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

ub3r_n3rd's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 886 posts (923 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 886 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Parties can have neutral/good and 1 evil who is hiding his motives or is perhaps lawful evil and has given their word to not hinder the party, but with this particular party make-up a LG paladin will die most horribly as the others sit back and laugh at him.


Your paladin making friend is being a complete Richard. Normally I like some intraparty intrigue, but this is head and shoulders above any kind of intrigue he's going to either fall hard or there will be death from PvP as the evil character kill off his paladin. Really a stupid move on his part. He should have gone with an AntiPaladin or maybe even a LE Hellknight if he wants something of that flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:

From the perspective of the PCs, they were up against an unknown number of invisible enemies, they did kill one pretty easily but just could not reach the others (in fact could not even detect them and apparently did not hurt them). It would stand to reason that they felt overwhelmed and that this was all a trap encounter that they had zero chance to win. Especially since they had no reason to believe that all of their attackers were similar to the one they killed, quite the opposite.

You know that it was not so because you are the GM and you know the truth of the encounter. The players do not. And the PCs even less.

I play and GM so I have to disagree with you here.

The problem arises when players think that they should know everything about anything that they fight. The game doesn't always work like. Sure they may have felt overwhelmed not knowing how many invisible creatures they were facing, but that's precisely the point. There are times players can brute force bust faces and times when they have to be more tactical and know when to back off and come back another day to play.

When I GM I tell my players up front that there are areas in the world where they can get TPK'd pretty easily such as them knowing the location of an ancient red dragon that has been on a rampage. They can choose to try their luck at any time, but they know they will die unless they are prepared.

The problem here is that with this level of encounter players know enough about the world to be more prepared to face invisible foes. The fault does not lie with the GM and the game he has prepared, it moves into the players' corner and them going in with enough spells or not even having something as simple flour to toss out on the ground.


Read the first couple of posts, but my 2 coppers is that your player needs to grow up. That's a very immature way of looking at this encounter. Nobody died, it wasn't a TPK and just because he wasn't the star of the show the first time around doesn't make it an unfair encounter. You played it perfectly with your hit and run tactics against a party that SHOULD have been better prepared for invisible creatures, especially at their level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

Inquisitor is an incredibly solid class, but broken isn't a word I would use to describe it. Inquisitor is nice because it was built solidly enough that a player can explore a lot of different aspects of the game while playing, and has a certain buffer protecting them from making too many mistakes; compare that to a monk who can go really wrong, really fast with just a few bad choices.

I've never seen someone roll up to a table and say "Hey, tonight I'm playing an Inquisitor!" and have the statement received with anything other than acceptance, which I think speaks pretty well of the class. I'm of the opinion that the Inquisitor is one of the most mechanically "perfect" classes out there, able to shape to fit a variety of party rolls, perfectly self-sufficient, and with some good options for contributing to party resources. I think the fact that it's comparatively hard to screw up and very easy to customize/optimize to fit a number of combat and social roles can create this "Isn't that class too strong?" impression; when you see the same class represented as a rampaging rage-priest of Gorum, a mage-slaying pistol wielder, and a Repeating Crossbow wielding sniper the range of the class can seem really potent. And it is, but it's not like you're all of those things at once. And it won't be unseating any other class from their preferred niche (i.e. unlikely to out-tank a Fighter, out-damage a Barbarian, out-heal/buff a cleric, or even out-skill a Rogue) or ruining any games, or detracting from anyone else's fun, or even touching a 9-level progression caster in how thoroughly they can subvert a campaign's intended plot, so definitely not broken.

Quoted for absolute truth. I could not have said it any better.


Actually with the Noble Scion PrC you get:

Greater Leadership (Ex)

At 2nd level, a noble scion gains the Leadership feat as a bonus feat. He can recruit a cohort up to one level lower than himself. At 10th level, he can recruit a cohort of the same level as himself.

Servitor (Ex)

At 7th level, a noble scion gains a faithful NPC servitor of the same level as his cohort granted by the Leadership feat. This servitor can only have levels in NPC classes and comes equipped with gear appropriate for a character 1 level lower than the servitor's actual level. The servitor does not follow the noble scion as would a cohort or follower, but instead can run various errands for his master while the noble scion is adventuring, such as delivering messages or maintaining the scion's manor in his stead.


