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

129 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

High-level Aasimar can also get 2 wing attacks if they pick the right feats, in addition to being able to use said wings to fly.


Smile tranquilly at your foe and don't explain why you seem so calm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand, though, why slings have to subscribe to realism why bows don't.

Or are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that actual bow users could shoot 4 arrows every 6 seconds, some by shooting 2 arrows with the same shot?


It still sounds like you don't want people who want to be effective sling users to have fun.


Here's a question: why isn't there any grenade-type ammo for slings? I mean, we have wizards and dragons and no one thinks to use slings to lob bombs around?


FAQ was updated today. Short answer is, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves can take racial archetypes now, officially.


There's your answer. Yes, you can totally take that feat.

As to what 2 classes work together, that really depends on what kind of character you want to play.


Something I think would be interesting is if there were groups of sky pirates who, instead of using airships, rode trained skywhales and skysharks to do all of their raiding. I also think that dragons would be rather interesting villains. Especially Blue Dragons, I think; their lightning breath would be a powerful weapon in the open sky, with no way to take cover from it.


Marthkus wrote:
Makarion wrote:
You should never, ever play with a GM whose ideas on morality drastically differ from your own. There's little good that can come of that, and might ruin the game for more than just you and him/her.

False,

Just because I don't find being gay wrong doesn't mean I can't enjoy Ender's Game.

The author and myself have drastically different morality. That does not mean I can't enjoy the story.

I'm sure the people at Besthesda have a drastically different morality than mine (my morality is a bit weird by all standards) that doesn't mean I can't / shouldn't play Skyrim and enjoy it.

Thing is, you aren't directly interacting with Orson Scott Card or the people at Bethesda.


What if the Genesis of the PC's mythic power was a Divine Spark?

Like say, they get their mythic tiers by passing the Test of the Starstone or learn that they've received the vestiges of Aroden's divinity?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another question. What happens when Break Enchantment is successfully cast on a phylactery?

And what happens when either Sunder Enchantment or Break Enchantment succeeds against a Grave Knight?


But could a phylactery be considered to be a phylactery if it's not a magic soul repository? After the Barbarian's supernaturally-powered greatsword hit that magic soul-storing box, it became just a box. For a few moments of course, but in those moments, when the Lich needed that box to have his soul in it the most, it didn't.

Also, the Lich in this situation suffers from excessive hubris, of course. That or the party managed to track the phylactery down using magic, guile, and good old detective work, and this is the Lich's attempt to get those do-gooders away from his magic box.


I was looking at the Barbarian's Sunder Enchantment Rage Power, when an odd thought struck me.

Suppose a Barbarian is in combat with a Lich, and hits its Phylactery with a Sunder check high enough to suppress all the phylactery's magic properties for a few rounds, as per his awesome Sunder Enchantment rage power. The very next turn, the Barbarian's Sorcerer ally hits the Lich with a disintegrate spell and ashes it.

What happens to the Lich? Since the phylactery wasn't a magical soul storage area because of the Barbarian's sunder attack, is it gone for good? Or does the temporary nature of Sunder Enchantment mean that ol' boneypants is going to come back unless the phylactery is, say, thrown into a volcano?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They use the same language as the Warslinger Hafling Racial Trait, which was ruled only to work with slings and not sling staffs.

Yes, it is as dumb as it sounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You'd think that the Gods of Good would all be about following the Spirit of the Law, and not the Letter, but nope.

It's kind of Asmodean, really.


If Spellcraft is doing magic, rather than knowing it, then shouldn't it be based off of either INT, WIS, or CHA, depending on which class is using it? Why should a Cleric learn Spellcraft in the same way that a Sorcerer or a Wizard does, and all that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

It really hurts the few characters that want to counterspell, since they may not have the skill to identify the enemy spellcaster's spell.

However, looking at spellcraft again I've been reminded about just how much overlap there is between it and knowledge arcana. :/ I notice that the DCs for identifying a spell are different for each skill too. It very much is a separation of theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge.

I don't really see any overlap at all in play. Spellcraft is specifically about identifying spells and magical effects it's also pretty much the Craft Magic item skill that's teamed with the craft magic item feats.. Knowledge Arcana is about arcane matters other than spells and their artifice for the most part.

Problem is, there really aren't any arcane matters beyond spells and magic items. I guess there are Magical Beasts, but you might as well rename the skill to Knowledge (Magical Beasts) in that case.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It makes more sense for me for arcane spells to be ID'd with Know (Arcana), Clerical Spells with Know (Religion), and Druidic Spells with Know (Nature).

