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

boring7's page

386 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Against incorporeals? Just use holy water. They're almost always going to be undead.

Weapon blanch also works.

I can respect someone wanting to do the "natural fighter" thing, but it's a niche playstyle and there are only so many ways to make it work. He's also going to have problems hitting and damaging stuff at higher levels because Rogue and because Damage Reduction.

If memory serves, monk levels on claws make for extra damage, but I could be wrong.

Magic Fang can be hit with Permanency, it has downsides but it's an option.


Spook205 wrote:
Frankly, from a DM perspective, I prefer him having one big scary pet as opposed to a collection of 'zombie go do this, zombie go do that' horde nonsense.

Also an issue for summoned monsters, animal companions, pets, sidekicks, and constructs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Noble Drow Shadow Sorceror, 1st level spells are disguise self and magic missile, you run away a lot and have a decent survival check for living in the wilderness.

Use your spell like abilities to their maximum, hide and sneak and murder your way to level 4 and party on.

Interestingly, the only POSSIBLE way that magic can stay outlawed effectively is if the authorities are using magic. Too many things are impossible to track as "magic" unless you either use detect magic, or they aren't getting "magic" they're just having real-world witch trials.


Franko a wrote:

But where i am confused is that with Fabricate, you cannot mix parts to create something.?

the would and iron dont mix? [siege weapon example]

They'll mix, though you might need to cast fabricate to "cure" the wood first if your starting point was "a tree". My point was simply you would NEED all those materials in raw form (which means tracking them down, possibly buying or making them, getting them together before you cast) and that a siege engine is complex enough that it's a pretty hard craft check.

Also remember when you cast the spell, the object ends up in the general area of the place you cast it and some finished objects shouldn't really be some places. A ballista for a ship should probably NOT be on wheels, rolling around and being unstable, which means you have to cast the spell that makes it while onboard the ship it is being installed in, with all the raw materials to build it.

It might not always matter, but it can.


Claxon wrote:

You should have plenty of money to pickup any spells you need. As well as any other gear.

Since wizards don't normally wear armor or wield weapons it's frees up a lot of your wealth by level that other characters spend. Unless your GM is not providing welath at the expected rate such that you are roughly at WBL, you have nothing to worry about.

Point of order, this has never, ever been my experience while playing a wizard, ever.

To get a new spell, I have to buy a scroll (which costs a LOT) I have to write it into my spellbook (which costs quite a bit too) I have to make a check (not a big deal) and that's the [u]cheap[/u] option. This is just to functionally use my class ability.

A fighter needs a magic sword, maybe out of a special material.

Also wizard toys are more disposable. Magic sword swings forever, magic wand has 50 charges before it's kaput. And most wizard-desired items are universal items, like the ring of fire resistance, or the amulet of natural armor. Fighter needs one just as bad as you, maybe more since she's on the front line.

Oh but enemy wizards, they have spellbooks, with like 5 new spells, 2 good ones, and you still have to pay to write them into your spellbook. So there's that.


Downtime profiteering and character wealth are between the player and the DM.

Pathfinder Economics are equally simple, the DM controls the economy with an iron fist. If the DM lets you sell an endless amount of chains then fine, if I were DMing I'd make up some figure of how much you could sell and what you would sell it for (fast sale is harder than hanging out for a year) based on population, local need for chains (I mean what does a farming community need with 4 miles of iron chain?), and an eye on the WBL standard (it doesn't have to be perfect, just within a general range).

If you started hacking in what I felt was "too much" cash I'd discuss it and either convince you to stop doing that, come up with an excuse why it didn't work, or reduce everyone's downtime so it wasn't an issue. That last option annoys a lot of players who were using their craft feats to make the sword they wanted, so it's really a collective punishment.

Moving on, I am not familiar with skulls and shackles, let me take a look at the player guide.
...
Okay the player's guide didn't add anything I cared about.

If you're willing to deal with slaving pirate scum, Masterwork Manacles are valuable and often in demand.

If you have access to a lot of hemp you can make canvas sails, hemp rope, and fishing nets. Huge (of low-dollar) market for that stuff, and it makes useful materials for other things.

Cured timber is actually a bit of a process, there is more to a good wooden boat than just cutting down a tree and stapling it to a boat. Making boat parts or even raw planks and properly-dried/shellacked mast-logs (I don't know sailor terminology) can be worthwhile. Maybe they don't need you to repair the boat (though you'd just cast make whole for that) but they could use the spare parts for when they're 12 days out at sea and something breaks.

Siege weapons are complicated mixes of iron and wood and finicky moving parts, but if you can make the craft check you can install one in/on a boat fast and get pretty well-paid for it.

Any main sailing ship needs smaller boats to do stuff like go to the mysterious island of mystery, check the hull for damage, throw a man overboard without intent to kill him, or throw the sacrifice to the Kraken.

