Ordikon

Selgard's page

Organized Play Member. 2,940 posts (2,941 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,940 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the mindless undead can't do a Coup mainly because it requires them to know where to hit to effect that "you are now dead" action.

They don't *know* where your squishy bits are- they just flail away mindlessly until you stop wiggling. In fact, they'll keep flailing away long after you are done wiggling until told to stop.

A Coup isn't merely an expedient way of dealing with the nickel and dimeing of killing someone, its knowing where to hit to turn those nickels and dimes into a dollar and be done with it *quickly*. And IMO they just do not have that knowledge.

-S


Rules forum, rules answer.

Quote:
Each domain grants a number of domain powers, dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells. A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot. Domain spells cannot be used to cast spells spontaneously.

While I would likely disallow it in a home game, the rules fully support (and only support) the conclusion that a cleric who enters into a PRC that progresses their cleric spellcasting would also progress their domain spells.

Looking at other classes that do or don't allow it really doesn't help when the cleric text itself directly says it works.

-S


I. actions or feats that apply penalties to attack rolls with your melee weapon.

Pole Fighting is an action that applies penalties to attack rolls with your melee weapon.

II. The end says only the voluntary use of feats or maneuvers are reduced while pole fighting is neither- if you assume they mean combat maneuvers in the technical sense of the word.

I would allow it under the theory that the beginning of the spell sets the parameters for what will and won't work and that the line at the end is saying only things you do voluntarily count for the purposes of the spell.

But that's just my .02.

-S


I would personally say that if you got splattered with something, you remain splattered even if you change the gear. If you chose to change it to something without the splatter the splatter would remain, but you couldn't see it.

(So if you had armor X and changed it to Dress Y and got a blood splatter on it, Armor X had a stain. But within the limits of the ability you could make the stain disappear cosmetically, but the armor is still stained.. you just can't see it. Just like if the armor is painted with an insignia you can't see it while glamored but its still there).

Or to put it another way-
Splattering your glamored armor changes the underlying armor but doesn't prevent you from Glamoring it away.. at least until you releast the glamor entirely and clean your gear.

Thats my .02.

-S


If you look in the Mythic Characters heading of the book where it talks about all the various abilities you get- under the Mythic Feat heading of that same part it says

"Mythic Feat: Select one mythic feat or non-mythic feat as a bonus feat. You must qualify for this feat normally. You gain another mythic feat at 3rd tier, and again every 2 tiers thereafter."

-S


I just wanted to know if you made it up or if it was in a book somewhere since a search of both the equipment section and the equipment guide yielded no information.

Thanks for the answer, try giving it without the lip next time.

-S


Where exactly is that particular rule- the one about having to stow some weapons vs having others readily at hand without being held in hand? I'm unable to locate it.

-S


The DM's I'm with assume we handle it ourselves, and that if we say its in there then that means its isn't over capacity. It isn't so much an issue (in the groups i'm in) with hand waiving as it is them trusting us to handle that for ourselves. Likewise, they don't track encumbrance but expect us to do it ourselves and to apply the penalties if appropriate. Its really no different than expecting you to check your ACP or penalties for wearing armor or weapons you aren't proficient with. They don't grill us on it, they just expect us to know and use the rules as presented.

If your DM doesn't then that's their business. There is nothing bad/wrong/unfun about it. Every group modifies the game to suit their needs and interests.

But by that same token, you have to expect that when you alter or ignore some rules that some items will become useless. "Ignore Carry Capacity" isn't really a feature of the bag of holding. If your DM treats it as such, then its no wonder more expensive items created for the purpose of actually letting you ignore carry capacity are seen as worthless.

Your group has changed or ignored rules on carry capacity and now wonder what the use of an item is that lets you do so.

-S


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the average DM is going to ignore the restrictions on the bag of holding then the portable hole probably isn't very useful.

If they are going to actually use the rules presented then the PH can be superior for holding non-combat items because there is no weight limit, just a volume limit.

You have a 6 foot wide 10 foot deep cylinder that you can literally put anything into within those dimensions. You can wall it up, put shelves in it, or whatever organizational tool you prefer (as long as you are sure to come up for air occasionally).

It is a mass storage device, nothing more. Probably fairly useless if your DM is ignoring the restrictions on the bags of holding but otherwise a very nice item for carrying home very nearly anything you find in the dungeon.

-S


Don't make the bad guy evil. Make them misguided and either neutral or even good.

