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

Ventnor's page

478 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 478 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

STR: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 3) = 9
DEX: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 3) = 10
CON: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 6) = 13
INT: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 5) = 13
WIS: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 4) = 16 + 2 = 18
CHA: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 6) = 11 + 2 = 13

Taya is an Aasimar Shaman with the Lore Spirit, who makes extensive use the the Wandering Hex ability to give herself the ability to cast whatever Wizard spells she needs on a day-to-day basis. Just don't ask her to go on the front line. She can take a hit or two, but it's not her strong suit.


Blackvial wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
What if you just played a Draconic Bloodrager or a Draconic Sorcerer who's more directly related to their draconic progenitor than most?
maybe because none of those fit his idea for his character?

Then maybe crossblood it with the Celestial Bloodline, which is basically the Paladin Bloodline for Bloodragers. Or multiclass with both classes: Paladins for the holy stuff and Bloodrager for the Draconic Stuff. They both want Strength and Charisma and both are Full BAB classes with a d10 hit die, so it should work out okay.


Really, just a 1-level dip for Champion's Finesse would be enough, I think. If you want to keep up with the Druid spellcasting, then going any further in probably wouldn't be worth it.


What if you just played a Draconic Bloodrager or a Draconic Sorcerer who's more directly related to their draconic progenitor than most?


Dragonborn3 wrote:

Scaling magic items without scaling DCs

Still awesome!

You could probably adjust the saves by making them 10 + 1/2 Character Level + some ability score.


If you and your buddy are going to be playing together, then taking some of the teamwork feats he has will allow you to synergize with both buddy and beast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Behold, the ultimate martial art! Thunder... Ass... STRIKE!"


57.) All Sorcerers have the Draconic Bloodline.

Why do you need this newfangled "Stormborn" and "Arcane" stuff? Back in the day, all sorcerers were descended from dragons, and they liked it!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Race 1: 1d100 ⇒ 38 = Grippli
Race 2: 1d100 ⇒ 67 = Sasquatch
Race 3: 1d100 ⇒ 38 = Grippli
Race 4: 1d100 ⇒ 83 = Shifter (lycanthrope-lite)
Race 5: 1d100 ⇒ 30 = Gillmen

Tarugar Lake sits right smack dab in the middle of a large forest. Fed by waters from a nearby mountain spring, the lake is known mostly because of the ruins that sit at its bottom, ruins known as the Sunken City of Tarugar. Long ago, the city (the known as the Floating City of Tarugar) was a centerpiece of a magnificent human empire, powerful magic allowing massive stone towers and statues to float on the water. However, a long ago cataclysm destroyed the empire, and the magic that kept the city afloat was broken. Over the course of one night, the city sank below the waters of the lake.

Today, the ruins are inhabited by a few descendants of the once-proud city. The cataclysm's magic mutated them, allowing them to breathe underwater. However, they've lost much of the magic that their ancestors had, only the preponderance of arcane bloodline sorcerers and bloodragers hinting at the magical prowess that they once had.

Some of the other human survivors managed to make out of the city, where they were set upon by a clan of werewolves. The survivors managed to fight the wolves off, but their children always had a hint of wolfishness about them. There is some distrust between the Gillmen and Shifter communities, but they get on well enough to trade with each other. The shifters also get on well with the various sasquatch tribes of the forest, who helped them fight off the werewolves and who taught them how to survive in the nearby forests after the destruction of their home.

The largest racial group, though, are the grippli. Originally frogs who were magically raised to sentience by the mages of the floating city as an experiment, the grippli were uniquely suited to the new post-cataclysm environment. There are two major ethnic groups of grippli; the Lakesiders and the Treehoppers. The Lakesiders live in various towns along the edge of the lake, scavenging the ruins of the city for treasure and trading with the Gillmen and Shifters. Meanwhile, the Treehoppers live in nomadic groups that wander the forests. They tend to be more brightly colored, aggressively struggling with the Sasquatches and the Shifters over resources, and occasionally warring with their Lakesider counterparts if a Treehopper chief can command the loyalty of enough grippli.


For example, a Brawler is extraordinarily good at punching ghosts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe they just whistle the Ghostbusters Theme Song while they punch stuff.


Hm... here's another one.