Personally though, if I could get all of those materials (including massive amounts of lumber, hemp, iron, tar, and probably some stuff I'm not familiar with) I'd just build a ship. The price for most of the materials would be 1/6 (craft to make trees into lumber, craft to make lumber into boat), assuming you couldn't just find it for free somewhere. The sale price would be lower than usual, but still huge. Finding a buyer would be one action instead of 500 because you were simply selling a boat instead of 500 separate lengths of chain. And perhaps most importantly if the GM wanted to he could turn it into a plot point; you made a fast, well-armed, pristine war galleon in a week. That will attract attention.

when you CAN'T find a buyer for whatever reason you have a ship, legally-made and armed to the teeth. Take it adventuring, call it home.

Murderhobo has evolved.
Murderhobo is now MurderHomeowner!

Once you get 20-30k gold and the Craft Construct feat you can turn it into an animated object, make it fly, make it tough, and party on.


Alleran wrote:
Claxon wrote:
planar argument
more planar argument

Honestly, I've rolled a lot of games where dead magic demiplanes could be planeshifted INTO, you just couldn't get back OUT again. Obviously your mileage may vary, but the rules of planar physics get a bit wonky right out of the gate and the Wish spell was designed to make the rules even weirder.

If nothing else you could Wish for familiarity with the Target's planar prison, Create your own Demiplane with a portal to that plane (totally within the rules of the spell) and just open the door.

On the other hand, temporal manipulation means that the target could be dead of old age before any rescuer gets there, it's just a matter of keeping them alive. Anybody know a Persistent Vegetative State spell? Maybe some brand of perma-sleep combined with a life-support construct?

Of course banking on old age fails if they set up a proper Stasis Clone. Clone is another spell that has some elasticity to it's interpretation. There are numerous references outside the spell description towards using it for "arcane immortality" and "not aging" but it doesn't say it in the spell.

And Clone's an 8th level spell, unlike certain other resurrections...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

'nother fun ploy: instead of making money, just make political capital. I mean if you're like me you're playing a good character, or at least not a stupid chaotic evil one. The smart play in any town you want good rep in is taking 2 or 3 days with all your Fabricate (and other spells) to make the town a better place. Fix the leaky roof in the town church and give the town militia some DECENT armor instead of that piecemeal crap they're stuck with. Maybe you sell some of it, but you sell it on the cheap to make people remember how nice you were.

Some murderhobos are remembered by the tavern they burned, some murderhobos are remembered by the monsters they killed, but SOME murderhobos are remembered by the defenses they gave the town to protect itself from other murderhobos.


True Resurrection is pretty hard to get, that level of magic is the same as, "the dark lord fell, but hell spat him back out for fear and hate of his evil and power." It's stuff that's iconic and epic (no, not *that* definition of epic) and a Big Freakin' Deal. If an enemy comes back from burning his body to ashes and scattering them in the ocean, it isn't just a game mechanic, it's a plot point. If it wasn't him, it would be his Trusted retainer or his son or something.

But to answer your question, Claxon had it right. Trap the Soul; a 30k gem will catch almost anything (even The Tarrasque) and if you use the "Trigger object" method you pretty much can't fail.

Other options include:

-Dump 'em in a sphere of annihilation. Rules are unclear if it works post-mortem, so probably not.

-Don't kill 'em in the first place. Any transmutation spell that traps 'em in a helpless form permanently can be kept in your magic bag of holding. Expose them to a cursed mind-eating object while you're at it and even if they get rescued they'll be broken and insane.

-Convert 'em. Anything from forced alignment shift to mind-slaving 'em with dominate spells.

-Age regression. I've been reading some of the Golarion location books lately and there are a couple of "fountain of youth" effects kicking around (and I see them in homebrew settings) which you could use to turn The Dark Lord into an innocent little child you raise to become The Champion of Light.

Edit: Age! Feeblemind him, strip him naked, throw him in a custom-crafted demiplane with life-bearing, dead magic, and super-fast time flow; he dies of old age in a few hours because he was too dumb to realize he could kill himself and get True Resurrected.


CommandoDude wrote:

You GM sounds like a "bad-wrong-fun" kind of guy.

I'd dump him like a hot potato, but that's just me.

Yep.

BTW, for the melee-crunchers out there, is sneaky-fighter who hides more effective than flanker when the build is a trapsmith alchemist?

I mean I don't disagree the DM is insane and out of line, I'm just curious if you should be mixing it up more simply because it works better. I've been given that impression with rogues, but I'm not an expert at DPR and GAP and TLA.


Bigger Club wrote:

I would say a reasonable GM, would work with it. But they do not come free(as in not without effort) particularly good corpses are kind of like magic items to a necromancer. You need them to function and they make you better at what you do. So they should be treated as such. Common races corpses are easy to come by and domesticated animals even easier than that. But anything special is actually very hard to come by and you will actually need to do some serious leg work for them.(Assuming you can't get by with just what you and your party kills.)

A slight tangent there, once create undead and as such skeleton champion comes online things change as class levels are not lost. That being said those do not start off as under your control.

