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

Ævux's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,275 posts (2,334 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So.. I could go the body guard cavalier, with the trait that increases aid another to ac by +2 giving me something like +6 to my allies AC


I'm currently in the process of building a cavalier who is intended to become a battle herald. I'm looking for the way to maximize the effects of this action, if I was to become one of the Dragon.


Barry Armstrong wrote:
Ævux wrote:
Does.. a Axe Musket count as a double weapon, as the normal double weapon rules? In other words.. Can it be 'duel' wielded?

No. See BBT's very clear and definitive answer. If they don't have the "double" weapon property, they do not gain the benefits of a double weapon.

Also, the only real reason for having the dual enchantment costs is so, as Dabbler says, you can threaten close range for AoO's with an axe that's enchanted separately from the musket.

Right, I've seen it over and over.. And with his very clear answer, its very clear that one could use the sword cane part of the weapon for Black Blade, as the sword Cane pistol is more like an adamantine sword cane than it is a double sword.


Does.. a Axe Musket count as a double weapon, as the normal double weapon rules? In other words.. Can it be 'duel' wielded?


Well, without GM discretion.. This idea sucks.

Every single time that you use a cane sword pistol you'll provoke an attack of opportunity.


Bron 20th level

This is what I'm currently planning for when I hit level 20. Sadly though the hero maker doesn't really allow for Fast Learner to be used.. or I have not yet learned how to use it. So there would be 20 more skill points.

Edits - Dropping Pen strike for Power attack and imp steal for imp sunder


Bron

Here is what I got for level 1.

At level 2 i plan on getting imp dirty trick. I wish there was a way to draw hidden weapons faster, but I will be getting Quick Draw/Imp initiative.

I think Slight of Hand and Stealth will be my other two skill focuses, or maybe should do Sense motive/Perception.

Our stat limit is a 25 point buy.


We are starting at level 1.

Alright, I'll look into Lore warden/urban Ranger. Hopefully they are in the hard back books.


I'm wanting to design a character who uses a sword cane as his primary weapon. Something.. scoundrel like in his design, and for a city sort of campaign.

Currently I'm thinking of either doing A rogue-swashbuckler or a cad fighter.

The biggest problem I have with Pathfinder is smart fighter types need so many feats @.@

One of my big inspirations is guy who fights without honor in game of thrones. (but his dead opponent did.)


We're playing a game in a few weeks, where each of us gains a 3rd level or lower spell from any class. We get additional uses, or the ability to use it with a meta magic at 5th level and increases 10th, 15th and 20th.

Problem is, I can't figure out what spell to pick with a crafting Wizard. The spell is suppose to lend itself to a particular talent of the character as well.


How exactly does this work out? Do I get one attack with the sword, and everything else about the spell blips.. or Do I attack every creature 'touched' by the spell?


To properly use the Spell Blade, do I need to take two weapon fighting?


Well, I'm not really going to be much of a fighter. I'm support, especially skill related support. I make sure things happen. Whips, and pistol. :P


Kender, I have my own Archeologist Bard I've been itchen to play myself too.


I am still with the intrest as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've got an Archologist Bard I've been itchen it play some.


Well, in a 1 vs party situation, where the target is somehow incapable of sundering the whip, beating the sorcerer/wizard who came within 20 feet to a bloodpulp and forcing him to drop it, and has 6 or less in a stat, so the sorc/wiz manages to get it in one shot..

Yes, I can see how its 'unbalanced'

However, generally, there is usually multiple targets, the target is capable of sundering the whip, beating the caster to a pulp, or otherwise forcing him to drop it, and tends to have fairly high physical stats.


Okay, here is my important questions.. I'm going to throw together a character. Human, Bard, Archeologist. Stats?

Is there any other race that gets the Humans' favored class racial for bard?


I'm also interested in this.

I'm a crazy 27 year old who tends to powergame to a rp ideal. For example the character I'll be wanting to play here is my spoof character of Indiana Jones. I've been itching to play this guy.

So.. what does Indiana Jones have have? his own theme music! And I've found away to get a few minutes of it. Though I need several books to do it.

Music wise, I stick to no genera. I pick songs. I love weird things. and the like.


