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

Tiny Coffee Golem's page

9,090 posts. Alias of wesF.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,090 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

As mentioned, your best is to take one level of admixture wizard. It's it may not be the way you want, but it's the only real way to get what you want.


I believe you've mentioned all the ways except maybe a metamagic rod.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I never played Wraith and I don't know much about it.
It's the somehow-more-emo version of the idea you had using World of Darkness rule sets.

Please, let's not validate that stupid '000s meme. As far as I can tell, "emo" was just a phantasmal scapegoat that the bullying type managed to conjure up so they had someone to pick on who was always conveniently voiceless as it became less and less acceptable to pick on gays.

WRAITH: THE OBLIVION was DARK. I've never played it, but to give you an idea, every player had a "Shadow," an antagonistic schism of their own mind that existed solely to ruin everything they tried to do. In gameplay terms, each player was assigned the role of this "Shadow" of the person next to them at the table - and their goal was to whisper mean things to them that would actually hurt the player's feelings so as to make them screw up.

Perhaps not a good idea, I must admit.

I'm not familiar with the meme you're talking about. I only meant angsty and overly emotional.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
I never played Wraith and I don't know much about it.

It's the somehow-more-emo version of the idea you had using World of Darkness rule sets.


If it's a gold mine the gold ingots polished by digestive enzymes.


What it says on the tin; Caffiene addict 20

Wasn't complaining about the DC. I just didn't realize how high it was in time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
I find an alternate version of that reality and promote world peace, enchantment magic optional.

If earth dies you permanently die. It's part of the premise. I believe it was to avoid any variant of "F these people. I'm leaving." On the part of the caster.


Devilkiller wrote:
I'd agree that sneaking into the party's camp to rob them would get old really fast, but if a goblin grabs your bag full of treasure off the ground during combat and runs away that seems kind of hilarious to me. I guess maybe I'm a bad person/DM.

If you give them a good chance to get it back its funny. Else it's just spiteful


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tell them to walk it off


I can't answer your question, but I love your reason. Lol


Fire immunity because it's the most common generally.

Acid immunity because it's the least generally.


Does the vulnerability need to be the opposite of the immunity?


Is there a magic item that makes a few gold per day? I think 3.5 had such a thing that generated a few gold per day for incidental spending. Anything like that in Pathfimder?


Azure Falcon wrote:

My group wanted to do a game based around this idea. Only in our case, you wouldn't assign stats for yourself but instead everyone at the table would.

The problem was, when looking at the list their are a few things that people could qualify later down the list but not qualify for some of the prior things. For example: In Strength it says at 14-15 "Visibly toned" but then later down the list for 18-19 "Can break wood with bare hands".

If I had to stat myself I'd say I would have...
Str:15
Dex:15
Con:14
Int:16/17
Wis:16
Cha:14

I think the only thing the people in my group were debating about was my INT score. Even though I'm good with both math and science, you would never get that vibe off of me during a game/know I'm a Chem major.

I think that would probably end my gaming group. Lol


What it says on the tin; Caffiene addict 20

No worries. Thanks for the update. I'm pretty sure this is a relaxed group. Do what you gotta do and let us know what we can do to help.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

And maybe you have the Conversion Inquisition or some equivalent, letting you use Wis for most Cha stuff. Or Student of Philosophy to use Int. I probably have one of those.

That's drop the necessary point-buy a lot (since then your Cha can be 10 or so).

Definitely a possibility. I'm pretty sure I'm multiclassed.


If a player doesn't have the creature fully statted on an index card (or something similar), including any feat interactions, they cant summon that thing.


I second the props for thread title honesty.


Dragon78 wrote:
A real composite blast for Aether + Aether would be nice.

Yea. The force blast is a bit weird to me. It does less damage, but with the exception of very specific instances (ghosts anyone?) force damage isnt overly useful.

Further not needing to "throw something" isn't a valid argument as the telekinetic blast has no lower limit. With the current RAW you can telekineticly throw dust motes and do the same damage as throwing a boulder.


Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Based upon Wonderstell's scale:

Conservative estimates

Str: 16
Dex: 9
Con: 14
Int: 16
Wis: 18
Cha: 18

So... you're a 51 PB build? lol
Actually, that's a 58 point build.

