I'd use this opportunity to use some Good Guys from my Bestiary to chase down the character, some celestial retribution, a local jihad proclaimed by the resident high priest and Good Guys gone bad in their undying desire to avenge their loved ones, awesomeness.
Fighter is fine, paizo overshot their goal in the barbarian, just made him a bit too good, rage powers are better than feats and you can take rage powers by giving away feats. A fighter is stuck taking feats.
A rogue has talents which are worse or equal to feats and can exchange feats to get more of them.
A paladin seems to be built under the presumption that RP restrictions balance it's relative power which is weak design in my opinion.
Ranger would be fine if not for a single spell that whacks it out off balance, which is quite often the case with magic in general there are so many spells there will always be a few doing a bit too much, metamagic rods and SADness take them further out off whack.
The fighter could be a bit more sexy, the rogue could be a bit better, it is better fixing the few things that make other classes overpowered or obviously better first. Not to say I do not have house rules to make fighters more appealing but I adjusted the more obvious game breakers first.
I think it is an issue with the change from 3.x to pathfinder, in 3.x it would have been a very powerful ability actually ignoring hardness and dealing full damage, frankly a bit hesitant to rule it that way even though that was likely the intent.
In pathfinder the ability does not do anything since halving damage before hardness will be unable to do anything at all.
Touch AC is not that hard to deal with and many characters can really, I think the trouble in this case was a lack of diversity in your party.
A dodge feat, fighting defensively, combat expertise, deflection bonus, concealment, power attack, force effects, channeling, turn undead, withdraw are all things that could have helped, a paladin would have also been quite useful. 100+ hit points is not a lot with an AC of 15, and some of the mentioned attacks deal a lot of damage to them.
Allowing all 3 to attack a single target in the first round is a bit harsh, and energy drain is quite nasty if you take into account that they get 10 temporary hit points every hit. Nasty but hard to peg by CR, either they are very dangerous or not a big threat at all.
*handwave* custom designed spells or something. Or, tell me what rules I broke, and I'll do something else. It's a wizard. They always have something else.
The real point, is that after a certain point, fighters are pretty much useless for anything other than having Dominate Person cast on them so they'll attack their own party. So comparing an actual competent class to a fighter is unfair.
Actually, when you cast Gate to call in Solars four times, it failed, so you have no slots left and your time stop is up, and the solars might be pissed that you bugger them so much...
But no. Fighters can be very useful and do fill a niche, especially as archers. There was an example back when there was only Core of a (core only, obviously) fighter that could quite easily beat a Pit Fiend in single combat; that's a CR+4 encounter. IIRC it one-rounded it with the bow with little issues - and that was core only.
Wizards are very powerful, but a lot of their power comes from players who think "I'm a wizard, I can ignore the rules" (as you just did) or that just write shroedinger wizards online. When used in actual play, while they are powerful, they are far from the only class that matters.
Any class, barring potentially rogue and monk (though with archetypes they too) can murder anything within the standard assumptions of the game with little issue.
And custom designed spells have little against a use-activated Bow of True Strike and Time Stop and a readied action... So there ya have it...
not to mention you wasted 10,000 gold on 4 useless gate spells, a fighter could UMD an anti-magic shell and rip you apart for considerably less gold.
So the wizard is deemed to be the most powerful class, comparing every single class to a wizard is just bad design, but even so the summoner does get access to some nifty spells earlier than the wizard and they aren't even summoning spells per definition, they do have decent hitpoints, BAB and fair combat ability.
It does not really matter that much which is more powerful since it is about party dynamics but the summoner overtakes the role of the martials and offers much more on the side, summoner simply does too much, too well.
You are right though, the wizard should be taken down a notch, but that would offend the wizard fanboys too much.
Nearyn, what do you mean by "sucking in more arcane points than I know what to do with"?
They only refresh at the start of each day.
Wyroot
Source: Advanced Race Guide.
The root of the wyrwood tree has a peculiar quality. When a weapon constructed of wyroot confirms a critical hit, it absorbs some of the life force of the creature hit. The creature hit is unharmed and the wyroot weapon gains 1 life point. As a swift action, a wielder with a ki pool or an arcane pool can absorb 1 life point from the wyrwood weapon and convert it into either 1 ki point or 1 arcane pool point. Most wyroot weapons can only hold 1 life point at a time, but higher-quality wyroot does exist. The most powerful wyroot weapons can hold up to 3 life points at a time. Any unspent life points dissipate at dusk.
