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

mrofmist's page

154 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Cheapy wrote:

Ah hah, I was right.

From Mr. Brock himself.

You are not right. Direct yourself to the entry for shadow form on this page please. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/eidolons

The editors note states that all evolutions are available to all eidolons, just that the shadow ones are most common for vetchlings. Its silly to believe that only they can have them, eidolons are outsides, their evolutions are not intimately tied to the summoner, unless they are evolutionists.


mplindustries wrote:

Try an experiment:

Remove all racial abilities in the game. Every race, no matter what, just gets a bonus feat and skill point, or whatever you decide. The point is to make every race mechanically identical. Then, allow any race whatsoever. Watch what happens.

I wager you're going to get three major groups of PCs:
1) People indulging fetishes and personal fantasies with their characters (furries or Mary Sue Tieflings, for example)
2) People totally into playing a particular racial stereotype (the boastful, drunk, Scottish/Viking combo Dwarf, for example)
3) Humans

The point is, the vast, vast majority of people are choosing weird races for their mechanics. I have literally never seen a Human in AD&D, for example, because they got absolutely nothing racially except a higher max level cap which everyone ignored anyway.

I don't do this even in the slightest. My first concern when I pick a race is what I want to roleplay.


LazarX wrote:
mrofmist wrote:
He's a spell book caster like a wizard, so it seems that he could.

Yes, but unless you're one of those really weird archetypes, it's a totally rubbish move to make. You have your arcane pool to pull spells out of your book at later levels, but you should be picking spells suitable for your combat style, as you don't use magic for any other reason. Heck my magus doesn't even prepare detect magic, unless she's the only caster in a group.

You are a combat mage, not a support caster. You use your spells to fight, so you really aren't going to be the one to have 15 minutes to screw around with your book. Presumably you've selected your spells with some idea what you were going to fight. Also there are spells that are useful no mattter WHO you're fighting.

Well, I'm playing the kingmaker campaign right now, so I rarely know what we're going to encounter, or what I will need to prepare. Its a tough campaign for a prepared caster.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

He's a spell book caster like a wizard, so it seems that he could.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Phrofet wrote:

This question is probably going to make some people angry but I am curious. Why did Paizo decide to release the Mythic style content instead of Epic (lvl 21+) content?

On a note I PERSONALLY do not care for Mythic. The reason being is that I felt that Pathfinder was sort of a overpowered 3.5 and I was hesitant to start playing it for that reason and finally started playing it in the last year. Mythic just seems like an overpowered Pathfinder. Now I understand there is nothing wrong with that and some of possibilities ARE interesting. I was just curious why Paizo decided to release this instead of making rules for play beyond lvl 20 which do require all their own rules as the basic D20 system does start to break down after a certain point.

I also understand a lot of people do not like Epic (I personally am of two minds; its nice to sometimes see that character I have been leveling for 15-20 lvls keep going on to new adventures but it can get a bit ridiculous at times) but the possibility of continuing existing characters or having an adventure of Mythic like proportions (sorry bad word play pun) is nice.

So was there any particular reason this decision was made?

Pathfinder is not an overpowered 3.5. I was able to get 15+ attacks a turn at a 10+ modifier at lvl 8 in 3.5, by stating prestige classes from books that were nigh unheard of. You can't do that in pathfinder. Pathfinder may be a little bumped up in power, but so are the monsters. And they removed all the loopholes and lvl stacking choices from 3.5. I'm sorry that you view it that way, I would suggest you reevaluate your views. Go read the disscusions on the matter.


Hmm, you may be right on the first note, I may have just assumed.

I still have to support my thought on the second one. Throwing an extract would open it upon shattering.


Quote:
Wis 17 +3
Quote:
Will +8 ( Base 2, Wis +4, Duel minded +2)

Wut?


Bearded Ben wrote:
Reach Weapons wrote:
A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons wrote:

A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

So can a medium character use a small reach weapon one handed and still gain the benefits of reach?

Also, if you could somehow wield a large reach weapon, what would you threaten?

