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

kyrt-ryder's page

9,484 posts (9,507 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Eh, I've had plenty of characters who would turn their back on a so-called-friend in a heartbeat if they took a path said character didn't agree with.

I wasn't talking about characters I was talking about legit friendship [as I personally see it.]

The OP's character seems to care about the Demon-in-training as a friend, hence my comments.


GypsyMischief wrote:
Does your character have an in-game reason to be so emotionally invested in your party member? He is a demon worshipper with a history of killing clergy, after all...

A friend doesn't turn his back on his friend just because he's become evil.


AFAIK there's nothing in the rules to help you here. This is something each group needs to sort out for themselves.

I can see the problem on both sides, the one guy wants to go after the target and is getting antsy that not only does a partymate want to stop him... but they're sitting around looking in rulebooks rather than reacting in the moment. Meanwhile you wanted to stop him but weren't sure if you had the ability to.

For my own games, this sort of stuff happens in the moment on the fly. If you wanted to stop him from going, you could attempt with whatever methods [A spell, tripping, grappling, etc. Were you in reach you could react as sort of a pseudo-AoO type thing.] If you were really serious about it, it could turn into sort of a mini-combat using initiative with each person taking turns, or we might do a sort of Chase Scene with your guy chasing the NPC and you chasing him.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I'm kind of in favor of leaving the "problem" as it is, purely for amusement if nothing else.

Don't go into the tall grass!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Qaianna wrote:

Given some of the traits available, I can see some argument here. 'Oh, I have 900 gold at first level. While the barbarian decided to get UMD as a class skill and the wizard will always have +1 initiative.'

Honestly, I wouldn't allow Rich Parents to be picked up from the Additional Traits feat. Unless you had a REALLY good reason. One that amused me sufficiently, anyway.

As a GM, remember, 'It's just WRONG' can be a valid excuse. Which is why I'm not pressuring mine to let me build that +1 flaming frost greataxe yet.

What's wrong with a +1 flaming frost greataxe?

Name it Coldfire.
EDIT: Or Emberice.
A few other cool names could include...

Balor's heart, Twins' Axe, Unity, Nature's Wrath, Axe of Quasielementalism, Thermo-Cleaver, etc.

How about Paradaxe? Too subtle?

Sounds like an axymoron to me.


Kudaku wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Happily there are rules in Unchained both to remove alignment restrictions for classes, and to remove alignment completely from the game.

Indeed, although I had been under the [mistaken] impression that all the alignment issues aside from LG Paladins and Lawful Monks had been stripped out. [On that note, Lawful Monks is rather annoying as well.] Mandatory non-lawful Barbarians is silly.


Ventnor wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rich Parents seems like a good trait for the new Vigilante class.
I actually don't think Rich Parents would work at all, for one simple reason.

It's called an inheritance.


I would argue that it IS fair because it's what goes on in Golarion.

Dwarves have a bonus against Goblins for a reason, because the two groups are constant enemies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
Fairness. That is what DMing is about and if it isn't done well then the problem isn't in the tool (the DMPC) it's the tool [the DM]

FTFY :P


GMPC's are pure Rule Zero G.G.


Heh heh heh. But the character in question was a Druid, so at best he could have charged for a Reincarnate right?


Wait, you're putting the one guy's life in the other guy's hands?

He can always find new companions, his focus right then and there is on the loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but if one of your players trusted him not to fudge, and he did then... technically he betrayed their trust.

Now assuming that conversation never happened, awesome. But if I or Kirth were playing with him, hopefully he would respect our request.

On another note, I can totally respect the top priority of giving the players a good time but... it's not my top priority. It's a priority but my top priority is being fair and impartial. My second priority is being open and honest. Making the players happy comes third during play [first during Game Planning.]


Rare cornercase time.

If struck by a Flaming Shocking Frost weapon, does the hardness negate each energy pool separately, or is it all considered a single instance of 'energy damage' added together before applying hardness.


born_of_fire wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rolls and the players don't get to see the NPC's so there's no way to know if he's doubled their HP's to extend the fight or some such. What you don't know shouldn't bother you. The only reason I know about it is that I'm married to the DM and we discuss the game during the week.

