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

Paladin of Baha-who?'s page

RPG Superstar 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,210 posts (7,697 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,210 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I concur, the statement in the rules could be written as:

Swarms are immune to mind affecting effects that target a single or a specific number of creatures unless they have a hive mind.

They are not immune to mind affecting effects that do not target a single or specifc number of creatures, which color spray is, unless of course it's a vermin or undead swarm.

Just goes to show you even very experienced players/GMs (which Nefreet certainly is) can read a rule incorrectly.


Actually, there's a way to get Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at first level:

Adoptive Parentage: Humans are sometimes orphaned and adopted by other races. Choose one humanoid race without the human subtype. You start play with that race's languages and gain that race's weapon familiarity racial trait (if any). If the race does not have weapon familiarity, you gain either Skill Focus or Weapon Focus as a bonus feat that is appropriate for that race instead. This racial trait replaces the bonus feat trait.

As the GM, you'd have to agree on this usage, of course, but this would allow it. Plus the only race I can think of that would be associated with the whip would be Hobgoblins, or (kind of a stretch) Nagaji.


Oh right forgot about the +1 BAB requirement. Would he mind dipping fighter for the first level? There's a lot of synergy there.


Go for it. If he takes weapon finesse, dex mod applies to trip, disarm, and other maneuvers made by the whip. So does the whip enhancement bonus, the bard's performance or luck bonus (Archeologist would be an excellent archetype), weapon focus if he has it. He could do pretty well starting at level 3 with a human, taking weapon focus and weapon finesse at level 1 and then either Slashing Grace (to get Dex-to-damage) or Whip Mastery (to avoid AoOs and be able to deal lethal damage).


The character whom the familiar is a familiar of, of course. If you don't like the word master, use something else, but it's not unclear what we mean.


They would be the same as a regular cat, except it would get more ranks when the familiar's intelligence gets high enough, and would use its master's ranks if higher.

Specifically, the standard bestiary cat has a single rank in perception. At GM discretion, you might be able to change that.


True, but it's gay marriage that's brought this to a head. Abortion and contraception has had a slow but steady movement in favor of the right wingers. Gay marriage has had the opposite, especially in the last few years.


The only benefit of Piranha strike is that you get to dump your strength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Our founding fathers would be pleased indeed.

Well, I don't know about that. A lot of them probably would think we were b**#*#@ for allowing women and black people to vote, much less elect one president.


DM Barcas, I get what you're arguing -- that the actual legal effect of the law is determined by its language and that it is difficult to find where in the law it actually gives permission to discriminate.

On the other hand, I think it's become pretty clear from the way people have been championing these laws and laws like them that they are intended to appear as if they are protecting those who would like to discriminate against LGBT people. It may be that the lawmakers who are putting these laws to paper are writing laws that don't actually do that, but are giving their supporters the appearance of protection if they choose to discriminate.

After all, there's a reason why all these laws have been proposed in the last couple years. That reason is marriage equality and the success we've had in bringing it through legislation, judicial decisions, and via popular referenda. That isn't a coincidence. To propose that these laws have nothing to do with a reaction against the LGBT civil rights movement's success requires that one explain why all these laws are being pushed for now.

Those concerned about the laws in the legislatures that passed them tried to add amendments that would prevent the laws from overriding local anti-discrimination ordinances, add specific anti-discrimination wording to the laws, or define protecting children as a compelling government interest. These amendments were defeated. What would be the point in this, if the purpose of the law were not (or at least, was not meant to appear as) to override local anti-discrimination ordinances, to allow discrimination, to prevent protecting children when it would conflict with religious views, and so forth? (Citation)

When asked whether the law would make it legal for a business to refuse to serve gay customers, the governor who signed it refused to answer six times. If it wasn't intended to make this legal, why wouldn't he say so? (Citation)


DM Barcas wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
As I've noted before, the proponents of the law have explicitly claimed it will give them license to discriminate -- except of course they say it's not discrimination to refuse service to those filthy gays, it's just protecting their religious beliefs. So if the law doesn't actually do this, you certainly can't tell from what the people who've written it and champion it are trying to say.

[Citation needed]

As linked upthread.


As I've noted before, the proponents of the law have explicitly claimed it will give them license to discriminate -- except of course they say it's not discrimination to refuse service to those filthy gays, it's just protecting their religious beliefs. So if the law doesn't actually do this, you certainly can't tell from what the people who've written it and champion it are trying to say.


