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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant


Off-Topic Discussions

901 to 950 of 951 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

Well, I've also always wanted to run a Bard that uses Summon Instrument in a very El Kabong-like manner so I'll be looking to take Catch Off Guard and play around with that. But if my GM lets me, I'm thinking a custom rapier that also functions as a bow for a violin.

At this point, I've got a human Bard with Arcane Strike and Weapon Finesse with the Maestro of the Society trait for 3 extra Performance rounds a day. Trying to decide on the second one, but I'm coming up short on anything. Some that come to mind are Intense Artist (+1 to two Perform skills), Inner Beauty (+4 to either Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy or Perform once a day) or Empty Heart, Full Heart (+1 to saves vs Charm effects, enemies take -1 penalty to my Charm effects).

Lantern Lodge

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


I actually do not ascribe to the idea that casters are hugely overpowered. I do believe magic is powerful.

I don't think it is either...when it's moderated properly. However with abilities, spells, and especially magic item creation, there are a lot of possible entries for shenannigans when a GM is too permissive.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grimmy wrote:

The way I see it, the rules can't stand up to the same level of scrutiny as a legal document or a line of code.

I don't see the need for them to do so. We're not using the rules in a court of law, nor are we using them to put Apple or Microsoft out of buisness.

And most importantly, the most rigid ruleset won't stand up to determined malice from either player or gamemaster. The only real safeguard in a ruleset that's so mechanics heavy the way D20/Pathfinder are mutual agreements not to be a cheese weaseling jerk when using them.

You want bullet proof balance, then you're essentially going the route of 4th edition, not that the latter was 100 percent bulletproof either.

Andoran

LazarX wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

The way I see it, the rules can't stand up to the same level of scrutiny as a legal document or a line of code.

I don't see the need for them to do so. We're not using the rules in a court of law, nor are we using them to put Apple or Microsoft out of buisness.

And most importantly, the most rigid ruleset won't stand up to determined malice from either player or gamemaster. The only real safeguard in a ruleset that's so mechanics heavy the way D20/Pathfinder are mutual agreements not to be a cheese weaseling jerk when using them.

You want bullet proof balance, then you're essentially going the route of 4th edition, not that the latter was 100 percent bulletproof either.

Many of the rules are written specifically to give the GM flexibility. The problem comes when the GM and player aren't on the same page, or the player refuses to get on the same page as the table.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Firstly, thank you Tels, for your understanding on the whole gender thing. I believe you "get it" perfectly. That story about the girl at E3 upsets me a lot. Do you know how surprised people are when I tell them Paizo is owned by a woman? I've met people who seem to think it's owned by Jason Bulhman, or James Jacobs, or even Erik Mona. They obviously hadn't done their homework, but just assumed.

Do you have research on that? I think it's more likely that Paizo is owned by it's shareholders. I suspect that in order to raise capital, she had to get others to make substantial investments the way Gygax and company had to do in the early days of TSR.

The credits list Lisa Stevens as CEO and Erik Mona as publisher. So who owns how much of what may be more complicated than it seems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

Well, I've also always wanted to run a Bard that uses Summon Instrument in a very El Kabong-like manner so I'll be looking to take Catch Off Guard and play around with that. But if my GM lets me, I'm thinking a custom rapier that also functions as a bow for a violin.

At this point, I've got a human Bard with Arcane Strike and Weapon Finesse with the Maestro of the Society trait for 3 extra Performance rounds a day. Trying to decide on the second one, but I'm coming up short on anything. Some that come to mind are Intense Artist (+1 to two Perform skills), Inner Beauty (+4 to either Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy or Perform once a day) or Empty Heart, Full Heart (+1 to saves vs Charm effects, enemies take -1 penalty to my Charm effects).

You made me think of a wonderful piece of art, which you may enjoy.

Bride of Lucifer. Feel free to ignore the name if religious things bug you; the art is actually free of religious stuff beyond its name, and is just a wonderful piece.


LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


I actually do not ascribe to the idea that casters are hugely overpowered. I do believe magic is powerful.

I don't think it is either...when it's moderated properly. However with abilities, spells, and especially magic item creation, there are a lot of possible entries for shenannigans when a GM is too permissive.

