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

wraithstrike's page

26,132 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 26,132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Wolfcommander wrote:

Strength Kensai magus with AC 22, 121 hit points with no Shocking Grasp or Frostbite tricks. He will use shocking grasp as a damaging spell but it is not optimized (straight 5d6 only). With Samsaran cheese he has dimension door as a third level spell and with the dimensional line of feats will try to do the Nightcrawler bouncing teleport attack thing on them.

What I need to know is if you think the party will have a chance against him or not. This is the largest group I have GM'd for and I'm a little out of my element. I am aiming for a challenging fight without killing anyone (that doesn't do something stupid anyway).

9 players against one enemy is a bad idea. It is better to use a larger number of lower CR creatures.

What I do is split the party in two. Make an encounter for each half, and then combine them back into one encounter, if I have 7 or more players.

Well that is how I used to do it, and it normally worked out.

I would use a CR 8 and a CR 9 encounter but split the XP up to have a least 5 bad guys.

Yeah you have to actually be falling, and most people consider free falling to be falling without any control so the intent is clear.

Davor wrote:
It looks like the implication is that there are no limitations on how high it can boost a familiar's level, which makes sense, given their relatively low individual power compared to animal companions.

It says, and I quote "animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher,..."

Yeah it should be errata'd to say class level for the purposes of determining the power of your animal companion or familiar, or something similar.

edit: The AC normally has more combat power, but familiars with their intelligence can be useful in ways that DPR can't.

I dont have a problem with the idea of alignment. I just wish the system was different. Maybe having virtues might work, and your virtues could then determine how certain spells interacted with you. That way two people could have the same virtue(s), but not be expected to be act a certain way. In addition it would be noted that you are not expected to always follow your virtue. Your actions dictate the virtue, not the other way around.

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it won't remove the chaotic stupid behaviors entirely, but it will make them less common because people won't have the alignment chart to influence them into trying a chaotic stupid character, they will instead feel freer to create a personality for their character that they won't have to shoehorn their behaviors into a straightjacket.

every time i interacted with alignment in my 15ish years of D&D, not counting 17 years of freeform i did at the sameish time, i have discovered that if you include alignment as a mechanic or even a detail on a character sheet, or the alignment chart as a reference, that players are bound to misinterpret that alignment and shoehorn themselves to fit their mispercieved vision of that alignment as best they can

which is why i would rather players create their own personality from scratch than try to use 2 words as a base, so you don't have something encouraging you to play chaotic stupid and other disruptive alignments.

I have never had this problem. If anything my players chose the personality first, and then tried to find the one that fit the best.

With that being said my players that were more likely to make bad decisions or be violent tended to be that way no matter what RPG we played.
In a high level D&D game they killed commoners for no reason. The same player(s), who were supposed to be heroes in a mutants and mastermind game use an AoE power and killed innocent bystanders when they could have easily taken out some bank robbers(with no super powers of their own) just because it was convenient.

According to SKR you can wait to decide before that particular attack roll, but once you activate it, then it stays up until the beginning of your next turn.

There used to be a lot more and the devs are aware of the ones that still exist

MattR1986 wrote:

When did I say never qualifies? I didn't. I said you don't automatically qualify and it isn't a houserule to disallow someone from taking one.

Might means it could be never depending on the circumstances. If you are a us citizen you might become president. If you weren't born on u.s. soil you can change that to never (unless you want to be really anal about it and say well if the constitution was changed so its only 99.9999%)

Actually it is a houserule. If you meet the prereqs of any feat then you can take that feat. <---That is in the CRB. The book is only saying that most PC's won't qualify. If they were "strictly" for monsters the book would say you can taken them with your GM's permission.

In order for these feats to not follow the general rule a specific exception would have to be written and then is no rule saying you need GM permission or that PC's are excluded from taking them.

Before you counter just be aware a rules quote will be needed.

What about the FAQ does not clear it up?

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Davor wrote:
Alright, I'm gonna clarify this really quickly. Sneak attack requires an attack roll to work.

SO not true. wrote:

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Fair enough. An attack that normally uses an attack roll is required.

Ascalaphus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.
I'm fairly certain the INTENT was for SA not to work with stuff that doesn't use an attack roll. But I'm having a hard time PROVING it.

Attacks normally means attacks using attack rolls. It could have been spelled out better, but +95% of players get the intent. I doubt most people here are really that confused. Most likely they just want the book to say exactly what it means. Not that I don't think the book should not say what it means hopefully they don't try this in a real game and expect for it to work.

