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.


1 to 50 of 276 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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?


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?


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.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Minimum Damage wrote:


If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.

And once non-lethal damage exceeds the characters hit points, all such damage becomes lethal.

Your gnome can still CDG, but it'd better be a very helpless target, cause it's gonna take awhile.

Depends on the target's luck with his rolls and his fort save bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Minimum Damage wrote:


If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.

That means a small creature with a strength 4 and a weapon dealing 1d3 would do 1 point of non-lethal per hit and make a CdG for 1xcrit multiplier non-lethal damage. Say the crit multiplier is 2 (dagger) the target had would be dealt 2 non-lethal and have to save vs 12 or die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
666bender wrote:

the archer - is doing 50% of the magus damage.

Sounds like the archer needs help optimizing his pc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
If the Spiritualist is a sneak peek at the new Summoner, it's interesting to see that Haste was moved to 3rd level for the Spiritualist.

Was it? Have to look for a revised playtest document. Because in my document it's still 2nd level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it really important to the topic: "speculations on the unchained summoner" whether dragons or elementals can read?

Perhaps it would be better to make another topic for that discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Alchemical allocation extract allows you to gain the benefit of one potion without actually using it up.
Is it legal to combine this with either Enhance potion and/or [http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/discoveries/paizo---alchemist-discoveries/extend-potion]extend potion[/url] discoveries to have a potion work at enhanced effect without using it up?

Example: A level 9 alchemist or investigator with a potion of barkskin +2 (300gp +2 nat armor 30minutes) uses alchemical allocation, then uses the potion and activates both discoveries/talents. He would then get a +5 natural armor bonus that lasts 180 minutes.

Same with resist energy 10 which now gives +20 and lasts 180 minutes instead of 30.

Is there anything I'm missing why this doesn't work?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I took part in several PF games with old friends via Skype. The others gathered around the table and my place was the TV screen with the webcam on top.
I'm looking forward to playing giantslayer the same way when it comes out next year.

So that might be an option, too. For a whole game Skype was too bad. But a good TS or mumble server might do. I do not know roll d20 but that sounds like it is something similar?

And +1 for many Germans being here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
My2Copper wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Actually, in this case, no they aren't. A fireball isn't causing a sudden explosion somewhere, it is conjuring a bead of fire, which then travels at great speed, and then explodes. A fireball is an instantaneous spell. Shooting an arrow is an instantaneous attack. If you can react for one, you can react to the other.
The instant the spell is finished casting, that bead of fire instantly follows where the caster aimed it, and instantly explodes dealing damage. There is no passage of time during this instant. Either the caster is still casting, or the spell has completed and the effects are finished. There is no in-between.

Look at the AllyShield betrayal feat. It clearls lets you react to being targetet by some instant spells. Those that are ranged attacks.

I am on a mobile so no link.

1) A feat allowing you to do something shows that without that feat, you are not allowed to do it.

2) Fireballs are not ranged attacks.

Your point was that there is no time to do whatsoever between targeting an instantaneous spell and the spell hitting its target. The feat proves you wrong. I never said the feat would help with the fireball. Only that it works on instantaneous spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about this reason:
Most games I play in are at my place because we have a large living room and it is rather central for all those involved. But it is in no way child save. We have fragile things standing around, have 18rated material readyly available, dont put dangerous cleaning agents away out of reach.
Some of the sweets at the gaming table are hot enough to make real men cry.
Etc.
Letting children into my flat is dangerous for both them and me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The more I think about the topic the more I come to this conclusion:
For me the idea of having parents, with their children around, at the table is worse than having children around.
I guess I know too many people who changed for the worse since they are parents. There are two I would not game with any more if it were not for my flatmate because she is in many groups I'm in, too. And those two are among her oldest friends.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

A note on the players' side: As parents, I understand it's hard for us to imagine that other people aren't as fond of our kids as we are. But that's a reality we sometimes need to accept. Some people just don't like kids, don't want them, aren't comfortable around them, etc.

That doen't automatically make them bad people.