What I'd say is that he has a slight green or grey tint to his skin naturally, maybe his ears are a little bit pointed and he's got a bigger build than a normal human. The reason to take the feat is to DISGUISE himself as a full human by using make-up, hats, and clothing to hide that he's a half-orc. Otherwise there is definitely something that others recognize in him that tips them off to his mixed heritage.


Spastic Puma wrote:

Here's the situation: I'm running Kingmaker right now and we're starting the third book. The players are level 7. The party is...

-A Fire/Healing Cleric of Sarenrae (Queen of the kingdom)
-An Inquisitor of Gorum who wields a spiked chain
-An Aquatic bloodline Sorcerer
-A bow-wielding Ranger

And one cranestyle monk that makes my job as GM quite challenging.

You see, I've always considered myself pretty good at encounter balance. But this monk is a huge problem when it comes to keeping the game challenging and fun. Behold my dilemma:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

I haven't read though the entire thread, but I still want to give my 2 coppers here.

The problem here isn't the "OP MONK" it's your thinking that he's OP. Now before you get offended let me explain why I say this.

First off the only thing this PC is good for is being a punching bag, he is all bark without any bite whatsoever. You as the GM need to think up other things that will challenge him. Examples are things like introducing high AC minions into the game that do static damage and only have 1 hit point, have them run around keeping the monk occupied while the other members of the party deal with the real threats. Ignore him completely as he doesn't have any real power behind his hits so everyone will just sit there and laugh at him as he flails about and spins about like a ballerina. Use skill challenges that work against his weaker areas that he isn't trained in, use snipers and sharp shooters to target him from afar. Go after his Touch AC instead of his normal AC, things that deny his dexterity bonus and make him flat footed. Use invisible foes.

The point is, YOU need to think outside the box here my friend. You are the one in control of the game world and it is up to you to become a better GM and challenge your players. This is a three dimensional game and the more you think outside the stat blocks the better it will be fore everyone who plays.


Very cool. Yeah I just heard about it today in another forum I'm a member of and I just couldn't pass it up. I'm now in for $100 to get the core and 2 of the $20 terrain maps.

Only 2 minutes to go for any late comers!


Sitting at less than 30 minutes and a new stretch goal was just added if we hit $18k! Quick go tell all your friends and get in on this thing guys and gals. It's pretty awesome if you think about it.


I just backed this project on KS called Map Flats and thought I'd share with my fellow RPG enthusiasts. It ends at 12:51 pm PST today (12/4/13) so less than an hour when I'm posting this, but for $60 you get over 40 double-sided pre-printed vinyl maps like the chessex battle mats we all use and are wet-erase.


Zhayne wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:
Not a fan of the idea whatsoever. It's up to a GM to learn to work with what is in the mechanics of the game whether it's high level spells or a powerful feat if someone can't do that as a GM then they need to let someone run the game.

*snort*

No. If something doesn't fit in your game, whether it be thematically or for power/broken reasons, it is the DM's job to either alter it or throw it out. I would go so far as to say it's his responsibility and his duty.

To each their own I say. Ultimately there is Rule 0 where the GM can make any call that they want at their table. My main point is more that there isn't really a need to nerf the casters in that manner, there are plenty of other options available to someone who understands the mechanics of the game and has a good imagination.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a fan of the idea whatsoever. It's up to a GM to learn to work with what is in the mechanics of the game whether it's high level spells or a powerful feat if someone can't do that as a GM then they need to let someone run the game.


@Lemmy - exactly it's a really fun/cool roleplaying concept!


I'd allow it just like the GM in your game. There is nothing wrong with worshiping more than 1 god in Pathfinder. Heck even the ancient Greeks and Romans worshiped more than 1 god.

The player doesn't get any extra powers or unfair advantage for doing so. Leave him alone, you are another player and the GM has already ruled on it. In your games that you run you make the decisions, but in this instance you need to let it slide.


