TiwazBlackhand's page

Organized Play Member. 149 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Purple-Monkey-Dishwasher: The Movie: The Game: the MMORPG: the Game

Dark Archive

Bard - Summon Instrument. Ideally increased duration from 1 min/level to 1 hour/level, or at least 10 min/level

Dark Archive

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a long time Paladin Stan.

One of my first AD&D characters was a Paladin rolled the hard way. (I was stupid lucky)
I played so many Paladins of Pelor during 3.X that it became a running joke in groups I played with.
I Played a Paladin as my first character in pretty much every MMO where it was an option.

Paladins have always been a thing for me.

And yes, I am guilty of more than a few instances of Lawful Stupid Paladin.

Honestly, while I like most of what they outlined in this blog post, what I really wish they'd done is this:
1 - We have removed the Paladin class entirely
2 - We have added the Warpriest class to Core
3 - We have RENAMED the Warpriest class to "Paladin".

But, oh well.
Here's hoping Warpriest get's an update sooner rather than later in the PF2 life cycle.

Dark Archive

I don't know if this is doable, maybe you have a list of blog topics for the playtest previews going till release, but I have a topic I'd really like to see a Blog post on.

The "Party Healer" Barbarian that keeps getting mentioned.

I would really like to have a blog post dedicated to showing us what sort of choices and options allow a Barbarian (using none of the barbarian class options) to be an effective party healer.

It doesn't have to be 100% detailed, but something like "They can do this, because they have THIS skill feat, and they can do THIS because of this ancestry feature/feat, and this power is from a general feat, and this is because they put a bunch of skill advances into this skill so they have it at Master."

Dark Archive

Personally, if I'm not specifically going for a companion based build, I find mandatory companions burdensome for 3 reasons.

1> To make a Companion of any sort useful 5-10 levels in, you have to spend limited resources (I.E. Feats) to improve it. Otherwise it's the first splat in each encounter. Also, you have to spend limited combat resources (Actions of various sorts) to make it do stuff which, if you're not going Full Companion, could be better spent doing other things. Fluffy, Attack! is not as useful as I Cast Swarm of Deadly Deadly Bees!

2> There is often a Penalty for letting your companion die. So, if I choose NOT to spend my feats and Magic item allowance on making Kitty able to survive a cr 23 elder dragon fight, I can expect to take some sort of hit. Even if there isn't a Gotcha like the old 3.X 'Lose 200 xp per level when your familiar dies save for half' there's still the GP cost and lost day to summon a new one.

3> Opportunity cost. Designers at least INTEND classes to be fairly balanced, each class feature therefore has a conceptual 'Value', totaling up to the target value of an entire class. If these 'Class Feature Points' are spent on a feature that you won't use, like a familiar or animal companion you don't want, then they AREN'T being spent on features you DO want and will use.
Bob got Weapon Mastery, I got a frog that keeps dying and costing me 1000gp to resummon.

Dark Archive

Vic Wertz wrote:
Also, we have been contemplating the concept of spell cards since we were making game aids for 3.5, but we've never found a good solution for the problem that some spells take up more than half a page in the rulebook, and so just can't be made to fit on a card. Since the point of having these is to avoid having to reference the rulebook, as soon as you have to make a card that says "See Core Rulebook p. 331," you've defeated the purpose.

WotC made it work in 5e.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bard of Ages wrote:

I mean, eh? I think some of this is knee jerk. (Not the OP, but what the OP is talking about.)

The more interesting argument I've seen is "how do you fit a cannibalistic, murderous, fire-loving race into something that WON'T be shot by guards on sight in most towns?"

Which, yeah, the lore of the thing is what I'm most interested in seeing explained.

I mean, we keep letting people play Humans...

Dark Archive

Huh, you know, the biggest stumbling block for me homebrewing Eberron 5e is deciding how to handle dragon marks.

With PF2 that might be pretty easy depending on how ancestries actually work. Make the marks ancestry feats. That could work really well.

Dark Archive

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Going back to Dominate example:

In 1E if you fail your save you're dominated, but get a new save with a bonus each time the caster tries to make you do something against your nature. Your character is still able to fight in some way.

In 2E you're apparently just completely dominated. No trying to resist an order to murder your children.