RAW it is legit, and I would allow it. Unless the VC can show proof that it acts like FoB in every other way he should not be altering the ability. Take it to the PFS boards. Sometimes the guy in charge steps in.

I dont think channeling was really intended to be a primary damage or healing option. There is a feat that allows you to channel as a move action. With that you can channel twice in one round.

Being denied dex is not really a function of the stealth skill, but a it is a result of failing perception check. That is because you don't have to even use the stealth skill to sneak attack someone, but failing a perception check sets you up.

As for darkness, it is not "auto stealth". It gives 20% miss chance/concealment which means you can be seen depending on the level of light. It can also give 50% miss chance depending on the level of light that is there before the spell is cast.

If you are not aware of an opponent or if you can not react to them properly then you may be subject to sneak attack. Basically if you can't see them then you lose dex against them.

I have broken this down before and the devs backed that up in the FAQ.

PS: I skipped a lot of post, but I am sure the point of contention will be restated.
PS2: Blindsense does nothing to prevent loss of dex if you still can not see your attacker. That is what blindsight does. However blindsense may allow you to detect the attacker, if you can see him normally.

Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.

I don't think they will decide on one definition. For me having the weapon in a ready to use position is good enough, but for enhancements such as courageous or the ones that adds to AC, actually using the weapon would be required.

I think that for those they should have said the weapon must be used instead of using the word "wield" in any form.

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I've found a lot of people suggesting that the dread necromancer get a spell-list with more utility spells. I would argue heavily against this. What made the warmage, dread necromancer, and beguiler so great design wise is that their spell lists were limited enough to avoid making other party members obsolete. You just need to bring all spellcasters down to their level.

They do need more utility. They should not be on par with other casters for utility, but a high fort save and death ward makes the class a lot less useful. The warmage was good enough at damage the energy resistance did not matter as much, and the beguiler also needs more things. Illusions dont work nearly as well at higher levels.

Matt with normal metamagic the spell's actual level does not change. With heighten it does, and metamagic rods go by the actual level.

So if you have fireball(3rd) level and you have a metamagic rod of empower then it is still a 3rd level spell.

With a rod of heighten the spell could be heightened to 6th level making it an actual 6th level spell so a heighten(least) rod which only works on 1st to 3rd level spells no longer applies because the rod has just taken the spell out of the range it is supposed to work on.

But then again I guess calling it a rod is not important as long as you get the affect of the heighten, and in that case a fixed item would be the best thing, but it would not work with the metamagic rod rules. It would have to be adhoc'd.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:
Diminutive Titan wrote:

What kind of stats does your character have? Rolled? 10/15/20/25 point buy?

This might be a big deal to you, because when you specifically build a sorcerer in a way it is not usually built, you may find you need some more high ability scores because you're going into melee.

If you're going for the dragon disciple route, than I recommend upping your Str, Dex and Con as much as you can, and have a bit lower Cha than usual (probably at least Con, and either Str or Dex). And always take +1 hp as your favored class bonus for all your sorcerer levels. It's also probably a good idea to consider taking the Toughness/Dodge/Mobility/Combat Casting feats.

Since you'll have a lower Cha to compensate for having higher physical stats, you should try to focus on spells that don't rely on high Cha like spells that don't have saves... such as buffs, polymorphs, and touch attacks.

I'm absolutely not saying this can't be done otherwise, btw. The boys here have provided some interesting options. Personally I've played an Aberrant sorcerer for a while and I absolutely loved it! Melee sorcerer is always a risky business but it's huge fun and makes your GM and party members drop their jaws in awe regularly.

At this time, this is purely prep and research. However, I'm planning on 20 or rolled since that is how all my groups play. I'm going to use 20 pt but as a baseline for the sake of discussion. I agree with ur conclusions that ill not be having the luxury of high DCs.

Edit: wraith strike, y would u be dying in melee? Obviously ur squishy, but once u hit ur stride and have 30-40 strength u can potentially do more damage than the primary "fighter". Do u value the defense so low that u won't survive long enough to deal said damage?

1. Some of that will come from buffs and that wont always be an option.

2. The ability to do damage comes more from your attack roll, than your actual damage. You wont hit as much so you wont do as much damage, and it won't take too many full attacks to kill you. You also have to live long enough to be able to do 30-40 points of damage, and that is before we count DR, and monsters such as elementals that are tougher than normal in melee combat compared to other melee types.

