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

darth_borehd's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,897 posts (2,651 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,897 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'm told that there is a that states a Drow Noble that uses Deeper Darkness to make an area supernaturally dark can see in that darkness because she cast it.

I can't find any such rule. Has anybody else heard of this?

I found a 50% off discounted deal on a bunch of Mutants & Masterminds 2nd ed (and some 1st ed) books.

Is 2nd ed worth getting or should I just ignore it and get the 3rd edition?

Is there consensus on one being better than the other?

I would say no. They are worse than animals. At least animals have some instincts. Mindless undead don't even have those. They attack in straight lines without regard for tactics and continue attacking until destroyed or dropping their opponent.

However, a clever creator can position them or arrange the room in such a way so as to raise the chances that the undead will attack in a strategic manner.

For example, one of my favorite traps is something I call "Opposing Skeletons in the Closets". A character who walks into the center of the room steps on a pressure plate that opens closets on her left and right that have skeletons in them. When the skeletons attack, they do so in a straight line towards the character in the center, most likely flanking her.

Scud422 wrote:

You will die with a smile on your face.

Sounds nice until you get hit with Hideous Laughter while underwater.


Only a bass that does not live in water can be used to open the Outer Gates. (The bass is a singer not, not a fish.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only an army that can march on a teacup without breaking it can defeat your soldiers. (Surprise! Your soldiers are killed by army ants.)

You can only be defeated by a man not of woman born. (Surprise! Born by Caesarean does not count).

Oxylepy wrote:
Unweave Xenjer's spirit from reality. It would stop the cycle of his rebirth, potentially leaving the powerful horn and associated bonuses. To fully destroy the horn, each of its effects need to be removed individually, then the horn itself must be fed to the terrasque.

I like how you added "then the horn itself must be fed to the terrasque". It seems to be a popular answer.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Mostly, it means the Race Builder is busted.
Tosses in pile with Svirfneblin, Merfolk, and last fifteen 10-point custom races that have never seen the light of day

Here's a fun game. Try to come up with the most broken race possible at the lowest cost possible. I think I can beat the Noble on an 11pt buy.

** spoiler omitted **

That's not that bad, really. Compare to human as the gold standard. How are they toxic?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blizzard did not invent this, plenty of fantasy novels were doing it years in advance.

The original dark elves from Norse mythology were not evil, nor did they live underground and worship a spider queen. All of those tropes were invented by Gary Gygax.

It was the R.A. Salvatore's novels that made them not quite so universally evil in D&D anymore.

As for the Drow Noble, 41 is actually too low a number. If you add up all of their SLAs, you'll find their actual number should be much higher. I no longer allow drow nobles for that reason. Even in a game that starts at higher levels, their SLAs are just too unbalancing. It works much better if characters take regular drow and use the feat chain to slowly gain the drow noble abilities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:

Alright, thanks. I figured I was right on toughness, but am always open to being mistaken if I am.

I'll see what I can do about the platypus, either reskinning or somesuch. Originally she wanted a mini-Groot, but balked at finding out she had to be an elf.

The ARG says "Typically, only members of the section's race can take the listed archetype. . . Because adventurers are often societal outliers, sometimes these archetypes feature a theme that is the exception to the norm for racial tendencies."

PCs are not typical, so there is nothing stopping her from taking it except the GM. You can easily say that she learned to be a Treesinger from her elf friend or maybe she was adopted.

In my opinion, racial restrictions are things that belong in the trash bin with 1st and 2nd edition D&D anyway.


Lost In Limbo wrote:

Conjure Implement doesn't say anywhere about how/where the item is conjured. That leaves it up to the GM.

Some might say you are automatically wearing/wielding any implement that can be worn/wielded. Some might say that the implement just drops into your hands or on the ground in front of you.

Yet another grey area for GM fiat.

HibikiSatsuo wrote:

Whether or not it's RAI that uncanny dodge is supposed to protect against hidden strike I think unawareness is actually written to avoid people thinking Uncanny Dodge protects against it.

I don't get that impression at all. If it did it would say something like "Uncanny Dodge does not protect it against this" and it does not say that.


Unawareness doesn't even cause the flat-footed condition, not having acted yet does. If Uncanny Dodgers are immune to the unaware condition it means they're immune to being surprised.

