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

Remco Sommeling's page

3,367 posts (4,089 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,367 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I would leave that sort of thing to wish-like magic, or possibly reincarnate / limited wish combination.


As good as any if you dont share what you want to accomplish.

It is probably fair enough a bit more powerful than average.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

Just because people accept their parents are having sex doesn't mean they wan to be confronted with it directly. I suspect most people that do not wish LGBT content in Paizo books are much the same, it doesn't make them wrong or haters.

I am fine with a middleground and leave sexuality mostly in the bacckground but easy to adjust to a table's likes or dislikes, but some hints at a character's proposed sexuality are completely fine with me, it is a modest and fitting statement and as far as I'd go as a company's default religion.

This is becoming a little tedious, but do you realize that when an NPC description says that Bob Smith (M) and Sally Smith (F) are married, they're confronting you directly with the sexuality of those two NPCs? At least, if you feel that an NPC description that says that Irabeth (F) and Anevia (also F) are married is confronting you directly with lesbianism, then you have to give the same consideration to the equivalent situation.

Maybe, but in practice that isn't always the case. It's a charged subject for many, one way or another, and even though people might not want to judge lesbianism they might feel a bit uncomfortable with it. All I am saying that these people are not 'wrong' for feeling differently than you do. As much as I accept gay people I accept that people are not always entirely comfortable with it. I do not see a need for sexuality to have more than a passing role in Pathfinder one way or another.


haruhiko88 wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
I'd say you can use it as an improvised weapon but you would not be wielding it as a longspear then. In effect it would be a free action to shift grips, so you can't make both 5' and 10' reach AoO, the GM might limit the number of free actions in a round further.
The polearm master fighter would like a word with you about the shifting grips thing. For them it's an immediate action, which if you take it on your turn becomes your swift action.

The ability is different though and doesn't rule out what I said in any way.

Also I rather derive rulings from general rules rather than an archetype that has been used and designed by a more limited number of people. Changing grips seems more appropriate as a free action, like going from a one-handed to a two-handed grip or vice versa. Archetypes have a history of awkward design by RAW.


Just because people accept their parents are having sex doesn't mean they wan to be confronted with it directly. I suspect most people that do not wish LGBT content in Paizo books are much the same, it doesn't make them wrong or haters.

I am fine with a middleground and leave sexuality mostly in the bacckground but easy to adjust to a table's likes or dislikes, but some hints at a character's proposed sexuality are completely fine with me, it is a modest and fitting statement and as far as I'd go as a company's default religion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say you can use it as an improvised weapon but you would not be wielding it as a longspear then. In effect it would be a free action to shift grips, so you can't make both 5' and 10' reach AoO, the GM might limit the number of free actions in a round further.


I don't see any need to fix the paladin, the code system might be modified a bit by creating specific 'order archetypes', the vulnerability to falling is quite exaggerated in a campaign where players have a little common sense and the GM isn't punishing players unnecessarily it is a RP-tool rather than a hindrance.

I had one 'fallen' paladin in all my campaigns for the last 20 years or so and that was a result of a paladin claiming an artifact (rod of seven parts). As a GM I gave him powers aligned with Law rather than Good and restored his other paladin powers after a while.

Occasionally I did take away the highest level of spells a priest or paladin could cast though, sent bad omens and signs that were inconvenient to the character. On the other hand I usually go out of my way to reward good RP by immersing the characters into the story, tailor make magical items for the character and have them encounter helpful NPCs more often.

Current generations of players have trouble with playing lawful stupid, it is supposed to be troublesome if you do not enjoy the challenges please do not play the class, if you do no have a GM that can handle paladin players well.. do not play the class. It is imo not a problem with the class but specific players or GMs.


I do not get why the list contains acrobatics and perception, those are skills that seem quite suitable to a fighter. (especially perception since even commoners get that).

I don't like to restrict fighters to military types, neither do I feel they should be more skilled than other fighters, simply give them 4 skill points and have them sort out the rest with traits.

