254 posts. Alias of Kybryn.

 1 to 50 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Question: Does cold damage, from say, a +1 Frost Crossbow, contain the [cold] descriptor?

Context: A monster that is slowed when damaged by anything with cold descriptor.

Yes. So, there's a difference of 100 gp.

3[heavy]^2*1000+1000

now, the only issue here is that there's a 100 gp difference. The answer, though, is that Celestial Plate gets 1 less additional Max Dex than the mail. Hardly a fair savings, but the formula still works, so ask them why they valued it at 100gp.

Plug in my formula and see for yourself.

Okay, so here is my alternate solution that works according to item creation rules assuming you invent a new special material. Though, I'll admit, this interpretation is a little less clean, and therefore I don't like it. Anyway:

Celestial Armor

Masterwork Chainmail:
300=150+150
Enhancement Bonus +3:
9,000=3^2*1000
Fly 1/day:
5,400=3*5*1800/(5/1)
Celestial* Material:
7,700=2[medium]^2*1000+3700

300+9,000+5,400+7,700 = 22,400

*Celestial: Max Dex +6, Armor Check Pen +3, Arcane Spell Failure -15%, One Step Down

I have a possible solution. I don't think it's right, but it's very close.

So my opinion is that this armor is made from a special material, and my formula will show you why. The ONLY problem that I catch with this formula is I cannot find a reason why I should multiply the Fly special ability by 1.5, since there aren't multiple special abilities in my version.

Feel free to share any corrections.

Celestial Armor

Masterwork Chainmail:
300=150+150
Enhancement Bonus +3:
9,000=3^2*1000
Fly 1/day:
8,100=3*5*1800/(5/1)*1.5
Celestial* Material:
5,000=2[medium]^2*1000+1000

300+9,000+8,100+5,000 = 22,400

*Celestial: Max Dex +6, Armor Check Pen +3, Arcane Spell Failure -15%, One Step Down

In order to pay the 1000 gp to make your armor a +1, you have to have previously paid the 150 gp during its creation (or whatever the cost is) to make it masterwork.

Masterwork is a pre-requisite to making armor magical.

Now, speaking about Mithral, the masterwork cost is included in the cost to make it mithral, so you wouldn't have to pay an additional cost.

Sarcasmancer wrote:
+1 vote for druid. You got the summons, you got the wild shaping, you got the animal companion(s). What else do you need?

See what I'm sayin'?

Oh yah, or a bear shaman with augmented summoning. You get 3 scaling bears for the price of one.

A summoner could do it for sure... just optimize an eidolon and watch it eat things.

An half-orc, toothy, invulnerable, superstition, witch hunter, increased damage reduction, reckless abandon, greater beast totem (pouncing) barbarian can one shot anything.

EDIT: Did I forget power attack?

It helps if you post all the mechanics-related information about your character.

Is it safe to assume your character is already a human?

Why don't you list all of the feats or abilities you want to have by level 1 and 2.

Nefreet wrote:
Did I answer it sufficiently?

Yes. This is part of a bigger question I have about using shields you've equipped after attacking with the corresponding hand. Like, people love the idea of a quickdraw shield, but what's the value of a quickdraw shield if you've already attacked with the hand you're using for the shield? But this is neither here nor there.

Nefreet wrote:

"Threatening", and "Fighting with more than one weapon", are different things.

If you have a longsword in one hand, a spiked shield in the other, a boulder helmet on your head, and a boot blade on your... boot... and your enemy provokes an Attack of Opportunity, you may attack with any one of them.

I'm aware :) just a quick derail to ask a question.

Hmmm, are you at all times threatening with all three weapons?

Are you threatening with only your left and right hand if that's what you used for TWF?

If you didn't attack that round are you threatening with all three?

I'm puzzled by this.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charisma (Cha):
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
So, according to the book (and then to me)

1. Personality (The higher your Charisma, the more dynamic your personality is)
2. Personal Magnetism (Ability to draw others in)
3. Ability to lead (Ability to inspire others)
4. Appearance (Grace)
5. If 0, you may not exert yourself (not quite sure how this distinguishes from the other scores being at 0)

So, according to the book, what is Charisma NOT

Charisma is not:
1. Will power
2. Intuition
3. Awareness
So, I could accept this definition at face value if all Charisma did was affect Diplomacy and Bluff, but it does so much more than that.

Charisma Affects:
1. A nymphs AC due to her "unearthly grace" as a deflection bonus
2. Your ability to use magical items
3. Most creatures ability to cast SLAs
4. A Sorcerer's, Bards, Paladin's, Summoner's, and Oracle's ability to cast spells
5. The Ki-Pool of a ninja
6. The duration and effectiveness of a ninja's, paladin's, and a bard's abilities
7. A Druid's and a Hunter's ability to influence animals
8...... the list goes on
So what do any of these listed abilities have to do with the definition of Charisma provided by Paizo? In my opinion, not much. The definition is way too narrow to offer any sort of explanation as to why Charisma can do what it does. To me, Charisma is much more than meets the eye, and in a strange way, it makes sense to me.