So like I said this is not going to end well unless the GM is being nice. I really don't see you DPR'ing a fighter unless it is a poorly made fighter.

The Worst Of The Plagues wrote:
okk... other powers allowed (except the mentioned above and the thing DR/nat armor) by Smilodan's are ok?


There is no rule against two black tentacles. It is just that you are likely effective doing something else.

As for the combination of black tentacles with Sirroco, like many other things in the game there is no rule for it because the game designers can not think of every possible combination the players can put together so it falls to the GM.

Since the black tentacles cover a 20 foot area they should reach 20 feet into the air so allowing someone to go 20 feet up and then fall down seems legit.

Now in my games I only allow the tentacles to go 5 feet up, but if my players wanted to combine both spells I would allow it, but I would warn them that from now on the enemies black tentacles can also reach 20 feet up.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Elbedor wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The use of the word "enhance". You can not masterwork enhance anything.

Not sure where you get that from, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Clearly masterworking a weapon adds an enhancement bonus to it...

Masterwork Weapon wrote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
I know that rule. I am saying once the item is created you can not make it into a masterwork item. You must do it while crafting it.
Except now there's Masterwork Transformation.

I mentioned that earlier in the thread. :)

They are not that difficult to run, but you do have to read the books and be ready. I agree with what TES said also. I don't care for subsytems either.

I would avoid Kingmaker for sure, not that it is really difficult, but it is not a typical AP, and the players can go anywhere. Run something traditional first.

I just used to use my character sheet, but I do admit rewriting and erasing things would wear the sheet down eventually so I guess writing on another piece of paper would have been a good idea.

I might try this out. If I do I will let you know about it after this weekend.

The Worst Of The Plagues wrote:


but for the legacies you'll follow Smilodan's (except for DR or nat armor)??

Yes, and I would alter that one ability I mentioned above. It is just too good as written.

Edit: The lich is the default version so his lich version would not be used.

Most of them are not difficult enough to handle mythic characters without the GM having to upgrade the NPC's as well, but in that case any of them would work.

Ascalaphus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I would ask the GM could the party try to keep your character in a pit. Meanwhile they run into your new character whose only purpose is to keep the player in the game while they find a cure for the old character.

PS: I dont think the GM thought this one out.

I dunno. This is one of those things where as a GM, you have to say "trust me, I know what I'm doing with this story twist".

And that only works if you actually have the players' trust. But then it could be really neat.

If he says that I will play along and see what happens. If he gets nervous or defense then I would start to worry.

I would ask the GM could the party try to keep your character in a pit. Meanwhile they run into your new character whose only purpose is to keep the player in the game while they find a cure for the old character.

PS: I dont think the GM thought this one out.

The Worst Of The Plagues wrote:

so you mean "take the legacy as archetypes", am i right?

So i can do it only replacing DR and natural armor?

Yes the legacies would be archetypes.

Any legacy ability that grants DR or natural armor you get automatically at the same level the normal DreadNecromancer class would get it.

Going back to that ability that allows you to add cha mod to overcome SR AND roll twice I would either not allow it, or make it work like I have it below.

Inevitable Magic (Ex): The dread necromancer adds her Charisma modifier to caster level checks to overcome spell resistance. This ability may be used an equal number of times per day equal to 1/2 cha modifier. The dread necromancer must be at least 9th level before selecting this ability.

No, it does not exist, and it would be very hard to price such a rod because of the variable levels that can be added with heighten metamagic if someone made custom version.

Domestichauscat wrote:

That sounds pretty good then. She should focus on her Int, Wis and to a lesser extent Cha. Int for skills, seeing as she's not going to need Str. Wis for the casting and Cha for diplomacy. I'm thinking diplomacy would be the go to skill for this kind of character.

DEX and Con will not be as vital as it would be on a dedicated warrior character. But they shouldn't be very low either. After all she wants to stay alive as long as possible I assume.

Woah I got ninja'd!

She will still need con for hit points and fort saves. Just because she wont kill the enemy that does not mean they wont kill her.

Ghost would be much more difficult to deal with since most creatures cant deal with incorporeal creatures, but at the same time ghost are supposed to be tied to a certain location and should not be adventuring, so the ghost should not be allowed on both accounts.

The vampire is restricted to night travel for the most part. There is a spell that can get past it, but one dispel and you are dead.

For those reasons I would avoid both of those.

Now if you just get the legacies without becoming the creature that is different.