You might not know the first time, perhaps not even the second - but most will catch on pretty quickly.

And again - why bother fighting effectively if it'll only result in the enemy being buffed to compensate?

No one has ever mentioned it and we have no shortage of players. YMMV

The thing is, cheating like this has a massive impact on the Player Characters.

Lets say for example, you're extending the combat. [I'm assuming its because the PCs are optimized towards damage output or Save-or-Lose type effects.] Doing so causes the combat to drag on, which puts extra pressure on those character's defenses. Defenses they aren't specialized in and will easily fall if they can't pull off their schtick of Killing-It-Fast.


It's the same story as Energy Resistance. Anything with Resist Fire 5 is basically immune to your +X Flaming weapon, because the two damage types are treated independently.

You would think Hardness would only apply once to a weapon attack though, it would really sucks if weapons that don't penetrate hardness also lose their energy damage to a separate instance of hardness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
DM fudging is integral to a fun game otherwise we can end up with 1 round boss fights or TPK's. This is not to say no one dies in our game--plenty of PC death is enjoyed by all--it just prevents complications due to the DM either under or over estimating what he's put us up against.

Thanks, b_o_f. I think you described your opinion as a player (and your reasons for it) very clearly. If I can follow up, though, can I also ask another question -- when you say "integral to a fun game," does that imply that the DM should override the other players (if they're like houstonderek and me) and fudge dice even if they ask him not to?

EDIT: I remember TOZ suggesting a "death flag" for each player -- you put it up when you feel like your PC dying might be suitably cool to tolerate, and lower it if you don't want to die by random roll. Basically, having it lowered tells the DM he can fudge dice, but when you raise it, it tells him to let them fall where they may. I liked that idea because it allows the same DM to accommodate both types of players, in the same game.

With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rolls and the players don't get to see the NPC's so there's no way to know if he's doubled their HP's to extend the fight or some such. What you don't know shouldn't bother you. The only reason I know about it is that I'm married to the DM and we discuss the game during the week.

It sure as hell bothers me. Now, if he increased the monster's HP in advance and that enhanced creature is what we're fighting, that's fine.

But he just pumped extra HP in it to drag out the fight and keep me away from the rest of the game?

F@+%. That. Noise.

EDIT: that kind of behavior also strips away the sense of achievement players get for wiping the floor with an enemy. It ALSO really screws with game balance, the game expects monsters to fall at X speed, if they take twice as long, suddenly you're either killing PCs or forced to cheat even more to keep them alive.


Jaelithe wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Just a Mort wrote:

...with one of the group bleeding out, the dwarf druid ... decides to search the bodies of the bad guys first...

Note: The group did not have anyone else with stabilize cantrip, or decent heal checks...

o.O .... erm ....

Heal can be used untrained.

But that doesn't make the dwarf druid any less a dick.

Sure. But did the GM say dicks weren't welcome at his table?

[I actually find it kind of refreshing to see somebody actually playing a greedy dwarf for once.]


Absolutely zero.

Now, I generally give the benefit of the doubt when it seems a player might be cheating, and I am totally willing to forgive a cheater who owns up to his cheating [although of course I'm watching him like a hawk until such time as I feel I can trust him again] but actual cheating tolerance?

Nada.

I don't even tolerate cheating from the GM side of the screen, even if it was to my character's benefit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
xavier c wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.

The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.

But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.

Are the really frequent outbursts of rage that makes him non-lawful.

He fundamentally lacks any self-discipline, but it also permits the barbarian to unleash greater raw strength

Except that makes zero sense whatsoever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
xavier c wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.

Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.

The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.

But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.


And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.

Guess that's one more houserule on the books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unless there's a fight involving large numbers of combatants in unusual terrain, I don't use miniatures on a battlemat. This speeds up combat immeasurably, because you don't have people debating over where to move their dolls.
My observed experience is that without any representation of position people spend as long asking where they are and what's within reach as they do fumbling around working out where to move with the battlemat. Speed comes from something more abstract rather than anything which has precise positioning that then doesn't get implemented. YMMV.