Maybe I'm just that impressive. ;-)

Roll of the proverbial genetic dice and all that. :-)


Wonderstell wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Based upon Wonderstell's scale:

Conservative estimates

Str: 16
Dex: 9
Con: 14
Int: 16
Wis: 18
Cha: 18

So... you're a 51 PB build? lol

Based on Wonderstell's criteria it would seem so. Rest assured I'm as surprised as you are.

Game mechanics don't necessarily translate to real life well.

Just to be clear, I didn't come up with the scale myself. The values are taken from the ability score descriptions, so I simply copy-pasted it from there.

I find it funny that it is kinda easy to have high mental scores (wis&cha improve with experience) according to the scale, since that implies that most of my characters are antisocial morons.

Age bonuses maybe? lol.

Random thoughts: I think if you're reasonably well adjusted to society you're going to have fairly good mental scores (13+). Plus they improve with practice. Personally, I learned to be charismatic in College. Prior to that I was so awkward I could barely talk to people.

Additionally, assuming you live in an industrialized country, we're living in the information age. With the internet it's much easier to gain knowledge now than it was even 20 years ago. If you are curious about something most people have a device in their pocket that can access the answer. It's MUCH easier and more effective than finding and using an encyclopedia or researching at your local library.

For purposes of navigating society a person uses mental scores a lot more than physical ones. There's some notable cross over. Our society values the appearance of health, so a good musculature is going to be expressed in both STR and CHA.

Again, game stats don't necessarily translate great to real life.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Based upon Wonderstell's scale:

Conservative estimates

Str: 16
Dex: 9
Con: 14
Int: 16
Wis: 18
Cha: 18

So... you're a 51 PB build? lol

Based on Wonderstell's criteria it would seem so. Rest assured I'm as surprised as you are.

Game mechanics don't necessarily translate to real life well.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

And I really don't know of that many people who can carry around ~60lbs (~27kg) without any penalties to movement and such.

It's not everyone, but it's not unheard of. I used to wear a 40lb weight vest in college in addition to a leather coat and having all of my textbooks in a backpack. It was a workout (which was the point), but not a huge deal. I even rode my bike a couple miles to get to campus with all that.

You get used to it. Military members, for example, generally carry around 110lbs in gear during wartime. At first it's awkward, but once you develop the muscle mass and get used to it it feels like part of yourself. Do you perform better without it? Of course you do, but that's the case with anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I didn't realize this thread was supposed to be taken seriously.

Are any of them really supposed to be taken seriously?


Based upon Wonderstell's scale:

Conservative estimates

Str: 16
Dex: 9
Con: 14
Int: 16
Wis: 18
Cha: 18

Str: I'm not an athlete, but I work out. Being 6'1 and 208lbs helps with the strength measurement.

Dex: I'm not a total klutz, but I do have a tenancy to trip and otherwise cause minor injuries to myself. I was a touch surprised by the low number, but those are the criteria. Incidentally, I'm a pretty good shot with a gun, but perhaps that's just practice. Weapon focus (Firearm)

Con: Similar to Str, I'm a big guy who takes care of himself, so perhaps that's a factor. I rarely get sick. I do keep clean, but don't worry about germs too much. Perhaps this exposure helped too.

Int: I have a cerebral job and have always been ahead of the curve. I'm no genius, but I'm definitely ahead of the bell curve. I though this number would be higher, but what do you do? I'm a technology consultant for a global consulting firm. It requires a high degree of analytical ability.

Wis and Cha were a bit of a surprise to me. Based on the aforementioned criteria those are the numbers. I understand most situations and am empathetic, so that's cool. However, I feel like my charisma is something I turn on and off depending on my mood. I'm generally well liked and lots of fun when I feel like it, but I also am totally happy being a hermit for periods of time. Go figure


Does Holy Water work in an AMF?


Random thought, though perhaps not PFS: how would the adopted trait affect this if at all?


'Sani wrote:
Well, in PFS no one gets Scribe Scroll, so that's kind a moot point.

Didnt realize this was a PFS discussion. My bad. I'm out.


'Sani wrote:
Would it be possible to get the spell if you actually meet one of the race that has it? Such as if you sit down at a table to play your Human Wizard, and someone else is playing a Wayang wizard, and you decide to swap spells. Would the wizard be able to learn a Wayang only spell from the Wayang if the Wayang had it to teach? Or would this fall under the same blanket PC can not access the spell?

Same question. If a halfling wizard scribes a halfling racial spell onto a scroll then hands it to a human wizard can that human wizard scribe it in his/her spellbook?


