If not that he could have popped mirror image. I do know he had mirror image, but I don't remember if he had the fly spell or not. If they pop up beside him he would likely survive, and dropping another fireball on them. Of course the cleric may need to decide what he is going to do, and I don't remember his character well enough to recall his options.

Earth elementals have 6 INT, which is more than enough to fight properly, and make optimal use of their own abilities. And fighting together, tagging out, going for the weak ones, or avoiding the big ones, is something that is achievable with animal intellect. Ever seen a pride of lions hunt? Or a pack of wolves? I'm sure you're more qualified than I to talk about what the sorcerer would do, you having been there and all, but how good were his chances of hitting the earth elementals in melee? Cuz when one of them emerge from the ground and use a standard action to grapple the tiny fire-ball slinging mortal, he needs to make that AoO count, or he's gonna be contesting with that good ole' 35+spell-level concentration DC.

wraithstrike wrote:
I will admit the tactics make the fight more dangerous, but it I still don't see it going to 5 rounds.

Let's call it 'agree to disagree, then' :)

wraithstrike wrote:

PS: What is RotR? Is it Rise of the Runelords?

Yep.

-Nearyn


Interesting.

I'd say the person trying to turn the table over checks his carrying capacity. If he can lift 400lbs he can turn over the table as a full-action, counting as a trip-attack against the guy on the table, that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. I'd probably also give him a +2 bonus on the check, since he's basically taking away the ground the bow-toting dude is standing on.

If the bow-wielder gets tripped he falls prone in his square, where there is now floor, rather than table, and if the trip attempt fails, he manages to keep his balance and lands nimbly on the floor(possibly doing a cool backflip as the table goes flying, beneath him :] ).

-Nearyn


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
A combat summary

Thanks for the summary, it does help me to see the difference a bit.

See, what you describe is not the type of encounter I would make use of. I understand you may be cutting details for the sake of brevity, but I can only speculate, so I'll assume the encounter went as written.

To me, what you describe is a bad encounter. If I'm coming off as an elitist jerk, I'm sorry, but I promise I mean no offense. I don't think what you describe is a fun encounter, more to the point, I'd be bored of said encounter 2 seconds into it.

Were I to GM a session and someone handed me this encounter and said: "if your players enter the room marked A12, you should run this", then the first questions that would spring to mind would be:

What are the features of this room?

Are there any lightsources in this room, and if so, where?

There doesn't seem to be ANYTHING to the encounter you describe other than monsters popping into existence. No furniture in the room to provide basis for tactical movement, no statues lining the walls for enterprising PCs or NPCs to use for cover. No difficult terrain, no areas of less-than-normal-light. This seems like a really boring and trivial encounter, not because the party was optimized in a way that suits the system, or because the encounter was a certain CR, but simply because it seems it was designed to be nothing but team A and team B, appearing in charge-range and then proceeding to shave HP off eachother, until one side gives. Did this encounter feature a map?

Then there's the trap itself. I assume this was the standard Summon Monster Trap, that summons 1d3 large elementals with a summon monster VI? If so then the magical trap can summon the elementals out to a distance of 50ft from the centerpoint of the trap.

So the party springs the trap, because they are unaware of it, it then summons two elementals who by standard summoning rules should get to act right then and there, or at the very least get a surprise round before being shuffled into the buttom of the initiative-deck.

They then proceeded to just stand there and get wailed on, instead of using their earth-glide ability, bull-rush the big human with the sword out of the way, attempt any form of combat maneuver, or really anything else but "PUNCH THE ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE HUMAN! THE ONE WHO DID PITIFUL DAMAGE!" I mean... there's INT 6 and then there's dumber than a house-cat.

Simply put, if this is the encounters GMs run (I apologize for the broadstrokes generalization), then I'm not surprised whatsoever that encounters are over in 2 rounds.

I considered writing a substitute encounter, with details for the room, furnishings, terrain, lighting and whatnot, but dinner is not gonna make itself. Instead I'll just say what I would have done differently leading up to, and in just the first round of the encounter.

Two Earth Elementals Appear! as run by Nearyn with no prep-time
I'm gonna assume the encounter used a standard summon-monster trap, activated by proximity through an alarm spell, and using a summon monster VI to conjure 1d3(in this case 2) large earth elementals.

