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

voska66's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 2,433 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 2,433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

3 Goblins is a CR 1.333 round down to 1. Goblins have standard treasure. For a CR 1 encounter it is 260 GP. A single bugbear is CR 2 with standard treasure the CR 2 encounters have 550gp. The Assasin vine is CR 3 and incidental treasure which is half the amount for it's CR. CR 3 is 800 so half of that is 400 gp. Not every encounter needs to have treasure. User the WBL guidelines. For example 1 party getting to Level 2 should have about 1000 gp in treasure. So assume a party of 4 that is 4000 GP.

So you will want say 10 encounters. 2 APL -1, 3 APL =, 3 APL +1, 1 APL +2 and 1 APL +3. Throw in 2 CR 1 traps. End with a story award of XP to bring the PC to 2nd level. The APL -1 fight have no treasure as they are vermin. The APL = are 3 sets or 3 goblins, with 780 GP. The APL +1 is 3 set of 1 Bug Bear each with 1650, APL +2 is the assassin vine with 400 gp and the APL +3 is level 1 bugbear cleric with 1150 gp. Comes out to 3980 gp. That is almost the WBL for level 2 characters and the party is just over half way to level 2. So to balance thing you make some of the loot sold for 1/2 price. Stuff like masterwork weapons and armor. Then add in consumable magic items. Do this for about 1/2 that treasure. Do another adventure like this doing the same thing and players should be right on WBL guide line about 1000 GP give or take 100 gp.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When it comes to evil eye we don't allow cackle to apply to successful saves. It never occurred to us that you should be able to use cackle on the 1 round for successful save. Now reading it by raw you could I suppose, never noticed that. We just figured the 1 round lingering effect was not a duration so it could not be applied to that.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shepsquared wrote:

Right, so I've been playing a witch in book one of Shattered Star. I've already secured permission to rebuild my character, due to general dissatisfaction with Winter Witch and the revelation we likely won't be continuing into the second book.

As such I am faced with an important question. A few weeks ago the DM decided to nerf Evil Eye, removing the 1 round duration if they pass their Will save. Here is his rationale:

it's designed with a saving throw, as it should be, but mechanically the saving throw is completely ignored.
that's why i said it can't affect them if they pass the save
so it keeps the idea, but is not op

Is it worth playing a witch to fifth level without the Evil Eye+Cackle to ensure that my hexes will affect them, or should I rebuild my character into a wizard?
Also, is there a good way to refute my DM's logic?

There is very good way refute your GMs logic. The Inquisitor gets a class feature call Stawart. It basicall say if the Inqisitor makes a save that has reduced effect they avoid the effect entirely. This change invalidates the Inquisitor's class feature. Basically the GM is saying if you save there should never be reduced effects.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dreaming Psion wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I'd like to ask. When people say "low magic" do they mean Low caster power or low magic items? Do full casters make magic mundane or the abundance of magic items?

I would say that to have low magic items you'd sure as shootin' better bring down the casters with them, considering how much less casters depend on gear than everybody else.

I've run several low magic games. Caster tend to suffer, should say arcane caster suffer the most. The classes that excel are Paladin and Magi due class features that make their weapon magical.

The biggest problem with sorcerers and wizards is defenses. They lack them with out magic items. They can use spells to cover that but as soon as they do that they lack offense. Basically they burn through resource much much faster.

If you want a touch party for low magic game go with a Paladin, Magus, Inquisitor, and an arcane duelist. By level 7 everyone will have magic weapon via class features and spells.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd think the biggest reason is arcane magic requires the stats, you need 11 or better. Then you need the training and natural ability. I'd assume that training is expensive. It cost on average 105 gold pieces if you go starting wealth. So the average commoner need the stats, the ability, and the gold.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd go fighter for the feats. I've always wanted more feats as Paladin. There's some pretty cool stuff you pull with more feats. Like Eldrich Heritage Draconic. You Chr won't be low and you skill focus perception is always good. Weapon training stacks with smite, armor training mean you move full speed in armor and can have much higher dex bonus.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
voska66 wrote:
So as GM feel free to add negatives or increase the DC for factors that affect the use of the skill. The base DC is just where it starts. Some skills have these modifiers already for certain situation, use them as guide. They book can't tell you every circumstance that may effect a skill. As character gets to be high level they should be able to pull off skill rolls they'd never be able to at lower level.

