|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Let's not turn this into a debate about the validity of triggers. That doesn't help anyone.
We'd really need to know a little more about the situation to offer specific advice. What to do about the trigger would depend on how frequent the trigger comes up, whether it's a very common thing that one would expect in the normal course of a story, e.g. someone has a panic attack whenever food is discussed, or whether it's rare and specific, e.g. someone has a panic attack when giant spiders are discussed. (There's always something other than giant spiders one can use, even if they're a ubiquitous fantasy trope.)
The Fighter/spellcaster/EK is a pretty good option, but why not go Magus from the get-go?
Arcane Armor training isn't terribly useful. Wasting your swift action is annoying, especially when you'd probably want arcane strike to enhance your attacks.
If you really want to go armored, go Magus. If you're dedicated to the Fighter/spellcaster/EK, you'll want Mage armor, shield, blur, ablative barrier, mirror image, displacement, Stoneskin, and so forth -- things that cause miss chances and absorb damage.
I've never heard the word 'Daikatana' used to mean a particular type of katana, but the two-hand-only, larger katana-type weapon is called a Nodachi in pathfinder. 1d10, 18-20 crit range, has the Brace property (reflecting, I believe, what I understand to be its traditional use as an anti-horseman weapon).
Firearms work differently. Firearms rules
It's not the actions that make it cheating. It's using an AoO on yourself to do it that's cheating. An AoO is provoked by actions that distract or leave one vulnerable to attacks from enemies. How can an action distract you or leave you vulnerable... to yourself? It's patently absurd. You can punch yourself in the chest if you want, but it won't trigger the spell-storing armor, because the magic of the spell-storing armor is set to trigger on an attack, and punching yourself in the chest isn't an attack.
You can't do spell combat with a lance. A lance is a two-handed weapon, even if, when you are mounted, you can use it with one hand. Only if there were a rule that allowed you to use it as a one-handed weapon would you be able to use spell combat with it. Unless your GM makes a house rule, no such rule exists.
Mounted combat can still work with a Magus, if you take Mounted Skirmisher to allow full attacks on a charge or otherwise allow movement. Would be most useful with a small character, letting you take your mount into a dungeon. Probably not worth taking levels of cavalier.
Atticus Bleak wrote:
At the level we're talking about here, a PC reduced to death-level negative HP will generally be back up and fighting by the next fight, if not during the current fight.
Plugg works well as a Swashbuckler, and Scourge as a Slayer. If I find the need to do so, I'll do Peppery up as an Arcanist.
I originally rebuilt Harrigan as a Cavalier/Figher/Rogue but I'm thinking I might replace the rogue levels with slayer levels.
I haven't messed with Sandara from a mechanical standpoint (I've expanded her characterization quite a bit) because I expect that one or another player may likely want to take her as a cohort at some point and I want to let him/her do it from scratch.
Whenever I see people dismissing feminists on the internet as not 'real', or not respectable, feminists, I'm reminded of the way that activists have been dismissed as attention-seekers throughough history.
It's possible to come to a different conclusion than the 'tumblr feminists' without dismissing their seriousness.
The popobala doesn't have separate wings and arms. He can't use the claws while in popobala form. (He can use the talons.) Look at this. It has bat-style wings, where the wings are based on the fingers of the hand with webs of skin between them. There's nowhere for claws to be (The one thumb-claw at the top of the wing isn't enough for an actual attack, especially if you're using the wings as an attack as well).
He gets bite+5/talon+5/talon+5/wing+0/wing+0.
Post the build, OP. You should have all the stats for your PCs. You shouldn't be just relying on a player to say "Oh, my build gets five attacks at +17 each that do 2d6+25 per attack" and not audit the character.
Entangle is one of the best 1st-level offensive spells in the game. Yes, it does no damage, but it can shut encounters down very effectively. Lead blades would be effective with your lance. (4d6 damage when you charge is very tempting.) Thunderstomp is effective if you are facing a lot of two-legged opponents (who don't fly).
So the druid used his powers to convince the rats to commit suicide by drowning themselves in rum? I'm not sure that really counts as 'revering nature'.
Anyway, Sandara can prepare spells differently than her stat block, you know. IIRC, she has two second-level spell slots, which would allow two lesser restorations per day.
In addition, she can prepare Diagnose Disease in her first-level slots, which provides a +4 to heal checks to treat the disease. I don't recall whether she has ranks in heal, but she could certainly help Quarn as he tries to treat them.
