mplindustries's page

Fighters get the shaft from Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians in regular Pathfinder, too. Having feats as your only feature is weak no matter what level you stop at. The good news, though, is that Rogues and Monks aren't pointless in E6, so there's something.

mplindustries wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Actually, yes, the DM should do that- to a point. It’s his job to make encounters fun & challenging.

I am very much opposed to the "designed encounters" movement that has plagued modern RPGs.

True, such as the "modern" RPG known as AD&D, since we were doing this since the 1970's.

I didn't say that it didn't exist in older games, just that it wasn't so prevalent, nor was it considered the default, at least not in my experience.

So if the DM doesn't pick what the party fights, who does? The party?

The GM creates the world. The PCs decide what happens in it.

The GM creates a burrow with 30 goblins living in it. If the PCs go in, they face 30 goblins. They chose that, though, not the GM--the GM only chose that the goblins exist.

If the PCs are built in a very specific manner that trivializes a fight with 30 goblins, then they can waltz in and slaughter them with no problem. The GM does not make more goblins or make stronger goblins--they exist already. There are 30 of them at a set strength. The PCs walked all over them by choice.

Fighter: That was a good combat. Let's fight more giants!

Cleric: No! It's been giants twice in a row. I want some undead.
Rogue: Undead suck! I vote for -- something weak.
Wizard: Dragons! We haven't done dragons for weeks.
Rogue: Yikes!
Fighter: But I don't own a bow. You always want to make me useless.

DM: When you guys figure it out, let me know and I'll dutifully serve up a cakewalk.

Again, that's just such a different game than I'm playing. The world exists already. The PCs interact with it. The PCs choose what to face by, well, by facing it. If they wander into an ancient dragon's den at 1st level, that sucks.

Besides, all this talk of making sure the encounter is challenging is nonsense.

For people that build optimized characters, the challenge is pre-game when they're building the character. They don't need challenge during the game, they already had that fun. During the game, they just watch their superior planning pay off.

Same challenge--different time frame.

Actually, yes, the DM should do that- to a point. It’s his job to make encounters fun & challenging.

I am very much opposed to the "designed encounters" movement that has plagued modern RPGs.

I'm running Pathfinder E6 without any difficulty. If people really want to reach, just make feats to give them specific features. I have an understanding with my group that any mundane ability and any supernatural ability generally in line with the scope and power level of a 3rd level spell will be attainable by feats.

My group right now is a Ranger, a Monk, a Ninja, an Inquisitor, and a Summoner, and it works great. The monk is especially grateful since he loves monks, but knows he'd be useless beyond level 6 ;)

I don't even own a copy. My group has three at the table, but I pretty much just use the PRD. Open Content is awesome.

Because the GM should not do that? Frankly, I don't think the GM should ever be the one picking what the PCs fight, never mind the fact that the other PCs won't have those things, necessarily, so picking enemies to face you screws them over. What you describe in your post sounds like you're playing a very different game than I am.

Durable arrows cost 1gp each and never break. That's 20x the price for a regular breakable arrow. Would it then stand to reason that some craftsman out there might make durable adamantine arrows for 1200gp each, 20x the price of a normal adamantine arrow?

No, durable adamantine arrows can be acquired for 61gp each. It's kind of ridiculous, but it's true. Never buy non-durable arrows ever.

A

Yeah, this argument has so many misconceptions in it, it's hard to respond to them all.

First, Poseiden and Neptune are not the same god from two different cultures. They were two totally different gods with similar portfolios that were syncretized together. Neptune had is own junk going on, but Poseiden had such good stories that the Romans stole them and changed the names.

Second, the notion that Saranrae would change her appearance and weapons and whatever else for different followers shows a lack of understanding of paganism. And that's fair, because D&D has shown a lack of understanding of it from the beginning. Pagans don't worship ONE god. Nobody worships just Saranrae. Sure, you can be a priest of Saranrae, and you are specially dedicated to her, but you still believe in the other gods and still worship them when appropriate. Saranrae wouldn't have a different favored weapon for underwater use because that's not her realm--you'd just be praying to Gozreh at that point.