I think the problem here is that most people are seeing this as 'the GM is making things harder because I have a high skill'. And some people here have admitted that is their reasoning.

Good GMs will only adjust circumstances where it is warranted, while allowing players to auto-succeed on the checks that aren't extraordinary. If every situation is your speed metal concert example, it will wear thin very quickly.

Very true. You don't want to do this all the time only when the player is trying to do something extremely hard. For easy stuff auto success all the way. You also don't want to auto succeed all the time as that gets kind of boring. It's balancing act. If you have +20 or higher you should be able to auto succeed in thing that mere apprentice or struggle with while showing them what real master of the skill can do.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm running this AP currently and we are Book 4. We are finding it fun but I'm definitely putting lot work modifying encounters. It seems to me that encounter CRd are set for non mythic PCs. I mean if the party is APL 14 +3 for 6 mythic tiers the encounters for should be CR 16-20 but I'm finding the encounters are CR 13-16. So I find my self adding template and class levels to boost the CR of fights as well as increase the numbers where applicable to increase the CR of the encounter by 3 to 4. Seems to work well so far.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

the problem with skills is not that the DCs are not high enough but the penalties for situation are not being applied. Take a bardic performance. The rules don't give you anything for environmental factors. Sure an extraordinary performance is DC 30 and you have +20 to the role so you could take 10 and succeed. But what if the crowd is a hostile crowd? I'd give you -5 or even -10 of they are throwing things and not allow take 10. Sure there is no rule for that but as GM you can apply that. Think of it like this. You are country music singer playing for crowd drunk people that expect speed metal band. Now you want put on extraordinary performance to win that crowd over. That's going to take some pretty high skill to pull that off, I don't think +20 would do it. But in a acoustically perfect venue playing classical music for small crowd of classical music lovers, you could easily take 10 and astound them.

So as GM feel free to add negatives or increase the DC for factors that affect the use of the skill. The base DC is just where it starts. Some skills have these modifiers already for certain situation, use them as guide. They book can't tell you every circumstance that may effect a skill. As character gets to be high level they should be able to pull off skill rolls they'd never be able to at lower level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I find TWF fighting it fine but don't bother wasting feats on greater TWF. I'd even say Improved isn't worth it. You can't get Improved till level 9 and at that time you are starting to see monsters with higher AC. By level 15 you get greater TWF fighting but you will 20s to hit CR appropriate encounters. The encounters with the lower AC will be lower CR and you will kill them with out need of greater TWF.

I mean assume you start with 18 in Dex raise to 22 with level bonuses. Add +6 belt to get it to 28. +9 to and +12 BAB at 16th level for +20. Add in Weapon Focus and +5 magic for +27/+27/+22/+22/+17/+17.

Now you get attacked by grounded Ancient White Dragon only to find it has AC of 41. That's the base 37 plus shield spell. As well it has displacement going to for 50% miss chance. You need a 14 or higher and you need to be in flanking position or you attack is 2 lower. If you do hit it's 50/50 that it misses. This is considered an average encounter.

Lets say you flanking partner is a Barbarian. That Barbarian will have +37/+32/+27/+22 while power attacking. If that seems to be problem they can go +42/+37/+32/+27 doing less damage and not taking a -5. Both your AC will be pretty similar though Barbarian could be lower but the barb could 10 DR/- by this point.

The only thing the rogue is doing in this fight is providing the Barbarian +2 flanking bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think you need to define Balance. My definition of Balance is can I balance an encounter to appropriately challenging by CR to APL for all combinations of classes. In this way Balance is very important.

So if a APL +1 encounter is trivial for one party but meat grinder for another then there is balance issue. This of course assumed standard build with default stats following the WBL guideline. For the most part I find Pathfinder very balance if you keep these 3 variables with in the guidelines. The only balance issue I find following this is rogues at high level.

Basically as GM I see balance issue when I'm having to rework things to help the party or single character out in game. For the rogue I find a problem but it's fairly easy to fix, I slip the rogue more wealth at high levels. Picking pockets in my games is very lucrative and that wealth is class feature not WBL in my games. So they don't have to share it with the party but they can. That's a balance issue though that I've fixed with little house ruling some creative GMing. For every other class the rule as written work. Sure fighter might get bit dull in the end but it's still balanced and works on CR appropriate encounters.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They are both fast healing so they don't stack.

