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

30,371 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 30,371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If that is an official answer they need to FAQ it.


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.

The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)


I read it as you can benefit from both if you have met the condition of entering the space on a missed attack, and then later stunning them. However in all my years of seeing someone use stunning fist I have seen it work less than 5 times, and I have run games from 1 to at least 15 several times.


I agree the rule can not predict future rules, but when those future rules are written the devs can easily say "X counts as Y" or write in a counter-rule. In this case neither happened, and I see no RAW to say that hardness on a creature can by bypassed.

I would allow for anything that bypasses hardness on an object to bypass hardness on a creature, but I don't even know if that is RAI.


Doomed Hero wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I dont think the devs intended for something bypassing DR to bypass hardness or they would have just used DR for the creatures.

I agree.

My question is more of a "design theory" one I suppose. What do Hardness and Damage Reduction represent as concepts? Clearly they aren't quite what I thought they were if we are now seeing monsters with hardness, so now I'm trying to dig deeper.

What does it all mean, anyway?

/stonervoice

DR can mean tough skin or a fast regen rate for purposes of flavor. Hardness is normally just something hard such as stone or steel.

Effectively they do the same thing except that one is normally only applied to objects, but they are two different things for how they interact with the rules. I do like hardness since it means that you can't just use your +__ weapon to bypass it.


1. I was running an AP and if you set the trap off the room would start flooding and dump electric eels in the room with you.

2. I never experienced this one since I missed the session, but the group set off a trap that puts you into a box that rotates, and the walls are lined with spikes. I thought it was funny, and so did the GM, but I guess those inside the box were a little less amused. :)


Mulet wrote:

My party (APL10) are having a terrible time with the higher level encounters. Here is my most relevant example:

Half Dragon Battle Mage, Advanced 1 (CR8), against an APL9 party with an invisible Accuser Devil (CR3) stealing their weapons.

The Dragon flew into the air, and cast spells. The players just whacked at it every turn, until it finally died. As a DM, I expected them to debuff him, dispel his mage armour and use targeted attacks to damage stats like DEX to drop his AC. (1 guy did go for the Wings, which was cool)

I think it's correct to build encounters expecting players to drop the stats of an enemy before taking it out, but is this really the case in your own experience?

If I make anything with an AC at or over 18, I get complained at. And if does something special, like the Swashbuckler parrying a Critical hit successfully, I get more complaints. For weeks after in the case of the Swashbuckler.

But as a DM, my minions are never disarmed, sundered and only very rarely hit by enfeebling rays and such. So combat is just WHACK WHACK WHACK.

How do I encourage PC's to treat their characters like the multi-faceted tools they are instead of just clubs? (None have played characters above L8 until meow.)

Going after stats is not normal and not nearly as easy as it was in 3.5. I had a build based around it, but I never used it because I knew the GM would not like it.

If they have debuff spells many parties will use them. Maybe they are just inexperienced or not used to a certain playstyle. You may have to give them advice during or in between sessions to see if they are willing to take it. If not they may just prefer the way they are playing.


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The average commoner makes about 400 gp a year*, which is actually about 1.1 gp a day or 11s p. If we are going to base economy off of those numbers then none of the higher magic items exist which is fine because nobody is really going to be able to afford to make them
The average salaryman makes about 20.000 € in a year (after taxes and so on). That don't mean that Ferrari cars or people spending 1 million dollars to get a custom made telephoto lens don't exist.

I thought I had erased that part, but since I didn't....

Yeah, but there are people who can afford the car. If you use their low wealth rules nobody(a much smaller number of people than is intended by the rules) is buying the 200000 gp magic item. Ok, you might have an elf who has lived for a long time, but well you get the point.


I dont think the devs intended for something bypassing DR to bypass hardness or they would have just used DR for the creatures.


Mulet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
...

Thank you for the correction. I'mma add this to my DM quick reference charts.

If I remove the peasant taking 12 weeks off work a year, because life is hard presumably, then it would take 2.3 years to earn enough Diamond dust to fix the party up.

This here adjusts my perspective much more. I'll make diamond dust available in 100gp baggies in Magnimar, and the quest for 1500gp of it only an option.