Having a big skill for knowing about all spells makes about as much sense as a big skill for knowing about all science.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, one of the big changes Pathfinder made to the 3.x system was skill consolidation. Hide & Move Silently became Stealth, Look, Listen, and Spot became Perception, and so on. And on a whole, I think those were good changes. Which is why I can't, for the life of me, think why Spellcraft wasn't folded into Knowledge (Arcana). I mean, the two skills are basically knowledge about magic. They both occupy the same thematic space. So why are they both still individual skills?


Tacticslion wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Apples and oranges. You are arguing about two different styles of game / setting. One is defined by the setting / GM and the other is a wide open free for all. Both are OK. Both can be fun. And a lot of games land in between there. If you don't like one style then don't play it. Simple. If you're in a game and you find yourself too far on one side or the other of this line, adjust or go. Don't expect the GM / other players to accommodate something that's too far away from the game they enjoy. In a wide open game you shouldn't be whining about the ethnic / cultural freak show your lone human Fighter is forced to play with. In a more restrained setting you shouldn't be whining that your choice was infringed on when you couldn't play your multi ethnic aasimar / tiefling / catfolk Ninja. Just play the game or find another. If you're not having fun playing within the structure or chaos of the game you're playing, then you are doing something wrong. Play, and run, what you like. Anything else is a waste of time. My 2 cp.

For the love of words, please reread this post. Everyone. And Favorite it. Thank you.

For the record (and because I love talking about myself):

a) in general, in most games that I run as GM I have a "please, yes" policy in which the player gains the options of pulling from anything they so desire whatsoever. This is me as a GM. If that's not enough, I generally award templates during games for things because PF (and the 3.X d20 system before it) is crazy cool and I love templates;

b) I also build specific worlds with specific limitations. One of the interesting things about these latter two are that I haven't played with them yet, though I'm likely to very soon. (It's worth noting: these are by no means the only two worlds that I've created. I've created any number of worlds, adapted...

I think you just won roleplaying. Good job!


With Animal Ally Feat in Faiths & Philosophies, I think that's doable. It gives you an Animal Companion @ Druid Level -3. Which means that Barbarians don't have to use an archetype that basically removes most of their rage powers to qualify.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
I want to play a swashbuckling aboleth bard!

Now I've got this image in my head of a Lovecraftian Cult sitting around and singing folk songs about the Old Ones. Thanks a lot (I'm not sure if I mean that sarcastically or not).


Freebooter's Rag
When this blue handkerchief with anchor motifs on it is tied around a creature's head, it bestows a +2 bonus to Profession (Sailor) and Swim checks to that creature. The Profession bonus is doubled if an eyepatch is also worn.

Cloth of Doves
Three times per day, when this pure white handkerchief is placed on an upturned palm and then quickly brought away while saying the magic word, 1d3 doves appear on the palm as per Summon Minor Ally.


We need a Nagaji Bloodrager. That is all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I've seen a few threads pop up about players wanting to use exotic races in games, and whether they should or should not. One of the reasons I've seen that argues against a party consisting of, say, an ifrit sorcerer, a catfolk rogue, a vanara cleric, and a human barbarian, is that "It's unrealistic and they'd be run out of town immediately," or something to that effect.

My question is, why is xenophobic villagers the norm in campaign settings? Why are cosmopolitan and/or ethnically diverse nations such a taboo thing for fantasy worlds to have? I mean, maybe racial prejudice occurs in more backwater parts of the campaign world, but the arguments seem to imply that ifrits and catfolk and vanara would be run out of every town, everywhere. Maybe even the human too, if he were Shoanti or Kellid.

It seems kind of sad to me, to be honest. I mean, I guess there could be a plotline where the ignorant villagers learn that the man with his head on fire is an all right dude. But just because a player thinks that the ifrit race looks cool, or that they make pretty neat sorcerers and he's always wanted to try a sorcerer, he has to accept that the entire world now hates him? It seems pretty harsh.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong and there are people who run campaigns that have more progressive nations in them. That might be nice to hear about. But, to bring this post around to its title, why is prejudice the norm in (most) campaign settings?


But Bless Weapon makes the weapon Good-Aligned. Why would evil deities want to make weapons that basically harm their own followers?


lemeres wrote:

Also, as you said, the weight is changed as you move in size.

Thinking about it, I think I would houserule that creatures smaller than tiny cannot have reach weapons. I mean, are you saying that a creature the size of a housecat can wield an 8 foot long spear effectively, and that this spear doesn't instantly snap (again, changed weight, which for a longspear should mean it gets thinner).

