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

Umbranus's page

4,207 posts (4,575 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Doing some necro here

Nylanfs wrote:
That's odd, We haven't had any reports of major bugs that haven't been fixed in the last production cycle. Neither have we had reports of it crashing.

I've been trying out PC-Gen for the first time. I'm building a pc for game I was invited to and I was told they use PCGen to build and level their PCs.

What I found:

I found several bugs while trying it out.
- It tells me my hospitaler paladin can't learn selective channel because he doesn't have channel energy.
- It applies the wrong stat modifier to AC for a pc with the nature's whispers oracle revelation. I guess it applies both dex (1) and cha (+4) because it adds +3.
- It tells me that my paladin's horse companion doesn't have the three natural attacks for multiattack.
- It states the norse's hooves as secondary but they should become primary once it is combat trained.
It counts the automatic cure light wounds spell the oracle gets as one of his spells known

I first tried out PC-Gen 6000RC1 and then downloaded PC-Gen 60400 in the hope that the bugs would be fixed in the newer version.


Rynjin wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I hope that age thing gets fixed.

Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.

And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.
Why does it matter to you?

For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.

Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.

Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.

So just because you don't like an option, it should never be made?

That's quite a selfish attitude.

Sometimes being selfish is the best thing you can do.


The str 18 is already with the +3 from level included. The same the 16 cha is with the +2 racial included. And I think I'll follow BretI's suggestion to go with strength 16 and cha 18 so I can have str 18 with a +2 stat booster.

About the dip: I want to dip just 1 level. With that I just have a single life link. And life link alone will seldomely keep an ally well at higher levels.
With more levels in life oracle I get more channeling dice for the oracle but less from the main class, the paladin.

@Eltacolibre: I'll take a look at the phylactery when I get to do the equipment.


Claxon wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Most (standard) mounts for medium sized riders are not good at being combat pets (Horse, camel). But a small sized pc could well have a wolf, dog or boar companion and only fight alongside it without ever riding it. If it is a mount it has to be able to carry you. But that's all.
I did the math once umbranus, and I forget the tipping points exactly, but early on the horse is a superior combatant to the wolf or dog. Mostly because of the extra attacks. The one real difference that comes into play is how much you value the trip attack that wolfs get. The analysis I did was actually based on having either as a mount for an archer, and obviously trip did not help in the case, so I just kind of threw it out altogether.

Interesting to know. But without reduce animal a medium fighting partner has other benefits, too. Perhaps that is why I dismiss the horse so easily.


I mixed the revelations up. But because of the brilliant FAQ about secondary sources only the nature one makes any sense.

You are right about int. I do not like having only 2sp per level.
I am not sure yet about the stats. Might switch cha and strength. With a belt its still 18 str, which should be enough.


Claxon wrote:

Number 1 is a problem. Because it can get out of hand if a players tries to abuse it.However, if we apply the fixed version of the Titan Mauler it works out okay. The penalty offsets the gain in my opinion.

That's the core of my question: We are imaginative people, why do we need what you call a fixed version of the titan mauler? You can have the class' fluff without the class. Is the mechanic needed? Especially in a game that seems to go out of its way to not have abilities like it?

The titan mauler is a nice archetype and it has working abilities. They just don't do what people were expecting (and maybe not what the author wanted) but that doesn't make it bad or non-functional.

What I'm up to: Players often claim to be after some fluff. But in reality it is the crunch they want. You see that well when you offer them the fluff without the crunch. Suddenly they are not interested in the fluff anymore.


Hark wrote:
Example 1 it is entirely reasonable for a player trying to use an oversized weapon to see some kind of mechanical impact from it. It's actually a common enough trope I expected rules for it to already exist.

You could just use it as an explanation for your power-attack. Or enchant the weapon with impact but refluff the enchantment as a property of the oversized blade.


In fact I wanted to go nature oracle 1 for sidestep secret.
About the FCB I'm not sure. With shield other running I might need the HP pool from getting hitpoints as FCB. Sure, if I use LOH more than twice I'm even hp wise but the pool size might matter.

If I get more than 15 BP I could see not dumping dex and taking life oracle instead of nature.


CRB and APG only

I was asked if I want to join a game. They lost their cleric and want someone who can keep the party going. But I don't want to play a pure healing guy.
So I thought I'd play a hospitaler. (haven't got feedback on alignment it could change. But for the moment that's the plan.)

Most PCs I build I just take a look at the SRD and get going. But this time I'm restricted to CRB and APG only so a lot of nice feats like ranged lay on hands are out.

It is a point buy game but I don't know how many points so at first I'll build for 15. Starting level for me is 12.