If you don't want to give the money out then I think the idea of doing a quest in order to get the levels removed would work. That way you don't have your party walking around with a lot of loot, and they get fixed up. If they ask why someone as power as the NPC can not do the quest, then you can have him otherwise engaged. Maybe a more serious threat, at least in his opinion, needs to be taken care of.


Earthpig wrote:

What about manyshot? Do you get the double smite damage on both arrows or just one? The feat says that you apply bonuses such as favoured enemy to each arrow, but this is an always on ability.

I've always played it that both arrows get the extra damage as it is a single attack roll. This does mean though that higher level archer Paladins tend to drop any level appropriate enemy in a single round when smiting if using a bow with a strength bonus and deadly aim.

RAW both arrows get it since Manyshot is one attack but with two arrows. RAI it is probably the same, but I dont know if GM's actually run it that way.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Although the wording is pointlessly ambiguous, and is a change from the original text which doubled the damage bonus for those targets for every single strike, I find it difficult to believe that they nerfed it to such an extent that it went from every single hit to one single hit. It seems much more likely that they nerfed it to the first hit in each round.

Nerfing it to one single hit is rather pointless. If they were going to nerf it that hard then just take away the whole 'double bonus damage' text to save space. That would be much less of a nerf to the current ability than nerfing it from 'every hit' to 'one single hit'.

When the system was new threads proclaiming "Smite/Paladin" is OP/broken were being made at a faster rate than "rogues/monks" suck threads.

The intent really is once per fight.

One player landed a dragon in front of an archer and then complained when the archerdin murderized it because it was CR=APL+3. I tried to explain that the CR in the book assumes certain things and that when you downplay the strengths of a creature the effective CR is not as high. Anyway it is what it is now. There were other threads were the paladin's new found power surprised GM's and they were not happy about having to adjust their old 3.5 tactics for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulet wrote:
Dafydd wrote:

ROAD TRIP TO THE DIAMOND MINE ON THE ELEMENTAL PLANE OF EARTH!!!

pick up some mithral and adamantine while you are there.

That's pretty much what I wanted to know, that there is a location somewhere where this is more common.

We play a very low income campaign setting. If a peasant makes 2sp pieces per day, and a full suit of Armour is 1500gp, then a party finding 2000GP - 5000GP per session is simply ridiculous. Every man and his dog would drop their tools and go adventuring for a few months. The party currently only has about 3800GP in the bank, and only earns a few hundred more each session.

The game's economy is not meant to be realistic. It is really there to give players a way to buy things. There are a few threads online on how hard it fails. No matter if you look at it from a the commoner's income or what Paizo expects you to get it fails if you really get into the details.

However since you run a low income game I would suggest that only a metropolis is likely to have a large amount of rare/expensive components such as diamond dust.

Also money is not enough motivation for someone to risk their life and not everyone has adventuring skills.

The average commoner makes about 400 gp a year*, which is actually about 1.1 gp a day or 11s p. If we are going to base economy off of those numbers then none of the higher magic items exist which is fine because nobody is really going to be able to afford to make them. Also since the game bases the prices on its current model and not what commoners make then in actuality the price of the components would match what the economy can produce. Otherwise the math just kills the concept of certain things have the current book pricing. So if your current playstyle is mostly based on math then you will have to reprice a lot of things to be accurate. If you just want a gritty playstyle then carry on. :)

*I have seen this math in several places online. I guess I should check it however.
Bob the farmer
1 rank in profession farming +3 for class skill =4
masterwork tool gives another +2
So we are at a 6. He likely has at least 2 kids so they are aiding another for another 4.
Now we have a 10.
I won't even assume he has a high wisdom. I will say he just has a 10.

So he takes 10 on this and gets a 20

Quote:
You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work.

Half of 20 is 10.

10 x 4 week =40 per month
40 x 12 months = 480

Not that I did not give wisdom a high score or use skill focus

So now 480/365=1.3 gold per day

Now if you are untrained(no ranks in profession) then you earn 1sp per day, not even 2.

Gets tired of typing and decides to not go into the break down of how bad the game is at representing an actual economy, mostly because it is way off-topic.

Anyway I just wanted to present some information.