The difference is Fast Healing works while you are alive. There is no damage that stops it form working but when you are dead you are dead.

Regeneration is Fast Healing except it works when you are dead and will bring you back to life. You could be negative 1000 hit point and you will come back as long as you didn't take fire or acid damage when you should have died. You will regrow from the largest body part and all other wither and die if not reattached.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.

I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.

The Paladin will follow the law in this case will not give the starving child money or food. What the Paladin could do is hire the child to do a job. The child now is no longer a beggar but a hireling. Feeding, clothing, and paying your hirelings is completely legal. This way the Paladin did the good thing and remained lawful to the laws. The Paladin can still oppose the law and would fight that law using legal channels. A law like this may not be evil but an attempt to get rid of beggars who aren't actually in need but instead work the streets for the local thieves guild. By violating this law the Paladin would be at risk of falling for supporting a evil organization.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is a mixed message when in the same book a single feat allow Oracles to add his cha bonus to all saves.

Paladins also add CHA to all saves as a class ability. There is precedent there.

A mithril full-plate fighter could get up to a +7 dex bonus from armor training and mithril. With feats like these, he can also be having the +7 to hit and +7 for damage as well. Strength effectively becomes irrelevant.

I wouldn't say STR is irrelevant, mitheral plate still weighs 25lbs. Encumbrance is going to be an issue you need to deal with. As well STR will still be used for two handed weapons for greater damage output. It's going to cost you 3 feats to get though weapon focus is one a fighter would be taking anyways but that's 3 feats you need to spend. The dex to damage only applies to the weapon you took slashing grace for. So with out that weapon you are back to using STR. The there is the STR check, that does come into play though very situational. STR also applies to CMB and CMD but you want DEX on those that's another 2 feats. It doesn't seem that bad.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caedwyr wrote:
The best love to the rogue I've run across so far is the Glory Rogue from Rogue Glory and the Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue from Rogue Genius Games. Both do a good job of bringing love to the rogue without changing the class entirely.

I find balance to be only required in game where you have one clear winner and clear loser. So in Player vs Player game balance is important. In a game where the goal is not to win but create a story, develop the adventure, simulate a setting then balance is not important. The party works together and the wizard being able to move mountain while the fighter hack the bad guy in two is exciting. The Wizard dropping a mountain on the fighter and saying I win is not exciting.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't find there is need for balance. The key is having fun. Balance is boring and not fun. Balance is useful for tactical war game. Balance is hindrance in role playing game where tactics don't mean much. In RPG you have people want to act out their character, collaboratively tell and bring stories to life, problem solve, build and design characters and worlds. None of this required balance and actually a lack of balance make better.

If you want to play the game like a game of chess then sure you need balance and RPGs probably aren't the game for you. I used to play PCPCS (Pheonix Command Personal Comabat System). That game is balanced and plays out like a chess game. Everything is balance and it's your skill in tactics that wins the game. There is a winner and loser in the game. They added an RPG element to it and with it unbalanced the game because you need that freedom to have an RPG otherwise it's just tactic war game with a winner and loser.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charlie Bell wrote:
Bard = effectively full BAB due to self buffs. Inspire courage + good hope = +4 attack/damage at 7th level. So even when Deadly Aiming, you probably won't have much trouble hitting past 7th level. Deadly Aim works great for an archer bard with a good Dex. If you have a higher Cha than Dex, then maybe not so much for you.