Thanks. Few parents (at least few I know) realize that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Southeast Jerome wrote:
If a 12 year old wants to spend time socializing with grown ups, that's a good thing to be encouraged. He might even need some hand-holding, just like you would with an apprentice in real life. Historically, 12 years old is when a "child" would go to work with a master to learn a profession. Work that into the story. If your friends are willing to quit a game that's about killing goblins because a kid wants to learn and without giving him a chance, they're not acting like adults.

That answer is rather short sighted.

Most adults have little time for gaming. And if a player wants to use his precious little time having fun without burdening themselves with teaching someone I can understand that. For some people that might be fun. For others it is depriving them of what they started the game for.

And really, what is the best for the child:

- Tell him that the grown ups want to be on their own
- Try it out and tell the child that it did not work out and he can't keep playing after he had fun with it
- Try it out and tell the child that one or more players left because of him
- Start a game especially for the child with people who like the idea of playing alongside him


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:
I believe if the player believes his son is mature enough to play in the game then he deserves the reason they do not wish to play with him be told to his face.

To his face or his son's face? Because doing the latter might lead to kid's tears and by that a destroyed friendship between OP and player. Most parents are not mature enough to be able to face someone criticizing their children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been in a game where dad was the gm and mom, two kids and two others (one of them being me) were the players. I gave it a try and left.
The problem was: Dad was GMing a game (not Pathfinder) in which we faced "grey" enemies while mom thought daughter to play her pc as lawful stupid black and white.

In more detail:
We had to fight something like an imp with regeneration and the little bugger offered to become my or the wizard's familiar in our heads. He would then stop attacking us. Turned out we could not defeat it and it was about to slaughter the party when I agreed to accept it as my familiar.
Later the, instigated by mom, the daughter and mom ambushed me and banished the imp, permanently crippling my pc because there it has permanent consequences when you lose your familiar.
The reasoning was: Is was evil it had to go. Sux to be you.

Better no playing than bad playing just because mom is being an A**hole to other players in order to teach the daughter black and white thinking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Actually my current LG character is a Samurai with the Blade of Mercy / Enforcer combo, so he often he ends up with unconscious foes after a fight. (If the pali in this case had said combo - this whole discussion would be a non-issue. :P) He then proceeds to make sure they weren't under compulsion etc. (His father had had issues in that department so he's wary.) Assuming no compulsions etc, he then proceeds to execute the lot.

One must deserve mercy to receive it.

I like it.

Isn't that the opposite of what mercy means though? It's the kindness you don't deserve.

Hm... okay so it is only one of many definitions of the word.

Still it's a very odd phrase in my mind.

Not in mine. Giving out mercy like candy makes you weak and dead, not good. And redemption seldom works, really.

In the real world we have few options but to try. In PF we can kill them all and let Pharasma sort them out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The paladin in this case should not fall.

In about 99.9% of "should the paladin fall?" threads the answer is: No! And in about 50% of those cases the longer answer should be: No! And get a new GM.

other story about someone wanting to make a paladin fall:

I had a case where it was discussed if the paladin should fall for killing an unconscious rust monster after it destroyed the party's only magical armor (we were level 6 but VERY low on cash and equip. And the reason some thought the paladin should fall was because the party wizard had said he's like to keep it but lacked any way to secure it in a way that it could not attack us again. The paladin in question was a dwarf with the deep warrior alternate trait (used to battle aberrations) and a campaign trait giving him a bonus vs aberrations who saw aberrations as his racial enemy.

So really? Killing a monster of animal intellect that severely damaged the party makes a paladin fall just because the wizard wants to keep it as his pet?

If falling was that easy for a paladin there would not be any left.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shiroi wrote:


So, right now, the Aether Kineticist can move 100 lbs per level. That's 1 ton,

I guess you are missing a "at 20th level" somewhere around here. Because at 20th level it would be 2000lbs and that's really a ton.

Would be interesting how many kineticists you would need to carry the ship they are on and how fast they could make it go. But right now I don't have the time to look up ship weights and so on. And I'm not sure if there is anything stated about how careful the force a kineticist used is to the stuff he lifts. Ships tend to be rather fragile when it comes to lifting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The summoner is the most complex class there is. A new player should stay away from it.

