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

Tvarog's page

112 posts. Alias of phyxion.


1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

pipedreamsam wrote:
Freedom of movement works.

Excellent! Thanks, I think this is what I'm looking for.

Weirdo wrote:
Storm-lashed feat

Also excellent!

Much appreciated, everyone :)

What are some good ways to gain a resistance or immunity to wind effects? I'd hate for my tiny familiar (or myself) to get blown away in a fight.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd suggest you get together with the other players in your group and simply have the entire party ask for extra rum rations. After you're all dead of con damage, maybe the GM will rub a couple brain cells together and dump the grog thing entirely.

Generally speaking, you could make extracts from spells not on the alchemist spell list (via the existing research "mechanic"). However, that being the general part of the rules quoted means that none of the custom extracts can be made from spells with focus components. All of the spells with focus components that the PDT wanted to be available to alchemists are explicitly on their spell list, possibly to avoid just such a question.

GMs can override that restriction (and allow non-alchemist spells with focus components to be researched as extracts by alchemists) with house rules if they want, but that's what RAW states.

Specific (Alchemists gain Clone as an extract formula) overrides general (spells with focus components cannot be made into extracts).

If you decide that the focus component is still required to create the extract itself, it would be required when the extract is prepared, because extracts explicitly only take one standard action to mix/quaff when used.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not deluded enough to believe Paizo has any interest in any of these things, but here is what I'd love to see in a new version of Pathfinder:

1. Editing that values clarity (unambiguous wording) instead of only low word count.
1a. Writing/Editing that understands the actual written mechanics of the game, eliminating for example feats that have no actual effect, or feats that actively penalize you.
1b. Writing/Editing that recognizes that Words Mean Things. Stop overloading words (character level, class level, spell level). Use keywords/tags instead of leaving it to the GM/players to figure out which things count as X (such as fear effects).

2. Playtesting by groups including optimizers, to find imbalances and missing/broken rules before publish.

3. The death of Vancian casting mechanics. Go with spell drain, mana points, cooldowns, whatever... just get rid of spell slots entirely. It's a bad mechanic and the major contributor to the "15 minute workday" problem.

4. The death of the "martials can't have nice things" problem arising from the mindset that martials have to be "realistic" even though casters can bend reality over their knees even at low level.

5. The death of "zero to hero" character advancement. Beginning characters should be competent and should have meaningful options in every major area of play (combat, non-combat, and affecting the story).

6. A challenge rating system that works.

7. Support for so-called "high level" play, meaning APs or at the very least modules intended for all levels for which there are published rules. If the Core Rulebook shows a progression to level 20, then by all the gods there should be things to DO at that level (and ways to actually get there, instead of stopping at 14th like almost every AP does).

8. GMing advice that doesn't include suggesting the GM should cheat. Not even "call it fudging instead".

9. Even power scaling between classes. No more quadratic wizards. Spells should not scale on SIX axes at once (# of slots, spell level of slots, save DC, duration, range, and damage) while martial abilities only scale on three or less (damage, chance to hit, save DC sometimes). Alternatively, give martials nice things that scale the same way spells do.

It seems that, like so many other abilities(/spells/items/etc), clarity lost out to word count somewhere during the editing process. I really wish there was something we (the customers) could do in order to change that, but after 5+ years I don't see one.

If you take out (or reskin) the Force and the Jedi, Star Wars Saga Edition can do scifi horror quite well. Not currently in print AFAIK, but there are copies available on Amazon and such.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
Pointy-eared arrogant elven bastards?

I see someone else has played through Second Darkness.

+1 to you (and this most accurate epithet), sir.

According to the quoted ability text, it could apply to any of the creature's attacks. However, the effect only happens once per round (most likely on the first attack that lands).

So, yes, it can [use the effect with all its attacks], but it doesn't matter [because the effect only happsn once per round].

Strictly RAW, it looks like it does. Since it does specify "attached", it probably can't actually move the two of you, but it should be able to take move equivalent actions (and standard, etc) just like any non-tumor familiar.

PFSRD entry on Tumor Familiar wrote:
The tumor acts as the alchemist’s familiar whether attached or separated (providing a skill bonus, the Alertness feat, and so on).
PFSRD entry on Familiar (Wizard class ability) wrote:
Small-sized familiars threaten the areas around them like Small creatures, and can be used to flank enemies, though both familiars and their masters are often loath to use such tactics, as the result is often a dead familiar.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
My last "monk" was an armor-wearing sword-wielding mounted warrior who used a small but helpful selection of spell-like abilities to supplement his marital prowess.