Actually, if you look at the section that talks about the size of items. It says a two handed item is the same size category of the user, a one-hander is 1 size category smaller, a light weapon is 2 size categories smaller.

So a Longspear made for a small sized creature is the same size category, small. Which makes it equivalent to a medium sized creatures spear.

So, no. A small-sized longspear is a medium-sized spear, and a large-sized javelin.


Brotato wrote:
Grick wrote:

Dervish Dance exists mostly to enable a specific type of in-world build associated with a specific deity and type of fighting popularized by her followers... it's unlikely we'll do the same for rapiers or any other weapon.

In fact... if "Every Dex build" is indeed taking the feat, that argues to me that it's too good of a feat in the first place and should probably have tougher prerequisites.

James also said here that a feat to add Dex to finesse weapon damage was too good.

Dervish Dance is a VERY good feat, and in this case, as far as scimitar use is concerned, the Weapon Finesse prerequisite is almost a tax. You can still use Weapon Finesse on other legal weapons, of course, but Weapon Finesse NEVER directly helps you with a scimitar. Dervish Dance is the only feat in that short chain that actually helps you with scimitar fighting.

Weapon Finesse isn't useless to your character, since you can still use it on things like daggers or rapiers or other Weapon Finessable weapons, but yes, it's no use for your scimitar fighting at all other than to help you qualify for the feat you want.

allowing a melee character to concentrate ALL of his mojo on Dex rather than splitting that between Dex and Str is relatively huge. A feat like this NEEDS to have a price, in other words.

I'll never agree with JJ on this. There is already a price for the feat, the inability to attack with *anything* other than that one weapon if you want that Dex to damage, according to JJ himself.

If he actually just...

His point is, if you allowed the feat to affect any finessable weapon, no one would ever build str. Period. Str as a stat only affects melee to hit and damage, and cmb/cmd. Dexterous maneuvers removes one. If you allow dex to add to damage, than str becomes a worthless stat.

Getting reflex save, AC, initiate, to-hit, and damage from one stat is stupid. It makes dex to most important thing in the game for anyone except two-handed builds.


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

I've been homebrewing a him with the ARG

Here he is, def non-playable.

THE DOCTOR CR 19
Male Gallifreyian Rogue 20
CG Medium Outsider (Native)
Init +3; Senses Darkvision; Perception +28

He would have resistance to death effects from Two Hearts. It occurs in one episode where an effect causes everyone arounds heart to stop, but he's able to continue functioning do to having 2.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Ultimate Magic, pg. 19 wrote:
Bottled Ally: At 2nd level... He adds summon nature's ally I to his formula book as a 1st-level extract. When he prepares that extract, he actually prepares a tiny, preserved specimen in a bottle... When the alchemist opens the bottle, the specimen animates and grows to normal size, serving the preservationist as per the spell and otherwise being treated as a summoned creature....
Advanced Player's Guide, pg. 27 wrote:
Alchemy (Su):... An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist's possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping... Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work....
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, pg. 183 wrote:

Table 8-2: Actions in Combat

Standard Action..........Attack of Opportunity
...
Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil..........No
...
Use a supernatural ability..........No

Move Action..........Attack of Opportunity
...
Retrieve a stored item..........Yes

Based on the text above, a preservationist prepares a bottled ally as an extract, taking 1 minute. When the preservationist wants to "summon" a bottled ally, they have to retrieve the bottle (a move action that triggers an attack of opportunity) and then open the bottle (a standard action that does not trigger an attack of opportunity). The ally would appear adjacent to the preservationist (since the extract "becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist's possession," it can't be thrown).

I'm pretty sure that alchemist's retrieve and use as a standard action.