Fish live in water, Trout are fish, therefore you get no further saves against Dominate ever.

You're assuming things that we don't know yet.

This is a Teaser, not full rules.

Don't assume that the stupidest possible implementation is the one they've chosen.

Dominated is PROBABLY a condition, and they've shown already that conditions can generally be shaken off with specific actions (Like mentioned earlier in (I think) this thread, Nauseated can be decreased in severity one step by taking an action to Vomit).

The logical conclusion is that even if you Crit Fail your save v. Dominate there will be the possibility to resist and try to shake off the condition.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Partizanski wrote:

This tells me they already anticipated this and this won't be a problem outside of possibly a few holes that will be worked out during the playtest

I am making it my mission to find those holes. Already looking forward to a playtest barbarian rolling a 20 on her untrained Craft(laser rifles) check, which she of course has +level-2 to the roll of.

Crafting a Laser Rifle requires Gunsmithing at Legendary

Crafting an automatic Rifle requires Gunsmithing at Master
Crafting single action pin fire gun requires Gunsmithing at Expert
Crafting a smooth bore black powder gun requires Gunsmithing at Trained
Not accidentally shooting yourself in the head and dying is a dc 20 untrained check.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And now, having just made a post decrying the making of assumptions, I shall, Hypocritically, make an assumption.

Why are they adding the 1 20 Auto-Fail/Success mechanic to skill checks?

Why, when it is not the rule in PF1, Not in 5e, specifically called out in the rules of 3.5 as not the way skill checks work, are they putting this into the PF2 playtest?

I think it's because they pay attention to how people play. You listen to D&D podcasts? Most of them do it. Most game groups do it. It even happens, INCORRECTLY, at Adventurer's League and Pathfinder Society tables (YES it DOES, I have personally witnessed it).

The human brain likes patterns that match, and if 1 is auto fail and 20 is auto success on a d20 roll for COMBAT, and for SAVES, SURELY, SURELY our brain tells us, SURELY it MUST be the rule on this other d20 roll.

It is how, to my observation at least, the majority of people play the game. Paizo is simply changing the rule to accommodate the fact that the majority of their customers are going to do it that way at home, to avoid confusion and arguments at Con tables.

Anyway, that's my take.

Dark Archive

It's a shame (actually probably a good thing) that we can't post images in threads here.

So just imagine the accompanying screen shots, or go to Morbotron and look them up.

[Zoidberg, calmly] Relax Friends...
[Zoidberg, 3 seconds later, screaming] PANIC JERKS!

Preeeeeeety much all the Playtest threads, just continuously.

I mean, I think we all know that we all want more info, and that these teasers are really light on actual detail, but man the level of assumption, baseless extrapolation, and vitriolic defense and attack of said assumptions and baseless guessing is just absurd.

All fish live in water, all Trout are fish, Therefore Fighters can divine smite at 3rd level and if I roll a 20 on acrobatics I can jump down your throat and wear you like a power suit.

[Insert pic of Finn from adventure time wearing Jake as a suit]


Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

100% everything fuzzypaws said.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Another thought that occurs to me: It seems to me that, generally, the logic behind BoonGating races was that they were in some way "Complex" or had features that would be "Disruptive" to play, and by gating them to dedicated GMs theoretically they were kept in the hands of people who wouldn't cause a problem.

In PF2, depending on how Ancestries work, and ancestry feats, would it not be possible to take a race with "Disruptive features" and either JUST BAN those AncFeat options, or Gate JUST those powers with a boon?

Like (and this is just a crazy made up example) say Ifrit somehow got unlimited fireballs. Just ban that. Say a winged race got a feat for fly speed (at low level). Boon Gate JUST THAT.

Just. Don't lock/ban EVERY new race. Or MOST races. Make 90% of races available, and don't BoonGate things you KNOW are going to be super popular.

I am looking forward to your suggestions when it comes to incentivizing convention GMs.

EDIT: I unfairly quoted once a person who suggested it, but the question also goes out to everyone how has suggested restricting fewer races for GM rewards.

You know what Adventurer League GMs get? XP to apply to a character. Gold and Downtime days to apply to a character.