What I got::

Half-Elf
Maybe ancestral arms for EWP Bastard sword
Hospitaler paladin 11/ Nature oracle 1

Str: 18 (+3 level)
Dex: 8
Con: 14
Int: 13
Wis: 8
Cha: 16 (+2 racial)

Should I switch strength and cha?

Revelation: Sidestep secret
Curse: Tongues or wasting

Feats:
Selective channeling
Power attack


In combat I plan to use shield other on at least one party member and heal myself with swift actions per LOH. Most healing should be done out of combat if possible. If necessary I can channel in combat or use LOH on others.

Any advice?


Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Maybe a stupid question, but can I take a mount class feature and just never ride it? If I just use the mount as either a pack mule NPC, or a combat pet, does that somehow "violate the terms of service" and cause the mount to leave my service?

Seems like the class feature is built around the idea that it is a mount...

Most (standard) mounts for medium sized riders are not good at being combat pets (Horse, camel). But a small sized pc could well have a wolf, dog or boar companion and only fight alongside it without ever riding it. If it is a mount it has to be able to carry you. But that's all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Often players want to rebuild characters they know from media. Whether that is good or bad is another topic I do not want to elaborate on in this thread.
What I AM after is this: If you aim to create a pathfinder pc that resembles a certain media character, why is it so important that every fluff you have in mind is backed up by facts?

Example: Someone wants to play a Guts (whoever that is) style PC wielding a sword with an oversized blade.
In PF blades and hilts always have the same size. There are no large weapons with a medium sized hilt. So you can either wield a medium sized sword and fluff the blade as bigger or you can wield a large sword* and fluff its hilt as medium. Now, why is it so important for people that the blade size is reflected by the crunch, the rules? Even if it would be much easier to just fluff it? The PC would "be" the character who's flavor you want.

*large two-handed swords can't be wielded by medium sized PCs.

If it is the flavor you are after, why is it important to create new rules? Why not use the existing rules and still play your fluff?

Example 2: Someone wants to play a strong dual wielding Samurai. How important is it that this pc really has the samurai class written on his sheet? From a rules perspective he could well play a slayer, getting TWF from a ranger combat style. If he behaves and dresses like a samurai why would it be any worse, fluff wise, than a pc with samurai written on the sheet? Again, why look at the rules when you are aiming for a certain fluff?


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Ask the GM if he allows the pack mule feat (3pp) for mounts. Adds 4 strength for carrying purposes.
Saw that one, very nifty. Amazed there aren't more feats for altering carry weight. Magic items, certainly, but just that feat.

There is a trait that does half what this feat does. Muscle of the society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The existence of magic reduces the driving force that powers science.
With continual light a thing, why should you work hard to find a way to create technological (electrical) light? With message spells a thing, why should you work hard on technological ways to transmit messages? With spells that keep goods from spoiling, why do you need a refrigerator? With unseen servant, why do you need a hoover?

Normally to reach a technological breakthrough you need money. If what you invented is new and the first of its kind you'll find rich people who want to invest because there is a market. But if what you invent can already be done with magic, do you think people will invest lots of money just in the hope your product will be better or cheap enough to take over the market from magic?
And do you think the wizards will watch you step on their toes by taking over their business?


Ask the GM if he allows the pack mule feat (3pp) for mounts. Adds 4 strength for carrying purposes.


- Bramstoker's dracular. He has some gypsy sidekicks but in the end it is the group vs dracular

- Theseus + Minos' daughter vs Minotaurus

- Japan vs Godzilla (original from 1954)

- depending on whether you see him as bad guy: King Kong vs many humans.

Edit:
- Odin, Vili und Ve fought Ymir


graystone wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.

Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.

Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.

I don't see why having them as an option in the game is bad for anyone. Much as people that don't like guns can not use them, the same for oversized weapons.

Umbranus wrote:
And some people like emulating rambo or captain future. Is Pathfinder the right game for them? No.
Pathfinder has laser guns, chainsaws , spaceships, grenades, machine guns and flamethrowers. Big weapons seems an odd place to draw the line... :P

laser guns, chainsaws , spaceships, machine guns and flamethrowers are beyond the line where I quit the game if they are used.


ElementalXX wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I hope that age thing gets fixed.

Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.

And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.
Why does it matter to you?

For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.

Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.

Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.

Some people feel the idea of emulating Guts very fun

And some people like emulating rambo or captain future. Is Pathfinder the right game for them? No.

And as far as I can judge from pictures I just googled Guts uses a Sword with an oversized blade but a normal sized hilt. Why is it better to emulate him with a sword that has an oversized hilt instead of emulating him by using a normal sword and describe/fluff it as bigger than normal?