Magic item creation favors non-casters, because the most common magic items created are generally spells in a can. With magic item creation, Fighters can get their +X to saves, and DD y/day, or become better prepared. It means that spellcasters do not have a complete monopoly on options, because martials can spend their hard earned gold to get problem solving and defensive spells as well.

Generally, the problem with magic item creation comes from when you're not following the rules correctly. You have to remember the subtle but important details like multipliers for spell durations, inability to create continual effects not measured in normal fashions (no constant true strikes, sorry), applying the cost of spell components (if you have an x/day item component costs are multiplied by 50, and if it's infinite or continuous they're multiplied by 100).

For example, if someone wanted to make something that granted true seeing continuously, the cost of the item would be 180,000 gp base price, plus 25,000 gp for the material component. So the cost of a continuous true seeing would be 205,000 gp. That's fair (it's about 1/4th your entire WBL at 20th).

Quote:

Do you have research on that? I think it's more likely that Paizo is owned by it's shareholders. I suspect that in order to raise capital, she had to get others to make substantial investments the way Gygax and company had to do in the early days of TSR.

The credits list Lisa Stevens as CEO and Erik Mona as publisher. So who owns how much of what may be more complicated than it seems.

My point was that Lisa is definitely a lady and formed the company. As to the ownership of the company based on current stocks and investments, it's beside the point. The point is that our hobby is not some sort of guy's-club.

Andoran

The hobby can be a guys club, but it is also true that when a woman who knows rules walks into the room, most of the room swoons.

It is the same reason people pretend to be women on MMOs.

Attention.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
My point was that Lisa is definitely a lady and formed the company. As to the ownership of the company based on current stocks and investments, it's beside the point. The point is that our hobby is not some sort of guy's-club.

Actually Lisa from what I read did not singlehandedly form the company. But more to the point, while things are not nearly as bad as they were in the late 70's, the hobby hasn't become anything close to gender neutral yet. Progress has been made, but there is still a good deal more to strive for.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Firstly, thank you Tels, for your understanding on the whole gender thing. I believe you "get it" perfectly. That story about the girl at E3 upsets me a lot. Do you know how surprised people are when I tell them Paizo is owned by a woman? I've met people who seem to think it's owned by Jason Bulhman, or James Jacobs, or even Erik Mona. They obviously hadn't done their homework, but just assumed.

Do you have research on that? I think it's more likely that Paizo is owned by it's shareholders. I suspect that in order to raise capital, she had to get others to make substantial investments the way Gygax and company had to do in the early days of TSR.

The credits list Lisa Stevens as CEO and Erik Mona as publisher. So who owns how much of what may be more complicated than it seems.

Ashiel is half-right.

Lisa and Vic co-own Paizo.

They made a pot of money from MtG, took a year off work and then picked up Dragon, Dungeon and Star Wars Insider when WotC were looking to spin-off a lot of their non-core operations.

At Paizocon this year, Lisa explicitly stated that she and Vic own the company. video!

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:


For example, if someone wanted to make something that granted true seeing continuously, the cost of the item would be 180,000 gp base price, plus 25,000 gp for the material component. So the cost of a continuous true seeing would be 205,000 gp. That's fair (it's about 1/4th your entire WBL at 20th).

Of course, you can give yourself permanent arcane sight and see invisibility for 12,500gp. And it is slotless.

Non-casters can't get the Arcane Sight


You keep bringing up Disney suff Ash, and while it can be corny, it's not all bad for inspiration. I don't think I've had a single game world or campaign I've ran that did not have a female black dragon named Maleficient.


Ashiel wrote:

Generally, the problem with magic item creation comes from when you're not following the rules correctly. You have to remember the subtle but important details like multipliers for spell durations, inability to create continual effects not measured in normal fashions (no constant true strikes, sorry), applying the cost of spell components (if you have an x/day item component costs are multiplied by 50, and if it's infinite or continuous they're multiplied by 100).

For example, if someone wanted to make something that granted true seeing continuously, the cost of the item would be 180,000 gp base price, plus 25,000 gp for the material component. So the cost of a continuous true seeing would be 205,000 gp. That's fair (it's about 1/4th your entire WBL at 20th).