That's it.
There's also special quests to get a cert for what is essentially an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1, or a 5 use 2d8 heal potion that also does Remove Disease/Remove Poison.

That's it.

So, as I said above, I have no problem with certs for, literally absurdly broken and abusive items. I don't consider access to Specific Magic Items to be a core part of a character.

Give the DM a cert for, as I said in my first post, a +10 Bazooka of Infinite Godslaying. IDGF.

But having aasimar, catfolk, changeling, dhampir, fetchling, gillman, grippli, goblin, merfolk, ratfolk, samsaran, suli, tiefling, vanara, vishkanya, gathlain, ghoran, and vine leshy gated behind GM Boons means there are 4 more locked races than there are freely playable.

There are 18 boon locked races.
There are 14 freely playable races.

Do you see how that feels really poop to those who CANNOT AFFORD in time or money to go to enough cons to grab these certs?
Do you see how that's infuriating to people who purchased the Advanced Race Guide and cannot use those races when other people can?

By all means, give boons. Give good stuff. Just consider that gating races, especially popular races like CATFOLK, GRIPPLI, GOBLIN, AASIMAR, & TIEFLING is a good way to put off new players and casuals.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always considered Bards to be Generalists.

They get a decent attack bonus, less than warriors but better than wizards.

They in 2nd ed AD&D they got some thief skills, in 3.x they got the second most skill points and had access to almost every skill as a class skill.

They get magic. Often a mix of wizard and cleric spells.

I hope they work this way in PF2 as well.
Extra Skill Feats but fewer than rogue.
Extra Weapon Proficiencies, but fewer than Fighter.
Spell casting 6/10, but with spells from Wizard & Cleric.

To me, that's what Bard is.

Also, I hope they get some form of the Bard Arcane Duelist/Skald Spell Warrior - Bladethirst/Weapon Song feature. That was one of my favorite PF1 things. Although who knows if it works with the new PF2 math, but I'd love something thematically similar.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thought that occurs to me: It seems to me that, generally, the logic behind BoonGating races was that they were in some way "Complex" or had features that would be "Disruptive" to play, and by gating them to dedicated GMs theoretically they were kept in the hands of people who wouldn't cause a problem.

In PF2, depending on how Ancestries work, and ancestry feats, would it not be possible to take a race with "Disruptive features" and either JUST BAN those AncFeat options, or Gate JUST those powers with a boon?

Like (and this is just a crazy made up example) say Ifrit somehow got unlimited fireballs. Just ban that. Say a winged race got a feat for fly speed (at low level). Boon Gate JUST THAT.

Just. Don't lock/ban EVERY new race. Or MOST races. Make 90% of races available, and don't BoonGate things you KNOW are going to be super popular.

Dark Archive


Not a class that has a horse, like cavalier, or a class that can turn into a horse like a druid or shifter.

Just a class that is Horse.

Okay, maybe I should go to bed...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope Friday's preview is Ancestries. That's the next non-class thing I really want to know something about.

Stupid 4 month wait for the playtest books...

Dark Archive

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets have less gating of new races (or ancestries in this case) behind Special GM certs.

I'd far rather have "GM's get a cert for the +10 bazooka of infinite god-slaying" than "Only people who GM'd at GenCon 2014 can play the cute froggies, only Bob Thulglflorp who bid $1,000,000 in a charity auction can play a catfolk".

Dark Archive

The Sideromancer wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
At least change the material component for color spray to RGB from RBY. It's a pattern spell, you are not throwing paint at them.
No comment?

CMYK there, happy? :P

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

My hopes:
- Humans as a collection of distinct ancestries not generalists. (i.e. a tree of human feats reflecting a seafaring culture, a tree of human feats for a highly mercantile culture, etc.)
- High Level Ancestry feats, possibly with prerequisites outside just race. Things like, if you're an Elf, have Master Bow Proficiency, and Spell Casting, you can take feats for Arcane Archer legacy powers.
- Enough feats that any 3 characters of the same race can get to 20 without taking ANY of the same ancestry feats.
- Enough Ancestry feats granted over 20 levels so that it actually feels like they matter and make a Lvl 20 Elf Fighter and a Lvl 20 Dwarf Fighter distinct and different from one another.