Rynjin wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I hope that age thing gets fixed.

Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.

And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.
Why does it matter to you?

For me oversized two-handed weapon wielding guys are immersion breaking. In a similar way as many players think the gunslinger (or guns in general) have no room in their fantasy game.

Having it in a game I'm playing in makes the game less fun.

Now I can at least say: the rules don't allow it for a reason, please don't do it.


impromptu defense: Campfire beads. Put the instant campfire where you don't want enemies.
And caltrops or shard gel.


How about things like this trait:

Flame of the Dawnflower wrote:


Source Ultimate Campaign pg. 64 (Amazon), Qadira, Gateway to the East pg. 23 (Amazon), Advanced Player's Guide pg. 1 (Amazon)
Requirement(s) Sarenrae
You have been raised to view yourself as a blade in Sarenrae’s service, or you have taken on that duty for yourself. Whenever you score a critical hit with a scimitar, you deal 2 additional points of fire damage to your target.


Gorbacz wrote:
Honestly, the 'fight [x] giants at [y], rinse, repeat x6 except substitute orcs for giants in the first adventure because CR' formula of this AP is perhaps the most uninspired outline of any Paizo AP to date. While I'm sure that individual adventures will have their moments and the authors will do a splendid job, but the outline itself is a far cry from Paizo's usual standard of creativity. And I don't mean stuff like RoW or IG, even RotRL and CotCT, despite being very traditional, were far more exciting to read about than Giantslayer.

I think fight (x) giants at (y) sounds better than fight seemingly unrelated enemies for unrelated reasons like in CC. (From a Player's point of view)


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I hope that age thing gets fixed.

Also, I hope the Titan Fighter, in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, does what the Titan Mauler was designed to do.

And I hope Paizo sticks to not allowing oversized two-handed weapons.


Add pellet bombs, fuse grenades and fireworks.


You could ask the GM if he allows a fireball version of a javelin of lightning. But it would need craft arms and armor.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Thats is quite absurd. I have gaming preferences too, but its better to actually be able to play an RPG with your friends than concoct reasons to not play. I don''t like Rifts PRG, but played it for a few years anyways because thats when my gaming group at the time was into.

When I had more time than RPG games I played everything I could (ok nearly everything). But now that I have less time I tend to be more selective. Now no gaming is really better than bad gaming.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

In this thread someone said that they refuse to play in any game that rolls for hit points, unless they also randomly rolled for class each level.

Umbranus wrote:
The only D&D/PF game with rolled stats and hp I could see playing in is one where race and class is rolled, too. And the class rolled for each level.
Since that would be absurd, he's essentially refusing to play any game where hit points are rolled.

Right.


chaoseffect wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
A summoner can just build his eidolon for IDing stuff. Give it spellcraft as class skill, minor magic for detect magic and skilled spellcraft. With just one rank in it its at +10.
I hope you are suggesting that as a "good" and/or "cost effective" idea ironically.

In the party the OP describes it seems no one can really do it. but they have a summoner, so why not?

At least that way the eidolon can be helpful while not stamping other people's toes.


A summoner can just build his eidolon for IDing stuff. Give it spellcraft as class skill, minor magic for detect magic and skilled spellcraft. With just one rank in it its at +10.


Stating this is silly sounds very much like martials can't have nice things.


Vil-hatarn wrote:
I'm fond of having everyone roll 1d6, then giving larger-HD classes a static bonus making up the difference, i.e. 1d6=1d6, 1d8=1d6+1, 1d10=1d6+2, etc. This retains the same average value for each class, but reduces the variability and risk for the larger HD.

This would still make it possible that the wizard has more hp than the barbarian. before con, that is.

The only D&D/PF game with rolled stats and hp I could see playing in is one where race and class is rolled, too. And the class rolled for each level.


Tryn wrote:

Also keep in mind that "horse" means everything from a cold-blooded welsh horse to a small icelandic horse.

Also RL ponies wouldn't probably be able to carry a dwarv (~160-190 lbs) with armor.

In my campaigns I let dwarves ride "horses" and just telling them that these horsed are simply a little bit smaller then usual, "...but as strong and stubborn as it's dwarven rider"

RL some kinds of ponies and donkeys would have less of a problem with a heavy rider because their back is shorter and as such more stable. Big = strong = able to carry heavy riders is wrong. They would get a back-ache soon.

The "dwarf gets on the horse" problem is no problem in PF.


Yes, redistribution on a 1/2 basis should solve the problem. Lower cha by 6 and increase strength or dex by 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

None of the rolling methods have worked well for me. I much prefer the PFS style of constant, known hit points at each level. This avoids the huge random swings you can see between different characters.