Also, get the discovery that makes your extracts last even when you aren't holding them, Imbue Extract I believe. Then you can throw it.


asthyril wrote:

is it allowed to take 20 on sleight of hand checks to hide items on your person?

i am of the opinion that you can. after each attempt, you could then yourself (or an ally) take 20 on a perception check to notice them, if they do, you just try again, over and over until you get them as difficult to spot as possible. this would technically take longer, but i'm just using it as an example as to how it is possible to do with no real penalty for failure.

and in the same vein i think it would be possible to take 20 on a stealth check to wait in ambush for someone for the same reasons as above (assuming you would have ample time to hide yourself, and knew when and where your target was coming)

Don't call it taking a 20, just tell him that you are going to do it over and over again for the next 20 turns, until you get a 20. If you can make it make sense when described like that, I would say that taking a 20 should be allowed.


Evershifter wrote:
OP's post

The way to type exponents is a = πr^2


Roberta Yang wrote:
mrofmist wrote:

It's based in math though. The diagonal of a 1 inch square is 1.5 inch. Since there isn't a feasible way to calculate a half-inch is d20 then every other square is worth 2.

What you're allowing is for someone to move 9 squares (distance equivalent) with a 6 square movement speed. In your game I would never move straight.

It's actually closer to 1.4 inches, which means that under the official Pathfinder rules, it's "slower" in the long run to move diagonally than to move straight.

But generally your objective isn't "cover as much Euclidean distance in as little time as possible", and it's not like you can re-orient the grid at will to spontaneously treat the direction you want to go as diagonal. In a game where each diagonal move only costs a single move, you still wouldn't always move diagonally because diagonally wouldn't always take you where you want to go.

I find this irrelevant to the point I was displaying.

You could just play a rogue that would focus on indirect movement, like a scout.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ecaterina Ducaird wrote:

My .02?

They are not magic shovels and tankards as weapons (out of the box and standard) because those items are 'tools' not 'weapons'. If you can afford to fork out the several thousand worth of GP to make a item masterwork and a +2 equiv enchantment on it to make it a 'weapon', you probably want to do it with something that is a weapon to begin with and designed to actually hurt people, not hold your beer.

Why is there no greatswords of digging? Same reason. You use a tool for that, not a weapon.

Might there be 'magic weapon tools' out there.... can't see why not, but they aren't going to be purpose built by someone. A shovel might be have been imbued with necromantic energy over the years spent in a restless graveyard, or with wild energy from being used to tend a druidic grove. A mug might be a gift from Cayden Cailean that is imbued with his chaotic essence (and is always full). A mug might have been used by a king to defend himself against an ambush and saved his life years ago and become a minor historical artefact to a country, imbuing it with improved ability against whatever race ambushed him in the first place.

But that's the only way I see those things coming about. Hand of fate kind of objects rather than purpose built. You ask a magician to enchant your shovel and your probably going to get some odd looks and they may actually tell you to bugger off (who wants their name associated with a shovel? There's no prestige in having your name associated with a shovel, because heroes don't use shovels).

My 2 cents. Why aren't there greatswords of digging or +2 vorpal forks? Because this is a story based roleplaying game. Just an optimization fest. NPC's and in-game people don't think of their character sheets when making gear.

Just like the longbow revolutionized markmanship, but it wasn't the norm, so people never made it. The shortbow was the norm, it didn't occur to them to make something outside of that.

D20 has become too optimized, people have to have high dpr, have to have gear that sync's perfectly with their char sheets.

My group does none of this and we still tackle CR's 3-4 higher than our lvl because we play intelligently. We use the environment, we use teamwork. That's how it's done. Not by giving the courtesan rogue the +2 vorpal fork, a high bluff and sleight of hand, and improved crit (fork.)

You can do that, and sure it's neat, but it serves such a limited purpose. So yes, it's 300g cheaper, yes it's more optimized for the same purpose as a dagger. You guys remember that you're roleplaying a character that doesn't know all of this right? At least not like you do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:

I dislike that moving diagonally isn't always 5ft of movement. I houserule that in my games.

I also wish I could have back the HOURS of my life lost waiting for people to calculate their movement using the standard rules for diagonals.

It's based in math though. The diagonal of a 1 inch square is 1.5 inch. Since there isn't a feasible way to calculate a half-inch is d20 then every other square is worth 2.

What you're allowing is for someone to move 9 squares (distance equivalent) with a 6 square movement speed. In your game I would never move straight.