Apart from that it is horribly broken even when build correct (and it is hard to build correct. At least the eidolon.) Be prepared that he spoils the other players fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would not be stolen if he played his eidolon. While perhaps not as strong a s a full fighter an eidolon, especially a hasted one, is a force on its own and could well get something done.
And if the party waits for him to buff the eidolon is the first to act (if like in most groups they act on the summoner's ini) after the buff.
Forfeiting all but a single standard action and complaining that you waste a whole turn buffing is .. unproductive.

TL;DR He has 2 move actions, 2 standard actions, 2 swift actions and all but one standard action benefits from haste, if he so chooses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
But nobody seems to be complaining about haste, despite how much it distorts the game.
Haste benefits the segment of the population most likely to complain about magic.

Yes, because it makes martials feel useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice for a bloodrager, too. Another morale bonus to increase with courageous weapon. And if said BR is half-orc or dwarf (the latter is less likely) he can take mindlessly cruel or zest for battle, too to get a damage bonus every time he uses this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is: Low point buy for a MAD build using a weak class.
How about dropping TWF and using either weapon and shield with iteratives? The build would be much easier without needing the dex for TWF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, now that checks that have been changed to use charisma, are now considered charisma based, would a Circlet of Persuasion, add to these?

Such as:

Skills changed to now use charisma.

Oracles with the Sidestep Secret, or Prophetic Armor Revelation, Reflex Saves.

PCs with the Irrepressible trait, making Will saving throws against charm and compulsion effects.

PCs with the Planar Savant trait, making Knowledge (planes) checks.

Etc.

Yes. And initiative checks for PCs with noble scion (war)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
@Nocte: the reason I think it probably won't be/remain allowed is that it makes Dragon Ferocity a must-have feat for monks, and that's basically the reason INA wasn't allowed to work with monk unarmed strikes.

And still power attack exists.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't mind this working, but I don't think it'll last. Then again, you could get lucky; maybe the backload of FAQ requests for actual problems will delay nerfing this away :P

Sensible FAQ requests don't get priority over nerfing stuff that's working well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point is that the monk's attacks that deal +1-1/2 str to damage should count as primary natural attacks because they clearly are NOT secondary. At least something good out of the whole collateral.
And if some think that makes no sense...face it. Others think the whole stacking FAQ makes no sense and we have to face it, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Karuth wrote:


I'd love some more feats that give bonuses to Slings and thrown weapons. To make them a more interesting option.

What's next? You want throwing water balloons to be a viable option or something?

That answer was already one of the dumbest I've ever read when it came from a Paizo guy. It doesn't get better when repeated.

Slings have been weapons of war for quite some time and a deciding factor in a lot of them. comparing them to waterballoons is like calling that comparison intelligent.

In case this was meant sarcastic: The original statement is still dumb as hell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

. Everything else that was stopped from stacking was never intended to stack anyway.

The question that remains is why it is intended that one can not multiclass lore shaman and inquisitor to get twice wis to knowledge skills while it is possible to multiclass lore oracle and inquisitor to get cha + wis to knowledge skills?*

*wis from inquisitor only applies to checks for monster knowledge.

Why is it ok to get two different stats to something but not twice the same stat? Why not at least give half the bonus for the second time or something. Why is someone getting twice the same stat (that doesn't stack now) far worse than someone getting twice different stats.
There seems no balancing in this only a knee jerk reaction.

The above is just an example. There are several cases where it is hard to understand for some of us WHY it is bad if same stats stack but ok if different stats stack.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:


What great improvements will this bring?

It makes the game less fun because it degrades more feats and abilities to trap options.

Or a little less acidic: I don't see any improvement but several problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why not skald?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathius wrote:


Shadowrun is imbalanced but is at least mostly balanced with niche. I can not see combat build that can out face the face or hacker that can do combat that a street sam.

in SR 3rd mages can do what mundanes can plus do magic. Dont know 4th good enough to comment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The topic would be better reading: Dealing with effective Intimidate / Dazzling Display / etc. It is not broken and does not need to be fixed. Be glad that it's not a witch using her slumber hex on all those enemies instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has he reason to believe you are evil?
Last time I played a paladin we had a sanguine sorcerer in the party who drank blood for healing, used the control undead spell and insisted that we take the undead along after the fight instead of destroying them. Detect evil did not work on her. No reason to be wary?

