PepticBurrito's page

64 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And what's more is that while the Skald may use other spellcasters for scroll creation, they still have to follow the rules of anyone else who isn't that class for the purposes of using spell-completion/spell-trigger items; they must have levels in a class that has whatever spell on that scroll on their spell list in order to cast. Otherwise it's back to UMD, and while the Skald (a type of Bard) is...

The spell "Read Magic" performs the same exact thing that UMD does for the purpose of deciphering a scroll.

The Spell read magic is on the Skald's spell list. Get a hold of a copy of a scroll, cast read magic on it, put it in your bag. Now you can use the scroll when ever you want without having to pass an UMD check. You can even use that deciphered scroll to create other magic items (see magic item creation in the Corerule book)

I've played a Bard that did this. Scribe scroll at Level 1, Craft Wand at level 5. I just collected scrolls every time the GM put them in the game, bought them, or asked the Wizard in the party to write one for me. By Level 10 he had a Haversack side pocket devoted to them.


Scavion wrote:

Why not right? If only not because of word count =P

:)

I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't too worried about word count....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

A couple of comments:

If you don't see the utility of having Scribe Scroll for a class with a small list of Spells Known, remember that the skald can use that feat in tandem with another spellcaster to create useful scrolls—scrolls that other caster can cast

For those of you how have no idea what he's talking about, it's in the magic item creation section of the book. Page 549 in my printing. Also found in the PRD (http://paizo.com/prd/magicItems/magicItemCreation.html).

"Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)."

This means, if the Bard has scribe scroll and there's another caster available to help, that bard can scribe the scroll of a spell the other caster knows.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
, or scrolls the skald can cast with Use Magic Device

If you have a scroll available of a spell, with Use Magical Device you can decipher the scroll. Once deciphered, it's a spell known (for the purposes of Item Creation) as long as you have possession of the scroll. The spell Read Magic should also be able perform the same function as UMD for this purpose. (At least that's how I run it).

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
or without UMD, if they're on the skald's spell list but not something he'd use so often as to want to actually learn it as a spell known).

This, on the other hand, is complete news to me. I presume it's because of the two following statements "The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item" and "The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.".

The second statement presumes a caster can create a magic item when he doesn't meet the prerequisites. In other words, Scribe Scroll's requirement of "spell that you know." is not absolute. Not knowing the spell increases the DC by 5, if the spell is on your spell list.


Blood ranger is an interesting idea, but in it's current form it's basically a Barbarian with spells. As others have noted, the Abyssal bloodline is very powerful and should be toned down.

As it is now, just maintaining Cha for the sole purpose of casting spells is a viable player strategy. Cha doesn't have to be one of the top Stats, it just needs to be +1 or better at Lvl 4, while increasing by one every two levels. Magical Items can do that for the Character.

I think the fix for this involves moving an important stat on a character sheet to being based Charisma (With the exception of Con).

One idea is to remove all armor proficiencies, then run Armor Class exactly like a Monks while using Charisma instead of Wisdom.

Another way is to have attack bonus run off Charisma. Additionally, make it so Bloodrage increases Cha/Con instead of Str/Con. This would have the added benefit of toning down the Abyssal bloodline.

Give the class a handful of spells with saves, combat spells with the range of touch and remove any spell whose ability is part of a bloodline (for example: enlarge).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Peptic, your understanding of how natural attacks and BAB interact is incorrect, as Cheapy and Snig have pointed out.

Okay then.

The average damage scaling seems off though. While Raging with Arcane Strike and Power Attack, it's average damage is pretty high up to level 6 or so. At point buy 15, It's going to have a much more reliable high damage than anyone else in a full round. Add in that at level 4 it can self enlarge, rather than rely on other PCs or potions, so it easily outperforms a Barbarian. It isn't until about level 7 that you get parity with other classes (due to enchantments differences and what not).

Seems over powered at lower levels. At level 6, it has a good chance of killing a level 6 PC in one round. A standard CR 6 monster will die in less than 3, probability two. That's even if the Bloodrager is the only one attacking.


Before I begin, let's visit Natural Attack rules found in the Core Rulebook.

Page 182: "You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack." (this is also found in the PRD at http://paizo.com/prd/combat.html)

What this means is the following. At BaB of 1, a creature with natural attacks will only get one attack per round. At BaB of 6, if the creature has multiple limbs capable of completely natural attacks, it will get two natural attacks per round. The first limb is at BaB of 6, the second limb is at BaB of 1. Each increase of BaB by 6 increases the number of limbs that can be attacked with.

Two-weapon fighting does not apply to natural attacks. For the purposes of a second attack, the second limb capable of performing a natural attack is not an "off-hand". There is no default negative to be changed on a second attack for offhand, because there is no off hand.

Having no offhand also means that Power Attack can be used with every natural attack the creature has.

Catfolk, which can have natural attacks in the form of their claws, have an item called "Cat's Claws" that turns their claw damage type from "Natural" to "Melee Slashing". This makes their second claw become an "off hand", which allows two-weapon fighting to come into play. This also removes the ability to use "Power Attack" with either of the Claw attacks".

Now, let's look at the Bloodrager Bloodline Abyssal. Page 11 of Advanced Class Playtest.

