Cruel Instructor

james014Aura's page

Organized Play Member. 193 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 193 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Just going to chime in with my dislike for "spell" points, if they only apply to specific types of spells. Also for the "points" since that's a meta-term.

Most of the not-joking ideas (and even some of those) are all things I think would be better.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Way I see it, the question of poison is just a matter of heirarchy.

the paladin blog wrote:

You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

no evil: does not speak of poisons

no harming an innocent: Based on my reading of this, if poison would reasonably improve your chances of saving the innocent - knock out a serial killer, or more quickly stop some brigands who are raiding a caravan, just to name the first two options to come to mind, then it would be virtually REQUIRED not just allowed. If it wouldn't, then the code is silent in this tenet.

act with honor: well, as poison was specifically called out as being REMOVED from the list, it's not inherently a violation. Which means, it's no different from other weapon enhancements, and not dishonorable - unless it violates the rules of a contest, in which case it's cheating and thus forbidden. I'd like to note that open battle does not generally count as a contest, or the like.

Finally, the law: if it's illegal and not required by the second, then forbidden. If either it's legal or it's necessary to greatly improve the chances to save an innocent, then the exception to this tenet makes this part silent.

So is Holy Smite the spell gone in favor of this apparent replacement for Smite Evil (or just another power to go with it - just figuring this looked like a clear case for replacement)?

Though, really interested in seeing how powerful the Holy Smite ability will be.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that it looks like Save or Die has been rebalanced to be overall more useful to players and less devastating against them. Though I wish this had included actual text for a couple of those feats.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?
Channeling works as the Heal spell. If you do the three-action area heal, that has a material component, which Clerics substitute out for presenting their holy symbol. That triggers the second condition of the redcap’s weakness, and it needs to make a save. If any domain spells have a material component, they’d work too.
Hmmm, yeah, I forgot that it works that way now. I have to say I'm not happy with the new cleric, especially how channeling has been cut and how you need to memorize all healing spells now. I really liked how variant (domain-based) channeling worked in PF1, not to mention how channeling uses enabled a lot of other cool things, too.

They get a new mechanic that lets them replicate not only a channeling (with Selective for free), but also an improved version of channeling (both living and dead).

I'd want some of Witch, Shifter, and Hunter for more nature/wilds support. Not Kineticist or Occultist, though, because I don't think there's a chance they'd fit as an addition.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I've had some time to think, and while I'll try the playtest, I'm virtually certain that if monsters go the way I think they're going, I'm out - back to PF1e for me.

(I wanted 2e to be good. I want to give it a chance. But what I've seen of monsters leaves just too sour and bitter of a taste. As a long-time homebrew GM, I cannot abide monsters so unfriendly to customization. Nor can my sense of fairness abide monsters that use such completely different design rules than players - I've long held that a GM has to abide by (mostly - see racial HD and a few related things) the same restrictions as players.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another question: Where are the monster feats? Tweaking those was one of the best things of monster customizing.

15 people marked this as a favorite.

This feels unpleasantly like (the thankfully optional) simple monster creation from PF1, or PF2 monsters entirely. Which is not fun to use or look at.

And how are TAC, AC, saves, and hp computed on monsters? Is there a formula? PLEASE don't let it be arbitrary! (I hate the arbitrariness of quick/simple monster creation; it's use as the main method)

Please, let it be possible to reverse-engineer monsters to better understand them (and modify them more precisely). What I see doesn't allow that.

Also, what's skills +1 or skills +5?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of this sounds reasonable, but why does Weakness add a fixed amount? Scratch damage shouldn't get magnified so much.

(I'm not complaining about simpler math, but maybe a cap on bonus damage proportional to initial in some cases?)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is giving me flashbacks to my brief attempt to play 5e.

41 people marked this as a favorite.

Upon seeing the paladin code - both wording and ordering - my first thought was "3 laws compliant"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, weapons are more than Finesse or Light/not/2-handed, damage and crit range now? (and reach and a few +2 for/against certain maneubers)


Mark Seifter wrote:
james014Aura wrote:
Heal spell question: If we heighten it and use the the 3-action version, did we just waste a high-level effect? Or does heighten override the reduction to just casting modifier?
Heighten modifications are applied to whatever the spell did before.