Additionally, as soon as it became apparent that a significant part of the crew were sick, Harrigan would have abandoned his plans to go find a ship to raid, and would make for the nearest port.
This of course would change the narrative from "we're trapped on this ship and we need to go along to get along until we have a chance to get off" to "Can we jump ship and not get killed?"
You'll need to make some sigificant changes to the storyline to accomodate this.
ALso, you can tell the Druid, "Nice job breaking it, hero!"
In Distant worlds, Golarion is referred to as "The Cage" in reference to its role as the prison of Rovagug (also "The Child", I guess for the relatively recent development of civilization). For your campaign, you could decide that Golarion is elven, or ancient elven, or celestial, or what have you, for Cage (or child).
I made a houserule as a GM to allow this feat to work as for one of my players who is an investigator. I let her be in Kirin stance at all times, which means she can do a Kirin swift action and a study in the first round, and then unleash the power of the Kirin stance and studied strike simultaneously the following round.
Goz mask would, correct. Would also be helpful with things like obscuring mist, and would in fact let you SA at range from within the cloud. Another frequently chosen option along those lines is a 1 level dip into Flame or Waves oracle for the Gaze of Flames or Water Sight revelation, respectively. The former lets you see through flames, fog, and smoke (but apparently not mist -- what the difference is between mist and fog is unclear), while the latter lets you see through fog and mist.
Raise Dead and Speak with Dead specifically, in the wording of the spells themselves, do not work on corpses that have been turned into undead. Corpses that have been turned into undead, after which the undead were destroyed, are still corpses that have been turned into undead, and so do not work.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
A lot of mythic spells just offer a incremental improvement over their non-mythic versions. Mythic Burning hands, for example, has a range of 20ft (vs. 15) and does 1d6 damage per level (instead of 1d4).
None of the spells are intended to be game-breakers, but are just supposed to be a cumulative increase in power.
One could certainly imagine Grappling, pinning, and tying up a zombie, then casting mythic speak with dead to get answers out of it, if it happens to be a zombie made from the corpse of the one person who knows the location of the macguffin.
Pathfinder gave Sneak Attack and critical hits a boost by reducing the number of creatures who can't be hit by it. Nearly anything that isn't completely amorphous or homogenous throughout is susceptible. If you look through the creature types and subtypes, you'll find that the only type that is immune is oozes, and the only subtypes that are immune are elementals and swarms. Specific individual creatures may be immune (worms that walk, for example), and a sufficient number of Rogue or Barbarian levels can give a creature uncanny dodge, but for the most part, if it's not one of those three things, you can probably sneak attack it.
If your GM doubts it, show him how it says that oozes are immune to critical hits and precision damage, and then show him how that entry is missing from the undead, construct, and plant types.
If you have a party spellcaster, consider purchasing a wand of Invisibility for them to use on you when you have a chance to prep for a fight.
Are your wakizashis magical? If not, use a whetstone to sharpen them for +1 to the first successful hit after being sharpened. It's like having +2 strength! You can carry a bunch of them, all sharpened for use in subsequent fights. You can also do this with throwing daggers, though probably not with shuriken. Ranged sneak attack is harder, but don't discount it. If you get to move first in a combat, which will often happen since you have high Dex (take improved initiative if you get a chance) and high perception (make sure you're giving yourself the halfling Keen Senses bonus, and max out ranks in that skill), you can throw a dagger or a shuriken to get a sneak attack against anything that hasn't moved yet; sometimes twice if you get a surprise round.
Smoke bomb is kinda meh. It's useful for the things that require it, notably Choking Bomb, so if your campaign is going for several more levels you probably could keep it. If your GM is running it according to the rules as written, he's not letting you sneak attack from within it, since any creatures within the cloud have concealment from each other. The feat Shadow Strike (APG) can allow this.
Agile weapons are often better than spending a feat to get dex-to-damage, especially at higher levels. However, at level 5, a +1 agile wakizashi is about 4/5 of your WBL, so if your GM will allow Slashing Grace to work with a light weapon as well as a one-handed weapon, or some other such dex-to-damage feat, you may want to take that. Possibly retrain smoke bomb for it?
There's a huge difference between lacking social skills and being actively toxic towards members of the opposite sex. Conflating the two does not bolster your argument. People who are actively toxic should, well, stop, and if they can't stop, or don't want to stop, then yes they need to leave. Not because they lack social skills, but because they are harming others.
No social group gets a monopoly on a particular hobby. Misogynist nerds don't get to claim dominion over TTRPGs and insist that women who want to play them don't get to ask to be treated like people because reasons.