The Terrible Zodin wrote:
Quote:


F = MA^2 Force = Mass X acceleration squared

So yea, I'm not sure there is a way to do falling damage realistically.

I promised myself I wouldn't get into this, but I am weak willed.

First, F=MA. There is no squared. Second, in either case, since M is a constant (for the falling object) and A is a constant (for short enough distances), F is always the same number, regardless of the distance fallen.

In Pathfinder, the way we measure falling damage is through the distance fallen. Damage is the result of energy and E=mgh. Therefore, falling damage is a function of distance fallen (with the caveat that it maxes out at 200 feet).

Totally correct sorry, I was thinking about e = 1/2ma


Dust Raven wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
2) Falling damage should go up geometricly. A 10 foot drop does 1D6 damage. A 20 foot drop does 1D6 * 1D6 or 1-36 damage in excessive realism.
Since damage, or rather, loss of hit points, doesn't actually represent actual structural damage or injury, falling damage can be pretty much anything and remain "realistic".

Well, really damage would need to be based on the force imparted into the ground and as an equal and opposite reaction into your body. Which is not a question of distance.

F = MA^2 Force = Mass X acceleration squared

So the first change to occur to make it realistic would be adjust damage dice to accommodate for changes in mass or size category.

Then the much more important change would be for the acceleration of the falling object, which is why distance doesn't matter too much. The acceleration of a falling object is the pull of gravity (32.2ft/s /s)

Since the majority of force comes from acceleration, you would have to base the number of dice solely off the distance traveled to allow for speed.

The character, let's say a medium sized character would fall 32.2ft in the first second of falling, so 1d6? Then in the next second of falling he will fall 64.4ft for a total of 96.6ft. So how many d6 would that be? Since acceleration is the majority of force and the character still has fairly little acceleration, he would still have fairly little force.

Now 1d6 per 10ft can be realistic, say should the creature land poorly. In emergency medicine we consider any fall in excess of twice the height of the patient, to be a life threatening fall. But that is assuming that the patient landed poorly on hard ground. We've seen people fall far enough to reach terminal velocity 183.7ft/s and live through it. Usually with severe injuries, but once with little to no injuries (she fell from a plane and landed in trees.)

So yea, I'm not sure there is a way to do falling damage realistically.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
calagnar wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

To save some screen space I put the build in spoilers.

Out of curiosity, which curse did you choose?

You're short four 1st-level spells and one 2nd-level spell. You can't cast any 5th level spells (and you would have one too many anyway).

Your DPR for CR 9 creatures: 15.26. You can take out the creature in 7 to 8 rounds before you buff but power attacking.

Buffing will certainly change all of that but will you be able to buff enough fast enough? How many rounds do you need? You have at least two spells chosen for buffs. Let's assume you don't get to attack until round 3. Now your DPR is 22.14 which means you need about 5 rounds which is pretty much means not much...

You are mistaken sir, take note at the top. though it's a bit hidden, he does state this is a lvl 10 character. And thus does get his 5th lvl spells.


Abandoned Arts wrote:

Hi, folks.

Abandoned Arts wants to know what sorts of products you'd like to see published. Archetypes? Class options? Bestiary products? Pregenerated NPCs? Pregenerated encounters? Magic items? Cursed items? Artifacts? Feats? Spells? Races? Adventure paths? Campaign worlds?

Tell us what you'd like to see, and the first 100 eligible posters will receive a free copy of one of the following Class Acts PDFs, from Abandoned Arts

Class Acts: Fighters
Class Acts: Clerics
Class Acts: Rogues
Class Acts: Wizards
Class Acts: Barbarians
Class Acts: Druids
Class Acts: Rangers
Class Acts: Witches

In order to be "eligible" for your free PDF you simply need to have been a forum member for at least as long as this thread has been around (i.e. you must have a post history predating this thread). Author a post describing the sorts of products you'd like to see and the free PDF (from the list above) that you'd like to receive.