While it's true that continuous or unlimited items pay 100 times the material cost and daily limit items pay 50 times the cost, there are some rules in the item creation item descriptions that make this rule on table rather pointless.

These are the rules I was talking about :

Creating Magic Weapons wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require.

So the x50 or x100 cost doesn't apply to magic weapons. Why? I think, largely, because the weapon properties don't resemble the spell used in many way.

Creating Rings wrote:
Rings that duplicate spells with costly material components add in the value of 50 × the spell's component cost. Having a spell with a costly component as a prerequisite does not automatically incur this cost.

This one is weird. It says 50 x material cost, but then says you don't have to pay. I personally think this means that Rings that don't match the spell used exactly, or are weaker than the actual spell, don't need to pay a material cost.

Creating Rods wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require.

Again, no x50 or x100 cost, but unlike weapons, the spells used in creation can be more powerful than the spells themselves. Rod of Wonder is an example of an item that has a stronger effect than the spell used.

Creating Thassilonian Runes wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rune, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require.

No material cost again.

Creating Wondrous Items wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require.

This one always struck me as odd. Most items created fall into the Wondrous Item territory, yet no cost is required in creation. As written, a use-activated Wish item is 9 * 17 * 2,000 gp = 306,000 gp. A paltry sum for infinite power me thinks don't you?

=======================================

It seems to me, the only items that actually use the x50 rule, are wands, I'm not sure of anything that uses the x100 rule. Unless there is something I don't know about, the entry on the table is rather pointless, and I typically ignore it when creating items (as most items I create are wondrous items anyway).


Ashiel wrote:
Tels wrote:

Well, I've also always wanted to run a Bard that uses Summon Instrument in a very El Kabong-like manner so I'll be looking to take Catch Off Guard and play around with that. But if my GM lets me, I'm thinking a custom rapier that also functions as a bow for a violin.

At this point, I've got a human Bard with Arcane Strike and Weapon Finesse with the Maestro of the Society trait for 3 extra Performance rounds a day. Trying to decide on the second one, but I'm coming up short on anything. Some that come to mind are Intense Artist (+1 to two Perform skills), Inner Beauty (+4 to either Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy or Perform once a day) or Empty Heart, Full Heart (+1 to saves vs Charm effects, enemies take -1 penalty to my Charm effects).

You made me think of a wonderful piece of art, which you may enjoy.

Bride of Lucifer. Feel free to ignore the name if religious things bug you; the art is actually free of religious stuff beyond its name, and is just a wonderful piece.

You give me the character inspiration, then you give me the perfect character portrait. Is there anything you can't do?


Tels wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Tels wrote:

Well, I've also always wanted to run a Bard that uses Summon Instrument in a very El Kabong-like manner so I'll be looking to take Catch Off Guard and play around with that. But if my GM lets me, I'm thinking a custom rapier that also functions as a bow for a violin.

At this point, I've got a human Bard with Arcane Strike and Weapon Finesse with the Maestro of the Society trait for 3 extra Performance rounds a day. Trying to decide on the second one, but I'm coming up short on anything. Some that come to mind are Intense Artist (+1 to two Perform skills), Inner Beauty (+4 to either Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy or Perform once a day) or Empty Heart, Full Heart (+1 to saves vs Charm effects, enemies take -1 penalty to my Charm effects).

You made me think of a wonderful piece of art, which you may enjoy.

Bride of Lucifer. Feel free to ignore the name if religious things bug you; the art is actually free of religious stuff beyond its name, and is just a wonderful piece.
You give me the character inspiration, then you give me the perfect character portrait. Is there anything you can't do?

Well I can see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch. :3


ciretose wrote:

Can I just say that I think it very fitting that this thread is full of random derailing tangents into theory craft.

It kind of makes me want to create a "Nominate Ravingdork for Rules Consultant Thread."

I can see it now. Volume 15 of 30 of the core rules comes out, each tomb over 500 pages...

DO IT!!


Wow, Fey Creature is a mean little template. Long Step and Vanish in particular.

Long Step (Su) wrote:
A fey creature can teleport up to 10 feet per Hit Die as a move action. It may use this ability once every 1d4 rounds.
Vanish (S) wrote:
As a swift action, a fey creature can vanish for 1 round as if affected by invisibility. It can use this ability for 1 round per day per Hit Die.