Likewise, Saranrae wouldn't favor the staff just because you were a pacifist--that's what the Blade of Mercy trait is for. You're actually better off knocking people out with a scimitar than with a staff.

Third, you can't compare any of this to monotheism. It's sweet and all that you think Jesus favors both Roman Catholics and Baptists equally, but they sure as hell don't think he does.

And even if you want to try and conflate that, Christianity is a strike against you because, unless you're a Morman, Jesus only actually stepped foot in one place on Earth: Israel. He didn't show up in Greece wearing a toga, in China wearing silk, in Australia holding a boomerang, etc. He went to one place, and people everywhere else adapted to him, not the other way around.

If a region without scimitars worships Saranrae, my bet is that they'll start making scimitars.

To me, Varisians are Eastern European gypsies, Ulfen are obviously norse, and Chelaxians are French or British depending on whim.

Other people I've played with have insisted that Taldans are Spanish and that Galt is the French place.

Obviously, this doesn't include the obvious ones (Tian is Asia, Mwangi is Africa).

Random encounters are terrible if they are truly random, disconnected nonsense. Most GMs run them this way--just rolling on a chart and throwing in a meaningless battle.

However, Random Encounters are pure gold if handled properly--they should be a jumping off point, not just an extra pile of XP/loot. They should fit into the game's overall story and flesh out the setting more.

Let's say you roll up a bandit attack. Run badly, this is just a random attack by some throwaway dudes the party whips and is done with. Done right, this is the start of an entire bandit related subplot--why are there bandits here? Are they part of a larger organization? Why did they attack such a well armed group of adventurers? Maybe they're desperate? Maybe some local political situation forced people into desperate banditry?

There are endless possibilities if you do it right.

The benefit from it is not that great compared to the drawbacks :

I'm going to change up your list a little:

Pros:
NATURAL REACH!

Cons:
WHO CARES? YOU HAVE NATURAL REACH!

Seriously, the stat bonuses don't matter at all. Reach is the entire point of the spell and why people should always want it. Reach controls the battlefield and either grants extra attacks or prevents the enemies from getting them. It's a huge deal. All the little +1s and -1s are irrelevant compared to that.

Shadow Conjuration is not a conjuration or a summon spell--it's an Illusion--so it works perfectly fine. There's no semantic games necessary.

The penalty it gives can be utterly crippling. The payoff is that you keep getting great non-cleric spells as you level up.

I agree that advancing Haunted is a great idea for the spells, but how could it possibly be crippling for a caster type Oracle?

The problem is that the Divine Spell list is "weak" for a caster character at early levels. Level 1 (and even 2) spells on the Cleric list are really designed for a buff up then wade into melee style. There's no solid control spells that affect more than one target--even the single target control doesn't last longer than a round.

That said, once you hit level 3 spells (and some level 2s), you'll be much better off and feel much more useful as a full time caster.

Misfortune is probably the single best thing you could do to feel helpful early on, but just wait and you'll have your time to shine.

That's an awful lot of work to essentially just say, "Hey, remember that one internet video? Yeah, I remember it."

Should I write four paragraphs about how my party's strategy is to turn away from the microphone when we breathe?

I would guess the FAQ was written by someone who runs darkness like "mplindustries" does, and will be surprised to learn that most people do not.

I've run Darkness this way as long as I've played D&D--way back to the days of AD&D. It seemed like the most obvious way to handle it--otherwise, you're not making darkness, you're just shutting light off.

3) blocks LOS if the light level is "dark" or lower.

#3 is new with the FAQ from last week (I beleave).

I don't think that's new--as I said, I've always read Darkness that way. I think it was perhaps unclear before the FAQ, but it's hardly a rule change.