Yeah, intelligent undead are somewhat self-regulating. Not to mention it's enslavement, which carries various other alignment and role-play related "issues."

One role-play setup I liked for a Necromancer with a conscience (I'm bad at playing straight evil) was a cleric based on an old Dragon Magazine write-up for Wee Jas. Basically animating the dead isn't forbidden, but you have strict rules you have to follow on how you obtain the bodies, how long you can keep them animated before you have to put them "back to rest," and all the responsibilities revolving around cleaning up after/controlling your undead property. Stealing a corpse from a grave is illegal, buying one from surviving family members is fine. Claiming a corpse as "punishment" for their crime of trying to murder you is fine, but only if they started it. Animating a dead lion is fine because it's an animal, animating a dead dragon is not because it was a person.

But this is all rather tangential...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my experience, using Fabricate to generate capital (or similar "cheats") ends up being the only way to get party wealth up to what it's "supposed" to be according to the "character wealth by level" chart. The treasure every GM has ever given me falls short by at least 25%, usually a lot more. I once re-rolled because my rogue got pancaked (Earth elementals) and ended up with more money than anybody else just from my new character's starting cash, despite being a level lower than everyone else.

But whatever.

Uses for Fabricate: Well FIRST off you need to get Crafter's fortune. It's only level 1 and it makes you a lot less likely to screw up your casting. Also getting a "good touch" bonus from a cleric with the good domain or any other skill buffs you can grab are a good idea, you want to be making Masterwork stuff the first time, especially if you get something that's expensive, like Adamantine or Mithril.

Once you've got your craft skill up to where you're making masterwork toys for people, here are some things I've actually used the spell for:

-Creating a masterwork weapon for someone. It isn't enchanted (yet) but it makes a good backup or emergency replacement. And since we had all these adamantine spikes left over from a particularly nasty trap...

-Crafted Masterwork armor for similar reasons. Freakin' rust monsters...

-Turning a stone wall in my way into several small stone statues that are not.

-Turning a stable structure into an unstable structure before running away and letting the passageway cave in. (better ways to do it, but I'd already USED those spells earlier)

-Turning a huge pile of copper and silver pieces, too large to put in the portable hole, into a single gorgeous statue of the party leader which can be Shrink Item'd.

-Turned the Hydra we just killed into Hide barding for the druid's new animal companion. Also made boots for everybody that wanted them.

-Going up to a stand of trees and walking away with a big boat.

-Creating a giant stone statue of a man with a drill-hand which the party cleric then Animated (Animate Objects) with the "burrow" movement type. (we later made it permanent and sold it on the cheap to a clan of dwarven miners, but I repeat myself)

-Creating the nonmagical base for whatever magical thing I was going to craft with my creation feats, like a longboat that would become an airship.

-Make whatever weapons, tools, or structures are needed by the locals for a discount price.

-Nearly anything ever done in Full Metal Alchemist.

The primary limit is your imagination, and while Wall of Iron can't be used for making stuff no such restriction exists on stone, and both wood, stone, and even iron are pretty easy to find.

Then we get really creative. Can I use Fabricate to turn the carbon of my campfire ash into a diamond? How about extracting rare minerals from seawater? What about taking spent alchemical materials and reverting them to their pre-reaction state? Arguably, your character doesn't KNOW how to do most of that, I suppose, but what they DO know...just gotta make that craft check.


Odraude wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
So Paizo seems to have a thing for not statting their deities

There's a very good reason for that

Paizo just wants players to know that, no - you CAN'T kill a god (because if it has stats, that means you can kill it). I mean this literally, Gods have only been defeated on a near permanent basis (except for Aroden, who is the exception)

That is the difference between a 10th tier mythic and a God, the Hero can always die, it just gets REALLY tough.

Lamashtu killed Curchanus when she was only a demon lord. Took his portfolio too. And being a bonafide demon lord requires you to be CR 26-30. Not impossible for PCs.

Let's just face facts. There are two groups of people. The first like the idea of killing gods. It takes them back to Birthright and mythologies where cultural heroes defeat the gods. The other thinks that you shouldn't kill gods. Gods are kind of the last ultimate thing left in the universe and should be unkillable unless the story wills it.

Both believe the other group is having BADWRONGFUN and are probably dirty little powergames/power hungry GMs.

Meanwhile, This is a thing.

Making up rules for the killing god part of RPG is too niche and causes too much pissing and moaning.

More to the point, vagueness and refusal to answer certain questions leave more wiggle-room in the metaplot and the Big Picture mechanics.

I can't really blame them for that, any more than I can blame them for not telling us where Nex is, What happened to Aroden, or Where in the world is Carmen SandiegoThe Axe of the Dwarvish Lords. These mysteries are tasty little seed pods that can grow full adventure paths sometime in the future.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Instead of a reliquary shield, I'd just grab the birthmark trait and have it on your face or some other easily presentable body part.