Dark Archive

PF2 will get a foot hold, because PF1 is being discontinued.

Will the 2019 Chevy Silverado sell if the engine pistons aren't backwards compatible with the 2018 Silverado? YES, because they aren't making the 2018 anymore.

Or perhaps a better analogy is why the Can$1 coin and the £1 coin took off and worked fine, but the US$1 coin has never worked. Because Canada and the UK withdrew the Can$1 bill and the £1 note from circulation. The US has never had the gumption to remove the $1 bill and force the issue.

When PF1 STOPS GETTING NEW MATERIAL, and PF2 is getting adventure paths, pawn collections, new books, and flip mats, etc., PF2 will gain pretty much full traction, and PF1 will become a niche game like AD&D, OD&D, and other defunct editions.

I will pretty much guarantee that 3pp will stop supporting PF1 within a year as well. They'll pump out whatever they already started on that they feel they can't just port to PF2. A few 3pp companies will put out the occasional legacy item when they feel like it, the way some publishers occasionally put out 2nd ed AD&D adventures still. But any real support will be gone.

That's edition changes. That's how it is. That's how it works.

Rip the bandaid off, stop picking at it, it'll hurt less.

Dark Archive

So no new previews today?

Dark Archive

Human Fighter wrote:
Flying magic man in the sky rains down fire death, while if I put up my shield as an action, I get a bonus to reflex saves.

FMM spends one action to concentrate on Fly so he doesn't plummet to the ground.

FMM now has a choice, spend 2 actions for a decent spell, or spend an action to move and 1 action for a single magic missile dart.

Also, Normal Fighter Dude, with Master Grade Athletics (so, lvl 7) has literally been said in a blog preview to be able to leap into the air and smash flying foes to the ground.

FMM needs to rethink his plan.

Dark Archive

GeneMemeScene wrote:

I don't really know the flavor trappings that would go with it, but I would like a class based on a resource that by design is supposed to ebb and flow, and is based on alternating between situational or tactical actions that gain you points and direct actions that cash out points to for higher effect.


Idea: Call it Momentum. Not sure what to call the class, but basically, you have a bunch of powers that do low damage and effects. Pushes, pulls, slows, etc. And once you've built up a bunch of Momentum (And used your low dmg powers to move all the enemies into a clump) you spend it on a high damage power. Probably price extra damage to cost extra momentum like most of the Psy-point or Spell-point systems do...

I'd certainly play it.

What I've wanted ever since I first picked up the Advanced Class Guide is a Cleric Rogue Hybrid that specializes in hunting Undead and/or Evil Outsiders. Give them d4 sneak attack, but against Undead/Evil Outsiders it does d8 radiant/holy/whatever-good-energy-damage-is-called-i-forget.

Dark Archive

Mark/Jason/any other devs willing to weigh in on this - Does Power Attack improve with either Class Level or Weapon Proficiency?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turmoil wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
Seems like same issue to me.

It's not the same issue because the numbers are so different. But it is a bit odd that every PF1 wizard must become better at weapon fighting, even if at a much slower rate than a fighter. But as for why your example is different:

PF1: BAB = 1/2 * level
PF2: BAB = 1 * level

PF1: Untrained weapon penalty -4
PF2: Untrained weapon penalty -2 (presumably, as per unified proficiency)

PF1: AC = 10 + various
PF2: AC = 10 + level + various (presumably, given AC counts as proficiency)

So the PF1 wizard has +6 to attack untrained with a greatsword for pitiful damage, while having an unarmored AC of 10 (ignoring magic items), wheras the PF2 wizard would have +18 to attack (which means auto-hit against AC 19, with 50% chance for double damage) while sporting 30 AC unarmored (if AC falls under proficiency, which is a safe bet, seeing as saves and such do).

The PF1 level 20 wizard meleeing a regular ogre will get his head bashed in even despite his HP advantage, wheras the PF2 wizard would demolish the same ogre (or a 5th level fighter, for that matter) by critting him into oblivion without even taking damage. And by the way, he will also effortlessly succeed at each and every skill check a regular untrained person can even attempt (DC 19), with half his successes critical for clearing by 10.