According to some of the rules for reach (written from the reasonable assumption that you would be somewhere between small and large), the spear would still be able to hit 10 feet away even if it was wielded by a creature 3'' tall. If we scaled the comparison of the weapon length to the user up to small or medium, it would be like using a long spear that was 120-240 feet long. That is longer than the first increment of a crossbow!

I'd say that halfling martial characters who've specifically trained to use those weapons can do so effectively.

They're already taking a strength penalty and a weapon damage penalty. No need to kick halfling fighters when they're down.


Jack Rift wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Here is my custom weapon that I based on a video game. I'll give a cookie to whoever guesses where it came from.

** spoiler omitted **...

Fire Emblem. Marth's sword. Ragnel is Ike's.

Actually, I believe that Alondite is the personal weapon of the Black Knight. Marth's sword is Falchion (that's the sword's name).

No additions from me, but a lot of the stuff here is awesome! I like how a lot of it is slips of the tongue that end up being thrown in anyway. Just goes to show that improv is the most important DM skill of all.


This one trait makes Half-Elves pretty effective Staff Magi in my opinion.


P33J wrote:

I've always thought the pure amount of schools of magic that a caster gets access too is a bit "unrealistic."

You've got a non-supernatural individual who is spending his life studying magic to cast.

Sounds a lot like a physician to me, I know a lot of doctors. Some are endocrinologists. Some are Proctologists. Some are cardiologists. Some are surgeons. Some are general practice.

They're all super smart. They all understand a little bit about other forms of medicine, but I know very few individuals who are both endocrinologists and cardiologists. I know few surgeons who are also psychiatrists.

So why do Wizards, who again are normal individuals who happen to spend a lot of time studying magic to cast able to cast 9th Level Evocation Spells and 9th Level Illusion Spells with relatively little difference in their ability to do either?

What if instead, you could separate schools of magic like schools of medicine. You can chose to be a evocation wizard, and get full access to evocation spells, but only know a smattering of low level spells in any other school. You could be an illusionist, but you're really limited on the number of conjuration spells you could cast.

Suddenly, you're not an all-knowing all seeing, all encompassing master of magic. But rather you're a really awesome fireball thrower, and you happen to know a few tricks with light.

But-but-but then my God Wizard won't be a God Wizard! You're ruining everything forever!

;)


I think one of the problems here is that in Pathfinder, Magic and Supernatural have become synonyms.

If you want to play a Supernatural Fighter, you have to do it with spells. There's no real option in the game for a character who can perform supernatural fighting abilities like shockwaves and cutting fireballs in half because they practiced their butts off every day to learn those moves. The closest I can think of is a Barbarian with certain Rage Powers, and even they don't have everything I'd necessarily want for that kind of character (along with being saddled with typical Barbarian RP baggage that I might not want).

Yes, some fighter options should be entirely mundane for those who want fighters that way. But Supernatural Fighters aren't badwrongfun.


Justin Rocket wrote:
Quote:
I don't like default gnomes because they try to do "too much". They're short (like halflings) and magical (like elves) and .. like technology (like dwarves and not like elves),
What in the Pathfinder rule set says they like tech?

That racial archetype where they add crazy inventions to their guns.


LazarX wrote:
HarbinNick wrote:
Except for a weapon prof. couldn't you make a pretty good aristocrat with the expert class? What do you think?
Maybe you could, but why would you want to? Aristocracy basically represents a separate social class, the landed gentry, noble families, as opposed to the townsman guilded class, which is where the expert is mostly drawn from.

I dunno, I could see the Expert class representing some Aristocrats.

Mostly the kind with every social skill and knowledge skill they need to politically maneuver their way around noble courts, where stabbing people in broad daylight is generally frowned upon (aka, a martial weapon proficiency would make no sense).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
But... why? Is there a reason you would want to? I mean, I don't see why not, but I don't see why you would want to either.

Are you saying that legitimately being doublehuman isn't a good enough reason?

'Cause you're right. It's not.


I'll just say that if a PC wanted to portray Burning Hands in game as fire breath, I wouldn't have any problem with it.


I think borrowing a few concepts from Dark Sun might not be a bad idea. Maybe not major concepts like defiling, but ideas like spellcasters being viewed with suspicion (they were the ones who crafted the superweapon that destroyed the world in the first place). Maybe draconic sorcerers are especially shunned, considering that they have draconic "taint" in their blood. Limited resources and powerful dictators ruling small city-states of survivors also sound like some things that would be in such a campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever the Bard speaks the Wizard's name, he should had some kind of grandiose, flowery title. For example, "[Wizard], master of 1000 evocations, all of them deadly!" Or maybe "[Wizard], he who finds the laws of nature are mere suggestions."