I don't get the whole wording of Limp Lash... Does it create a whip that I have to keep lashing every round.. Or does it start choking the target.. or what?


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

@Gaurm

Buying such is alright (no bombs or alchemists fire, there may be other things I will ban as I only have the core book and can't comment on what all is out there from the srd, mostly it'll work, just a disclaimer in case.)

Remember to look at the money section in the OP, for modified costs.

Bombs are a class feature of alchemists, like channel energy or sneak attack.


Are the player slots still open?


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've got a big question..

Say I've got shield other up on another character, and I'm immune to X type damage. They get hit with that damage. is the damage untyped when it is transferred or does the damage stay the same?


I would also take Internal Alchemist. You don't loose to much I think. And you gain some greater ability at standing.


What about Serpentine, Rashaka, Pestilence?


Really I think I should have taken a different bloodline. But..

Heather Dale

I'm finding this character to be kinda fun. The reason the stats are so high is its a two character RP. If I rebuild her for a new campaign what bloodline should I take?


I'm currently working on a level 12 character to replace my unfortunate one.. I can't really decide what to make.

I've got one sheet mostly finished
here

But I have a few other idea.. A synthisist summoner who specializes in teleporation combat with dimension door (have that sheet made, but not on myth)

A samasaran witch who is also heavy teleportation base. (Steals from the summoner list to cast some spells at a lower level)

or modifying this rat to be a gravewalker instead of beast bonded allowing long range touch attacks.

I'm suppose to be creating an arcanist/damage/support character and am trying to do something fun and interesting.


I've got a level 12 character to make by saturday, and I've been racking my brain to figure out what to do.

Long story short, I have a gunslinger who is killed/captured at the moment, along with 3 other party members. One of those party members was our arcanist. He's working on making a new healer, and that means I'm working on making an arcanist now.

We are playing Serpents skull and are in the third or forth book.. right at the very end.

Spoiler:
Evil brain thing!

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=432360

Is what I have so far.

I'm making a Samsaran, and my intention is to make my own demi-plane, which basically will be the base of operations for the rest of the campaign (if I cannot or decide not to play my gunslinger after this.) That way we can just pop in an out of the material plane easy peesy like.

Any suggestions on what spells to take and other things to do?


Well RoE and ED are not negative energy damage. They are negative energy, but not NED..

And no the reason we are going this route is Dhampire's favored class bonus with Sorcerer is +1/2 points of damage for spells that cause NED. So far, only chill touch does that.


I was thinking about making a Dhampire Sorcerer, of Sanguine bloodline.

Here is my thing.. what spells do negative energy damage that the dhampire can acquire?


Azten wrote:
Wouldn't this encourage cherry-picking abilities though?

I personally don't understand the complete and utter loathing of "cherry picking".. I mean yes, sometimes things go crazy when this ability and that ability meet..

Its easier to do this when you have more freedom of course and less thoughtful construction of abilities.

But it feels that people are so loathed to cherry picking that they want the system to be closer to something where the developers pick exactly what you get, when you get it when you take rogue.

Now granted this topic though..

I'd agree with more of a point buy system. Technically AD&D was fairly close to that before 3.5 started boxing in the classes. (The black books completely did point buy)


Its not plain and obvious anymore than Vivsection alchemist being an "updated" rogue, because they both have sneak attack.

Shackles Pirate - Swamp based abilities, Ability to mentally control ship, ability to make fog crafts and the ability to stop other ships.

Inner sea pirate - A "mini" rogue, has the ability to pick up a handful of tricks, the only one of which that is word for word the same is Deep Breath. Quick appraise is similar between the two, but Shackles takes a round, Inner Sea takes a move action, or a standard to find the best item.

Storm Sailor vs Navigate Malestorm.
Both do lower the category one. After that each have different functions.

I gave a straight forward answer. Inner sea is not an updated shackles. Its a pirate PrC yes, but really that's it. It has not been updated, but instead a completely new one was created.


Steel_Wind wrote:
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Is the Inner Sea Pirate PrC a replacement for the Shackles Pirate PrC or will that be updated in the upcoming Shackles setting book? I have a player for Skulls & Shackles that was going to make use of the Shackles PrC, but if the Inner Sea one is meant to replace it, then I'll let her know.