I see what you are saying, but they are not the same thing. Being caught unaware is losing your dexterity bonus to AC and not acting yet in a surprise round is flat-footed. Those two things are synonymous in all ways except the conditions that caused them. Uncanny Dodge protects against both.

Really, what is the difference between hiding in the shadows and then attacking, or having a (2nd level) Invisibility spell on you and then attacking? Both are the same in that the target did not see you until you attacked. Uncanny Dodge protects against both of those situations because they are essentially the same thing.

To me, the only logical conclusion is that a vigilante does not get extra damage dice against a character with Uncanny Dodge.

This is an old debate about Uncanny Dodge vs Sneak Attack that goes back to the beginning of d20.

tl;dr Uncanny Dodge makes targets immune to Sneak Attack from hidden and invisible attackers.

Skip Williams in a 3.5 FAQ wrote:

Uncanny Dodge and Sneak Attacks

The uncanny dodge class ability is just about the nastiest sneak attack breaker in the game. Only immunity to critical hits offers more absolute protection against sneak attacks. So, uncanny dodge gets a section in the article all to itself.

The uncanny dodge ability allows a flat-footed creature to retain its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) and it foils sneak attacks when in does so.

The uncanny dodge ability also allows a creature to use its Dexterity bonus (if any) against unseen foes, so an unseen foe must find some other way to make sneak attacks against creatures with this ability.

Uncanny dodge does not allow a creature to keep its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) when it physically cannot move. If you're grappled, held, helpless, incapacitated, pinned, or stunned, you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class. If you're attacked while climbing, you also cannot use your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class. Uncanny dodge doesn't allow you to retain your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class in any of these cases.

I have not seen any indication that Pathfinder changed any of that, so no, a vigilante does not get the extra damage in that situation.

Dasrak wrote:

* Dominate Monster - not in keeping with the class's theme, and a very powerful 9th level spell in general. I agree this should have never been on the list in the first place.

Most likely the thinking was that they got monster control type spells due to the eidolon and the summoning of creatures. But yeah, not quite fitting with the idea that they summon things, not find them and control them.


* Maze - one of the game's more broken spells even at 8th level on the wiz/sorc list. No arguments here.

Yes, it is great, but not as fantastic in practice. Once you are 16th level, a lot of your foes are going to have SR to overcome. Then targets can come back in as little as one round if their INT is high enough. Finally, it's a single target only. Compared to other 8th level wizard/sorcerer/arcanist/witch spells, it's one of the middling to high ones but not the best. Still, I agree it doesn't quite fit the theme so it could stand to go. Not a big deal.


* Greater Planar Binding - one of the game's most powerful spells, but also incredibly thematic to the class. The spell line is a headache to handle, but it's one I'd rather have than not.

I agree with this and the rest.


I fully agree that it is the best 6-level spell list.

I would say 2nd best after inquisitor--no other 6-level spellcaster has such a mix of healing, buff, debuff, and attack spells.

HyperMissingno wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Incidentally, giving the Magical Child the regular summoner spell list is a decent houserule if you don't like the idea of the archetype being terrible.
Except that's still not thematically appropriate of a magical girl styled archetype.

Yeah, I think giving the Magical Child ki powers like a monk would be more fitting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh-o-Lantern wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

I was disappointed to see Unchained Summoner get specified in the Mystic Child and Fey Caller archetypes with no mention of the standard summoner.

It's fine if you want to include a few notes here and there for fans of the Unchained stuff, but the standard version should always get the main focus.

"You may notice that we did not say the unchained summoner would be available alongside its Advanced Player's Guide counterpart. Effective immediately, the Advanced Player's Guide summoner is no longer available in the organized play campaign, and the unchained summoner is its legal replacement."

From what I can tell the unchained summoner is now the new standard summoner as far as they are concerned...

So says PFS. Which is not RAW nor official. It's a bunch of house rules decided by committee.

Milo v3 wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Pretty sure there is nothing in the errata or FAQ that says that.

What? I'm saying the spell list is considered broken from a balance point of view.....

That's one of the reasons why unchained summoner was created... to fix the summoner's spell list. Unchained even says "the summoner spell list has been greatly revised, removing a number of imbalances."