This is true of all full attacks, flurry of blows or not. You can choose to attack any valid target with any of the attacks. You could punch an adjacent character, fire a bow at a different character, then punch the adjacent character again (if you have three attacks).


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
This is what low voter turnout allows. The extremists vote.
So true, and makes you wonder why one side wants to make voting more inaccessible.

Well, if you're not paying attention, you wonder. Those who are paying attention don't have to, as the people in question are all but explicit about it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My stepdaughter always tries to convince me to let her use shocking grasp as a defibrilator, or to use it on water to shock everything touching the water.


Yes, but only those Rogue archetypes that swap out the abilities that the Ninja shares with the core rogue: uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and sneak attack.

The Scout archetype is a common one, as is the bandit. Not many others fail to replace either a rogue talent, trapfinding, trap sense, or evasion.


The 7th level ability is part of Armor Training 2.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

Religion is already protected. You can't be refused service on the basis of your religion. What these people are doing are claiming a religious justification for refusing service to someone else.

This was explicitly the purpose of the law. All the supporters were saying it was necessary specifically in order to allow, for example, a bakery to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple without falling afoul of the law. You're not fooling anyone by claiming that wasn't its purpose.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you treat the situation as a game, like mass iterative Prisoner's Dilemma, where there are two groups, systematic discrimination can be stable. If members of group A always defect against group B and usually cooperate with other As, and Bs always defect against group A and usually cooperate with Bs, anyone who tries to change things will do worse than the players who discriminate, because most of the time if a liberal A tries to cooperate with a B, the B defects and he loses.

Of course in real life the As can look at you trying to cooperate with Bs and decide you're a B-lover and burn your store down.

There are two main differences between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation. First, it's harder to tell what sexual orientation a person is by looking at them. Second, and this is the main reason progress has happened so fast on this front and so slowly on race, sometimes a homophobic family has a gay child and has to deal with it, whereas it's pretty rare for a racist family to have a black child.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What an asshat.


Did you beat Harrigan? Is the fortress pacified, or did you have to retreat?


Casting a blade barrier INSIDE a creature's body is also questionable, since you don't have line of effect to the point inside the creature you want to target.


Sorry to hear that. It might have been a little aggressive for the GM to have both shadows attack you, but it may be that the tactics of the encounter require that, and objectively speaking, focusing fire on one target is the most logical, optimal tactic for such creatures to use. Did the rest of the party survive?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Did the shadow damage your strength to equal to or more than your actual Strength score? If so, yes, you're dead, and in 1d4 rounds your dead body becomes a shadow itself under the control of the shadow that killed you. This makes you ineligible for most forms of raising from the dead. Shadows are really tough and a GM should use them sparingly unless she and her players are OK with the idea of a tough, gritty game with lots of PC death.

Solutions: Resurrection. True Resurrection. Wish. Miracle. A GM might allow the shadow your PC became to regain free will if the shadow that killed you is destroyed, but having a shadow as a PC is very disruptive to the game and the GM probably wouldn't let you keep the shadow as a PC. Edit: nevermind, the GM is constrained by PFS rules, so won't be able to do that.

A shadow shouldn't be able to kill you in a single shot, unless it was able to confirm a crit, or your Strength was 6 or less to begin with.

That's the rules, dude. If there was no risk of death, the game wouldn't be as fun. If you have the prestige or the funds, get resurrected; otherwise, start a new character, and remember count the shadows.

Hey who turned out the lights?


Infused extracts that can be used by another PC take a standard action to drink, and a move action to retrieve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a human is raised by animals that don't use tools, it won't use tools. There's no tool-using instinct. Many chimps don't use tools; those that do either figured it out on their own or learned from another chimp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

A lot of evidence? Are you claiming that using tools or wanting to learn ways to make your life easier is evidence of culture? You could make a case that when animals get smarter, they start behaving in different ways, simply because they are smarter, and are able to learn more effectively, touch on abstract reasoning, and so on.

Also note that most people seem to accept the idea that "everything is culture until proven otherwise". Now that data is pouring in, these people try to cast biology as politically tainted, not even trying to see where their culture arguments come from.

Making tools as chimpanzees and humans do is clearly not an instinct. It is learned and passed down from individual to individual. That is the very definition of culture in this context.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't the testimony of people who feel harmed by others assigning them a gender and treating them a certain way as a result evidence that there are problems associated with the act of gendering?