All my holy casters get cheek tattoos these days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place."

Back to OT. Magda's right; lesser restoration, regular restoration, Remove Curse, Break Enchantment, and neutralize poison are all decent things to have in stock. That said, in a lot of cases you're better off just keeping the spell components and if you need to "repair" someone, you do it the next day.

Which brings us to an important point, do you have the spell components for those super-critical "repair my broken character" spells? You really need those and they're expensive.

For actual "I need this NOW!!!11" emergency spells, most of the cleric's spells jump back into the combat zone. True Seeing is the kind of spell you need in an emergency, is so expensive you can only cast it when you need it, and can't afford to waste the spell slot on all the days you DON'T end up needing it. Perfect for a scroll. Stoneskin's the same, though that's a domain-specific spell.

Personally, I would just get some more diamonds and diamond dust for the moment.


Game balance.

I mean, really, why would an enchantment that teleports/shifts the powder, shell, and etc. into the firing chamber be weird compared to a magical stick that shoots lightning bolts?

Why would a world with the capacity to create matter from nothing and create industrial automatons have a problem creating metal-cased bullets?

And why would world which can contact other planes and steal/purchase knowledge from beings from beyond the stars not be able to learn metallurgical tricks?

The answer is, "because they just didn't," and "because game balance."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Knuckles the thief was a crossbow specialist.

Any ranged sniper who can't afford a high strength can find value in rapid-fire crossbows.


Oracle: I just don't grok how Oracle doesn't actively suck.

Oh sure, some of the abilities you can get are cool or interesting, but I will like [u]maybe[/u] 3 out of any one mystery (and I can only pick one), and I get to actually know a tiny, TINY handful of spells. I can cast Cure light wounds OR bless, I can cure disease OR curses, but at any level I'm throwing interesting or useful spells out because I don't have enough on my available list and you get 1 more per day. One spell per day of a spell I may not even NEED that entire week.

I mean, I am sure I'm just doing it wrong somehow, but any build I come up with *sucks* compared to a bog-standard cleric with her domains.


One meeeellion gold pieces.

Okay, let's say I gotta make something up because reasons, let's do vampire...

Combining spell effects to approximate all the abilities, ignoring a few abilites as "balanced by the negatives" and making stuff up I got 120 thousand gold. It functions for 10 rounds and requires the blood of a vampire lord (intelligent and above 12 hit dice) to make. Also, while it doesn't have an immediate alignment problem it has a curse, the tainted spirit of the lord who was used in it's creation attempts to control you. On first use, the cloak attempts a Dominate Person (will save DC 14) effect. If the save is failed, the character using the cloak becomes the willing thrall of the vampire lord and will either seek him out (if still un-living) or simply become taken over by the vampire lord's spirit if it was destroyed. Each successive day of using the cloak increases the DC by 1, and only by not wearing it for a week does the DC reset.

It might be too strong, it might be too weak, but it's interesting and sometimes it's fun to experiment.


A lyrakien. Take Use Magic Device, give it various wands/scrolls of important spells. Call it the "backup plan" for when you get turned into stone or feebleminded or whatever. Heck, a wand of haste alone is pretty useful, you get to cast 2 buff spells at the beginning of combat because your familiar is casting one of them.

I mean maybe the Silvanshee can do it, but with no hands I wouldn't be surprised if a DM arbitrarily said "no, it don't got no hands to wield the wand."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Yay pew pew!"

You DO realize you're being a passive-aggressive jerk, right?


DM's call.

For slope, I would say 10 degrees or less, and consider it pretty generous.

For area, I would say "20x20".


slash140 wrote:

Something I've never really seen attempted is a build using pole arms alongside shields. I always thought spears and the like were somewhat lackluster considering their inability to strike adjacent targets, but having the shield to bash with might be able to account for that weakness. And the reach is certainly an excellent thing to have when you're on the front lines.

EDIT: Upon further research, I see that spears and their cousins are two-handed weapons, making it pretty much impossible to wield them with a shield. Such a pity, I was excited about that build for a minute.

Somewhat ironic considering the greek hoplite/roman legion combat style which was so very effective over the years.

There's a 3rd party feat, but those are always third party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Historically speaking, the widespread deployment of the musket ended the usefulness of swords and armor. There was still a value in pikemen, until they invented staggered firing lines and paper cartridges, but only because pikemen were cheap enough to train.

Realistically speaking, a musket should do weird super damage against armored targets as the bullet bounces around inside the armor. Realistically speaking, any hit on a character should have a chance of being instantly fatal. Realistically speaking every scifi and fantasy every that lets melee compete (or beat) with guns is ridiculous, but nearly every fantasy and scifi will jump through any number of hoops to let main characters have sword-and-sorcery duels.

As I said, everyone has their own limit on suspension of disbelief, but others are not and should not be bound by it. If the rapid-fire Musketeer is just too silly for you, don't play it.


What Gilarius said.