In 2E we did fine without a battlemap for years... In Pathfinder I'm not even sure how that would work!?! There are SOOOOOO many rules/feats/options/tactics that assume you're using one.

Do you guys cut out the AoO? Five-foot step? Flanking? reach?

I can't speak for any of them, but I do battlefield of the mind all the time and keep all of it. Battlefield of the mind is just that... in the mind. I've had far more vivid battles in my own head than on a battlemat, the key is communicating those details in a way that the party can comprehend exactly what is going on and where everything is.

[It also helps if the GM fudges just a little in the Player's favor in regards to positioning. It was your job to paint the scene in their heads and if they're 'close enough' I let it slide. Note however this is coming from a GM who never fudges dice.]


These weren't rotating GMs in the way rotating GMs are normally thought of. They Co-GMd and pretty much rotated session by session running the same campaign.

EDIT: that being said, may I inquire the specific details of why they're an exception? Is it assumed the other GM will keep them in check or something?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Yeah, keep ignoring what I say, put words in my mouth, make s***f posts, and ridicule me. After all, I must be a bad GM, oversensitive and probably retarded if I think GMPCs are a problem, right?

To sum up, GMPCs are never a problem, unless used by a bad GM, indeed every campaign should have them. Anyone who doesn't agree should just show where the bad GM touched their character sheet. Enjoy your thread.

Sissyl... I don't think anybody intended it to come out that way.

GMPC's being used poorly is bad GMing. Knowing whether or not you can pull it off is a sign of being a good GM.

I can't do it, but I still consider myself a good GM because I refrain. I'd say that - assuming you do well in the standard GM fields - you're a good GM as well despite the inability to GMPC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Rules for making an effective DMPC
This doesn't sound like a GMPC to me KenderKin, it sounds like a tagalong NPC.
Quote:
1. The DMPC should be un-optimized, and possibly multi-classed, one of those classes should be support focused.
Nope, the GMPC should be optimized to whatever level the party is, just like any other PC should be. When one party member is either the star OR the dead weight its not fun.
Quote:
2. THE DMPC should not be allowed to take any loot/glory from any of the players
Take from other players? Definitely not. Share with other players? Definitely yes.
Quote:
3. The DMPC should solve/plan 0% of anything happening in the game
NOPEnopenope. The GMPC should participate in the solving/planning unless said character's personality says otherwise. He shouldn't take an overt leadership position unless the party's requested it of him but participation is important!
Quote:
....I further have a rule that a GMPC's initiative is always 10 I don't even roll it!
I can totally respect anything saving the GM from rolling, but it would be better to take his average initiative [10+modifiers] than a flat 10.
Quote:
4. The DMPC is there to keep things moving forward, such as asking another player, what should we do about this?
Preferably not. That's really not a role any one specific character should get pinned to their back, but as a last resort to keep things moving the GM can do so with the GMPC.
Quote:
5. The DMPC is not protected from being targeted by or potentially killed by enemies.
Total agreement here ^_^
Quote:
I use a random attack roller including the DMPC for who gets attacked....Druid/Wizard DMPC nearly died from a grim-lock greataxe to the chest!

Whatever works for you dude. I'd imagine a GM who plays the opposition tactically without respect for whose character its dealing with would be a bit more realistic than random dieroll, but at least you are still being fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I don't think it's an insurmountable thing that drives folks to fits of irrational behavior while DMing.
This IS the insidious nature of the GMPC trap, every boon you grant your GMPC is perfectly rational, perfectly meant to help the party, and makes perfect sense in your eyes. What you don't see is the resentment each GMPC boon places in the eyes of your PCs, they see a story about the GMPC with them as sidekicks where you see a helpful GMPC moving the story along and keeping them alive.

If it's getting special boons or somehow sidelining the party, its no longer a PC. A PC is exactly in line with the party.