Sissyl, there is actually a lot of evidence that when animals get smart enough to have culture, that a lot of activity is culturally driven rather than instinct driven. Chimpanzees learning to make tools from each other, for instance. Birds learning songs from each other. Given how much of human behavior is culturally shaped, asserting that any particular phenomenon in humans is biologically fixed rather than a result of culture requires positive evidence, just as much as asserting that a phenomenon is entirely a result of culture rather than biologically determined. I'm not entirely sure what the null hypothesis should be, but there's plenty of reasons that the default shouldn't be "assume that things are the result of fixed biology until proven otherwise".


Trogdar wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
ryric wrote:
Kayerloth wrote:

:D

10 Demerits for no one mentioning some 145 posts into the thread the Called ability enhancement which could quite radically change the scenario. Be assured that even if it were not my preferred ultimate weapon of doom my 20 level melee type is almost certainly going to have at least one weapon and one suit of armor with the enhancement stashed away for just such an occurrence. I really truly am a utter meathead if in fact that gear is more than 100 ft away when I'm 'naked' or otherwise not properly geared up.

I thought of that but I'm not sure that exists in Pathfinder.
It exists in Pathfinder.
Pretty sure that special ability is a waste of ink, as you can't wield something that's not in your hands. The designers have stated that wielding requires you to attack with the tool in question to be considered wielding.

What is that supposed to mean? You call the weapon, it teleports to your hand, now you're wielding it.


If it's in additional resources and has a craft alchemy DC, you can craft it (as long as you have the source of course).


Wow, the Martial Master is an incredibly good archetype for the Fighter. It also fits the theme of the fighter, which is lots and lots of feats. Feats for every occasion. Any number of combat feats... that's insane. That 20th level fighter is suddenly ready for absolutely anything that comes his way (except for dominate person I suppose).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:
I believe the Paladin and Ranger would be without their Divine Focus, hindering them a little bit. The Ranger's animal companion should be able to wreck-face, though.

Unless their religion frowns on tattoos, I can't see any reason for a divine caster of any level where 100g is trivial not having a tattooed holy symbol. Leaves your hand free, can't be taken from you without someone being willing to cut your arm off, can't be dropped, doesn't need to be retrieved from a container, is available even if you're naked, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
About 8% or so of patients of European heritage have low 2D6 activity

I wonder if that's why I always roll so low on my greatsword damage?

*rimshot*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How is he tree-striding from a bathtub? Are we assuming he lives in a tree house? I suppose that isn't a bad assumption, since tree houses are freaking awesome.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's look at this a different way. Which martial characters wouldn't be screwed in this situation?

Brawler, obviously: Uses Martial flexibility to gain the exact combination of feats she needs to win (disarm, grapple, catch off guard, whatever).

Monk: a monk is nearly as well-defended stark naked as with all his gear, although less powerful due to not having his amulet of mighty fists. On the other hand, if said amulet and its chain were made of a metal that can be immersed in water unharmed, such as gold, I might expect him to keep it on in the bath.

A cavalier would be just as bad off as a fighter, except with fewer feats.

A gunslinger is, if anything, even more gear-dependent than a fighter. Against the level 1 warrior, she might have a chance, since the warrior probably wouldn't have proficiency with the firearm and it might misfire.

A swashbuckler at level 20 might have had occasion to invest in unarmed strikes and Snake style to allow his unarmed strikes to work with the class abilities related to piercing weapons, so in that case would be better off than the normal fighter, and also gets bonuses to AC, and could use parry to block attacks.

A slayer is about as disadvantaged as a fighter.

A ranger is either equally screwed as a fighter or has a significant advantage if he's taken the Natural Weapons fighting style and used it to get permanent claws. This might not count since we're talking about pure martial characters, but there are archetypes of ranger that give up spellcasting.

Ninja: Easy. She uses Hidden Master, which does not provoke an AoO because it's an SU ability, and can no longer be seen even if the foes prepared with see invisibility or true seeing. She can then either bug out and get her gear, or use the 20 rounds of un-detectable invisibility to sneak-attack the crap out of her attackers.

Rogue: If she's chosen certain talents (such as the ones that copy Ninja abilities) she might be able to take them out, otherwise acrobatics to get away would be the course of action.

Barbarian: DR would help protect her, and if she took the rage powers that give her natural attacks she would be able to brutally ravage the attackers.

Samurai: Same as cavalier. He ded, liek so ded.

Paladin: If the attackers weren't evil, she'd be in trouble. If they are, smites could help protect the paladin while working out a way to escape or fight back.

I'm seeing a trend here. All the characters who wouldn't be in serious trouble have some kind of supernatural enhancement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've noticed that a lot of people who like to think themselves superior to others pretend that their position is the result of pure logic, while their opponents is that of invalid emotional reasoning.