Lemmy wrote:
Lazio... With all those restrictions, why not just outright ban full casters?

Yea. To each their own, but with those many chances perhaps look into other systems more to your liking.


How do you deal with the choking hazard of smoke?


sage bloodline


With a ghost touch hammer.


Dot


Congratulations on a 6 year old thread resurrection.

Also yes to the original question. CBDunkerson provided sources.


Cayzle wrote:

Problem with a familiar using any ioun stone, IMNSHO, is that it has to HOLD it, then release it. That rules out creatures that cannot hold a stone.

You can share an Alter Self with the familiar, then let the familiar hold and release the stone. But you have to reuse this slightly bogus fix every time you want to put it back on.

Moreover, any item, stone or otherwise, that is activated, is most likely activated by command word. So a familiar cannot activate an item unless the familiar can speak, such as a raven, or some improved familiars.

(Personally, I would not rule that a familiar in a humanoid form via Alter Self can speak.]

Hope that helps!

I disagree. Based on my (possibly flawed) memory I don't believe holding and releasing is a stated requirement.

However, even if it is a requirement most (possibly all) standard familiars can grasp and release. Beaks, claws, monkey hands even have thumbs. Even the lowly snake can grasp a pebble in its mouth then release. Even non magical Ravens, for example, are capable of very complex manipulation and even feats of engineering.


Avoron wrote:

I'm a huge fan of the occult oracle's capstone - starting the campaign as a ghost could be both crazy fun and crazy powerful, and a high level party always needs a good divine spellcaster.

Interested?

Occult oracle?


I can see how it'd be useful, but there are better things to spend that much gold on. I guess if you're not a caster, need to scry, and have money burning a hole in your pocket it could be worth it. However, I've rarely seen non-casters need to scry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:
141. It grows one large coffee bean humanoid that can provide unlimited coffee. He says only "coffee, coffee, coffee" but the planter can always understand him. He is strongly lawful evil so he is always suggesting evil plots. If Coffee Man is killed and buried, 2D6 Coffee Men grow on the resulting bush.

*waves*


Correct. However, see invisibility will allow them to bypass that. Also, dropping the scroll then picking it up again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Javiash wrote:

NEW ONE, haha.

-What does it means the CR+1 in each template? Does this change the cost of animation? O raises its HD?? Example: the fast zombie is CR+0, but the relentless is CR+1 and is exactly the same as the fast zombie but better. So why would you raise a fast zombie if you can have a relentless one??

Thanks.

It's a calculation for the Challenge Rating for the DM. Has no effect on HD or animation calculations.


GM 1990 wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
You might be better to go with only registered and certified casters are allowed. Anyone else using magic is a criminal with harsh penalties.

If you think through how a society would eventually clamp down on these kind of things its the natural progression. At some point, its easier for governmental control to go 0 tolerance, and only "State Sanctioned" magic is allowed.

While not outlawed, the inn my group has taken up as their home-base is very non-tolerant of casting - its become a bit of a "schtick" the female owner tosses out. "You don't come in here with mud on them boots...and don't be doing any hocus-pocus either."

There are some real adventure and hook opportunities behind something like this. PCs could be either involved, become involved, or be asked to root out things like:

Underground guilds
Blackmarket components (selling, procuring, smuggling into the city)
Spell-books
Sorcerer disguises

I think we're on the same page. However, I generally have a problem with City/States that have a no magic policy. Quite frankly, if the offending caster is of sufficient level and the city/state has no magic of it's own then the city/state is screwed. Seriously. Level 20 mage (because why not) can easily level or conquer such a place. Gate in a few Balors then sit back and watch the fireworks.

It's more feasible if the city/state has it's own casters to help regulate magic as opposed to banning it.


You might be better to go with only registered and certified casters are allowed. Anyone else using magic is a criminal with harsh penalties.


Dave Justus wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


It says Divination spells. Based on how the english language works that means all divination spells.

It doesn't say that at all. It says

"by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells."

If you say, "I don't like chips such as Ruffles, Pringles and Lays" I would conclude that you probably do (or at least might) like Doritos, which are clearly a different category of chips than the ones listed. I would conclude that you don't like Kettle Brand Potato chips.

If you wanted to convey that you don't like any chips, you should have just stopped there, not made a clarifying list.

That is how the english language works.

That's literally what it says.

"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells"

Lets break it down:

Warded creature = Someone with non detection on
Difficult to detect = Not impossible. Gotta make a roll.
By divination spells = Spells in the divination school
such as... = this list includes, but is not limited to, the following ...