@Nathanael - I wouldn't say so. You made good, sound, and tactical decisions regarding the cohort. You didn't make her your slave to sit around and make you things, you took her along on expeditions and you relied upon her (and her crew) to get you safely from point A to point B on the ship where you and your fellow PCs may have failed.


Renvale987 wrote:

Okay, so here is my situation. I have a player who took the Leadership feat. After doing so, he made a cohort, who was a wizard with every single item creation feat. After doing so, they put her to work making them item after item after item for half price.

I believe this to be a broken use of Leadership.

The way I understand Leadership is that your cohort is an ally, who helps you when/if they can, but they are not mindless robots that are slaves to your will. They can willfully refuse to do something if it conflicts with their interests or they simply don't have the time due to personal commitments.

I have a problem with a player taking a single feat and then having access to 6-7 feats ALL THE TIME afterwards. This is wrong to me. She has no other feats then item creation and all her skill points are put into crafting skills.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong or is this clearly an abuse of a feat?

I think of the cohort as being a follower of the PC, I as the GM, will pick a random follower for the PC and I will assign half of feats that they will find useful. The Player can then assign the other half of the feats however they want whether it's item creation or otherwise.

I do not allow the PC to put the cohort on the sidelines to be a crafting machine only, the cohort didn't join the PC to be their slave, they joined to follow that PC into battle and earn some fame of their own.

I role-play as the cohort, meaning that they will follow the PC wherever, but they DO have a mind of their own and won't be the sacrificial lamb for no reason whatsoever.

The PC can control them in battle and roll for them, but again I'm not going to allow them to say something like, "I'm leaving the cohort to take on that ancient red dragon we stumbled upon while me and the others run off..."

The reasons are as you stated, if you allow a PC to dictate everything for a cohort they will abuse it, by doing it my way they don't get to abuse that poor cohort and make them into their own personal item creation slave.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What did I walk into? Guess maybe I should've read a little of the thread lol.

People get so upset at each other here.

How about this folks: take a step back, breathe, realize that your opinion isn't the only right one, respect the other posters and just agree to disagree.

Fighting here makes no sense, people will troll just to troll and laugh at you for getting upset. You will never ever play at a table with the others, each table is different and each table has their own ways of doing things that someone else on the interwebs will find abhorrent. By the time a thread gets this long, your arguments have gone around and around and around in circles and you are now just re-re-re-repeating yourselves.


tcharleschapman wrote:

Does anyone else get bothered by the push for optimization of characters? More and more I get tired of sitting down to a table of outrageous damage output where battles end ridiculously fast. Using feats to make a monster characters that immediately win the battle in the first round just is boring. It turns into the one optimized character getting all the fun each and every fight.

I've also run into the problem lately of bringing my characters to games that are not optimized for damage but are fun to play and everyone looking down on them.

-Mounted paladin gnome of erastil (why not be medium sized with a big weapon?)
-Combat Maneuver monk specializing in trip and grapple (Wait...you don't do damage?)
-Sea Reaver barbarian that, when raging, has a swim and climb speed (aquatic campaign) (why didn't you take all these ridiculous rage powers to cause a bunch of ridiculous damage?)

Society games are the worst. I witnessed one guy a few months ago convince someone not to use archetypes of the bard class until the person played a bunch of games with a base bard and learned how the class worked. Getting to level 5 in PFS is a 60 hour investment. The guy knew what he wanted his character to do and an archetype would have served that better and he didn't want to play every week. This awful advice came from a 5-star GM.

I'm not out to change the world with this, but man...powergaming can be pretty obnoxious. Who cares if that wizard didn't prepare "Create Pit"? If everyone built the same character all the time the game would die.

I'm not going to read through this whole thread to see if my opinion has been stated by others, but I do want to put in my 2 coppers.

The problem with most of these games is the higher the level the longer the combat takes so you see people wanting to speed up combat by optimizing their characters to deal more damage faster and be able to soak up damage that comes at them. Combat is a huge part of the game.

Personally, I like a good balance between combat optimization, skill optimization, and role playing. The game shouldn't just be about 1 thing, it should be about all of them as they all play a part in my enjoyment.

