Thassilonian Ambassador

Nezzeraj's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 14 posts (16 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

Scarab Sages

Name:Name: 1d6 ⇒ 11d20 ⇒ 20
Gender: Male
Missions Completed: 0
Age: Age: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 6) = 13
Looks: Looks: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 6) = 15
Height: Height: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 2) = 9
Weight: Weight: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 5) = 11
Distinguishing Feature: Distinguishing Feature: 1d20 ⇒ 20
Social Interaction:Social Interaction: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 6) = 11
Connections:Connections: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 5) = 13
Sanity:Sanity: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 3) = 8
Goal:Goal: 1d20 ⇒ 14
Motivation:Motivation: 1d20 ⇒ 20
Obligation:Obligation: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 5) = 13
Morality:Morality: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 2) = 6

Muscle: 10
Meat: 9
Hands: 10
Feet: 10
Brains: 14
Eyes: 12
Mouth: 12
Guts: 11

Defense: 11
Health: 9
Grit: 4
Speed: 5
Size and Reach: 1

Mutagens: Mutagen: 1d6 ⇒ 2

Education: Read English and Greek, special knowledge about medicine and science

Background Traits and Abilities:

Background: Genius Background: 1d6 ⇒ 1
Language English, Greek, Korean
Well, Actually When helping another creature, increase asset by 1

Paths and Path Abilities:

(Write here your Paths and talents when you gain them).

Novice Path:

Expert Path:

Master Path:

(Does this game even use this format?!?)


Equipment:

nice set of clothes, a duffel bag, 1 food, 1 water, a slingshot with 10 stones, junk: 1d6 ⇒ 51d20 ⇒ 20

Questionnaire:

(Copy and paste the questions and answers from character generation here.)

My Story:

(How do all the random rolls fit together?)

Scarab Sages

breithauptclan wrote:

I don't think that the mechanic needs to be changed. But I do see the point about the name.

Concealed 1,2,3 would probably work. Just keep the same mechanics. The current mechanics are actually pretty good.

I agree. I don't have a problem with the mechanics, just the terminology is pretty bad.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think these two terms are a good example of how some of the gaming terms have gone overboard and go against common sense and the general usage of a language. Here are some examples. From Unseen: "If a creature is unseen, you have no idea where it is." Ok, but that's not what unseen means. Unseen in common usage just means "not visible." If a creature is standing in a puddle or leaves some visible trace than it could still be not visible yet I would know where it is. Unseen and unaware something is there are not linked in any logical way. This might be a quibble, so here is a stronger example. From Invisible: "If the creature becomes invisible while seen by you, it starts out sensed, since you know where it was when it became invisible, though it can
proceed to Sneak after becoming invisible to become unseen." Here we have two problems: logically, invisible and unseen are the same thing in everyday usage, and to say something invisible can be "un-unseen" and then use Sneak to become "re-unseen" is ridiculous; second, it's creating a tier where unseen is a higher boon than sensed, where they are not mutually exclusive. If seeing is your only method of detection, then a creature can be sensed (through smell, hearing, or some other giveaway of its location) while still being unseen (in common usage). And if you have other senses, being unseen isn't even that big of a deterrent. Many animals have senses much more accurate than sight, a fact which is even called out in the "detecting with other senses" sidebar. Instead of hanging a lamppost on how bad this terminology is, I think these terms should be changed to be more accurate and better conform to everyday language. I think "detected" and "undetected" would be much better than "seen" and "unseen," for example.

Scarab Sages

CorvusMask wrote:
Wow, this seems to be first class were majority are reacting to changes in positive manner rather than "meh" or "Aww I lost my favorite feature" ._.

I guess I'm in the minority because this (and ranger) are the two class previews I've liked the least. Changing bloodline powers from mutations that are permanent to limited duration spells (complete with a whole new unnecessary Spell Point system) is a change I am most unhappy about. Not to mention the bloodlines they mentioned are really bland. Imperial? No thanks. Where is elemental? Where is undead? Not to mention being able to cast divine spells really overshadows oracle's niche. Sorcerer is now all "here are ALL the spells, and you can't do anything outside of spells." Meh.

Scarab Sages

Hey all, I run a remote game with my gaming group back home. We're looking to start the new Pathfinder module "Dragon's Demand" in March. My group is currently 3 players so I'm looking for 1-2 more. We're all guys in out mid-20s. Game time is Thursday 6pm-10pm Central Time. We use d20pro for our VTT. Send me a message if you're interested. Thanks.