Wyroot can be used to construct any melee weapon made entirely of wood or a melee weapon with a wooden haft. Constructing a wyroot weapon that can hold 1 life point increases the weapon's cost by 1,000 gp, constructing one that can hold up to 2 life points increases the weapon's cost by 2,000 gp, and constructing one that can hold up to 3 life points increases the weapon's cost by 4,000 gp.
I am pretty sure it is not meant to work with scimitars, but there it is.
my main issues are with the lack of flavor of the eidolon as a creature and summon spells in general.
Wait... what? You actually find the ability to completely build up a creature's appearance and functionality and origin and whatever else, to fit nearly any concept you can imagine, to be a lack of flavor?
I mean, yeah, it's kind of a 'blank-slate' type of deal, but the eidolon's customizability for flavor is one of my favorite things about it. You put your own spin into it, and have pretty much full control over the design and how it fits in, etc. I'm way on the opposite end from considering that to be a problem :/
Fer instance. Can't do that with a conjuration wizard. ;)
Also:
Guardian angel
Imaginary friend that grew up as harsh as the child that imagined it.
Infernal overseer sent to make sure that its assigned diabolist carries out his end of the pact.
From a couple of friends' personal game: An outsider jammed into the body of a mortal sacrifice who are slowly merging into one being, which terrifies both of them.
Bound genie that's been passed down through the family.
Manifested totem/guardian spirit of your tribe.
The lingering spirit of a dead loved one.
A freaking bioweapon that sychronized with you after cracking open a piece of Numerian wreckage.
And on and on and on.
This is a good thing. Locking the Eidolon into a tightly focused flavor runs the risk of ruining all of that, potentially really turning it into a "here are my pokemons let me show you them" class.
I like to think of there being a loose order of Summoners and Eidolons in Dehrukani(in South Garund), where azata/eidolon attunement is treated as a sacred art. Hell, it's almost been confirmed to be the class to represent the God-Callers of Old Sarkoris.
Well it is has that amount of flexibility but it is not the real thing. It can not really be a devil without any of the devil traits, you can kinda fake some by giving immunity to fire, some resistances and the like but you can only ever hope to approximate the devilish qualities and if you do it will generally suck.
You end up trapped between something flavorless but efficient or something that 'kinda' resembles a devil.. eventually but is just not that great.
I do not like this because it makes the summoner it's own thing with no ties to the rest of the system as a whole, you can make a devil themed eidolon but it is not a devil like the rest of the world understands it.
It is best described as an imaginary friend come to life from your imagination.. it's something created without any real roots in the campaign world, it robs it of much flavor.
The summoner is just a horrible class, it looks and feels like it is designed for a different system. The mechanics are wrong on several levels and don't fit with the changes paizo made to 3.5 (especially the synthesist in that regard).
I also have trouble with this pile of amorphous goo that is an eidolon, one level you have a devil(ish) minion next level you have an angel(ish) one, it reeks of (clunky)mechanics with little flavor, even if you want to stay in the same them it is impossible to have the eidolon evolve naturally since you have to dump abilities to buy 3 and 4 point evolutions.
Personally I do not like any class feature companion x abilities, summon monster X is sort of broken already (with a fair bit of farfetched fluff) and the summoner has an odd mix of spells that make little sense, the AC is way too easy to buff up for both the summoner and eidolon even before you apply magical gear or feats to it.
It has been my experience that if someone wants me to go back to his room at 4am, he's looking for sex (or something sexual in nature). Likewise, if I'm going to ask someone to go back to my room at 4am, it's because I'm looking for sex. It's not unreasonable to assume that was the case, here, and I think that most reasonable, sexual beings would assume that sex was the goal. It would have been very, very easy to make it not about sex. For starters, if the request was made at 4pm instead of 4am, or if he had suggested they go somewhere other than a hotel room for the conversation and the coffee, or if he had emphasized the fact that he wanted to talk, or flat out said that he wasn't looking for sex.
Or, you know, he could have had the conversation he wanted to have with Watson when she was at the bar, which would have been all too easy if he was genuinely interested in just a conversation.
If it looks like a proposition, and it smells like a proposition, it's probably a proposition. It's possible that it wasn't, but if that was the case, the guy could have and should have done more to make that clear.
The guy did nothing wrong in my opinion, if the proposition was clear all the better, he put it fairly polite and accepted no for an answer.
Do people have to seek flaws in every little thing, I am not saying it was a perfect performance, but hell at some point you have to say kudos for trying to be decent, that is about all you can expect really.
So what you're saying basically boils down to "come ooon, we knoooow what he wanted!" but we don't get to make that assumption. Hell, maybe he was gay!