I've played in a few campaigns where characters had max hit points at every level. Tends to devalue Con and create a larger gap based on hit points than there should be. With other systems, +2 Con or Toughness Feat can make up for having one lower die size. Not true with max hit points.

Similar for me. Rolling hp just doesnt do it.

Same with rollinh for stats. When I am ivited to a game I ask if hp or stats are rolled. If the answer is yes I politely decline.


The Archon Style feat chain allowes to do some actual tanking. And in a sense so does bodyguard.


Back in AD&D I joined a running game with a Dwarven Fighter. My reason for joining was that I had heard a lot about the party Paladin and wanted to fight alongside him. It was fun. But my pc had full fighter abilities, which was something back then. At least until high levels.
The party was 3rd level at the time I joined. But I had better starting gear than a normal 1st level pc and had rolled very well for stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rather use undead to power mills, pumps or other simple but hard labor stuff.
And I could see a zombie powered mill much easier to maintenance than a water- or windmill.


Scavion wrote:
Full casters get slightly bit more flak than they should because DM's allow "creative" applications of spells that bypass obstacles/obviate skills or party members through their use.

In this case people ignore this (or assume it was meant to come online activated) because it lessens the full caster's superiority.


In both cases you prepare a spell and write it down.
So would you disallow a player who has not lost his spell book but can't access it right now to write a new one just because the rules are only for lost or borrowed books?

The core of the ability is that you can write spells you have prepared into a spell book. You might not like it but that is what the Magus does.

When the quoted rule was written there was no Magus class. So they could not add that it is also possible when preparing it via a Magus class feature. Your Argument is the same as people claiming that oracles can't use metamagic feats because the rule about how they do is not in the core rulebook.

Quote:
Sorcerers and Bards: Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell's normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.) The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, which can be cast as normal using the feat.

Look, with your reasoning oracles and skalds can't use metamagic feats. There is not rule for how they do it.


Do you want to use two greatswords? The -4 to hit when TWFing with two one-handed weapons combined with the -2 for using jotun grip will mess up yout chance to hit anything.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:
I want this combo to be legal as much as you guys but see no rules justification for it

Specific (this combo) beats general (the no movement rule)

Edit: I should read everything before answering. Ninja'd nearly a day ago.


Your list was one with classes that work better than the rogue. My list is one with classes that work better than the fighter.

But as I said before we seem to disagree and have to accept that. So I will not derail the thread further with this side-discussion.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

A perfectly capable adventuring party that would make a Rogue cry, such as

1. Bard/Skald
2. Inquisitor/Hunter
3. Ranger/Slayer
4. Oracle, Druid, Shaman, or Wizard

1. Barbarian/Bloodrager

2. Inquisitor/Hunter
3. Ranger/Slayer
4. Oracle, Druid, Shaman, or Wizard

Now it makes the fighter cry. Everyone has skills or spells or both. Most get abilities that are either stronger than feats or can be exchanged for feats. A fighter would bring no abilities to the party that it currently lacks and would weaken the party if you exchange one of the others.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

While it doesn't convince me I see your point(s).

At least when it comes to the floor I would still see the rogue above the fighter because even a bad build rogue has lots of skill points and by that lots of things he is good at. A bad fighter build can't do anything. No skills, no utility and little combat power.

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree.

Depends on how you define 'bad'. I'm assuming a minimal level of competence, like enough to go Str 16 and maybe grab Power Attack as a Fighter and focus on a particular weapon.

Building a truly effective Rogue is quite a bit harder than that, and the ceiling's lower to boot.

Two-handed weapon + power-attack + weapon focus is above the floor for a lot of players I know and play with. When I build a fun PC I have to be careful to not roflstomp everything. They think my primitive template kobold natural weapon barbarian is highly optimized. Especially now that I took power-attack at 5th level.


Rynjin wrote:

A poorly built Fighter is still at least hard to kill though, and deals decent damage.

A poorly built Rogue is squishy, has the worst saves in the game, and is still encouraged to get up close and personal with big nasty.

Which ignores roughly 2/3 of the game. Nobody disputed that a fighter is better in combat.

Sure, if you 100% only look at combat the rogue is worse.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

I really really do not get why people set the rogue lower than the fighter when looking at the whole picture. Combat, sure. But when it comes to utility, versatility and social aspects the rogue hands down wins.

As others have noted, a Fighter can actually be pretty good at one thing (combat) and, if going Lore Warden, pretty good at Knowledge Skills to boot.