Krodjin wrote:

Okay, so I just checked the Beastiary 2 listing on the official PRD site and they have pounce/rake listed (I guess my hardcover version is an older printing)... But I'm struggling with the idea that a creature with DR 10/Silver, 3 primary natural attacks, pounce, rake, and 2d6 sneak attack is CR4...

Even if I make intentionally poor decisions and don't use any tactics at all (which would be out of character for an intelligent creature), I don't see how it could end in any way except a TPK if I try and run it as an epic encounter.

Am I wrong to think that?

1. These are level 1 characters. I don't run APL+3 for any group below level 3.

2. CR alone is not enough to determine if a creature is an ok opponent for a group.


If nobody else does I will post a link to a discussion on it later. IIRC there were two big discussions on it. They did errata it but since it does not make sense to some people fo reasons in those threads a lot of GM's dont like it.


You are the GM. Diamond dust can reasonably be in any city. Golarion does not have it in a specific area. Maybe a cleric has enough diamond dust already but he wont cast it until the quest is done.


How nice is your GM? If he is the type to go easy on you due to your build then try the 11. If your GM is not going to hold back I suggest upping your AC. Even if they only need a 5 on the die roll it is better than relying on a nat 1 to not get hit.


You tried to give advice but he seems to be stubborn. Let him learn the hard way.


LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The summon monster and summon nature's ally spells allow you to summon various elementals. The newer bestiaries have new elemental types such as the Ice and Lightning elementals. It seems that most people are of the opinion that since there is no working saying that only the bestiary 1 elementals are allowed that any new elementals can be summoned also.

So here is the question: Are the bestiary 1 elementals such as the fire, water, earth, and air, elementals the only ones allowed to be summoned with the summon monster and nature's ally spells?

I'm going to say yes, unless the elementals you want to use have absolutely identical CR ratings.

They do have the same CR ratings. As an example all Elder elementals are CR 11.

I think the intent(only after reading some dev post) is for only bestiary 1, but I am asking the questions because not many people play that way including myself. An IMO this is one of those things that does need to be stated officially because there is no RAW language to indicate this is even a possibility otherwise. I am going to keep playing the way I always have as a GM though. I just don't like unwritten rules that we are supposed to know about.


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

The summon monster and summon nature's ally spells allow you to summon various elementals. The newer bestiaries have new elemental types such as the Ice and Lightning elementals. It seems that most people are of the opinion that since there is no working saying that only the bestiary 1 elementals are allowed that any new elementals can be summoned also.

So here is the question: Are the bestiary 1 elementals such as the fire, water, earth, and air, elementals the only ones allowed to be summoned with the summon monster and nature's ally spells?


Shane LeRose wrote:
Taenia wrote:
SKR was quoted here as noting that the spell didn't include elementals outside the Bestiary because that would expand the list every time a new book came out.

Paizos complete unwillingness to expand the summoning list has pissed me off since day one. There is nothing wrong with expanding the list with each bestiary release. If anything it encourages players to buy a copy of the books so they can reference their beasties.

Of course I can expand the list myself, but not when I'm playing in someone else's game. /rant.

I do agree with them not expanding it. That spell is really good already. They do however have alternate list you can use. I think a compiled list is on d20pfsrd.


Jeff Merola wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Taenia wrote:

You cannot use Summon monster spells to summon elementals outside the bestiary.

That is incorrect. The summon spells refers to Elementals. It never calls out fire, water, air, and earth specifically.
There's a dev quote somewhere that says it's intended to be fire, water, air, and earth only.

I will FAQ it. That is something that needs to be in writing if that is the case.


Taenia wrote:

You cannot use Summon monster spells to summon elementals outside the bestiary.

That is incorrect. The summon spells refers to Elementals. It never calls out fire, water, air, and earth specifically.


Protection from evil will not protect the creature from non-evil creatures so the circle version won't either. So what if the caster trapping the evil creature is also evil?
From my reading of the spell it only protect the creature if it is not being used to trap him. So if the creature is too large to fit in the circle then it effects per the normal use of the spell. If he can fit inside the circle and it is focused inward then it just traps him, but does not grant him any protection.


On eidolons: They can be made to equal fighters in combat. Either that or many of us missed some broken rules.

On interesting options: Interesting is subjective. One person's "interesting" is another person's "this sucks". What we can measure however is what is useful. Interesting also does not really have a bearing on power creep or bloat.