I can't help but picture Nightcrawler.

I tossed it onto an Advanced Kobold with the Heroic NPC array and 8 Rogue (Knife Master) levels. Sweet little Party Nemesis going here. A master of hit and run that's for sure. Swift Action Invisibility, Move Action Teleport, Standard Action Underhanded Sneak Attack (max SA damage). Initiative (+13!), guess who's going first? Sneak Attack victim again, Swift Action Invisibility, and Move action to flee.

If I ever use this guy, I'll definitely be mixing Vanish and Long Step to have him fade from view with a grin, and then teleport away. I bet I'd get a lot of people that would love nothing more than to mount his head on their wall after I have a few encounters.

I'm liking his Character Sheet, it just screams all kind of nasty fun.


Woooow. That's crazy. I can't come up with anything remotely fair or fluffy enough to use that with though, and, well... I REAAALLY wish I hadn't just passed that on to my fey happy GM.


Twigs wrote:
Woooow. That's crazy. I can't come up with anything remotely fair or fluffy enough to use that with though, and, well... I REAAALLY wish I hadn't just passed that on to my fey happy GM.

I'm not sure if you caught it above, but I plan on making my own scenario with Ashiel's idea for a Dread Kobold (Kobold with the Advanced Template).

Basically, there's going to be a Dragonbreath Kobold with Adept and fighter levels. He's going to be rousing the people of his tribe up into a frenzy and start plaguing a nation.

Then there will be another Kobold who has been ostracized from the tribe. He'll be there to see what's going on as the Party arrives. He's going to see his whole tribe wiped out by the Party (if they survive), and swear revenge. I've got a couple versions of him stated up at different levels, but he's going to be a big nuisance.

Here's his character sheet at level 9 Vokun'Tuz.

Some info, his stats aren't the same as a regular Kobold (was made with Heroic NPC array) and he was made with an 8th level PCs wealth (mostly, I went a little over).

Str: 12 - 4 + 4 - 2 = 10
Dex: 14 + 2 + 4 + 4 = 24
Con: 10 - 2 + 4 = 12
Int: 15 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 22
Wis: 13 + 4 + 1 + 2 = 20
Cha: 08 + 4 + 2 = 14

Level Bonuses went into Int and Wisdom, and he has a +2 Wisdom Item.

Advanced Template gives +4 to all stats and +1 Natural Armor. Fey Creature Template also gives -2 to Str, +4 Dex, +2 Int, +2 Cha, and -1 Natural Armor. Also, I gave him +9 HP as if he had a Favored Class bonus. A final note, Hero Labs doesn't have the damage on the Daggers correct, they should both be 1d3+9 instead of the off-hand one having 1d3+5 as my character does have Double Slice.

Something to keep in mind. He wants his revenge to be a long time coming, so he isn't going for a kill right away. He wants to harass them, keep them off balance. Do things like set up traps in their safe house, outside their camp, do hit and runs in dungeons forcing them to use up resources. I want the party to despise him by the time he finally makes his move and starts going for kills.


Kryzbyn wrote:
You keep bringing up Disney suff Ash, and while it can be corny, it's not all bad for inspiration. I don't think I've had a single game world or campaign I've ran that did not have a female black dragon named Maleficient.

Maleficent was awesome. A really cool villain in any sense of the word. :)

Also, I'm working on that Warlock you asked about. Here is a Preview.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

GeraintElberion wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


For example, if someone wanted to make something that granted true seeing continuously, the cost of the item would be 180,000 gp base price, plus 25,000 gp for the material component. So the cost of a continuous true seeing would be 205,000 gp. That's fair (it's about 1/4th your entire WBL at 20th).

Of course, you can give yourself permanent arcane sight and see invisibility for 12,500gp. And it is slotless.

Non-casters can't get the Arcane Sight

You can UMD scrolls with the appropriate spells and get the Arcane Sight just like a caster, if you wish. It will simply be more expensive.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing is for certain if I ever get around to getting to work on my own gaming system Ashiel is one of the people I sending each prerelease version to in an attempt to root out hyper combos and check them agains my intent.


