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

Rub-Eta's page

2,419 posts (2,424 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

"But your honor, he was EVIL! See? I know this because I sensed it. What I did was a good thing! You should actually thank me for killing this civilian!"
Flogged for being a lunatic. Hanged the next morning for murder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James F.D. Graham wrote:
Long story short: A powerful entity (fey/fiend/genie) decides to empower the wishing well of a small thorp or hamlet so that it actually grants wishes.

It really matters what entity is granting the wishes. A fiend would definitely look out to screw people over and twist people's wishes. A fey would probably joke around with people's wishes and cause more of an annoyance rather than a menace. A genie, on the other hand, may very well fulfill the wishes as good as possible. So, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

"I want to be the richest man in town":
-Poverty strikes the town.
-A serial killer is on the loose and is killing all the rich people.
-Richest, in what?
-Who said your wealth was in form of gold?
-The riches are yours, but where?
-You gain a lot of money. Congratulations, you are now the richest man in town. Now you have to deal with it. All the greedy relatives, friends, lovers or anyone else who would consider to rob or blackmail you.

I feel like the genie approach is the most interesting one.

A girl wished to be the most beautiful woman in the entire country. Now she gets a lot of unexpected attention from several (different "quality") suitors. Jealousy starts to fester among her old friends. All in all, her life changes drastically.
A fey twist: The queen has grown a snout!

A lot of other wishes could be something that decays and can't be maintained over time. "I want to run a business" - community is to small to actually make said business go around.

Goblins are also a tinkering race...

As Taja said, they're already a 9th level caster, can't get much higher than that.
But I have to disagree with the lack of armor. Wizards/Sorcerers can't keep their AC on a competitive level for very long. Not that they need it anyway. It's not a problem for the Ecclesitheurge either.

With that said, the Ecclesitheurge is the most caster-focused Cleric Archetype.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
"He's killing demons! That means he's evil! Kill him, he's evil!"
The qlippoth lord looked up innocently from his snack.

"Someone really should, non-lethally, stop these relentless paladins!"

"He's killing demons! That means he's evil! Kill him, he's evil!"

Rhedyn wrote:
Also the only sensible RAW way to run alignment is that the player picks their alignment and decides what it means.

That's not sensible, at all.

And guys, don't mix up general Dwarf traits with the teachings of Torag.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't use xp, so I have no idea of what you're talking about.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Da Wander wrote:
but a "ready" action goes before the action that triggers it...
I'm well aware, but I'm already ignoring the rule for concentration checks while falling. What's one more?


Yes, the Sanity and Madness rules can interact with each other.

Horror Adventures, page 182 wrote:

After 7 consecutive days of uninterrupted rest, the afflicted character can attempt a Will save against the madness’s current DC. If she succeeds, the DC is reduced by a number of points equal to 1/2 the character’s Charisma modifier (minimum 1).

The character suffers the madness’s effect until the DC is reduced to 0

So yes, you can cure madness without Miracle, Wish or any other spells.

However, the sanity rules are not very balanced, at all. Me and my group used it to the point that our characters got totally broken and we had accumulated 4-7 madness-es each.
So we re-wrote the rules so that they could actually be used. Here's a link! Feel free to check it out, use, modify, etc!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is only a problem since you don't like it. There's nothing inherently wrong with video games or the feel of them.

Long-story-short, they want an action movie.

If that's what they want, then the DM (you) should provide it for them. You can't make them play a game they don't want to play, then they'll just stop coming to your sessions.


if there is an encounter too big for them that it is my fault for not presenting a level-appropriate encounter

This is a very narrow mind-set on their part IF the don't let you work around it.

They should be aware that seeking out the ancient wyvern means a not-level appropriate combat encounter. This does not mean that you have to baby-secure the world and remove all high-level dragons and NPCs. But you should not just present the players with an ancient wyvern without making it clear that the encounter is a chase encounter and not a combat encounter. Such an encounter can still be level appropriate.

If they're not fine with that, baby-sit them.

This should be at least the same level of spell as Disintegrate. While it's melee instead of ranged, the unlimited scaling makes it horrendously powerful. And the melee requirement doesn't matter to a Magus.

Also, huge minus-points for the non-descriptive thread title.

It's probably an error of the AP writer. I can't recall any general rules about disabling immunities or the such.

After. It makes sense, for balance reasons, since you could otherwise rage-cycle to refill temporary hp mid-fight (assuming you got more than 10 rounds of rage and the encounter lasts long enough).

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Just like if you want to know how far the ceiling is above you, you measure from the top of your head, not the soles of your feet.

What if I'm doing a handstand?

A Cleric is everyone's friend. If everyone already has a friend, be a pain in the ass, be a Bard.

My current character; a 24 STR, full-plated monster with an Intimidating modifier of 37, keeps his money on his person. Who needs a bank?
Damned be the one who steals from this guy, and everyone knows this.