You might like to add the option of removing heavy armor proficiency for a bonus feat from a limited (skill based) list.


I apply weapon specific feats to all weapons in a weapon group for fighters. Your way works too, seems to make a bit less sense to me though.


Azlanti = Atlantis
Vudra = India


Tels wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Common sense says that you can't generate 120d6 damage from a 3rd level spell. So you can't.

Common sense says that if, as a 5th level caster, I cast Fireball 24 times, I've generated 120d6 points of damage.

Hell, the generic Wand of Fireball is 5th level and has 50 charges, it generates 250d6 points of damage.

I'm not sure where you're from, but I really want none of your Common Sense infecting my Common Sense.

Keep in mind, the above scroll isn't 1 casting of Explosive Runes, it's twenty. Twenty castings of Explosive Runes = 120d6 points of force damage.

Save for half.

..And common sense says if every 5th lvl wizard could do that there wouldnt be quite so many high level characters in the world. Just no, this cheese does more to damage your argument.


Main problem I have is the nova potential of psionics, having to burn more PP isn't a great balancing system.

Also psionics is much more accesible than magic, it can be combined with armor and increasing CL can make your low level powers near as powerful as high lvl spells, your number of PP will stay behind but that makes the nova issue even bigger.

Psionics are not more powerful than spells but they are harder to neutralize, no spellbook, no components but for the rare material component.

I am not a psionic hater I actually do like it but these are some subtle balance issues that bother me. Not to say these are necessarily bigger issues than those of 'traditional' magic, just kinda used to houseruling those.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

If you don't do enough damage to obliterate damage reduction in F at levels when it comes up you have bigger issues, martials using their favorite golfclub will hardly be slowed by 15 points of DR.

Which goes to show just how little of the system you know...

A Greatsword/Falcion wielding fighter might not care but what about the sword and board? Or the Dual-wielder? I mean both of those already get shafted enough with rediculous walls of feat requirements as it stands. Unless what you are suggesting is "tough, deal with being utterly useless for not pure out optimizing" and that people shoudl either be forced to pure optimize or to just be incapable.

You don't agree, so I suck at system mastery ?

Seriously damage reduction will usually just keep a monster alive a round longer, power attack does deal with DR for a fair bit.


If you don't do enough damage to obliterate damage reduction in F at levels when it comes up you have bigger issues, martials using their favorite golfclub will hardly be slowed by 15 points of DR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
clff rice wrote:

Lolth

Name CR 27
XP 3276800
CE Medium Outsider (chaotic, demon, evil, extraplanar)
Init +9; Senses Dark Vision, low light vision; detect good, detect law, detect magic Perception +59...

hp 640 (31d10+465 )...

If lolth is going to have 600+ hp, you may as well make it 666 to echo the old 66 hp. You're only 26 off from it after all. Just a thought.

I agree, make her 36HD with a constitution of 36, which gives her an average of 666.

I'd probably give her 8 clones with 66 hitpoints each though, just to screw with my players.


Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted

Supernatural Abilities (Su)

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:

10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma).

* Basically not a whole lot but they default to no action or a standard action respectively, and the magic interaction thing can be important as well and if you create your own abilities it might help to tie it to a certain ability, i.e. magical abilities default to charisma not intelligence.


A stonelord paladin, an invulnerable barbarian, a sohei monk with a dire boar mount (leadership feat), a skald bard, a crusader cleric, a grenadier alchemist.

The grenadier might take the trapfinding trait and become the groups trap specialist.

My personal preference is to downplay arcane magic with dwarves


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Same as always. 1/2 HD + Cha mod.

The usual is spell level + charisma mod for (SLA), You are confusing it with (Su).

I'd rather make the level of accessibility later since you progress faster than a sorcerer this way and cast the spells without components of any kind, meaning you can cast in armor, in silence, without components etc.