What you're talking about is an NPC the GM's gone on a power trip with.

EDIT: to use a Lord of the Rings example [since people on these boards love to use them :P], Gandalf is the type of NPC you're talking about, while either Gimli or Legolas could be a GMPC. Aragorn and Frodo'ss position in the plot is a bit too strong, they're clearly standard PCs. Sam etc are tag-along NPCs


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

As part of this job, they provide other characters the PCs can interact with. These characters are parts of the setting, nota bene, meaning they have a specific purpose for being there. This can be as people driving some plotline, people to act as obstacles, people who add local colour to a place, people who aid the PCs, and so on. Generally, conventional wisdom is taken to say that all these people should be played by the GM in accordance with their goals, their personalities, their capabilities, and their situation. None of this makes one of them a GMPC. A GMPC is CERTAINLY not just a character traveling with the PCs.

But when a GM wants the thrill of playing his/her own PC... a lot of this breaks down. The GM becomes invested in the specific character. It takes part of the spotlight, yes, but that is a minor problem, compared to the rest of it: The GMPC, with the emotional investment of the omnipotent GM, will invariably (in my experience, this is an absolute) become the real focus of the game. The temptation IS too strong. A mature GM will realize the problems with it, and refrain from using GMPCs.

I'm not sure whether you read my post, or if by chopping those two posts up and using little bits and pieces of them I destroyed the message.

First Paragraph in my above Quote wrote:
Stuff about NPC's
You're right. What you're talking about there are NPCs. We're in agreement.
Quote:
But when a GM wants the thrill of playing his/her own PC... a lot of this breaks down.
When a GM is playing his/her own PC, none of it breaks down. Because a PC is not an NPC.
Quote:
The GM becomes invested in the specific character.
Sure. I get invested in my PCs too, and I don't even PC while GMing :P
Quote:
It takes part of the spotlight, yes, but that is a minor problem, compared to the rest of it: The GMPC, with the emotional investment of the omnipotent GM, will invariably (in my experience, this is an absolute) become the real focus of the game.
Thankfully your experience is not absolute, you just had unfortunate experiences. Otherwise five separate campaigns I've participated in, and all the fun I've had sharing the table and my adventures with PC's the GM was legitimately playing as his character are all lies.
Quote:
A mature GM will realize the problems with it, and refrain from using GMPCs.

Funny story, that very first campaign I participated in that I mentioned - with the Fighter and Cleric - were with GM's who were both Sophomores in Highschool.

You've had bad experiences with GMPCs and I'm sorry to hear that. I lucked out, out of 6 campaigns I've been in that used them, only one went badly. The others were all wonderful experiences I cherish.

Experiences wherein the GM was a player with a PC. Not 'an NPC that travels with the party.' These were legitimate player characters 100% in fact, that player just happened to be the GM. And 5 out of 6 of these games were pure awesomesauce.


MrCharisma wrote:
If the setting you're playing in is high/epic fantasy maybe everyone would recognise a wizard/witch/etc, but for most settings they just look like people

To expand on this, if you've been dressing up in iconic gear for mages. The robes and pointy hat give it away to the NPCs.

Haramaki costs 3gp, weighs 1 pound and grants +1 AC and is obviously armor to observers, but has no Spell Check failure.

If you value AC over mobility [I sure as hell don't] and have the strength to handle an additional 10 pounds you could add an Armored Kilt to that Haramaki for +2 AC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And when used poorly and well, was that in any way related to the GM rooting for the GMPC as THEIR CHARACTER IN THAT GAME?

...rooting? What the heck do you mean by that?

Regardless, I'll quote a few posts I made upthread to answer your question about having positive experiences with someone else's GMPC

Quote:

First campaign I ever played, for example had two GMPCs from two co-GMs. Each of them were mutual party members and neither of them pulled any of the horrible GMPC stunts you see discussed in these threads.

One was a debuff evil cleric and the other a Neutral Good THW Fighter.

Quote:
Tons of fun and the GMPCs really contributed to the party's dynamic, while being 'just another party member' in combat.