To answer the OP's question, most builds I see have more core feats than non-core feats so some options will be better than core feats, but you are also comparing every non-core book to just the CRB, so even if it gets to the point where a build is 100% non-core feats it won't really be saying much.


You are allowed to use all of your magic item slots. In order for one of two slots to not work because one is cancelling the other there would need to be a specific rule saying so.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The first successful attack.
???

A in the OP's post.


Even if a creature is in complete agreement and loves your idea the charisma check is still required. Charm person which also might make them agree is not really going to improve on that.


Arachnofiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

But is it really bad power creep when a bottom-tier class creeps into the middle tier?

I do agree that the monk is the most dramatic change in a class' viability.

Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.

Tier lists are constructed with the assumption that the players involved are at the absolute peak of system mastery with the classes they're playing. That you're using the Monk at the very best of its abilities is assumed so writing out archetypes like the Qinggong isn't quite fair.

After all, if you don't assume system mastery then the Wizard is mid-tier at bestm

I never saw anything about "absolute best". Do you have a citation?


Define "small amounts of information".

I really think a flow chart would be more difficult to memorize also.


Undone wrote:


Quote:
Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.
Just going to disagree with this. After pummeling charge and the ability to fly from quiggong the monk has passed up to as good as the ZAM is normally. Quiggong is really the largest buff any class has gotten in all of pathfinder.

Quiggong sorta proves my point and pummeling style alone is not saving the monk nor putting it on par with zen archers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no contradiction. I think it is a silly ruling, but they do not contradict.


p-sto wrote:
And Wraithstrike, I think that depends on how extensive your definition of system mastery is. I've been playing Pathfinder for four months now and my first character was a monk. She's at seventh level now and I have to admit I put her on the shelf for a while because I was unhappy with how suboptimal the build was but I feel it's fairly objective to say that while there are some situations where she's very ineffective on the whole the character is far from unplayable and it only took minor tweaking to get her there.

I never said anything about unplayable. I am only stating that monks are for the most part suboptimal(below the bar of "Standard").


Ascalaphus wrote:

But is it really bad power creep when a bottom-tier class creeps into the middle tier?

I do agree that the monk is the most dramatic change in a class' viability.

Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.


leo1925 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?

No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.

I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!

So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.

Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.

Huh. They nerfed it, but added it back with the Underground Chemist.
i still have absolutely no clue how that AT isnt a waste of ink, or why people think it isnt.

It wasn't, but then the "typed" untyped multisource bonus FAQ came out.

Now, it's a blind, crippled Alchemist wannabe.

Which FAQ do you mean?

This one

Do a search for Fury's Fall and weapon finesse for an in game example of this.


By the rules charm person does not bypass the spell. The spell has no provision for not allowing a charisma check for the bound monster. Would it be logical if the monster was dominated? Sure. However what makes sense and what the rules allow are two different things.

The rules state " You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature's Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.".

They do not state " You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature's Charisma check unless the creature agrees in which case no charisma check is needed. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.

The best you can hope for by the rules is a modifier of +0. Seeing as how this is the rules section you are getting a rules based answer. If you want "how should this be played" answer then I advise you to go to general discussion or the advice section.


kestral287 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.
That is all the explanation needed.

Yet paizo does that.

For the most put, everything printed is weaker than top shelf CRB.

I dont think full casters are the measuring stick unless you had another definition of top shelf.

Then what is the measuring stick?

Because that's kind of the key question here. The answers here are tending to focus on one of two things. Either the big guns of the CRB; Leadership and item crafting and 9th level casters, or the underdogs; Fighter and Mobility and such. Do we have a metric for "average" power in the CRB? The Bard?

But the OP does have a point-- compare the baseline Fighter to the Mutation Warrior. I'm at the point that I'd never run a baseline Fighter and Mutation Warrior is my default unless I need another archetype that it doesn't work with.

*Shrug* Really, it looks to me like power convergence more than creep. The CRB was a diverse book that give us both Leadership and Mobility, Wizard and Rogue. Later books generally have a tighter power spread that cuts out both the top and bottom 10% or so.

My point was that Will was not using 9th level casters as his base. He seemed to be using what most of us consider to be good without being too good. Kestral took it completely out of context.