0-lvl spells - level 1st, cha 10
1st-lvl spells - level 3rd, cha 11
2nd level - level 5th, cha 12
all the way up to level 19th, cha 19

then again I would not make any feat chain like this that consumes all your standard feats


Why do people take this subject so serious ?

Art represents that which people find beautiful, a shapely or well muscled body is very much a part of that. Most men enjoy tasteful art with a hint of sexuality, and in my experience most women do as well though arguably to a lesser extent based on what I read.

There is a lot of art I like, some isn't quite my taste but I accept that other people do enjoy different things. Some women are uppity, some men are perverts and most are just being men and women. I do trust Paizo to strike a balance, which in my opinion they have done very well so far. For my part I accept that Paizo has a wide audience and not all people are the same, a bit more censorship won't hurt me much, but I enjoy seeing the occasional lightly erotic depiction where it is appropriate or as semi-comical relieve.

If art stops invoking a reaction, maybe then everyone is happy ?


1) No it only functions on a normal hit

2) No, it doesn't apply

3) not by RAW

4) Yes, by RAW

5) not by RAW

for nets I do not think the standard rules apply very well, you'd be better off crafting a new (specific) item.


Paulicus wrote:

It's borderline questionable, but it really depends on the context (what the information is, used for, who it's sold to, etc.). It's definitely not enough to automatically turn your PC evil though, which would depend heavily on other things the character does. Neutral is a balance between good and evil, and will do both things at times.

I'm more drawn to the lawful aspect. This definitely doesn't seem lawful to me.

More specifically it doesn't seem lawful good or lawful neutral, it could very well be lawful evil.


Marthkus wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
I think the paladin is perfectly justified to complain if you do not ping on his evil radar.
True, but pleading to the GM for an alignment change, has nothing to do with the Paladin character, and more to do with the paladin player being a jerk and infringing on the roleplaying of others.

I can think of several reasons why the player would not enjoy this scheme as much as the OP without being a jerk. Players generally do not play a paladin to be party to the 'evil pastry cartel', frankly that isn't my expectation of the game either. I can also imagine this scheme consuming a fair bit of a time at the gaming table, which is likely as exciting as watching paint dry for other players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the paladin is perfectly justified to complain if you do not ping on his evil radar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:
Don't forget the 66 ht points. Count 'em.

That was 2nd editon, if only it was 3rd edition I'd make it 666 out off principle.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think human bodies are pleasant to the eye but the art has to make some sense, I am not bothered by bare chested men or scantily clad women. A seductive sorceress is fine a fighter in chain mail bikini is not, unless maybe it is a gladiator slave pit fight.

I do not think there is a problem with depicting a character's sexuality, only when it makes the characters appear shallow and non-sensical do I have an issue.


showzilla wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
Since BAB represents a character's combat skill, I suggest using d20 + BAB + INT and treating it as a knowledge skill. Just a suggestion.
silence, your suggesting something that martial characters could get that upgrades without sacrificing permanent resources to get it. but seriously, that sounds pretty cool, though how could rogue better utilize such a mechanic, they seem the type to do this sort of thing just as well as a fighter.

I'd say a rogue talent.


Lemartes wrote:

If deflect arrows is fine then cranes wing should be fine the way it was.

Not the end of the world though.

If point-blank shot is fine, point-blank slam must be as well.

If rapid shot is fine, rapid slam must be as well.

If many shot is fine, many slams must be too.

...and so on, ranged combat works differently than melee in many ways, due to feats or general rules that the comparison isn't really that easy.
I think too many allowances for missile combat have been given that make it too easy to just shoot targets without penalty. The existence of deflect arrows is almost a balancing factor, I do not think melee combat needed balancing towards that end. It is not about martials having nice things rather it nerfs martials, making enemies relying on physical attacks more useless than before.

Anyway I am all for a nerf of the feat, though I don't think it is the right nerf. I'd love to see a parry riposte feat chain so you do not need to take duelist levels just to be able to parry.