This chaotic evil goblin* enchanter likes to take control of other evil creatures, buff them up, and then set them against his enemies, though his control is sometimes not as complete as he believes it is. His current goal is to bind a powerful djinni to his command, but again he probably underestimates how much control he will actually have.

* Well, he kind of looks like a goblin anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charles Atlas Superpowers, man. If you train hard enough, you can punch ghosts and golems and all kinds of things.


galahad2112 wrote:

@ Ventnor

Emperor Palpatine?

You truly do understand the power of the Dark Side of the Force.

(yes)


How about this one:

This Venerable Lawful Evil Sage Bloodline Sorcerer has just about reached the peak of his power. If he needs to, he'll battle opponents by casting Transformation and wail on them with his Brilliant Energy Longsword. However, he prefers to fight with magic, his favorite spells being Telekinesis and Stormbolts. When he has his enemies at his mercy, he tortures them using the Merciful Metamagic so as to prolong their suffering.


Is ghoul dust addictive?


Rynjin wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

HeroLab is a crutch for the weak.

I mean that only half-jokingly. There seem to be too many people who either pass up a bunch of good stuff because HeroLab doesn't have it, or rely on it far too heavily for building characters (the weekly "HeroLab told me I could do this but the rulebook says no! Which is right?" thread).

Why... Not all of us can be the awe-inspiring men and women who have the amazing power of... choosing to use pen and paper instead of a PC?

Truly, I bow before your might...

I use a PC for my sheets.

I don't have to pay to use my sheet though, and shell out double the price for each book (basically).

HeroLab is a pretty good racket.

Personally, I prefer using using NPCs for my sheets.

*ba dum tss*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

20.) Elves will no longer have souls, just as Gygax intended.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Now we need an "unchained" Swashbuckler.

We already have one. It's called the Daring Champion Cavalier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Mail?!? What kind of newfangled technological abomination is this? I don't trust no stinking postman! Back in my day we delivered our messages personally, thank you very much!

Psh. You still write your messages? I scream them at people, the way God intended!


Of course, Racial Heritage's fluff suggests that you have an unusual ancestor in your family tree (a kobold, in this case). Why is one of your ancestors a kobold? I dunno, probably evil magic or a drunk wizard or something.

But because of that ancestry, your human character has a tail (probably a weird mutation of some kind) that he/she can attack with. Is your character going to be treated like a freak by most of the other humans in the world? Probably! But the thing about common sense is that it often isn't common.

One person's flavor violation is another person's Quasimodo.


You can't dual-wield any two-handed weapons; just two Earthbreakers. You can't use the feat to treat Greatswords as one-handed weapons, so you couldn't dual-wield Greatswords.

And yeah, I'm not saying that dual-wielding two Earthbreakers is a particularly smart thing to do. But it can be done if someone wanted to, say, play an Orcish berserker who fights with two over-sized slegehammers.


Or you could be a Brawler, and have Fleet and/or Run only when you need it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the thing is, if the choice is between a feat that will be used once a campaign and a feat that will be used once a round, then people are going to pick the feat that will be used more often.


thaX wrote:

Did you read the title of the thread?

The feat itself does not actually allow the use of two EB's. Think of it logically, how would one actually do it? The character would end up hitting the things together and might even cause himself an injury. That was never, nor should be, the purpose of the feat.

Please read the previous posts.

I did read the rest of the thread. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I lack to ability to comprehend words on the internet.

The feat doesn't explicitly say you can use two Earthbreakers, no. I does say you can wield an Earthbreaker in one hand, however. The original fluff intent might be that this is only possible when wielding a Klar, but the feat doesn't include any clauses that prevent you from pairing a one-handed Earthbreaker with any other weapon or shield (including, yes, another Earthbreaker.

And the feat would represent the character learning how not to hurt himself while wield two Earthbreakers. Sure, the image might be a little to "anime" or "Monster Hunter" for you, but just say that you object on that point, not on rules text that isn't actually there.

Thunder and Fang wrote:

You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.

Prerequisite: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.

I'm not disputing that the original fluff text indicates that Earthbreakers and Klars are meant to be used together, but the way the feat is written allows for Dual-Wielding Earthbreakers as well.


thaX wrote:
Seranov wrote:
You show where that is explicitly spelled out and I'll believe it. Until then, it specifically says you treat Earth Breakers as a one-handed weapon. This is a specific rule that overwrites the general rule.