I don't like people who optimize to the point of being 1-trick ponies or who tread in the grey areas to exploit loopholes, but I respect people who make a survivable character.

Each group/table has different opinions on what is fun to play and what is badwrongfun. If you have a problem with the over optimization you need to talk to your fellow players/GM's about it. Open communication is key to everyone having fun and most people are willing to negotiate and compromise so that everyone does enjoy themselves. If you have a group that doesn't want to work with you, then my suggestion is to either stop complaining and keep playing or move on to another group that enjoys your style of play.


I'm always open to doing things that are a bit outside of the box and using the alignments as the source of power for paladins could work pretty well as you said. You'll have to let us know how it works out for you and your group.


I posted a very similar thread a while back (probably 3+ months ago now) where I was asking people what they thought of a house-rule of allowing more than just the LG Paladin and CE Anti-Paladin.

The reason for me was that I'm a fan of Paladins and Anti-Paladins, I feel that the two alignments are way too restrictive and that they get their powers from the divine. Basically if you look at the Paizo books such as Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Corruption you will see all sorts of dogma and codes that the followers of specific deities should adhere to so that they keep their paladin powers and follow their paths.

For example a LG paladin doesn't get his powers from following the laws of the land made by man, he gets his powers from the divine being he follows and if his god's interests are different from those of mortal man, the paladin should always take the road that his god would approve of.

My caveats for my players were that they needed to follow a god that is represented in the books and read up on their codes/dogma, that way they are a true paladin of said deity.


I've felt the same way as you do Crank on many occasions prior to my current group. My advice is that if your friends are not really interested in actually playing the game then you do as you did and start playing instead, but I feel you'll still be frustrated in the end as their attitudes and habits at the table will continue no matter who is GM'ing the game. You will end up being the only one who plays and actually gets into the game with the new GM.

I'd really consider paring down the group to the people who actually want to play and find a few others to come join a more serious group whether it's by finding some new players through other people you know, at a FLGS, or even online. I've had great success finding people online to come join my group.


I've not played a tiefling in any game yet as a PC, but I've run games with them in and have no qualms. They are an interesting and fun race to me. I'm a very liberal GM when it comes to races in my games so I don't say any race is a bad race to have in and I hardly ever (if ever) say no when someone wants to play a new character concept. The whole point of this hobby is to have fun and if having fun is playing a Tiefling or a Kitsune, I'm all for it.


Mendeth wrote:
As I said, I don't think it's OP, it's just less fun. A boss using it is a fun possibly but not necessarily a challenging encounter, but if it's common, it takes the fun out of feat trees like vital strike. Giving an instant "+20 on Ac, natural 20 not autohit" on one attack per round still gives you the same effect, but still renders you defenseless against truly epic characters. Or add your attack bonus to ac or twice your level or whatever high number. Any effect like this should in my opinion allow for a d20.

The problem with this is that you are thinking of only having a 1-hit (only in melee) attack. There are many many many ways to get around this as a GM. Think outside the box. It only deflects 1 attack per round, YOU know this as a GM. Toss a couple of mooks at him, delay with your big bad, he deflects, you vital strike and bam! He can't deflect it anymore.

Mendeth wrote:
I would be very sad if I got a true strike and a fortune hex on my Greater Vital strike, I throw a natural twenty for 60+ attack roll, and then the potential crit just fizzles because of the melee attack immunity of this lvl 5 monk. It does not make sense to me, and I don't think it fits the style of the pathfinder system, I think it's broken, but for most general use not over powered.

Again, ways around this. You don't play your BBEG as stupid automatons, they got to be high level big bads for a reason, they know tactics. They will stand back and see the strengths/weaknesses of their foes and react accordingly. Even a level 5 bandit leader would have a few guys following him. He will put them in danger before he goes in and he will study his foes. He sees this monk deflecting attacks and attacking he will flank and wait until someone has attacked then hit. Simple simple simple.

People tend to over-think a lot of the things in the game. I try to keep is simple and move on. I don't whine or moan over something that is different, I don't complain something is OP because nothing is really OP if you think about it, just work with what you have, play smart and have fun.