Don't forget that weapon training gives a bonus on maneuvers made with that weapon in addition to the attack bonus, double benefit for the gloves of dueling.


I don't think it really matters there are just four Horseman, they have died many times in the past but they have always been replaced easily. To me it seems the Horsemen can be killed but their power can't so easily be stripped, it simply transfers to another who takes the mantle.

if you are looking at it like that, invading the realm and expending a lot of effort killing a horseman just isn't paying off,


Orich Starkhart wrote:


Remco Sommeling wrote:
I am not going to focus more on deadly finesse, it is in itself already focused on light weapons, I find it somewhat silly to be deadly with a kukri but useless with dagger.

Yes, I agree that requiring separate Weapon Focus for very similar weapons seems silly, and I could see including treating Kukri as a Dagger for the purpose of Weapon Focus and maybe your Deadly Finesse. However, the clear implication here ("deadly with ... but useless with ...") is that lack of damage bonus due to ability modifier renders one useless. I know the point of these feats is to increase consistent damage capability for DEX-based characters in melee, but without the boost they are "useless" in melee, really? How much damage bonus is enough not to be considered useless?

Useless might be a bit much but if you have a kukri with dexterity 20 with the appropriate feats 1d4+1 or 1d4+5(18-20) makes a huge difference, while 1d4+5 is acceptable for a low level martial character, 1d4+1 is not good enough to contribute much. average 3.5 or 7.5, meaning you are about half as effective in most circumstanes.


Orich Starkhart wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Orich, I should not have typed 5' step. I meant to say move at least 5 foot, so it can be combined with a 5' step or a normal move action.
Thanks for clarifying; I believe you're taking the Feint as a standard action in this case, to subject your opponent to denial of dex in the next round.

Not necessarily, there are multiple ways to feint, move or swift actions even but without any other feats it would be a standard action.

Orich Starkhart wrote:


regarding:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
The intention is to replace dervish dance by these two feats, adding weapon focus seems a bit much, they ought to get started on their fighting style fairly soon instead of giving them multiple levels of suck beause they can't use dexterity to hit yet and then suddenly get a +5 bonus to hit. This way they can take the feat at 2nd lvl as a fighter, 3rd lvl otherwise.
I'm not following something. For each of your proposed feats, Weapon Finesse, providing dexterity to-hit, is required, so I do not understand how you assert they "have multiple levels of suck beause[sic] they can't use dexterity to hit yet" under my suggestion that they need Weapon Focus too before qualifying for Deadly Finesse. I figured anyone making a primarily melee character would take Weapon Focus on the weapon they expect to use most as soon as possible, for the bonus to hit independent of STR or DEX. What's potentially missing until they have an additional prerequisite feat under my proposal compared to yours is the DEX modifier to damage supplied by your Deadly Finesse. Remember, a fighter starts with two feats - could be Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse - three if it's human.

Yes, they do have weapon finesse and could use it with a light weapon, but a character usually wants to wield his signature weapon from the start. If you want to play a dex-based fighter with a longsword for example you would need weapon finesse, weapon focus and Sword Dancer, meaning characters without bonus feats would have to wait till level 5, before they can even hit reliably with a longsword since strength will not have high priority, sure you could use a kukri for the first 5 levels but that would suck a bit.


Thanks for the feedback Orich, I should not have typed 5' step. I meant to say move at least 5 foot, so it can be combined with a 5' step or a normal move action. You would not be able to get the bonus when not able to move though, such as difficult terrain or being immobilized by a net for example and sometimes it is impractical if in a slim alley and you can only move back or your movement take you otherwise in a direction you do not want to go.

The intention is to replace dervish dance by these two feats, adding weapon focus seems a bit much, they ought to get started on their fighting style fairly soon instead of giving them multiple levels of suck beause they can't use dexterity to hit yet and then suddenly get a +5 bonus to hit. This way they can take the feat at 2nd lvl as a fighter, 3rd lvl otherwise.