Please read the previous post.

The weapon Does not change.

I don't know why someone would change the weapon size rules to a sliding scale because a character can wield it in a different way.

The reason I brought it up in the first place is that the "fluff" of the feat actually has bearing on how to use the mechanics of the rules below. This is what you can do while wielding an Earth Breaker and Klar.

When you, as a player, deviates from what the feat is meant to do to what it "doesn't say I can't do," the first thing that gets ignored is the "fluff."

You just add your own fluff instead.

"My character has created a variation of the Thunder and Fang style that uses two Earthbreakers."

Bam! Done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

93. Player: "I'm going to put this artifact in my Bag of Holding so it can stay safe and nobody will know about it."

GM: "Well, that's fantastic, a really smart decision! I'll just mark it down on my sheet over here that you have your artifact in that Bag of Holding so it doesn't draw attention-AAAAND it's gone.

Player: "...What?"

GM: "The artifact in your Bag of Holding, it didn't do too well, it's gone."

Player: "What do you mean, I have the artifact!"

GM: "Not anymore you don't. Poof!"

This example seems less about inducing paranoia and more about being mean-spirited. I would be more angry than paranoid, at any rate.

Anyway...

94.) Are you sure you don't want to buy a 10-foot pole? They're on a discount in the local general store...

95.) You suddenly notice that the corpses of those orcs you just killed are no longer there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
anyway, back on topic, who would and wouldn't allow someone to reskin a greatsword as you dual wielding shortswords? and why?

I would allow a player to use a greatsword as dual wielding shortswords, but not just as a reskin. As Matthew Downie says, there is too much rule-fluff overlap between item, weapons, and combat style for a simple reskin to solve the problem. There would need to be some houserules.

On a similar note, I find that the Samurai->Knight reskin is only acceptable because there are no rules (currently) that touch base with the Eastern fluff.
Suppose Paizo introduced a feat called "Eastern Weapon Expertise" that worked similar to Orc Weapon Expertise but only applied to Eastern Weapons, such as the Katana. If a player chose a Samurai, grabbed a katana, and refluffed it as a Knight with a Flamberge(refluffed katana), how would you rule if the PC found a +5 Katana(not Flamberge) in a treasure hoard? Would you let the PC use the weapon / feat?

Why wouldn't the GM refluff the +5 katana as a +5 flamberge? That's what I'd do if the player really liked the flamberge flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

71.) Occasionally after a player states that he/she is about to perform an action, respond with an incredulous "if you say so" or "if that's what you want to do."


61.) Look though the Bestiary or Traps part of the GM's guide, point at a page, and murmur "That sounds fun."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

16.) "As the fireball detonates on it, you hear the troll begin to laugh."


13.) "You perceive a kind of burnt, smoky smell coming from the room you just left."

14.) "Could you remind me what your armor check penalty was again?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I assume it's because Gene Simmons is a wizard.


Plus changing the initiative order after everything's been established seems like its adding an unnecessary step to the whole process. Just let the player use his/her feat.


Investigators, not Inquisitors. Investigators are like rogues who get the extracts and poison stuff from the alchemist.

But, anyway, it's just a suggestion.


I just think that stripping the spellcasting away from a spellcasting class is needlessly complicated when another class that is close enough to the concept with a few tweaks is already there. That's all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
I find the continued complaints about the Fighter class before we've even seen the book kind of tiring.
Slight modification, but otherwise, I nominate this quote for the new forum motto! :D
Fixed that. :-P

Double-fixed.


Bodhizen wrote:
ryric wrote:

wrote:

I'd mix bard and alchemist together to make an Athasian bard: take Bardic Music and the various skill things from the bard, and the poison and extracts from the alchemist. That gives you a guy who has the music/entertainment thing that bards have, which is a big part of their cover story in Dark Sun(where they are given as gifts between noble houses as part of intrigue). But they also get the poison use/chemistry of the alchemist - which allows them to have some non-magical magic in a setting where magic is reviled.
It doesn't work. There's not enough poison material for alchemists, and bards didn't work with any other chemical substances. If I'm going to have to create materials, I might as well just keep bards and alchemists separate and write material for bards. I'd rather not bastardise two functional (and fun) classes to have a poor hybrid of both.