Not really. BAB increase your deadly aim damage and you gain iterative attacks. This is what makes deadly aim good. As well in fight that +4 to hit and damage applies to the Full BAB character as well as their class features. So in this case a archer ranger against a favored enemy would be +20/+20/+15 using deadly aim. A bard would +13/+8 assuming fair play the ranger could give you +2 to hit and damage with hunters bond too for +15/+10. This assumes a 15 pt build. Clearly full BAB is superior even if the enemy is not ranger favored the ranger's attack goes down by 4 and the bard's goes down 2.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My group opted to not use the nerfed version and use the version as printed in our books. Never had problem with Crane Style so didn't see a need to nerf it. There were only few combats were the style was "I win" but I no issue with that as the Wizard pulls that same card in situation too.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I find you really have to go out of your way to make an ineffective character. You are much more likely to fail in optimizing unless you follow the guidance you find on this site or know all the options yourself. Failing at optimizing can lead to an ineffective character. I find optimizing does that quite often for few level till you get that key level that unlocks potential.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I view hit point as more avoiding the blow entirely. It's when you run out of hit points that real would occur that can kill you. That's why you have till negative con before you die. Some people can shrug off lethal wounds and that is why you have feats like Die and the Deathless feats as well as racial features.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Create pit could cause structural damage depending on the situation. It would be 100% up the GM to determine if a structure would be damaged. Using create pit like this would required a engineering skill check in my game to determine if and how much damage could be done. That's how I'd do it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I find role playing XP alienates players. Some players are just not that outgoing. I mean I've had games with thespians that get really into character and they are great fun in a game. I don't think I should reward them for doing something they find fun nor do they expect it. That's just the way they are how they play the game. It wouldn't be fair to reward them because of who they are.

Now at the same time you do reward those who are tactically oriented that make the battle easier. They get XP for monsters. Personally I think getting XP for killing monsters is stupid. You should get XP for completing goals.

That's why when I play a AP I set the XP to be enough to level up when book say so which is based on the goals. I don't tell my players that though. I give them XP but they might not get exactly what the book says for killing monsters. They might be short and bump it up or they could be over and scale it back.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I reward XP not for roleplaying but for out combat situations which may involved roleplaying or a minimum figuring out what skill to use when and succeeding the DC. The key is to know what skill to use when. Is intimidate the skill that needs to used, if so you can roleplay it but you still get the same XP as if you didn't.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rogue works well for most games as most games don't get to the high levels. The rogue has sweet spot where they are awesome from level 4-8. It's at the high levels where skills aren't as much of issue as the party covers a lot of skills now and skill check become trivial. Then there is combat high level. You have the best armor you can get and monsters are still hitting you on 2 our better. Your hit points are little lower but this isn't as big of deal now that you can train your hit points up. Your attack tend to miss unless you have party buffs like inspire courage to help you along.

I've just GMed a lot games and several APs at the rogue sometime there are no problems and other time it ends in frustration. What seems to make the difference is the party. If you have a party capable of buffs the rogue does fairly well. If you have party each with their individual bonuses the rogue suffers. For example a ranger with animal companion vs giving the party a bonus to hit and damage. The rogue does really well when a high level ranger is giving the rogue +3 to hit. Add in a Bard with inspire courage and the rogue is deadly. Swap that to fighter who can't help the rogue out with blasting sorcerer and a battle oriented Oracle and the rogue suffers.

I've used this against my players. Had a group of low level rogues along with ranger and bard. Made the encounter quite deadly. Made up an encounter with TH ranger with combat patrol and a pole arm. I was able to provide flanking over huge area while the bard inspired everyone. It was a mess of sneak attacks. So it's not like the rogue is useless but relies on the party to make them better.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By RAW the Kasatha has 1 primary attack and 3 secondary attacks. They get this via the Multi-Armed racial trait. It says right in the race that they get an attack with all of their hands.

"Multi-Armed: A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands."

Mulitweapon fighting does not grant you any extra attacks. It just reduces the penalties when you have 3 or more attacks.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I see argument for both sides. I don't think there is any RAW way you take this with out developer input.

Like for example I can accept Ryic's argument. At the same time I can that argument to make it work as well. Since wildblooded are sorcerers than mutated blood line are Sorcerer blood line as only a sorcerer can choose them.

I admit I'm biased though as GM I've made many NPC sorcerers with wildblooded bloodlines and I prefer that rules say I'm right as this is something I don't want to house rule.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
Eltacolibre wrote:

I didn't see any mention about pfs limitation. Also in pfs you couldn't even do any of these house rules anyway...still tho. Heh, lower point buy who even cares, just play a battlefield control wizard and stay in the back. Let the BSF fights the monster, cast a spell to end the encounter and that's it.