It doesn't matter what he wanted. I'm not accusing him of anything. I accept that he was perfectly innocent of any actual bad intent. He probably wanted to have sex with her, but he probably would have taken no for an answer even if she had come back to his room.
His actual intentions aren't the point. What it looked like to her at the time is the point. He (probably) left the same room she did and took the same elevator on purpose. At least he commented on listening to her talk, which suggests that he'd been there and that he'd sought her out. That's enough that a reasonable person would think it wasn't a coincidence. Just like a reasonable person would think that a late night invitation to his hotel room might include more than just coffee and talk. Even he seemed to get that it might be inappropriate because he felt the need to start with something like "Don't take this the wrong way." He knew it would be taken the wrong way, so why say it? With someone you don't know, the disclaimer is meaningless.
Even Kirth agreed that going back to his room would be stupid. If it's obvious that what you're asking would be stupid for the other person to do, because it's dangerous, then why is it wrong to be bothered by him asking it?
In order to avoid offending men by suspecting they're dangerous, should women assume all men are completely harmless until proven otherwise? Should they put themselves at even greater risk to avoid offending you
Funny thing though, if she was actually not married and attracted to the guy she very well might have gone with him. Since she was not interested the guy was creeping her out. I am afraid much of the perceived offensive behaviour of men depend on wether or not the woman finds the man's attention desirable.
The only time it would do so is if the caster is still casting. That is they are casting a 1+ round casting time spell.
In this specific case it boils down to what we've NOT been told.
-James
Actually, I'm not sure about that. Does it say anywhere in the rules that you cannot take an attack of opportunity while casting a full round action spell?
Considering that a full-attack is a full round action, and you can take attacks of opportunity after that. There are many other actions that take a full round, and none of those stop you from threatening.
1 round casting time, not full round casting time. They are different.
Full round casting time: I start to cast at the start of my round and and at the end of my round, I can take a 5' step before or after casting.
1 round casting time: 1 start casting at the start of my round, I will finish just before the start of my next round. I can move 5' during my round
I was wondering about that as well, I would houserule it so that the caster could not make an AoO in this case but I do not think there is an actual rule to disallow it.
There is no good answer for 3.5 Loyalist's question about a mummy. So, by association, there is no good reason to assume every undead should have to be evil.
All undead are Evil because that's what JJ wanted for Golarion, -not- because it makes sense on a theological level.
Of course JJ decided the mummy had to be evil that doesn't mean there is no good reason for it. The fact that a mummy is evil determines it is immoral and ruthless in following it's duty, it will not be bothered or slowed by plights of mercy or particuary care 'why' you are in his tomb, you are there so you have to die.
Neutrality in an intelligent creature would indicate that it has compassion and cares about morality to some extent wether it acts upon it or not, I imagine that is not the flavor JJ was going for in undead, a mummy is better served as a single minded ruthless guardian in my opinion.
It doesn't seem to be a huge problem even a 1st lvl wizard can get along in combat, many wizards manage to squeeze out a dex 14, if you have mage armor and fight defensively you have better than average AC for 1st lvl characters. Just use your actions to aid another.
Daze is a great cantrip to have, acid splash, mage hand, detect magic will all have their uses even if not all of those uses are in combat.
School powers help as well but ary widely between schools.
Skills, you got alot of these even if they are just knowledge skills, consider some languages. Depending on the campaign putting some ranks in a craft might not be a bad idea to make some extra money in between adventures.
Scribe scroll allows you to create some extra resources early on once you manage to get a little gold.
it's more that it gives clerics access to a spell they didnt have access to before, and a better version. and if a wizard has a chance to memorize one or the other, he will take constricting coils each time, since it is simple better. that's the part that seems poorly designed to me. I was honestly just curious what others thought.
Better is a strong word, in combat with foes you intend to kill it will be better but if cast simply to restrain the side effects are undesirable. The damage is rather underwhelming and will hardly matter when an opponent is held and ready to be the target of a coup de grace.
I do not like the fact that clerics become more and more like wizards that can cast in armor with superior HD, saves and BAB though.
I might have the spell replace a domain slot for a cleric of a serpent god and I am actually fine with it being a 5th lvl wizard spell despite the existence of hold monster but I am unwilling to give the spell to just any cleric that didn't even have access to hold monster to start with, doubtful even as a 6th lvl spell. I would like the spell lists to diverge more rather than become more and more similar.
Frost Giant to Climb out is DC 20 they have climb skill of +13 need to roll 7 not to hard. Not stronger than Hold Monster. If realy that feed up with give bad guys poitions of fly.