"Claws (Su): At 1st level, you grow claws. These claws are
treated as natural weapons, allowing you to make two
claw attacks as a full-attack action using your full base
attack bonus"

This sentence makes absolutely no sense and leaves a huge hole in the rules as to what happens at BaB of 6.

If, at BaB of 1, a Bloodrager can do two attacks as a full round attack, then at BaB of 6 they would NOT get any more attacks from having a high BaB ("You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus."}. They are out of attacking limbs, there is no more limbs that can be attacked with. Two-weapon fighting doesn't apply, since there is no "off-hand".

Recommendation for fix. Change the language found for Claw in Bloodrager (Abyssal) to the following:

"Claws (Su): At 1st level, you grow claws. These claws are
treated as the player holding two masterwork melee slashing weapons for purposes of enchantment and two-weapon fighting."

To keep these claws as "Natural Attacks" would require a lot of rewriting of rules, a bunch of special feats and/or abilities, or a lot of confusion at a gaming table. Considering the the fact that some experienced GMs I know have no idea how Natural attacks are run and treat them as both Natural and Melee slashing (a Barbarian Catfolk in their games get's 4 attacks per round at BaB 6), having special rules for Natural attacks and the Bloodrager will do nothing other than confuse players.

I would also recommend considering giving the claws specific damage tables based off BaB. So that as the character levels, the claws do more damage. At level 1, they do d4 while enlarged. At Level 6, they do d6. Etc.


mage4fun wrote:
I thought that the only way to deliver a touch spell with a weapon is for classes that have arcane channeling?

We are not talking about a spell. We are talking about the Oracle Mystery of Time and it's ability "Erase from time". No where does it say it's a touch spell, it merely says it's a Melee Touch Attack.

If I tell you a ranged action activates as a Ranged Touch Attack, do you assume it's a ranged Spell? Spells are VERY specific abilities. They are, rules wise, even differentiated from "Spell Like abilities", which are in turn differentiated from Supernatural abilities. Supernatural abilities are not spells, they are Supernatural abilities. They don't function via the same rules. Spell activation as his own specific laid out ruleset in the book that functions as an exception to the general rule set for actions.

The Oracle Mystery Time ability called "Erase from Time" is a Supernatural ability. It is not a spell or spell like ability. There is no reason to treat it as a spell or spell like ability. There is no reason to assume it operates under the same rule sets as spells or spell like abilities. Which means, when it says it a "Melee Touch Attack", then it's just a Melee Touch Attack. It is NOT activating a spell with the range of "Touch". Which means, it's a Melee Attack that hits touch AC. Which means it can be used with a melee weapon.


Corlindale wrote:

" You can certainly use Melee weapons to do Melee touch attacks. You aren't limited to using just your hand."

Wait, that doesn't sound right. I know that can be done with a Conductive weapon, but it's not something you can just do right off the bat. And it's not really something you'd want to be doing, if you already have trouble hitting.

What this really comes down to is how does one read the class ability text for "Erase from Time". There are two ways to look at it.

1. It's a Melee attack that hits an AC of touch. If this is the case, a melee weapon can be used to deliver the affect of the class ability.

2. It's a spell like ability and as such, functions identically to casting a spell, then touching the target with your hand. If that's the case, the following things are true. You must charge the attack first; this will elicit an attack of opportunity. You can take a full move action after charging the attack and touch the target as a free action. Missing the target will NOT discharge the ability, you can try again until you succeed or until you cast another spell.

It's not called a Spell Like ability. It's not called a spell. It's called a Melee Touch Attack, which says to me it's a Melee Attack that hits an AC of touch.


I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why your missed Mystery SPELLS are wasted on a missed touch attack.

Page 216, Core Rule Book

"Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates."

The only "Touch spells" that will be wasted on a miss are ray attacks. The ONLY ray attack you get as part of your Oracle Mystery Revelation is Disintegrate, which is a 7th level spell.

The only ray attack you have available to you as a 2nd level Oracle is Ray of Sickening.

If you miss a touch attack with Memory Lapse, the spell is stored until you cast another spell OR decide to quit trying to do a touch attack.

Now, if you're talking about "Erase from Time", that is easy to improve your chance to hit. It is written very specifically. Ultimate Magic, pg 56, "As a melee touch attack, you can temporarily remove a creature from time altogether."

It is important to understand that is not a spell or spell like ability and it is done as a melee touch attack. A melee attack is a specific kind of standard action. This means you can use a Longspear while using the ability Erase from Time (Core Rule Book, Pg 142). It is a Melee reach weapon. You will be able to use the usual tricks to get bonuses to hit with it (Weapon Focus, Masterwork, Enchantment) for the purposes of doing a Melee Attack that hits touch AC, aka melee touch attack.

You have probably confused a "Melee Attack" with how you deliver a spell with a range of "Touch". They are two separate things. (see Core Rule Book, pg 182 and pg 213 for more info). You can certainly use Melee weapons to do Melee touch attacks. You aren't limited to using just your hand.

In terms of your Armor, with a Dex of 18. At low levels, just use Studded Leather. When you can afford it, get your hands on a Mithral Breastplate or a Mithral Chain Shirt (depends on how much you care about the -2 armor check that the Mithral Breastplate will still have on it).