The two are clearly not in the same ballpark,[u] unless we're missing key parts of the picture.[/u]

We clearly are. Probably 99% of the picture at this point.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know I'm niche here, but I want good solid rules for Improvised Weapons right out the door.

Here are some Damage values based on size or number of hands needed, etc.

I want PF2 to have an equivalent of Catch Off Guard, but I want it to SPECIFICALLY make you Trained with Improvised weapons. Not "remove the -2 untrained penalty" or whatever, but Actually Trained Proficient.

I want to be able to advance my skill with Improvised weapons or a small subset of items used as improvised weapons, just like I could with any regular weapon, even if it requires a feat tax.

But if a level 15 fighter specializing in the war hammer can do some sort of crazy area attacks with legendary Hammer Skill, I want to be able to do something similar using a Chair if I've paid the extra feats to make up for the fact that I'm using a Chair not a Warhammer.

(Yes, this is again all about my El Cabong based character)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One of the things I do really like about this notion of "the whole party can sneak into a place, could dress up in stolen uniforms to get past a checkpoint, and can pass off forged paperwork as official even though the entire party is not skilled in stealth, disguise, and bluff" is that in practice, when the party figures out this is not going to work without leaving half the party behind (which isn't fun) is that the critical path then becomes "barge in and kill everyone" and if there's one thing Pathfinder needs it's less encouragement to be murderhobos.

I mean, the thing about these games is that they are about teams of people working together, not "one hero saves the day" so if for some reason the party needs to climb on top of something, in practice they have the best climber climb to the top and then fix a rope that the less experienced climbers can use to climb up. I figure now this is a situation where the fantasy and the game mechanics line up.

Why do they have to leave half the party behind?

Dark Archive

They've said proficiency applies to both armor and weapons, and implied that higher proficiency levels grant bonuses (IIRC an example in the proficiency thread implied that a master gets more AC from the same armor than someone just trained)

So, likely the theory craft here is wrong.
A Wizard may not be Able to use the same armor and weapon as the fighter, lacking proficiency, and baring that would be using them untrained, which may well lower the AC and damage values. While the fighter will be expert or better with them gaining bonuses.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

God I wish I was like the rest of you, able to form a fully nuanced, complete understanding of a system without having played it, or read it, or even seeing a preview of like 90% of it, or knowing how the system works at all yet.

What we know: There are 5 skill levels ranging from -2 to +3
You get skill stuff at least every other level
Some things you can't attempt without a minimum training level BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE OR THE GUIDELINES FOR DECIDING THAT YET.

But I mean by all means go off on your absolute lack of knowledge "OMG teh game iz ruined b-cauz untrained lvl 18 barbarian can UMD to cast miracle 18 times a day"

Let's stop and think.
If a roll is (as we've been told) Stat Mod + Skill(Level + Training) + Equiptment bonuses + Other, than, PROBABLY, just probably, They are building difficulties to consider that, and probably, JUST PROBABLY, the ENTIRE POINT of the "You can't do that untrained, you need at least expert to attempt that, etc" is to allow for differentiation between similar skill total numbers with different training levels.

Also, if you're playing a game where one character is a Level 1 Rogue Expert in a skill and another player is a Level 18 Barbarian Untrained in that skill, WHY ARE YOU IN A GAME WITH A LEVEL 1 AND A LEVEL 18 AT THE SAME TIME?!

Is this WoW? Are you power leveling your friend so he can join your raiding guild? [Seinfeld voice] What's the Deal? [/Seinfeld voice]

TLDR - Let's reserve judgement until we have the playtest document in hand so we HAVE SOME ACTUAL IDEA of how these things work.

Dark Archive

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Having observed the wild speculation in every thread, I now feel that, if the Paizo Staff posted a Blog Post that simply said "The Core book will include stats for Bears." and that was it word for word, within 12 hours we would have 600 posts discussing:
- Are Bears a Playable Race, er, Ancestry?
- Are Bears a Class
- Bears in core are ruining the game
- Bears in core are essential
- How do bears work with Skill Feats?
- Am I proficient in Bears?
- Random race/class stats for Bears with no idea how any of those systems work in PF2.
- Obligatory "Bears mean PF2 is now exactly 4e/5e"
- "You've Ruined the Game I hate you forever".
- Making rules for Bears ruins the game because before we had rules for bears we could do bear things freely.

and 100 of those posts would be

- I just assumed Bars would be in
- Waht is an Ebra

Dark Archive

So it looks from the Proficiency blog post like Fighters will be able to up their weapons proficiency before other classes.