EXACTLY!!

That's the point of this whole thread.


Talonhawke wrote:
One thing is for certain if I ever get around to getting to work on my own gaming system Ashiel is one of the people I sending each prerelease version to in an attempt to root out hyper combos and check them agains my intent.

Thank you. I had a friend that I did much the same with. Honestly, a team of powergamers and rules lawyers is the best thing for getting the rules to do what you want them to. Do you want a spell to do X and not Y? They can help you.


Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
You keep bringing up Disney suff Ash, and while it can be corny, it's not all bad for inspiration. I don't think I've had a single game world or campaign I've ran that did not have a female black dragon named Maleficient.

Maleficent was awesome. A really cool villain in any sense of the word. :)

Also, I'm working on that Warlock you asked about. Here is a Preview.

Link should work correctly now.


Looks good so far! Very intersted to see what you do with the spells/powers and talent trees...


Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
You keep bringing up Disney suff Ash, and while it can be corny, it's not all bad for inspiration. I don't think I've had a single game world or campaign I've ran that did not have a female black dragon named Maleficient.

Maleficent was awesome. A really cool villain in any sense of the word. :)

Also, I'm working on that Warlock you asked about. Here is a Preview.

Agreed. Best villain in a movie, ever, imho.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Looks good so far! Very intersted to see what you do with the spells/powers and talent trees...

A friend of mine is very interested to see it as well, since he saw the preview. I imagine writing the powers and talents will be very fun. To take an excerpt from our MSN conversation earlier...

Quote:

Scott says:

I need to write up the rest of the minions, then build a power list.
Jay says:
Shouldn't de terribly difficult. I'd love to see it when you are through.
Scott says:
^.^
I'll do a mage next, I think.
Then probably a priest.
Jay says:
Awesome, but what I can't wait to see is the WARRIOR!!!!
Scott says:
Yeah I know right?
Trying to decide a good way to do it. I'm thinking with a d10 actually.
Basically, you'd have rage points ranging from 1-10. Then as you fight your points rise, and you spend those points to do stuff.
At least, that's what I'm thinking currently.
Scott says:
Basically, I'm thinking that every time you hit an opponent, you'll get 1 rage. Then some other abilities will provide rage (like Bloodrage might grant 3 rage and an additional 1 rage every round for 10 rounds). Then your sexy stuff will consume rage.
jay says:
I would like to see something kinda like the book of the nine swords as well
Scott says:
*nods* I'm actually thinking of it a bit like that too. For example, by spending your rage you could preform powerful AoEs (Cleaving Strike), swift-action buffs to your attacks (like Heroic Strike), and debuffs (Shield Bash, Concussion Blow, etc).
jay says:
/nods
Scott says:
Whereas in Tome of Battle, things had a 1/encounter with a reset (warblades could reset all their maneuvers whenever they took a full-attack), it would instead have a cost associated with the abilities; but I expect it to play very similarly.
It might even be a little better received, since some people would associate it more closely to the Pathfinder barbarian's rage rounds or the gunslinger's grit, instead of x/encounter stuff; thus avoiding anti-4E sentiments.
jay says:
Yeah
I like that a lot
Scott says:
Mmmhmmm. Lately I've really come to appreciate "mini-game design". Whereas different classes play differently, which I think allows the game to appeal to a wider audience. I mean, some people absolutely despise prepared casting so we have sorcerers. Despise spell slots? Psionics. Want to play movement mini-games to deal more damage? Rogues. Want a sample platter? Bard. And so on and so forth.
I think that's where 4E really killed some of its fanbase. If you didn't like playing the standard, then there were no alternatives.


Nice, although if I had my choice I'd ask you to tackel the DK next.
My main was DK, top DPS in our guild, unholy spec usually avg around 128k DPS, a little lower on single target fights.
He was fun as hell to play. He started out as a dranei to help with hit cap, then i switched him to worgen after they came out to get the flat +1% to crit. He looked angry 24/7 :) DK voice on a WOrgen was pretty sweet...


Kryzbyn wrote:

Nice, although if I had my choice I'd ask you to tackel the DK next.