They'd climb 10' per move action on a successful check, or 20' when using accelerate climb but suffer a -5 on the check. Fortunately they can brace against the opposite wall for +10 on this check meaning they can most likely bust out in a single round if they manage to roll a 2 or higher twice in a row, with some movement to spare.
- You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size.
- it is 10-by-10, it can not often target multiple creatures and they still get a reflex save, a spell with a will or fortitude save usually manages to disable a single target on a failed save in some way.
- The edges are sloped, it is hard to approach and 'toss stuff at him' without making reflex saves themselves, unless they are flying in which case it is at least a partially moot point.
Climbing :
- A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained.
- You try to climb more quickly than normal. By accepting a –5 penalty, you can move half your speed (instead of one-quarter your speed).
– +5 climbing a corner where you can brace against perpendicular walls, pretty much everyone can do this
- +10 climbing where you can brace opposite walls, large creatures can do this as well as some other creatures that have exceptional reach at the GMs option.
- A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks, it can always choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing. If a creature with a climb speed chooses an accelerated climb (see above), it moves at double its climb speed (or at its land speed, whichever is slower) and makes a single Climb check at a –5 penalty. Such a creature retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) while climbing, and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it. It cannot, however, use the run action while climbing.
* So typically difficult terrain can disallow the use of this spell since it isn't a horizontal surface.
* it can not be used if there is no applicable area 10 by 10 foot, so 9 foot wide hallways are out, unobstructed 10 by 10 foot spaces tend to be much less common than you think in a typical dungeon.
* Your (typical) frost giant has +13 on climb, it is large enough to brace opposite walls for a +10 bonus on climb and a move speed of 40 feet, taking this +23 modifier it can chance an accelerated climb taking a -5 penalty, it moves 20 feet as a move action on a roll of 7 or higher, in one round he could climb out of the pit if he manages to roll a 2 on his second move action (he does not need to accelerate for the remaining 10 feet, though I guess he has 10 feet move left if he does.)
* spiked pit is even easier to climb out at DC 20, though it does incur 1d6 damage it will almost guarantee an accelerated climb out for a creature like the frostgiant.
houserule :
* The spell needs a focus of 10 gold, not a big deal really, in my games I made it a component instead of a focus, which they have to keep track of and might have to have made. I increased the price to 25 gold for acid pit and hungry pit. I don't want them to spam it every encounter, it helps a bit.
I am looking at it and I think there is too much focus on the bloodline spells, particularly Eldritch Focus, there are just too many spells that are not affected much by caster level and others that benefit much more.
I will change Eldritch Focus to provide a bonus of +1 to concentration checks and skill checks concerning the sorcerer's bloodline skill, increasing every 4 levels after 4th. This reflects the sorcerer's more natural approach to magic compared to other casters.
- Bloodline spells are gained much earlier, all except the 1st level spell are gained a level before you gain the actual spell level, this prevents you from not picking that thematically appropriate spell the first chance you get. (see next point)
- You get a single bonus spell slot you can use to cast any bloodline spell you know, if you use it to cast a spell of lower level than your highest level sorcerer spell known you can apply meta magic feats to raise it's level up to your highest level spell known, though you still have to use a full round action to cast it if you do.
- The sorcerer gains a bloodline feat at 2nd level and every 4 levels after 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 (instead of 7, 13 and 19). Add all meta magic feats and skill focus in the sorcerer's bloodline skill to the possible feats you can select.
- At 4th level, the sorcerer gains Eldritch Focus which gives a +1 concentration checks when casting sorcerer spells and on skill checks with the sorcerer's bloodline class skill. This bonus increases by +1 at 8th level and every 4 levels after.
- At 19th level, you gain Eldritch Scion as a class ability. This allows the casting of any bloodline spell as if cast with still and silent spell meta magic feats without increasing casting time or spell level.
Permanent shield should not be 4,000 gold, I am sure there are other threads on this but.. mixing up a few different PoV I would estimate the price by.
Compare it to bracers of armor, it should have a CL of 8 at least and cost 16,000 gold for an armor bonus.
The interesting bit here is that it isn't actually much more expensive than a continuous mage armor, it would be 16,000 gold for a CL 8 armor if it had a 24 hour duration and 24,000 gold for 10 minutes per lvl, it probably should be somewhere in between but 1 hour/lvl isn't in the table it can go either way in this case it is cheaper, since it is so easy to get without investing in an item presumably.