I respectfully disagree. Working with poisons doesn't mean that Bards are barred from using other chemicals. The difference between poison and medicine is often just how large a dose of the substance you are using.

Although now that I think about it, what if you used a modded Investigator as an Athasian bard? Investigators are all about the subtle skill use that is the hallmark of Athasian Bards, with the mutagens and bombs stripped away.

Maybe make an archetype that gives Investigators Bardic Performance instead of Studied Combat and a few other substitutions here and there, and I think it could work.


Chess Pwn wrote:
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.

Incidentally, the above example could be an example as to why your character is adventuring. He was a bit too undisciplined for training in manipulating ki, and let because he felt the monks were stifling his potential.

Nonetheless, he thinks of himself as a monk, and fights primarily with wuxia-styled martial arts (unarmed strikes) that ki-using monks employ. Maybe his armor training class feature is nothing but him using a few of the lessons the monks taught him to lighten his body, rather than any sort of actual military experience.


Player Companion: Undead Slayers Handbook wrote:

You can use your favored weapons in unconventional ways.

Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +1

Benefit(s): When wielding a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you can shift your grip as a swift action so that your weapon deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt by that weapon. You may switch back to the weapon's normal damage type or another damage type as a swift action.

If your base attack bonus is +5 or higher, using this feat is a free action instead.

Is it possible the use the above feat to switch the damage type of bows? It doesn't forbid using ranged weapons, so could one use weapon versatility to have the arrows shot from a longbow deal bludgeoning or slashing damage?


Well, first, you have to make your character be a supremely selfish a**hole...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.

If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?

The higher strength than normal isn't an example of re-skinning. You are minmaxing if your goal is, "Make a wizard who is really focused on strength and a strong appearance."

Very often minmaxing is used to mean, "powergaming in a few specialized areas with the aim of maximizing impact on play," but that's only one subset. "Making a decent fighter-spellcaster" is also a form of minmaxing, as it "Making a generally useful and strong character" and "fulfilling the role of party healer."

He's not a fighter-spellcaster. He merely casts all of his spells by flexing at the opposition.
I hope he's a charm/compulsion specialist.

Divination, actually. His abs can identify the enchantment on any item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question: is there a monk ability that lets my character do a hadoken?


RJGrady wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.

If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?

The higher strength than normal isn't an example of re-skinning. You are minmaxing if your goal is, "Make a wizard who is really focused on strength and a strong appearance."

Very often minmaxing is used to mean, "powergaming in a few specialized areas with the aim of maximizing impact on play," but that's only one subset. "Making a decent fighter-spellcaster" is also a form of minmaxing, as it "Making a generally useful and strong character" and "fulfilling the role of party healer."

He's not a fighter-spellcaster. He merely casts all of his spells by flexing at the opposition.


I'm pretty sure Magi can get familiars though their class natively anyway. One of their arcana allows them to get a familiar, I believe.


Steve Geddes wrote:
graystone wrote:
it simply states "You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar." What it DOESN'T say is 'You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar AT THE SAME TIME.' There is no reason to assume that it's affects ONLY work when you dual wield one klar and one earthbreaker. That fluff works just fine for using two earthbreakers since I'm wielding the weapons pointed out in the fluff (earth breakers and klars).
Surely it would say "earthbreaker or Klar" if the intent wasn't to restrict it to at the same time?

"Earthbreaker or Klar" might also imply that you're only good with one weapon and not the other.


Could Hybrid classes use the Variant Multiclassing rules? Like, say, making an impromptu Death Knight-eque character by sprinkling some Necromancy onto the Slayer chassis?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:

Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.

If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?


RDM42 wrote:
Would you agree that in such a case the lions share of the work in making the reskin fit should fall on the player who wants to specifically include excluded material?

I'm pretty sure no one has disputed this. Players are supposed to be making characters who fit the theme of a campaign anyway. This thread just concerns taking classes which have default fluff that doesn't fit said campaign and changing it to fit that theme.

Like, say, if a GM wants to run a chivalric middle-ages type game, taking a samurai and changing its fluff to a knight whose faith in God (or supreme discipline, or powerful self-confidence) allows him to ignore conditions that would otherwise incapacitate him.


I'd let it work. If you've invested character resources into allowing your character to instantly react to danger, then it would be kind of a jerk move on my part to not allow you to use them.

1 to 50 of 478 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.