I just wrote up a giant post (3-4 pages, at least) on last night's game where we all played an oracle, a cavalier and a summoner. I wrote up my observations, transposed the eidolon's stats and everything, put up a detailed play-by-play and....
... the forums deleted it when I clicked Preview Post.
Well, I'm not re-writing it. Awesome.
... the back button is your friend! It has saved my posts quite a few times.
The first thing I did was mash back, but it was gone. I don't even know what happened-- I wrote it all out in a new post, clicked preview and immediately jumped to the end of a completely different thread. I'm searching through my history hoping something saved it, but it looks like no dice.
I just wrote up a giant post (3-4 pages, at least) on last night's game where we all played an oracle, a cavalier and a summoner. I wrote up my observations, transposed the eidolon's stats and everything, put up a detailed play-by-play and....
... the forums deleted it when I clicked Preview Post.
I saw some rules on making underage characters, something like only rolling 1d6 per certain age categories. I think from 9-13 you had 2d6 in all stats but dex, which was 3d6, and from 1-6 you had 1 in all stats but 1d6 in dex and 1d6 in charisma.
I always like spending the first ability score point on my animal companion for intelligence 3 and then giving them linguistics( common ) as a skill. That way I can just ask them to do what I want them to.
Except for the fact that no matter how smart the horse is it can't speak as it has no vocal abilities. As noted explicitly in the Druid section:
Wild Shape excerpt wrote:
A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)
He means that the animal companion, with its new linguistics skill, can understand common. This is so he doesn't have to make vague handle animal checks to coerce his furry friend and can instead just express his wishes verbally.
Gauntlets not being a "monk weapon" is fishy. I don't understand why covering your hand with a protective surface would fundamentally alter the style you fight in or the prowess you have with your fists. If you're throwing a punch, you're not going to roll your wrist around or do any movements that would be impossible wearing a gauntlet.
There's just a disconnect there between mechanics and the roleplaying. Imagine a villain grafting light-weight mithril gauntlets onto the monk's hands and mithril boots onto his feet-- suddenly, the monk is neutered and can't flurry, even though his movement isn't restricted at all. (Well, he can flurry of headbutts.. or if he's a dwarf, he could swing his beard at people.. but this is besides the point)
Under PFRPG? Use the Beast Shape spell rules just like a druid, allow the PC to turn into any one of the types available to gain the listed benefits from Beast Shape.
Though, that's pretty lame. I'm unsure if Shifter is really convertable considering the hefty changes to wildshape.
I don't know why people always have to make the Knight and give him all of these crazy abilities.
If you want a holy crusader, make a paladin.
If you want a normal but pious avenger, make a fighter.
I don't know why "Knight" immediately makes someone think "needs a mechanic to punish them for fighting unfair." Why can't a player just make those decisions?
Nonetheless, in my head, here's knight:
Paladin without spells, lay on hands and without a spirit bond or animal companion. Same immunities and auras. Then, bonus feats every three levels choosable from a specific list of feats, like Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat, Shield Focus.. etc. Then, knight's challenge that allows them to mark an enemy akin to 4e fighter's mark. Let's give them an amount of uses per day of that ability equal to 1/2 their level.
None of this "He's a paladin who is defeated by being ignored!" or an opponent who can make you lose your abilities by laying down and taunting you into taking advantage of his prone state.
If this was posted elsewhere please let me know...but sneak attack "some" undead? Will that be defined in the Bestiary or is it explored in the Core Rulebook? Has there been updated language from the Beta to the Final?
Did they give undead more hit points as a result? I am not happy about this since the ability to not be able to sneak attack undead has been a mainstay in core D&D since the beginning.
It's pretty much now that unless the creature in question is homogeneous (made of entirely the same material, ie a clay golem, a black pudding), it can both be critically hit and sneak attacked. Anything that isn't homogeneous has a weak point, and that's what rogues use and abuse to sneak attack.
Does it make sense? Most of the time. It's generally GM's call when these types of things come up in my game. For instance, if a rogue in my group attacked a medium iron golem and crit, I wouldn't allow it since it's made of entirely metal. However, a skeleton is made up of a lot of interworking pieces and parts, so I'd allow him to crit a skeleton by breaking, fracturing or dislocating a joint or something akin to that.
So in my games I don't do the critical hit confirmation thing. If you crit you crit end of story. My question to the community is how would you alter the Warblades "Battle Ardor" Class ability in this situation. Normally it provides a bonus equal to your INT bonus (but capped by your warblade level) on checks to confirm critical hits.
Would hate to see a critical build scimitar weapon master in your games, then.. :P
I would suggest maybe swapping Battle Ardor for the Pathfinder fighter's Bravery class ability, or for Swordsage's Quick to Act?