I'm sorry; I don't think I understand that entirely. Does that mean a 2nd level area heal would be 1d8+casting modifier?

Heal spell question: If we heighten it and use the the 3-action version, did we just waste a high-level effect? Or does heighten override the reduction to just casting modifier?

If they don't utilize even part of the soul, why do they stop true rez, which doesn't care about the body's condition?

Can an Occultist with the "Trappings of the Warrior" Panoply simply wear the shield on their back and use a 2-handed weapon and still get the benefits of the panoply?

panoplies below regular implements; has some stuff re: this
the panoply itself

There's a spell, something about soul trapping, that says it can be done, just not in those terms in-character. For figuring out how big the onyx gem has to be. IIRC, it says it involves lots of research, though, so ... GM decides on some research checks?

I, too, feel that Magus should be in sooner rather than later.

Renaming Law to Order would be fine with me, and maybe a partial lift of some class restrictions, but that's the end of what I'd like.

The Outer Planes and Outsiders *Of Pathfinder*

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jojiro wrote:

The fact that alignment will cause debates is a constant in D&D and D&D-esque games.

At the end of the day, I've never seen a person who plays a non-D&D game sorely ache for alignment, so I'm skeptical it's core in any way or for any reason except tradition.

I suppose they'll have to use surveys to tell.

It's interwoven into the Outer Planes, lots of aligned Outsiders, and the alignment detect/smite spells. Also, the Paladin (though making that any good would be fine with me), and Deities+Divine Casters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This: Keep alignment as an important mechanic. It feels like a core of the setting, and an important one at that.

That: Make alignment like in Starfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, can someone still invest in lots of different skills as a Jack of All Trades option, or invest in many but not as many as a Jack, or specialize, same as in P1 / PF1 just with different mechanics to it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree completely; but I also feel NPCs should be different from monsters, not indistinguishable.

Rereading some stuff: I sincerely hope skill proficiencies are not at all like they are in 5e, where all it does is prevent skill customization.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm simultaneously nervous and excited about this.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Where's the place to pre-order?

Hi, James

Where does Pharasma send someone who follows multiple gods? Such as, the Witch trinities (Calistria/Gozreh/Pharasma being the main one named)

Spells list "Shield of Dawn" but that's what d20pfsrd renamed "Shield of the Dawnflower" to due to copyright issues. (And followers of Sarenrae only)

I meant, very expensive for a first-level character, sorry.

EDIT: Though I missed Stone Lamellar, which is still way beyond 1st level and is pricey for 2nd - 3rd level minimum feels far more likely.

So, I noticed that a lot of the builds have 16 wis, and suggest Mutated Shape with a headband of +2 wis, but don't ever increase wis anywhere else. However, the feat requires 19 wis, which means the shifter is still too low.

Also, the weretouched build recommends heavy armor proficiency at 1, but heavy armor is very expensive even before needing non-metal speial material versions - it should be moved to a little later to reflect that.

Ah, here's the text. Roughly, it says 3 Changeling witches can form a coven without a hag. The question I have is, RAW only witches or just shorthand for Coven Hex (without noting that others could take it), RAI same question, and would it be a reasonable houserule to allow it if neither RAI nor RAW support it?

Blood of the Coven wrote:


The hag blood coursing through changelings’ veins makes
them especially adept at coven magic. Changeling witches
with the coven hex (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide
66) can form covens of three changelings without the usual
need for a hag member. But as a changeling draws upon
the power of her heritage, the call to wander into her hag
mother’s clutches becomes more persistent; changelings
who form a coven only with other changelings take a
–1 penalty on Will saving throws due to this increased stress.
Changeling witches with the coven hex who wish to form
a coven must perform a 1-hour ritual. When the ritual is
complete, the changeling coven gains access to the following
spell-like abilities based on the witch level of their lowestlevel

So, does anyone have RAW or RAI interpretation, would it be a reasonable houserule if neither?