A shield spell, estimated at CL 8 would be fair by the same standards, multiplied by 2 since it is a minute/lvl duration, it comes down to 32,000 gold, but.. it is usually a personal use spell, while that is hard to estimate I'd round it up to 36,000 gold.
A ring of force shield seems to be close enough at 8,500 gold quite expensive for it's primary purpose (providing a shield bonus), though there are some other situational uses I will ignore them for now, the 500 gold as well as the fact that you still need to wield it should handle that. 8,000 gold for a +2 shield bonus, would translate to roughly 32,000 gold for a +4 bonus but wouldnt include magic missile immunity unlimited brooch probably twice the price at least which is 3,000 gold - price would be 35,500 gold for a force shield with +4 shield bonus and magic missile immunity by my estimation, 37,000 if you want to add the 50% cost for extra enchantments.
Seems fair enough to put it down at 36,500 gold, with a CL of 8 in my opinion. 32,000 for the shield bonus and 4,500 for unlimited brooch of shielding, though I might make that 3,000 gold since it is thematic and copies the shield spell for a total of 35,000.
I'd allow the shield to be upgraded up to +6, a bit less than bracers of armor, a +5 ring of shielding would be 53,000 gold, +6 would be 75,000 gold. A weaker ring would be +1 for 5,000 gold, +2 for 11,000 gold or +3 for 21,000 gold.
If I'd go with the more expensive version it would be :
+1 for 6,000 gold, +2 for 12,500 gold, +3 for 22,500, +4 for 36,500, +5 for 54,500, +6 for 76,500. I am more inclined to use this version since I do not want a shield bonus to become a common source of AC bonus unless you actually wield a shield (or can cast a shield spell).
metamagic is alright for a spontaneous caster making the spells you do have more flexible, even for a cleric a spontaneous quicken or reach cure spell can be decent once in a while.
They tend to be a bit less powerful than an actual spellslot of that level, though some feats that build upon metamagic feats make them worthwhile.
Metamagic rods are too damn good by any stretch, everybody agrees that casters are better and metamagic rods dont help, I ban them by default.
- I would like to see something similar as grit for fighter, maximum grit equal to bravery modifier + charisma bonus (if positive), being able to use it for rerolls on saves, attack rolls or certain skill checks.
- more skills and sure add perception.
Change feats :
- I would like weapon focus and specialization to affect weapon groups rather than a single weapon type.
- Vital strike and some other similar action feats could be expanded upon to make them more useful in more situations.
didn't do anything with those, precise shot is a perfectly reasonable feat and I can't be bothered to make maneuvers easier, maybe it breaks apart beyond lvl 13 or so but so far it works fine in my campaigns
Altered:
Improved Unarmed Strike
Point Blank Shot (combined with Precise Shot)
Critical Focus (as a pre-requisite)
Vital Strike feats (expanded use)
I do not see the point in making unarmed strike better, it is supposed to be inferior in my opinion.
Point Blank Shot is a good deal for a feat.
Critical focus I do not have an issue with, but since I am thinking of changing the crit system (making crits more rare) I might remove it as a prerequiste too.
Vital Strike, completely agree on this change, I will do the same
The rapid shot chain seems overkill to me, done well it is already one of the best combat options and I like melee better, so I choose not to encourage it further.
No big deal on the dodge feat, though I do not put them in game.
The armor feats seem a bit unfair, a heavy armor using fighter will have to sink in 3 feats before getting any benefits :
1) armor expertise +1 any armor (prerequiste light armor prof)
2) improved armor expertise, +2 medium and heavy armor -1 AC penalties (prerequiste medium armor prof and armor expertise)
3) greater armor expertise, +3 heavy armor, -2 AC penalties (prerequiste heavy armor prof, armor expertise and improved armor expertise)
Obviously we don't have fewer feats, but we feel as if we're making better use of the ones we have. A couple of things to keep in mind - we tend to run in a lower magic environment and some of these feats are still in the 'play-test' stage...
A quick few changes of my own for low magic especially, though not directly feat related :
I changed the way saves worked making them 1/2 character lvl without good saves, making it less obvious what a particular characters weakness is and making certain classes less vulnerable in low magic settings in particular.
Giving characters a level based (dodge) AC bonus as the gunslinger class, we dont use this class but if we did probably would add +1 AC every 2nd level instead.
Maybe a 'Broken Soul' template, it will radically reduce her charisma and is not optimal for a dryad but perhaps fitting. it doesn't make the dryad undead which I guess is what you are looking for. The +2 modifier is too high for a dryad though, +1 should be fair enough I think.
regardless wether the undead are evil or not, torture should be evil, at best a necesary evil. I do not think there was much reluctance to torture at all, which, in my opinion, trully makes it an evil act.