Colin Credric wrote:

I truly apologize if this has been answered already, but I'd really rather not comb through 969 previous posts. :) So here it goes:

If I purchase this book, is there any reason to buy Elves/Dwarves/Gnomes/Humans/Halflings/Orcs/Goblins of Golarion? I have two of them and was planning on tracking down the rest, but of course I won't if this book covers everything that was already included in them.

This book and Those books serve different purposes.

Advanced Race Guide is for character sheet construction. Water Elves are built on a character sheet like this. Humans have access to these specific archetypes. You want to make a 10 armed monster with a grapple of YUP, well, look through these tools and see what you like.

XXXX of Golarion is for Race identity in Golarion. Elves eat their wheaties, Humans sleep in buildings.


Berdache wrote:

So the racial ability of Samsaran called Mystic Past Life.

"You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of
your current spellcasting class ... The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you’re adding them to."

So as a magus I can learn other arcane casters spells ie Wizard / Witch / Bard / etc spells.

Does that mean I could learn Cure Light Wounds (Bard)?

Bards aren't arcane. They can wear light armor without spell failure, and all spells require a vocal component.


Akin DT wrote:
PepticBurrito wrote:
Akin DT wrote:

I'm going to make an Aasamir Paladin in a few weeks for my first pathfinder game. Any details on the archetype they have for that?

Also, were the tiefling and aasemir bloodlines from Blood of Fiends/Angels in here?

You're not going to be impressed. It's a Paladin that's centered around Touch of Serenity and converting confirmed critical hits to non-lethal damage as a free action. If you want to take captives, it's great. If you want to kill the evil king, no so much.

Everyone who replied, thank you.

What is replaced? I assume somehow the archetype is incompatible with Oath of Vengeance? ;P

Also doing nonlethal damage? Isn't their a weapon property called "merciful" for that? I may possibly be the only full BAB in the group (2 different monks, a synthesizer or w/e, and 2-3 more players) so I dont know...

It replaces smite evil, courage, aura of resolve, aura of justice and holy champion.


Matthias wrote:
Hey all, been DM'ing for awhile now and have had many instances of players getting their arses handed to them by my monsters. Reflecting back though, I seldom kill them. I reasoned it out as "well the monsters are less threatened by the non-moving PC they just knocked down as opposed to the other one brandishing spells/magic at them". Was wondering if anyone else does this, or am I being too nice to my PCs?

Did so last game session. There was one NPC alive, a Changeling Barbarian. She was out numbered, watched all her comrades get killed, and her last act as a living creature was to keep kicking the Bard when it was done. The Bard died in the last round of the last room of a major dungeon.

Intelligent creatures do things like that. A standard monster, may or may not, depending on context and the monster.


Akin DT wrote:

I'm going to make an Aasamir Paladin in a few weeks for my first pathfinder game. Any details on the archetype they have for that?

Also, were the tiefling and aasemir bloodlines from Blood of Fiends/Angels in here?

You're not going to be impressed. It's a Paladin that's centered around Touch of Serenity and converting confirmed critical hits to non-lethal damage as a free action. If you want to take captives, it's great. If you want to kill the evil king, no so much.


David knott 242 wrote:

So -- Is there any chance that anyone who has the book would be kind enough to drop a few crumbs for those of us who can't get it until late next week? I am really curious to find out more about that Half-Elf Summoner archetype, the Wild Caller. What are the general trade-offs made by that archetype?

Wild Caller. Summon Monster spells are not available and are replaced with Summon Natures Ally. Eidolon gets 1/4 bonus evolution points per level (rounded down to nearest integer), but at the cost of being restricted from certain evolutions found in APG and UM. At 19th level, Gate is replaced with Summon Elder Worm or Summon Froghemoth.


RigaMortus wrote:
Wonder if we can make modrons?

Looking over the available traits, I suspect so.


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
PepticBurrito wrote:

I have the PDF in front of me. They are separated into different categories.

Water Child is an alternate elven racial trait.
Swim in the race builder. It is a movement racial trait of the standard kind.

I assume this is done so the GM can say "You can use alt racial traits, but we aren't racial building for this campaign".

I am aware that Water Child is an elven alternate racial trait. However, according to GarvokTla's post, it is also in the race builder at a cost of 4, while the completely superior Swim speed is 2. Checking the Playtest, it was in there too (under "Standard Abilities), with the same issue (except that Water Child cost 2 and Swim cost 1). The issue isn't that every player is going to take Swim instead of Water Child (since they likely won't have that option), it is that the race builder values Water Child twice as highly as Swim (despite it, again, just being universally worse). It doesn't bode well for a point system when something is half as good and costs twice as much.

They are separated kinds of traits. Swim is movement. Water Child is feat/skill. Which means they stack. This alone could explain why they cost different.

Judging from the example builds, swim meant to be context sensitive. Gillman, for example, have both a land speed and a swim speed. They are amphibians who are water dependent, i.e. they must go back to the water or have named affects.

Swim is also a useful buy for an underwater based campaign and in said campaign would be function the same as walking for the PCs.

Water Child is meant to be an racial trait replacement for elves in particular, without causing a power boost. It's cost reflects that. Giving an Elf "swim" would certainly be worth more than Water Child.

Basically, each ability buy has to be taken in context. Elves don't get swim, Lizardfolk do. If you want an Elf to be able to naturally swim is more expensive than it is for a Lizardfolk.