In short, these two characters were no different from my own, the Rogue or the Druid. They were just a Personal Character of a player at the table.

EDIT: just to be clear, although the Co-DMs did rotate 'primary DMship' between sessions, both played their character in every session they were able to get to, including while they were the primary DM.


I've always interpreted dragon and elves as having a *really* odd sense of time. Far less concerned with day to day affairs, years seem to pass as weeks. That sort of thing.


You do raise a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of the Dragon issues a quest and then goes to chill in his layer between hunts without worrying about it too much. If he notices them again after 'too much time' has past he'll land to 'deal with them' and... considering a dragon's sense of time... they very well may be able to fight back or at least teleport to safety by that time.


Even the 5 ogres mentioned above move 30 feet normally, 40 feet unarmored. A dwarf or somebody in medium or heavy armor isn't going to even maintain distance from that, let alone outrun it.

EDIT: I actually wouldn't necessarily consider the dragon demands thing above railroading... the Dragon can make the demands it wants, that doesn't mean the party will keep their commitment to an evil monster.


Why ride the warhorse? Train it to be moving full cover for you.


While 'ignoring wealth by level' can make for an interesting story, it can also really screw the martial characters in your campaign who desperately depend on gear to accomplish anything at all past a certain level.

These boards do have many homebrew replacements for wealth, some of them quite good. The simplest being to simply push wealth under the story and allow your PCs to 'buy' abilities that are part of themselves with virtual gold appropriate to their wealth by level.


mplindustries wrote:
If the scene would have 5 Ogres in it, there are 5 Ogres and it doesn't matter that the PCs are level 15 or 2 or anything in between. If they're 2, I sure hope they run or try and talk.

And hope that the Ogres have no interest in pursuit if any of the party members is in Medium or Heavy Armor, or is a Dwarf. [I figure the party BDF could probably carry a gnome or halfling if it came down to it.]


Yeah back then that was essentially an instant kill for PCs. HP's have gone through the roof since that era as far as I'm aware.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure, that was EGG's intention, but I'm guessing back in those days Lava submersion without some kind of magical protection was an instant-kill?

EDIT: it's kind of interesting though, how EGG specifically calls out the foundations for a Wound/Vigor system, separating 'constitution bonuses' out as physical damage and Hit Dice out as Skill-at-negating-damage.


WhatAShame wrote:

OP here. Been a while since I could check on this thread.

Got a hypothetical question for everyone here. Having a disagreement with one of my players and was wondering how some of you would rule this.

Let's say the oracle falls down 10 feet x 10 feet pit that's 15 foot deep.

Would you allow the oracle to conjure up a moonlight bridge "ramp" and walk out?

Why or why not?

NOPE. That's way too steep for walking, it would be a climb check, and given how smooth that stuff is... I doubt the oracle would succeed.

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with him coiling a walkway around the inside of the pit walls to walk out. It would consume a lot more movement though.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I used milestones instead of experience.
This
Bodzilla wrote:
I don't use XP either when I'm running an Adventure Path but, I'd need to refer to CR and some XP budget to create enough encounters of the right level right?

Nope. Level them up when 'the time is right.' Whether that's some pre-determined milestone in the plot [which is a type of game I tend to shy away from myself] or when the characters 'earn' the next level via some certain level of achievement.


Combat Monster wrote:

Then once dead he'd get a ten point buy and crap equipment if the GM let him play in the game anymore at all.

Human Wizard, 7 Strength, 14 Dex, 14 con, 18 Int, 8 Wis, 7 Cha

Lets play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

Yeah, are people claiming that the 'triple jump'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwQQj3VZLC8

is a separate move action for each of the 3 jumps?

There's nothing in the pathfinder rules that limit 1 jump per movement action, the only limit is you can't travel more than your base speed.

Or Hurdles


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that's probably enough damage to sunder a mountain.

Granted, Martial characters have done it in Myth.