Not every thing the party thwarts has to be evil with a big capital E stamped on it.

It can even be a G or N who is sliding towards E (think of Arthas and his descent towards evil.. he was on the slide before it hit the E, if you are familiar with Warcraft's lore).

Someone who is misguided or flat out mistaken who the party has to stop from doing something can both challenge them on an RP level and prevent things like smite from working.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you can't have the same feat twice, even if they do nothing, then you are ineligible for the level of the class that grants it since you already have it.

Either you can have it twice (even doing nothing) or you can only have it once- and can not take a level of a class that grants a bonus feat for a feat you already have.

If you can't have it twice though then you can't take the class level that grants it- just like you can't take Eschew Materials multiple times (even for no effect on subsequent feats).

-S


Doesn't sound like something Arcane casters should be able to do at all, actually.

*maybe* another deity could interfere with the powers of another towards their followers, but not some mortal wizard. Lets not forget here what we're talking about. The power of a deity linking a cleric to themselves. I really don't think Mages should be able to just snap their fingers and cut that off.

If you want a cleric/oracle/whatever to not cast spells then do to them what you do to wizards. Break their fingers, remove their tongues, and keep them locked away in Anti-magic fields.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If bandits/orcs/whatever have taken over a fort for some time then while you may not "own" it, it probably won't be an issue for you to talk to whenever does and take the place over. Especially if You are paying for it.

"Hey you know Fort Whatseiedoodle that the Orcs took over and have been using as a base for 5 years? We cleared it out and want to fix it up and patrol the area and keep it clear. Can we keep the fort?"

What noble in their right mind is going to say no to that? You have *free* guards now keeping an area clear of baddies. This means more taxes, happier citizens, and a group of well trained guards there to take care of problems that arise- not just in their new feifdom but in the surrounding areas.

They clearly couldn't handle the place themselves, why would they say no to new owners who were willing to handle it and the surrounding area?

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know and understand what they say and how they work.

But given how the spells are written and how the item is written I can totally 100% understand why a new person to the game would think it works.

It can super easily be avoided by going back to the item and changing

"to any character able to channel [whichever] energy" to
" to any character with the Channel [Whichever] Energy class ability" (or feature or whatever).

This separates it from the possible fluff from the cure/inflict lines with a very minimal amount of extra wordage.

A new person to the game should not have to have knowledge of old editions that some old publisher made of some other game in order to read the CRB.

-S


DM's have a mental idea of characters getting slowly beaten on over the course of an adventure or dungeon so that the final battle is sort of gritty and the whole resource management thing is rather interesting.

The wands (and indeed, any cheap healing method) destroy this.

I'd advise trying to get there through other means- preferably through means the PC's don't necessarily realize. Hard, Line in the Sand type time limits are a good one. The princess is dying, the crops are spoiling, the bad guys are getting away and you are chasing them, the cultists are going to blow up the world if you don't get there in time. Whatever it takes to keep them moving. This creates a resource (time) that they aren't in control of and forces them at every step to make decisions based on that resource. Do we stop and heal? We do take 20 on this search check or everyone roll and keep moving? Do we have time to go shopping for a new wand since the very last one we had turned to dust? Do we have a day to stop and let the cleric craft a new one?

Make Time the resource you use rather than wands or whatnot. This allows You to keep the pressure on when You want it and relax it when you want that, too. (not every thing they do should be under a super time crunch afterall). You can even vary it to hard deadlines, soft deadlines, long, short, medium, and all that to keep things moving the way you want.

That would be my suggested solution to the CLW. Keep it, and make time the enemy instead.

-S


Your assumption is that without ASB's folks will just pick whatever.. Unfortunately- without ASB's I think they would just look to the other bonuses to find the "best" for whatever they are doing and go with it.

The folks who are cherry picking race based on ASB will just cherry pick race based on the other mathematical factors if you remove them.

You'll still end up with the people who care more about flavor than crunch making characters regardless of the math and folks who care more about math making characters based on the other stats. You'll just be changing which stat they look at when determining what race to play.

-S


I couldn't find anything prohibiting it- but the rules also never state that it stops being your eidolon if its otherwise controlled or turned into.. whatever.
I'd say dismiss it- or take a nap. (since sleeping dismisses it too) until you are in a position to cure it.

If the DM says that it just flat out isn't your Big E anymore then he needs to also tell you how to get the new one. (through in-game research or whatever) because at this point he's in 100% pure houserule territory.