With regard to the following feature from SmiloDan I think it bypasses SR to easily. I only skimmed it, but I did not read the entire list in detail. I do like the idea behind how he wrote it up though. Later on I will go over his list and give a detail opinion on it. Personally I still think my version is a lacking in power, but not by a lot. I would remove Dan's class abilities except for the legacies.

"Inevitable Magic (Ex): The dread necromancer adds her Charisma modifier to caster level checks to overcome spell resistance. The dread necromancer may roll twice on caster level checks and choose the higher result. The dread necromancer must be at least 12th level and have the Magic of the Grave ability before selecting this ability"

I was going to do the channel energy thing, but I did not want to copy the cleric, and by using the 3.5 class features with slight modifications I can stay true to the class.

As for flavor, I always felt like flavor is with a character more than it is with a class. You can always change the flavor. That is why I only offered mechanics.

For the ghost legacy I would change "Incorporeal Moment" so the character is subject to the same rules as other incorporeal creatures and is not only fully affected by force affects.

PS: I don't really like the lich legacy, but I can see the vampire and ghost legacies as an archetype. Without going into detail anything the legacies give that grants natural armor and DR will replace anything the normal version has that grants DR and natural armor.

PS2: I was bouncing around while writing this so if something is not clear just let me know and I will explain it again.

Positive and negative energy are just as corporeal as the other energy types. They just do not exist in our world. If that were not the case then channel energy would not have to specifically be called out, when they could have just said positive and negative energy, and taken care of everything.

Channel Energy is a class feature and is not the same as channeled(dictionary use) of the word so by RAW cure spells and even searing light do half damage, but since they are against undead many GM's allow them to do full damage.

Freehold DM wrote:
I recall that from the old 2nd ed days.

That may have been where my old GM got it from. I did play 2nd edition but we always rolled, and I never really got a good feel for the rules.

Dabnabit wrote:
Yeah I was hoping for the opposite to guarantee a ranged touch attack hits with my pitiful dex of 11!

You are targeting touch AC so if you can position yourself to avoid cover, firing into melee will only give you a -4 penalty. You may have to invest in some dex boosting items if you don't want to wait for your BAB to help you out more, or if you dont want to invest in precise shot.

Elbedor wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The use of the word "enhance". You can not masterwork enhance anything.

Not sure where you get that from, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Clearly masterworking a weapon adds an enhancement bonus to it...

Masterwork Weapon wrote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

I know that rule. I am saying once the item is created you can not make it into a masterwork item. You must do it while crafting it.

NickleBrick wrote:

Oracle‎ > ‎Mysteries‎ > Heavens

Awesome Display (Su):
Each creature affected by your illusion (pattern) spells is treated as if its total number of Hit Dice were equal to its number of Hit Dice minus your Charisma modifier (if positive).

Gnome Oracle 20 chr start - 8th lvl +2 chr, +4 chr headband, Spell focus illusion, Greater spell focus, Heighten spell, rod persistence

Chr= 26 (+8 Bonus) or (-8 levels)
Color Spray(3) DC= 10 + 3 + 8 + 3 = 24 Will Save (roll twice)

If your 12 level or lower (Out of Game, Dead, Useless)

If Piazo F-ing Stupid or do they not see that these abilities kill the balance of the game, I would never play this character, because whats the point of always winning with no chance of failure????? Its like playing with loaded dice that always roll natural 20's! Fun, thrill, yeah! I wonder about the people who look for these one trick wonders, like a 5 year old, kind of pathetic.

Am I the only person that thinks this is incredible Cheese, Unfair, unbalanced, and should be outlawed for Living play.

I don't have a problem with it, but I don't believe in calling too many things OP either. I do believe that certain things are OP for certain tables.

I have used a 1 for 1 point buy in the past. Basically everyone starts at all 0's and they have 75(number used for this example) to buy points.

By 1 for 1 I mean there is no scaling value for ability scores.

Example using 75

str 16

dex 14

con 14

int 12

wis 9

cha 10

Adding these up gets you 75.

Nothing I know of gives animate dead as an SLA most because it cost money. If it is possible then it is a PrC or a feat tree. You are likely better off just paying for it.

With that said here is my Dread Necro writeup:

I am only posting what I would change. Other than that go by the official writeup.

[spoiler]BAB 3/4 instead of 1/2

Charnel Touch: 1d8 at first level, and increase by 1d8 at every odd level. Can be used as swift action if used to heal the DreadNecromancer. Will save to resist. The save is CHA based.
This ability is usable a number of time per day equal to 3+Cha modifier.