If something looks, sounds and walks like a duck: Keep an eye open, your duck detector might be wrong with telling you it's no duck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Snorter wrote:

So, to make a pair of daggers more graceful, you have to strap rocks to them?

Got it.

They are graceful. They just can't deal loads of damage with it. Because to deal damage with a fighting style depending on agility the weapon needs to have some weight. When using brawn you can simply force the weapon in to deal damage. With a graceful weapon you only use the weapon's momentum to deal damage.

Seems the devs thought about it before making the rule. Sadly most posters here do not seem to understand the physics well enough. It's just not: dagger graceful, graceful good, big damage.

When I am chopping wood I can do it with a light or with a heavy axe. Someone with less muscles would find it more exercising but at the same time more effective to use the heavy axe because he only has to raise it and then let its weight do the chopping. With the light axe he'll just get it stuck in the wood with little effect.

are you calling physics? because in the game a 7 str character moving a dagger require the same time to swing a Warhammer and has exactly the same hit chancen.

I call it because posters here keep saying how the rule is stupid where in fact it is not. I don't say rules should incorporate physics. But if people don't understand physics and then yell at a sensible rule I feel inclined to tell them that they are wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a saving throw is based on cha as ref for some oracles, it should benefit from it.
Same with initiative for someone with noble scion (I think its war).

It should not apply to saves just benefiting from divine grace because that save is still based on its normal stat. Same with the new feat, divine protection or what it is called.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The difference is that the hunter is a good class without the sacred huntmaster. The swashbuckler is not a good class without the daring champion. (imo)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having different pc levels in one party is bad. How you prevent that is up to you. Ditching xp is not the only way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Speaking of 3.5 feats that didn't make it, the feat that I hear about the most is Monkey Grip.

If it was an official feat I'd ban it at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Normally the community keeps saying that tanking is not possible in PF and most of the time people are correct in saying so.

But now I thought about the following:

The archon style allows you to give an AC bonus to your adjacent allies vs one foe and to take hits meant for them.
The diplomacy version of antagonize (yes I went there) allows you to give an opponent -2 to attack someone else for 1 minute.
At the start I could only use either or but later I can use both each round (or use archon style and attack).

The question is: How to build it? I'd like to make him a dwarf but then the high diplomacy is hard. MMS monk would give early access to archon style and following, wis to AC and allow me to add in earth child style, as well. But multiclassing would be no problem when it comes in handy (for example for more survivability.
Perhaps go into stalwart defender later on?

I think there will be others around using teamwork feats so paired opportunists would be nice to have at some point. That way I could retaliate for every attack I take for an ally who has the feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
A battleaxe or bastard sword being more finessaable than a Dagger is silly.

They are not more finessable. You take weapon finesse and get to use dex to attack with daggers. That's not possible with the other two.

But if you put more work into it you can get dex to damage with those weapons on top of dex to attack. And that is not so much silly because in reality when you want to use your dexterity or agility to inflict more damage with a melee weapon you do that by using the weapon's own weight and momentum. The dagger has neglectable weight and momentum and because of that it is hard to deal more damage with it via dex.
Daggers are more about where do you hit and how deep can you push it in (which needs strength).

What would make sense is to give every weapon a minimum strength to use it with dex to damage. But that would make it complicated and MAD.

TL;DR You can make forceful chops with an axe or a sword or you can whirl it gracefully. Both ways increase the impact. Way two is impossible with a dagger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a trait, river rat I think it is, that increases damage with daggers by 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would assume the same limit as the brawler's martial flexibility has:

martial flexibility wrote:
If a combat feat has a daily use limitation (such as Stunning Fist), any uses of that combat feat while using this ability count toward that feat's daily limit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Haven't yet had a chance to read the whole thread, but the search engine said that "redeem", "redeeming", and "redemption" were currently not in this thread -- any chance of redeeming any notable opponents (including but not limited to giants)? Trying to put together a character concept for a character seeking redemption, who could become a redeemer (but not the Redeemer Paladin Archetype).

I hope not. Wrath of the righteous was the AP about redemption. Now it's bud-kicking for goodness time.

1 to 50 of 276 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.