Edit: *sigh* forget it. I'm tired of arguing with people today. I'm sorry the facts as presented don't fit your narrative. It's a cooperative game. If you're going to house rule about this please let any player who might want to use this tactic know in advance. It'll make for a happier table.

Good gaming all.


Lorewalker wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Non-detection does not say it protects against only the divination spells in said list.

I really don't get where the confusion is.

I don't think anyone is saying that only the spells on the list count.

The question is which other ones do. Presumably it isn't all divinations, or we wouldn't need a such as clause. But which ones it is and isn't (and hence where see invisibility should be) is far from clear.

Why is it not divination spells when it specifically says divination spells?
Because it does not say ALL divination spells. It says divination spells like (or similar) to this sample list of spells. That is the context given by the "such as" in this case.

Of which See Invisibility is like.

The spell gives you information about a target. Not only if they are invisible, but how they are invisible. By listing what the spell does not reveal, it contextualizes the information you receive as being information the spell does reveal. Thus, it is a divination spell that gathers information about a person and not really an enhancement of the chracter. But that is my opinion and not 100% objectively provable. Though, very likely.

Nondetection should protect against it, in that case.

The only real argument that is logical to debate is 'does the spell enhance the character or does the spell give reveal information to the character'.

If the first case, nondetection does not work. In the second, it definitely works.

And for those who say Mindblank should be more powerful, since it is a higher level spell... it is. I listed such power in an earlier post. Mindblank is still extremely potent even if nondetection protects against See Invisibility.

Keep in mind that you still have to roll with nondetection. It doesn't just block divinations like Mindblank.


bbangerter wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Non-detection does not say it protects against only the divination spells in said list.

I really don't get where the confusion is.

I don't think anyone is saying that only the spells on the list count.

The question is which other ones do. Presumably it isn't all divinations, or we wouldn't need a such as clause. But which ones it is and isn't (and hence where see invisibility should be) is far from clear.

Why is it not divination spells when it specifically says divination spells?
Because it does not say ALL divination spells. It says divination spells like (or similar) to this sample list of spells. That is the context given by the "such as" in this case.

It says Divination spells. Based on how the english language works that means all divination spells. If they had meant some divination spells they would have had to say so. However, if I say "I don't like potato chips" it's understood that I mean all potato chips. Therefore if it's a chip and made of potatoes I don't like them.

"What about sweet potato chips?"

1) Is it a chip?
2) is it made from potatoes?

If both answers are yes then I do not like them.


Dave Justus wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Non-detection does not say it protects against only the divination spells in said list.

I really don't get where the confusion is.

I don't think anyone is saying that only the spells on the list count.

The question is which other ones do. Presumably it isn't all divinations, or we wouldn't need a such as clause. But which ones it is and isn't (and hence where see invisibility should be) is far from clear.

Why is it not divination spells when it specifically says divination spells?


Rub-Eta wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I really don't get where the confusion is.

The confusion comes from a combination of things.

"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells". Nondetection does not ward against all divinations spells. Only those that somehow detects. See Invisible does not detect invisible objects or creatures, it alters your sight.
Further: "spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells". It is very important to note the "such as". While the list is not extensive, it also means that only other spells "such as" these listed here are effected by Nondetection. Spells not listed that are "spells such as" are, among others, 'Locate Creature', 'Detect Magic' (or any other spell called "Detect [something]") and "Scry", as they have similar effects as those spells listed.
See Invisible, on the other hand, is not a spell "such as" any of those listed spells.

Now, I'm not weighing in on any sides here. I just wanted to clarify why this is debatable to some.

It doesn't say "detect spells," which is not a spell category anyway. Detect is an action in this case. Non detection specifically says divination spells.


I really don't understand how this is debatable.

See invisibility is a divination spell. (not debatable)

Non-detection offers some protection against divination spells. The fact that it also provides an example list isn't really a factor.

Non-detection does not say it protects against only the divination spells in said list.

I really don't get where the confusion is.

Edit: then again sometime people want to beat things into the ground. As always feel free to house rule however you'd like.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Nondetection is debatable. See Invisibility isn't a 'detect' spell, so arguably it's not included in the subset of divination spells protected against by Nondetection.

See invisibility is a divination. Non-detection wards against divination spells, not "detect" spells.

"The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells"

1 to 50 of 9,090 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.