Rebuke Undead: The Dread necromancer gains the command undead and turn undead feats as bonus feats. Dread Necromancers can not channel they but the radius of the effect is still 30 feet with the Dread Necromancer at the center of the affect.

Negative Energy Burst: This is a special version of channel energy and therefore the dread necromancer can use it as a prereq in whenever channel energy is called for. The Dread Necromancer can emits a burst of negative energy equal to 1d4 per class level. A successful Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 her class level + Cha modifi er) reduces damage by half. Undead creatures within this burst are healed the same amount of hit points as the damage she deals to living creatures. This ability may be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + cha modifier.

Note: This ability can never be use to emit positive energy even if a feat or class feature from another source would normally allow for channel energy to do so.

Advanced Learning (Ex): A dread necromancer can add a new spell to her list, representing the result of personal study and experimentation.Knowing that some creatures are highly resistant to the art of necromancy, and the foolishness of only relying on one school of magic the Dread Necromancer occasionally learns other spells to augment her repertoire.

At 2nd level and every even level thereafter the dread necromancer may choose a spell from the wizard/sorcerer or cleric list and of a
level no higher than that of the highest-level spell the dread
necromancer already knows. Once a new spell is selected, it is added to that dread necromancer’s spell list and can be cast just like any other spell she knows.

I would allow them to know all necromancy spells on the cleric and wizard/sorcerer list upon leveling up that are available. If a spell is on both list but at different levels then I would say they gain access at the lower level. They are already restricted to necromancy magic for the most part so this should not unbalance anything.

Favored Class points:
Humans (1/2): The character may add a new spell to her spell list just as if she had used Advanced Learning.

Archetype: (I could not think of a decent name)

Undead Companion: At 4th level the dread necromancer gains an animal companion from the druid list, that has the zombie template applied. However the animal is allowed to retain its intelligence and gain skill points as normal. In addition, if the dread necromancer chooses the creature may still be affect by spells that normally only target animals.
The Dread Necromancer's effective druid level is equal to her Dread Necromancer level – 3.

At 11th level the Dread Necromancer's effective druid level becomes equal to her Dread Necromancer level.
This ability replaces the Fear Aura and Summon Familiar abilities.

Advanced Knowledge: This ability is altered so that the Dread Necromancer may select spells from the druid list instead of the cleric list. To be clear the cleric's spell list is now off limits.


master_marshmallow wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You can't compare a 12,12,14,10,16,9 with a 25 point buy, and even if the rolls are equal to a 25 point buy the exact numbers matter.

Then it is not fair, it's that simple.

Also I said the exact same thing earlier when I retorted about wizard stats, ultimately the numbers that don't fall into the primary stat categories really end up not mattering.

The problem is certain classes have multiple primary stats, which is a gaming system that point buy does not hold up to.

Again, I never said rolling was better, but I will say that in my own personal games, I have found 2d6+6 to be the best facilitator of what my players want to play.

I already said PB is not perfectly fair, but it is normally closer than rolling stats especially if you dont allow for rerolls.

2d6+6 is not normally bad because you will end up with an 8 minimum, but there can still be a big variance.
Actually I don't think anyone is saying PB is perfectly fair. Most of us likely think it is closer to being fair than random rolls are however.

Unless your GM is really nice going into melee will get you killed, but since you want to try what resources are you allowed, and what is your point buy?

Eirikrautha wrote:

[What??? Have you actually played this game? Pathfinder may be many things, but it is certainly NOT "fair" (if we define fair as meaning equally powerful or balanced, as you seem to do above).

I agree with this, but the rest of your statement I don't agree with. However with that said two classes don't have to be equally powerful to be equally useful(which is sometimes confused with balance), and in this case the GM is not being fair. Not only that this item does nothing to promote character development even if everyone did accept it.

If he wants to promote interaction he can try to put a reason in the story to make them want to care, but giving more power after complaining that players only want to kill things is NOT the answer.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

His title is literally "so looks like you can't enchant a shield as a weapon".

This is incredibility wrong.

A Shield is a weapon.

Masterwork, is not an enchantment either. It's a quality.

I have no idea what big revelation is supposed to be discovered here, or what the actual rules question is.

What's "a bummer"?

The fact that the Masterwork quality does not provide a bonus to attack for shields?

Is that the big revelation?