The bat opening and closing its mouth is a neat idea, but I prefer using Shadow Evocation to cast Deeper Darkness and giving my allies a signal of some kind that it's an illusion. Then we all disbelieve and are unaffected while the enemies flounder in the dark. It's even more awesome with the shadow related metamagic.

Invisibility only gives a +20 to stealth because you can't be seen. With See Invisibility, you can be seen. Therefore, no +20 bonus. It's very simple, and I can't see how you're arguing it could possibly work any other way.

I can't really use the garrote, because I've already established that he likes to do his strangling with his bare hands.

Pedantic point:

Essentially, either this guy was using an object--a garrote would be the most obvious, but any kind of thing like that (a belt, some rope, etc.) could be used--or he was really the Drenchport Choker, which sounds a lot less intimidating for whatever reason.

What's plan B for being useful when combat maneuvers aren't working?

Smartass answer: don't be a monk.

Can the horse be used as a beast or burden with Handle Animal, or is it a horse which will only let you ride it? I'd imagine that it won't fight, but would you need a DC20 Ride check to control it in combat? I guess maybe you could cast the Wartrain Mount spell on the horse from Mount to get a combat capable mount - would that work?

Why wouldn't it fight? It's a horse--it does anything a horse can do, except you command it because it's summoned. If you ordered it to fight, it will fight.

Why yes, this is a significantly better summon spell than Summon Monster I (and maybe even II).

Greater Trip only gives an AoO to allies that are threatening it right now. With Reposition, you can drag them around so that your allies don't have to be so perfectly positioned to get the AoOs.

And yes, enemies are "immune" to trip earlier than they are to Reposition, but honestly, all Combat Maneuvers become worthless late in the game except maybe Grapple and Dirty Trick. They just become worthless at different rates.

Mplindustries, those questions about Haunting Mist have already been asked plenty times. After searching through all the topics I didn't find a definitive answer but there is few things to note about it:

When I searched for Haunting Mist, I found two threads, each with only four posts.

The first was asking about its range--the original poster (and at least one other person) misunderstood what 20' range meant. It obviously must be cast centered on you and it's just a 20' spread from there. Then someone raised the same points I did and the thread died.

The second was someone asking part of what I'm looking for--is the caster immune to the effects. The only person to respond was you. You told them they should have searched because the question had been asked before (even though a search turns up nothing like that now and he says also did not then). Then you suggested the caster had to be immune because: logic.

There is possibly a written mistake in either Will Save section or Spell Descriptor section.

Yes, I believe there is a (Disbelief) tag missing from the Will save. So, shouldn't that be FAQed then, rather than just dismissing the issue?

If the spell is shadow, the target would be able to resist the effects of the spell which include 1d2 Wisdom damage and Shaken condition along with 20% chance for the fog to seem real.

If the spell is a shadow, it's quasi-real, making it less likely that you can disbelieve it. However, it's also a Figment, and being unable to disbelieve it means it hurts the caster.

It's not so good spell currently for the PCs, but you can find some more use with it with NPCs.

It's only not good if there's no mistake. It really seems like there's a mistake, though. I imagine whoever formatted it didn't really know how to convey the correct information. I believe the spell was intended to be partially disbelievable, such that the save entry should read:

"Saving Throw Will partial (disbelief; see text)"

That would mean the mist is quasi-real shadow stuff that affects you no matter what, while the shaken/wisdom damage comes from a figment that can be disbelieved.

As written, though, it affects the caster and their allies equally, because you can't disbelieve it, thus preventing the caster from being immune to his own illusions clause from coming into effect.

I guess if nobody else has further insight on the topic, I'll just start whoring out for FAQ clicks.

My issue with the logic is the same that others have stated earlier in the thread, if the person is sticking the head out of the mist but keeping the body back, the enemy can target the head.

Are you using called shot rules then? Make sure you take the proper penalties for that.

Otherwise, you're making a regular swing at a guy and you know where he is, but can't see all of him--that's pretty much the definition of concealment--so you'd get the 20% miss chance as normal.