[out of combat]
The trap summons the elementals as close to our heroes as possible, possibly in melee with whoever triggered the trap by coming too close. Let us assume that in this case, they cannot be summoned in melee, because the barbarian in your example charged, implying they for some reason were at a distance.

[surprise round]
If the party is within 20 ft. the earth elementals charge and attack their foes. If not, they move closer to their foes, intent on killing them for their intrusion. We assume they cannot reach the party and instead move closer.

[1st round]

wraithstrike wrote:


-The archer goes first and takes about 1/4 of the elementals hit points.
-The cleric has blessing of ferver and the sorcerer has haste, but the -cleric won initiative, and drops blessing of ferver.
-The barbarian is next up, but he holds his action hoping for another buff.
-The sorcerer decides to drop a fireball instead. The elemental both fail their saves taking about 30 points of damage and another has already lost 15 to 20 before that so one is at just above half, and the other is about to call it in.
-Barbarian charges in and...

...and recieves 1, if not 2 attacks of opportunity from his enemies, depending on what course he must take in order to charge his designated foe. We continue...*ahem* barbarian charges in and...

wraithstrike wrote:
...hits, but does not do great damage, so the one that is almost dead is a little closer to being dead.

Now it is the elementals' turn. Depending on the situation they will do one of two things. If the Barbarian looks like he's about to drop, the first will attempt to kill him. If he does not, both earth elementals withdraw, using earth-glide to burrow into the floor, and proceed to approach the archer and the sorcerer, who were the ones almost killing them last round. They maintain awareness of their positioning via tremorsense.

[2nd round onward]
From here on in the encounter depends on how the players react. Earth-elementals(if used as presented) are masters of bull-rushing, and work really well tandem against foes with less reach than them.

Let's say the barbarian found his way into melee again and was the primary target. He'd take an AoO moving in, then when the elementals get their turn they 5 ft. step back, keeping him in reach. One full-attacks him, the other bull-rushes him with a CMB of +20 (improved bull-rush -> greater bull-rush), pushing him back so he cannot make full-attacks, but must instead charge back in, again taking AoOs.

Now there can be any number of circumstances that would dictate how things would and would not pan out, and I cannot account for them here. But I would -not- have run the encounter as you described wraithstrike, though I appreciate you taking the time to write it, in response to my curiosity.

At my table, encounters typically takes between 5-8 rounds, if the party is moving in closed quarters, such as in a dungeon. It tends to take longer if in the open, with people moving into cover, finding advantageous positions, trying to get into(or onto) a place where they can get that sweet +1 bonus from height advantage, etc. My RotR players are near the end-game and I'm not seeing any rocket-tag going on, the last fight lasting about 14 rounds before the players retreated with 1 PC casualty, 1 dead familiar and 1 dead cohort. Typically they don't have casualties, but they typically fight somewhere between 8 and 18 rounds against most encounters, as of book 5 and onward.

Not saying I'm doing it right and everyone else isn't, just that I would find myself a bit bored in the encounter you described(and others like it).

Thank you for the opportunity to compare.

-Nearyn


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've said so before and I'll continue to say so, - I really want to sit in on one of these games where encounters are described as "rocket tag" or where people agree that the norm for encounters are 2-5 rounds. It's not that I don't believe them, I just wanna see what their GM/players are doing differently from me/my players.

-Nearyn


@Bandw2: If you want to tell your stories that way, you are free to do so. That does not make your statement correct however. In pathfinder good and evil have more extensive descriptions than what you say they do, as you'll find, if you were to read the chapter on alignment in the CRB p.166-168.

In there you'll find that there is a description of alignment and their implication(good characters go moo, evil characters go oink etc), and there you'll find that good implies, among others, respecting life, and evil implies its own things, none of which however, is 'disrespecting life'.

Also - I'm not sure you'll have much luck convincing people who run their games by core, that undeads are part of any 'disrespecting life'-thing.

So, to reiterate, you are perfectly welcome to run your own games this way, but I think (perhaps incorrectly so) that despite this not being the rules board, and therefore not necessarily being a place for the textbook-word -approach, you should ensure that there is clarity between your opinion and the game-system as represented.

