Aboleth

Whale_Cancer's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Dedicated Voter. 1,383 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jacob Trier wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
The Slenderman-CR whatever the !@#$ you want it to be.
I second this. I've got a monster in the campaign that I am running now that is loosely based on him. Be interesting to see what you come up with.
I didn't know who Slenderman was, so I did a quick google search. Glad I did, this is one creepy dude. I'll definitly do a take on this one. Most likely make it fey and give it some kind of link between the First World and urban areas. Perhaps it can only manifest on Golarion through childrens inability to seperate imagination and reality, growing more real if you believe in it. Things like nursery rhymes and drawings could increase the likelyhood of a Slenderman manifesting.

Just as a heads up, there is a Golarion interpretation of Slenderman already: Thin Man

That shouldn't stop you, though!


Nefreet wrote:

It would be impossible to damage any metal item (hardness >8), or any +1 wood item (hardness 7), with this spell, since the 2d6 gets halved before applying hardness.

Even if you rolled two 6s, a regular wood item would only take a max of 2 damage.

You are going to get a lot of table variation on that:

Quote:
Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion.


Wow, that was a big miss by me.

HODOR!

Thanks guys.


In theory, it isn't cruel to kill the half-dragon because it would only be Int 2 (so, it would be as cruel as making a normal set of leather armor).

Now, how you get a dragon to mate with an ooze may be somewhat cruel...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dorgen Stonebeard's Half-pudding dragonhide backpacks! 100% Cruelty Free!


Divination is amazing if you are ever making attack rolls (prescience), need to pierce spell resistance, or know a save is coming... so, almost always.

The problem with divination is having to choose a divination spell as one of your two free spells a level. This sucks pretty harsh at low levels.

Low levels also have fairly situational divination spells to put into your school slots.


The thing is that flesh to stone specifically mentions gear and magic doesn't affect attended items unless the spell specifies.

A cocaktrice's bite isn't even a spell, although those magic rules seem to be the only precedent available.


Backpacks made out of sentient creatures!

But, basically Ashram has the right idea.


What happens to a character's gear when someone is petrified? Specifically, I am thinking of when they are petrified by a cockatrice.

General rules seem to suggest that gear would be unaffected, but this flies in the face of the way I picture it in my head. Anyone know where I can find the specifics on this?


It seems that the spell does in fact specify otherwise. I can't think of any other spell off the top of my head that specifies attended objects are damaged (shoot, even disintegrate goes to the point of not destroying equipment in the spell description), so I don't know what the standard syntax for that would be.

But "the fog deals 2d6 points of acid damage to each creature and object within it" seems clear.

That being said, I don't know if this is the intention of the spell designer.


Cleric.

It has the most amount of spells that the game sort of assumes the players have access to (healing, restoration, remove fear, etc.,).


Alexander Augunas wrote:

So the only things Paizo has said "No" to are Aesthetic Warriors in a book about magic and joke monsters?

That's a pretty darn good track record.

[/thread]

I played a warrior obsessed with aesthetics once; got his art history degree in Absalom.

Edit: I believe that at least SKR said he never wants to see a 'create your own class toolkit' like the ARG. But that is just from memory, and SKR != Paizo, of course.


I'm comfortable making a ruling in any given situation, but I'd like to know if there is a rules as written interpretation.

Ignoring the homebrew spell, let's just say someone readies an action that ends up dealing enough damage to stagger an opponent. What happens?

The homebrew spell is, rulewise, the same as this situation. It's an AoE that can cause the staggered condition on a failed save.


Let's say you use your move action to move a few squares, downgrade your standard action to a move action, and, with your move action, move half your speed and trigger an effect that grants you the staggered condition (in this case a homebrew persistent AoE spell, but it could be anything).

Would your action be stopped and your turn ended, as you are only able to take one move action a turn now? I don't see anything clear on this in the rules, and I could - as it stands - see it being ruled either way in a game.

Thoughts? Thanks.


They wouldn't try to maintain backwards compatibility with 3.5. This wouldn't mean a radical redesign, but rather a few features of classes would be changed, feat structures would be changed (feat taxes), etc.,


Rynjin wrote:

Disregarding the (By RAW likely impossible) object destruction effects, Acid Splash is the superior one for the simple fact that it is A.) The least commonly resisted element and B.) Ignores SR.

It's identical in every other way as far as I know.

Ray of Frost is evocation allowing evokers to up its damage.


Bizbag wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Death is not a condition. Condition is a rules relevant term and includes things like sickened, nauseated, etc., death is a state when you have more than negative your Con in HP.
If that were true, why is there an entry under Conditions on CRB 566 titled "Dead"?