Scarab Sages

I vote Osirion/Katapesh regions as well. I agree after all the cold-themed material, exploring somewhere warmer would be nice, and the area hasn't really been explored since the Legacy of Fire AP so it would be fun to revisit Katapesh. And Osirion is just awesome.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree you're on the right track. I would just suggest more diversity in terrain types. I'd love to see a tundra or grasslands type of flip-mats. I think the flip-mats should focus on being more "general" terrain types with few specific features so they're reusable, while the map packs should be more modular and focus more on buildings and objects. So if I buy a grasslands flip-mat, I could buy a kobold camp map pack to lay over it that would contain huts, campfires, sentry posts, etc. I would never buy any of the dungeon flip-mats because they are one time use, at least unless you get a new group to game with, but I love the forest, swamp, and desert flip-mats because I can always reuse them.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:

Thanks, everyone!

Well, there's been word around the forums that sub-domains should only be available to Clerics, not Inquisitors or Druids. And I actually agree with that. Clerics need a little something for themself, too. So, no Growth-Domain for me. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. :)

The best domains are Travel and Healing imo. Healing is best if you don't have a primary healer or are playing a PFS character with a random group every game. Travel is the best hands down: 10 extra feet of movement, the ability to ignore difficult terrain a few times per day, and the ability to teleport 10 ft/lvl. Nothing says Inquisitor like some good mobility to hunt down monsters!

Scarab Sages

Davor wrote:
Magical Knack increases your effective caster level for the chosen class by 2, not your effective class level. As such, you would still be stuck with an Animal companion at level-2 (not that that is complaint worthy).

Yeah, that's what I figured, just wanted to make sure. I ranger with a full Druid companion progression would be so awesome. Still much better than the useless wild empathy.

Scarab Sages

Need some clarification regarding the Enhanced Companion Ranger Class Feature and the Magical Knack Trait from the Character Trait supplement. Enhanced Companion states that regarding the ranger's animal companion, the effective druid level is the ranger's level -2. The Magical Knack trait states that you can choose a caster class and gain a +2 trait bonus in that class. If I choose Druid class to add the +2, will that negate the -2 penalty for my animal companion, or will the -2 always be permanent because it is based off the ranger's level and not the druid level? Thanks for any help.

Scarab Sages

Abraham spalding wrote:

Incorrect:

Primary Attack types as per the Bestiary:
Claws, Gore, Bite, Talons, Slam, and sting.

Secondary Attack types as per the Bestiary:
Hoof, Tentacle, Wings, Pincers, Tail slap, other.

With the notes I posted from above.

Pincers are a secondary attack if you have more than one attack type. IF the only attack type you have is Pincers then they are treated as if they are a primary attack type.

I would suggest the "Universal Monster Rules" for further reading on the topic since they spell it out completely there:

Rules found here about half way down.

Awesome, thanks for the clarification, it helped a lot!

Scarab Sages

Raestlin wrote:
Drysk wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

The following is in the Bestiary:

" If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on attack rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

So if all you have is the pincers then they would be treated as primary. if you only have one attack then it works as if it is primary too.

How specific is a type of attack? Is it slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, or it it more specific. For example, would claws and pincers be different types of attacks even though they both deal slashing damage?

Natural attacks are usually Slam, Claws, or Bite. Thats what I believe it means by type. Not slashing piercing or bludgeoning.

So then it sounds like pincers are still treated as claws. So if I have two pairs of arms, one with claws and one with pincers, I'd still get my full base attack because it's the same attack type.

Scarab Sages

Abraham spalding wrote:

The following is in the Bestiary:

" If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on attack rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

So if all you have is the pincers then they would be treated as primary. if you only have one attack then it works as if it is primary too.

How specific is a type of attack? Is it slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, or it it more specific. For example, would claws and pincers be different types of attacks even though they both deal slashing damage?

Scarab Sages

Ceefood wrote:
They would become secondary attacks

I don't agree. After describing pincers, it goes on to say: "Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws from its base form with pincers (this still costs 1 evolution point)." I read this as saying you can add pincers, or "alternatively" you can modify your base claws into pincers. And the fact that you're modifying a primary attack, and still have to pay 1 evolution point, leads me to believe if you evolve your base claws they stay primary attacks. No one is going to spend 1 point to reduce their attacks from primary to secondary.

I do have a question however. With the pincers, are you still able to hold items/weapons, open doors, manipulate items, etc.?