I do not feel the need to make sword dancer more demanding than weapon finesse, the benefit of a bigger weapon isn't that great, typically you might do +1 damage or so at average. An agile fighter with a second weapon should be fine, artemis or drizzt from FR campaign should be able to be approximated as deadly and skilled warriors not relying on brute strength or a magical weapon too heavily.
I think I'll add that you can only use it with light shields though.

I am not going to focus more on deadly finesse, it is in itself already focused on light weapons, I find it somewhat silly to be deadly with a kukri but useless with dagger.

It is still inferior to a strength build, though it does have synergy with TWF, investing a number of feats to compensate for your physical 'weakness' compared to hulking barbarians and giants is something that should be reflected in the rules properly imo.

EDIT: sorry for the lazy editing, I was in a bit of a rush.


Nightwish wrote:

One of my gaming groups has implemented the following rules, and I want to see what people think of them.

My co-DM Ed came up with this one: Sneak Attack only applies to the first attack each round, not to all iterative attacks. The rationale is that precision-based damage requires study and patience to find just that right kink in the armor or that momentarily exposed vital spot. With your opponent writhing and bobbing and weaving, those openings are going to close up very quickly, especially once you've hit them. I like the idea, and I've toyed with the idea of allowing two attacks with sneak attack damage in a round, if the character is using Two-Weapon Fighting and wielding 2 light one-handed weapons, such as daggers, because they could both strike the same opening simultaneously.

I came up with this one: When a character who has Evasion or Improved Evasion is in difficult terrain (and lacks feats or spell effects allowing them to ignore it) or is in a situation where their movement is otherwise hindered, such as grappled, then they are treated as if their Evasion is one step lower - Improved Evasion becomes regular Evasion, and regular Evasion is disqualified.

Part of the reason for these changes was to add a little more realism and sensibility to the game, and part of it was to nerf the rogue just a bit, because one thing all the DMs in my games seem to share in common is that we all disagree with the trend in 3rd Edition and later incarnations to turn the rogue into a fighter lite.

All fine and well, aside from what you think of the rogue's power. I don't see how SA 1/round makes it any more realistic. The only thing you do is put a cool down on the power for 6 seconds, then 6 seconds later the situation is exactly the same but for some reason the rogue can use SA now...


kaisc006 wrote:

The belief that by allowing Dex to damage your game will somehow become broken is wrong. It's unfortunate that many of the game's core developers and the community believe this misconception. So long as you cannot multiply dex while wielding a weapon in two hands, a STR damage dealer will come out on top.

In my home games, certain weapons have inherent finesse such as shortswords, daggers, ect. and players automatically may choose Dex for attack. The feat weapon finesse lets them apply dex to damage with any finesse weapon. I've had zero balance issues.

While I agree with that you should notice that dexterity is not just about damage, it is a very solid attribute in it's own right.

I think this is balanced by the fact that:

The choices of weapon, weapon style and damage output is not as good as a strength build.

The investment of feats, you do not invest these feats to be better at dealing damage, in effect you invest the feats to have the usual benefits of dexterity (initiative, reflex saves, skills, armor class potential).

The feats you invest limit your choice in other areas.

Also, it is not really that important to have the attributes be equal, strength will remian important for a few classes and builds but more classes will now go for a dex build, this makes the strength builds a bit more special too. I think it will reward rogues, monks and fighters more than most others for various reasons and they can use a small boost.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:

I advocate Finesse as a weapon quality, rather than a feat, and some way to add Dex to damage. So I dig the angle of these feats.

One thing that could help the Str dump problem is adding a Prerequisite of Str 13 to any feat that allows one to finesse a normally non-finesse weapon. Along with disallowing +50% damage when two-handing (Str or Power Attack), I think that's enough to rein in the Dex psycho's.