A Rogue? Looks like it's supposed to be good at combat, which there are a few ways to do, but mostly not good ones, leading people down the garden path to error.

As for social stuff and utility...yeah, they're better than the Fighter, but they're actually mediocre at best. They have a lot of skill points, giving them several areas to function in, but they're mediocre at best within those areas, lacking any supportive spells, meaningfully supportive class features (with the exception of Trapfinding), or a stat-layout to support most of them.

Meaning that, unless the whole party is avoiding other skill classes entirely, you'll get overshadowed in large portions of those skills. And potentially get overshadowed even then by spellcasters. Being best at something only by default is not really a good role.

While it doesn't convince me I see your point(s).

At least when it comes to the floor I would still see the rogue above the fighter because even a bad build rogue has lots of skill points and by that lots of things he is good at. A bad fighter build can't do anything. No skills, no utility and little combat power.

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree.


I see it that way: The rogue (this one) is a souped up motorcycle with an expert rider (or is it driver?) while the other two are james bond super-cars who have oil spray, jump jets, can swim, have run-flat tires and diverse other gimmicks.

In the fight described they were on a curvy racing track with bridges over chasms or rivers. It allowed to motorcycle to show its strength by being fast and agile. The other two just tried to outrun it by pushing their engines to their limits instead of using their jump jets or their swimming ability.
If they try to beat the rogue at what he specialized in they will have a hard time. But there are so many more things they could to.

Well played NO situation short of antimagic zones would make the arcanist worse than the rogue. At least not if he does his stuff instead of trying to beat the rogue at her stuff.


I really really do not get why people set the rogue lower than the fighter when looking at the whole picture. Combat, sure. But when it comes to utility, versatility and social aspects the rogue hands down wins.


I would say the fighter's floor is equal to or lower than the rogues. Because the rogue can always do more stuff, is more versatile than just hit things and be useless when not hitting stuff. You seemed to place the rogue floor at 1, the fighter's at 2. I'd put both at 1. And I'd put the summoner's ceiling to 10.

Rogue 4 - 1
Fighter 4 - 1
Slayer 5 - 2
Ranger 5 - 2 (I see the ranger as stronger than the slayer. But the range is to small to show that.)
Barbarian 6 - 2
Bloodrager 7 - 3
Summoner 10 - 4
Witch 9 - 3

Just to give some.
And I never use spreadsheets BTW.


RumpinRufus wrote:
Umbranus wrote:


Right. We should ask the mods to close this thread because there is no rules answer.

There is a rules answer, you can do nonlethal damage on a CDG but they must still make a Fort save or die.

It's just not a satisfactory answer, hence the house rules.

Don't tell that to me. I got flamed for proposing a houserule.


If the player wants mostly a caster the blackened curse might be a start. A living person with burned hands that never heal is a creepy thing.

Take one of those mysteries:
Apokalypse, Dark tapestry, Lunar, Outer Rifts or spellscar, all seem fitting.

Example: Outer rifts - Start with demon hide and put the favored class bonus into it. Will not do anything at first level but later, it does.
Now you can look strange and have your hide become tough and (if you want) leathery or whatever). If you do not need the first level feat for something else take unearthly terrain. Now you can change the ground without casting a spell, meaning the magic within you breaks free and shatters the ground. Besides the flavor it keeps the enemy from 5ft stepping. Because of that you yourself should get nimble moves at some time. Or feather step slippers.

At level 7 take wings of terror. Now sometimes wings rip free from your back making you scary (now now, an intimidate bonus on a cha caster?).

You now have a strange guy who gets even stranger powers without actively doing anything for it (he has to use the stuff but he doesn't train to become better at it or study books or stuff.)
Train intimidate so you have something to do when you do not want to waste a spell.

Example 2: Spellscar - Eldritch bolt gives you the ability to shoot pent up magical force as a bolt onto your enemy. Nice starting revelation. Later add animate primal forces to summon small elementals which you can fluff as living emanations of raw magic (that behave like elementals). Eldritch scar can be fluffed as transferring a part of your being into the enemy where it ruptures and does strange things when next he uses magic.
Not as scary as the first example but if played right can be a perfect pc for the world you described.

Example 3: The obvious freak - lunar mystery - Be a fanglord skinwalker if allowed (you said he wants to buy the book) to have a bite or two claws (or both with a feat). The Horn and claw revelation adds a gore attack (check with the GM, not all allow bite + gore). With prophetic armor you can dump dex, making you clumsy but dangerous because of your inner might. Add a companion or firing moonbeams to taste.
Not sure which curse might fit with this. Perhaps wasting, it makes you look like a rotting monster.

1 to 50 of 4,207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.