Using a Reposition when the enemy attacks you can't really do a whole lot except maybe cancel a flank. When you use it in response to someone attacking an ally at level 4+, it can totally cancel the attack in progress if you reposition him out of reach of your ally.

Beyond that, take a look at how sweet Greater Reposition is--free AoOs for your whole team. Pretty awesome, and ultimately, more useful than the Trip (Trip is only valuable at low levels).

Since he strangled prostitutes, you don't need to make him a dedicated strangling build at all--you can just make him absolutely anything at all as long as he is proficient in the garrote and can reliably grapple level 1 commoners with average stats.

I'm not really sure why this is surprising to people. I've always run Darkness that way and am a little shocked it wasn't the standard.

so how does twin soul work? I mean i can read, but how is that better than just getting a new familiar?

...er, because it essentially combines your and your familiar's HP totals (effectively giving you +50% HP), making it significantly more difficult to kill you for real?

Maybe you're only thinking of it saving your familiar's life by going inside your body--but it works in the other direction, too.

Generally, no. If you start at level 10 or close to it, maybe, since Twin Soul is pretty nice, but all the other abilities are pretty worthless.

Does anyone else have any further insight into this? Should there be a (disbelief) tag in there somewhere or does it really shake and deal wisdom damage to the caster? Should this be FAQed?

You would not know you were Charmed or had some other subtle enchantment cast upon you, but you'd definitely know you were confused--you're rolling to see how you act on a given turn. How could you not be aware of that? And obviously, it would be done on an "act normally" round, otherwise, you'd be too busy doing something else to cast a spell.

I see nothing to indicate that firestorm would last more than one round. There's no duration listed. It seems to me to be an instantaneous duration blast that would only do damage once.

Flame Mystery:

"Firestorm (Su): As a standard action, you can cause fire to erupt around you. You can create one 10-foot cube of fire per oracle level. These cubes can be arranged in any pattern you desire, but each cube must be adjacent to another and one must be adjacent to you. Any creature caught in these flames takes 1d6 points of fire damage per oracle level, with a Reflex save resulting in half damage. This fire lasts for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. You can use this ability once per day. You must be at least 11th level to select this revelation." (emphasis mine)

What about the Growth subdomain?

I'm also curious about this two level dip that the build "requires."

The ability as a whole damages each creature once. If an enemy that takes up multiple squares is in multiple squares of an AoE effect, no matter how little sense it makes, it takes the same damage as anyone else--in your case 11d6.

Someone walking down a hallway full of Firestorm would take the damage once. Someone standing in the hallway would take it once per turn.

SoulGambit0 wrote:

You can break three digits at level 10 fairly easily. Mr. McPistolero and some Fighters is topping over 500 by level 20.

Not really.

It's actually pretty easy to deal triple digit damage by level 10--just not if you're a monk. ;)

My rule is to mentally view that position within a 5ft square always benefits the occupant.

What if it were an area of deeper darkness? Would you allow a creature occupying the edge square of a deeper darkness to 'poke his head out' then attack without penalty?

Yes.

1) Play spellcasters who are not so severely penalized for moving around

2) Play E6 so multiple attacks are not required to contribute

3) Play a different game not designed in such a way that non-magical fighter types (monsters included) have to stand still in order to deal useful damage

I have to admit, I don't really like your set up as much as the books. If the ultimate goal is allowing Yarzoth to be the big bad, I did that by just giving her smarter tactics during the final fight.

Instead of posing as some other crew member that mysteriously ended up in this sealed up room ahead of the PCs, who had been captured before but still somehow managed to slit Yarzoth's throat, she used an actually good disguise.