I can see the logic for it. The book clearly requires GMs to think if they allow players to do racial builds from scratch. There are guidelines that basically come to do "does this racial build make sense?". In the end, the GM will have to say "No, you can't make a water elf, that exists already and it requires water child. If you want a water elf, build a water version of Gillman and take some negatives to balance it out".

This book can clearly break a game before the first session. It also opens up doors for the GM and players that weren't available before. The GM just has to say "No, that doesn't work. Try again".


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
PepticBurrito wrote:
Having a swim speed just means, as long as you don't go under water, you're okay. There is a functional difference between the two.

Uh... I would recommend you read up on swim speed. Having one gives you +8 to all swim checks, lets you take 10 in all circumstances, and allows you to use the run action while swimming. Water Child is just a worse version of it, with half the bonus and (in nearly all cases) a slower speed, and for some reason twice the price (perhaps the swim speed is advanced only or something?).

Have other people had a chance to look over the Race Builder section yet? I'd be interested to see how much it has changed from the Playtest (other than the "core races don't add up to 10 anymore" thing that was already mentioned). Hopefully it has been smoothed out, and this is just something that slipped through the cracks (or has a pre-req that went unnoticed).

I have the PDF in front of me. They are separated into different categories.

Water Child is an alternate elven racial trait.
Swim in the race builder. It is a movement racial trait of the standard kind.

I assume this is done so the GM can say "You can use alt racial traits, but we aren't racial building for this campaign".


GarvokTla wrote:
correction: Water child gives +4 not +8 to swim skill and can take 10s. which doesnt help with its heavy 4rp cost vs the 2rp for swim speed 30ft.

Having a swim speed won't save you from failing a swim check on drowning. Swimming underwater under less than ideal circumstances can easily drown a PC. Getting a +4 on top of skill points AND being able to take 10 will eventually guarantee that under pretty much all circumstances, you can't drown.

Having a swim speed just means, as long as you don't go under water, you're okay. There is a functional difference between the two.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Actually it occures to me wll this book follow the same idea as the previous 3 Bestiary's In that statblocks in this book will be getting used In Adventure paths and such? (Since it seems this would help solve some of the problem of getting Ap's to higher lvl.)

Class leveled NPCs don't scale very well at high levels. Once you throw a character at an PC that has spells like Phantasmal Killer or a power leveled Fireball available, you end up unbalancing a game pretty hard.

Have to remember, a power build PC can one or two shot another PC without trouble.


kid america wrote:

For the love of Pathfinder and Paizo can you please, please, please keep human NPCs to a bare minimum.

Between the Game Mastery Guide NPCs various Pathfinder adventure paths, individual adventures, and guides there are more than enough human NPCs for any GM to use.

At 320 pages there should be no more than 20 pages of human NPCs.

In my current campaign, we have session 13 coming up. The PCs have killed 3 named villains (and who knows how many unnamed villains), have made friends with 15+ NPCs. 20 is NO WHERE near enough for a campaign.

Thousands to choose from would be better.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
If you have access to a Tablet I believe that there's a couple apps that let you download a hard copy of the PSRD to the device if you need it.
Anyone know what apps these are? (for iPad would be ideal)

The Core Rule PFSRD is available as a PDF at the d20srd site.


So I GM'ed my first session of my campaign Saturday, using an overhead projector set up. I took a photo before game began that's available here.

There are limitations of my set up with this specific projector combined with my iPad. It is a wide screen projector and I have a first gen iPad, which is 4:3 for non-video applications. So the battle map software I'm using displays as 4:3 over the projector. I could stretch the image out with the projector, but the iPad software doesn't allow for different x,y grid sizes, so it distorts the image. The VGA port is via a dongle, where as the HDMI port is via a direct connection, so HDMI is very much preferred.

At the height shown in the picture (4.5 feet), the image is the size of the pillowcase on the table at 16:9. In 4:3, it comes out to about 24inx18in (a little larger than that). So it's not huge, but it doesn't need to be. The software on the iPad covers a gigantic area and can be moved as they go through an area. Big areas can be done and displayed. Lighting, line of sight, traps and hidden objects are built in.

The projector is 50 lumens, which was a worry when I ordered it. I have a Mitsubishi HC1600 (1600 Lumens) I use for movies and it's REALLY bright. I was surprised to find the PK301 worked quite well in household lighting and there is no problems with image quality even at a 10ft wide image.

Portability can't be beat, which is why I went with the set up. iPad, Projector, cords, and stand all fit in one bag.

Cost: Projector $280 with shipping (Amazon), 10ft HDMI cord $15-18 (Amazon), Stand $30 (Mainstay brand flexible lamp and Mainstay normal lamp at Walmart), modifications to lamp head $10 (Ace hardware)

I gutted both lamps. The main rod is a series of metal pieces that screw together. Both lamps were made by the same company and the metal pieces are compatible. I bought the second one so that I could have back ups and do any height I wanted. Only the flexible lamp was necessary. The lamp fixture was a series of screw on plastic pieces. It was modified with a rubber stopper, a bolt, a plastic cap, and some two part epoxy to act as a projector mount. The projector has a mount screw hole on the bottom. I'm using some spacers on the bolt so that the projector can be screwed on tight with no stripping of the connections.
There was some initial problems with weight. Basically the flexible section could hold the projector perfectly still at any angle if I had it shaped just right. Wrapping it with duct tape solved the problem. I got some plastic ties with a mechanism to be removed quickly to hold the cords down the length of the rod to keep them out of the way.