My main was DK, top DPS in our guild, unholy spec usually avg around 128k DPS, a little lower on single target fights.
He was fun as hell to play. He started out as a dranei to help with hit cap, then i switched him to worgen after they came out to get the flat +1% to crit. He looked angry 24/7 :) DK voice on a WOrgen was pretty sweet...

Heh, I might tackle a DK if I get the other ones done. I have some ideas for a mechanic for them (most likely a cooldown on runes). I'll definitely keep their abilities as close to the source material as possible, so that it will feel like it belongs.


People often say 'just use Anti-paladin' but that doesn't do them justice. The graveknight template works wonders, but that jacks up the CR.
What are your ideas? I can try to work somethign up based off of them and run it by you. My problem with making the class so far, is how to represent the diffrent talent trees. I had thought of representing them like psychic warrior paths, to an extent or like sorceror blood lines, with three options. Also was how to convert their other powers.
Death and Decay as a spell or SU ability used x times per day? Is the ghoul an 'animal companion', cohort or best as a eidolon? etc etc etc


On a side note, I actually played a 3 way gestalted magus/inquisitor/anti-paladin of hextor working toward the graveknight template in a homebrew, where the GM was, well, wanted to see how broken things could get. This came close to the right feel, but still fell short. At the time the undead scourge archtype for AP's wasn't out yet, or i would have used that, i suppose.

EDIT: He got to 20/20/20, was a half-giant and used a large bastard sword blackblade. Other than deciding what swift action to use, it jived pretty well. With a conductive weapon, and the arcana to use inquis and ap spells with spell combat he could dish out some serious damage in a round. If his enemy was unworthy of spells, he simly vital striked them and channeled a harm touch (flat 60 damage) into them. Man was a walking engine of destruction...
DK flavor was still not there...not talking about power level, but flavor.


Kryzbyn wrote:

On a side note, I actually played a 3 way gestalted magus/inquisitor/anti-paladin of hextor working toward the graveknight template in a homebrew, where the GM was, well, wanted to see how broken things could get. This came close to the right feel, but still fell short. At the time the undead scourge archtype for AP's wasn't out yet, or i would have used that, i suppose.

EDIT: He got to 20/20/20, was a half-giant and used a large bastard sword blackblade. Other than deciding what swift action to use, it jived pretty well. With a conductive weapon, and the arcana to use inquis and ap spells with spell combat he could dish out some serious damage in a round. If his enemy was unworthy of spells, he simly vital striked them and channeled a harm touch (flat 60 damage) into them. Man was a walking engine of destruction...
DK flavor was still not there...not talking about power level, but flavor.

The most success with the least effort for getting the death knight flavor is using Cleric 20 or a mystic theurge build of some sort. Simply spec Strength prime, Con secondary (or Cha secondary if you wanna go undead), Wisdom third. All you need to be a good caster is 19 Wisdom by 20th level. Then wield a big 2 hander (you might dip a level of a martial class if you want martial proficiencies). You can buff yourself to the high heavens, enchant your own weapons, crush enemies in melee, and you get lots of wonderful necromantic spells and you rock undead like it was your job (Juju Oracle can work too).

It's not 100%, but you can easily get 90% of it without trouble and just some fluffing.


Meh. New base class is easier :P


Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

On a side note, I actually played a 3 way gestalted magus/inquisitor/anti-paladin of hextor working toward the graveknight template in a homebrew, where the GM was, well, wanted to see how broken things could get. This came close to the right feel, but still fell short. At the time the undead scourge archtype for AP's wasn't out yet, or i would have used that, i suppose.

EDIT: He got to 20/20/20, was a half-giant and used a large bastard sword blackblade. Other than deciding what swift action to use, it jived pretty well. With a conductive weapon, and the arcana to use inquis and ap spells with spell combat he could dish out some serious damage in a round. If his enemy was unworthy of spells, he simly vital striked them and channeled a harm touch (flat 60 damage) into them. Man was a walking engine of destruction...
DK flavor was still not there...not talking about power level, but flavor.