Adding book-keeping to the game is not introducing realism.

theporkchopxpress wrote:
1 - Spell component pouches. They cost 5 gold pieces

5gp isn't too little, when you think about the cost of mundane items.

If you want to invoke "realism" to a spell component pouch, have the spelcasters regularly visit the market to restock for a negligible (free) amount of money, when ever they can. The initial 5gp is an investment, not a never-ending kit of bat s#%@.

Dasrak wrote:
17 intelligence is rather low after racial modifiers for a Wizard.

Not really. Even 14 is fine. Though there's nothing as valuable as Int to a Wizard, everything else is secondary.

Yes, "and" and "or" are very important to notice the difference of when it comes to rules-understanding.

So many Gnome Bards

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Durable and socially capable are my two common denominators for pretty much all my characters.
When it comes to classes and builds, I play everything from full martial to full caster, damage and utility, generalist and specialist. Lawful Evil to Chaotic Good. Stupid, Intelligent. Strong, weak.
But I always make sure that my character won't die too easily and that I'm able to impact social encounters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like using NPCs that are exact copies from other media characters, unless I'm pulling a prank at my players... They feel out-of-place and they're not my characters and I don't want to be restricted to someone else's cannon.
I do, however, very often use NPCs (with alterations to fit my specific story/scenario) greatly inspired by other characters from other media. Simply to have a basic frame of reference when I role-play them.

A very typical encounter setup is for the party to get into a heavily guarded building or area. A castle or the like.

First time my group got up to this task, we had reason to believe that the, otherwise friendly, fort may have been attacked by Ogres. We didn't see any guards posted atop the wall to great us when we approached... So we walked up to the fort's ramparts, to the portcullis armored gate and knocked...
The new denizens of the fort opened up the gate and rammed us with a rhinoceros, followed by a barbarian and an anti-paladin and the rest of the ogres. It wasn't until after we had retreated and almost lost three of our four player characters that I realized what strategical masterminds we were.

"Just knock" became a running gag.

We've done this multiple times in multiple games since then, with varying degrees of success. Last session we went the extra mile by stripping and handcuffed two of our three party-members (in an attempt to disguise us as slaves and slaver) before we knocked on the gnoll slaver's garrison. Little did we know, the gnoll slaver was expecting us and knew exactly who we were and led us far into the garrison where we got surrounded by his guards. We slew every single gnoll in that garrison.

Moral of the story: Knocking is only stupid if you can't back up your intent.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.
I have to disagree.
Could you elaborate? I feel it's kinda self-evident that PRC's offer more combinations than archetypes possibly could.

I really don't find PrCs to be sufficient. Out of the 100+ of them there is, only a hand full of them are attractive, who actually offer balanced mechanics and distinct flavor. Many times I find core/base/hybrid classes with archetypes to fill the bill of my character concept equally flavorful but with superior mechanical options (not breaking level progression for scaling abilities, etc). Some PrCs are even so bad so that regular multi-classing is better.

I also find that a lot of the PrCs come into play way too late for them to actually be considered. I want my character to be online by level 5.

And again, I really hate that PrCs are torn between being used as their own separate classes with prerequisites (take any of the PrCs from Path of the Righteous, by far some of the best PrCs I've seen) and blunt tools to hammer out the already poor multi-classing system (Eldritch Knight, Rage Prophet, etc).

And about archetypes: There are a lot of sheite archetypes. But there are some really golden ones that makes it all worth it.

Seems to me like he doesn't want to play. Don't force him.
With your given description, I'd be surprised if he even showed up to the game. If he doesn't show up, don't bother with him anymore, he's out of the group.
If he actually does come (without a character), just tell him to make one and let him join in as soon as he's ready.

If your DM doesn't want any evil characters, I think that includes anyone worshiping an evil deity as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

18 deaths in two books? I'm surprised you guys didn't leave after 8!

"he already went through the campaign and it's no fun for him if it's the same" - This mindset is completely flawed. He's DMing for his own enjoyment only, not his players.
Be upfront about this, tell him that you are not having fun. If he can't understand that something needs to change by that point, you've found yourself a rotten apple. And you don't need to keep biting it, just leave.

If the DM can't run Shattered Star a second time without ruining the fun for the group, suggest that you play something else.

I see that you're using the race builder rules from the Advanced Race Guide.
Quick tip: Don't use those rules. Because they really are terrible. They are not balanced and will in no way guarantee an appropriate race. It's a better approach to just use your own common sense and compare your idea to existing races.

If your DM has approved your custom races, that's all the approval you need.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Prestige classes better fill the mix-and-match approach to building.

I have to disagree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. While the newer PrCs have been miles better than the earlier, I still feel like the underlying system for multi-classing is kinda flawed. It doesn't help that PrCs are torn between poor attempts at hammering those gaps and stand-alone niche classes in both flavor and mechanics. Neither of the approaches work as is, right now.