In game, I used software tokens (labeled with numbers on screen) and the players used their mini's. Combat Manger (Windows) was used for all combat tracking, spell and feat look ups, stat blocks, etc. Each monster labeled with numbers in Combat Manager corresponding to the tokens on my iPad. Combat could not go smoother. The players have access to ALL spells and feats from Paizo (which they use the PRD for). All spells and feats from the PRD are in Combat Manager, along with EVERYTHING needed to run combat by a GM. I can't recommend that software enough to GMs. When combined with on the fly touch generated maps on my iPad, everything from set up, to NPC/Monster selection, combat tracking, lighting/sight constraints, and everything in between just can't be better. Little things like the fact that their torches illuminate what they can see just make everything easier to manage.


Crimson Sword wrote:

So I had a potential player approach me the other day telling me that he was going to roll a level 8 Shadow Dancer/Assassin/and something else, thus breaking the game. I know he comes from a mechanic breaking heavy background, apparently.

What do I do about this? From a GMing pre and during game stand point?

Any player who comes up to me and says they want to break my game, I show them where the door is.


I'm running a game in a heavily modified "Freeport" (Green Ronin), with a main plot centered around a heavily modified RoTRL (Paizo) background story. I've got the setting, story, and about 100 named NPCs complete. It's been quite a lot of work.

Problem is, I have one main story and no mini stories.

What I need is a BIG list of side quest materials that fit a privateer/pirate campaign setting. I'm not talking about NPC centric quests, I've got those. I'm talking random encounters.

For example (Straight from my notes):

THE BARDIC CUTPURSE:
The PCs go into a tavern where a bard is playing (basically the FIRST tavern the PCs go to). He uses “dazzle” a few times during the performance on the crowd to keep their attention. This scene can be combined with a generic NPC asking the players to do some low level task for some cash. The PCs leave. Sometime later in the session, the bard attempts to grab an item hanging off a PC and make a run for it. He will be cornered and the PCs will catch with him. The bard has already summoned his instrument. This is where the PCs learn what kind of bard it is. He’s a level 7 Demagogue bard. He has no intention of killing the PCs, he just wants to get away. He incites several members of the crowd to attack the PCs, so that he can get away with the item. When the bard performance no longer covers the attacking crowd, the attacking crowd will flee the scene. If this fails to lose the PCs, he will use his wand of silent image to create all sorts of reasons for the PCs to give up chase.
If the Bard is cornered, he will immediately surrender. He is desperate. He owes (my version of the mafia) money and is convinced that Sart is going to kill him soon (Sart, of course prefers to not do such things because dead people don’t pay back money). He’ll apologize profusely and say he’ll find a way to handle it himself.

-------

So in this case, I start with the simple idea of a Bardic Cutpurse. Since the campaign setting has been completely rewritten by me, I know where and how to put the idea. The problem I'm having is that the big lists of side quest I keep finding are for more kingdom based campaign settings. This game is going to run for quite a while in a "Pirate" city that's meant to be a little more on the gritty side. Traditional side quest material won't due.

Any ideas?


Dorje Sylas wrote:


The real fly in the ointment, and one I don't expect any RPG publisher to like, is Apple's license agreement.

Quote:

B. Distribution of your Work. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, your Work may be distributed as follows:

(i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means;
(ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or
service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and (b) Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution.

Here's...

That's a fascinating license agreement and one hell of a poison pill. It's unreasonable, in every way, to declare control of distribation of works that Apple doesn't have the copyright for. That alone is reason not to use interactive iBooks.

I really havn't had the chance to look at it. I have an iPad which I use incessantly, but my MacBook is a first gen intel machine, so 10.7 doesn't run on it. Which means no iBook Author.

Anyhow, even if look at the demo's, it's painfully clear publishers wouldn't use the software for anything other than Apple's store. It only does one thing. Even something a rudimentary as Pages is more powerful.


Dorje Sylas wrote:

Apple eduction press event was just a few minutes ago and part of it was an eBook authoring tool. I'm still up updating my 10.7 development system so I not sure what format it outputs yet. Looks like ePub3 with some Apple twists. Hopefully this won't lock it excusively to iBooks on iPads, but it's early yet.

The demonstration make it look like it could actually be useful in producing books and materials more appropriate for your hobby. One part that has me most intrigued is the option for people who know JavaScript to build their own widgets.

I thought I'd open up the thread now. iBook Author is free to Mac users with 10.7.2 Lion, iBooks 2 is open to iPad iOS users of 4.2/5.

*edit*

Foo, it spits out iBook propriety variant ePub. Although it can also export PDF so it isn't a total dead end for layout and production at the amateurs level.

ePub isn't propriety, by any stretch of the imagination. It's an Adobe format, just like PDF. That being said, I highly doubt the result from an iBooks Author is going to be ePub. The reason I say this is ePub lacks all the features that interactive iBooks have.

In most likelihood, the result will be a folder containing files (formatting wise, this would be hidden from the user by putting them in something that functions the same way as TAR, GZIP, ZIP, et al do). The files themselves, judging from Apple's history, will all be human readable and written in standard formats. You write an interactive element in HTML 5/CSS/JS, it will be stored that way. Apple doesn't close their file structures to outside readers by hiding the details, that's not how they roll. My guess is the interactive iBooks are nothing more than Web Pages with Keynote and ePub support built in. Since Keynote is just an open XML format and ePub is another Adobe format, it's going to be quite open. Especially compared to how the competition does their formats.