The Pirate PRC that appears in the Pirates of the Inner Sea is an update of the prestige class that appears in the original Campaign Guide to Pathfinder RPG. (It's not a very effective PrC, to be honest).

The best available option, imo, is the Rogue Pirate archetype in Ultimate Combat, unless you really want to dip the PrC for the extra ship speed and just take the feat for sailing near the Eye, (although the Storm Sailor pirate trick does stack with the feat). Still 4 levels in the PrC class to get both? Nah...

Its not an update. They are two completely separate PrCs.

One is a PrC for a particular faction of pirates, The Shackle Pirates.
The other is more of a Generic pirate PrC. Kinda like how Red Mantis Assassin isn't an Update for Assassin.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Is the Inner Sea Pirate PrC a replacement for the Shackles Pirate PrC or will that be updated in the upcoming Shackles setting book? I have a player for Skulls & Shackles that was going to make use of the Shackles PrC, but if the Inner Sea one is meant to replace it, then I'll let her know.

Inner sea is just something so everyone can get a little more piratey. Shackels is limited to pretty much just rogue (or a few others with the right archetypes.)


Steelfiredragon wrote:


as I said

Piracy is one of the worlds oldest ocupations

it is easy to imagine a pirate ship without guns a blazing.

by the way, just so yuo know the difference between a ship's guns and cannons is that the ship's guns don't have wheels or atleast thats how I can explain it.

Pirate ships all they need are balistae and a blood thirsty crew.

pirates raid coastal cities/villages and merchant vessels.

Pirates of the carribean had guns but early pirates likely just were coastal raiders and went a pillaging where t hey saw fit...

you dont need a ship with black sails that crewed by the damned and commanded by a man so evil that hell itself spit him back out. ye savvy

edit: I just realized that I hit the quote button on the wrong thread again...

Actually that is incorrect. Piracy is not one of the oldest occupations. Why?

Because Boats didn't exist. Piracy was after boats were made, before that, the act of stealing from someone was known as Banditry.

Its as easy to imagine a pirate ship without cannons as it is to imagine knights without horses (Or other mountable creatures) and platemail that don't fight dragons with swords.

Seriously, can you imagine a knight walking around with a stick in a leather bikini?

Quote:


However, it has nothing to do with the baseline assumption for firearms in Golarion that Paizo established years ago. Just because the RPG line introduces new rules and concepts, that does not mean that the campaign setting should be retconned to appeal to fans of said rules. That's poor world-building.

The baseline assumption for firearms in golarion is that they are rare. Rare does not mean Non-Existant.

Since the automatic claim is that UC does not count for anything, Remember this product does mention that there are at least a few ships with firearms, one of which is the leader of the shackle pirates.

It is by far the seemingly common claim that because its rare, it shouldn't be an archetype. But then that would mean Chelix Diva's and Oenopion Researcher shouldn't exist as an archetype. Just saying.

I recently got the skulls and shackles Item deck. Several firearms in it.. several.


The funny thing about black powder..

When a wizard buys 2/3 of the parts of it for his spell component pouch, its cheap and easy to find.. But the moment you add in burnt wood, it suddenly shoots up to millions of monies.

So basically buy a wizard spell component pouch, and burn unused food and other things (make it into charcoal.) Infinite gunpowder.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Ævux wrote:

You know, one might just go a head and question.. ANY mundane methods of transportation of stuff.

I mean seriously..

"Oh No! bandits are in the woods!"
"Why are the bandits in the woods? We stopped using caravans ever since tom learned teleport."

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the argument of "Your side is wrong because MAGIC!!!" is a total cop-out.

Yep. I do though love arguments at start of with "Back during the those days.." as much as I love "A wizard walks into a bar.." arguments though.

Truthfully technology should be much more advance if you have magic. Some of my favorite magic items back in AD&D were basically vending machines such as the "Cola" golem(It was a cola vending machine), who would always give a refreshing beverage to the maker, but had lots of problems for anyone else. Such as eating their silver pieces or giving them potions of death.

Back in 3.5 days, I actually had a "laser rifle" I made out of a Ray of Light wand and a heavy crossbow.