If you open your core rulebook to p. 440 you'll find the energy planes described. It goes like this:

CRB p.440 wrote:
Energy Planes: Two energy planes exist—the Positive Energy Plane (from which the animating spark of life hails) and the Negative Energy Plane (from which the sinister taint of undeath hails). Energy from both planes infuses reality, the ebb and flow of this energy running through all creatures to bear them along the journey from birth to death. Clerics utilize power from these planes when they channel energy.

As you can see from the text, the negative energy plane is described with the words "the sinister taint of undeath" - that being a thing that hail from the negative energy plane. You'll also notice that energy from both planes bear a creature from birth to death. What you'll not find is any references to it being evil, or opposed to goodness, morality or the will of good-aligned gods.

Incidentally, I'd still like to know what the OP is afraid is gonna happen if he introduces his planned character.

-Nearyn


@OP: Contrary to what what impressions you may get from this thread, negative energy is not evil, and channelling negative energy is not evil either.

I don't see why this character would be a problem in your party. What is it you are afraid will happen?

-Nearyn


Spoiler:
In book 6 of Rise of the Runelords, the players may encounter the so-called Hidden Beast, a Vampiric Decapus sorcerer.

Its statblock states it may attack you with a bite attack, a tentacle attack, and a slam attack. Of these, only the slam applies the energy draining vampiric ability.

vampire wrote:
Energy Drain (Su): A creature hit by a vampire's slam (or other natural weapon) gains two negative levels. This ability only triggers once per round, regardless of the number of attacks a vampire makes.

Is the Hidden Beast supposed to drain energy with all its attacks, or only the slam attack?

-Nearyn


By RAW, the only thing I can think of would be to soul-bind said ghost in a gemstone.

But you could create a custom spell, or custom magic item that allowed you to do so. So present your concept to your GM, if he greenlights the concept, work out the details and then present your work for final confirmation. Then all there'd be left to do was actually research the spell, or craft the item, in-world.

Hope it helps.

-Nearyn


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have, in the past, played under a GM who fudges rolls.
I am, presently, playing under a GM who does not.

The essence of who these two people are, how they GM, and how they behave, cannot be summarized by whether or not they fudge their rolls. They both have their own styles, they both put in different amounts of effort, and they both run their own games.

And when all that is said and done, I have complete and utter trust in the GM I am presently playing under.

I do not trust the GM that I used to play under, whom I know fudges his rolls. And I have no reason to ever think he has done anything but fudge rolls to the benefit of his players and the campaign. Yet, I do not trust him anywhere near as much as I trust my present GM.

Is the fudging, or lack thereof, the sole reason I trust one GM and not the other? Probably not. But it DOES affect it, and it affects it significantly.

-Nearyn


How does it work? Last session a party member wanted to hand a scroll to another party-member during combat.

Are there rules for how this is done? If not, what are your takes on it? What actions are used, or not used, in handing an item from person to person?

-Nearyn


Quite right Kestral. The Son is CR 10, whereas I've been leaving him marked as CR 11. Thanks.

-Nearyn


huh, thanks alot. The encounter is not strong enough. The Lamia, as far as I've been able to tell, would be CR 13.

I must've gone crosseyed while looking at the table, cuz i've got CR 13 marked as 38.400 EXP, rather than 25.600.

That leaves me 25.600 EXP of wiggle-room.

Unless ofc someone points something out to change that.

Again, thanks :)

-Nearyn


Okay, first off: My players, out. You know who you are.

Aaaanyhew.

I'm putting together an encounter for Rise of the Runelords. My players are exploring Xin Shalast and if they look the right place, they may come across a few NPCs from their past.

The encounter features Xanesha, who escaped back in book 2, an evil orcish witch(the mother of a former party member), the oldest son of said witch, and 2 orcish elites.

The group is APL 16 and I'm designing the encounter to be CR 17.

1 Orc scarred witch-doctor 14
1 Lamia Matriarch rogue 1/warrior 8
1 Orc invulnerable rager 11
2 Orc warrior 11

I just want to make sure that this is keeping with CR 17, and that there is not something I'm missing that throws the encounter out of balance?

-Nearyn

EDIT: treasure is standard, and all the Orcs are generated with PB 15.


Step 1: Play a Bard
Step 2: Acquire groupies
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit

-Nearyn


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A monster that would not be fun... hummmmm... A Shining Child who'd taken the vital-strike feat chain?