It takes 20 points of cold damage to suppress the effect, comparatively, 30 cold damage is enough to break a regular wooden door*.

That being said, it was better than staring on helplessly and doing nothing and the DM ruled it worked. What works better (in my head) is soaking yourself and dashing through, since that's how fictional characters always do it when they're rescuing someone from a burning building or whatever. But that's entirely personal and subjective.

*Over-simplifying object damage rules for the sake of example.


Back on the OT...

GrandReaper wrote:

System mastery won't be a problem - I prefer playing oddball characters that don't behave the way anyone else's do. And the Ulfen sound interesting. Maybe my character left the north because he was a bit of a runt (only 6' tall) and has some major insecurities as a result.

Do you think the stat spread seems reasonable?

It works, but from there on you want to put everything you get into Strength. That 1 point for dex might be tempting but you need to keep your to-hit and damage growing as best you can. Keep an eye out for a Tome if you want to even out that dex.

As for Shield bashing, I've always liked the Shield-fighter as a concept, beating down enemies with a wall of steel and doesn't afraid of anything. Captain America certainly makes it work. That being said you gotta play what feels right; if it seems silly, it's silly.

Anyway, I'm not exactly a master at twinking front-liners but it seems like the consensus is if you're sword-and-boarding you should be Two-weapon fighting if at all possible for damage output.

AC is going to be a hassle for a while simply because you can't AFFORD the best min-max combo yet. A breastplate is expensive, and the Mithral fullplate you eventually want is like 5th level minimum, more reasonably 8th or 9th.

Ah...hopin' some others jump in here who actually know what they're doing for anything else. Or just do a search for TWF optimization, there's gotta be a thread or a guide around here somewhere's.


Reverse engineering from the Elixir of Darksight the price for a see-in-deeper-darkness item would be 48 thousand gold. Admittedly that makes a large number of assumptions based on caster level and presumes the Elixir's ability is priced like a spell despite not actually copying a specific spell effect.

A rod of shadows is a bit more expensive but much better value with all its other abilities.

Also, custom items require DM approval.


Fair enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While there are ways to break it, generally anything the PCs can kill is not going to be an issue as an undead. There might be a handful of critters that slip past, hydra zombies still have pounce, (still not overpowered but it's the best I have right now, I'm sleepy) but as a general rule skeletons and zombies are too darned dumb, slow, and weak to be that terrifying.

Oh sure, there are things you can do with them, but most of those things are at least closely followed by Summon Monster and Summon monster doesn't cost money.

And let's say something goes wrong and you have the 3.5 Zombie Bulette (its AC was INSANE before the rule change) or something and it's proving to be totally broken.

Big undead get noticed, cause problems, disgust people, and often can't follow the party because the party goes underground or into a building.

Little undead are almost always weak, they don't get class levels after all.

Nobody likes undead, the only folk who do are the ones going to steal the undead becaue they're necromongers too.

In battle, the evil cleric can control undead on the PC's little toy.

One way or another, it's not that hard to yoink someone's undead pet, if it really comes to it you can just destroy it in combat. A properly-kitted damage-dealer of appropriate level can kill any zombie or skeleton you care to throw at him and once he gets it to zero it's gone for good. No resurrections for undead things. The party gets some loot and XP from that fight but the only corpse left is going to be near-useless on purpose.

Halfling paladin comes to mind.

Honestly, while I've often toyed with necromancer builds, I can't think of an undead minion that functions as anything but an ablative barrier of cold meat. When I think about what I'd want in mindless undead servants they are invariably tools more than weapons. Oh sure maybe I could put in a single zombie that plays Linebacker but mostly I'm going to be going for special movement types (a Roc named '747', an umber hulk named 'the mole machine', etc.) a cheap guidance chip/propulsion system for my 6-pack of gunpowder kegs (I think that's the light load for a medium skeleton, I'd have to check) or something else with similar utility focus.


Works for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everybody has their limit on suspension of disbelief. And there is no reason that limit is going to be static, objective, or universal.

On a question of game balance, the waters are slightly less muddy. Free-action musket reloading (at minor cost) is pretty freakin' powerful, but not impossibly greater than a similarly-twinked melee-manz. Or so the people around here who crunch those numbers tell me.

Actually while we're on the subject, Musket Master's bonuses apply to the axe or warhammer musket, right?


wraithstrike wrote:

You would have to use a light shield to make it work by RAW.

Inquisitors can be good at a lot of things, so you need to determine what you need him to be good at, other than fighting before suggestions can be made.

Is there an FAQ on that, because all DM's I've rolled with said, "if you can't use a weapon, you're hand's not free enough to cast either."

I mean maybe they're wrong, but...


Somewhat. Problem with a fighting caster is you need a free hand to cast.

A quickdraw shield (ultimate..adventurer, I think. Also the SRD) can hot-swap in and out. Alternatively with Improved Shield Bash you can just make your shield also be your weapon. It starts at only a d6 for spiked, but you can up that with the bashing enchantment to (by RAW) 2d6 and nothing says you can't 2-hand the shield for the extra damage.