The PCs were never sure that Ieana was actually Yarzoth or if Yarzoth was just controlling her. Yarzoth fled into the small room as mist, then posed as Ieana, acting helpless but dominated by the serpentfolk. She was begging at the hole in the ceiling, "please, take me with you, mistress!" When the PCs had taken Ieana essentially captive since they thought she was dominated, at some point when in sight of the nearby bay, they caught a glimpse of a smart major image: Yarzoth being eaten by a shark.

From there, Ieana "suddenly snapped out of it" and started telling the PCs about her "harrowing ordeal." Nobody can beat Yarzoth's bluff score at level 3 or 4. Then, she offers to help the PCs with the research they found, since she is a scholar and all, and essentially uses them the whole time to get her to Savith-Yhi.

I'm pretty sure you need to use a cursed item for it to stick to you--otherwise, they'd all just be attached to their creators. The witch could give a cursed item to a PC with beguiling gift as long as the witch didn't use it first.

"The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you."

Barbarian takes 50, transfers 50 to the Cleric.

The Cleric takes half damage (25), and the Paladin and Inquisitor each take the amount of damage not taken by the Cleric.

I hope for the Paladin and Inquisitor's sakes that the party doesn't get hit by a fireball or something...

For reference, Haunting Mist.

1) This is a figment and the mist is explicitly called an illusion, but the save is not noted as a disbelief save. Is that correct? Is it not possible to disbelieve the mist?

2) If it's not possible to disbelieve the mist, then is there any other way to protect your allies from it other than them not standing in it?

3) If it's not possible to disbelieve the mist, then does that mean deals Wisdom damage to you and shakes you? The effect is centered on you, after all.

I really want to like this spell, but it seems like without the (disbelief) tag on that save, it's worse than useless.

Why does the person in the mist not receive penalties? He is looking through the mist as well.

Because he's not looking through mist due to the way "squares" work. I'm not going to argue the point, though, because I think squares are stupid anyway and totally hate using the battlemap, anyway.

I can very easily see a guy standing in mist peeking his head out to attack, though.

mplindustries wrote:

It takes a full round action to set up and then you can't move again unless you want to spend another full round action setting it up. Seems pretty lame to me.

Might make for a really nice execution weapon, though--coup de grace for 8d12...

That's not how I read it -- sorry my underlining skills failed, but this language -- "full-round action to set up the carriage. The carriage has a hind leg, allowing the wielder to wheel the device about and immediately prop it for stability during combat"

This tells me you don't have to use a full-round action every time.

Whereas that tells me that propping it for stability is the description of what is happening while you are spending a full round action.

So, I don't think anyone but you have any idea whatsoever what this character is like in any way, so you really need to give a lot more explanation about him and his abilities, not just a few vague sentences.

There's nothing official, but logically, I'd definitely rule it the way the two GMs did. You get concealment for being in the mist--if you're not in the mist, no concealment. That said, you could only be seen at all by someone at the edge of the mist, since they couldn't see through any squares of mist.

It takes a full round action to set up and then you can't move again unless you want to spend another full round action setting it up. Seems pretty lame to me.

Might make for a really nice execution weapon, though--coup de grace for 8d12...

and what are they good at, illusions and buffing?

Color Spray forever!

From here.

A-ha! I found it! Not really sure why my previous link was broken...

Why would it say "each sound affecting one target (within 30ft)" if they intended to allow it to affect the same target?

Because they don't want you to think that the sounds can affect more than one target each.

So, frustratingly, I can't get the link to his post for some reason, but I found a post where I quoted him and linked to the post.

James Jacobs:
"You can "shoot" 1 sound per level. Effectively, you shoot 1/level d8s at the targets. Each single sound (each d8) affects only one target. You can split those d8s up however you want between as many targets as you want... kind of like how magic missile works. This means you CAN shoot them all at one target... but each one has to make its own touch attack, and each one allows for a Fort save for half damage."

Quote:

You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed by the GM

Ok, so it doesn't mean he's rolling it, it just means before he tells you whether that roll was a success or not?

Right, you roll it, figure out your total, and then you decide to reroll or not before you find out if your total beat the SR.