So, while 'BAB' seems to be the same for everyone, fighters will still spend most of the game with a better to hit roll, and presumably gain access to combat related feats faster than other classes.

I assume there will be feats that require Master and Legendary weapons proficiency.

Dark Archive

1> Bloodrager as a Barbarian Archetype.
2> Slayer
3> A Grit/Panache class. Not necessarily tied together with gun use, but definitely better than pf1 Swashbuckler.
4> Warpriest
5-10> new hybrid classes different from the pf1 hybrid classes.

Dark Archive

I don't think the skill points per level is a thing any more.

I'm holding a baby typing one handed so forgive me not going into detail, but the stuff so far looks like all skills are basically class level + stat mod + [-1, 0, +1] depending on proficiency.

But we need minimum 4 skill proficiencies definitely assuming a similar number of skills.

Dark Archive

WormysQueue wrote:

And if you think about it, as long as you don't set a fixed metric value to it, an inch or a foot is a quite unexact measure. I mean what feet are we talking about? Because that could make a huge difference, as soon as we're talking about longer distances.

Do, do Europeans think measuring feet aren't a fixed set size? Do you think we're using our actual lower leg appendages and not a fixed, regulated, government standardized measure?

Cause that's the vibe you're throwing off right there.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I propose PF2 switch over to the FFF measures standard.

Furlong - (220 yards/ 201.2 m)
Firkin - (90 lb / 40.8 kg)
Fortnight - (14 days)

Use metric prefixes to adjust.

An average male human is around 9 milifurongs tall, weighs 1.7 firkins, and is middle aged at 9.1 hectofortnights.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Patch Notes PF v
Alignment has been removed
All Paladins now have no alignment
All paladins now have no spell casting or healing
To account for this, all paladins now have Rage as per the Barbarian class feature
All Paladins have been equipped with Great Clubs.
Paladins retain their special mount and sense of moral superiority.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've thought of one thing I'd really like in the new edition.

From day 1, decent rules for Improvised weapons.
Feats so that you can be proficient with at least a narrow set of items used as Improvised weapons and benefit from other weapon feats using them.
Concise rules for determining damage values for Improvised weapons.
Rules allowing some way to put a weapon enchantment on items that are not specifically built to be weapons.

Rules on improvised weapons such that, if you choose to build that way you aren't ALWAYS going to be WAY BEHIND a similar character using a short sword.

I Just Want To Be Able To Beat Monsters To Death With A Guitar Is That So Wrong?

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Cool, we’re already starting conspiracy theories. Cool cool cool.

The 2e devs are Lizardmen from a colony inside the sun, pass it on.

Dark Archive

So, the main reason people seek political power is the fringe benefits. Power equals Wealth which in turn guarantees good food, drink, the nicest living spaces, and all other desirable forms of comfort and ease.

Now, Actually BEING IN CHARGE of something large like a country, and trying to do even a halfway decent job of it is a LOT of work. Being a decent ruler and providing a decent life for your subjects is hard time consuming work. And that's assuming no one under you is betraying you with the intent to usurp you.

But what if you're a Wizard? With access to spells up to 9th level. Do you desire good food? A Lush well appointed Home? With many Servants to cater to your every whim? Mage's Magnificent Mansion, as soon as you can cast it, lasts 26 hours and has 26 staff.
If you have crafting feats, you can make years worth of GP by crafting a single item and selling it at market price.
And, if you are a high level Wizard, your spells also mean that no-one can really FORCE you to do anything. You are essentially above the law since, Who but another level 20 wizard could possibly stand against you to make you obey?

So, if you can have all the benefits of high office without any responsibilities, WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE ON THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES when you don't have to?
Altruism, that's about it.

Dark Archive

Assumption, I have to stick to one class list. I pick Wizard.

0. Prestidigitaion - As father of a newborn, if I could have ONE SPELL period, being able to clean the diaper by magic at will POOF done in under 6 seconds, I would take over anything...