-S


Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time.
(its the tiny print at the bottom of the page)

Customer service is most definately closed at 7pm pacific time which if I did my math correctly, is when your original post was posted.

-S


As long as there is no mechanical issue attached then I'd say it doesn't matter and could even change from event to event.

One bullet he swats away with a hand, the next he ducks out of the way of, a third he feints and causes the gunner to shoot wide- whatever fluff you like. If they are using a weapon at all (say a 1h in the other hand) you could even fluff they split the bullet or swat it away with the weapon.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The items and that feat weren't written in mind to interact with each other in the fashion you are attempting to force them into.

Expect table variation on the tone of "no" more often than "yes" when you are trying to use them together this way.

You know it isn't intended for this and are attempting to (ab)use it anyway.

-S


Regardless of that blog post:

Keep in mind that if raising an animal's int to 3 and it learning a language (through whatever means the DM allows) does NOT allow you to direct it in combat with verbal commands in that language and instead requires a skill check, then any PC with that same intelligence should labor under that same restriction.

From the CRB under "intelligence"
Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.

An int of 3 may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer or the anything but they are *capable* of *understanding* the speech of any language that they have learned.

If getting an int of 3 and learning a language doesn't allow a creature to act based on the speech of others then a PC with an int of 3 can't do it either.

-S


Have arcane spell casters (and spontaneous divine casters) have all of their spells printed out before hand.

Have everyone have all of their feats and special abilities printed out in full.

For example:
If you are playing an Oracle copy the entire Oracle entry into a txt file and edit out the parts you aren't using. (revelations etc) and print out everything they Are using.

A wizard's spellbook, a sorc or whoever's spells known and all class information so it can be readily accessed by that character.
(herolab is great for this actually but it can be rather easily done by hand from the PRD as well.

For melee types, do all of that plus have several different melee options set up.

For my paladin I have:
Melee
Melee + Power attack
Melee + Smite
Melee + PA + Smite

so I have all the numbers laid out for anything I may do, with additional places below it for spells I frequently cast or have cast on me. (such as bonuses from haste, prot from evil, divine power, bardic abilities used on me and whatnot).

Have the melee use different colored die sets for their attacks.
All reds for attack 1, all blues for attack 2, all greens for attack 3, and so on. This allows 'em to roll all at once without worry for mixing them up or getting them out of order.

Ask spellcasters to be paying attention so they know what spell to cast when it is their turn. Be cognizant that sometimes things change and require a spell change but usually they can figure out what to do before their turn comes up. (and let 'em delay, if not.)

-S


Make him a Witch. The hexes are all about the DM rolling dice, not the player. All he has to know is the save DC's for his hexes and those are rather static, in play and never require him to roll a die at all. What few spells he has that have die rolls in 'em he can just skip.

-S


Nessus_9th wrote:
Selgard wrote:

Nessus:

You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.

From the item "...he views the prospect [of returning to normal] with horror and avoids it in any way possible"

So not only do they get their mind yanked but they like it and seek to Not go back to normal. How can this possibly not be an alignment hit for whoever is doing this to them?

And quite franky- yes. You can imprison them and even execute them if doing so is just and lawful for the place you are in. What you can't do is reach into their brain with a mixer and turn it on to make them what you want them to be.

If they commit a crime, imprison them. If the crime is heinous enough- execute them. But let them BE themselves.

I'm not using Mentally Neuter as inflammatory language. I'm using it literally. You are neutering who they are. You are going in and saying "we don't like this" and snipping it out and removing it to make the person behave the way you want to.
which is incidentally one reason we neuter our pets. Aside from preventing them from being able to procreate, it also has a tendency to curb certain behaviors that we want them to stop doing.

-S

We are simply not going to come to an agreement on this because:

I view the right to live as being morally superior and you view the right of free will as being morally superior.

Lets just agree that it all depends on how your DM sees it because there is no concensus on this issue.

We aren't going to come to an agreement- you are probably right.

And I'm ok with that. :) Finding people with different opinions who are able to converse both meangingfully and without rudeness is one of the joys of the internet. Thanks for that!

The right to do anything is with the person holding the right, not with some one else. But tantamount to any right is the right to choose. The right to life is the right to choose to live or die. In this case, you are taking away their right to be who they are- even if that is evil.

You say: Either I kill him or I change who he is forever. He gets no say in the matter- I think living is more important so on with the mind-blender!