For them to then use a spell list in Ultimate Intrigue that they know is broken rather than using a more balanced but flavour-ly equivalent option would be rather dumb.

It's your opinion that it is "broken." That's fine, but doesn't mean it really is broken. Unchained is a book full of optional rule tweaks for GMs to consider using. Some people like them and use them, some don't. It's the Pathfinder version of Unearthed Arcana.

Milo v3 wrote:
Except chained summoner's list is considered broken....

Pretty sure there is nothing in the errata or FAQ that says that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was disappointed to see Unchained Summoner get specified in the Mystic Child and Fey Caller archetypes with no mention of the standard summoner.

It's fine if you want to include a few notes here and there for fans of the Unchained stuff, but the standard version should always get the main focus.

Yes, Words of Power needs an update.

Unfortunately, I think Paizo has abandoned all the Words of Power fans.

I really liked the WoP system myself. In my Viking-themed homebrew world, we called it "Runecasting" and it works very well.

@42nfl19: Since there is no official update and one is not likely to come, would you like to collaborate on an unofficial one? We can start a thread over on the Homebrew board or use Google Docs. Private message me.

Can prestidigitation be used to create a temporary mirror, and if so, can that mirror be used to avoid a gaze attack from a medusa, basilisk, or other such monster?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know I'm going to make a pygmy otyugh bard now!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Merm7th wrote:
I say as far as this spell goes, you can not vocalize a scream when silenced. It specifically calls out the vocalization of pain, not going through the motions. It might be the sounds or telepathy of agony that counters the effect. It's magic, not physics. I had someone insist that freedom of movement cast on someone swimming causes them falling damage as they fall to the bottom of the river due to the removal of resistance.

You can't hide behind the laws of physics after you have already broken them.

MendedWall12 wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

This ruling will change from table to table i seriously doubt any devs will weigh in on this
This. It's been argued back and forth with enough reasonable logic on both sides, so that when all is said and done the answer is: "whatever your table has decided." Let that be that, and move on.

I agree, we are at an impasse. I read the other side with campincarl and others and I remain unconvinced. They likewise remained unconvinced. I think this is just going to have to be one of those vague areas that each GM will have to decide.

OK, I was reading too much into it.

Deadkitten wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

So yea...I guess with this feat a character is a valid target for the Awaken spell?
If there is anything that stops this please let me know cause that is just silly.

Before the errata, yes. After the errata, I don't know. The new version is confusing as heck.

"You can choose not to allow spells and effects to effect you if they would not be capable of affecting both your original creature type and the animal creature type."

Wait, I can choose not to allow it? Doesn't that mean I can choose to allow it as well? If I want Awaken or Animal Growth can I still get it? It seems to imply that a character gains the animal type while keeping the original type. The errata makes it more ambiguous.

Silence Spell wrote:
"Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects."

The screaming part of Howling Agony is to alleviate the spell's effect. It stands to reason that if magically silenced people are immune to sonic effects, that would include screaming to avoid the penalties of this spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me the intent of the spell is that you have to be communicating your pain the loudest way possible to avoid the penalties. Most creatures communicate pain by screaming, hence the screaming reference. The reference to telepathy is for those creatures that communicate via telepathy.

So unless the target has telepathic abilities to broadcast his pain, it is prevented from screaming when magically silenced, so therefore the negative effects apply.

No sound or no telepathy = No communication of pain = No screaming
penalties take effect.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the idea is that you have connection to the elites if you are not elite yourself. For example, perhaps your character is the poor gardener of an aristocrat or perhaps a maid/butler in the castle.

Anti-magic fields nullify supernatural abilities. Magical creatures are not affected unless they are summoned (In which case they wink out until the field is gone or the duration of whatever summoned them expires.)

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

A character took the "Doubt" and "Lovesick" drawbacks. Unfortunately, in a recent adventure, her husband, the subject of her "Lovesick," was killed in a battle.

What happens now? Does she get two "Doubt" drawbacks and doubles the penalties for it?

Noble Class. It was done in the d20 Dragonlance and the d20 Star Wars and worked out well.