Also, you could add a feat atop any Dex to damage finesse feat to gain the benefit with non-finesse weapons. So, it could go:

Weapon Finesse (feat or weapon quality)

Deadly Finesse

Sword Dancer (or whatever, a feat that lets you Finesse a Greataxe)

>Insert Clever Feat Name< (a feat that lets you add Dex to damage for a Greataxe, or whatever)

...or some such.

Thank you for your feedback.

I give weapon finesse for free, of course the weapon still has to qualify for it but it also works for natural weapons in this case, but it is a bit of a side matter.

hmm.. I could add strength 13 to Sword Dancer I guess, it wouldn't be inappropriate. Wielding a longsword with finesse is fine, though they still need to have str 13 to use power attack so most would have strength 13 anyway otherwise str 13 is hardly worthwhile since they wouldnt be able to get piranha strike for a longsword.

I am not so much opposed to allowing the damage bonus for power attack stand, but dealing +50% damage from your dexterity bonus would be strange for two-handing a finesse weapon.

slightly modified then:

Deadly Finesse

peequisites: dex 13, weapon finesse

When you are wielding a weapon that benefits from weapon finesse in one hand and nothing in the other, or a single weapon in both hands, you can choose to deal your dexterity modifier as a bonus to damage rather than your strength bonus, strength penalties still apply.

If you are wielding multiple weapons instead you can deal half your dexterity modifier as bonus to damage.

You do not add +50% to your dex bonus for wielding a weapon two-handed, though you could use your strength bonus on damage instead if desired.

EDIT: Any thought on the Sword Dancer feat ? I am thinking the bonus should be scaled down a bit somehow.

1) Pick one weapon to finesse *
2) Use perform to feint
3) a +2 bonus to feint if you move at least a 5' step before you do **

* Fighters in my campaign get to use any feat they pick with a weapon group instead of a single weapon, but I felt like it was too generous, especially towards other classes.

** The feint bonus seemed a bit high, +2 bonus should be enough for a side benefit that will be in play most of the time.


Aelryinth wrote:

so, if you give weapon finesse out for free, do non-finesse users get to swipe it out for something?

Or do the finesse users give up, oh, 1.5 str for 2h and Power Attack in exchange?

==Aelryinth

No, they don't get to exchange it. I just want dexterity based characters to function ok-ish from level 1. they are by no means the most impressive combatants in my camapign, barbarians and paladins and other Heroes of Anti-dexterity still claim that position.

Though the feats above will replace dervish dancer (I think), so that becomes a little more feat intensive again evening it out but giving somewhat broader benefits.


Scrogz wrote:

Speaking on Deadly Finesse only....

No... I don't belive so, but that is just my opinion.

There is already enough benefit from a high dex. Adding in your dex to damage fundamentally changes the core mechanics of the system.

No, no a thousand times no.

That being said, it's your game. Do wahtever you want =)

Well it does keep strength penalties in, which disallows dumping stats and makes the character doubly vulnerable to ability penalties, damage or drain.

The feat is already covered in part by dervish dance but I thought it should also be available to light weapons.

Why is it a problem that dexterity is a bit better than strength ?

It is the same for all characters and the strongest martial characters in the game aren't typically dexterity based. (paladin, barbarian)
A monk, rogue or possibly a few fighters are most likely to benefit.


williamoak wrote:

I already use something similar to deadly finesse in my own games, without the applied strength penalty. Nobody has used it yet, though I have heard of MANY poeple who use it without any effects on game balance.

Sword dancer is interesting. Not sure what to think of it.

Thanks for the feedback. I give weapon finesse for free to any creature really so it will be more accessible in my campaign I think, I don't think it will affect balance since dervish dancer is already a feat.


Deadly Finesse

peequisites: dex 13, weapon finesse

When you are wielding a weapon that benefits from weapon finesse in one hand and nothing in the other you can choose to deal your dexterity modifier as a bonus to damage rather than your strength bonus, strength penalties still apply.