This is quite possibly the best typo ever.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Dennis Deadsky wrote:

The GM should realize that starting characters at level 12 was a terrible idea. That's just where the system starts to break down. That's a big part of where this problem is coming from. Also, PCs created at high level are invariably inferior to those leveled up. This supposedly 'experienced' GM ought to know this.

Just go with it. Seek out the TPK. Don't let the GM hand-wave away the TPK. Next campaign, your GM should start everyone at first level.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Seriously, that might be true for your group and your campaign. Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone else plays the game just like you do. Some of us are absolutely sick of starting every game at level 1 and having to scrabble for every single copper and hit point to make it up to the level where we can actually consider ourselves heroes. It's even worse when every AP stops right at the point where we start getting the actual fun toys, like the ability to significantly impact the story and/or the game world.

Have they seriously *still* not fixed the wording on Mythic Vital Strike? That was pointed out almost a year ago. It's possible to build a RAW gunslinger that gets upwards of 18k damage in the surprise round. Obviously most of that is not RAI but the editing leaves a lot of things ambiguous.

Doesn't have to be running on an ipad or android tablet necessarily. If there's one that can use a drawing tablet (Wacom or otherwise) for input, that would be sufficient. I'm just reluctant to plunk down a couple hundred bucks on something I don't *know* will work. I was hoping someone else had already found one that does and could recommend it.

I'm looking for the right VTT setup for an upcoming game with a homebrew system, and was hoping someone here could save me some time trying and discarding possibilities.

What I need:
- Runs on Windows and works with whatever tablet.

- Can draw on map with a pen. Doesn't have to be Wacom (could be Tegra or ipad or whatever), but hand drawing with the mouse just takes too long and looks terrible. I'm willing to buy a reasonably-priced tablet to make this work.

- Can use custom dice. This system uses zero-based d10 pools, so I'd need to be able to either define a die with custom face values, or subtract 1 from each die rolled. Also needs to be able to handle exploding dice (explodes on 9 -> roll again and add).

- Hex grid.

It'd be nice if there were a free solution, but I haven't found anything that does all that yet, free or otherwise.

What does the hive suggest?

My apologies to everyone for not posting this week, work has been insanely busy. Things are nice and quiet now, though. Shouldn't happen again anytime soon (and I'll do my best to give some warning next time).

Happy DMing anniversary, Rizzen! (I see your tagline says 15 now)

Tvarog wrote:

Is there a link to the crit charts somewhere that I missed?
no, its in the book.

Found it! Not sure how I missed it the first time, but thanks.


Roll 01: automatic critical hit. roll for location of hit. Roll on the critical hit chart and apply the affects to the target.

Roll 100: auto crit on self. Roll for location of where you hit yourself. Roll on critical hit chart and apply damage

Is there a link to the crit charts somewhere that I missed?

I apologize if any of my phrasing came across as overly harsh. I have advocated for years that the rules need more precise editing to avoid exactly this sort of situation.

In the meantime, yes, I do understand the rules that are written and published. They are in fact extremely clear (even though what they clearly say is frequently not what was intended, which is likely the case here). I also understand that many people interpret "double the total amount of damage" as something other than "find the total amount of damage (using normal rules for doing so), and then double that number". That continues to not be what the ability says.

The key wording here is "total amount" in the text of Mythic Vital Strike, right along with "total the results" in the text you quoted. Foe-Biting doubles the damage after you "total the results", because only then do you have the "total amount" to double. Specific overrides general. Anything else is a house rule, and house rules are perfectly fine. RAW and RAI conflict all the time, and not every game has to be run by RAW. However, please at least be honest that that's what you're doing.

Chernobyl, "Legendary Item" is a path ability, not a mythic feat. As worded, you'd only need to be Mythic Tier 3 for Foe-Biting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was not "clarified". It was justified in sloppy wording based on a torturous interpretation that no rational English-speaker could accept as the actual meaning of the words printed in the feat text.

Now, I did say that the way it's worded probably is not the way it was intended (and even gave a few different possible wordings that are better than what's there now). I agree that it currently is significantly stronger than what the writer(s) intended. However, sloppy reading does not excuse sloppy writing. It needs to be either errata'ed or accepted as written, like many other bits and bobs in this system.

Similarly, the Foe-Biting mythic property actually does double the damage. Read the wording:

Foe-biting wrote:
When this item deals damage, its user can use mythic power to double the total amount of damage it deals.