As far as iBooks Author being useful in RPG...I don't know. I can see taking the PF PRD and making a custom ebook with it, but you could do that with Pages already. You could take notes in it, I guess, but that's serious overkill. Especially considering there are far better solutions.

What it CAN do is allow publishers to make better books. Anything RPG publishers create would benefit from being made interactive.


VanceMadrox wrote:


It has the text "If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)"

Obviously this means that a Barbarian with Tireless Rage is fatigued afterwards.

My question though is how it interacts if someone actually is immune to fatigue?

If you are immune to fatigue, you would normally not be fatigued. Since you are "immune".

Furious Finish says even if it's not a normal condition for the character, the character is fatigued. Which means, immune or not, you are fatigued. End of story.


Jiggy wrote:

That player might want to consider investing in both Disarm and Trip.

1. Trip an enemy.
2. Enemy stands, use AoO to disarm.
3. Enemy retrieves weapon, use AoO (via Combat Reflexes) to trip.
4. Enemy's turn is done, and he's prone.
5. Your turn, use your normal attack to smack the guy on the ground.
6. Repeat steps 2-5 until he either dies or tries something else.

He wants to use a reach weapon, which makes disarm a concern. He is going to need to be spoken to concerning what he wants to play, I don't think he realizes the full ramifications of a pure PF game.


Howie23 wrote:
Burrito, if I'm understanding you correctly, note that 3.5 AoOs work the same way regarding trip. In 3.5 SRD, standing provokes an AoO, which also takes place while the target is prone and can't be use to trip.

I've never played or run a pure 3.5 game, it's always been house ruled. The way we did it was Trip->AoO->Full Round Stand Up Avoids AoO

The more familiar I get with PF, the more I'm realizing it probably doesn't need to be house ruled.


Grick wrote:

Standing up from a prone position requires a move action and provokes attacks of opportunity.

You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.

You can use Acrobatics to move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5.

That's the way I read it.

I'm doing an experiment, I going to be the first in our group to run a pure PF game, in every aspect. What we have been doing in other games is run PF classes in a slowly modified 3.5 ruleset (that get's more PF as we play). It's functioned just fine, strangely enough.

I'm noticing a general trend of 3.5 power gamer habits being dealt with one by one. This particular one is going to really annoy a guy who is planning on going the trip, combat reflex, cleave route. Which, of course doesn't work in PF at all. Cleave is melee only. Trip doesn't elicit AoO without a few feats.


Hyla wrote:


But you can not tripped again, because you suffer the effects of the attack before you are actually standing.

That's interesting.

So what you're saying is that the following line of attack doesn't work in PF.

Trip Target, target is prone, target stands up, get attack of opportunity, trip target on AoO, target is prone again.

What's the reasoning for that? A target that does a distracting action elicits an attack of opportunity. Which means standing up elicits one. Attacks of opportunity include combat maneuvers.


Cheapy wrote:

*blink blink*

Please try building up a Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist that focuses on Feral Mutagen, and eventually takes a level of Master Chymist.

Don't forget about the CL 20 Potion of Greater Magic Fang that you drink at the beginning of the day. Twice with alchemical allocation.

Or the Pounce ability of the Beastmorph.

Then compare it to the optimized fighter with his Greatsword.

It will be an enlightening experience for you.

I was strictly keeping it in context of the character being described by the original poster.

Anyhow an optimized fighter in PF should always dip into Barbarian for a couple rounds of rage and a rage power then get Power Attack, Vital Strike, Furious Finish combo. Throw in a magic user with enlarge person and you have a monster.

To be honest, at high levels, I suspect the Alchemist is probably overpowered. It's really hard to tell because any class with the right feat and magic combinations is "over powered". I'm going to find out soon enough, because a player in my next campaign is making one.


Kerobelis wrote:


You forget, it also increases the damage dice. He is now 1d8 / 1d8 / 1d12. And he has reach! Basically he get more damage + reach + size (can be good or bad) vs. -2 AC (one of size, one for dx) and -1 reflex.

Enlarge is awesome for melee characters. So I see how this can be a concern to a new DM.

Ah yeah, that's right. It enlarges everything. Still not a big deal. If you follow PF character creation rules, you end up with an alchemist who STILL is underpowered in melee when compared to a Fighter or Barbarian.

Alchemist is a fine class and one to be respected in play. It's not the class the original poster seems to think it is.


Spall wrote:

First time with these rules, I haven't even started the game yet and I already have a list of house rules a mile long again...

What you are playing as PF is clearly broken, hence why you think PF is broken. You aren't playing PF, you're playing what you think PF is.

I suspect what has happened is the same that that happened in the first PF game I played in. The GM is bringing in 3.5 rules into PF assuming PF is the same as 3.5. It's not, it's just "compatible".

Combat has been completely reworked. Everything from how Attack of Opportunity, Full Attacks, and how Feats combine has been changed. Everything. It's a completely different game in grid map mechanics.