If you are wielding multiple weapons instead you can deal half your dexterity modifier as bonus to damage.

Sword Dancer

Prerequisite: Weapon Finesse, dex 13, perform dance 2

You can use weapon finesse with one-handed weapons from the light blades, heavy blades, monk and spears weapon groups as well as light weapons. Also you can use perform dance instead of the bluff skill to feint and you get a +4 bonus on that skill to feint if you moved that round.

* Are these acceptable feats ?


I'd suggest giving the character two extra levels, and a side kick, sister, wife, kid brother or whatever character/creature can serve as a good support character played by you.

Give the GM pc two extra levels of npc classes instead, aristocrat or expert probably best.


The spell is fine, better for NPCs sine PCs tend to have magical gear making the enhancement bonus obsolete. You do however keep your normal shape and gear to use.

It tends to be better on monstrous druids since wildshape isnt so beneficial for them. Last I used it in a campaign it was cast by a taiga giant, generally a better option than other wildshapes in this case.


RaizielDragon wrote:
At comparable levels, which would be more useful in combat: the dragonriders single mount or the broodmasters eidolon(s)?

If you can, I'd really look into the book of drakes. The dragontamer is practically inspired by Daenerys. There is a lady on the cover with three small drakes. Can't say I have playtested it but the book seems to be good quality. It also allows you to summon drakes and other dragon related abilities.


Get a copy of the book of drakes by open design, there is a draketamer class in there.

It is an alternate summoner really but well done, the book also has some drake companions that are interesting and spells that fit the theme.


perhaps a myrmidach (magus archetype) wouldn't be so bad for the gnome.


Better_with_Bacon wrote:

Hmmm...

I'm trying to balance the risk-reward aspect of magical item creation.

How would you tweak it?

Very Respectfully,
--Bacon

Don't allow take 10 on item creation, otherwise your suggestions are fine.


I'd rewrite it like this:

Crane Wing (Combat)
You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.

Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.

Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee attack being made against you before the roll is made. You an attempt to counter the attack by making an opposed attack roll with a +4 bonus, this otherwise works like the duelist PrC's parry ability except that you can only parry attacks made against yourself and counts as an AoO for the round rather than one f your attacks on your turn, if you can't make an AoO you can't use this feat. If you using the total defense action instead, you can attempt to deflect one melee attack(even though you can't make any AoO usually when in total defense) with a +8 bonus instead. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.

Special: Monks use their monk level instead of their BAB for the purpose of this feat.

* I'd have to smooth out the wording, but the mechanics work well with crane riposte. I would also have the crane riposte have the parried target lose his dexterity bonus versus the riposte.


Eric Shores wrote:
So, I have a question. Why is Deflect Arrow game balanced and this feat (as it was originally)not game balanced? I mean this feat has significantly higher prerequisites and more or less provides the exact same mechanic as deflect arrows but does it to melee instead of ranged? For real, if this mechanic is SOOOO overpowered why is no one crying to nerf Deflect Arrows? I mean for real, you can deflect a freaking BULLET with deflect arrows but a martial artist can't do the same thing to a sword? how does that make sense? I kind of thought that being able to deflect and avoid hits in combat was part of what martial artists are so famous for. Just a thought.

1) Rapid shot, many shot, haste

2) ranged characters can full attack often at range

3) melee character can often only make a single attack

4) Many people would like to see ranged attacks downgraded a bit.

5) I don't think deflect arrows should be automatic either, but I think some archer feats and items are over the top too so I am kinda just keeping it as is since I would feel like house ruling multiple feats at once to address my beef with ranged attacks.


Ithink the hfeats are unreasonable to start with, but nobody is making any items if they can't means with taking 10 anyway. In my opinion you are just boosting an already unreasonable line of feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Captain Golarion.. ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQ'ed though I would simply turn the dice to equivalent number of d10 dice for the mythic versions.

1 to 50 of 3,367 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.