Abandoned Arts' administrative demigoddess Rielle Gordon will be monitoring the thread (and so will I) and issuing your PDFs. Allow at least a few days for Rielle and the Paizo staff to get your item out to you.

Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts

from the list given i would prefer cursed items.


Andrew R wrote:
Harrison wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
No beard, that would mark him as an outsider to most dwarves
Even if it was a stylish goatee?
eunuchs lack facial/body hair

that's untrue. Studies show that eunuch's are actually even more likely to be hairy then normal men, because they lack the hormone that causes baldness.

If he were castrated before puberty, which I don't plan on, then he woudl be less hairy, but still have body hair, just very very delayed.


Cheapy wrote:
They added the Lite PDFs for this reason...

O.O I wasn't aware. There wasn't an option for UC that i remember. Do you mean the chapter separated download? If so, they still have the same problem. It isn't that the pdf's are too large, it's that the individual pages are too complex. The reader's have trouble loading them.


I love the complex, multi-layered pdf's that are currently being made. They are great, but... they are also a little too much.

Seriously, trying to read these books on an iphone is not undoable, it just takes a little while. Where-as trying to view them on an ebook reader, or similar lower quality tablet is near impossible, it can take up to 45 secs or more to load each page.

What I'd love is a more compressed, less layered version of the pdf's. Something that would load easier on weaker devices. Is this doable?


Making a Dwarf eunuch, likely used as a guard for women. Presumably in Jalmarey or a similar setting. He'll be a monk, likely master of many styles, or flowing monk. I'll also probably dip into the build-a-monk-workshop in Ultimate Magic.

Anyways I'm thinking of more physical appearance. I've read up, and unlike the media belief eunuch do not tend to be hairless. Actually they are quite the opposite, they tend to never go bald. Mostly due to the lack of hormones that cause male baldness.

Now that doesn't change cultural belief's. I would figure he was bought and raised as a slave. Eventually he would get away, not escape, likely the lord that owned him would either be killed or be shamed and his holdings stripped. His new owner, likely prejudice of Dwarves for being a non-pretty race, would dismiss him.

How would other dwarves see him? I figure he would keep his beard trimmed short, never growing much longer than an adolescent. He likely would not share much with his race and be treated as a child when he is around them.

Any thoughts?


Making a Dwarf eunuch, likely used as a guard for women. Presumably in Jalmarey or a similar setting. He'll be a monk, likely master of many styles, or flowing monk. I'll also probably dip into the build-a-monk-workshop in Ultimate Magic.

Anyways I'm thinking of more physical appearance. I've read up, and unlike the media belief eunuch do not tend to be hairless. Actually they are quite the opposite, they tend to never go bald. Mostly due to the lack of hormones that cause male baldness.

Now that doesn't change cultural belief's. I would figure he was bought and raised as a slave. Eventually he would get away, not escape, likely the lord that owned him would either be killed or be shamed and his holdings stripped. His new owner, likely prejudice of Dwarves for being a non-pretty race, would dismiss him.

How would other dwarves see him? I figure he would keep his beard trimmed short, never growing much longer than an adolescent. He likely would not share much with his race and be treated as a child when he is around them.

Any thoughts?


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Quote:

Quote:

It is not considered proficient in any manufactured weapons.

If it was proficient beforehand it is now no longer considered proficient. If they wanted it to say the spell doesn't grant proficiency then it would say that. This line specifically states the target is not proficient with weapons after it's cast.

Big difference.
Everyone assumes this spell is a beneficial spell but the Fort save and spell resistance really show how this is more of an aggressive attack spell you use on your opponents Animals. Strip em of all their combat abilities and give them the ability to talk and understand you. THEN interrogate them. As stupid as an int 3 creatures is you can get all the info they have with no chance of deception.

Finally as for the share spells line, as written it only allows you to share spells with your companion if it is considered type=Animal. If you want to use it on a leech you'll need to take the Vermin Heart feat before you can use it.