The earliest even a monk can get the Crane Style feat Crane Wing to just deflect is level 5 as a monk or BAB +5. The earliest you can get Crane Riposte is level 7. This is the one that deflects and allows for an attack.

SMDH :/ I will never understand the people in these forums whining over every little thing and not even trying to think of other things that can overcome what they perceive as OP.


People are still arguing about this? What's the point? I'll tell you, Crane Style isn't OP. Period. See how easy that is?


*Rolls WILL save... Natural 20* Yay! I won't partake in another silly alignment thread ... this time.


Rysky wrote:

So for my own campaign setting I've just about finished designing my own Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The only thing that eludes me is a suitable name for the rider of Death. The other three are:

Nero - Conquest/plague

Malthusia - Famine

Megiddo - War

Death is female, and also a primordial being that had been in Abaddon/Gehenna/Sheol since the beginning, long before the Daemons existed. She is associated with the River Styx, Lampedes (underwold nymphs), as well as natural and accidental deaths (and whatever you would call getting hit by a meteorite, unlucky? Death).

The two I'm toying around with right now is Styx and Loth.

The problems:

With Styx I feel that associates her two much with Pathfinder's Charon.

With Loth that name I believe might cause people to confuse her with Lolth.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

I like looking up different languages, particularly Latin. For this I'd recommend you use Letifera which translates from Latin to English as "Lady Death"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The truth of the matter of people thinking a single melee class feat or ability being OP is that they really don't understand the mechanics of the game. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat so to speak and something like Crane Style being unbalanced is laughable at best and outright being totally clueless at worst.

It's funny because there are so many people on these forums who immerse themselves in the rules and do know the truth of this. We get too many trolls on the forums and too many people who are too proud to admit when they are wrong that they hang on and supply unsound arguments to the contrary even though 99% of the others agree they are wrong.


Yep what Brf is saying is correct.

This has been discussed in detail many times, but here's the thread I always point people to when they are curious. The link is to Jason Nelson's official comment (he's the one who wrote these two abilities).


strayshift wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nah. Not really.

HUGE respect for your ability from your previous posts where we often agree BUT in this respect I personally think you are wrong.

Namaste.

Definitely NOT OP. This doesn't make them hit harder or kill better than a PC optimized to do so. So what if they can deflect an attack and hit for a 1d10+7 one time per round? That's child's play dude.

You think that's strong? Look at a dazing assault barbarian at level 12-13 who has the Come and Get Me rage power with combat reflexes. THAT is a much more powerful build which some could genuinely call OP.

Now compare any melee class vs a spellcaster at higher levels. You think that one deflect with an immediate piddly 1d10+10 even compares to the the dreaded 20d6 fireball, disintegrate, or power-word kill?

I always find it soo funny what people find OP in this game, especially when you have god-wizards out there and someone complains about a lowly monk being OP. Nope, they are actually underpowered when compared to some of the other classes out there. Period.


Okay hold on here, @Dread Knight, you are asserting...

Because of the NEA of the Dhampir, they are HARMED in situations where the good cleric channels positive energy to HEAL even though the cleric has targeted LIVING creatures to heal rather than choosing UNDEAD creatures (like the Dhamphir with their NEA) to HARM?

IF that's what you are saying, you are wrong. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize.


That's what I've been saying all along, maybe wires are getting crossed on the interwebs or I didn't explain it well enough *shrugs* who knows.


melferburque wrote:
LazarX wrote:

No... but your Dhampir is the exception because DESPITE being a living creature, he falls under the rules of how channeling energy interacts with undead.

That's the price of playing a dhampir... you have to find different ways of healing yourself, unless you either are, or travel around with a negative channeling cleric.

I am, or soon will be. currently a 4th level inquisitor and planned to dip cleric for 5th level. the channeling scourge gives me 3d6 to harm, I just haven't been able to figure out how to channel to heal.

I have a wand of inflict light to use on myself and a potion of inflict mod on my belt with instructions that it is a suppository if I ever go down in melee. I have been careful to avoid any good clerics channeling to heal thus far, and thankfully none of them have tried to harm undead.