-Nearyn

EDIT: I always argue that the line between "maintaining a pretty good tempo" and "subjecting your players to a constant case of 'fashionably late'-syndrome" is hair-fine. :P


Ian Bell wrote:

Also, as groups hit the high end levels, they're also usually hitting the 'end' of the campaign and are feeling some time pressure due to story issues. This means that they tend to run out of time to spend on customized crafting, etc. Most of the time the last big downtime break people get when you're running an AP, for example, is before the last volume (if then), not during, and homebrew storylines usually accelerate to the end as well IME.

Combine these two things and I think the idea that people will be able to fully customize their gear to mostly be a myth, at least at my table and the tables I play at, outside of the occasional episodic rather than epic storyline.

I'm sorry, but this I do not understand. Of course, we all know that you having less time at the end depends on the campaign, I don't think you'd dispute that... but even so... how are you having LESS time in the end-game? Demiplanes man! DEMIPLANES!

Unless the entire 3rd act of the campaign is spent as a perpetual encounter, while running against a doomsday-clock, why not toss 2 greater demiplane spells down and make sure your stuff is in order? Aren't you about to save the world? Why go off half-cocked?

-Nearyn


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure you direct it :) It's far too intelligent to not let itself be directed.

Imperius the Solar: "Whew, oh-kay that was a long fight yesterday. Not easy being the ultimate weapon of justice, but someone needs to do it and I'm happy for the.... wait... what's that? Sounds like someone is calling across the planes. I guess I should, WHOAH!! What the heck is... is... is that a gate?! Wow, it is. And it's leading to the material plane. Been awhile since I saw one of those, and now the call is so much clearer. Okay, well it looks like I'm checking this out."

*willingly steps through the gate*

ItS: Oh me oh my. This place certainly looks violent. Okay Imperius, get your game-face on, you're in the pressence of mortals

"IMPERIUS OF THE RADIANT HALLS ANSWERS YOUR CALL, MORTALS. WHY DO YOU BESEECH THE HIGHER PLANES FOR AID?"

Caster: "We need healing, fast! Then help us defeat this thing!"

ItS: Such urgency, I wonder what's wrong that heOHWHOAWAITJUSTASECOND! is that... is that what I think it is? Sweet Arqueros on a stick, what in the name of the divines is a host of daemons this powerful doing on the prime material?! That's an Olethrodaemon right there, how in the name of the Inheritor were we not informed that one had crossed over?! Well, the mortals have obviously been engaged here longer than I so...

"THE LIGHT OF THE HEAVENS INVIGORATE YOU..." *casts mass heal on the party*

"AND YOU! XERXACHTOASYPHOS ALSO CALLED THE CLOUDCALLER OF OBLIVION! SCOURGE OF LIFE! I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FOUND YOURSELF HERE, BUT YOU SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO STAY A MOMENT LONGER! LEAVE! PLUMMET BACK INTO THE BLACK VORTEX THAT SPAWNED YOU, VILE CREATURE, OR BE BURNED BY THE FIRES OF JUSTICE!" *Joins the battle on the party's side*

-Nearyn

EDIT:

As opposed to

Caster: "We need healing, fast! Then help us defeat this thing!"

ItS: "YOU DON'T COMMAND ME!" *crosses arms indignantly*
"NOW YOU AND I ARE GONNA STAND HERE AND TALK UNTIL YOU'VE EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO ME! THEN I'LL DECIDE IFAAAARGHBLAWRRGHLRRRYWAL!! HEY! THAT HURT! WHO DID THAWHAAAAAAAATTHEHECK IS SUCH A HIGH-RANKING DAEMON DOING HERE?! OKAY, MORTAL HERE'S YOUR ... OH.... Ooooooh I'm sorry little guy... that blast killed you, didn't it?!... sssssssssshugar, that's bad. ummm... *ahem* UM! OKAY! WHO'S ALIVE?!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once had the great pleasure of fighting a hasted Wight with monk levels. If you thought energy draining creatures were annoying before.... hehe... nooooo~ you poor innocent fools.

-Nearyn


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
pennywit wrote:
I always thought it would be funny to turn loose a vampire goat.

You should try a vampire cow. The only way to defeat it would be to steak it.