To answer your question, which you hit on people on these forums tend to take things to extremes when the truth is often somewhere in the middle. Not being equal to a wizard does not make you weak, and being better than a rogue does not make you OP.

Bard and rangers are good "middle of the pack" comparisons when it comes to classes. We do not have an official metric but many gamers here also look at the inquisitor as a good measure of balance.

When it comes to feats they are more situational, but leadership should not be the common level of power.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
the Slayer is an amazing replacement for both the Fighter and the Rogue. play that if you want your noncasting fighter fix.

That is how I feel, but many will say that telling them to not play a rogue is not the correct way to give advice. I do understand to an extent. It just depends on how one perceives the game.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
There also isn't a feat published that is more powerful than Leadership, although Craft Wondrous Item comes close.

Leadership Cohorts aren't any stronger than animal companions or eidolons, they just happen to have more ways you can customize them and more options for what role you can build them towards

in fact, Eidolons and Animal Companions are better martial combatants than any melee oriented cohort, due to having better base values, so you are generally better off with a ranged or spellcasting cohort because they can do things an animal companion or eidolon is ill suited for,

Animal Companions and Eidolons are not feats. They are class features which tend to be stronger than feats on average.


I think there are some in Ultimate Equipment, but they have other affects. I would go to the PRD and open up the magical weapon section and the wondrous item section, and use the search feature in your browser by typing in sneak attack.

edit: I don't think there is a magical weapon property that does this but there may be magical items. I misread your post.


The devs have stated the answer so this will likely lead to a "no reply needed". I don't see them changing the answer to "ok it has no duration". At best you will have errata stating that certain magic items have a limited duration.

Then people will still complain that it was a bad decision, but normally when someone says no and you keep asking they tend to say "no" in much more stern voice. That "voice" in this case will be errata if they answer it again. Anyway I am done here most likely. There is no point in debating since people are trying to change the words to say what they want them to say despite the devs saying "this is how we want this to work".


chbgraphicarts wrote:

The Slayer, Brawler, and Warpriest all basically invalidate the basic Fighter.

The Slayer has it beat for all-around versatility and still gains Bonus Feats, the Brawler is just a better close-combat warrior, and the Warpriest will out-perform it even with a lower BAB because of the Fervor-cast Buffs.

The Fighter is the single-greatest Dip class in the game, but it's not really worth taking Fighter to lv20, sadly. Its myriad Archetypes are there mostly as a means to specialize your Martial character and then move on into the "real" class.

To make the Fighter actually viable as a non-beginner class or dip class, it'd basically need to be made into an even heftier Man-At-Arms than it already is, which would require re-designing it so much that it doesn't end up looking anything like the classic Fighter ironically (i.e. it's easier just to print that new class with a different name than it is to "patch" the Fighter).

I am playing a slayer now and competing with the fighter for damage, and I can still do other things. Now we are still low level, but I don't expect for much to change at level 10. Even if the fighter is ahead in damage I don't expect that he will be far ahead.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.
That is all the explanation needed.

Yet paizo does that.

For the most put, everything printed is weaker than top shelf CRB.

I dont think full casters are the measuring stick unless you had another definition of top shelf.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Not one of the four of us thought it was continuous or even possibly continuous, but it's true that I personally wasn't sure it defaulted to command word over use-activated until some people in the thread pointed out that it's in the rules for rings.

There you go. No dev, not even a former regular boardmember thought it was continuous.


kinevon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Whether you think the shift was accidental or not is irrelevant; it's been explicitly stated that this is how the items work now. Ergo, the paradigm has shifted.

And the release of the last two FAQs absolutely means the PDT deliberately decided that this ring should need a command word and should only work for 3 minutes.

And, now, they need to revisit the pricing, because pricing that was reasonable for a command activated, continuous until effect broken item, is not a reasonable price for the crippled item that now exists.

Given:
Ring of Invisibility is 20,000 gp
Wand of Invisibility, 50 uses, CL5 is 4,500 gp

4,500/50 is 90 gp per use
20000/90 is 223 uses before it can be considered to have reached cost effective.

Anyone can use the ring. Not everyone can use the wand so it makes sense for the ring to cost more. That is why potions cost more than scrolls per use.