Maybe he thought you could add a masterwork component to use it as a MW shield, and another one to use it as a MW weapon upon creation.

He has not responded so I am just guessing.

Renvale987 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Just a thought: what about having the scrolls provide Mythic tiers, rather than regular caster levels?

That way they don't interfere with regular level gain and could provide a significant boost even if they only gave the arcane (Archmage?) version.

The arcane casters are still better off though, which suggests to me that it would be better not to restrict it.

We had a mythic game and I've found, along with my players, that mythic spell-casting is completely broken. I don't want to get into that debate here, but we will never run a mythic game again, due to the unbalance.

I've been racking my brain to try and find something to give flavor to the campaign. The characters are descendants of Karsus, the de-facto Arch-Mage of Faerun. They've found his scroll-case, and I'm debating on letting them find his other items as well.

I'm firm believer that the PC's should be unique but not overpowered. Mythic is OP, but I think maybe powerful magic items, given few and far between and accounted for when making encounters, can make the PC's feel awesome; Hey look, I have Karsus's so and so thing-a-majig and you don't.

If you run them against non-mythic monsters they will curb stomb them.

With regard to your situation you can post each class/character and give them each something unique from some idea on the boards here.

Elbedor wrote:

I'm a little confused as to why people are responding to me as if I said you can't magically enchant a shield as a magic weapon. Where did I suggest such a thing? The OP was talking about Masterwork enhancements, not magical ones (although the title and the post actually suggest two different things). I was pointing out how the CRB was saying the same thing the UE was saying regarding masterwork enhancement bonuses. What I emboldened was the part that was similar. This was then followed by "bummer" which was a play off of what the OP had listed in the title.

Of course you can magically enchant a shield as a weapon. Rikkan was so kind as to clearly point this out with the proper text. What I'm not sure about is how people take what I post and turn that into:

"You can't magically enchant a shield as a weapon unless it has spikes."

I don't understand where that came from or what the confusion is over.

The use of the word "enhance". You can not masterwork enhance anything. The item has to masterwork upon creation barring a certain spell that did not even exist when the CRB is written so it was assumed you meant magical enhancement.

Simon Legrande wrote:

Personally, if I like nuts and I'm doing all the work, then the allergic guy is SOL.

You might be doing "all the work", but if this small portion of your work is no more than pouring a glass of milk then I don't see the need to be so difficult about it especially if you are doing all of the work by your own choice, and not because nobody is willing/able to help.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

OK then, is it fair to the GM that now has to make up from scratch some kind of extra little nugget because one player doesn't like the already-established-in-lore item?

Is it fair to the rest of the players if the GM decides not to add in this potentially cool item because one guy doesn't like it?

Fairness is not a one-way street and should never be determined by the desires of one player.

It took me about 2 seconds to get the idea of letting people progress in their own class. It is not like the GM has to come up with a feat, spell, and so on just to even this out.

"ok, you have levels in _____"<---Done.

edit: and nobody has to go without getting something. See how easy that was.

And how does the GM give the player those levels. The other players have to hunt for some ancient relics to use, does this one guy get them by GM fiat?

What if the guy doesn't want the GM affecting his character at all? Is it the GM's job to make the guy take something just to keep up?

No quest is needed. Make the item do what the players want it to do based on what class they want.

Personally I dont see a difference between leveling up between by XP and a magic item as long as everyone does it at the same time. In that case the GM is not forcing anything on the player from my point of view, so unless the player is just not understanding the GM I dont see that taking place.

Kudaku wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

They should have made it like the witch's version since the intent is a negative affect. RAW however allows this to be used in a positive manner.

I also do not think it is RAI that you target yourself, but since the question is here I will hit the FAQ button. I will be modifying it in my games to be like the witch version to an extent. Basically it will still be an immediate action that must be made before the dice roll is made, and the worse of the two rolls will be used.

I'd be careful with that houserule - you're essentially giving oracles an Immediate Action Misfortune curse. The action economy advantage and being able to pick exactly what roll to screw up each round makes it significantly more powerful than the witch version.

Personally I'd just tell your players that Misfortune is intended to target enemies, not allies, and treat it as such.

It is already an immediate action. The difference is that with my version the oracle must declare it before the roll is made, not after so they can't use it as a pseudo-fortune.

With that aside I learned a long time ago the rules are not exactly consistent so I don't always expect one ruling to affect another rule even if it should logically.

1 to 50 of 26,132 << 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.