Anyway, your interpretation of how this spell works may or may not fly with your GM but since we don't know him we can only go by the RAW interpretation of the spell.
That's one of the reasons we have both an advice group (for questions on ideas on how to do what you want) and a Rules group to discuss exactly how the rules say things work.
Here in the Rules group RAW is king and by Raw this spell strips your companion of 90% of what makes him useful.

No, I'm sorry, I have to call you here. A spell/effect never takes away or replaces any part of your character sheet unless specifically stated. this only says that they are not considered proficient. It does not say, "The are not considered proficient (including losing previous proficiencies should they exist)"

Also, many primarily beneficial spells have saves and spell resistance, should they be used offensively. A better thing to note is that the large majority of spells that can be made permanent or only beneficial in nature.

I'm starting to see a trend in your posts here. You provide little RAW references. Also most of your challenges seem to be justified only because you don't like the overall idea, which you have voiced in some way or another in each post you have made. That makes your responses opinion, and not very helpful to the overall question.

These may be the ways you would run and prefer your games. But that's not what OP is asking for. Please stick only with RAW references and/or Dev citations. Thank you.


magnuskn wrote:
Derringer wrote:

Magnuskn it is unfair to claim that the OP is a lone crazy voice in the wilderness. The web is generally dominated by a vocal minority.

I rarely post on the boards, but I have played all the way through Shackled City, Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, Carrion Crown, and now am in Jade Regent. I have also DMed Second Darkness and Shackled City.

I have played every edition of D&D since the original basic set. I am with one group that would not go near 4th edition and another separate group that gave it a shot. I have seen plenty of powergers in both groups and could be called one myself sometimes.

So, when I say I rarely have had a problem with anything being "broken" in Pathfinder, it is coming from a position with a reasonable amount of experience. That is not to say it is never an issue, but it has never ruined a campaign.

I agree with northbrb, and I bet a lot of other people do as well, even if they don't post on the boards.

The problem is that saying "could it be that all of you are wrong?" from the perspective of someone who had the simple luck of playing with people who don't abuse the system is just myopic. Yeah, you and the OP had good luck. Lots of us did not and we point out parts of the system which can be easily abused.

I have two groups. One is much more moderate with their characters and the system seems perfectly in tune with what they do. My other group has players who are much more into optimizing and suddenly the system begins to show visible cracks.

Telling me that I am wrong because it never happened to you is what is extremely rude.

Opinions must counter other opinions. And they must be voiced. The fact that you find him stating his opinion to be rude is childish and simply ridiculous.


tridiak wrote:

I have written a random spell generator for the iPad. It incorporates metamagic feats.

Home page : http://tridiak.co.nz/SpellGen.html

Note : I have asked permission to advertise.

Have a nice day.

I can't find the download link.


Vuvu wrote:
Thanks guys. Interesting, really makes for high powered games I would imagine.

It's good for game that only have 2-3 players, but call for 4-5.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I am of the opinion that the PCs should get XP whether they win or lose. In this case, I'd grant full XP. You can learn just as much from doing your best and losing as you can from winning, so your PCs should get the XP they'd have gotten if they'd won.

This.

@bramble
No exp is not a measure of what did you defeat. Xp is experience. Period.

You gain experience by experiencing different things, in this case the party experienced the full fight and thus gain full xp. The lack of the kill is irrelevant, now they just have an enemy that will eventually return.


Raymond Lambert wrote:
some stuff

I use my iTouch. it's a very effective reader.


master arminas wrote:

Except for a lower cap on speed (60' vs 90'), the ability to prevent only half the damage from a fall, the lack of any healing abilities, the inability to dimension door or become etherereal, the loss of immunity to disease and poison, the loss of spell resistance, etc., etc.

Other than that, Helaman, it sacrifices nothing! LOL

I didn't want to front-load the class too much, CaspianM. Any earlier, and it might be a good choice for a dip, but having to invest 7 levels to get flurry with a single martial weapon is a bit too much for most dippers.

Master Arminas

It gains a massive amount though. So I agree with Helaman. Nothing is really sacrificed. Most lost abilities are equally replaced, and replaced by something better. It gains full BAB and higher HD.