I say: Putting the helmet on him is wrong. Changing who he is, is wrong. Whether or not the justice system in question decides he needs to die for the wrongs he did, putting his brain into the blender is wrong. Its not "life or helmet pick one". Its "Do the right thing, or do the right thing." The lesser of two evils is not at issue- we're talking about what should a paladin do not what laws should a kingdom have.

If the paladin walked up to someone and said
I have decided to stick a blender on your head and when I'm done you will be someone completely alien to who you are now- someone you are not and never have been and do not currently want to be because who it will make you is a better person than who you are now".. How can that not be wrong?
That the alternative is some other thing doesn't make the underlying action totally and completely evil.

-S


Weirdo wrote:
Selgard wrote:
You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.

A violent criminal facing life in prison is discovered to have a brain tumour in the right supramarginal gyrus, the part of the brain responsible for empathy. It is believed that if the tumour is surgically removed, the criminal may be freed without fear that they would re-offend.

Would you say it is moral or immoral to remove the tumour?

If so, have you removed a part of the criminal's identity?

Does it matter how long the tumour has been there?

Does it matter whether the criminal wants surgery? Whether the desire for surgery is primarily a result of wanting to avoid prison?

1) Ask them. If they want it removed, no issue. If they don't want it removed- you don't remove it.

2) As above.

3) as above

4) It definately matters. If they say no then the answer is no. If they say yes the answer is yes.
Of course, they serve out the sentence of whatever it is they did. they did it regardless of any tumor and a surgery shouldn't alleviate that. But if said surgery could keep them from repeating the offense or committing other offenses and the patient is willing to undergo the treatment then go for it- even if their only wish is to keep from doing the crime again.

(in no way would I allow them a get out of jail free card due to the removal of the tumor. 1) the doc's could very well be wrong, 2) the guy/gal did the crime and should do the time for whatever it is they did.)

-S


Agreed with Pizza Lord:

The person likes their new alignment and doesn't want to change from it. A PC changed by it who went about trying to return to their alignment is essentially ignoring part of the curse.

If it gave them a -2 to hit you wouldn't let them ignore that- and you shouldn't let them ignore this either.

The Wish/miracle would have to be done by someone else against the express wishes of the victim.

-S


Keep in mind time zones when posting. alot of folks are at work, on the way home from work or eating supper right about now- not to mention the folks across the pond who are likely snoozing in bed still ;)

-S


Nessus:

You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.

From the item "...he views the prospect [of returning to normal] with horror and avoids it in any way possible"

So not only do they get their mind yanked but they like it and seek to Not go back to normal. How can this possibly not be an alignment hit for whoever is doing this to them?

And quite franky- yes. You can imprison them and even execute them if doing so is just and lawful for the place you are in. What you can't do is reach into their brain with a mixer and turn it on to make them what you want them to be.

If they commit a crime, imprison them. If the crime is heinous enough- execute them. But let them BE themselves.

I'm not using Mentally Neuter as inflammatory language. I'm using it literally. You are neutering who they are. You are going in and saying "we don't like this" and snipping it out and removing it to make the person behave the way you want to.
which is incidentally one reason we neuter our pets. Aside from preventing them from being able to procreate, it also has a tendency to curb certain behaviors that we want them to stop doing.

-S


Or just say
"It works for enhancement bonuses, and not for any others." and go from there.

-S


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The main argument for this being an evil act seems to be that taking away a person’s freedom is evil. I think this is a mistake because freedom is not so much a matter of good vs. evil, but rather a law vs. chaos. This stems from the idea that anything positive must be good, so anything negative has to be evil.

While I think the idea of freedom and liberty is a great thing and should be upheld, it is not in itself “good”. That being said I don’t think that a paladin would have any problem using magic to change a person’s behavior.

Who you are and what you do is the only real choice you have in life. Permanently, magically, altering that thing into something else is probably one of the greater evils you can do to a person.

You can imprison them, you can execute them- but magically forcing them into just doing what you want? Not only is it incredibly lazy for the Paladin to do (should be teaching/converting) but its also disgusting and should be evil. (yes, I know, the game is silent on whether or not it is.)

Permanently Dominating someone and forcing them to do what you want is an abhorrent, vile thing whether you are forcing them to be nice or to be a jerk.

Having a prison with some pacify effect or whatnot is one thing. Using magic to apprehend someone and safely return them to the authorities is one thing.
But using that same magic to mentally neuter them and force them to view life as you do just because you think you are right?

Evil, here you come.

-S


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nessus_9th wrote:
Selgard wrote:

Is it against the Paladin's code to permanently Dominate or Charm someone into acting contrary to their will?