1. Feather Fall

2. Darkvision

3. Tongues

4. Stoneskin

5. Overland Flight

6. Form of the Dragon I

7. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion

8. Form of the Dragon III

9. Teleportation Circle

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, Fun characters aren't determined by class, so much as by build. The more ludicrous sounding the build, the better.

Equipment Trick (Rope) Half-Orc Warpriest (alt-racials to have Whip and Spike Chain profs)

Anyone specializing in an odd weapon or non-weapon (beat them to death with a Guitar)

Finagle the rules to max out a special power pool. Swashbuckler with max panache and extra tricks.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

43. Spread sovereign glue on a sleeping victim's hand, then tickle their nose with a long feather. *SLAP* "Whuh?"

Dark Archive

Hey, yo, I went and read the monster entries for those oozes, and I got a little hung up on the Plasma Ooze.

Plasma Ooze Entry wrote:
... While their origin is not fully known, it is widely accepted that plasma oozes are not from this world. Some scholars believe they dwell in the sun, while others maintain they hail from the Plane of Fire. That plasma oozes have been encountered in both of these locations does little to help solve the debate.

Is, is there a module that take place ON THE SUN?!

What module is this and how much fire resist do I need to stack to survive...

Dark Archive

This is why I like what Adventurer's League has done with 5e D&D, with the PHB+1 rule.

For Pathfinder, I'd probably go a bit more open (Core + 1 HB + 1 Floppy).

Keeps bloat down, and allows for players to much more easily own the books they need for their character without the need to own everything, and reduces the chances of catastrophic game breaking interactions. PHB +1 means that if two spells from different non-phb books cause endless loops or other game breaking effects, it doesn't matter, because no-one can HAVE both.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be an Atheist is to Not Believe in God/The Gods.

But there are two definitions of "Believe".

Clearly, in a setting like Golarion, you cannot 'Not Believe' in the gods in the sense of "No, Desna Irori and Asmodeus Do not Exist" because they provably DO exist, and some of them might just suddenly appear and smack you if you say they don't.

However, you CAN 'Not Believe' in them in the same way that you can not believe in a sports team, or not believe in a politician. So, sort of a "These beings exist, but they are not SPECIAL, merely powerful, and to accept that they should make the rules simply because they are powerful is to accept that the strong have dominion over the weak. Gods are not special and not worthy of worship."

At least that'd be my take on it.

Dark Archive

Feat wise, beyond the obvious Skill Focus, Prodigy from UM provides a similar but smaller bonus (+2/+4 @ 10 ranks) to two skills, and nothing says it DOESN'T stack with Skill Focus, so...

Also, Cooperative Crafting on an Ally might help, depending on how the class is written and how your DM interprets things.

Dark Archive

Just double checking, but for Starfinder society JUST the races in chapter 3 are legal (with a boon) correct? NOT the races in the Pathfinder Legacy section (Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, etc)?

Dark Archive

I want your opinions, what would you rule in your own games.

Spell Warrior Skald's Enhance Weapon Song allows part of the bonus to be spent to add effects, as long as the weapon is either granted or already has at least a base +1.
So, if your SpWarSk is 5th level, so their song grants +2, if you have a +1 sword you can spend those +2 to add Keen and Flaming.
If your sword is NOT magic, you can spend those to add a +1 and Keen, or a +2, or whatever as long as you have a basic +1 and the total value is 2.

This also allows you to add bonuses and effects to Improvised weapons.

So if I'm attacking someone with a Chair, and have the benefit of a Lvl 5 SpWarSk's song, I can have a +1 Flaming Chair.

Gloves of Improvised Might add magic bonuses to Improvised weapons. If I'm wearing a pair of +1 GoIM my improvised weapons function as +1 magic weapons.

Here's the question finally: If I'm wearing a pair of +1 GoIM, AND I have the benefit of a SpWarSk's 5th level Weapon Song, and I'm wielding a Broken Bottle, can I spend BOTH enhancement points from the Song on effects since the gloves make the bottle a +1 weapon?
Can I be wielding a +1 Flaming Keen Broken Bottle in these specific circumstances?

Thank you.

1 to 50 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>