I stand corrected!

I don't remember there being a "dead" card in the status card deck, which is probably why I didn't think it was a condition.


Death is not a condition. Condition is a rules relevant term and includes things like sickened, nauseated, etc., death is a state when you have more than negative your Con in HP.


Hello folks. I'm trying to improve the mockery ability of the court bard archetype...

Quote:
Mockery (Su): A court bard of 3rd level or higher can subtly ridicule and defame a specific individual. The bard selects one target who can hear his performance. That individual takes a –2 penalty on Charisma checks and Charisma-related skill checks as long as the bard continues performing. This penalty increases by –1 every four levels after 3rd. Mockery is a language-dependent, mind-affecting ability that relies on audible components. This performance replaces inspire competence.

I want it to be as good as the ability it replaces (I know, I know; archetypes are supposed to be balanced on a whole and not on an ability-by-ability basis).

So far, I've thought of making it more like a reverse 'inspire greatness/heroics'; i.e. a more general target-specific debuff.

Alternatively, I've thought of having it be even more damaging to characters that rely on charisma; perhaps disabling things like tactician. However, it seems like I would have to make the ability rather lengthy in description to account of all possible uses.

Any ideas? As it stands, the thing is next to useless IMHO.


Yora wrote:
What relevance is Charisma? Animate dead only creates zombies and skeletons, both lose the Charisma score of the original creature.

More like determines bonus HP and fortitude saves.


Daethor wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Daethor wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Psyren wrote:

Rovagug is essentially the Snarl... so no.

In any event, Paizo have said they have no interest in statting the Golarion deities. The most we might get are some heralds or avatars to fight.

We also weren't supposed to get more base classes, so make of that what you will.
Where was that said?
I spent some time looking for this quotation, although I haven't found it yet. It was said by James Jacobs in - I believe - a discussion around a blog post. I will keep looking and try to dig it up, but I have to run ATM.
I suspect that what you saw was something akin to "We have no plans as of now" or "We haven't announced any plans." James is pretty careful never to say never when it comes to products. Also, even if he did say that we were never getting more base classes, he's not the only person who makes product decisions especially for the rule book line, so he would have been speaking out of place.

I spent some more time looking for the quote, but with all the talk of new classes due to a certain upcoming book, there is just too much to go through. Also I am not 100% it was James, it might have been SKR.

And no, it was much more definitive than that.

Of course what any one dev says isn't binding. That much is obvious.

Isn't the idea that they won't be stating up gods merely things said by the devs and not some official proclamation by Paizo?

My point is merely that things change and we may eventually see god stats (not that I want them).


Daethor wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Psyren wrote:

Rovagug is essentially the Snarl... so no.

In any event, Paizo have said they have no interest in statting the Golarion deities. The most we might get are some heralds or avatars to fight.

We also weren't supposed to get more base classes, so make of that what you will.
Where was that said?

I spent some time looking for this quotation, although I haven't found it yet. It was said by James Jacobs in - I believe - a discussion around a blog post. I will keep looking and try to dig it up, but I have to run ATM.


Psyren wrote:

Rovagug is essentially the Snarl... so no.

In any event, Paizo have said they have no interest in statting the Golarion deities. The most we might get are some heralds or avatars to fight.

We also weren't supposed to get more base classes, so make of that what you will.


Karuth wrote:
1) It starts with 2 levels of Master of Many Styles. This gives me both Kirin Style and Kirin Strike by level 2 (using the trait Magical Knack to count those two levels for spellcasting power).

Please tell me this doesn't work. Surely, you can't raise your caster level in a class that dooesn't grant spellcasting?

Quote:
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.

However, I can't find caster level called out in specific classes other 4-level casters.


Quote:
If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.

This is the problem with this plan. As I see it, when the "bonded lich" is destroyed and then his phylactery becomes a normal item.

You could still probably achieve lichdom through this route, but you are giving up one of the big advantages of lichdom.


Ilja wrote:

Agreed, fully agreed. However, in an E1 game some things will be far more useful than others, and since everyone gets the same resource and since every combat after a few advancements will be won by martial power (when you've gotten enough feats to tackle CR4 encounters, or maybe 10 CR1 encounters in a day, those spells aren't going to do much), there will be a strict set of feats everyone gets ASAP.

Arcane spellcasters, with their lack of armor and BAB, will quickly get obsolete for combat purposes except as buffers, and will be extremely fragile as their self-buffs and HP don't improve while enemy attacks will quickly become very dangerous.

Really?