But I'm willing to overlook the technological achievements that should have been made the moment magic starting coming into the equation as.. Wizards are freeking lazy. Hence the reason for mundane travel, piracy, banditry and the extreme lack of even +1 swords in the "good guys" possessions. (Ever notice how the bad guys always have better equipment than you can buy?)


The thing is, its usually easier for players to ask for something that exists than it is for them to ask for something that doesn't yet exist. Cause if it doesn't exist, then it must be created. The GM typically

A) is too busy making the campaign

or

B) Doesn't trust players enough to make something balanced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


You know, one might just go ahead and question the whole idea of sea-faring vessels in a...

You know, one might just go a head and question.. ANY mundane methods of transportation of stuff.

I mean seriously..

"Oh No! bandits are in the woods!"
"Why are the bandits in the woods? We stopped using caravans ever since tom learned teleport."

Tom then casts divination spells, finds the bandits and fires an orbital laser cannon into the woods thus exterminating the bandit "Menace"..

Or Perhaps the Bandits learned magic, and are able to hijack the teleportation highways and disrupt Tom from firing the Orbital Laser Cannon spell.

With all of this magic, WHY ARE THERE NO FLATSCREEN TVs! Why are there fighters and rogues? Why haven't they learned how to make spaceships and fly around in the endless night? Do trolls reproduce through budding?

The major problem here is that its the classic trope of pirates with guns. Yes, reloading was a problem even back during the age of sails, AND that is why people who had guns would carry multiple guns on them.

But then every single picture is the classic "Age of Sail" version of pirates. Just like nearly every gunslinger picture is them wielding 2 pistols. Apparently it is a joke in paizo to get these cool awesome pictures of characters, and then NOT put anything in really mechanically to play that character or the big trope of the picture/genera thingy..

IT would be like putting in a bunch of pictures of knights fighting dragons and wizards, blocking breath attacks or magic balls of energy with their shield.. Then not putting anything that would allow a person to play said knight.

Or perhaps with the current stuff that is out.. Lets say making a large number of pictures reminiscent to assassins creed. You know, the pakour type of stuff. Then, not putting in the hidden blade, the ability to actually do pakour, and giving an archetype like this to.. I dunno.. Fighter?


Still nothing on this.. :(

Smurfing smurf.


However!

the first fact is that there are some pirates out there that do use guns. Now if it just said that guy, the limitation would infact be applied, however it isn't just that guy with guns.

They are rare, but really are gunslinger pirates any rarer than gunslinging hobos? (I say hobos, because most PCs don't actually have a home when you think about it.)

That is by far, the first most important fact. They do exist even in Golarion. And they exist even in the innersea.

So I'm not here saying they must put in this book, but debating the whole idea that in order for an archetype to exist, that it MUST be something common. I mean look at all the bloodlines for sorcerer.. If all those bloodlines are suppose to be so utterly common.. You have like a couple hundred sorcerers being born during plagues. Another couple hundred are destined. Another are both plagued and destined.

Adding a rare archetype to a rare class does very little, other than giving a new option to a rare class that the GM can outright deny because it is a rare class. Right now I'm playing a gunslinger pirate, even if I don't have an archetype to use for it. But its not like now every time we smash a vase suddenly we are attacked by a pirate with a firearm.


Paul Watson wrote:

Aevux,

How does that overrule them? It calls him out as being unusual for having cannons. That means rthe vast majority of pirates don't have them, which is exactly what the official position has been. If anything, that's support for the existing position, not overruling it.

As for bayonets, they are also mentioned as fitting crossbows, so nope, still no firearm support there, either.

It overrules it because they say that there is not, but then there is. And its not just some random minor pirate ship either. It is the leader of the shackels pirates. But then it also DOES NOT SAY that its ONLY that pirate leader that has it. But one of the few pirate ships with firearms. What does this mean? It means there are a few pirates beyond that that do have firearms, just as there are a few adventures out there who have firearms.

Yes the vast majority of pirates(and adventures) do not have firearms, however SOME do. Like for example a random ragtag band of six hobos who do various adventuring jobs.. AKA your players. Perhaps a random villain (course as a GM is far easier to justify anything you make, cause you are well.. The Game master.)

Bayonett is both crossbow and firearm. Yes there is crossbow but it is also firearms.

However, you did not answer the third point, Rouge archetype says that firearm training is good for it.