It's a better class. Needs to be toned down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:
WhipShire wrote:
You will really blow a gasket with this one (Dragon's Ferocity)

No I won't, like I said earlier, I won't even look at these things anymore -- and sure as hell won't let them in my game.

Instead I'll pat myself on the back for swearing to not buy the UC back when they first announced they were gonna publish it in a year hence -- and let everyone else know not to buy one.

I guess the only thing that really sucks about this is I lose some respect for Paizo.

Actually, UC is one of the better books they've made. Martial character have always been weak, even in 3.5. That's why the tier 1 classes were Wizard, Druid, Cleric, and Archivist. And UM made casters better.

UC finally gave martial's the love they needed and have never gotten. Honestly, if you don't like it, it's probably because you're playing a caster. UC always martial's to stand up late game and early game to the massive power that a caster has.


Madclaw wrote:
I'm gonna add the fact that in no WotC book for 3e or 3.5 or Paizo does there exist any stats for deer or elk. The closest thing I have ever seen is dire reindeer in Frostburn.

Elk

Megaloceros

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 50 ft.; AC +3 natural armor, Attack gore (1d8); Ability Scores Str 12, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 5; Special Abilities low-light vision, scent.

7th-Level Advancement.: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack gore (2d6), 2 hooves (1d4)*; Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Qualities powerful charge (2d6).

* This is a secondary natural attack, see Combat for more information on how secondary attacks work.


Nickademus42 wrote:
Just have the spell summon a specific minor creature once per hour. If the creature dies, it is unable to summoned for 24 hours. That should bottleneck the abuse.

What abuse? I'm missing it. Even at level 20 you could only have 20 such beings summoned. Which is not a lot. And not even even close to enough to form a swarm.

They are weak and insignificant creatures. What potential for abuse is there?


TOZ wrote:
Pretty sure you're not crazy.

Might be crazy


the David wrote:

It seems like the original post is missing, but that won't stop me from asking:

Why? I once tried to compare a Half-Orc Ranger wielding a Orc Double Axe with a Dwarven Ranger wielding 2 Dwarven waraxes. Guess what? Half-Orc wins.

You'll get a -4/-4 penalty at least. (Not sure about using a greatsword 1 handed, though I'm pretty sure it's impossible)

So I'll ask again, why?

Also, no original post, just felt like sharing.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
You might wish to consider barbarian (titan mauler) 2/fighter (either mobile fighter or two-weapon warrior) 2/ranger 6/fighter +10. The big benefit of ranger 6 is to take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting without needing a 17+ Dex, allowing you to focus more on Str; most of the Two-Weapon Fighting feats only require a 15+ Dex. Favored Enemy or Ranger's Focus (guide archetype) are nice, too. The ability to cast lead blades on yourself is just icing on the cake.

I'll think about it, but he ends up being pretty beefy. He takes no negatives for TWF-ing great swords. The -2 for jutongrip gets alleviated by weapon focus, and the -4 for the TWF becomes a -2 from the two weapon warrior abilities, which later on alleviate the rest of the TWF penalties.

But I'll look at the other two options and compare them together.


Just wanted to share that. He takes a bit to start getting good, and has a bit of trouble hitting until level 14-ish. But at lvl 20 his dpr is 283.22. Fighter 18 (two weapon arch), barbarian 2 (titan mauler).


Count_Rugen wrote:

Let's say Sorcerer Joe, using Silent Spell, Eschew Materials, and Still Spell, decides to cast Charm Person on Tony during a conversation they're having. Let's assume his spell fails to charm Tony.

First off, I'm assuming Joe gets a surprise initiative round to start off with?

Secondly, does Tony know he's almost had a spell cast on him? And if he does, would he know it's Joe who tried? Would Tony even roll initiative?

Thirdly, and most importantly, does Joe know whether or not his spell worked? Or would he have to interact with Tony in some way (even just viewing his nonverbal behavior) to "tell" he was charmed?