It is doubtful torture would work well against undead, they do not feel pain in the traditional manner do not suffer from low morale, sickness or the like. I think the magus had every reason to assume they would destroy it anyway, since they appeared quite ruthless, why even give them what they wanted ?
I think the thing that really hurts the druid in this case is that tentacles are secondary attacks and thus get a -5 to hit and deal 1/2 strength damage with every hit. I would say that disruption on your tentacles might make you really good at clobbering low AC undead quickly. Trying to powergame this, but I'm not sure how to get it better.
Ashiel, you can do better. It really feels like a strawman here.
First of all, bypass the DR. It's not hard to do so, and something certainly that such a character would look to do.
Second, compare apples to apples. If you can't handle druid builds, go with something else.
Third, do me a favor and come up with 4 builds where this becomes insane or nearly so. I'm certain that you could do so were you inclined. Consider it a challenge.
Finally, on the specific quote above.. take multiattack perhaps? That reduces it down to -2.
-James
I will have to agree with this, if this is Ashiel trying I am a bit disappointed...
No no, I'm simply arguing that the RAW supports it. The faq makes the RAI clear as day, but the rules themselves fail to show any clear reason why a AoMF enchanted with Speed wouldn't grant it's effect to all natural attacks.
I agree with that, I have seen much more farfetched arguments for RAW, just because the prerequiste is haste doesn't mean it has to work the same as the spell.
animated object (large) CR 5
XP 1,600
N Large construct
Init -1 Senses darkvision 60, low-light vision; Perception -5
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 8, flat-footed 14 (-1 Dex, +6 natural, -1 size)
hp 52 (4d10+30 size)
Fort +1, Ref +0, Will -4
Defensive Abilities hardness 5 Immune Construct Traits
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee slam +9 (1d6+9)
STATISTICS
Str 22, Dex 8, Con -, Int -, Wis 1, Cha 1
Base Atk +4 CMB +11 CMD 20
SQ 3 construction points
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Construction Points
Large animated objects have 3 construction points.
I would suggest for a stone horse :
Stone (Ex, 1 CP): The object is made of stone or crystal. Its hardness increases to 8 and it gains a +1 increase to its natural armor bonus.
Faster (Ex, 1 CP): One of the object's movement modes increases by +10 ft.
Additional Attack (Ex, 1 CP): Gains an additional slam attack.
Other options :
Additional Movement (Ex, 1 CP): Gains a new mode of movement (burrow, climb, fly [clumsy], or swim) at a speed equal to its base speed.
Metal (Ex, 2 CP): The object is made of common metal. Its hardness increases to 10, and it gains a +2 increase to its natural armor bonus.
Cost
is not too bad, at 7,000 gp or 3,500 gp if you craft it yourself :
CL varies (equal to the animated object’s HD); Price varies (cost of object + [(animated object’s HD + CP) × 1,000])
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Construct, animate objects, permanency; Skill optional (determined by object being created; crafting the object reduces its cost); Cost 1/2 price
Fun Options :
You can spend more CP though every CP will make it 1,000 gp more expensive, you can have it made metal instead of stone for +1 CP, as above.
Give it one or two additional HD for 1,000 each HD, combined with making it metal it should be quite durable as a 6HD metal steed.
I'd go for 6HD and 4 CP, requiring a CL of 6 to make and costing 10,000 gp (5,000 if made yourself) + the cost of the body.
- 2 slam attacks at +11 1d6+6 it is not terrible
- with a hardness of 10 it has fair resistance to damage from energy and physical
- AC 16 (10, -1 size, -1 dex, +8 natural) is not great, but you can give it masterwork studded leather barding without affecting it's potential in combat or movement. Boosting AC to 19, other armor might affect combat potential and movement but is very much possible.
- 6 HD gives it slightly better save, though still not great, hitpoints and hardness make it durable at 63 hitpoints it will not be a pushover.
- Terrible perception, but it does have darkvision and low light vision.
- Construct Traits (Ex)
Constructs are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Constructs are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. Constructs are not at risk of death from massive damage.
EDIT : The two slam attacks for the stone horse should be 1d6+6 each, instead of 1d6+9, since it is not a single attack anymore, so does not get to use 1.5 strength bonus. I'd still go with it since it is thematically appropriate for two hooves.