That is exactly what this helmet does. It isn't making an evil person good- it is forcing someone to change to a way they *did not want to be*. The "evil to good" thing is a red herring.

A paladin would absolutely fall using this item- just as he would using any magic to manipulate someone as a marionette.

The Paladin needs to convert people and change their mind- not use mind altering magic to force them into his way of thinking.

-S

PRD wrote:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Nowhere in there does it state that a paladin cannot use magic (charm or otherwise) to punish the offenders so long as it falls within the boundaries of Lawful Good. He is not doing it willy-nilly.

What do you think is better (more good) cutting off people's limbs? imprisoning them? Killing them? or forcefully changing their alignment? It is a form of punishment. One that is, in my opinion, A LOT more humane than taking someone's limbs or life away. Furthermore, even if you did convict the offender and locked him up or cut off his hand all you've accomplished is punishment, no rehabilitation has been done, the criminal is just as likely to do it again when/if he can. Corporal punishment is a deterrent, nothing more, I don't believe you can say the same about the forceful alignment change method.

Then punish them. Put them in prison or execute them depending on what the law requires. But to magically warp the very essence of their being and twist their will around just because it happens to be into the direction the Paladin likes?

Unless the Paladin has another on hand to return the person to their correct state of mine when the "term of incarceration" is over then it is just mind control. And no.

-S


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it against the Paladin's code to permanently Dominate or Charm someone into acting contrary to their will?

That is exactly what this helmet does. It isn't making an evil person good- it is forcing someone to change to a way they *did not want to be*. The "evil to good" thing is a red herring.

A paladin would absolutely fall using this item- just as he would using any magic to manipulate someone as a marionette.

The Paladin needs to convert people and change their mind- not use mind altering magic to force them into his way of thinking.

-S


Mythic book.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like the player was a tool, rather than there being an issue with his build.

Being useful is.. well.. useful. You never know when you'll run into a PFS table where a skill has been ignored by everyone. Working as a team is also good- everyone rolling and using the highest roll isn't a bad idea. It is in how the people play their character (and how the DM responds to them) that makes it good or bad.

In your scenario, the player was a tool and the DM listened to him instead of the rest of you. (when a player talks over others, the DM should shut him up.)

I would say.. a jerk can make any build be bad. :\

-S


Combat distribution should always be "some are easy, some are hard" so I'm not sure how much that helps or hinders. Christoper, who posted above me, posted how much gold each character should have in gear and spare change and such.

If everyone is just way below the mark you could talk to the DM about it- or if you think things are too challenging over all, the group could have a chat.

Overall, I think chatting is the way to go for nearly any issue with the game. Whether he's being too light on treasure or combats are too difficult or whatever- the only real way to solve the problem is to chat with him and this is true regardless of what the WBL chart says.

(its in the Gamemastery section of both the PRD and the CRB).

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The purpose of WBL is for the DM to adjudicate relative party wealth compared to the CR of whatever you are fighting. (i.e. to make sure you have the appropriate gear to face whatever it is you are combating)

It isn't for the players to add up their gold and compare it to the chart an beat the DM with a mallet because they don't have enough cash.

Is your group having too hard of a time overcoming your foes?
If no, your WBL is fine.
If yes, is everyone having fun anyway?
If yes, then everything is fine.
If No, then you and the group need to chat with the DM to see about getting everyone on the same page.

Also:
How WBL functions with crafters is a very hotly debated topic. Whether it should net you more than your WBL or whether it should just let you turn your cash into the item you want is not something people tend to agree on- so you may also need to find out your DM's particular stance on that issue.

-S


You don't get the ranger favored bonuses anymore because the physical bits that made them human (or whatever) aren't there anymore.

"but thats his heart! and those are his kidneys! i specifically aimed for those!'
"yeah but.. he's undead now, and those are gone. you gotta learn how to kill an undead"

Mentally however the individual is just as nuts as they were before they decided to become an undead thingie. I too would say they get the age bonuses to mental stats. The older you get the wiser you get- after all.

While I can see an argument for "but they live forever now" and all that I think it would take awhile for that mentality to set in and would actually be part of the age-ability score thing. You get older, wiser, more in charge of your abilities and in the ability to start looking out for the long term. (all things that increased mental stats would allow for).

As a rules question though, RAW and all that?
No clue.