The most success with the least effort for getting the death knight flavor is using Cleric 20 or a mystic theurge build of some sort. Simply spec Strength prime, Con secondary (or Cha secondary if you wanna go undead), Wisdom third. All you need to be a good caster is 19 Wisdom by 20th level. Then wield a big 2 hander (you might dip a level of a martial class if you want martial proficiencies). You can buff yourself to the high heavens, enchant your own weapons, crush enemies in melee, and you get lots of wonderful necromantic spells and you rock undead like it was your job (Juju Oracle can work too).

It's not 100%, but you can easily get 90% of it without trouble and just some fluffing.

Sounds like that Undead Controller I posted earlier :P

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
You keep bringing up Disney suff Ash, and while it can be corny, it's not all bad for inspiration. I don't think I've had a single game world or campaign I've ran that did not have a female black dragon named Maleficient.

Maleficent was awesome. A really cool villain in any sense of the word. :)

Also, I'm working on that Warlock you asked about. Here is a Preview.

Agreed. Best villain in a movie, ever, imho.

Agreeded too. Also, shameless plug(sorry Ashiel!)

I'm really hoping the new movie is good.


What do you think? Most hated villain of all time?


Dunno that I'm ok with the casting for Maleficient, but I'll prolly see it.


I post something as a joke, and it spawns a thread asking if it's possible, which ends up getting a bunch of FAQ requests, then Jason Bulmahn comes in with the Nerf Bat.

*le sigh* Can't a guy just have a little fun... in theory?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Folks,

Magical Lineage was never intended as a way for you to actually lower a spell's level. It was put in to allow you to reduce the increase from a metamagic feat. So, no unlimited magic missiles. I will see to it that the language of this ability is clarified soon and I will get this added to the FAQ.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

No more 0-level Scorching Rays, or 0-level Intenesified Shocking Grasps, and possibly no more 12 Fireballs at 5th level.


Mikaze wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
You keep bringing up Disney suff Ash, and while it can be corny, it's not all bad for inspiration. I don't think I've had a single game world or campaign I've ran that did not have a female black dragon named Maleficient.

Maleficent was awesome. A really cool villain in any sense of the word. :)

Also, I'm working on that Warlock you asked about. Here is a Preview.

Agreed. Best villain in a movie, ever, imho.

Agreeded too. Also, shameless plug(sorry Ashiel!)

I'm really hoping the new movie is good.

Very awesome Mikaze. Favorited. Also, new movie? O.o

Tels wrote:

I post something as a joke, and it spawns a thread asking if it's possible, which ends up getting a bunch of FAQ requests, then Jason Bulmahn comes in with the Nerf Bat.

*le sigh* Can't a guy just have a little fun... in theory?

No more 0-level Scorching Rays, or 0-level Intenesified Shocking Grasps, and possibly no more 12 Fireballs at 5th level.

They did much the same thing with cantrips + metamagic. RAW, a cantrip modified to 9th slots is still a level 0 spell, and the cantrip power that core casters possess specifically say it's not consumed when used. They didn't like that either; though your trick is more amusing. XD


*Animate Thread* Yay, I'm a Necroposter!

It's nice to read one of your favorite articles and possibly stumble upon a person you recognize from somewhere else :P

I was re-reading an article called D&D: Calibrating your Expectations when I noticed something in the comments.

J. Scott Mohn wrote:

Sauron as depicted in the films is little more than an 11th level lich cleric. In the Hobbit he is simply called “the Necromancer”. In the films (I can’t find my book collection, so I’m going from memory of the films at the moment), the only time we see Sauron is in the beginning, clad in heavy armor, standing twice as tall as any man, completely ravaging the enemy lines with his mace. His life force is bound to a near undestroyable magic item (his ring). All of these things can be done by an 11th level cleric (clerics are the best necromancers, clerics can wear armor, they begin with mace proficiency, they can forge magic rings, they can become liches, they can cast spells like Righteous Might to grow to large size and gain lots of combat bonuses, they get an aura of fear, etc).

Really, there’s nobody in the entire Lord of the Rings films that I’d stat higher than 11th. There’s simply no one that displays that much power. Even the Balor in D&D who’s supposed to look like the Balrog from LotR is overpowered. If the Balrog in LotR used the stats of the Balor from D&D, then the party never would have had the chance to run. The balor would have simply used one of its spell-like abilities to completely destroy them. It could have began the “fight” (more like slaughter) by unleashing Blasphemy, killing all of them, while using telekinesis in the same round to hurl members of the fellowship off the small path, and that’s before he greater-teleported ontop of them. Gandalf stood in front of the Balrog to prevent him from passing. The Balrog in LotR was probably not more than CR 7-10.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 12:13:38 PM

Is there another J. Scott Mohn floating around out there, or was this you Ashiel?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I take the opposite view.