There is a difference between using charm monster to make it fight for you and forcing it to fail a check for planar binding. Planar binding can make it do more than just fight so to me those are two different premises.


someonenoone111 wrote:

@Bob Bob Bob

Yeah, that's the debate with charm monster v.s. dominate monster. Right now, the way I view it is, those two spells are almost identical. The differences are:
1. When ordered to do something against its nature, charm monster requires a charisma check, where as dominate monster requires an additional saving throw. So for high charisma characters, charm monster is better where as for low charisma characters, dominate is better.

2. Charm has some limits, dominate doesn't. Charmed monsters don't do anything suicidal, and may commit suicide instead of killing his wife and child, but anything not that extreme, charm monster can accomplish. Despite this though, charm monster is VERY powerful, and all the official examples show that you can make a monster go fight stuff for you for free. So a charmed demon would fight for you for free, but you will need to make a lot of charisma checks to stop it from slaughtering innocent people. People seem to get caught up on the "friendly" attitude, but you gotta remember that charm monster can magically compel you to do stuff you'd never do. They are your puppets, just that you gotta have a silver tongue too, not just powerful magic, which is why wizards will always go dominate over charm.

@subway rat
Another vote for option b. :)
There are a lot of safeguards I can use, like boosting my caster level and grabbing rings that boost my dispel check. Ring of counterspells with greater dispel magic stored is my favorite.

How far that goes is up to the GM. For most evil monsters such as outsiders they would even kill friends trying to keep them prisoner, and if they have knowledge arcana and/or spellcraft they may recognize the spell.

The charisma check for planar binding is to get the monster to actually agree. That is different from forcing it to cooperate. The fact that someone might kill themselves instead of completing a task due to charm person/monster is showing they are not in agreement with it. That is why charm monster won't work to bypass the charisma check for planar binding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:

Sounds like not everybody at your table is mature enough to handle an Evil Game.

Might want to proceed with new, non-Evil characters until everybody has had a chance to grow up a bit.

I would also suggest starting at level 1. Higher level characters tend to have a lot of abilities/options.


Bruno Kristensen wrote:
I know how CDGs work. I'm trying to find out how Invisibility affects a sleeping sentry's chances of waking up as the would-be coup de gracer is sneaking up to him.

Invis has no affect at all if you use RAI. RAW stealth does not differentiate between sight and sound. RAW you can be behind a door and still get that +20 mod to stealth even though they can't see you anyway.

So it depends if you want to go by what the book says or what the book intends.

edit:The invis rules do state that invis does not affect perception based on noise so you can use that to justify ignoring the +20.


gabrias wrote:

I've played a lot of Pathfinder since it first came out, both as a GM and as a player, and I'm getting ready to start running a new campaign. As I do so I find myself reflecting on the overwhelming popularity of two handed weapons amongst player characters in my group. They are flat out the best and simplest way for martial characters to do damage in the game. By comparison ranged combat and sword and shield styles seem much less effective. With that in mind I'm wondering about adding some house rules to promote a bigger variety of combat styles and I thought I'd ask the opinion of the messageboards here to see if there are any obvious pitfalls that I've overlooked. ;-)

All characters gain the following feats for free reducing the 'feat tax' problem:

  • Point-Blank Shot – makes everyone a little better at ranged attacks.
  • Weapon finesse – which is only useful for high Dex characters but makes them more viable combatants.

And similarly any character who meets the prerequisites gets these feats for free. Prerequisites given in brackets below for convenience.

  • Combat Expertise (Int 13)
  • Mounted Combat (Ride 1 rank)
  • Quick Draw (BAB +1)
  • Shield Focus (Shield Proficiency, BAB +1)

Finally to rein in the use of two-handed weapons Power Attack would not give 50% extra damage when using two handed weapons just the regular damage increase.

Archery is already the best one. Mounted Combat due to the mount will not always be chosen but it does a lot of damage.

TWF'ing is something that I helped out by taking GTWF out of the feat tree. It is not part of ITWF.

Sword and Board TWF is not bad. It just takes a while to come online.

Normal sword and board is the worst one with regard to damage, but you do get to attack and have a decent AC so that seems fair to me.

1 to 50 of 30,371 << 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.