EDIT: because it feels this went off-question.

I'm not here for complaints about the book. I'm here for interpretations.

So, in Blood of the Coven, Changeling witches get to make covens - what about non-witches who have the Coven Hex? Do they have to take Coven-Touched or do they count and just weren't accounted for?

And, if they need Coven-Touched, would it be reasonable (I'm a GM in the game this would matter in) to rule that they count anyway?

"Unhallow makes a particular site, building, or structure an unholy site."

My reading of this leads me to believe that the idea the site can be destroyed is correct - and once that level of investment is done to make a place (un)holy, it seems fitting that it would need to be destroyed utterly to unmake the effect.

This feels supported by the Gamemastery Guide with the late-stage Undead Uprising description "Hallowed ground remains a rare sanctuary, but only until destroyed by the malevolent forces without."

Do claws (Bludgeoning and Slashing) count as blades for honing them on a whetstone?

(And if so, does a +0 Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists count as nonmagical for this purpose??)

Asking because I'm making a Changeling for a campaign elsewhere.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

(the question is, which way is right: do ships of size huge and larger automatically have room for more power cores, or are they just allowed to take more housings? Is it "Medium and Large" or was that a typo in the PDF and it should be "Medium and larger")

The way I've seen it done here (aka: I did a search for this question) has, you have to have the power core housing bay for a second (or more) power core, despite ship size. Which is confusing me, because:
Page 296 of the CRB PDF, downloaded Sep. 1
"Each Large and smaller ship has room for only a
single power core by default, but Medium and Large starships
can be fitted with an extra power core housing (see Expansion
Bays on page 298)."

The previous interpretation of that I saw thought it was "Medium and larger" starships that can get a power core housing.

(And then lists X power cores per ship size after)

The table gnoams just cited is for things which are NOT starship combat. The table for starships is:
Easy: APL-3
Average: APL-2
Challenging: APL-1
Hard: APL even
Epic: APL+1

However, you need to know how many gunners you have on each side, and how accurate the gunners are, etc. since different ship builds may be more lopsided towards combat or towards support.

By the way, does your sheet allow linking tracking weapons? I know the rules only specify direct fire, but the SFS player guide has a ship class with a turret with linked missiles.

Looking at the scales, Colossal minimum size is actually almost 3 miles right there. Which means only the Vesk have a mainline ship comparable in size.

Wow, this got a lot more attention than I thought it would.

I'm not exactly planning anything yet so much as I'm trying to figure out the limits so I can plan more intelligently.

As for fighting the colony ship: well, pirates exist, and said ship may want to hire some guards. Just a general idea I haven't actually planned out yet.

(Unfortunately, stasis beds are only mentioned once ever that I can find, so if I need this, I think the cargo holds packed with people would be a refugee ship and I might need to come up with something else for colony ships).

Thanks for this, though one thing: It prevents me from selecting a second power core, even though the ship is of a frame that can automatically take another (Huge 2, Gargantuan 3, Colossal 4).

Also, it doesn't do anything if I select Power Core Housing a second time.

Cargo bays can hold 25 tons. Assuming with children that it would be 250 lbs to 2 people, that's ... 200 people per bay (upper bound). A Heavy Freighter might be able to do that, or Bulk. Thanks!

So, I'm thinking of trying to create a ship that is suitable as a colony ship. However, I can't find any that would fit the 50/500 rule; even a dreadnought with 20x guest quarters can't get to more than 120 without the crew staying there, too.

Is there anything that might fix this situation?

Skill Focus and Gloves of Elvenkind should be enough for most purposes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got an idea that felt like I should charge ahead with it. Sent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I figured Rovagug did escape, but was slain. But even a dead god may dream, and thus was The Devourer born. The devestation left in the battle with Rovagug is what kicked Golarion into some pocket dimension (where some god provided a sun to keep Golarion alive), and the Gap is the damage done to the Universe by the titanic battle of gods, where the Universe is trying to suppress its memories of such disaster.

Though I also like The Raven Black's idea.

1 to 50 of 193 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>