I just assumed that it was 'Ver-kes'.
Otherwise, it sounds like versus - "the tournament planet".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my current game, one of the other player's character is closely related to the BBEG. This family bond is basically what kicked off the entire adventure.
So while his character holds a very specific and important role in the party, he is far from the "main"-character. The rest of us are as much involved in this as he is, sharing equal amount of game-time between each other (hell, my Bloodrager is probably the one getting most screen-time, due to him being the face of the party).

Remember that everyone is there to have fun. You can treat all player characters differently from one another, as long as the players are okay with the way their characters are being treated. What you should not do is treat the players differently from one another. You can give a player character the 'main character' status. Giving a player the 'main character' status is just playing favorites.

Grippli Alchemist with the Wings discovery and two Vestigial Arms and a Tentacle on his butt... Did I mention that he wore a fez?

@Yaba: You are asking for multiple FAQs right now, since you're mixing PC rules, monster rules, weapon rules, natural attack rules and so on into all your cases.
They can not provide a single answer for all those cases, since they all involve different rules interacting with each other.
For example: Case 2 is about player characters (I'm assuming) and is already correctly answered by wraithstrike. Case 1, 6 and 8 are about Eidolons, who does not follow the same rules as player characters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Yaba: If you want a FAQ, please refer exactly and specifically to what existing rules needs to be cleared up. Because you seem to be looking for new rules, not a clarification of existing rules.

As written, light armor, medium armor (and shield proficiency, if I'm not mistaken) are replaced with heavy armor proficiency.

I thought there was something stating that any armor proficiency also makes you proficient in all lighter armors, but I can't find anything to back up that thought.

But I call that stupid. Unless you're asking for PFS reasons, any sensible DM shouldn't have a problem with allowing a Steelblood Bloodrager to wear medium armor instead of heavy armor, as if they were proficient with no ASF.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Yaba: There is nothing that I know of that allows for additional off-hand attacks, except for the Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feats. They are all tied to BAB, however.
There are quite a few ways of gaining multiple additional arms/appendages. But that does not have anything to do with number of weapon attacks or off-hand attacks possible. On the contrary, multiple sources to these additional arms specifically state that they won't grant you any extra actions or attacks.

EDIT: A one-armed man can still use and wield two weapons and make off-hand attacks, as long as it doesn't require more than one arm: He can't wield two swords with one arm/hand but he can kick.

Yes, I have also found that CON is not as mandatory to invest in for the survival of player characters in Starfinder.
While it does de-value CON, I actually like it. Now it doesn't have to be my second highest stat to see my character through an entire campaign.

I'm definitely looking forward to more weapon options.

Gamerskum wrote:

Only one sniper weapon until item level 8 is kind of sad as well.

It's even sadder that it's not until said 8th level sniper that one can reliably snipe, since you have to reload with your move action every round you fire.

1) Strange Aeons: My group just finished the 4th book. Even though it's by far the weakest book so far, I love the AP as a whole. I wanted horror, suffering and despair, which is exactly what it contains.

2) Reign of Winter: I DM'd this until the very end of book 3, where the party TPK'd. Outside of that specific encounter, it's really great.
... now I just need to find a way to introduce a 10th level party to it when my group wants to return back to it.


3) Rise of the Runelords: I have to put this at third, because these are the only three APs I've played. RotRL is by far the weakest one, in my opinion. The books aren't nearly as closely connected to each other as the other two APs I've played/DM'd in. I really don't see why people praise it so highly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Circlet of Persuasion grants +3 to all Cha based checks (which includes all Cha skills).

One dose of poison is the amount of poison you need to poison someone. 1/12th of a dose is not enough.

Few classes have anything to do with a character's choice of cuisine.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any stats for a playable Eoxian/whatever they're called?

Shinigami02 wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Their camouflage ability requires that no more than 25% of their body be covered in order for it to work.
Never heard of space-mail-bikini?

Heard of it? Yes

Seen stats for it? No

The Stationwear line of Light Armors can be literally any kind of clothing you want, so all I need ask is this: Is a bikini clothing? Personally I would think so, so you can have fully functional bikini armor with Stationwear.

You don't need separate stats for the space-mail bikini. It's apparently as protective as regular armor (why else would it be so popular among females to wear?).

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If that's the case, then I fail to see how one specific weapon with one specific chain of feats results in an entire style of combat being good.

I just never really consider anything else to be an option. To me, that specific chain of feats (with room for variation) is pretty much the entire style of combat.

But if I do step back to think on it and consider crossbows and thrown weapons... That's another story.

Coidzor wrote:
I would say that taverns are vanishingly rare inside of dungeons.

Key-word is 'rare', not non-existent!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Darksol you have been here for a while. I'm really surprised to see you say this.

And when people say ranged combat is great they were talking about longbow 99% of the time ...

I (very) second this.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Their camouflage ability requires that no more than 25% of their body be covered in order for it to work.

Never heard of space-mail-bikini?

Ah, so we're not actually quoting rules text. My bad.

1 to 50 of 2,419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.