Charisma, not per the dictionary, but as I see it applying to Pathfinder, measures Self-Actualization as well. Now, while this seems much more appropriate for Wisdom, but the Paizo definition of Wisdom refers almost exclusively to one's interaction with their surroundings, and with information.

Now, when I say Self-Actualization, I'm referring to the idea of someone working toward understanding themselves, and reaching their full potential. For example, why do spontaneous casters and SLA's (primarily) depend on Charisma? Because it requires the creature to be in touch with what they are innately, what it is they have inside of themselves. They need to understand what's inside of them before they can adequately express it externally, in this case, Magic.

Now lets apply this same principle to the idea of "personal magnetism", it's the same thing. Understanding your potential, and who you are gives you a significant advantage in your ability to influence and inspire courage in others. After all, what wise man ever truly believed in someone who did not believe in themselves?

Now, a bit more of a stretch, how could Charisma possibly enhance your AC? The way I look at it, it can be interpreted as follows: a creature with a high Charisma can channel their self confidence and self understanding into a physical advantage in combat. After-all, there is nothing more attractive than a woman who is not only physically sexy, but who is confident in her... own assets. Regardless of how "hot" or fit her body is, she cannot reach her full potential (physically) if she does not understand what it is she is working with, and isn't confident in what that is. Another example would be a man stepping into a yoga class. It takes a special kind of confidence for a man to get himself to move like that. Even individuals who aren't perfect physically, but are confident and comfortable with who and what they are are better company than shallow or insecure individuals.

Anyway, I've been working a melee class which incorporates some of these ideas, such as "AC Bonus" as Monk but with Charisma instead of Wisdom, bonuses to social skills, bonuses to certain acrobatics or escape artist rolls, charisma-based abilities that help you push a physical ability to the next level.

Well, not really. He just needs an adamantium weapon and we're back at square one. Also, fasthealing and regeneration in his case aren't applied on a regular basis, they are part of his condition, so it's not really magic in that regard, it's just the kind of creature he is.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Wolverine would probably be a Wild Stalker Ranger. In combat he is good, but without his claws and skeleton he is not nearly as good. This gives him a decent amount of skills, and the class skills he is going to need. You also get some rage power but all you really need are beast totem for the claws and reckless abandon.

Without his claws he would lose very little. He is trained in just about every form of martial arts in the world, and could probably use any weapon available. Stack that with super-human everything, scent, and regenerative powers... this guy is ridiculous.

Offensively, Logan is a martial artist with rage powers and lots of ranks in acrobatics. His power is super-human, and would require a ridiculous template to encompass what he is capable of physically.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

A Troll with six kukris and levels in monk

Bludgeoning weapon
Torch
Alchemists Acid, Fire, Ice
Rip of your cloak, light it on fire, and throw it at swarm

I passive aggressively give my players guilt-trips for trying to break the game. I have players that optimize HARD. I did not make them, that's just how they are. They enjoy cooky concepts and min maxing. Perhaps they just need time and experience to get it out of their system.

Anyway, I give them guilt trips. I say things like "you know as I GM, I have to do my best to balance the encounters to the whole party so that you all have fun, but sometimes a rift is created where the level 3 tank has 30 AC, and the wizard has a base of 10. What do I do then? It's not easy being a GM" and then if I have to, i'll rub it in; I'll attack the tank two or three times and then have the creature say screw it, i'm going to two-shot the squishy. You can thank the level 3 AC 30 tank for that one.

 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
awp832 wrote:
1. You don't want to use two-weapon fighting with a rogue. It's a subpar choice.

Not really. If you crunch the numbers for -2/-2 vs 2 additional Attacks and 2 additional applications of Sneak Attack it works just fine. Add Agile to that and it's even better.

But the curve-blade is not optimal. You'll be taking size penalties for it being the wrong size, and weapon focus, or any weapon specific feats will not work if you use a different weapon in your offhand. If you want "dex optimization", use two shortswords, two kukris, or two wakizashis (if you're prepared to burn the feat for Exotic Weapon Proficiency). All three will work with weapon finesse and agile weapon property.

Viable target? You made that up. The rules say opponent. It's up to you to declare who or what your opponent is, whether that's a child, a dragon, a door, the wall, the floor, or a dust particle, or the invisible ghost you suspect is behind you.

It deals damage to undead.

Lemmy wrote:
You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks when using TWF.

While I completely disagree with the notion that such fighting style is OP, this is not even the worst consequence of this FAQ.

Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes, making them completely pointless (gauntltes and cestus are superior to them in every way). And we need a free hand to make unarmed strikes, which makes no sense and nerfs an already incredibly weak combat style.

An now there talk about you losing your shield bonus to AC if you TWF with unarmed strikes or even with a shortsword + unarmed strike while holding a shield, which A) makes no sense, B)is not stated or even implied anywhere in the rules C) Nerfs an already weak combat style D) Makes even less sense when we consider weapon + shield bash is still much more effective.

The design team might as well come out and say martials are only allowed to choose one of the following 4 options: sword and shield, 2-handed, TWF with 2 light weapons and archery. All other combats styles are now against the rules.

To think I liked the idea of finding new combos and creating new builds. And here I always thought character customization, innovation and creativity were good things...

They are good things. I think you've gone too far in your assumptions. "Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes" What makes you think this? You need to have an unexpended attack, and if you're using both hands, you cannot TWF. SO, make a one-handed attack with a longsword, free action grip in two hands, and make an offhand attack with armor spikes. You don't have a free hand, but you've not expended your attacks.

Komoda wrote:

So a fighter 6 can attack x1.5 + x1.5 = x3, but not x1.5 + x.5 = x2 because it is too powerful?

Or does this only apply to two weapon fighting?

I am so confused.

A fighter six can attack x1.5 + x1.5 = x3 with a two handed weapon.

A fighter 6 can also attack x1 + x1 + x1 + x1 = 4x if they have: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Double Slice.

Lemmy wrote:

No one is advocating getting extra attacks. No one is saying we should get a 3rd attack because we have armor spikes.

We advocating the ability to choose which weapons we use in each attack. This has always been possible.

You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks when using TWF.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Never was there a limit on what weapons could be used whilst two weapon fighting before, why now?

Because you've been misinterpreting the RAI for a long time. I've actually been playing it correct because that's how it makes sense to me; if you've expended your attacks, you can't just make more attacks because you have more weapons. Goes to show there's two sides of the coin, and you've been judged to be on the wrong side of it. So what? Get over it, and start a thread in the homebrew section where you can develop an approach you feel is more balanced.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Where did the rule come from?

From the same people who MADE THE GAME. That's where it came from. Where else would you want it to come from?

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Why is it every individual who disagrees, or asks for clarification being mocked, ruthlessly?

That's unfair, because that's not the case. People who are being rude, demanding, and/or relying upon the Pathfinder developers for their self esteem are being told to stop that. Your point is made. No matter how much you fight, you will not be right. Take your balancing conversation to the homebrew section. Legitimate questions about how to understand and apply this ruling are appropriate, and I think Rynjyn (i can't even remember) among others is one of the only ones who is asking real questions that apply. When you lace and frame your questions in contempt, frustration, and anger, you get little sympathy.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

It a schoolhouse bully mentality, and we get called "childish".

It's ugly, and I don't like it.

No more than this is a "woe is me" victim mentality.

It's really quite pathetic, in my view, that there is so much anger and so many PERSONAL ATTACKS on the people that made the game that you love to play so much (not necessarily talking to you here BBT). This thread is full of nasty comments made about SKR, the developers, and the editors. If you're not going to ask real questions about how to apply this ruling, you need to stop, plain and simple. You're just creating a nasty dynamic between the developers and the community and pretty soon the level of engagement and communication will drop. Nothing the developers ever say will control or dictate how I play at my table, ever, because I get to control that. What I cannot control is how they choose to build the game, and neither can you. Time to move on.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If no one disagreed, and explained the reasons behind said disagreement, and a valid reason for change, would the Prone Shooter feat ever do anything?

It has a function now, but before, it did nothing.

You're confusing real errors with deliberate design.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not allowed to disagree?

Why must I find this overwriting of RAW totally agreeable?

When change comes, must I never question it?

Sure you can disagree, but you've gone beyond simple disagreement. I would argue that your point has been made.

You don't have to find it agreeable, disagree if you want to. In fact, you already have disagreed. If you want to houserule differently, you should do that. I have a list of houserules down to my toes that I actively employ at my table.

You should question it as it relates to you creating the best possible gaming atmosphere at your table. Once you've been given an answer, you should move your discussion about the rules as you would have them to the homebrew section. I post there all the time.

Quandary wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
They have precisely zero impact on playing the game, because they are not rules for how a character interacts with the game world.
They just issued a FAQ based on those secret un-written rules, over-riding the RAW.

Not sure I would agree with this. The FAQ only helps you to understand the RAW more fully.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Are we unreasonable for not seeing all these unwritten rules?

Who are you to judge what is, and is not, reasonable?