The difference between a 6th level fighter and a 6th level wizard in BAB is 3 points; or, thought of differently, a 15% difference in a chance to hit.

Of course, the fighter will get an additional attack and will be built for combat. But the wizard's buffs - which includes monstrous physique, mirror image, blink, heroism, etc., - do allow a self buffer to be relevant in an E6 game. Even a blaster could be relevant, if only in a very specialized build that boosts a single spell's CL.


You can invert the horseman; so, for instance, War could be Peace and an era of peace ushers in complacency that causes catastrophe. Or life (health) brings overpopulation and collapse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.

Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.

Here's my issue: at one time I was a dev, thus I respect their hard work and creative process. E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.

I got nothing against low magic or low powered games, in fact we had a blast playing Iron Heroes. I resect those Devs too, for their hard work and creativity.

PF is a beautifully designed square peg. I hate to see bad DM trying to hammer it into a round hole...and doing so badly.

Want a skill based game? There are dozens. A low magic? Likewise. Respect those Devs by buying and using their products. Respect the Paizo people by playing the game at least somewhat how it was designed.

Yes, PF is *THE* hot games system now and if course your players are clamoring to play it. Just be honest with them. Tell them you can't or won't and suggest a real low magic systems rather than trying to bastardize Pathfinder.

Respect. Honesty.

Even if I were to accept your basic argument - which I don't - E6 does extremely little to change the intrinsic 'balance' (lol) of the game. It just limits the action to a desirable subsection of levels.

Also, with your thinking, DMs should refrain from writing their own adventures; they should only run those published by those on high. Nonsense.


True Resurrection can bring creatures who were turned into undead back to life.


Not that I know of, but they would be neat as mutated arcane blood lines... Hmm...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.

Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

How about Gestalt20/20/20.

You pick 20 classes, you get 20 levels in each class, and then you get 20 random artifacts. SO FUN GUYYYZZZ...

Or, we could just not make threads that are thinly veiled attacks on ways other people like to enjoy Pathfinder.


Isil-zha wrote:
(A difference that makes the Barbarian with +10 to climb lose against the Wizard with spider climb while climbing a cliff and being attacked by birds.)

You better believe it. Wizard mode activated.


Go to google maps. Pick an area you are familiar with. Imagine a square 9.746794344808964 miles on each side. That is 95 square miles.

That's more than twice the size of the city I live in: Vancouver, Canada.


chaoseffect wrote:
Focused Shot is in Advanced Players Guide, which came before firearm rules IIRC. It's likely they just didn't care enough to errata it, but RAW still says no.

Indeed. Rules for coup de grace and rapid reload were in the core rulebook and they have updated those. It's not unprecedented.


It's not a trap feat when you are using a Colt .45 and can double shot it. In other words, this is for a modern campaign where I imagine it would actually be rather effective. I want to know if I need to include a change to it in my player's guide or whether such a change already exists.

Of course, none of that is germane to my question.

It does seem like it was overlooked (I couldn't imagine firearms being omitted as a deliberate design choice).


6 hours; although most of the time is eaten up by people being late, bickering over rules, people not being prepared, and out of game talk.


The focused shot feat states that it only works with bows and crossbows. A number of things - such as coup de grâce and rapid reload - were errated/updated to work with firearms when they were introduced in Ultimate Combat. Was this ever done for this feat?

Obviously, in a home game, it's a simple thing to house rule that this feat works with firearms, but I am wondering if there were was official word on the topic.


Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

Remember, some domains and bloodlines have capstone abilities at 8th.I'd be inclined to allow the ability, even if the other benefits of leveling don't occur.

Sometimes the weaker spell lists pair with stronger abilities.

As well as at least 1 arcane school.

Has anyone put together modifications to the core classes for use in E6?


The Golux wrote:
So, +6 Dex, +4 Wis?
Whale_Cancer wrote:
...with that in mind the flumph's racial modifiers would be: +6 Dex, +4 Wis.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Okay, but that isn't the same as a "3 point buy," which implies that the creature could spend up or down by taking higher or lower ability scores.

Yeah, I said that in the first paragraph of my above response:

Quote:
I did make the jump from [the above quoted text] to creatures being built with a 3 point buy, but it has been my experience that most creatures without class levels have 3 even and 3 odd stats, suggesting they are built on a 3 point array that looks like: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10.

To be explicit, that 'jump' I made would be incorrect though not exactly far off. Anyway, with that in mind the flumph's racial modifiers would be: +6 Dex, +4 Wis.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
A monster's stats are what they are—the stats of a typical specimen of that race. If you want to figure out its racial modifiers (if such a thing exists), just subtract 10 from even stats and 11 from odd stats to get the modifiers.