I and the group are perfectly ok with this. The point of these are to prevent you from being able to both cast and fight extremely well. People are acting like giving people different point buys is the equivalent to punching people in the face. The rules I've seen proposed for low magic games and the support associated with them compared to this option boggles my mind. People are ok with completely removing magic but the idea of giving slightly less to a caster who actually plays it horrifies them.

It is like a punch in the face. You want to limit magic delay it. This won't accomplish that. 10 pt buy for Wizard, you'd still have 18 casting stat and all the spell you have at 25 pt. What you will have is wizard with more weaknesses and lower AC. MAD classes will suffer greatly.

I see what you want to do and I think different experience tracks would work better. Say you have the wizard need 3000 XP to make level 2 but the fighter only need 1300 XP. That right there slows magic down. When the fighter is level 13, the wizard will be 10th level with 4th level spells instead 6th level spells. You can average the level to get the APL. So a classic party of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard would have to 13th level and 2 10 level for an APL of 12. Now you have APL 12 party with out access to teleport and overland flight for example that would normally be available for APL 12 party. That seem to accomplish you goal.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wouldn't do this. I think what might be better idea is full casters use slow experience progression, 2/3 caster use normal and martials with up to 4th level casting use fast.

Back in the 2E days that how it worked. I'm going off complete memory here but you have exp progression. All the class fell into one of the categories. To get to 2nd level you had 1250, 1500, 2000, 2250, or 2500 exp. I think it was Thieves and Bards on 1250, Cleric and Druids on 1500, fighter on 2000, Rangers and Paladins 2250, and Wizards at 2500. The one thing I do remember is cleric wasn't a full caster like that wizard and much weaker spells which is why it was cheap on the XP.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It's like saying "pick a vehicle" then turning around and saying "you can't pick that one, because it is a truck, and not a car. You need to pick a car."

Why not just say "pick a car" in the first place if that is what was intended?

This is where your wrong they were specific. They said sorcerer bloodline, not sorcerer bloodline or wildblooded bloodline.

They are two sepetate types of bloodlines.

You don't stop being a sorcerer when you choose a archetype. The archetype modifies via mutation your sorcerer bloodline but are still a sorcerer with a blood line.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
Eldritch Heritage(Sylvan) doesn't work. Sylvan isn't a bloodline, it's an archetype.

It's a bloodline AND an archetype. Therefore I'd argue that it is perfectly legal.

Eldritch Heritage merely asks if it is a bloodline. Is it a bloodline?

Yes? Then you can take it.

No? Then you can't take it.

Since it is both, and Eldritch Heritage doesn't care one lick about archetypes, I'm pretty certain you're good to go!

Actually it is not a bloodline. It is a mutated bloodline. Different thing.
A mutated bloodline was still a bloodline last I checked.

I agree, the Wild Blooded bloodline would be valid for the EH feat. I see nothing baring that. It's blood line all the same.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've never seen anyone go out buy a rod of metamagic dazing. The lesser rod is 14,000 and applies to 1-3 level spells which mean the save DC won't be that high for CR 11-13 encounters as you will be level 10 by the time you can afford this rod. So unless the GM tosses this to you early it's won't be available. As well it's major rod so finding one will be difficult at best and impossible if the GM doesn't want you to have it. By the time you can get this there will be better ways to shut down encounters.

This rod in the hands of level 5 wizard though is very powerful. Just a level 5 wizard shouldn't have an item like this.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The game also assumes a opponents will use their armor to defend. The shell would be a source of their natural armor and they would be working to keep that shell between itself and you blows.

If the tortise is helpless you auto hit with a critical doing a coup de gras. This would be attacking it's squishy parts which normally it would try to defend.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:

I kind of see the slayer and investigator as dividing the rogue concept between them - the slayer as a fightery combat rogue and the investigator as the "skill rogue".

That said, the slayer changes a lot depending on what talents you take. The obvious option is the ranger style talents, combat trick and weapon training, but if you take talents like trapfinding, trap spotter, fast stealth etc you can make a very "rogueish" slayer.

Stealth and trap finding isn't what makes a rogue a rogue. It's the whole package. While the class is weak it's interesting what you can do if the GM or published adventure allows you to do those things.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

Slayer, Investigator, Skald and Brawler are great. Special shoutout to the Slayer because Rogue fix.