After reading this thread, as a person, I judge you to have been unreasonable, and would guess that you're trolling at this point. As Sean said, your mind is made up, and no amount of reason could possibly change your mind. All this kicking and screaming isn't getting you anywhere. I only say this to answer your question, though I imagine this may get deleted, whatever.

Are you unreasonable for not seeing all these unwritten rules? No, I don't think we can catch all of them always, after all, none of us are perfect, but just because you got one wrong doesn't mean that there's a cause to try and argue about it.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
How can any of us make any character when the rules for doing so are partially secret?

The secret rules are actually the ones that reasonable people should be able to gather by using common sense combined with logic. The reason they're not there is so that reasonable people don't need to read twice as much text as they should.

theStormWeaver wrote:
I honestly believe we are the perfect fit for what you are looking for Kybryn, and would be very happy to have you on board.

Thank you for reaching out. I will be sure to research what you it is you do.

Just wanted to say hey. Looking forward to collaborating with all of you. I joined The 7th Veil for a few reasons. I can envision this company becoming very influential in game. I also feel that in the long run The 7th Veil will be the best or competitive at every aspect of the game given the nature of the company. I like the proactive leadership and I'm excited to get started.

Kazumetsa Raijin wrote:
I'll remember this

Uhhh... sounds menacing. Look out Raijin.

It's Charisma.

http://paizo.com/prd/monsters/universalMonsterRules.html

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) wrote:
If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.

Drachasor wrote:
Craft can be used untrained, so yes.

I meant for this to be a learning experience, thanks a lot Drachasor :P

Is the "craft" skill a trained skill?

Are you doing this all on Acrobat or on InDesign?

Wiggz wrote:
Wait a minute - that can't be right since you can only apply Sneak Attack damage once per round... or is that wrong?

You may apply sneak attack damage to any and every attack which qualifies for sneak attack.

Sneak Attack wrote:

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

At my table, I would say no. My logic is this.

1. The bonus gained from using two hands for one weapon is one of the benefits for not TWFing. (This would simply be one more +1 for STR based melee vs. the depraved DEX based melee)

2. That hand is already in use with the sword, and you cannot use it for something else since it's already been used. Enhanced BAB changes the story a bit because you can choose what you'll do each during each wave of main/off hand attacks.

3. If you use this, you'll have to allow bow users to to declare two weapon fighting, shoot at -2, quickdraw a handcrossbow, shoot again.... right.

4. As for rules quoting, this is the best I can find:

Buckler wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn.

This idea goes back to my number 2, the hand is already occupied with another action, and you simply don't have the ability to use it for both in the same round. I am sure that this mechanic is buckler specific, but I feel the logic should apply all round.

NOTE: I'm not claiming I'm right RAW. I feel that this is the most reasonable approach.

Nihimon wrote:
Kybryn wrote:
The Seventh Veil looks very interesting to me, but I do not yet see their claim to power. It may be non-existent, or simply not visible on the surface.
Tywin Lannister wrote:
Any man who must say, I am the king, is no true king.

Funny you should post here Nihimon, I have done more delving into The Seventh Veil and the bigger picture is starting to... if I may... unveil itself.

This is an interesting approach. It definitely encourages the crit build... which is already pretty well played (x ninja with wakizashis, or human rogue with wakizashis)

Another is to give weapon finesse as a free feat and offer "dex to damage" as a feat with restrictions (like no power attack, weapon focus required, minimum bab)

Ring of Sustenance is all I can think of, although obviously, it's an item.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Saltwater is hypertonic, and thus unsuitable for sustained consumption. The spell says "suitable for eating and drinking". Saltwater is not suitable for drinking.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you've come in search of an adventure involving trolls, ninjas, and a ton of mooks, you've come to the right place.

SylvrDragon wrote:
So if tremorsense doesn't negate it, then does blindsight?

Blindsight: "Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures)."

so yes, it does.

no no, you still have full concealment, they jsut know what square you're in. Full concealment gives you sneak attack, movement without AOO's etc.

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I generally just use Portguese. It sounds cool.

You mean the language that sounds of drunk Russians trying to speak Spanish?

But seriously, further research shows me that using rune-word-esque syllables like in Diablo, Skyrim, Dungeon Master, etc is a very good option.

Zachrid,

This looks interesting. I like this since each syllable is fairly simple and it looks like they could fit anywhere in a word. I'm going to look into latin and see if that is a viable language.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dear Community,

Has anybody gone through the words of power and give each one a word in Draconic or some other language? I think it would be cool to have a name for your spells as opposed to "Burst Fire Blast" which sounds cool but not what the word of power actually is.

So the idea would be to create a Prefix, Infix?, and Suffix for each Target, Effect, and Meta word respectively.

This seems like a big undertaking by an expert in linguistics, so I'm not about to pretend like I could do this. Does anybody know of an existing set of WoP translations?

 1 to 50 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>