Classes have been buffed and reworked in a way that assumes a point buy of 25 (as per PF core rules) is a very high stat game and point buy 15 (which forces negative stats modifiers) is the expected character level. 3.5 GMs developed a habit of doing high rolls so that a point buy of 30 or 35 is the norm. In PF it's not.

Throw out ALL of your assumptions, if you PF is the same as 3.5 in a specific instance of combat, it isn't. Read the rules, don't assume anything.

The problem with the PF core rule book is that the mechanic explanations assume you know what to look for. It written in a somewhat legalistic way, with multiple parts of a mechanic in multiple sections of the book.


Spall wrote:


To create 1000gp per day (correct me if I'm missing something) it seemed like a character could simply choose to make any item at their caster level, take a -5 penalty to double the speed, then... that's it.

In Pathfinder, doubling the speed doesn't change the item creation cost, it just doubles the speed. Still a net increase of zero.

Spall wrote:


The alchemist in question was enlarging himself and using power attack (d8+10 x2, 2d6+10 all at 10ft reach); I saw +10 damage per swing and rounded it to 30str, which is wrong. He will soon have an infinite supply of bulls strength potions and was planning on doing a level of barb, so soon it'll be in excess of that number. I can't just allow it, but the whole Mr Hyde thing is cool and I don't want to just ban it from the campaign. We decided to just eliminate the bite attack until 8th level, when he's gain his normal iterative attack, but I'm still worried.

Power attack requires BAB +1. If he's at level two, he couldn't have taken it at level 1 when he got his feat.

Enlarge Person +2 Strength Mod, -2 Dex Mod, -1 to attack. Not a big deal. Last for one minute.

So unless he has a natural modifier of +8, which means his strength is 26 naturally, your player is cheating.

Even if your alchemist legally had Power Attack, which he doesn't at level 2, Power attack gives a +2 damage. Which means his strength mod would be +6. Which means he has a strength of 22.

If his rolled strength is 22, that means the GM made a mistake by not following the book in the creation of the character.


Spall wrote:

First time with these rules, I haven't even started the game yet and I already have a list of house rules a mile long again...

There's so many things that seem to just flat out break the game world. The worst example was the item creation. Even a low level crafter with a single item creation feat can easily generate 1000gp in resources per day... I couldn't imagine a world with a single adventurer within this paradigm, as you could become much better equipped and wealthier without ever leaving home and risking your neck. There would be a flood of crafters, a glut of top quality goods, prices would fall, eventually all magic items would be available at the drop of a hat at just over cost, all game worlds would become ultra-high magic by default with these rules...

Even if I was willing to sacrifice the verisimilitude of my game world and impose that somehow these item creation rules didn't apply to NPCs (again, the game world would be broken if it did), one character spending one feat could still generate 1000gp in resources per day. Now I suddenly have to pace my adventures so the crafter doesn't have enough time to earn his way into resources way beyond his level instead of letting the game unfold as the story dictates.

You craft at half cost, sell at half cost. It's a net gain of zero. If they are gaining money on crafting, you're breaking the written rules in Pathfinder.

Spall wrote:
The first player to send me his new character forced me to put the brakes on that whole process as well. I know things are supposed to be a little more potent than 3.5 and I don't mind at all, as it seems to give players more flexibility and options in the process, but this first character (a high-str alchemist with feral mutagen) was capable of getting something like 30str with 3 full BAB attacks at full strength... at level 2. WTF am I supposed to do with this? If I throw creatures his way that are tough enough to possibly live more than 1 round then they will be strong enough to outright kill a single character per round. Its rocket tag and it's stupid. Is this just an extreme example of a douchebag powergamer or does the combat generally devolve into instantly wiping out the enemy or...

It sounds like you're reading the Alchemist wrong or you're allowing broken 3.5 items into a Pathfinder game. Please post a specific step by step.


So, I've been looking at how Pathfinder actually states AoO in the book and noticed a few things that seem odd. I'm just wondering if I'm current.

Without Greater Trip, there is no AoO on target with a success.
Standing up, even if done as a full round action, gives a AoO. Moving while prone, even as a "5 ft step" gives an AoO.

Am I reading it right?


Now that I've had time to sit on the idea, I think it wise to just stick to book classes. Custom classes are nice and have their place, but not in this game. If he doesn't want to play a cleric, I'm not going to create a class for him to play.


I think I'm close. He wants an unarmored cleric, so here's what I got.

Priest (Archetype)
A priest is a cleric who has been granted divine protection from his god. He has forgone the use of all armor and is limited to martial and simple weapons.

Weapon Proficiency: A priest is proficient with the quarter staff and dagger. Priests are also proficient with the favored weapon of their deity.

AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the Priest adds his Charisma bonus (if any) to his AC. In addition, a Priest gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four Priest levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the priest is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, wields a weapon other than martial or simple, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.

Bonus Feat: At level 1, a Priest get’s Catch of Guard or Throw Anything as a bonus Feat.


After looking at the suggestions and the book some, what seems reasonable to me is the following.

Limit the player to no armor, martial weapons, including quarter staff (see Monk). Use Wisdom instead of Dex for AC and something similar to the Monk bonus AC (move it up a level higher?). Leave the rest of the Cleric unchanged.

Basically, an unarmored cleric that specializes in Combat Maneuvers (which forces him to get in close).