*slowclap, progressively escalating to wild applause*


Runelords anniversary edition. Polished, packed and ready to run as soon as you open the book. Lots of different themes, lots of fun adventure, a well-written plot with lots of high-flying high-fantasy :)

Warm recommendations.

-Nearyn


Ashiel wrote:
Will do, but lately I've been finding so little time to game that I can scarcely keep up what I've already got going. Hopefully my schedule will get less nutty in the near future.

I can both relate and empathise. They either need to put more hours in a day, or invent the cure for sleep. And honestly, we've been hampered by that condition for millenia now, one would think they'd get to work, dealing with it :P

-Nearyn


Indeed. There is this impression I get, every now and again, that some people either don't understand, or they underestimate, what adventurers can employ in terms of ressources. Class-based or otherwise. I mean, I cannot remember the last character I had, past level 13, who didn't make a point of carrying scrolls of time-stop. Yet I constantly see comments like "this seems like Schroedinger's <X>", when in fact it is merely a character equipped as you would expect, from a person who has litterally fought creatures from other planes of existence, mighty monster warlords from the deep mountains, and many other things both vile and villainous.

-Nearyn


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Very good stuff

My like for this character is officially confirmed. I like the spin on Ustalav and how its transformation has touched her as a person, making her hold onto what she has, while still having to adjust for the times that have passed. It's a great spin, and suits an eternal character really well.

Do remind me to prod you for an invite to one of your campaigns, one day. Concepts such as this, is something I wish to experience firsthand.

-Nearyn


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Aeric Blackberry: Naw man, a wizard. It says so, right in the text you're quoting.

-Nearyn


@Cuttler: I respect the whole "I fear what my master would do to me, more than I fear you". It's a classic, and it can be used to really drive home a point about the potential nastiness of an important character.

With that said, I cringe most times I see it xD. I've been overexposed to that line, because I've had a GM who did not like to roleplay NPCs that weren't in control.

If a character is truly so jaw-droppingly scary, that his henchmen would rather risk torture and execution (don't know what kinda party you're running, but hey, not judging), than he'd risk his masters ire, then yeah, I'd say you're justified in increasing the DC of the intimidate check. Naturally, characters who do not fear dying should be few and far between, or the tone and importance of such conviction becomes utterly pointless.

I'll go so far as to say that it SHOULD be possible to scare a minion into fearing you more than he fears his master, even if his master is a horrible monsters who fights with 2 +5 cheesegraters. In nearly all cases should you be able to scare an NPC, provided you roll high enough. Now I know someone is thinking he's about to correct me and say that if you don't completely disallow certain NPCs being intimidated, then this or that plot cannot function, because the identity of A or B must remain secret, and the NPC in question, knows said identity. Thing is, if the entire structure of your campaign hinges on the players not learning that one piece of information, maybe you should review the structure of your campaign.

Sorry, that turned into ranting by the end. I do hope some of the above is helpful to you xD

-Nearyn


Ashiel wrote:
I have a vampire PC (using an extremely toned down version of the vampire template, 'cause I think the vampire template is a bit bonkers :P) that worships Urgathoa. She's actually the sort of person you'd probably love to be best friends with.

Given my well-documented weakness for unnaturally alluring predators (casts glance at GF), as well as the affably evil trope, I'm gonna guess you're prolly right.

Just realized my mind defaulted to the assumption that your Urgathoa-worshipping vampire-character was evil. Interesting.

Also "bonkers" is a strange way to spell "delicious" :P

-Nearyn


The Golarion-writers, I believe, have not yet divulged info on the origins of vampirism. So as far as I know, it could be anything and having manifested anywhere. There does not necessarily have to have been ONE first vampire for each species, it could just as well have been Urgathoa opening a sort of Pandora's box, if you catch my meaning. Maybe one day there were just x-hundred vampires in the world, and nobody had a clue as to why, or what they were. The possibilities are endless, as long as the devs remain silent. And if I'm wrong, and the origins of vampirism have been clarified by the devs, please give me a link, because I genuine want to know xD

-Nearyn


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"You speak Taldane? That is good, now listen up scale-face: I wanna know where your master is, and I want you to tell me -now-"

"PAH! The ssimple, pink man-thing wantss uss to betray the masster. Never! Riizgrin iss a mighty coussin of dragonss! The ugly man-thing only won because itss hairy, ugliness stung Riizgrin'ss eyess and made hiss warriorss fight blind! Not talking, man-thing!"