That's not increasing the multiplier, that is dealing *double the total amount of damage*. Explicitly. There is no other reasonable way to read that text.

If that is not what was intended, then the wording needs to be fixed so that it matches the intent. Again, sloppy reading does not excuse sloppy writing. The rules do what they explicitly say they do. If you want more justification for why that would actually do twice the damage, remember the PF override philosophy: specific overrides general. In general, double a double equals a triple. In this case, you double *everything*, not just the base damage. More specific means the ability wording takes precedence.

It's correct. Krieg really needs to take a look at the actual wording of Mythic Vital Strike, and then find a way to get enlarged. That will take the base damage from 2d8+35 to 3d8+37, but on a Mythic Vital Strike it's 6d8+111, in your scenario with a second hit and Foe-Biting it adds up to 24d8+444.

Mythic Vital Strike text wrote:
Whenever you use [a Vital Strike feat], multiply the [bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit] by the number of weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.

So, the more dice of damage your weapon has, the higher your multiplier.

I'm pretty sure this is not actually what the writer intended, but without errata, this IS what it actually tells you to do.

(It probably should say to multiply by "the number of times you roll your weapon damage", or perhaps even "by 2 for Vital Strike, 3 for Improved, and 4 for Greater".)

Nope. The only thing they'd need those for would be making alchemical items (using Craft Alchemy to make alch fire/acid/frost and such) or making potions (using Brew Potion), both of which explicitly spell out the cost of crafting. The Bomb ability and Extracts ability do not require buying materials.

Poor Hedner. He was sort of asking for it, though, talking like that.

A few last bits that I somehow missed during my original character creation post:
starting gold: 2d10 ⇒ (1, 10) = 11
Surname: Hareksson (no random table found for this)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many people could benefit from this feature, myself included. Should be relatively easy to implement, as well.

It would be reasonable (IMO) to allow a feat that lets you exclude creatures from the aura. Selective Channel does that for channeling, so there's really no mechanical reason not to have one for SLAs or domain abilities. Up to the DM, of course, and for many of them "Players Can't Have Nice Things" is a way of life.

ETA: Unless I'm reading the ability wrong, it says you can use it 1 round per cleric level per day, not Wis mod + 3.

I'll have mine updated sometime tonight. Cheers to a spectacular, horrific death!

Sent you a PM, Rizz.

My sister drives an ambulance, so she has similar problems occasionally.
(ETA: The long hours/lack of sleep thing)

Jeepers, Torillan, don't forget to get some sleep eventually. :)

kdtompos wrote:
Or I go out naked and screaming.

You forgot "and covered in blood". :)

BTW, any house rules we should be aware of?

That actually sounds pretty cool Brandr, I'll take one.
dooming: 1d100 ⇒ 6

Also, just for the halibut, let's see what alternate career I could pick. I'm pretty happy with Runebearer, but I might get something cooler.
alt career: 1d100 ⇒ 55 = Rat Catcher. I'll stick with Runebearer, heh.

Tvarog wrote:
race: 1d10 -> 3 = Dwarf

weapon skill: 30 + 2d10 ⇒ 30 + (10, 4) = 44

ballistic skill: 20 + 2d10 ⇒ 20 + (8, 10) = 38
strength: 20 + 2d10 ⇒ 20 + (6, 10) = 36
toughness: 30 + 2d10 ⇒ 30 + (5, 7) = 42
agility: 10 + 2d10 ⇒ 10 + (3, 5) = 18 (Shallya's Mercy) = 21
intelligence: 20 + 2d10 ⇒ 20 + (4, 10) = 34
willpower: 20 + 2d10 ⇒ 20 + (10, 5) = 35
fellowship: 10 + 2d10 ⇒ 10 + (8, 3) = 21
Attacks = 1
wounds: 1d10 ⇒ 2 = 11
Str bonus = 3
Toughness bonus = 4
Movement = 3
Magic = 0
Insanity = 0
fate points: 1d10 ⇒ 3 = 1
starting career: 1d100 ⇒ 61 = Runebearer
height: 1d10 ⇒ 8 = 5'0"
weight: 1d100 ⇒ 35 = 130
hair color: 1d10 ⇒ 8 = dark brown
eye color: 1d10 ⇒ 6 = brown
distinguishing marks: 1d100 ⇒ 16 = tattoo
siblings: 1d10 ⇒ 9 = 2
star sign: 1d100 ⇒ 12 = The Limner's Line / Sign of Precision
age: 1d100 ⇒ 8 = 25
birthplace: 1d100 ⇒ 11 = Roll on Human Birthplace table (at end)
name: 1d100 ⇒ 68 = Nargond (really?)
human birthplace: 2d10 ⇒ (7, 6) = 13 (7, 6) = Reikland, poor village

Pan wrote:
What about having Tesla devlop ships for NASA?