Hmm. I tried to doing a search first and that didn't come up. Thanks!

claudekennilol wrote:

For what it's worth, you should sway him away from picking that (assuming he picked that "free poisons worth 400g"). It's a pretty worthless trait. Think about it, past level 2 he'll be able to just buy (or make) whatever poisons he wants with the money he's earned. Once you get to an even high level 400g is pretty worthless and all he's left with is as +1 to knowledge local. If he really wants the kn local, there are other traits (I'm guessing, but there are tons of traits) where he can also get another bonus in addition to kn local.

Think about things like +1 will save, +2 to init, +2 to spellcraft, can't be flat-footed at the start of combat, or being able to use int instead of cha on any one skill. Those are things that will always be useful. 400g becomes useless once your worth is measured in the 1000s of gold and even more useless once your wealth is measured in the 10s of 1000s.

I already brought that up. Same with "Rich Parents" right?

But the player really feels his ninja needs to start with a lot of poisons. He also wants Pillbug as a contact which I am willing to do as in the Ultimate Campaign.

A ninja PC took the "Black Sheep - Pillbug" trait and wants to buy drow poison--but is not a dark elf. Is there any restriction on purchasing it?

I would like a an all-goblin adventure path myself.

Post your custom We Be Goblins pregens here!

Please put it in the standard Pathfinder statblock format, whether it's for "We Be Goblins", "We Be Goblins Too", or "We Be Goblins Free". Also include a little song!
(I'm not sure how the young characters in the upcoming "We B4 Goblins" are going to be done.)

"Everyman hero"

The classic trope of a common person who nonetheless becomes a great hero.

Like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, The Brave Little Tailor, TwoFlower in Discworld, Gabriel as a non-magical bard in early Xena episodes, Samwise Gamgee in LoTR, Forest Gump, etc.

No sneak attacks, no high BAB, no armor proficiency, no weapon proficiency beyond simple, no spell casting, no apparent abilities of any kind. Just a lot of heart and luck.

Can you make a character class like that?

I love the "We Be Goblins" series!

How is this supposed to work with younger characters?

Please make a higher level one next. Also, an all-goblin Adventure Path would be cool.

For those whom have asked for more details:

The Horn of Xenjer, Major Artifact

It's the horn of a horrible chaotic evil creature called Xenjer. While the monster can be slain, the horn is impervious to weapon damage and magic (including wish and miracle). If an intelligent living creature holds the horn to her own head, it bonds to her permanently.

It grants that individual various immunities such as to acid, mind affecting effects (except from itself), negative energy attacks, poison, disease, paralysis, transmutation (except from itself), stunning, and negative aging effects. It also grants DR 10/law and magic, resistance to all energy 10, spell resistance 23, and regeneration 2/epic.

The curse of the artifact is that as time goes on, those whom the horn has been bonded to will have to make a series of savings throws every day. Each failure turns them more and more into a copy of the monster, both mentally and physically. If they are slain, the horn will survive to begin the cycle again. While it has been hidden several times throughout the ages, it is always eventually found and used leading to mass death and destruction until some heroes put the creature down again.

How would the PCs break the cycle and destroy it forever?

(Just looking for ideas as I seem to have written myself into a corner on this adventure.)

I need a unique way to destroy an evil artifact that is indestructible by normal means. (Other than the cliché of throwing it into a volcano).

Any suggestions?

When creating a human NPC, does she get full hit points at first class level or average hitpoints like a monster?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I need an RPG based on the Zootopia universe.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was intrigued by the Tane like the Jabberwock. I noticed that Bestiary 5 didn't feature any new Tane.

Are we going to get more in a future book or at least learn more about them?

I can't find a skill that would cover cracking a code. This would be a special code that an enemy army uses to send secret messages to their HQ.

Would it be Linguistics to treat it like a language?

Knowledge (Engineering) due to the math involved?

Something else?

I see but what do you think of the #2 answer to this? It seems to me that if you can never use a weapon as an improvised weapon, he would have just said, "you can't use a weapon as a improvised weapon."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That doesn't make sense. If you throw a warhammer, it's not an improvised weapon. But if instead you throw a tent stake driver with the exact same size, shape, and density of a warhammer, then it is an improvised weapon?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

When a warpriest uses the Magic Blessing to launch a melee weapon, is he at -4 penalty for throwing the weapon unless he takes the Throw Anything feat?

1 to 50 of 1,897 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.