These questions have been around since 3.0 and I have yet to see the rules change. I am pretty sure it's intentional that you can't quick-stow a weapon.

Hobbling battlecasters (you have a shield strapped to one arm and need a free hand, drop your weapon? or don't cast?) is a time-honored tradition. Also I can see an insane situation where a fighter holds a Ranseur for the AoO threats, when an enemy closes to melee he quick-swaps to sword, then regardless of whether the enemy is killed switches back to the Ranseur in case more enemies provoke. Or does something similar with his favorite ranged weapon. The fact you don't threaten with a bow is considered kind of a big deal, if you can hot-swap weapons you can threaten with a great big weapon during everyone else' turn then shoot everything with your bow on your turn.

From the traditionalist RP perspective, "with your shield or on it," is the old line. When you want to stow a weapon in an instant, putting it away instead of dropping it is only an issue for one of two reasons. Either you want to be able to switch back to it again, or you are afraid you're going to be running away later fear leaving it behind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Summons chlorine elemental*


Point of order, tiny chunks of toxic material is more akin to fallout poisoning than radiation sickness.

True radiation would be permanent ability drain, and probably its own animal. Unlike leprosy or parasites the cancer, ARS, and contamination of fallout particles are not external things devouring the body, they are just functions of the body breaking down, dying, and/or dysfunctioning.

Cancer is so nasty because it's your own body and your own perfectly healthy cells growing wrong, growing too fast, and not dying when they're supposed to be replaced. They AREN'T foreign parasites, that's why your immune system can't fight them properly.

Actually fallout, as a foreign contaminant, would make sense to classify as a poison.

That being said, it has enough similarities that may have been the intent. The dead zombies of Dawn of the Dead and crazy zombies of 28 Days later were both zombies and they were both zombie movies. The differences were immaterial to the underlying point.

Sorry, perhaps I'm over-analyzing.


Tork Shaw wrote:
ProfPotts wrote:
Quote:
The target line seems to disagree with you. Note that it says "stone OR stone OBJECT touched."

Yes - you can use it on an actual stone or an object made of stone.

If it hit an area of stone floor (for example) surely it'd have an area line, something like:

Area up to 10 cu. ft + 1 cu. ft/level (S)

It doesn't - it's an object targeting spell. You can no more use it to hit a small part of an object over your volume max. than you could use Enlarge Person on a giant's left arm.

Plus, the way you're 'weaponizing' it, you're already simulating higher level spells (like Spike Stones or Wall of Stone) to a greater or lesser degree with a mere Stone Shape. I'm pretty sure it's not meant to be that powerful - that'd require an area effect.

Again, not saying don't do what you want for your game - whatever works for making it fun, right? Just doing the 'anal GM' thing... ;)

P.S.: There's a bunch of spells in the Spell Compendium if you want to do this sort of stuff (and don't mind using 3.x stuff): Sudden Stalagmite, Stoney Grasp, Stonehold, Sarcophagus of Stone, etc..

I'm on side with ProffPotts. Allowing this spell to target a section of stone larger than the area/volume permitted by the spell is a serious power upgrade.

I disagree.

From a balance and rules perspective, those "higher level spells" you mention don't just shape stone, they conjure it up from nothing, that's kind of a big deal sometimes.

From a role-play perspective, it is similarly problematic. Let's say the sealed door that I want to open is adamantine and totally unpickable because the party rogue forgot to buy thieves' tools at character creation. I want to peel back the stone frame the door's hinges are attached to so we can rescue the orc from the evil pie.

All I want to actually move/reshape is about 1 cubic foot of rock, but I can only do that if the total amount of stone in the door frame happens to be under 30 (or a lot less) cubic feet in total. Does that make sense or seem reasonable?

I mean I can understand wanting to limit stone shape, like saying it moves just a little too slow to actually trap a mobile creature's feet or create spikes that stab someone who is already standing there, or even say that you can't make a sharp point because the stone is too gooey and claylike during the moments you are shaping it with the powers of your mind. But it's hard for me to wrap my head around, "You can shape a small piece of this big rock, but only if you knock a corner off of it with a pickaxe first."

And it's not like all higher-level spells were created equal. Good grief, Ice storm and Envervation are both 4th level spells, and they hardly compare. Or Crushing Despair which, yeah, it beats not having a spell but really, there's better toys in that toybox.


After successfully trapping an enemy in a Wall of Stone, use Stone Shape to thicken its stone prison to "unbreakably thick," and while you're at it, cover it's breath-holes so it suffocates to death.

Just create rough terrain so charging enemies have to stop.

Create arrow slits in an existing wall (perhaps from wall of stone) to cast spells and shoot arrows through.


Yep, Agile enchantment -> dex bonus to damage -> Go naked (well light armor) except for two big-arse shields beatin' on people with weapon finesse.