As a note to those who are saying "Raise the alarm, he wants to break your game". He and I went through that already and an understanding has been reached. His problem is that he hasn't played in non-custom game in a very long time. He really has no idea how to play it without increasing the power and taking it planar. He wants to not DM something and just be a player. Which he's doing a good job of.

I'm going to draw up a template page and come back later with it.


DeathQuaker wrote:


And ON THE OTHER HAND: The player I allowed to do the custom conversion was someone I very much trusted to keep things balanced. Your player, based on what you've said, clearly wants a broken character. My inclination as GM with a player like that would be to put my foot down and say, "Sorry, I would only like to work with published classes. You'll have to make your concept work with the existing Cleric, Oracle, or Inquisitor or try a different character concept."

That is my first inclination. Problem is, I like the idea of an unarmored cleric. He knows what kind of game I'm running, he just doesn't know how to customize classes to function in it. Hence why I'm not letting him play his idea, it's broken.


A player in my upcoming campaign wants to play a custom class. Basically, he wants an unarmored cleric who wears a priest outfit and role-plays like an Inquisitor. He is an experienced GM who runs custom classes in multi-planar settings. All of his game classes are seriously boosted, so that at level 10 the only way they make sense is if they are in a planar setting.

His idea of "balancing" this class incorporates having a prayer book that functions similar to a wizard spell book (same number of spells written in the book at comparable wizard level) with unlimited uses. Meaning, he gets a book of wands with unlimited charges that take a full round action to use. This idea has been completely discounted due to being fundamentally broken.

I do like the idea of a "priest", just not the priest from his campaigns. So, what I'm doing is looking at taking a cleric and inquisitor and making a hybrid class.

My basic idea is to permanently limit the armor and weapons to light. Scribe scroll at level one. Each cleric domain spell slot gets an additional inquisitor spell sitting next to it and/or judgements replace 1 or 2 channel energies/per day.

Any ideas?


When you download the PDFs, there's two files: "Oathbound Seven no BG" 123.5 MB and "Oathbound Seven" 61.4MB. What's the difference between the two?


paperino paolino wrote:
Hi i'm just starting nowo readng the new playtest i want to ask if is present or is in program to add an way to calculate the difference between classes race point like old level adjustment

It's not called ELC, but it's on page 3. The side bar "challenging and advanced monster races". At 10 RP, the ECL is character level. At higher RP (20, 30), the ECL adjustment is based off the level the character is at. It makes sense if you think about it. When you remove the hit dice from a creature, it's racial advantages diminish over the leveling process. At 15th level, everyone in the party can change their size to "Large" and nothing too dramatic is going to change about the outcome of the combat.


drumlord wrote:

The playtest rules state that constructs cannot be raised or resurrected. Are there any ways to bring a construct or half-construct back from destruction? Or are you playing on hardcore mode when you play a construct or undead?

Note: I have no problem with it being hardcore. I'm just curious if there are existing spells or methods of bringing back this type of character.

Constructs don't have souls, so there's nothing to resurrect. It's the nature of the creature.


So, I've decided to run a full campaign with these rules for player race building. I pulled all the monster and advanced traits, gave the players 10 RP, and limited them to three per category. They have fey and humanoid available to play.

My first inclination was to pull the general spell like abilities from the document entirely. After looking at it and doing some test builds, I changed all their requirements to "fey". I suspect giving humanoid races spell like abilities doesn't quite work. Whereas, a fey will have a harder time walking around in most cities without being noticed, which provides and effective trade off.

What do you guys think?


If you're playing a module, yes. If the back of the module has specific classes and items, check to make sure they are't really needed. This has been true since 1st ed AD&D.

If you're playing a fully GM controlled world, then no class is needed at all. You can all play the same class and it won't matter. Assuming, of course, the GM knows how to run a game.


Beckett wrote:

I completely disagree. There are more than a few real world religions that do not worship either any deities, or do not venerate deities as part of their worship. Bhuddism for example, Voodun, many variants of "witchcraft".

In other settings, also, Dragonlance and Eberron come to mind, this is also factually not true. Grayhawk has a lot of cults revolving around concepts. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with James' Golarion being that way (and am not arguing that at all). But it is by no means intrigal to the class or concept any more than all Arcanists needing to go to a wizards academy.

It's integral to Pathfinder divine classes in Golarion.

Something like this really boils down the gaming table. If the players want to play in fantasy world without gods, then so be it. It's not so important that it should stand in the way of playing a game.

In this case, they are playing an adventure path, in Golarion. A land where gods are known to walk around. A land where upon death people go to a plane and can refuse resurrections at will. A land where speak with dead actually works. All of requires a divinity system and specific gods to exist.

Can a DM change it, sure. When I borrow and change game environments, I also change their name. In mind, you're no longer in Golarion if you change it.


Nightfall wrote:

Okay now that I got a new player and my OLD player (the one that didn't care much for the fact I didn't allow an atheist cleric), some how convinced my new one that an atheist paladin works.

I can't find a precedent. I just want to know, what to do here. I'd like a little back up. I know I could be a dick. (Again.) But I just...dunno.

In Golarion, Gods are a demonstrable fact, so to think they don't exist means the Paladin is a fool.

More importantly, any spell that requires a divine focus will fail. So, such a Paladin would be a TERRIBLE Paladin and would be better off being shipped to a Plane with a suitable God for worship and handed a divine focus.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>