Electric rockets are where it's at, man. Don't you judge me. :)

This sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. "A dwarf, a human, and two elves walk into a bar..."

Race: 1d10 ⇒ 3

Edit: Yeeeeeeesssssssss....

Yes indeed, although I've never actually played it. Mostly because no one else I know locally is particularly interested in playing.

Edit: I really hope I end up with a Dwarf, I've been wanting to base a character on Matul Remrit for some time.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a horrifically bad idea on many levels. The entire point of having individual states in the first place is so that the government (of each state) can be tailored to the needs and preferences of that state. If you don't agree with what your state provides/requires, you either move somewhere you like more, or you work to change the system in your state. Having one big monolithic government morass would only guarantee misery for everyone.

Rock on, then. Consider me interested.

This arouses my interest. Would it be PBP or live online?

Polymorph Any Object can be used to change one creature to a different creature. If the target creature has class levels and the "end" creature has racial hit dice, how do they interact? As far as I can tell, the subject would get all the racial hit dice and abilities, with their own class levels and abilities on top of that, potentially making some very powerful combinations.

Also, does the "end" creature keep the default attribute scores for that creature, or are they affected by (or replaced by) the spell's target's ability scores?

Interestingly enough, the very name "Vital Strike" implies that it would work very well with Sneak Attack. Yet another case of flavor and mechanics not matching.

The only way Vital Strike is good (in this case, good = worth taking) right now is if you have Mythic Vital Strike and a multiple-die weapon (greatsword, etc), and even that is probably unintentional.

Dodge bonuses are explicitly stated to stack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take on backstory is that it's generally not worth the effort, for two main reasons.

First, my experience has been that most GMs will use your backstory to force you into things you wouldn't otherwise do. Some family member gets kidnapped, or your hometown gets razed, or some other similar tragedy occurs. If I take the time to write up a family and hometown, it's because I want to have a family and hometown, usually so that I can go visit or retire there. If the GM is going to take that away, where's my incentive to spend the effort to write it? If it's only going to be used as a lever against the player/character, why doesn't the GM write it up himself?

Second, starting at first level is really not that interesting, especially after you've done it a half dozen times already. Low level characters have few interesting options, in or out of combat, and when someone insists that your backstory has to match what you would have been capable of at (or worse, before) level 1, the scope of that story is extremely constricted. There's only so many things a Ftr 1, or a Rog 1, or even a Wiz 1, can plausibly do, and after the first few they start to blend together.

Now, if I were able to start at say, 3rd or 5th level, my character would have interesting choices to make. It could actually do something interesting, and that would be worth writing about. However, PF and in particular the Paizo APs do not encourage that. Every campaign, for some reason, has to start with dirt farmers, street urchins, and "wizards" who have 4 spells and then they're unable to meaningfully contribute for the rest of the day.

I wish that weren't true, but that's been my experience for the past several years.

I would venture a guess that even right before launch, there is time for a significant number of preorders to be cancelled.

I suspect when the NDA expires, their marketing people are going to have an uphill struggle on their hands.

If you and your GM agree on what interpretation is the right one, then sure, it's an interpretation. When the rules can be read both ways (reasonably and grammatically), and you don't agree on which is correct, then you've wandered off into the forest of what's known as Magical Tea Party. At that point, the rules themselves don't matter (because you don't agree on what they mean), and you're reduced to asking "mother may I" for everything you want to do.

Far too many gamers have had (or do have) a GM that wants to keep control over every little detail, and consistently rules against them when there is the slightest pretext for doing so. If you don't think that happens on a regular basis, look at some of the threads on how Wish gets twisted. Having clear rules that don't need interpretation is the only real solution to that problem, other than simply finding a different GM, which may be difficult depending on the RPG landscape in one's area.

It's entirely too easy to write this off as "player entitlement" and "abusing common sense" (or from the other perspective, "tyrant GM" and "abuse of power"), when in fact it's more about harmony between viewpoints of player and group/GM. When everyone reads the rules the same way, everything works better. When two people have different ideas about what something means, then there's a problem. The problem has a simple solution - have clear rules to begin with, that aren't subject to interpretation or differing context between the writer and the reader.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.