"I'm gonna go ahead and insist that you talk, you little s+@+. You see, if you don't tell me what I want to know, I'm gonna bend and stretch stuff on you in ways you'd rather I didn't"

"HAHAHA!! YIP-YIP! You boasst man-thing, but Riizgrin knowss your sshiny, metally kind. With your moralss and your sschivalry! You will not bend anything on Riizgrin while Riizgrin iss prissoner! Sstop lying and go away, wait... why iss it cutting Riizgrin'ss bondss?"

"Here you go you little turd, there's a large stick on the ground over there, you'd better see if you can get it before I beat you back into unconciousness"

"AEYY! NO FAIR! Man-thing musst untie Riizgrin'ss legss as well!! Sstop! Not ready!"

"Too late you little, green mongrel. Start hopping. Pray to your dragon goddess you get the stick before I'm finished stretching, or they'll be calling you gumgrin. OH NO EVERYONE! THE KOBOLD IS ESCAPING! REALLY, REALLY SLOWLY! HE'S GOING FOR A WEAPON, EVEN MORE SLOWLY! I'LL GET HIM!! Now come here, it's playtime!"

"NO! NO! AEYYY! WAIT! LET RIIZGRIN GO! LET GO OF TAIL! Wait! WAAIT! Riizgrin tellss! RIIZGRIN TELLSS!!"

"Damn right you're telling, you little cur! Now out with it! Where's your master!!?"

-Nearyn


Barathos wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
It is abit weird having vampire elementals and vampire trees though.
How would a vampire tree work? Aren't creatures of the plant type immune to disease?
I dont see anything listing it as a disease.

I'll be damned, you seem to be right.

How do vampires make other vampires then (with the exception of sexual reproduction)?

Vampires create new vampires by killing a creature of the same creature type as the vampire, with their blood drain or energy drain attacks. If slain in one of these two ways, and the vampire shares the dead creature's creature-type the unfortunate fellow rises in 1d4 days as a new vampire. The vampire who murdered the creature can opt to create a vampire-spawn instead of a full-fledged vampire. However vampire-spawn must be humanoid.

-Nearyn


@OP: The Vampire template does not have to be applied to humanoids. There is a

Rise of the Runelords:
...vampiric decapus sorcerer in Xin-Shalast, referred to by the locals as 'The Hidden Beast'

So Vampires can come in many shapes and sizes :)

-Nearyn


Trimalchio wrote:

Sorry if I upset you Nearyn, taking 20d10 energy damage to the face isn't fun for anyone I guess. Don't understand how you brush that aside as nothing to break a sweat about, especially if anyone dropped is going to have to make a fort save or be consumed as per destruction, true resurrection isn't free in most high levels games I've seen.

Probably not as tough as pit fiends but they are in the same ball park and actually have better synergy with their CR 19 summon then pit fiends. I think most DMs could make an Olethrodaemon a challenging encounter without too much effort.

That's very nice of you, but there is really no need to apologize :) First of all we're just playing ball, and secondly I'm not upset - this is me engaged in debate :) Now it is my turn to be sorry, if I somehow gave off an offensive tone :C

I do not object to the idea that you can make a challenge of this critter, nor do I think that everyone is obligated to share my opinion that the thing is weak compared to Big-Daddy Devil, and not worthy of its CR. There is also no denying that the thing is destructive, and while I agree that you can use this monster in a meaningful way in a campaign, you don't measure CR by whether or not the party's mounts are gonna go belly up during the encounter. At least I assume you don't O.o....

I'm not denying potential synergy with the summons either, just that I don't see it elevating the creature to CR 20 on its merry lonesome. Pit fiends stand on their own as an epic challenge to most APL 17 parties. And few things are as devastating as having a Cornugons with class-levels dancing around in your backline, stunning party-members left right and center, while you still have a pit fiend to contend with.

Anyway, enough of me drooling over Pit Fiends, they're awesome and I feel they deserve their CR, I don't think anyone doubts that I hold that position any more.

And you don't have to agree with me, as long as we can stay civil and reasoned, I'm enjoying myself :)

-Nearyn

1 to 50 of 890 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.