Hunter, Shaman, Arcanist and Bloodrager are OK.

Warpriest and Swashbuckler are meh.

I thought the Slayer would be Rogue fix but having played on from level 1 to 12 now I'm finding the slayer isn't that roguish. I find I'm more like a spelless ranger with trap finding. A slayer is more of killer than a rogue. I guess it fixes the combat oriented rogue.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A dragon could use his treasure hoard, I've done it in my games but remember to increase the CR for having more wealth.

A ancient red dragon could wear barding but they would suffer spell failure just as sorcerer would. They could use mitheral chain +5 I suppose and give it the feat Arcane Armor Training in place of staggering critical to give it +9 to it's AC. While your at it make the armor cold resistant 30 with greater energy resistance and heavy fortification. Give it +5 amulet of might fists. There is more than enough in treasure to accommodate that.

That CR 19 Dragon should be CR 20 then as that would exceed 123,000 GP in treasure at 270,000 not counting anything else you add.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By RAW it would work. The 3rd level Phalanx fighter treats the pole arm as if it were a one handed weapon. Swashbuckler finesse and slash grace apply to one handed weapons. In the hands of 3rd level phalanx fighter the pole arm is a one handed weapon. The condition is met so it works.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Don't worry too much, the invisibility is nice but easily countered. The ninja suffers from the same problem the rogue does. They lack a method to boost their attack bonus. So they will miss lots at the higher levels.

A ninja and even the rogue can be very over powered in appearance if they have party that makes them so. With debuffs making it easier to hit and buffs to increasing their attack bonus along with some softening up from ranged touch spells. An ninja with grt invis will be wiping things out. Things it's 2 other party members allowing them to. So it's not overpowered at all.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've found Dex to Damage looks good on the surface and works well higher point build but on 15 point build it has several draw backs. One is you need strength at 10 just doesn't cut. 12 or 13 at minimum, going 13 allows power attack. you want to max you dex, 16 cost you 10 points, 3 for Str and 2 for Con. You can make a decent fighter with that but try and make a Magus. You still want that Str, you need even more now that you have a spell book and spell components at 5 extra pounds. That dex drops to 14 so you can have int of 14. You +2 to Int to get 16. So now you are 13 and 14 for Str and Dex. Is it really worth 2 feats to get +1 to hit and damage? You could play a Elf dropping you con to 10 and getting 16 Dex that could be worth it. But you see it's a debate. That makes this not a bad thing.

Everything goes in favor of Dex of Damage as soon as you go higher stats via rolling or point build.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm running it now finishing book 3 and I'm finding the CRs aren't correct. Too many CR 8 fights for APL 14 Parties. If I'm following mythic adventures right the APL of a 4 level 12 character with 5 mythic tiers be average character level +2. Also the wealth in the game is almost double normal Wealth by level guideline for level 12 characters but is about right on for APL 14 party. Level 12 being 108,000 and level 14 being 185,000.

So it seem like the encounter design was set up for non mythic character. So I've increased the CR of most of the encounters in Book by 2-5 CR by adding the advanced template, adding extra monster, or adding addition levels to the bad guys.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By 8th level common bandits shouldn't be a threat to the PCs. The leaders of the bandits would be a threat and they would higher level. Basically PCs would be moving up the food chain. If the PCs were to become a real threat to the bandits who are organized they would take action against the PCs by hiring assassins, plotting against them, framing them for crimes and all sorts of tactics to eliminate the threat to their livelihood.

Unorganized random bandits would just meet an untidy end as they have no network of power to climb. Organized bandits would organized in cells forming a guild which could be very dangerous to high level PCs and the organized crime would have high level bad guys calling the shots.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

Good counter argument.

Some people really love evil characters tho. But evil is easy....being good is much harder. The hardest alignment for me to play is LG. I typically sway CG when I play good. my typical alignment tho is CN as i typically play "I do what i want damn your laws and ethics" kind of characters.