While I appreciate Ashiel for her dedicated writing on this forum and because her rules knowledge is really good, she is a tad too confrontational and obsessive-compulsive for my taste to get the nod ( for this fictional assignment ^^ ) over some of the more cool-headed people on this forum, like Ice Titan, Mikaze, Wraithstrike, Abraham Spalding or Evil Lincoln.
That being said, I don't think Paizo takes player nominations to any official post. :p
I don't really like him as a poster, different styles I guess but I think he would be a terrible fit for the paizo team, I think Ashiel himself would likely agree to that actually.
If the DM is consistently attempting to sunder your potions, extracts, and bombs, then he is picking on you.
Talk to him, and ask him why.
Remember to let him know the entire point of the Pathfinder game is for everyone to have fun.
Everyone.
I don't know it seems valid enough and possibly better than getting hit, intelligent opponents will probably know that it is dangerous to allow people to use magic so they try to disrupt them. Personally I just treat alchemists as spellcasters with potions being fluff, normal concentration checks, defensive 'casting' and all that.
By itself if you do not invest in boosting AC it will not be that useful, if you invest some gold in :
- ring of protection +1
- belt of dexterity +2
- amulet of natural armor +1
- (rod of lesser quicken is also very useful)
cost 8,000 gold
AC will typically be, 10 base, +3 dex, +4 mage armor, +1 ring, + 1 natural
for AC 19, 14 touch and 18 vs incorporeal foes.
possible (additional) spells cast :
1) haste, cast in most tough encounters giving you +1 dodge, +1 reflex saves, 30'move.
2) shield, +4 shield, immunity to magic missile, it is a force effect helping against incorporeal attacks combined with mage armor this might help alot if you come across incorporeals suddenly
3) monstrous physique I :
* (gargoyle) flight, +2 natural armor, darkvision, claws, bite, gore
and +2 strength
Both useful shapes in the right situation, charda is slightly better of for AC and helps ranged attacks, but usually gargoyle is great for the flight and add on benefits compared to the fly spell.. just do not fly too high, since it doesn't have fly's safeguard.
4) reduce person, slightly worse than charda shape, giving less AC and a casting time of 1 round, but it is only a level 1 spell.
You should have a rod of (lesser) quicken spell to cast either of these spells more quickly when you need it, but casting a haste spell combined with just a quickened shield will get your AC up to 24 which is fairly respectable. If you do not feel quite safe yet monstrous physique can take you into the air and boost AC to 26.
The above is assuming a decent focus on AC, usually a mirror image spell or displacement will do a fine job. either way I think you should still cast it, even if it prevents you being hit once in a day it is probably worth it.
We just got rid of the sorcerer and allowed wizards to cast the way sorcerers currently do (spontaneously). Has not created any problems and was very easy to put into play.
We still used intelligence as the primary, as I never liked the idea of using charisma - I think that was just an effort to reduce it being a dump-stat for folks.
I'm more inclined to go the other way, the mathematical super-mind wizard doesn't appeal to me at all. Magic as a talent or force of personality is much more satisfying to me.
I was considering doing away with prepared spellcasters as is and replace them with spontaneous casters, basically making magic charisma based overall, I feel it jives well with how SLA and UMD work too.
I wouldn't go out off my way to boost spellcasters, if they do not like to play them why would you want to promote them, it shouldn't make much difference for you from the GM seat, presumably making things easier on you.
If you give full spellcasters bonus feats you most definately would have to give other characters something extra as well.
Don't listen to the naysayers, Nearyn. I seem to recall that something exactly like this happened to Moses in the desert. He struck a stone with his staff, and water poured forth so the Israelites could drink. Because HE took credit for it, God punished him.
You have precedent.
It is of course a different God entirely, if not the complete total opposite, the GM's interpretation is valid though I think as a GM you should pick your battles, this is entirely too minor, divine intervention should not become common place.
I think the perceived slight on Asmodeus was barely there if at all, Asmodeus as an immortal being with a great deal of foresight will recognize that as long as the inquisitor serves him and ends up in hell there is really no need to punish him unless it damages the faith of Asmodeus in some meaningful way. Inquisitors are supposedly allowed a bit more leeway than other clergy members, that he might pay the price after the inquisitor is dead is of no concern now. Also do not abuse the divine retribution card too much, if you are punishing the faithful it stands to reason that you also intervene to aid them sometimes, why do gods allow things to happen at all to their priests and churches /
I would definately not punish him more, while Asmodeus might be inclined to disagree with his faithful assuming he serves them, the fact that the inquisitor was being watched at all is because he is impressed.