Channeling Scourge only increases your ability to Harm, not to heal.

So the question here is: What are you channeling? Negative or Positive Energy?

If you are channeling negative energy, you are going to be able to harm the living an additional amount because you count your Inquisitor levels for channeling.

If you are channeling positive energy (I really hope you aren't if you are a dhampir), then you are adding your levels of inquisitor to HARM undead (which would mean you are going to harm yourself here).

This doesn't help you with healing as the feat only says "harm".


Dread Knight wrote:
Do they have Negative Energy Affinity? If not then you're correct they aren't harmed by positive energy to heal but if they do based on the FAQ the intent doesn't matter it's automatic negative heals and positive harms.

It all comes down to this:

Is the cleric healing OR harming with his channeling of positive energy?

Healing - He is targeting the living in the group and channeling to HEAL them, he has picked "living" in the "living OR undead" part.

Harming - He is targeting the undead in the group and channeling to HARM them, he has picked "undead" in the "living OR undead" part.

So in or out of combat, the cleric can only heal his living friends OR harm the undead (friend or foe), not both at the same time. He has picked a target group in the living OR undead.


blahpers wrote:
melferburque wrote:
do I choose to heal/harm or do I choose living/undead? I always assumed the two were redundant, but the dhampir is an odd duck.

Ahhh, I see.

The question is, "As a cleric, do I choose to channel energy to heal or harm, or do I choose to channel energy to affect living creatures or undead creatures?"

Per CRB, a cleric chooses to channel positive energy "to heal living creatures" or "to harm undead". In the dhampir's case, per the race escription, it is treated as an "undead" instead of a "living creature". So channeling positive energy to heal living creatures would do nothing, but channeling positive energy to harm undead would harm the dhampir.

Basically, pretend the dhampir is a skeleton, not a living creature. How would the cleric's actions affect a skeleton? Apply that same effect to the dhampir.

This right here is 100% correct. Pretend the dhamphir is just a friendly undead in your party for the purposes of what you want to do. You will never be able to heal them with your positive energy, only harm if they get out of line :P


melferburque wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:


1) You channel negative energy to HEAL your dhampir, this will NOT harm your party of living creatures.

2) If you channel positive to HEAL your party, your dhampir is NOT effected whatsoever.

Look at the previous post where I put the channel energy spoiler in.

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living)

dhampirs are living creatures that are healed by negative energy. I get what you're trying to say, it makes total sense. but it is not RAW. and I don't want to get screwed in PFS by a rules lawyer.

do I choose to heal/harm or do I choose living/undead? I always assumed the two were redundant, but the dhampir is an odd duck.

is there a ruling that specifically says I can channel negative to heal a living creature?

1) Your dhampir is considered an undead for purposes of positive/negative energy and they have the negative energy affinity. We have that figured out right? Harmed by positive healed by negative.

2) The heal/harm are one in the same as the living/undead, you HEAL LIVING with Positive OR you HARM UNDEAD with Positive.
2a) You don't do both at the same time.
2b) You choose to heal or to harm, the healing only heals living (does not damage undead), the harm only harms undead, but doesn't heal the living or harm them.


Dread Knight wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:


Pretty simple, it is based on the type of energy and what the person channeling is trying to do. Of course with different feats that can exclude you and only target enemies of the party things will change, but these are the default rules.

Actually based off of the FAQ it doesn't matter what the channeler is trying to do negative heals and positive harms.

FAQ wrote:

Negative Energy Affinity: How is this ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?

The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.

Emphasis mine; based on it saying that the intent doesn't matter it seems straightforward that negative heals no matter what and positive harms no matter what.

Wrong, plain and simple.

When you play and your cleric channels positive energy to heal the party who is completely surrounded by undead do the undead ALSO take damage?

No, this is an OR situation. The cleric can channel positive energy to heal OR harm. Not BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

Right here: Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. See the "or" and "one type"? This is part of the RAW, you do NOT get both at the same time.


melferburque wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:


Pretty simple, it is based on the type of energy and what the person channeling is trying to do. Of course with different feats that can exclude you and only target enemies of the party things will change, but these are the default rules.