By rules as written, no answer. By "rules as omitted" on the other hand, take a look at the Master Spy prestige class. They get an ability that lets them trick a caster into believing that the master spy is charmed or dominating, when they actually passed their save. So although it's not written in stone, the rule is clearly there. Caster knows when spell has failed.


Fatespinner wrote:
Hatin' on s&+#...

I don't dislike any class. I would play them all and enjoy the roleplay. That's what we play this game for, right? The roleplay?


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Stuff about a clock or something....

I really like this, it has great flavor and seems just the right power level for a major artifact, without being too broken.


Joseph Caubo wrote:

From a purely RAW standpoint, I would say the robes are not available for that type of enhancement. This either needs to come from armor or bracers of armor.

And the 'body' slot is completely separate from the 'armor' slot. Scroll down to the "Magic Items on the Body" section.

Dude! Seriously!?

And both of those are seperate from the Chest slot...... So much stacking that I did not realize was possible...


wraithstrike wrote:

The formula is hd+tchd. This can be expressed as hd(1+tc)

Another way to write it is h(d+s)+tchd.

h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

The link to the excel sheet is here

I have never worked it by hand, but when I use the excel sheet I am normally no more than .1 or .2 away from what other people get when they do it the hard way. It is no harder than any physics formulas I have done though so I am sure I could do it if I had too.

Awesome, thank you very much. It works perfectly.


Could someone post me the current DPR formula that's being used.

Also, could someone explain generally how to do the formula. I remember trying way back when, thought I had everything right, and ended up getting a very incorrect number.


bigkilla wrote:
Brambleman wrote:
did you take Extra Revelation too many times?
that was the other question I forgot to ask.

Honestly, I'm a fairly easy going DM. If one of my players ran out of class abilities due to the "extra" feats, which I guess would only be oracle. Then I would likely begin to refund the feats, once he gained the Revelations naturally. I don't want him to be behind the party just because he wanted to focus more on his class features.


Evershifter wrote:
stuff about rolls

A good way to steeamline it, is to have the narrrators carry around clear pill boxes or tackle boxes filled with dice. So that when they roll for you, all bases are coverd.


Alzrius wrote:

The newest article on Intelligence Check examines how there are some rules in the Pathfinder Core Rules that tend to be ignored by players and GMs because they're considered bad form to use. We examine several parts of the game that work perfectly well in play, and have been around for forever, but still tend to get labelled "dick moves."

We also present a new rule, and take a fresh look at an old one. Check it out here: When Playing by the Rules is a Dick Move

In my games, the agree'd upon rule has always been, "I won't use any nasty tricks unless you use them first."

Go ahead, counter my spell, you'll start getting countered too. Use a save or die spell, the nme's will too.

That way it stays fair for the players, always only equal give and take.


James Jacobs wrote:
Kieviel wrote:
Pretty sure JJ has said that there is no problem with Paladins becoming Hellknights. Don't have the source off the top of my head but I know I've read it.

He has.

Paladins can be Hellknights.

Pathfinder #27 and #28 have extensive articles about Hellknights, and details on how paladins can be in that organization are included.

The short version: There are many different Hellknight orders. Most are lawful neutral, but some are lawful good and some are lawful evil.

The "classic" Hellknight paladin would be kind of like Judge Dredd—a no-nonsense "I AM THE LAW" protector of said law who focuses more on the opposition of chaos than he does on the opposition of evil.

Anyway... Hellknights don't all exist to glorify hell. In fact, very few of them actually would say "Hell is something I approve of." Their main role is to protect the law of the land—but they're not actually members of the land's government. Think of them as mercenary law-keepers, I guess.

Thank you very much, you are my hero man. Though I swear you spend more time on these forums then off them :) Not that that's a bad thing.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Yes.

If a Paladin has to decide whether to be lawful or to be good he has to choose good.

When a Helknight has to decide whether to be lawful or to be good he has to choose lawful.

Oh I never said it wouldn't be a conflicting concept, just a possible one. And from RAW yes it's possible. And would likely be one of the funnest characters. You choose Law over Good and you may have to seek attonement. You choose Good over Law and you may have to answer to your order.

I want to do this.

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.