Ok. That is what it said in the text I quoted. Why question whether racial modifiers exist? I get that - in many cases - these would be pretty pointless to figure out (such as for a T-rex), but if you are intending to add class levels to something, this seems like a more elegant solution than the attribute modifiers you are supposed to add when advancing a creature with class levels. This is also a much better method for campaigns in which monsters are offered as playable options (as I am trying to do with the flumphs).

My request for references to modules, adventures, etc., with flumphs in them is still outstanding.


Driver 325 yards wrote:
If you get animal companion from two different classes you generally stack the level of the two different classes.

You only stack them if you want to, and then you must choose from the most restrictive list.

There are druid and ranger archetypes that let you split your AC levels as much as you like (so you could be level 12 with 12 animals).

There are no hard limits to the amount of normal animals you can buy and take with you, beyond the practicality of controlling them.


I am so for this kind of consolidation. It does sometimes create strange characters who are skilled in some area that doesn't seem to make sense (such as a woodsman being able to identify druid spells as they are cast), but we already have that and having a bit more of it won't break anything.

Linguistics and forgery, for instance, are a pretty good example. Noam Chomsky could probably do some mad forgeries, under the pathfinder ruleset. I don't think this breaks anything.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Since most creatures are made with a 3 point buy,
I dispute this premise. Monsters usually do not follow the PC rules for generating ability scores.
Quote:
Ability Scores: The creature's ability scores are listed here. Unless otherwise indicated, a creature's ability scores represent the baseline of its racial modifiers applied to scores of 10 or 11.

I did make the jump from that to creatures being built with a 3 point buy, but it has been my experience that most creatures without class levels have 3 even and 3 odd stats, suggesting they are built on a 3 point array that looks like: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10.

Edit: Just to be clear, I am trying to find the racial modifiers of a flumph. It is obvious from even a cursory glance at the monster creation rules that creatures are not built using point buy arrays (or even 'hard' rules at all). The quoted text above, however, explicitly states that unless otherwise noted the racial attribute modifiers for a creature are applied to an array of 11s and 10s (for Bestiary entries, at least).


Writing campaign, offering flumphs as a PC race, yadda yadda,...

Ok, question. A flumph's stats are as follows:

Str 10, Dex 16, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10

Since most creatures are made with a 3 point buy, and usually 1 point is put into 3 different attributes, it is easy to figure out what racial modifiers should be.

Not so much with the flumph.

I am thinking the intent was either they dropped 1 into Con and 2 into Dex or that they threw all 3 points into Con (the flavor text describes them as being frail).

So it would be either...

+4 Dex, +4 Wis

or

+6 Dex, +4 Wis, -2 Con

Anyone have any thoughts?

Edit: Also, if anyone could direct me to any flumphs in published modules or adventures, that would be fab.


Forbiddenlightbulb wrote:

Bonded Vehicle (Ex)

A captain is bound to a particular vehicle, of which he is the commander and pilot. At 1st level, a captain gains one of the following vehicles of his choice with which he forms a bond: wagon, cart, carriage, chariot, dog sled, glider, sleigh, rowboat, or wagon. If a captain wishes to bond with a new vehicle, he must put that vehicle through a series of rigorous tests to ensure it’s safety, a process that takes 24 hours. A captain with the Leadership feat treats his bonded vehicle as a base of operations for the sake of determining the captain’s Leadership score. This ability replaces mount.

|

"Welcome to my sleigh, it is out operational HQ." I think this could probably be dropped.

Other than that I kind of like it. I almost feel like you could distinguish between captains of large ships or airships and smaller vehicles like gliders, rowboats, or chariots. Smaller vehicles could use a rather different archetype. Just a thought.


The feed kept dropping. I would have asked about the vest as well, but that got explained.

Also, I like kytons.


vegepygmy


Is that a 2L of milk just sitting there?


Joesi wrote:

If harmful potions were allowed at all, I'd rule that they'd have to be touch spells only.

It doesn't make sense —at least to me— for ranged spells to exist as potions. The reasoning for this is that —as far as I know, I could be wrong— there are no [beneficial/defensive/known-legal] potion spells which are not touch range.

I'd also say that due to the obscure/rare as well as harmful/insidious/evil nature of offensive potions, characters would not be able buy them but rather have to craft the items themselves.

So there's a lot of gray area and house ruling going on to do this sort of thing, since the rules seem to imply that offensive-spell potions don't even exist, and if they did I'd presume there'd be limitations.

This is the only actual restriction on what can be a potion:

Quote:
It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.

1 to 50 of 1,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>