BPorter wrote:
However, for those who want guns to be very rare such as myself, one man's bug is another man's feature. I'm very glad the official stance didn't change.

Then don't allow it in your game. Seriously. You have like what? Six or seven players in a game right? If one of the builds a gunslinger.. and for some reason you allow it, does the ability to choose a piraty archetype some how make fire-arms less rare?


Really? Where has Paizo said this? Every single picture of a pirate I've seen looks exactly like a classic 18th century pirate, just don't have a pistol on them.

In the pirate gear section one of the things they have is bayonettes, like the one that appeared in UC.

Mentioning UC, Pirate Archetype for rogue suggests firearm training.

Also regardless of what they said in the past.. The entery in this book on shackles pirates pretty much overrules them now. Just like how most adventures aren't firearm toting hobos, but some are, Captian Kerdak Bonefist's ship is one of the few that does carry firearms and cannons.


Dragnmoon wrote:
I was really hoping for some Gunslinger support in this... :(

You aren't the only one. Now Rogues have 2 pirate archetypes, and can easily go into shackles pirate or the new pirate PrC.

I'm really thinking they should create an actually list of professions though if they are going to start building feats/prcs that require a certain amount of ranks in a specific profession.

Cause my Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger can't qualify for this Pirate PrC cause I took Profession: Pirate.


That isn't "already done". That's just have ONE alt form. Not at all a shapeshifting class, regardless of how much fluff you change a club will never be a laser from the sky.


I see.. but It does depend on the DM I guess.

However, Armor coat and Kilt still stands if I'm not mistaken.


Lol.. freaking elves.

At our table its often the opposite, we make snide comments about how elves look like girls. Course we do occasional say something about dwarves and beards, but no one ever plays them and one person is always playing elves with longswords and longbows. (I think he is trying to compensate for something..)

For me, I tend to play animalistic races.. And as a result quite often end up in the victim position myself. Various comments.. The most common is barking. Though there has been a few "you gotta lift up your leg." Which I find annoying simply cause my character is bi-pedal and lifting up the leg would do nothing.

I say, simply have the dwarf challenge the elf(s) to a drinking contest.. when the dwarf wins he should say "Well if you were less of a girl, you might have actually been able to stay awake long enough to prevent this.." as the dwarf opens his pants and urinates the elf.

Best yet though is have the dwarf challenge the elves to a heavy race. Its a race were you pick up the heavies thing you can carry, and try to get it to the finish line. The heavier it is, the more points earned. A dwarf has very little limit to what he can carry and be able to cross that finish line. Normal races would end up losing their full movement trying to carry something that is twice their max load. Not dwarves. With only 13 str, a dwarf can carry 300 pounds of stuff while still moving 20 feet.


Talonhawke wrote:
No mithril full plate actually is still heavy armor its just light enough that it acts as medium. You still need Hvy prof to use it without penalty.

Armor Prof has nothing to do with armor type other than what not to wear. The Charakum says you don't make the check with Heavy Armor, regardless if you are prof with it or not.

Mithril full plate acts like medium armor, therefor it acts like medium armor, not heavy armor which is what the Charakum is looking for. For some magical strange reason, Mithril full plate ends up losing its ability to protect you simply because what it acts like changes.

This is the same reason wearing an armor kilt with an armor coat, suddenly puts you into heavy armor, thus stopping the effects of the Chakarum even though your hands are totally exposed.


I feel your bain Nobnarb. I hate when you have stickler GMs that go heavily by the book and ignore things that don't make sense. Be careful though that your GM doesn't also think the Chakram won't hurt someone in heavy armor.

But - Lets Utterly break the reality of your DMs game.

You could wear mithral full plate.. Since MFP counts as medium armor.. Whoops, you take damage form chakarum.

Or you can spend most of your time running around in an armor kilt, which is light armor. you carry an armored coat with you, that you don as a move action. BOOM! putting on a your jacket with your dress you no longer take damage from chakrum! For more ridiculousness.. spend a move action putting on the coat, attack. Then Next turn attack, and remove the coat.


I'm not sure if you could do that Oterisk. Cause the sylvan bloodline is part of some magical "archtype" and is both the arcana and the 1st level power.

1 to 50 of 1,275 << 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.