I actually found playing lawful evil quite challenging. After playing for a few games I found myself not really being LE but LN. I struggled with how my alignment of LE was really evil when I obey the laws and the law kind make you not evil unless the GM throws you situation where you choice is to use the law for good or evil but that rarely ever comes up in an adventure.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A paladin shouldn't have anymore of issues working with Lawful Evil member of the party than Chaotic Good member.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Published NPCs are not GMPCs. A GMPC is character I as GM make to play in an AP along with characters. The NPCs in the AP are just that, NPCs. They are there for the players to interact with. Some provide information, some provide boons, some help in a fight, some manage the base of operations. NPC can flesh out the story and give shape to an AP. In the end they are NPCs and the players are free to ignore them if they want though that would be detrimental but not fatal. There are rewards for those that like role play with the NPC just as there are reward for those just want to be immersed in the combat.

Sounds to me that the problem here is not GMPC or NPC but that you don't care to role play for information and boons. There is some merit to that. Not everyone one wants to jump through role playing hoops. A good GM should notice that and be able to balance it with those who like a good NPC and those who could care less.

I'm running WotR, the NPCs are there as window dressing. The NPCs are resource for the PC. One in particular is the party lacks a skill monkey so a lot of the time loot is identified by the NPC when the PCs get back to town. Appraisal is done there as well along with decipher books and languages. I use the rogue NPC to allow the PC to have greater shopping ability via Black Market ties for example. I don't role play that out though I could if the players were interested, they aren't though. Se we don't, it's just assumed.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I never understood the point of monk weapons. In fact I hate it. I house rule the monk to me non eastern flavor. I had create an Aldori Dueling Monk order in Bevroy. They got none of the classic monk weapon but were trained and proficient in light and heavy blades along with dueling sword.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seem to me it would provoke an attack of opportunity as it doesn't say that it won't. If it didn't provoke the text would say so. I don't think that is unclear.

From the PRD:
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action."

The last line if this weren't to provoke would say so. It would say this instead "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity".

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Looks about right, I played a Barbarian like that in RotRL. The DR was extremely helpful, I'd have died with out it that high. I mean I was taking 40 damage a hit at times so even with DR I was still a little over 20 damage and hit and had a huge amount of hit point. My AC was horrible but the damage output was huge. I used Reckless Abandon and Power Attack.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

Schroedinger's Ranger has a quiver full of arrows to bypass the material DR. Not so much the combination DRs, the alignment DRs, the epic DR, - DR, etc.

I don't think a quiver full of a bunch of arrows is going help a ranger stuck in box where you don't if the ranger is alive, dead or both until you open the box. <grin>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My biggest beef with Cluster Shot is once you have you have no reason to not use it as there is no penalty. So Clustered Shot everything on off hand chance they may have DR. I don't like this aspect. For me Cluster Shot should be at -2 to all attacks when you use it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:


I addressed that. Flexible spell slots shouldn't be a 400% markup over a pearl.


BretI wrote:

The spontaneous caster item is the Runestone of Power.

Originally printed in Pathfinder Society Field Guide (pg 53) it is also in Advanced Class Guide (pg 234). The price is 2,000 gp (1st), 8,000 gp (2nd), 18,000 gp (3rd), 32,000 gp (4th), 50,000 gp (5th), 72,000 gp (6th), 98,000 gp (7th), 128,000 gp (8th), 162,000 gp (9th).


Seriously, why?

Because spontaneous casters always get the short end of the stick on the rules, it's really there if you know where to look.

The big reason why they cost double is they are more useful than pearls of power by a large magnitude. Say I'm wizard and cast the shield spell and between fights use my pearl to recall the shield spell. I can only cast shield. Now say I'm sorcerer and cast shield as well but I use the rune stone. I still have spell for the day to cast any other spell I'm know which can be a very wide list of with using Pages or Spell Knowledge and playing a Human sorcerer. At 1000 gp a spell, I could most of the spells that wizard has as known spells and the rune stone allows me to cast any one of them. Much more powerful and pearl of power. Double seems a really good deal to me.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
blahpers wrote:

I'd still use pearls almost exclusively unless a GM dropped a ring of wizardry into my lap.

Well, yes. If you get something for free, you might as well use it. Cost is no longer an issue.

It's not free, a ring of Wizardy is 20,000 gp of treasure allocated. That's 20,000 gp of something else you won't get. If you don't like the ring you can sell it for 1/2 price. So definitely not free.

1 to 50 of 2,433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.