-S


I think the feat would work for the initial check but anything that provoked a reroll would be their normal roll for it.

as per the skill description

Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

So it could work for a momentary (no longer than 4 round) move to get from point A to point B without getting seen but after that, not so much.

Worth all the hubbub? I dunno. WIth haste and such you can move very very far in 4 rounds (esp taking the -5, doable since you are using the highest persons roll, potentially, assuming everyone is half-way stealth proficient)

So... maybe?

-S


You gain a bonus is positive, penalty is negative. You only get the charisma bonus if it is a bonus, otherwise you get nothing.

So, no penalty.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ask them why. What do they see the point of it being. What are their plans for the critter in 5, 10, 15, 20 levels.

Is it just for flavor? Is there some obscure feat combo they see it blossoming into? Do they think if you say yes to this it'll let them bootstrap some "yes" later on for some weird other thing?

The answer when a player wants some odd ball thing should be "Maybe. Why? What is the plan?". Absent the knowledge of what they want it for- you can't make an informed decision about whether or not to do anything with it at all.

-S


The source of the post is exactly to prevent "putting one past" the DM.
When all is said and done I'll link this to the group and let the chips fall where they may.

Thanks for the input :)


One single bump for posterity before letting the post shuffle off to the post graveyard.


its actually incredibly important due to the functionality of the Sacrificial Shield mythic ability which allows me to use my shield to absorb an attack once a round. The higher the hardness of the shield, the less likely I am to have to use a mythic power in the processs. (it requires no mythic power if the attack doesn't penetrate the hardness.)

If it doesn't go through its hardness then I expend no mythic power and if it doesn't go through both its hardness and HP then I take no damage at all.

The hardness is either 44 or 48 though and that is the more important of the two to me and 4 points either way shouldn't be a big deal. I just want to get the math right so its being done correctly either way.

Thanks for the help :)


Thanks LazarX.

so 26 HP and 20 hardness as base.
Unyielding triples the first (to 78) and doubles the second (to 40)
Then add the +4 and +20 for the +'s?

so 98 HP and 44 hardness?

Not trying to be thick- I just want to get it right.

-S


Greetings!

I am currently building a shield for a Mythic paladin.

The shield so far is a +2 Adamantine Heavy Shield with the
Mythic legendary property of "Unyielding" on it.

A Heavy Steel Shield is Hardness 10, HP 20.
Armors gain +2 hardness per + and +10 HP per +.

Adamantine gives 1/3 more HP than "normal" and a flat 20 hardness.

Unyielding doubles hardness and triples HP.

Whats the correct order of operations here?
Do I apply each one as though the others don't exist then add them together?

1) the +'s give 4 hardness and 20 HP
2) Adamantine gives 1/3 more Hp so 6.6 (or 6)
3) Unyielding doubles hardness (base of 20 becomes 40) and triples HP (base of 20 becomes 60)
4) 44 hardness, 86 hp?

Is this correct or did I miss something? Should Unyielding be applied last?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see Butterfly's Sting requiring an alignment or deity of any kind.

Also remember- proper names won't be referenced in the d20pfsrd even if the rules require it. They had to strip all that stuff out.

http://www.paizo.com/prd doesn't have that restriction.

-S


If Gail is not a real person but rather a collection of characteristics defined, created, and assembled by the Caster- can the caster repeatedly turn into this same collection of characteristics? (i.e. "Gail")

Its rather vague, IMO. While it says you have some control (without saying how much or over what exactly) it further states that you are always a generic member member of the species.

I would personally rule that "generic member" means you can't look like King George III but that if you created a specific look (from your imagination) then you could always return to it.

The annoying part would be if you found someone who looked like what you assembled your alter ego to look like- because then you couldn't use it anymore. :P
(more of a "DM Hosed you" sort of thing or a "how the spell would function if the game were real" sort of thing rather than an actual issue.)

-S


From the Magic section, under Divination:

Quote:

Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.

-S


Lets not insult the OP, eh?

I'd suggest talking to the players about your issue with them always being the same class- rather than just restricting them to playing other things.

Discussing the issue is going to be a better fix than basically just saying "You can't play that, because I said so" which is essentially what you are doing. Any "out of game" issue should be settled by talking it out, not by forcing rules changes on the players.

Either way, I hope the game works out well for you and them.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stick bad dice back into the bag and fish out a replacement- usually by rolling a handful of them a couple of times and plucking out the highest ones.

Serves no point really, but helps rattle off the annoyance at repeatedly rolling badly.

-S

1 to 50 of 2,940 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>