Actually based off of the FAQ it doesn't matter what the channeler is trying to do negative heals and positive harms.

FAQ wrote:

Negative Energy Affinity: How is this ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?

The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.

this is where I'm confused. a good cleric can channel positive energy to hurt undead or heal the living, but not both at the same time. she has to choose one or the other (based on living or undead target). so why does the negative energy automatically hit the dhampir, even if it was meant to harm the living?

Yes, it's the wording. You can DO only 1 at a time, so you pick to heal OR harm with your positive energy. So as a good cleric you can't heal your dhampir member, but as an evil cleric you could since they can channel negative to heal undead and negative to harm the living, neutral must choose a side whether to channel positive or negative.


melferburque wrote:
Dread Knight wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:


Pretty simple, it is based on the type of energy and what the person channeling is trying to do. Of course with different feats that can exclude you and only target enemies of the party things will change, but these are the default rules.

Actually based off of the FAQ it doesn't matter what the channeler is trying to do negative heals and positive harms.

FAQ wrote:

Negative Energy Affinity: How is this ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?

The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.

my question is two-fold - do I channel living or undead to hit my dhampir? if I channel living, I'm hitting my party. if I channel undead, I don't hit myself at all.

and if channeling scourge only applies to dealing damage - does that include channel negative or not?

1) You channel negative energy to HEAL your dhampir, this will NOT harm your party of living creatures.

2) If you channel positive to HEAL your party, your dhampir is NOT effected whatsoever.

Look at the previous post where I put the channel energy spoiler in.


Let me make even more simple with a scenario.

I'm a cleric, I decide that my party needs to be healed with positive energy one of the party is a dhampir, but we are facing undead that are pounding on most of the party who are normal humans/elves/dwarves.

I channel to heal, this heals all of the living, but does NOT harm the dead or the dhampir.

Subsequently, I channel to HARM the undead in the area using my positive energy, this harms ALL the undead AND the dhampir, but it does not harm the living in the party.

So yes, it does matter what you want to do. You have 2 options whenever you channel, you can channel to harm or to heal. You cannot do BOTH at the same time.

Channel Energy (Su):

Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channel energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.

A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.

Inside the spoiler, bold emphasis mine, notice there are numerous places where it says "OR" and "can choose". The end.


Okay let me make this simple:

1) Channel negative to heal (undead or dhamphir because of their racial trait) - Negative Energy Affinity: Dhampires are alive, but are healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if they were an undead creature.

2) So when someone channels negative to heal, you and any other undead are healed by the negative, but NO ONE is harmed.

3) When someone channels positive energy to heal, you and any other undead are NOT healed and are NOT harmed.

4) When someone channels negative energy to harm, only the living are harmed and you are not harmed or healed.

5) When someone channels positive energy to harm, only undead and you are harmed, but the living are not harmed or healed.

Pretty simple, it is based on the type of energy and what the person channeling is trying to do. Of course with different feats that can exclude you and only target enemies of the party things will change, but these are the default rules.


Woo nice, we just got a "treat card" for 50 bases added to our sets when we hit $1,615,000!

This is shaping up to be pretty dang good, I hope we hit at or above what we did in the first one.


Jiggy wrote:
The monk class description tells you exactly what happens if you turn non-lawful. You lose nothing except the ability to gain more monk levels.

I see that now in the Monk description and RAW if he changes alignment he could go into a barbarian class, but it's still pretty cheesy to me and changing of alignment in PFS is up to the GM to decide on how to go about it whether they are using the Ultimate Campaign rules or not.

In a home game, I'd be much more strict on this and would actually disallow a monk from becoming a barbarian and keeping the class abilities unless there was really good story to go along with the why/how, it wouldn't be up to that player to arbitrarily insert the cheese into my game.


LoneKnave wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:
If I let him play the character at all (doubtful) and his current alignment precluded monk levels (i.e. not having the relevant archetype or trait, or the signature/notations of alignment infractions that changed his alignment on a chronicle) then he could keep weapon profs, BAB, HD, and saves. All class abilities (including bonus feats) would be forfeit since the character would not be legal as written above.
You know that the nothing in the monk class suggests anything about losing those, right? Just double checking here. Maybe you are mixing it up with Paladins or something.