There's a feat combo that lets you TWF with a shield at no attack penalty. And when you wield TWO SHIELDS, you're attacking at -0/-0 with two large spiked shields with the bashing enchantment (ups the damage to 2d6 RAW, but even the harshest house ruling only downs it to 1d8).

Dual-wielding (effectively) Heavy Maces while getting a shield bonus to AC (improved shield bash) and (effectively) Greater Weapon Focus for practically free is pretty powerful.

the SRD wrote:

Shield master:

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

Some FAQ answer might clarify that "another weapon" can't be a shield, but I haven't found it. Even if it did, your shield is beating on stuff with what is probably 2d6 and a +2 to hit on top of everything else.

Oh yeah, and you enchant their to-hit and damage bonus at half cost. At least until an official version of this hits your game table.

Got it from a ridiculous argument in the rules questions thread.

Edit: Anyway, back to OP's question, no, as far as I know no deity specializes in the shield bash. You can always make your own, of course, take a feat for proficiency, or just dip a level of (warrior-type class) to get the proficiency and maybe a free combat feat for improved shield bash. It would likely be a god of protection, but those are easy as heck to build. Walker, the Texas Ranger god, his symbol is a shield, his specialty is protecting travelers on the roads of life, and he gets the protection, law, travel, and Honky-tonk domains. Bam.

Edit the second: Oh right, a heavy shield's not a light weapon. But the feat doesn't specify a difference between light and heavy shields, you just "do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield."

Yes, I agree that's broken. TOTALLY behind house-ruling it different.


lolirony


"Fire shouldn't even count, it's a chemical reaction. They're not called reactionals, you know"

A similar question is why fire is weak against cold and vice versa, but acid and lightning just treat each other normally.

Personally, I think acid makes more sense than sonic for the reasons Zodin said.

Frankly, sonic doesn't entirely make sense as an energy type in the first place. It's a concussive compression wave, it would either be the perfectly-calibrated wave necessary to resonate inside something (takes too long for a quick-hit magic effect) or just concussive force like an explosion or, you know, hitting something really hard with something else.

But like Star Trek (science fiction in general) and fantasy overall, the more you know about science, the more you have to suspend your disbelief and just go with it. I mean, we have giant scaled aerial predators that spit fire who can shrink down to the size of a cat and interbreed with anything they decide to bang with zero questions of allele-pairing and chromosome count. We have magical spells which will call things from outside of reality, but only if you have a small back and a candle (or whatever the material component was for Summon I). We have an invisible force field which always has to be up and down, even if we are operating in microgravity and don't know where down is.

And don't get me started on the peasant rail gun.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ boring7: That's just how it is. If it was from Paizo themselves, then I'd concede.

From the PRD under Magic Armor and Shields:

Magic Items - Shields wrote:

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

As with armor, special abilities built into the shield add to the market value in the form of additions to the bonus of the shield, although they do not improve AC. A shield cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A shield with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

Notice that the first part says the cost of adding enhancement bonus would need to be added as part of the cost. Also, the second part makes no clarification as to whether the +X is from a Weapon property or Armor/Shield property, meaning the +10 capacity applies to either one.

Nope. The first part explains that if you want your shield to be a magic weapon you have to get it enchanted as a magic weapon and pay the standard cost of enchanting a magic weapon. It is the same as when they explain that a double weapon is double cost, but you don't pay "double" price for a shield because the pricing structure is different.

And if we accepted your assertion, you STILL refuse to answer the question, "what is the price?" When I make take a +1 bashing shield and add the corrosive quality, does it cost 14k or does it cost 5k?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If you looked at that part closely, it says Double Weapons are calculated as being two weapons for the listed exceptions.

Nope. "That part" doesn't say anything about double weapons at all.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It otherwise follows the rules of being a single weapon. (For the record, I use the term "haft" to differentiate which part of the Double weapon has what properties and such, and is the same term used in multiple Special Material entries.)

From the PRD under Magic Weapons:

Magic Items - Weapons wrote:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
Since it's calculated as two weapons for special abilities and cost purposes (combined), either haft can have up to a +10,

And now you're making up self-contradictory rules again. the quoted text does not say a double weapon is calculated as two weapons for the purposes of its modified bonus, only for the cost, time and special abilities. According to your position on shields, a double weapon can never go above a modified +5 because it's still a single weapon.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I've already explained it profusely how Shield Spikes cannot possibly function the same as you would treat a Double Weapon for the purposes of enhancing. Whether you choose to accept them or not is your call, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You haven't explained anything. You just keep saying, "I'm right and you're wrong," and refusing to answer any questions regarding the logic of your positions.


Blakmane wrote:

As an aside, it doesn't state anywhere in pathfinder rules that elves don't need to sleep - so you should run that past your GM. The no sleep is a 3.5 thing that wasn't carried to PF.

Here's a reference.

Huh, I thought they only did 4 hours, whoops.