I'd send him a servitor like an imp as a reward tos how that Asmodeus can be good to him as well, ofcourse the imp is ultimately loyal to hell and Asmodeus (and reports to hell incase he strays)which you might hint at in a subtle manner on occasion. Punishment/reward, this way the player will actually enjoy the 'attention' he gets and will take care not to offend Asmodeus anymore.
Agreed, it is a standard action. Like mentioned Quicken spell-like ability is a good feat to use in combination though, it works only 3 times per day but an almost guaranteed hit ignoring concealment is probably worth it.
Not to say true strike is useless when not used as a swift action, it can be invaluable for a combat maneuver and can serve well in a surprise situation.
I'm pretty new to the forums, so it was wonderful spending 10 minutes reading through the second page. Absolutely no new information was posted and no new opinions were voiced. It was great, it felt like I was reliving the first page over again. I think I love this place!
There appear to be three stances, One: The Animal companion is an NonPC as directly implied in Handle Animal and the class skill, and therefore can only be commanded by the Character with tricks taught, not the Player.
Two: The Animal Companion is a slave-bot meant only to be used by the player. Any Infringement on this is equivalent to death itself.
Three: It's a game for friends and people should compromise about sometimes having it as GM controlled so that it can have meaningful back-and-forth communique; and sometimes having it be a combat slave who does relatively what you want.
If you look at an animal comnpanion you will see that you get a bonus to have the animal do what you want, by having bonus tricks and a bonus on handle animal skill. That should be a dead give away that the animal isn't under your absolute control, unless you think that is actually meant to be a hindrance.
For those that demand absolute control of their companion I direct to neverwinter nights or some kind of computer game that does fit with their expectations.
Players rarely are interested in rp'ing their companion they just do not want to lose control of their class feature, I am not going to rp with a caster's familiar but I am willing to involve it into my story, if you get peeved about that feel free to find another GM, thinking people kinda have a kneejerk reaction when someone is touching their toys.. relax, the GM is not going to break it.
If my GM wanted to pull that I'd be pissed I'd probably ask for a reroll to a class without any GM intervention on the spot or for control of my characters class abilities back.
Also I'd be far less accepting if he said he wanted to pull it mid game whenever he felt like if you want to control them fine but you're doing it all the time because they're not my character anymore or you don't do it at all because it is my character don't switch around whenever it suits your whims.
Seems rather dramatic, I see it a bit like an intelligent sword that you found, it counts against your WBL it is treasure and you still might not be in complete control. You get one character to play, that is it.
Usually I let the player make rolls so as to speed things up and give it a measure of control over it's success, but they still have to interact with their minion if they want it to do something, otherwise I decide what it does accordingly.
The GM isn't wrong to take over an animal companion, familiar or cohort in my opinion, nowhere is it stated that they are under their control, they are not additional player characters. The gm also controls the actions of summoned monsters and the like, though the GM should keep in mind that the monsters, AC, familiar or eidolon are under the character's control (as opposed to player, so they have to communicate their desires somehow.
As a GM I generally let the PC control the familiar, but often I control the familiar to do something random or even unwanted according to it's personality, an animal companion can be handled as a move action but generally it will just act as a loyal animal according to it's intelligence and personality, summoned devils follow their summoner's commnads to the letter though even that leaves room for interpretation, even if they fight for the summoner they will still be as cruel as any devil and might go out off their way to inflict suffering on the summoner's foes. Cohorts likewise are fiercly loyal, but ultimately not automatons under their control, mistreat your henchman too badly and it might turn away from you, or even turn on you in rare cases.
Don't like it don't select it, I think the features are quite powerful even without complete control, I also find it enhances rp if you dont give them full control.
definately an impulsive, chaotic act, positively stupid, most likely somewhat immoral.
Not by itself enough to change anything about the ranger's character though, consorting with fiends on a regular basis should corrupt you in my opinion though.
I have no idea what the motivations of the succubus are when and why you introduced her but a succubus should have a thousand ways to turn this to her advantage, she could easily kill the ranger by draining him of his levels, but that might be unwise with a number of powerful allies nearby, perhaps she indulges him somewhat and bestows a gift on him instead, accepting the gift should be a chaotic act, but otherwise fairly innocent.
She might have other party members compete for her gifts, consorting with them on a regular basis manipulating them to her ends, ofcourse she wouldn't hesitate to betray them if it suits her but having powerful allies is never a bad deal, if she can corrupt them over time all the better. Turn her into a whimsical ally rather than an enemy, though likely to turn the table around when they are getting comfortable.