Monks (except for the one archetype) must be Any Lawful per RAW, I'd say that he wouldn't be able to do his monk stuff if he was unlawful just like if he was a barbarian who went into monk instead and became lawful he wouldn't be able to rage or use rage powers. To me, the build is utter cheese and there are some real easy ways to make this a viable build and follow RAI/RAW while doing so. The ways could also make it a more powerful character to play and still get the flavor that the OP wants.


cheesedoodler wrote:
The Crane Stance feat tree sounds awesome! I had not read about them until I heard them mentioned in this thread. After reading what they do, I have convinced myself that my next character MUST be a Monk to make use of these feats!

You do NOT have to be a monk to use or qualify for the Crane Style feats. You just need the Improved Unarmed Strike, Dodge, and BAB +2.

Sure monks pre-qualify for it, but you could just as easily be an unarmed fighter.


Not a big fan of that many dips to be honest, they make for a much weaker character in the end. I think 1 or 2 classes should be it with a 1-2 level dip in what you want for flavor or special ability, the rest for what class you truly want to be.

Now as far as the build goes I don't think it's legal with your barbarian(s) and monk(s). Barbarians need to be any non-lawful to keep their rage powers and monks need to be any lawful for their abilities (except for the Martial Artist Monk Archetype which can be any alignment).

Maybe try for something along the lines of an alchemist/barbarian/martial artist?


@Willamoak - I hope you find those kind of players as well. My group has been together for a bit over two years now and we've been lucky that we have had quite a bit of turnover due to some people moving away, but we always seem to find another really good and mature player to take their place.

Anyhow, I highly recommend this method to at least try out and see if your group can handle it. With great power comes great responsibility.


Claxon wrote:
137ben wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:


My player seem to be enjoying it. A tied vote of 3-3 fails and they stay their current level, everyone has equal voting and they will discuss whether they think they "deserve it" or not. It makes me sit back and chuckle a little bit as they argue the merits of leveling up or staying their current level for another session.
Wow, I really like that :) It's sorta like... the equivalent of changing the difficulty level on a computer game to ensure you're having fun :)
It really keeps things interesting I think. It puts the ball in the players' court to decide what they want to do. All I do is tweak the encounters and treasure at that point without having to worry about how to award XP or when "I" think it's time to level them up. Really, it comes down to them having fun and if my players have fun leveling fast that's up to them or if they rather take a long leisurely stroll through a few levels, that's perfectly fine as well. Less stress for me!
That is a wonderful idea...I can't believe I and everyone I know never thought of it! I may have to start using it...
Eh....it takes a certain level of trust in your players. I'd rather start at slightly higher levels if people dislike low levels and then have them level at the rate of plot, rather than when they vote to level. In theory its a nice idea, but with my group 20 sessions later they'd be 20th level.

Yep, it takes a group of players who are mature enough to understand it's not about the power of levels, I have a couple players that will argue against leveling up at all for 3-4 sessions at a time so I never really worry about them wanting to level up every session. It gives them the power, removes some bookkeeping on my end, and allows everyone a chance to have fun w/o worrying about killing X amount of kobolds or having to even do too much combat if they rather roleplay more often.


Matt Thomason wrote:
ub3r_n3rd wrote:


My player seem to be enjoying it. A tied vote of 3-3 fails and they stay their current level, everyone has equal voting and they will discuss whether they think they "deserve it" or not. It makes me sit back and chuckle a little bit as they argue the merits of leveling up or staying their current level for another session.
Wow, I really like that :) It's sorta like... the equivalent of changing the difficulty level on a computer game to ensure you're having fun :)

It really keeps things interesting I think. It puts the ball in the players' court to decide what they want to do. All I do is tweak the encounters and treasure at that point without having to worry about how to award XP or when "I" think it's time to level them up. Really, it comes down to them having fun and if my players have fun leveling fast that's up to them or if they rather take a long leisurely stroll through a few levels, that's perfectly fine as well. Less stress for me!

1 to 50 of 886 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.