Which is nonsense, of course. Conservative positions are based on emotions just as much as liberal ones are. Emotions are what we humans use to make decisions. We don't generally use logic. Only in some very limited realms is logic used, and even then it's used to make logical inferences based on premises chosen by means other than logic (such as 'human life has inherent value', 'causing harm to others is wrong', 'freedom has inherent value', 'god exists', etc.)


Urguthoa is a legal deity choice in PFS. You'll have to be True Neutral in alignment, as evil characters are not allowed. You can have a character who's a misanthrope and hates everyone but doesn't go out of her way to cause harm to others.

Keep in mind that Alchemical allocation specifies the round AFTER the spell, so if you consume it on the same round, it doesn't technically work. That said, I see the appeal of being able to swift-action drink a buffing extract, standard action drink alchemical allocation, next round swift-action drink a potion, free action spit it back into the container, and still have a full round of actions to take after receiving the benefits of two buffs.

Expect GMs to be very strict about following the rules with this one, though, because it feels like an exploit even when run legally. They will probably demand to see the ISG book or PDF to make sure you're allowed to use it, and to verify the exact wording of the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to draw attention to the point that there is a big difference between "Your policy has unintentional racist implications" and "you are a racist". No one is saying the latter, and saying the former does not constitute an accusation of being racist against anyone. "That thing you're doing is racist" and "you're a racist" are not equivalent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
isn't it nice when you can disagree about things without it turning vitriolic.

NO!!


7 people marked this as a favorite.

THIS! IS! BRINESTUMP!!


Use traps, use terrain creatively, make sure they never face the party in a fair fight. If you give them a level in rogue and a rank in stealth they are really hard to see. Have a bunch of crossbow bolts fly out of the bushes, and then the kobolds quickly disappear into prepared escape routes.


The whole point of these prestige classes is that you get the benefits of the feat earlier than you would otherwise. What would be the point of that if you don't have the feat?


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Well done Planet Fitness.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/relationships/planet-fitness-cancels-wom ans-membership-after-she-reports-transgender-woman-in-locker-room/ar-AA9uYW 9

Linkified

Good on 'em.


As an opposing view, I present this post.

Merm7th wrote:

Yes you definitely can use skill mastery to take 10 on Use Magic Device. Just read the description for Skill Mastery...

When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.

It doesn't say "...she can take 10 if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so". it says "...she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so".

If an ability said "The character is very familiar with legal contracts. She receives a +5 bonus to forge legal contracts even if in an unknown language". Would you assume she can't take the +5 bonus if its in a language she knows?

The argument presented by Cevah is that the text of Skill Mastery makes "she can take 10" conditional on "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so". The rebuttal would be that "even if" isn't usually used to make a conditional statement. The word "if" in place of it would make a conditional, but "even" makes a difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Deliverer Slayer looks like a perfect dip -- or even a total replacement. It suits the OP's intention: a faithful martial character who fights the enemies of her faith, without specific divine abilities.


I think there's a feat that lets you use one increment of sacred weapon to enhance both parts of a double weapon.

*checks*

It's called Dual Enhancement, and it allows you to do it as a single action. It looks like it applies any flat +x bonus you apply to both weapons, but special abilities get applied separately -- which is kinda confusing, but wouldn't matter if you're not going above 7, since your sacred weapon ability will never give you more than +1.


You're enhancing it using the bonded item crafting ability, right? You can't sell those. You can't sell items purchased using prestige either. Basically, you're stuck with it, sorry. However, consider that the cost of increasing your strength with the belt could be invested in other things to increase your damage with the bow. Besides, you really want to boost your dex before your strength when you're archery-focused.


If you have at least 12 wisdom, a dip in Cleric, Inquisitor, or warpriest would probably be well worth it.


James Jacobs wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
What publications can information about Scuttlecove be found in?

Dungeon Magazine #95.

Dungeon Magaizne #146.

EDIT: Dragon Magazine #355 has a little bit of Scuttlecove content too. I'd forgotten about that one!

Warning: there's a lot of mature content in there. As in violence, sex, nudity, drugs, and all that stuff. It's not to everyone's taste. But I really did enjoy writing it.

Thanks, this should work great as add-in content for an NC-17 Skulls and Shackles PbP campaign I'm running on another site.

Would you have put Scuttlecove on the mainland, near where Port Peril is located, or one of the major islands, like Mokatu?

1 to 50 of 2,210 << 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.