You can pull D%D iconic tropes from Lord of the Rings, But you can't build LOTR from D&D.


Did you read the article? It wasn't about building LotR in D&D it was about player expectations in D&D compared to real life expectations.


how is that this thread did not reach the 1000th post?


I think the thread just kind of ran out of steam. We were all kind of just talking about random topics towards the end anyway. If someone could get this thread going again, that'd be cool, but I think it's life kind of depends on Ashiel as this thread is basically all about Ashiel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

*Animate Thread* Yay, I'm a Necroposter!

It's nice to read one of your favorite articles and possibly stumble upon a person you recognize from somewhere else :P

I was re-reading an article called D&D: Calibrating your Expectations when I noticed something in the comments.

J. Scott Mohn wrote:

Sauron as depicted in the films is little more than an 11th level lich cleric. In the Hobbit he is simply called “the Necromancer”. In the films (I can’t find my book collection, so I’m going from memory of the films at the moment), the only time we see Sauron is in the beginning, clad in heavy armor, standing twice as tall as any man, completely ravaging the enemy lines with his mace. His life force is bound to a near undestroyable magic item (his ring). All of these things can be done by an 11th level cleric (clerics are the best necromancers, clerics can wear armor, they begin with mace proficiency, they can forge magic rings, they can become liches, they can cast spells like Righteous Might to grow to large size and gain lots of combat bonuses, they get an aura of fear, etc).

Really, there’s nobody in the entire Lord of the Rings films that I’d stat higher than 11th. There’s simply no one that displays that much power. Even the Balor in D&D who’s supposed to look like the Balrog from LotR is overpowered. If the Balrog in LotR used the stats of the Balor from D&D, then the party never would have had the chance to run. The balor would have simply used one of its spell-like abilities to completely destroy them. It could have began the “fight” (more like slaughter) by unleashing Blasphemy, killing all of them, while using telekinesis in the same round to hurl members of the fellowship off the small path, and that’s before he greater-teleported ontop of them. Gandalf stood in front of the Balrog to prevent him from passing. The Balrog in LotR was probably not more than CR 7-10.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010,
...

Maybe Gandalf and the Balrog were having an epic spell duel but everything was metamagic silenced, stilled and materials eschewed so it looked like they were just standing there grimacing at each other :)


Nicos wrote:
how is that this thread did not reach the 1000th post?

How is it that it reached the 10th post to begin with!?

Spoiler:
j/k it was a great thread full of win.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys, read James Jacobs (Creative Director) posts & threads. James really doesn’t like folks who try to twist RAW into something game breaking. He plays by RAI. And, this is what makes this game what it is instead of just being 3.5 where the game was all about Talmudic debates over RAW.

So, folks who argue tiny little holes or poor wording in RAW and insist that that is the way the game must be played as ”this comma means by the rules of English that …” is absolutely the very wrongest person to work for Paizo. (maybe some other company….)

Mind you, I do admire the rules lawyer skill and Talmudic logic in the postings, sure. Fun to argue with and interesting to debate. Well thought out.

But a poor match for Paizo. Thank goodness.


Grimmy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
how is that this thread did not reach the 1000th post?

How is it that it reached the 10th post to begin with!?

** spoiler omitted **

I think we should continue for another 50 odd posts, purely so we can have a thread that praises Ashiel over 1,000 posts. What other poster can make that claim?


Tels wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
how is that this thread did not reach the 1000th post?

How is it that it reached the 10th post to begin with!?

** spoiler omitted **

I think we should continue for another 50 odd posts, purely so we can have a thread that praises Ashiel over 1,000 posts. What other poster can make that claim?

Mr.Fishy's fan club maybe, but I think that is about it.

I have not checked the pages, so I am not sure, and it is hasn't then I just contributed another post to this one. :)

901 to 950 of 951 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.