Rynjin wrote:
Pokemon stuff

Your math doesn't check out. STAB Fireblast is very very rarely a 1HKO [and fairly frequently not a 2HKO] for an opponent of the same level and evolutionary level, barring Type Vulnerability or using pokemon with particularly skewed abilities.

To be accurate you'd have to take the pokemon damage formula, and substitute Pathfinder Level*5 for Pokemon Level in the calculations, ignoring the Attack x Defense section. Then you might come up with something close-ish.

You'd also need to do something to reduce their HP, since some level 20 [100] pokemon have HP well over 400. Halving it might be appropriate. [Possibly leave the HP intact for the types that are intended to be legendary freaks of nature and higher challenges than their level indicates.]

EDIT: Alright, I went to a pokemon damage calculator and calculated a Stab Blizzard against a Normal Type, both at Level 20 [100]

Came out to between 118 and 141 damage

That's high, but it's nothing that a PF Blaster of the level couldn't pull off.

That being said, given the sheer volume of HPs pokemon have, and the expectation of using type advantage in a match, I could definitely see trimming Damage and HP a bit. Maybe skim 20-30% off the top or so

EDIT 2: Also I think the XX% miss chance and absolute accuracy theories are a bit misleading. Fireblast for example is clearly a ranged touch attack with a -3 penalty.

Surf's an AoE.

Keep in mind the standard 'full accuracy' attacks can be evaded, they just usually fail unless the target has upped his evasion stat somehow [or flew up into the air/dug under ground/dove under water before the attack came.]


HyperMissingno wrote:

Pokemon in general would be horrifying just because of how moves in Pokemon can work. Rather than having spell slots or preparing them, a Pokemon can use its moves at any time it feels like, and aside from things like Fire Blast most of them can be use 15/10 times per day, more if they're slightly weaker. Some heal for half their hitpoints in a single move and paralyses isn't exactly rare, in fact it's frequent with electric types.

That's not even counting the legendary Pokemon or gods forbid mega evolutions. And the immunities and all other nasty crap, Pokemon as they work in the games are serious s&$@ if you throw them into pathfinder.

I think I'd rather face [or partner with] a Spellcaster with limited castings of many spells than tons of castings of up to 4 spells.

Now, if your talking about a Trainer who has access to 6 Pokemon each with 4 moves, THAT would be scary.


Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
Oh, and to address the Dodging Panache question, you would trip, disarm, sunder, etc in the new square, but grapple would drag you back as per the grapple rules.

I rather like that visual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Orthos wrote:

On the subject of Pokemon, Abras are pretty annoying in a non-hostile sense, especially if the party needs to get one for something and can't cast dimensional anchor yet.

Imagine a mage or other villain who has one as a familiar/minion and keeps sending it to steal things from the party. Missing weapons, missing gold, missing spellbooks/spell component pouches, missing holy symbols... and attempting to catch something that can teleport at-will despite being worth almost nothing in a straight-up fight.

You *can* do this with some existing D&D/PF critters, but they're usually high-enough level to have better/more interesting/less annoying tricks up their sleeves.

Hmm, 1st level trainers get access to scrolls of Permanent Dominate Monster. Pokeballs totally break WBL!

It's more Charm Monster. Pokemon CAN reject your commands, they just generally don't unless either they're too powerful relative to your ability as a trainer[the only explanation in the game] or you abuse them [anime].


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Or worse - when multiple alchemists are all sharing the same potion.

(Maiden, Mother, Crone goes there. Yay Reign of Winter =D)

That seems... unhygienic. ^_^

And the party's reaction to finding that sort of... tainted loot...

Priceless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Piledrive a bear into a volcano?

Piledrive a succubus into a volcano while wildshaped into a bear?

I am just going to turn this into the succubus grappling thread, aren't I?

Succubi are fire immune. For all purposes you're just giving her a mud bath that happens to kill you =P

But it's a really hot mudbath in your arms :P


Worse, the AC penalty lasts long after your turn is over, until the start of your next turn, while your reach only lasts until the END of your turn.

Remember, your turn only lasts while you are acting.

1 to 50 of 9,484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.