It's not "We want to play with what you have, and you need to leave" it's "We want to play with what you have, and you need to treat us like human beings". If a given socially toxic nerd cannot bring himself to treat women with respect (and tipping his trilby and saying "mi'lady" before he spouts sexist opinions or mansplains the rules doesn't count as respect) then he doesn't deserve social interaction, frankly. However, it's actually a matter of "won't" not "can't", as we all know -- it is not actually physically impossible for a misogynist to treat women better, he just doesn't want to.
If the goal is to increase the number of people playing, that's doable by simple marketing techniques combined with bringing the customer in on the plan. The very basics of courtesy are needed - and nothing more.
It's not just about increasing the number of people playing, nor is it simply about changing the demographics.
It's about making sure that everyone feels included. The example in question shouldn't ever happen in PFS (the rough equivalent to a MTG tournament) though I could see a judge requesting either or both to change their shirts. (Both players, and the judge, were jerks in that example.)
If someone sees being asked to stop making sexist jokes, stop coming onto women, stop touching women, stop interrupting and talking over women disproportionately, stop assuming that women can't possibly know what they're doing in a game, and stop having female PCs experience gendered violence as excluding them from the hobby, then that's too damn bad, but they really need to get a clue. The above fall under 'the basics of courtesy' to me. Likewise: treating LGBTQ players as people, not as orientations; treating players of color as people, not as skin colors; and so forth.
These are not revolutionary proposals. They don't constitute excluding people. If someone comes into a game store and sees a roughly equal number of women as men, a number of people of color roughly proportional to the local population, and sees that insults and bad behavior to these individuals is treated exactly the same as insults and bad behavior towards white men, and chooses to leave because of these things, they're choosing to exclude themselves.
Assuming genetic differences is useless and a distraction. The problem is not women who don't want to play rpgs. The problem is women who want to do so but feel excluded.
Everyone arguing that RPGs are an intrinsically 'male' hobby is exercising fallacious reasoning. It may be that there is some aspect of RPGs that appeals in some way to a feature of the human brain that tends to be more common, or more intense, in male brains on average. It's also possible that this is not the case, and all of the disproportionate tendency for RPG players to be male is entirely culturally based. There isn't any way to tell! No systematic studies have been performed, and I can't even think of a way to strip away all the cultural baggage associated with RPGs so that we could actually determine to what extent there is a gender bias, and of course this would only tell us about the gender bias in the context of all the cultural training of women to be non-aggressive and deferential and of men to be aggressive and challenging.
But none of that matters for the purposes of what we're discussing.
It is an objective fact that at least some women find the behavior of RPG players offputting who otherwise might want to play RPGs. (This is also true of men. I'll get to that in a moment.) Women report this. Women in this particular thread have reported this.
This means that for whatever 'natural' number of women want to play RPGs and have the opportunity is likely greater than the number of women who do in fact play RPGs, and it is likely that the reason why some women who would 'naturally' want to play RPGs do not is this offputting behavior.
(Again, this is also true of men.)
Arguing that there are some women who would not choose to play RPGs, all things being equal, is irrelevant when there is evidence that all things are not equal. There are also men who would not choose to play RPGs, all things being equal. These men and women are not in the pool of potential RPG players regardless, and we don't care about them for this discussion.
Lots of people would like to play RPGs but choose not to for reasons we can't do much about, or which are out of the scope of this discussion. For instance, some have no one to play with nearby. This, in all likelihood, affects men and women equally. (If someone wants to argue it does not, I'd be happy to listen.) Some are too busy with their careers to play. I suspect this affects men more than women, although I don't really know.
But there are things that drive people away from RPG playing that we CAN do something about. Some of these things are not gender-specific, like the stinky unwashed gamer stereotype. Some of them are, like interrupting and talking over women, making sexist jokes, and subjecting female characters to gender-specific violence.
If we take it as a given that we want to see our gaming hobby expand and gain wider acceptance, it is logical that we would want to address both types of issues to make gaming as welcoming as possible to everyone who wants to play.
When people react badly to suggestions about how to make RPG gaming welcoming to women, it always makes me wonder why they value the behavior that is offputting so highly.
You can't trust the people around you either if you're a minority. There's many reasons why LGBTQ people leave the rural hellholes they're born in and congregate in big cities. One of those reasons is that sexual minorities will find better prospects if they cluster together. However, the attitude of rural folks against anything different or unusual is also high on the list.