Oversimplified version: Can I use prestidigitation in place of a disguise kit when I'm making a disguise?

tl;dr version: I'm playing a drow in a good campaign. Please save your Driz'zt jokes and clichè-shaming for the end of the thread, I got a few mechanics questions.

Since being Out and Drow'd is dangerous at times and I'm level 1 I cannot afford a hat of disguise, hell I can't even afford a disguise kit, and that doesn't last very long.

First question is; do you even need a kit? The skill doesn't mention it and the kit doesn't say, "you must have this or you can't use the skill."

Second question; Prestidigitation can change the color of things (and a lot more, depending on interpretation). It ALSO says, "The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components." A disguise kit doesn't need to be durable but game balance, other argument, etc. I don't know. Can I use Prestidigitation to fake a disguise?

Third, was there ever a ruling saying you can or cannot take 10 on the skill? As an elf I don't sleep so I have an extra 4 hours every night, and can work on my disguise for the (up to) 5 hours.

And fourth, I'm trying to look like a different race (elf) so I get a -2, I'm ALSO just trying to make generic disguise rather than a specific one. Do I get any bonuses for that second part?


Zathyr wrote:

What Barrett said.

Quote:

Armor for Unusual Creatures

Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and non-humanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.

According to the table: armor for a large, nonhumanoid creature: x4 cost, x2 weight.

Additional: I think you could argue for 2x cost if centaur armor was REALLY common in the campaign world. Like, "centaurs are at least 40% of continental population and have their own empire, which you are in when you buy it."


*Reads thread, gets depressed, begins eating massive amounts of cheese*


Aelryinth wrote:
Um, is unequipping a shield a free action? I only thought that applied if you dropped it. Don't have the text for quick draw shields in front of me, but I thought it was only a free action to equip them...and they had to be properly stowed for that to happen.

Apparently so, so apparently you also get the "quick-sheathing" ability that players wheedle and beg for all the time. Very interesting.

Downside is it only exists on light shields, but that's not much of a downside.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Hero Lab is a 3rd party product, and as such isn't a credible source for rule arguments. It's about as credible a rule source as 3.X books are.

Well okay then, you're welcome to dismiss it, but you have yet to offer any documented support for your own claims at all.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just because you calculate the Weapon-type properties and Armor/Shield-type properties separately doesn't give you specific permission to exceed the +10 bonus on an item.

Begging the question: where does the claim the weapon enchantments and armor enchantments are counted together? The text is pretty clear that a shield must be enchanted as a weapon separately, you take it as default that the enchantment is limited completely arbitrarily.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
By RAW, I don't have to have +1 to attack and damage rolls to...etc.

Like I said, you're begging the question, but you're also dodging the point, I have a +1 shield, I want to stick flaming on it, then I want to stick bashing on it, how is that priced? Any answer you give is making up new rules based on an assumption you never proved.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Double Weapons are different in that you are granted specific permission...

The full text regarding double weapons:

The SRD wrote:
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, and special abilities.

Nothing about a cap on how much enchantment you can add. Everything about splitting at the haft and all that is stuff you're adding on. There's some ruling about special materials that is a little more in-line with what you're talking about but you're the one splitting hairs to support your position here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Shields and their Spikes are considered one item, period.

This continues to be unargued and dismissed.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
reviewing the Shield Master feat, you suffer no TWF penalties to attack rolls made with shields. Using 2 shields for your attacks equates to 0 TWF penalties on all my attacks,

Hmmmm...

The SRD wrote:
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.

Wow, that's crazy. And a lot of d8s. Very nice.


The difference is irrelevant, "a shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right", is pretty clear. Hero Lab does it that way automatically. I don't want to search through piles and piles of NPCs to find the one high-level sword-and-shield ranger that does it.

I mean let's take your position to its logical conclusion: you have a +1 (AC) steel shield that you want to give +1 (hit&damage). First enchantment costs 1k because it's an armor enchantment. What does the second one cost? If it's still stacking on armor it costs 3k, right? If it's somehow both a weapon AND an armor enchantment it costs 7k, but what happens when you add light fortification? A +3 armor enchantment is 9k but you've already decided that the shield cost 8k before. Do armor enchantments just permanently get more expensive? Do you get to cut your weapon enchantment costs in half?

And if you're using separate price tracks for weapon and armor enchantments on the same shield, you have already admitted that weapon and armor enchantments are separate entities, just like a double weapon.

Also, double-shielding doesn't grant you double AC bonuses, and with them strapped on you can't really cast spells. You can't even drop your weapon to cast because unbuckling the shield is at least a move action. Arguably it's even more since you don't really have a free hand to work the straps, but that is a house rule argument ao your GM mileage may vary.

I assume you're going for "double greatsword damage dice" effect?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
Did this ruckus about Butterfly Sting happen before or after the feat was essentially tied to being a Desna worshiperMinion of The Monarch in Inner Sea Gods

Sorry, been watching too much venture brothers lately.

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 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.