This actually could work with the Sorcerer too. "[Sorcerer], he of the baddest breath."


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:

My friends want to play a Dwarf-centric game. I want to play a Sorcerer "Illusionist" with the Dreamspun bloodline. I cannot come up with a character concept that would make such a character work if the character is a Dwarf. Dwarves are dour. Illusionists are artsy-fartsy.

Please brainstorm for me a bit and toss out ideas for a Dwarven Sorcerer "Illusionist" with the Dreamspun bloodline.

Dwarves are artisans of the highest order. An illusionist obsessed with mastering the craft of image creation is 100% dwarf tastiness.

I could see an obsession with detail as part of the character concept.

Maybe as part of the dead sister idea thrown around, said sister's illusions weren't perfect, causing a orc to see through them and cut her down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

132.) The Eidolon is a faithful servant, who has served many masters before the summoner. Unfortunately, all of the Eidolon's previous masters ended up killed in some way by the Eidolon, either through bad luck or their own hubris. Or maybe the Eidolon's cursed. Who can say?

133.) To make the pact with an Eidolon, the summoner had to sacrifice their ability to feel an emotion, like joy or anger. The Eidolon feels nothing but that emotion now.


You could try Tengu, maybe? They have a feat that lets them look like a human, and one of their alternate racial traits lets them become proficient with several exotic weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

122.) The Eidolon tends to be a big coward most of the time, only enticed into action by the summoner via its favorite thing, whether it's a beer, an apple, a Scooby Snack...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

121.) The Eidolon is in fact the Summoner from the Future. No one's really sure how it really happened, least of all the Eidolon, since he doesn't recall being summoned by his past self.


As a fan if both 4E and PF (crazy, huh?), I can say that having a PoL setting in Pathfinder, or indeed any RPG, isn't difficult. The PoL setting isn't so much a specific set of continents and cities as it is a setting tone; the tone being "the world sucks, civilization is on the verge of disappearing, what are you gonna do about it?"

That said, World axis cosmology isn't too difficult to replicate. The astral plane is the astral sea, which contains a bunch of demiplanes like Celestia and Hell. All the elemental planes are sort of blended into the Elemental Chaos, which also contains the Abyss (in the World Axis, the Abyss is a part of the elemental planes that got warped by a shard of pure evil). In the middle of these two planes is the Material World, and it's two reflections, the Feywild (the first world), and the Shadowfell (the Plane of Shadow). Figuring out where creatures come from shouldn't be too difficult.

I personally like the World Axis over the Great Wheel, but then again, I've never really had much contact with Planescape stuff either.


Fabius Maximus wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
However, I think one of the few things 4e did right was the distinction between rituals and quick and dirty magic. It's almost like in the Dresden files, which makes it better suited for roleplaying.
I really liked the idea, but some of the implementation details didn't sit right. Like how a level 25 fighter was one feat away from being as good at rituals as a level 25 wizard was...
Yeah, I'd say you'd need a certain magical talent for ritual casting. A pure Fighter would have no, or at least only minimal access.

Of course, if a Fighter wanted to be any good at rituals, he would actually have to learn skills like Arcana and Religion, since many rituals required that you know those skills. So no, a Fighter just couldn't be as good at rituals as a Wizard was without investing in those skills (and, incidentally, the Wizard had easier access to those skills than the Fighter did).

Anyway, Vancian is... okay? Maybe? I dunno, I personally think that if it's going to be a thing, that either all characters in a party should run off of it, or none of them should. Daily powers will always be stronger than At-Will powers. That's really all there is to it.


If you're taking requests, cartmanbeck, would you mind taking a crack at Ifrits next?


I'd say maybe a Half-Elven sorcerer with the Paragon Surge spell? They can cast that spell to temporarily learn another spell via a temporary bonus feat, which sounds like it could be what you're going for.


Knight Magenta wrote:
Probably don't want to give a perception bonus. Its a stronger skill than any others. That's why the owl and eagle only give their perception bonuses under certain conditions.

Maybe a perception bonus when tracking something?


Out of curiosity, how optimal is a Dex-based brute rogue, using a weapon like a Spiked Chain or an Elven Curved Blade?


You could try refluffing Sawtooth Sabers as twin cutlasses. They're basically longswords that are set up specifically for dual-wielding.


Spellcraft really shouldn't be its own skill.

Let Knowledge Arcana deal with Arcane Spells, Knowledge Religion deal with Cleric, Paladin, and Inquisitor Spells, and Knowledge Nature deal with Druid and Ranger spells.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.